syrian fighter jet crashed/shot down/etc

[Juror No. 8]

Rejected in some contexts, not all. To apply Occam's Razor generally, all things being equal the simplest systems are more likely to exist. Which is more common in the universe? Life or big balls of dead rock? What's more common on planet earth? Various chunks of metals, clouds of gas (the atmosphere) or life?

If I throw a bunch of blocks down randomly (all things being equal) are they more likely to make a perfect stack or end up in a random pile?

Even if I were to accept your application of Occam's razor to the question of Syria, why should I assume your theory, that the events taking place in Syria all originated internally and without outside assistance, is the simplest explanation? I don't find that theory simple at all. Where did the rebels get all their arms from? Where did the funding come from? Who organized it? Why should I believe that this all happened organically?

What reasons? Are you serious?

Theory: Rebels captured Syrian government SAMs and used them.
Supports:
1. Fact: The Syrian government has a significant supply of of SAMs, stored in their military bases.
2. Fact: The rebels have captured multiple military bases, gaining access to any materials they might be storing.

Assumption: The rebels found a stash of SAMs and used them. This is a logical assumption based on known facts.

Sure, but these events didn't just occur in a vacuum. The rebels didn't just capture multiple military bases with butter knives. The rebels were heavily armed right from the beginning. They were organized and precise.

If we are to believe that Assad is such an authoritarian tyrant, why didn't he have any knowledge of or ability to prevent these rebels from acquiring so many weapons and so much organization with which to rebel? If this rebellion came about wholly internally, then why didn't this supposed tyrant crack down sooner?

It's not that easy for civilians to oppose the military resources of the state on their own.

Theory: The US or other nation is supplying the rebels with shoulder-mounted sams.
Supports:
1. Fact: The US has conducted such operations in the past, decades before current events.

Assumption: Because the US has done it before, it is doing it again. This is a loose assumption based on out-of-context previous behavior and idle speculation.

Your theory is much the same:

1. Fact: The people of various countries have rebelled against their governments in the past.

Assumption: Because other people have rebelled before, it is necessarily happening again in Syria. This is a loose assumption based on out-of-context and idle speculation.

And FYI, history isn't just a bunch of conspiracies. In fact, most of history outside of major events is pretty fucking dull. Taking a single focused (non-survey) college history course would inform you of this. The daily lives of medieval kings are interesting. Your average peasant? Not so much.

No, I disagree. I've studied history my entire life, including university, and my research indicates that conspiracies are the norm, not the exception. Economic conspiracies. Military conspiracies. Political conspiracies. Ideological conspiracies. The pages of history are littered with conspiracies, and there's nothing dull about any of it.

It's clear to me that you've been brainwashed to think as you do.

 

[irishScott]

Even if I were to accept your application of Occam's razor to the question of Syria, why should I assume your theory, that the events taking place in Syria all originated internally and without outside assistance, is the simplest explanation? I don't find that theory simple at all. Where did the rebels get all their arms from? Where did the funding come from? Who organized it? Why should I believe that this all happened organically?



Sure, but these events didn't just occur in a vacuum. The rebels didn't just capture multiple military bases with butter knives. The rebels were heavily armed right from the beginning. They were organized and precise.

If we are to believe that Assad is such an authoritarian tyrant, why didn't he have any knowledge of or ability to prevent these rebels from acquiring so many weapons and so much organization with which to rebel? If this rebellion came about wholly internally, then why didn't this supposed tyrant crack down sooner?

It's not that easy for civilians to oppose the military resources of the state on their own.



Your theory is much the same:

1. Fact: The people of various countries have rebelled against their governments in the past.

Assumption: Because other people have rebelled before, it is necessarily happening again in Syria. This is a loose assumption based on out-of-context and idle speculation.



No, I disagree. I've studied history my entire life, including university, and my research indicates that conspiracies are the norm, not the exception. Economic conspiracies. Military conspiracies. Political conspiracies. Ideological conspiracies. The pages of history are littered with conspiracies, and there's nothing dull about any of it.

It's clear to me that you've been brainwashed to think as you do.

You mean aside from Syrian military defections, the somewhat tribal nature of Syria (where the autocracy was far from perfect) and the proliferation of illegal weapons dealers in that region?

Funny, I never made an argument about why the Syrians are rebelling. We're talking about how they shot down a government jet. Stay on topic please.

Hahaha, yes. Because the Mongol empire and its success was one huge conspiracy. The Crusades? Nothing to do with climate change or population explosions, agricultural revolutions, nope, all conspiracy. I could go on, but just because there are a lot of human conspiracies in history doesn't mean they're the cause of everything, even major events.

Actually it could be (and has been) argued that climate change is the root cause of all major sweeps of history.


Like all conspiracy theorists, you're trying to broaden the argument out of context (odd behavior for a purported life-long scholar). All I'm saying is it's far more likely the Syrians shot down the jet with captured weapons as opposed to foreign ones. Sorry if that pinches a nerve or deprives you of your conspiracy adrenaline rush.

And it's clear to me that anyone who disagrees with you is "brainwashed".

 

[Juror No. 8]

All I'm saying is it's far more likely the Syrians shot down the jet with captured weapons as opposed to foreign ones.

That's a matter of opinion. I say it's more likely the Syrians shot down the jet with weapons provided to them from foreign sources. After all, rebellions are often fought with weapons supplied externally.

I see no reason why the same isn't happening in Syria.

 

[EagleKeeper]

That's a matter of opinion. I say it's more likely the Syrians shot down the jet with weapons provided to them from foreign sources. After all, rebellions are often fought with weapons supplied externally.

I see no reason why the same isn't happening in Syria.

Of course they are from foreign sources - Syria does not manufacture it's own weapons.

Those were Russian supplied SAMs obtained from the Syrian military base which the rebels overran.