But if your theory is that Iraq made it more likely because of an effect on motivation, then it does not follow. If Al Queda already regarded the UK as an enemy with which it was at war, it is reasonable to assume there was no effect on motivation and, therefore, no increase in likelihood for that reason. As to strategy and capabilities—certainly it is the case that Al Queda has been focusing many resources on Iraq that might otherwise have been focused elsewhere (perhaps Afghanistan, perhaps the West). And there have been reports of a debate within Al Queda as to whether to concentrate on attacks in the West vs attacks in ‘vulnerable’ countries in the Middle East (including, particularly, Iraq). If Iraq were not in contention, more effort might, indeed, have been focused on attacks in the West. Without Iraq, it may be that the underground bombings would have come sooner, or would have been a larger operation, or would have happened more than once by now—there’s no way to know.

Nor is there any reason to suppose that if, in the wake of the bombings, the UK were to withdraw its troops from Iraq only that this would take it off the Al Queda target list. More likely, it would encourage another attack to see if the UK’s behavior might be further shaped to Al Queda’s liking by terrorism.

(ii) Please read my previous comments. Ted was criticising Malkin’s modus operandi

And central to that criticism was that Malkin had selected unrepresentative comments from the lunatic fringe of the left. But given the Guardian columns I linked, that is in fact demonstrably not the case.

which, like yours, lacks both intellectual coherence and honour.

Gratuitous snottiness is not a sign of somebody confident in his argument.

Answer: Yes. Defending the logically independent claim that it may also have been likely before does not a valid argument make. I did not say it was “decisive” nor did I say we must “avoid the ire of al-Quaeda”. Anyone with half a brain can distinguish these issues.

(ii) Please read my previous comments. Ted was criticising Malkin’s modus operandi which, like yours, lacks both intellectual coherence and honour.

Answer: Yes. Defending the logically independent claim that it may also have been likely before does not a valid argument make. I did not say it was “decisive” nor did I say we must “avoid the ire of al-Quaeda”. Anyone with half a brain can distinguish these issues.

(ii) Please read my previous comments. Ted was criticising Malkin’s modus operandi which, like yours, lacks both intellectual coherence and honour.

Not sure why I’m bothering, but let me try again. Was a terrorist attack made or more less likely by the UK’s involvement in Iraq? Well, given the UK’s role in Afghanistan, East Timor, and Sudan, it’s support for UN sanctions against Iraq and enforcement of the no fly zone, and its continuting close relationship with the US, and its at least qualified support for Israel, there was certainly plenty of motivation for Al Queda to consider the UK an enemy without Iraq. Further, it seems to me logical that the war in Afghanistan should be much more motivating to Al Queda, given that it had an intimiate, committed relationship with the Taliban government as compared to the looser relationship with the Iraqi Baathists. The toppling of the Taliban government (but not Saddam’s regime) deprivied Al Queda of its sanctuary and training camps and killed many Al Queda fighters.

And given that these attacks came well after both the start of the Afghan and Iraq wars, I see no plausible reason of logic or timing to believe that Iraq (but not Afghanistan) was decisive in the terrorist motivation—do you?

As for missing Ted’s point—not at all. He was arguing that Malkin was ‘dumpster diving’ for unrepresentative, loony positions. But the comments she found echo the sentiments of commentators in ‘mainstream’ leftist publications. And, indeed, you are now arguing for the same position found in both the Kos comments and the Guardian columns.

If that is so, then exactly the same argument can be made that the attack were made more likely by the UK’s involvement in Afghanistan, its support for East Timor, and its pressuring the government of Sudan. Which of these would you now renounce as a way of trying to avoid the ire of Al Queda?

But with respect to Malkin the point was that she may have picked blog commentators who are obscure, but the opinions they expressed are not obscure. And in this, you seem to agree, no?

And yes, Virginia, Guardian columnists are more “representative” than Kos commentators. The Guardian might be taken as “representative” of a large section of mainstream opinion in any country outside of the US, and, for all I know, even within the US, the lamentable state of that country’s media notwithstanding, as anyone who has ventured outside of their Fox News bubble already knows.

If you, slocum, wish to ignore the Guardian columnists whose writings you currently so avidly lap up, I’m sure they won’t be offended in the slightest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1523681,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1525706,00.html

Not much difference between these and this Kos comment that Malkin cites:

http://dailykos.com/comments/2005/7/7/111317/2427/59#59

But perhaps Malkin should have waited for these more prominent and ‘responsible’ lefties to weigh in. Of course, perhaps Guardian columnists are no more representative than Kos commentators—should they also be ignored rather than debated until their degree of representativeness has been ascertained?

It’s something, Steve. If you want to know what that something is, you could read Engels’ and my last several posts, where we explain it.

Either you are demonstrating a rather astonishing inability to comprehend the English language, or you’re simply ignoring the points made by Engels and myself as if they’ll go away if you don’t acknowledge them.

Talk about a hopeless case. Bye now.

You’re still stuck with the basic absurdity I mentioned at first.
“But on a day of tragedy, it’s really inappropriate, and it would do us good if we would just knock it off.”

The whole point. On a day of tragedy, its inappropriate to notice crazy rantings, but somehow its not inappropriate to make crazy rantings? (“That guy is pissing in the corner!” “How could you notice such a thing, you cad?”). Bizarre.

Steve

Steve

Oh wait, Steve didn’t refer to her as “Malkin”. He referred to her as “right-winger”. That shows just how much value Steve places on individuality, doesn’t it?

Irony, thy name is dave f.