Batman, Thanks for listening with an open mind. Apologize if I sounded testy; don't like folks jumping in late to label a discussion as trite. You are correct, the underlying issue is gravely important, but again, what have we to discuss? The article presented adds nothing to the discussion except it's own shortcomings. FWIW, the 18,000 did not come from the IISS summary. Another FWIW, Chipman's summary seems quite cogent. A shame we don't have the full report.
I agree with both sides, it is logical to conclude that the war in Iraq will increase Al Qaida's numbers, but the article's title is misleading and is a product of trying to create fear. Kind of like a news teaser I saw earlier today that shows a plane flying with the voiceover of "FBI issued an immediate alert about Al Qaida planning an attack within the US!!!!!" or some such. They might as well have shown the WTC planes, since the association was already created.
That's cool, Cohen. I don't like people coming in late to label an argument trite either. I just didn't get how it degenerated into an argument over the math. And I still don't. But I get your point and I think it's right on. I looked at the terrorism section of the summary you provided and I'd agree with you that the article's main thesis is misleading at best. Rather than providing fresh information on Iraq's effect on AQ, the summary only talks about it as a part of the background on the situation -- a generally agreed upon premise before the fact rather than presenting a fresh conclusion. Certainly it doesn't even brush against the idea that that's a finding of the report. Most of the article is right on (and the quotes are directly from the summary, in proper context), but if the lede is right it didn't come from the summary cause you're right -- it just isn't in there.
yet another thread where points are made.. trader jorge is exposed as usual and disappears as usual.. this guy is a classic!! OWNED AND EXPOSED can you finish one single debate jorge?? you are such a joke jorge
I honestly don't get the confusion. Let's look at the article; Two seperate points. Has more than 18, 000 AND it's ranks are growing because of the conflict in Iraq. Sourced. Don't see the problem so far, unless you're just skimming. Again, sourced and accurate. Same. Direct, and using quotes. Nothing vague. If the article were trying to deceive, which I don't see, why does it clarify here? It is affirming what I always took to be the point...the FIRST one. Again, directl correlates to the I.I.S.S. findings. What's this!?!? A sub-heading!?!? Almost leads one to believe that they're introducing a different point. Clear. An almost direct quote from the summary followed by a direct one. Pretty clear to me. Following along with the SECOND point, and directly attributing the point's origin. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. So can someone tell me what the problem is?
Batman: please do me a favor and read it; I can't for the life of me see where the confusion is if you actually read it.
MacBeth: The confusion for me is in the headline. The only thing I found about Iraq causing new AQ recruits in the actual summary was a background style thing -- like it had been one of the original premises of the examination of the situation, rather than a finding. If you can find something in the summary that says the study found evidence of increased AQ, I'm just wrong. Like Cohen, I also didn't see the 18,000 in the summary. I obviously agree with the premise that the Iraq war's increased AQ recruitment (and the summary does say that was widely expected), but I don't see anything in the summary to suggest the actual study provided new information on that. It's entirely possible it's in the study itself (I'm not spending $83 to find out), but I looked pretty close and didn't see it in the summary. By and large I don't think it's a bad article but I do think it's a horrible headline.
1) Accordingly, the Iraq intervention was always likely in the short term to enhance jihadist recruitment and intensify al-Qaeda’s motivation to encourage and assist terrorist operations. The May 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, the gathering of foreign jihadists in Iraq, and the November 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia and Turkey confirmed this expectation.[/QUOTE] 2) As I said, the article wasn't summarizing the summary, but the report itself. Every expert on MSNBC and CNN today agreed with it's findings and it's research.
As many of you are well aware, I am a *very* busy man. My day today was extremely busy, as my talents are *constantly* in demand. I have not had free time until now to respond to these softball questions. I now *eagerly* sit before you, ready to answer in full. Ok, now on to the substance: Oh goody goody! I think I just coughed up my Lucky Charms that I ate for breakfast. I haven't laughed this hard in MANY MOONS. 1) What a joke. A hilarious joke in fact! I scoff at that joke! No, no, no, no MacBeth. No! You failed to grasp the point, MacBeth. Failure. You misinterpreted what I said as well! What I was saying was that you, son, are a liberal. Not the Interational Institute of Strategic Distortion, Propanga and French croissants, but you, friend! Your decision to post this thread, and title it in such a misleading fashion is evidence of your dug-in political positioning here. It is clear for all to see that you are a liberal, MacBeth. The point I was making was to target your motivations. Why highlight perceived successes of al Queda? Why *only* bring negative news to the forefront? Why MacBeth? Why? It's as if you are actually *hoping* for negative news. Why? 2) I cite your second question as evidence that you did not read the article. Either that or your math skills failed you. Let's see here: They train 20,000. Now they have 18,000. This is not an increase. This is a decrease. Decrease! Oh wait, let me anticipate -- ANTICIPATE -- your response here. It was an increase! An increase! Al Queda's membership has increased by NEGATIVE 2,000 MEMBERS!!! It all makes sense now! Ah, the powers of the *full number line*. MacBeth, you must have a case of the sillies if you think that going from 20,000 to 18,000 is increasing. What I can't believe is how you tried to explain it away in this thread. What an utter failure. You looked terrible trying to grope for words to cover yourself with. Simply put, you found none. So after utilizing your razor sharp (ouch! I think I just cut myself they are so sharp!) math skills, you then conclude (by yourself) that the decrease in al Queda membership is actually *helping* al Queda. Another fascinating assessment. So let's see here: The Institute of French Baked Goods and Premium Mustard Spreads conducts a snapshot, short-term view of al Queda's membership. They conclude that membership has decreased. They state that 2,000 terrorists have been wiped out. You then interpret this as helping al Queda. Oh goodness, I just spit an orange horseshoe on my monitor! Must stop laughing so hard!! To answer your question MacBeth, yes I do believe that the think tank devoted to international strategy failed to account for factors immediately obvious to our own Trader_Jorge. These factors are referred to as ADDITION AND SUBTRACTION. Yours Truly, TI-85 GRAPHING CALCULATOR JORGE
(Personally, I was expecting a reference to a more reliable report issued by the International Institute of Thongs and Mammoth Jugs in his scathing rebuttal...)
I thought it was pretty funny regardless of how innaccurate it was. Must have thrown back a couple of Coronas before he wrote that one.
Weak. Really weak. 1) Your pressing obligations didn't prevent you from posting in other threads over the hours, and this after having repeatedly asked me to respond earlier after I already had. 2) I posted the article, without comment, and you responded Now, after a day of ducking the fact that the insitute in question is in no way liberal, you've tried to say you were calling me a liberal? Pathetic. I offered ni analysis, so you're caught T_J. I'd say nice try, but... 3) This is the best you can do? Try and re-hash someone else's inaccurate argument? The 20, 000 were one issue, the growing numbers another. Dealth with, but as evidenced in your first 'point', you aren't here trying to debate serioulsy, but to try and reclaim some pride. 4) You never answered my last question, Y_J. If, as you said, I was posting an Al-Qaida "success", in that the war has helped their cause, and I answered all fo your questions, more than once, why T_J, why are you supporting that which helps Al-Qaida? Why are you supporting their success? Or, if you feel it's not a success, why were you accusing me of reporting their success by reporting this? See you in a few days.
