Osama Bin Laden IS ALIVE

nullzero

Di0genes wrote: »

Again I'll have to ask. What proof would you like provided?

Any proof at all. I'm not fussy.

You ask the question as if I requested something completely outlandish.

Do you think that no proof is required whatsoever?
Does that seem a perfectly reasonable state of affairs to you?
Would you advocate everyone taking the story at face value and just forgetting about it?

newmug

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13257330

Video of inside the compound on here also. If you google the articles you will also see these pics:



Do I believe he is dead, Yes I do can't see Osama going down without a fight. Does it sound sketchy of course but what doesn't these days. I am not a skeptical person by any means but if they say he is dead fair enough. Life goes on for the rest of us.

Why have they a downed satillite cordoned off with bedsheets? I think the whole bin-laden-is-dead story is a cover up for the REAL story, something to do with certain telly stations being pulled from the air, which will be announced sometime in the future when the reptilian civilisation will rule the Earth from the pyramids!

argosy2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/osama-bin-laden-dna-confirms-death-but-photos-are-fake-should-white-house-release-actual-photos/2011/05/02/AFez6naF_blog.html

They admit now its fake photos, That the real photos are too gruesome

newmug

argosy2006 wrote: »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/osama-bin-laden-dna-confirms-death-but-photos-are-fake-should-white-house-release-actual-photos/2011/05/02/AFez6naF_blog.html

They admit now its fake photos, That the real photos are too gruesome

They should still release them IMO. This is way too big a deal to be squeamish over, people need to man-up and be mature about this.

Jeboa Safari

newmug wrote: »

They should still release them IMO. This is way too big a deal to be squeamish over, people need to man-up and be mature about this.

More to do with the reaction it would cause in the Islamic world than people being squeamish I'd say, although I do think they should release them, and probably will

Di0genes

nullzero wrote: »

Any proof at all. I'm not fussy.

There's DNA evidence from his sister. Isn't that proof.

Seriously exactly what proof do you require?

You ask the question as if I requested something completely outlandish.

Do you think that no proof is required whatsoever?
Does that seem a perfectly reasonable state of affairs to you?
Would you advocate everyone taking the story at face value and just forgetting about it?

No I think there are certain elements that would never be happy with any level of proof.

I'm asking you, what proof would satisfy you?

nullzero

Di0genes wrote: »

There's DNA evidence from his sister. Isn't that proof.

Seriously exactly what proof do you require?



No I think there are certain elements that would never be happy with any level of proof.

I'm asking you, what proof would satisfy you?

Certain elements?
What does that mean?
No proof should be given to anyone because a small minority of people who believe in CT's won't believe it?

Ideally the proff we would have is seeing his dead body on TV.
I'm not one for gruesome stuff like that, but we see dead bodies on war zone news reports.

It apparently took them 10 years to find the man and the first thing they do is throw him in the sea?

As a sceptic how do you not feel there is a burdon of proof to back this story up?

As for what would satisfy me, read the above, not that it was ever a personal thing anyway.

Di0genes

nullzero wrote: »

Certain elements?
What does that mean?

Certain conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied.

No proof should be given to anyone because a small minority of people who believe in CT's won't believe it?

I'm watching exclusive footage from ABC news right now, that I've never seen before of the compound.

Proof is coming out.

Ideally the proff we would have is seeing his dead body on TV.

And then it would be said the body was faked.

It apparently took them 10 years to find the man and the first thing they do is throw him in the sea?

DNA testing, the body was confirmed, dressed, cleansed, and ready for the funeral

As a sceptic how do you not feel there is a burdon of proof to back this story up?

As for what would satisfy me, read the above, not that it was ever a personal thing anyway.

So once you see some video on tv of the body you'll be happy?

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

More to do with the reaction it would cause in the Islamic world than people being squeamish I'd say, although I do think they should release them, and probably will

If they were worried about upsetting the Islamic world they would stop invading, pillaging and murdering regular Muslims.

Too gruesome = ridiculous. How many people the world over have seen JFK getting his head blown off?

Upsetting the Islamic world equally ridiculous as it implies that the "Islamic world" are terrorists/terrorist sympathisers.

On September 12, 2001, one of the most learned Islamic scholars in the UK said the terrorists are "not Muslim." A month later he called terrorism a "heresy" against Islam in a pre-eminent British paper. A Pakistani Islamic scholar whose followers are active in 81 countries called Bin Laden a "false prophet" and "coward" barely a week after 9/11. Another major Islamic scholar issued a pamphlet (in many languages) attacking the Islamic legal arguments that the terrorists used so that future recruits might not be so easily led astray. One of the eldest traditionalist scholar in Sunni Islam issued a fatwa against the extremist group Al Muhajiroun. Muslims in Spain issued a fatwa against Bin Laden. President Bush was informed enough to bring an American-Muslim Imam to the White House who decried terrorists; yet average liberals who so delight in demeaning Bush probably still don't know that Imam's name. (Since 2001, that Imam has gone further and condemned antisemitism and holocaust denial as well). In 2005 there was a massive consensus reached at the international level that forbade Muslims from engaging in something called takfir - which attacks the jihadist ability to recruit. Muslim scholars have gone so far as to engage in "Koranic duels" with jihadists. Just the other day Bin Laden's former mentor condemned him for his violence. Nevermind the fact that before 9/11 it was a Muslim who warned our State department about monitoring certain mosques, or that it was a Muslim who tipped off the British authorities and helped prevent the 20 airliner hijacking in 2006. In the event someone wants more resources, try this and this.

nullzero

Di0genes wrote: »

Certain conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied.

This is true, but it applies to sceptics as well.

So once you see some video on tv of the body you'll be happy?

I'm not going to be made "happy" by anything to do with this story, my humour isn't important.

The quality of the footage that may be used will obviously be called into question as will the validity of any other apparent anomolies in the story, in the same way you'd expect a patchy CT story to be analysed.

Simply seeing some random pictures or footage won't be conclusive on its own and I can see how you're trying to back me into a corner so you can say "Oh but you said you'd be happy with X Y or Z". I wasn't born yesterday my friend and I don't appreciate you attmpeting to play me that way.

upandcumming

argosy2006 wrote: »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/osama-bin-laden-dna-confirms-death-but-photos-are-fake-should-white-house-release-actual-photos/2011/05/02/AFez6naF_blog.html

They admit now its fake photos, That the real photos are too gruesome

Ah shir slap a "NSFW" on the link and you're grand!

zuroph

argosy2006 wrote: »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/osama-bin-laden-dna-confirms-death-but-photos-are-fake-should-white-house-release-actual-photos/2011/05/02/AFez6naF_blog.html

They admit now its fake photos, That the real photos are too gruesome

"they" admit. someone random dragged that pic up online a few minutes after his death from some old conspiracy website, and it was rubbished in seconds as fake. it only ended up in papers because of lazy journalists. there is no conspiracy around that pic.

conscious

Wow, they were quick stating that DNA evidence confirmed it was him. I thought dna testing took a lot longer than the time they got it in!

This whole ordeal raises more questions than answers, it's like the US government want to raise the thought of a conspiracy!!

Monty Burnz

argosy2006 wrote: »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/osama-bin-laden-dna-confirms-death-but-photos-are-fake-should-white-house-release-actual-photos/2011/05/02/AFez6naF_blog.html

They admit now its fake photos, That the real photos are too gruesome

What do you mean, they are 'admitting' the photos are fake? They are telling us that they are fake. You make it sound like they put around these fake photos to fool us or something?

Monty Burnz

argosy2006 wrote: »

They admit now its fake photos, That the real photos are too gruesome

Just another point on this - these photos have nothing to do with the US. Rather, they discredit the CT websites who were happy to trot out these obvious fakes as 'proof' that bin Laden died years ago. Lots of these fringe CT websites will accept the flimsiest evidence that backs up their beliefs, but ignore solid evidence (and common sense) that contradicts their beliefs.

nullzero

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Just another point on this - these photos have nothing to do with the US. Rather, they discredit the CT websites who were happy to trot out these obvious fakes as 'proof' that bin Laden died years ago. Lots of these fringe CT websites will accept the flimsiest evidence that backs up their beliefs, but ignore solid evidence (and common sense) that contradicts their beliefs.

I might be wrong but aren't some of these photos ones that a lot of the CT sites you're complaining about said were fake when they were released?

As for people accepting things based on flimsy evidence that backs up their beliefs, there's been plenty of that from the sceptics regarding this story since it broke.

The one thing this topic has proven is that some of the sceptics on this forum are just as bad as some of the CTers who are blinded by their opinions.

Monty Burnz

nullzero wrote: »

I might be wrong but aren't some of these photos ones that a lot of the CT sites you're complaining about said were fake when they were released?

I'm sure you are right: there are good CT sites out there that actually examine the evidence properly, along with the ones that accept anything at all the bolsters their views.

nullzero wrote: »

As for people accepting things based on flimsy evidence that backs up their beliefs, there's been plenty of that from the sceptics regarding this story since it broke.

Well, we are all still waiting for the evidence. My common sense tells me that they really did kill the guy the other day, but you'd be right if you pointed out the lack of direct evidence for this.

nullzero wrote: »

The one thing this topic has proven is that some of the sceptics on this forum are just as bad as some of the CTers who are blinded by their opinions.

The jury is out

nullzero

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm sure you are right: there are good CT sites out there that actually examine the evidence properly, along with the ones that accept anything at all the bolsters their views.

Well, we are all still waiting for the evidence. My common sense tells me that they really did kill the guy the other day, but you'd be right if you pointed out the lack of direct evidence for this.

The jury is out

The evidence speaks for itself on that one I'm afraid.
I'm not pointing the finger at you, but certain other sceptics have been defending this story to the hilt when it deserves to be questioned.

namloc1980

nullzero wrote: »

I might be wrong but aren't some of these photos ones that a lot of the CT sites you're complaining about said were fake when they were released?

As for people accepting things based on flimsy evidence that backs up their beliefs, there's been plenty of that from the sceptics regarding this story since it broke.

The one thing this topic has proven is that some of the sceptics on this forum are just as bad as some of the CTers who are blinded by their opinions.

Someone who believes a Government story without question is not a sceptic. Real sceptics question all sides of the story and only accept a version of events when it is based on fact and/or common sense.

For instance I consider myself a sceptic. Do I believe the US version of events? Nope, not based on all the conflicting stories and lack of evidence. For now I'll take a seat on the fence.

nullzero

namloc1980 wrote: »

Someone who believes a Government story without question is not a sceptic. Real sceptics question all sides of the story and only accept a version of events when it is based on fact and/or common sense.

For instance I consider myself a sceptic. Do I believe the US version of events? Nope, not based on all the conflicting stories and lack of evidence. For now I'll take a seat on the fence.

I think in reality most people here are sceptics of some sort, we just sub divide each other into groups based on our beliefs.

As you pointed out this story deserves to be met with scepticism. If it can be varified we'll just have to accept it, until then we'll be correct to question it.

Di0genes

As the evidence is still ongoing, however I've seen nothing of merit in the conspiracy theories as of yet.

nullzero

Di0genes wrote: »

As the evidence is still ongoing, however I've seen nothing of merit in the conspiracy theories as of yet.

If the CT's are bogus then I for one have no time for them.
The official story is like Swiss cheese at the moment, so anyone questioning its validity has justification.

Monty Burnz

nullzero wrote: »

If the CT's are bogus then I for one have no time for them.
The official story is like Swiss cheese at the moment, so anyone questioning its validity has justification.

It's interesting though: how you see this will again be coloured by your initial standpoint. You see the official story changing and think 'that story is full of holes - that's evidence that they are lying'. I see the official story changing and I think, 'that's a typical shambles - if they were going to fake something, they'd have a bullet-proof story in place before a single foot hit the ground in Pakistan'.

barone

i do believe he is dead, wheather it happend recently or ages ago,its very handy he is dead for a number of reasons,. no trial for his crimes ..so no proof needed that he carried out 9/11 being my main point here..

whatever happend to the great american sayings 'innocent untill proven guilty'

and

'freedom of speech'.... he wasnt even in america.

just a handy ending is all.

cant believe obama went on tv and said they killed him, NOT having tried him for his crimes..and it seemed to kill him was the intention.

Monty Burnz

barone wrote: »

whatever happend to the great american sayings 'innocent untill proven guilty'

I'm not too comfortable with extra-judicial killing, but correct me if I'm wrong here: Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11, and was an architect in several other terrorist attacks, and he was a senior figure in an organisation that has murdered thousands of innocent people all over the world (especially innocent Muslims). So you could argue that Bin Laden volunteered his plea, and he got the sentence that he deserved.

zuroph

1) His daughter says they shot him dead.

2) They had to kill him, if they took him for trial they would have had to let him walk free when the case collapsed over how they caught him out of jurisdiction. Imagine the ****storm then

3)He's dead, and i can kind of understand why obama doesnt want to release the photos.

barone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not too comfortable with extra-judicial killing, but correct me if I'm wrong here: Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11, and was an architect in several other terrorist attacks, and he was a senior figure in an organisation that has murdered thousands of innocent people all over the world (especially innocent Muslims). So you could argue that Bin Laden volunteered his plea, and he got the sentence that he deserved.

i dont think he ever claimed responsibillity for 9/11, no doubting he was a terrorist at all ,there was a tape released claiming he was admitting it but as far as im aware it was rebuffed after a proper translation was carried out..considering the americans named him as responsible within a few hours of 9/11 i think regardless he was always gonna be the name and face responsible for 9/11 ,its wasnt possible of course that america made a mistake ...no sir eeeeee..

anyway,as far as im aware there is more evidence for a case that he wasnt responsible than there is to proove he was...

im sure its been coverd on boards

stuff.hunter

well, he's alive ... he just retired, having lump sum of us gov's money on his bank account

Monty Burnz

barone wrote: »

anyway,as far as im aware there is more evidence for a case that he wasnt responsible than there is to proove he was...

You have a point there, but I think the other attacks were plenty of justification for killing him (if you believe in the death penalty - I usually don't).

Dudess

crazym02 wrote: »

In actual fact, contrary to news reports, Osama Bin Laden is very much alive and well and will in fact release a video to prove this in the coming days without a doubt. The reason I am so sure of this, is that the US Government have refused to show us any evidence whatsoever that he is dead, and apparently "buried the body at sea" immediately after apparently "killing" him. Oh es, they are just going to bury the body at sea of the most wanted man in the world, yeah right, sure, whatever. What a load of bollocks!

Just a pointer: something you believe to be the case is not a fact.