Al-Qaida Calls For Romes Destruction

[Durandal]

Compared to what it could have done? 1200 is small potatoes. When was the last time being "effective" was not even coming close to realizing full potential?

When casualties go into the four-digit range, I consider it "effective", even if it didn't hit it's full potential. Tokyo is lucky those guys were lazy bastards and didn't do the job right there.

Jesus fucking Christ, do I have to spell out every little fucking detail for you and your little "Anti-Editing Mafia" buddies? "Effective" refers to efficiency, retard. "Efficiency" refers to a ratio. The gas could have killed far more people than it actually did, making it an inefficient, hence ineffective deployment.

Was it effective toward the end of terror? Yes. But the big scare with biological weapons is their ability to spread to large populations, remember?

I was unaware 9-11 was uneffective. I'll keep that in mind.

See above. I put it in simple language for Shep to understand; let me know if you require a sing-along version so I can tell you to go fuck yourself.

[Howedar]

Effective in fact refers to the effect something has had, not how efficient it is. Efficiency refers to how efficient something is. Maybe I'll put that in my sig so you won't forget again.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Tokyo is lucky those guys were lazy bastards
and didn't do the job right there.

(emphasis mine)

Let me get this straight. You call Durandal my "assfriend" as disparage the two of us for our comments then turn right around and admit that Tokya is lucky those guys "were lazy bastards and didn't do the job right"?

You fucking moron. That's exactly what we were talking about; they could've killed thousands with that gas. And I concede to Skimmer it was improperly refined, not poorly deployed; but that's completely relevent to what we were talking about. You don't expect terrorists to get high-quality gas with perfect deployment, and the scale of attack we're talking about is city-devestating.

But I won't let that interfere with your nitpicking hyperbolic harangues.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Effective in fact refers to the effect something has had, not how efficient it is. Efficiency refers to how efficient something is. Maybe I'll put that in my sig so you won't forget again.

ef·fec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-fktv)
adj.

Having an intended or expected effect.

I would imagine that the intended or expected effect is that of the actual sarin gas, not some poorly refined, half-assed version.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh, and Howedar: You're in trouble territory when your clever victories are based on capitalizing and exaggerating semantical nitpicking. Just to make sure you know.

[Howedar]

Okay, just so long as you're not playing mod or something.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Its also telling you think Tu Quoque or red herrings forgive you for being an asshole.

[Durandal]

For Howedar:

Main Entry: ef·fec·tive
Pronunciation: i-'fek-tiv, e-, E-
Function: adjective
1 a : producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect b : IMPRESSIVE, STRIKING <a gold lamé fabric studded with effective ... precious stones -- Stanley Marcus>
2 : ready for service or action <effective manpower>
3 : ACTUAL <the need to increase effective demand for goods>
4 : being in effect : OPERATIVE <the tax becomes effective next year>
5 of a rate of interest : equal to the rate of simple interest that yields the same amount when the interest is paid once at the end of the interest period as a quoted rate of interest does when calculated at compound interest over the same period -- compare NOMINAL 4
- ef·fec·tive·ness noun
- ef·fec·tiv·i·ty /"e-"fek-'ti-v&-tE, i-, E-/ noun
synonyms EFFECTIVE, EFFECTUAL, EFFICIENT, EFFICACIOUS mean producing or capable of producing a result. EFFECTIVE stresses the actual production of or the power to produce an effect <an effective rebuttal>. EFFECTUAL suggests the accomplishment of a desired result especially as viewed after the fact <the measures to stop the pilfering proved effectual>. EFFICIENT suggests an acting or a potential for action or use in such a way as to avoid loss or waste of energy in effecting, producing, or functioning <an efficient small car>. EFFICACIOUS suggests possession of a special quality or virtue that gives effective power <a detergent that is efficacious in removing grease>.

I'll put this is simpler terms for you. Biological and chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction. That's why everyone's so fucking afraid of them. Would the release of a chemical weapon on US soil be effective in spreading terror? Sure, but so are two guys sniping people from the back of their truck randomly. Is a weapon of mass destruction, capable of possibly killing millions, only killing a few thousand, an effective deployment of that weapon? No. And, what do you know! The deployment of the weapon was what I was fucking referring to in the first place.

[Howedar]

Hmm, I thought the purpose of terrorist acts was to terrorize. My mistake.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Poor Howedar got caught in a oversimplification now.

You realize that the goal of the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was to bring down both towers by collapsing one into the other.

Was it ineffective by my standard? By Durandal's? By the definition (which you couldn't be bothered to check before resorting to your signature space as another sad attempt to seem clever)? Yes.

By your standard, it terrorized, so it was effective. Fucking failed entirely at what Yousef wanted, but hell! It terrorized. All that matters.

[Durandal]

Hmm, I thought the purpose of terrorist acts was to terrorize. My mistake.

To terrorize by killing people, you imbecile. More Killing == More Terror.

[Joe]

Poor Howedar got caught in a oversimplification now.

You realize that the goal of the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was to bring down both towers by collapsing one into the other.

Was it ineffective by my standard? By Durandal's? By the definition (which you couldn't be bothered to check before resorting to your signature space as another sad attempt to seem clever)? Yes.

By your standard, it terrorized, so it was effective. Fucking failed entirely at what Yousef wanted, but hell! It terrorized. All that matters.

Actually, Yousef most certainly did want to release cyanide gas in addition to bringing down the towers in that particular attack, and if it had gone as he had intended it would have killed tens of thousands. But alas, the cyanide burned up in the explosion (which didn't do as much damage as he had wanted) and he failed, fortunately. He would later go on fail even more miserably with his next planned terrorist operation, Operation Bojinka.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Actually, Yousef most certainly did want to release cyanide gas in addition to bringing down the towers in that particular attack, and if it had gone as he had intended it would have killed tens of thousands. But alas, the cyanide burned up in the explosion (which didn't do as much damage as he had wanted) and he failed, fortunately. He would later go on fail even more miserably with his next planned terrorist operation, Operation Bojinka.

Uh, Joe? Are you refuting my position or just adding commentary. I'd think this would serve to further make my point that Yousef's operation, while it terrorized people, was ineffective because it failed in its intended goals.

[Joe]

Not refuting anything. Just adding commentary.

[Howedar]

Poor Howedar got caught in a oversimplification now.

You realize that the goal of the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was to bring down both towers by collapsing one into the other.

Was it ineffective by my standard? By Durandal's? By the definition (which you couldn't be bothered to check before resorting to your signature space as another sad attempt to seem clever)? Yes.

By your standard, it terrorized, so it was effective. Fucking failed entirely at what Yousef wanted, but hell! It terrorized. All that matters.

That's right, it was effective to a degree. It could have been more effective, but that is true of anything.

'93 scared people, so it was effective as an instrument of terror.

To terrorize by killing people, you imbecile. More Killing == More Terror.

Not at all. The anthrax scare in late '01 scared a hell of a lot more people than Oklahoma City, but killed something like a twentieth as many people.

[Darth Wong]

Effectiveness: how much effect something has

Interestingly enough, Merriam-Webster says:
Effectiveness: producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect

Not exactly the same thing.

[MKSheppard]

To terrorize by killing people, you imbecile. More Killing == More Terror.

Actually, you want to wound people as well. Nothing scares the shit out
of people like seeing people puking their lungs out and blinded by gas.

Machine guns were far more efficient in killing people than gas was in WWI,
but guess what was so universally despised that it was banned from warfare?

[Darth Wong]

Not at all. The anthrax scare in late '01 scared a hell of a lot more people than Oklahoma City, but killed something like a twentieth as many people.

What do you base that assessment on? I personally found the Oklahoma City bombing much more disturbing than the anthrax letters.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's right, it was effective to a degree. It could have been more effective, but that is true of anything.

You're such a sniveling little fuck.

What is the difference between that and the original point? Comparatively, the World Trade Center bombing was ineffective versus the potential success of the attack. The Tokyo Sarin Gas Attack was comparatively ineffective versus the harm caused by properly refined chemical.

Give me a break. That's a concession without really offering it. Can't you ever swollow your pride and admit stuff like this, for example, is not true:

I was unaware 9-11 was uneffective. I'll keep that in mind.

OBL didn't think the towers would even collapse, so the attacks were extremely effective.

I suppose you think in chemical weapons attacks the terrorists intend and desire their attack to perform in the manner of shitty half-assed refined crap?

Yes, I thought so too.

Not at all. The anthrax scare in late '01 scared a hell of a lot more people than Oklahoma City, but killed something like a twentieth as many people.

The amount of straying from the central point here is amazing. Answer the question: do you really think the Tokyo Attack, and other attacks dealing with chemical WMD desire for the effect to be that of half-assed poorly refined shit?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Actually, you want to wound people as well. Nothing scares the shit out
of people like seeing people puking their lungs out and blinded by gas.

Machine guns were far more efficient in killing people than gas was in WWI,
but guess what was so universally despised that it was banned from warfare?

Red herrings all around. You saying the cult didn't intend and desire for the chemical weapons to kill thousands of people, as they have the potential for?

[Howedar]

You'll forgive me for excepting the people with a brain. By observing public opinion, it is fairly clear that most people found the anthrax scare scarier than the OK City bombing. I don't know if there is any poll data on that, I'll look if you insist upon it.

The fact remains that the number of deaths is not the only determinant of the amount of terror.

[MKSheppard]

Red herrings all around. You saying the cult didn't intend and desire for the chemical weapons to kill thousands of people, as they have the potential for?

They ended up wounding 1,200 people with a small operation.
Still effective AND efficient in my book, as opposed to recruiting
an army of homicidial dwarves to go around kneecapping everyone.

[Darth Wong]

They ended up wounding 1,200 people with a small operation. Still effective AND efficient in my book, as opposed to recruiting
an army of homicidial dwarves to go around kneecapping everyone.

I think you are severely underestimating the tactical effectiveness of homicidal dwarf infantry.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You'll forgive me for excepting the people with a brain. By observing public opinion, it is fairly clear that most people found the anthrax scare scarier than the OK City bombing. I don't know if there is any poll data on that, I'll look if you insist upon it.

Yes, I except people with a brain too.

Straying from the point. Is the Tokyo Attack effective enough (can't use the world "ineffective" with Howedar, only "effective to a degree" or "less effective")? Would you expect them to have more effectiveness? Y'know, the kind we're talking about relating to a thread about the city-wide destruction of Rome?

The fact remains that the number of deaths is not the only determinant of the amount of terror.

I like how you've shifted to nitpicking Damien's and Mike's latest points because you're other remarks were held up as the fucking stupidity they were.

[Howedar]

You're such a sniveling little fuck.

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings?

What is the difference between that and the original point? Comparatively, the World Trade Center bombing was ineffective versus the potential success of the attack. The Tokyo Sarin Gas Attack was comparatively ineffective versus the harm caused by properly refined chemical.

No shit, Sherlock.

Give me a break. That's a concession without really offering it. Can't you ever swollow your pride and admit stuff like this, for example, is not true:

I was unaware 9-11 was uneffective. I'll keep that in mind.

OBL didn't think the towers would even collapse, so the attacks were extremely effective.

I suppose you think in chemical weapons attacks the terrorists intend and desire their attack to perform in the manner of shitty half-assed refined crap?

Yes, I thought so too.[/quote]I haven't the fucking foggiest clue what you're accusing me of here. Who said expectations have any bearing on the effectiveness of an attack? If I think an attack will kill ten people, and you think it will kill twenty people, does it have two different degrees of effectiveness?

The amount of straying from the central point here is amazing. Answer the question: do you really think the Tokyo Attack, and other attacks dealing with chemical WMD desire for the effect to be that of half-assed poorly refined shit?

Answer the question: did the Tokyo attack cause terror or not? That is the yardstick for effectiveness.