I think I'll answer my own questoin: "Would such a Caliphate may be more dangerous than Russia under Stalin, a country we were also told that wanted to take over thw world?"
First off, Bin Laden is nuts. He is nuts in the same way that mass murderers are nutx.
For whatever reason bin Laden is angry at the world over feelings of his personal inadequacy.
So he has a strong desire to kill people, apparently especially Americans.
But before he kills, he needs to justify his need to kill.
He is using religion as his rationalization for killing.
Had his object been what he professes: that Americans withdraw troops and leave the Mideast alone--he should have attacked the Twin Towers on a weekend, followed by an announcement that he did so to minimize loss of life.
Instead, he chose to perform the act in the most murderous way possible. A way, that he must have known deep down, was such an act of madness that America could not and would not make deals with him.
And more recently he comes out with that tape, which apparently offers a deal--but again, he's just fooling himself: deep inside he must know that after 911 we won't deal.
And so he sets himself up with his next rationalization; He'll think to himself that he was a good sport by warning us, and because we didn't listen, now we deserve whatever he's been planning.
But on the other hand--I wonder if we did abandon all involvement in the Mideast, leaving bin laden and all factions to their own devices: would bin Laden survive the internecine battles? Is someone like Bin Laden--who fools himself--clever enough to outsmart rivals and then organize a state--a caliphate? Or is bin Laden's only talent, terrorism?
Might the task be outside bin Laden's abilities? Might someone else--another Arab--outsmart bin Laden and emerge in control: perhaps an Arab Stalin? Someone less crazy, someone who can be deterred by our ICBM's?
Nothing whatsoever,in that mind numbing post of yours,is logical,makes sense,or is well reasoned.