Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Was Osama Bin Laden a patsy?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Bin Laden died in Abbottabad in 2011, there's a lot of evidence to support that.

    You can start with this, and explain how all of it is wrong, and then explain when, where and how he did die, with evidence, thanks
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden

    Even the Pakistani's, who were internationally embarrassed by the entire incident (he was living just a short distance from one of their military academies) have admitted he died in Pakistan in 2011



    False assumption.

    And you're going to use Wikipedia as proof positive.

    Here's Wikipedia about Jessica Lynch:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch

    "Successfully rescued" when she wasn't even captured. You demand sources from everyone and then post your own from Wikipedia, ones that fall within the parameters of your own personal narrative. When someone expresses doubt regarding what you are trying to sell you try to double down by saying that just because they can't believe it doesn't mean it's not true. You come up with inane excuses to explain away glaring contradictions and ignore questions that you can't answer but instead resort to ad hominems and try to paint someone who holds a healthy skepticism regarding what he/she is being told with a lunatic who believes the Earth is flat or that Moon Landings have been staged or that there are reptillian shape-shifters among us.

    It's a cheap trick but it's all you have and doubtless it makes you happy when people give up engaging with you.


  • Options
    #63
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Your argument is that something couldn't have happened because you can't believe it happened. That is not a valid argument. That's a fallacy: argument from incredulity.



    Is not argument from incredulity. This demonstrates you don't understand what it is.

    You could also argue that something MUST have happened simply because you, yourself believe it had to have happened that way.

    You trot out the "argument from incredulity" canard. Should there not also be an opposite?


  • Options
    #64
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    And you're going to use Wikipedia as proof positive.

    Yes, you haven't provided anything to the contrary.
    "Successfully rescued" when she wasn't even captured.

    Strawman
    You demand sources from everyone and then post your own from Wikipedia, ones that fall within the parameters of your own personal narrative.

    There are hundreds of sources for the Bin Laden raid.

    I am simply asking you to support your claim that he a) died at another time and b) the 2011 raid didn't kill Bin Laden (in which case it was a coverup/conspiracy)

    You haven't provided any evidence.
    You come up with inane excuses to explain away glaring contradictions and ignore questions that you can't answer but instead resort to ad hominems and try to paint someone who holds a healthy skepticism regarding what he/she is being told with a lunatic who believes the Earth is flat or that Moon Landings have been staged or that there are reptillian shape-shifters among us.

    Waffle.


  • Options
    #65
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »

    You trot out the "argument from incredulity" canard.

    Because you use the "I can't believe it happened, therefore it didn't happen" as an argument all the time.


  • Options
    #66
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Wow.

    Bin Laden was a terrorist, belonging to a terrorist organisation. He wasn't a "battlefield general".



    Right. The Iraqi's hung him and buried him.



    You wrote:



    You also wrote:



    Which suggests you believe he was killed earlier and that you believe the whole 2011 raid was fake.

    If that's true, it's fascinating, so provide details and evidence of both claims.

    Well you're fond of demanding sources and insisting that if what you believe appeared in Wikipedia then it must be true and everyone else is arguing from "incredulity"

    Now you probably don't believe these news reports that Bin Laden died a lot earlier than when reported. Would that not constitute an argument of "incredulity" upon your part.

    The Americans claim they killed Bin Laden and threw his body in the sea so as not to create a shrine. A burial place for him.

    The same pathetic argument was given by that great truth-teller, Donald Rumsfeld ("we've found the weapons of mass destruction <chuckle>, we know where they are. They are in the East, South, West and to the North somewhere") who ordered US forces not to capture Bin Laden but to allow him to escape and the excuse was a laughable as the whole "shrine" gibberish. The excuse was "if we deploy US troops to hunt this guy it's going to cause a backlash and we don't want that" :pac:

    As if Apache helicopter gunships riddling weddings is just going to be ok and not piss people off.

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-111SPRT53709/html/CPRT-111SPRT53709.htm

    If Americans were so very respectful of Muslim sensitivities then why did they plaster posters of Saddam Hussein dressed as Elvis, Billy Idol and Zsa Zsa Gabor and giggle like Beavis and Butthead all around Baghdad and snigger "that will piss off the hajis".

    My friend served in Kuwait and then briefly in Iraq in 2003/2004 with the British TA reserves and he was embarrassed at the American childishness.

    So if you think that the Americans ever gave the slightest toss about shrines or sensitivities then you're a bigger fool than that about whom you sound.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Now you probably don't believe these news reports that Bin Laden died a lot earlier than when reported.

    You are likely referring to rumours/speculation that he died. None of which turned out to be credible. If you want to keep claiming the above, provide the sources.


  • Options
    #68
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Your argument is that something couldn't have happened because you can't believe it happened. That is not a valid argument. That's a fallacy: argument from incredulity.



    Is not argument from incredulity. This demonstrates you don't understand what it is.

    I don't believe that Liverpool supporters robbed the corpses of dead Hillsborough victims or that 10 year olds were tested positive for alcohol as reported by the SY Police and published in the newspaper in the wake of that disaster.

    It turned out to be a fabrication. I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. But according to you my disbelief doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    I don't believe that 4 dope-smoking drifters bombed a pub in Guildford but your "argument to incredulity" stance would suggest that just because I don't believe what was reported then it couldn't have happened.

    You might want to take stock of how you discuss things.

    I don't know if you have children but you might learn something from their doubts about things that they are told. If you tell a kid that a 30 stone man came down the chimney, drank a bottle of Guinness, dropped off a few gifts and then moved off to the next BILLION households worldwide and continued this operation and your kid expressed a ittle bit of disbelief ..... are you going to puke out the "incredulity" trope?

    "Look, the bicycle is right there, sweetheart! It had to have happened the way I'm telling you!"


  • Options
    #69
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    I don't believe that Liverpool supporters robbed the corpses of dead Hillsborough victims or that 10 year olds were tested positive for alcohol as reported by the SY Police and published in the newspaper in the wake of that disaster.

    It turned out to be a fabrication. I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. But according to you my disbelief doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    I don't believe that 4 dope-smoking drifters bombed a pub in Guildford but your "argument to incredulity" stance would suggest that just because I don't believe what was reported then it couldn't have happened.

    You might want to take stock of how you discuss things.

    I don't know if you have children but you might learn something from their doubts about things that they are told. If you tell a kid that a 30 stone man came down the chimney, drank a bottle of Guinness, dropped off a few gifts and then moved off to the next BILLION households worldwide and continued this operation and your kid expressed a ittle bit of disbelief ..... are you going to puke out the "incredulity" trope?

    "Look, the bicycle is right there, sweetheart! It had to have happened the way I'm telling you!"

    More irrelevant and bizarre stuff.

    You still haven't support any claims you've made about the Bin Laden raid or his death.


  • Options
    #70
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You are likely referring to rumours/speculation that he died. None of which turned out to be credible. If you want to keep claiming the above, provide the sources.

    Without evidence, then EVERYTHING can be construed as a rumour or speculation, wouldn't you say?

    You insist on evidence to refute what you steadfastly believe but you are very bereft when asked for evidence that might contradict it.


  • Options
    #71
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Without evidence, then EVERYTHING can be construed as a rumour or speculation, wouldn't you say?

    You insist on evidence to refute what you steadfastly believe but you are very bereft when asked for evidence that might contradict it.
    So this looks very much like an admission that you've no evidence for your claims.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »

    You insist on evidence to refute what you steadfastly believe but you are very bereft when asked for evidence that might contradict it.

    You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you to support it.

    If, according to you, Bin Laden wasn't killed in the raid in 2011, then when and where was he killed, provide the details. If you are going to contradict history, then you'll need to support your claim.


  • Options
    #73
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    So this looks very much like an admission that you've no evidence for your claims.

    What does this poster think when they open a history book? that the writer just "really really really believed it" so they made it up because it "sounded right" and everyone else was like "yup, that sounds right".

    I genuinely don't know how some of these people deal with reality.


  • Options
    #74
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    What does this poster think when they open a history book? that the writer just "really really really believed it" so they made it up because it "sounded right" and everyone else was like "yup, that sounds right".

    I genuinely don't know how some of these people deal with reality.
    Apparently, the writer would have gotten orders from on high to write specific stuff and he'd never question it.

    I think for a lot of conspiracy theorists they assume that any expert is either involved in a conspiracy or they're just plucking it out of their heads. Hence when they just pluck stuff out of their heads, they assume it has equal value and truthfulness as what an expert claims. (Or in most claims what a conspiracy monger on twitter or Facebook plucks out of their head.)

    Really Orwellian post truth stuff.


  • Options
    #75
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Wow.

    Bin Laden was a terrorist, belonging to a terrorist organisation. He wasn't a "battlefield general".



    Right. The Iraqi's hung him and buried him.



    You wrote:



    You also wrote:



    Which suggests you believe he was killed earlier and that you believe the whole 2011 raid was fake.

    If that's true, it's fascinating, so provide details and evidence of both claims.

    Wasn't Ho Chi Minh a "terrorist" too?

    Michael Collins?
    Gandhi?
    Guevara?
    Allende?
    Chavez?
    Castro?
    De Valera?
    Haughey?
    De Gaulle?
    Broz-Tito?
    Joan-of-Arc?
    Jesus of Nazerath?
    John The Baptist?
    Kemal Attaturk?
    Mossadegh?
    Martin Luther King?
    Rosa Parks?
    Cindy Sheehan?
    Clare Short?
    Robin Cook?
    Pat Tillman?

    etc.
    etc.


    All the above have been called "terrorists"

    Everyone is a bloody terrorist, apparently, and yet how many of the above qualify as the dictionary definition of terrorists?

    While you're at it and doing some due dilligence, would Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Lord Roberts of Kandahar, Mike Jackson of Bosnia-Herzegovina, King Leopold and his delightful massacres of The Congo or De Gaulle (former "terrorist") and his savagery in Algeria and genocide there, what about Truman and his murder of nearly 30% of the Korean population?

    You yammer about a bunch of "rag-heads" planting a bomb in Mosul to avenge a gang of Marines slaughtering 1000's when they were drunk and doped up and encouraged to kill. You rail against people defending their land call them terrorists for having the cheek to fight back when their families have been blown to pieces by Cola-Zero slurping assholes.

    These are all terrorists?

    Yet 500,000 kids starved to death is not terrorism?


  • Options
    #76
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you to support it.

    If, according to you, Bin Laden wasn't killed in the raid in 2011, then when and where was he killed, provide the details. If you are going to contradict history, then you'll need to support your claim.

    I'll tell you what we'll do.

    How about we rewind and have you admit that you lied when you said that I claimed that Bin Laden died before he was reported to having done so?

    We can get that little fallacious snippet out of the way and then we can move on.

    If I've lied then I will admit it. If you have also lied then I would hope you would do the same.

    SO......what did I claim, according to you?


  • Options
    #77
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    I'll tell you what we'll do.

    How about we rewind and have you admit that you lied when you said that I claimed that Bin Laden died before he was reported to having done so?

    ?

    You literally wrote it in this thread:
    All logic points to Osama having died or being killed years prior but his bogey-man legacy being used to ramp up the fear.


  • Options
    #78
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    More irrelevant and bizarre stuff.

    You still haven't support any claims you've made about the Bin Laden raid or his death.


    None of this is bizarre in the slightest.

    What's bizarre is that you can't accept someone's doubt with referernce to what they are told or presented.

    And I haven't made any claims about anything.
    Again, why do you insist on lying?


  • Options
    #79
    jay1988
    Registered Users Posts: 549 ✭✭✭jay1988


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Wasn't Ho Chi Minh a "terrorist" too?

    Michael Collins?
    Gandhi?
    Guevara?
    Allende?
    Chavez?
    Castro?
    De Valera?
    Haughey?
    De Gaulle?
    Broz-Tito?
    Joan-of-Arc?
    Jesus of Nazerath?
    John The Baptist?
    Kemal Attaturk?
    Mossadegh?
    Martin Luther King?
    Rosa Parks?
    Cindy Sheehan?
    Clare Short?
    Robin Cook?
    Pat Tillman?

    etc.
    etc.


    All the above have been called "terrorists"

    Everyone is a bloody terrorist, apparently, and yet how many of the above qualify as the dictionary definition of terrorists?

    While you're at it and doing some due dilligence, would Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Lord Roberts of Kandahar, Mike Jackson of Bosnia-Herzegovina, King Leopold and his delightful massacres of The Congo or De Gaulle (former "terrorist") and his savagery in Algeria and genocide there, what about Truman and his murder of nearly 30% of the Korean population?

    You yammer about a bunch of "rag-heads" planting a bomb in Mosul to avenge a gang of Marines slaughtering 1000's when they were drunk and doped up and encouraged to kill. You rail against people defending their land call them terrorists for having the cheek to fight back when their families have been blown to pieces by Cola-Zero slurping assholes.

    These are all terrorists?

    Yet 500,000 kids starved to death is not terrorism?

    This is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read, I'd highly recommend taking a break from the internet mate, that's bat**** stuff right there.


  • Options
    #80
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    ?

    You literally wrote it in this thread:

    Was that my claim?

    Did I "claim" that OBL died in 2001, or 2011?

    Logic suggest that the world is round. Have I claimed it was and are you going to demand proof that I said something that I didn't?

    You can play these little adolescent word games all you want. And maybe it/they cause people to say "You know, DJ is not worth it".

    And if that is how you want to fly, then great.

    But stop telling lies.


  • Options
    #81
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Was that my claim?

    Did I "claim" that OBL died in 2001, or 2011?

    Logic suggest that the world is round. Have I claimed it was and are you going to demand proof that I said something that I didn't?
    Lol you said that he didn't die when the Americans claimed he did.
    You said "all logic" says he died earlier.

    You were asked many times to state what you believed and to clarify this statement.

    You are now trying to rewrite reality to avoid copping to a mistake.
    "I never said that."
    "Lies are truth."
    "We've always been at war with Eurasia."

    You could just clarify it now.
    Please just state when you believe he died and the evidence you have to support this date.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Was that my claim?

    Did I "claim" that OBL died in 2001, or 2011?

    Yeah you are suggesting he died earlier, you've already mentioned 2001. And you've repeatedly cast doubt on the 2011 raid.

    You seem to be backtracking on your own suggestions/claims and now you're resorting to mental gymnastics and semantics.

    If you think he died earlier, that's fine, but you should be able to support it, if you can't it's baseless and you don't have any sound argument.


  • Options
    #83
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    ?

    You literally wrote it in this thread:


    I said all logic points to him having died much earlier. I don't have proof that he did hence I can't make the claim with any degree of certainty like you said I did.


    I think I've been quite clear on this.



    It was reported on Fox on Dec 26th 2001 that he died on or around that time.


  • Options
    #84
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    jay1988 wrote: »
    This is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read, I'd highly recommend taking a break from the internet mate, that's bat**** stuff right there.


    What's so bizarre about it? Everyone in that list has been labelled a "terrorist" and everyone I have mentioned afterwards have been responsible for civilians deaths by orders of magnitude higher in the furtherance of a political agenda which is the definition of terrorism.



    So what's bizarre about calling someone who kills civilians a terrorist if they fit the description?


  • Options
    #85
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yeah you are suggesting he died earlier, you've already mentioned 2001. And you've repeatedly cast doubt on the 2011 raid.

    You seem to be backtracking on your own suggestions/claims and now you're resorting to mental gymnastics and semantics.

    If you think he died earlier, that's fine, but you should be able to support it, if you can't it's baseless and you don't have any sound argument.


    You're the one who is playing word games. You asked me to back up my "claim" that OBL died in 2001. Would you care to rephrase that? Because I didn't make that claim. I said it was claimed by others.



    You are the one who is adamant that he died in 2011 in a raid on the say so of others. So who here is making the "claim"?


  • Options
    #86
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »

    It was reported on Fox on Dec 26th 2001 that he died on or around that time.

    I know the story you are talking about, the source was a Taliban member. No evidence was offered.

    His death in 2011 was acknowledged by Al Qaeda, accepted by Pakistan (who did their own private investigation, which confirmed it), confirmed by senators from both parties who saw the photos and footage, and all the witnesses, physical and corroborating evidence, DNA test and family members who were present at the compound.
    I said all logic points to him having died much earlier

    One theory has one source, no evidence, and the other has strong evidence and many sources. So no, logic doesn't point to him dying earlier.


  • Options
    #87
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I know the story you are talking about, the source was a Taliban member. No evidence was offered.

    His death in 2011 was acknowledged by Al Qaeda, accepted by Pakistan (who did their own private investigation, which confirmed it), confirmed by senators from both parties who saw the photos and footage, and all the witnesses, physical and corroborating evidence, DNA test and family members who were present at the compound.



    One theory has one source, no evidence, and the other has strong evidence and many sources. So no, logic doesn't point to him dying earlier.


    What's the strong evidence? There are more people who claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after 3 days than there are of Bin Laden being killed by commandos and his body disposed of.


    Or are you going to pull the "incredulity" card again regarding the Jesus Resurrection and say that just because I don't believe it doesn't mean it didn't happen?


  • Options
    #88
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    What's the strong evidence?

    Open any history source on the event, any encyclopedia, any report. You seem to know little or nothing about it and are just engaging in your usual uninformed (and bitter) contrarianism for whatever reason

    He died in 2011: strong evidence from multiple sources
    He died before 2011: vague rumours typically from one source

    It's in the history books, if you want to refute that, go ahead, you'll also have to demonstrate that the 2011 raid was entirely fake.


  • Options
    #89
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Open any history source on the event, any encyclopedia, any report. You seem to know little or nothing about it and are just engaging in your usual uninformed (and bitter) contrarianism for whatever reason

    He died in 2011: strong evidence from multiple sources
    He died before 2011: vague rumours typically from one source

    It's in the history books, if you want to refute that, go ahead, you'll also have to demonstrate that the 2011 raid was entirely fake.


    Multiple sources you keep saying.


    There were multiple sources that swore that they witnessed moving statues in Ireland in the 1980's.


    You also talk about "strong" evidence. Would that be as opposed to "weak" evidence, "compelling" evidence, "irrefutable" evidence or just evidence in general?


    When someone has to qualify evidence with terms as "strong" evidence it tells me one thing and one thing only and that is that they don't fully trust the evidence themselves. "Strong evidence" can be applied to anything. One could say there's "strong evidence" for the existence of pixies or under-bridge ogres.



    How is evidence measured? By your determination that it's "strong"?



    These are just words. Like saying that an election was "overwhelmingly" decided by the "vast" majority when it went maybe 55/45.


  • Options
    #90
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Open any history source on the event, any encyclopedia, any report. You seem to know little or nothing about it and are just engaging in your usual uninformed (and bitter) contrarianism for whatever reason

    He died in 2011: strong evidence from multiple sources
    He died before 2011: vague rumours typically from one source

    It's in the history books, if you want to refute that, go ahead, you'll also have to demonstrate that the 2011 raid was entirely fake.


    You keep telling me that the facts are in history books and encyclopediae.


    I could open the Bible and it says that Moses parted the Red Sea. Do you believe that because it was written?


    History books and indeed Science books have maintained that Ptolemy was right and Gallileo was wrong..



    The history books will tell you that the Supermarine Spitfire was responsible for the defeat of the Luftwaffe when in fact it was the less glamourous Hawker Hurricane fighter.


    The history books will tell you that Thomas Jefferson resigned his post when he in fact deserted.


    The history books will tell you a bunch of shit and it's up to you to believe it or question it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    The history books will tell you a bunch of shit and it's up to you to believe it or question it.
    How do you personally tell the difference?

    What evidence do you have that Bin Laden died before 2011?


Advertisement