KK, why would you say that I am trained to ignore evidence or that I am Pavlovian in disregard for the truth? On the contrary, I was trained to collect evidence, analyze it and make informed opinions and decisions. Others follow the same procedure and arrive at different conclusions. This is dissent.
Conspiracy theories, by themselves, are in no way the same thing as dissent. Conspriacy theories generally work in opposition to both Occams's Razor and the scientific principle. Occam's Razor informs us that in most cases, the simplist theory that adequately explains a phenomena is the most likely to be true. By definition, conspiracy theories require greater complexity than is evidenced. Conspiracies do exist; however, statistics dictate that the larger the conspiracy, the more likely it is to unravel because each new member presents additional risk that the conspiracy will become public.
Conspiracy theories generally work against scientific principles because the lack of evidence for the conspiracy is presumed to be evidence that a conspiracy exists (
i.e., The perfect conspiracy leaves no evidence; therefore, if we have no evidence, we must have a perfect conspiracy.) Lacking adequate evidence to propose a theory, the conspiracy theorist nevertheless proposes a theory and then collects evidence to support that theory. Having made a prejudgement, the theorist approaches all new evidence with prejudice. Furthermore, there is a financial incentive for conspiracy theorist because conspiracy theory sells in the form of books, appearances etc. One writing a book about a conspiracy would certainly present evidence only as it support the theory.
Let's look at the evidence here. We have a grainy video. It is possible that the video was taken with a camera phone; therefore, under the best of circumstances, the video quality would not be great. In this case, it is also possible that the filmer had to take the video surreptitiously in order to avoid detection and possible punishment. If we have a grainy video, then we would wish that qualified experts make reasonable judgements about what actually occurred in the video. Even if we had such experts examine the video, we would still require outside evidence because panels of experts have been fooled before (whether or not there was intentional deception).
Thus, we look for other evidence. Let's assume that the video seems to indicate that the execution was faked. The premise itself is ludicrus. In terms of motive, who has something to gain by faking Hussein's execution? He derived support from the Sunnis; however, it is questionable that they would look to him as a leader now. Instead, it is quite possible that Hussein is more valuable to the Sunnis as a martyr. As I see it, neither the Shiites nor the United States has anything to gain by keeping him alive.
In terms of means, many of those present -- in addition to those carrying out the execution -- are Shiites. Certainly, Shiites would be extremely unlikely to cooperate in any scheme to keep Hussein alive. To the contrary, keeping Hussein alive creates the risk of discovery and repurcussions.
On the other hand, we could have a conspiracy theory. Our evidence is the fact that the video of his execution is grainy. Therefore, we jump to the the theory that the execution was faked. Now, we only need to figure out why and by whom. Given some time, effort and selective evidence, we could find that evidence.
KK, this is what I, and many others, bring to such a story. I am neither trained to accept the "official story" nor am I Pavlovian in desire for an "official line." I read and evaluate.
my point was that ALL friends of the Bush Admin are in bad ways. Nice to be their friends.
EC, I consider myself a friend of the Bush administration. I guess I'm bad in ways.
