If we continue to nurture it with our foreign policy/wars it could be an 8. If we didn't give the nuts (over the course of decades its not all on Bush) so much recruitment material, we'd be at 1.

Is, who knows maybe a 3?

6. It will continue to be a threat to Isreal. That will drag us in, repeatedly.

Radical Islam will be a significant force for some time. It very well may drag our prosperity under.

We should be trying to subvert and weaken it, not to conquer it. We could win this struggle if we made them placid -- give them free TV, not guns. Let them make money, not war.

An aside: After reading a few sections of The Prince, I was thinking that it would be very difficult for the United States to succeed as a conqueror: in order to succeed as a conqueror, you need your citizens to colonize the new land.

Right now, Pakistan, India, and China are very good colonizers. They are exporting people to do hard work in our countries. The United States would have a difficult time colonizing because life in the United States is so good that people will find the better life here than elsewhere.

The only of our people that would want to leave and struggle and colonize someplace else are the Zionist Jews of Israel.

Islamic extremism is a regional event that resulted in an attempted murder of Nasser, the murder of Sadat, fall of the Shah of Iran, unrest in the Stans (former Soviet republics), Georgia, Turkey, etc. For the most part equivalent to domestic violence. Left alone, they will usually resolve the conflict. But if an outsider tries to impose a solution, then all will turn on the outsider.

However the world does have some responsibility to the region. For example, the invasion of Kuwait received proper responses. But one must be careful to not remain or get involved beyond limited events. It was where we made a major mistake when our civilian leaders failed to plan for Iraqi surrender in 1991 - leaving Schwarzkopf to jury-rig a solution. As a result of mistakes made in Washington, we stayed and became a target of regional extremists. We made another mistake when we undermined the Oslo Accords and supported the most right wing Israeli extremists at the expense of Israeli centrists.

Muslim Brotherhood is the enemy of non secular governments such as Turkey, Egypt, Saddam's Iraq, and Asad's Syria. Leave local powers to their local conflicts and America can leave the French as a more hated western power. But we did not do that. When we don't act as honest brokers between Palestinians and Israelis, then we too become targets. When we favored Maronites in Lebanon over Druze and Shities, then again, 200+ American Marines died.

Important to represent our interests while not taking sides. How we deal with Saudia Arabia demonstrates the need to understand a potentially unstable situation. The mistake is when our leaders express everything in terms of black and white - as Oliver North would do and George Jr does today.

In an international domestic conflict, the outsider is welcome only as an honest broker IF 1) it does not try to force a settlement, 2) does not try to negotiate a settlement until parties are ready to talk (when enough people have died on all sides - high death rates essential to ending conflict among extreme positions), and 3) does not overstay its welcome. A narrow path to walk - a path that requires pragmatism - and not the extremist viewpoint of 'good verses evil'.

In the Middle East, there is no good and evil. There are many parties with numerous religions, cultures, wealth, opinions, educational backgrounds, historical hatred, and needs. Some such as Sharon and 1980 Saddam are more interested in dangerous and self serving political agendas. But this only means that the outsider must tread with advance knowledge.

Unfortunately, too many with opinions of the Middle East (ie Oliver North) have virtually no knowledge of this region. Ignorance is why Americans have been killed here and there. Why does the secular government in Jordan remain so stable and so popular when sitting right in the middle of so much extremism and hatred? If one cannot answer that, then one has insufficient information to answer Undertoad's original question. What is the driving force that may only make American's an even greater target of extremist Islam? Oil in the Caspian Sea.

As usual you failed to answer the question, tw.

That's OK because I did too. I give it a 7.

About a 4. Radical Islam is a major terrorist threat, but they have too much infighting and distractions to actually become more than that. Compared to the former USSR or a hypothetical newly-belligerant China, they're nothing.

Edit: On the other hand, in terms of destroying American freedom, they're an 11; they have already won. Not that they didn't destroy something already severely weakened from the inside, mind you.

But the point is the question cannot be answered. Threat .... to what? What is considered a threat, to whom, in the short term or long term? And what is considered a threat? A loss of two buildings in downtown Manhatten is a major threat or simply an emotional event? Is it a threat if we continue to save Muslims from themselves or force democracy down their throats? One must make personal speculations as to what would happen if we just left the locals to solve their problems alone - without direct outside interference. Or one must assume that right wing extremists will make all decisions based upon their Christian biases.

The question even begs that we know what America and everyone else will do. It assumes relevant forces and parties are known - as if all Muslims think alike. Four years ago, no one would have suggested that an American president would unilaterally attack another sovereign nation using invented justifications. Again, just no way to logically answer that question - except using an emotional response. Too many variables. Assumes knowledge of future events in a region where surprise in too normal. Assumes people know about Musliim Brotherhood and other factors that local political types would rather keep an American public ignorant of.

Russotto demonstrates a problem with the question:
Define threat?

I thought I was pretty clear:

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is "radical Islam is a minor group of assholes who just got lucky on 9/11" and 10 is "radical Islam represents the world's next big cultural collision with the possible repercussion of the collapse of the USA".

If you believe that there will never be another 9/11, that either our security is good enough or the will of militant islamists to bring about the downfall of the US is weak enough to say that they are pretty much powerless, you'd vote 1.

If you believe that another 9/11-scale attack is inevitable and that this could lead to a "total war" situation which requires 1940's style efforts and widespread change on behalf of the American people just to survive as a culture and nation, you'd vote 10.

If you're on the other side, and believe that the power of the US is the najor threat to the entire world, and that a nuclear detonation in a major city would be a pretty good way to cut off its nuts and ensure that no particular nation is a dominant world power, then I guess you'd vote 0.

It's pretty clear, just give us a number.

An answer for UT: a 3. Regional (which until recently is all it was) militant Islamism is just that, regional. The militants didn't really give a rat's ass about us until the mid-1990's. With that in mind, we have to realize that al-Qaeda is still basically that regional organization. We have folks that are just as dangerous that we grow locally (check out the bombing ring that just got busted in Dallas a couple of weeks ago). Now that they have the spotlight, more people know about them (shades of Fox News v. Franken) and more people are suddenly examining the US guvmint's actions and how well we treat other countries (which is a pretty abysmal track record).
Possibly a more important question is: what is the correct response to said extremism as it is now a global problem? Force WILL NOT work. We're seeing force in action right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you believe fighting against guerillas (the technical term, not the political one) who have the support of the populace is effective, I have a big granite memorial to show you in Washington, D.C.
Further, can anyone argue that the militants aren't getting their way? Traditional American (or, Western, to be more inclusive) civil liberties have been curtailed; a police state is past its infancy and is well into toddler-dom; record deficits are leadind us down the road to financial ruin. We can do it to ourselves just as well as someone else can.
But maybe I'm just being paranoid.

Radical Islam as a threat to the US: 6

Radical tw as a threat to the Cellar: 1

Question: How does your perception of the actual threat of radical Islam relate to your hours of tv news watching?

I don't watch any tv news and do not consider myself terrorized by bin laden corporation. Take it wherever you want...

I'm absolutely certain that my constant diet of information and considered engagement with the rest of the world make me much more informed than you are on the topic and much more qualified to judge the situation.

thanks for the question

So you don't think tv news is emotion driven, making it the most effective tool of terrorists and by extention the politicians who profit by their actions?

It certainly is, but with practice one can learn to filter and get real information anyway.