Once again, SDB is confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence. I'd love to be able to conclude from the lack of any kind of terrorist incident at the Super Bowl that we're winning, that we've crippled Al Qaeda, that the reason the game wasn't attacked is because they couldn't mount any such attack.
The problem, though, is this: rewind history to before 9-11-01, before we declared war on Al Qaeda in particular and on terrorism in general. Prior to that date, "proportional response" was the rule; we contented ourselves with missile strikes whenever we thought we had a good read on where Bin Laden happened to be. How many Super Bowls were struck by terrorist incidents before we crippled Al Qaeda? how many times was the World Series the site of an attack? how many times was the New Year's crowd in Times Square hit by a suicide bomber? How many times did any of these things happen, back when Al Qaeda was at the high point of its ability and strength?
Answer: ZERO.
The lack of any conclusive evidence for the current status of Al Qaeda, coupled with Al Qaeda's general modus operandi in the past (striking normal people, at work, on days which are fairly unremarkable in any other way), suggests to me that SDB's conclusion is frighteningly unfounded.
The personal blog of author Kelly Sedinger, chronicling the adventures of one overalls-clad wanderer.
No comments:
Post a Comment