The Color Of Our Nation Is Once Again Orange. Is This The Real Thing?
Walter Scott
Asa Hutchinson, Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, has delivered an announcement of "increased" threat that,
from my perspective, seems to hold far more "intensity" than any such
announcement in the past. This announcement seems based on
information from the "intelligence community" arising from from
terrorist statements of "intent," the attacks occurring in Saudi
Arabia and Morocco as well as attacks that may be in some final stage
of planning or nearing execution.
But we've been down this road before. Will this be another
budget-buster which further erodes confidence in the national alert
scheme? We've been told that Al-Qaida is a mere shadow of what it
once was; that it cannot mount another attack on the scale of
9-11-2001. Is that really true? If it is, what then can they do? What
of all those so-called "sleeper cells" we were told exist within
America not so long ago and Osama bin Laden's ability to communicate
with them? Are these cells likely to have taken orders from Osama bin
Laden and are now waiting and/or preparing to act? Or again, will we
find that, for whatever reason, tensions will rise and then a
conclusion will be reached that there was nothing to confirm
suspicion and fear or that concern was simply overblown? Yet,
according to CBS radio, Osama bin Laden released a tape in February
listing Saudi Arabia and Morocco as the first two venues for
terrorist attacks with America to follow. So, what now?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) The United States is sending 24 B-1 and B-52
bombers to the island of Guam in the Western Pacific to deter.. 3-4-03
Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)
Riyadh, as a sort of retreat and re-organization.
If they had a real opportunity in America, they'd have struck
during our invasion in Iraq, in order to take advantage of the even
moderate political discord in the early days.
So, it seems to me an attack now would expend vast amounts of
resources that they barely cling onto, and what with it being expected
by the public, would be no great surprise and be met with further
resolve to eliminate this political faction.
But, being delusional fanatics as they clearly are, they could
very well expend precious resources, just to make a point.
Take for example the Muslim protests in Iraq. A mere 5
thousand show up, rather than their expected 100s of thousands.
But then again, psychotics tend to go out with a big bang, so
they could well expend resources as a "goodbye card".
A far more responsible and productive political end would be
to slowly legitimize themselves and enter the spectrum of public
political debate...
Ie, vow to use terrorist funds to instead promote political
movement......
--
/\
\__/
Martin W. Smith
>
> Asa Hutchinson, Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland
> Security, has delivered an announcement of "increased" threat that,
> from my perspective, seems to hold far more "intensity" than any such
> announcement in the past. This announcement seems based on
> information from the "intelligence community" arising from from
> terrorist statements of "intent," the attacks occurring in Saudi
> Arabia and Morocco as well as attacks that may be in some final stage
> of planning or nearing execution.
>
> But we've been down this road before. Will this be another
> budget-buster which further erodes confidence in the national alert
> scheme? We've been told that Al-Qaida is a mere shadow of what it
> once was; that it cannot mount another attack on the scale of
> 9-11-2001. Is that really true?
No, it isn't true. They can't do another 9/11 with airplanes, but they
can detonate a nuclear device and they can release a deadly virus or
nerve gas. They can continue blowing up buses and restaurants and
entrances to shopping centers forever. they have caused at least to
wars; they have brought the airlines to their economic knees; they have
reduced world tourism to a trickle of what it once was, especially in
Islamic lands, which was their goal. The only two objectives they
haven't achieved yet are the regime change in Saudi Arabia, and the
destruction of Israel. We appear to be helping them move toward the
former; they will not achieve the latter. Meanwhile, they have also
forced changes in American attitudes and reduced American freedom.
That's what I see, anyway.
martin
--
Martin Smith email: m...@computas.com
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
Bill Bonde
"Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)" wrote:
>
> My guess is this is an Al Qiada bluff. I see the attacks in
> Riyadh, as a sort of retreat and re-organization.
>
They've had success in the Middle East, Africa, the South Pacific and
elsewhere. They are still a very capable terrorist organization. Attacks
on North America are, however, expensive for al Qaeda so they will
likely concentrate on the bigger attacks here.
> If they had a real opportunity in America, they'd have struck
> during our invasion in Iraq, in order to take advantage of the even
> moderate political discord in the early days.
>
That would've just brought America back together.
> So, it seems to me an attack now would expend vast amounts of
> resources that they barely cling onto, and what with it being expected
> by the public, would be no great surprise and be met with further
> resolve to eliminate this political faction.
>
> But, being delusional fanatics as they clearly are, they could
> very well expend precious resources, just to make a point.
>
What other options do they have? If they don't attack, they will lose
credibility as a threat. If they do attack, they invariably lose the
terrorists that they sent out to make the attack.
> Take for example the Muslim protests in Iraq. A mere 5
> thousand show up, rather than their expected 100s of thousands.
>
> But then again, psychotics tend to go out with a big bang, so
> they could well expend resources as a "goodbye card".
>
> A far more responsible and productive political end would be
> to slowly legitimize themselves and enter the spectrum of public
> political debate...
>
> Ie, vow to use terrorist funds to instead promote political
> movement......
>
Since their motivation seems to be create a pan-Muslim state and convert
everyone else to Islam or destroy them, I don't see what sort of
political party they could make.
--
"O rocks!" she said. "Tell us in plain words."
-+Ulysses, James Joyce
Bill Bonde
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Walter Scott wrote:
> >
> > Asa Hutchinson, Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland
> > Security, has delivered an announcement of "increased" threat that,
> > from my perspective, seems to hold far more "intensity" than any such
> > announcement in the past. This announcement seems based on
> > information from the "intelligence community" arising from from
> > terrorist statements of "intent," the attacks occurring in Saudi
> > Arabia and Morocco as well as attacks that may be in some final stage
> > of planning or nearing execution.
> >
> > But we've been down this road before. Will this be another
> > budget-buster which further erodes confidence in the national alert
> > scheme? We've been told that Al-Qaida is a mere shadow of what it
> > once was; that it cannot mount another attack on the scale of
> > 9-11-2001. Is that really true?
>
> No, it isn't true. They can't do another 9/11 with airplanes, but they
> can detonate a nuclear device and they can release a deadly virus or
> nerve gas. They can continue blowing up buses and restaurants and
> entrances to shopping centers forever.
>
Not in the United States. In many of these attacks, a good portion of
the dead are the bombers themselves.
> they have caused at least to
> wars; they have brought the airlines to their economic knees; they have
> reduced world tourism to a trickle of what it once was, especially in
> Islamic lands, which was their goal.
>
Of course all that does is hurt the people in those Islamic countries
economically.
> The only two objectives they
> haven't achieved yet are the regime change in Saudi Arabia, and the
> destruction of Israel. We appear to be helping them move toward the
> former;
>
Since Saudi Arabia is a big problem area and impediment to our
anti-terrorism efforts, some change there is required. The direction we
are pushing for will not be liked much by al Qaeda.
> they will not achieve the latter. Meanwhile, they have also
> forced changes in American attitudes and reduced American freedom.
>
Yet Americans still have more freedoms than the French.
Adam Weiss
<<snipped>>
>
>
>>they will not achieve the latter. Meanwhile, they have also
>>forced changes in American attitudes and reduced American freedom.
>>
>
> Yet Americans still have more freedoms than the French.
>
>
But Americans still have fewer freedoms than the Dutch.
Martin W. Smith
>
> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> >
> > Walter Scott wrote:
> > >
> > > Asa Hutchinson, Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland
> > > Security, has delivered an announcement of "increased" threat that,
> > > from my perspective, seems to hold far more "intensity" than any such
> > > announcement in the past. This announcement seems based on
> > > information from the "intelligence community" arising from from
> > > terrorist statements of "intent," the attacks occurring in Saudi
> > > Arabia and Morocco as well as attacks that may be in some final stage
> > > of planning or nearing execution.
> > >
> > > But we've been down this road before. Will this be another
> > > budget-buster which further erodes confidence in the national alert
> > > scheme? We've been told that Al-Qaida is a mere shadow of what it
> > > once was; that it cannot mount another attack on the scale of
> > > 9-11-2001. Is that really true?
> >
> > No, it isn't true. They can't do another 9/11 with airplanes, but they
> > can detonate a nuclear device and they can release a deadly virus or
> > nerve gas. They can continue blowing up buses and restaurants and
> > entrances to shopping centers forever.
> >
> Not in the United States.
What do you mean? Why can't they blow up things in the US? More
hubris? If they can't blow up things in the US, why the terror alert
system?
> In many of these attacks, a good portion of
> the dead are the bombers themselves.
Yes, look at the bright side, Bill. Every time a bomb goes off there is
one less bomber to worry about. Except for the ones they are
recruiting, but we can account for them in next year's stats.
> > they have caused at least to
> > wars; they have brought the airlines to their economic knees; they have
> > reduced world tourism to a trickle of what it once was, especially in
> > Islamic lands, which was their goal.
> >
> Of course all that does is hurt the people in those Islamic countries
> economically.
...which also works in their favor.
> > The only two objectives they
> > haven't achieved yet are the regime change in Saudi Arabia, and the
> > destruction of Israel. We appear to be helping them move toward the
> > former;
> >
> Since Saudi Arabia is a big problem area and impediment to our
> anti-terrorism efforts, some change there is required. The direction we
> are pushing for will not be liked much by al Qaeda.
We are pulling our military forces out of Saudi Arabia, a direct
objective of Al Qaida. And we should pull them out. We should not
support a dictatorship. But in conjunction with pulling them out, we
should publically advocate (not demand) that Saudi Arabi begin a ten
year program to convert to democracy. We should advocate appropriate UN
resolutions to establish democracy as the only legitimate form of
government. And so on. In other words, we should show the world that we
have changed our strategy, and to hell with Al Qaida.
> > they will not achieve the latter. Meanwhile, they have also
> > forced changes in American attitudes and reduced American freedom.
> >
> Yet Americans still have more freedoms than the French.
No they don't. What are you talking about? Do you mean the freedom not
to have health insurance? Americans don't have any more freedom than
any western European country that I know of. Do you mean the right to
carry a concealed weapon?
Bill Bonde
You obviously can't read. I said that they couldn't continue to blow up
buses and restaurants in the US forever. That's true. I have no idea why
you keep bringing up 'hubris'. The US got burned on 9/11. Analysis about
what al Qaeda will be able to do or will not be able to do has nothing
to do with hubris.
> > In many of these attacks, a good portion of
> > the dead are the bombers themselves.
>
> Yes, look at the bright side, Bill. Every time a bomb goes off there is
> one less bomber to worry about. Except for the ones they are
> recruiting, but we can account for them in next year's stats.
>
The bombers that the terrorists are using against Israel are cheap and
available in quantity. How many of them could get on an airplane, fly to
the US or Canada, get into the US and operate without getting caught?
Surely some, we saw that on 9/11. But they better be able to speak
English. They better be backed with enough money to operate and each
time they blow themselves up, that way of entering the US and its entire
network is ripped up. In Israel, the best the Israelis can do is rip it
out of Israel but it's really located next door in the Palestinian areas
where Israel has difficulty operating effectively. That problem doesn't
exist for the United States.
> > > they have caused at least to
> > > wars; they have brought the airlines to their economic knees; they have
> > > reduced world tourism to a trickle of what it once was, especially in
> > > Islamic lands, which was their goal.
> > >
> > Of course all that does is hurt the people in those Islamic countries
> > economically.
>
> ...which also works in their favor.
>
This assumes that Islamic people are stupid and can't see that their
tourist business is in the crapper because of the terrorists. Are
Islamic people stupid?
> > > The only two objectives they
> > > haven't achieved yet are the regime change in Saudi Arabia, and the
> > > destruction of Israel. We appear to be helping them move toward the
> > > former;
> > >
> > Since Saudi Arabia is a big problem area and impediment to our
> > anti-terrorism efforts, some change there is required. The direction we
> > are pushing for will not be liked much by al Qaeda.
>
> We are pulling our military forces out of Saudi Arabia, a direct
> objective of Al Qaida. And we should pull them out. We should not
> support a dictatorship.
>
We were there to counter Saddam. Saddam is gone. We don't need to be
there.
> But in conjunction with pulling them out, we
> should publically advocate (not demand) that Saudi Arabi begin a ten
> year program to convert to democracy. We should advocate appropriate UN
> resolutions to establish democracy as the only legitimate form of
> government. And so on.
>
In other words, you want to impose western values, the values of the
United States really, on the rest of the world. Martin, you are an
imperialist.
> In other words, we should show the world that we
> have changed our strategy, and to hell with Al Qaida.
>
Encouraging democracy has long been our strategy. Look at the western
hemisphere. Except for Cuba, I think every country is now democratic or
trying to be.
> > > they will not achieve the latter. Meanwhile, they have also
> > > forced changes in American attitudes and reduced American freedom.
> > >
> > Yet Americans still have more freedoms than the French.
>
> No they don't. What are you talking about?
>
Why do you ask?
> Do you mean the freedom not
> to have health insurance? Americans don't have any more freedom than
> any western European country that I know of. Do you mean the right to
> carry a concealed weapon?
>
Americans do have more gun rights than the French but I was referring to
how you can be arrested in France for just having printed material from
a terrorist organization. In the US, it is generally protected by
freedom of speech ideas coming from the 1st Amendment. The US and then
the UK tend to have the most freedom in this regard. The US has long
been a place where terrorists (of many views) have raised money and the
French have long wondered why we don't just arrest the fund raisers.
Bill Bonde
True. The Dutch have the freedom to wear wooden clogs and tilt at
windmills without getting laughed at by their countrymen. Such is life,
it is.
whit
"Bill Bonde" <sst...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3ECD3B85...@backpacker.com...
>
>
> Adam Weiss wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bonde wrote:
> >
> > <<snipped>>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>they will not achieve the latter. Meanwhile, they have also
> > >>forced changes in American attitudes and reduced American freedom.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yet Americans still have more freedoms than the French.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > But Americans still have fewer freedoms than the Dutch.
> >
depends on which freedoms you are referring to.
whit
Jeffrey Turner
> Encouraging democracy has long been our strategy. Look at the western
> hemisphere. Except for Cuba, I think every country is now democratic or
> trying to be.
Is that why the Bush administration was so quick to recognize
the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president
of Venezuela?
--Jeff
Martin W. Smith
>
> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> >
> > > Not in the United States.
> >
> > What do you mean? Why can't they blow up things in the US? More
> > hubris? If they can't blow up things in the US, why the terror alert
> > system?
> >
> You obviously can't read. I said that they couldn't continue to blow up
> buses and restaurants in the US forever. That's true.
Why is it true? Anybody can blow up things in the US forever. The only
way you can stop them is to (a) apprehend all the terrorists and lock
them up, and (b) prevent the recruiting of more terrorists. In other
words, you have to stop heinous crime and prevent all future heinous
crime.
> I have no idea why you keep bringing up 'hubris'.
That's why.
> > Yes, look at the bright side, Bill. Every time a bomb goes off there is
> > one less bomber to worry about. Except for the ones they are
> > recruiting, but we can account for them in next year's stats.
> >
> The bombers that the terrorists are using against Israel are cheap and
> available in quantity. How many of them could get on an airplane, fly to
> the US or Canada, get into the US and operate without getting caught?
All of them.
> Surely some, we saw that on 9/11. But they better be able to speak
> English. They better be backed with enough money to operate and each
> time they blow themselves up, that way of entering the US and its entire
> network is ripped up. In Israel, the best the Israelis can do is rip it
> out of Israel but it's really located next door in the Palestinian areas
> where Israel has difficulty operating effectively. That problem doesn't
> exist for the United States.
sigh. I have this image of you sitting on the floor analyzing world
problems by moving little plastic army guys around on a map.
> > > > they have caused at least to
> > > > wars; they have brought the airlines to their economic knees; they have
> > > > reduced world tourism to a trickle of what it once was, especially in
> > > > Islamic lands, which was their goal.
> > > >
> > > Of course all that does is hurt the people in those Islamic countries
> > > economically.
> >
> > ...which also works in their favor.
> >
> This assumes that Islamic people are stupid and can't see that their
> tourist business is in the crapper because of the terrorists. Are
> Islamic people stupid?
No, they aren't. It doesn't assume they are stupid. It assumes that
some young people who suffer because of failed economies will be
encouraged to seek a scapegoat on whom they can take revenge. A failed
economy will be another reason to take revenge on that which you hate.
We're not talking about Muslims in general. We are talking about the
Muslim Timothy McVeighs. They are the Muslims who become terrorists.
Failed economies will be another recruiting tool.
> > > > The only two objectives they
> > > > haven't achieved yet are the regime change in Saudi Arabia, and the
> > > > destruction of Israel. We appear to be helping them move toward the
> > > > former;
> > > >
> > > Since Saudi Arabia is a big problem area and impediment to our
> > > anti-terrorism efforts, some change there is required. The direction we
> > > are pushing for will not be liked much by al Qaeda.
> >
> > We are pulling our military forces out of Saudi Arabia, a direct
> > objective of Al Qaida. And we should pull them out. We should not
> > support a dictatorship.
> >
> We were there to counter Saddam. Saddam is gone. We don't need to be
> there.
Right. We should not support the Saudi dictatorship.
> > But in conjunction with pulling them out, we
> > should publically advocate (not demand) that Saudi Arabi begin a ten
> > year program to convert to democracy. We should advocate appropriate UN
> > resolutions to establish democracy as the only legitimate form of
> > government. And so on.
> >
> In other words, you want to impose western values, the values of the
> United States really, on the rest of the world. Martin, you are an
> imperialist.
The United States didn't invent democracy, Bill, and some would argue it
isn't doing a very good job of implementing it. I said advocate. You
said impose. If you do nothing else this year to improve your mind, buy
a dictionary.
> > In other words, we should show the world that we
> > have changed our strategy, and to hell with Al Qaida.
> >
> Encouraging democracy has long been our strategy. Look at the western
> hemisphere. Except for Cuba, I think every country is now democratic or
> trying to be.
Bill, advocate and encourage are similar in meaning. Impose is
different. Look up the difference before you accuse. If you are
accusing me of wanting to impose, when I say advocate, then you are
accusing the US of wanting to impose, when you say encourage. Are you
complaining theat the US is imposing democracy?
> > > > they will not achieve the latter. Meanwhile, they have also
> > > > forced changes in American attitudes and reduced American freedom.
> > > >
> > > Yet Americans still have more freedoms than the French.
> >
> > No they don't. What are you talking about?
> >
> Why do you ask?
Because you made an apparently false claim, and I want you to justify
it.
> > Do you mean the freedom not
> > to have health insurance? Americans don't have any more freedom than
> > any western European country that I know of. Do you mean the right to
> > carry a concealed weapon?
> >
> Americans do have more gun rights than the French but I was referring to
> how you can be arrested in France for just having printed material from
> a terrorist organization. In the US, it is generally protected by
> freedom of speech ideas coming from the 1st Amendment. The US and then
> the UK tend to have the most freedom in this regard. The US has long
> been a place where terrorists (of many views) have raised money and the
> French have long wondered why we don't just arrest the fund raisers.
These are delusions, Bill. Who has been arrested in France based on
possessing terrorist literature? Who has been arrested in the US and
detained without legal representation indefinitely, often for having
terrorist literature or allegedly associating with terrorist? Isn't the
20th 9/11 guy, Moose whatever his name is, charged with associating with
terrorists? Isn't that the main charge against him, even though people
have the right to peacibly assemble?
You don't have more freedom than the French, Bill. You can't even have
total noodle frontatity and sex on commercial tv.
Walter Scott
It's interesting, Martin, that Bill Bonde observes "the bombers that
and how so? Do you have any evidence to back that notion up? Bear in
mind that the America of pre-9-11-2001 is not the America of today.
Bill Bonde
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> >
> > "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > > Not in the United States.
> > >
> > > What do you mean? Why can't they blow up things in the US? More
> > > hubris? If they can't blow up things in the US, why the terror alert
> > > system?
> > >
> > You obviously can't read. I said that they couldn't continue to blow up
> > buses and restaurants in the US forever. That's true.
>
> Why is it true?
>
I've explained it to you again and again. It's pretty pointless to
explain it to you again and again and yet again.
> Anybody can blow up things in the US forever.
>
No they can't.
> The only
> way you can stop them is to (a) apprehend all the terrorists and lock
> them up, and (b) prevent the recruiting of more terrorists. In other
> words, you have to stop heinous crime and prevent all future heinous
> crime.
>
International terrorism is a specific type of crime. I never claimed
that the US didn't have more than enough Raskolnikov's at their worst.
> > I have no idea why you keep bringing up 'hubris'.
>
> That's why.
>
Geez, you are kooky. You brought up 'hubris' because I don't understand
why you brought up hubris?
> > > Yes, look at the bright side, Bill. Every time a bomb goes off there is
> > > one less bomber to worry about. Except for the ones they are
> > > recruiting, but we can account for them in next year's stats.
> > >
> > The bombers that the terrorists are using against Israel are cheap and
> > available in quantity. How many of them could get on an airplane, fly to
> > the US or Canada, get into the US and operate without getting caught?
>
> All of them.
>
We have example after example where they could not get into the US. The
low level 9/11 hijackers were chaperoned by the college educated
multilingual and world experienced leaders. Without those folks, they
would've gotten nowhere.
> > Surely some, we saw that on 9/11. But they better be able to speak
> > English. They better be backed with enough money to operate and each
> > time they blow themselves up, that way of entering the US and its entire
> > network is ripped up. In Israel, the best the Israelis can do is rip it
> > out of Israel but it's really located next door in the Palestinian areas
> > where Israel has difficulty operating effectively. That problem doesn't
> > exist for the United States.
>
> sigh. I have this image of you sitting on the floor analyzing world
> problems by moving little plastic army guys around on a map.
>
Nope. I do have a world map on the wall though.
> > > > > they have caused at least to
> > > > > wars; they have brought the airlines to their economic knees; they have
> > > > > reduced world tourism to a trickle of what it once was, especially in
> > > > > Islamic lands, which was their goal.
> > > > >
> > > > Of course all that does is hurt the people in those Islamic countries
> > > > economically.
> > >
> > > ...which also works in their favor.
> > >
> > This assumes that Islamic people are stupid and can't see that their
> > tourist business is in the crapper because of the terrorists. Are
> > Islamic people stupid?
>
> No, they aren't. It doesn't assume they are stupid. It assumes that
> some young people who suffer because of failed economies will be
> encouraged to seek a scapegoat on whom they can take revenge. A failed
> economy will be another reason to take revenge on that which you hate.
> We're not talking about Muslims in general. We are talking about the
> Muslim Timothy McVeighs. They are the Muslims who become terrorists.
> Failed economies will be another recruiting tool.
>
They *already* have failed economies. Saudi Arabia is 150 billion
dollars in debt and most of its people are poor. We are aiming to
correct those situations by encouraging change in Saudi Arabia. That
could only really happen with change first happening in Iraq.
> > > > > The only two objectives they
> > > > > haven't achieved yet are the regime change in Saudi Arabia, and the
> > > > > destruction of Israel. We appear to be helping them move toward the
> > > > > former;
> > > > >
> > > > Since Saudi Arabia is a big problem area and impediment to our
> > > > anti-terrorism efforts, some change there is required. The direction we
> > > > are pushing for will not be liked much by al Qaeda.
> > >
> > > We are pulling our military forces out of Saudi Arabia, a direct
> > > objective of Al Qaida. And we should pull them out. We should not
> > > support a dictatorship.
> > >
> > We were there to counter Saddam. Saddam is gone. We don't need to be
> > there.
>
> Right. We should not support the Saudi dictatorship.
>
You would have us just oppose anything that isn't perfect and end up
with things that are worse. This is why your ideas are so totally
impractically ridiculous.
> > > But in conjunction with pulling them out, we
> > > should publically advocate (not demand) that Saudi Arabi begin a ten
> > > year program to convert to democracy. We should advocate appropriate UN
> > > resolutions to establish democracy as the only legitimate form of
> > > government. And so on.
> > >
> > In other words, you want to impose western values, the values of the
> > United States really, on the rest of the world. Martin, you are an
> > imperialist.
>
> The United States didn't invent democracy, Bill, and some would argue it
> isn't doing a very good job of implementing it.
>
The US is doing fine. Our democracy is extremely stable and able to deal
with world and domestic situations better than systems where elections
can be called whenever a government isn't supported by its parliament.
> I said advocate. You
> said impose. If you do nothing else this year to improve your mind, buy
> a dictionary.
>
I have several dictionaries.
> > > In other words, we should show the world that we
> > > have changed our strategy, and to hell with Al Qaida.
> > >
> > Encouraging democracy has long been our strategy. Look at the western
> > hemisphere. Except for Cuba, I think every country is now democratic or
> > trying to be.
>
> Bill, advocate and encourage are similar in meaning. Impose is
> different. Look up the difference before you accuse. If you are
> accusing me of wanting to impose, when I say advocate, then you are
> accusing the US of wanting to impose, when you say encourage. Are you
> complaining theat the US is imposing democracy?
>
No, but then I support using force when needed.
> > > > > they will not achieve the latter. Meanwhile, they have also
> > > > > forced changes in American attitudes and reduced American freedom.
> > > > >
> > > > Yet Americans still have more freedoms than the French.
> > >
> > > No they don't. What are you talking about?
> > >
> > Why do you ask?
>
> Because you made an apparently false claim, and I want you to justify
> it.
>
Americans do have more freedoms than the French.
> > > Do you mean the freedom not
> > > to have health insurance? Americans don't have any more freedom than
> > > any western European country that I know of. Do you mean the right to
> > > carry a concealed weapon?
> > >
> > Americans do have more gun rights than the French but I was referring to
> > how you can be arrested in France for just having printed material from
> > a terrorist organization. In the US, it is generally protected by
> > freedom of speech ideas coming from the 1st Amendment. The US and then
> > the UK tend to have the most freedom in this regard. The US has long
> > been a place where terrorists (of many views) have raised money and the
> > French have long wondered why we don't just arrest the fund raisers.
>
> These are delusions, Bill. Who has been arrested in France based on
> possessing terrorist literature? Who has been arrested in the US and
> detained without legal representation indefinitely, often for having
> terrorist literature or allegedly associating with terrorist? Isn't the
> 20th 9/11 guy, Moose whatever his name is, charged with associating with
> terrorists? Isn't that the main charge against him, even though people
> have the right to peacibly assemble?
>
In France, you could be arrested for having what in the US is protected
by freedom of speech. In both countries, you can be arrested for
associating with terrorists or advocating violence against the
government or terrorist acts.
> You don't have more freedom than the French, Bill. You can't even have
> total noodle frontatity and sex on commercial tv.
>
It is telling that this would define what freedom means to you. Cable TV
is commercial TV, isn't it? Doesn't the society have the right to define
what will be allowed on its public airwaves? Do you think that graphic
sex should be on 24/7 on over the airwaves networks?
Bill Bonde
They didn't recognize the attempted coup.
Jeffrey Turner
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>Bill Bonde wrote:
>>
>>>Encouraging democracy has long been our strategy. Look at the western
>>>hemisphere. Except for Cuba, I think every country is now democratic or
>>>trying to be.
>>
>>Is that why the Bush administration was so quick to recognize
>>the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president
>>of Venezuela?
>
> They didn't recognize the attempted coup.
Yes they did. Then they had to backtrack like crazy
when it was reversed. Or is your memory trained not
to remember the inconvenient?
--Jeff
Bill Bonde
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>Bill Bonde wrote:
> >>
> >>>Encouraging democracy has long been our strategy. Look at the western
> >>>hemisphere. Except for Cuba, I think every country is now democratic or
> >>>trying to be.
> >>
> >>Is that why the Bush administration was so quick to recognize
> >>the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president
> >>of Venezuela?
> >
> > They didn't recognize the attempted coup.
>
> Yes they did.
>
Nothing official happened. Prove me wrong. You can't.
> Then they had to backtrack like crazy
> when it was reversed. Or is your memory trained not
> to remember the inconvenient?
>
I remember everything.
Roger R.
Yesterday we had both here in DFW.
How long until someone color-codes the length of Sunday Sermons? Green for
five minutes, Red for over an hour, and the other three in between.
Jeffrey Turner
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>Bill Bonde wrote:
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>Bill Bonde wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Encouraging democracy has long been our strategy. Look at the western
>>>>>hemisphere. Except for Cuba, I think every country is now democratic or
>>>>>trying to be.
>>>>
>>>>Is that why the Bush administration was so quick to recognize
>>>>the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president
>>>>of Venezuela?
>>>
>>>They didn't recognize the attempted coup.
>>
>>Yes they did.
>
> Nothing official happened. Prove me wrong. You can't.
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/581.cfm
Note the second paragraph. As a point of fact it should
be proveable.
Even better:
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/050302/050302h.htm
Check out the fourth through sixth paragraphs.
And if rumors were being taken seriously by the Venezuelan
archbishop three weeks prior, why didn't the US assert its
"pro-democracy" stance more forcefully sooner?
http://www.cwnews.com/Browse/2002/03/17724.htm
>>Then they had to backtrack like crazy
>>when it was reversed. Or is your memory trained not
>>to remember the inconvenient?
>
> I remember everything.
Do you really? Do you think the level of proof of US approval
if not complicity in the Venezuelan coup is up to the standards
of proof of Iraqi wmd?
--Jeff
Martin W. Smith
>
> It's interesting, Martin, that Bill Bonde observes "the bombers that
> the terrorists are using against Israel are cheap and available in
> quantity" and then Bill asks "how many of them could get on an
> airplane, fly to the US or Canada, get into the US and operate
> without getting caught" to which you respond with "all of them." Why
> and how so? Do you have any evidence to back that notion up? Bear in
> mind that the America of pre-9-11-2001 is not the America of today.
I don't see what cheapness has to do with it, so that's a red herring.
The bomb Timothy McVeigh used in Oklahoma city was cheaper than the
manufactured body aparatus the Palestinian suicide bombers use.
Obviously, illegal entry into the USA remains a problem. If you think I
meant that potential suicide bombers could simply get on an airplane and
fly to the US, I didn't. Obviously Bill wasn't asking if it could be
done easily. If he was, then his question is irrelevant, since it
doesn't have to be easy. The US has two long boarders and two long
coastlines. It is safe to say that people cross all of them illegally
every month, if not every day. As far as operating goes once they get
in, they only have to operate once. That's all any of them ever does is
operate once. But in the US, they could be far more effective just
buying a gun and shooting people at random like the two in the DC area
did. How long do you think it will take them to figure that out? Use
your imagination, Walter. See how much terror two terrorists with guns
caused.
Martin W. Smith
>
> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > You obviously can't read. I said that they couldn't continue to blow up
> > > buses and restaurants in the US forever. That's true.
> >
> > Why is it true?
> >
> I've explained it to you again and again. It's pretty pointless to
> explain it to you again and again and yet again.
I never saw any such explanation, Bill. I think your only possible
explanation would have to be based on assumptions like: they can't keep
recruiting new terrorists, or the even more absurd assumption that they
would eventually blow up all the buses and restaurants. There is no way
to completely seal off our boarders and coastlines, and the population
will never tolerate (I hope) more restrictions on the freedom peaceably
to assemble. The way I see it is terrorism is a divergent problem, so
it can never be true to say they can't keep blowing up stuff forever.
Even if you are right, however, it will be far easier for them to just
get guns and shoot people, which is the American way.
> > The only
> > way you can stop them is to (a) apprehend all the terrorists and lock
> > them up, and (b) prevent the recruiting of more terrorists. In other
> > words, you have to stop heinous crime and prevent all future heinous
> > crime.
> >
> International terrorism is a specific type of crime. I never claimed
> that the US didn't have more than enough Raskolnikov's at their worst.
How is that relevant to your claim that they can't keep blowing up buses
and restaurants forever? Since we can't apprehend all the terrorists
and lock them up, and since we can't prevent recruiting of more
terrorists, how can we stop the neverending pool of terrorists from
continuing to blow stuff up?
I'm not trying to sound hopeless. Actually, I have a positive view
about how we can minimize terrorism, but it has little to do with
increasing restrictions on freedom.
> > > I have no idea why you keep bringing up 'hubris'.
> >
> > That's why.
> >
> Geez, you are kooky. You brought up 'hubris' because I don't understand
> why you brought up hubris?
Yes. You don't see how the word applies to your argument. That is
pretty much the essence of hubris.
> > > > Yes, look at the bright side, Bill. Every time a bomb goes off there is
> > > > one less bomber to worry about. Except for the ones they are
> > > > recruiting, but we can account for them in next year's stats.
> > > >
> > > The bombers that the terrorists are using against Israel are cheap and
> > > available in quantity. How many of them could get on an airplane, fly to
> > > the US or Canada, get into the US and operate without getting caught?
> >
> > All of them.
> >
> We have example after example where they could not get into the US. The
> low level 9/11 hijackers were chaperoned by the college educated
> multilingual and world experienced leaders. Without those folks, they
> would've gotten nowhere.
But that wasn't your point. All that was necessary to prevent another
9/11 was to put air marshals on all flights. There is still a hole, by
the way, since we don't control foreign airlines whose flights originate
outside the US. I don't think we put air marshals on those flights. Are
we still putting air marshals on any flights? Well, we have also beefed
up security procedures and doors on the aircraft, and boarding security
has also been enhanced. But, the best preventive measure of all is
simply that the passengers themselves would act to stop any hyjacking
from now on. I certainly would.
But none of this has anything to do with blowing up buses and
restaurants in the US. Potential terrorists can still get into the US.
To claim they can't would surely be hubris.
> They *already* have failed economies. Saudi Arabia is 150 billion
> dollars in debt and most of its people are poor. We are aiming to
> correct those situations by encouraging change in Saudi Arabia. That
> could only really happen with change first happening in Iraq.
Whoa! Where does that assumption come from? We could only begin
encouraging change in Saudi Arabia after changing Iraq? Why couldn't we
ask Saudi Arabia to make changes before changing Iraq?
> You would have us just oppose anything that isn't perfect and end up
> with things that are worse. This is why your ideas are so totally
> impractically ridiculous.
Stop putting false words in my mouth, Bill. No government is perfect. I
don't advocate opposing all governments. I advocate not supporting
dictatorships. Not supporting does not mean trying to overthrow. I see
why you assumed that is what I meant, though, since when the US doesn't
support a government, it usually means the US is trying to overthrow
it. But I advocate taking a public stand against dictatorships the way
we have taken a public stand against NGOs that offer abortion
information. Do you understand?
> In France, you could be arrested for having what in the US is protected
> by freedom of speech.
And in the US you can be arrested for what in France is protected by
free speech. Pornography on TV, for example. Americans aren't any more
free than Europeans. I live here. The US has more brands of
toothpaste. If that's freedom, then the US is more free.
> In both countries, you can be arrested for
> associating with terrorists or advocating violence against the
> government or terrorist acts.
>
> > You don't have more freedom than the French, Bill. You can't even have
> > total noodle frontatity and sex on commercial tv.
> >
> It is telling that this would define what freedom means to you. Cable TV
> is commercial TV, isn't it? Doesn't the society have the right to define
> what will be allowed on its public airwaves? Do you think that graphic
> sex should be on 24/7 on over the airwaves networks?
I think there must be restrictions of freedom. I think there must be
speed limits, for example. In Germany there are freeways where there are
no speed limits. That's freedom that Germans have that Americans don't
have. What restrictions of freedom do the French accept that you claim
they should not accept?
Walter Scott
It's a real backpedal and redefining of night as day, Martin, where
you contend "if [I] think [you] meant that potential suicide bombers
could simply get on an airplane and fly to the US, [you] didn't."
Bill's question and your answer make it clear that "all of them" is
still "all of them," even though it might be convenient for you to
withdraw from a previous statement by redefining it as opposite to
what it was and to do so as if you can redefine your answer the way
you might try to define night as day. There really is no other
plausible way to interpret your "all of them" answer to Bill's
question on how many suicide bombers, of the type usually operating
in Israel, could get on a plane and arrive in the U.S. to conduct a
terrorist attack without interdiction. The most difficult of
statements to reinterpret and backpedal from are those holding
blanket absolutes. And that's what "all of them" comes down to; a
"blanket absolute."
Martin W. Smith
>
> It's a real backpedal and redefining of night as day, Martin, where
> you contend "if [I] think [you] meant that potential suicide bombers
> could simply get on an airplane and fly to the US, [you] didn't."
> Bill's question and your answer make it clear that "all of them" is
> still "all of them," even though it might be convenient for you to
> withdraw from a previous statement by redefining it as opposite to
> what it was and to do so as if you can redefine your answer the way
> you might try to define night as day. There really is no other
> plausible way to interpret your "all of them" answer to Bill's
> question on how many suicide bombers, of the type usually operating
> in Israel, could get on a plane and arrive in the U.S. to conduct a
> terrorist attack without interdiction. The most difficult of
> statements to reinterpret and backpedal from are those holding
> blanket absolutes. And that's what "all of them" comes down to; a
> "blanket absolute."
All of them *can* get in, Walter. Bill asked how many *could* get in.
All of them *can*. They won't, but any of them could, so they all can.
Language, Walter. Worst case scenario. A successful terrorist
operation is one that causes terror. If one hundred terrorist
operations are initiated, but the US security system stops nninety
percent, that's a successful security system. But from the terrorist
point of view, *they* are successful, because they cause terror.
I didn't back peddle. All of them can get in. I don't mean they can
simply get on an airplane. That problem was easily solved. If Bill
meant that he thinks he is a lot safer from terrorism now because
terrorists can't simply get on a plane, then again he is guilty of
hubris. The reason terrorists simply got on a plane was because they
could. Now they can't, so they will do other things instead.
All of them can get in, Walter. A blanket absolute. All of them.
Walter Scott
Well, Martin, if "all of them can get in" -- "all of them" being
terrorists of the ilk attacking civilians in Israel, and getting in to
be construed as getting into the United States -- please document
your assertion that they can; provide the details.
The search for truth requires the courage to accept it.
NTReader v0.37w(P)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Martin W. Smith
>
> Well, Martin, if "all of them can get in" -- "all of them" being
> terrorists of the ilk attacking civilians in Israel, and getting in to
> be construed as getting into the United States -- please document
> your assertion that they can; provide the details.
Walter, to prove that all of them can get in, it is sufficient to prove
that one of them can get in. To prove that one of them can get in, it
is sufficient to prove that one illegal alien is currently in. Can we
assume that there exists at least one illegal alien currently in the US?
If so, can you find any holes in my proof?
BIGDOG
"Martin W. Smith" <m...@computas.com> wrote in message
news:3ED44DCC...@computas.com...
Martin W. Smith
>
> Sure, Liars don't stick around when they say they're going to leave.
You're saying that since I left when I said I was going to leave, I
proved I'm not a liar. Thanks for the complement, but (a) I was asking
about holes in the proof of my assertion, and (b) I was asking Walter,
not you.
Thanks again, though.
martin
Walter Scott
Only by the most twisted of pretzel logic might one assert that "to
prove that all of them can get in, it is sufficient to prove that one
of them can get in" -- "all of them" being terrorists of the ilk
attacking civilians in Israel, and getting in to be construed as
getting into the United States. In addition, simply getting in is not
the extent of the package here. Bill's question included such
terrorists taking action before they are caught. Your sophistry leads
me to declare you a lost cause, Martin.
Walter Scott
I have to say, BIGDOG, that, although I won't cut Martin slack on such
matters as the hypocrisy of arguing the U.S. should do in Palestine
that which he accuses the U.S. of wrongly doing in other places, I
don't think we (or at least I) can task him for stating an intent
to leave or scale back (I can't remember which it was) USENET activity
and then continuing all the same. But, to be fair, Martin HAS scaled
back from the level of his participation last Winter. Maybe it was the
change of the season and the need to respond to "cabin fever." Or...
maybe not....
I issued a good-bye announcement in November of last year. I couldn't
stay out of USENET for more than a month. I'm hopelessly addicted. Not
even USENET-aholics Anonymous could help me! That USENET "junk"
pollutes my brain just as heroin would pollute the body of a heroin
junkie. Try as I might to stop, I just can't. USENET is my addiction
and my affliction. Such is life for me, and I suspect the same is true
of Martin and maybe a few other people here along with their sock
puppets.
Carry on long enough as you become so deeply immersed in USENET, and
you shall one day find yourself asking: Should I be here? Should I be
doing this? Shouldn't I be doing something more productive in the REAL
World? And then you'll try to break away only to understand you can't;
you're hooked and there's no getting free!! No therapy and no
intervention will succeed as long as a computer with modem and
INTERNET access is easily at hand.
Do you read USENET more than an hour a day? Do you post more than a
few articles a day? Do you spend more than a few minutes "googling"
for information to use in a discussion or 2 or 3 or....? Do you make
your spouse or SO go to bed without you because you can't tear
yourself away from USENET? If there's a choice between finishing a
USENET-related project and going out to get some needed exercise, do
you choose USENET? If your computer, phone line, ISP or electricity
goes down, do YOU go into immediate withdrawal symptoms? If yes to
each and all questions, you are the USENET addicted and afflicted! And
if you someday decide to break the habit, you'll find yourself coming
back for more. If this happened to you in the past, you'll probably
try to break the cycle yet again and FAIL yet again. That's the way it
goes for us USENET addicts..... ;-)
Walter Scott
For how long did you "leave," Martin; for 2... 3.... 4 or maybe 5
days? Or maybe it was slightly more. But the point is.... you're
baaaaack!! Admit your addiction, Martin! It's the first step to
"recovery" .... ;-) ......OF what I don't know. But FROM
what, I *DO* know.
Bill Bonde
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Walter Scott wrote:
> >
> > It's a real backpedal and redefining of night as day, Martin, where
> > you contend "if [I] think [you] meant that potential suicide bombers
> > could simply get on an airplane and fly to the US, [you] didn't."
> > Bill's question and your answer make it clear that "all of them" is
> > still "all of them," even though it might be convenient for you to
> > withdraw from a previous statement by redefining it as opposite to
> > what it was and to do so as if you can redefine your answer the way
> > you might try to define night as day. There really is no other
> > plausible way to interpret your "all of them" answer to Bill's
> > question on how many suicide bombers, of the type usually operating
> > in Israel, could get on a plane and arrive in the U.S. to conduct a
> > terrorist attack without interdiction. The most difficult of
> > statements to reinterpret and backpedal from are those holding
> > blanket absolutes. And that's what "all of them" comes down to; a
> > "blanket absolute."
>
> All of them *can* get in, Walter.
>
That sort of flies in the face of the fact and that many better equipped
terrorists have managed to get captured trying to get into the United
States. But you know better, of course.
> Bill asked how many *could* get in.
> All of them *can*. They won't, but any of them could, so they all can.
>
Are you now trying to play games with the definitions of English modals?
> Language, Walter. Worst case scenario. A successful terrorist
> operation is one that causes terror. If one hundred terrorist
> operations are initiated, but the US security system stops nninety
> percent, that's a successful security system. But from the terrorist
> point of view, *they* are successful, because they cause terror.
>
Americans are clearly willing to accept the fact of life that some
terrorists could succeed. Americans are generally of the view that
terrorists going for 9/11 style and higher kill numbers must be stopped.
Americans believe this can be done by going after the source of the
terrorists and by increasing domestic security. That's what we are
doing.
> I didn't back peddle. All of them can get in.
>
Please define this modal for us. Your attempts to wriggle free by
twisting words shall be countered.
I don't mean they can
> simply get on an airplane. That problem was easily solved. If Bill
> meant that he thinks he is a lot safer from terrorism now because
> terrorists can't simply get on a plane, then again he is guilty of
> hubris. The reason terrorists simply got on a plane was because they
> could. Now they can't, so they will do other things instead.
>
> All of them can get in, Walter. A blanket absolute. All of them.
>
You do realize that you are just playing word games, don't you? I was
asking for your assessment of how many of the terrorists used against
Israel, by numbers or percent, if used against the US, would end up
successfully getting to the United States and operating. The ones who
can only speak Arabic are screwed, don't you think? If they have lived
their entire lives in refugee camps, are they going to be ready to
operate unnoticed in the US?
--
Still if intervention succeeded, the most immediate problem of Saddam
and mass-destruction weapons would be alleviated. Possibly the United
States could withdraw or greatly reduce its presence in the Gulf,
thereby ending the grounds for bin Laden-like charges of defiling Islam.
And the message to other would-be enemies would be powerful
The benefits would be great.
-+Harlan Ullman "Unfinished Business", p260 published in 2002
Suggesting that removing US troops from Saudi Arabia was a goal of
the Iraq invasion from the start.
Bill Bonde
Walter Scott wrote:
>
> For how long did you "leave," Martin; for 2... 3.... 4 or maybe 5
> days?
>
Hours. I think most readers thought that he was going to leave and not
come back.
Bill Bonde
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> >
> > "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > > You obviously can't read. I said that they couldn't continue to blow up
> > > > buses and restaurants in the US forever. That's true.
> > >
> > > Why is it true?
> > >
> > I've explained it to you again and again. It's pretty pointless to
> > explain it to you again and again and yet again.
>
> I never saw any such explanation, Bill.
>
Read my posts then.
> I think your only possible
> explanation would have to be based on assumptions like: they can't keep
> recruiting new terrorists, or the even more absurd assumption that they
> would eventually blow up all the buses and restaurants.
>
If you are making the rather modest claim that someone could always
commit terrorist acts as long as there are people willing to do so, of
course I agree. I think the more salient point is that the terrorists
can't afford to blow up a bus in the US. The cost is too high for them.
We are starting to see countries like Saudi Arabia getting serious about
terrorism. The number of people willing to die for stupid causes like
bin Ladenism is not unlimited.
> There is no way
> to completely seal off our boarders
>
Borders. Just a friendly homonym reminder as I was burned by that one
once too.
> and coastlines, and the population
> will never tolerate (I hope) more restrictions on the freedom peaceably
> to assemble.
>
If we get hit by a WMD that kills a million Americans, don't you see
that they will embrace those restrictions if they think it will prevent
a repeat? And they will be right too. I'm agitating for the right
balance now to prevent such a thing from ever happening.
> The way I see it is terrorism is a divergent problem, so
> it can never be true to say they can't keep blowing up stuff forever.
> Even if you are right, however, it will be far easier for them to just
> get guns and shoot people, which is the American way.
>
But this doesn't matter, in any large sense. People kill each other
every day. Americans die in car wrecks at 40K a year, or something like
that. You'll notice that the international terrorists haven't used guns
in the US. You should consider why that is.
> > > The only
> > > way you can stop them is to (a) apprehend all the terrorists and lock
> > > them up, and (b) prevent the recruiting of more terrorists. In other
> > > words, you have to stop heinous crime and prevent all future heinous
> > > crime.
> > >
> > International terrorism is a specific type of crime. I never claimed
> > that the US didn't have more than enough Raskolnikov's at their worst.
>
> How is that relevant to your claim that they can't keep blowing up buses
> and restaurants forever?
>
Didn't you like the Dostoevsky reference? It's almost like you don't
appreciate me putting this stuff in my posts.
> Since we can't apprehend all the terrorists
> and lock them up, and since we can't prevent recruiting of more
> terrorists, how can we stop the neverending pool of terrorists from
> continuing to blow stuff up?
>
It's tough for them if they don't have anywhere to train. And losing
battles lose supporters. Yes, there are some kook neo-Nazis out there,
but it's hardly a national movement anywhere anymore.
> I'm not trying to sound hopeless. Actually, I have a positive view
> about how we can minimize terrorism, but it has little to do with
> increasing restrictions on freedom.
>
Consider reading 'Unfinished Business'. The author points out that we
should attack both supply and demand. I'm sure you want to make life
good for people who might become terrorists. I agree with that. We need
to do something about the mess that the world is largely in. Not just
the US though, the EU needs to get involved.
> > > > I have no idea why you keep bringing up 'hubris'.
> > >
> > > That's why.
> > >
> > Geez, you are kooky. You brought up 'hubris' because I don't understand
> > why you brought up hubris?
>
> Yes. You don't see how the word applies to your argument. That is
> pretty much the essence of hubris.
>
No, it isn't. From m-w.com: "exaggerated pride or self-confidence."
> > > > > Yes, look at the bright side, Bill. Every time a bomb goes off there is
> > > > > one less bomber to worry about. Except for the ones they are
> > > > > recruiting, but we can account for them in next year's stats.
> > > > >
> > > > The bombers that the terrorists are using against Israel are cheap and
> > > > available in quantity. How many of them could get on an airplane, fly to
> > > > the US or Canada, get into the US and operate without getting caught?
> > >
> > > All of them.
> > >
> > We have example after example where they could not get into the US. The
> > low level 9/11 hijackers were chaperoned by the college educated
> > multilingual and world experienced leaders. Without those folks, they
> > would've gotten nowhere.
>
> But that wasn't your point.
>
Yes it was.
> All that was necessary to prevent another
> 9/11 was to put air marshals on all flights.
>
No, all that is required is for the passengers to know that if they
relinquish control of the aircraft, they die. Simple as that. They know,
it won't happen again unless al Qaeda buys all the occupied seats or
enough to take over by force.
> There is still a hole, by
> the way, since we don't control foreign airlines whose flights originate
> outside the US. I don't think we put air marshals on those flights. Are
> we still putting air marshals on any flights?
>
Yes.
> Well, we have also beefed
> up security procedures and doors on the aircraft, and boarding security
> has also been enhanced. But, the best preventive measure of all is
> simply that the passengers themselves would act to stop any hyjacking
> from now on. I certainly would.
>
> But none of this has anything to do with blowing up buses and
> restaurants in the US. Potential terrorists can still get into the US.
> To claim they can't would surely be hubris.
>
Geez, you are a fruitbat. I never claimed that terrorists couldn't get
into the US. I said that the cost in doing so would make blowing up
buses and restaurants not worth it. That's true. Guess what, zero buses
and restaurants blown up in the US. Look, OTOH, at the number in Israel.
Why is that? I've explained this to you several times.
> > They *already* have failed economies. Saudi Arabia is 150 billion
> > dollars in debt and most of its people are poor. We are aiming to
> > correct those situations by encouraging change in Saudi Arabia. That
> > could only really happen with change first happening in Iraq.
>
> Whoa! Where does that assumption come from? We could only begin
> encouraging change in Saudi Arabia after changing Iraq? Why couldn't we
> ask Saudi Arabia to make changes before changing Iraq?
>
We could. Of course since they control the world market in exported oil,
anything we say is well tempered by the fear that we could get screwed
out of the energy we need. With Iraq under our control, the world energy
markets are flush. That leaves us free to send the Saudi terrorist
supporters down the commode.
> > You would have us just oppose anything that isn't perfect and end up
> > with things that are worse. This is why your ideas are so totally
> > impractically ridiculous.
>
> Stop putting false words in my mouth, Bill. No government is perfect. I
> don't advocate opposing all governments. I advocate not supporting
> dictatorships.
>
You are completely impractical. If we dumped friendly dictatorships in
the Middle East, what would we end up with in the Middle East? Try to
think a little.
> Not supporting does not mean trying to overthrow. I see
> why you assumed that is what I meant, though, since when the US doesn't
> support a government, it usually means the US is trying to overthrow
> it.
>
Now that's not a serious comment at all.
> But I advocate taking a public stand against dictatorships the way
> we have taken a public stand against NGOs that offer abortion
> information. Do you understand?
>
What is an 'NGO'?
> > In France, you could be arrested for having what in the US is protected
> > by freedom of speech.
>
> And in the US you can be arrested for what in France is protected by
> free speech. Pornography on TV, for example.
>
It's interesting how you play right into the stereotype of Liberals
whose main demand for 'freedom' revolves around sexual freedom.
> Americans aren't any more
> free than Europeans. I live here. The US has more brands of
> toothpaste. If that's freedom, then the US is more free.
>
Have you committed any crimes yet? How about going to France with the
lit from a terror group? You are going to have to start doing the things
that are illegal in the EU countries to see if you are really free. Go
get a gun.
> > In both countries, you can be arrested for
> > associating with terrorists or advocating violence against the
> > government or terrorist acts.
> >
> > > You don't have more freedom than the French, Bill. You can't even have
> > > total noodle frontatity and sex on commercial tv.
> > >
> > It is telling that this would define what freedom means to you. Cable TV
> > is commercial TV, isn't it? Doesn't the society have the right to define
> > what will be allowed on its public airwaves? Do you think that graphic
> > sex should be on 24/7 on over the airwaves networks?
>
> I think there must be restrictions of freedom. I think there must be
> speed limits, for example. In Germany there are freeways where there are
> no speed limits. That's freedom that Germans have that Americans don't
> have.
>
And I think that America is wrong about that and have said it many
times.
> What restrictions of freedom do the French accept that you claim
> they should not accept?
>
The French have more restrictions on personal freedoms such as freedom
of speech than Americans. The UK is pretty darn free too but you don't
have the free speech rights in the UK that you have in the US.
Bill Bonde
Walter Scott wrote:
>
> Only by the most twisted of pretzel logic might one assert that "to
> prove that all of them can get in, it is sufficient to prove that one
> of them can get in" -- "all of them" being terrorists of the ilk
> attacking civilians in Israel, and getting in to be construed as
> getting into the United States. In addition, simply getting in is not
> the extent of the package here. Bill's question included such
> terrorists taking action before they are caught. Your sophistry leads
> me to declare you a lost cause, Martin.
>
He's playing word games. Just call him on them.
Martin W. Smith
>
> Only by the most twisted of pretzel logic might one assert that "to
> prove that all of them can get in, it is sufficient to prove that one
> of them can get in" -- "all of them" being terrorists of the ilk
> attacking civilians in Israel, and getting in to be construed as
> getting into the United States. In addition, simply getting in is not
> the extent of the package here. Bill's question included such
> terrorists taking action before they are caught. Your sophistry leads
> me to declare you a lost cause, Martin.
It doesn't matter whether my logic was pretzel or not. It only matters
whether it is logically correct. Your request was:
"Well, Martin, if "all of them can get in" -- "all of them" being
terrorists of the ilk attacking civilians in Israel, and getting in to
be construed as getting into the United States -- please document
your assertion that they can; provide the details."
My logic is, again, that by "ilk" you mean to indicate that all such
terrorists are in an equivalence class with respect to terrorist
capability. It is a simple inductive argument then. If one member of
the set *can* get in, then *any* member of the set can get in. If any
member of the set can get in, then *all* members of the set *can* get
in. If you didn't do mathematics through the principle of mathematical
induction, I suppose you won't see the obvious application.
The members of the ilk don't all have to get in at the same time. They
don't even all have to get in at all. The question was about how many of
them *can* get in. All of them can. If you want to pick a member of
the ilk and claim that he can't get in, then you can falsify my
argument. But the burden of proof is on you to prove he can't get in.
And if you think you have an aregument for why suicide bombers can't get
into the US, why don't you present it to the Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security? It will put his mind at rest a little, and we can
avoid all these orange alerts.
Martin W. Smith
>
> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> >
> > Walter Scott wrote:
> > >
> > > It's a real backpedal and redefining of night as day, Martin, where
> > > you contend "if [I] think [you] meant that potential suicide bombers
> > > could simply get on an airplane and fly to the US, [you] didn't."
> > > Bill's question and your answer make it clear that "all of them" is
> > > still "all of them," even though it might be convenient for you to
> > > withdraw from a previous statement by redefining it as opposite to
> > > what it was and to do so as if you can redefine your answer the way
> > > you might try to define night as day. There really is no other
> > > plausible way to interpret your "all of them" answer to Bill's
> > > question on how many suicide bombers, of the type usually operating
> > > in Israel, could get on a plane and arrive in the U.S. to conduct a
> > > terrorist attack without interdiction. The most difficult of
> > > statements to reinterpret and backpedal from are those holding
> > > blanket absolutes. And that's what "all of them" comes down to; a
> > > "blanket absolute."
> >
> > All of them *can* get in, Walter.
> >
> That sort of flies in the face of the fact and that many better equipped
> terrorists have managed to get captured trying to get into the United
> States. But you know better, of course.
It doesn't, Bill. I wasn't asked whether they all *would* get in, nor
did I even imply that a significant number *would* get in. I was asked
to prove that all of them *could* get in. I did that. I don't know why
you even bother trying to avoid looking foolish anymore.
> > Bill asked how many *could* get in.
> > All of them *can*. They won't, but any of them could, so they all can.
> >
> Are you now trying to play games with the definitions of English modals?
I don't think so. What are English modals? How do they apply here?
> > Language, Walter. Worst case scenario. A successful terrorist
> > operation is one that causes terror. If one hundred terrorist
> > operations are initiated, but the US security system stops nninety
> > percent, that's a successful security system. But from the terrorist
> > point of view, *they* are successful, because they cause terror.
> >
> Americans are clearly willing to accept the fact of life that some
> terrorists could succeed.
You don't understand, do you, that when you admit, in that way, that
some terrorists could succeed, you admit that any terrorist (of the ilk,
as Walter puts it) could succeed, and when you admit that any terrorist
could succeed, you admit that all of them could succeed. This isn't
prezel logic, by the way. It's very simple.
> Americans are generally of the view that
> terrorists going for 9/11 style and higher kill numbers must be stopped.
> Americans believe this can be done by going after the source of the
> terrorists and by increasing domestic security. That's what we are
> doing.
>
> > I didn't back peddle. All of them can get in.
> >
> Please define this modal for us. Your attempts to wriggle free by
> twisting words shall be countered.
I don't know what you mean, but I have presented the argument twice
now. Counter it.
> I don't mean they can
> > simply get on an airplane. That problem was easily solved. If Bill
> > meant that he thinks he is a lot safer from terrorism now because
> > terrorists can't simply get on a plane, then again he is guilty of
> > hubris. The reason terrorists simply got on a plane was because they
> > could. Now they can't, so they will do other things instead.
> >
> > All of them can get in, Walter. A blanket absolute. All of them.
> >
> You do realize that you are just playing word games, don't you?
I'm not, Bill.
> I was
> asking for your assessment of how many of the terrorists used against
> Israel, by numbers or percent, if used against the US, would end up
> successfully getting to the United States and operating.
I don't know what the percentage is, Bill. I assume it is low, but it
has always been low. I assume it is lower now than it was before, but
it isn't zero. Therefore, all of them who choose to try to get in *can*
get in.
> The ones who can only speak Arabic are screwed, don't you think?
No. In the first place, they only have to "operate" until they blow
themselves up. Why would they have to talk to anybody if they intend to
blow themselves up at their first opportunity? In the second place,
quite a lot of people can speak English. If you were a terrorist leader
planning to send suicide bombers to America, you would probably recruit
English speakers. If you couldn't find enough English speakers, you
would teach them enough English to get by long enough to blow themselves
up. Recall that the 9/11 pilots didn't bother learning how to land the
airplanes.
> If they have lived
> their entire lives in refugee camps, are they going to be ready to
> operate unnoticed in the US?
First, they don't have to operate unnoticed. They just have to get in,
get their bomb, wear it to a crowded place, and push the button. The
guy with the bombs is the one who has to operate unnoticed, but he would
probably not be a memjber of the "ilk". Second, who says that refugees
need to operate unnoticed? Refugees normally get into the US as
refugees. We take in a lot of refugees. They could be sleepers for
years. I imagine that were my parents killed by an American bomb in
Afghanistan or Iraq, I would plan my revenge very carefully and take my
time.
Martin W. Smith
> If you are making the rather modest claim that someone could always
> commit terrorist acts as long as there are people willing to do so, of
> course I agree. I think the more salient point is that the terrorists
> can't afford to blow up a bus in the US. The cost is too high for them.
The cost is low. They can do it the way Timothy McVeigh did it, and
they can use a smaller bomb.
> We are starting to see countries like Saudi Arabia getting serious about
> terrorism. The number of people willing to die for stupid causes like
> bin Ladenism is not unlimited.
What is the limit then? What limits the number?
> > and coastlines, and the population
> > will never tolerate (I hope) more restrictions on the freedom peaceably
> > to assemble.
> >
> If we get hit by a WMD that kills a million Americans, don't you see
> that they will embrace those restrictions if they think it will prevent
> a repeat? And they will be right too. I'm agitating for the right
> balance now to prevent such a thing from ever happening.
When Americans embrace those restricts, it will be the end of America.
> > The way I see it is terrorism is a divergent problem, so
> > it can never be true to say they can't keep blowing up stuff forever.
> > Even if you are right, however, it will be far easier for them to just
> > get guns and shoot people, which is the American way.
> >
> But this doesn't matter, in any large sense. People kill each other
> every day. Americans die in car wrecks at 40K a year, or something like
> that. You'll notice that the international terrorists haven't used guns
> in the US. You should consider why that is.
They haven't changed their tactics in that direction yet, because they
haven't had to. More importantly, the logic you are using above is
correct, but it is true now. The probability of you getting killed by a
terrorist is vanishingly small compared to the probability of you being
killed some other way. And that is without any of the new restrictions
on your freedoms. So your conclusion *should* be that *no* new restricts
are needed, since the probability of death by terrorism is so small.
Why on earth have you ignored that fact?
Jeffrey Turner
> Second, who says that refugees
> need to operate unnoticed? Refugees normally get into the US as
> refugees. We take in a lot of refugees.
Unfortunately we're taking in a whole lot fewer refugees these
days than ever before. It is indeed unfortunate for true refugees.
--Jeff
Walter Scott
Argue "all of them" equates to some of them or some number less than
"all of them" -- as if you could argue that night is day -- and you
embarrass yourself, Martin.
Walter Scott
You proved NOTHING, Martin. You were asked to "document" that "all of
them" -- meaning every single one of a given group of terrorists of
the ilk who act as suicide bombers in Israel -- could get on a plane
departing from some foreign location and arriving in the U.S. then to
execute a suicide bombing before they are caught. You (1) have
provided NO documentation, (2) have provided only twisted logic as to
how ONE or maybe, at best, some *MIGHT* enter the U.S. as well as
complete a suicide bombing mission while having magically but
invalidly inflated one or some to all, (3) have obfuscated the
original query and (4) have embarrassed yourself in the process.
Bill Bonde
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Walter Scott wrote:
> >
> > Only by the most twisted of pretzel logic might one assert that "to
> > prove that all of them can get in, it is sufficient to prove that one
> > of them can get in" -- "all of them" being terrorists of the ilk
> > attacking civilians in Israel, and getting in to be construed as
> > getting into the United States. In addition, simply getting in is not
> > the extent of the package here. Bill's question included such
> > terrorists taking action before they are caught. Your sophistry leads
> > me to declare you a lost cause, Martin.
>
> It doesn't matter whether my logic was pretzel or not. It only matters
> whether it is logically correct. Your request was:
>
> "Well, Martin, if "all of them can get in" -- "all of them" being
> terrorists of the ilk attacking civilians in Israel, and getting in to
> be construed as getting into the United States -- please document
> your assertion that they can; provide the details."
>
> My logic is, again, that by "ilk" you mean to indicate that all such
> terrorists are in an equivalence class with respect to terrorist
> capability. It is a simple inductive argument then. If one member of
> the set *can* get in, then *any* member of the set can get in. If any
> member of the set can get in, then *all* members of the set *can* get
> in. If you didn't do mathematics through the principle of mathematical
> induction, I suppose you won't see the obvious application.
>
The English modal 'can' is not a mathematical construct. As I said
before, you are playing word games with idiomatic use of modals in
English. Please restate what I asked you, which is what number or
percentage of terrorists from the Palestinian areas could successfully
get to the US much less blow themselves up? A repeat of the types of
attacks used so far against Israel again the United States mainland is
unlikely.
> The members of the ilk don't all have to get in at the same time. They
> don't even all have to get in at all. The question was about how many of
> them *can* get in. All of them can. If you want to pick a member of
> the ilk and claim that he can't get in, then you can falsify my
> argument. But the burden of proof is on you to prove he can't get in.
>
> And if you think you have an aregument for why suicide bombers can't get
> into the US, why don't you present it to the Secretary of the Department
> of Homeland Security? It will put his mind at rest a little, and we can
> avoid all these orange alerts.
>
No one claimed that suicide bombers couldn't get into the US. We know
since at least 9/11/01 that they can. We also have good reason to
believe that it is expensive.
Bill Bonde
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > If you are making the rather modest claim that someone could always
> > commit terrorist acts as long as there are people willing to do so, of
> > course I agree. I think the more salient point is that the terrorists
> > can't afford to blow up a bus in the US. The cost is too high for them.
>
> The cost is low. They can do it the way Timothy McVeigh did it, and
> they can use a smaller bomb.
>
McVeigh used ANFO. High grade ammonium nitrate, the type needed to
easily make ANFO, is on the chemicals watch list and restricted
availability list. McVeigh, as an American operating in a rural area,
had access to ammonium nitrate around the government's efforts to
control it. A Palestinian suicide terrorist who didn't speak English
wouldn't have these advantages. Like I said, I doubt they could get to
America and get passed customs without some sort of support network. The
instant they blew themselves up, that network would be ripped up. This
just costs too much to make small attacks on the US mainland worth
doing. And that's just what we've seen so far.
> > We are starting to see countries like Saudi Arabia getting serious about
> > terrorism. The number of people willing to die for stupid causes like
> > bin Ladenism is not unlimited.
>
> What is the limit then? What limits the number?
>
I know this is hard to believe, but suicide attacks are an aberration
and not the rule.
> > > and coastlines, and the population
> > > will never tolerate (I hope) more restrictions on the freedom peaceably
> > > to assemble.
> > >
> > If we get hit by a WMD that kills a million Americans, don't you see
> > that they will embrace those restrictions if they think it will prevent
> > a repeat? And they will be right too. I'm agitating for the right
> > balance now to prevent such a thing from ever happening.
>
> When Americans embrace those restricts, it will be the end of America.
>
If you feel this way, why do you oppose all moderate actions we are
taking now that could allow us to avoid the sort of attack that would
convince Americans to embrace those sorts of restrictions?
> > > The way I see it is terrorism is a divergent problem, so
> > > it can never be true to say they can't keep blowing up stuff forever.
> > > Even if you are right, however, it will be far easier for them to just
> > > get guns and shoot people, which is the American way.
> > >
> > But this doesn't matter, in any large sense. People kill each other
> > every day. Americans die in car wrecks at 40K a year, or something like
> > that. You'll notice that the international terrorists haven't used guns
> > in the US. You should consider why that is.
>
> They haven't changed their tactics in that direction yet, because they
> haven't had to.
>
But guns are trivial to get in the United States. When people decide to
murder people, they often use firearms. Why go through the trouble and
risk of explosives? The answer is because short of using the DC sniper
MO, which requires the ability to blend well into the background, the
numbers of people killed would be too low to matter from a terror
standpoint and you couldn't repeat the attack at will.
> More importantly, the logic you are using above is
> correct, but it is true now. The probability of you getting killed by a
> terrorist is vanishingly small compared to the probability of you being
> killed some other way.
>
There are big holes in your 'logic'. I recall reading a book by the
author of 'Jaw' on sharks. He was pointing out that my risk of getting
eaten by a shark was one in some huge number. Since he'd mentioned the
number of people killed in a year, it was clear that he was taking the
number of sharks killed humans in a year and comparing that to the about
six billion people on Earth right now. That's wrong. If I stay out of
the salt water, my chances of getting eaten by a shark are zero. If I
seek out great white sharks and pour blood in the water and poke them
with sticks, my changes of getting eaten could approach one.
> And that is without any of the new restrictions
> on your freedoms.
>
What were the chances that al Qaeda would succeed in downing both
towers?
> So your conclusion *should* be that *no* new restricts
> are needed, since the probability of death by terrorism is so small.
> Why on earth have you ignored that fact?
>
The probability so far is small. You don't see me worrying about nuts
with TATP strapped to their bellies catching me in a queue and going
boom. I'm telling others that that isn't the risk too. The risk is a
catastrophic attack. Actuaries haven't got the data to calculate what
that means and therefore the real risk is unknowable.
Martin W. Smith
>
> Argue "all of them" equates to some of them or some number less than
> "all of them" -- as if you could argue that night is day -- and you
> embarrass yourself, Martin.
I'm not embarrassed. I'm right. Each "ilk" terrorist is an independent
event. If one can get in, they all can get in. I'm not arguing they can
all get in at the same time. They don't have to to be effective. They
don't even have to all get in over a long time to be effective. But it
is a simple law of probability. These are independent events. The
leaderless resistance structure deliberately makes use of the
independence of its cells. Individual suicide bombers are even less
dependent on each other. They are independent events. Therefore, if one
can get in, they all can get in.
Martin W. Smith
> The English modal 'can' is not a mathematical construct. As I said
> before, you are playing word games with idiomatic use of modals in
> English. Please restate what I asked you, which is what number or
> percentage of terrorists from the Palestinian areas could successfully
> get to the US much less blow themselves up? A repeat of the types of
> attacks used so far against Israel again the United States mainland is
> unlikely.
The word "can" means has the ability in question. The ability in
quyestion is to get into the US, obtain a bomb, and blow it up in a
crowd. Call that ability X. When you ask the question How many "ilk"
can X, given that ILK is an equivalence class, which it is from our
point of view, then if one member of ILK CAN X, then the correct answer
to the question is: All of them can.
I was asked How many ILK CAN X. If you want to know the probability that
a member of ILK achieves X, that is a very different question. You
didn't ask that question, Bill. Your wording wasn't even close. Now you
are asking that question. And I don't know the answer, given that, as
far as I know, no Palestinian suicide bomber has ever attempted to enter
the US and blow himself up. Do you know the answer? You seem to think
you do, but it sounds like hubris to me.
As I have already pointed out, it makes little sense for Palestinian
terrorists to attack the US, so I don't see why you asked the question
in the first place. Al Qaeda is the group you should concern yourself
with, not the Palestinian groups fighting the Israeli occupation of
Palestine. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, has been quite successful. And,
again as I have already pointed out, they don't attack strength. They
attack weakness. The current glaring weakness of US culture is the ease
with which guns can be obtained legally, let alone illegally. Therefore,
an obvious tactic for Al Qaeda to raise the level of terror, if it
chooses to attack America directly, will be to send in people to become
serial killers like the pair that killed several people in the DC area
last year. Imagine the level of fear if a dozen serial killers started
up in the US all at once in response to a call to attack in the next
tape played by Al Jazeera. Al Qaeda's next move might well be to reduce
its cell size to 1. Let each man operate independently. How many Al
Qaeda operatives do you think are in the US now? How many do you think
get in each month? How many new recruits do you think they get each
month?
You seem to think Al Qaeda is in trouble. Why do you think that way?
> > The members of the ilk don't all have to get in at the same time. They
> > don't even all have to get in at all. The question was about how many of
> > them *can* get in. All of them can. If you want to pick a member of
> > the ilk and claim that he can't get in, then you can falsify my
> > argument. But the burden of proof is on you to prove he can't get in.
> >
> > And if you think you have an aregument for why suicide bombers can't get
> > into the US, why don't you present it to the Secretary of the Department
> > of Homeland Security? It will put his mind at rest a little, and we can
> > avoid all these orange alerts.
> >
> No one claimed that suicide bombers couldn't get into the US. We know
> since at least 9/11/01 that they can. We also have good reason to
> believe that it is expensive.
Expensive? What reason do we have to think it is expensive? It is
certainly expensive for us. We went from a huge surplus to a huge
deficit before you could say gone with the wind.
Martin W. Smith
>
> You proved NOTHING, Martin.
I proved what I was asked to prove, Walter.
Bill Bonde
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > The English modal 'can' is not a mathematical construct. As I said
> > before, you are playing word games with idiomatic use of modals in
> > English. Please restate what I asked you, which is what number or
> > percentage of terrorists from the Palestinian areas could successfully
> > get to the US much less blow themselves up? A repeat of the types of
> > attacks used so far against Israel again the United States mainland is
> > unlikely.
>
> The word "can" means has the ability in question. The ability in
> quyestion is to get into the US, obtain a bomb, and blow it up in a
> crowd. Call that ability X. When you ask the question How many "ilk"
> can X, given that ILK is an equivalence class, which it is from our
> point of view, then if one member of ILK CAN X, then the correct answer
> to the question is: All of them can.
>
> I was asked How many ILK CAN X. If you want to know the probability that
> a member of ILK achieves X, that is a very different question. You
> didn't ask that question, Bill. Your wording wasn't even close.
>
Liar. I asked exactly how many, by number or percentage, would manage to
get into the United States and do their evil deeds. You played games
with modal use in English.
> Now you
> are asking that question. And I don't know the answer, given that, as
> far as I know, no Palestinian suicide bomber has ever attempted to enter
> the US and blow himself up.
>
The question was asking you to come up with an assessment given
available information. The fact that none have done this so far should
be information you can use to assist in forming your assessment.
> Do you know the answer? You seem to think
> you do, but it sounds like hubris to me.
>
Everything is hubris to you except your own.
> As I have already pointed out, it makes little sense for Palestinian
> terrorists to attack the US, so I don't see why you asked the question
> in the first place.
>
The US is only the main benefactor of Israel. By the same token, it
makes little sense for al Qaeda to attack the US. Still they do.
> Al Qaeda is the group you should concern yourself
> with, not the Palestinian groups fighting the Israeli occupation of
> Palestine. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, has been quite successful.
>
In attacking the United States mainland? They have tried many, many
times and 9/11 is their real success with the first WTC bombing coming
in second. Everything else has failed.
> And,
> again as I have already pointed out, they don't attack strength. They
> attack weakness. The current glaring weakness of US culture is the ease
> with which guns can be obtained legally, let alone illegally.
>
Guns are available all over the world to those who really want them and
don't mind breaking laws. Guns are also not very effective terrorist
weapons, especially in a society with strong law enforcement which can
usually prevent events like the Washington DC sniper attacks.
> Therefore,
> an obvious tactic for Al Qaeda to raise the level of terror, if it
> chooses to attack America directly, will be to send in people to become
> serial killers like the pair that killed several people in the DC area
> last year. Imagine the level of fear if a dozen serial killers started
> up in the US all at once in response to a call to attack in the next
> tape played by Al Jazeera.
>
There are plenty of ways to kill other than to use firearms. I imagine
that in the US today there are more than a dozen serial killers
operating right now and very few people feel terrorized by them.
> Al Qaeda's next move might well be to reduce
> its cell size to 1. Let each man operate independently. How many Al
> Qaeda operatives do you think are in the US now?
>
I don't know. I wouldn't doubt if it is in the hundreds.
> How many do you think
> get in each month? How many new recruits do you think they get each
> month?
>
I doubt that many get in now or are recruited now.
> You seem to think Al Qaeda is in trouble. Why do you think that way?
>
Al Qaeda is in trouble. The US is finally putting pressure on them and
taking away areas where they could operate freely. This is the right
thing to do.
> > > The members of the ilk don't all have to get in at the same time. They
> > > don't even all have to get in at all. The question was about how many of
> > > them *can* get in. All of them can. If you want to pick a member of
> > > the ilk and claim that he can't get in, then you can falsify my
> > > argument. But the burden of proof is on you to prove he can't get in.
> > >
> > > And if you think you have an aregument for why suicide bombers can't get
> > > into the US, why don't you present it to the Secretary of the Department
> > > of Homeland Security? It will put his mind at rest a little, and we can
> > > avoid all these orange alerts.
> > >
> > No one claimed that suicide bombers couldn't get into the US. We know
> > since at least 9/11/01 that they can. We also have good reason to
> > believe that it is expensive.
>
> Expensive? What reason do we have to think it is expensive?
>
I've explained this to you over and over.
> It is
> certainly expensive for us. We went from a huge surplus to a huge
> deficit before you could say gone with the wind.
>
The recession or at least slowdown in growth is mainly the reason for
that.
Martin W. Smith
> Liar. I asked exactly how many, by number or percentage, would manage to
> get into the United States and do their evil deeds. You played games
> with modal use in English.
No, you didn't, Bill. Sorry.
Walter Scott
Peddle your sophistry, Martin, where someone is likely to buy. I'm not a
customer.
Bill Bonde
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > Liar. I asked exactly how many, by number or percentage, would manage to
> > get into the United States and do their evil deeds. You played games
> > with modal use in English.
>
> No, you didn't, Bill. Sorry.
>
Feel free to quote me, liar.
Martin W. Smith
>
> Peddle your sophistry, Martin, where someone is likely to buy. I'm not a
> customer.
No matter how many times you attack my character, my argument still
stands.
Martin W. Smith
>
> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > Liar. I asked exactly how many, by number or percentage, would manage to
> > > get into the United States and do their evil deeds. You played games
> > > with modal use in English.
> >
> > No, you didn't, Bill. Sorry.
> >
> Feel free to quote me, liar.
You said: "The bombers that the terrorists are using against Israel are
cheap and available in quantity. How many of them could get on an
airplane, fly to the US or Canada, get into the US and operate without
getting caught?"
The only way your question can be answered here, and hence the only way
it makes sense for you to ask the question here, is to answer the
question based on the possibility of any potential Palestinian getting
into the country and committing a terrorist act.
Why? First, you correctly note that suicide terrorists are "cheap and
available in quantity," but you don't say how many there are. The reason
you don't say how many there are is because you don't know. All you know
is that they are available in quantity. Bill, unless you know how many
there are, you can't answer the question with an absolute number or a
percentage. Didn't you know that?
Second, you also did not say what the probability of a random terrorist
entering the US is. The reason you didn't say is because you don't know.
All you know is that it is possible for any terrorist picked at random
from the large set of cheap terroists to get into the US and commit a
terrorist act. But, again, Bill, unless you know that probability, you
can't answer the question with an absolute number or a percentage. I
thought you understood these simple requirements, but now I see you
don't.
Third, you can't be serious, when you require the terrorists to enter
the US on a commercial air flight. You wouldn't be that stupid, would
you, so why do you think terrorists would try to get in that way, when
there are much more reliable ways to get in?
The bottom line is that the way you now claim you meant the question is
silly. Your question can't be answered that way. The only answer that is
correct is the answer I gave. All of them *can* get in and commit a
terrorist act.
If you are willing to choose some estimates for those two numbers, I can
answer the question for you. These are guestimates, Bill. Let's say
there are one million potential Palestinian terrorists and that the
probability of one Palestinian terrorist getting into the US is .01.
That would mean 10,000 Palestinan terrorists in the US over some period
of time. If one million potential terrorists is too high for you, make
it one hundred thousand. Then you only have to worry about 1000
terrorists in the US. If one hundred thousand is still too high for
you, make it ten thousand. Then you only have to find 100 terrorists.
Almost a manageable problem. Of course that doesn't count Al Qaeda at
all.
I guess the conclusion is you better hope the terrorists don't decide to
try to really attack the US, or, you better not depend on the Department
of Homeland Security to keep you safe.
Walter Scott
No, Martin; you've proven nothing. You asserted, through flawed logic,
that "all of them" equates to a lesser number yet additionally hold
the "all of them" option as operative as well, apparently depending on
whether you might wish to, for convenience or to take an opportunity
where one is desired, change from one to the other at will through
"pretzel logic." Again, you (1) have provided NO documentation, (2)
have provided only twisted logic as to how ONE or maybe, at best, some
*MIGHT* enter the U.S. as well as complete a suicide bombing mission
while having magically but invalidly inflated one or some to all, (3)
have obfuscated the original query and (4) have embarrassed yourself
in the process. Your most glaring error here is to contend you've
proven "what [you were] asked to prove" with such pretzel logic and
in the absence of ANY documentation. For reference: here is the
key exchange between yourself and Bill Bonde and then my response:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Bonde: The bombers that the terrorists are using against
Israel are cheap and available in quantity. How many
of them could get on an airplane, fly to the US or
Canada, get into the US and operate without getting
caught?
Martin W. Smith: All of them.
Walter Scott: Why and how so? Do you have any evidence to back that
notion up? Bear in mind that the America of
pre-9-11-2001 is not the America of today.
[......]
Well, Martin, if "all of them can get in" -- "all of
them" being terrorists of the ilk attacking civilians
in Israel, and getting in to be construed as getting
into the United States -- please document your
assertion that they can; provide the details.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And, of course, you equivocate, redefine and obfuscate in the absence
of documentation, as in the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin W. Smith: The reason terrorists simply got on a plane was
because they could. Now they can't [...]
[......]
Obviously Bill wasn't asking if it could be done
easily. If he was, then his question is irrelevant,
since it doesn't have to be easy.
[.....]
The members of the ilk don't all have to get in at
the same time. They don't even all have to get in at
all. . . . . . .
[......]
My logic is, again, that by "ilk" you mean to
indicate that all such terrorists are in an
equivalence class with respect to terrorist
capability. It is a simple inductive argument then.
If one member of the set *can* get in, then *any*
member of the set can get in. If any member of the
set can get in, then *all* members of the set *can*
get in. If you didn't do mathematics through the
principle of mathematical
[......]
I'm not embarrassed. I'm right. Each "ilk" terrorist
is an independent event. If one can get in, they all
can get in. I'm not arguing they can all get in at
the same time. They don't have to to be effective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Scott
No matter how hard you try, Martin, to redefine as an attack on your
"character" an evaluation of your "argument" as "sophistry," you
cannot change one to the other except by magic. Your ARGUMENT IS
sophistry in that it twists and turns; its logic flawed and fraught
with inconsistency as it attempts to argue the opposite of that which
is real as if one could similarly redefine night to be day, ala: "it's
day at someplace in the World.." (`it's day...' quote is a
hypothetical example, not actual, as to Martin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Bonde: The bombers that the terrorists are using against
Israel are cheap and available in quantity. How many
of them could get on an airplane, fly to the US or
Canada, get into the US and operate without getting
caught?
Martin W. Smith: All of them.
Walter Scott: Why and how so? Do you have any evidence to back that
notion up? Bear in mind that the America of
pre-9-11-2001 is not the America of today.
[......]
Well, Martin, if "all of them can get in" -- "all of
them" being terrorists of the ilk attacking civilians
in Israel, and getting in to be construed as getting
into the United States -- please document your
assertion that they can; provide the details.
Martin W. Smith: The reason terrorists simply got on a plane was
because they could. Now they can't [...]
[......]
Obviously Bill wasn't asking if it could be done
easily. If he was, then his question is irrelevant,
since it doesn't have to be easy.
[.....]
The members of the ilk don't all have to get in at
the same time. They don't even all have to get in at
all. . . . . . .
[......]
My logic is, again, that by "ilk" you mean to
indicate that all such terrorists are in an
equivalence class with respect to terrorist
capability. It is a simple inductive argument then.
If one member of the set *can* get in, then *any*
member of the set can get in. If any member of the
set can get in, then *all* members of the set *can*
get in. If you didn't do mathematics through the
principle of mathematical
[......]
I'm not embarrassed. I'm right. Each "ilk" terrorist
is an independent event. If one can get in, they all
can get in. I'm not arguing they can all get in at
the same time. They don't have to to be effective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Bonde
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> >
> > "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > > Liar. I asked exactly how many, by number or percentage, would manage to
> > > > get into the United States and do their evil deeds. You played games
> > > > with modal use in English.
> > >
> > > No, you didn't, Bill. Sorry.
> > >
> > Feel free to quote me, liar.
>
> You said: "The bombers that the terrorists are using against Israel are
> cheap and available in quantity. How many of them could get on an
> airplane, fly to the US or Canada, get into the US and operate without
> getting caught?"
>
> The only way your question can be answered here, and hence the only way
> it makes sense for you to ask the question here, is to answer the
> question based on the possibility of any potential Palestinian getting
> into the country and committing a terrorist act.
>
> Why? First, you correctly note that suicide terrorists are "cheap and
> available in quantity," but you don't say how many there are. The reason
> you don't say how many there are is because you don't know.
>
It doesn't matter.
> All you know
> is that they are available in quantity. Bill, unless you know how many
> there are, you can't answer the question with an absolute number or a
> percentage. Didn't you know that?
>
I wasn't asking myself for a percentage or absolute number. I was asking
you.
> Second, you also did not say what the probability of a random terrorist
> entering the US is.
>
It really doesn't work that way. If bin Laden were to pay the airfares
for Pali suicide bombers to blow themselves up in the US, the US would
stop anyone who fit the profile from entering the US. Post 9/11, almost
all air travel was halted and if that was being used to move a
significant number of Palestinian terrorists to the US, it would be
halted again until the problem was dealt with.
> The reason you didn't say is because you don't know.
> All you know is that it is possible for any terrorist picked at random
> from the large set of cheap terroists to get into the US and commit a
> terrorist act.
>
Anything is possible. The fact is, however, that one terrorist doing
this is not going to terrorize the United States. We withstood 9/11.
Some kook blowing his belly up in a line waiting for the movies isn't
going to be a big deal. People have mostly forgotten the DC snipers, for
example. The terrorists would have to sustain the attacks. That is too
expensive.
> But, again, Bill, unless you know that probability, you
> can't answer the question with an absolute number or a percentage. I
> thought you understood these simple requirements, but now I see you
> don't.
>
> Third, you can't be serious, when you require the terrorists to enter
> the US on a commercial air flight. You wouldn't be that stupid, would
> you, so why do you think terrorists would try to get in that way, when
> there are much more reliable ways to get in?
>
What ways? Didn't the terrorists from 9/11 arrive on commercial
airplanes?
> The bottom line is that the way you now claim you meant the question is
> silly.
>
The question was clear all along and you couldn't answer it and had to
play word games with English modals.
> Your question can't be answered that way. The only answer that is
> correct is the answer I gave. All of them *can* get in and commit a
> terrorist act.
>
More games.
> If you are willing to choose some estimates for those two numbers, I can
> answer the question for you. These are guestimates, Bill. Let's say
> there are one million potential Palestinian terrorists
>
Time Almanac claims a little over three million total Palestinians in
the territories. Claiming that a third are willing to kill themselves
only goes to show that you think Palestinians are generally nuts.
> and that the
> probability of one Palestinian terrorist getting into the US is .01.
> That would mean 10,000 Palestinan terrorists in the US over some period
> of time. If one million potential terrorists is too high for you, make
> it one hundred thousand. Then you only have to worry about 1000
> terrorists in the US.
>
It doesn't work this way. Any route used would be plugged as soon as the
first bomber blew himself up, assuming he got that far. Where would he
get his bomb, his shoes?
> If one hundred thousand is still too high for
> you, make it ten thousand. Then you only have to find 100 terrorists.
> Almost a manageable problem. Of course that doesn't count Al Qaeda at
> all.
>
We were discussing the difficulty of al Qaeda using people who have no
idea how to operate in the United States, a mostly mono-lingual country
rather upset about suspicious people post 9/11.
> I guess the conclusion is you better hope the terrorists don't decide to
> try to really attack the US, or, you better not depend on the Department
> of Homeland Security to keep you safe.
>
Why is that?
Martin W. Smith
>
> No matter how hard you try, Martin, to redefine as an attack on your
> "character" an evaluation of your "argument" as "sophistry,"
No redefinition required. An accusation of sophistry is an accusation of
an intent to deceive. My intent was to clarify, and I did clarify.
Martin W. Smith
>
> "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > >
> > > "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > > > Liar. I asked exactly how many, by number or percentage, would manage to
> > > > > get into the United States and do their evil deeds. You played games
> > > > > with modal use in English.
> > > >
> > > > No, you didn't, Bill. Sorry.
> > > >
> > > Feel free to quote me, liar.
> >
> > You said: "The bombers that the terrorists are using against Israel are
> > cheap and available in quantity. How many of them could get on an
> > airplane, fly to the US or Canada, get into the US and operate without
> > getting caught?"
> >
> > The only way your question can be answered here, and hence the only way
> > it makes sense for you to ask the question here, is to answer the
> > question based on the possibility of any potential Palestinian getting
> > into the country and committing a terrorist act.
> >
> > Why? First, you correctly note that suicide terrorists are "cheap and
> > available in quantity," but you don't say how many there are. The reason
> > you don't say how many there are is because you don't know.
> >
> It doesn't matter.
What a joke! First you ask your question incorrectly, and I answer it in
the only way that makes sense. Then you complain that what you said
wasn't what you meant and try to blame me for misinterpreting what you
said. Then you demand that I answer the question you really meant to
ask, and I point out that it can't be answered without more data and ask
if you understood that, because if you did understand that your question
couldn't be answered, then you were deliberately trying to hide bhind an
unanswerable question. Then I chose estimates for the required numbers
and answered your question anyway. And now you say, "It doesn't matter."
It does matter, because it proves my argument and disproves yours.
> > All you know
> > is that they are available in quantity. Bill, unless you know how many
> > there are, you can't answer the question with an absolute number or a
> > percentage. Didn't you know that?
> >
> I wasn't asking myself for a percentage or absolute number. I was asking
> you.
Now what is that supposed to mean? Did you really not see that coming?
Did you really not see how stupidly you asked your question so that it
was impossible to answer without supplying the extra data? Then
challenged me to answer it, and I did! And you are still trying to
slime your way out. Don't blame me. You hung yourself.
> > Second, you also did not say what the probability of a random terrorist
> > entering the US is.
> >
> It really doesn't work that way. If bin Laden were to pay the airfares
> for Pali suicide bombers to blow themselves up in the US, the US would
> stop anyone who fit the profile from entering the US. Post 9/11, almost
> all air travel was halted and if that was being used to move a
> significant number of Palestinian terrorists to the US, it would be
> halted again until the problem was dealt with.
What does bin Laden have to do with Palestinian suicide bombers!
Nothing! Now you come up with more silly requirements. The must fly on
airplanes; they must have their airfares paid by someone else, and the
someone else must be Osama bin Laden.
Bill, wake up. They don't have to fly in; they can pay their own way
anyway, and however they enter the country, they will come prepared. To
assume less is deadly foolishness.
> > The reason you didn't say is because you don't know.
> > All you know is that it is possible for any terrorist picked at random
> > from the large set of cheap terroists to get into the US and commit a
> > terrorist act.
> >
> Anything is possible. The fact is, however, that one terrorist doing
> this is not going to terrorize the United States. We withstood 9/11.
> Some kook blowing his belly up in a line waiting for the movies isn't
> going to be a big deal. People have mostly forgotten the DC snipers, for
> example. The terrorists would have to sustain the attacks. That is too
> expensive.
I wouldn't have said it in so callous a way, but I agree. We gain little
or nothing by allowing our rights to be stepped on by the Bush
administration.
> > But, again, Bill, unless you know that probability, you
> > can't answer the question with an absolute number or a percentage. I
> > thought you understood these simple requirements, but now I see you
> > don't.
> >
> > Third, you can't be serious, when you require the terrorists to enter
> > the US on a commercial air flight. You wouldn't be that stupid, would
> > you, so why do you think terrorists would try to get in that way, when
> > there are much more reliable ways to get in?
> >
> What ways? Didn't the terrorists from 9/11 arrive on commercial
> airplanes?
There is the border with Mexico, the border with Canada, the Atlantic
coast, and the Pacific coast. Yes, Bill, the 9/11 gang entered on
commercial airplanes. They weren't Palestinians. Not a Palestinian
amongst them, if I remember correctly. But I don't see the point of your
question at all unless you really do believe that people have to arrive
in America on airplanes. Is that what you think? Do you mean that no
Palestinians should be issued visas based on the fact that 19
non-palestinians destroyed the World Trade Center?
> > The bottom line is that the way you now claim you meant the question is
> > silly.
> >
> The question was clear all along and you couldn't answer it and had to
> play word games with English modals.
I've answered it in every possible way, Bill. Sorry.
> > Your question can't be answered that way. The only answer that is
> > correct is the answer I gave. All of them *can* get in and commit a
> > terrorist act.
> >
> More games.
And I win.
> > If you are willing to choose some estimates for those two numbers, I can
> > answer the question for you. These are guestimates, Bill. Let's say
> > there are one million potential Palestinian terrorists
> >
> Time Almanac claims a little over three million total Palestinians in
> the territories. Claiming that a third are willing to kill themselves
> only goes to show that you think Palestinians are generally nuts.
I didn't claim that, Bill. You challenged me to answer the question.
Thge Palestinians have been fighting for their cause for at least 35
years, so I would say that more than a million of them are willing to
die for their cause. How many Americans are willing to die for America?
Do you mean that our military men and women really aren't willing to die
for America? Or do you mean they are crazy if they are willing to die
for America? Shame on you, Bill Bonde!
> > and that the
> > probability of one Palestinian terrorist getting into the US is .01.
> > That would mean 10,000 Palestinan terrorists in the US over some period
> > of time. If one million potential terrorists is too high for you, make
> > it one hundred thousand. Then you only have to worry about 1000
> > terrorists in the US.
> >
> It doesn't work this way. Any route used would be plugged as soon as the
> first bomber blew himself up, assuming he got that far. Where would he
> get his bomb, his shoes?
I'm sure you've seen the news reports of captured suicide bomber
jackets. Very professionally made. Manufactured. You could manufacture
them anywhere in the world. And I'm sure you've seen the news reports on
big drug smuggling busts, and you've heard reporters explain that we
only stop a small percentage of the drugs coming in. Otherwise there
would be no cocaine problem, right? So can't you assume that it is
possible to smuggle suicide bomber vests into the country? Is your
imagination really that stunted?
> > If one hundred thousand is still too high for
> > you, make it ten thousand. Then you only have to find 100 terrorists.
> > Almost a manageable problem. Of course that doesn't count Al Qaeda at
> > all.
> >
> We were discussing the difficulty of al Qaeda using people who have no
> idea how to operate in the United States, a mostly mono-lingual country
> rather upset about suspicious people post 9/11.
No, Bill, don't keep moving the goal posts. We were discussing whether a
Palestinian could get into the US, obtain a bomb, and commit a suicide
bombing act.
> > I guess the conclusion is you better hope the terrorists don't decide to
> > try to really attack the US, or, you better not depend on the Department
> > of Homeland Security to keep you safe.
> >
> Why is that?
For the reasons I've given, which you still can't understand. Your
questions indicate you either don't understand what you are reading, or
you are dissaembling.
Martin W. Smith
>
> No, Martin; you've proven nothing. You asserted, through flawed logic,
No I didn't. That's nonsense. I claimed that all of them can get in
because one of them can get in. I didn't claim it was probable. I climed
it was possible. When you ask How many *can* get in, that's what you
mean unless you ask specifically for a percentage or an absolute number,
or unless you provide the population size and the probability of
individual success.
I'm sure you will claim that is flawed, but it isn't flawed. You keep
claiming my logic is flawed, but you haven't shown any flaws yet.
Walter Scott
Your "arguments" are what they are and should be revealed for what
they are, Martin. To note those arguments are put forward through
sophistry, where sophistry is indeed employed, is appropriate in
debate. And it's rather clear that there have been instances over the
past several months in which you've employed sophistry through
omission and presentation of pretzel logic relying on information
taken out of context to the whole or principal body of same. Should I
have ignored this? I don't think so.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) The United States is sending 24 B-1 and B-52
bombers to the island of Guam in the Western Pacific to deter.. 3-4-03
Walter Scott
When one argues something is possible and holds that possibility in
the absence of a probability analysis, they've argued from absurdity.
Where you claim, Martin, "that all of them can get in because one of
them can get in" as well as that, although it's not probable, "it was
possible," and where you do so in the absence of a probability
analysis, you're foisting an argument that distorts the panoply of
circumstances or controlling factors -- thus coloring your logic
which then becomes flawed. An understanding of empiricism should
reveal the flaw.
In essence, you rely on an assumption that, if one can do it, all
others in a given set or subset have equal capability to do as that
one person would have done. One may be smarter than the others and
encountered a better set of circumstances than the others in
deceiving those who would attempt to detect as well as interdict
their mission. One may have benefited from smarter and more
resourceful associates in the U.S. or elsewhere and etcetera. It is
therefore flawed logic by which one might assume that, beyond the set
or subset from which given persons are derived, circumstances and
capability would or could otherwise be equal and determine that all
others could accomplish what one person hypothetically might manage
to accomplish. Yet, you seemingly conclude that, one instance of
success means -- even in spite of the fact one so far has not
succeeded post-9-11-2001 -- "all of them could" succeed as you make
an inductive assumption of logic. (I.E. a generalized conclusion as
to the whole based on the actions of but one) Inductive reasoning
just doesn't provide valid conclusions here.
You argue the improbable as though it has merit in defense of your
earliest assertion in this discussion only because the highly
improbable is, under your tortured logic, "possible." This is the
epitome of sophistry: arguing for the highly improbable only because
it is what one desires to argue, even though it is, at best, remotely
possible. And then there is the issue of arguing a point without
addressing whether a conclusion derives its support from assumptions
of high probability versus slight possibility because inclusion of a
probability analysis would reveal the weakness in such argument and
its underlying logic.
Bill Bonde
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> >
> > "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Martin W. Smith" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > > > > Liar. I asked exactly how many, by number or percentage, would manage to
> > > > > > get into the United States and do their evil deeds. You played games
> > > > > > with modal use in English.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, you didn't, Bill. Sorry.
> > > > >
> > > > Feel free to quote me, liar.
> > >
> > > You said: "The bombers that the terrorists are using against Israel are
> > > cheap and available in quantity. How many of them could get on an
> > > airplane, fly to the US or Canada, get into the US and operate without
> > > getting caught?"
> > >
> > > The only way your question can be answered here, and hence the only way
> > > it makes sense for you to ask the question here, is to answer the
> > > question based on the possibility of any potential Palestinian getting
> > > into the country and committing a terrorist act.
> > >
> > > Why? First, you correctly note that suicide terrorists are "cheap and
> > > available in quantity," but you don't say how many there are. The reason
> > > you don't say how many there are is because you don't know.
> > >
> > It doesn't matter.
>
> What a joke! First you ask your question incorrectly,
>
I didn't ask the question incorrectly. You just played word games with
English modals.
> and I answer it in
> the only way that makes sense.
>
Another person read what you wrote and felt compelled to call you on it
as well.
> Then you complain that what you said
> wasn't what you meant and try to blame me for misinterpreting what you
> said. Then you demand that I answer the question you really meant to
> ask, and I point out that it can't be answered without more data and ask
> if you understood that, because if you did understand that your question
> couldn't be answered, then you were deliberately trying to hide bhind an
> unanswerable question. Then I chose estimates for the required numbers
> and answered your question anyway. And now you say, "It doesn't matter."
>
> It does matter, because it proves my argument and disproves yours.
>
How many Arabic speaking monolingual Palestinians could make it over
here and blow themselves up like they do to Israel? Pretty near none.
And guess what, none so far.
> > > All you know
> > > is that they are available in quantity. Bill, unless you know how many
> > > there are, you can't answer the question with an absolute number or a
> > > percentage. Didn't you know that?
> > >
> > I wasn't asking myself for a percentage or absolute number. I was asking
> > you.
>
> Now what is that supposed to mean? Did you really not see that coming?
>
See what coming? You are a kook.
> Did you really not see how stupidly you asked your question so that it
> was impossible to answer without supplying the extra data? Then
> challenged me to answer it, and I did! And you are still trying to
> slime your way out. Don't blame me. You hung yourself.
>
You were asked for your analysis. I can see how you figure that the Bush
administration is lying when they take their available data generate an
analysis.
> > > Second, you also did not say what the probability of a random terrorist
> > > entering the US is.
> > >
> > It really doesn't work that way. If bin Laden were to pay the airfares
> > for Pali suicide bombers to blow themselves up in the US, the US would
> > stop anyone who fit the profile from entering the US. Post 9/11, almost
> > all air travel was halted and if that was being used to move a
> > significant number of Palestinian terrorists to the US, it would be
> > halted again until the problem was dealt with.
>
> What does bin Laden have to do with Palestinian suicide bombers!
> Nothing!
>
He supports their actions. But it is more Saddam and Iran as well as
Syria that are directly involved in assisting the suicide bombers. I was
trying to help you understand why small attacks like those used against
Israel, suicide belt bombings, are unlikely here. Too expensive.
> Now you come up with more silly requirements. The must fly on
> airplanes; they must have their airfares paid by someone else, and the
> someone else must be Osama bin Laden.
>
They have to get there someone. I guess they could get a ride on a boat.
This will take longer and give them more time to give themselves away.
Remember that bomber who was caught at the US border after getting off a
ferry boat?
> Bill, wake up. They don't have to fly in; they can pay their own way
> anyway, and however they enter the country, they will come prepared. To
> assume less is deadly foolishness.
>
You are a kook, aren't you?
> > > The reason you didn't say is because you don't know.
> > > All you know is that it is possible for any terrorist picked at random
> > > from the large set of cheap terroists to get into the US and commit a
> > > terrorist act.
> > >
> > Anything is possible. The fact is, however, that one terrorist doing
> > this is not going to terrorize the United States. We withstood 9/11.
> > Some kook blowing his belly up in a line waiting for the movies isn't
> > going to be a big deal. People have mostly forgotten the DC snipers, for
> > example. The terrorists would have to sustain the attacks. That is too
> > expensive.
>
> I wouldn't have said it in so callous a way, but I agree. We gain little
> or nothing by allowing our rights to be stepped on by the Bush
> administration.
>
It isn't the small attacks that we are really worried about. It is 9/11
and larger style attacks that likely could include the use of weapons of
mass destruction. This is why we must secure our borders and deal with
the various issues. I'm not sure what rights you and I have given up to
do this. Feel free to point them out.
> > > But, again, Bill, unless you know that probability, you
> > > can't answer the question with an absolute number or a percentage. I
> > > thought you understood these simple requirements, but now I see you
> > > don't.
> > >
> > > Third, you can't be serious, when you require the terrorists to enter
> > > the US on a commercial air flight. You wouldn't be that stupid, would
> > > you, so why do you think terrorists would try to get in that way, when
> > > there are much more reliable ways to get in?
> > >
> > What ways? Didn't the terrorists from 9/11 arrive on commercial
> > airplanes?
>
> There is the border with Mexico, the border with Canada, the Atlantic
> coast, and the Pacific coast. Yes, Bill, the 9/11 gang entered on
> commercial airplanes. They weren't Palestinians.
>
Palestinians would likely be far less equipped to get in, which is what
I keep saying. The leaders of the attack had lived all over the world,
studied at university, they had plenty of money, etc. This is not your
strap a bomb to his/her belly and blow up in a queue type of person.
> Not a Palestinian
> amongst them, if I remember correctly. But I don't see the point of your
> question at all unless you really do believe that people have to arrive
> in America on airplanes. Is that what you think? Do you mean that no
> Palestinians should be issued visas based on the fact that 19
> non-palestinians destroyed the World Trade Center?
>
They have to get into the US somehow. If they get involved in a human
smuggling operation, they are likely going to scare anyone who would
normally just sneak in poor Mexicans. In any case, it would be
EXPENSIVE. You can't spend that kind of money for such a little return.
> > > The bottom line is that the way you now claim you meant the question is
> > > silly.
> > >
> > The question was clear all along and you couldn't answer it and had to
> > play word games with English modals.
>
> I've answered it in every possible way, Bill. Sorry.
>
You've just been playing word games.
> > > Your question can't be answered that way. The only answer that is
> > > correct is the answer I gave. All of them *can* get in and commit a
> > > terrorist act.
> > >
> > More games.
>
> And I win.
>
Wrong. You don't win by playing word games.
> > > If you are willing to choose some estimates for those two numbers, I can
> > > answer the question for you. These are guestimates, Bill. Let's say
> > > there are one million potential Palestinian terrorists
> > >
> > Time Almanac claims a little over three million total Palestinians in
> > the territories. Claiming that a third are willing to kill themselves
> > only goes to show that you think Palestinians are generally nuts.
>
> I didn't claim that, Bill. You challenged me to answer the question.
>
Which you still haven't done.
> Thge Palestinians have been fighting for their cause for at least 35
> years, so I would say that more than a million of them are willing to
> die for their cause. How many Americans are willing to die for America?
>
Counting all the wars the US has ever been in, we are less than a
million Americans dead in combat. The US has about 300 million in
population and the Palestinians are like three million. Are you leading
us to believe that, not in the abstract but the concrete, the equivalent
of one hundred times by population Palestinians would seek death by
blowing themselves up? Those folks, you must think, are insane.
> Do you mean that our military men and women really aren't willing to die
> for America? Or do you mean they are crazy if they are willing to die
> for America? Shame on you, Bill Bonde!
>
It's difficult to see why you would heap the shame on me when you just
compared Americans who die with honour in a war defending their nation
to Palestinians suicide bombers who seek out innocent women and children
to murder.
> > > and that the
> > > probability of one Palestinian terrorist getting into the US is .01.
> > > That would mean 10,000 Palestinan terrorists in the US over some period
> > > of time. If one million potential terrorists is too high for you, make
> > > it one hundred thousand. Then you only have to worry about 1000
> > > terrorists in the US.
> > >
> > It doesn't work this way. Any route used would be plugged as soon as the
> > first bomber blew himself up, assuming he got that far. Where would he
> > get his bomb, his shoes?
>
> I'm sure you've seen the news reports of captured suicide bomber
> jackets. Very professionally made. Manufactured. You could manufacture
> them anywhere in the world.
>
Sure. You've got to put the explosives in them though. Explosives are
watched substances. You can make TATP, for example, but it is very
dangerous and you wouldn't want to have your skilled bomb makers in a
place where they could easily be caught. This defeats the purpose of
TATP in the United States.
> And I'm sure you've seen the news reports on
> big drug smuggling busts, and you've heard reporters explain that we
> only stop a small percentage of the drugs coming in. Otherwise there
> would be no cocaine problem, right? So can't you assume that it is
> possible to smuggle suicide bomber vests into the country? Is your
> imagination really that stunted?
>
Except that drug smuggling is a business that easily can get you
millions of dollars. Suicide bomber vest smuggling doesn't get you any
money. If you have to use the same techniques that the drug dealers use,
you have to be willing to spend big money. Like I said, too expensive
for the return.
> > > If one hundred thousand is still too high for
> > > you, make it ten thousand. Then you only have to find 100 terrorists.
> > > Almost a manageable problem. Of course that doesn't count Al Qaeda at
> > > all.
> > >
> > We were discussing the difficulty of al Qaeda using people who have no
> > idea how to operate in the United States, a mostly mono-lingual country
> > rather upset about suspicious people post 9/11.
>
> No, Bill, don't keep moving the goal posts. We were discussing whether a
> Palestinian could get into the US, obtain a bomb, and commit a suicide
> bombing act.
>
I'm not sure what you were doing other than playing word games. I was
explaining why it was too expensive to be worth it.
--
"They will see that this is the pattern for the future."
"The whole Earth as the Village?"
"That is my hope. What's yours?"
"I'd like to be the first man on the Moon."
-+Patrick McGoohan, "The Prisoner"
Bill Bonde
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> Walter Scott wrote:
> >
> > No, Martin; you've proven nothing. You asserted, through flawed logic,
> > that "all of them" equates to a lesser number...
>
> No I didn't. That's nonsense. I claimed that all of them can get in
> because one of them can get in. I didn't claim it was probable. I climed
> it was possible. When you ask How many *can* get in, that's what you
> mean unless you ask specifically for a percentage or an absolute number,
> or unless you provide the population size and the probability of
> individual success.
>
> I'm sure you will claim that is flawed, but it isn't flawed. You keep
> claiming my logic is flawed, but you haven't shown any flaws yet.
>
He's called you on your flawed logic several times.
Martin W. Smith
>
> Your "arguments" are what they are and should be revealed for what
> they are, Martin. To note those arguments are put forward through
> sophistry, where sophistry is indeed employed, is appropriate in
> debate. And it's rather clear that there have been instances over the
> past several months in which you've employed sophistry through
> omission and presentation of pretzel logic relying on information
> taken out of context to the whole or principal body of same. Should I
> have ignored this? I don't think so.
Walter, all you did was accuse me of sophistry. You didn't specify
which parts of which arguments were sophistry. You didn't explain or
prove that I am trying to deceive anyone. You just accused me of
sophistry.
I can do that too.
<Walter-mode-on>
Your arguments are sophistry, Walter. You are a sophist through and
through. And it is obvious to anyone who reads your messages that you
are nothing if not a sophist.
</Walter-mode-off>
Martin W. Smith
> I didn't ask the question incorrectly. You just played word games with
> English modals.
Games with english modals? That *is* joke, Bill. I answered the
question the only way it made sense. It couldn't be answered the way you
claim you meant it, except by saying I don't know. I did say that,
Bill, and then I went on to provide the necessary numbers to answer the
question your way. I answered it, and you still complained about english
modals and osama bin laden and non-english speaking palestinians. You
*are* being a joke.
> Another person read what you wrote and felt compelled to call you on it
> as well.
As if nobody ever disagrees with me, so I must be wrong because two
people publically disagreed with me? Do you see what a joke that is?
> How many Arabic speaking monolingual Palestinians could make it over
> here and blow themselves up like they do to Israel? Pretty near none.
> And guess what, none so far.
We can assume none have tried. But Bill, the 19 who attacked on 9/11
spoke good english, right? Can't you imagine that if a palestinian
terrorist wanted to get into the US to commit a terrorist act, one of
the first things he would do is learn English? Probably. They probably
teach English in their schools, Bill, and the palestinians aren't
fanatics of Islam. They're a lot like you and me. They fight against
tyranny.
> He supports their actions. But it is more Saddam and Iran as well as
> Syria that are directly involved in assisting the suicide bombers. I was
> trying to help you understand why small attacks like those used against
> Israel, suicide belt bombings, are unlikely here. Too expensive.
But I never said nor implied they were likely in the US. So whoever your
argument was targeted at, it wasn't me. It has never been likely that
Palestinians would attack the US. The Palestinians want Israel out of
what is supposed to be their country. If I were in their shoes, I would
fight Israel myself. Wouldn't you?
> They have to get there someone. I guess they could get a ride on a boat.
> This will take longer and give them more time to give themselves away.
> Remember that bomber who was caught at the US border after getting off a
> ferry boat?
Yes, Bill. My estimate was that 1 in 100 would get through. Are you
claiming that estimate is too high? What level of success is acceptable
to you? Or, if you think you can reduce it to 0 despite all the vidence
that you can't possibly do that, how would you reduce it to 0?
> It isn't the small attacks that we are really worried about.
I see. You accept small attacks. Blowing up buses and restaurants is
acceptable to you as long as it doesn't happen too often, and since you
don't intend to travel overseas, to hell with everyone else who does.
You would rather spend billions for homeland security trying to solve a
problem that can't be solved that way; you don't mind the arbitrary
reduction of your rights, because you are probably an wasp guy who won't
get profiled out anyway, and it doesn't bother you at all that mostly
innocent people have to suffer so you can think you are safer.
> Palestinians would likely be far less equipped to get in, which is what
> I keep saying. The leaders of the attack had lived all over the world,
> studied at university, they had plenty of money, etc. This is not your
> strap a bomb to his/her belly and blow up in a queue type of person.
Why are you talking about Palestinians?
> They have to get into the US somehow. If they get involved in a human
> smuggling operation, they are likely going to scare anyone who would
> normally just sneak in poor Mexicans. In any case, it would be
> EXPENSIVE. You can't spend that kind of money for such a little return.
Why do you keep saying expensive? It isn't expensive. Look at the
massive problems the 9/11 attack caused. It was cheap, and they could
have done it a lot cheaper. They used no expensive technology. The
flight training they needed is something people pay for themselves all
the time. They didn't have to get that training in the US. They could
have gotten most of that training in the Saudi air force. They could
have gotten it from any airline school. There is one in Adelaide in
South Australia. They probably could have trained in a small jet owned
by a wealthy business person with Arab connections, and then they could
trained using a flight simulator computer program. There was nothing
about the 9/11 attack that was necessarily expensive. The 19 could have
financed the whole thing themselves. Forget about this wall of
expensiveness you think is out there. It is only there in your
inadequate imagination.
> > You challenged me to answer the question.
>
> Which you still haven't done.
I certainly did, Bill. Pull your head out. Given the most favorable
estimates for you .01 and 10000, one hundred could get through and
commit a terrorist act.
> Counting all the wars the US has ever been in, we are less than a
> million Americans dead in combat. The US has about 300 million in
> population and the Palestinians are like three million. Are you leading
> us to believe that, not in the abstract but the concrete, the equivalent
> of one hundred times by population Palestinians would seek death by
> blowing themselves up? Those folks, you must think, are insane.
What does this have to do with your issue? The Palestinians are
oppressed by Israel. If Canada did to the US what Israel has done to
Palestine, how many Americans do you think would be willing to die to
get Canada out? How many, Bill? I would say almost all of them.
Certainly more than a third. so homany Palestinians do you think should
be willing to die to get Israel out of their country? Why is almost all
correct for us but not for Palestinians? Are you letting your racism
show again?
> It's difficult to see why you would heap the shame on me when you just
> compared Americans who die with honour in a war defending their nation
> to Palestinians suicide bombers who seek out innocent women and children
> to murder.
I am sure it is difficult for you, Bill. Everything seems difficult for
you. Have you seen at least one of the videos made by the suicide
bombers before they die? They clearly believe they are doing a heroic
thing. It doesn't matter what you think about it, Bill. What is
important here is what they think. The families of the suicide bombers
revere them as martyrs and heros. That is why the Palestinians can't
stop Hamas and the other terrorist groups and why it is a huge hypocricy
to require them to do it. They won't because to them the bombers are
heros and martyrs for a just cause. It doesn't matter what you and I
think. We can agree that attacking civilians is evil, although you think
collateral damage is justified. For example, if the Palestinan bomber
stood near an Israeli soldier and blew himslef and the soldier up, and
he happened to kill the Israeli civilians that the soldier was using as
human shields, you would say that was collateral damage. But it doesn't
matter what you think. What matters is what the Palestinians think. The
roadmap to peace will be a roadmap to nowhere until what the
palestinians think is taken into account.
> Sure. You've got to put the explosives in them though. Explosives are
> watched substances. You can make TATP, for example, but it is very
> dangerous and you wouldn't want to have your skilled bomb makers in a
> place where they could easily be caught. This defeats the purpose of
> TATP in the United States.
ok, Bill, there is no problem then. Dream on.
> Except that drug smuggling is a business that easily can get you
> millions of dollars. Suicide bomber vest smuggling doesn't get you any
> money. If you have to use the same techniques that the drug dealers use,
> you have to be willing to spend big money. Like I said, too expensive
> for the return.
What a joke. Don't you think terrorist groups have already resorted to
drug and diamond smuggling to raise money? Too expensive. Too expensive.
Too expensive. One of certainly is a kook.
> I'm not sure what you were doing other than playing word games. I was
> explaining why it was too expensive to be worth it.
I answered the question. 100 palestinian terrorists can get in and
commit a terrorist act.
martin
Martin W. Smith
>
> When one argues something is possible and holds that possibility in
> the absence of a probability analysis, they've argued from absurdity.
> Where you claim, Martin, "that all of them can get in because one of
> them can get in" as well as that, although it's not probable, "it was
> possible," and where you do so in the absence of a probability
> analysis, you're foisting an argument that distorts the panoply of
> circumstances or controlling factors -- thus coloring your logic
> which then becomes flawed. An understanding of empiricism should
> reveal the flaw.
Walter, you have accused me of sophistry many times, even though I write
clearly and succinctly, if I do say so myself. Look at your paragraph
above, and at the others you wrote below. If they are not sophistry,
then I guess I don't know what sophistry is when it bites me on the
ass. Is there anyone out there who knows what sophistry means who would
not call what Walter wrote sophistry?
My god, Walter. My argument is as simple as an argument can be.
1. We have an equivalence class of palestinian suicide terrorists that
you are Bill has labeled the ILK.
2. An equivalence class is a set in which all the members are the same
by a particular measure. In this case, they are all cheap, suicide
bombers, as Bill put it. There is no reason to distinguish one from any
of the others. They can all put on the tools of the fool, walk to the
corner market, and push the button. boom.
3. Here is the key step. Pick one ember of the ILK. Any member, it
doesn't matter. If the probability that he can get into the US and blow
himself up is greater than 0, then he *can* get into the US and blow
himself up. Call that probability X.
4. Given that the member you picked is a member of the ILK, if he passes
the test, they *all* pass the test. If the one you selected *can* get
into the US and blow himself up, they *all* can get into the US and blow
themselves up.
It remains to show that X > 0. Is X > 0 Walter? What do you think? Is
X greater than 0, or is it 0? If you claim it is 0, I expect to see your
argument. Otherwise, my claim that all of them *can* get in is correct,
and you admit it.
--
Martin W. Smith
> He's called you on your flawed logic several times.
He has called me? Who cares! I have proved him wrong every time.
Walter Scott
As it pertains to your notion, Martin, that I "didn't specify which
parts of which arguments were sophistry," you only embarrass yourself
with that assertion. Google illustrates where I've referenced the
term "sophistry" in regard to you and where I've explained the nature
of your sophistry. Whether it's been about the assertion "it's all
about oil," the assertion American 18-year-olds can't apologize, the
assertion projections over 20 years into the future are fact, or the
assertion "all of them" -- "all of them" being terrorists of the ilk
who have carried out suicide bombing missions in Israel -- can get
into the U.S. and complete a suicide bombing mission because ONE
might HYPOTHETICALLY get in, each instance has been called for what
it is and an explanation of why it's perceived to be what it is has
been provided. You know that, Martin. Or you should.
Walter Scott
Quite simply, Martin, the flaw in your argument, and thusly your logic,
is an assumption that the probabilities for the one are commensurate to
all members of the whole. That is what your thesis hangs on and why it
is baseless in terms of what is real, practical and logical.
I "claim" you employ "sophistry" in this instance, and for the reasons
stated here as well as previous postings. Finito!
Walter Scott
If sophistry is your proof, Martin, then yes; you've proven me wrong on
almost every occasion. But since when is sophistry regarded as acceptable
proof as to the validity of an argument? Sophistry being regarded as an
invalid mode of argument in debate, you've not proven much of anything.