Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ratan lal who wrote (10771)	11/18/2001 2:29:09 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Unfortunately there is no such thing as 'accurate analysis'. All analysis is based on stories, hearsay, facts (true or false), eyewitness accounts (together with his/her biases, accuracy and recollection) etc. etc. And the analyser has his/her own biases as to what he/she wants to believe and what he/she wants accepts as facts. Are you saying that all representations of the "facts" must be given equal weight because we have no means to differentiate between them? That we will have to believe them all or believe none? --fl

To: ratan lal who wrote (10771)	11/18/2001 3:50:57 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Unfortunately there is no such thing as 'accurate analysis'. Note that I stated the "most accurate analysis", not the complete and irrefutable analysis... We fought WWII over 50 years ago, yet people still debate its origins and ramifications even now. And it's like something I heard the other day from an individual who's "in the know", related to how many US military commands, upon the termination of Operation Desert Storm, immediately destroyed all of their operational records rather than having them archived for later analysis and study. This stands in SHARP contrast to how the US military went to an extensive effort in analyzing WWII and obtaining as accurate a record as possible of how various units performed during that war. Basically, no one wanted to pack all the stuff up since they were intent on "getting home ASAP", so they burned it all. An incredible wealth of historical information lost forever. And with it, the ability to analyze or criticize the decisions by individual commanders (how convenient.. :0). But once again, with regard to Bin Laden.. I don't care what these French authors claim about the Taliban engaging is some "deal" to turn over OBL to the US.. I don't "buy it" and CANNOT BUY IT simply because of the overriding reality that Al Qaida and OBL's associates were the REAL POWER behind the Taliban and they would NEVER turn over their leader to be tried by some US court and potentially rot in a US jail. Now might there have been negotiations aimed at bringing OBL in front of an Islamic court, where his exoneration would have been almost certain? Possibly, if only because of the international media spectacle it would have proven to be for their extremist cause, and for their recruiting efforts in the muslim community. And might there have been some negotiations aimed at elliciting a promise from the Taliban and OBL to cease their terrorist activities and warlike rhetoric against the west? Quite possibly, as it would have benefitted both parties to some effect in the short-term, just as Munich "benefitted" Britain by providing it time to prepare for the eventual conflict they were facing with Nazi Germany. But long term, the hand-writing has been on the wall and any further delay in dealing with OBL would only have resulted in his group becoming even stronger, and more entrenched. These Frenchmen have apparently completely overlooked the importance of OBL's inter-marital alliances for the purpose of protecting him. There was NO WAY that Muhammed Omar was going to turn over OBL, so long as he was married to his daughter. Only by Omar being overthrown as leader of the Taliban would such a result have been possible. But so long as the military power was wielded by OBL "foreigners", any such possibility was about as probably as a blizzard in hell. A good reporter will take what he's been told by a source, and compare it to various other perspectives that confirm or refute its probability, and include those alternative perspectives in their report. Any report that only presents one side is inherently flawed and should not be fully relied upon until other perspectives can be examined, and/or its premise contrasted to established facts. Hawk