Does Al Qaeda represent a threat to U.S security?

[Toucano]

Poll question: Does Al Qaeda represent a threat to U.S security?

This may have been done before, but I'm interested in the general feeling. Comments and links to support your view are encouraged.

[Yupster]

1. Yes because

they know how to hurt us. A terrorist attack, even a failed one on a nuclear power station, or water supply will cost the US economy billions of dollars in extra security and lost stock values. Most companies are not profitable enough to afford unanticipated losses like that.

[5thGenDemocrat]

2. More than Saddam Hussein ever did

So why the hell are we in Iraq?
Like Wes Clark said: "I'm not mad at Bush because he's fighting terrorism -- I'm mad at him because he's NOT fighting terrorism."
John
I think most of the world is mad at Chimpy more than Americans, per se. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who'd want to kill Americans (and other westerners) to prove their point (and Dopey's making the point sharper by the day).

[quinnox]

3. (tinfoil hat answer) No, because they don't exist

I use the word "Terrorists" in quotes because terrorists really don't exist in the world. It's almost always a government black-ops plan whenever the U.S. is attacked or anything evil happens in the world.

Furthermore, there is no proof that Bin Laden did anything to us. That tape where he said he was happy with the operation was either a fake or taken out of context.




Ok, enough fun. Yes Al Queda is a threat.

[JailBush]

4. I'm in general agreemenet with quinnox.

However, I would answer YES - thanks largely to Republicans (and the Vichy Democrats). The bastards either left the barn doors open for terrorists or helped perpetrate the attacks, after which they did everything they could to rally more terrorists behind America's victims, at the same time that they weakened the U.S.

Even as the carnage unfolded on 9/11, I wasn't worried about being personally targeted by terrorists. But I worry about it now.

[Toucano]

6. That's all true

But I'd like to remember that they attacked the US before 9/11.

Don't get me wrong. I agree Shrub exacerbated the situation.

Republicans were saying that Osama becoming our enemy out of nowhere was a "wag the dog" approach for Clinton to overcome his legal troubles.

Edit: Typo

[Bucky]

5. more now that two years ago today

They're stronger because we quit going after them and started helping them recruit more miserable souls by increasing the damage already done to Iraq.

[wtmusic]

7. No doubt they're hard at work on the next 9/11

[FDRrocks]

8. No we can stop them...

Not at all. Bush just wanted it. So he looked the other way. At the time of 9/11 they posed no threat. Now they might b/c of our brutal murder of civilians in two countries in the ME.

I've never even seen real evidence that Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11.

[kalashnikov]

9. Who are the 10 people that said no?

What are they smoking?

[FDRrocks]

10. NO

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

edit: What are you smoking? I didn't know they sold mental arrogance and propaganda in the same paper.

[DrZhivago]

11. not anymore than unemployment or global warming

people forget that before 9/11 the largest domestic terrorist attack was perpertrated by a white christian male not by Saudi's or Al-Qaeda. So why don't we consider whites or christians to be potential terrorists?

[AliceWonderland]

12. I will seriously consider

that Al Qa'eda is a serious threat when someone finally, finally, finally gives a rational explanation as to what precisely Al Qa'eda is.

But even so, terrorism is hardly a threat. Compared to most of the rest of the humans on the planet, we're ridiculously safe. And meanwhile, we're killing each other and ourselves in a million different ways that never get an orange alert.

[RBHam]

13. No

"Al Qaeda" is a name used by the CIA as a catch all for Arab terrorists. It means "The Base" - a training camp in Afghanistan constructed and equipped by the CIA where Mujahadeen and foreign volunteers flocked to join the Afghan resistance back during the Soviet invasion. The CIA parachuted key "asset" Osama bin Laden, (p.s. once CIA, always CIA. Whether you like it or not.) whose family also massively funded the resistance, at the end of the war to claim military legitimacy for himself. Thus, the legend of Osama bin Laden started to grow. When the first Gulf War started, Osama APPARENTLY turned against the US (because US troops dared set foot on Arabian soil), was cut off by his family and their friends in the House of Saad, and began PREACHING like a IMAM (where he got his religious training is a mystery, every legitimate Muslim cleric holds the view that Osama is an illegitimate religous leader who distorts Islamic teachings for his self serving criminality) about Jihad against the West and their allies the Zionists in Israel. Subsequently, with the help of Hollywood-style propaganda videos, bin Laden became synonomous with resistance against the West.

In my opinion, Osama is just a boogey man. His role is to be the face of the psychological fear of terrorism.

The real organized terror network, by now a veteran unit that has struck from Kosovo to Chechnya to Yemen to the US to Bali to Turkey and now even Saudi Arabia, seems to strike in circumstances that actually benefit the very enemy its supposed to be fighting.

Who really runs international terrorism and who benefits?

I think Sen Inouye(D-Hawaii) was on to them during Iran/Contra scandal but Lee Hamilton(D-Bushio) helped George Bush Sr cover it up.

And now Lee Hamilton is the co-chair of the 9-11 commission.

Hmmm.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist.

[RBHam]

14. Actually, YES

YES they are a threat.

Just know who THEY are...

[ThirdWheelLegend]

15. And to think I was going to sleep well tonight...

:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

!!!
TWL :)

[Nihil]

16. Yes but ...

... that's only because "Al Qaeda" are not a single group but a
catch-all label used to whitewash every so-called terrorist action
that has happened for the last couple of years - regardless of who
was actually responsible.

From http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/may/0526_assad_denial.shtml
<snip>
Syrian President Bashar Assad revealed in a newspaper interview on
Sunday that he does not believe there is a terrorist group called
al Qaeda, the organization widely believed to be the perpetrators
of the hijackings on September 11, 2001 as well as the recent
attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco.

"Is there really an entity called al Qaeda? It was in Afghanistan,
but is it there anymore?" Assad asked.
<snip>

http://www.arabia.com/newsfeed/article/english/0,14183,349243,00.html
<snip>
"He told me that all he wanted from me was to declare responsibility
for the bombings in the name of al-Qaeda"
<snip>

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=3544
<snip>
"Over the past nine months, we've been investigating eight cases in
which Israeli intelligence posing as Al-Qaeda operatives recruited
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip,"
<snip>

Don't forget that the organisation was originally set up with funds
from the CIA in order to fight the enemy-du-jour in Afghanistan.
These days, ANYONE who sets off a bomb can claim to be al-Qaeda and
there is no way to verify that claim. There is no political wing to
liaise with governments, no official spokesmen and no code phrases to
confirm the terrorists ID (as in NI for example). Even if there was,
there is always the fallback position that it was the act of a "fringe
group", "rogue elements" or a "breakaway faction".

Nihil

[LeahMira]

19. Interesting point...

These days, ANYONE who sets off a bomb can claim to be al-Qaeda and there is no way to verify that claim. There is no political wing to liaise with governments, no official spokesmen and no code phrases to confirm the terrorists ID (as in NI for example). Even if there was, there is always the fallback position that it was the act of a "fringe group", "rogue elements" or a "breakaway faction".

These days, I think al Qaeda is more of a consultant group. They are coordinating and offering expertise and strategy and such to any group that is interested in mayhem. What I see as threatening is the U.S. arrogance in the Middle East which drives people to seek out professional help to resist.

[Voltaire99]

17. The real question is how much of a threat

I'd rate it a moderate threat, somewhere behind such clear and present dangers as the GOP, mega corporations, big media, right wing judges, and the military-industrial complex.

That is not to say we can take Al Qaeda for granted. But that lethal cult is now the favorite excuse for every manner of aggression abroad and draconian law at home.

[Toucano]

18. Some very good points are being made here.

So, let's kick it for the daylight people. :)