I was looking back over some earlier debates, and this post from CruisingRam kinda jumped out at me. The salient part is here:



So this leads fairly straightforwardly to the question for debate:

Do you agree with the overall assessment in this Foreign Affairs article? How serious a threat is al-Qa'ida and/or other Islamic terrorist groups to our own national security?

I have my own views on the question that probably won't surprise too many people here, but since the introductory post has to be all neutral-like, I'll wait.

Do you agree with the overall assessment in this Foreign Affairs article? How serious a threat is al-Qa'ida and/or other Islamic terrorist groups to our own national security?

I agree. I have never believed the Islamist threat to be anywhere near deserving the absolute hysteria it has gotten.
9/11 was a shock but it was also completely against what had been traditionally the norm for plane hijackings. The popluar attitude being keep still and after negotiations you end up in cuba or the like. now that it is known what some are now willing to do the terrorists won't get a repeat chance like that. I would also say that the intel community did not take it seriously and probably were focused elswhere; leftover cold war stuff and of course the ever draining War on Drugs.

I especially agree with this point


We had them beat at Tora Bora, they thought so themselves, people were horrified at what they did and we had world support. Then we went into Iraq. We can kill as many of the supposed flood of terrorists into Iraq as we wish but I am more in fear of the ones who are there to learn what works and are keeping their heads down and not taking chances at getting killed.
Iraq is a Master's course on terrorist methods and the graduates will be making appearances in the future all around the world. 9/11 will probably be child's play compared to future events. Even so, the Islamofascists won't ever have the need power to overthrow this country or even Western Civilization. Their power today is a media creation fueled by fear and greed from those who can capitalize off of it.

With the constant fearmongering towards terrorists all we have done is raise their popularity and give the unearned credibility. My opinion is also that the talk radio personalities have been a very valuable tool for the terrorists by spreading hate and dissent here in the States.

We would have been far better served to have it been a law enforcement plan than the military plan. Treat them as petty criminals who murder indiscriminately and use the media to help make that image stick. No country alive has murdered more muslims than the terrorists themselves.
Hopefully after Bush is finally gone we can get out of the mess he has made of the whole deal and take some effective actions.

I'd have to generally agree with the article and with Christopher. As much of a success as 9/11 was as a terrorist action, taken alone it amounted to a few buildings and 3000 or so lives. Bad, but not that big a hit when compared to the many costs of our response. Simply tightening up security at home probably would have solved future problems. Lessening our dependence on Middle Eastern oil would also do more than any military response.

I generally agree with the Afghanistan operation, since there was a sensible purpose behind it (plus, who didn't want some revenge?), but the Iraq mistake was huge, and is still costing the U.S. a ton. If I could put our response in terms of an analogy, it was as if a terrorist threw a snowball into traffic, causing one car to crash. But the ensuing chase to catch him led to a 1000-car pileup. Not even the most optimistic terrorist would have dreamt of 9/11 leading to a messy U.S. invasion of Iraq. And now, six years after 9/11, our military is stretched too thin to take on any emerging problems.

I have to agree with previous posts on this subject the threat of actually being killed in a terrorist attack is tiny compared to most other modern day hazards. 9/11 was an awful tragedy a terrorist attack that killed thousands of innocent people but terrorists work on the basis that they can strike anywhere at anytime to create fear and it is the fear of the attack that is in some ways worse than the attack itself and has far wider repercusions (I of course refer to the current situation in Iraq, the shooting of Jean Charles DeMenzes by armed Police in London after 7/7 to name but 2)

Granted security needs to be tightened in the light of terrorist attacks and measures need to be taken to comabt terrorists. However the actual threat created by terroists and the fact that there have not been more attacks leads to the inevitable conclusion that the true threat from such organisations is much smaller than the organisations themselves tend to make out. The best way to fight terrorist groups is to marginalise them to show them for the monsters they are.

Please do not think am belittleling 9/11 or the tragedies that have also occured in London, Bali and Madrid since then however based on actual statistical probability as well as the relative ease with which access to weapons and training materials that can be found due to the rise of the internet it is a miracle there has not been more.

In short the actual THREAT is small, it is the FEAR created by that threat and the impact created by that fear that is large and far more far reaching.

Not at all. Typical liberal drivel. We are spending billions and have thousands working daily on disrupting terrorists plots and have, as a result, been successful – so far. If we have not expended the time and money many of the plots would have succeeded. Such as:

Seven Nabbed in Miami on Terror
Charges in Plot to Hit Sears Tower.
MIAMI — Seven people were arrested on terrorism conspiracy charges Thursday in connection with the early stages of a plot to attack Chicago's Sears Tower and other buildings in the United States, a federal law enforcement official said.

http://rjay-militarynews.blogspot.com/2006...ears-tower.html

2 plead guilty in plot to attack Southland sites
The men were members of an Islamic terrorist cell based in California state prison.
By Scott Glover, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 15, 2007
Two members of a prison-based Islamic terrorist cell that authorities say was poised to attack military sites, synagogues and other targets across Southern California pleaded guilty in federal court Friday to conspiring to wage war against the United States
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-te...ines-california

The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot was an alleged terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives carried on board several airliners travelling from the United Kingdom to the United States.[1] Unprecedented security measures were immediately put in place. This sudden imposition caused chaos and delayed flights for days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatl...c_aircraft_plot

WASHINGTON — U.S. officials announced charges Wednesday involving alleged plots to sell drugs to finance weapons purchases for Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization and a Colombian paramilitary group.

U.S. authorities said the four suspects believed they were going to trade the money and cocaine for 9,000 AK-47s and other assault rifles; grenade launchers and nearly 300,000 grenades; 300 pistols; shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles and about 53 million rounds of ammunition.
In the second case, three people are charged with trying to sell heroin and hashish to buy four shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles for the Al Qaeda terror network. An indictment says the Al Qaeda link was provided by the suspects themselves.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69300,00.html

This goes on and on and these are the ones made public – we can be sure they are working hard to hurt us. We Disrupted the purchase of at least 10 stinger missiles that I have read about. EACH of which could have brought done a US airliner carrying hundreds of people.

Man, you don't really keep up to date on your propaganda talking points there Ted- but no one has ever said a neo-con is the most informed I suppose

http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dl...140344/0/NEWS09

1 acquittal, mistrial for 6 in terror plot

Prosecutors said the “Liberty City Seven” – so-named because they operated out of a warehouse in Miami’s blighted Liberty City section – swore allegiance to al-Qaida and hoped to forge an alliance to carry out bombings against America’s tallest skyscraper, the FBI’s Miami office and other federal buildings.

The group never actually made contact with al-Qaida. Instead, a paid FBI informant known as Brother Mohammed posed as an al-Qaida emissary.

Lets see- they never contacted Al-Quaida, they had no weapons, no bombs, no plans, no contacts,

sounds like they got around, drinking some beers being dumb jerks and complaining about thier homeland.

NOT ONE OF THEM WAS ACTUALLY AFFILIATED WITH ANYONE LINKED TO AL-QUAIDA- no one disputes this.

This is the kind of stupidity that GW needs to keep the faithful enthralled- luckily, about 70% of the nation is learning to discard this claptrap for what it is- bovine fecal material.

No doubt, Ted, that plots have been foiled. That is why everyone, including liberals and Democrats, are pushing for tighter security - airports, trains, shipping ports, intelligence all need to be beefed up. No argument here, except possibly in the way we would implement these changes.

The point of the previous posts, though, was to point out the waste of our terrorism-fighting resources in Iraq due to Bush's overheated response. Certainly, as a cost-conscious, fiscally responsible Republican, you can see how the money and lives spent in Iraq might be better spent on security measures back home.


Response: [INSERT PRO-IRAQ WAR SPEECH HERE]

So, does this mean you are saying that terrorism is a serious threat? Because earlier in your post you seemed to be suggesting otherwise. Just trying to clarify.



Funny how you woud say that, since Ted never mentioned Iraq, you did. This issue has nothing to do with Iraq, so I respectfully request that you don't try to hijack the discussion. I wasn't asking what would be the most effective way of fighting terrorism. I was just asking how serious people thought the threat was. As in: what potential damage could they inflict on our country?

Serious threat? Well, the most serious threat is NOT Al-Quaida by any means- you have to prioritize your threats, and some guys drinkin' beer and talking bad about the goverment, making noises about even attacking it, not exactly a huge threat.

There are far more domestic threats in the US, and I think that just tracking down crime, good crime fighting techniques, will net just as many whack job anti-American groups better than spending massive resources on fighting something that is far less of a threat.

It is not enough of a threat to curtail civil liberties, have secret tribunals or torture the innocent, and all the things that go along with being declared "enemy of the state" like so many other republics in world history, as they have degenerated into dictatorships under the auspices of "foriegn threats".

I think we can face this threat without the hysteria we have seen from the right and GW, and the chicken little syndrome we have seen.

OK so you blow off all that I posted with the above one liner? Come on – STINGERS – maybe you would enjoy being on the airliner hit by one – not me.



Well the thrust of the article and thread is that AQ is really not much of a threat/danger which is definitely not the case. And yes we would do even better if we had not gone into Iraq but lets remember we passed a bill to secure the BORDER in 06 and to date the damn fence is not built – and Dems like Teddy K are not helping.

The security has worked for now but the idea that there is no “threat” is ludicrous.

Terrorism is going to be a threat Blackstone, but Not in an "End of Days Western Civilization on the Edge of Being Overthrown" frenzy that so many of the Bushites suffer from and their mouthpieces scream from the radio waves.
Drunk drivers are a greater threat to my life and much higher on the list of things that I worry about. I only think of terrorists when I watch cable news or listen to the radio.

My point was that Bush's ill advised and IMO idiotic Iraq strategy and the absolutely abysmal planning and execution all he has managed is to make something dangerous more lethal. He provided a laboratory for full scale training and testing of tactics never available before from the camps used previously. Again the graduates will be moving on and biding their time and I doubt they have ever endangered themselves beyond sending out the gullible gung ho idiots who actually strap the bomb to their chest. (To Clarify for you. They are using idealistic idiots to be the cannonfodder and they are just taking notes as to what works best. true believers are chumps and easy to incite to stupid acts.)

Even so they are not worthy of marshalling our armed forces and sending them anywhere. Outside of small strike teams that can take out camps when found.

Lets see- which do I fear more- a stinger, as reported by who, our "intelligence community" or Faux? - or, the much more real danger of a meteor strike, or getting struck by lightening? Because Ted, a meteor has a much bigger chance of hitting me than that stinger, in fact, there is a much higher likelihood of monkeys flying out of your butt than you getting tagged with a stinger.

You REALLY should worry about your horrible monkey anal problem Ted- there is obviously something you have forgotten to be afraid of.

IN fact, since the likelihood of the huge monkey flying out of your butt problem, I suggest you spend all your earthly money protecting against your monkey problem- in fact, I think we should spend, oh, at least 1.6 Trillion dollars, invade all countries with monkeys so we can pre-emptively stop the monkeys from flying out of your butt.

It only sounds as ridiculous as the fear you exhibit for a stinger missle in your airplane, or YOU dying from a terrorist attack by Al-Quaida.

Just to pipe in and answer my own question, there are a few things that most people on this thread have been overlooking. One is the ever-present threat of weapons of mass destruction being used in a terrorist attack. And even in the absence of such weapons, there are also low-tech ways of killing large numbers of people. The 1993 WTC attack, if it had succeeded (which it almost did), would almost certainly have produced a death toll in the hundreds of thousands. Both that and 9/11 have shown that where there's a will, there's a way of getting a big bang for their buck, especially for people who obsess night and day over ways of killing large numbers of people.

But even short of that, there's still something more fundamental being overlooked. There's more to this issue than just one's own personal chances of being killed in a terrorist attack. The article gets it math right when saying that even a 9/11 death toll every 3 months would still result in a miniscule chance of any particular person getting killed. But it fails to look at the big picture. Every successful terrorist attack is a propaganda victory for the terrorists. That translates in real terms to more enthusiasm, more recruitment, more support, and more terrorism, till it snowballs to a level that can get very much out of control. Remember that we're dealing with people who very much intend to bring down our civilization, operating in a culture that's not entirely unsympathetic to that view. The more it appears to that culture that the jihadists are in the ascendancy, the more that culture will respond positively to them.

I don't post often. Four years of reading people go back and forth over whos the idiot in our government, surge working/not working, blah blah blah has made me avoid coming here as often as I used to.

But here is my take on the question. Terrorism is just as dangerous as you allow it to become. We ignore it at our peril. On 9/11/2001, we saw without any shadow of a doubt just how seriously terrorists want us dead. Us. That means you and me folks.

Does anyone here think that if Al Queda had nukes instead of airplanes on 9/11 that they wouldn't have used them? Even if you are CERTAIN they wouldn't have, are you really willing to take that chance...no matter how small?

Here's a wake up call. On 9/11/2001, we got lucky. Lucky the buildings didn't collapse immediately. Then instead of 3,000 dead we would be talking about 40,000 dead in NYC. Lucky it wasn't a dirty bomb or we would be talking about 100,000 dead or injured. Lucky it wasn't a nuclear device or we would be talking about untold thousands dead or injured and an american city gone forever...our way of life REALLY changed forever. But I guess we can worry bout that when it happens right? No use getting all worked up over this whole terrorism thing. After all, only 3000 people died that day. Right?

I get it now. Bush caused this. The neocons are trying to scare you. Don't live in fear. Its all a big propaganda war to keep me in line.

Blah blah blah....

Carry on.

By itself I don't think al qaeda is all that great a threat. Short of getting their hands on some NBC type weaponry, I can't really see what they can do that can be classed as 'bigger than 9/11'. I suppose blowing up the UN or the white House might qualify, but thats not going to happen easily.

I suggest however that the question falls short of the mark. Its like asking would rock n roll die with the Beatles? Islamic aggression is not confined to al qaeda who are, at best nothing but a criminal organisation. Other groups like Hamas, Hizb'Allah and the Muslim Brotherhood pose a far more serious threat for these groups are all ideologically interchangable and tolerated in polite society.

Al qaeda is merely one means to an end, amongst many others all seeking the same goal; jihad against the intolerable global domination of the kuffar. To this end, they use any and all means at their disposal and al qaeda is merely one such tactic.

Good points but unfortunately we do not hear the wakeup call clearly it seems. We have know for years that AQ would love to take down a few airliners with Stingers – which they almost got their hands on. The deaths would have been nothing compared to the 100s of billions in damage to the economy – and AQ knows that this is where it really hurts. The technology to protect airlines from Stingers is there but Congress is yet to spend the $$$ - waiting for a plane to get hit I guess.

Add that to the NBC threats and you get the picture. A couple of years ago I read a study done by the City of San Francisco in 1999 (odd) on the impact of an anthrax attack on the downtown area – with only a tiny fraction (few liters) of what went missing in Iraq. The conclusion of the study was that IF it was discovered immediately and IF they could stop a panic exit by people and IF they could treat all those effected quickly we would only lose 110,000 people. And the Ifs had to fall just right or the numbers would be double or triple the 110K dead.

So I agree – the worst could be yet to come if we slip and a major “plot” like the Stinger one gets past us.

Do you agree with the overall assessment in this Foreign Affairs article? How serious a threat is al-Qa'ida and/or other Islamic terrorist groups to our own national security?

By and large I agree with the article. I think that it would be mortally naive to think that AQ is not a threat to this country or its interests overseas. But we should be vigilant in terms of security no matter who the threat is. It doesn't matter if AQ or the Judean Peoples Front [or the People's Front of Judea] get a hold of stinger missiles, or radiological material for a dirty bomb, if that happens then a problem exists.

However, in the latest chapter of "the need for a boogeyman", Al Qeada seems to fit the bill nicely. The mention of AQ ruffles the petticoats of housewives in Iowa and gives politicians the needed ammunition to pass ever encroaching legislation on the American people. Our founding politicians cited "Give me Liberty or Give me Death".........you'd think our current crop had never heard that phrase. Instead of protecting the constitution, as stated in their oath, they feel the need to protect citizens from being scared.

Terrorism, from AQ and others exists, but we have let an inordinate fear imprison us from the liberties that we claim makes us strong.

I agree with the balance you strike here DTOM- AQ deserves close scrutiny, a fair amount of LEO resources and intelligence agencies should have nice fat budgets to monitor and act against AQ wherever they may pose a serious threat, and we should spend as much resources as neccesary to infiltrate and disrupt them, and plant as much disinformation and sow seeds of discord where possible.

That would be the appropriate response.

An inappropriate response would be what we have seen by many in this country. The hysteria is pretty crazy. "WE HAVE TO TORTURE, RAPE KILL AND ALLOW THE GOVERMENT TO TAKE AWAY OUR LIBERTIES- THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN" crap we are seeing from some in our society, though, of course, I think it is much better now, poeple are starting to be rightly cynical and jaded, with the colored alerts and all

OH my, what color shoes should I wear with an orange alert

QUICK BUY DUCT TAPE

McVeigh would have used nukes if he had them as well--so do we outlaw overzealous republicans, round them up and put them in camps?
Yes we got lucky, but even still I am not about to live in fear of anyone with brown skin or that an attack might happen. i will not sacrifice one ounce of freedom nor will i ever allow my government to decide what freedoms i deserve to have.
Iraq is now and always was a STUPID idea and has only made us more vulnerable by increasing the amount of terrorists with practical experience.

Stingers, Anthrax and on and on and on--brought to you by --Our defense complex because they can make money selling them.

Do we stop all research and the making of weapons, medical and biological research?

Cause the technology will only increase and get easier to use and make and acquire.

Chances of any of it falling into the wrong hands grows as well as we gain more and more enemies worldwide due to crappy foreign policy and economic side effects of everyday business offending someone just waiting to be offended.

How do you counter any of THAT Wraith, invade more countries or overthrow leaders we don't agree with? We got Iran as an enemy because we aided an overthrow there once. and we got Saddam because of what we then did to try and take them down without doing it ourselves, cause we didn't want to get our hands dirty cleaning up our own mess or having to take the blame.

I will be willing to negotiate on responses the day this country doesn't whore itself out to the people currently funding the terrorists because of oil, instead of waltzing through the gardens holding hands with them OR a presidental candidate whose security business isn't founded with persons known to have aided the 9/11 masterminds.
Find an alt energy source by any means that will bring it (huge cash incentives, tax breaks, Xprizes, an Apollo type research push But we wouldn't want to chance using government sponsored research to get national security would we-- that might sound too socialist! )just so we can crush those who would use their oil profits to fund the alquaida types by cutting them off from our cash and give us back our power over ourselves. Crack whores have more pride.

hell how about supporting the TROOPS and cut off oil business in the middle east completely and just pay the higher prices, pull our troops out of the ME and let them eat their own selves alive. Tell Israel we'll support any action they deem necessary if they are attacked and finally draw a damn line in the sand on who is and is not a friend.


Worried about the economy? How about preventing businesses from giving bad loans to people they KNOW will default on them the second they have a chance to because they know they will get bailed out so the rest of us are not crushed by the economic damage that would bring. financial wall Street games that profit a few people disgustingly while laying the bill on the backs of people who work for a living.
Stop allowing weak companies to be bailed out time and time again because they are great donors to the GOP. Stop allowing the dollar to be so weakened to pay for the damn Iraq war that our economy becomes unstable.



AQ just doesn't have what it takes.




The only way that would ever happen is because of people who have such a lack of faith in what we are. The weak will always be easy targets for overthrow. You know who you are.
AQ just doesn't have what it takes.
Western Civilization and this country will only fall if we do ourselves in, or certain personality types point the gun at our own heads and pull the trigger in fear of everything that MIGHT happen.


Yeah yeah I just don't GET it! I need to live in fear. I need to fall in line in line.

Blah blah blah....

I'm sick of weak people.


edited to remove the Really offensive parts.

Against my better judgment, I'll respond to your post Christopher. (this is why I rarely post here by the way)

As I recall, the thread was about how serious a threat Al Queda is.

I'll keep this very simple.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:



My response was to say any organization that only 6 years ago attempted to murder upwards of 50,000 of our citizens in one day has met the definition described above. Feel free to dispute this all you want. Feel free to call me a Bushite if you will. Rail on about our foreign policy decisions or anthrax or any other damn thing you feel the need.

In the meantime, I'll stick by my simple yet truthful statement of fact. Al Queda is an organization that meets the definition of a serious threat to this country. Whether you agree with that or not doesn't change the fact that they still want you dead just as much as they ever did.


<Not edited to remove anything. I think things through before posting.>

Perhaps unsuprisingly, I'm more or less with moif on this one.

al Qaeda (damn that Arabic transliteration! Does anyone spell these things the same way?) is a threat, but not the only one. I'd say that fundamentalist extremism is the big threat. Not only because it includes all the flavours of Islamic extremism that can only ever - at best - be "linked to" al Quaeda. If security services try to get to the core of a-Q so they can eliminate it, the risk is that the peripheral groups will splinter off into myriad pieces. And - let's face it - most of the terrorism directed at Western targets in the last six years has been carried out not by "al Qaeda" but by ideological fellow travellers whose closest links to AQ are in their web history files or (just maybe) in a Swiss bank account. So, too close a focus on AQ will miss too many linked threats, because most of the links are very tenuous.

And, by happenstance, this definition of the threat would also include the kind of political extremism typified by McVeigh and every other terrorist that ever set a fuse or pulled a trigger, so we wouldn't miss anything.

That said, the whole POINT of terrorism is to use the enemy's fear against the enemy (in this case, us). The raft of "wartime" laws that limit our liberties (more here in the UK than in the USA, but they're still there) are doing their job far more effectively than they ever could themselves.

I don't think that Christopher is saying "they are NOT a serious threat to our country"- in fact, I don't think anyone really beleves that- I think what all are saying here is this- Al-Queada is not as big of a threat as we are to ourselves through kneejerk reactions to fear.

Like I said- Duct tape anyone?

Ringwraith- is it a big enough threat that you think we should wad up the constitution, forget about personal freedoms, and hunker down in our houses in fear kind of serious threat?

That's why my question asked about al-Qa'ida "and/or other Islamic terrorist groups". But other than that, I agree with everything you posted here. Particularly worthy of attention is the "tolerated in polite society" part. Members on this thread have likened these groups to some beer-guzzling rube in a trailer not liking the government or something, but there's far more to it than that when the entire culture in which they operate more or less goes along with their views. All it takes to capitalize on that are a few more successful high-profile attacks on us, and we'll wish we had nipped this thing in the bud.



Regardless of whether or not they'd actually succeed in bringing down our civilization, we're still looking at the deaths of very large numbers of people should this process start to snowball as I've described. And the ingredients are all there.

The real question is- which has done more harm to our society- Al-Qaeda, or the reaction to Al-Queada- it is without a doubt the reaction to Al-Queada- Al-Quaeda can't pass laws, can't restrict personal liberties, can't declare war on a country that had no Al-Quaeda threat, Al-Queada can't spend money for Americans, and on and on.

the hysteria over Al-Quaeda is a much bigger threat than the org itself. Any org that is built on killing Americans should be watched, and taken out if possible- but not at the expense of everything we stand for.

Still- Al-quaeda is a much smaller threat than drunk driving, poverty and lack of health care to 99.9999999% of Americans.

The issue is not if they are a threat- but how much attention we give to that threat.

If we spend 1.6 Trillion dollars on actual security for our country, instead of attacking a nation that has no affiliation to Al-Queada until we invaded- then we prioritized horribly.

No, the "real question" is the question I asked: how much of a threat to us are AQ and other Islamic terrorist groups. You don't get to decide what the question is, unless you want to start your own thread.

Feel free to rebut any of the actual answers to the question that have been posted. If you can't (which is starting to become apparent), that fact will speak for itself also.

Oh spare me. That's debate after all. my response to yours -- and a few others Wraith, not just you.
Obviously terrorists are a threat. So are drug gangs created by the prohibition thats gives massive financial boosts to a product artificially and creates the atmosphere where scum like those are willing to kill and destroy to make a profit.

So are people who think democracy is a weapon meant to force others to submit to their will and live against their personal beliefs because one mob is larger than the other.

So are drunks driving down the road every day.

That's life.
The cost for being who we are and having what we have is that someday you might end up dead for it. Either on a battlefield or in a terrorist attack. You just don't sacrifice everything you have or even chip away at it in the name of 'security' that is impossible to achieve.

All our armed forces in Iraq or Afganistan are not going to prevent a terrorist attack here at home. The means of making such an attack are countless and all it takes is some sicko genius to come up with en even more horrifying method no one ever saw coming or even thought could happen.

I am not going to live in a locked down state where I have no freedom and others think they can invade my privacy at will or take my freedoms away for what amounts to security theatrics.

and guess what Wraith, I take it seriously enough that i do indeed get very passionate and angry about it. I will respond loudly and at length when the need arises because I am not going down quietly. I am going to fight the attitude that we need to just be quiet and behave and do as we're told "for our own good" because i will never be guilty of quietly watching what I love be smothered by fear.

The fact is- it is not as big of a terror as you want to make it- it is another one of those badly asked questions- it really doesn't give much room for "lessor threat, greater threat"-

yes, they are a threat- anyone can see that- but it is also recognized that it is NOT a monolithic organization, that has some central command that plans and carries out attacks- so you are dealing with more of an idea than an organization- and I think the hysteria of the right over this leads a large portion of our population to think this, making them the "boogeyman"- there are far greater threats to our society- and the largest threat is ourselves, NOT Al-Quaeda. I would rate the threat to our society and our safety from Al-Quaeda mcu, much lower than the very high risk that is the neo-con right wing.

How much of a threat"- a threat to be sure, but no where near as great as a threat as right wing elements in our own country, as, I pointed out, Al-Quaeda doesn't have the military power to do anything other than isolated attacks, nothing on the scale needed to really threaten us militarily.

They do have the power to force us into a kneejerk reaction to wad up the consitution and wipe our collective butts with it though. This is where the REAL threat to America comes from- the enemy within- known as the Neo-con arm of the republican party.

There is no greater threat than the republican party to our nation at this time- Al-Quaeda is not even a close second, or even in the top ten, compared to what they have done to our country. But, this also seems to be a self correcting problem, as I think the neo-con elements in the republican party are going to lose thier colllective butts on this issue, next election, as well they should. Once the republican party recovers from the neo-con rule, and kicks those elements out, we will probably see some sanity injected back into the threat that is AQ

Al-Quaeda can only do a strike here or there, and quite frankly, if they had better planning, I think they already could have done much more damage, hell, in OBLs position, I already would have- it is obvious- we have commited our forces overseas, and ignored the soft underbelly of the southern borders. If Al-Quaeda had the wherewithall to harm the US on our soil- it is painfully obvious where it could come from- a porous southern border, and would have already happened.

So, the simple fact that they HAVE NOT attacked, in another low-tech scheme like last time, to me exhibits that 9/11 was bad, but it was also a one shot deal.

OBL said as much, if you recall, when making fun of the guys that died on those airliners- how he didn't think it would really work, when he was hosting that paralyzed Saudi in Afghanistan- do you recall that vid? If not, I will dig it up on my home computer.

But the question is - is it a serious threat? Sure, and so is being struck by lightening, and getting hit by a meteor- both statistically a much more likely scenario than the average US citizen being harmed by Al-Queada.

Yeah, and? What we're dealing with is a culture that's all but primed for all out war against the West. All they need is something to satisfy them that the West is vulnerable, and we'll have a much bigger problem on our hands.


For one thing, it was something close to a two-shot deal. The 1993 attack failed only because of dumb luck. If that van had simply been better-positioned, it would have made 9/11 look like what the '93 attack turned out to be.

But it doesn't seem to occur to you that maybe the lack of further attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11 might have had something to do with better intelligence, disruption of financial networks, military operations against their headquarters and training grounds, and successful cooperation with governments in Sa'udi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

Actually, I think it is alot more likely that monkeys will start flying out of your butt than you getting attacked by Al-Quaeda, before or after 9/11.

Seriously- once again, the fear mongering that is going on here, it is about that level of thinking. "OMG"- Blackstone has a HUGE safety issue with Monkeys flying out of his butt, lets protect ourselves against it now, and, in fact, we should invade all countries with monkeys, so Blackstones fear of monkeys flying out of his butt can be allayed.

It is about the same level of hysteria and rational thinking.

And, during this time, a zoo worker in the Alaskan zoo was bitten by an Aligator- so we immediately invaded florida- to make sure there were no more aligator attacks in alaska- too bad the aligator was imported from Texas. And now, we have instituted house to house searches for Aligators in Alaska- and have not really paid attention to the aligator attacks in the Zoo- but, since we sent that Alligator into hidiing- there have been no further Alligator attacks on alaskans.

Of course, the fact that Alligators can't survive an Alaskan winter in the wild has nothing to do with the fact that we have not heard of another Alligator attack, right?

And here we're finally left with the classic modern liberal retort: "You're fearmongering, you're fearmongering!", accompanied by a bunch of incoherent blathering. Easier than coming up with a rebuttal, I suppose.

Anyway, let the record show that my last post was the last one on this thread so far to make an actual argument of any kind.

Ever occur to you we were not exactly running for our lives here in the US before 9/11. The last successful terror attack was homegrown and the result of a rightwing nutjob gone off the deep end because he had problems with the "GuhvMint". The result of the coddling of the militia wackos that were having their heyday (the darlings of talk radio at the time).

Has it occured to you that perhaps we have not faced another attack is simply because its not an easy thing to actually do?
How long did it take for the plan for 9/11 to actually reach its conclusion? Pakistan is always on the verge of going south and as for the Saudis............. I just get get a feeling of safety from relying on them in any fashion. (after all the seven steps of terrorism all lead right to Saudi, just pick a name and it ties right to them)

NOt really- have you ever read your own posts? Oh yes, I remember the "my logic is supreme, I don't need facts" thread too far back

Yes Blackstone- you and your type ARE fearmongering, because of the hysteria and outright fear you seem to have of Al-Quaeda- when, really, you have a much greater chance of a car accident, killed in a robbery gone bad, hit by lightening OR meteor-

seriously- when your odds of all those happening are so much greater than a terrorist attack on US soil OR your person- what else is there? Occam's razor applies here- in an oblique manner- "the simplest explanation is probably the right explanation"

When the odds are much greater of harm coming from many other places- yet, you spend trillions in a country that had nothing to do with Al-Quaeda, and you have "duct tape alerts" with nice color schemes to go with todays evening wear- you are fearmongering.

It is precisely what you are doing Blackstone- fearmongering.

Let's go over the odds of your fearmongering terroristic attacks- here is some math to consider:

http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc530.html

Using the odds of dying a terrorist related attack during your lifetime as noted below from the CDC, let's compare them to the odds of dying from a long list of real, everyday dangers.

1 in 88,000 of a terrorist attack
1 in 1,500,00 of a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster assuming one such incident a week and you shop two hours a week
1 in 55,000,000 in a terrorist-caused plane disaster assuming one such incident a month and you fly once a month ( 1 )

1 in 55,928 of death by lightening
1 in 20,605 in your clothes igniting
1 in 10,455 of dying in your bathtub
1 in 10,010 by falling from a ladder or scaffolding
1 in 9,396 due to excessive heat
1 in 8,389 due to excessive cold
1 in 7,972 in a drowning accident
1 in 6,842 in a railway accident.

1 in 197 of dying in a homicide
1 in 299 of dying in an assault from a firearm
1 in 5,330 of dying in an assault by hanging or strangulation
1 in 207,261 in operations of war.

Now, the question that every American must ask themselves is this; am I willing to give up my Constitutional freedoms in hopes of avoiding death by lightening, which is 983 times more likely than dying because a terrorists crashes an airplane? Are you willing to live in a Republican/Nazi police state in hopes that you don't die from your clothes catching fire (2669 times more likely) or falling in your bathtub (5261 times more likely)? Are you seriously asking this regime to protect you from being strangled or hanged when the odds of that happening is 10318 times more probable than dying in a terrorist-caused attack? Are you, at your very core, comfortable with the idea of leaving to your children a world in which Republicans/Nazis/fascists control all American's everyday life?

The evidence is quite clear Blackstone you ARE fearmongering. IF the shoe fits, wear it.


But wait, there is more EVIDENCE AND FACT:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36765.html

Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300. (300,000,000 ÷ 3,000 = 100,000 ÷ 78 years = 1282) In other words, your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered.
So do these numbers comfort you? If not, that's a problem. Already, security measures—pervasive ID checkpoints, metal detectors, and phalanxes of security guards—increasingly clot the pathways of our public lives. It's easy to overreact when an atrocity takes place—to heed those who promise safety if only we will give the authorities the "tools" they want by surrendering to them some of our liberty. As President Franklin Roosevelt in his first inaugural speech said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself— nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
However, with risks this low there is no reason for us not to continue to live our lives as though terrorism doesn't matter—because it doesn't really matter. We ultimately vanquish terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized.

That's just question-begging. You still haven't gotten into why it's not such an easy thing to do. Answering that would involve looking beyond your own preconceived notions about the way the world works.


So the fact that you personally feel uncomfortable with both governments qualifies as proof that none of their actions in the past few years in cooperation with us has worked against the terrorists in any way?



Then this should be a real easy task for you: find a single statement of mine on this thread that you insist is irrational fearmongering. Don't just give me your own wild imagination of what you believe "my type" is all about or some such nonsense. Just quote me from this discussion.

Regardless of whether or not they'd actually succeed in bringing down our civilization, we're still looking at the deaths of very large numbers of people should this process start to snowball as I've described. And the ingredients are all there.

In other words- fearmongering.

We are NOT looking for very large numbers- as MY numbers have shown- even if we HAD an attack on the scale of 9/11 every year since 9/11.


You are engaging in "what ifs" that is straight up fearmongering Blackstone.

There is far more threat from a Meteor- but we have a rational plan for this- scientists are studying the problem, offering sane solutions and conclusions, resources ARE being expended, as they should against a very real threat of a meteor strike.

Once again- a much more likely thing to happen to the US- meteor strike vs strike by Al-quaeda.

Our problems with meteors has had a measured response based on the very real threat. Our threat from Al-Queada is much smalller of a threat, and has no measured response- due to fearmongering.

If we did have such an attack every year since '01, the total still wouldn't have come close to the death toll in '93 if the van with the packed explosives had simply been parked in a more effective location. The point is, they have a way of getting a lot of bang for their buck. And you still haven't addressed the point that successful terrorist attacks will have a way of leading to more support for the terrorists, and hence more terrorism.

Okay- I will answer it this way-/ fearmongering, over reaction and the erosion of the values of freedom upon the alter of a false sense of security has done far more harm than the terrorists could have done on thier own- in fact, your reaction is precisely the one OBL wanted- he succeeded in making chicken littles have a voice far beyond need.

the biggest supporters of terrorism are the fearmongers, those that sit around "what iffing" scenarios that have less likelihood of happening than the monkey flying out of your butt scenario- quite literrally in fact.

The biggest supporter of OBL ARE NOT muslim extremists- it is over-reactionary extremists in our own country. As long as we have folks cowering and over-reacting, and reacting badly, making horrible choices such as the invasion of Iraq, where we have created a breeding ground for Al-Quaeda, NOT stamping it out, but actualy providing Al-Quaeda with new troops.

So your fear mongering plays quite well into Al-Quaeda hands, thanks Blackstone- why do you hate America so much?

The attack was more succesful in creating an atmosphere of terror than it was in actual lives lost Blackstone. And you seem to be a big supporter of those types of folks.

To date- GW and co have sacrificed more lives than OBL has killed. GW and co have been more succesful in oppressing US citizens and tearing up the constitution than OBL could have ever even dreamed of.

Coming up with a rebuttal turned out to be just too hard after all, didn't it? So it's back to the wild, rambling, incoherent nonsense and character assaults. So typical of fringe leftists.

I was very clear and concise. Overstating the threat is worse than the threat. How clear can that be?

the succesful attack on 9/11 had less "emboldening" than our actions afterward- that part is clear enough too.

What part of irrational fearmongering do you not understand?

What was missing is where you made the case that I overstated the threat. That's where you started rambling.

You were starting to make progress a couple of posts ago when you actually quoted me, but then discombobulated again after I directly answered your point.

And I showed your fearmongering by engaging in "what ifs" of major loss of life that was less likely to happen than meteor strikes.

what could be more clear than that?

by engaging in pointless "what ifs" you are engaging in fear mongering, that is EXACTLY the aim of the terrorists- quite literally- you are engaging in a hysteria that makes irrational fear of terrorists- and illogically creates terror- in other words, you are playing right into thier hands.

That is not to say that there should be NO response to Al-Queada= but not the over reaction we have seen.

Yep, pretty clear there- just not what you wanted to hear.

Once again- don't you remember the duct tape comments by the administration? And you don't think that plays right into the hands of terrorists, seeking to you know, create terror?

Terrorists CAN'T harm us militarily, except to trick our leaders into over-reacting and making the problem worse- which is EXACTLY what they did.

the success in 9/11 was not the 3000 dead, the success is in the irrational hysteria and knee-jerk mistakes that were made after 9/11.

What is the military objective of 9/11- to create terror. If we adress that threat on a rational level, instead of the knee-jerk "buy duct tape now" hysteria we have seen- and we see a boogeyman in every country, and a terrorist on every airplane- they have succeeeded.

I addressed your numbers in my reply to your post (#35). Your only response has been to repeat the same strawman talking points over and over again, without addressing a single thing I said in that post. That's what's known as a "lack of rebuttal".

"IF we did have such an attack"- just as likely and plausible as "If monkey's flew out of blackstone's butt" - it didn't happen in 93, and, perhaps, unless I am mistaken, monkey's haven't taken wing yet?

Yes, they have a great way of making more bang for the buck- basically- they have you on thier side, doing exactly what they had hoped to do all along- cause irrational fear out of proportion to the threat.

the threat is serious, somewhere north of your monkey problem, and um, south of a meteor strike.

I will try to explain it to you this way - there very well may never be another terrorist strike on US soil. There WILL be a meteor strike, somewhere in the future- it will happen again, no doubt at all. One is certain, perhaps far in the future, the other, there is no certainty whatsoever. There are some ifs or maybes, but no certainty.

And since Blackstone has more than 1 in 1.5 million chance of being killed in a plane by a hijacker- even if NO security precautions had changed post 9/11- then Blackstone's chances of dying by being struck by lightening is far more serious.

Tell me Blackstone, is it worth getting rid of our civil liberties, wadding up our constitution and throwing it away- to protect blackstone from a lightening strike?

A lightening strike is indeed a serious threat to US citizens, far more so than a terroristic attack. Is that simplistic enough of an answer for you?

the "emboldening" you are incorrectly contributing to the attack- NOT the reactions after the attack. THAT is what emboldens someone seeking to create terror. The idea is not really to bring down all our infrastructure, that is a secondary goal- the goal is to TERRORIZE- something they have CLEARLY succeeded in accomplishing with you.

Newsweek: "Later, the WTC's architect would tell jurors that if the van had been left closer to the poured concrete foundations, they would have succeeded. The tower would have fallen."

So I'll give you this one chance to retract that statement and thereby avoid making a complete fool of yourself.


Coming from someone whose posts on this thread and on this entire forum have routinely been shrill and unhinged, that one's pretty funny.

Shrill pretty much describes ANY al-queada posts Blackstone- you should read your plethora of posts where you are doing the keyboard equivilent of running in circles crying "oh watch out, Al-Quaeda will get you"- you can't even seperate them from the Iraq issue, even though they were never there before we arrived in Iraq.

No, I don't retract anything- you are still "guessing" what would happen in 93 "oh, if only the van had been much closer to this, monkey's wouldn't fly out of my butt"- IF didn't happen. Deal with it.

Terrorist attacks, by lone or in a small group of madmen, are impossible to defend against, depending on how much freedom you want to give up.

How much of the constitution are you willing to wipe your butt with Blackstone? How many personal freedoms are you willing to give up for a false sense of security.

Also curious- how much duct tape did you buy?

Blackstone- there is a whole genre' of "what if" books in science fiction- what IF the south had one the civil war, and what "IF" lincoln had lived, what IF the war for independence never happened-

we don't base our policy decisions on "what ifs" in history, I am hoping.

What "IF" the WTC had come down in 93- considering Clinton is about a million times more intelligent and makes FAR better decisions regarding foriegn and domestic policy- chances are, we would have about 30 thousand less casualties, counting both those that survived Iraq and those that died in Iraq- I don't believe Clinton would have wasted the worlds support post 9/11 like GW has done.

How about all those "what ifs" huh Blackstone.

Engage in "what ifs" in sci-fi fantasy time travel whenever you please Blackstone- but it really doesn't have any bearing on how dangerous or what kind of threat Al-Quaeda today.

No, I was quoting from the chief expert on the subject, who was certainly not guessing. Your entire rebuttal is based on very short-sighted wishful thinking.


Hopefully your kids aren't reading this. They could easily use that line on you should you catch them playing with matches or driving drunk, among plenty of other dangerous activities.

Once again- IF they ACTUALLY were to drive drunk or do something bad, then they need some sort of consequence- but I don't spank them now for something that MIGHT happen in 10 years.

You keep "cutting and running"- you are okay with the onslaught of anti-freedom and anti-american legislation like the Patriot act, due to some scare tactics being laid down? You are okay with torture, rape, extra-judicial killings etc all in the name of "security"

I don't think Al-Quaeda is serious enough for us to sacrifice our civil liberties, sure, lets keep an eye on them, and beat them to the punch where we can- but the knee jerk reaction based on "what ifs" that never happened- that is engaging in fearmongering, no different than McCarthyism or "internment camps" and the massive erosion of civil liberties under this administration, and the lack of outcry over it by terrorized feeble minded Americans.

Have we become such a nation of cowards that it is okay to wipe our butts with the constitution because of one attack?

Seriously- you can't see that this is playing right into terrorist planners hands? Hello- how much real damage do you think they can do to us, on a large scale? You believe that they have nukes and sophisticated delivery systems needed for a chemical attack? If you do, you should probably get off this internet thingy- the terrorists are probably out to get blackstone, and you better duct tape up those windows?

Got news for you- the key to terrorist victory is for the nation to behave just as we have been doing- by being terrorized into bad behaviors of our own.

Terrorists, again, are called that because they force a goverment into oppressing even thier own citizens. The more they can radicalize us into start copying terroristic behavior, they have won the war.

Do you not see the ridiculousness in the gay-ly colored "alerts" and calls for duct tape? Or is that too much like a "rant" to you-

Yep, Al-Quaeda is a threat. Life is all about threat management. Ride a motorcycle, thier is some risk management there- jump out of airplanes, go skiing, drive your car to work. All of these are "serious risks".

And your "expert" is engaging in guessing what would happen differently in the past if a van had been parked 12 ft in another direction or whatever- who cares, once again, they didn't even try that method again, now did they?

There are lots of "serious threats" in this world. How much "risk management" you want the goverment to perform for you Blackstone? Do you want it by percentage of risk to your person, or by what scares Blackstone the most?

The hysteria we have vs the risk they pose is pure cowardice and ignorance. Maybe more Americans ought to go sky diving or get a tough job in the military, and grow a collective pair, instead of being crying ninnies buying duct tape and listening for orange alerts.

One would hope, but given the logic you're showing in this debate, it's as if you wouldn't give them any consequences unless there were actual harmful consequences resulting from their actions. Otherwise, they could use the same words on you that you've used on me: "Hey, since nothing bad resulted from our playing with matches, the chances of it happening are equivalent to the chances of monkey's flying out of your butt, Dad." Wonder how well that would go over.

It's the same thing with the '93 WTC attack. I gave you objective evidence showing that it was nothing but dumb luck that prevented a much bigger tragedy than even 9/11, just as it's nothing but dumb luck when some kid gets sloshed and gets behind the wheel and actually manages to make it back home safely. No difference between the two situations at all.


Totally off-topic question. This debate isn't about what to do about the problem.

Al Qaida is a serious threat to people easily affected by fear. Other than that, not so much. America isn't an Arab nation - a place where Al Qaida can assimilate and be protected by religious fanatics - America is a place where brothers turn in brothers for doing wrong.

The reaction to 9/11 killed more people than died on 9/11. How many people got killed in car accidents because they were afraid to fly? How many innocents have died in Iraq because of a foreign policy created with 9/11 as a foundation?

It's been 6 years since 9/11. In February 2003, FBI head Robert Mueller proclaimed:



How many true Al Qaida sleeper cells have been discovered since 9/11? Zero. What is the chances that Al Qaida would use airplanes to try to inflict damage on us again? Zero.

How about all the "predictions" that never happened? How many died from the terrorism expected with the Athens Olympics? How many died from the terrorism expected with the 2004 democratic convention? The republican convention? How did terrorism affect the 2004 election? All these examples are predictions - not "what -if" scenarios.

If terrorism is so easy, why aren't terrorists sniping at our shopping malls and football games? Collapsing tunnels? Destroying our electrical service? Poisoning our food? Do you people so afraid of Al Qaida have any idea how many ways terrorists could affect us if they could that don't involve explosives?

Nobody - and I mean nobody - would give terrorists WMD. No leader is that foolish. Contrary to the fear mongering perpetually used by the Bush administration supporters, terrorists are not trustworthy enough to be handed the power to destroy the supplier's own country no matter what weaponry is used.

The bottom line is, Al Qaida or any other terrorist cell could not survive here. They cannot blend, cannot be supplied weaponry without a conspiracy too large to manage, and could not survive. If Arabs took their fight to our shores, America would be uninhabitable to them. So, from a simple military strategy standpoint, it would be foolish for Al Qaida to fight us here or inflict significant damage (if they could). They have more to gain by making symbolic attacks and drawing us into their backyards to fight.

The sarin attack in Japan killed 13 people. 2 were killed by the chemical, 11 by the stampede. The attack in '93 on the WTC center did not work. Maybe it could have, but like the sarin attack, it didn't. If you are using hypotheticals to justify your fear, there are many, many more areas of plausible threats to be afraid of. And none of them require Al Qaida.

Do you agree with the overall assessment in this Foreign Affairs article? How serious a threat is al-Qa'ida and/or other Islamic terrorist groups to our own national security?


We have had a little over six years to mull this over. Having seen the ineptness of Republican-run government, I have my doubts that we've been protected so much as we've been told we're being protected. Since that's all classified information, there's no way to really know. So I have to go by circumstantial evidence.

I got a laugh out of DR's 2003 quote. Yep, those unknown terrorist cells are all over the place, just you wait and see.

We've waited. Haven't seen much of anything, and you'd think the terrorist cells that were discovered would have been all over the media. Some were, but then they proved to be not so terrifying after all.

I agree with most of the article cited, and I'm not afraid of terrorists. Getting around during a snowstorm, now that's scary as all get out.

Just because a bunch of very strange people wants to destroy Western civilization doesn't mean much either. Shoot, far Eastern civilization is turning quickly into Western civilization -- China wants to build its middle class. Meanwhile, those very strange people keep blowing themselves up. That's bad for reproduction, training, living to fight again or basically anything at all about life. Seems obvious to me how that endgame will turn out.

AM- I feel the real threat is in thier burgeoning population, the population boom makes a great deal of this self-sustaining-

Look at this:

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0223.htm

Average number of children per woman (total fertility rate)
in the Middle East and North Africa, 1990: (Source: Population
Reference Bureau)

Morocco - 4.8 Egypt - 4.7 Saudi Arabia - 7.2
Algeria - 6.1 Sudan - 6.4 Iraq - 7.3
Tunsia - 4.1 Yemen - 7.4 Iran - 6.3
Libya - 5.5 Oman - 7.2 Afghanistan - 7.1
Turkey - 3.6 Cyprus - 2.4 Lebanon - 3.7
Jordan - 5.9 Kuwait - 3.7 Syria - 6.8




Granted- this study was in 1990- 17 years ago- but every news item I have heard indicates these numbers are going UP- something like 20 kids per father!

IT is a cycle of despair and poverty- what rich person can even maintain a decent lifestyle with that number of kids and wives?