Police station attacked in Islamabad

[CAPAIRMAN]

Terrorism in the middle east? Surely you jest.

 

I'm just loving the idea that a bombing in Pakistan is so unusual that it must be the work of the CIA.

[elrey]

You do, of course, realise that my argument/side of the debate actually ran out of steam at or about post #5 and I've just been messing about and winding you up since then with cascading assumptions and unprovable accusations...right?

 

Well...you can't argue with that.

[WhutJP]

Well wether or not the CIA has done things like this in the past does have some bearing on the hypothesis;

 

If we say "they definitely did it because theyve done it before" then sure, that is false. But if we say "they have done things like this in the past so in this situation they are one of the suspects" then that is fine.

 

Which is in fact what the first post seemed to be getting at; is it possible? how likely is it? who gains from it? etc..

 

I think that to jump on things like this strait away with "conspiraloon! joo am crazy! governments would never do such things!" is a bad attitude, a worse attitude even than "everything is a government conspiracy to harm us and control us"

because that leaves it wide open for such things to happen.

 

though of course neither is a good attitude.

 

So perhaps what i am getting at is this: Never trust governments, think critically, but don't leave logic behind.

 

 

So, for my take on things? well, they have done things like this before but i don't know what they would have to gain from molding pakistan to their thinking. what has pakistan got that america wants and isnt getting? (my knowledge of current pakistan is somewhat limited)

 

[Chimpy]

You do, of course, realise that my argument/side of the debate actually ran out of steam at or about post #5 and I've just been messing about and winding you up since then with cascading assumptions and unprovable accusations...right?

 

I am the person who was basically told to go **** myself by 'socialist' people around me because I wouldnt stop questioning and counter-arguing everything they said...

 

It was a slow day in work, what can I say.

 

FWIW I always do the same, accepting things because someone, a book or the internet tells you it is true is not something you should base anything on without checking it first.

 

WhutJP - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Guzzi freely admits there is no evidence and even giving the news stories of the various bombings a cursory glance will show you it is very unlikely. If we consider the CIA because they have 'done things like this in the past' (although I'm not aware that they actually have conducted bombing campaigns against civilians to alter governments opinions before) then we should also be considering everyone from the FSB through to ETA and the IRA. The correct way to do it as you say is not to leave logic behind and base our examination of the events on the evidence. Also in considering likely suspects we should start with the most probable and eliminate from there (e.g. domestic terrorists that have conducted these ops just weeks before and over the past decade in Pakistan). Settling on a suspect right at the start and attempting to find motive and evidence to fit them to the crime is *albatross*-backward. The evidence should be used to lead us to a suspect and establish their motive. Preferably through judicious use of Occam's Razor and all that.

 

Leaping past all this and declaring it the work (or possibly the work) of the CIA with absolutely no evidence and only the scant idea that 'they have done things like this before' is silly hence why I am vehemently against such silliness. That 'it could be possible' is not an excuse to give it the time of day and belies the reference to logic and critical thinking in your post.

[Skarclaw]

What the CIA has done is much more interesting and much more worthy of discussion in any case.