Is Al Qaeda A Real Threat to the U.S. and Other Countries in the World?

[berni_mccoy]

Simple Yes or No.

Do you believe Al Qaeda poses a real threat to citizens of the U.S. and other countries of the world?

[47of74]

1. Yes

But only if we go into a coma at the switch again like we did in the summer of 01.

[ixion]

2. No more or less than any other extremist group, and they are certainly less of a threat to

world peace than the US government, which is the greatest threat to peace in the world, at this point.

[dhpgetsit]

3. Yes, a threat, but far smaller than the danger posed by other things.

Like poverty, alcoholism, broken health care, bad driving habits... (I could go on all day).

[berni_mccoy]

11. I see what you are saying, but consider this

From what Al Qaeda did on 9/11, they
- Murdered thousands of Americans on U.S. soil
- Caused our government to severely restrict the rights of its own people
- Leveraged the evil of the Bush Administration to commit war crimes of rendition and torture
- Leveraged the evil of the Bush Administration to lie the American people into an illegal war
- Severely damaged our economy and will of the American people.

[bigtree]

14. no, Bush did all of that (outside of the attacks)

You act as if he had no free will.

[berni_mccoy]

15. And he would not have been able to without Al Qaeda.

[Overseas]

22. The Bush Cheeney Gang doing exactly what Al Qaeda wanted

is more of an indication to me of how deluded (or motivated by desire to engage in war profiteering) that the Bush Gang was, not how strong Al Q was.

The Bush Gang's activities strengthened Al Qaeda. The "unfortunate" collateral damage of the Bush Doctrine wars created thousands more terrorists to keep the perpetual war machine going.

I hope the Democratic Majority doesn't make the same mistakes by continuing such reckless warfare, that creates 15 more terrorists for every one that it hits.

I hope the Democratic Majority doesn't sink even more into the Bush Cheeney wars that weakened our country than the 1 trillion already spent.

Whoops.

[berni_mccoy]

24. Al Qaeda was smart to use the Bush Administration

They don't need to be "strong".

And you know how "strong" they are exactly how? Whoops.

[Overseas]

30. They weren't smart. The Bush Gang was dumb or motivated by other goals.

Al Qaeda wasn't smart. Lots of our military and intelligence officials told the Bush Gang that what Al Q wanted was an overreaction by us that would include heavy warfare (with its attendant "collateral damage" -aka killing civilians) and restriction of the civil liberties and rule of law we had relied on to maintain our international reputation. The Bush Gang chose to ignore our experts. They had other goals-- they wanted to attack Iraq, and wouldn't let any foreign policy experts stop them.

And if that band of a few thousand (maybe now tens of thousands, thanks to the Bush Cheeney wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan) is smarter or stronger than the USA, with its TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT on covert and overt military action, haven't we wasted a whole lot of money already?

And if the Hard Military Approach has failed to stop them after several years, just swelling their numbers, enriching multinational war profiteers, and driving Al Q into different territories-- shouldn't we be trying a new approach?

In some ways we are. President Obama has done well in restoring our relationships with other governments around the world. I'm glad to see AG Holder bringing as many Al Q plotters to trial as possible.

I wish President Obama would have also had the courage to withdraw more rapidly from the Bush Gang's wars for profit. But the US Congress didn't impeach the prior administration, even after discovering it drove our nation into a war of choice in Iraq and broke the Geneva Conventions by practicing torture. So I understand that there are powerful interests allied behind the perpetual war machinery. Billions of dollars are at stake.

[NightWatcher]

4. Are extreme religious fundamentalists a threat? yes

...groups or countries who invade or support other groups or countries because of religious beliefs about end of days or what one son of Abraham did to another son of Abraham a brazillion years ago? yes, again.

Al Qaeda (the base, or more aptly "the database") who we supported under the name mujahideen when they served our purpose? not so much.

[slackmaster]

5. Yes, like all forms of religious fanaticism it threatens everyone

:nuke:

[Junkdrawer]

6. Creating Terror by Nafeez Ahmed...

What we call "al Qaeda" was used extensively in the 1990s to advance US geopolitical interests in the former Soviet Union...

http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/23955

[yurbud]

13. even in the Balkans...we call them freedom fighters or terrorists as needed

they do the same job either way.

[Ron Green]

7. Bombs in public places are scarifying, but people around the world have

lived with them (and died from them) for some years now. I don't think there's any way al-Qaeda or any other fringe group could "take over" the U.S. or any industrialized country. They just make it easier for our own corporate criminals to take us over.

[berni_mccoy]

8. They've gone beyond bombs in public places

Remember those jets that crashed into the buildings?

[Ron Green]

12. I think that's not likely to happen again (have you tried to get on an airplane lately?) But

the randomness of a car bomb is so fear-making that Americans will do almost anything to assure themselves it can't happen at their local shopping mall.

[berni_mccoy]

19. And you come by this information exactly how...

Airplanes are the only tactic Al Qaeda has?

AQ is not a bunch of uneducated tribesmen from Afghanistan. They are funded Saudi exiles.

[Ron Green]

21. How do you think they might take over the US?

My point is that, by creating fear of random bombing, they make it easier for right-wing Americans to bring down our open society.

[berni_mccoy]

23. They don't need to "take over". See my response #3 above.

[Ron Green]

25. Precisely. They can only diminsh our society to the extent we allow our own Fascists to do so.

[Greyhound]

27. And do you remember how security people in the airline industry tried

since the 70s to implement a few simple measures that would make all the hijackings and the 9/11 attacks impossible?

Small numbers, or even individual lunatics influenced by (usually) religious delusions are easily dealt with through time tested law enforcement techniques.

Pretending that any of this mass-murder is necessary or even helpful won't make it so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Yes. But, only because or the power we give them by making them into super bogey men.

We're busily supplying recruits and support for them by attacking other countries, killing the people we find there, subverting their governments, or backing corrupt and brutal leaders.

Osama bin-Laden & Co. lured us into an hysterical over-reaction and we fell for it. And, are still falling for it in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The attack on the WTC worked better than his wildest dreams.

The United States is now becoming an empty shell of a broke "super-power" cringing in fear of "terrorists" complete with undemocratic laws, massive, and useless, "defense" spending that doesn't defend us, a submissive congress who keeps funding it, a disillusioned and divided populace, and a resurgent right wing.

By any rational measure, Osama has won a tremendous victory, and we insist on giving him more out of irrational fear.

[yurbud]

10. note that the Blue Dog and DLCers unrec'd this--vote it back up above zero please!

[tammywammy]

16. Yes n/t

[Echo In Light]

17. Not enough to justify the 'retaliatory' charade used by the US to justify aggression

[berni_mccoy]

18. That's not the question. And you have no real information as to what *level* of a threat

they are.

[Echo In Light]

26. Since it's obvious that this phony 'war' was instigated by an equally phony 'attack,'

... that, in my estimation, is sufficient data to base an informed-as-possible opinion on.

[L. Coyote]

20. Compared to what? Compared to military spending? NO. Compared to my friends? YES.

Compared to the US sending troops abroad, NO, ironically.
The cost of global miltarization is a greater threat to US security.

In fact, US troops abroad can be argued to be the reason Al Qaeda is a threat.

[anonymous171]

28. Uh yeah. That's why we need to get out of Afghanistan and actually try to bring them to justice. nt

[berni_mccoy]

29. I don't see how that makes any sense.