>>Okay, I get the point that there was an appearance of "ease of tension" after 1989 but my point is that it was more a shift of public focus than a reality. Genocide in Africa was easy to ignore ( to the shame of the world ) and as of course you know the situation in the Balkans was 'tense' - and a complete mystery to everyone outside the Balkans ( and probably to most people inside the Balkans ).
>>
>>The agony of Islamic civilization continued to get worse - again, completely misunderstood by most of people both inside and outside of that culture.
>
>It might sound odd to you, but I predicted very precisely back in mid 80ies that there will be never real nuclear exchange between US/SSSR (=Apocalipse!) and that battle of the future will be shifted to one against radical Islamic states.
>
>Islam radicalism did not start with US Cole, Embassy bombing, WTC.1a etc
>that was way later in nineties. Islamic radicals were regularly slottering
>western commers way way before that. Tourist groups, Workers crews were regularly attacked, many people kiddnaped, bruttaly slaughtered etc. Marroco, Algeria,Sudan,Pakistan etc but there was never real focus of public eye on that. It was treated for what it really was - Isolated incidents.
>There would be articles or news every now and then, back in late 70ies and early 80ies about that, and I just could not get it. Why is such thing happening when we leave so peacfully with our muslims in Bosnia ?!? (How naive I was back then! ).
>
>It is kind of odd that after all these decades of nothing happening and all this being blissfully ignored, right after end of cold war whole tension drammaticaly increased and eventually escallated into array of wars.

Again, I think you are confusing "public perception" with awareness on the part of people who do it for a living. I agree even intelligence agencies did not take Islamic radicalism seriously enough in the 70s and 80s but there were a lot of other things going on.

And much of what we are seeing now is the result of the huge amounts of Wahabbi money the Saudis poured into radical madrasa to buy off the radicals at home. The seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by radicals in 1979 was a traumatic event in the Muslim world. Coupled with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the Shia takover in Iran the world changed a great deal then. But there was still another ten years of Cold War that had to play out before anyone saw it on center stage.

But anyone who witnessed what happened to and in Lebanon in the 70s and 80s could have no doubt what the next threat was going to be. If Syria had not been a Soviet client ( and we had had a president other than Carter ) that problem could have been solved before it become bigger and a beautiful country might have been spared.

But it was confusing because there was a secular radicalism ( PLO, PFLP, Baathists, Nasarites ) and a religious radicalism and Westerners they were sometimes in conflict with each other but to the West they blurred.

>
>When you look at it more realistically and without bias of our own economic interests;
>
>Did Iraqi planes flied to Washington first?
>Did Afganistan planes bombed Florida villages ?
>Did Iran send carriers arround Key West ?
>Did Syria ...
>
>No matter how much I dislike radical Islam, I can't but conclude
>that it is us, western world one who started this 'clash of civilisations'
>as they call it. When looked from eyes of wider Islam world, fact that
>Iraq attacked Kuwait first (which belonged to them some time in history anyway) and that lead to first Gulf War - means exactly nothing!
>
>All they know is that America/West sent ships, planes and tanks, bombed cities, killed muslim chilldren etc.
>Now you tell me if You were muslim would you be not bothered by that ?
>
>US bombed my Country as well. 3 bridges were knocked down in my town
>(Novi Sad) and you cannot immagine how good does it feel to look at it.
>No matter how badly I hated Milosevic, If I had any means of knocking down those planes I would be doing it together with him!
>People simply always feel for their own and agains outside agressor.
>
>Reason why I am telling you all this, is not to excuse what Al-quaeda is doing, but to confront common (lame) excuse, and self inflicted lie that we are completely innocent in this whole thing with middle east.
>You as ex security/covert operations officer of all should know that.
>
>>
>>I understand what you are saying but I don't think this is paranoia on my part. I'm not claiming there are terrorists behind every rock but I also don't believe wishing make you safe. And this particular threat requires different defensive tactics than the Cold War did. Big armies and lots of tanks and lots of missiles don't protect you. This is about knowing what your enemies want to do to you and doing it to them first.
>
>What we refuse to understand, is that this battle (against radicals) cannot be won by guns. This wars simply has to end and new ones should NOT be started. After wars are over, there will be still isolated incidents going on for period of years but they will be muc easier to trace and prevent and then they would eventually decline to standard levels. (before 9/11)
>If there is no war going on, then there is much less of individuals motivated to do agressive acts. 9/11 motivated America isn't that right ?
>Damage was done both ways, and there is no sense to continue it any longer.
>

But you've said yourself - we aided the mujahadeen against the Russians and what did we get - bombs in the WTC in 1993, attacks on our embassies, planes flying into our buildings, our citizens kidnapped. I'm sure you believe that if we play nice we have nothing to fear from Islamofacism. But I believe you are wrong. And I believe Europe has *much* more to worry about than we do.


>>>>As to a "nuclear bogeyman" ... until somebody accounts for the suitcase nukes and all the rest of the stuff that is unaccounted for after the collapse of the USSR I think you would have to be very naive to believe this isn't a threat. More of a threat than the Soviet arsenal as in those days an attack would have a very obvious source and would mean retaliation. If a bomb suddenly goes off on US soil now you will be telling us the CIA or Israel did it so Bush could declare martial law.
>>>
>>>I don't know what to tell you.
>>>You are talking about unaccounted 'russian arsenal' while in Iraq alone US military cannot account for 190000 peaces of guns and thousands of helmets and body armour which is enough to equip entire army.
>>>Can we really believe that US military know exactly what is in which of their suitcases and where is every and each of them ??
>>
>
>>I'm not worried about 100,000 ak47s. I am quite sure we are a lot more careful with the nukes.
>
>How can you be so sure ? They would not purchase suitcase 'Made in US'
>down there in Waziristan out of their pride ??

I don't know what you mean here. I am sure radicals would purchase a suitcase nuke if they could get one. But it would not have 'Made in USA' on it.

>
> I agree that it seems silly to complain about Iran giving guns to 'the insurgents' when they seem to get quite enough guns from our 'friends' in Iraq.
>>
>
>>But the point remains that people who wish us harm are actively attempting to obtain nuclear,chemical and biological weapons. That is a very big deal. If you don't believe that is true it really doesn't matter because it is not your job to prevent a horrible tragedy but for those whose job it is it keeps you awake at night.
>
>If I was doing that job I would be probably the same, however this is
>just net discussion where we try to seek some explanations and reasons
>behind all this. I don't wanna know all the details that they (or you) know, I will sure sleep better :)
>
>>>
>>>Now in the same time everybody else (Iran,Syria) is blamed for arming Al-Qaeda in Iraq (maybe they found those missing guns and gave them to OBL?), while if some of those suitcases blows up in US, (by mistake or otherwise) my wild guess is that (who else) Iran will be blamed and consecutively attacked.

I don't think there is serious consideration of a nuclear confrontation with Iran, but I think if Iran is about to become a nuclear power it will be stopped - not necessarily by the US.

>>>
>>>Fact that the suitcase lands on some boggeyman lynatic lap, does not clear
>>>responsability from 'donor'. So if that suitcase blows up in US who do *you* believe would be responsible ?
>
>
>>Well, I don't think it would be Israel or the CIA, but I would bet a best-selling book would be published in France within a month claiming exactly that.
>
>Yeah quiet funny, Some french would defenetely write book claiming exactly that, but nonetheless Iran would be still attacked in retaliation!
>
>>I believe the people responsible would be those who thought that if we just wish hard enough and be nice to people and cut off aid to Israel and implement Sha' ria law and let the kakistocracy at the UN run the world we would be safe.
>
>What do you mean here ?? Can you pls explain ?

I mean if we are attacked it will be because we did not take the threat seriously and we did not do what was necessary to prevent the attack by hunting down those who would do such a thing and stopping them before they could do harm.

They cannot be reasoned with, bought off, or made to change their minds by changing our behavior. This is not a rational enemy, that can be trusted to act in its own best interest ( or at least what we would understand to be their best interest. ) This is a death-cult which looks at the world through very very different eyes.

I actually sympathize. I want them to achieve their goal of martyrdom - soon - I just don't want them to harm non-believers as they do so.