"Sir, is your bomb plugged in? Ok sir, please kindly do the needful and unplug the bomb. Now plug it back in. Is the bomb turning on now?"

ox45tallboy: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Sunk costs fallacy.

Okay, I'll bite. What makes it a fallacy?

The money you've spent is irrationally given weight when in fact money that has been spent is no longer the holder's. It's the same reason someone buys more RAM and a better video card for a 2005 Mac when he could buy a whole new tower with better capabilities all around for less money. It's a fallacy because money that has been spent is weighed more simply because money has already been spent.

PBS Frontline did a documentary called The Perfect Terrorist.

He was instrumental in planning the Mumbai attacks. Fascinating documentary.

"Sir, I'm afraid your nitroglycol blasting gelatin is out of date. This device requires No. 7 or higher DDNP 1.5" x 4.0" cap for proper functioning. Also, make sure you have installed the latest version of Adobe Flash-Bang."

Everything al-Qaeda has ever done has been "outsourced". People wanting to bomb a disco or fly planes into a building went to their local hot-head imam for help, he'd get them in touch with al-Qaeda, they'd "pitch" the idea, then bin Laden or Zawahiri would flip through their Rolodex, find some bomb-maker or money-man who would be willing to help, give you their number and send you on your merry way. It is not now nor ever was a monolithic terrorist organization ala COBRA or SPECTRE. Hell, all that's really left is maybe less than 100 fighters in the Pakistani tribal regions; everyone in Yemen or North Africa going under the "al-Qaeda" name is either doing so to show support, or to rouse up attention, not because they were established but some central al-Qaeda command.

But it continues to add more terror groups to its network,

Sort of like Netflux? Adding subscribers and still not making money?

So, out of curiosity, just how much is an Al-Kaida Franchise these days?

omnibus_necanda_sunt: ox45tallboy: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Sunk costs fallacy.

Okay, I'll bite. What makes it a fallacy?

The money you've spent is irrationally given weight when in fact money that has been spent is no longer the holder's. It's the same reason someone buys more RAM and a better video card for a 2005 Mac when he could buy a whole new tower with better capabilities all around for less money. It's a fallacy because money that has been spent is weighed more simply because money has already been spent.

Basically it's the "We owe it to our soldiers who have died not to cut & run" theory. The concept that our soldiers have expended so much etc. etc. etc. and we OWE it to them not to waste their incredible blah blah blah has probably killed more soldiers (and civilians) than the original war since time began. It was the basis of Lee decision not to abandon Gettysburg (and attack Washington, which probably couldn't have defended itself at that point): his boys had "suffered so much" to take Gettysburg, Lee couldn't let them down. And it's partially why we're still in Afghanistan. We "owe" it to all the soldiers who have died not to let their sacrifice be "in vain".

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Sock Ruh Tease: *in a thick Indian accent* Hello good sir, I am David Watson. How can I help you achieve death to America today?

Uh, yeah, "David". Alright. I'm trying to deliver the death blow to the whores of Europe and right the wrongs of my forefathers, but I keep getting an error message in my backpack device. I tried rebooting and nothing is happening. I also tried to open administrative override and run explode.exe on a time delay. I have a warranty, and I'm pretty pissed off! You better damn well fix my problem!

That sounds like a problem sir, I am most regrettably sorry for this. I would connect you to my supervisor but he blew himself up yesterday in a fulminated mercury-related accident. Please hold.

*instead of music, a recording of a Taliban official explains the laws against music*

omnibus_necanda_sunt: "Sir, I'm afraid your nitroglycol blasting gelatin is out of date. This device requires No. 7 or higher DDNP 1.5" x 4.0" cap for proper functioning. Also, make sure you have installed the latest version of Adobe Flash-Bang."

Since your gelatin is out of date, we no longer offer telephone support in this department. I can transfer you to another department for $49.95........

omnibus_necanda_sunt: ox45tallboy: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Sunk costs fallacy.

Okay, I'll bite. What makes it a fallacy?

The money you've spent is irrationally given weight when in fact money that has been spent is no longer the holder's. It's the same reason someone buys more RAM and a better video card for a 2005 Mac when he could buy a whole new tower with better capabilities all around for less money. It's a fallacy because money that has been spent is weighed more simply because money has already been spent.

Okay, so are you advocating we throw good money after bad, so to speak? Are you saying that the money we have "spent" already is good, and we should double down?

You should also take into account that this money we are talking about in this case is borrowed, and must be repayed with interest. Therefore it is proper to give it additional weight than cash out of pocket. If the price tag says $200 on a new stereo, but I have to finance it and will wind up paying $250 - $300, shouldn't I take that into account, especially when I consider the cost of 10 CD's is not $120, but more like $160 because they must be financed as well?

Gyrfalcon: Basically it's the "We owe it to our soldiers who have died not to cut & run" theory.

Apparently one thing we don't owe them, however, is a parade in NYC.

/attempted threadjack
//how'm I doin'?!

Gyrfalcon: Basically it's the "We owe it to our soldiers who have died not to cut & run" theory. The concept that our soldiers have expended so much etc. etc. etc. and we OWE it to them not to waste their incredible blah blah blah has probably killed more soldiers (and civilians) than the original war since time began. It was the basis of Lee decision not to abandon Gettysburg (and attack Washington, which probably couldn't have defended itself at that point): his boys had "suffered so much" to take Gettysburg, Lee couldn't let them down. And it's partially why we're still in Afghanistan. We "owe" it to all the soldiers who have died not to let their sacrifice be "in vain".

Alexander the Great couldn't do it. The Soviet Union at the height of their power couldn't do it (okay, we helped, but still...). Rome could never do it. Genghis farking Khan couldn't do it.

Afghanistan has NEVER been conquered. Ever.

What the hell made someone in Washington think we could (or still can) take Afghanistan? It wasn't until earlier this year that we actually 50% of the country (by land area) at least nominally under control, and we're still getting roadside bombs out the wazoo in those areas.

Sometimes, it's wisest to say, "we tried, we gave it our best shot (heh!), but we couldn't do it." And why the fark would we want to do it anyways?

doglover: Instead of destroying targets with bombs, they should open a chain of Al Quaeda themed restaurants with 70 virgin cocktails, "Suicide Bomber" stuffed habenero peppers, and 9/11 Twin Tower Burgers with over 1 kg of meat.

I had to read this twice just to make sure it was the funniest thing ever. And it is. IPO as ALQ.

Omnivorous: From what I've heard, Ted Nugent is taking the challenge. Suck my machine gun Obama

No, he'd just crap his chickenhawk pants.

Wait. If they hate us, why are they imitating us?

"These Taiwan-made suicide bombers SUCK!"

ox45tallboy: omnibus_necanda_sunt: ox45tallboy: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Sunk costs fallacy.

Okay, I'll bite. What makes it a fallacy?

The money you've spent is irrationally given weight when in fact money that has been spent is no longer the holder's. It's the same reason someone buys more RAM and a better video card for a 2005 Mac when he could buy a whole new tower with better capabilities all around for less money. It's a fallacy because money that has been spent is weighed more simply because money has already been spent.

Okay, so are you advocating we throw good money after bad, so to speak? Are you saying that the money we have "spent" already is good, and we should double down?

You should also take into account that this money we are talking about in this case is borrowed, and must be repayed with interest. Therefore it is proper to give it additional weight than cash out of pocket. If the price tag says $200 on a new stereo, but I have to finance it and will wind up paying $250 - $300, shouldn't I take that into account, especially when I consider the cost of 10 CD's is not $120, but more like $160 because they must be financed as well?

Uh, no, I'm not advocating it. I'm explaining what it is and why it's wrong.

omnibus_necanda_sunt: ox45tallboy: omnibus_necanda_sunt: ox45tallboy: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Sunk costs fallacy.

Okay, I'll bite. What makes it a fallacy?

The money you've spent is irrationally given weight when in fact money that has been spent is no longer the holder's. It's the same reason someone buys more RAM and a better video card for a 2005 Mac when he could buy a whole new tower with better capabilities all around for less money. It's a fallacy because money that has been spent is weighed more simply because money has already been spent.

Okay, so are you advocating we throw good money after bad, so to speak? Are you saying that the money we have "spent" already is good, and we should double down?

You should also take into account that this money we are talking about in this case is borrowed, and must be repayed with interest. Therefore it is proper to give it additional weight than cash out of pocket. If the price tag says $200 on a new stereo, but I have to finance it and will wind up paying $250 - $300, shouldn't I take that into account, especially when I consider the cost of 10 CD's is not $120, but more like $160 because they must be financed as well?

Uh, no, I'm not advocating it. I'm explaining what it is and why it's wrong.

Ditto.

Well, at least they're providing jobs. I can't find anything around here.

doglover: Instead of destroying targets with bombs, they should open a chain of Al Quaeda themed restaurants with 70 virgin cocktails, "Suicide Bomber" stuffed habenero peppers, and 9/11 Twin Tower Burgers with over 1 kg of meat.

Sock Ruh Tease: *in a thick Indian accent* Hello good sir, I am David Watson. How can I help you achieve death to America today?

Your newsletter; etc, etc.

I hear Milo can hook that up. Assuming he can get this year's poppy harvest for a good price. oooh, Egyptian cotton.

ox45tallboy:
Okay, so are you advocating we throw good money after bad, so to speak? Are you saying that the money we have "spent" already is good, and we should double down?


The point of the 'sunk cost fallacy' is that the previous investment is gone.. you should only make decisions about future investment based on the balance sheet of what it will cost you versus the benefits obtained (obviously in this case the costs are often human as are the benefits, it is not all about money). People usually make decisions taking into account what they have already spent, but it is in fact irrelevant. In a purely financial case if it will cost you another 10 million and it isn't likely going to bring you more than 10 million then don't do it, even if you already spent 20 million.. better to let the 20 million dollars go than follow it with 10 more.

I actually think you all agree in this case, for what its worth.

Does this mean there's going to be a Saudi version of Loud Obbs?

RickyWilliams'sBong: Does this mean there's going to be a Saudi version of Loud Obbs?

Nah, Al Quaeda's restaurant will be like TGI Friday's without booze.

"We can't keep inventing new "Boogeymen". The public will wise up"
"I know... Let's have the Boogeyman outsource."
"Brilliant!"

Stile4aly: So, I understand you are having problems with your IED today. Have you tried turning the device off and back on?

LOL SNORT!

Gyrfalcon: And it's partially why we're still in Afghanistan. We "owe" it to all the soldiers who have died not to let their sacrifice be "in vain".

And yet when people say this to me, they can never answer the ensuing question I posit to them:

What are the goals and how do we measure what success is and when we can leave?
This rationale was developed by the neo-cons and unleashed onto the public like a virus so as to always create an impenetrable shield of rationale for endless war. Works great, it diverts all criticism away from their poor decisions by using the troops as a shield from their detractors.

Once again, troops used as pawns. They always talk about responsibility to the dead, what about responsibility to the living?

Hale-Bopp: Well, at least they're providing jobs. I can't find anything around here.

Try China. That's where all the US corporations are hiring.

Have they contacted the Tea Party? They've done more to destroy America in the past 5 years than any other terrorist organization. And they obviously have no sense of self-preservation or self-regard, I'm sure they'd work for cheap.

So are their sleeper agents supposed to just retire now, or keep working towards their master plan?

What a sleeper agent might look like:

Leeds: So are their sleeper agents supposed to just retire now, or keep working towards their master plan?

What a sleeper agent might look like:
[scm-l3.technorati.com image 363x473]

I'm still trying to figure out why people think Obama's a Muslim in the first place.