[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.