You claim Osama has been dead for a long time. You absolutely, 100% need this claim to be true, in order for your position to make any sense. Please back up said claim...
You talk, and talk, and talk about how hard you think it is to get a dialysis machine, how many spies loyal to America you happen to believe lives near Osama's mansion, whether you like the current war in Lybia, etc. etc. None of it matters.
You still misunderstand my point about the DNA, and _how many would have to be in on it_ in order for your pet theory to be right. Seriously. You are not making a lick of sense in your replies - they have nothing to do with my argument! You comment that "Sorry, it looked at the time that you were trying to argue that the former administration should call on him despite that they've been sitting on his death for years" is plain wrong. It never looked like that, just like I do not need to tell you the names of the scientist. I am telling you how many people would have to be in on it - we can make that little calculation without knowing their names. Read my arguments, understand it, then respond. Jeez...
You sidestep the issue of why everyone is so damn loyal by claiming a parallel to the WMD lies. There is no such parallel, and I told you why. The WMD lie was not based on fabricated evidence and outright lies, but spin. Very few people knew how bad the intelligence cited was, and they all worked under "don't talk to the press"-contracts. You are saying soldiers, flight leaders, K-9 unit trainers, press secretaries, and all of Obama's advisors are in on facricating evidence.
So no "Whatever kept Bush's staff silent about the phony WMD intelligence..." is not a proper response. You do get the difference between fabricating evidence and lying, and spinning bad intelligence and actionable, right?
Kojiro wrote:Lundse wrote:Sigh. First of all, he would not use any of these means of communication, for those exact reasons. Do you think he has a hotmail account, a phone number? Secondly, if a red flag was raised, would the public (and hence Al-Queda) have been told? Who is kidding who?
We're told these terrorists are using web pages and email and radio and phones over and over again. Or do you only believe SITE when it conveniences you?
So because some terrorists or their accomplishes are using email and phones, Osama himself must also do so? Is this what you are arguing?
Also, you skip over the fact that even if he did, and red flags went off on a daily basis, the CIA would hardly be broadcasting this in public.
So no, no sign of Osama _as seen from you, a member of the public_ does not mean "he must be dead". That you have not heard about him being caught using email, and someone else in his organisation totally did, does not mean that he is dead.
Seriously, look over our conversation. This is your argument. You are saying that we never heard from him, and using this as support for your idea that he must be long dead. Do you see how ridiculous this is?
Let's list the statements, this will be fun:
1) Osama has friends that use email, phones, etc. that are tracable.
2) I think, for no conceivable reason, that this means Osama must be doing so too, if he were alive.
3) The CIA can trace and track some of this communication.
4) Since they can track some, they must have tracked his particular call. I don't know why I believe this...
5) If the CIA tracked Osama over such electronic surveillance, they would totally tell me, that is the whole world including Al Queda, that they had just done so.
Tell me this is not what you believe, please.
And then tell me again why you think no word from Osama can only be explained by his death.
Just to be clear, you are no longer claiming that government officials under the current administration need, or have used, Osama as a bogeyman? Only Bush did that?
So just to be clear:
- Bush et al. wanted people to think Osama was still alive, and did not want the credit for killing him.
- Obama et al. do want the credit for killing him, and no longer need the bogeyman.
Is this right? This is what you believe. How do you feel on this one:
- Bush and the McCain campaign would rather let Obama keep using Bin Laden as a bogeyman, or claim the credit for killing him, than claim the credit for the Republican party.
Do you believe this, or do you have some other explanation for why _they did not do as you say Osama just did_?
Your links have nothing to do with the WMD arguments. I have no clue why you included them as a response to it. You bring up my argument, that if they claim to have the evidence, they must be ready to back it up. Your "some people did not like Obama"-link has no relevance, of course - but that some Republicans want to see the evidence is exactly what I was talking about. Of course someone will ask for it. And eventually someone will be showed it. And from your assumptions about the hundreds of people who are not now contradicting Obama despite having every reason to do so, if your theory is correct, I can only assume that when said Republicans, judges or whoever will be given a private showing come out satisfied, you will assume that they toop are in on it.
Or maybe they have just been threatened to be fired...
"None of the dead men in those pictures appear to have been armed."
A closeup of one guy's face, not with a gun lying on top of it, and you are calling "they were not armed"? Seriously? If they are going to lie to the American public, don¨t you think they could have included some guns in the picture of the corpses they got for the occassion? You don't think the US army have a few lying around? Did you and your friends just spot another huge whole in their devious plan? This is sounding more and more like the moon landing - "where are the stars?"
Also, get this. I do not know who SITE is. I have no clue why you brought them up. I do not need them - but you apparently need to say something about their evidence, as if that has some bearing on the simple facts:
(This is it, btw, your last chance, if you cannot by now comprehend this, you never will and this discussion is over. Respond to this, or do not respond at all).
1) If Bin Laden was alive just prior to the attack, it would make no sense for Obama to claim to have killed him, as Bin Laden could the proceed to make him out to be a fool and liar the next day.
2) If Bin Laden was dead just prior to the attack (for however long), Obama could conceivably be lying without being a completely moron.
3) Osama Bin Laden, must, unless we assume Obama to be retarded, both be dead - and be known to a ludicrous amount of certainty to be so, by Obama.
Do you disagree with any one of these? Is 1, 2 or 3 not all true?
So for your position to make either the slightest sense, you must either prove, or at least prove this to be as likely as "they just caught Bin Laden", either:
A) Obama is retarded.
B) Osama was dead already.
You "proofs" that Osama was dead so far amount to:
- Some people said so on TV.
- I think he needed dialysis and could not afford or procure a dialysis machine.
- I have not heard from him personally, nor have the CIA shared with me their intelligence that they heard from him.
Now, do you want to elaborate on any of these "proofs", because they are, and I am straining myself to keep this civil here, so lets just go with "weak".
. They can't give out any information. 
