The Glade 4.0

What evidence do you have that it did happen, TheRiov? You have the word of our President and nothing else ...

And, seeing as how our government is now claiming to have destroyed the primary evidence, what reasonable explanation do you have for believing that it did?

_________________

Getting the entire staff of the lab that is going to do the DNA testing (or if there will be no DNA testing, getting enough people with enough credentials to pose as the staff of one) on board with the conspiracy theory would be rather difficult. I suspect they're trying to cover up something else, my best guess was that Osama was heavily tortured before being killed and they don't want that getting out from the condition of the corpse. Or he might have been dead already and they're just trying to take credit for "killing" him.

Remember, politicians lie, but pulling this off means you need to get a lot of non-politicians to also lie.

And later saying they were incorrect.



And later saying they were incorrect.



Destroyed some evidence.



No, history does not indicate that. History indicates they believe he was killed.



Seems to me that people are too eager to disapporve him, they are looking for anything and everything negative.



Definitely the best way to handle it.

Doubting the story is one thing Khross. I endorse heavy skepticism. However, the likelyhood of being called out on a lie in this case along with the ease of proving it false makes it very stupid lie to tell if indeed it was a lie.

Its would be like trying to bluff that you've got a flush in Texas Hold 'em when the community cards are 4 different suits.

What evidence do you have that "it didn't happen", Khross?

100% Certain the burden of proof lies with the party making the positive assertion ...

And since the party making the positive assertion is already destroying, tampering with evidence ...

It is neither rational nor logical to accept their claims.

_________________

Point blank brilliant. I'm not interested in our government Kowtowing to conspiracy theorists anyway. It's like negotiating with terrorists. It doesn't work, they'll just come up with something else.

That's not what I asked. You made a positive assertion, "it didn't happen". (positive assertion of the negative??? /boggle)

Show your evidence. Lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence.

Yes, because an ad hominem is the only argument you have ...

_________________

Except, that's not a positive assertion ...

You see, you are buying into the same false dilemma thinking TheRiov keeps using. Stating that the events claimed by our government did not happen does not mean Bin Laden must be alive. As there are any number of possible options involving our government and Bin Laden and the status of his life or death, pronouncing that things did not happen as our President claimed is simply disputing the veracity of his press conference ...

Again, even if we assume the President forthright and honest, destroying the primary evidence is stupid ...

A) You can no longer independently verify their DNA matching.

B) You cannot verify the source of the DNA evidence.

C) You cannot verify the body itself.

Destroying the body before conclusively proving it was or was not Osama Bin Laden was the worst possible course of action. And, if he happens to be alive instead of dead, it reaches new levels of stupidity ...

_________________

For all of you saying the DNA evidence is all you need..

pure comedy gold....

No amount of evidence would be enough to convince the people who don't believe.

I firmly believe, however, that government is fundamentally incompetent. More so than fundamentally corrupt, they are just incapable of pulling off a true conspiracy of this level without somebody finding out and blowing the whistle.

If Khross is right, we will know about it. And we will know about it relatively soon. If this is a big conspiracy, the lie will be exposed, and Khross will have been right about one thing - it was an incredibly stupid move, because government is not capable of pulling a lie of this magnitude off and getting away with it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Isn't your argument based largely on the assertion that the President is a liar?

LMAO!

The only argument I have? Dude, I'm not the conspiracy theorist here. My "argument" is that there's no conspiracy. The evidence for my arugment has been posted in this thread.

Your position is "it didn't happen". If you want to back away from that statement, that's fine.

this

_________________
"None is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people safe as they are the
ultimate guardians of their own liberty."- Thomas Jefferson

"Yeah, I'm rehearsing my poker face. I don't handle stupid well. *sigh*" - Farsky

Except, that's not what I said. Your statement was "it didn't happen". Meaning the raid, US troops killing OBL yesterday. You have provided no evidence of this. Back it up.

Arathain:

No, you have to prove without a doubt that it was Bin Laden who was killed and then dumped into the ocean. Good luck with that ...

_________________

No, I don't. You're making the claim. Show "it didn't happen". Obviously you can't prove this, but, I don't know, show some evidence.

You guys don't think making Osama less of a martyr isn't a good reason to do this? Islamic tradition really does require that the body be buried as soon as possible, but if they just buried him anywhere, it would become a shrine for extremists.

Like I said, I thought it was brilliant.

Birther debate reborn?

This thread makes me LOL.

Why, because people seem to think that perfectly rational skepticism is insane? Or, because you're too willing to believe a government claim?

It seems to me that none of you are willing to consider the reality of the situation; nor, for that matter, are any of you willing to consider the impossibility created by destroying the primary evidence.

How do you verify the DNA samples now?

How do you verify the body now?

How do you prove the deed without the evidence that has been destroyed?

_________________

Saying "it didn't happen" without evidence, is not rational. Witholding judgement until you see more evidence is perfectly fine.



They have his DNA on file. So they can match it. Regardless, the answer to your other questions is... you can't. I counter with: so what, and why is that a problem?

Why is there no healthy skepticism here? This whole mess reminds me of agent Mulder.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20