4 ms·

Group "A" snipes a soldier in Iraq. Group "B" fires a rocket in Afghanistan. Group "C" spreads anti-US propaganda in ME. Some of these claim to be "al quaeda",

by ds9 13y ago

Group "A" snipes a soldier in Iraq. Group "B" fires a rocket in Afghanistan. Group "C" spreads anti-US propaganda in ME. Some of these claim to be "al quaeda", others are labeled as such by generals or news reporters. The US implies they are all organized together, taking central commands, sharing information, coordinating activities, with a common purpose - is this theory supported by the sort of facts noted above? Logically, it is not [1]. First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?), then form the simplest hypothesis that accounts for the independent reports. The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest of the "al quaeda" claims (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just propaganda. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

krapp 13y ago
The US implies they are all organized together, taking central commands, sharing information, coordinating activities, with a common purpose No it doesn't. The decentralized nature of Al-Qaeda and the potential threat of 'self-recruiting' actors like the Tsarnaevs is one of the justifications for the NSA's all-pervasive surveillance. First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?) Why? You can't set up a framework for Occam's Razor on the premise that American officials are incapable of telling the truth, which is logically absurd (as is the premise by extension that sources other than American ones are by definition more trustworthy.) The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just elaborated as propaganda. I'm not aware that anyone in the media or the government has ever 'built them up like super villains in silly movies'. I believe the simpler and more plausible hypothesis is that, in fact, Al-Qaeda once existed as an organized group, but now mostly exists as a 'franchise', or even an 'ideal' which yes some groups may identify with and others might be identified with. I don't think that necessarily proves that Al Qaeda is a fabrication, however, much less a fiction invented to justify American aggression.

by ds9 13y ago

krapp 13y ago

The US implies they are all organized together, taking central commands, sharing information, coordinating activities, with a common purpose No it doesn't. The decentralized nature of Al-Qaeda and the potential threat of 'self-recruiting' actors like the Tsarnaevs is one of the justifications for the NSA's all-pervasive surveillance. First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?) Why? You can't set up a framework for Occam's Razor on the premise that American officials are incapable of telling the truth, which is logically absurd (as is the premise by extension that sources other than American ones are by definition more trustworthy.) The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just elaborated as propaganda. I'm not aware that anyone in the media or the government has ever 'built them up like super villains in silly movies'. I believe the simpler and more plausible hypothesis is that, in fact, Al-Qaeda once existed as an organized group, but now mostly exists as a 'franchise', or even an 'ideal' which yes some groups may identify with and others might be identified with. I don't think that necessarily proves that Al Qaeda is a fabrication, however, much less a fiction invented to justify American aggression.