Al-Qaida Calls For Romes Destruction

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

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.

Noghri, anyone?

[Nathan F]

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

FUQ!!!

[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.

Yes, I except people with a brain too.

Good thing your grasp of the English language allows you to understand that "excepting" in this case means leaving out.

Jesus, if you're going to nitpick my spelling and grammar, don't fuck it up. You look dumb when you incorrectly nitpick a complicated point, but you look really dumb when you incorrectly nitpick something simple.

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?

Yes, it was effective. It scared the shit out of a lot of Japanese. I would expect more effectiveness. No, I would not expect the destruction of Rome. If you had read my previous posts in this thread you would have noted that I consider a chemical attack very hard to pull off except in the best of circumstances (IE a subway).

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.

Huh?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings?

Just my blood pressure. That happens when dealing with illiterate posturing morons who can't admit when they fucked up.

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?

I understand you're out to prove you're an asshole, and a fucking idiot in this thread, but I'll quote myself responding to you on this very page, for your convienence, fuckmook:

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

Having an intended or expected effect.

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?

Yeah, moron, if you'd read the definition before smearing that shit in your signature to try and delude yourself into thinking you were clever. Durandal posted a similar definition too.

Not only are you an asshole and a moron, you can't read either.

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

NO IT IS NOT. YOU CANNOT READ DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS.

That would be evaluating whether the operation was not a total failure, but the Tokyo Subway Attack and the 93 Bombing were ineffective versus their expected results AND especially regarding the context of this thread: Al Quaeda inflicting city-level mass destruction.

[Illuminatus Primus]

[Yes, I except people with a brain too.

Good thing your grasp of the English language allows you to understand that "excepting" in this case means leaving out.

Jesus, if you're going to nitpick my spelling and grammar, don't fuck it up. You look dumb when you incorrectly nitpick a complicated point, but you look really dumb when you incorrectly nitpick something simple.[/quote]

I was intentionally repeating your fuck-up, you idiot! Can you possibly be this obtuse?

Yes, it was effective. It scared the shit out of a lot of Japanese. I would expect more effectiveness. No, I would not expect the destruction of Rome. If you had read my previous posts in this thread you would have noted that I consider a chemical attack very hard to pull off except in the best of circumstances (IE a subway).

Still not reading, I see.

Huh?

The original point has been totally buried beneath your new assaults along the lines of "No, killing does not exactly correlate to terror! You are teh dumb!"

[Joe]

Efficiency = doing things right
Effectiveness = doing the right things

That's the distinction I've always seen between the two, anyway.

[Howedar]

Just my blood pressure. That happens when dealing with illiterate posturing morons who can't admit when they fucked up.

If it makes you feel better, the feeling is mutual.

I understand you're out to prove you're an asshole, and a fucking idiot in this thread, but I'll quote myself responding to you on this very page, for your convienence, fuckmook:

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

Having an intended or expected effect.

That is one of many definitions. Congratulations on being able to quote part of a definition. Here's a more complete one.
Main Entry: 1ef·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

Golly, see that "decided" or "decisive" in there? Shit, by the "desired" definition alone if you do more damage than you expected then it's not effective!

Yeah, moron, if you'd read the definition before smearing that shit in your signature to try and delude yourself into thinking you were clever. Durandal posted a similar definition too.

Not only are you an asshole and a moron, you can't read either.

And you can't quote an entire definition, apparently.

That would be evaluating whether the operation was not a total failure, but the Tokyo Subway Attack and the 93 Bombing were ineffective versus their expected results AND especially regarding the context of this thread: Al Quaeda inflicting city-level mass destruction.

Why don't you read my fucking posts, you nimrod. City-wide destruction is far outside of Al Qaeda's capability.

Good thing your grasp of the English language allows you to understand that "excepting" in this case means leaving out.

Jesus, if you're going to nitpick my spelling and grammar, don't fuck it up. You look dumb when you incorrectly nitpick a complicated point, but you look really dumb when you incorrectly nitpick something simple.

I was intentionally repeating your fuck-up, you idiot! Can you possibly be this obtuse?

What fuckup? I excepted a certain group. What's the problem there?

Still not reading, I see.

Still not effectively quoting, I see.

The original point has been totally buried beneath your new assaults along the lines of "No, killing does not exactly correlate to terror! You are teh dumb!"

What, the remarks I made consistent with the full definition of effective?

[MKSheppard]

Still not reading, I see.

Whatever, imbecile. The real point is, if a insignificant cult like Aum Shim
could plan, develop, and carry out a four digit casualty attack, then what
makes you think Al Q, with much larger resources, a global network of
assholes, and a much bigger bank account (we've hit them hard, but
they still got money stashed away), can't do it?

Accusing the Aum Shim cult of being inefficient is like complaining that
155mm artillery is inefficient when you've only got a single gun banging
away.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That is one of many definitions. Congratulations on being able to quote part of a definition. Here's a more complete one.

[snip Howedar's menstral flow]

Which has what to do with the fact you apparently think expectation is irrelevent to efficiency or expectation.

Who said I was relying ONLY on the expectation bit? You're the one who apparently felt effective was simply: did it do anything: yes or no?

But I won't stop your strawmen. Really, go right ahead and distort my argument.

And you can't quote an entire definition, apparently.

Which says what? Definitions were only being quoted to prove to your dumbass that efficiency and intent relates to effectiveness, since you were too stupid to understand. What, I need to spoonfeed you the etymology and ancient meaning to you now? My purpose was simply to show you were an idiot.

Why don't you read my fucking posts, you nimrod. City-wide destruction is far outside of Al Qaeda's capability.

No fucking shit. How does that change your original point that Durandal was wrong in saying that the Tokyo Attack was ineffective because it didn't kill all the people it should have with a sarin gassing?

What fuckup? I excepted a certain group. What's the problem there?

Well then I will give you that. I thought it was pretty clear you were insultingly remarking that regarding simple "common knowledge" or "common trend" stuff like the OK city bombing vs. Anthrax scares, you were "expecting the people with a brain" to realize that.

Still not effectively quoting, I see.

Again, this is how you refute everything. You attack stuff like this, even though it has precisely zero to do with the original point, and the actual reasoning at hand. You said "what do expectations have to do with anything?" So I quoted that bit for you.

If you really think I thought you were so stupid that I could sneakily decieve you by quoting parts of a definition where others hurt my position (they don't) and simply thought you wouldn't look it up yourself, you're paranoid.

What, the remarks I made consistent with the full definition of effective?

Who said expectations have any bearing on the effectiveness of an attack?

You're delusional. You are the one who omitted the fact that expectation, intent, and efficiency relate to the effectiveness.

Praytell, what grand omission did I make, and on the basis of that, post antagonising shit in my signature?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Whatever, imbecile. The real point is, if a insignificant cult like Aum Shim
could plan, develop, and carry out a four digit casualty attack, then what
makes you think Al Q, with much larger resources, a global network of
assholes, and a much bigger bank account (we've hit them hard, but
they still got money stashed away), can't do it?

I dunno. Maybe for starters you could do better than the Bush Administration and actually satisfy the Burden of Proof they have the weapons already, or the infrastucture or labs to properly process it.

[MKSheppard]

No fucking shit. How does that change your original point that Durandal was wrong in saying that the Tokyo Attack was ineffective because it didn't kill all the people it should have with a sarin gassing?

I guess all that chemical weaponry fired in WWI was ineffective since it just
blinded and maimed people instead of killing them, then now.

[MKSheppard]

I dunno. Maybe for starters you could do better than the Bush Administration and actually satisfy the Burden of Proof they have the weapons already, or the infrastucture or labs to properly process it.

Go to any basic chemistry lab, such as found in a high school or university.

Or even better, you can throw that together from a mail order catalog
yourself!

I mean shit, if a bunch of bikers with no cash to their names can make
a chem lab, then why can't Al Q?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I guess all that chemical weaponry fired in WWI was ineffective since it just
blinded and maimed people instead of killing them, then now.

I wonder if you actually know what a red herring is, Sheppard.

[Illuminatus Primus]

*snip*

That'd be why the cult didn't fuck up the refinement of the stuff...oh wait.

[MKSheppard]

That'd be why the cult didn't fuck up the refinement of the stuff...oh wait.

Shit happens. Same way meth labs spontaneously combust from time to
time.

[Durandal]

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.

Are you through with this red herring nitpick yet? My original claim was that al Qaeda could not effectively (in the sense of killing as many people as it could) deploy a biological weapon. Any idiot with a brain could have read that from my original post. So what, precisely, does inspiring terror have to do with whether or not a weapon does close to its full potential of damage? Oh that's right, nothing. Christ, and you accuse others of semantics word-play.

I used the word "effective" in a perfectly valid, legitimate manner, and the context under which I used it should have been clear to anybody with even as little as an overworked hamster running around in their heads. Oh, sorry. I mean it should be clear to anyone who isn't out to demonize me or paint me as some unfair, overbearing tyrant moderator or some anti-Christian crusader. No, I'd imagine those people would leap at any chance they could to try and make me look bad.

I entertained your idiocy because I was having fun finding new ways to insult you, but I'm frankly sick of it now.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That'd be why the cult didn't fuck up the refinement of the stuff...oh wait.

Shit happens. Same way meth labs spontaneously combust from time to
time.

Point taken. The point behind the comparison to the Bush Admin is you have to actually demonstrate they have and are dedicating money to such labs, even if they're simple. Just because they could doesn't mean they don't think that cash is better put to sending some explosive to Iraq to flip a Stryker in the Sunni Triangle.

[Howedar]

Which has what to do with the fact you apparently think expectation is irrelevent to efficiency or expectation.

Who said I was relying ONLY on the expectation bit? You're the one who apparently felt effective was simply: did it do anything: yes or no?

But I won't stop your strawmen. Really, go right ahead and distort my argument.

No, I'm good. I said effectiveness is based on the effect something had, not based on what the expectation was. I stand by that. You seem to believe that if an attack did not meet full expectations then it was ineffective. This is kinda silly.

Which says what? Definitions were only being quoted to prove to your dumbass that efficiency and intent relates to effectiveness, since you were too stupid to understand. What, I need to spoonfeed you the etymology and ancient meaning to you now? My purpose was simply to show you were an idiot.

Effectiveness is not soley based on expectations, but expectations do play a part. I was wrong in that regard.

No fucking shit. How does that change your original point that Durandal was wrong in saying that the Tokyo Attack was ineffective because it didn't kill all the people it should have with a sarin gassing?

Because clearly it fucking was effective because it terrorized the shit out of Japan! The nukes over Hiroshima were horribly inefficient, does that mean they were ineffective? Germany's wolfpacks in the Atlantic in 1942 did not strangle Britain as the Germans expected, does that mean they were ineffective?

Well then I will give you that. I thought it was pretty clear you were insultingly remarking that regarding simple "common knowledge" or "common trend" stuff like the OK city bombing vs. Anthrax scares, you were "expecting the people with a brain" to realize that.

Again, this is how you refute everything. You attack stuff like this, even though it has precisely zero to do with the original point, and the actual reasoning at hand. You said "what do expectations have to do with anything?" So I quoted that bit for you.

I was wrong. Expectations do have a role.

You're delusional. You are the one who omitted the fact that expectation, intent, and efficiency relate to the effectiveness.

They do somewhat. What was incorrect was Durandal's statement that the Tokyo attacks were ineffective due to their failure to live up to the intent of the terrorists. In that case, the expectations were fairly meaningless: the goal was to cause terror, and it did terrorize.

When we switched to talking about measure of effectiveness, intent does being to play a larger part. I did not make that mental switch, and I concede the point of expectations WRT effectiveness.

[MKSheppard]

Are you through with this red herring nitpick yet? My original claim was that al Qaeda could not effectively (in the sense of killing as many people as it could) deploy a biological weapon.

You also claimed:

Even if al Qaeda could get their hands on a dangerous chemical weapon, I doubt they could get very much of it without us knowing.

Biological warfare is just a pipe dream, because the vector usually burns
itself out damn fast, but chemical warfare is a very real threat.

[JME2]

ROME - Videotapes of a key al-Qaida suspect urging followers to destroy Rome have reportedly been found by Italian police, heightening concerns about security in Italy and at the Vatican ahead of Easter.

Tapes featuring Abu Qatada, a radical Muslim cleric named by Britain as the spiritual inspiration for the lead Sept. 11 hijacker, were found during recent raids in the northern Italian town of Cremona, weekly news magazine Panorama reported on Friday.

“We must destroy Rome,” Qatada is reported as saying on the tapes. Qatada was arrested in October 2002 and has been held in a British prison for over a year under emergency powers.

“The destruction must be carried out by sword. Those who will destroy Rome are already preparing the swords. Rome will not be conquered with the word but with the force of arms,” Qatada says in transcripts of the videotapes seen by Panorama.

The tapes were found in Cremona in February during the arrests of a handful of Muslim leaders suspected of plotting to bomb Milan’s metro and Gothic cathedral.

Uh, I believe the Huns, the Goths, and the Vandals already beat them to the punch on that one.

[Durandal]

Are you through with this red herring nitpick yet? My original claim was that al Qaeda could not effectively (in the sense of killing as many people as it could) deploy a biological weapon.

You also claimed:

Even if al Qaeda could get their hands on a dangerous chemical weapon, I doubt they could get very much of it without us knowing.

Biological warfare is just a pipe dream, because the vector usually burns itself out damn fast, but chemical warfare is a very real threat.

That's a fair criticism, as is Sea Skimmer's back on page 3 about effective deployment from a small canister. So I'll withdraw the comment.

They do somewhat. What was incorrect was Durandal's statement that the Tokyo attacks were ineffective due to their failure to live up to the intent of the terrorists. In that case, the expectations were fairly meaningless: the goal was to cause terror, and it did terrorize.

No, moron. I never made any statements about the terrorists' expectations. I made statements about the actual damage caused by the weapon as compared to the potential damage it could have caused.

[MKSheppard]

No, moron. I never made any statements about the terrorists' expectations. I made statements about the actual damage caused by the weapon as compared to the potential damage it could have caused.

Damage is a subjective thing, mind you. Do we include clean up costs too
for the moon suit crowd? Mustard gas among others is dangerously persistent, and it's relatively simple to make.

[Howedar]

They do somewhat. What was incorrect was Durandal's statement that the Tokyo attacks were ineffective due to their failure to live up to the intent of the terrorists. In that case, the expectations were fairly meaningless: the goal was to cause terror, and it did terrorize.

No, moron. I never made any statements about the terrorists' expectations. I made statements about the actual damage caused by the weapon as compared to the potential damage it could have caused.

Remember kids, just say NO to arguing in eight zillion different threads at once!

IP said that regarding 9-11, not you. I apologize.

The point on the nuke stands, though. The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendously inefficient, using something like a tenth of their reaction mass if memory serves. By no means does this make them ineffective.

Posts combined.
-Durandal

[Illuminatus Primus]

Again, from the Trinity test, we roughly knew how much energy we would get out of them. We expected effects in the range of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I don't think the Tokyo Attacks intended to have the effectiveness of poorly refined shit, and rather, stock sarin gas. Now they were horrendously brutal in an objective analysis, but I don't think that's what was being shot-at as far as Sarin goes, or what the terrorists could have achieved.

Moreover, with the ancient fission bombs, there was no technological ability to do better. There is the ability to be more effective with chem weapons than the subway attack, and it was absent in this case.

[Durandal]

No, moron. I never made any statements about the terrorists' expectations. I made statements about the actual damage caused by the weapon as compared to the potential damage it could have caused.

Damage is a subjective thing, mind you. Do we include clean up costs too for the moon suit crowd? Mustard gas among others is dangerously persistent, and it's relatively simple to make.

I'm defining "damage" as "number of people killed," in this case because it doesn't really take a whole lot of deaths to scare people. The Virginia sniper, for example, terrorized just about everyone in the state. However, there's also the economic impact to be considered.