Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (5379)	4/2/2003 7:41:09 AM
From: zonder	Respond to of 15987

I asked you to explain your belief that the American requirement to contain Saddam by stationing US troops on Saudi and Kuwaiti soil played no role in the rise of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden... Wha...? :-) When have I ever commented that issue, for or against? Saddam doesn't have to be linked to Al Qaeda Oh yes, he does. As for your statistical obsession, I'm really not interested.. First of all, "leaving Iraqi regime in place increases chances of terrorist attacks by 5%" refers to PROBABILITY and NOT STATISTICS. If you do not wish me to comment on the apparent baseless nature of the probability studies you post, especially if you cannot even distinguish between probability and statistics, there is an easy way out - Don't post them. This is what your article said: suppose that the current Iraqi regime raises the probability of a terrorist attack of the same magnitude as 9/11 by 5 percent per year (one additional attack every 20 years). Message 18776442 I was not even contesting this, but wondering why this probability is taken as 5% and not 0.5% or perhaps 15%. Your reply saying "That figures he would try one attack every year for 20 years, or 5%" was, uh, hilarious. Message 18782075 There are lies, god-damn lies, and then statistics... Oh the wisdom of folk sayings :-) Irrelevant, of course, since we were not even talking about statistics. Not please take some time to write a paragraph or two about how Saddam's activities in the Gulf, and American efforts to deter him, have not directly led to the rise of Bin Laden. Why? Because you chose me for the task? How about you take the time to write how they DID lead to the rise of Bin Ladin, and we'll talk about it. Do take care to mention how the American support he was receiving during Afghans were fighting against Russian invasion also led to his rise. A comparative analysis of which pushed him further ahead and why would be interesting.