galanter wrote:
Apologists for terrorism who insist it's somehow the fault of the victims are on the wrong side of history, rationality, and morality.

Apologists for cultural and economic imperialism who insist that America only exports freedom and human rights are on the wrong side of the doors to the library the rest of us use.

Okay, I will lay it down like this:

Al Qaeda is a threat because they're killing people. Let us just, for the sake of this post, concede that al Qaeda has fascist goals. Let us just say, for the sake of only this post, that "Islamofascism" or "Islamic Fascism" is an accurate term.

The thing is, it's not their alleged fascism that poses a threat to us. The attacks you link to - they are great evidence as to why we're losing the "war on terror," and thus, why the Bush approach to the "war on terror" is wrong, but as evidence of a threat to America from "Islam[of/ic F]ascism," it doesn't work. It would be like if you found out all of these terrorist guys were all Islamists and all fond of the show "Mad About You." We could accurately say that there is a threat to us from the evil Islamomadaboutyoufans, but we wouldn't say that. The threat to us is not from their fandom of "Mad About You," the threat to us is from their murderousness.

It is an important distinction. Al Qaeda etc. can do nothing to The United States of America as a state. It can only threaten Americans. Is this serious? Yes, it is serious. But it is not an existential threat to our country.

I said to you before and I say to you again now - the term "Islam*ascism" is not being thrown around because it is accurate (even if it is accurate). It is being thrown around because it's seen by the administration and its enablers as effective propaganda. Not because we are worried about fascism, but because whatever evil we can assign to these people creates more fear and loathing, and the "benefits" that come along with that. Nobody hates "Mad About You" fans (I mean, not passionately), so they would never use the term Islamomadaboutyoufans.

Contrary to your implication, nobody here is saying that al Qaeda etc. does not pose a threat. But yes, the threat posed by al Qaeda etc. is overstated, because it's being portrayed as the threat of fascism, when it's really just the threat of murder.

This is why the term is Crap (really, the point of your post, right? Extending that thread, right?)


Sorry to write such a long response; I didn't have time to write a short one.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Contrary to your implication, nobody here is saying that al Qaeda etc. does not pose a threat. But yes, the threat posed by al Qaeda etc. is overstated, because it's being portrayed as the threat of fascism, when it's really just the threat of murder.

i don't know if i agree with this, as i feel al qaeda does, in fact, pose more of a threat than your everyday average murderer. i'd have to get my thoughts together a bit more before i can explain myself properly though. i feel like they're more targeted or something.

also, linus; so if al qaeda do turn out to be a bunch of fascists, you would agree that in addition to posing the threat of murder, they also pose the threat of fascism, correct?



also, to the dude who made that list: i feel like in order to be fair you should also try to include the measures/effort taken to prevent those numbers from soaring. i don't think i'm making myself very clear, but i mean i don't think the number of people killed in accidental falls would skyrocket if, for example, the US decided to abandon its military. whereas i imagine most al qaeda suicide bombers would much rather be waltzing around in the oval office or times square or something, instead of blowing up patches of earth around the us embassy or whatever. i think if al qaeda had their way the death toll on american citizens would be a bit higher than 4,000.

galanter wrote:There are some here (notably Steve) who keep insisting that Islamic terrorism is a trivial threat. Just like Hezbollah is a trivial threat to Israel. Just like, I presume, Iranian nukes will be a trivial threat.

Apologists for terrorism who insist it's somehow the fault of the victims are on the wrong side of history, rationality, and morality.

So, I guess that the threat of being bombed by Al Qaeda is to be more seriously considered than, say, the threat of death by car crash?

I don't think anyone is saying that terrorism isn't a potential threat, but that framing the discussion in sweeping generalizations and forcing people to take a black-or-white stance in what is a huge gray area is a dangerous...some would say 'fascist'...mindset. Many people have many reasons, some legitimate, to not be thrilled with US foreign policy. Are they 'terrorists'? Should we attack them?

The way this thread is framed IS the problem. Reality isn't anything like that simple. Please think about it a bit.

ivan wrote:

jasoned wrote:The U.S. should really get some new ladders.... or some training videos called "Stop falling to your deaths, Americans".

I think the most effective thing would be a "ladder alert system", shaped like a ladder and ranging from green to red - green meaning "safe to change that lightbulb", and red meaning "everyone in the country lie down on your backs on the ground"

I know the experts at QVC had been experimenting with a similar concept for a while. Supervised Laboratory Conditions

The real question is not "how much is too much?" in regards to "terrorism" (whatever the fuck THAT word means anymore is tough to say)
But rather, how much RELIGION is too much? I bet when you can answer the first one, the second will be much easier to define. We got to lose that shit fast.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:"Islam*ascism"

Islamic assism?

Here is one statistical analysis that might point out where we should be concentrating our efforts to minimize wrongful deaths:

http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html

davesec wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Contrary to your implication, nobody here is saying that al Qaeda etc. does not pose a threat. But yes, the threat posed by al Qaeda etc. is overstated, because it's being portrayed as the threat of fascism, when it's really just the threat of murder.

i don't know if i agree with this, as i feel al qaeda does, in fact, pose more of a threat than your everyday average murderer. i'd have to get my thoughts together a bit more before i can explain myself properly though. i feel like they're more targeted or something.

They pose more of a threat than your everyday average murderer in two ways that I can think of: One - your everyday average murderer is not capable of killing as many people as al Qaeda is. Two - your everyday average murderer does not cause as much fear (aka terror) as al Qaeda does. If Galanter wants to argue that a third difference is that your everyday average murderer is not a fascist, then I think he needs to present evidence and explain why that's significant. If my neighborhood were terrorized by a knife-wielding serial killer who left a picture of Stalin at the scene of all his crimes, and the authorities and the media decided to characterize it as the "threat of Stabocommunism," I would call Crap on that idea.

also, linus; so if al qaeda do turn out to be a bunch of fascists, you would agree that in addition to posing the threat of murder, they also pose the threat of fascism, correct?

No, I think you missed my point. It doesn't matter if they're fascists, or Communists, or monarchists, or, as in my "out-there" example, Mad About You fans. They would only pose the threat of fascism if they were capable of making our country a fascist country. They are not capable of this. They are capable, as has been proven, of helping motivate our leaders to move our country in the direction of fascism (I'm not saying we're there yet), and also of helping make our citizens feel like that move is okay. But they can't do it themselves. What they can do is kill people. So they pose the threat of killing. And they can terrorize people. So they pose the threat of terrorism.

So: Are they fascists? Maybe.* If they are, do they "pose the threat of fascism"? No.




*No.

10. 2003 tourist site plot:

In 2003 the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States. The White House did not list what site that was.

I FEEL SAFE NOW