How big a threat is radical Islam to civilization?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

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."

You're all over the place here. The question was whether or not we were at greater risk from terrorism or some other threat to our freedom, long term. You say that a threat is Al Qaeda and that we ahve been effective in preventing another attack. Cali says the time gap means nothing, which you sort of concede by saying it's likely another attack will be successful, but then you tell us that comparisons of gaps between attacks are meaningless because of the efforts of our law enforcement and our enemies. Huh? So things are differnt now or they're not? Either way it looks like you are agreeing but giving yourself some sort of middle ground that only you really understand. Not to be offensive but I guess I just don't get what point you're trying to make here that is germane to the topic.

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?

The original question did not pit any current or specific policy on civil rights against terrorists, but asked us to compare the current threat of radical islam against any threat, whatever it might be. I agreed with SU (and how do you think THAT made me feel?) that the actual threat was greater, over time, from a gradual degradation of our own commitment to our rights and politcal culture than it is from the current terrorist threat. The patriot act may make an incremental contribution to this process, but that contriubution alone is neither signficiant (as to the ultimate loss of our free society) nor irreversible. SO it looks like we are talking about two difrerent things.

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.

I am not sure why what I said led you to this conclusion. I hope I have disabused you of it by now. My point, perhaps not clearly stated, was the fact that the articluated justification is the same SHOULD give us pause and make us be very certain we are doing the right thing.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Guys like Tex who advocate U.S. resort to genocide in Iraq effectively admit the campaign is a failure.

Interesting you think that, since I said the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by creekster

You're all over the place here. The question was whether or not we were at greater risk from terrorism or some other threat to our freedom, long term. You say that a threat is Al Qaeda and that we ahve been effective in preventing another attack. Cali says the time gap means nothing, which you sort of concede by saying it's likely another attack will be successful, but then you tell us that comparisons of gaps between attacks are meaningless because of the efforts of our law enforcement and our enemies. Huh? So things are differnt now or they're not? Either way it looks like you are agreeing but giving yourself some sort of middle ground that only you really understand. Not to be offensive but I guess I just don't get what point you're trying to make here that is germane to the topic.

I think Cali has succeeded in confusing the issue for both of us. Let's see if I can briefly straighten it out. I think a scorched earth campaign, ala Dresden/Hiroshima, should only be undertaken when all other options are exhausted, deemed predestined to failure, or have prohibitively high cost (in lives, money, whatever). The fact that we have NOT been attacked (in other words, through hefty efforts of alert intelligence, military, and law enforcement, stopped pending attacks), suggests to me that we still have strong prospects for success sans such a drastic maneuver.

That's all I was saying. Cali took us down this weak does-no-attacks-really-mean-anything tangent which is really superficial to the point ... which once again is (contrary to SeattleUte's disingenuous post) that we should avoid civilian casualties as much as is reasonable.

Originally Posted by creekster

The original question did not pit any current or specific policy on civil rights against terrorists, but asked us to compare the current threat of radical islam against any threat, whatever it might be. I agreed with SU (and how do you think THAT made me feel?) that the actual threat was greater, over time, from a gradual degradation of our own commitment to our rights and politcal culture than it is from the current terrorist threat. The patriot act may make an incremental contribution to this process, but that contriubution alone is neither signficiant (as to the ultimate loss of our free society) nor irreversible. SO it looks like we are talking about two difrerent things.

In that case, give me some examples, outside of Bush and the Patriot Act, that indicate to you that we are on this track of gradual degradation. I'm genuinely interested to know why you think that.

Originally Posted by creekster

I am not sure why what I said led you to this conclusion. I hope I have disabused you of it by now. My point, perhaps not clearly stated, was the fact that the articluated justification is the same SHOULD give us pause and make us be very certain we are doing the right thing.

I get really ticky when people start comparing us to the terrorists. Apologies if I jumped to conclusions.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't disagree that the scorched earth policy would have been a terrible idea (not "probably," however, definitely). I do disagree that the "evidence" you have cited supports that proposition.

You wouldn't accept my "evidence" even if it were notarized by God.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I haven't claimed we are "on the brink of destruction." I have claimed that if we ignore obvious civil rights violations and tolerate their existence, all we are doing is laying the groundwork for something far worse. If your bishop were to ignore the pornographic addiction of a single member, in this hypothetical, and proclaim loudly that the addiction posed no threat to the general church, how long would it be before more people also had the same problem? And yes, this hypothetical is silly, but it seems like terms you would understand.

It seems like to me there's enough historical evidence to support the notion that civil rights will occasionally be violated in wartime more egregiously than in peacetime, but that in the long term freedoms are not appreciably abridged.