How big a threat is radical Islam to civilization?

[SeattleUte]

Chris Hitchins believes radical Islam poses every but the specter of evil and physical danger to the United States as did Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. But having grown up under the specter of mutually assured destruction and Warsaw Pact tanks and troops vastly outnumbering NATO's along the Eastern European divide, and reflecting that in the mid-twentieth century the Nazi flag flew over Paris, and appeared likely to stay there for generations, I have my doubts.

I think I'm in Waters' camp believing these Islamic terrorists live in caves and are relics of medieval times. In the Looming Tower Richard Wright demonstrates that Al Queda really needed near-criminal negligence by the CIA (knowing full well two of bin Ladin's henchmen were in the U.S. and taking flight lessons and doing nothing about it and telling no one including the FBI for over a year) to pull off 9/11. Even getting a VISA is tough if you're a Middle Easterner, and you need to be legal to buy large amounts of fertilizer, take flying lessons, buy deadly weapons, etc. And even terrorism as spectacular as 9/11 doesn't really threaten American military and economic primacy.

I continue to believe that freedom is ephemeral and doomed in the long run as it has always been, but it's not radical Islam I fear in this sense. It's probably ourselves, our own leaders. I think radical Islam will go the way of all underfunded etreme minority terrorist groups in modern times who fade away as their founders die of prostate cancer or become addled if not die violently.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Chris Hitchins believes radical Islam poses every but the specter of evil and physical danger to the United States as did Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. But having grown up under the specter of mutually assured destruction and Warsaw Pact tanks and troops vastly outnumbering NATO's along the Eastern European divide, and reflecting that in the mid-twentieth century the Nazi flag flew over Paris, and appeared likely to stay there for generations, I have my doubts.

I think I'm in Waters' camp believing these Islamic terrorists live in caves and are relics of medieval times. In the Looming Tower Richard Wright demonstrates that Al Queda really needed near-criminal negligence by the CIA (knowing full well two of bin Ladin's henchmen were in the U.S. and taking flight lessons and doing nothing about it and telling no one including the FBI for over a year) to pull off 9/11. Even getting a VISA is tough if you're a Middle Easterner, and you need to be legal to buy large amounts of fertilizer, take flying lessons, buy deadly weapons, etc. And even terrorism as spectacular as 9/11 doesn't really threaten American military and economic primacy.

I continue to believe that freedom is ephemeral and doomed in the long run as it has always been, but it's not radical Islam I fear in this sense. It's probably ourselves, our own leaders. I think radical Islam will go the way of all underfunded etreme minority terrorist groups in modern times who fade away as their founders die of prostate cancer or become addled if not die violently.

It is not in and of itself a long term threat to our survival, IMO. I agree the bigger threat comes from our own complaceny in the face of the erosion of our rights. I disagree that it will go away with the death of the current genreaiton of leaders. I think radical islam will be around for a long time and will be a serious threat for a long time, and will remain so until they run out of oil or we stop buying it.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

It is not in and of itself a long term threat to our survival, IMO. I agree the bigger threat comes from our own complaceny in the face of the erosion of our rights. I disagree that it will go away with the death of the current genreaiton of leaders. I think radical islam will be around for a long time and will be a serious threat for a long time, and will remain so until they run out of oil or we stop buying it.

The only thing that concerns me is WMD. If the Al Qaeda's of the world get their hands on nukes ... thing could get pretty scary.

Aside from that I agree. Terrorist will continue to deliver kicks in the groin ... but never have the ability to deliver a knife to the heart of Amercia.

[MikeWaters]

Bin Laden lives in a cave. I presume he does not get Dish, but I could get wrong.

Either way, we know he does not get the mtn.

How can a man conquer the world, if he can't even watch tv?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I agree with this to an extent. I part ways with you in that I fear the impact of ever-advancing technology.

We have nuclear bombs now that are getting smaller and more powerful. What is the next technology? Will it be as difficult and expensive to obtain as nuclear weapons? Or will it be surprisingly cheap and made from materials that are generally available? Will it be smaller and easier to conceal? Will it have the ability to destroy entire cities?

If history is a guide, weapons become more and more advanced and easier to obtain as time goes on. They also become much more destructive. Our porous borders don't help the situation either, as materials and weapons can easily be smuggled into the country.

In any event, the erosion of our rights and liberties will continue to be a constant problem. With greater threats to our security comes relaxed vigilance of our rights. Once the security threat passes, we are left with a shell of what we were before and have to struggle to regain what we freely surrendered. And frequently we surrender our rights to the mere illusion that such surrender actually grants us enhanced physical safety.

I don't think a nuclear attack, even though I agree it is becoming more likely, will lead to our destruction. It would kill many people and would be a horrible event, but if anything it would galvanize the world against such acts and would result in the ostracism of the perpetrators, IMO. SO it would damage us severley, but its destructive result would be physical only. We would overcome and continue.

I was referring to the destruciton of the values and freedoms we enjoy and our success as a nation. I don't think radical Islam cna do that.

[MikeWaters]

IRA and its supporters killed some 3700 people.

It could be argued that the IRA was more effective than Al Qaeda is currently effective.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europ.../ira_7-29.html

[MikeWaters]

Put another way, if Al Qaeda was really a threat to western civilization, the Afghan-Pakistan border would have been carpet-bombed by now. There would not be a village within 50 miles.

Bush is all about double-speak. He calls it a grave threat to our existence, but he doesn't act like it is.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Put another way, if Al Qaeda was really a threat to western civilization, the Afghan-Pakistan border would have been carpet-bombed by now. There would not be a village within 50 miles.

Bush is all about double-speak. He calls it a grave threat to our existence, but he doesn't act like it is.

Perhaps a nuke attack on American soil is what is needed. As you have posted before, we don't have the stomach for total war, which is what is required. Perhaps if Al Qaeda set off a nuke in NYC or LA for example, killing tens or hundreds of thousands, we coud then nuke the region to hades and be justfiied / have the will.

Not saying I advocate that, but I think that is the political reality. We don't have the stomach for the "collateral damage" of carpet bombin, etc.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Put another way, if Al Qaeda was really a threat to western civilization, the Afghan-Pakistan border would have been carpet-bombed by now. There would not be a village within 50 miles.

Bush is all about double-speak. He calls it a grave threat to our existence, but he doesn't act like it is.

Perhaps the clearest way Bush is a hypocrit is that Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two of the most blatantly anti-democratic, barbarous, anti-human rights and corrupt regimes in modern times, are our staunchest allies in the Middle East. The terrorist groups are rooted in revolutionary movements against these spectacularly corrupt, totalitarian regimes.

I'm not saying we should do anything about Egypt or Saudi Arabia, or reject their friendship. We have no choice. But Bush's windbaggery about establishing "freedom" and "democracy" in the Middle East being our motivation for invading Iraq is pure medacity, and obviously so.

I'll never forgive Hitchins for selling out to the Bushies. I don't like the Nation but I think it's funny they excomunicated him.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

Perhaps a nuke attack on American soil is what is needed. As you have posted before, we don't have the stomach for total war, which is what is required. Perhaps if Al Qaeda set off a nuke in NYC or LA for example, killing tens or hundreds of thousands, we coud then nuke the region to hades and be justfiied / have the will.

Not saying I advocate that, but I think that is the political reality. We don't have the stomach for the "collateral damage" of carpet bombin, etc.

The reason we don't have the "stomach" for carpet bombing is because we don't really consider them a grave threat to our existence. This is the thing we don't talk about. It is taboo.