> > number 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the same > > Reasonable point, but here was my thought: > > (4.) a US Muslim teenager could commit an act of domestic terror and > NOT be Al Quaeda. In fact a recent poll said that 25% of US Muslim > teens thought suicide bombers were justified.
True but that does not invalidate the fact that al Quaeda *is* a group based on religious extremism. Just because someone else wants to blow us up doesn't mean that nobody else wants to blow us up too. > (2.) Iraqi pullout consequences are difficult to predict, but would > only affect US domestic security if the resulting state became an > enemy of the US; something that could happen independent of Iran and > religious extremism. E.g., Hussein could've been actively plotting > against the US without religious extremism or Iran or Al Quaeda. That is a valid example but since Hussein is no longer on this planet it's a moot one. There are other countries (and you identify North Korea) that fall into that bailiwick... but I think you underestimate what an Iraq without some form of sane government in control would be. The attacks on New York, London and Madrid were not carried out by "domestic" terrorists. > (3.) Iran's work against the US is regionally strategic in nature, not > solely due to religious extremism. They may use that as an excuse, > but it's not the cause. They would be doing what they're doing even > if they were secular (Think Libya). If they are using religious extremism as a ruse and cover then they must deal with the assumptions and consequences of it. Since you brought the Butcher of Baghdad up I'll point to his own folly that led to his downfall with the weapons inspectors. If he *truly* had nothing to hide then why did he *act* like he had something to hide? Perception is everything, if the perception is that the government in Iran follows the same religious extremes as the rest of the terrorists why should we think any differently? > (1.) Bin Laden, too, uses religious extremism as a recruiting tool, > but his attack is also regionally strategic. His aim is to take over > Saudi Arabia. He has higher goals than that, at least according to his tapes: Headline: Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/ His goal in the 1990's was to depose the Saudi leadership, I think he's moved beyond that now. One article I found has him painting a target on to kill 4 million americans in retribution for that same number of Islamics killed. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/14/215350.shtml > So obviously there's reasonable debate there, but my goal was to show > that we're spending 90% of our resources in Iraq (military, personnel, > political, etc) when there are much larger concerns. Based on your list, yes. By my estimation we are spending 90% on the top 4. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create Web Applications With ColdFusion MX7 & Flex 2. Build powerful, scalable RIAs. Free Trial http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJS Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:235444 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
