I agree that it's very unlikely that Israeli's share any responsibility for Charlie Hebdo attack. The point I wanted to illustrate that it's easy to make straightfoward claims that aren't fully true.
"the mainstream west upon reflection has not attributed anything to Islamic Terror which is not Islamic Terror, although certainly plenty of individual's in the west have come up with plenty of misattributions both in favor of and against Muslims."
I think claiming that Palestianens bomb an Israeli embassy in London, is an attribution for Islamic Terror.
Certainly long before this post went up, it is a really safe conclusion that Islamic Terrorists shot up Charlie Hebdo.
The thing that the Turkish premier denies isn't who pulled the trigger but who's responsible for those guys pulling the trigger. In particular he disbelieves that people known to have completed a terror training camp were able to coordinate such an attack without the secret service noticing.
Of course he's still wrong.
After the terrorist attacks at Charlie Hebdo, conspiracy theories quickly arose about who was behind the attacks.
People who are critical to the west easily swallow such theories while pro-vest people just as easily find them ridiculous.
I guess we can agree that the most rational response would be to enter a state of aporia until sufficient evidence is at hand.
Yet very few people do so. People are guided by their previous understanding of the world, when judging new information. It sounds like a fine Bayesian approach for getting through life, but for real scientific knowledge, we can't rely on *prior* reasonings (even though these might involve Bayesian reasoning). Real science works by investigating evidence.
So, how do we characterise the human tendency to jump to conclusions that have simply been supplied by their sense of normativity. Is their a previously described bias that covers this case?