Calling all ATS Osama Dead huh? What are they breaking the news to hide? Let's start digging please

It's so cool to see the shills come out to play.

Don't believe it guys! These shillsters will come on here and say all the words you will expect them to say; I can only hope that they don't get a high enough post-count to smother the Truth.

You SOBs need to do some soul-searching, and quickly.

To add - here's the link to Mr Alex Jones offering up a lovely summary of this grand hoax, including the apparent use of a photo as 'evidence', even though it's basically a flipped (left-right aspect) image that was known to have been faked eight years ago. NB Not sure if that's accurate, but the video is a quick and simple roundup of the BS and 'wag-the-dog' Hollywood type fakery being employed..

Alex Jones summary of the 'Osama is dead' propaganda

CIA admitted in Washington Post, in 2010, that they had faked videos of Bin Laden to whip up support for the War on Terror...

Its is all starting to make sense now.

Expert: Security Checkpoints Near Soft Targets May Soon Become The Norm A Day May Come When You'll Be Patted Down Going Into Stores

Story found here: Source

What better way to usher in a new form of tyranny under the guise of safety.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by 000063

 

You sound like a tamer version of Weedwhacker. Did you know that?

Irrelevant.

As someone else has said, 'why so much disinfo'..? There's no smoke without fire people, keep looking.

Ever hear of Dry Ice?

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by 000063

 

(this quote is taken from IllusionsAreGrander's post, in response to 000063 a few posts up)

Bottom line, they have lied to us before. It is completely rational to be skeptical of the word of known liars.

So, Mr/s 000063. Why did you not reply to this quite simple premise that invalidates your argument? Are you by any chance trying to deflect from the truth of the matter?

You ignored the key underpinning statement in IllusionsAreGrander's post, and instead twisted things to allow you to go off on a little meandering tangent, into another type of blame game.

Here's that death-blow again, for clarification of what you should be focusing on - the point that defeats your shillish arguments:

If they have lied to us before, why should we trust anything they say when it comes to events that are directly linked to those matters about which they have lied to us previously...?!?!?!?!?

You can't actually counter that argument with anything (that anyone in the real world would consider) acceptable; therefore anything you do say in efforts to perpetuate your argument is going to sound pretty damn lame.

Because sooner or later, you have to tell some sort of truth to support a lie. This means that not everything they say is a lie, and should be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine which.

Everyone has lied. You're arguing that everyone shouldn't be trusted because they have lied, ever.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
It's so cool to see the shills come out to play.

Don't believe it guys! These shillsters will come on here and say all the words you will expect them to say; I can only hope that they don't get a high enough post-count to smother the Truth.

Conspiracy Theorists divide the people who disagree with them into sheep or shills. It's an ego thing. If the people are sheep, it means the CTs are better and more intelligent than them. If they're shills, it means they're so important that that the big, bad conspirators have to hire people just to argue against them.

Of course, the fact that intelligent people could look at the same info you have and simply come to a different conclusion is not an option in your universe, is it? I can't imagine what it must be like to share a pizza order with you.

Originally posted by 000063


Everyone has lied. You're arguing that everyone shouldn't be trusted because they have lied, ever.

How about arguing that known liars who have conveniently destroyed all the evidence to support their claim shoudlnt be trusted?

I will believe a known liar if they have sufficient evidence.

"Because I say so and you cant prove it isnt true" is not evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by 000063


Everyone has lied. You're arguing that everyone shouldn't be trusted because they have lied, ever.

How about arguing that known liars who have conveniently destroyed all the evidence to support their claim shoudlnt be trusted?

I will believe a known liar if they have sufficient evidence.

"Because I say so and you cant prove it isnt true" is not evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

Once again, these are the same military DNA tests that are used to ID other bad guys. They have held up in court, IIRC. That means they are credible.

If you want to claim this particular DNA test is unreliable, evidence needs to be presented to that effect.

Apparently hes been dead and on ice for years, waiting for the right political moment to break the news. Why in this 2007 interview, does the Prime Minister of pakistan, say bin laden is already dead, and name his killer. www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Yes I do have information that he is dead from 10 years ago... I planned the strike mission that buried him and broke out imagery of supporting evidence that it was likely him in the cave.

I am not at liberty to provide details, since I still hold a TS clearance and need to keep it so I can provide for my family, but he has been dead since late 2001.

Jaden

Originally posted by 000063

If you want to claim this particular DNA test is unreliable, evidence needs to be presented to that effect.

No, it doesnt. Because the test being reliable has absolutely NO bearing on when the DNA sample was taken, and whether it was taken from a dead or live person.

That test could be 100% reliable. And that DNA could have come from Osama when he was in the hospital at some point, or from a live Osama more recently, or from a dead Osama years ago.

Having a DNA sample just proves they have a DNA sample. It says nothing about when and how it was collected, nor does it say anything at all about whether or not the person it was collected from was alive or dead at the time.

reply to post by KEMIK


I know the guy (was in training with him in early 2000) who shot UBL (person purported to be UBL) in the raid on Sunday, I just want this guy to accurately state his rank, I don't want him mentioning names, if he can accurately state his rank, then it will give him more credibility and I will state whether or not he is accurate...

Jaden

All i can say is WOOOOOW! First a fake birth certificate...now a phony heroic effort...on capturing the 'bad guy'. What next? Is Willie Nelson in the recording studio...writing a song about this? This is getting ridiculous now. Why is their work so sloppy? Don't they have "professional" graphic designers/video editors? Or are they purposefully allowing these mistakes...because they are SOOOOOO obvious.

Maybe, the Great Awakening is allowing this to happen....or the NEW PTB want a different NWO. A more 'peaceful' one? Naaaaaaaaaah, i'm just thinking out loud.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by 000063

If you want to claim this particular DNA test is unreliable, evidence needs to be presented to that effect.

No, it doesnt. Because the test being reliable has absolutely NO bearing on when the DNA sample was taken, and whether it was taken from a dead or live person.

That test could be 100% reliable. And that DNA could have come from Osama when he was in the hospital at some point, or from a live Osama more recently, or from a dead Osama years ago.

Having a DNA sample just proves they have a DNA sample. It says nothing about when and how it was collected, nor does it say anything at all about whether or not the person it was collected from was alive or dead at the time.

Supposition, not evidence. Please provide evidence that it was taken years ago instead of shortly before the test, like just about every other DNA test they run.

reply to post by 000063


Thats not the argument. I never claimed it proves when the DNA was taken. In fact, I claimed precisely the opposite. That having a DNA sample says and proves NOTHING about when the sample was taken and whether or not the person was dead or alive when it was.

Im sorry the facts are so inconvenient for you.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by 000063

 

Thats not the argument. I never claimed it proves when the DNA was taken. In fact, I claimed precisely the opposite. That having a DNA sample says and proves NOTHING about when the sample was taken and whether or not the person was dead or alive when it was.

Im sorry the facts are so inconvenient for you.

Are you disputing when DNA samples were taken in other cases as well, or just this one?

reply to post by 000063


What did I say? I said, that having a DNA sample and the accuracy of the test says NOTHING about when the sample was taken, and whether or not the person was alive or dead.

Is that a true statement? Or do you dispute it?

reply to post by UberL33t


Great minds must be ready not only to take opportunities but to make them.

Colton


Sounds like one to me.

reply to post by the4thhorseman


Oh really then lets give every citizen a pistol permit and lets see what happens to all the bad guys real quick.


There is a solution to all our problems.

Arm the peeps. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!! RISE UP PEOPLE!!!!!.

Nope still sleeping.

I wonder how the gov does it. Do they just invade everyones mailbox in the middle east and say RISE UP PEEPS

Originally posted by Rocky Black

I wonder how the gov does it. Do they just invade everyones mailbox in the middle east and say RISE UP PEEPS

Starting an uprising works best when people are broke down, desperately poor, and have long term anger at their government. We are getting there, but we arent there yet. Libya wasnt either so they needed the allies to stage their uprising for them.

If an uprising happens in the US, it will not be good for us. It will be to the benefit of the people who are overthrowing sovereign nations or otherwise undermining their independence all over the world. Our Constitution protects us from them, and they would love to see us give them one excuse to suspend it. It would be game over for the United States as we know it.

Having a DNA sample does not negate the fact, that back in 2007 the pakistani Prime Minister said Bin laden had been killed, and who killed him. Only later to be killed herself.