> > Al Qaeda & like networks are _indeed_ a threat to
>> the regimes in power & whatever left oppositions that exist in the
>> countries in which they operate; and they will _not_ "go away in due
>> course"; but exactly what degree of threat do they pose, & to whom?
>
>To anyone who they view as in their way -- including you, if it comes to
>that.
Sure, but who actually, not theoretically, is in their way? Should those in (A) Norway, Sweden, Bolivia, Peru, Korea, Japan, etc. be, realistically, as worried as those in (B) the Middle East, Central Asia, Muslim-dominated areas of Africa & South Asia, etc? I don't think so. Chances of radical Islamist terrorist attacks in the USA should fall somewhere between those in the region (A) and those in the region (B).
And how high is the likelihood of successful high-profile terrors a la 911? Max seems to think that the war will make the USA safe from such terrors at least for two years. I don't think that the war makes us any safer, but, generally speaking, successful high-profile terrors are _extremely_ difficult to pull off, not because of technical difficulties, but because it is nearly impossible for all directly or indirectly involved to stay disciplined enough for a long period of time to avoid leaks, infiltrations, un-related arrests, etc., in addition to accidental circumstances that tend to throw monkey wrenches into any complicated plans involving more than one person.
I for one am more worried about the shocking medical bill that I just received for my recent ER visit (the problem turned out to be a kidney stone): $2,812.00 (of which $1,758.00 is accounted for by a CT body scan)! Privatized health care is a bigger threat to me & workers in the USA -- especially those of us without health insurance, like yours truly -- than Al Qaeda.
>And how safe would you feel if al-Qaida took control of a nuclear
>state, given their stated views about the West and unbelievers in general?
>The struggle ain't over in Pakistan, to be sure; and as dreadful as the
>Saudi regime is, can you imagine what would happen if a pro-al-Qaida regime
>took its place? I don't think it's an exaggeration at all. That is what they
>want. Now, how do Western lefties respond to this without reaching for their
>Lenin and Marx?
>
> > It doesn't seem to be the case that they are "committed to killing as
> > many Americans and non-Americans as they can."
>
>Go to Ground Zero and make that argument.
It doesn't seem to be the case that those in NY and D.C. are more likely to believe that Al Qaeda, etc. are "committed to killing as many Americans and non-Americans as they can" than those in other locations are. You are in Michigan; Kelley is in Florida. Both of you sound more alarmist than John Mage, Michael Pollak, Carl Remick, & other New Yorkers on LBO-talk.
> > Threats from right-wing networks that are not in power should be
>> rationally discussed, rather than exaggerated; exaggeration will only
>> panic people & make them more inclined to accept the destruction of
>> civil rights & liberties than otherwise.
>
>Well, they were in power in Afghanistan
Are they now? Were they ever?
>and are struggling for power in
>Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (among other places).
How likely are they to come into power? Just how well organized are Al Qaeda? Leaderless resistance may be suitable for sporadic terrors & other tactics of destabilization, but it's not very suitable for taking & holding state power. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>