Maybe they're saying that people who did not side with AQ's views before the war have begun too and thus boosted AQ's support from others in a way.
First, I left open the possibility that the article did a horrible job of presenting the report, which it must have if this organization produces quality research. Second, this AP article attempts to leave the reader with the impression that there IS an association between the 18,000 and Iraq. Why? Because the subtitle states 'Think tank says network boosted by U.S. conflict in Iraq', but the ONLY possible 'boosting' mentioned in the article is in the first paragraph, which states: ' ... and its ranks are growing .... Moreover, if you had any question about their intentions, read the new, improved ('swelling') version of the article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida Report: al-Qaida Ranks Swelling Worldwide 44 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo! By BARRY RENFREW, Associated Press Writer LONDON - Far from being crippled by the U.S.-led war on terror, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq (news - web sites) is swelling its ranks, a report said Tuesday. ... In either version of THIS ARTICLE, there is no quantification to support the 'growth', pardon, 'swelling' theory. Since it is not mentioned in this article, one can assume that it either does not exist (thus weakening the hypothesis) or is so small that using the 18,000 in a misleading manner would have more impact. Don't tell me that they're not trying to mislead here. It may not be a 'liberal' motivation at work but sensationalism to sell a story. Either way, misleading.
Basso, Cohen: Last week I am 180 pounds. If this week I am eating like a pig in fromt of my roommates, would this headline be incorrect: MacBeth Weighs 180 Pounds At last Count. Roommates Say He Is Gaining More Weight Due to Overeating. Would whether or not the original 180 pounds was due to overeating affect the second point of the article? I seriosuly don't get this misconception.
If you weighed 180lbs last week...and now weigh 150lbs...and the article said, "MacBeth is Getting Heavier"...that would be a problem. isn't that what's happening here? isn't that what cohen and basso are saying?
No, they're saying that because I weighed 185 pounds a month ago, I'm not getting heavier because of overeating. The 18, 000 was one point. Call it a base. The gain attributed to Iraq was outside that, or built on it, if you will. SO showing that the 18, 000 came originally from a group of 20, 000 has nothing to di with whther or not OTHERS have been added, or why. They were saying there was one specific group, trained in Afghanistan, which originally consisted of 18, 000. 2, 000 of that origina group have since been killed. They are ALSO saying that AQ in general ( not this group) has grown because of the war. Or maybe I'm insane. This shouldn't be this hard to figure out.
No, they're saying that because I weighed 185 pounds a month ago, and dropped to 180 a week ago, I'm not getting heavier because of overeating this past week. The 18, 000 was one point. Call it a base. The gain attributed to Iraq was outside that, or built on it, if you will. So showing that the 18, 000 came originally from a group of 20, 000 has nothing to di with whther or not OTHERS have been added, or why. They were saying there was one specific group, trained in Afghanistan, which originally consisted of 20, 000. 2, 000 of that original group have since been killed. They are ALSO saying that AQ in general ( not this group) has grown because of the war. Or maybe I'm insane. This shouldn't be this hard to figure out. Edited version.
this is precisely what we are saying, macbeth's temporary insanity due to water weight gain notwithstanding.
Sorry, I didn't know you had information that AQ had decreased since the 18,000, without raising recruits elsewhere, or have experts who say similar. Please share.
God, what is the point anyway? What a nitpicky way to stretch a thread out to four pages. basso, I guess you're arguing that the report, while presenting the idea that Iraq is creating terrorists actually proves the opposite? Am I reading you right? Does that idea even make sense to you? At a time when every report is showing the Iraq situation has made us more unpopular all over the world you're saying it has not made us more unpopular with terrorists or potential terrorists? Or that it's scared them out of being terrorists somehow? That brute force rather than an actual battle for hearts and minds is scaring people who would otherwise blow themselves up into not doing it? Do you believe you can bully someone out of committing suicide by threatening to kill them? Because that is the whole of our strategy in the "war on terror" and it is the main reason it isn't working. I can see your point and think it's a good one when you argue that hitting Saddam hard may have made Libya think twice, but Libya is a state. Al Qaida isn't. Al Qaida isn't worried about losing its sovereignty because it doesn't have sovereignty. There will always be people around the world who hate America if only due to the fact that it is wealthier and more powerful than they are. We can't do anything about that. But there are also people around the world that hate us for what they perceive as our arrogance and brutality and we absolutely can do something about that. But we're doing the opposite. We're threatening suicide bombers with violence. You seem to think that's a great strategy and one that's working. I think (and I think MacBeth thinks) it's an awful one and it's not working. If I'm framing the broader argument right I think it'd make a much better four page thread than what appears to me to be a semantic argument about a single report.
Option 2 is my impression, since MacBeth did not respond to my points. To argue against how this article attempts to mislead is amusing and a losing proposition. MacBeth, what's your honest, objective belief here? I don't have any ulterior motives. In fact, I always believed new if we botched the war or post-war, or maybe even if we didn't, we could increase terrorist recruiting (at least short-term). So regardless of this article's shortcomings, I believe it reasonable that al qaeda may gain recruits due to the botching of the war (I want to read something MATERIAL though, not this piece of refuse). Also, I think Bush's team did horribly botch the post-war, but more d*mning: the major mistakes were somewhat predictable and avoidable, and largely due to arrogance and ignorance. So I may agree with that apparent conclusions from the RESEARCH seem reasonable (at least in the short term), but this article presents nothing concrete and is deceptive in what it seemingly presents as an outcome/proof. * * * I would prefer to be discussing nuances and caveats pertaining to the research itself, e.g. is it short-sided? What are it's long-term predictions/conclusions? Yet we waste energy here because this ARTICLE is lousy.
An obvious attempt to leave many readers with the wrong impression on such a critical issue is not just semantics. We often bemoan how inaccurate the media is, and at times, outright manipulative. Well here's an example. Why do you have a problem with discussing it? If it had espoused a Conservative view, would you be complaining now instead of belittling a quite valid argument and concern? Boils down to this: The article mentioned a serious conclusion but provided nothing material to support it, and in addition misleadingly (if that's a word) presented unrelated numbers. If you want to defend it, go right ahead. But unless someone posts the actual research, the ONLY issue here is the ARTCILE itself, not the unsubstantiated claims it makes that are attributed to the RESEARCH.
Fair enough, Cohen. I'll admit I really haven't read the article or the thread closely. It just seemed to me that both sides here were using ambiguous data to argue whether 18,000 was a net gain or loss of AQ members. Maybe the ambiguity coupled with the article's apparent conclusion is your main point. If so, okay. I still don't think it's a four page thread unless people are at heart mostly interested in the broader implications.
p.s. I haven't defended the article at all and I certainly haven't defended its merits. I just find it impossible to believe the Iraq war hasn't contributed to AQ's growth. Maybe that's entirely beside the point.
