Is Alquaeda, or ay terrorist group a true threat to Western Civilization and our form of democracy?

As you go about your day do you worry about being killed in a terrorist attack?

Has the WOT been worth the "Collateral Damage"?

Do you feel safer? Will your children be safer?

Is Alquaeda, or any terrorist group a true threat to Western Civilization and our form of democracy?

Was Nazi Germany a threat in 1941? Should we have "turned the other cheek" after Pearl Harbor?

Terrorists represent the most radical elements of a movement that has been building for decades. Fundamental Muslims in large numbers are pushing to make Islam a dominant global force. Terrorists (in this context) are simply the advanced elements of the enemy. They represent something bigger than themselves.

As you go about your day do you worry about being killed in a terrorist attack?

No, I don't.

Has the WOT been worth the "Collateral Damage"?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

Do you feel safer? Will your children be safer?

I do not feel safer because I never felt unsafe. But my children will be safer than the people heading to work at Cantor Fitzgerald or Morgan Stanley were in 2001. These thugs attacked us. Their friends celebrated. Saddam Hussein's government said: "It is a black day in the history of America, which is tasting the bitter defeat of its crimes and disregard for peoples’ will to lead a free, decent life."

September 11, 2001 was not the start of the war between the west and radical Islam, but it was the sucker punch that might have cowed the United States. Luckily, it did not.

I do not want my children living in the same environment as people in Tel Aviv do where they don't know if a bus or a cafe or a hotel is going to blow up.

Terrorism is the symptom of a great disease: The terrible economic and social status of certain underdeveloped parts of the world.

If this disease is not cured, terrorism can be one of the greatest problems of our time.



I live in a country where about 30,000 people (official number) have been killed because of ethnic terrorism. Although much of these horrible events have taken in the east/south-east, the city I live in has been bombed almost a dozen times by PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) or related groups.

But, life goes on and one can't spend ones life just worrying.



No.

"Wot" or "War for Oil/Global Hegemony/Global Domination" has been nothing but a facade. Innocents civilians have been killed. Yet, in most of the Islamic world, sympathy for terrorist groups increase because of the US/UK/Israel foreign policies.

If one wants to put an end to terrorism, one has to look at why a person becomes a terrorist. But, most dodge this crucial step and take a militant "blast em into bits" approach, which only makes the problem worse.

You can't use arms to control people who have nothing to lose. These terrorists who actually carry out the attack (suicide bombers) came from the poor. No matter how many tons of TNT worth bombs you drop on them, it will not change anything. It will just make life hell for innocent civilians.

Is Alquaeda, or any terrorist group a true threat to Western Civilization and our form of democracy?

Unbelievable. I can't believe you're honestly still comparing Al Qaeda to either WWII Germany or Japan. Really. No body I know has advocated "turning the other cheek", but tell me, where is the nation-state to counter attack? Where are the millions and millions killed, and the dozens of countries invaded and occupied? Please, can we get over the disingenuous comparisons, here?

Terrorists may well represent a radical element pushing to make Islam a dominant force. That doesn't mean they have the ability to build factories worth of aircraft, tanks and equipment that it would take to actually accomplish such a thing.


As you go about your day do you worry about being killed in a terrorist attack?

Not at all.

Do you feel safer? Will your children be safer?



And you can say this how? I certainly don't think that as a nation we are any safer than prior to 9/11, and if anything perhaps a bit less safe, considering the blunders the current and past administrations have made regarding things like letting terrorists on watch lists still get through at airports, lax border security, and the like.

I don't want my kids or grandkids to have to live in the same kind of environment that Israel does either. But really, what's going to stop terrorists from hitting a bus, train, restaurant, hotel or say, a college sporting venue in this country?

Do you really think that the fact it hasn't happened yet is indicative of the great job "Homeland Security" is doing? Or is it maybe because they are looking for another opportunity to do something really spectacular?

History tells us that when it comes to America, they are more than willing to be patient, and wait for a few big, juicy targets, rather than a bunch of smaller ones. That doesn't mean they won't change that line of thinking, however, if it appears that the hotels, cafes, and train stations are all that they can get to.

Unfortunately, our streets can end up like Tel Aviv's all to easily, and there really isn't a whole lot we can do about it, if they are determined enough.

If i understand Amlord's point, he was not comparing Nazi Germany to Al Qaeda directly but rather connecting the logic that we cannot simply look the other way when a specific threat appears.

Your right when you say terrorists dont have a nation-state where they can manufacture weapons, tanks, exc... They are a lot more dangerous...and thats the problem. They don't need weapons and tanks and aircraft. They only need a few sticks of dynamite or a homemade bomb they found blueprints for off the internet. Its a different type of war and it must be fought in a different way. We attack at the base, at the root of the problem which is funding from both private interests and states. We also attack their safe havens and their base of operations. That is the immediate plan. The long-term goals would be to go at the heart of the problem which is poverty and bad relations in the Middle East. I think the solution is through economics and globalization...but who knows.

Is Alquaeda, or any terrorist group a true threat to Western Civilization and our form of democracy?

Its not a threat to democracy because its an ideal...much like radical islam and as people on these boards debate tirelessly, you can't defeat an ideal. But they can still kill a hell of a lot of people and thats the threat.

As you go about your day do you worry about being killed in a terrorist attack?

No of course not, but then again neither did anyone on 9/11. And just because we don't worry about dying from terrorism doesnt mean we should allow holes in our security.

Do you feel safer? Will your children be safer?

I think we are safer and its ridiculous to assert the opposite. Before 9/11, the threat was completely ignored by both the government and the public. Now that there is awareness and actual attention paid to the situation...we can count on more effort being put into stopping terrorism.

Sorry leder,but I think you are simply wrong. GW's whole plan for the WOT has simply stirred up even more resentment to us and opened the door for terror organizations to legitimize themselves through election. He has quite simply made us more unsafe and IMO will cost far more American lives in the future than if we had simply targeted AlQuaeda and not gone into Iraq--sadly though i doubt GW will ever bear any of that cost and will get to ride off into the sunset while others take the bullet.

Strangely enough, I agree with both your short and long term recommendations for the reduction of international terrorism.

The question then really, is: "Is this was Bush Jr. has been doing?" I would argue, no not really. At the time of 9/11, the two states most closely tied to Al Qaida, including safe haven, funding and recruiting, were Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

The invasion of Afghanistan, initially a sucess story, has essentially been wasted as the country has reverted to Talibanesqe warlords with no alleigance to the central government (such as it is). Some of those warlords are semi-friendly to US interests, others are not at all.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand has essentially not been touched, and instead the nation of Iraq was targeted. A brutal and unpleasant regime to be certain, but without any real ties to the war on terror.

In fact, if you believe the right and the claim that there were WMD in Iraq, then those same WMD have now apparently been shipped out of the country to venues unknown, likely with the intent of being used against the US. On the other hand the US is militarily tied down, and financially in a much weaker position than it was.




That is quite the assumption, and sadly, thats all it is. The public is certainly more aware of the threat, but that does not translate into attention or safety. Furthermore, since the diversion of attention away from Afghanistan, little to no attention has been paid to stopping terrorism, or at least stopping Al qaida, except banning nail files on domestic flights (an absurd bit of theatre, by the way) and wire tapping US citizens.

Note what I said above, about the relative situation of the US, militarily and economically, and how can you say the us is More secure now than it was?

Ugh, perhaps my least favorite argument against the possible success or worthiness of the GWOT. As if this global war was so simplified and easily contained..just two states? Is that all? Why are we claiming it is global then? Why all the fuss?
What about Pakistan, Iran, Palestine, Sudan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Algeria, Philippines, Morocco, Spain, Uzbekistan, Germany, London, Russia, France, and so on?
9/11 as horrendous as it was is most certainly not a singular event in and of itself, it is a collection of events that began before it and have continued after it.

I feel this claim that is was all so easily contained and limited and just awaiting our disposal terribly inaccurate. Terrorism in and of itself is a insoluble, fragmented and eclectic military tactic. Let's first and foremost be honest and upfront about the enemy we face and the means in which the enemy fights.

The GWOT is not dependent upon what Bush Jr is doing, but what the whole world and it's leaders are doing. It will take the global community to win this war, not one man.

Is Alquaeda, or any terrorist group a true threat to Western Civilization and our form of democracy?


I personally feel the debate was framed poorly. I don't deem our battle and our struggle against this form of ideology , which is both spiritual and political, as a means or recognition of Islamists or Jihadists "worth". They offer us absolutely nothing of worth, none. Which is why I feel it is best to fight and eliminate their power or appeal.

Do I feel their biggest threat is to democracy and progressive and pluralist ideals, yes of course obviously. Is this threat urgently personal? Or is it more abstract? I suppose that all depends on who you are, where you live and what beliefs you hold. But I am empathetic to others in regards to this struggle.

Is Alquaeda, or ay terrorist group a true threat to Western Civilization and our form of democracy?

I think all terrorist groups should be feared. But I especially think that we should fear Al qaeda since their members are do not fear dying for the cause since they are so positive that a wonderful afterlife is awaiting them. How do you compete with someone that is willing to kill themself in order to take out those that they hate?

As you go about your day do you worry about being killed in a terrorist attack?
Not anymore, but I live in DC and for a while after 9/11 that was a very real fear for me.

Has the WOT been worth the "Collateral Damage"?

I don't think enough time has passed to make a call one way or the other on this. I think that there needed to be a War on Terror and we can already see that this WOT has broken al qaeda into smaller, less organized/powerful cells AND it has ended the Taliban rule so in that respect it has been worth it. However, it will still take many more years to really evaluate a question like this.

Do you feel safer? Will your children be safer?
I feel safer. I have no idea about my children.

Is Alquaeda, or ay terrorist group a true threat to Western Civilization and our form of democracy?

They are not a threat to our civilization or democracy, however our reaction to them is. They can destroy buildings and kill people but as the London blitz proved, that isn't enough to cause a population to give up its ideals and change to suit the attackers. The Bush administrations reaction though: offshore prison camps, indefinite detention, torture, domestic spying, surveillance of anti-war groups, pre-emptive war etc. etc. are the real threat, reinforced by our acceptance of these things as necessary to "keep us safe".

As you go about your day do you worry about being killed in a terrorist attack?

I kind of got used to it working in London during the height of the IRA bombing campaign, you just get on with it and if it happens to you, it happens. I'm now in L.A. which is a target, but I'm much more likely to get hit by a car or be a victim of simple crime.

Has the WOT been worth the "Collateral Damage"?

No. They could have stopped after Afghanistan and that would have been a net positive. The Iraq misadventure has created new terrorists, inspired the existing ones and caused civilian deaths into 6 figures. That puts the balance sheet firmly in the red.

Do you feel safer? Will your children be safer?

No

You are right of course, My bad, I should NEVER have claimed that Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia were the ONLY two nations involved with Al Qaida, in the whole world. I can't imagine what I was thinking when I said that.

Oh wait...

No, actually, I didn't say anything like that at all.

What I said, and you can't have missed it because you quoted it back to me, was that the two states most closely tied to Al Qaida, including safe haven, funding and recruiting, were Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Am I mistaken? Am I in error?

So what on earth does you comment about including the countries of Spain, Turkey and 'London' have to do with anything?


Al Qaida was based, funded and originated and did most of its recruiting from two countries. One was clobbered and abandoned, and the other has been the recepient of some rather sweet US arms sales, and has otherwise been ignored.




Thats a rather trite way of passing the buck, don't you think? Since 9/11 there have been two major invasions led by Bush Jr, it is he who has led the clarion call for the war on terror,m it is he that decided how the war on terror will be fought on the international scene. Now that it is becoming clear that his strategies have been a failure, and closing on an abject failure, it is a bit disingenuous to say 'The GWOT is not dependent on BUSH! Why, the leaders of Estonia and Paraguay are just as important!"

We are not talking here about WHEITHER the global war on terror should be fought, but HOW it should be fought, and that decision has been taken almost entirely from the Bush White House, and to date has led to very little.


If, as you say, it takes a whole world to win the war, not just one man, then why has Bush Jr been fighting this as a 1-man/ 1 country war? Why is he so eluctant to listen to what the other nations of the world has to say? Why whenever there are national viewpoints that differ from his, are the names of foods in the US changed?

If this war is a 1-nation war, thats not the fault of the rest of the world. You may recall that for Afghanistan it was a worldwide phenomenon, but then Bush took the war in HIS OWN DIRECTION< and the vast majority of the rest of the world balked, and asked "What does this have to do with anything?" And for the crime of disagreeing, there are STILL people on this board who are happy to throw fictional insults and tales of collusion at countries like France, Germany, Canada...

Don't stand up an say 'but its a GLOBAL war!' when the leader of the US has seemingly done everything in his power to make SURE it is NOT a global war, unless it is a global war conducted on his terms.

No, true threats come from nations not rogue individuals.



Well I can't speak for everyone but for myself, nothing. To be honest anyone who answers yes to this might want to take their news service to task and get them to demistify the colour-coded threat levels from homeland security.



Any president which replaces barbarians for terrorists and seeks perpetual war will not make anyone safer.

I disagree with this and I do so because even tho I am disgusted and appalled by the Bush admin's stance on torture, I find presenting this as a main focus or concern somewhat disingenuous. Not because I feel it is of little consequence or wish to treat it dismissively, I just feel that to only concern ourselves when this occurs with our interactions and treatment of peoples outside our border is hypocritical. Look to any prison in the US and I can bet you a few within those walls will have their own stories of torture to tell, and quite often these more infamous means of torture are deemed quite acceptable and even encouraged by the general public.

As for the preemptive war argument I find little to fear in regards to taking preemptive action for a cause I find worthy and just. Anything less would be inaction. If you are unable to picture how this works, I would suggest Sudan as a modern example.




Well obviously yes I feel you are in error or else I wouldn't of felt the need to correct you. First I was only going to ask you about Pakistan and Sudan..but then I thought it would be wrong of me to embrace your belief that this form of terrorism and ideology is best considered and discussed within a limited number of states.

It seems as if you believe that borders or jurisdictions contain this ideology and that is the far larger error I feel you have made. The funding is global, the recruiting is global, the safe havens are global, this is a global movement. I really don’t believe any arguments against the GWOT are best served by eliminating the whole global aspect of it.





Because any of the above locations have served and probably continue to serve as financial and logistical “safe havens” to militant Islamist groups. As have many other nations worldwide.




Actually no, history has shown us quite the opposite. Al Qaeda for example has been known to openly operate in Pakistan, Sudan and has always enjoyed assistance from Iran. This is a stateless political movement, they didn’t need Afghanistan in order to murder 33 in Morocco, 83 in KSA, 192 in Spain, 52 in London, 21 in Tunisia, 225 in Bali, 125 in Egypt, 57 in Jordan, 16 in Kenya, 26 in Pakistan, 51 in Turkey and thousands in Iraq. And who is to say the death tolls would be less if we had chose to attack and occupy KSA, I would argue in fact they would be far greater.


I am hardly “passing the buck” I am just viewing the subject matter in it’s entirety. The term War on Terror/ism and the concept it entails far predates George W. Bush and will long out live him. I don’t speak of or view this struggle with any singular event or attempt to feign it’s newness.
What about Blair? Has he not been an avid, vocal and current supporter for the GWOT? Or NATO, do you not find their Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism of any significance in regards to other nations and their own policies?


I have no idea where or what you wish to achieve with these comments they seem extremely rhetorical in my opinion. I don’t think the US or it’s leaders have been fighting this war with one man, obviously not as we have already lost many more men and those were the ones who willingly gave their lives. As I catalogued earlier many more have died in this war as innocents and they are all not Americans and their deaths were not contained to one state.

I hardly believe we have purposefully desired the lack of support from certain nations. I can’t for one moment imagine how many in the world can sit idly by as hundreds of Iraqis die from terrorist attack after terrorist attack refusing to assist because they feel it is packaged all wrong. You speak of passing the buck, what greater skirt of responsibility is it to refuse to address the true core issue and instead always politicizing it and claiming it is all about George W Bush, it isn’t. Turn on any TV or read any paper, it is a lot bigger than GWB.

But that is where the opposition feels most safe, framing and insisting and always discussing this subject in the context of Bush. I suppose one feels less threatened when they debate a well known idiot.


Again a very standard tactic ...like many here wish to portray or give the impression that somehow George W. Bush is the unelected dictator of the USA he is also apparently now of the world.
How destined to failure we all are if our world is to have to rely on one man and his actions.
Not to mention how condescending and belittling this argument is for the hundreds of thousands, yes even millions worldwide who also desire to not live their lives in fear and have chosen to do something about it. Forget the global desire for freedom as being something that is perhaps an inherent universal state of conscience. Instead limit it to something of an American or Bush admin policy.

Is Alquaeda, or any terrorist group a true threat to Western Civilization and our form of democracy?

The attacks that Alquaeda has on America just makes us stronger and come more close together.

As you go about your day do you worry about being killed in a terrorist attack?


I, myself, do not because i live in an underpopulated town in South Dakota, so I do not worry about any type of terrorist attack, but you never know, it could happen. I am always curious of those faces that look like they have something to hide that i see when im walking around the big cities around here in Iowa and Nebraska tho...

Has the WOT been worth the "Collateral Damage"?


Simple, No.

Do you feel safer? Will your children be safer?


Dont have children, but i assume if i did, i would think so, they would be running around different places all of the time.

Is Alquaeda, or any terrorist group a true threat to Western Civilization and our form of democracy?

Yes, it's a true threat in that it is intending to "impact/change/destroy/intimidate" Western Civilization and our forms of government. As such, the threat should be countered. But the present US activities are not in my opinion a credible or effective counter action!

As you go about your day do you worry about being killed in a terrorist attack?

As I go about my day, I am relatively hypervigilant to all forms of man induced personal and systemic damage potentialities, including my death. I feel responsible to myself and others to be able to counter such. I guess I see it as a civic duty, akin to citizens arrest, though that now has pretty bad press. This goes for all such threats, including terrorist acts. I also believe the individual, at the terrorist site of action at it's beginning, is the best counter, if he is prepared for it. Best means most effective and most cost effective for all of us in the sense of "to promote the general welfare".

Has the WOT been worth the "Collateral Damage"?

Not for me! It has been a net bust on all counts, including all the specifically named "Collateral Damages" that I am aware of having been named and identified.

Do you feel safer? Will your children be safer?

I feel less safe with the WOT, as it is presently designed and implemented, in place. I have accepted "terrorism" as a fact of life and a possible event occurring in my life for quite some time. I have tried to instill awareness of this "fact" in my kids, and it seems to have taken hold.

Is Alquaeda, or ay terrorist group a true threat to Western Civilization and our form of democracy?

No, I don't see the terrorists in question as powerful enough to be a true threat. AMLord said it well. We got sucker punched by suicidal types who swallowed a line of bull. We were caught with our security down while having the wrong kind of thinking at the controls. The thinking has modified some as this has all played out. It had to, it was so wrong.

As you go about your day do you worry about being killed in a terrorist attack?

I don't worry about being killed or dying. It's wasted energy that needs to be put to better use these days. We might someday be nuked, being so close to several military situations. I don't think there will be much time to worry about anything if this should happen.

Has the WOT been worth the "Collateral Damage"?

I've never accepted the idea of a WoT. We're heading back to using diplomacy and policing tactics. I'm pretty sure at some point the official line will be that Iraq either gets its act together or we leave.

Oops, forgot to answer the question: No.

Do you feel safer? Will your children be safer?

I'm not feeling too great for other reasons, and I hope the upcoming generations get it right. Feeling safe is nice, but in this world it can turn deadly. Don't ever feel safe while driving, that's my motto, or whenever in a risky situation like the bathroom. I think this attitude goes hand-in-hand with not being afraid. Always cautious, never afraid.

Fear is used by politicians to get their ways. Keep that one in mind at all times too.

I am not sure Al Qaeda is a threat to “Western Civilization” but they certainly are a threat to our economy and freedoms – and they know it. If you read what Bin laden has written and listen to what he says he is clear that he wants to strike us in the pocketbook and make our lives as miserable as possible. He would love to kill all of us but I am sure he knows he cannot do this. What he has done and will do again is cost us hundreds of billions in economic damage – and this does not include Iraq.

The 9/11 attacks nearly broke our airline industry, prolonged a nasty recession and is and will cost us hundreds of billions more in “homeland security”. Since it is neither possible or cost effective to even try to protect everything in the US you can be sure his next attack(s) will be aimed at causing death AND high economic cost as well as fear.

For example an attack with VX nerve gas on a group of large office buildings or malls (through the air circulation system) would kill thousands but also have a large economic impact.


No.


Not sure what you mean here.



We are certainly safer now that we are actually going after the terrorists. Saw an interesting documentary last night on the History Channel regarding Bin laden.

He was offered to the Clinton Administration in 1996 by Sudan (twice) – we turned them down but Sudan booted him out. He then settled in Afghanistan and in 1998 officially declared war on the US. We set up a special group inside the CIA (20 people) who did nothing but try to bring him in. This group set up a snatch operation in early 1998 and AGAIN the Administration turned it down??? Soon after came the embassy attacks the Towers .....
We Blew it.

Today I feel safer in the knowledge that no one in this Administration is going to pass up the opportunity to kill or capture a terrorist. Thus Bin laden and his friends are deep underground and as a result far less effective. IMO this is the only reason we have not been hit again.