Al Qaeda

[ns3]

I was listening to this on Fox News tonight about how several folks in the intelligence services have testified that the threat of Al Qaeda is just as strong if not stronger than it was 10 years ago, despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is a very bad thing, as the commentators noted, that Americans are growing complacent.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01 ... an-decade/

My thought process at the time was to run down a list of things that I think are a far greater threat than Al Qaeda. This is what I came up with, without even thinking too hard about it.....

1. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria

2. Cancer

3. Heart Disease

4. Automobile Accidents

5. U.S. Domestic Violence of all kinds

The list could go on and on.

As Mencken said, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Maybe not imaginary but in comparison to the five threats I listed above, how worthy is this threat of all the resources we are expending?

[RuralEngineer]

It depends on how you classify "threat."  If you mean things likely to kill you or your family then you're mostly right, although no list is complete without auto accident.

If instead by threat you mean likely to consume vast quantities of air time on news stations and provide a pretext for costly and pointless wars, then yes, Al Queda is a grave threat.

Proper definitions are important.  I think most people define threat as "whatever scares me, regardless of the relative danger it poses."  It's why my wife freaks out at anything even resembling a snake, despite living in an area where venomous snakes are nearly unheard of and knowing that deaths from snake bite in the U.S. are so rare as to make the national news when they occur.

[ns3]

Good one about the snakes. The Al-Qaeda threat might be on a par with snake bites at best, statistically speaking.

It's funny how you find Fox News a breath of fresh air after listening to nothing but the liberal news for so many years and then you finally figure out they are just as bad when it comes to conveying the truth.

It depends on how you classify "threat."  If you mean things likely to kill you or your family then you're mostly right, although no list is complete without auto accident.

If instead by threat you mean likely to consume vast quantities of air time on news stations and provide a pretext for costly and pointless wars, then yes, Al Queda is a grave threat.

Proper definitions are important.  I think most people define threat as "whatever scares me, regardless of the relative danger it poses."  It's why my wife freaks out at anything even resembling a snake, despite living in an area where venomous snakes are nearly unheard of and knowing that deaths from snake bite in the U.S. are so rare as to make the national news when they occur.

[dualstow]

several folks in the intelligence services have testified that the threat of Al Qaeda is just as strong if not stronger than it was 10 years ago, despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But we knocked out their #2 guy! ;-)
In other news, Hershey's executives have testified that the threat of not-enough-chocolate is still upon us.
I suppose that the military & intelligence budgets must be vocally justified periodically.

My thought process at the time was to run down a list of things that I think are a far greater threat than Al Qaeda. This is what I came up with, without even thinking too hard about it.....
Maybe not imaginary but in comparison to the five threats I listed above, how worthy is this threat of all the resources we are expending?

Still, I'm a little bit in the Reub camp if I remember accurately Reub's posts from the last time we went down this road. Of course it's a shame that we cannot focus our dollars and our intelligence on earthquakes, cancer and air bags. And imagine how many more inventions would come out of Israel if their entire defense budget went into enlightening tv shows broadcast toward Iranian rooftop dishes. Or even Baywatch.

Sadly, it's probably too late to just sit back, be the nice guy, and hope that Al Qaeda will leave us alone if we leave them alone. It's not just about matching the number of deaths from car crashes vs those from bombings. We accept that there are going to be deaths from car crashes and all we can do is try to put out safer cars and public admonishments not to text and drive. I think both problems will be solved with Google self-driving cars. Until then, accidents are kind of like natural disasters. They happen.

Al Qaeda attacks are different because they're demoralizing. They are demoralizing even in a way that similarly violent attacks are not, if those attacks are perpetrated by a homegrown guy with with a nice W.A.S.P.y name like McVeigh who thinks he's a patriot or a random shooter in a mall who neglected to take his crazy pills.

I agree with what you (OP) are getting at: it's dangerous to divert so many resources to it and to let NSA get away with tampering with our rights. I just don't know what the proper allocation is nor how we can significantly influence the decision-making process.

[WildAboutHarry]

I recall reading a study many years ago that found people feared public speaking more than being murdered.  I suspect the way the survey was conducted greatly influenced the ranking of the various fears, i.e. I'm sure they didn't ask "Would you rather be murdered or speak in public?"

A lot of the items on ns3's list are "background" fears.  Things lurking in the background that are a possibility but that most often happen to the other guy, or that occur very infrequently in one's life.  Most can be minimized with behavior (safe driving), diet (heart disease), etc.  Individuals can take actions to mitigate the risk.

With Al Qaeda-type fears (and I would include the "random shooter in a mall" as one of that type) it is the apparent randomness and lack of effective individual action that make such fears useful politically.

[Libertarian666]

By far the greatest threat to me personally is the group containing those who are offering to help protect me from Al CIAda.

[Reub]

"An unsolved attack on an electrical-power substation in California last year, in which vital transformers were riddled with gunfire and disabled for nearly four weeks, has left some experts worried that a chain of similar attacks could cause crippling damage to the U.S. power grid."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

[Pointedstick]

"An unsolved attack on an electrical-power substation in California last year, in which vital transformers were riddled with gunfire and disabled for nearly four weeks, has left some experts worried that a chain of similar attacks could cause crippling damage to the U.S. power grid."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

I'm wondering how you could possibly protect electrical transformers from gunfire. They could be hit from hundreds of feet away.

A lot of society really depends on the vast majority of its residents not wanting to destroy it. Think about how many opportunities you have, every day, to perpetrate acts of mayhem. Even something as simple as keying everyone's car in the parking lot. It would take you 10 minutes but amount to tens of thousands of dollars of damage for many many people. Why don't you do that? Because you're a decent human being. The fewer people feel that way, the more fragile the society becomes. Because you can't bulletproof everything. Or even key-proof it, for that matter.

[Mountaineer]

"An unsolved attack on an electrical-power substation in California last year, in which vital transformers were riddled with gunfire and disabled for nearly four weeks, has left some experts worried that a chain of similar attacks could cause crippling damage to the U.S. power grid."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

I'm wondering how you could possibly protect electrical transformers from gunfire. They could be hit from hundreds of feet away.

A lot of society really depends on the vast majority of its residents not wanting to destroy it. Think about how many opportunities you have, every day, to perpetrate acts of mayhem. Even something as simple as keying everyone's car in the parking lot. It would take you 10 minutes but amount to tens of thousands of dollars of damage for many many people. Why don't you do that? Because you're a decent human being. The fewer people feel that way, the more fragile the society becomes. Because you can't bulletproof everything. Or even key-proof it, for that matter.

You make an excellent point.  Maybe those "morals" discussions we were/are having are a lot more important than I first thought.  For example, when commonly held religious based morals are replaced by individual morals it seems the path forward may not be pretty.

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

"An unsolved attack on an electrical-power substation in California last year, in which vital transformers were riddled with gunfire and disabled for nearly four weeks, has left some experts worried that a chain of similar attacks could cause crippling damage to the U.S. power grid."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

I'm wondering how you could possibly protect electrical transformers from gunfire. They could be hit from hundreds of feet away.

A lot of society really depends on the vast majority of its residents not wanting to destroy it. Think about how many opportunities you have, every day, to perpetrate acts of mayhem. Even something as simple as keying everyone's car in the parking lot. It would take you 10 minutes but amount to tens of thousands of dollars of damage for many many people. Why don't you do that? Because you're a decent human being. The fewer people feel that way, the more fragile the society becomes. Because you can't bulletproof everything. Or even key-proof it, for that matter.

You make an excellent point.  Maybe those "morals" discussions we were/are having are a lot more important than I first thought.  For example, when commonly held religious based morals are replaced by individual morals it seems the path forward may not be pretty.

... Mountaineer

Yes, religiously based morals are wonderful. Just ask the people who thrived under church rule in the glorious dark ages.

[Kshartle]

Did you guys see the Taliban captured a British dog?

We need to ready the 9th fleet and napalm the entire country. We cannot negotiate with these terrorists.

[Reub]

You mean that they have stopped shooting innocent girls in the face?

[Kshartle]

You mean that they have stopped shooting innocent girls in the face?

Are you talking about the Taliban or US military?

[Mountaineer]

I'm wondering how you could possibly protect electrical transformers from gunfire. They could be hit from hundreds of feet away.

A lot of society really depends on the vast majority of its residents not wanting to destroy it. Think about how many opportunities you have, every day, to perpetrate acts of mayhem. Even something as simple as keying everyone's car in the parking lot. It would take you 10 minutes but amount to tens of thousands of dollars of damage for many many people. Why don't you do that? Because you're a decent human being. The fewer people feel that way, the more fragile the society becomes. Because you can't bulletproof everything. Or even key-proof it, for that matter.

You make an excellent point.  Maybe those "morals" discussions we were/are having are a lot more important than I first thought.  For example, when commonly held religious based morals are replaced by individual morals it seems the path forward may not be pretty.

... Mountaineer

Yes, religiously based morals are wonderful. Just ask the people who thrived under church rule in the glorious dark ages.

I quite agree.  My six year old did something really bad that I just can't find it in my heart to forgive him for and since I'm my own god, I am by definition correct on this matter.  My son is now 40.  I love to hate, it is such a freeing feeling!  Damn all six year olds, they are probably just as horribly evil as my son was.  Away with all of them!!  Makes me feel good to condemn all on the basis of horrible acts by some - guilt by association I believe it is called.  Woooeeee, it is great to be your own god, is it not, and not have to depend on some higher being for morals.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Mountainer why do you think God says it's wrong to murder and steal? Why does he think it's wrong?

[Pointedstick]

I quite agree.  My six year old did something really bad that I just can't find it in my heart to forgive him for and since I'm my own god, I am by definition correct on this matter.  My son is now 40.  I love to hate, it is such a freeing feeling!  Damn all six year olds, they are probably just as horribly evil as my son was.  Away with all of them!!  Makes me feel good to condemn all on the basis of horrible acts by some - guilt by association I believe it is called.  Woooeeee, it is great to be your own god, is it not, and not have to depend on some higher being for morals.

... Mountaineer

…What?

Religious people begin to lose me when they talk like this because the implication or assertion that secularism somehow leads to immorality is something I simply have not witnessed in my own life. Probably less than 25% of my friends and acquaintances are religious, and of those, few are seriously religious the way you are. I have not discerned any special difference in the morality of their actions, nor do I myself behave in the manner of your example toward my own child despite the fact that I am non-religious.

I just don't see it. Religion is one way of teaching and expressing morality, but to claim or imply that it's the only possible way strikes me self-congratulatory and quite a striking contrast from the humbleness I often hear preached.

[Reub]

You mean that they have stopped shooting innocent girls in the face?

Are you talking about the Taliban or US military?

Are you saying that the U.S. military intentionally shoots innocent girls in the face? I know that the Taliban does.

[Kshartle]

You mean that they have stopped shooting innocent girls in the face?

Are you talking about the Taliban or US military?

Are you saying that the U.S. military intentionally shoots innocent girls in the face? I know that the Taliban does.

Depends on what you mean by intentional. It's not official policy. It's not written down anywhere. If you only get the news here that stuff doesn't make the front page...but no doubt thousands of iraqi children have been murdered and many many thousands just...collateral damage.

Is it not as bad when a bunch of bombs or white phospherous is dropped on children? Is that just an ooooops?

I'm not defending the Taliban, but let's police ourselves before presuming to police everyone else.

Have you seen the fraction of released video of troops laughing about killing unarmed iraqi civillians? Let's start by providing a good example.

[Reub]

English definition of “intentional”?     
intentional
adjective
 
 

› planned or intended

[moda0306]

US Military personnel have intentionally killed innocent people.

[Kshartle]

English definition of “intentional”?     
intentional
adjective
 
 

› planned or intended

Then yes. When the US military plans invasions and bombing campaigns they know women, children, inncocent people and civillians as well as some military boys will be murdered. So yes they are intentionally planning to murder young girls.

Perhaps if the Americans are concerned about that type of behavior they should stop engaging in it.

[Kshartle]

If it sounds like I'm just a liberal military hater jerkwad......I was in the regular Army during the Afghanistan invasion and the Iraqi one. My best friends come from the Army. So we can at least set aside that ad hominem argument. 

[Kshartle]

Then yes. When the US military plans invasions and bombing campaigns they know women, children, inncocent people and civillians as well as some military boys will be murdered. So yes they are intentionally planning to murder young girls.

Perhaps if the Americans are concerned about that type of behavior they should stop engaging in it.

I agree.  War isn't as glamorous as cable news would like us to think.

On the day the "shock and awe" campaign started.....there were record numbers of delivery pizzas ordered. It made for great television.

[Mountaineer]

Mountainer why do you think God says it's wrong to murder and steal? Why does he think it's wrong?

Kshartle,

I am going to answer you based on the truth as I understand it.  I doubt it will satisfy you if you are looking for a "logical" explanation that can be proven. 

Basically it is wrong because He says so; just like He says I am justified only because He says so on the account of what Jesus did - there is no logical reason that I should be justified, because in the eyes of God, I am a sinner and not worthy of any reward of God's.  Specifically on your two questions: I don't know and I don't know.  We are not to try to understand the mind of God and that is what you are asking.  I would say however, that aside from the Law of God, natural law also says it is wrong to murder and steal.  It seems that it is just built into our DNA somehow to know that, but again, I can't comment on wht God thinks, that is the hidden side of God.  As I have said several times, He reveals to us all we need to know, not everything we want to know.

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

You make an excellent point.  Maybe those "morals" discussions we were/are having are a lot more important than I first thought.  For example, when commonly held religious based morals are replaced by individual morals it seems the path forward may not be pretty.

... Mountaineer

Yes, religiously based morals are wonderful. Just ask the people who thrived under church rule in the glorious dark ages.

I quite agree.  My six year old did something really bad that I just can't find it in my heart to forgive him for and since I'm my own god, I am by definition correct on this matter.  My son is now 40.  I love to hate, it is such a freeing feeling!  Damn all six year olds, they are probably just as horribly evil as my son was.  Away with all of them!!  Makes me feel good to condemn all on the basis of horrible acts by some - guilt by association I believe it is called.  Woooeeee, it is great to be your own god, is it not, and not have to depend on some higher being for morals.

... Mountaineer

That's not how I behave, but compared to the God who sent bears to tear apart children for making fun of a bald man, (2 Kings 2:24), that is a big improvement.

And yes, I know that is in the Old Testament. Do Christians now disavow that? Last time I looked, it was still part of the "inerrant word of God".