Was Osama Bin Laden a patsy?

ShatterAlan · 11-04-2021 9:32pm

theballz wrote: »

This is what is primarily fuelling the conspiracy theory.

The only plausible reason is they didn’t want to create a place of worship and within Islamic practice a burial place needs to be selected/arranged within 24 hours of death.

Personally (and I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories,) I think he had died many years before. The death of OBL was very close to Obama’s second election and was used as a tool to rally support. When the US trialed Sadam Hussien they publicised his hanging very graphically, however, they didn’t even publish a picture of Bin Laden?

Doesn’t add up in my opinion.

That's not in the slightest bit plausible. Do you think think that the billion+ Muslims on Earth would be flocking to a Bin Laden burial site? Mo Salah, Paul Pogba and Mezut Ozil can't play this weekend because they are off to light candles at the OBL shrine of the sacred?

ShatterAlan · 11-04-2021 9:39pm

TheRepentent wrote: »

Well what the fuk were they suppose to do with him ? Send him to a taxidermist ?
They dumped the scumbag in the sea so that his burial spot wouldn't become a shrine for other religious fuktards

"fuktards"

Whoa!

And what's stopping these "fuktards" as you so eloquoently put it from erecting their own shrine to the "scumbag" as you so eloquoently put it?

There are shrines to God, Jesus and the Virgin Mary all over the world. I don't see any of their remains interred there.

Dohnjoe · 11-04-2021 9:44pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What's vague is that they purported to have found him, killed him and then disposed of the body with no evidence that they did any of this.

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

You constantly demand evidence and sources from people but are quite happy to just take this story on faith without a shred of evidence and then go along with all the excuses that are tabled for not providing evidence such as the "shrine" thing or the usual "national security risk" chestnut.

False assumption.

ShatterAlan · 11-04-2021 9:45pm

JohnMcm1 wrote: »

What ****e are you talking?

I'm not talking shite

Bin Laden was not on the FBI list for 9/11 involvement.

If you had examined their website you would have found his picture but 9/11 was never cited as a reason for him being wanted. I haven't checked lately so maybe they've amended their story but from 9/11 right up until his alleged death he was never cited on the FBI list as being wanted for 9/11.

Trust me. I checked during the noughties and he was never "wanted" for 9/11. There were other reasons, international terrorism, weapons, whatever but 9/11 was not one of them.

ShatterAlan · 11-04-2021 9:58pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Like how Hitler is universally hated and no one would attempt to go to anywhere he is associated with?

So what?

What's your point? Hitler's body was apparently incinerated by Goebbels. Was that done to prevent a shrine from emerging or was it old Adolf's dying wish that he didn't want his corpse to be found and dragged along the street like Mussolini or Ceaucescu?

Did the Allies burn his body and dispose of it to prevent so-called shrines from materialising. The whole shrine thing is laughable.

Why didn't the Brits dump Bobby Sands' corpse into the North Sea or those executed after 1916 into Dublin Bay and let the prawns have at them?

Dohnjoe · 11-04-2021 10:08pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So what?

What's your point? Hitler's body was apparently incinerated by Goebbels. Was that done to prevent a shrine from emerging or was it old Adolf's dying wish that he didn't want his corpse to be found and dragged along the street like Mussolini or Ceaucescu?

Did the Allies burn his body and dispose of it to prevent so-called shrines from materialising. The whole shrine thing is laughable.

Why didn't the Brits dump Bobby Sands' corpse into the North Sea or those executed after 1916 into Dublin Bay and let the prawns have at them?

Incredulity. You can't believe it, and that's your argument it didn't happen. Again.

You noticing a pattern to this yet? World events didn't happen because you can't "believe" it.

ShatterAlan · 11-04-2021 10:26pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Is your random personal assumption. As mentioned, Trump also had Al Baghdadi buried at sea for the same reason, they didn't want to create some sort of shrine or mecca.

They didn't want to publish the photos, nor did they have to.

As mentioned, the Iraqi's controlled his death.

You are claiming Bin Laden died earlier? when, where, how and evidence for that please..

A sexual predator has nothing to do with an international terrorist and terrorist ideology.

Why not? If they are so worried about public opinion then why not kill their adversary and then be magnanimous in victory? If Bin Laden had so many devoted followers then why inflame them further by dumping his body in the sea? Surely returning his body would have shown you to be much more honorable and respectful of their position, a gesture that would have, I don't doubt, garnered a more grudging admiration than throwing his body into the sea, if that indeed even happened. How many battlefield generals have called a ceasefire and allowed the enemy wounded and dead to be rescued or collected and repatriated, thus showing respect and gallantry?

As for the Iraqis controlling Saddam Hussein's death. The whole trial was a show. A drum-head court martial in a kangaroo court controlled by the Americans. If you believe otherwise I have an estate of igloos in Arizona to sell you.

You seem to think that the American are incapable of fakery and lies and outright fabrications to stoke public opinion and paint themselves in a certain light. The whole Jessica Lynch pantomine was a laughable schoolboy howler of galactic cringe-worthiness. "She fired her gun until it jammed wasting dozens of screaming Iraqi terrorists hellbent on raping her". That was the idiotic story. And she said so herself. Then they sent in some "Call Of Duty" gang into a hospital to rescue her, all with their "Go! Go Go!" bullshit as Iraqi nurses and doctors were treating her for wounds and concussion and looking incredulously at this Hollywood spectacle of nonsense.

And I'm not equating a sexual predator to a terrorist much as that has gone over your head. I'm comparing the reasons for not having someone buried in a public area.

One more LIE on you part is that I am claiming that Bin Laden died earlier. I didn't claim this. I have reasons to suspect that he did and I mentioned that it was reported on Fox that he was reported to have died on December 26th, 2001 or that it was reported on December 26th, 2001 that he died although the time/date of death was earlier

ShatterAlan · 11-04-2021 10:30pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Incredulity. You can't believe it, and that's your argument it didn't happen. Again.

You noticing a pattern to this yet? World events didn't happen because you can't "believe" it.

"Incredulity"

Are YOU seeing a pattern? This is your go-to and always has been and it's a poor counter-argument.

I don't believe in the tooth-fairy either but you can argue until you are blue in the face that you went to bed with a tooth under your pillow and woke up with a shilling in its place and my incredulity should be dismissed because you know what must have happened.

Dohnjoe · 11-04-2021 10:36pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Why not? If they are so worried about public opinion then why not kill their adversary and then be magnanimous in victory? If Bin Laden had so many devoted followers then why inflame them further by dumping his body in the sea? Surely returning his body would have shown you to be much more honorable and respectful of their position, a gesture that would have, I don't doubt, garnered a more grudging admiration than throwing his body into the sea, if that indeed even happened. How many battlefield generals have called a ceasefire and allowed the enemy wounded and dead to be rescued or collected and repatriated, thus showing respect and gallantry?

Wow.

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

As for the Iraqis controlling Saddam Hussein's death. The whole trial was a show. A drum-head court martial in a kangaroo court controlled by the Americans. If you believe otherwise I have an estate of igloos in Arizona to sell you.

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

One more LIE on you part is that I am claiming that Bin Laden died earlier.I didn't claim this. I have reasons to suspect that he did and I mentioned that it was reported on Fox that he was reported to have died on December 26th, 2001 or that it was reported on December 26th, 2001 that he died although the time/date of death was earlier

You wrote:

All logic points to Osama having died or being killed years prior

You also wrote:

What's vague is that they purported to have found him, killed him and then disposed of the body with no evidence that they did any of this.

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.

Dohnjoe · 11-04-2021 10:39pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

"Incredulity"

Are YOU seeing a pattern? This is your go-to and always has been and it's a poor counter-argument.

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.

I don't believe in the tooth-fairy either but you can argue until you are blue in the face that you went to bed with a tooth under your pillow and woke up with a shilling in its place and my incredulity should be dismissed because you know what must have happened.

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

ShatterAlan · 11-04-2021 11:52pm

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.

ShatterAlan · 11-04-2021 11:57pm

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?

Dohnjoe · 12-04-2021 12:30am

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.

Dohnjoe · 12-04-2021 12:33am

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.

ShatterAlan · 12-04-2021 12:34am

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.

Dohnjoe · 12-04-2021 12:44am

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.

ShatterAlan · 12-04-2021 12:55am

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!"

Dohnjoe · 12-04-2021 12:59am

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.

ShatterAlan · 12-04-2021 1:04am

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.

King Mob · 12-04-2021 1:09am

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.

Dohnjoe · 12-04-2021 1:12am

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.

Dohnjoe · 12-04-2021 1:14am

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.

King Mob · 12-04-2021 1:21am

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.

ShatterAlan · 12-04-2021 1:39am

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?

ShatterAlan · 12-04-2021 1:47am

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?

Dohnjoe · 12-04-2021 2:11am

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.

ShatterAlan · 12-04-2021 2:32am

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?

jay1988 · 12-04-2021 2:33am

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.

ShatterAlan · 12-04-2021 2:36am

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.

King Mob · 12-04-2021 2:39am

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.

Dohnjoe · 12-04-2021 3:06am

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.

ShatterAlan · 12-04-2021 7:55pm

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.

ShatterAlan · 12-04-2021 8:11pm

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?

ShatterAlan · 12-04-2021 8:15pm

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"?

Dohnjoe · 12-04-2021 8:17pm

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.

ShatterAlan · 12-04-2021 9:49pm

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?

Dohnjoe · 13-04-2021 12:10am

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.

ShatterAlan · 13-04-2021 1:17am

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.

ShatterAlan · 13-04-2021 1:37am

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.

King Mob · 13-04-2021 5:01am

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?

Dohnjoe · 13-04-2021 10:12am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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

Yes.

You've randomly decided a speculative news report from 2001 is correct.

Yet when the same news channel (and rest of the world) confirmed his death, in 2011, you've randomly decided it's not correct.

You haven't provided any basis or logic for that decision apart from your own incredulity.

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

And there it is, "academia is wrong".

You aren't "questioning" anything, you are just engaging in uninformed and petty denial about a subject you seem to know little about.

ShatterAlan · 14-04-2021 1:30am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes.

You've randomly decided a speculative news report from 2001 is correct.

Yet when the same news channel (and rest of the world) confirmed his death, in 2011, you've randomly decided it's not correct.

You haven't provided any basis or logic for that decision apart from your own incredulity.

And there it is, "academia is wrong".

You aren't "questioning" anything, you are just engaging in uninformed

and petty denial about a subject you seem to know little about.

Who exactly "confirmed" anything?

And "the rest of the world"?

I didn't decide anything, as you continuously try to state. I expressed doubt. Now can you engage in a discussion without lying? Can you backtrack, read and then debate without telling lies? If so, I'd be happy to verbally butt heads. If you continue to lie and attempt to couch your discussion in not only ambiguity but a tissue of falsehoods then we probably have precious little about which to talk.

ShatterAlan · 14-04-2021 2:00am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes.

You've randomly decided a speculative news report from 2001 is correct.

Yet when the same news channel (and rest of the world) confirmed his death, in 2011, you've randomly decided it's not correct.

You haven't provided any basis or logic for that decision apart from your own incredulity.

And there it is, "academia is wrong".

You aren't "questioning" anything, you are just engaging in uninformed and petty denial about a subject you seem to know little about.

History books.

You put a lot a your own personal faith in what is written in them?
Are they ever wrong?

Written by bullshitters?
Bullshitters paid to paint a picture?

The history books that you read, if indeed you do read them, will tell you "facts" that you want to believe.

Will those books tell you that Washington was a slaver or that Jefferson raped most of his own slaves? No, you won't read that in any history book.

Will your history books tell you what really happened on September 11 (and I'm not talking about 2001), I'm talking about Chile.

Go read some real books and talk to some people and don't waste my time with your "history" books.

14-04-2021 2:49am

He definitely wasn't a patsy, he despised America and intended to destroy it.

Robert Fisk met him in '96 and Bin Laden explicitly told him that he intended to destroy America, for a myriad of reasons;

- He blamed the Yanks for Saudi Arabia (his homeland remember) not being the Sharia stronghold it was promised to be upon its founding.

- He blamed America for aiding Abdul Aziz al-Saud in setting up a kingdom, not for the people of Saudi Arabia, but for his own family.

- The arrival of American troops in Saudi Arabia in 1990 after Saddam invaded Kuwait particularly galled him - he saw it as the ultimate betrayal that the Saudis had invited the Yanks in to murder fellow Muslims.

- He hated the Yanks support of "the Jews in Palestine."

Whatever happened to him afterwards may be up for debate, but one thing is absolute - he wanted to bring down the US.

King Mob · 14-04-2021 5:11am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You put a lot a your own personal faith in what is written in them?
Are they ever wrong?

Written by bullshitters?
Bullshitters paid to paint a picture?

So we should listen to anonymous conspiracy theorists on the internet cause they've never been wrong about anything?

The Nal · 14-04-2021 9:41am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Will those books tell you that Washington was a slaver

Yes. This is common knowledge and in all the history books about him. Amzed you don't know this. Really basic common knowledge.

"George Washington is a hard master, very severe, a hard husband, a hard father, a hard governor. From his childhood he always ruled and ruled severely. He was first brought up to govern slaves."

Thomas Jefferson, 1799

ShatterAlan wrote: »

or that Jefferson raped most of his own slaves?

It was always studied and argued but now we know its true thanks to DNA analysis which didn't exist until a few decades ago.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

No, you won't read that in any history book.

Genuinely astonishing how people can be so wrong so often yet keep posting wrong things.

Fionn1952 · 14-04-2021 9:55am

The Nal wrote: »

Yes. This is common knowledge and in all the history books about him. Amzed you don't know this. Really basic common knowledge.

"George Washington is a hard master, very severe, a hard husband, a hard father, a hard governor. From his childhood he always ruled and ruled severely. He was first brought up to govern slaves."

Thomas Jefferson, 1799

It was always studied and argued but now we know its true thanks to DNA analysis which didn't exist until a few decades ago.

Genuinely astonishing how people can be so wrong so often yet keep posting wrong things.

Very strange how many of these, 'what the history books don't want you to know' type of facts happen to be brought to mass attention by history books.....I learned both of those things from books. I don't recall learning very much from conspiracy blogs on the Internet, bar how to improve my BS filter.

Lmkrnr · 14-04-2021 10:01am

Old man in underwear watching VHS tapes of 9/11 in a box room of a massive compound/prison screams patsy to me.

Oh I'l just secretly record you too, so these tapes will be found and released immediately when we decide to kill you.

Dohnjoe · 14-04-2021 10:07am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

History books.

You put a lot a your own personal faith in what is written in them?
Are they ever wrong?

Written by bullshitters?
Bullshitters paid to paint a picture?

The history books that you read, if indeed you do read them, will tell you "facts" that you want to believe.

Translation: "Academia is a conspiracy"

Will those books tell you that Washington was a slaver or that Jefferson raped most of his own slaves? No, you won't read that in any history book.

Yes. Where do you think you got that information from?

Will your history books tell you what really happened on September 11 (and I'm not talking about 2001), I'm talking about Chile.

Yes. Likewise.

Go read some real books and talk to some people and don't waste my time with your "history" books.

Right, what's the difference between a "real" book and a book covering the history of an event or person?

King Mob · 14-04-2021 10:14am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Right, what's the difference between a "real" book and a book covering the history of an event or person?

Does it agree with Alan's worldview?

If yes, then it's a real book.

Was Osama Bin Laden a patsy?

Comments