Draka vs TBO America

[Ghost Rider]

While the thread has veered from it's original intent, let's not spam because it's divergence. Discussion is good.

[Stuart]

Sorry if this is off-topic, but what does "gospodin" mean?

It's a courteous form of address. I've noticed that correspondance I get from Russian companies and organizations use it, so I thought it would be polite to do so when addressing Stas.

[K. A. Pital]

It's a courteous form of address.

Yes. _very_ courteous. Literally it means "lord" or "master", came from the old aristocracy. People never use this form of adress in day-to-day life, instead they use "citizen" or "comrade".

[Kane Starkiller]

Yes. _very_ courteous. Literally it means "lord" or "master", came from the old aristocracy. People never use this form of adress in day-to-day life, instead they use "citizen" or "comrade".

It is however widely used here in Croatia and it has very similar (or identical actually) meaning to "mister".

[K. A. Pital]

It is however widely used here in Croatia

I know. Many European countries do. Poland still uses "pan" and "pani", IIRC, which has a similar meaning to "gospodin", but now it's just common use word like "mister".

[Norseman]

If I were writing an alt-hist Islamic movement I'd probably start out with a Sufi movement, they've generally been much better at inspiring people and causing mass movements. Look at the various Mahdist uprisings, or the fighting in the Caucasus, check out the Naqshbandi and the Golden Chain. Very interesting people the Sufis, and if Secularism collapses in Turkey it won't be a bunch of Wahabbis that take over, it'd be the re-establishment of the Sufi Dervish orders.

That of course would lead to a result quite different from the Taliban Caliphate you had in mind, it wouldn't spread all that far, unless they could convince tons of people the Mahdi had come, but it could be interesting indeed. It would also be somewhat more realistic since Sufi orders have often been the centre of social movements.

Minor correction/addition here, though it's true that Mahmoud II did purge the Sufi orders, who recovered somewhat in time to be purged again by Ataturk. However in the late 1940s and 1950s they began to recover again, the old orders came back and new ones were restored. Even so Turkey remained quite secular, with the army there to enforce it.

Now if you posit that secularism in Turkey were to collapse you'd have to ask why? And how?

Turkey certainly would not be low hanging fruit for anyone, take a look at their record in the 1920s, now combine that with a strong sense of nationalism. I seriously doubt that any Taliban look alike would be able to take advantage of any instability. So if Turkeys secularism vanished then a homegrown movement would take over.

So now what? A Sufi inspired movement would be one possibility, but here we are talking more of a great groundswell of popular support for returning to traditional forms of worship. Alternatively we could be looking at a National Islamist movement, which could be better or worse, but it would be explicitly a Turkish thing.

Either way they might appoint a Caliph, in theory the Turkish national assembly who overthrew the old Caliph could appoint a new one. Any would be pan-Islamists would then have a choice between accepting this Caliph or turning into his bitter enemies. If the first we now have a pseudo-Ottoman Empire again, if the latter it's business as usual.

Of course Turkeys secularism vanishing in the first place is rather unlikely, so this is a bit like speculating what would happen if the South Secedes Again. Once more if I were writing this properly I'd take the time to do some serious research, instead of just scratching at the surface.

[Stuart]

Yes. _very_ courteous. Literally it means "lord" or "master", came from the old aristocracy. People never use this form of adress in day-to-day life, instead they use "citizen" or "comrade".

Interesting, I took a quick look through some of our files. "Gospodin" appears to be pretty much the standard form of address used in the correspondance we get here; I had a letter from one of the Chief Designers at Sukhoi not long ago which used that form of address. In the old days, such letters would use the Comrade salutation but that stopped after 1991 and Gospodin took its place. 'Comrade' never came back into use, the standard we receive here is still 'Gospodin'.

On another matter, I'd like some advice on infantry points. I'm working out the order of battle for the Kola Peninsula. The basic situation is that Kola has been cut off by a German advance that reached the White Sea west of Archangel. There are Canadian and Russian forces defending Kola with supplies coming in by way of arctic convoys to Murmansk. This is the approximate front line (red lines), the yellow ones are national borders,



During winter, the forces drop back to winter quarter areas where there is adequate shelter for the troops with the front line itself being held by patrols of ski troops sent out from those quarters. Once spring comes, the troops move back in force and the heavy fighting restarts.

The story is set in winter. One of the Russian units I've got pencilled in is one of the Siberian infantry divisions from 1941, obviously much rebuilt and reformed by 1945 (with few of the original people left) but still retaining the esprit de corps of the original unit. Infantry weapons are mostly Mosin Nagant M-44 carbines augmented by the first SKS rifles to be produced and the PPS-45 (that's a fictional derivative of the PPSH-41 with a 16 inch barrel and a wooden foregrip firing a hot load/heavy bullet version of the 7.62x25mm Tokarev. It's hypothesized as an emergency response to the appearance of the German StG-44).

Reliable information on Russian ski troops is hard to get over here. What sort of units did they operate in squads? platoons? and what sort of strength did those units have in terms of men? Would they have been up to strength or substantially below? How many machine guns as opposed to rifles and SMGs would they have had? I assume they'd have had lots of grenades.

The Canadians are mostly along the Finnish section of the front, the Finns are keeping largely quiet following heavy losses in the 1943 and 44 seasons (they learned that trying to move in daylight with American tactical air power around isn't terribly bright).

Oh yes, and there are railway guns around as well. I like railway guns

Warm regards, and, once again, thank you for all your much-valued assistance

[K. A. Pital]

"Gospodin" appears to be pretty much the standard form of address used in the correspondance we get here.

It's the standard form of letter correspondence. But it's not used in unofficial speech and adress. You can't imagine a person in the street, shop, at home or at a bar calling another "gospodin", it's simply waay off. In speech, it can only be used at super-official events like some sort of government dinner or whatnot. When I come out in the street or go into a restaurant, the usual adress is simply "citizen". "Grazhdanin [name]", and then whatever you wanted to say. Or, "grazhdanka". Sometimes it's just neutral "man" or "woman". Gospodin is too official for spoken Russian.

Infantry weapons are mostly Mosin Nagant M-44 carbines augmented by the first SKS rifles to be produced and the PPS-45 (that's a fictional derivative of the PPSH-41 with a 16 inch barrel and a wooden foregrip firing a hot load/heavy bullet version of the 7.62x25mm Tokarev. It's hypothesized as an emergency response to the appearance of the German StG-44).

Hmm. Whatever. I mean, infantry automatic gun development went different ways in Russia and Germany, in fact Russian infantry was more saturated with automatic guns than German IIRC, but then coincided after the war in the AK-series which shared the same heritage as German autorifles. Seeing a fictional gun developed from the PPSH line is interesting however.

What sort of units did they operate in squads? platoons?

Ski squads and snowmobile companies, brigades. Larger units: ski brigades, ski battalions (augmented by the snowmobile squads).

and what sort of strength did those units have in terms of men?

Depended on the squad type, task, terms of operation. Temporarily created large ski assault squads, large permanent ski squads, smaller ski squads. They ranged from single squads (from 15-60 men) to "unified squads" (svodny otryad) up to 200 men. For example, the Leningrad ski squad of the Lesgaft physical culture institute had 22 men, but larger ski units (svodnye) had 120-160 men.
But, as I said, those squads were task and unit specific, so like the finnish ski squads they had variable strength.

Would they have been up to strength or substantially below?

Their condition was generally the same as of the whole army. I think they were up to strength, but I don't know the details of your hypothetical scenario. Usually those ski squads were formed, to conduct night-time "rest-destroying" operations for the enemy rear and frontline, and participate in larger offensives as a part of the main force (sometimes this led to tragic events, when the ski units went too fast in the offensive and died without artiellery and armour support). They also had several snowmobile units to support them.

How many machine guns as opposed to rifles and SMGs would they have had? I assume they'd have had lots of grenades.

Generally a ski squad was formed with a specific unit type. Specialization they had squads of automatic gunners (avtomatchiki), machine gunners (pulemetchiki), etc. They were given ski, uniform. They used common weaponry for the type of forces that was used in the ski unit.

Snowmobiles were used to transport assault groups of ski units. I can give one example of a automatic gun (automatic rifle) ski squad assault with a snowmobile company transporting them:

14.3.43 the commander of the 53 basb got the following order: "With one snowmobile company conduct a joint assault on the enemy in Navolok with an assault group and take prisoners".
For the task, a group of 15 snowmobiles was created, and the assault forces were 40 avtomatchiki (automatic rifle men), who were put on the ski of the snowmobiles.

And another joint operation with a ski squad:

...On 20 snowmobiles, an assault force was delivered to Teterya area, numbering 130 men (98 automatic rifle men with 4 hand machine guns and 1 stationary machine gun, plus 32 sappers). Machine guns were put on the roofs of the snowmobiles...

In fact, here's are several _prime_ examples of _real_ ski squad and snowmobile squad operations:
Memoirs of a ski squad commander about a single operation: Politruk Vavashkin V. Ski squad
A military review of snowmobile unit operations with _tons_ of examples and info:

A review of snowmobile unit operations in the Patriotic War (1942-1943).
(The Command of the Armoured and Mechanized forces of the Red Army. A review of snowmobile unit operations in the Patriotic War (1942-1943). - M.: Voenizdat NKO, 1994).

I could translate parts of it for you, if you're interested. Just skim over (you can read Russian, right?) and if you find something interesting, ask me.

Oh yes, and there are railway guns around as well. I like railway guns

Railway guns? Like, railway artillery? Well, that's always cool. What do the Soviets use?

[K. A. Pital]

Oh, and this NKO Order of 23 October 1943 might be of interest:
0433 "О формировании лыжных частей"
I have it. Basically, it outlines some of the problems that plagued ski units during 41-42 - the lack of ammunition, poor personnel complectation (units were complect but in some places up to 50% of soldiers in the ski units were un-fit for marsch service - an unacceptable condition for such a unit type).

It also details the typical numeric strength of a separate ski battalion - 420 men.

The order calls for eliminating the shortcomings of 41/42 and:

2. By 5th november this year, in the rifle and guards rifle divisions of the Karelian, Leningrad, Volkhov, North-West, 2nd Pribaltic, 1st Pribaltic, Western and Belorussian fronts and the 7th separate Army, form 1 separate ski battalions ... numbering 420 men.

Special ski battalions are subordinate to the commaders of divisions directly, and should be maintained from the rifle battalions of each rifle division.

3. In each rifle division, the aforementioned Fronts and Armies, start ski training and with the snowfall, immediately put on ski the following units:

a) in each rifle regiment: a platoon of infantry scouts, submachine gunner companies, a sapper platoon, a squad of samokatchiki, telephonists of the communication company and the telephone units of the communication platoons of the rifle battalions.

b) in each rifle division - a separate scout company.

Else, where possible, run wide training measures to put on ski other units and division sub-units, first and foremost the separate training battalions and companies, rifle, machinegunner and mortar units, and communication units.

4. Start battle training and put on ski the whole separate rifle brigades of the Karelian, Leningrad, Volkhov Fronts and the 7th separate Army.

...

Training duration for companies to be set at 45 days.

[MKSheppard]

How did the Caliphate Form without anyone noticing it?

We have firm links in OTL between the Nazis and the nascent Muslim jihadist movement in one Mr. Amin Al-Husseini, along with Arab states like Egypt actually becoming a sort of second home for SS officers etc who fled there to escape prosecution by the victorious allies and became part of the Egyptian Security Apparatus.

This is OTL.

The Situation in TBO is markedly different. With Britain under Germany's thumb, Nazi influence in the Middle Eastern Region is going to be a lot bigger, and there might actually be a death camp built in the general region to help deal with the Jewish problem there (the Nazis actually did plan this in OTL, but never got the chance to actually build it since they didn't capture trans-jordan, and the pro-nazi coup in Iraq was crushed).

With Germany blasted off the map by the US, I can easily see Al-Husseini shouting from the mosques:

"Our allies in Germany saw the truth behind the perfidious jew conspiracy and attempted to liberate the earth from that perfidious menace; but they were destroyed by the zionists' ally, the Great Satan! Obviously, this was because the Germans were infidels in the end, and were not sufficicently zealous towards Allah. We too face this threat from the great satan! we must cleanse ourselves and purify ourselves so that we can be sufficiently pure before Allah so He can protect us from the Great Satan."

Or something to that extent. I'm not well read on the stuff that islamic cleric spew forth.

Why doesn't the US spot this islamic movement and nip it in the bud in the late 1940s?

Well, that's the problem. TBO is designed to NOT be the kind of universe where "if only we did this and that, everything would turn out just fine and be an utopia!"

The destruction of Germany in a single day has left Europe in a total mess, with national borders completely up in the air, since Europe is essentially still under occupation, due to the large numbers of Germans in England, France, Poland, Byelorussia, etc; and this results in a massive massive mess of gigantic proportions which threatens to spark off another European War; and that's where a lot of American attention goes to from 1947-1950 or so, as we try to at least stabilize the place.

After 1950 or so, the Japanese threat begins looming, as they've been developing their own B-36 like design, the G10N:



and so American attention is pulled to the Pacific Region, and remains there for quite a long time.

This allows the various Islamic radicals time to organize and forment, assisted by German exiles (if you read The Great Game, you'll see that Model's New Schwabia is in an alliance of sorts with the Islamics - Model provides training for the nascent Caliphate's troops, along with I'm sure some wet-work units, and they provide him with a weapon laundering service allowing him to obtain new equipment from the Japanese -- I'm sure that the Japanese can't openly sell weapons to Model, that would greatly annoy the Americans, so someone has to launder it to provide credible deniability).

When the Russians finally crush New Schwabia in '58, they manage to uncover evidence of these Islamic troops operating and training in the area; and that draws attention to the middle east, and by then, it's essentially too late for the US to actually influence events to a great deal; in effect, America's "Massive Retalitation" policy acts as a straitjacket for US policy, in that the TBO US doesn't have a lot of the options that we do in OTL, because it's either blow a country off the map or do nothing at all, and in order to blow a country off the map, you need some pretty credible and solid proof, which is going to be hard to provide...

I hope this made sense...

[Norseman]

I hope this made sense...

I'm sorry but no, it doesn't, and if you read all the posts I make earlier on you'll see why it doesn't make any sense at all.

Building camps in the Middle East? If they let their allies handle it then here is how it goes: Disarm the Jews in Palestine, kill any who resist, round up the rest, force them to march somewhere, anywhere. Along the route you don't feed them, or prevent the locals from killing them. Problem solved. No need for camps. Remember the only reason camps were built was because German troops went nuts from doing mass executions, and it was inefficient.

This incidentally is how the Turks dealt with the Armenians, and how things went in Rwanda, it's amazing what you can do when the local butchers reaction to a riot is to hand out knives.

Then there's the fact that one of the reasons the Final Solution was chosen was that you could no longer simply deport the Jews en masse. Here there is at least the option of sending them somewhere in Africa, it'd probably kill them, but it'd save you the trouble of building camps.

At any rate the Jews would be forced to flee from Palestine, go underground, or get killed. Now what?

Well here's the interesting thing, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem might be important in the region, but he's just one of many leaders. Now he's lost his hobby horse, the uppity dhimmis in Palestine are dead, and the Germans have just accomplished their main goal.

So now what? Well the Italians can handle occupation duty where that is needed, after all every German soldier in the Middle East is one that isn't fighting the Soviets, and quite frankly there's nothing worthwhile IN the Middle-East.

The oil is either undiscovered, too deep for the drills of the age, in inconvenient locations, or would require huge investments to develop. At any rate this could be done with the Italians doing security, and German specialists building the oil areas.

Meanwhile the oil fields of the Baku region are already discovered, operational, and can supply Germany.

So what have you got there? Sand, Arabs, and very little else...

Sure you can establish puppet regimes where you want to, there's plenty of Arabs that admire Hitler, but why ally with the radical Islamists? Why not set up a bunch of Saddam Hussein types?

Even if you do ally with the Islamists where will you find the Taliban type? Sayyid Qutb hasn't written yet, and if he's travelling in this timeline he'd be travelling in Germany... and you know what? He'd be condemning the exact same things as he did in America: Shameless mingling of the sexes, public dancing, disgusting music (ever listened to the lyrics of German popular music?), etc etc.

The Radical Muslims will be just as offended by the immoral behaviour of the Germans as they would be by the behaviour of the Americans. Meanwhile the Arab Nationalists would admire Germany as a strong nation, and one that they should emulate.

Enter the Ba'ath parties...

Quite frankly this mixture would be more likely to have a Sayyid Qutb that condemns German anti-Semitism and immorality, and calls upon true Muslims to extend their protection to the Dhimmis... 'cause I have a hunch that any Jews still alive in a Muslim country will be very well behaved. Note that having this as more likely requires the original proposition to be crazy indeed.

Meanwhile I'm sure that the semi-secular Ba'ath party equivalents would cheerfully root out the Jews wherever they're found, while Italy, Turkey and Persia leave them basically alone.

At any rate none of this accounts for how Iran or Turkey is to be overthrown, in Turkey you have a strong secular polity quite capable of crushing any Islamic uprising, AND you have a strong sense of nationalism that has given root to their own flavour of Islam. In Iran you have a helpful German ally, who will most certainly not kill his Jews but is otherwise reliable; and even if he is overthrown by Muslim fundamentalists they'll be Shi'ite fundamentalists not inclined to co-operate with the Sunnis.

So no... it doesn't make any sense...

But if you say "Okay so it's handwaving, but this is basically a cautionary tale to show everyone what would really happen if the Taliban or the Wahabbis got their way." Then that works just fine... if you argue this is somehow realistic then no it isn't.

Let us however imagine that the Germans take control, and that they explicitly support the Imams that want to kill Jews. Let us imagine that they manage to "persuade" them to go "This is the time foretold in hadeeth where we go forth to hunt down the Jews!"

Are the Germans going to force them to create a single Islamic state?

Do they support the Sunnis or the Shias in Iraq? You think Germany can wave a magic wand and resolve that mess? Or do they turn it over to their ally Iran who really wants that piece of land? Either way no solution there will ever be neat...

So the only thing that unites these extremists is the hate of Jews, and then the Jews are dead and... now what?

Well now they seek the support of local strong men, they go back to allying with their families, the various princes and chieftains pop back up and try to claim their rights. That's gonna be a right mess. Try uniting that.

Right so Germany goes kaboom and the Middle-East is abandoned, I'm not sure why Italy would leave their occupation zone but okay... what now?

For one you'd have the Egyptians, they'd still be a reasonably viable state with something resembling a proper army, which is more than what the rabble would have. Moreover the Egyptians have some very prestigious religious schools in Cairo, let me assure you they don't like Taliban people.

So America can't prevent Turkey, Iran, and Egypt from interfering in the lands between them? I see...

Somehow I don't see this resulting in a pan-Islamic state... especially since all the three big players would have rather different views on what Islam is and how you're supposed to run things.

Once more, in conclusion, no, it doesn't make sense, just wave your hands and call it a cautionary tale it goes much better that way.

[Setzer]

I'd like more information on the Chipanese Naval decline. Was that due to a lack of resources, or a lack of political acumen?

[Norseman]

Look I'm going to speak off the top of my head, and this time I'll admit I could be wrong but here's my take on the mess in the Middle-East.

The period 1900 to 2000 was one of demographic transition, three types of transition: the ratio of young men went up; the ratio of people living in cities went up; the ratio of Muslims to minorities went up. All part of the standard developing world pattern, generally minorities were somewhat more wealthy and educated than the norm and so had fewer children.

This development picked up speed after 1950, but even in the 1960s and 1970s the Middle Eastern countries had much lower population and population growth than today. In 1950 Egypt had 22 million people, in 1971 they had 34 million people, today it has 79 million, the population has more than doubled. In short over half the people in Egypt are under 35 years of age, similar demographics can be found across the region.

Please note those numbers, take note of the absurd levels of growth after 1971, now try to picture what that kind of unprecedented growth would do. The economies of several states were simply not up to handling it, so you got huge unemployment and economic stagnation. Think about that, lots and lots of young men unemployed without much hope for anything better.

Whenever the proportion of young men reach these levels there will be violence for no particular reason...

Now then lets add more to this witches brew, the urbanisation means that people are moving away from their traditional societies, and that their traditional ways of life are under constant attack.

Even more violence and anger...

The truly poor don't do much other than launch the occasional riot, they are angry in a general way, but for them just getting by is a challenge. They are however easily whipped up into a frenzy if you want them to be, and if they are promised something they can easily be recruited. So here is a reservoir of manpower if you should need it.

Now then they are angry, and resources are scarce, meanwhile the Christians have a lot more money than they do, and they're acting as if they're as good as you! So what happens if resources are scarce and there's a nearby minority?

There is also a middle-class, and young middle-class men often seek causes, they are young and idealistic. They are also somewhat alienated from traditional society, and their feelings towards it may be ambivalent; so they seek out something new to satisfy them. These new things happened to be Socialism and Nationalism, and so you had groups like the PLO, you had Arab Socialist parties, and you had Arab Nationalism that tried to unite the Arab world.

The traditional leaders were for a time pushed away, oh sure they retained a lot of power among the common people, they couldn't be entirely ignored, but they weren't a real force.

Arab Nationalism fails, Arab Socialism fails, Soviet socialism fails, Arab armies fail, and there are so many young men who can't get jobs...

They are ripe for a new creed, and that creed is Islam! However there are lots of Islams, most Imams can get a little whacky if they're given a bunch of power, but they want to restore the traditional life they remember from their youth. They want to restore proper Islam, traditional Islam, and they have some idea of what that is.

However we want to screw up the region, so earlier on we gave a bunch of oil money to the craziest most screwed up bunch of them all, the Wahabbis; and then we let the biggest country in the region be taken over by another bunch of fruitcakes.

All those angry young men now have two well funded fanatics throwing money around, often outspending the more traditional groups, but... truth is that the traditionalists generally do manage to hold onto a lot of power. What the radicals do manage is to recruit a lot of young men to cause mayhem wherever they want, and to export their crazy ideology to places where the traditional teachers are either non-existent (Europe, America) or where they've been weakened (former USSR, Afghanistan).

People wonder why the Arab states were perfectly functional in the 1950s and even the 1970s, why people were more relaxed, why Arab cinema goers could laugh at the antics of the flirtatious half drunken party girl. Well things were generally better then, there were more grown men in settled families, and Wahabbism was still just this weird Saudi cult trying to spread.

Every movement is a product of its time and place, a product of circumstances, and a product of where money is spent. There are a lot of things that have to come together to get Islamism or Talibanism, and they won't be around in the 50s or 60s, because the demographic transition hasn't gone far enough. The attack on the traditional lifestyle hasn't gone as far, and the traditional authorities are in much better shape.

That's not to say you can't have a radical Islamic movement, or an Arab nationalist movement, but the inherent pressures towards extremism and radicalisation are much weaker. You can have a movement, but as I explained over and over it won't, it can't, be the Taliban or the Wahabbis.

Now this is just me, I'm not an expert, and I'm guessing about some of this, but it all seems to fit together... so this then would be another reason why Talibanism is not an option in the 1960s.

[Norseman]

So the fool that I am I went back to Crusade, thinking that maybe I had been too harsh, maybe Stuart was right and my memories of it all were exaggerated.

Unfortunately Crusade Chapter One is even worse than I remember!

The guards dragged the victims through the crowd, taking their time about it so those nearest the path could throw stones at or spit on the condemned family. Once through, the victims were hauled to stakes in the middle of the square and shackled to them. Brushwood and kindling was already waiting and it only took moments to stack it around them. Then, the Guardian of the Faith lit the fires. The chanting and howling in the square reached a new pitch of excitement, drowning out the screams inside the fires.

This is without a doubt the weirdest things I've read in a very long time, a fundamentalist Islamic movement burning people on the stake?!

Let me just make it clear right from the start, trying people to a stake and burning has always been a rather dubious Christian practise, not a Muslim one. However I'll elaborate and give some sources to explain why that is so.

Sahih Bukhari

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

This is from the most respected collection of hadeeth in the Muslim world, so respected in fact that even the Shia will often use this collection. It's the gold standard of hadeeth.

At this point you could mention Kinana ibn al-Rabi who had a fire placed on his chest, but this too was to torture him, and he was actually killed by being beheaded.

The closest thing to burning would be what Athanasios Diakos got, but even he was not consumed by fire but rather impaled and put over a spit, roasted not burned. Moreover that is not a Sharia punishment, but something that the Turkish commander on the spot thought up.

So I went looking in "The Reliance of the Traveller" to see what it said, and the only reference to fire as a punishment is found here:

p73.1 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: 1) "I've considered having a man lead people at prayer and going myself to those who hang back from attending the Friday prayer to burn their houses down upon them."

Now Islam is a religious where intentions matter a lot, so here you don't burn the person, you burn their house and if they don't get out and so burn with it... well your intention was to burn the house.

I have looked and looked for any reference to an Islamic state using burning alive as a punishment and I can't find it. I've looked through "The Reliance of the Traveller," and checked online collections of Hadith. The closest thing I could come was Sudanese and Iraqi bandit gangs using fire and burning as a terror tactic, but there was no Sharia court involved.

Then when you consider that several hadeeth say that anyone who is burned, and is a Muslim, becomes a shahid an Islamic martyr! In short by burning him alive they risk making him a martyr with a straight ticket to paradise, which unless I am much mistaken is not their intention.

So there seems to be a pretty clear policy that burning alive is out as a legal punishment, and this is not a region known for being squeamish. Indeed I mentioned a series of blood thirsty punishments that they could use upon this poor Imam and his family.

Where could you get the idea that burning is a viable punishment? Well there is this:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, "Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did." In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments; cf. Maududi vol. 2, p. 52, note 68)

However the first hadeeth I quoted says that Mohammed ordered that you should not punish with fire, and that Ali was mistaken in doing so. That hadeeth comes from the most respectable collection of hadeeth there is.

It seems to me that there are a few anti-Muslim websites that claim that burning is a punishment for homosexuals (and sometimes apostates) but they make this claim on very flimsy evidence and instead of seeking to verify their statements they just copy copiously from each others notes.

Meanwhile I can find tons of references to stoning, chopping of bodyparts, torture, leaving people to bleed and thirst to death, branding, flogging, beheading, pushing walls on people, and throwing them off cliffs. I can even find references to people being put into sacks and drown, or beaten to death, or impaled and roasted on a spit! Yet I can't for the life of me find a single solitary incident of any Sharia court anywhere ever sentencing anyone to being burned on the stake.

In short if burning people alive is a Sharia punishment somewhere it is a very unusual practise with a lot of traditions going against it. I really think that this scene doesn't work at all on that count alone.

Now you might wonder why I make such a big deal out of it, and the reason is very simple: It makes it painfully clear that you did basically no research whatsoever, because any research would have revealed this little problem. You wanted a horrible scene with religious fanatics, and so you wrote a European witch burning, not something that you'd be likely to find anywhere in the middle-east.

What you could have done is have them stone him; chop off his right arm and left leg and drag him into the desert to die; have him beheaded; have the angry crowd rush the prisoners and tear them into pieces. I could believe any of those, because I have plenty of references to show me that such things actually happened, and aside from the "tearing them to bits" part all of them are sound according to Sharia.

Seeing any of those would be just as horrid for the readers and for the people reviewing the pictures taken high, high above. In short it would have worked, and it would have been appropriate to the region.

At the time of Operation Jungle Hammer, the Russians captured a mass of evidence that pointed to the birth of The Caliphate and shared it with everybody who would be affected. As a result, The Caliphate plans were knocked a little askew; the birth and growth of the new state was in public, it did not spring on the world as a fully-developed entity. That was fortunate for us and for the rest of the world. The three countries that formed the original core of The Caliphate in 1961 are Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. They were joined in 1962 by Saudi Arabia and, in 1963 by Syria, Jordan and Palestine. Lat year, the Lebanon and Kuwait fell to what were allegedly coups but were in fact thinly disguised invasions by Caliphate forces.

“In every case, a country joining The Caliphate has been “cleansed”, that is, non-Moslem inhabitants have been exterminated. In Caliphate eyes, any who do not support that concept are also non-Moslem. It is important to note that, for non-Moslems, leaving is not an option. The choices they face are convert or die. It appears that an attempt to incorporate Turkey into The Caliphate was made but it has, so far, failed. However, the Turks are facing endemic terrorism as a result. There are also signs that Caliphate terrorism and subversion are spreading north, into the southern Russian provinces. You may recollect that there was recently serious fighting in Chechnya as a result? The Russians had a hard time putting down what amounted to a rebellion there.”

Fighting in Chechenya as a result of the Caliphate? No, there's been fighting in Chechenya since the 18th Century, the Chechens started fighting when the first Russian showed up and they've been fighting ever since. Mikhail Lermontov, the Kipling of Russia, wrote quite a bit about his days fighting the Chechens.

That however pales compared to the rest of it, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan forming the core of the new Caliphate? I have to ask you this: do you know what the point of Shia Islam was?

I'll give you a hint, the Shia call themselves the "Party of Ali", because they think that the descendants of the Prophet Mohammed through his daughter Fatima and his son in law Ali.

The line of Ali spawned 12 Imams, whom the Shia recognise as the rightful rulers of the Umma, they claim that the 12th Imam went into Occultation and that he is the Al-Mahdi who will return to Earth to end injustice. The next Caliph will be the Mahdi, and he will rise up from the well at the Jamkaran Mosque.

Now you might bring up the Fatimid Caliphate which were both Ismaili Shia Imams and Caliphs, but that ignores two facts:

1. The Ismailis are seen as deeply heretical by both Sunnis and other Shia.
2. They were not Shia Caliphs, they were both Shia leaders (Imam) AND Sunni leaders (Caliph).

Why is this such a big deal?

Well unless the 12th Imam has risen from the Well at Jamkaran Mosque, proclaimed himself the Mahdi, and proceeded to wipe out injustice, there is no way that the Shia would ever create anything like a Caliphate.

I mean do you even pay attention to the rhetoric that the various religious groups uses? Who is it that goes on about the Caliphate, Shia or Sunni? It's the Sunnis, the Shias are going on about martyrdom and waiting for the 12th Imam to return to correct all injustice.

Having the heartland of Shia Islam to form the new Caliphate is like having Jack Chick or Ian Paisley recreate the Holy Roman Empire with themselves as Pope-Emperor. It really is that ludicrous!

It gets better though, Saudi Arabia is officially Hanbali, but the taqlid rejecting Wahabbi sect is also strong there, very strong in fact. When Al-Wahhab preached one of the big points that he was on about was how other Muslims were in fact apostates or infidels, and therefore their property was legal for true Muslims (Wahabbis). This is why the Wahabbis sacked Kerbala.

So now then the Shia's who reject the idea of the Caliphate are going to persuade the Wahabbis, who largely reject the idea that the Shia are Muslims, to join them in a single pan-Islamic government?

(Note before you say it yes Shia are allowed to do the Hajj to Mecca, but so is the Nation of Islam, I'll give you three guesses as to if the average Muslim thinks the NOI are proper Muslims. We are also leaving out the majority Shia region in Saudi since I could see it rebelling).

Then we have Turkey, and I have got to ask: How the devil does the Shias manage to trigger mass waves of terrorism in Hanafi Sunni Turkey? If you paid attention earlier on I pointed out that Turkeys nutters were generally homegrown, and they just wouldn't be interested in that sort of nonsense.

Now I got no problem with an Iran that has taken over Iraq and chunks of Afghanistan (Herat was traditionally a goal for Persian armies in the 19th Century), but the Turks sitting on their arse doing nothing? This Shia Empire with a Persian heartland turning to an ideology supported by Afghans and Saudi Arabian fanatics? No, just no.

The more I read about the Caliphate and the attempts to rationalise it the more my head begins to hurt... Quite frankly I'll stop now, I think I've said all that can be said.

[SirNitram]

The more I read on the formation of the Caliphate, the more I think it suffers from the hand-waving that the Dominion Of Draka needs to get it into the position it must be in for it to be in the stories. Obviously, it lacks the absurd wank-tech angle(Unless we've got Arabs In Spaaaaaaace. Spacefleets, that is), but it is as improbable to occour without intervention or even an eye-batting.. Which is what we're to beleive it did.

[Cecelia5578]

The more I read on the formation of the Caliphate, the more I think it suffers from the hand-waving that the Dominion Of Draka needs to get it into the position it must be in for it to be in the stories. Obviously, it lacks the absurd wank-tech angle(Unless we've got Arabs In Spaaaaaaace. Spacefleets, that is), but it is as improbable to occour without intervention or even an eye-batting.. Which is what we're to beleive it did.

Moreover, the Caliphate convinently lasts almost 100 years, survives at least one nuking by SAC, and still manages to launch the TBO Dark Ages-which cause more handwavium, in so much as much of Blue State America (i.e. those evil liberal large cities) get wiped out in the Dark Ages, by either SAC trying to sterilize large areas, or by the various plagues.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Moreover, the Caliphate convinently lasts almost 100 years, survives at least one nuking by SAC, and still manages to launch the TBO Dark Ages-which cause more handwavium, in so much as much of Blue State America (i.e. those evil liberal large cities) get wiped out in the Dark Ages, by either SAC trying to sterilize large areas, or by the various plagues.

Actually, the greatest-impacted parts of the country aren't the 'blue states', but the American southwest. The lower 2/3 of California, most of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas are well-thoroughly depopulated, and only a handful of the large cities are destroyed. Post-WWIII TBO still has New York City, as I recall.

[CC]

I'm curious as to why the American cities were nuked. From what I've heard, that wouldn't do a thing to stop a plague.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm curious as to why the American cities were nuked. From what I've heard, that wouldn't do a thing to stop a plague.

If it was a major city like Chicago or Charleston and we knew there were infected people who had reached the city, it might have been decided it was better to nuke the city or that quarantine was impossible. The SAC may have 'drawn a line' across the country with nuclear fire to delineate exactly how far people should go.

Here's the map I made of the 'contaminated zone' under Stuart's guidance:
Link

[Beowulf]

A quibble I see with that map is there's no reason for San Jose to die and San Fran to live, given that it's essentially one giant urban area ringing the Bay.

[CaptainChewbacca]

A quibble I see with that map is there's no reason for San Jose to die and San Fran to live, given that it's essentially one giant urban area ringing the Bay.

I can't recall if that dividing line is the result of some 'instant sunshine' or if I just wasn't paying attention. I believe that Sacramento was spared, somehow.

[Cecelia5578]

A quibble I see with that map is there's no reason for San Jose to die and San Fran to live, given that it's essentially one giant urban area ringing the Bay.

I can't recall if that dividing line is the result of some 'instant sunshine' or if I just wasn't paying attention. I believe that Sacramento was spared, somehow.

I-80-I think that's what it is, the freeway that has Fairfield and Travis AFB next to it-is already a magnet for commuters to and from both Sac and San Fran. In the 2040s, it would be even more so, so I don't see how Sac would be spared.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The more I read on the formation of the Caliphate, the more I think it suffers from the hand-waving that the Dominion Of Draka needs to get it into the position it must be in for it to be in the stories. Obviously, it lacks the absurd wank-tech angle(Unless we've got Arabs In Spaaaaaaace. Spacefleets, that is), but it is as improbable to occour without intervention or even an eye-batting.. Which is what we're to beleive it did.

Well they deploy superduper virus-hybrids and "blackpox"; basically the worst possible virulent bioweapons. Their ideology is so backward they are literally losing modern technological base, but they can do sophisticated genetics and biological research, apparently.

[Dark Hellion]

I think I should preface this post by saying that watching Stuart and Stas go at it has been some of the most intellectually stimulating posting I have read on this board, ever.

Now on topic.

Well they deploy superduper virus-hybrids and "blackpox"; basically the worst possible virulent bioweapons. Their ideology is so backward they are literally losing modern technological base, but they can do sophisticated genetics and biological research, apparently.

There is some precedent for this happening. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Muslim world was largely responsible for the saving of many Greek and Roman works of Mathematics, Philosophy and Astonomy. Not only did they save it, but they made many improvements upon it. However, when it came to brand new thinking, they were far behind the European Catholics. So, precedent does exist for muslim groups being extremely good at improving upon already existing technologies, even while idealogically crippling themselves for the future.
Whether the author is utilizing this historical precedent is entirely another matter, and as I haven't read the primary source someone more familiar with it can probably finish up all the analysis from here.

[SirNitram]

The more I read on the formation of the Caliphate, the more I think it suffers from the hand-waving that the Dominion Of Draka needs to get it into the position it must be in for it to be in the stories. Obviously, it lacks the absurd wank-tech angle(Unless we've got Arabs In Spaaaaaaace. Spacefleets, that is), but it is as improbable to occour without intervention or even an eye-batting.. Which is what we're to beleive it did.

Well they deploy superduper virus-hybrids and "blackpox"; basically the worst possible virulent bioweapons. Their ideology is so backward they are literally losing modern technological base, but they can do sophisticated genetics and biological research, apparently.

Clearly, Allah is merely the name Warhammer's Omnissiah uses in the current mileenia.