#1 No proof I am aware of was ever released, only claims.
There have been a couple of medical claims made about Bin Laden - the most famous one being that he was on dialysis for a kidney problem - and in at least
that case it's been actually refuted. I simply wouldn't be surprised if that were the case here, although I admit that this isn't a
rebuttal by any stretch. It's merely active skepticism: I'd want proof, and in the absence of such I'd tell the claimant I'm dismissing him until he brings me something better. So whoever's making that claim should bring you the proof, else he risks being summarily dismissed by you.
#2 Bin Laden was well known for taunting videos and messages for lack of better words and they all virtually ceased in the last decade.
I think that tailing off can be reasonably well explained by the "heat" being applied. In the end, it was revealed that Osama had taken to hiding away in his house and making next to no electronic communications for fear of being discovered. In a way, that worked: It took a person informing the CIA of his location before he was found.
#3 It would be in the best interest of Al-Qaida to never mention their leader death as it would boost Western Morale.
I sort of think that sentiment can be overstated. Al Qaeda strikes me as the sort of group that'd be more concerned with damaging western morale through spectacular attacks than worrying about bolstering western moral via covering up deaths of prominent members. While I wouldn't say that that's impossible, I also would want something other than an assertion that that's how they operate.
That said, in the specific case of Bin Laden, it would be a bit easier to cover that sort of thing up than in other, more active leaders. Remember the reporting surrounding his death? There was evidence reported that he felt out of touch, and also that the organization was sort of straying from his vision of what they should be doing. That was directly attributed to his hiding. If there was any terrorist leader who's death could be faked without outsiders knowing it, it'd be Bin Laden's: The leadership void was being filled already, he was out of contact, Al Qaeda's "franchise" model of operations was pretty decentralized to begin with, etc.... So
if that were the case here, Bin Laden would've been the ideal candidate. But of course, that would bring to question who the SEALs shot in Pakistan. As well as the question that, if Bin Laden had really been dead this entire time
and his presence been faked since 2001, why hasn't Al Qaeda pulled a coup and produced yet another "fake" Bin Laden video to embarrass the US military and government with? Regardless, any way you cut it, Bin Laden having been dead that long would cause manifest inconsistencies that would be very difficult to miss.
#4 It is in the best interest of Obama to make claim to this victory even if it is false.
True, but it would've been in Bush's best interest to have made such a false claim to victory earlier, it would be in Obama's best interest to show even more successes, etc. It's a weak argument at best.
Is this suiting enough for the conspiracy forums? I hope so lol.
Anyone have a answer to this puzzle?
Not really answers, but I obviously do have a ton of doubt. That said, in the end, it's always about what evidence is produced to support the claim. Without any, such a claim results in nothing more than an exercise about which conclusion a person can draw from a given premise - as demonstrated above -and that doesn't answer anything. It makes for a somewhat diverting mental exercise, but that's all it really rises to.
and 
