Is there a conspiracy?

You're being illogical. Given that there is no reasonable alternative, a statistical quirk is the most likely explanation for the evidence that we actually have.Jumping from the speculation that there might be some connection to the conclusion that a conspiracy is a likely explanation would be making an unwarranted assumption. Concluding from the lack of evidence of any connection that a conspiracy is an unlikely explanation is not.

quote:

---

You're being illogical. Given that there is no reasonable alternative, a statistical quirk is the most likely explanation for the evidence that we actually have.

---

No, YOU are being illogical - please read the thread, I have already provided a reasonable alternative, that of SA's missing biowar materials and expertise. A second concern SHOULD be the allegations of US biowar against Cuba. Dismissing real issues like this is illogical and dangerous.

quote:

---

Jumping from the speculation that there might be some connection to the conclusion that a conspiracy is a likely explanation would be making an unwarranted assumption. Concluding from the lack of evidence of any connection that a conspiracy is an unlikely explanation is not.

---

Quite true - and you will note that I never said any such thing. At no point have I said there IS such a conspiracy, nor have I even claimed there is PROBABLY a conspiracy. All I have pointed out is that to rule out such a conspiracy is both illogical and complacent - the fact that there is no OBVIOUS, PUBLIC link does not mean there is no obscure, confidential link.

None of the people concerned had any connection to biological warfare - AFAIR none of them were biologists at all. So how is it reasonable to assume that SA's biowarfare program had any connection to the deaths ? Where's the illogic and danger in not making that connection when there is absolutely no good reason TO make such a connection ? Surely it is more illogical and dangerous to make connections like that without any sound basis for doing so.And how can the mere possibility of a connection which somehow escaped detection change the assessment of the likelihood of a conspiracy ? Surely you must at least jump to the conclusion that such a connection is likely to dismiss my assessment.

quote:

---

None of the people concerned had any connection to biological warfare - AFAIR none of them were biologists at all.

---

Clearly false - Dr Kelly was specifically a biowar expert advising BritGov, and one who died under suspicious circumstances. The ambulance crew who attended the body have publicly expressed their surprise at the official conclusion that there was no evidence of foul play in Dr Kelly's death.The OP states Last month a retired professor - a protein researcher - was found murdered in a parking garage not all that far from where I live.Is protein research not biology?The linked document mentions Israeli journalists had been sounding the alarm that two Israeli microbiologists had been murdered, allegedly by terrorists; including the head of the Hematology department at Israel's Ichilov Hospital, as well as directors of the Tel Aviv Public Health Department and Hebrew University School of MedicineAre they not biologists of a stripe?Further, the fact that someone is not OFFICIALLY working on biowar materials does not mean that they are not unofficially working on such programmes. That sort of cover is commonplace; a huge amount of Western intelligence research is conducted in universities, and universities are also the prime recruitment grounds for intelligence agents and analysts.Lets also remember that South Africa successfully built a nuclear weapon and kept this secret from its own population, despite a test detonation in the Mozambique channel. (The test pits were immediately sealed when the ANC came to power, and thus SA remains the only state to have voluntarily renounced a working bomb.)I return to my initial point: I make no claim that there IS a conspiracy, I only claim that the knee-jerk assumption that all allegations of conspiracy are groundless is wholly counterproductive; all that does is open a space in which such conspiracies operate with relative freedom.

quote:

---

And how can the mere possibility of a connection which somehow escaped detection change the assessment of the likelihood of a conspiracy ? Surely you must at least jump to the conclusion that such a connection is likely to dismiss my assessment.

---

And as I said above - people dying of a mysterious headache in Lesotho attracts my attention, because thats exactly the sort of thing that was going on in SA's biowar programmes. Wouter Basson and other researchers provided anthrax-laced cigarettes and items of clothing for use as assassination weapons in the neighbouring states, and such headaches were among the symptoms.In the present climate, WMD is all the rage and I suspect that nearly everyone and their dog is attempting to acquire as many of them as they can; and bioware has a substantially lower barrier to entry than nuclear weaponry.Again, though, I'm not proposing we leap on the most exciting possible answer. The case of Mohammed Munim al-Izmerly is probably a cover-up of some kind, but what kind? The coverup of the deliberate assissination of an expert, or the coverup of brutal interrogation at the hands of American troops?But I find the topic intriguing not least because of thew way we apply it differentially; allegations that the US government committed 9/11 are rejected as ridiculous but allegations that "al qaida" is a huge international conspiracy with secret multi-story bunkers in the mountains of Afghanistan - just as illusory as Iraq's WMD - were accepted without question.{Fixed first quote box - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-10-2005 14:50 AM

The problem is revealed. I'm talking about the case I raised - which made national news at the time, not the original post.And you still can't explain why speculations that there might be some unknown connection between a series of deaths is an adequate reason to consider a conspiracy AS LIKELY as chance.

quote:

---

And you still can't explain why speculations that there might be some unknown connection between a series of deaths is an adequate reason to consider a conspiracy AS LIKELY as chance.

---

I'LL WRITE THIS IN CAPS AS APPARENTLY YOU HAVE TROUBLE READING - MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER GOING TO SPECSAVERS. I NEVER SAID IT WAS AS LIKELY AS CHANCE, I SAID THE KNEE-JERK REJECTION IS ITSELF PROBLEMATIC.ARE YOU FOLLOWING ALONG YET?

quote:

---

It still seems more likely to me that 9/11 was exactly what it appeared to be and that things like the patriot act should be seen a hysterical response rather than malice aforethought.

---

Oh, I think it is pretty clear that those who pushed for the Patriot Act and other rights-eroding measures after 9/11 had intentions to do so all along.This was just the perfect opportunity; a frightened populace which wouldn't protest until it was too late.

Whoops!There goes Contracycle into wacko mode again.

Hi Contracycle!Please take this moment to remind yourself of Forum Rule #3, which reads: I'm not feeling a lot of "cool detachment" from your post #21. I think it might have to do with the all-caps you chose to use and the insult you chose to hurl.Please continue the debate, keeping rule #3 firmly in your mind.Thanks for playing.

quote:

---

Please continue the debate, keeping rule #3 firmly in your mind.

---

Its a common courtesy, in debate, to answer the point your opponent proposes. Seeing as that is not noccurring, there cannot said to be a debate.The hypocrisy here is really really starting to annoy me.

quote:

---

here goes Contracycle into wacko mode again.

---

Is tyhat within the bounds of tghe rules of debate? Am I allowed to respond "fuck of Schraf", or is personal abuse another admin privilege? It seems whats good for goose is not good for the gander - yet again.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-10-2005 08:45 AM

Let me point out thata) You managed to miss the fact that I was talking about a different set of deaths even after I pointed out that none of the people involved were biologists - while the OP referred to explicitly referred to the deaths of "microbiologists, immunologists, and protein researchers"b) You chose to attack my point that a statistical quirk was the most likely explanation by appealing to the possibility of some obscure, unknown, connection. You were NOT attacking a "knee-jerk reaction" since there was none.I suggest that instead of engaging in childish rants you actually learn to pay attention to the messages you are replying to.

quote:

---

Its a common courtesy, in debate, to answer the point your opponent proposes. Seeing as that is not noccurring, there cannot said to be a debate.

---

Call it what you want, but keep rule #3 in mind in all of your interactions with other posters here. Here is rule #3 again: It is my estimation that your choice to insult another poster and to use all-caps was a clear violation of rule #3.If you wish to have another Admin judge your post, then please let me know.

quote:

---

Is tyhat within the bounds of tghe rules of debate? Am I allowed to respond "fuck of Schraf", or is personal abuse another admin privilege? It seems whats good for goose is not good for the gander - yet again.

---

You know, you are completely correct.In my non-admin mode, I apologize for my disrespectful behavior.

quote:

---

That elides the fact that if there was such a conspiracy, it would not have been conducted by the government en bloc, but by a subset of the government. A specific task group or department cannot be assumed to suffer from the same kind of porblems that permeate very large institutions.

---

There is no subset of the U.S. government that is capable of enlisting a dozen or so Islamist extremists and persuading them to carry out suicide attacks on the U.S. So either everything we've learned about the hijackers is wrong, in which case not only the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus but also that of several other countries is in on the conspiracy, or there was no conspiracy.The idea also makes no sense. If you wanted to terrify the U.S. population into accepting authoritarian measures (real ones, not the stuff in the Patriot Act), you would launch a series of dramatic attacks. If you wanted to invade Iraq, you'd create plausible links between the attackers and Iraq. Neither one is what happened. I conclude that this idea is strictly loony tunes.The idea that there is a conspiracy to wipe out microbiologists, epidemiologists and protein chemists is almost as implausible. I have no trouble believing that a particular scientist working on bioweapons might be killed for some reason (though I would think the prior probability would be low), nor do I have trouble believing that someone might carry out biowarfare experiments on the public (though again the probability that any particular outbreak of illness is such an experiment is low). A wide-spread conspiracy is a different matter. I can't formulate a plausible hypothesis for a group that would have both the motivation and the capability of carrying out such a conspiracy. And why protein chemists, for goodness sake?

quote:

---

I suggest that instead of engaging in childish rants you actually learn to pay attention to the messages you are replying to.

---

Seeing as in my first post in this thread I wrote: "As an aside, as a Red Pepper article once argued, the rejection of any and all conspiracy theories serves as an excellent cover under which to conduct a conspiracy, no?", I suggest YOU pay attention to the messages you are replying to.

quote:

---

There is no subset of the U.S. government that is capable of enlisting a dozen or so Islamist extremists and persuading them to carry out suicide attacks on the U.S.

---

Of course there is - the CIA who have long and established links with multiple Mujahdeen groups.

quote:

---

The idea also makes no sense. If you wanted to terrify the U.S. population into accepting authoritarian measures (real ones, not the stuff in the Patriot Act),

---

Hahaha - you have fewer rights now than the people who rebelled against the English monarchy, but you don't think that's "real"? You lack perspective, then.

quote:

---

ou would launch a series of dramatic attacks. If you wanted to invade Iraq, you'd create plausible links between the attackers and Iraq. Neither one is what happened. I conclude that this idea is strictly loony tunes.

---

Your conclusion is grossly in error: firstly, more attacks may have been planned, but found to be unnecessary. Second, you don't need a plausible link if you can rely on The Big Lie, and simply imply it, and that DID happen. The assault on Iraq WAS directly linked to terrorism, in defiance of the facts, but the public bought it anyway.

quote:

---

I can't formulate a plausible hypothesis for a group that would have both the motivation and the capability of carrying out such a conspiracy. And why protein chemists, for goodness sake?

---

I think you are missing the point - nowhere have I or anyone suggested that there is an agenda to "kill biologists". The point is more that people turn up dead in intelligence circles for reasons that may never be publicly clear. Extrajudicial killings happen, even in the sainted West. Obviously there is no meat on these bones with which to say the story is X or Y or Z in specifics - all I have suggested is that the possibility that there may be a linkage should eb considered - especially in tye current context - rather than rejected out of hand. Edited by AdminJar to fix quotesThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-10-2005 10:19 AM