How would Churchill have answered the Islamist threat?

[PACKY]

NEVER IN THE field of human conflict was one man so widely quoted by so many. John F. Kennedy once observed that Winston Churchill “mobilised the English language and sent it into battle”. Today, facing a new enemy, that powerful army of oratory is marching off to war again.

Churchill is embedded in Tony Blair’s rhetoric, and behind every reference to the “Blitz spirit”. A brooding, bulldog bust of Churchill is prominently displayed in the Oval Office by George W. Bush, while Eliot Cohen’s stirring account of Churchill’s wartime leadership is required reading in the White House.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1068-1704794,00.html

 

[Billy Batson]

he'd have gotten out of the region like he did way back when.

 

[Misty Minister]

Churchill is embedded in Tony Blair’s rhetoric, and behind every reference to the “Blitz spirit”. A brooding, bulldog bust of Churchill is prominently displayed in the Oval Office by George W. Bush, while Eliot Cohen’s stirring account of Churchill’s wartime leadership is required reading in the White House.

The Islamic Empire had just been driven from Vienna in 1906. At one point the Islamic Empire was Five Times Larger than the Roman Empire. The Islamic Empire had been trying to conqure Europe for over a thousand years. The Islamic Empire was and is open about its desire for Global Conquest. So I think that if Churchhill had "The Bomb" he would have known what to do.

Without The Bomb, I suppose he would have kicked the Muslims out of England. He probably would have also asked for and received the help of the Sikhs, Hindus, and Jews in Britian.<img>

 

[xXLurkerXx]

The Islamic Empire had just been driven from Vienna in 1906. At one point the Islamic Empire was Five Times Larger than the Roman Empire. The Islamic Empire had been trying to conqure Europe for over a thousand years. The Islamic Empire was and is open about its desire for Global Conquest. So I think that if Churchhill had "The Bomb" he would have known what to do.

Without The Bomb, I suppose he would have kicked the Muslims out of England. He probably would have also asked for and received the help of the Sikhs, Hindus, and Jews in Britian.<img>

1906?

Churchill would have bombed Leeds with a nuke :o ? I hope not...

 

[simplicity]

I don't know what Churchill would have said or done. Although he is now a legend, I am not sure if he would be handling the situation any differently. I would compare the threat from Islamic extremists to a chronic infection that gradually chips away at a person's strength. It is the strategy of a virus or bacteria. It is effective, inexpensive and difficult to stop. The idea then is to apply the same techniques used by nature to fight disease. Just off the top of my head I don't think bombing is too effective.

 

[Misty Minister]

1906?

Churchill would have bombed Leeds with a nuke :o ? I hope not...

Huh? Nuke Leeds? Huh???
The Europeans were not able to free Vienna, Austria from the Turks of the Islamic Empire out of Vienna Austria until 1906 or 1907.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Huh? Nuke Leeds? Huh???
The Europeans were not able to free Vienna, Austria from the Turks of the Islamic Empire out of Vienna Austria until 1906 or 1907.

Excuse me, but you really lost me here. Granted, my handling of the language is not as good as it could be, so it is possible I just don't understand your words and the idea behind, but are you absolutely certain you have the right century? I mean, we are talking about Vienna, as in Wien, Austria, as in Austrian Empire/ Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Habsburgs, whose monarchy ended 1918, are we not?

Granted, again, my history might be a bit hazy here , but weren't the Ottoman Turkis invasion a much earlier, uh, happening, after which came, say, Napoleon & his wars?

I must ask, and I mean no disrespect, but what would have been the name of the battle, what war, that supposedly drove the Turks out of Vienna, Austria, 1906 or 1907?

Or perhaps you disremember the years and are in fact referring to the 16th century and late 17th century battles?

Kalevalatar

 

[xXLurkerXx]

Huh? Nuke Leeds? Huh???
The Europeans were not able to free Vienna, Austria from the Turks of the Islamic Empire out of Vienna Austria until 1906 or 1907.

I was not really precise, sorry. I thought 1906 was a typo, so I thought a small hint might do it.
I still do not get what historical event you are talking about.
The last time the turks were threatening Vienna, Austria was imho somewhere betweeen 1600-1650.

And no, I do not think, Churchill would have nuked Mekka or another Muslim city.
I don´t really know what he would have done though...

 

[Moros]

He would have lit a cigar, passed out drunk, and let one of his aides take care of it.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

NEVER IN THE field of human conflict was one man so widely quoted by so many. John F. Kennedy once observed that Winston Churchill “mobilised the English language and sent it into battle”. Today, facing a new enemy, that powerful army of oratory is marching off to war again.

Churchill is embedded in Tony Blair’s rhetoric, and behind every reference to the “Blitz spirit”. A brooding, bulldog bust of Churchill is prominently displayed in the Oval Office by George W. Bush, while Eliot Cohen’s stirring account of Churchill’s wartime leadership is required reading in the White House.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1068-1704794,00.html

What exactly is an Islamist threat?

 

[mindlight]

He would have lit a cigar, passed out drunk, and let one of his aides take care of it.

Oh come now lets give Churchill a little more credit than that.

As the original poster suggested Churchill was the ultimate spin doctor when it came to words and even more because he probably believed what he said.

There is a chronology to Churchills life. From the passions of the post Victorian hey day of empire to the disappointment of the loss of empire that followed the war. Islam was a shrivelled force during the era of empire and even in its aftermath.

Churchills inspiring oratory in Britains darkest hour not to mention his repeated warnings concerning the rise of Germany in the 30s must count for something. However for him the threats of the oppressed masses of empire mattered less than the glory of that empire. Churchill was an aristocrat - born of an empire that could not survive another war. He was accustomed to rule places like the Gulf or Iraq and ruling was often harsh. But after the war when he got back in power in the fifties he presided over a severely weakened UK without India. What Churchill wanted to be and what he was forced to be after the war were two entirely different things. WW2 was the war he knew we had to fight morally, but it was the war that finished the empire. After the war , the empire endured only in his writings and memories, its reach was in reality severely depleted by the new economic and political realities. We could no longer be oppressors because we had just fought against the worst of oppressors. We could no longer afford to govern farflung colonies. We were no longer suited to rule because we had lost the heart for it and the faith that it was what we were mean to do now. In some cases this led to the over rapid withdrawal from empire.

The British were not bad rulers and by the standards of many of those who replaced us we were quite good. But the imperial response is not the appropriate one for the modern age.

British and American troops were in Iraq and Afghanistan as de facto liberators from terrible regimes.

The terrorists are part of a movement that dates from the time of Mohammed for the global conquest of Islam. Europeans have killed , converted, ruled, imprisoned, bribed these guys for centuries. Churchill would have used the strategy appropriate for his times and so must we.

 

[njcl]

churchill is one of the greatest leaders of all time,respected around the world,if not for him we would have lost WW2 then germany stronger than anything would have bombed america with v bombs and beat them no question as it took russia,usa,uk to finally beat them,how churchill would have faced this conflict is questionable but he was a world war leader not really a political leader,who did mayor guilemmi {sp} of new york say he had been reading about to give him strength on 9/11.........yeh churchill

 

[adams apple]

Ah, rose tinted spectacles...
Anyway, how is this relevant to the problems we face today?

 

[BillH]

The Turks last laid siege to Vienna in 1689. By 1906, the Ottoman Empire was widely derided as the "Sick Man of Europe" and in a series of wars had lost nearly all of its European possessions.

 

[JPPT1974]

churchill is one of the greatest leaders of all time,respected around the world,if not for him we would have lost WW2 then germany stronger than anything would have bombed america with v bombs and beat them no question as it took russia,usa,uk to finally beat them,how churchill would have faced this conflict is questionable but he was a world war leader not really a political leader,who did mayor guilemmi {sp} of new york say he had been reading about to give him strength on 9/11.........yeh churchill

My dad loves churchill as the man was very well-adversed with the world and the problems the world faced. And would ask the world to lean on one another though may be down but definately not out.

 

[Misty Minister]

What exactly is an Islamist threat?

About the Islamist threat http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2004/10/newest-phase-of-very-old-war.html

 

[Misty Minister]

Excuse me, but you really lost me here. Granted, my handling of the language is not as good as it could be, so it is possible I just don't understand your words and the idea behind, but are you absolutely certain you have the right century? I mean, we are talking about Vienna, as in Wien, Austria, as in Austrian Empire/ Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Habsburgs, whose monarchy ended 1918, are we not?

Granted, again, my history might be a bit hazy here , but weren't the Ottoman Turkis invasion a much earlier, uh, happening, after which came, say, Napoleon & his wars?

I must ask, and I mean no disrespect, but what would have been the name of the battle, what war, that supposedly drove the Turks out of Vienna, Austria, 1906 or 1907?

Or perhaps you disremember the years and are in fact referring to the 16th century and late 17th century battles?

Kalevalatar

I will supply the info you asked for eventually. The Ottoman empire finally left Europe when?

 

[Misty Minister]

Excuse me, but you really lost me here. Granted, my handling of the language is not as good as it could be, so it is possible I just don't understand your words and the idea behind, but are you absolutely certain you have the right century? I mean, we are talking about Vienna, as in Wien, Austria, as in Austrian Empire/ Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Habsburgs, whose monarchy ended 1918, are we not?

Granted, again, my history might be a bit hazy here , but weren't the Ottoman Turkis invasion a much earlier, uh, happening, after which came, say, Napoleon & his wars?

I must ask, and I mean no disrespect, but what would have been the name of the battle, what war, that supposedly drove the Turks out of Vienna, Austria, 1906 or 1907?

Or perhaps you disremember the years and are in fact referring to the 16th century and late 17th century battles?

Kalevalatar

I hope this helps. exerpts from http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/OTTOMAN/OTTOMAN1.HTM

The Balkan Wars

...

In 1911, Italy and France were in competition over Libya. Fearful that France might attack the Ottoman Empire and seize Libya, the Italians attacked first. They defeated the Ottomans and, through a peace treaty, obtained the Dodacanese Islands and Libya from the Ottomans.

Seeing this as a good idea, the states of Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro attacked the Ottomans, hoping to gain all of the Ottoman provinces in the north of Greece, Thrace, and the southern European coast of the Black Sea. They easily defeated the Ottomans and drove them back, almost to the very edge of Europe. ..

The Second Balkan War erupted just two years later (1913), when Greece, Serbia, and Montenegro disapproved of the amount of territory that Bulgaria had annexed. Joined by the Ottomans, these three powers managed to roll back Bulgarian territorial gains. This was the last military victory in Ottoman history.

... Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the Ottomans lost all their territory in Syria, Palestine, Arabia, and Mesopotamia.

... The British, for instance, promised Arabs independent states if they revolted against the Ottomans and aided the British. By 1919, the Ottoman Empire was reduced to Turkey only, which extended from the southern European shores of the Black Sea, to Asia Minor in the west, to Iran in the east, and Syria and Iraq, newly created states in 1919, in the south. Ottoman power had effectively come to an end.

The Russians, torn apart by a revolution in 1917, never did annex Istanbul and the Dardanelles; the city is still under the control of Turkey.

The Republic of Turkey

In 1922, Ottoman rule officially came to an end when Turkey was declared a republic.

 

[Misty Minister]

I love Vegitales!

 

[Misty Minister]

Please see my post "I hope this helps". The Ottomans were sick but not gone. If you were a Christian living under the sick man you were not that happy a camper.
I think i got the name vienna mixed up with some other similar name. I am not a history scholar.