(May 7, 2011 at 7:26 pm)Rayaan Wrote: There are reasons to believe that this is a conspiracy which I already explained earlier, and if it sounds legitimate, then what's the problem?

Sounding legitimate is not enough. Besides, it only sounds legitimate to you, not to me. Even if it did sound legitimate, I would deny it hands down until you produced some solid evidence.

(May 7, 2011 at 7:26 pm)Rayaan Wrote: And speaking of Pakistan, that could be the next target for US since that's where they found their enemy number one.

That may be a possibilty..but I doubt it.

(May 7, 2011 at 9:47 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(May 7, 2011 at 7:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(May 7, 2011 at 7:00 pm)padraic Wrote: Interesting article in the paper here yesterday, quoting Geoffrey Robertson.He said that America is currently the land of the munchkins,celebrating the death of the wicked witch. I think he's right.

Yeah...he pretty much is.

http://youtu.be/TAvuke3yBXU


BTW, I don't know why the Youtube tags aren't working but they aren't.

It is because you posted this:

Code:

http://youtu.be/TAvuke3yBXU

When you should have posted this:

Code:

http://youtube.com/TAvuke3yBXU

I posted what it gave me.

(May 7, 2011 at 10:30 pm)Rayaan Wrote: If the military did find Osama while he was unarmed, then they should have tied his hands together and ask him the question, "Hey Osama, are you the one who REALLY planned the 9/11 attacks on America" (regardless of whether he lies or not), and put it on a radio so that everyone else in the world can hear it and especially for the skeptics. They don't even have to bring to him to America to do this. But since they didn't do this, and instead dropped him in the water, without even showing any videotapes of carrying his body to the location where he was allegedly dumped, is another reason why I think that the story of his killing was cleverly fabricated (along with the reasons that I mentioned earlier) which all seems to point that the US doesn't have any physical evidence to prove that they killed him recently and not long time ago.

are you trying to say Osama might have been innocent?

Quote:are you trying to say Osama might have been innocent?

Are you trying to say that you know beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty? I think he probably was,but I'm not sure enough to blow his head off.


As far as I know,he was not convicted of any crime(s) against the US. I've seen and heard a lot of hysterical, self serving hyperbole and bald assertions,but no actual evidence so far. I'm big on evidence and the rule of law.Both seem to lacking in this case.

(May 8, 2011 at 12:55 am)padraic Wrote:

Quote:are you trying to say Osama might have been innocent?

Are you trying to say that you know beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty? I think he probably was,but I'm not sure enough to blow his head off.


As far as I know,he was not convicted of any crime(s) against the US. I've seen and heard a lot of hysterical, self serving hyperbole and bald assertions,but no actual evidence so far. I'm big on evidence and the rule of law.Both seem to lacking in this case.

Whilst his true involvement in 9/11 (and most other specific attacks) will now more than likely remain unknown there is no doubt he hated America and had declared war on them back in the 90's (fatwa). The fact that he declared war on the U.S. makes him a legitimate target for them in my eyes.

(May 7, 2011 at 11:11 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Rayaan, didn't the dude take credit for it right after it happened?

According to my knowledge, no, rather it's the opposite. He said that he was not a part of the attack.

(May 7, 2011 at 11:45 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: are you trying to say Osama might have been innocent?

Yes, he may have been innocent.

I made a separate topic for this: http://atheistforums.org/thread-6818.html

So why frame Bin Laden then? He was insignificant as far as the Bush administration was concerned. He even said as much on different occasions. If the Bush administration actually did want to frame somebody, it would have been Saddam.

That's the first problem I have with the Truthers. In a false flag war, you frame the people you want to go to war with, not the people you could care less about.

If the Truthers were correct, that the government framed Bin Laden or created a non existent external threat, then I would have expected to hear of the CIA or FBI "finding" documents where the hijackers got their marching orders from Saddam.

Run a conspiracy theory by me and my first question is "OK, let's put it together. I'm the shadowy Illuminati secret branch that controls everything guy, what's my motivation in this particular conspiracy?" If the motive makes no sense, we don't need to examine the conspiracy theory any further.

Quote:According to my knowledge, no, rather it's the opposite. He said that he was not a part of the attack.

Al Jazeera released a recording of him claiming responsibility and pointing out that Bush's administration resembled a corrupt Arab regime. Okay. So he wasn't wrong on everything.

goddamn I love pat ...






If you only have a minute to watch - make it the minute from 1:57 to 2:57.

Right On Brother!

(I'm allowed a condell video - I haven't posted one yet on this site)

I'm friends with Pat's niece. ATHEIST FUN FACT #543!!