Osama Bin Laden is dead

[louisg]

It would have been even better if they weren't started at all, but of course, by asking this question you've shown that you don't quite understand something important about wars. They're highly profitable but not everyone gets to share...

Isn't this a "no shit"? Don't assume I have my head up my ass because you'd like to believe some asinine tin-foil hat conspiracy nonsense. This has nearly as many holes in it as the birther time-travel theory or "the CIA used TNT to blow up the twin towers while simultaneously crashing planes into it" crap people have been peddling this last decade.

And you do realize of course that economy matters in elections... which brings me to the next point.

Quote:
none has been offered that doesn't require some kind of far fetched New World Order scenario.


Seriously? At which point did the debate ever devolve into that? You must be reading through conspiracy theory tinted spectacles, cos no-one ever mentioned anything so radical.

Because in order for this to work, you would need two opposed parties working together and, additionally, cooperation of the people we say we're at war with. It's collusion on a grand scale. This is exactly what I mean, so please reread my arguments and get back to me. Without that, this theory could not work. So, yes, it is a conspiracy theory at this point, and that was extremely easy to infer. Though nobody said it, this is the only way the theory can work Feel free to prove me wrong by coming up with a way this could happen without these elements.

Back to austere's argument:

You mean, lying to the British and US public, getting the almost entire media machine to lie in coordination, fabricating documents from Niger, hoodwinking (and otherwise outright bribing) several representatives in the UN to pass SC resolutions against Iraq, coordinating obscure and vague statements from the IAEA head, involved a much smaller scope than whatever you find implausible? Really?

Bribing officials? Yes, that can be done. This is all much, much more doable than what is being suggested here. Getting the entire media machine behind you after 9/11 was also like shooting fish in a barrel. If you understand at all what the tone was in the US after that event as well as the pressures on media outlets to present a certain worldview, you would see how easily that could happen. So, yes, that is a smaller scope, considerably.

[Skykid]

In order to believe this was a staged event, that bin Laden wasn't really killed, you have to explain away a lot of the information that's coming in.

And visa versa, of course.

There's far more to support that he died in Pakistan in the publicized raid than years ago in Afghanistan. For one, his kids and wife were in the building that was raided and his kid has reportedly said she saw he father shot. So unless the ISI is in on the game too, those aren't really bin Laden's family members, and all the people who say they've seen the footage of the raid or the photo of his corpse are lying, there's a pretty fucking good chance he was there and he was killed.

http://www.news.com.au/world/osamas-dau ... 6050165581
http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/articl ... her-killed

Very interesting. This is actually the only concrete evidence that we will possibly have available to us, but I await the release of these family members before I jump to any conclusions. There's supposedly an ISI release detailing Osama's 12 year old daughters version of events which contradict the US government's and makes them look bad as well.

In internet terms, is the ISI playing along and trolling?

We just have to wait and see, if they're indeed his family and confirm his death this year without being under duress, we can junk the other reports.

I think the real interesting aspect isn't the supposed conspiracy that it wasn't him, but the details of what actually happened in the raid.

Meh, like I said, the details don't really matter (as they are confirmed, that is). If it actually happened, they could have dry humped his body for all I care, lol. Unless they filmed it in which case I would care a little -- it would be somewhat entertaining.

When you look at various statements made by the administration, you open the door to a number of different scenarios. First he was armed, now they're saying he was unarmed. First there were reports he used his wife as a shield and she was killed, now she's shot in the leg and another woman is dead.

Apparently one of the women in the compound is now his yemeni doctor who was treating his kidney condition. Did they throw the mobile dialysis machine (if he needed one) into the sea as well? LOL...

The number of dead Pakistan found in the compound is more than the administration initially said as well.

Who gives a damn, seriously. There's so many dead pakis lining the street from drone strikes that they'll soon be a tradable commodity. The very act of killing people demonises them.

Note that Obama said he was killed after the firefight and he said that the raid resulted in the "capture and death" of bin Laden. This invites all kinds of questions about Obama's choice to use a team to raid the compound. It sounds more and more like he was summarily executed and the details of the raid were put together in a way to obscure this fact.

Supposedly Obama didn't have the last say in this. Anyway, if you have captured what is meant to be the leader of this nefarious organisation terrorising the world, I would say at least interrogating him to death would have been more fruitful than taking him out the back and offing him. Just saying.

Given Pakistan is being blamed for shielding him in that military town, will this be used as a casus belli to start a formal war with them?

This would make no sense from a national security or foreign policy perspective. We know for a fact that Pakistan, unlike Iraq or Iran, has nuclear weapons.

Who do you propose they use these nuclear weapons against? The USA? They don't have anywhere near the range nor the compact warheads to reach any US territory. US armed forces? They'll certainly strike back and they'll have to hit their own people. India? Why would the US care and why would they do that in the first place.

What ever they hit, Pakistan will be a glass parking lot a few minutes later. There's actually detailed plans of how the US military would deal with this threat in the case of war and it involves securing all the known sites where these bombs are located. Maybe they're use the place as a pig farm and rename it Porkistan.

A few nuclear bombs, contrary to what most people (including extremely intelligent people who are somewhat unfamiliar with warfare and politics) assume, don't give you permanent sovereignty. In the end, someone has to decide that it's better for a people to survive as a whole than to extract some revenge.

These days you can only use nuclear weapons (fission, hydrogen, ERW etc.) covertly (i.e. in coordination with other powers who would possibly counterattack) or in retaliation to an open use.

Also I will mention that your assumption that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon yet might prove to be unfounded. Most (absolutely fucking retarded) commentators keep talking about Uranium enrichment but that's not even required for the easiest kind of NW to manufacture. See the process the israelis managed to pull off using their Dimona reactor. Not saying they definitely have NWs, but it's no where NEAR as hard as most people assume. The delivery system is what is more strategic, of course. The USA can deliver its warheads anywhere, any time with >99% guaranteed strike even against sites protected by modern ABM systems.

Just because there are strong clues that the government could be making crap up does not mean that the most logical explanation is one requiring Republicans, Democrats, Al Qaeda, and a bunch of random people in Afghanistan to work together in some kind of unparalleled massive conspiracy. It's unbelievably contorted.

You're right, which is why no one is suggesting that as far as I know. I'm surprised it didn't involve Tiger Woods and Donald Duck as well.

The alternative explanation poses way too many questions: why not release the information in 2006?

Like I said before, Abu Musab "the phantom of the opera" Al-Zarqawi (remember him?) was the flavour of the day back then. Came right on time for the mid-term elections too. Didn't even notice that until you mentioned it, lol.

Wouldn't the US economy have been better without two wars going

It would have been even better if they weren't started at all, but of course, by asking this question you've shown that you don't quite understand something important about wars. They're highly profitable but not everyone gets to share...

I'd be willing to change my mind if someone can offer a coherent theory

That's a good sign, though an intelligent person is able to hold an idea he doesn't initially agree in his head for assessment. Albeit, no one has offered a comprehensive and coherent theory, but neither has the mass media -- it's riddled with lies, fabrications and contradictions.

Also, I haven't even made up my mind, I just came in to play a little devil's advocate seeing everyone ganging up on Udderdude, Skykid and a few other British posters. It's amusing seeing the knee jerk reaction from the (mostly) American posters on here -- conspiracy theorist. Had to see it for myself here and it's utterly disgraceful, regardless of whether you found Skykid's initial post inflammatory or not. If you stick your head out of the window, you'll find the rest of the world questioning this little tale.

For the record, this is coming from someone who knew the WMD charges were bunk from the get-go because there were about 12 justifications thrown around (to see what would stick) and the story kept changing. There, the motivations were relatively clear cut, and the politicians involved seemed to get what they wanted, even if it was very short sighted. Maybe they even went as far as to believe their own domino theory bullshit. What differs here is that the scope of the operation is implausible and the motivations don't make any sense.

You mean, lying to the British and US public, getting the almost entire media machine to lie in coordination, fabricating documents from Niger, hoodwinking (and otherwise outright bribing) several representatives in the UN to pass SC resolutions against Iraq, coordinating obscure and vague statements from the IAEA head, involved a much smaller scope than whatever you find implausible? Really?

Whatever, it doesn't really matter in the end because this is the narrative we will have to "adopt". I only became interested in this event when the financial markets reacted to it. There's no backtracking now, if it is indeed a farce, any contradictory evidence will be twisted and turned until the status-quo is returned (or until it doesn't matter).

Enjoy yourselves and enjoy the Osama-free world. I hope it was worth the 100,000-1,000,000+ lives it took to nail him. Yeeeeeeehawwwww! USA! USA! USA!

God damn, more like this please. ^

[austere]

Don't assume I have my head up my ass because you'd like to believe some asinine tin-foil hat conspiracy nonsense.
...

This has nearly as many holes in it as the birther time-travel theory or "the CIA used TNT to blow up the twin towers while simultaneously crashing planes into it" crap people have been peddling this last decade.

...

Back to austere's argument

I'm sorry louisg, I really love your music, but you've demonstrated that you're about as capable as understanding the arguments I've presented here as you are capable of understading my Master thesis for physics.

And you do realize of course that economy matters in elections... which brings me to the next point.

Hahahaha.

Because in order for this to work, you would need two opposed parties working together and, additionally, cooperation of the people we say we're at war with. It's collusion on a grand scale. This is exactly what I mean, so please reread my arguments and get back to me.

I think Skykid should ask you to expand on this.

So, yes, it is a conspiracy theory at this point, and that was extremely easy to infer. Though nobody said it, this is the only way the theory can work Feel free to prove me wrong by coming up with a way this could happen without these elements.

No one actually suggested anything but a few key facts being questionable and you've extrapolated a strawman of epic proportions and presented it as the only plausible conclusion, like I see on many forums which I don't participate in but browse to merely laugh at. Hallucinations, geez, no wonder icycalm exploded on you guys.

[Jockel]

How about we stop arguing with the guys that could eventually help getting SH3 games emulated?
Austere is right by default!

[louisg]

No one actually suggested anything but a few key facts being questionable and you've extrapolated a strawman of epic proportions and presented it as the only plausible conclusion, like I see on many forums which I don't participate in but browse to merely laugh at. Hallucinations, geez, no wonder icycalm exploded on you guys.

No, I actually presented some other situations that might make more sense if you are assuming that the official stance is BS. I have said in past posts myself that it was questionable. But to go with your version, yes, these factors I mention would all have to come together. It's hardly a strawman-- this is the conclusion I arrived at when thinking about what would have to happen if I assumed your theory was correct. It's just logical, and if you don't see that, then there's really no use continuing the debate.

If you can explain at least what the motivations would have been of everyone who would necessarily have to be involved, I will listen. If you can't, then there's not just a lack of evidence, but there's not even a reason that this would ever happen.

[austere]

How about we stop arguing with the guys that could eventually help getting SH3 games emulated?

Yeah, trying to get an exit strategy going but the hanger-ons keep on coming. ;P

I'm knee deep in PhD work late at night which is why (NATURALLY) I'm procrastinating here. >_> CaH4e3 is almost done, expect a release soon. My work will still be useful but emulation wise, there's no way I can beat the speed of his optimised dynarec core with my 1st revision interpreted one. Also the AMM riddle has me baffled, don't know which huffman table he has used (though I'm almost dead certain VQ is used ... the compression ratio is just too good for anything else) but given he's gone so far with it, I'll back off that part for a while.

Austere is right by default!

Goes without saying.

[Skykid]

Because in order for this to work, you would need two opposed parties working together and, additionally, cooperation of the people we say we're at war with. It's collusion on a grand scale. This is exactly what I mean, so please reread my arguments and get back to me.

I think Skykid should ask you to expand on this.

Jesus Christ don't even go there. If expanding on that point means repeating the same shit for the fifth time I'm not interested.

Hallucinations, geez, no wonder icycalm exploded on you guys.

Lol, nice try at throwing more "conspiracy theories" into the mix.

You're not Icycalm because you're well-read, can write in a grammatically correct fashion and formulate coherent arguments. He can't.

[Ex-Cyber]

Because in order for this to work, you would need two opposed parties working together

You mean Republicans and Democrats? Maybe they're opposed in terms of which party should run the country, but that's not the same thing as being opposed on a particular policy. Both were pretty gung-ho for getting Osama's head, at least in 2001. Only one member of Congress actually voted against the 9/11 AUMF (which was an incredibly broad grant of power). I see what you're getting at, but I think collusion between the parties is actually more likely than not when it comes to this issue.

[austere]

But to go with your version, yes, these factors I mention would all have to come together. It's hardly a strawman-- this is the conclusion I arrived at when thinking about what would have to happen if I assumed your theory was correct. ... It's just logical, and if you don't see that, then there's really no use continuing the debate.

This is where it becomes a false alternative and thus a strawman. The factors you presented do not necessarily have to come together, you haven't demonstrated that. I think you will find that far fewer people would have to be involved in order to "wag the dog" like what you're trying to say.

If you can explain at least what the motivations would have been of everyone who would necessarily have to be involved, I will listen.

Proposed motivation: casus belli for interventions, wars and expansions against the USA's strategic adversaries. Get an organisation to take credit for real terror strikes and pose it as an enemy and move it around to countries you wish to attack or coerce into giving you a military base. Remember the alleged Al qaeda-saddam connection? LOL.

Now that I have played your game, please tell me why you would you -- assuming the organisation is as large and powerful as what the media makes it out to be -- shoot its leader the moment you have them in custody? Why wouldn't you extract all the useful information out of them first? Doesn't it strike you as ... well, retarded at best, suspicious at worst?

Until you can explain the motivation for this move, well, the little tale isn't really adding up. Maybe we should await a more reasonable parable from the holy unquestionable and infallible US government?

I see what you're getting at, but I think collusion between the parties is actually more likely than not when it comes to this issue.

Yeah, I also think this is likely (at least on an "upper-management" level), but I don't need this to shoot down his point.

[antron]

Now that I have played your game, please tell me why you would you -- assuming the organisation is as large and powerful as what the media makes it out to be -- shoot its leader the moment you have them in custody? Why wouldn't you extract all the useful information out of them first? Doesn't it strike you as ... well, retarded at best, suspicious at worst?

maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to do. I imagine things were pretty tense, invading another country, crashing a helicopter, being fired upon, and coming face to face with the boogie man. so some grunt shot him.

but his 12 year old daughter is saying they executed him:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=10723692

which is really not too smart. but it's not a dumb as thinking the white house is trying to punk the world on this, they left a whole house full of witnesses. but I guess they're all in on it too, right?

[austere]

maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to do. I imagine things were pretty tense

Hahahahahaha.

invading another country, crashing a helicopter, being fired upon, and coming face to face with the boogie man. so some grunt shot him.

If a navy seal is involved, you've vastly underestimating the kind of tension and professionalism they're able to undertake. But of course this is the reality distortion field where the government and its arms become completely retarded in order to accommodate for suspicious scenarios. Stick your head out of the sand.

I'm not saying they're perfectly smart and infallable, just ... this is a pretty fucking big mistake.

Some "grunt" flipping out and shooting him when there was no danger according to the latest narrative... nah.

but it's not a dumb as thinking the white house is trying to punk the world on this, they left a whole house full of witnesses. but I guess they're all in on it too, right?

Oh clever, condescending sarcasm, that'll show 'em! I understand from this thread so far that reading comprehension is not your strong point so I'll point you to this segment of a previous post of mine:

Very interesting. This is actually the only concrete evidence that we will possibly have available to us, but I await the release of these family members before I jump to any conclusions. There's supposedly an ISI release detailing Osama's 12 year old daughters version of events which contradict the US government's and makes them look bad as well.

[louisg]

Proposed motivation: casus belli for interventions, wars and expansions against the USA's strategic adversaries. Get an organisation to take credit for real terror strikes and pose it as an enemy and move it around to countries you wish to attack or coerce into giving you a military base. Remember the alleged Al qaeda-saddam connection? LOL.

But then why would Al Qaeda play the game? For example, did they ever dispute that the Bin Laden videos aired for the last several years were real? If they have, then I guess my point wouldn't be valid since they wouldn't have to be players at that point.

What is interesting too is that I was reading that gossip travels fast in Afghanistan, which is one of things that led people to speculate he was actually in Pakistan. Assuming this is true, that would make it even harder to keep a lid on his death. I guess this is more of a side topic.

Now that I have played your game, please tell me why you would you -- assuming the organisation is as large and powerful as what the media makes it out to be -- shoot its leader the moment you have them in custody? Why wouldn't you extract all the useful information out of them first? Doesn't it strike you as ... well, retarded at best, suspicious at worst?

There's Antron's explanation, and then there's the justification listed earlier in this thread: if we're using Bin Laden's death as a "war's over, everyone go home" excuse, then why *wouldn't* they do that? Wasn't that the entire reason that it was speculated that they'd hang onto the news that he's dead and leak it at a specific time?

Ex-Cyber wrote:
I see what you're getting at, but I think collusion between the parties is actually more likely than not when it comes to this issue.


Yeah, I also think this is likely (at least on an "upper-management" level), but I don't need this to shoot down his point.

Everyone knows that the two parties are actually a lot closer than they should be. But to this degree would be a new level. For example, as I mentioned before, it would have to be to the point that nobody cares which party is actually in charge (because we're back to "why didn't Bush take credit for this?"). Given what kind of big money is in play in our political system, I think that is unlikely.

[Ixranin]

No amount of facepalm can address the last 9 pages of this topic.

...But all the arguing might come in handy for a homework assignment.

[antron]

but it's not a dumb as thinking the white house is trying to punk the world on this, they left a whole house full of witnesses. but I guess they're all in on it too, right?

Oh clever, condescending sarcasm, that'll show 'em! I understand from this thread so far that reading comprehension is not your strong point so I'll point you to this segment of a previous post of mine:

Very interesting. This is actually the only concrete evidence that we will possibly have available to us, but I await the release of these family members before I jump to any conclusions. There's supposedly an ISI release detailing Osama's 12 year old daughters version of events which contradict the US government's and makes them look bad as well.

so you acknowledged this, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in very well. you may write really well but you can't see the writing on the wall. there are witnesses, lots of them, and many are children who will never forget who they are, who they were living with, and what happened on that night. you could have easily gathered this from the very first news day. did you really think they were/are going to come out and say Osama bin who?

[dcharlie]

This is actually the only concrete evidence that we will possibly have available to us, but I await the release of these family members before I jump to any conclusions

why bother with the dance when the answer is going to be : "they aren't his family... probably" or some other dismissive ?

fakeedit: oh there we are already :

We just have to wait and see, if they're indeed his family and confirm his death this year without being under duress, we can junk the other reports.

this discussion is going nowhere and no matter what evidence comes up from now i cannot see anyone who doesn't believe OBL is dead is going to change their mind. Time for a lock?

[louisg]

Well, it got pretty heated, but all things considered it was a pretty interesting topic.

Shake hands?

[dcharlie]

well, at least a break until we get an update - we're just going round and round and round and round and no one is going to budge until we have something new to chew on

[antron]

three bin Laden wives in custody:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/osama-bi ... d=13537171
wsj quoting the paki's saying that they will all eventually be returned to their country of origin (if possible):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

it's pretty hard for me not to lay on the condescending sarcasm when I step back and look at this. you have to be wanting to see conspiracy to twist one out of this story.

[adversity1]

Louisg, no thanks on the handshakes. That would indicate that the level of reasoning and factual presentation was equal on both sides, when Skykid and austere's arguments were easily disproven.

Before I address what little argument austere brought in response to me, I'll note that he refused to debate because I compared he and Skykid in their quest for a "death certificate" to the American birther movement. Meanwhile, louisg posts:

Isn't this a "no shit"? Don't assume I have my head up my ass because you'd like to believe some asinine tin-foil hat conspiracy nonsense. This has nearly as many holes in it as the birther time-travel theory or "the CIA used TNT to blow up the twin towers while simultaneously crashing planes into it" crap people have been peddling this last decade.

and the conversation continues.

The term "conspiracy theory" is the most anti-intellectual, dogmatic term ever devised. It is a tool that allows the deceived to turn any broadcast by authorities into a prolegomenon of further discussion. This forces even the wisest of men to hold themselves in silence, or at most to speak in private with those they trust, since the masses have no means of recognising this sophisticated piece of rhetoric. We are thus only left with those ubermensch who by definition possess all the courage, integrity and intelligence required to both ignore the rabble and then strike down falsehoods with all their might. The stubborn amongst the rabble will then be left with the last refuge of contorting the perspective around themselves to acknowledge the broadcasts -- that are cleverly crafted to allow plausible deniability-- just as an ostrich will dip its head below the ground in a hopeless bid to shield itself from attacks. Just as it simulates a calm situation in its vision, the rabble simulates the illusion of the broadcasts and mocks those whose head is not lowered into the ground. Alas, the ubermensch cares not -- and while the ostrich is intent on protecting its head, it shall be decapitated instead, if not by their opponent then by the lie itself.

Right, well, the reason I used conspiracy theorist for yourself and Skykid is exactly as Louisg put it, you are proposing a far-reaching conspiracy theory which not only has to count on several wings of the American government keeping knowledge under wrap, but also depends on Al Queda maintaining total silence on his death as well. I am perfectly reasonable in describing you as a conspiracy theorist, the core of your theory is a conspiracy to hide Bin Laden's death from the general public. Louisg really hit it on the head here:

Because in order for this to work, you would need two opposed parties working together and, additionally, cooperation of the people we say we're at war with. It's collusion on a grand scale. This is exactly what I mean, so please reread my arguments and get back to me. Without that, this theory could not work. So, yes, it is a conspiracy theory at this point, and that was extremely easy to infer. Though nobody said it, this is the only way the theory can work Feel free to prove me wrong by coming up with a way this could happen without these elements.

Conveniently this point went unadressed.

Very classy comparing me to the birth certificate soap opera as well. You know, I'm just going to save myself some time and not read the rest of your post. That's about the same amount of respect you've given to what I have written. I realise you may interpret this as rude (or cowardly, if one is dense enough), but unless you backtrack from your current hostile position, I will have none of this.

You're right that I don't have any respect for what you wrote, specifically because it's not factual and is based on nonsense.

Comparing you with the birthers was done out of generosity, here is a movement that has raised enough of a clamor among the truly ignorant to force concessions from power itself. First they showed the short-form, then they finally came out with the long-form certificate to put the debate to rest. Surely if your own inquiries have the popular appeal that you ascribe to them, a movement to uncover Bin Laden's death in 2001 has just as much to gain, amirite? You could be the next Orly Taitz!

I will also note that as cited earlier, we already have independent verification of Bin Laden's death, in 2011, by his daughter:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=10723692

There were at least 8 women and children at the compound who can serve as witnesses, including Bin Laden's 5th wife and a Yemeni doctor speculated to be his personal physician. All of this information is being channeled through the Pakistani state which would have every stake in denying it was Bin Laden in that compound if it actually wasn't. For me and anyone else that has a basic understanding of the regional politics at play, this is surely adequate proof.

The only brittle glue holding together the janky theories of the conspiracy side of this thread is whether these are "actual family members", for which I await the exciting evidence to the contrary. Maybe their noses will be a little bigger than older photographs! What then?! EDIT: Oh and while I was writing this post, we have more info about Bin Laden wives in custody. Man, maybe they were all just there for a tandoor cook-off or something!

We will have more information in the coming weeks from the witnesses, and we will see more fundamentalist organizations like LeT and JeM go to bat for "the good Sheikh". Unfortunately we will also see more dogmatists claiming that there is not enough evidence to believe the man is dead. What we won't see is the people who pushed their tired, recycled conspiracy nonsense in this thread coming back here and acknowledging how mistaken their interpretation of events was. That would require real introspection and reflection on long-held beliefs. Still, if the thread remains open, I will be happy to hold people to their claims as they have made them.

[GaijinPunch]

Shake hands?

I feel some open mouth kissing is the only way to really bury the hatchet.

[DragonInstall]

Wow adversity1 laying it down. *claps*

[Skykid]

Wow adversity1 laying it down. *claps*

I think louisg's signature sums up this thread pretty well.

[dcharlie]

huh??? I think you've been ran ragged Skykid *shrug*

Perhaps i am sub-50 IQ though ?

[Kakizaki]

Wow adversity1 laying it down. *claps*

Really? You are issuing a face palm after you did a little cheerleading of your own a few posts ago?

God damn, more like this please. ^

Come on now.

[Skykid]

huh??? I think you've been ran ragged Skykid *shrug*

Oh I have.

Really? You are issuing a face palm after you did a little cheerleading of your own a few posts ago?

I put a pin-up of his avatar on my bedroom wall too.

[Acid King]

And visa versa, of course.

Give me some of the information that suggests it was staged or he wasn't killed, then.

Supposedly Obama didn't have the last say in this. Anyway, if you have captured what is meant to be the leader of this nefarious organisation terrorising the world, I would say at least interrogating him to death would have been more fruitful than taking him out the back and offing him. Just saying.

No shit, which makes the summary execution even more suspicious.

Who do you propose they use these nuclear weapons against? The USA? They don't have anywhere near the range nor the compact warheads to reach any US territory. US armed forces? They'll certainly strike back and they'll have to hit their own people. India? Why would the US care and why would they do that in the first place.

The fear isn't that they would use them on the US but they would pass them on the someone who would, which is the current fear with Iran and was the fear with Iraq.

[dcharlie]

In keeping with his strategy, Martin declines to say what exactly he expects to find other than “the truth,” saying only that what evidence we have raises questions. Why was bin Laden buried at sea? Who gave what orders? Why was he killed and not captured? In the first, he sees an offensive deference to Muslim tradition; in the second, he sees potential evidence of Obama's dithering. But it's the third he really presses. Bin Laden was worth more alive than dead, says Martin: We could have made propaganda of his trial, he says; we could have “paraded him down Pennsylvania Avenue in chains like the Romans.”

.... what fantasy planet do you have to be living on to think this would be a good idea?!

[Randorama]

Because in order for this to work, you would need two opposed parties working together and, additionally, cooperation of the people we say we're at war with.

"two opposed parties working together"=bipartisanship, a common trend in mala tempora. It may be possible. On top of that, US politics really revolve around interest groups inside and across those big containers (...someone complained that non-US users oversimplify US politics).

Cooperation of the "enemies": unlikely. At this level the "conspiracy theory" cap makes real sense. As far as I understand, it is useful to the "enemy" as well that the death is real. Again, I agree with Acid King that some details are muddy.

Apparently, a Saudi journal also confirmed the death, and suggested that Osama second-in-chief had useful information leaked, so that Osama could be nailed. Al Arabiya confirmed that two wives and four sons were arrested. Pakistani tvs are apparently showing a face covered with blood as proof of Osama's death. And yes, the dogmatist mantra is already at full speed on Jihadist sites. I can only access non-English sources now, apologies.

You guys didn't go to the moon, anyway: you lack the nous and use non-metric non-sense as inches and feet *tinfoil*

Shake hands?

I feel some open mouth kissing is the only way to really bury the hatchet.

Given the amount of quotes without editing, I demand teh butt-sexx and the offending parties to pay for vaseline, dammit!

[neorichieb1971]

I am OBL. I just didn't tell you.

[austere]

three bin Laden wives in custody:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/osama-bi ... d=13537171
wsj quoting the paki's saying that they will all eventually be returned to their country of origin (if possible):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

Yet again, concrete evidence if they are released and independent reporters are allowed to have access to them. Especially the 12 year old daughter, who could in theory be DNA tested and matched to bin laden's corpse.

At this moment we have a couple of people's words against each other and a bunch of home videos.

Whoever has jumped to conclusions knows something I don't!

it's pretty hard for me not to lay on the condescending sarcasm when I step back and look at this. you have to be wanting to see conspiracy to twist one out of this story.

It's pretty hard for you to be polite to anyone you speak with, I understand. It comes with the territory I guess, the moment someone questions a dodgy story that is sensitive to you, you come out with the condescension.

You wouldn't be using this tone if everyone was questioning whether someone fixed a boxing match.

"two opposed parties working together"=bipartisanship, a common trend in mala tempora. It may be possible. On top of that, US politics really revolve around interest groups inside and across those big containers (...someone complained that non-US users oversimplify US politics).

Don't bother dude, these guys are beyond hope.

Give me some of the information that suggests it was staged or he wasn't killed, then.

Like I said, visa versa, atm it's someone's word (Taliban in 2001 amongst others) against a whole bunch of weak evidence.

The fear isn't that they would use them on the US but they would pass them on the someone who would, which is the current fear with Iran and was the fear with Iraq.

Yet again, unfounded and useless. I already told you your assumption that Iran doesn't have nuclear warheads, for this and other reasons, is unfounded. The USA's very first move would be to secure the sites, as per the plan Seymour Hersh mentioned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0D1URq3XFc

Wow adversity1 laying it down. *claps*

Oh is he now? Let me destroy your little idol then, it's nothing. I didn't want to reply before because it would have forced me to be rude, but here it is, no holds barred. There's an office lunch coming up, but hey, I've already wasted so much time on these guys anyway.

That would indicate that the level of reasoning and factual presentation was equal on both sides, when Skykid and austere's arguments were easily disproven.

Bahahahahaha. On the contrary, but of course once your mind is made up you'll find yourself agreeing either way. Even if you've proven your position as true, you haven't actually disproven what I've said, because all I have proposed is the fact that the ever changing narrative is AS OF YET UNPROVEN and there is evidence to the contrary.

I'll note that he refused to debate because I compared he and Skykid in their quest for a "death certificate" to the American birther movement. Meanwhile, louisg posts:

I refused to read your reply because you called me a "conspiracy theorist" from the onset, thereby proving that you are retarded and can't read at all. I offered you to backtrack from THAT position and I would have read the rest of it. I'm reading this point for our little friend DragonInstall.

Right, well, the reason I used conspiracy theorist for yourself and Skykid is exactly as Louisg put it, you are proposing a far-reaching conspiracy theory which not only has to count on several wings of the American government keeping knowledge under wrap, but also depends on Al Queda maintaining total silence on his death as well.

BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT, see the conversation above with louisg, which you have quoted and completely ignored my replies of stating it was unaddressed. Just because you did not understand the logical refutation of it, does not mean it was unaddressed. It just means you have failed to understand my position, which is entirely compatible with your current behaviour.

I am perfectly reasonable in describing you as a conspiracy theorist, the core of your theory is a conspiracy to hide Bin Laden's death from the general public.

That's not what a conspiracy theorist is meant to be, it's meant to be the other hand of the quote I gave you, a person who refuses to believe the official narrative no matter what evidence is presented.

Is this what you think of me, adversity1?

Comparing you with the birthers was done out of generosity, here is a movement that has raised enough of a clamor among the truly ignorant to force concessions from power itself. First they showed the short-form, then they finally came out with the long-form certificate to put the debate to rest. Surely if your own inquiries have the popular appeal that you ascribe to them, a movement to uncover Bin Laden's death in 2001 has just as much to gain, amirite? You could be the next Orly Taitz!

I'll fix this paragraph up for you:

Comparing you with the birthers was done because I think the entire world revolves around the shitty excuse for US politics we have. It's the worst insult I could think of bar conspiracy theorist and is tantamount to calling you a poopyhead. I think any amount of evidence to the contrary of my position is hilarious, I'll just give you a name of some American fuckhead which I don't like -- HURP DURP SLURP.

Wow, such a flagrant display of retardation!

I will also note that as cited earlier, we already have independent verification of Bin Laden's death, in 2011, by his daughter

We don't have this independent verification until an independent reporter (rather than the ISI) has access to her. Don't jump to conclusions just yet.

For me and anyone else that has a basic understanding of the regional politics at play, this is surely adequate proof.

It will be once they are released, but for the impatient, perhaps.

The only brittle glue holding together the janky theories of the conspiracy side of this thread is whether these are "actual family members", for which I await the exciting evidence to the contrary.

For the daughter it is as simple as a DNA test, so there you go, concrete evidence is available. Let's hope she doesn't get thrown into the sea.

Unfortunately we will also see more dogmatists claiming that there is not enough evidence to believe the man is dead.

The dogmatists are busy claiming he died right now, the skeptics aren't so sure.

This is your fatal error. You're so stupid (sorry, but there it is) much like many of the people cheering for you, that you're unable to distinguish a skeptic from a tinfoil-hat bearer. Anyone questioning the official version, MUST BELIEVE IN ALIEMS HURP! This is why I stepped in, when I saw you guys bashing on Skykid for no good reason. He presented several questionable details and you instantly jumped on him.

Still, if the thread remains open, I will be happy to hold people to their claims as they have made them.

Cool, because as far as I've read no one actually made any claims but you and your ilk. i.e. people claiming to know more than I do.

Just because I presented evidence contrary to the home video narrative etc., doesn't mean I believe said evidence is absolutely true. Just like I don't believe the home videos constituted any reliable evidence at all, given the number of verified fakes and especially the one in 2007 where his beard was dyed. So the theory that he in fact died from his illness made more sense than the official one, given the lack of real public appearances.

If his current death is proven (which now it can be thanks to the capture of his alleged family members) then it doesn't necessarily prove the videos and audiotapes, which are riddled with problems, are real. I'm sorry I'm not one to jump to conclusions, but it comes with my training.

Believe it or not there's three _logical_ positions you can take on this story:

- True
- False
- Unverified

Even with the alleged capture of his family, the official tale is still UNVERIFIED. To claim otherwise is to be absolutely retarded.

Thanks for wasting more of my time, now I'm going to be late.