When the smoke is over.

[Shira]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union it turned out that it had been a “paper tiger”. They were far less dangerous and sophisticated than we thought. The Soviet Union was in an unbelievable chaos since it’s creation in 1918. The US and the West feared the Soviets and in most cases it was a sincere fear but an unjustified one (post factum).

That’s, in my view what’s going to happen with al-Qaeda etc. We will find that they are less sophisticated and planned than they are being perceived. The Bush’s advisors want the campaign to be on the terror issue. They “love” the terror. They think that a terror threat could create a good election environment.

[opebo]

Islam is much more dangerous than Communism was.

[johngalt1234]

Havent we found that with Iraq....big bad enemy WMD and what not...and what did we find?

Communism...is still the most dangerous thing...and the reason is that its philosophy is so seductive...people fall for it all the time. The philosophy is give all that  you are to the Govt. and they will take care of you. You are hearing that now from the two major political parties....Govt will take care of you...We will provide the jobs...we will provide the defense and what not..and if the polls are any indication people are buying that line all the time. which is why Kerry and Bush are running neck and neck.

Islam as a religion if left alone.. is not a danger as long as we stop being the moral police to the world.

[freedomburns]

Unfortunately Al Qaeda is really scary.  It is a huge, multi-celled global organization.  It is a multi-headed hydra with cells in over 60 countries.  Even if you kill one head, the others are still active.  The movement is growing exponentially because of insensitive American policies.  They are extremely sophisticated and well funded.

We should consider acceding to their demands, which are limited and simple.  

We should consider getting the heck out of the Middle East.  We should stop propping up Israel and stop propping up the al-Saud family in Saudi Arabia.  We should all start riding bicycles and invest in a new Manhattan Project for alternative energy sources.  We should reach out to our allies and adopt a somewhat isolationist foreign policy.  

Islam is not scary.  Al Qaeda is scary.  They are fanatics whose movement is growing exponentially right now.  We are not winning.  We should reach out to Islam to marginalize Al Qaeda and all fanatics.  I’m not saying concede as much as I am saying buy them off and then exclude them from the table of nations.

If we don't do something different, in all seriousness, no fooling, we could be fighing this "war" much longer than we fought the Cold War, and that lasted 40 years.  But this time, much of the fighing could take place here, inside our borders, on the homeland.  I'm serious and I think I know whereof I speak.  Violence usually just breeds more violence, and it escalates.  These guys truly believe in an eye for an eye.  In that case it ain't necessarily who is the biggest cowboy, but who has the most extremist vision.  They could win that pissing contest.  Islam is not our enemy, and that's good because there are more of them.  Bush has done an excellent job of making this clear.

freedomburns

[??????????]

We could make Tehran and Syria look like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[The Duke]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union it turned out that it had been a “paper tiger”. They were far less dangerous and sophisticated than we thought. The Soviet Union was in an unbelievable chaos since it’s creation in 1918. The US and the West feared the Soviets and in most cases it was a sincere fear but an unjustified one (post factum).

That’s, in my view what’s going to happen with al-Qaeda etc. We will find that they are less sophisticated and planned than they are being perceived. The Bush’s advisors want the campaign to be on the terror issue. They “love” the terror. They think that a terror threat could create a good election environment.

Fear of the USSR was not unjustified.  The USSR was an extremely powerful nation for the first 65 years of its history, and only fell apart at the end.

-They defeated the core of the Nazi war machine
-They had one of the world's largest economies
-They were the first country to put a man in space
-They counquered and subjugated half of Europe
-They deployed 25,000 nuclear warheads on thousands of intercontinental missiles

Al Qaeda is also a real threat.  They have been able to destroy or damage:

-The center of US finance
-The center of US military power
-American embassies
-American warships and military bases

Your analysis here is worse than your voodoo predictonomics.

[Defarge]

While I agree that the Bush administration is milking terrorism for all it's worth, that does not change the fact that Al Qaeda is a real and present threat, not a "paper tiger."  We cannot afford to let down our vigilance against the greatest threat of the New World Order.  We cannot allow the current administration to disrupt that vigilance by using terrorism for political gain.

[Gabu]

Regardless of all of the debates surrounding the lead-up and reaction to 9/11, al-Qaida was definitely responsible for it (as well as numerous other terrorist attacks that have occured previously).  If they could pull off a coordinated attack that killed 3000 people in a span of less than a few hours, and given that I personally doubt they're much more incapacitated than they were at that time, I don't really think it's a good idea to write al-Qaida off.  Sophisticated?  Maybe not.  Dangerous?  I would say so.

That said, I don't really think that Bush's tactics to attempt to stop them are helping much.  Bombing innocent people accidentally, even if you do get the intended target, is probably going to create a lot more terrorists than it will kill.

[??????????]

 We cannot afford to let down our vigilance against the greatest threat of the New World Order.

*shiver*

[opebo]

We could make Tehran and Syria look like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

YES!

[12th Doctor]

I disagree with you.  The instability of the Communist Government and the fact that they were less than we thought made them more dangerous, not less.  Instability always causes more problems than stability and a pitting a weak opponents against a strong one will cause this.  Someone who has nothing to lose is far more dangerous than a strong individual.  I fear Islam more when it is desperate (as I believe they are becomeing) than I do when they are strong.  This doesn't mean that we should not push them though, because several small nicks can be just as bad as one final "grad" desperate act.

[Wakie]

Islam is much more dangerous than Communism was.

No, religious extremism is more dangerous than Communism.  Communism was an inherently flawed system doomed to corruption and collapse.  Religious extremism (regardless of what the religion may be) and intolerance of "non-believers" is exceedingly dangerous.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

That’s, in my view what’s going to happen with al-Qaeda etc. We will find that they are less sophisticated and planned than they are being perceived.

I think the thousands of folks who lost loved ones on 9/11/01 would disagree with you there.

[Defarge]

 We cannot afford to let down our vigilance against the greatest threat of the New World Order.

*shiver*

What?

Are you one of the paranoid schizophrenics who believe that the phrase "New World Order" is a sign that freemasons have taken over the world?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

 We cannot afford to let down our vigilance against the greatest threat of the New World Order.

*shiver*

What?

Are you one of the paranoid schizophrenics who believe that the phrase "New World Order" is a sign that freemasons have taken over the world?

"New World Order" is often used synonymously with "One World Government," something that you don't have to be a paranoid schizophrenic to think is a very bad idea.  I don't think StatesRights understood the context in which you were using the phrase (you meant, "Post-Cold War Power Balance").

[opebo]

Islam is much more dangerous than Communism was.

No, religious extremism is more dangerous than Communism.  Communism was an inherently flawed system doomed to corruption and collapse.  Religious extremism (regardless of what the religion may be) and intolerance of "non-believers" is exceedingly dangerous.

I agree completely.  However Islam is the religion that is producing most of these extremists right now.

[Bogart]

It seems to me that the Islamic masses that sympathize and/or participate in radical Islamic movements do so rightly or wrongly because they see these movements as the best chance for a better life. They have bought into the rhetoric that the radical leaders are spewing. I don't think they have an inherent hatred for everything that is Western. Their governments, many of which are our allies, are doing little to nothing to improve their lives.

We should be doing a lot more in terms of economic and humanitarian aid than we are. In Iraq, for instance, the average Iraqi sees only our military presence. They see, rightly, a lack of effort on our part to help them achieve a better life. This means an investment in infrastructure, schools and the like. We need to give them a reason to view us as allies. Otherwise, we just look like hypocrites.

[Gabu]

Islam is much more dangerous than Communism was.

No, religious extremism is more dangerous than Communism.  Communism was an inherently flawed system doomed to corruption and collapse.  Religious extremism (regardless of what the religion may be) and intolerance of "non-believers" is exceedingly dangerous.

I agree completely.  However Islam is the religion that is producing most of these extremists right now.

Not really.  From what I know, the real problem is a sect of Islam known as Wahhabism, the sect that bin Laden and members of al-Qaida follow, that advocates violence and intolerance against non-Muslims.  I've talked to Muslims before and all of them have said that they feel bin Laden brings an immense amount of shame to Islam.

[Shira]

By no means did I claim that al-Qaeda is not dangerous.
Nevertheless what we will  find in the future is that they are far less planned and sophisticated compare to how they are being perceived by us. Their advantage is that we don’t know too much about them. I am sure that if bin-Laden is alive and listens to the news, he is smiling from ear to ear.

[Gabu]

Well, we'll see.  There is a quote in existance that says something like, "The sword is most dangerous when sheathed."  I've long thought that extensive speculation over what might happen is a bad idea, because I can just imagine al-Qaida watching the speculation and taking notes on what they feel might be good ideas.

[??????????]

The problem is we have sat on this issue for far to long. Thirty years is to long to let islamic militants fester.

[opebo]

The problem is we have sat on this issue for far to long. Thirty years is to long to let islamic militants fester.

The problem was created when we allowed the Muslim theocracies to get away with stealing ('nationalizing') OUR oil in the late 1960's and early seventies.  

[??????????]

We should have "liberated" their oil a long long time ago.