IOW, you simply refuse to look at the actual report because the facts might challenge your assumptions.
assumptions? i'm quoting directly from the article Macbeth posted. the facts as presented in the article itself contradict the lede.
Basso: AGAIN: The artile in question is a summary of a very long report, which I have linked for you, written by a very respected neutral organization. The article was quoting two different issues, though they have commonalities; that there are 18,000 trained operatives out there left over from Afghanistan, AND that there has been a wave of recruitment due to the war in Iraq. If you want to argue with their findings, at least read the report rather than saying the report is spin because the article which summarizes the report doesn't offer proof of same. I can tell you that the article is not spin, as the report in question's summary as written by it's director states, in it's section entitled Transnational Terrorist Threats It doesn't allow copy and paste, or I'd have done it by now. This is not, repeat, NOT a biased, liberal, etc. organization; no more than the Army War College, or any other respected expert on an area in which the Bush admin's actions have been criticized is. A year ago the A.W.C. said that the military strategy in Iraq was faulty and likely to fail. It was dismissed in a similar manner. As long as you dismiss the view of neutral experts simply because you don't like their findings, you'll never see the truth. In here some are already saying Zinni has 'an axe to grind' with the administration... At least look at the pattern. If for no other reason that you and your compatriots did the same to the experts who said our intel was faulty and selective pre-war. Remember how that turned out? We can only learn if we look.
If you're having a problem with the link to the summary, check the 2nd link ( or is that the problem) and it'll direct you.
And as MB has pointed out, the petty inconsistancies come as a result of the article summarizing a 5 page summary of a long report which he has linked to. You have refused to look at the report, which would clear up the "inconsistancies" in the minutae you mentioned. So, my previous statement stands.
Andy, thanks, but they're not even inconsistent. The article never says that the 18,000 are connected with the surge since Iraq, it says '18,000' and 'growing due to Iraq'. Cohen and basso assumed it was saying 18,000 means growing due to Iraq, but they're not connected that way, by the article OR the report.
No its the second link, although I thought that was what Basso was talking about...but I could be wrong.
A) Google "International Institute of Strategic Studies", their homesite should be top of the list. B) 'What basso was talking about' meaning what?
they're not connected only if you engage in the most tortured reading possible. show me, quote, link, anything, anywhere, in the article, in the summary, in the report, where it gives concrete numbers on how al queda's have increased from where they stood prior to the afghanistan invasion. here's the entirety of the text on iRaq in the directors report summary link to by macbeth: i have no link to the complete report. if there is one, please post, but once again, if the article is to be taken at face value, al queda's numbers have decreased due to the WOT. and if the arguement is that they decreased after afghanistan, and increased after iRaq, where are the numbers to support such a statement? not in this article.
this is kind of morbid. but i was thinking. why did this sort of guerilla warfare occur only sporadically in the past? but take place with alarming regularity in our age? could it be that in the past, total war, carpet bombing, enslavement, martial law, ethnic cleansing, the sacking and slaughter of whole cities, genocide, all these things broke the will and ability of the enemy populace to resist, struck so much fear into the subjugated nation that they dared not harbor resistance. it seems that in each case of severe guerilla resistance in our time (American independence, Napoleon in Spain, Vietnam, Afghanistan for both USSR and US, Iraq), total war was not carried out. is there a correlation? i think so. but is going back to total war worth being able to live without terror? i'm not so sure.
basso; I'm trying to clear up where we aren't understanding each other, because it's getting frustrating. I don't see that it takes tortured reading to make the distinction between two points. As you accessed the summary, you saw that they were dealing with issues acorss the planet. You might have read that they suggested that Libya was an example of a positive return on the struggle of non-proliferation. These are NOT biased people, these are NOT Democrats ( they're based out of London, for example), and their findings wouldn't and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand without good reason. Get the 18, 000 out of your head when talking about the SECOND POINT; that Iraq has added to AQ's recruiting. I don't know whether the report gets into specific numbers or not, but as these people are about as respected as it gets in their field, I certainly wouldn't argue with their findings out of want to. MSNBC has been running this story all day, and every expert they've consulted has said: A) That the I.I.S.S. is as good as it gets. B) They agree with the I.I.S.S.'s conclusions. Whitcomb, the MSNBC terrorism expert ( ex-FBI) just said that the telling point is that AQ, unlike Hammas or other similar localized terrorist organization, does not rely on a geo-centric command structure at all, but is a loosley connected organization of highly motivated people with a shared agenda. He speculated that their numbers could exceed 180, 000 right now.
i'm not necessarily calling the IISS biased, but certainly the reporting of their report by the AP,and by extension MSNBC, is biased. the article does not contain information that justifies the headline and lede. in fact, it contains numbers that directly contradict their claims. whether the IISS report contains numbers to support the claim that al queda's numbers have "likely" increased, i don't know, since i haven't seen the complete report, and i'd imagine neither have you or andy. as it stands, for the purposes of this thread, the claim is conjecture. by what methodology, pray tell, does one conduct an al queda census?
AAARRGGHHH!!!! Again with the 18,000. Again, NOT THE POINT. Again, the article and headline are not spins of the report. Even in the summary you quoted it says Again, experts on MSNBC who have read the entire report state that it's findings are that AQ has increased since Iraq. Again the summary you quoted supports this take on the report; What is it you're not getting? Where do you see the spin or innaccuracy!?!?!?
BTW, I see that, despite posting in other threads over the past few hours since I again responded to his challenge ( heh), once his tactic of asking me to answer questions I'd already answered as a stall didn't work, T_J hasn't answered my questions. If only y'all ( heh) could see how surprised I look.
we're talking past each other. show me methodology or numbers that support the claim that al queda's numbers are "likely", or "appeared" to increase and I'll concede the point. interesting, btw, when shown that the 18,000 number cannot be supported as an "increase" you're now claiming it's irrelevant, yet it's the basis for the entire article. does that mean this entire thread has been beside the point?
Are we speaking different languages? A) 18, 000...( I'm gonna have nightmares about this) It is not, repeat, and underline, NOT the entire point of the article, it is ONE OF TWO POINTS the article is citing from a report. ONE OF TWO. 1 OF 2. I NEVER altered my take on this, contrary to the point you tried to make. That was YOUR MISTAKE, not mine. Don't expect me to account for your error. I tried to show it to you, gently at first, then more clearly. Now you;re saying your error proved something and made me change my stance. That's cow pucky. B) How do you know you have a brain? Have you seen the X-Rays? Or do you trust the experts, short of reason not to? I have told you about their findings, about the esteem in which they are held, about numerous experts who support their findings, and you want the X-Rays. Ok, when they're published, and I show them to you, do you promise not to try another diversion? First you made a mistake, and called their findings groundless on that basis. Then you said they were spinning. Then you said the article was spinning, as well as the headline. I have shown you, point by point, where you have been wrong. If it's possible to show you their methodology or numbers, how do I know you won't just move the goal posts again?
