|
Terrorism Wins in Spain (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
This could be true, but it just seems as an assumption to me unless i see any evidence. Logical assumption, but still an assumption. |
Dude you are so clinging on to that view. Don't be so defensive about supporting the outcome of the election. I think occride said it pretty well.
BTW, this isn't some far fetched assumption. I was watching the news last night and it said Al-Qaeda had posted on their web site last year their plans to take action in Spain to effect the out come of the election. What more do you want? Would it make you believe if Bin Laden came to your house and explained his intentions to you? |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Dude you are so clinging on to that view. Don't be so defensive about supporting the outcome of the election. I think occride said it pretty well.
BTW, this isn't some far fetched assumption. I was watching the news last night and it said Al-Qaeda had posted on their web site last year their plans to take action in Spain to effect the out come of the election. What more do you want? Would it make you believe if Bin Laden came to your house and explained his intentions to you? |
That sounds interesting. What's the link to Al Qaeda's website??  |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by YaleTrance
That sounds interesting. What's the link to Al Qaeda's website?? |
I knew you would follow up with that question. lol What a doubting Thomas. It was briefly mentioned on PBS news and they didn't give the url. I doubt they would make it up and I'm sure by now the website has been taken down. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
My M.Sc. thesis was about formal logic, so I can't resist commenting on this sentence ;) I'm assuming occrider made his logical reasoning based on some type of standard propositional logic, as opposed to some more exotic type of logic.
A logical system may be used to decide truth and falsity in several different logical models. In one model, a claim may be true, but in another model, it may be false.
Let's look at a logical model which depicts the world on 3/11. When taken literally, the first line of the quote from occrider above may or may not be true. It depends on whether the desired results of the 3/11 terrorist act was changing the Spanish government. If so, 3/11 proved that there exists a logical model where terrorism CAN accomplish desired results.
The latter part of occrider's quote may be false. You can't prove the latter part based on whether the first line is true within one model. The latter part of occrider's quote would be formally: "truth of the first line in the 3/11 model implies truth of the second line in the post-election model". occrider would have been right if he had altered the latter part of the quote to say "and thus it makes sense to plan more attacks in order to satisfy their agenda as long as the model is the same"
Therefore, the practical value of occrider's potentially true first line is limited or even inconsequential. Let me explain what I'm trying to say.
Please folks remember that terrorism and anti-terrorism mutate.
Spain is going to improve its homeland security to try to prevent any copy of this particular attack. Spain is also trying to avoid becoming a target by dropping out of the Coalition. In the future, Spain can no longer be depicted using the same logical model.
Can terrorists logically conclude that what they did on 11/3 will work in the improved model? No. If they attempt to copy the attack, it is possible that it will not be a success, but instead leads to the destruction of the terrorist network. This time the Spanish authorities would be more vigilant. They would more easily spot the terrorists, trace their connections and shoot their heads off before they even get near of attempting bombing. Then PSOE will not be thrown out of power, but is likely to be re-elected. In this new model, terrorism may not accomplish desired results.
That's called evolution.
Therefore, terrorists would do wisely to scrap any conclusions they can make from this attack, and start anew. They'll need to find a new loophole that will work in the improved Spanish model. Perhaps giving out anti-government flyers at mosques before the elections or something. Or alternatively, trying out another terrorist attack, but its accomplishment of desired results cannot be logically concluded from 3/11.
How about another version of the same question: Can terrorists pragmatically conclude that what they did on 3/11 worked on 3/11? The jury is still out. The entire Europe seems to have waken up. UK is trying out new measures to combat terrorism. Many European countries which didn't take terrorism seriously in the past, have now changed their policy. Perhaps voting PP out of power proved that in the 3/11 model, Europe was ready to quickly find new ways of approaching the problem.
Terrorism is like a disease. If you are stubborn and try out the same ineffective antidote (PP in government and the Iraq occupation) for many years, the disease can still survive. But if you try a new antidote, does that make the disease happy that it managed to make you change your antidote?
The definition of crazy is: Trying out the same thing again and again, and expecting a different result. The first step to get out of any problem is usually to try change any damn thing.
Capability for rapid change may be the most valuable quality in anti-terrorism. The Spanish people were clever enough to realize the healthy potential of change.
Can someone imagine a terrorist saying to another terrorist: "We are so happy because we were able to make them change their response". It's like saying: "We are so happy because what worked for us before will not work any longer."
If this was not enough of a rebuttal, let me point out that the topic of this thread may just be propaganda from the Neoconservative press:
http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=2142
When Bush loses an ally, and then the press tells us that "Bush's loss of an ally is a bad thing", the reader might do wisely to hypothesize: "One can logically conclude that it CAN be pro-Bush press who are making up the claim" ;)
edit: I tried to paraphrase this post so that there's no abuse of terminology. |
Very good response. Reading Vesa's posts I always feel like I'm back at the Universitait van Amsterdam IR MsC program. You just don't hear these kinds of arguments in the US, and we definitely need more people that deconstruct supposed "absolute truths" and flawed logical reasoning that do not take various models into account. It's the whole quantitative U.S. approach to philosophy and politics versus the more qualitative European approach more than anything else.
| quote: | If this was not enough of a rebuttal, let me point out that the topic of this thread may just be propaganda from the Neoconservative press:
http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=2142
When Bush loses an ally, and then the press tells us that "Bush's loss of an ally is a bad thing", the reader might do wisely to hypothesize: "One can logically conclude that it CAN be pro-Bush press who are making up the claim" ;) |
In my opinion, it definitely is neo-conservative propaganda. This message is so predominant in America that you don't really hear any alternative perspectives. And the media's approach influences perception beyond political ideologies. Even by looking at this thread you can tell that all of the Americans (I'm from a colony with a different cultural identity so I'm not so sure as to where I belong hehe), regardless of whether they are pro-Bush or not, are suspicious of Spaniards and their "pro-terror" moves. |
|
|
| occrider |
Ahhhh I haven't gotten into a good argument with Vesa for quite some time :). Wow, I didn't know that 2 lines would give rise to several paragraphs of deconstruction. If I had known that that would be the case, I probably would have mapped out my logical reasoning each step of the way rather than go from A to D. At any rate, you appear to be making several assumptions about my argument and my reasoning Vesa. So without further delay ... my response:
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
Let's look at a logical model which depicts the world on 3/11. When taken literally, the first red sentence of the quote from occrider above may or may not be true. It depends on whether the desired results of the 3/11 terrorist act was changing the Spanish government. If so, 3/11 proved that there exists a logical model where terrorism CAN accomplish desired results.
|
I agree with this. I think I made it clear that I was making logical assumptions rather than factual claims as to the motivations behind the 3/11 attacks. Given the evidence at hand, and the arguments I made above, it appears that the 3/11 attacks were carried out with the intent of changing the Spanish government, or at the very least, attacking Spain's resolve to stand by the US in the war on terror (with respect to troops in Iraq).
| quote: |
The latter part ("thus ...") of occrider's quote may be false. You can't prove the latter part based on whether the first red sentence is true within one model. The latter part of occrider's quote would be formally: "truth of the first red sentence in the 3/11 model implies truth of the second red sentence in the post-election model". occrider would have been right if he had altered the latter part of the quote to say "and thus it makes sense to plan attacks in order to satisfy their agenda as long as the model is the same", but it would be a tautology.
A formal logician differentiates strictly between whether the claim is true in one model and whether the claim is valid i.e. true in all models. This difference is also absolutely essential to retain when a layman makes his layman interpretation of logical reasoning.
Therefore, the practical value of occrider's potentially true first red sentence is limited or even inconsequential. Let me explain what I'm trying to say.
Please folks remember that terrorism and anti-terrorism mutate.
Spain is going to improve its homeland security to try to prevent any copy of this particular attack. Spain is also trying to avoid becoming a target by dropping out of the Coalition. In the future, Spain can no longer be depicted using the same logical model.
Can terrorists logically conclude that what they did on 11/3 will work in the improved model? No. If they attempt to copy the attack, it is possible that it will not be a success, but instead leads to the destruction of the terrorist network. This time the Spanish authorities would be more vigilant. They would more easily spot the terrorists, trace their connections and shoot their heads off before they even get near of attempting bombing. Then PSOE will not be thrown out of power, but is likely to be re-elected. In this new model, terrorism may not accomplish desired results.
That's called evolution.
Therefore, terrorists would do wisely to scrap any conclusions they can make from this attack, and start anew. They'll need to find a new loophole that will work in the improved Spanish model. Perhaps giving out anti-government flyers at mosques before the elections or something. Or alternatively, trying out another terrorist attack, but its accomplishment of desired results cannot be logically concluded from 3/11.
How about another version of the same question: Can terrorists pragmatically conclude that what they did on 3/11 worked on 3/11? The jury is still out. The entire Europe seems to have waken up. UK is trying out new measures to combat terrorism. Many European countries which didn't take terrorism seriously in the past, have now changed their policy. Perhaps voting PP out of power proved that in the 3/11 model, Europe was ready to quickly find new ways of approaching the problem.
|
This logic criticism might apply assuming that my logic claim were static. Notice that I did not say that "3/11 type terrorist attacks can accomplish desired results in Spain and thus it makes sense to plan more 3/11 type terrorist attacks in Spain." I had thought that by avoiding specifics in my original claim that one would infer from my statement that the type of terrorist attack would be dynamic and that the location of the terrorist attack would be dynamic. As I stated in an earlier post:
| quote: |
The solution may be beneficial to spain in the short run but ultiamately detrimental to Spain and the world in the long run. |
So in fact, my logical model was not static, but all inclusive to include all types of terrorist attacks, all locations, and the overall agenda of the terrorist, not the specific agenda with respect to influencing an election in Spain. In all liklihood, there probably won't be another attack in Spain for quite some time ... and it probably won't be a train bombing. But as you so eloquentely stated, terrorism mutates and while terrorists may conclude that the static model of infleuncing Spain's elections by planting train bombs is no longer a practical feasibility, the tactical use of any type of terrorism to acheive any agenda that contributes to their overall idealoogy is still a valid logical model.
Let's say that a student does poorly in class and his only recourse is to cheat. Usually he gets caught until one day he discovers a brand new method of cheating that yields positive results. Teachers are suspicious though and take extra precautions that eliminates that student's ability to cheat in the same manner. What goes through the students mind? A) Cheating CAN yield results. B) Doing nothing yields no results. C) I can't cheat the same way. D)I'll find another way to cheat ... maybe in a different class.
Granted it's a rather silly analogy but I want to reiiterate my point that my line of reasoning was a broad based analysis of concepts as a whole (using cheating as a tool) rather than specific situations or circumstances (the cheating method the student used in that particular class) which indeed would be subject to the criticisms you provided.
| quote: |
Very good response. Reading Vesa's posts I always feel like I'm back at the Universitait van Amsterdam IR MsC program. You just don't hear these kinds of arguments in the US, and we definitely need more people that deconstruct supposed "absolute truths" and flawed logical reasoning that do not take various models into account. It's the whole quantitative U.S. approach to philosophy and politics versus the more qualitative European approach more than anything else.
|
I never made the claim that what I was saying were absolute truths ...:conf:. And if you thought my logical reasoning was flawed why did you not speak up? Heh ... quantitative philosphy ... that's a rather tactful way to say that someone is full of hot air. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I never made the claim that what I was saying were absolute truths ...:conf:. And if you thought my logical reasoning was flawed why did you not speak up? Heh ... quantitative philosphy ... that's a rather tactful way to say that someone is full of hot air. |
I wasn't particularly referring to your post, I meant that in this thread in general many people have confused assumptions with absolute truths. Didn't point any fingers, and I wouldn't point any at you anyway.
I do believe, however, that your logical reasoning is too static and therefore flawed from my point of view. I already addressed all of the issues that we disagreed on, and it would be redundant to repeat them all over again. But my main point of contention would be that you failed to acknowledge the divergence of assumption into two different models as Vesa so eloquently draws them out.
With quantitative vs. qualitative i mean the differences I perceived in American and European political science academia and in the practical day-to-day things of both continents. For example, Vesa deconstructs arguments on the basis of their quality and you will apply some sort of informal game theory/zero-sum game in your response that has a certain mathematical-logical approach to back up the analysis. Two very different approaches to logical reasoning and political philosophy theorization, but each with their advantages and flaws. They are both useful and insightful, I was certainly not trying to tactfully insult anyone. I like them both. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
The mundane details of any given terrorist attack aren't particularly relevant to the problem at hand, unless one is inclined to believe that a state could ever adapt its security to such a point at which no methodology of terrorism could be successful against it.
I personally believe that this borders upon absurd - given time and sufficient determination, terrorists can and will find ways to carry out acts of terrorism, regardless of the security measures in place and any changes to those measures that may take place over time.
This would seem to leave us with two choices:
1. Don't give them time.
or
2. Attempt to remove their determination, either by making them believe they will fail and that their goals are not worth the sacrifice, or by removing their inclination to carry out such attacks to begin with (e.g. conceding their agenda).
Neither of these is particularly easy, especially when one considers "terrorism" as a political ideology rather than limiting it to a specific group, such as Al-Qaeda. And just to be clear, when I use the term "terrorism" I refer to the ideology of using terrorist attacks as a means to affect political change - not merely attacks out of pure hatred, which are a different species altogether.
If it is our goal to not give them time, we must first identify them. However, this would seem to take time, and given the decentralized organization of terrorist networks this is simply impractical.
As a result, I can see no alternative but to attempt to attack their determination. I can think of at least three strategies for doing so, each of which deserves at least a cursory analysis:
1. Appeasement - if you give them what they want, then they no longer have any reason to carry out their attacks.
However, this fails when we consider the enemy to be the ideology of terrorism, rather than simply a specific group. Even if we ignore the fact that a specific group, upon achieving its objectives, will likely take on new and more ambitious objectives, there will always be people in the world who are not satisfied. It is simply human nature to want to improve our condition. If we respond to terrorism with appeasement, the demands will simply become more and more unreasonable. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the reality of human behavior.
2. Demoralization - if we can convince them that their efforts are futile, they will be less willing to undertake such measures.
The practicality of this option is questionable. Since each terrorist group (or potential terrorist group) could have a different agenda, different leadership, and different philosophy, it would be difficult to tell exactly what would produce this effect (if anything). While it certainly remains an option to be attempted, I don't see it as a reliable solution to the ideology of terrorism as a whole.
3. Retribution - if terrorist acts don't produce the desired political change, but rather the opposite, then terrorist groups will be likely to avoid terrorism on the grounds that it has consistently produced undesirable results for them.
The premise of using terrorism to affect political change is that your victims/targets must know what political change you desire. They can't submit to your will unless they know what it is. Under the strategy of retribution, we must respond to each and every act of terrorism by immediately and decisively acting to bring about political change which is the opposite of that which the terrorists' objective was. This strategy also falls short of perfection - the possibility of the terrorists using reverse psychology comes to mind.
It seems to me that a combination of strategies 2 and 3, depending upon the specific situation, along with reasonable attempts to improve security is the best philosophy for the prevention of this type of terrorist activity. Strategy 1, on the other hand, is always counterproductive, and should be avoided at almost any cost. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
boy its always after page 10 that these things get good:toocool:
to bad we've running out of arguments....:p |
|
|
| occrider |
Purported Al Qaeda Letter Calls Truce in Spain
Wed Mar 17, 2004 04:56 PM ET
By Opheera McDoom
CAIRO (Reuters) - A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda said on Wednesday it was calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the new Madrid government would withdraw its troops from Iraq, a pan-Arab newspaper said.
In a statement sent to the Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings that killed 201 people, also urged its European units to stop all operations.
"Because of this decision, the leadership has decided to stop all operations within the Spanish territories... until we know the intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq," the statement said.
"And we repeat this to all the brigades present in European lands: Stop all operations."
Skepticism has greeted previous claims of responsibility by the group for attacks in Turkey and Iraq. U.S. officials say its links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network are unclear.
An unrelated videotape of a man describing himself as al Qaeda's European military spokesman also claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing, saying it was in retaliation for outgoing Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's domestically-unpopular support for the U.S.-led Iraq war.
In a shock election result three days after the Madrid bombs, Spain voted in the Socialist party, which has since said it will probably withdraw its troops from Iraq.
"The Spanish people... chose peace by choosing the party that was against the alliance with America," the statement said.
WE WANT BUSH TO WIN
The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.
"Whose turn is it next? Will it be Japan or America, or Italy, Britain or Oslo or Australia?" the statement said, adding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were also targets.
The group is named after Muhammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide killed in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....97&pageNumber=1
If it's authentic ... divide and conquer ... smart. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Vesa, you read too many books. You need to get out more.
Occrider, I think you could play either side of any debate with success.
Yoepus, high-five.
Opus, *tips my hat* good day, I'm havin' a drink with Smokeape.
And by the way, if nothing else; the next time the terrorists want to squeeze something out of Spain, all they have to do is set off some fireworks. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
Since terrorism is unquestionably not a new phenomenon, I am wondering if any of you have done any research or reading on how terrorism throughout history has been dealt with?
You can make the arguement that the technology and motivation behind al Qaeda or similarly minded terrorists may be novel, but I do not see their tactics or methodology differing much from any other terrorist group throughout history.
My question is how has terrorism been dealt with, both effectively and ineffectively in the past? I would not presuppose that the ways of the past could be used as a rubric for the present, but do we have any concrete examples of, as Arbiter simplifies it, appeasement, demorilization, retribution, or any other methods of dealing with terrorism working? How about great failures in dealing with terrorism?
I tend to believe that what we encounter today is analagous to events that have happened in the past. I believe it is very rare that we encounter anything truely "new" in the scope of human activity (social, political, economic, etc), so how can we look at the past to help us deal with the present? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
WE WANT BUSH TO WIN
The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
|
AHHH! So thats who Kerry was talking about when he said a foreign leader prefers him to win over Bush and refused to name names.
I mean afterall, Al Q officially supporting Bush for presidency, is defintely an endorsement for Kerry, right..? right?
which brings this to seriousness: obviously Occrider has pointed this is a divide and conquer attempt, and very smart as I think it will be successful.
However, if we give Al Q credit for that genius, do we believe that Al Q really is smart enough to use reverse psychology by officially endorsing Bush or are they just stupid?
... and if you chose the smart enough to officially endorse Bush reverse psychology option, than you must interpert this as Al Q actually prefering Kerry to lead than Bush, which means they believe Bush will do more damage to Al Q.
Regardless of whatever you guys think, I think this is Al Q's best shot at making sure Bush is not president again. Afterall, most of us agree here that another attack on the USA would only strengthen Bush. If Al Q realizes this as well, than I can only think that they could try and influence the vote for Kerry by peaceful means such as this endorsement for Bush. |
|
|
|
|
