Agnostic Forums - View Single Post - Is the war on terror really a war on Islam?

Faydwyn · 10-21-2006, 06:06 AM

There’s no need to thank me, I’m interested in other’s views. But you are welcome nonetheless.

I’m sorry it wasn’t clear. The most pertinent part (to this conversation) of that post is as follows:

“It would be incredibly hard for someone to convince me that the “terrorist” threat is worse than what was going on during the Cold War. How are a small number of terrorists with planes or improvised bombs worse than Atomic Bombs being launched from both sides of the globe and ending most life in the U.S. if not the entire world? Planes vs. A-bombs. I think the atomic annihilation wins.”

My main point in this quote was that I think that the atomic threat of the Cold War was worse than that of “terrorism.”* There are no “terrorists” with atomic weapons poised to fire at us at a moment’s notice. However, in the Cold War we were in such a situation and if the USSR had attacked us we would have fired back, then they would have fired back, and then we would have fired back, ad infinitum until there was no one left to fire anymore. The threats of “terrorism” are nothing compared to this (in my opinion). Yes, there is the treat of small-scale nuclear and biological attacks (which would be really bad, don’t get me wrong), but these would be limited to specific cities and locales. If handled correctly, they would not be the threat to the entire country or the world that an all out nuclear war would be.

You make some valid points about suicide bombers and attacks, and I completely agree that radical Islam is dangerous. And you are right; their restraint is probably less than that of communist Russia (which is quite possibly a large part of why there was not a nuclear war). But these terrorists don’t have the resources and infrastructure required to be the kind of threat that the USSR was. It is possible that they may one day have these things, which is a good reason for us to try to stamp out “terrorism” while we still can, but they don’t currently. (We aren’t going about that very well right now, but that is a whole different discussion.)

Furthermore, there are other instances of suicide attacks and terrorism in history and “civilization” has still survived. We might not have been so lucky if there had been a nuclear war with the USSR.

Does that clarify my position? If not, please let me know.

Faydwyn

*I can explain why I put terrorism in quotes in certain situations, if necessary.

10-21-2006, 06:06 AM	#13 (permalink)
Faydwyn Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: California Posts: 91	There’s no need to thank me, I’m interested in other’s views. But you are welcome nonetheless. I’m sorry it wasn’t clear. The most pertinent part (to this conversation) of that post is as follows: “It would be incredibly hard for someone to convince me that the “terrorist” threat is worse than what was going on during the Cold War. How are a small number of terrorists with planes or improvised bombs worse than Atomic Bombs being launched from both sides of the globe and ending most life in the U.S. if not the entire world? Planes vs. A-bombs. I think the atomic annihilation wins.” My main point in this quote was that I think that the atomic threat of the Cold War was worse than that of “terrorism.”* There are no “terrorists” with atomic weapons poised to fire at us at a moment’s notice. However, in the Cold War we were in such a situation and if the USSR had attacked us we would have fired back, then they would have fired back, and then we would have fired back, ad infinitum until there was no one left to fire anymore. The threats of “terrorism” are nothing compared to this (in my opinion). Yes, there is the treat of small-scale nuclear and biological attacks (which would be really bad, don’t get me wrong), but these would be limited to specific cities and locales. If handled correctly, they would not be the threat to the entire country or the world that an all out nuclear war would be. You make some valid points about suicide bombers and attacks, and I completely agree that radical Islam is dangerous. And you are right; their restraint is probably less than that of communist Russia (which is quite possibly a large part of why there was not a nuclear war). But these terrorists don’t have the resources and infrastructure required to be the kind of threat that the USSR was. It is possible that they may one day have these things, which is a good reason for us to try to stamp out “terrorism” while we still can, but they don’t currently. (We aren’t going about that very well right now, but that is a whole different discussion.) Furthermore, there are other instances of suicide attacks and terrorism in history and “civilization” has still survived. We might not have been so lucky if there had been a nuclear war with the USSR. Does that clarify my position? If not, please let me know. Faydwyn *I can explain why I put terrorism in quotes in certain situations, if necessary.