"Tell me about your "available evidence" that contradicts what I said."
First the word ‘radical’ wasn't necessary to argue the point of terrorism.
Terrorism is not a goal unto itself, it is a wedge used by fascist regimes to advance political objectives where they lack power. Once the goal is met, bombings can be replaced by more oppressive techniques to control the masses.
Terrorism was shown to be effective before Bush was in office. Al-Quaida had shown the world how to use a combination of terrorism while simultaneously establishing a fascist fundamental order to quickly dominate and rule over geographic regions that lacked order and political direction. Afghanistan quickly fell to the Taliban government with the backing of Al-Quaida.
The model was being courted as a mode of social movement for various other regions of the world, and still is. Other terrorist groups have started to emerge and use similar methods in attempts to spread their influence in the world.
We are living in a new age in which cultures have clashed and meshed to the point where geopolitical identity no longer draws the lines between allies and foes. Look around you, there is no longer an 'over there' that carries the same meaning it did in WWII when nations went to war against nations. As far as cultures go, they are here and we are there. We don’t see too many nations standing against other nations do to the lack of homogeneity within the borders of most countries. There are of course some exceptions (N. Korea comes to mind).
The dominance of US military power in the world is undisputed. Any group wanting to advance their political goals by force would be foolish to come at us toe to toe. Terrorism had already gained momentum when Bush came into office and would have continued no matter who took the Presidency in 2000.
Violence in the world has indeed escalated as a result of attempts by the US and its allies to thwart the spread of this terrorist model. However, the only alternative to standing up to a violent force is surrendering to it. It is a messy business and we can’t simply plan for or declare success at any point in time; nor can we declare all is for nothing. For example, Al-Quaida is not currently ruling any countries.
”Yes, worldwide radical terrorism has indeed mushroomed. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Bush and his Neocons are responsible for it all and they have thereby made Americans less safe, not only at home but also elsewhere in the world!"
Bush did not create terrorism and we have no way of knowing how much more it would have spread without his opposition to it. So, there is plenty of room to doubt your declaration, which is actually meaningless without a factual view of the world without Bush's influence (Big fan of 'Its a Wonderful Life'). With no opposition to it, we could predict that the fascist Al-Qaida model, with the goal of establishing a world wide khaliphate government would have quickly succeeded. So maybe the type of bombing terrorism used to conquer countries would no longer have been needed by 2006. Perhaps there would be no need for bombings, violent insurgencies, and such ... to be replaced by more beheadings and torturings (Saddam style) and such. |
