Raimondo vs. Poe -- A Question of Patriotism

RichardPoe.com ^ | February 9, 2003 | Richard Poe

[Sloth]

Raimondo asks us to believe that this motley collection of religious fanatics and cutthroats-for-hire somehow managed to carry out the 9-11 attack all by itself, without anyone's help.

Um, assuming you have the money for pilot training (per bin Laden) exactly how much help do you need to threaten people with a box knife?

[Richard Poe]

A Vast Rightwing Conspirator wrote:

< ...all kinds of terrorists have been arrested in Europe since 9/11. They were Saudis, Pakis, Algerian, Egyptian... etc. There were ZERO Iraqis among them. >>

Poe responded:

If the Iraqis are running false flag operations -- as Laurie Mylroie charges in her book -- then you would not expect Iraqis to be arrested. You would expect the patsies to be arrested.

Iron Jack responded:

Certainly that is one explanation. Another might be that no Iraqis have been involved. We'll let Occam's Razor decide which is more plausible. It seems logically "convenient" that the absence of something proves it.

Poe responds:

Well, IronJack, you can let Occam's Razor decide, if you wish. However, Occam's Razor is probably the worst analytical tool you could possibly employ in any game of strategy.

Take chess, for instance. If your opponent could read your mind and know in advance exactly how you plan to checkmate him, he could easily counter your every move.

The only way to win in chess is to deceive your opponent. You move your pieces in such a way as to make him think he knows what you are planning. But, in fact, you attack him in a different and unexpected way.

In chess, applying Occam's Razor -- that is, assuming that the most obvious explanation for your opponents' moves is the correct one -- will make it impossible for you to win. You will fall for your opponent's deceptions 100 percent of the time.

The same holds true in the eternal "chess game" of geopolitics. Applying Occam's Razor is the surest route to defeat. Whatever trap your opponent lays for you, you will walk right into it.

[TLBSHOW]

Please check your site it is not coming up! As of this post!

[Unadorned]

Looks like someone just got check-mated here, and I don't think it was Richard Poe.

[IronJack]

The hallmark of a good chess player is to leave your opponent no room to trap you, or any alternative but ultimate defeat. He can sometimes avoid the predictable defeat by making an unpredictable move. But generally, the unpredictable is so because it's so foolish no one would consider it. So you address it only cursorily, then devote your energies to the move most likely, the one that makes the most sense. Occam's Razor applies perfectly in chess, as well as geopolitics.

But I can only play devil's advocate so long before I weary of mouthing rhetoric I don't believe. My purpose here was to spark discussion, and I've either achieved that or I've failed. In either case, I doubt any minds will be changed.

[IronJack]

Look at your previous post. In one breath you praise and fawn over Raimondo for his supposedly coherent and well-supported positions. In the next breath you repudiate his conclusions as being wholly wrong. There is a disconnect here, unless you are praising him for his entertainment value only.

My goal here, as I stressed (apparently without your notice), was simply to provoke discussion of whether or not a person could oppose the war on Iraq in good conscience, or if all its opponents were simply America-haters who would never accept a war as justifiable. I felt -- and feel -- that Justin Raimondo's musings reflect the misgivings many Americans, including some highly notable conservatives, have about this action. I specifically stated my personal opinion, but felt that Mr. Raimondo's objections deserved better than ad hominem disregard. If that constitutes "fawning," then so be it.

[jedwardtremlett]

yes, it does.

Thanks! : )

[Richard Poe]

<< Occam's Razor applies perfectly in chess, as well as geopolitics. >>

Sorry, but you're dead wrong, both on chess and geopolitics.

Have you not read Sun Tzu's Art of War?

"All warfare is based on deception," wrote the great Chinese general. "Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."

[IronJack]

How many wars did Sun Tzu win?

If you follow your own advice, the US military is in pretty poor position, since everybody knows where we are, what we're up to, and when we plan to do it. It would seem that the art of deception is at best impractical when you're amassing an armada halfway around the world.

And an ancient Chinese military philosopher's advice notwithstanding, there is scant evidence to support the "false flag" theory. However, I openly admit to not having read the Mylroie book.

At any rate, I'm resigning as resident pot stirrer. There's little to be gained from further conversation along these lines.

[Destro]

I will have you both know that I will buy Richard Poe's book "Black Spark, White Fire" - and I will buy Justin Raimondo's "The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection" when it comes out.

I like both your writtings and your articles about the Kosovo war and soon after were not so far apart.

Ahhh, the good old bad days when Clinton's united us all.

[Destro]

I also recommend you both read Evan Kohlmann's upcoming book "The Martyrs of Bosnia: Al-Qaida’s War of Terror in the Balkans". Evan Kohlmann is a senior terrorism analyst at the Investigative Project, a Washington D.C.-based counterterrorism think tank established in 1995.

You can't understand how 9/11 was able to happen unless you understand how the Balkans made us vulnerable to al-Qaeda.

Richard, you also agreed with Justin's position that the next result of this war would be a decent into a decadent empire so you two are not that far apart.

Justin, I hope you sell so many books you can afford to buy cigarettes in New York City. Richard, when will you delve into writing history again?

As, for my Iraqi position - I think Iraq should be taken down for violating the UN's resolutions -- BUT -- I know that this administration only views a UN resolution as a fig leaf. The problem is I do not trust the neo-cons. I know they would betray American policy for their ideology as soon as they can. The neo-cons cheered just as loud when Clinton bombed Kosovo, a policy which can only be called criminally insane.

Kosovo has stained my ability to cheer along any war, even a war that may need be fought like Iraq.