# Al-Qaida. Are we being bamboozeled? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2004, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634 "2004-02-05T06:26:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/21 "2004-02-07T07:02:37Z")
Maybe I’ve read too many articles on al Qaeda from too many sources – especially Usama’s actual words – to take any wacky conspiracy site that blames 9/11 on Richard Pearle because they used a “Pearl Harbor” analogy in a terror report. We had already suffered significant terror attacks on major US interests at that point. Only a casual observer would think that this required significant psychic powers or a conspiracy. Guess what, many of us psychics saw a terrorist “Pearl Harbor” coming. The attacks were getting more brazen and bigger. The news reports coming out of the Islamic world suggested the Usama was swaggering and suggesting that the US was a paper tiger. From Saudi to the Phillipines recruits were flowing into terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. This did not start under GWB or the CIA. NO, it was al -fucking -Qaeda. Stupid nursery rhyme type criticism and too-many-caps conspiracy sites with little in the way of argumentation aren’t impressive. Yes, I started the name-calling – NOT. It’s perfectly legitimate to manufacture stupid amateur psychologocal profiles of your political opponents. It’s even better than a strawman argument, it’s a strawman psychology. “If you oppose me, you manufacture enemies in your head.” Actually, due to my dexterity with a keyboard and basic mastery of the English language, I am able to determine exactly what al Qaeda wants to do, and where with great precision. Why, oh great liberal savants?, THEY TELL YOU! ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/22 "2004-02-07T07:07:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, I started the name-calling – NOT. It’s perfectly legitimate to manufacture stupid amateur psychologocal profiles of your political opponents. It’s even better than a strawman argument, it’s a strawman psychology. I saw no attacks on conservatives in this thread prior to your attack on liberals, so as far as this particular debate is concerned, yes, you did. A conspiracy theorist in my opinion is not a political opponent. Liberals and conservatives might be political opponents. But most anybody would classify me as a liberal and I find this conspiracy stuff as ridiculous as you do, it’s clearly not a liberal vs. conservative thing.- ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/23 "2004-02-07T14:47:44Z")
By **Wake Up Call** : " It was in mid 80s that Ronald Reagan and Casper Weinberger bamboozled the American public by instilling fear of the “Soviet Threat” to justify the need for higher military budgets. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union collapsed mainly due to its own internal problems. We later found that there was really no threat to the US in the 80s. " Instilled fear? A justifiable concern about the Soviet Union’s capabilities and intentions had been there since Stalin. By **Wake Up Call** : "I don’t know about pre 80s, but during the Reagan administration, the Soviet Union was so caught up in the Afghan Quagmire that I doubt if they could expand anywhere before their downfall. " The whole Soviet thing was developmental, over decades. If you “don’t know about pre 80’s”, you don’t understand the situation well enough to comment. I’d suggest some history courses at a nearby college or university before you get too far into things you don’t understand. By **Wake Up Call** : “I don’t know. Didn’t we go to Vietnam to find the answer? But in any case, do you believe Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaida are the bogeymen that are raping our treasury, leaving us without a decent health care or a livable pension systems?” I never claimed those things. They are costing us money, but in the end we’ll get rid of Al Qaeda , and it will have been money well spent. So no, I don’t think we’re being bamboozled. Thanks to **Beagle** for doing most of my dirty work here. ---
**Author:** ![Uncivil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ccd318/32.png) [@Uncivil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncivil)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/24 "2004-02-07T15:29:26Z")
> [@John Carter of Mars](#): > > I never claimed those things. They are costing us money, but in the end we’ll get rid of Al Qaeda , and it will have been money well spent. I have to take issue with that statement. There is no guarantee that Al Qaeda can be wiped out with military action. The history of fighting terrorist groups suggests this strongly. Sure, you can do a lot of damage to them militarily, but how do you go about stopping a shadowy, global organisation with strong ties to Islamic fundmentalism, giving them access to a large pool of potential recruits? I’d be suprised if Al Qaeda or an offshoot aren’t still active in 25 years time. And remember, I belive the threat they pose is generally exaggerated. The military action in Afganistan removed a regime that supported Al Qaeda, and the action in Iraq sends out a strong message to other regimes that supporting terrorist groups will not be tolerated. But the military action also makes it easier for Al Qaeda to recruit. A solution to the Palestinian problem would probably damage Al Qaeda’s cause at least as much as military action. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/25 "2004-02-07T15:44:42Z")
By **Uncivil** : “A solution to the Palestinian problem would probably damage Al Qaeda’s cause at least as much as military action.” Agreed! I think that if enough resources and time are expended, military action aside, we can dry up their sources of finacncing and other support. This is what I HOPE, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Uncivil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ccd318/32.png) [@Uncivil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncivil)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/26 "2004-02-07T16:26:17Z")
Thanks for the clarification, that argument makes a lot more sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/27 "2004-02-07T17:39:18Z")
> [@Beagle](#): > > Guess what, many of us psychics saw a terrorist “Pearl Harbor” coming. The attacks were getting more brazen and bigger. The news reports coming out of the Islamic world suggested the Usama was swaggering and suggesting that the US was a paper tiger. From Saudi to the Phillipines recruits were flowing into terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. This did not start under GWB or the CIA. NO, it was al -fucking -Qaeda. And yet, despite all this obvious clairvoyance, when the outgoing Clinton Administration warned the incoming Bush Administration that terrorism and _al Qaeda_ would be a dominant issue for George, the Bushies [ignored the issue (PDF)](http://www.avatara.com/operationignore.pdf) and did nothing to prevent an attack. Heck, on 9/10/2001, Ashcroft sent his Justice Department budget request to Bush, and of the 68 programs slated for spending increases, none of them dealt with terrorism – it didn’t even make his top seven priorities. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to speculate that, if you were warned that terrorist attacks will be on the increase, and you wanted a “Pearl Harbor”-type event, a viable solution would be to just sit on your thumbs and wait for something to happen… ---
**Author:** ![dal\_timgar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@dal\_timgar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dal_timgar)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/28 "2004-02-07T18:42:37Z")
Before 9/11 tere was a woman missing who was involved with some congressman. I don’t even remember her name. I think I heard her body was found. This missing woman was all over the news, multiple channels, for weeks. I was asking myself why this woman was so important to get this much attention. I think we have a PANIC ON TERRORISM. How much is blown out of proportion by the media and how much by the administration I can’t tell. 4.5 MILLION Americans have died since 9/11. That is normal. Telling everyone that would show how small a deal 9/11 was. What about those Arab terrorists that tried the kamakaze airliner trick in 1994? Why isn’t the media all over the FAA about that? > [@Wake up call](#): > > At New York’s Kennedy airport today, an individual was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, a slide rule, and a calculator. At a morning press conference, Attorney General John Ashcroft said he believes the man to be a public school teacher and a member of the notorious al-gebra movement. He is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction. > > “Al-gebra is a fearsome cult,” Ashcroft said. "They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like “x” and “y” and refer to themselves as “unknowns,” but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. > > “As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, there are 3 sides to every triangle,” Ashcroft declared. When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, “If God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes”. > > ``` > ___________________________________________ > > ``` > > OK. Remember the “Communist Threat” promoted by Henry Kissinger and Casper Weinberger prior to the downfall of the Soviets. It so happened that the Soviet apparatus fell on its own weight, even though the Republicans took the credit for the downfall of Communism in Soviet Union. > > Subject of debate: While we “investigate” the reasons behind 9/11, are we being bamboozled by this administration and its “Homeland Security” with the “Terrorist Threat”, just as we were bamboozled by the previous Republican administrations about the “Soviet Threat”? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/29 "2004-02-07T18:54:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Before 9/11 tere was a woman missing who was involved with some congressman. I don’t even remember her name. I think I heard her body was found. This missing woman was all over the news, multiple channels, for weeks. I was asking myself why this woman was so important to get this much attention. Chandra Levy was all over the news because it combined a couple of different elements to make for really shocking coverage. Not only was she suddenly missing, she had had an affair with a congressman, and wags thought it looked like he might’ve had her killed. His initial refusal to talk to police about her furthered that. That was all totally false, as it turned out. I have no idea what this has to do with terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/30 "2004-02-07T19:07:34Z")
I’m sorry, **Marley23** , but I’ve quoted it a couple times. I refuse to give you any more information. You must now go back and read the entire thread. Ah yes, “Bush sat on his thumbs” while Clinton “man of action” had the commando plan in place to send in the strike teams to solve this problem. Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/31 "2004-02-07T21:06:44Z")
> [@John Carter of Mars](#): > > A justifiable concern about the Soviet Union’s capabilities and intentions had been there since Stalin. True, up until 1970s. After that, Soviet Union started going downhill towards collapse. There was no more justifiable concern in the 80s. However, our administration kept on instilling fear by trumpeting “The Soviet Threat”. > [@](#): > > The whole Soviet thing was developmental, over decades. If you “don’t know about pre 80’s”, you don’t understand the situation well enough to comment. I’d suggest some history courses at a nearby college or university before you get too far into things you don’t understand. . Oh yes, I can also go and study pre 1991 Iraq. But history courses on that would not explain why the Bush Administration used the “WMD Threat” in 2003 to justify invading Iraq, only to find out later that there was no WMD in Iraq. If you don’t feel bamboozled, what can I say. > [@](#): > > but in the end we’ll get rid of Al Qaeda , and it will have been money well spent. So no, I don’t think we’re being bamboozled. Oh, I wouldn’t bet on that one. As **Uncivil** said in his post above: **“I’d be surprised if Al Qaeda or an offshoot aren’t still active in 25 years time”.** Fighting terrorism worldwide can be an endless pit unless we start addressing the central issues, the US role, and the root causes behind the formation and existence of such organized groups. > [@](#): > > Thanks to **Beagle** for doing most of my dirty work here. I provided 4 cites to support my arguments regarding the main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 80s. All **Beagle** did was to pull, out of context, a sentence from one of the cites, which was not the main reason. I am afraid you either have to take some courses at a nearby college or start doing your own “dirty work”. Remember again, the OP is asking if we are being bamboozled just as we were in the 1980s. The OP is not going back to the time of Stalin or Kruschev. Please stay focused. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/32 "2004-02-07T21:29:01Z")
I’ve read the whole thread, **Beagle**. You’ve either missed or are ignoring my point. I don’t care if you caricature the people you’re talking about. I’m annoyed if you insist that all liberals share in the extreme fringe opinion of the conspiracy theorists. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/33 "2004-02-07T21:39:47Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > And yet, despite all this obvious clairvoyance, when the outgoing Clinton Administration warned the incoming Bush Administration that terrorism and _al Qaeda_ would be a dominant issue for George, the Bushies [ignored the issue (PDF)](http://www.avatara.com/operationignore.pdf) and did nothing to prevent an attack. Heck, on 9/10/2001, Ashcroft sent his Justice Department budget request to Bush, and of the 68 programs slated for spending increases, none of them dealt with terrorism – it didn’t even make his top seven priorities. > > It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to speculate that, if you were warned that terrorist attacks will be on the increase, and you wanted a “Pearl Harbor”-type event, a viable solution would be to just sit on your thumbs and wait for something to happen… **rjung** , didn’t you get the memo? The new stance is that al Qaeda is an invention of the right wing (see above), and now you come in here and talk about how Bill Clinton knew all about them and what they were going to do… Jeez. Try to keep up, will you? ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/34 "2004-02-07T21:42:36Z")
Um, **Bob** , I never said that. You are debating in a zone far from reality. I read the posts, quote or paraphrase them, and respond. If you seriously cannot figure out what I’m writing about, you are in a river, and it’s called denial. **Wake Up Call** , please read your own sources. > [@](#): > > \*\* But it’s the specter of SDI that apparently had become a major fixation in the minds of both the Soviet strategic defense hierarchy as well as Gorbyachev himself. Not only do Reagan defenders point this out, but much of the evidence stems from reports provided by the Russian leaders themselves. From wiley old Andrei Gromyko to highly-ranked Soviet army officers to KGB officials, the assumption early on was that it was Reagan’s intent to wreck the Soviet economy on the shoals of the arms race. > > And to Gorbyachev it was becoming increasingly clear that in order to reform the Soviet economy it first would be necessary to reduce substantially the enormous expenditure going to their military-industrial complex. In fact, the impromptu Iceland Summit in 1986 in large measure centered on Gorbyachev’s attempt to convince Reagan of the importance of scrapping SDI. > > One theory is that following Khrushchev’s embarrassment over the pullout of missiles from Cuba, the Soviet’s full-speed-ahead military buildup provoked the West into a competition that was unwinnable for the Soviet side. Laqueur quotes Valentin Falin, former Soviet ambassador to Germany, who, in speaking apropos of the arms race, said that “Detente would never have resulted in the tearing down of the Iron Curtain.”\*\* Whatever one might think about any of these issues, to simplify them – ignore posts completely – not read your own sources – and to make statements about conservatives imagining false enemies is really pretty silly. I thought McCarthy was a nut until I met the new left witch hunters. “He doesn’t like Communism, MCCARTHY FASCIST!, BURN HIM!” ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/35 "2004-02-07T23:19:42Z")
The Cold War was very complex. There were proxy wars, actual wars, constant overflights of the Soviet Union (had to, couldn’t sent tourists like they could), flights near the US, Soviet pilots in Korea and Vietnam, US pilots conducting “weather reconaissance” all around sensitive new Soviet missile and radar sites (hundreds died due to “pilot error” – not dodging bullets or missiles), satellite spying, real spying, assasinations, plots to overthrow governments, plots to maintain governments, plots to maintain the government that overthrows the government that overthrows…eh, arms sales, fully funded “popular rebellions” by both sides, near misses with actual nuclear exchanges for numerous reasons, brutally suppressed rebellions in Eastern Europe, and a huge offensively oriented army in East Germany. Sorry, but tanks are made for moving. I could write another equally long paragraph. But, don’t take my word for it. These articles will help get you acquainted with nuclear politics. First, once you get nuclear parity all you guarantee is [MAD](http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/12/documents/mcnamara.deterrence/)ness. Don’t think that prevents generals from scheming schemes to fight nuclear wars. The opposite is true. If two nations are at odds both militarily and philosophically – both with access to SLBMs, ICBMs, SRBMs, IRBMs, nuclear bombs, cruise missiles, Satan, briefcase bombs, and such – a climate of paranoia is not only natural, but wise, on both sides. It’s not like we were all pointing them at Luxembourg. [This very well written article examines the tit-for-tat relationship of US arms buildups and Soviet reactions.](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b4a11.htm) To the extent the Soviets were reactive, one might make the argument you are trying to make, only this one is good. Of course, there are counters. First would be, most of the crucial documents are still top secret. [This one is really good.](http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/news/PressRelease/pressrelease031106.htm) > [@](#): > > \*\*The Western armament policies since the late Carter administration and especially during the Reagan administration genuinely surprised and puzzled Soviet leaders, leading them to believe the United States aimed at blackmailing them or else defeating the Soviet Union in a nuclear war-a mirror image of how American conservatives tended to view Soviet intentions, > > Thanks to the reporting by East German agents, the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies were aware that NATO’s strategy was defensive yet acted, even among themselves, on the assumption that it served as a cover-up for a possible surprise nuclear strike, thus justifying their own offensive strategy on ideological rather than practical grounds, > > NATO’s November 1983 “Able Archer” exercise brought to a climax Soviet suspicions that such a strike might be imminent, though not to the extent of prompting the Kremlin to prepare a pre-emptive strike that might escalate into an all-out war, thus indicating that no conclusive intelligence of a change in NATO’s strategy was forthcoming, > > The unintended transparency of NATO’s military posture, while not enough to reassure the Soviet adversary about its intentions, nevertheless had the beneficial effect of generating respect for the alliance’s growing conventional capability, as well as organizational prowess, which ultimately impressed upon Soviet leaders the realization that they could not win in a technological competition with the West \*\* There was a “Fog of the Cold War” that seriously endangered all of us, on both sides – BUT MOSTLY THEIRS (seriously, read the article) Uncertainty is the mother of justifiable paranoia. The Soviet system sewed and harvested paranoia. Search engine: “Soviet first strike nuclear strategy” OR “any combination of words even close” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/36 "2004-02-08T00:02:02Z")
> [@](#): > > You are debating in a zone far from reality. I read the posts, quote or paraphrase them, and respond. If you seriously cannot figure out what I’m writing about, you are in a river, and it’s called denial. And if **wake up call** ’s position is typical of liberals, I’ll stay there. Meanwhile, attack conspiracy theorists all you want, but I suggest you don’t bring me into it by talking about what ‘the liberals’ think. Do you think everyone posting on this thread against **wake up call** is a conservative? By the way, congrats on a very original pun. :eek: The category that just appeared on _Jeopardy!_ is “Beagle-mania!” ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/37 "2004-02-08T16:24:33Z")
IMHO, i think there is a small amount of bamboozling (sp?) going on with the terrorist threat. Tis the nature of the beast we live in. The media garners ratings and attention through it. The government can certainly use it to garner votes or attack opponents as being soft on terrorism and the like. The terrorist threat is real, however nebulous it may be. Our current approach in fighting it is somewhat akin to ridding your house of cockroaches using a handgun, but try telling the general populace that. We have a government made of elected officials that would dearly like to keep their jobs and they really can’t do that by saying “Well, we can’t do a whole lot to prevent it. Just remember that most of you will not die in a terrorist attack.” Add in the omnipresent threat of law/class action suits… well, ya gotta try something. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/38 "2004-02-08T17:28:43Z")
Thanks **Marley**. I just don’t think it’s fair to claim that “conservatives” do anything in their heads. If you study history, and I can’t help it, that’s exactly what the Soviet “mental health care system” used to think. – I joke with terms, the logical conclusions and opposites of arguments, and spelling sometimes also – I don’t buy generalizations about liberals, that’s why I made a nice fat one that some people make exactly like the one I was fed in the first place. OTOH, it’s hard to carry the water in a debate if someone won’t read a link you labeled “Satan”. That outlines the entire Cold War dilemma from one perspective, based on one missile, in one article. Is it comprehensive? No, that’s the point. If you debate Communism, and my recent vanity searches indicate that I do, a lot, you run into what I’ve described as Beagle’s First Corollary to Godwin’s Law – substitute “McCarthy” for “Hitler”. Here’s the deal, not all Communists agreed. Many did not want to risk thermonuclear armageddon. That is something that transcends political boundaries. There was a “Communist THREAT” – period. The arms that REAGAN (specifically) proposed – that “liberals” specifically hated – DID have a MAJOR effect on the FALL of SOVIET Communism. How do I know this – the OPs sources. Too TimeCubesque? I think so. Anyway, where did that website go with Richard Perle and Pearl Harbor? I swear I saw that here. String theory again? If I didn’t see that here… Strange. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/39 "2004-02-08T21:07:55Z")
**Cold War** – one can skip down to al Qaeda [Is the United States a threat? If so, why?](http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/sites/a/altengrabow/) I’d guess it’s because we have tanks and nuclear missiles. Well, guess what, so did the Soviets – in numbers in East Germany. Russia would still be counted as “a threat” – but apples meet oranges. Third Shock Army was a real threat. That site is provided my myself, like pictures of Dachau or Rwanda on a genocide topic, for people to consider exactly what the word “threat” means, if Third Shock Army is not included. Seriously, ask the veterans of Third Shock Army, they would be offended to think that they were not a major threat. Same goes for the NATO pilots tasked with destroying them, and so on. It would have been a gigantic war. Most likely tens of millions would have died. Germany would have wished for the architectural renaissance of 1945 by comparison. [Ever heard of NKVD?](http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/interviews/beria/) No you can’t catch it. > [@](#): > > \*\*The war in Korea broke out on Stalin’s initiative. … He was of the opinion that on the basis of the communist development, we must organize small local wars in different places of the world. > > It was begun in Greece, then in China, then in Vietnam, and finally in Korea. That is one of the examples of these local wars. In two weeks, the Soviet troops managed to fight; they were very good. And at that time, Stalin wanted the Soviet troops to fight with rockets. … Stalin wanted the Soviet fleet to destroy three or four American military ships; and they told Stalin that after that, the American side would fight with the atomic bomb. Stalin wasn’t afraid of this atomic bomb; he said, “Then we’ll give our atomic bomb, too.” > > During all the sittings of his government, he said that the Third World War would take place, and that this war had to take place during his life. That’s why the military industry in the Soviet Union was very much developed at that time. We got a lot of tanks and rockets and ships, and I think that if Stalin had lived five years longer, we would have had this Third World War. > > Stalin had … plans [to use the nuclear bomb in Korea] and my father was very much afraid of these plans. … My father was even against the preparation of this bomb, and he understood that if the Soviet Union got this bomb, nothing would be able to stop Stalin in his wish to conquer the whole world. > > Of course, a lot of people understood that Stalin had such dangerous plans and that they must do their best in order to stop him and his plans. But Stalin was very clever, and he understood everything. He felt all these spirits of people who surrounded him. When he felt that somebody was dangerous for him, he immediately killed them. He protected himself from the enemies, and it was very simple for him to do this. And if he hadn’t died in 1953, it seems to me that he would have killed all the members of the Politburo. Bulganin, Malenkov, Khrushchev and my father would have been killed – I am sure of this fact. \*\* How many actual Soviet experts, afraid of their own (QUOTED) leadership, must I quote before you surrender, **Wake up call**? Just give me a number. Maybe you’ve noticed, I already have quite a few. **al Qaeda** [al Qaeda is discussed ad nauseum](http://www.ict.org.il/) _Scroll down, little yellow box on right_ “The continuing al Qaida threat” > [@](#): > > While counter-terrorism officials in various countries insist that the al-Qaida network is seriously weakened, it must be realized that al-Qaida remains a serious threat. Al-Qaida has learned well over the years to evolve and adapt as the U.S. and its allies cut off its bases of support. The network currently has sleeper cells and agents spread around the world, and has relocated it bases outside of Afghanistan. Moreover, the possibility that terrorists will use chemical, biological or radiological weapons, together with suicide attacks, elevates the threat from the tactical to the strategic level. > > After the elimination of most of its bases in Afghanistan, al-Qaida has activated other camps in other countries. According to Western intelligence sources, some of these bases are in the former Soviet republic of Georgia and in the region of Chechnya. Nor have recent arrests—such as the capture in Pakistan of Walid Mohammed Bin Attash, one of the most wanted al-Qaida fugitives—been of as effective in removing the network’s leadership as some had hoped. New individuals or previously dormant individuals have already stepped in to fill the void. The fact that al-Qaida’s operational capabilities are scattered around the world in loosely affiliated cells makes it difficult to predict where the next attack will occur and to thwart it in time. > > **Exploitation of the Iraq war** > At the same time, there are some “hot-spots” that should be carefully monitored for signs of al-Qaida activity. For example, as the U.S. prepared for war in Iraq, al-Qaida declared an international Jihad against the coalition forces. Arab Afghan Alumni volunteers were urged to carry out suicide attacks and to instruct radical Iraqi Islamic groups in guerrilla warfare and urban combat based on the Afghan experience. Al-Qaida presumably is watching and waiting for the right time and opportunity to strike—either in Iraq or elsewhere around the globe. Such attacks could be carried out either by means of local proxies or by al-Qaida militants in a particular country. > > Some intelligence sources believe that al-Qaida has been quiet by choice, not because its plans have been disrupted. There is evidence that al-Qaida’s remaining leadership believes the war in Iraq will produce a new stream of recruits disenchanted with American actions, perhaps allowing al-Qaida to create a new front of international Jihad in Iraq. According to Islamic web sites the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime may have a catalytic effect on the mobilization of recruits for al-Qaida or local radical Islamic organizations in the Arab world and in some of the Muslim countries. Radical Islamic leaders expect an outbreak of fundamentalist zeal to counter the “Infidel Crusaders.” > > **“Moderate” elements increasingly supportive of Jihad** > On March 10th 2003, a declaration appeared on an Islamic Arab Internet forum affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, announcing of the establishment of the “Hamas movement in Kuwait,” to fight the American forces in the region. This declaration should be taken seriously, as it reflects the atmosphere in many circles in the Arab world. Jihad is increasingly endorsed by religious authorities as an obligatory religious command. This endorsement forms the ideological and operational basis for recruiting highly motivated people to take part in the “Holy War”. Even the Islamic establishments that might previously been considered “moderate,” such as Al-Azhar in Cairo, and the scholars affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, are now fanning the flames of hatred against the United States and the Western culture that it represents. The rising rage fueled by Islamic decrees “Fatwa” issued by Islamic elements. You say fatwa, I say fatwata. [CIA on al Qaeda and CBRN](http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/terrorist_cbrn/terrorist_CBRN.htm) Annoying acronyms abound, alongside abusive alliteration. [This is what Frontline (PBS) could put together two days after September 11, 2001.](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/) Frontline would be a good place to read about al Qaeda. You can’t accuse PBS of it being a conservative conspiracy. Please, read the fatwas at least. This should explain why al Qaeda might be active in the US, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UK, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and just about anywhere there are like-minded extremists with a violent ideology. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634/40 "2004-02-09T00:35:24Z")
> [@Wake up call](#): > > \ > Remember again, the OP is asking if we are being bamboozled just as we were in the 1980s. The OP is not going back to the time of Stalin or Kruschev. Please stay focused. To simplify for you then: 1)Your premise that we were being bamboozled in the 1980’s is false. See **Beagle** ’s cites. 1. We are not being bamboozled now. 2. End of story. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-qaida-are-we-being-bamboozeled/227634.md?page=3)