The Glade 4.0

Assuming Hopwin's information is true (where did you find this Hop?), how do you account for eyewitness testimony that he was killed?

C) "Osama was already dead and the USGov is lying to say America did it" would also requires a conspiracy of thousands of people complicit in the lie. Any of those three requires a massive conspiracy to pull off. (And "A" still wouldn't work, because the moment he resurfaces to deny the reports of his death, the bottom falls out of the lie.)

Of any of the conspiracies, B) is the most likely, I think. I would also have no real issues with it being true.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

Eh, that's actually within the realm of possibility but so low in probability I do not consider it reasonable.

Also ... A and B are not separate, hence the use of the word "and" ...

_________________

Uh, Hopwin's unsourced information agrees that he was killed.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

/facepalm

No, it doesn't. It only requires acceptance of what's been presented. That =/ "leap of faith".



To what level of scrutiny? And why is that level needed?



Witnesses, DNA, photos, military reports.



Witnesses, DNA, photos, military reports.



There is at least some indication that he did not resist. Thus, it's reasonable to question this. The other points - no evidence to the contrary.



Not even sure that matters. We don't know what he had for breakfast either. If he was shot in the face and then had a heart attack... who gives a damn.



Military reports, photographs. What do we have to the contrary?



It's very much in the US best interest for him to be dead, and no body.



Motive is not evidence.



That looks like some serious dancing. I see two possiblities. One, you are so concerned about the possibility of being wrong, that you're doing some serious dancing and placing accusations on others to avoid admitting it.

Two, your following statements:

It didn't happen.
This is merely a political ploy to secure Obama's re-election.
I'm going to call our President a liar and these claims bullshit.

That these statements were made in the same way "Pics or it didn't happen" are made, in which case you failed so badly at actually conveying what you really thought, that your complaints about others misinterpreting your statements are unjustified, and frankly - it's your fault.



Yeah, you do. You have evidence he's killed. You may not believe it fully, but you have reasons to do so.



You know, TR is just as guilty, but it is not a mark of intelligence to so consistently resort to personal attacks when you are disagreed with, and what is with your obsessive need to elevate your relative intelligence by trying to lower others? It makes your argument look weak, and your motivation suspect. Intelligent conversation does not include personal attacks.

If that's the conspiracy in question.. I'd say it's pretty irrelevant. At this point, he would be dead to the world already as he can never be allowed to be publicly acknowledged as alive again.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

WE GOT HIM!
Also, Congress was back in session Monday and the issue of the FY2012 budget is looming large.

Everyone in Washington: Man I hope we get some reprisals in the coming weeks.
/cynic

Ok, elaborating here... no conspiracy theories, the guy's dead, and we're all going to talk about that for a while. Meanwhile, things that are far more relevant to me are flying way under radar. I honestly don't care if bin Laden is dead or not at this point. He's either effectively removed from the playing field or the present administration is due to get some epic pie on its face in the future, and I'm hopefully not too optimistic in thinking we're calculating and effective enough not to commit a gaffe of that magnitude.

His base wants him to pull out of Afghanistan because "Mission Accomplished!" He promised to pull out of Afghanistan in 2008. He won't pull out of Afghanistan. He already increased troops in Afghanistan. What is there to miss about this driving his "supporters" away to Camp Clinton or Camp Undecided Voter?

_________________

Republicans will do everything they can to say "great job, Obama" and then immediately steer the discussion back to those issues.

Still, this is better than the birth certificate nonsense.

Since no evidence has been presented for your consumption, I'm curious as to how you claim evidence has been presented at all. Please, do demonstrate that any evidence has been presented at all. We currently have the following claims:

a) U.S. Soldiers invaded a compound in Abbottabad

b) U.S. Soldiers killed Osama Bin Laden.

c) DNA testing was performed on a tissue sample taken from Bin Laden's corpse.

d) Bin Laden's corpse was buried at sea.

e) DNA was matched against samples taken from his deceased sister at a hospital in Boston.

f) Bin Laden resisted arrest.

g) Bin Laden was taken alive and executed.

Now, that's the majority of critical claims; they come from various sources. As it stands, the only thing verifiable by anyone is that U.S. soldiers performed some sort of operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan. No reviewable or tangible evidence of any other claims have been presented.To the highest level of scrutiny possible, which is necessary because a) the monumental nature of the claims and b) the political interest in the claims being true or appearing to be true. Since the veracity of these claims will determine the results of the next American election, they must be beyond question. If there is any room for doubt, even room created by the actions of the U.S. Government and parties actually involved in the events in question, then that doubt should prevent their re-election and retention of their office.

The magnitude of these claims is tremendous; it will have tangible effects well into the next election cycle, if not beyond. Consequently, there must not be any doubt that the claims made are true, regardless of whatever complications or inconvenience verification might present to the parties and powers responsible.
These things are evidence that cannot be verified. Therefore, acceptance requires a leap of faith. In particular:

a) Witnesses are a notoriously unreliable source of evidence. They rarely agree with each other on the majority of details or overarching events. Consequently, the evidentiary value of their testimony is minimal, particularly in a court of law.

b) The DNA Evidence is completely unacceptable. Because the source of DNA material was destroyed, it cannot be verified by disinterested third parties. Moreover, the results cannot be proven repeatable. Disposing of the body actually invalidates the DNA material as evidence.

c) Photographs can be altered. Since you will never see the original film, negatives, or digital source (depending on how the photos were generated), much you assume (i.e. take a leap of faith) that they are authentic.

d) Military Reports are the best evidence you have, but since they will be redacted and kept from public or independent verification for an undisclosed period of time, they provide little actual value to parties not within the U.S. government. Likewise, the evidence required to substantiate the statements contained within remains subject to the flaws described previous.See Above.And there exists little, to no evidence substantiating the previous claims either. Without the actual body, there is no proof of anything. There is evidence of questionable veracity that can neither be confirmed nor denied. Consequently, disposing of the "body" has created a situation in which one must either accept the government position or not. There is no middle ground. That is, for reasons listed above, absolutely unacceptable.When the "evidence" presented is not reviewable and not verifiable, nothing to the contrary need be presented. In fact, it is irrational to assume the claims are true when there exists no way of verifying those claims. Only involved parties can know and will know the truth, as all possible means of verifying their actions and statements have been (reportedly) destroyed.It's not. You have tremendous claims that can neither be verified nor disproven barring some extraordinary event. Consequently, you have claims that are suspect and exist only for political gain. There would be little, if any doubt, that Bin Laden was dead has the body been subjected to third party identification, third party DNA testing, third party autopsies, etc. Disposing of the body makes verification impossible and provides a single source for any evidence. This alone makes the credibility of the source and the evidence questionable in the highest degree.Motive is evidence; it is not proof.It's not dancing at all. The positive assertion is that Osama Bin Laden is dead and was killed by U.S. Soldiers in a covert opertion.

So, prove it. You obviously believe it to be true; the U.S. Government believes it to be true ...

So, prove it conclusively to the rest of the world. If the evidence you think is to overwhelming exists, demonstrate that there exists 0 question these statements and claims are true. Otherwise ...

It didn't happen. You have evidence it may have happened, but since you are fundamentally and totally incapable of demonstrating it did happen: it did not.Actually, I have no reason to believe it at all. Since the only possible piece of conclusive material evidence has been reported as destroyed ...

I have no rational impetus for putting faith in any other evidence presented, as all (reasonable) possible methods of verification have ceased to exist. Obviously, the film footage of the raid itself from multiple operatives would be the next best thing to actually having the body. And since that will NEVER be made available to any non-immediate parties involved ... it may as well not exist for purposes of this discussion.Except for the fact that you, Aizle, and TheRiov continually make snide, inappropriate comments. In fact, you guys have spent all thread trying to paint my position as a conspiracy theory without actually considering what I have said.

Your posts are dismissive because you give credibility to evidence based on its claimed source without considering the fact that it is not verifiable. The rational position is as I have stated: "destroying the body" makes the life/death status and the veracity of these events unverifiable.

In fact, I've been called a fringe, nutjob, conspiracy theorist for pointing out that fact in this thread by the same people who call the possibility of a God and any believe in him irrational and unintelligent.

_________________

Just out of curiosity, what is the requisite amount of rah-rah called for before it's back to business? I'm thinking beginning of next week would be nice. Surely we can't drag "to release the pics or not" on for more than a couple days.

Just like we couldn't drag the birth-certificate on for 2 years? People like Khross are going to keep throwing gasoline on this and try to coax it into a wildfire.

_________________

The discourse has gone from Birthers to Deathers in under a week. Wow.

The fact is, we will never know what really happened, or even if that body was really OBL.

The only real, compelling evidence is floating around somewhere in the arabian sea (maybe).

The only two facts that I am overwhelmingly convinced of.

A) this 'raid' was not justified and should not have happened.
B) that body should not have been dumped into the arabian sea without the UN or some other external entity corroborating the story

*boggle*

Explain?

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

What was the justification?

What would we be talking about if the raid had gone badly and troops died? or the Pakistani's shot down the helicopters?

Would we have ever even heard about it?

This entire debacle is nothing but a public relations stunt.

Uh...catching/killing Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda and terrorist behind 9-11 is all the justification you need. In fact, if you didn't try to do so, you'd be morons. What do you want, a timeline of his crimes and ongoing war of terrorism upon the world? Quick search turned up several. This one is broken down nicely.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... Laden.html

Yeah, killing this guy has no justification...nevermind that it has been your countries justified top security priority for the last 10 years.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

He wasn't 'leading' anything.... He was basically in Pakistani custody (and I'd be inclined to believe we were aware of this the entire time)....

The only moron in this story is the one that made the two decisions I eluded to above....

You rather lose all credibility if you don't believe the US (or any other country) should have taken every possible shot to kill this ****.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

Apparently US intelligence has known is whereabouts for quite some time...

http://www.examiner.com/post-partisan-i ... villa-2008



edit: added the quote - I saw the video of this exchange on the morning news....

Look, don't get me wrong. OBL was scum and I'm glad he's dead...

Sorry, but I just can't get excited about the load of bullshit were being fed about this.

If the American people, and the world want to believe this load of crap, that's fine.

Personally I think the whole thing stinks like a barrel of rotten fish...

See, this is where you are going terribly astray IMO. First, what makes you think any evidence at all SHOULD be provided to me personally for my consumption? You're acting like there is a trial, and scrutiny should be held to that standard. It should not. There is no trial, and I am certainly not on the jury. I am entirely at the mercy of the reports, I recognize that. However, I have reports. There is no evidence to the contrary at all. So without any indication of the contrary, I'm inclined to believe the general notion of what has been presented (there are conflicts in the details, nothing substantial), which IMO, any rational person would. There is presentation of one side of the story, and no presentation of the other side. Thus it does not take a leap of faith to believe the story. To believe the other side would take a leap of faith, since there's basically nothing there.

To the highest level of scrutiny possible, which is necessary because a) the monumental nature of the claims and b) the political interest in the claims being true or appearing to be true. Since the veracity of these claims will determine the results of the next American election, they must be beyond question. If there is any room for doubt, even room created by the actions of the U.S. Government and parties actually involved in the events in question, then that doubt should prevent their re-election and retention of their office.[/quote]

That's complete nonsense. Again, there's no trial. The government is responsible for reporting what they are up to, not making some proof beyond a reasonable doubt of who, what, when. They do not need to do this. Hell, I wouldn't have even had a problem with them dropping a bomb on his head, and having a CIA asset on the ground collect some DNA. Obviously, that wouldn't be as conclusive as what they did, but it's adequate. Again, it is what it is, there's no need for a trial-level inquiry.



I disagree with all of this 100%.



And yet, there is no witness disagreement on overaching events that I have seen.



I'm not a trial lawyer, but since when? I don't think this is true at all. Also, this is not a trial, and there is no need for it to stand up to that level of scrutiny.



Evidence for what? The trial going on in your head? It's evidence, you just don't like it.



What takes a leap of faith is assuming they are altered without evidence. Until I see something to the contrary, it makes sense to believe they are real. That is not a leap of faith. It's not a leap of faith to believe something you are told without evidence to the contrary.



So what? This gets back to the level of scrutiny required.



It is.



No. I have motive to rob a bank. That is not evidence that I robbed a bank or even that a bank was robbed.



Don't need to.



There's your leap of faith, and where you are going horribly wrong. Perhaps if we are talking in legal terms, you're right - innocent unless proven guilty. That does not apply here. So, you are simply ignoring loads of information that you don't like and because it's not 100% conclusive in your mind, you're sticking your head in the sand.

I also note that you carefully avoided the second of my two options. If you say you are not dancing, then you simply presented your position so atrociously that you really should not be complaining about being misinterpreted.



Yeah, that doesn't address my point, other than to attempt to blame others for your actions.



First, so what if you were? Second, "conspiracy theorist" is not derogatory. Neither is "fringe", really, but I can see why someone wouldn't like it. But I went through the thread, and the only "nutjob" reference that could be even remotely what you are referring to is Taly's statement:

They don't need to let every nutjob in the world get physical confirmation of the body.

It takes a certained heightened bit of sensitivity to assume she was talking directly about you and to get bent out of shape about it, IMO.

Well, if they wait until it dies down to release the photos, we might have to do it all again. 9/11 was very emotional for people, let them have a bit of time

Midgen,

I see your point about the justification, and I get it. I just think that most Americans (myself included) disagree.

I still find it interesting how the United States can waltz 30 miles into any country it wants, kill some people, and leave. And everyone seems to think this is perfectly fine.