Why are conservatives so concerned with the threat of militant Islam?

[Kytro]

It is foolish to deny that militant Islam is a threat.

It is also foolish to blow it out of proportion. They are a threat, bu they are a manageable one. The abilities they have are limited in terms of how much damage they can cause especially with mitigation strategies in place.

Take a look at what kills more people, and how manageable those threats are.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

[... snip] Then of course there's always the question of whether or not there is actually a difference between radical Islamists and moderate Islamists. If the answer is no, then this only exacerbates the problem, and nears Muslims of all sorts to global domination.

Using this survey to postulate that all muslims support violent pursuit of a global caliphate is flawed as the survey irself draws an a priori distinction between 'moderate' & 'radical' Muslims. This is not to say that the findings arent significant just that the 'spin' you put on it is dodgy

As for questions as to the 'simplicity' or otherwise of the situation

Why dont all Muslims violently persue (or even support the violent pursuit of) a global Caliphate?
Why are there regional variations for the support of such?
Why has it not always been the case that this movement was so prominant?

To assume that such question dont arise or are uninformative is indeed to simplify the situation.

Such a simplification is not that dissimilar to believing that the ISF would refuse to fight for Saddam, yet stay in place ready to provide security for the 'new Iraq'.
Its not dissimilar to believing that the streets of Baghdad would be thronged with a welcoming populace a la Paris 44

I could go on.

Such 'simplfied', one-step views of the situation have led to actions that have exactly the opposite effect from those intended.

[lock]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Okay, Western civilization is fucked if terrorists get nukes, but what are you going to do to stop that? These people cannot be deterred nor can they all be killed preemptively. So if it happens, it happens. And it's also quite unlikely, considering entire nations states struggle for decades to get nukes, let alone durka durkas in caves.

I don't see the point in obsessing about something that is unlikely to happen, and even if it does, it's impossible to stop. Move on with life.

edit: actually, I take that back. even if terrorists get nukes, Western civilization is still not fucked. Japan was nuked twice, destroyed by conventional warfare, lost millions, and is doing just fine today. Even if a nuke did explode in Manhattan, that wouldn't be the end of America or Western civilization. We'd trace where it came from, nuke the shit out of whatever nation state it was connected with, and then move on. Actually, it might be a good thing if a small nuke went off in an American city. It would give America an excuse to finally wipe the middle east off the face of the earth.

Is that the better solution to things. "If they bother me KILL THEM ALL" That is a scuwed perseption of the better thing to do. Because if the happend the world would let out 40 years of built up trigger happy nuke fingers. These problems have jumped up before the best thing to do is to completly disarm them BY FORCE. What do you do when an emo kid with a gun wants to kill everyone even himself. You take it away and throw him into a corrner and keep your foot in his face. They are so convenced that we need to die that thats the only thing we can do without the bleeding-heart liberals biteing the governments neck off. But even when we want to do that not everyone else wants to. cough cough "Russia/China"