[Phil]

Only because it came up in dinner conversation with my dad.

He's reading some book - I'll get the name of it, but I have a hunch its a Fox News wannabe.

Here's the poll question:

"Within the next two years the USA will be hit with an attack from muslims that will eclipse 9-11"

[kfay]

Certainly possible.

I'd put money on No though, with odds. Hypothetically... really I wouldn't take such a gross bet.

[Al_U_Card]

You'll have to wait for the Jeb Bush administration for that to happen...

[Gerben42]

I wouldn't know. What I do know if that if you want to rule it out, you would have to put so much effort and security measures in place, that it would make normal life unbearable.

[y66]

African or European?

[helene_t]

Agree with Kevin and Gerben.

[brianshark]

It seems unlikely given the Obama administration would be seen as less threatening to the Muslim world than the Bush administration was. Terrorist think tanks will surely realise that a large act of violence will only swing American opinion towards Bush/Republican politics which they don't want to see.

[vuroth]

They tried it with the last president. They tried it with the president before that.

Will something be tried? Sure. Will it be bigger? Tough to say. Will Homeland Security reduce the risk? Doubtful.

[helene_t]

brianshark, on Apr 20 2009, 01:49 PM, said:

Terrorist think tanks will surely realise that a large act of violence will only swing American opinion towards Bush/Republican politics which they don't want to see.

Not sure about that. Muslim extremists want confrontation with the West, and a hard-core U.S. government is more likely to give them that.

[brianshark]

Do they want confrontation for the sake of confrontation? I always thought the campaigns of terror were a means to an end. Those ends being America keep it's nose out of muslim affairs, pulls out of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

[kenberg]

I don't wish to vote yes since being right would not be a pleasure. Anyway, I would put it differently. I think we are in a deadly battle with committed adversaries. I expect a goodly number of deaths to come of it. On this view also I would of course like to be wrong but it is a lot easier to think of historical examples where colliding interests led to grand scale death and destruction eg, WW I and II, the American Civil War, no doubt Europeans and Asians can supply additional examples from their history that I may be ignorant of, than it is to think of cases where the contesting sides chose to call of the dogs for the common good. Perhaps this time will be different, I just don't see why I should think so.

I try to contain my pessimism, but since you asked...

[Winstonm]

Quote

Terrorist think tanks will surely realise that a large act of violence will only swing American opinion towards Bush/Republican politics which they don't want to see.

Terrorist think tanks? Uh.....I don't think so....

Quote

I think we are in a deadly battle with committed adversaries

I am surprised you would so readily buy into the Us versus Them rhetoric of the Bush-Cheney leadership. Obama made it plain: we are not in a war against Islam.
It's terrorism that causes the problem. It's not war. It's an idea. You cannot go to war against an idea unless you are want thought police on every corner.

I am willing to concede the possibility that Bush-Cheney may have made Americans safer - the problem is they sacrificed America to do it.

[blackshoe]

And there we have it. Winston has spoken! America is dead. Long live the New Republic!

[kenberg]

Hold on, Winston. I did not say we were at war against Islam and, far more important, George Bush didn't say so either.

As to whether you can go to war against an idea, I think ideas are an important component of almost all wars.

I didn't vote for Mr. Bush, I do not believe that he sacrificed America. Actually I think this sort of distinction is worth making. There are a lot of Republicans right now who are totally irrational on the subject of Barack Obama. A neighbor recently went to one of these tea parties. Apparently the idea is (I may be overstating but only slightly) that Republicans shouldn't have to pay taxes since they lost the election. No taxation without representation. If this idea takes hold I want my eight years of tax refunds for the Bush years. Anyway, it seems to be considered wimpish these days to wish for the best for our current president whether he was or was not our choice. I believe, and have always believed, otherwise.


Who are we at war against? Well, for starters, someone financed the training and the attacks on the twin towers. I imagine they are still around. Their close associates are posing a serious threat to Pakistan, a somewhat upsetting development. If people just want to shout "Death to America" I suppose we could say "So what else is new?" but I think there is some intention to bring this about. I expect trouble.

[brianshark]

Winstonm, on Apr 21 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

Quote

Terrorist think tanks will surely realise that a large act of violence will only swing American opinion towards Bush/Republican politics which they don't want to see.

Terrorist think tanks? Uh.....I don't think so....

What do you mean by that?

[Winstonm]

brianshark, on Apr 22 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 21 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

Quote

Terrorist think tanks will surely realise that a large act of violence will only swing American opinion towards Bush/Republican politics which they don't want to see.

Terrorist think tanks? Uh.....I don't think so....

What do you mean by that?

I don't believe there is a terrorist equivalent to think tanks.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Apr 21 2009, 11:54 PM, said:

And there we have it. Winston has spoken! America is dead. Long live the New Republic!

LoL. Sounds like a bad Bill O'Reilly impersonation. What's next, just yell out "Turn his mike off"? LoL.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Hold on, Winston. I did not say we were at war against Islam and, far more important, George Bush didn't say so either

.

Let me address Bush first. He went well beyond simply Islam - he proclaimed "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists." With that he declared war on everyone who wasn't on his choo choo train, making anti-war demonstrators the equals of Osama bin Laden.

I do not place you in that category, Ken. You, however, said, "We are in a deadly battle with commited adversaries." Personally, I think this is an overreach.

Quote

As to whether you can go to war against an idea, I think ideas are an important component of almost all wars.

You cannot have a war on terror. Terror is an idea. It's like having a war on hate.

Quote

I didn't vote for Mr. Bush, I do not believe that he sacrificed America. Actually I think this sort of distinction is worth making.

I do, too. And I would submit that if you aren't aware of the secret laws under which we were governed until a few weeks before Bush left office you should refresh your knowledge - we were under a presidential monarchy.

My contention is that America is an idea - of self rule. To have self rule a nation must be a nation of laws rather than men. This concept of self-rule was sacrificed during the Bush years - mostly at the urging of Dick Cheney. The President and executive branch was set above the law.

American lives may be saved - but if the country is no longer based on its values, has the country been saved or sacrificed?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Apr 22 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

American lives may be saved - but if the country is no longer based on its values, has the country been saved or sacrificed?

as a mere citizen, this is my stance... we have laws, we have a constitution, and when by executive fiat these are ignored, we've all lost - however, if i was dictator (or even an elected official)my stance would probably be different

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Apr 23 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 22 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

American lives may be saved - but if the country is no longer based on its values, has the country been saved or sacrificed?

as a mere citizen, this is my stance... we have laws, we have a constitution, and when by executive fiat these are ignored, we've all lost - however, if i was dictator (or even an elected official)my stance would probably be different

That reminds me of a Mark Twain quote:

Quote

I am opposed to millionaires, but it would be dangerous to offer me the position.