Kojiro wrote:You find some evidence that they killed Osama when Obama said they did. Dead people with squirt guns don't count.
Oh no. You are the one claiming he was already dead, and therefore my arguments are invalid. You made a claim, you prove it. That's how this works.
Kojiro wrote:The whole GOP thing needed a scary monster like Osama bin Laden out to get us to justify their war.
And, according to you, they were fine with handing the apparently easy-to-play card of "we just got Bin Laden" over to the Democrats. Why was that again? McCain could not have used some time on the podium with Bush, while the news of Osama's death played over and over again, during the election?
Why, for the love of god, would they hand this over to the opposition?
Kojiro wrote:What sounds like a fairy tale is Osama bin Laden hanging out in damp caves, risking infection day in and day out, while he has failing kidneys without access to dialysis, and diabetes.
See, now you're arguing for him being dead. Great. Unfortunately, you invented the premise of the cave being damp, of him risking infection at all (antibiotics are available elsewhere than America) and that he would have no access to medical health care. Why would a guy with enough money stay away from that? You are making this premise up out of thin air, and consequently, convincing noone.
The damp cave without medical equiptment:
Lundse wrote:With regards to the DNA testing, then just add them to the operational crew that Obama is supposedly betting on will never send an email to wikileaks.
This is assuming it was ever analyzed. We seem to just have Obama's word for that too.
Sigh. I'll explain it one more time. If you are right in everything you say, then:
Either Obama is simply claiming this DNA was tested, no other people were involved with this lie (than were already involved). In this case, any reporter or conspiracy nut could simply ask "What lab?", "What personel?", "Why can't we see the results?" and he looks immediately suspicious. This would be stupid, and if reporting has not already proven that this was not the case, it will shortly.
Or, someone is lying with Obama on this - more people to add to the huge pile you claim are all in on this, all unflinchingly loyal, and none of whom has made a single mistake tripping up their huge, coordinated story.
See how this works? We assume you are right, and then we see how insane that world in which you are right has to be...
This is becoming a treasure trove of logical fallacies:
Kojiro wrote:Continued position of power or jobless...
False dilemma! That is not the two options they have. I specifically pointed out the option of going to the press, for instance. One could also threaten to go to the press, if fired. Also, "jobless"! Really? These people would be under a bridge in DC, begging for change? You seem to have invented these two options out of the same cloth as Bin Laden's financial position and living conditions. Your premises are created after your conclusion - never a good sign...
You offer the following arguments, why Bin Laden must be dead:
- No sign of life from him for ten years.
- Not surprising, we know he was hiding.
- A cold, dead trail in the alleged hunt for his location.
- See above.
- Comments from government officials that they were becoming certain that he might be dead.
- Speculation. And if your own theory is true, you are saying the same government who wants him alive in people's mind as a bogeymand, and who might need him for a quick fix in public opinion is at the same time telling us he might be dead already. WTF?
- It is unlikely that a man with his medical condition could have survived in caves for who knows how many years.
- If his condition was as severe as you postulate out of thin air, and he had no access to medical equipment, as you also postulate without proof or reason.
None of these hold up, as you can see. You can't just tout your assumptions, made to fit your conclusion, as premises. These have to be able to stand alone.
The WMD lie was more a case of trusting the bad intelligence and ignoring the good - here, they could point back and say "whoops". If this comes to a legal or congressional hearing, they are really, really, going to need the DNA and photo evidence of the body, which they claim to have created themselves. There is absolutely no hiding from being told to show congress a video you said you made yourself, as opposed to having to admit the intelligence was more shaken than one assumed.
The WMD's were a lie, in that they made the public believe it, while knowing better. But they did not lie about anything that could be traced directly to them. You would have us believe Obama, the military, CIA and everyone else involved are betting their jobs, reputations, and a huge jail sentence, if not death for high treason, on something which any one of them could initiate a trial over tomorrow. If, that is, anyone suspects any wrongdoing. Of course they are not claiming to have video evidence unless they have it. NASA didn't claim to put mirrors on the moon, if they had not actually done so, either...
PS: I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove your positive statement "Osama was dead already". As soon as you admit you have no evidence or reasonable grounds for that assumption, the rest of my argument kicks in: why wouldn't Osama just realize a video of himself with todays paper. You absolutely, 100% _need_ the fact that Osama was dead already, for your position to look anything short of moronic. We are asking you to supply the evidence for your premise.
PPS: That guy on the ground, with the squirt gun. Where did you get that picture? Did someone claim that was Bin Laden? Did Osama? Anyone official? Are you saying that because some random nutjob on the net thinks that is Bin Laden, Osama is lying? Are you saying that because someone else used that picture as an attempt at evidence, everyone must be wrong about the case he was trying to prove? I really have no clue why you were including it... Can I support my case, by showing a picture of a deathly ill diabetes patient that someone claims is Bin Laden just about to die 10 years ago, as proof that your claims are wrong?