"I wouldn't be surprised" is NOT a positive argument for states of affairs

alcibiades_mystery

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-28-05 12:01 AM
Original message

"I wouldn't be surprised" is NOT a positive argument for states of affairs

Too often in response to the ridiculous assertion that the Pentagon is hiding 1,000, 2,000, even 7,000 American troop deaths, I've seen the response "I wouldn't be surprised" or worse, "I don't doubt it." These responses are inadequate and essentially unthinking. They are not positive arguments and shouldn't be treated as such.

We can use our reasoning powers and common sense to determine - to a high level of probability - that the current death count of 1742 is entirely accurate. Can it be determined to a certainty? No, few things outside of theoretical mathematics ever can be. But the "opinion" that the count is accurate is much more probable than the opinion that the government is hiding numerous troop deaths. Why?

In order to believe that the count is accurate you'd only have to believe that there are enough eyes on the question to prevent any cover-up of any number of deaths - even five additional deaths. That's not hard to believe. You don't have to believe the government to believe that the casualty figures are accurate. You only have to believe that it would be extremely difficult for the government to fudge these numbers successfully, and it would be.

Now let's review what you'd have to believe in order to believe the opposite:

1) Sounds of Silence NOT ONE person connected to these additional deaths has come forward to seek recognition for their loved one. ZERO. NONE. NOT ONE. When you think of how many people would be thus connected to even ONE additional death, you see that this 100% success rate in "hushing up" people who would otherwise have a driving interest in having a relative, friend, student, comrade, etc. recognized in the official toll is completely implausible. I've seen some claims that there are 6000 total dead. The claim is thus that there are 4,300 additional dead? More than 6000 minus the approx 1700 we know about, right? Let's do the math, shall we?

4,300 KIA X 20 family/friend/teacher/comrade/coworker each = 86,000 people connected to these KIAs.

Of those 86,000,

NOT ONE is aware of icasualties.org, or the dozens of news sites purporting to list all the KIAs, OR, if aware
NOT ONE has looked up the name of their loved one and found it missing, OR, if they've looked it up
NOT ONE has contacted those sites (and especially icasulaties.org) to report this defect in the list.

Let's also remember that Nightline has TWICE presented what it purported to be a complete list of the dead for a determined period, as has Doonesbury, so we can transfer those same numbers to NIGHTLINE and Doonesbury as well, thus:

NOT ONE was aware that Nightline or Doonesbury was running a list of names, OR, if aware
NOT ONE watched Nightline or saw Doonesbury to see their dead relative/friend/comrade/coworkers/student, etc. named OR, if they watched
NOT ONE contacted Nightline or Doonesbury about the defect in their list, OR, if you choose to believe that Nightline or Doonesbury would then cover that up (a laughable assertion in the case of Trudeau!),
NOT ONE otherwise publicized the defect in the various ways we have of publicizing something.

NOT ONE. ZERO. OUT OF 86,000 (and that is a VERY conservative estimate of the number of people who would otherwise have known 4,300 different people!) Never before in the history of human events has a cover-up managed to include so many people who have no interest in perpetuating it, and - in fact - have a strong emotional interest in EXPOSING IT! It's a miracle cover-up, a magic cover-up...just like the magical thinking that would allow anyone to believe it.It is, in short, a silly belief to hold, but you'd have to hold it in order to believe that deaths are being covered up.

2) South of the Border - So, do some hold that belief? Yes, some do. And the new way they've justified it (i.e., tried to make it appear less silly) is by claiming that the extra casualties are all non-citizen personnel - so-called "green card military." The next sly step is to imply that these green-card military mainly come from Mexico and Central American countries. How, they ask, can Mexican and Central American parents be expected to contact the US media or otherwise be aware of the the current lists? Aside from the obnoxious racist presumption of such an argument (which asks you to believe that Mexican and Central Americans are somehow less in tune with their kids, siblings, friends, etc., and less capable of publicizing their issues, Zapatistas notwithstanding!), it also calls on you to believe that ALL the extra deaths fall into this category.

If the number of extra deaths is small (say, less than 200), you'd still have to be surprised by the 100% success rate in the cover-up, and you'd also have to wonder why the government would bother (and risk so much with so many contingencies out of its control!) to hide these deaths. If the number is assumed to be big, you'd still have the problems of the 100% success rate in cover-up (compounded), plus a number of other problems. Some have suggested 4,000 extra casualties, which would mean that the insurgents hit these non-citizen personnel at a 2 to 1 rate! Do they have Magic Mexican-Seeking I.E.D.'s? Do their suicide attacks on Humvees magically strike a minority group at twice the rate of the other groups? That's a miraculously LUCKY rate....LUCKY for the US government, that is, which is intent on covering up green-card casualties. Imagine if it had gone otherwise, and they hit citizens at twice the rate! We'd only have a third as many hidden casualties...guess the pentagon cover-up dodged that bullet! Miraculous! Or, as people with a shred of common sense say, utterly implausible.

Never mind that there are only 45,000 non-citizen personnel from all countries in the entire US military (all branches). If you're gullible or intent enough on believing 1) and 2), I suppose you'd also think that the government is lying about that figure. Never mind that the government would have to rely on the total and perpetual silence of even the comrades-in-arms of these non-citizen personnel - combat veterans being somehow now notorious for covering up the deaths of their comrades-in-arms and letting them be buried in secret without the honor of a mention! We are to believe that combat troops don't put much stock in "honor and recognition" anymore! If you're gullible or intent enough on believing 1) and 2), I suppose you'd also believe that we have non-citizen-only units that rove around Iraq taking massive casualties without any other military unit noticing! Never mind that the one activist group that supports non-citizen military personnel, particularly those of Mexican citizenship, says http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNGQ2CSURU1.DTL">no such thing, and in fact says the opposite, claiming that half the Latinos acknowledged on the list are Mexican non-US-citizens (which would beg the question of why thePpentagon would count only some, but not all of those with such status!). We are now to believe that one of the primary anti-war activists - a father whose non-citizen son was killed in Iraq and is on the list - is in on the cover-up!

3) Dover AFB Delirium I should add a third argument that is often thrown out, despite its being a ridiculous non sequitor. It goes like this: Why else would they prohibit pictures being taken at Dover? It is never cashed out with any further description, possibly because it is laughably incoherent, and further description would expose it as a sham argument. It is thus left bare, a simmering implication, but examined with any courage, even the implication is preposterous. Let's examine. Why would "they" prohibit the pictures at Dover? Why indeed. We're meant to believe that the only possible reason to do so would be to hide these extra dead bodies rolling through. But is that the only possible reason? Of course not. It is much more likely that even the daily sight of the acknowledged casualties would produce a negative PR effect in the American public. One need not suppose anything more sinister than that: even the 1742 is far too much for the American public to bear in the graphic sight of flag-draped coffins, and "they" damn well know it. So there is another possible reason for keeping Dover closed to cameras, and it doesn't involve "extra" coffins; the ones we know about are sufficient.

But let's look further into the other possibility, if only for its comic value. The implication is that there are hundreds - even thousands - of coffins coming through Dover that aren't acknowledged. So, the Pentagon goes out of its way to hide these casualties, but continues to drape them in flags and send them back on military planes, and bring them out at the standard body arrival site, and expose them to the troops there, who are assumed to remain silent in perpetuity? Could one imagine a more ridiculous scenario? This is some amazing cover-up that refuses to dispense with tradition, despite the threat that tradition poses to the success of the cover-up! If the Pentagon is going to hide these casualties at all, why bother bringing them back through Dover? Why not just bury them in the desert (as one of the sites has suggested happens to the green-card personnel (see 2) above)? Are we to believe that the same schemers who have hushed up tens of thousands of family members and friends and dishonored thousands of dead continue to honor them with the standard transport through the standard channels? What fool would believe such a thing? Oh, but people will say, if they don't bring them back through Dover, then they couldn't send them out to their families officially! See 1) above for the intractable tangles this would get a believer into. The Dover argument is clownish on its face.

These beliefs are thus not equal. They are not of the same status simply because neither can be "known" to a mathematical certainty. The first belief - that the reported numbers are accurate - is supported by specific evidence, painstakingly collected by people like LynntheDem and the good people at www.icasualties.org , who are not connected with the government and actually work as watchdogs on the government. It requires us only to believe that the government couldn't possibly accomplish a cover-up on this level because the scrutiny is too severe and the conditions for success too tenuous. The risks of detection are too great and the ability to control those who may become aware of the cover-up next to zero. It requires us only to believe, in other words, that a 100% success rate is implausible for covering up such information.

The second belief is supported by no evidence whatsoever, and requires us to accept a number of "facts" that are contrary to all experience and common sense (see 1), 2) and 3) above).

These beliefs are not equal in their uncertainty, but remarkably disparate in their probability. The first is probable and reasonable.The second is incredibly improbable and therefore utterly irrational. "I wouldn't be surprised" is not an argument. "I don't doubt it" - when lacking any evidence and any plausibility - is not a reasonable position, but the position of a dogmatist. Reasonable people doubt any claim that is not supported. Unreasonable people accept any claim they desire to accept, and when they can't support it, and when they can't make plausible arguments for it, simply say that they don't doubt it.