Why do right wingers feel that terrorism is such a huge threat?

Question

Especially considering for close to 50 years we had 25,000 nuclear weapons pointed at us, each of which could have obliterated us?

Also to the right wingers-----Sure terrorism is a threat. But which one would have destroyed our way of life? Terrorism or nuclear war? So I ask again, which one was the bigger threat?

Answer 1

I equate terrorism to an annoying fly. It just keeps buzzing around and won't go away. No matter how hard you swat at it, it won't go away. Over time the fly's presence is increasingly more annoying, until one day it turns out the fly is actually a hornet that has stung the hell out of you. Now it is time to squash the hornet.

EDIT:
What is your point? They're both threats against our way of life. One never came of anything, and the other has been biting at our ankles for too long, so we are trying to make sure nothing will come of it either. Trying to say one is more of a threat than the other is asinine.

Answer 2

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

During the cold war, what kept the world "safe" was a strategy called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). This form of nuclear détente ensured that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States would ever engage in a direct attack on the other. Neither the Soviets nor the Americans were crazy enough to touch off Armageddon.

Of course, it didn't prevent all the 'proxy wars' that occurred in the next half century, where the US would supply/advise one side and the Soviets would supply/advise the other.

Terrorism is now an incredible threat, as the terrorists are both crazy (willing to kill themselves in the conduct of their Jihad/holy war) combined with the 50 years of improvements in nuclear weapons technology. The islamo-fascists think it's appropriate to strap a bomb to their child and then sending them into a crowded square or marketplace. If a terrorist group or state were to obtain a nuclear weapon, or even a substantial amount of non-fissionable but radioactive material, they could kill thousands, if not millions, of people with a single homicide bomber.

Couple that with the lack of security along the southern border makes this a real and dangerous threat.

Answer 3

you cant be serious

now that you have amended your question to make it past tense i think you may be for real. terrorism was no threat when there was no terrorism, but now there is! and it is!
Reagan already won the cold war because it was a threat at the time. nukes were a bigger threat then and terrorism is now.
do you mean is terrorism a bigger threat now then then nukes were then? i dont know, is baseball better than butter? would you really rather be killed by terrorist than a commi, whats the difference?
i dont really think it bothers liberals so much that our enemies had nukes as it did that we had them. but i am not sure the left or the right knows why that is so.

Answer 4

So each nuclear weapon could have destroy a country on its own? Thats what you said.

Terrorists don't have morals. They would happily kill crowds of civilians if it would suit their needs at the time.

And for the 50 years (talking about the USSR, right?)... the Soviets weren't terrorists, they were a world superpower who had self-control and intelligence and knew of the consequences of nuking anyone (yes, as much as I hate Reds, this is the truth). And to note there were many nukes pointing at the Soviets too (a good deterrent to stop Comrade Ivan from shooting off).

Why don't you go live in the Middle East with the terrorists and be a human shield for them since you want to protect them so much?

Answer 5

I am not a right winger. It is obvious our real fight is with Iran. A free Iraq is an extremist worst nightmare. There way of life and quest for the return of Allah via Jihad is impossible if Iraq becomes stable. The majority of insurgents are Iranian. They have done well by destabilizing Iraq to fuel animosity and allow time for sects to establish powerful footholds around Iraq.The Iranian (Sunni) government knowing that fighting amongst them was inevitable thus keeping Iraq unstable. This mis-calculation by the Bush administration is the crux of the Iraq quagmire. Iraq is simply the battle ground in a war against Iranian Muslim Extremist Whom are proliferating nuclear weapons. The Iranian president has clearly stated that,"It is my full belief that it is my reason for being, to facilitate the return of Allah by starting the true Jihad and I am calling for the destruction of Israel.". I do not wish to fight extremist organizations that have access to nuclear weapons. Especially when they have a firm grip on power of an entire country. It is inevitable if we leave Iraq that the Sunni extremists will take power aligning themselves with Iran and enabling a huge terrorist breeding ground. Thus allowing people who pray for the return of Allah via destruction of innocence to use these weapons to facilitate his return in their belief saving them from the supposed evil empires of the world.

Answer 6

Those 25,000 nukes where aimed by a nation, a nation we could talk with. These terrorists are acting on the hatred taught in the quran. Your talking about a people who couldn't care less if they lived or died as long as they could kill western civilized people.

Their utimate goal in life is to kill a westerner so they can claim their 72 virgins promised to them.

If you do not think terrorism is a huge threat your going through life with blinders on or are just to stupid to see the writing on the wall.

Answer 7

Yes, but they weren't launched at us, now were they?
Terrorists have been attacking our country with ever increasing frequency and ferocity since 1979. I think that's a good sign that it's a threat.

Answer 8

You don't think terrorism is a threat? Are you really this stupid?

Answer 9

Because THE LEFT WINGERS DO NOT TAKE IT VERY SERIOUS:::::::::::::::::::::::::What part of the War on Terrorism do they support?
By Ann Coulter
PRINTFPRIVATE
This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick
American voters into trusting them with national security.

To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in
Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror -- absolutely in favor of that war --
they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is
killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians
," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).
That war.

As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering
our ability to fight the real global war on terror."

This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight
the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the
real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.

Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets
they haven't named yet.

Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in
Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be
easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.

They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers
found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability
to fight the global war on terror!

Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the
obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson,
resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.

Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out
the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the
White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "MySpace" page!)

Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to
al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.

Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo,
Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee,
have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.

The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like
something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.
You remember -- the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after
John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.

But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the
global war on terror.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags,
based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others
were forced to listen to loud rap music -- more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at
"The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have
"no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been
given administrative hearings or released already.)

Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo
are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.

Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make
the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.

The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December,
whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" --
a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry -- the man they wanted to be president -- called the Patriot Act
"an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death
at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into
the twin towers of our Constitution.

They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.

They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami,
Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game.
Now that's a threat.

Answer 10

Yes but they were controled by governments that had brains. Not terrorists.