> 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. 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.
> 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, and are struggling for power in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (among other places). I don't think it's irrational to face facts. Yes, we should resist overstatement and hyperbole, and not allow this theocratic gang to be the excuse Bush uses to clamp down on liberties. But as I said before, this is a complicated argument, and one cannot rely on knee-jerk left rhetoric to explain it all away.
DP