Replies

Are you talking about replying to:

On News/Activism 02/05/2004 2:48:57 PM PST #6,684 of 6,847. (Thread 2)

You did take the time to write a lengthy retort, filled mostly with rhetorical questions, I thought. I also did not want to further antagonize you at that time. I feel my original post, the one that prompted your response, answered most of the questions you posited. More importantly, I posted a later post to "all", stating that I would lurk for the most part, and post only analysis. I subsequently posted an analysis of why the Russian thread seemed plainly a nonstarter.

My latest post was not really poking fun, but rather was meant to be humorous. In fact, many "regulars" saw it as just that. I am sorry if you did not. (And, just for the record, I do not think this whole thing is funny, as some have accused me.)

Sometimes, we learn from each other by posting things that are "outside the box." That's good. We can all also learn when others take a step back, and review the postings and missed analysis. That keeps us focused, in my view. It is the difference between uninformed rumor mongering, which I think we don't want to do, and honest attempts at analysis that tries to piece together raw data and anticipate a threat.

Some here, have an agenda. That's quite plain.

Your long post to me asked many questions, but in the end it seems to be asking me if I think Communism is a threat.

I do not. I do think that Countries who do not think like we do, and who have weapons pointed at us, bear close watching. But old-fashioned, totalitarian Communism, IMHO, is not a threat to take over the world.

The far bigger threat, IMHO, is soft communism. It is the creeping socialism we see adopted by left-wing interest groups, and indeed the Democratic party. Socialism, takes many forms, but in the end it is the redistribution of wealth. (It is different from using wealth for a collective good, e.g., building roads and highways, or contributing to a common defense.) Socialism sees itself in so many forms, from school funding, to federal mandates, to the "progressive" income tax, to attempts to legitimize gay marriage, etc.) The advocates of such policies are not "socialists" in their minds, but they have acquired the ideals of socialism, usually through misguided concepts of "fairness" or "equity."

That is the biggest threat, because it is a threat from within. It creeps into our culture and becomes the norm, without meaningful examination.

We have long since passed the threat of Military action by a Nation-state against us, for the purpose of conquering us. As I wrote repeatedly, here, the sub-national conflict we have now, being driven by radical Islam, is also a threat, but only because we are left confounded about how to use our might to retaliate against a foe who claims no national borders, and whose allies swear allegiance to us.

This thread, however, is about AQ activities and attempts to strike at our country. When we run afield of that, we lose our objectivity. I think it is perfectly legitimate for us to be concerned about old Communists selling resources and assets to AQ and other terrorists. Tracking that intelligence data is worthwhile, because it allows us to assess the threat.

Theorizing that this is all part of a master plan hatched decades ago by a defeated enemy, really does not help us assess the threat -- unless someone credibly believe AQ will strike us, hurt us, and permit the Russians to decapitate our government and pour soldiers across our borders to hold and conquer us. They cold not hold Afghanistan, which is stuck in the 13th Century. Imagine Russians trying to hold New York City.

The threat of socialism, is a creeping ideology. The threat, I thought we wanted to assess here, was about possible military/terrorist physical attacks on our people and country.

That's my focus.