Bali bomber thanks anti-war protesters

[IzzyR]

binarydrone,

The number of terrorist attacks is quantifiable data. The number of people protesting is also quantifiable data. If you want to argue that protestors encourage terrorists that implies a one to one relationship.

Nonsense. It is simply too complex and the product of too many factors to isolate any one factor. I’m shocked that you would continue to argue this point - possibly you are ignorant of statistical analysis, but even then…

Otherwise you are just making claims based on tortured logic and partisan bias.

The validity of the logic is not related to whether it happens to lend itself to statistical analysis.

mhendo, I’ve repeatedly made the point that even if US policy contributed to terrorism this is not analogous to saying that one does not have to consider the consequences of one’s actions. IOW suppose US foreign is the sole cause of all terrorism against the US. This does not mean that the US is obligated to change its foreign policy, or that those who pursued this policy were or are wrong. But it does imply - if true - that this consequence is a factor to consider when contemplating foreign policy, though it may be offset by other considerations. This contrasts with the positions of many in this thread (most recently and vehemently, Jodi) who maintain that the consequences of demonstrating are simply not a concern at all.

Again, this point has been made repeatedly. I hope it penetrates this time.

Jodi,

I don’t wish to get bogged down in arguing about the meaning of the word “consequence”. Substitute some other word if you like. Maybe “result”. Or how about “if A happens then B is more likely to happen”. Whatever.

I’ve already explained several times why I think it makes sense that peaceful protests would encourage terrorists. Most recently in my previous post to Gary K. Feel free to disagree, but there’s no sense in just ignoring it.

As for the word of this terrorist, as I’ve previously said, I do not grant him absolute credibility. But the logic (that protests encourage terrorism) is something that I would believe anyway. The statement by this terrorist tends to support that argument. No more.

I have no idea what your final paragraph means.

[ElvisL1ves]

Izzy dear, if you admit you have no facts to base an argument on, then there’s no point in continuing to press it, is there?

Again, this point has been made repeatedly. I hope it penetrates this time.

Not without a basis in reality, it won’t. Pity you won’t consider the converse, though. In short, you’re simply hatemongering. Knock it off, jerk.

[Eolbo]

*Originally posted by wring *
**

And, according to the link, the bombing, which occured last October (ie before the Iraq invasion), was planned as far back as last August.

How much anti-BUsh protesting in Austrailia was going on last August??? and was it televised to Bali? and did the terrorist have access to television, cable news etc at the time? (ie how did he know?) what language(s) did he speak (ie even if there was coverage about any potential protests, were they in a language that the suspect spoke?) hmm??
**

And this poster has hit the nail on the head. The answer is while the prospect of war in Iraq did prompt the biggest demonstrations in Australian history, these mass protests were in Jan-Mar 2003.

The terrorist is thus referring to protests that occured after his crime. They are therefore unrelated to the terrorist’s act and could not have been an encouraging factor.

The OP is a non-issue.

[IzzyR]

Elvis,

There are some things that do not lend themselves to being proved, and which require a judgment. Nonetheless, they can be profitably discussed and debated, with people putting forth reasons for believing one side or another, and putting forth facts which tend to lend credence to their side. Others will disagree, along the same lines.

This is the honorable way to approach such subjects, which would explain why you are not familiar with it. The sleazeball - or ElvisL1ves - approach is to delude oneself into thinking that all one’s opinions are conclusively proved by the facts, and jump up and down shouting if someone suggests otherwise. Have at it.

[Giraffe]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
IOW suppose US foreign is the sole cause of all terrorism against the US. This does not mean that the US is obligated to change its foreign policy, or that those who pursued this policy were or are wrong. But it does imply - if true - that this consequence is a factor to consider when contemplating foreign policy, though it may be offset by other considerations.

I agree with this paragraph. The problem is that you and the other TACs (trained attack conservatives) only seem willing to apply this type of critical thinking to the actions of those who disagree with your Republican masters.

One way to look at the consequences of protests would be that if the war went ahead, the lack of support might provide some slight additional encouragement to those who would fight what they view as American aggression. Another way to look at the consequences of the protests is that they would make public the fact that a large number of Americans thought the war was a mistake, not worth the lives of American soldiers or innocent civilians.

The president would then have one more variable pointing to the fact that he shouldn’t start this war. Since he is the decision maker, if the protest greatly increases the chances of terrorism or resistance to U.S. occupation, then that should affect his decision. If he starts a war in the face of negative factors (strong domestic opposition, strong international opposition, no evidence of immediate threat), he is responsible for the outcome. You can’t pick and choose negative events and blame them on the factors themselves (e.g. “If France had been on our side, that solider in Bahgdad wouldn’t have been shot in the head”). It’s idiotic.

Incidentally, I laugh at your snarky comments regarding statistical analysis. If you knew shit about statistical analysis, you’d understand the comment of bias, i.e. the fact that if you pick and choose what events to consider based on what answer you want to believe, you’re not going to arrive at the correct answer.

[Giraffe]

Er, “concept of bias”, not “comment of bias”…

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
Anyone think december is masturbating feverishly at the chaos he’s caused in this thread?

Isn’t that the whole point of Republican porn?

[Binarydrone]

IzzyR, Wrong. As it turns out I work for a company that authors statistical analysis software. I have a darn good idea of how this stuff works. So, what are you saying? That we can’t count the number of acts of terrorism? That we can’t count the number of protestors? I submit to you that we can count both. So, if you are stating that protestors encourage terrorism, it would logically follow that more protestors=more acts of terrorism.

Naturally, there are complex reasons for terrorism but if your little theory is true we should still be able to spot the trend. Otherwise, if you can’t prove this claim, I guess that we get to kick it to the curb.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
**Thats funny Shodan I didn’t see you posting that in **Reeder’s ** threads. I wonder what the difference between them is? :dubious: They are still on the board if you wish to do so. **

I don’t usually open Reeder’s threads, as they are generally too stupid to be worth the effort.

The difference, as I see it, is that Reeder is on the Left. That is, he is in agreement with the Groupthink of the SDMB, which is mostly left-of-center.

Add to that the undoubted fact that he doesn’t raise much in the way of “uncomfortable points”, but posts simply a bunch of pointless Bush-bashing, and you have a poster that certainly does not deserve any defense. Therefore he doesn’t get any, at least from me.

Maybe I don’t understand you.

Regards,
Shodan

[december]

*Originally posted by Binarydrone *
I have stated that this should be provable with hard numbers…

I acknowledge that any harmful consequence of the demonstrations would be relatively minor, and not possible to measure. By, the same token, any helpful impact would be too minor to measure. For me, it’s more of a moral question. If demonstrations do more harm than good, then anti-war demonstrators aren’t morally superior to non-demonstrators. In fact, it’s the reverse.

BTW, has any poster on this thread asserted that the demonstrations had a helpful impact? A question for anti-war folks:

Do you believe the anti-war demonstrations did any good? In what ways?

mhendo
The fact is that the link YOU posted said that the terrorist was referring specifically to the anti-Iraq War protests, NOT the anti-Afghanistan war protests.

You are correct.

they can weigh up the “weakness” of the US (as represented by protesters) and the “strength” of the US (as evidence by its government’s policies and actions) and decide which is most influential.

I agree that Bush’s policies have much more impact on the terrorists, but this OP is about the impact of the demonstrators.

Bush constantly gets on TV saying that the terrorist threat is still grave, demonstrating that the apparent strength of the US has not served as a deterrent to terrorism.

Saying that the threat is still grave is not to say that it hasn’t been deterred to some degree. We can’t relive history and find out what the impact of some alternative policy would have been.

In fact, it seems entirely plausible to suggest that the more the US fights, the more resolve it will instill in the terrorists. And, as many Middle East observers have pointed out, the invasion of Iraq and other US interference in the Middle East could even prompt some people to become involved in terrorist activity who would not previously have done so.

That’s a consistent POV, although I don’t agree. I think strength does deter terrorists and weakness encourages them.

why are you so reluctant to believe bin Laden and other terrorists when their claims would cast blame on US foreign policy?

OBL gave a number of reasons for the Jihad, including the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. I accept the likelihood that our troops in Saudi Arabia were one motivation for his attacks on us. However, I consider it unthinkable for the US to withdraw from the middle east in response to OBL’s terrorism.

There are plenty of people in the Middle East who are angry and inflamed at America, and just because they don’t have funds right now does not make them any less angry, and does not make the fanatics among them any less inclined to engage in terrorism. This whole thread was started based on the terrorists’ state of mind, their beliefs about their actions. To turn it around now to a simple question of funding is typically disingenuous of you.

Fair enough, but do you have evidence of increased anti-US hostility in the middle east since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Tars Tarkas, you win the offensiveness prize with your comment, “december and his ilk’s incite to divisiveness is more damaging than a thousand terrorist attacks.” Two people I knew died in the WTC, as well as the son of a friend.

It’s strange that you complain about the damage caused by promoting divisiveness. Most of the country supports the war on terror and the war in Iraq. If anyone is promoting divisiveness, it’s the anti-war protestors.

[rjung]

Originally posted by IzzyR
It is very likely - on it’s own - that enemies of the US see signs of internal dissent as a sign of weakness.

Oddly enough, I was taught that the ability to tolerate and support dissenting opinions was one of the strengths of a free and democratic society. And that demanding everyone to be in common lockstep groupthink was a hallmark of totalitarian regimes and fanatical dictatorships.

Or is this just an indication of what kind of society you and december secretly wish for?

[IzzyR]

Giraffe,

I have some difficulty seeing how your post relates to anything I’ve said. It would appear that you have some generalized complaint about “trained attack conservatives”. If you have any comments about something I’ve said, quote me.

Incidentally, I laugh at your snarky comments regarding statistical analysis. If you knew shit about statistical analysis, you’d understand the comment of bias, i.e. the fact that if you pick and choose what events to consider based on what answer you want to believe, you’re not going to arrive at the correct answer.

I laugh at your inability to comprehend the written word. What in the world would suggest to you that I don’t understand the concept of bias? Feel free to elaborate.

Binarydrone

As it turns out I work for a company that authors statistical analysis software. I have a darn good idea of how this stuff works.

My apologies, then.

So, what are you saying? That we can’t count the number of acts of terrorism? That we can’t count the number of protestors? I submit to you that we can count both.

I am saying that there are too many factors happening at the same time, some of which are unknown or unquantifiable, to isolate the effects of any one. One of the most basic principles of statistical analysis is that cause and effect can only be analyzed if all other factors are kept constant. Otherwise, the observed correlation (or lack thereof) might be the result of factors other than the one being studied.

In our case, suppose the increased anti-war demonstrations corresponded timewise with an increase in terrorist activity. Could be the result of the demonstrations. Or it could be the result of the increased likelihood of war in Iraq and war rhetoric at that time. Or it could be the result of the gradual regrouping of Al-Qaeda after the Afghan war. Or any number of other factors, as above.

Or suppose they corresponded with a decrease in terrorism. This could merely represent continuing incremental success of the international war on terrorism. Or the disruption of terrorism due to the war in Iraq. Or any number of other factors.

If someone was saying that the sole determinant of terrorist activity was demonstrations and all else was insignificant, you might be able to do the analysis you describe. (Even then you would have a problem in determining the proper lag between receiving encouragement and committing the terrorist act). But fortunately, no one has made such a ridiculous claim.

[IzzyR]

Rjung,

I can assure you that when assessing the validity of my opinions, the furthest thing from my mind is the extent to which they conform to what you were taught.

But FWIW, I would say that tolerating dissent is primarily an internal strength. A leadership that does not tolerate dissent runs the risk of becoming too far removed from popular sentiment, and faces an increased risk of implosion. But in facing an external enemy, I think lockstep agreement is a strength. (Which in NOT to imply that it should be enforced, so don’t anyone be misrepresenting me about this).

december,

Do you believe the anti-war demonstrations did any good? In what ways?

I do. I think war is a very serious matter, and the demonstrators forced people to take a harder look at the con side of it.

[Binarydrone]

*Originally posted by december *
I acknowledge that any harmful consequence of the demonstrations would be relatively minor, and not possible to measure. By, the same token, any helpful impact would be too minor to measure. For me, it’s more of a moral question. If demonstrations do more harm than good, then anti-war demonstrators aren’t morally superior to non-demonstrators. In fact, it’s the reverse…

OK, by both your admission and that of IzzyR it seems that any impact by protestors is hypothetical, immeasurable, negligibly small and basically a matter of opinion. This is quite a long journey from your original statement that anti-war protestors are contributing to carnage, but sure we can let it go.

We can even look at the moral question if you like. The problem is that the question that you are asking is logically flawed. You state that both the harm and the good of protesting is small and something that can not be measured, but then go on to wonder about the morality of the demonstrators based on the premise that they do more harm than good. Since you have already admitted that this can not be determined, I think that there is probably something more happening here.

I submit to you that the truth is that you simply don’t like the demonstrators because they are not aligned with your party affiliations for the most part. That is fine, as far as it goes, although I would prefer that you have enough introspection and self-honesty to admit that this is the case.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by Weirddave *
**
quote:

To take your last point first, i was under the impression that DMC’s “quote” was a tongue-in-cheek, made-up type of thing. Have i been whooshed, or am i bit thick? I couldn’t find it on the web by Googling, and i never took it to be a genuine citation, although if i’m right, then DMC might have made that a little clearer in his post.

Well, I thought it was a joke too, but then someone refered back to it like it was real later in the thread so I wondered. The likelyest explanation is that I was whooshed. **

Actually, it is similar to something that december himself pulled in a recent thread.

In that thread, december conflated a quote from Bill Clinton with one from Hilary, and asked if it was a lie (it stated baldly that Iraq had WMD). Very naturally, the lefties on the SDMB fell for it, hook, line, and sinker, and immediately stated that it was an obvious lie, etc., etc., all based on their assumption that it was Bush who made the statement(s). Then they became aware that they had been suckered, and turned to the usual attacks on december, and the thread was quickly locked to spare embarassment.

Here we have an even more made-up quote, without attribution. Fortunately, it was made by a Doper other than december, so nothing will result except your gentle warning that perhaps he should have been more clear.

If it had been december, he would have been called a lying sack of shit, dishonest, etc., etc.

Desmostylus - Thanks for going back and counting the calls for me. Although if you can parse the difference between “I hope you get banned” and the wish that someone be banned, you are either much smarter or much dumber than I am.

In the interests of accuracy, I will rephrase it as "the thread consisting of at least half the posters responding with ad hominem attacks and/or calling for the banning of the original poster without addressing his point at all. " For an example of which, see your own post.

Oh wait - I guess I am wasting effort using logic to disprove your point. I should just call you a “fucking idiot/lying sack of shit/hope you get banned” and, if I can get enough to join the pile-on, things should go find from there.

Regards,
Shodan

[Binarydrone]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**…The difference, as I see it, is that Reeder is on the Left. That is, he is in agreement with the Groupthink of the SDMB, which is mostly left-of-center.
B]

I have been meaning to ask someone about this the next time that I saw it come up. Where do you get this? It seems to me that off the top of my head I can think of just as many conservative “notables” as I can liberal ones around here.

Not picking on you or anything, just that I have seen this or similar statements made as if they were fact and was wondering what it was based on, as my experience around here differs.

[Giraffe]

IzzyR, here’s the Cliff’s notes summary for you:

You stated that to argue that protestors should seriously think about the consequences of protest with regards to possible future acts of terrorism is a valid position.

My response to that was to point out that this is a totally illogical assignment of responsibility, as increased resistance to a U.S. occupation can only happen in the war actually takes place, which is the decision of the president, not the protestors. Since nearly all of the protests took place before the war started, the only reasonable consequence the protestors need consider is the effect of their protests on the likely outcomes at the time, not the outcome if the president ignores the protests, proceeds with the war, and then faces increased opposition (itself highly unlikely) solely as a result of the pre-war protests.

Summary of summary: protestors did weigh the relevant consequences. The consequences you say they should have considered are second order to protestors, but first order to the president, who you don’t seem to hold responsible at all for the resulting terrorism.

My comment on your self-proclaimed knowledge of statistical analysis being laughable is based on the fact that you and the other TACs are hypocrites. TACs only ever apply careful analysis to ideas and evidence that support the worldview that the Republicans are right in all things. When a situation is pointed out to you that is exactly consistent with your previous statements but puts a Republican in a bad light, you studiously ignore it. Anyone so blindly partisan should not be boasting an understanding of statistics, in light of their history of carefully picking and choosing only the facts that support their pre-determined viewpoint.

[Jodi]

IZZYR –

I don’t wish to get bogged down in arguing about the meaning of the word “consequence”. Substitute some other word if you like. Maybe “result”. Or how about “if A happens then B is more likely to happen”. Whatever.

Whatever, indeed. Because word choice – an issue raised by you, not me – does not change the fact that this situation does NOT support the statement “If A happens then B is more likely to happen.” That’s the point. A has no causal effect on B whatsoever that you can prove as anything more than your own fanstastical speculations. As GARY pointed out, “B” is actually caused by a number of factors that do not include “A.” So you use whatever word or phrase you want – consequence, result, “if/then” – but kindly stop overlooking that no one has shown the causal link you are so all-fired eager to assume exists.

I’ve already explained several times why I think it makes sense that peaceful protests would encourage terrorists. Most recently in my previous post to Gary K. Feel free to disagree, but there’s no sense in just ignoring it.

And I believe I explained several times why this does not hold water if you take the time to scrutinize it carefully and logically, without bringing your own ideological prejudices to bear. I don’t believe I’ve “ignored” this; in fact, I’ve explained to you several times why it is wrong. If you now want to argue that it is not wrong, you’ll have to address the substance of my posts, as opposed to construing them as an argument about “word choice,” which they very clearly are not.

As for the word of this terrorist, as I’ve previously said, I do not grant him absolute credibility. But the logic (that protests encourage terrorism) is something that I would believe anyway. The statement by this terrorist tends to support that argument. No more.

No more indeed. Your argument basically is “Makes sense to me!” But you’re a little unclear as to why an unrelated “A” would in fact make “B” more likely. You want to start the discussion with the assumption this is correct, and it simply is not. My point, since you have apparently missed it, is that the “logic” you are so set on “believing anyway” is flawed.

I have no idea what your final paragraph means.

Which word did you not understand?

DECEMBER –

I acknowledge that any harmful consequence of the demonstrations would be relatively minor, and not possible to measure. By, the same token, any helpful impact would be too minor to measure. For me, it’s more of a moral question. If demonstrations do more harm than good . . . .

I’m sorry; you’ve lost me. If you admit (as you just did) that “any harmful consequence would be impossible to measure,” on what basis do you then leap to considering whether “demonstrations do more harm than good”? If you can’t measure the harm, how on earth can we ever know whether it ourweighs the good? Axiomatally, we can’t. So now you’re considering a purely hypothetical question you have just admitted cannot be answered. To which I can only post my usual response to pointless hypotheticals: If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.

[cj_finn]

Members of a democracy have a right and a duty to express their opinions on the way in which the country is being run. If a wingnut terrorist claims that a demonstration in Australia against certain actions was viewed as support for his cause, so what? It has no bearing on the correctness of the demonstration, NONE I tell you.

Causal chains are tenuous at best and for someone to make the assertion that a peaceful demonstration(s) actually caused or even supported a terroristic bombing requires very strong evidence. The evidence requirement is even more impressive where the implications of those making the cause and effect claims is that one should forego their rights and duties because there might (could, kinda, sorta, possibly) be an ill effect.

If we are going to indulge in that kind of blame laying, then we should exterminate all butterflies post haste as one of those little bastards might just start a hurricane. Perhaps I should offer myself up for sentencing right now for sneezing this morning, as the air expelled from my lungs could possibly change the direction of a forest fire and cause injury to a smoke jumper.

Did a protest(s) make a terrorist feel a bit better about his cause? So what if it did? If you let that logic rule the day, life as we know it would grind to a halt. Gee, E.L.F. blew up a car dealership, perhaps we should shitcan all environmental programs? Cause you know, we don’t want to cause/appease terrorism.

For every action that any person, group, or government takes, there will be a wingnut ready to take credit or laud the perpetrator of the act. Do you really want to use cause and effect in such a loose manner?

My legal training filters everything I think about through my law colored glasses so in assessing whether the OP was full of it, I couldn’t help but go back to some old tort case law that covered the idea of proximate cause. See this page for background info on the famous Palsgraf case.

While the analogy between causation of a tort and causation of terrorism may have some weakness, the results appear to be the same. Where you didn’t do anything wrong in the first place, there can be no causation.

As has been stated somewhere else in this thread, it would be pure assholery to suggest that criticizing one’s democratically elected government would be a direct cause of terrorism. (If that wasn’t stated before, let me be the first.) Its a right and a duty in a democracy and one that is vital to the healthy functioning of the system. To use the same logic used by the OP and his supporters (and to simultaneously paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, something that will likely get me labelled a terrorist): “If you disagree with my assertion, you might just be a terrorist.”

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Binarydrone *
by both your admission and that of IzzyR it seems that any impact by protestors is hypothetical, immeasurable, negligibly small and basically a matter of opinion.

Hey, don’t mix me into this. I agree with “immeasurable”. Not with “negligibly small” (although smaller than other factors, e.g. support for Israel & invasion of Iraq). And I agree with “hypothetical” and “basically a matter of opinion”, but don’t think these detract in any way. Something which is a hypothetical and a matter of opinion may be true (or untrue) just like anything else.

*Originally posted by Giraffe *
Summary of summary: protestors did weigh the relevant consequences. The consequences you say they should have considered are second order to protestors, but first order to the president, who you don’t seem to hold responsible at all for the resulting terrorism.

My comment on your self-proclaimed knowledge of statistical analysis being laughable is based on the fact that you and the other TACs are hypocrites. TACs only ever apply careful analysis to ideas and evidence that support the worldview that the Republicans are right in all things. When a situation is pointed out to you that is exactly consistent with your previous statements but puts a Republican in a bad light, you studiously ignore it. Anyone so blindly partisan should not be boasting an understanding of statistics, in light of their history of carefully picking and choosing only the facts that support their pre-determined viewpoint.

Well here’s a summary of your summary of summary:

“I can’t find the slightest hypocrisy or inconsistency in anything you’ve said, and in fact don’t have anything substantive to bring to the table. So what I will do instead is to attribute you all sorts of opinions and positions based on the notion that you are a “TAC” and attack you on that basis”.

Once again, if you can find anything that I said that you have an objection to, take your best shot. Otherwise, run along…

Jodi,

Your first paragraph says again at length that you don’t agree with me. I’ve already learned to live with that.

And I believe I explained several times why this does not hold water if you take the time to scrutinize it carefully and logically, without bringing your own ideological prejudices to bear. I don’t believe I’ve “ignored” this; in fact, I’ve explained to you several times why it is wrong. If you now want to argue that it is not wrong, you’ll have to address the substance of my posts, as opposed to construing them as an argument about “word choice,” which they very clearly are not.

I’m sorry, I must have missed all those posts - perhaps you can direct me to them.

No more indeed. Your argument basically is “Makes sense to me!” But you’re a little unclear as to why an unrelated “A” would in fact make “B” more likely. You want to start the discussion with the assumption this is correct, and it simply is not. My point, since you have apparently missed it, is that the “logic” you are so set on “believing anyway” is flawed.

No actually I’ve noted that, as above. My argument again, is that the idea that dissent in the enemy camp is encouraging is consistent with human nature as I’ve seen it. If you don’t believe it, we’re at an impasse.

If I were to say that punching someone in the nose is likely to make the guy angry at you, it would be based on nothing more than the logical process above. And if you were to insist that I hadn’t proved it and that it was just my opinion and you disagreed - we’d be at the same impasse as we are here.

Which word did you not understand?

How do you come up with these witty lines? It’s a gift, I tell you…