Popularized science on how DNA testing generally works.
Incredulity. You're also asserting that how DNA is really tested is something different.
I see. Nothing that can be verified. If I were to go to court today and accuse you of murdering a random person whose name I found in the phone book by random choice without producing a body or DNA evidence of bloodstains found at the crime scene or anything, please state whether you would be found guilty or whether I would be laughed away? Apparently the US public is both gullible enough to swallow the line that the body cannot be shown because the feelings of poor jihadis can not be hurt AND that other forms of evidence are also not needed for who knows what reason, but I am sure it is with the best interests of the public at heart.
Here's a thing; if you were able to produce people testifying anonymously to having killed John Smith, other people who claimed to have watched, and other people in the area who corroborate details of the first two groups, then you could probably convict someone even without DNA. The testimony is itself another form of evidence in addition to DNA. You have never addressed the difference between this and other terrorist DNA testing.
Special claims require special evidence. Noordin Mohammed isn't special in any way. If there is no evidence such as photos of a body, at least some other form of evidence could and should be expected.
And you're not addressing the question of Saddam Hussein, who was DNA tested like Osama was, and was well known to have body doubles.
Testimony from people involved, relatives of the victim, the organization he led, and random people near the compound who confirmed details of the operation from what they could see all qualify as evidence besides DNA. You keep trying to pretend that it's not.
I apologize that I had first read over that part. That being said, I did answer you and only accused you of dodging after you insinuated I had deliberately cut out a part.
Yet you have done so repeatedly, even when pointed out, which indicates dishonesty.
You do understand the concept of second hand reporting, right? Incredulity is the least you can expect when using second hand reporting to the standard of "evidence". Ridicule is more appropriate.
Except when it supports you, such as Osama's bro-in-law talking about what happened to his sister. Your double standard is transparent.
Sorry, I misunderstood your concept then, since his direct family is quite extended. So what extended family has made any direct comments?
Still misunderstanding. For all the marbles; has
any member of his family, the Saudi bin Ladens or stemming from OBL's side, explicitly issued statements
denying his death? Sources, please.
Who is Al Qaeda and wasn't it alleged that Bin Laden was no longer in command and corresponded only by mail or courier, a very slow process? I wonder how all that alleged porn got there. He has got to have been the only one on the planet that does not directly download it from the internet.
Flash drive. Duh.
That's second-hand reporting, Simple Simon. Why not link to the actual WaPo article?
Funny thing; both the blog you linked to and the article it was quoting acknowledge that a)AQ exists, and b)it has leadership.
Fine, suppose Al Zawahiri is now the head of "Al Qaeda", has he said anything about Bin laden being killed at Abbottabad? Nope, just about Binnie being dead alright.
Moving the goalposts.
I hope you do realize that that famous photo was not taken while watching some sort of helmet footage and that that report is wrong on several other accounts too?
Yes, I know. I also now that Secretary Clinton said that she had her hand over her mouth because of allergies. However, the president and several other high-ups were watching the operation as best as they could, in real time.
Well, if I see a good one. I was bothered with your link to the brother of Bin Laden's wife for a moment. I had not been following up on those widows for some months.
At least I would have less of a leg left to stand on. As it is, I have no more evidence worth a crap than you which seems to bug you to no end.
You've been proven wrong several times throughout this thread, and your only response has been more incredulity. The only way you can "level" the field is by dismissing just about every bit of contrary evidence.
I guess that means you're dismissing video evidence of Bin Laden's own son saying there is something fishy in some videos of his father, this is a direct witness account, out of hand. Now I am supposed to be worse for dismissing such beacons of truth as the US and Pakistani government "testimony" out of hand?
Do you have a link to these claims? Do you have any affirmative evidence that the US and Pakistan are lying? Because if you assume they're lying by default, you had better throw out the clock on your computer, your cell phone, even your wristwatch; look up NIST.
That's still not the evidence I asked for. I want positive evidence that multiple sources are all wrong. You don't got it.
Rita Katz, Ben Venzke, Adam Gadahn aka Pearlman. ALL jews. I thought them anti semites like Al Qaeda are all supposed to be pissed at jews controlling the media?
And? It's not like SITE is going to identify themselves when covertly infiltrating e-AQ.
I am sorry if you fail to get the point.
That assumes you have one.
Krawetz has indeed retracted his statement. His analysis is however really good and thorough and he remains skeptical of many "Al Qaeda" videos. I can recommend going to his site and reading up on some of the techniques he applied for his analysis. It is true I cannot prove they faked videos. Doesn't mean they didn't or that it is suspicious how they can beat "Al Qaeda" in time. Their methods seem to be good enough to even beat the CIA, NSA and/or other government intelligence services.
It's not suspicious. They make sockpuppets, go on jihadi forums, pretend to be members. Maybe they hack the email accounts of terrorist leaders.
The government has no problem using private services as information sources. Most information obtained by spies is "in the clear", meaning it's not that hard to find if you know where to look. Clearly, SITE knows where to look. You still haven't answered my question about who finds SITE so suspicious, and if any of them knew who they were before they broke the videos.
Video or other source news of Bin Laden is of course way more frequent than that.
Prove it.
Do you think I'm in power or control of some government organization or something? I am complaining for the lack of evidence on your part and sheeple accepting whatever government claim at face value. Of course whatever evidence I have is little, so is yours.
Only because you reflexively dismiss or handwave all evidence that disagrees with you. We've seen it before. Multiple times. This week.
Not to be seen or heard of again despite being "free". Nothing suspicious there, move along, nothing to see.
If she would concerned for her safety, of course she'd keep her head down. Nice job evading my point about your double standards.
Keep being buggered about the lack of evidence for YOUR viewpoint.
Only under your extremely unconventional definition of "evidence", which, as you do not contest, requires multiple double standards and special pleading.
