How big a threat is radical Islam to civilization?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

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

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

Originally Posted by creekster

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

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

Originally Posted by creekster

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

Indeed.

Originally Posted by creekster

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

I am saying no different.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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

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

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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

cf: Chicken Little.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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

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