OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD

[Garion]

Bin Laden was dead in December 2001, the only reason they're saying it now is because the US gorvernment is using Al-Qaeda's troops for operations in near orient.

I know you wont believe me, so enjoy your lies, Amerifags.

Edit: Also, the reason they're saying he died in 2011 is because they've been using fake videos of him for 10 years.

Thank you for providing us with your inside information.

The informations are inside your google bar. No probleme.

[Cadynum]

The informations are inside your google bar. No probleme.

Are you saying your information is not first hand? Google can hardly be considered a valid source.

[Pazuzu]

Bin Laden was dead in December 2001, the only reason they're saying it now is because the US gorvernment is using Al-Qaeda's troops for operations in near orient.

I know you wont believe me, so enjoy your lies, Amerifags.

Edit: Also, the reason they're saying he died in 2011 is because they've been using fake videos of him for 10 years.

cool story bro

[Garion]

The informations are inside your google bar. No probleme.

Are you saying your information is not first hand? Google can hardly be considered a valid source.

First of my answer, google isn't the source, it's a search engine. You enter a few key words and websites will appear. Then, if you click on the link of a website and check it, you might find some articles. Read them.

I will give you my source, but it's in french : http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Reflexions-sur-l-annonce-officielle-de-la-mort-d-Oussama-Ben-Laden-6457.html

Secondly, what is a valid source? How do you know if it's truely valid?

Thirdly, of course I doubt of my position, as anyone who is a bit rational, but the essential is behind the idea, I don't believe the official version. Don't forget that the Dalle Molle Institute, and many more experts, affirmed that the videos of Ben Laden the United-States governmnent presented were falsified. It's just one reason, which seriously isn't the main one, that makes me think Ben Laden died in 2001.

Read my source if you wish, but you will need more to make yourself a real idea, so don't be disapointed if you don't find what you fish from one article.

That's it, it's a short post, as intended, and if it push a few men of good will to do researches about the truth, then it's good. So, remember, I might be wrong, but atleast the official version is surely much further to truth than my version.

[Nux]

It's nice to see at least a hint of doubt there, even if you do assert the official story as definitely untrue.

The reality of the matter is we don't know for sure what happened, not least because details are still coming to light (and still others may never come to light). I can see how keeping his death a secret would allow the US to continue persuing him which in turn gives an excuse for all sorts of maneuvers. I just personally doubt such a secret could be contained so well and that either some American or al-Qaeda member wouldn't ruin the cover-up in some way. It's also not the nicest of lies to concoct, that you were unable to get him for TEN YEARS. Bogus conspiracy theories are usually evident by how they fail Occam's razor when they propose that so many people (including the heads of American government, the members of al-Qaeda, Al Jazeera etc.) were all players in a massive game of make-believe.

I can see how the choice not to show pictures of him (despite showing pictures of those with him [WARNING: Dead bodies and blood]) and to dump him quickly in the sea is sensible from a psychological game point of view. It's harder to rally a cause in reaction to an event without such shocking imagery from said event to back it (which, funnily enough, is the exact way in which the attack and subsequent collapse of the WTC was used).

In any case, I can't help feeling such speculation is misplaced when there are very real moral issues with the story as they tell it. For example the latest account seems to be that osama was unarmed (possibly near to but not holding a weapon). Do you think if he could have been captured alive, he should have been? Who's decision was it to shoot him and for what reason?

[Cadynum]

First of my answer, google isn't the source, it's a search engine. You enter a few key words and websites will appear. Then, if you click on the link of a website and check it, you might find some articles. Read them.

I will give you my source, but it's in french : http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Reflexions-sur-l-annonce-officielle-de-la-mort-d-Oussama-Ben-Laden-6457.html

Secondly, what is a valid source? How do you know if it's truely valid?

Thirdly, of course I doubt of my position, as anyone who is a bit rational, but the essential is behind the idea, I don't believe the official version. Don't forget that the Dalle Molle Institute, and many more experts, affirmed that the videos of Ben Laden the United-States governmnent presented were falsified. It's just one reason, which seriously isn't the main one, that makes me think Ben Laden died in 2001.

Read my source if you wish, but you will need more to make yourself a real idea, so don't be disapointed if you don't find what you fish from one article.

That's it, it's a short post, as intended, and if it push a few men of good will to do researches about the truth, then it's good. So, remember, I might be wrong, but atleast the official version is surely much further to truth than my version.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. It's not our job to find sources backing your theories up.
I don't think for a second that the US government wouldn't lie about something if it was for their benefit. I'm wondering what they would gain lying about this, it took them 10 years to hunt their 'Most Wanted' man down. That doesn't exactly give you respect.

Secondly, assuming you really do believe Osama was killed back in 2001 and you do want people to know it, you are approaching this in the wrong way. In fact your unserious troll-like posts are more likely to make people distance themselves from your claims, and in extent making them more likely to write off theoretically true claims as crazy conspiracy theories.

[NotYarou]

First of my answer, google isn't the source, it's a search engine. You enter a few key words and websites will appear. Then, if you click on the link of a website and check it, you might find some articles. Read them.

I will give you my source, but it's in french : http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Reflexions-sur-l-annonce-officielle-de-la-mort-d-Oussama-Ben-Laden-6457.html

Secondly, what is a valid source? How do you know if it's truely valid?

Thirdly, of course I doubt of my position, as anyone who is a bit rational, but the essential is behind the idea, I don't believe the official version. Don't forget that the Dalle Molle Institute, and many more experts, affirmed that the videos of Ben Laden the United-States governmnent presented were falsified. It's just one reason, which seriously isn't the main one, that makes me think Ben Laden died in 2001.

Read my source if you wish, but you will need more to make yourself a real idea, so don't be disapointed if you don't find what you fish from one article.

That's it, it's a short post, as intended, and if it push a few men of good will to do researches about the truth, then it's good. So, remember, I might be wrong, but atleast the official version is surely much further to truth than my version.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. It's not our job to find sources backing your theories up.
I don't think for a second that the US government wouldn't lie about something if it was for their benefit. I'm wondering what they would gain lying about this, it took them 10 years to hunt their 'Most Wanted' man down. That doesn't exactly give you respect.

Secondly, assuming you really do believe Osama was killed back in 2001 and you do want people to know it, you are approaching this in the wrong way. In fact your unserious troll-like posts are more likely to make people distance themselves from your claims, and in extent making them more likely to write off theoretically true claims as crazy conspiracy theories.

I don't agree with Garion's (p.s. I know who you are friend ) viewpoint, but there are several flaws in your post I'd like to point out.
First, any educated person looks at all sources, regardless of where they come from or whom they are written by. From this point, they can then make their opinion. Selectively tuning out information because you don't agree with it doesn't bolster your argument. If anything, it weakens it.

Second, governments lie. There are many ostensible "reasons" why they do this, but it is a fact. (Look throughout history for examples).

Third, keep in mind Osama Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll and received training during the Soviet-led invasion of Afghanistan. Perhaps the U.S. government no longer saw the use in keeping a loose end (so to speak) alive. While I realize such a hypothesis is highly implausible, it is still as valid as your opinion. Such is the true nature of geopolitics; true public policy is made in the shadows as we have seen from Wikileaks' documents.

[Cadynum]

I don't agree with Garion's (p.s. I know who you are friend ) viewpoint, but there are several flaws in your post I'd like to point out.
First, any educated person looks at all sources, regardless of where they come from or whom they are written by. From this point, they can then make their opinion. Selectively tuning out information because you don't agree with it doesn't bolster your argument. If anything, it weakens it.

It feels like you didn't understand what I wrote. You are right in the regard that you should always look at all sources, but that was not something I argued against.

Second, governments lie. There are many ostensible "reasons" why they do this, but it is a fact. (Look throughout history for examples).

Which is exactly what I said too.

Third, keep in mind Osama Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll and received training during the Soviet-led invasion of Afghanistan. Perhaps the U.S. government no longer saw the use in keeping a loose end (so to speak) alive. While I realize such a hypothesis is highly implausible, it is still as valid as your opinion. Such is the true nature of geopolitics; true public policy is made in the shadows as we have seen from Wikileaks' documents.

You make interesting points but i don't know what they have to do with my post. I never took any side whether Garion was right or wrong, I just challenged his beliefs.

[NotYarou]

It feels like you didn't understand what I wrote. You are right in the regard that you should always look at all sources, but that was not something I argued against.

You didn't explicitly argue against examining all sources, however you implicitly tried to write Garion's sources off, and describe his argument as "trolling". I am a native speaker of English, so I understood what you had posted earlier.

Which is exactly what I said too.

Right, but you qualified that in this particular instance. You said the U.S. government would not lie about bin Laden because there is no "benefit". I attempted to explain to you that governments have a variety of reasons for lying; they need not merely lie for a "benefit".

You make interesting points but i don't know what they have to do with my post. I never took any side whether Garion was right or wrong, I just challenged his beliefs.

By "challenging his beliefs", you are implicitly stating that he is wrong. You are making an argument/taking a side without explicitly saying so.

All of that aside, I am not particularly fond of arguing semantics. But I decided to humor you anyway.

[CorSair]

You make interesting points but i don't know what they have to do with my post. I never took any side whether Garion was right or wrong, I just challenged his beliefs.

By "challenging his beliefs", you are implicitly stating that he is wrong. You are making an argument/taking a side without explicitly saying so.

All of that aside, I am not particularly fond of arguing semantics. But I decided to humor you anyway.

That "challenging his beliefs" is also called "skepticism".

[Ripple]

The government benefits [from saying Osama is dead, regardless of verity] because it gives the War on Terror the appearance of having been fruitfull. The longer he appeared to be alive, the less efficatious foreign occupations would look to the public.

    Now, more myopic people can slap each other on the back and go, "Gee, we really did nab us a terrorist. Let's go celebrate with a beer!"
(I live in a loft next to a bar, people were literally shouting stupid shit like that all night)

[Garion]

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. It's not our job to find sources backing your theories up.
I don't think for a second that the US government wouldn't lie about something if it was for their benefit. I'm wondering what they would gain lying about this, it took them 10 years to hunt their 'Most Wanted' man down. That doesn't exactly give you respect.

Secondly, assuming you really do believe Osama was killed back in 2001 and you do want people to know it, you are approaching this in the wrong way. In fact your unserious troll-like posts are more likely to make people distance themselves from your claims, and in extent making them more likely to write off theoretically true claims as crazy conspiracy theories.

First, it's not my job to back up everything I say on Tremulous.net, I just give up my version and if you have a brain, you can do the rest. The reason is because I'm not simply basing my idea on one source, there are many things approaching this question.

Secondly, putting everything in text just to prove what I'm saying, or to give you reasons to follow my line of thoughts would be long and probably wouldn'T serve much, since we don't share the same vision of the world, so I'd have to explain everything. Which is why I'm telling you to check by yourself, because it IS a controversed subject.

Finally, I'm not approaching this the right way. I do not look like an angel, and if it's what keeps people away from me that's ok, because I don't care about it. Would you consider humor as serious? Then my ''troll-like'' post are serious. But as I said, if I could make one person doubt of the real version, I'm fine. It'll prove that this person isn't limiting himself to how a person appears, which is an essential quality to seek the truth, as symbols will fool you.

It's a sort of natural selection, and you failed it.

[Pazuzu]

Obama is a reptilian dong alien! Anyone with a brain will do the rest and seek the TRUTH themselves! Right, Garion?

[Garion]

Obama is a reptilian dong alien! Anyone with a brain will do the rest and seek the TRUTH themselves! Right, Garion?

I disagree, first it is because Obama isn't a reptilian dong alien, or atleast I have nothing that orients me there. Also, depending on what are your beliefs of what's going on in the world today, you might not see Ben Laden as everyone. Therefore, when the U.S. government declares he killed Ben Laden, and that every medias claim it's a win for the axis of peace, for someone like me it is different to believe. It's called a different conception of the world, I'm not gonna prove you Ben Laden was dead in december 2001 with a video and a comet falling in the background just so we can prove the date and everything... But if you care to interest yourself about the different stories concerning Ben Laden's real fate, then I can indicate you a little bit where you can develop an idea. I sent you my source, but it's just an article... You should read about the truthers, the birthers, the banks, the banks rivality, go see what Michel Collon says about and many more things. Watch this video if you can understand french : http://webrunner.kazeo.com/Propagande-neoconservatrice/Ben-Laden-11-septembre-Cheminade-denonce-les-montages-et-le-lavage-de-cerveau,a2218079.html

[mooseberry]

This thread is fairly ridiculous, but I thought, some of you might be interested in a news article from a credible source with some pretty important info like this one.

[Meisseli]

But mooseberry, he saw a video of a guy saying Osama died in 2001! US and Al-Qaeda are both involved in the grand conspiracy! The real truth is out there!

[Cadynum]

First, it's not my job to back up everything I say on Tremulous.net, I just give up my version and if you have a brain, you can do the rest. The reason is because I'm not simply basing my idea on one source, there are many things approaching this question.

Oh yes it is. At least when you talk about highly controversial stuff and expect people to think more of you than just a troll.

Finally, I'm not approaching this the right way. I do not look like an angel, and if it's what keeps people away from me that's ok, because I don't care about it. Would you consider humor as serious? Then my ''troll-like'' post are serious. But as I said, if I could make one person doubt of the real version, I'm fine. It'll prove that this person isn't limiting himself to how a person appears, which is an essential quality to seek the truth, as symbols will fool you.

It's a sort of natural selection, and you failed it.

Natural selection is survival of the fittest. You're using it as some sort of analogy but it doesn't relate in any apparent way. I suppose connecting unrelated things is a skill you have perfected.

[Garion]

First, it's not my job to back up everything I say on Tremulous.net, I just give up my version and if you have a brain, you can do the rest. The reason is because I'm not simply basing my idea on one source, there are many things approaching this question.

Oh yes it is. At least when you talk about highly controversial stuff and expect people to think more of you than just a troll.

Finally, I'm not approaching this the right way. I do not look like an angel, and if it's what keeps people away from me that's ok, because I don't care about it. Would you consider humor as serious? Then my ''troll-like'' post are serious. But as I said, if I could make one person doubt of the real version, I'm fine. It'll prove that this person isn't limiting himself to how a person appears, which is an essential quality to seek the truth, as symbols will fool you.

It's a sort of natural selection, and you failed it.

Natural selection is survival of the fittest. You're using it as some sort of analogy but it doesn't relate in any apparent way. I suppose connecting unrelated things is a skill you have perfected.

Natural selection means what it means, if you're not mentally fit enough, you wont pass the next step. Also, I'm not looking for ''people'' to believe me, I oriented you and that is all I will do. If you feel hurt by my decisions and would like to know more, there's google for you. So listen to me ddos clan, I'm not your mother, I won't take you by the hand to show you everything. Hell, if you're too stupid to do some researches and simply believe the different sources, which takes all of their informations from the same and only source, then that's fine with me. Initiated people might find some truth into what I said.

[Qrntz]

Initiated people

[Tremulant]

Natural selection means what it means, if you're not mentally fit enough, you wont pass the next step. Also, I'm not looking for ''people'' to believe me, I oriented you and that is all I will do. If you feel hurt by my decisions and would like to know more, there's google for you. So listen to me ddos clan, I'm not your mother, I won't take you by the hand to show you everything. Hell, if you're too stupid to do some researches and simply believe the different sources, which takes all of their informations from the same and only source, then that's fine with me. Initiated people might find some truth into what I said.

Surely the chap with the superior intellect should be happy to explain what's going on in the world, especially if all of the relevant information is contained in a single video, in the hope of educating us, the poor uninformed sheep that we are.

[Meisseli]

Excuse me? Believing in conspiracy theories relates to natural selection exactly how? Does it decrease the chance of a premature death? Make you sexually more appealing to the opposite gender? Increase your offspring's ability to adapt to varying environments? Make you have more kids?

Oh dear are you a perfect reflection of a modern-day retard. "This guy in a video said it's true!" "All the news agencies are controlled by a single party!" "You need to be enlightened to see the truth!". So, Americans say they killed Osama, Al-Qaeda say they killed Osama. Do you now think both of them are controlled by the same group? Or does Al-Qaeda even exist? Wouldn't it be a little more logical that they actually killed the man?

I'm afraid this happens to be very equal to banging your head on a brick wall.

[Ripple]

"This guy in a video said it's true!" "All the news agencies are controlled by a single [interest] party!" "You need to be enlightened to see the truth!".

Uh, well, the middle one is kinda true.

[Pazuzu]

I'm not surprised at all that you missed the point of my post, obviously satirical as it was. The point is that burden of proof is on the accuser. If you want us to believe something, give us a reason to believe, rather than just saying "THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU SHEEP FREE". Because otherwise, it looks like you're talking out of your ass.

[Garion]

Check out this : http://www.infowars.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag/

[Pazuzu]

Alex Jones = talking out of your ass.

[Garion]

Alex Jones = talking out of your ass.

It's ok, because it's Dr. Pieczenik who's talking and he's not the only one with these ideas.

[Pazuzu]

Fair enough. I see your wingnut conspiracy theories and raise you this.

PS: Your "Dr. Pieczenik" is an MD, which has nothing to do with politics. I see what you did there.

[Garion]

Fair enough. I see your wingnut conspiracy theories and raise you this.

PS: Your "Dr. Pieczenik" is an MD, which has nothing to do with politics. I see what you did there.

A MD? And how is my theory wingnut? I already talked about the fake videos of Ben Laden, and some of the links I sent already answer this. Many institutes, such as the Dalle Molle Institute affirmed the videos were fake.

I also don't think you've checked everything.

[CreatureofHell]

PS: Your "Dr. Pieczenik" is an MD, which has nothing to do with politics. I see what you did there.

Everything involves politics in some way or another.

[Garion]

PS: Your "Dr. Pieczenik" is an MD, which has nothing to do with politics. I see what you did there.

Everything involves politics in some way or another.

Ok, if he thinks he's only working in medicine he's wrong, he should check out his biography instead of talking out of his ass.