Posted on 11/28/2001 4:13:44 PM PST by HighWheeler
I would bet that little "thorn in the flesh" Berry... might have something to do with it, eh? I'd hate to be in her shoes right now!
If only you put your clearly good mind and this much work into a worthy cause...
OF COURSE it's a conspiracy theory. Where in Sam Hill does my post say anything remotely to the contrary? The difference between my post and yours is that I backed up my suposition with facts, risk analysis, and logically extrapolated opinion, but yours is not backed up at all.
Could you post your contrarian position? I would like to read your views. As of now, your view seems to be the simple, unsubstantiated, negative of mine: "If someone had a motive and means, he didn't do it". Set me straight.
If only you put your clearly good mind and this much work into a worthy cause...
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'll determine what is "a worthy cause" on my own without checking first with the Worthy Cause Police.
Could you post your contrarian position? That is a confirmation of my previous statement. Why do you assume that one has to have a "contrary position?" The scientific method dictates to reserve judgment, that is, not form any conclusion --- contrary or any other --- unless there is a substantial evidence. Conspiracy theories, to the contrary, violate this principle. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that something is possible and plausible is insufficient. Once can advance any hypothesis he wants, but a theory should pass through more stringent tests. That is the difference.
Your tacit assumption that there must be a contrary position, illustrates that very pattern of thinking.
I would like to read your views. As of now, your view seems to be the simple, unsubstantiated, negative of mine. To the contrary, I have stated that I have a very positive view: I do not say very often that someone has a good mind because I do not very often encounter such minds. My view may be indeed simple and unsubstantiated, but not negative, thus.
"If someone had a motive and means, he didn't do it". Set me straight. Very easily: I have never said that. What I did say was, "If someone had a motive and means, he did it." This form of arguments is what unites all conspiracy theories.
Here as before, you (i) assume that there are only two possibilities, (ii) formulate the negation of my statement, (iii) challenge me to prove it to substantiate my disagreement with your conclusion. The problem with this line of thought is at the beginning: attribution of effect to a cause is generally multi-valued. It is the logic we use that is two-valued, not attribution. This is a subtle mistake that many, even intelligent, people make.
If only you put your clearly good mind and this much work into a worthy cause...Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'll determine what is "a worthy cause" on my own without checking first with the Worthy Cause Police.
That I value your cause differently from you does not make me a policemen --- the two-valued world model is in action again.
For theory-building, one of the implications of an earlier mentioned criterion of reserving judgment, is not to proceed to further tiers of the theory until the preceding one is firmly in place. This is what I meant by the “if only” remark: you have done a great deal of thinking about details that (i) cannot even be established, and (ii) are inconsequential.
It is undisputable that our government wants certainty: we want to know whether bin Laden is alive. Form here, quite simply, our government hopes but G-d decides. They may have decided to kill him in combat of put him through a tribunal (both have merits), but he may have died in one of the bombing. The details, such whether it was early into the war or yesterday in Tora Bora, are inconsequential. They open, what is more, a can of worms, such as whether our government tells us everything we need or want to know; whether this is proper, etc. None of which is well founded or constructive.
In sum, most of what you attempt to analyze is explainable by very parsimoniously (Occam’s razor) UNLESS you ascribe to the actors some sub-surface, inconspicuous motives. Observe that you have done this repeatedly even in communications with me.
But I do throw in a heartfelt wish that it were true.
Could I ask you for that favor without being called the Font Police? Keep your powder dry.
This might have been a 'local story' allowed out for a certain amount of 'public' consumption. Wouldn't weaken any of your logic or conclusions depending on the location of the 'ACTIVE ZONE'.
But I stopped at your statement: "...UNLESS you ascribe to the actors some sub-surface, inconspicuous motives."
I said that right up front in the first paragraph and that assertion continues throughout. Sheesh. Just read it.
Please don't try to analyze my intentions anymore, you have missed nearly all of them. Instead, put forth your own ideas or analyze the data with examples. For instance, your high school lesson on logic: "For theory-building, one of the implications of an earlier mentioned criterion of reserving judgment, is not to proceed to further tiers of the theory until the preceding one is firmly in place. This is what I meant by the “if only” remark: you have done a great deal of thinking about details that (i) cannot even be established, and (ii) are inconsequential."
That is why assumptions and the substantiation for assumptions are necessary. These let everyone else who actually reads the piece carefully to understand the thread of logic.
Now cite examples.
As much as I hate to admit, Whoraldo made a good point last night. He said that Hitler's body was never found (Hitler shot himself and was burned beyond recognition, so his death was never confirmed, and for decades later the speculation of his "actual" whereabouts continued.
Please don't try to analyze my intentions anymore I never did; I responded to your writing.
Instead, put forth your own ideas I have done that on other threads. Apparently, you think that discussion is a recitation of ideas with one allowed response.
".... or analyze the data with examples. There are plenty of other possibilities. Do you notice how you always assume only two possibiltiies about everything? Somewhow it's always down to "either-or" for you.
For instance, your high school lesson on logic: "For theory-building, one of the implications..." Most people do not develop this skill (not logic) until or after the graduate school. I am glad, however, that you consider it to be a part of HS curriculum.
Now cite examples. Shoud I also jump for you? Or sing? Despite my explicit assurances, you continue to be defensive, and now also rude.
I'll leave you to the pleasures of uncovering conspiracies around you. I've done my best and wish you all the best.
If his body is never produced, anybody could committ a terrorist act and "blame it on Osama".
I think the information you have discerned comes up with the scenarios to answer or not answer these questions as might be desired for accomplishing objectives.
No body, no talkative witnesses, follow-up report in due course, those in China and Japan who let the word out too early have reached understanding, Geraldo picking up dropped 'nuggets' from the massive investigation that is just beginning.
It's all in the 'timing', much like the stock market.
The initial attack by the U.S. would prompt defensive actions by Osama, his only prime defenses would be to run or to hide. Both of these options increase the U.S. risk in failing to kill him, and would allow Osama to orchestrate other retaliatory terrorist actions while still alive. All are highly undesireable alternatives.
Striking hard with a forceful, inescapable initial strike against Osama and his followers had to be first priority. For 8 years, the U.S. (i.e., Clinton) presented a cowardly face to the entire world, even after the USS Cole was bombed. Speed ahead one year. Weeks after 9/11, there was still no response by the U.S., which gave the terrorists a continued false sense of security.
Consider the initial theory that infiltration into the ranks of the Talibanis by CIA operatives was possible. This theory was proved true by the infiltration of ex-Californian John Walker.
So once local confirmation of Osama was made by CIA infiltrators, and the influx concentration of terrorists accumulating around Osama began to wane, it was time to make the strike.
Exposed, unprepared, defenseless, and collected together, Osama and his useful idiots were sitting ducks for the immense power rained down by U.S. forces.
With Osama dead -but still unconfirmed by the rest of the world- The U.S. options in the war are infinite. The U.S. even has the option to electronically transmit the taped voice of Osama to the Al Qaeda bunch to keep them hoping, fighting, and exposing themselves.
We are getting continued tidbits of information about the ultimate demise of Osama. Just two days ago, Bush stated that Osama may still be in a cave, a cave whose entrances were sealed shut by U.S. bombing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.