.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:1201624"][QUOTE="arilliusbm:1201570"]The simplest alternate explanation to a conspiracy theory is usually incompetence. When people say, “Why did these things happen?” and then point to a series of seemingly implausible events, it’s usually because the government messed up. The right arm didn’t know what the left arm was doing. Government is made of human beings. They are remarkably ordinary in their ability to make mistakes. There is also a certain amount of life which is luck, chance, coincidence and happenstance. You can’t always divine some larger pattern from the fact that two events seem related or happened in the same month. Often it is just chance.[/QUOTE] Zakaria has it exactly right. I also like to put it this way: if a conspiracy theory is far more complex than the standard explanation it's meant to replace - and it's a standard explanation which originally only came into question because it seemed too complex to believe - it's obviously time to bail on the conspiracy theory. For example, it would have been more of a challenge at this point to create the illusion of Bin Laden's death and deal with all those witnesses in the compound not leaking than it would have just been to find and kill the guy. Neither would be easy, but the former would have been harder, so it's hard to embrace it under the logic that the latter would be more difficult. When the conspiracy is even more far-fetched than the reality, the conspiracy is a fallacy.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][