Bin Laden Dead?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Even if Bin Laden was dead, it would never be admitted. The US needs it's boogeyman to proceed with it's Global War on Freedo--- er Terror.

There's nothing to support that assertion. The media hardly even talks about him, and when a new tape is released, it's a half-hearted, "bin Laden released another audio tape last week denouncing this and that and America, too. And coming up: Are your kids having sex at the mall?"

 

[Mycroft]

I do disagree. I don't think there is anything "obvious" about the way the fundamentalist-terrorist mind works. I don't think that such a person requires proof of anything in order to be fervently dedicated to the cause. I don't think that such a person would even recognize proof that in any way conflicted with his beliefs.

Witness the conspiracists on this forum; and they at least share common cultural and religious references with the rest of us. Yet, their minds are completely closed to any information that conflicts with their beliefs and communication with them is impossible.

So, it is ridiculous to think that we know anything about what effect evidence of Bin Ladin's death or continued life might have on other fundamentalist-terrorists in his own country, let alone all of the far-flung reaches where similar people may be found.

Okay, I see where you're coming from.

At the same time I'd posit that any grouping of ideologically based people, religion, cult, political party, whatever, is going to be comprised of different types of people. From true-believers to partial believers, to members of the general public who align themselves temporarily like little magnets, but only until something more interesting comes along.

Yes, I'm sure there are many like you describe, but I don't think all, or even most.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

??? I think it's quite logical to suspect the authenticity of the video when it freezes in the only portions of the video where current events are discussed. It's also logical to suspect the video when the person, clothing, background and desk are IDENTICAL to that seen in a 2004 video. And it is also logical to suspect the authenticity when the image of the person doesn't look all that similar to an image we actually do know to have been bin Laden. I think your trying to link these quite reasonable observations to 9/11 Truther nonsense is rather pathetic, SG.

Maybe I misunderstand, but I don't think that you can claim, on one hand, that the person in the picture may not be OBL, yet also propose that they froze the image of the stand-in in order to insert audio of an imposter making reference to recent events. It seems a lot of unnecessary work that serves to only point out that the video is not legitimate. That's what reminded me of the 9/11 "no plane" claims, but I'm willing to withdraw that comparison. Sorry.

 

[BeAChooser]

Maybe I misunderstand, but I don't think that you can claim, on one hand, that the person in the picture may not be OBL, yet also propose that they froze the image of the stand-in in order to insert audio of an imposter making reference to recent events.

Why not? They have to use an image of OBL that at least looks like the last one they claimed was legit. They can't go back to the original real one and think we won't become suspicious. So they continue that part of the lie by using some of the film they recorded back then but didn't show. Then because they have no video of that imposter saying current events, they freeze the image and insert fake audio of him talking about current events. That seems a completely consistent and rational explanation ... not AT ALL like the "no plane claims" mad by 9/11 Truthers.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

But why not just "hire" the imposter, again, write a fresh script, and have him spout off on the Evil West yet some more? Cheap, easy, and less "fake" looking. After all, you've already established you fake OBL as real deal.

Two fakes don't make a real.

And I'm not sure why I really care at this point.

 

[BeAChooser]

But why not just "hire" the imposter, again, write a fresh script, and have him spout off on the Evil West yet some more?

Perhaps he's dead, too. Or money's tight.

 

[Orphia Nay]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...ntel_on_osama_bin_ladens_location_was_in.html



Or dead?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/06/29/gordon-duff-cia-hints-bin-laden-dead-since-early-2000s/

June 29, 2010

… snip …

This week, CIA director Leon Panetta, admitted there has been no information on Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts since “the early 2000′s.” During briefings with the directors of Paksitan’s information and intelligence agencies it was confirmed that Osama bin Laden had been killed, as stated by Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, in 2001.

[...]

Hi BaC,

That Benazir Bhutto comment has been discussed here earlier.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148965

In particular these quotes:

I know the answer but I forget it. Re-watching now...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
about 2:15 in

Okay she is clearly referring to a different person - one killed by Omar Sheikh, so Daniel Pearl is probably what she meant to say. The context is important, as it's relative to an ISI guy she feels is behind Al Qaeda/etc. the bad guys only she could stop etc. NOT the time to imply an ISI enemy was responsible for KILLING the main bad guy. A strange freudian slip, or a bad fake one, or something, thinking Bin laden when talking about this evil Pakistani dude.... ??

Anyway, it's just a few words that don't even make sense.

If Bhutto hadn't referred to bin Laden as if he were alive (both before and after the interview) it'd be tough to hand-wave it away as just a mistake.

Except, she did.

Many times.



(Go to the video's description to see more instances of her referring to bin Laden as if he were alive.

Hope this helps.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Don't be silly - everyone knows he is sat behind the desk in Oval office right now!

Seriously:

As for "Where is the evidence that he is alive?", it doesn't quite work like that - we know he was alive at some point of time so it is the one making the claim that he is now dead who has the burden of proof.

Uhm... not sure about that.
He has been bombed, chased into caves and hasn't been seen for quite some time, several years in fact. After 7 years, don't they get to pronounce him legally dead?
It seems rather improbable that after so many years, with so many people dedicated to catching him, they still can't find him or catch him. Ofcourse, if he's still alive.

To add to the conspiracy :
There is a motive to not pronounce him dead, or to not kill him, or even go after him: American Emperialism? Or is that to far fetched?

SYL

 

[Sledge]

You'd need a bit more than "well, we haven't seen him for a few years" to declare him dead.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

You'd need a bit more than "well, we haven't seen him for a few years" to declare him dead.

Like...
"we tried to kill him, bombed his home, followed him around and tried to find him with 200.000 people?"

That's a bit more then what we normally do...

 

[Sledge]

My counter to that would be that we were looking for him for years and didn't find him. Why assume now that we've become infallible searchers?

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

My counter to that would be that we were looking for him for years and didn't find him. Why assume now that we've become infallible searchers?

I wouldn't know if he can be found. But if he's alive, surely he would surface at some point with all this effort.
Saying:"we can't see him, we can't find him, but he must be there because he was there before", doesn't sound convincing when you consider the very likely possibility that this relatively old man on dialysis , might be dead after being chased across the desert by thousands of troops bombing and shooting him.

If you need a corpse before you are sure he is dead, then there is a good chance we may never find Bin Laden. I'm just saying that the best efforts have been made to find him. If he doesn't show up, maybe we should draw some conclusions from that. Why don't they draw any conclusions? I gave you one suggestion why this might be the case. To catch a criminal, even this one... Sounds a bit unlikely if you look at the price tag. It would be the most costly criminal investigation ever.

 

[Sledge]

The problem is there's no reason to think he is dead. All you've got is "we haven't heard from him in a while." That's simply not good enough.

And when was he "chased across the desert"?

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

The problem is there's no reason to think he is dead. All you've got is "we haven't heard from him in a while." That's simply not good enough.

And when was he "chased across the desert"?

If I remember correctly, the invasion of Afghanistan was ment to do this ( chase him in every hiding place, in the caves, etc.) . Supposedly there was a possibility he was in Irak or Pakistan, but they searched for him there too.
It's not that "we haven't heared from him for a while", efforts were made to find him by sending in troops and invading several countries. Also including the national security of several countries to find him and interrogating a very large number of people, civilians, terrorists and even using what can be considered torture to extract information. Despite all these efforts, Bin Laden has not been found. The logical explanation that he might be dead is rejected to proclaim he must be alive because we haven't caught him yet. This is bordering on belief rather then evidence.

The evidence is that despite our best efforts, he is nowhere to be found. It should be more then enough to draw a conclusion after several years of searching, especially in light of a plausible explanation why he can't be found.
This should be more then enough, but it isn't. So why isn't it good enough and what else needs to be done?

 

[Sledge]

Your argument comes down to "we can't find a man who is hiding from us, therefore he must be dead." Hide and seek must have been a traumatic experience for you as a child.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Your argument comes down to "we can't find a man who is hiding from us, therefore he must be dead." Hide and seek must have been a traumatic experience for you as a child.

Well, let's stick to the argument.

What would you like to do besides what has been done to find this man? Considering that you still find it not enough to conclude that he is most likely dead.

Considering all that has been done:
"Sending in troops and invading several countries. Also including the national security of several countries to find him and interrogating a very large number of people, civilians, terrorists and even using what can be considered torture to extract information."
It seems unlikely that he is still alive considering he is on dialysis and an old man in the desert. This goes well beyond what we normally do to declare someone dead. Again, in case you missed it in the previous 3 or 4 posts, it's more then "we didn't hear from him in a while". We made efforts to find and kill him.

So, not quite the same as hide and seek, but then again, we don't have the same gun legislation as the US does.

SYL

 

[Sledge]

Not being able to find someone doesn't mean they're dead. I really don't know how to make that simpler for you. You also might want to read the Wiki page on death in absentia. A quote:

If there is not sufficient evidence that death has taken place, it may take somewhat longer, as simple absence does not necessarily prove death. The requirements for declaring an individual legally dead may vary depending on numerous details, including:
The jurisdiction the individual lived in before death
The jurisdiction where they are presumed to have died
How the individual is thought to have died (murder, suicide, accident, etc.)
the balance of probabilities that make it more likely than not that the individual is dead

We don't know where bin laden was, we don't know where he is supposed to have died, we don't know how he's supposed to have died and I don't see how it is more probable that bin Laden is dead than alive.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Not being able to find someone doesn't mean they're dead. I really don't know how to make that simpler for you. You also might want to read the Wiki page on death in absentia. A quote:
We don't know where bin laden was, we don't know where he is supposed to have died, we don't know how he's supposed to have died and I don't see how it is more probable that bin Laden is dead than alive.

Ok,
It basically boils down to:
How the individual is thought to have died (murder, suicide, accident, etc.)
the balance of probabilities that make it more likely than not that the individual is dead

I have one, a way how he is supposed to have died: war, ... being the prime target of carpet bombing, special forces and thousands of soldiers trying to find you.

The balance of probabilities is either:

1. he is dead,

or

2. he flees from hundreds of bombs aimed for him, while getting dialysis in the desert, avoiding special forces, having trained followers that can resist torture for years without giving any hint of where he is or whether he is alive and staying out of sight of thousands of troops, satelites and highly equiped national security agencies in several different countries, while living the life of a nomad from foedal ages.

I would go for 1 as most probable.

If war doesn't sound like a reasonable explanation for death, then I don't know what to tell you.

As far as not knowing where Bin Laden was, if that is true, I have a different question: why are we in Afghanistan and Irak? I thought getting Bin Laden was the whole point of going to Afghanistan. So I presume they do have an idea where he was.

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't see how it is more probable that bin Laden is dead than alive.

None of the recent audio or video evidence is conclusive evidence he is alive. In fact, there is now substantial reasons to suspect the authenticity of the most recent video and audio evidence. So I ask you, why would they need to fabricate proof he's living if he is alive? Wouldn't it be easy to just have the man talk about current events on video? And given the substantial effort that has been put into locating and even killing the man over the past 9 years, don't you think that the fabrication of video evidence raises the probability that the reason they are doing that is that he is actually dead to more than 50%? I don't see how you can think it more probable bin Laden is alive then dead, just because at one time almost a decade ago he was clearly alive.

 

[Sledge]

Ok,
It basically boils down to:
How the individual is thought to have died (murder, suicide, accident, etc.)
the balance of probabilities that make it more likely than not that the individual is dead

I have one, a way how he is supposed to have died: war, ... being the prime target of carpet bombing, special forces and thousands of soldiers trying to find you.

No. "War" is not a cause of death. If you want to claim you know how he died, you have to specify. Was he shot, blown up, knifed, strangled, choked by a tactical US Marines cyborg octopus?

The balance of probabilities is either:

1. he is dead,

or

2. he flees from hundreds of bombs aimed for him, while getting dialysis in the desert, avoiding special forces, having trained followers that can resist torture for years without giving any hint of where he is or whether he is alive and staying out of sight of thousands of troops, satelites and highly equiped national security agencies in several different countries, while living the life of a nomad from foedal ages.

And he did all that successfully for years. What is your reasoning for asserting something changed recently?

I would go for 1 as most probable.

Really? I wouldn't have been able to guess that.

If war doesn't sound like a reasonable explanation for death, then I don't know what to tell you.

How he died. When he died. Where he died.

As far as not knowing where Bin Laden was, if that is true, I have a different question: why are we in Afghanistan and Irak? I thought getting Bin Laden was the whole point of going to Afghanistan. So I presume they do have an idea where he was.

IraQ has nothing to do with bin Laden. Well, it didn't until we invaded and created a flourishing breeding ground for Islamic terrorists. As for Afghanistan, you seem to be suggesting bin Laden must still be there nearly ten years later.

I don't know quite why you keep trying to drag this out. Your point remains you believe bin Laden is dead because he hasn't been seen for a while. Please explain what part of that you disagree with.