How big a threat is radical Islam to civilization?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

So you think we can prevent an attack? Time will tell who is right. I hope you are, but I tend to think that with enough time we will be hit again.

I believe I said previously, "Likely someday another attack will be successful and the counter will reset, but it's not for lack of a herculean effort to prevent it."

Originally Posted by creekster

As you noted, I have never alluded to George Bush, yet you keep bringing ti back. I agree that the Patriot act will not end America as we know it. But this really has no bearing on this question.

You're going to have to be more verbose, then. How is the condition of civil rights today going to influence America long after we're dead?

Originally Posted by creekster

IOW, you think that radical Islam is a threat to our survival?

Indeed.

Originally Posted by creekster

I have never made that comparison. I noted only that the justification was the same. In my mind, we need to carefully examine our rationale before launching indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations. While I understand the urge to bomb Dresden, for example, I think it is a rather embarrassing incident, even in the context of WWII. I do not feel that way about Hiroshima or Nagasaki, however, as I think that those bombings were justified under the circumstances. Regardless, this issue does not go to SU's question, but it is an interesting sidelight.

I am saying no different.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why? You can argue that our efforts are diminishing the likelihood of an attack, but you still can't point to the absence of an attack as evidence that we are succeeding or that we are failing (since al-Qaeda has been planning attacks against us for almost two decades now and has gone for long periods without an attack).

Lest we get (typical for you, Cali) mired down in tangents, I cited the absence of an attack as evidence that it was probably the right idea NOT to go scorched earth with civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you really picking a fight with that idea?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sure, America is still here. But you seem to be making an argument that because America is still here, we don't need to be concerned about civil rights violations (presumably until America is no longer here, because as long as it is, your argument would be made). "Isolated cases" certainly can be extrapolated onto the larger whole, because it is the larger whole that is permitting the "isolated cases" to occur, thereby jeopardizing the rights of all. I find it ironic that if I were to give you an example related to the church and "isolated cases," you would certainly have a problem.

Try this one: the prophet has told us to shun pornography completely. Should a bishop be at all concerned if pornography is only viewed by a single member of the ward, but is easily accessible by all members? Should he be concerned if only 2 view it? What about 10? 15? 25? Wouldn't you argue that because it is easily accessible, the bishop should preach adamantly against its viewing regardless of how many people are currently viewing it?

I'm didn't say don't be concerned. Just don't go Chicken Little on me.

If your hypothetical ward bishop announces over the pulpit that the church is on the brink of destruction because of a single member's weakness, I'd say he's overreacting.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I do believe it. But I believe it will shape our national identity by making us all very afraid and by calling for the further erosion of our civil liberties, such that our country may not be at all recognizable after a large scale attack. I think the nation is stronger than that right now, but weakening our civil liberties today only makes it easier for them to disappear completely later.

cf: Chicken Little.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ironic that the first time I have seen you swear is in a quote about obscenity! I am not asserting that there is a moral similarity between 9/11 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Creekster makes several good points on this topic.

That's the natural conclusion your and creekster's comments lead one to believe--that there's no difference between the mindset of one set of civilians deaths and the mindset of the other. I think it's an obtuse observation.

[SeattleUte]

Guys like Tex who advocate U.S. resort to genocide in Iraq effectively admit the campaign is a failure. It's like saying we need to become Sadam to win. Now, tell me again, why we invaded and occupied that country?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Guys like Tex who advocate U.S. resort to genocide in Iraq effectively admit the campaign is a failure. It's like saying we need to become Sadam to win. Now, tell me again, why we invaded and occupied that country?

No one thinks Iraq is a success. Really we are arguing about degrees of failure.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Now, tell me again, why we invaded and occupied that country?

Tell me again, what you think we should do about it going forward? And what the result will be in the region?

I have said many times that in hindsight it is obvious this was a mistake. So what now?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

Tell me again, what you think we should do about it going forward? And what the result will be in the region?

I have said many times that in hindsight it is obvious this was a mistake. So what now?

This is what inevitably will happen. We'll wind up pulling out and the place will go to the dogs. It's inevitable, what always happens. I could give you countless precedents. It's what happened right there to the British before us. What has transpired was very predictable.

Now that you know this, FM, tell me how we make this outcome elegant?

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is what inevitably will happen. We'll wind up pulling out and the place will go to the dogs. It's inevitable, what always happens. I could give you countless precedents. It's what happened right there to the British before us. What has transpired was very predictable.

Now that you know this, FM, tell me how we make this outcome elegant?

There is no elegant outcome. I don't think anybody believes that. It's a matter of how do we come up with an outcome that is the less of all evils. Frankly I don't have an answer. Apparently I'm not as smart as you.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

I believe I said previously, "Likely someday another attack will be successful and the counter will reset, but it's not for lack of a herculean effort to prevent it."

You're all over the place here. The question was whether or not we were at greater risk from terrorism or some other threat to our freedom, long term. You say that a threat is Al Qaeda and that we ahve been effective in preventing another attack. Cali says the time gap means nothing, which you sort of concede by saying it's likely another attack will be successful, but then you tell us that comparisons of gaps between attacks are meaningless because of the efforts of our law enforcement and our enemies. Huh? So things are differnt now or they're not? Either way it looks like you are agreeing but giving yourself some sort of middle ground that only you really understand. Not to be offensive but I guess I just don't get what point you're trying to make here that is germane to the topic.

You're going to have to be more verbose, then. How is the condition of civil rights today going to influence America long after we're dead?

The original question did not pit any current or specific policy on civil rights against terrorists, but asked us to compare the current threat of radical islam against any threat, whatever it might be. I agreed with SU (and how do you think THAT made me feel?) that the actual threat was greater, over time, from a gradual degradation of our own commitment to our rights and politcal culture than it is from the current terrorist threat. The patriot act may make an incremental contribution to this process, but that contriubution alone is neither signficiant (as to the ultimate loss of our free society) nor irreversible. SO it looks like we are talking about two difrerent things.

That's the natural conclusion your and creekster's comments lead one to believe--that there's no difference between the mindset of one set of civilians deaths and the mindset of the other. I think it's an obtuse observation.

I am not sure why what I said led you to this conclusion. I hope I have disabused you of it by now. My point, perhaps not clearly stated, was the fact that the articluated justification is the same SHOULD give us pause and make us be very certain we are doing the right thing.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Guys like Tex who advocate U.S. resort to genocide in Iraq effectively admit the campaign is a failure.

Interesting you think that, since I said the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by creekster

You're all over the place here. The question was whether or not we were at greater risk from terrorism or some other threat to our freedom, long term. You say that a threat is Al Qaeda and that we ahve been effective in preventing another attack. Cali says the time gap means nothing, which you sort of concede by saying it's likely another attack will be successful, but then you tell us that comparisons of gaps between attacks are meaningless because of the efforts of our law enforcement and our enemies. Huh? So things are differnt now or they're not? Either way it looks like you are agreeing but giving yourself some sort of middle ground that only you really understand. Not to be offensive but I guess I just don't get what point you're trying to make here that is germane to the topic.

I think Cali has succeeded in confusing the issue for both of us. Let's see if I can briefly straighten it out. I think a scorched earth campaign, ala Dresden/Hiroshima, should only be undertaken when all other options are exhausted, deemed predestined to failure, or have prohibitively high cost (in lives, money, whatever). The fact that we have NOT been attacked (in other words, through hefty efforts of alert intelligence, military, and law enforcement, stopped pending attacks), suggests to me that we still have strong prospects for success sans such a drastic maneuver.

That's all I was saying. Cali took us down this weak does-no-attacks-really-mean-anything tangent which is really superficial to the point ... which once again is (contrary to SeattleUte's disingenuous post) that we should avoid civilian casualties as much as is reasonable.

Originally Posted by creekster

The original question did not pit any current or specific policy on civil rights against terrorists, but asked us to compare the current threat of radical islam against any threat, whatever it might be. I agreed with SU (and how do you think THAT made me feel?) that the actual threat was greater, over time, from a gradual degradation of our own commitment to our rights and politcal culture than it is from the current terrorist threat. The patriot act may make an incremental contribution to this process, but that contriubution alone is neither signficiant (as to the ultimate loss of our free society) nor irreversible. SO it looks like we are talking about two difrerent things.

In that case, give me some examples, outside of Bush and the Patriot Act, that indicate to you that we are on this track of gradual degradation. I'm genuinely interested to know why you think that.

Originally Posted by creekster

I am not sure why what I said led you to this conclusion. I hope I have disabused you of it by now. My point, perhaps not clearly stated, was the fact that the articluated justification is the same SHOULD give us pause and make us be very certain we are doing the right thing.

I get really ticky when people start comparing us to the terrorists. Apologies if I jumped to conclusions.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't disagree that the scorched earth policy would have been a terrible idea (not "probably," however, definitely). I do disagree that the "evidence" you have cited supports that proposition.

You wouldn't accept my "evidence" even if it were notarized by God.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I haven't claimed we are "on the brink of destruction." I have claimed that if we ignore obvious civil rights violations and tolerate their existence, all we are doing is laying the groundwork for something far worse. If your bishop were to ignore the pornographic addiction of a single member, in this hypothetical, and proclaim loudly that the addiction posed no threat to the general church, how long would it be before more people also had the same problem? And yes, this hypothetical is silly, but it seems like terms you would understand.

It seems like to me there's enough historical evidence to support the notion that civil rights will occasionally be violated in wartime more egregiously than in peacetime, but that in the long term freedoms are not appreciably abridged.