>In a related vein, ChuckG makes fun of my stipulation that if >there
>is no terrorism for some period of time, the intervention >'worked.'
>If one assumes no such terrorism would have been >forthcoming,
>then such derision is appropriate, albeit insupportable for >lack
>of such omniscience. But without such an assumption, what
>other conceivable test could there be?
In a related vein, we all know that sometimes engines just randomly fall off well-maintained aircraft for no apparent reason. We also know that sometimes engines fall off areaoplanes because they have been sabotaged. We all know that coincidences happen and we all know that sometimes the government lies to us, particularly during times of war.
Everyone has their own assessment of the relative probability of various permutations of the above events with respect to the recent crash in New York. But I personally would think that the kind of person who would take a bet with their own money that depended on acts of terrorism being honestly reported as such would be .... well, the kind of person who continues to gamble in a casino where the dice have come up with the same number a hundred times. Of which there appears to be a distressingly high number on lbo-talk ....
dd
Get Your Free Email at http://www.al-islam.com