It probably doesn't matter very much whether or not Osama is dead (personally, I believe he is). Al Qaeda is slipping off into the mists of history. That's not to say they won't commit a few more outrages, but they will gradually fade away.

What is reality now is the uprising of the Muslim people across the Middle East, the gradual disappearance of the various dictatorships, and then what? That's much more interesting than Obama bin Laden... sorry, typo!

I hope the Muslim people open their eyes and realise that [massive] peaceful protest has accomplished more for them in a matter of months than all that al Qaeda and other terror organizations have over decades.

It has indeed... but I think the Syrians could do with the help of your prayers in the days to come.

10 Facts That Prove The Bin Laden Fable Is a Contrived Hoax

http://www.prisonpla...rived-hoax.html

Interesting but not many "facts". My favorite is "First the compound was described as a "$1 million dollar mansion" then it turned out to be a rubbish-strewn dilapidated compound that was worth less than a quarter of that" followed later by, "prompted concerns that the US Navy SEALS sent in could have targeted a "prince from Dubai" or some other individual that was not Bin Laden.". A prince from Dubai wouldn't be living in such a dump - and that's a fact.

I have no doubt that you are right; It is a fact that no Dubai prince would live in a rubbish-strewn dilapidated compound.

You do not make an argument against the message of the article though, since the actual state of the compound is not proved by a quote on 60 Minutes that also had the additional qualification "or some other individual that was not Bin Laden".

There is some compelling information in the article.

I've posted several times that something isn't right with the story and that I hope we really captured UBL and that all we have been told is simply disinformation in a time of war. That said, the article really doesn't use actual facts to support its case.

I'll cover each of their points briefly because I really don't want to spend that much time on it...

1) The "fact" they used here is that other experts have long said he is dead. Those were opinions, not facts.

Point taken.

2) The White House struggled to keep its story straight. That may be a fact but it doesn't prove that bin Laden wasn't there. It might be part of a disinformation campaign - or plain incompetence.

Point taken.

3) The WH said they buried him at sea in accordance with Muslim burial rituals but they have scholars who dispute it. That doesn't prove they didn't dump him in the sea anyway.

You are right.

4) Situation room photo - The video was turned off during the raid so the Prez could not have been watching it! That doesn't prove bin Laden wasn't there. They go on to say the photo was a staged photo opp. But they are politicians - would they really do that? duh.

You are right, but it shows some deliberate contrivedness that adds to the whole conspracy idea.

5) I don't know if that SITE is a US-funded site or not. If it is, it sounds like more disinformation.

Your opinion, and one that adds to the whole "disinformation is the name of the game" idea.

6) ALMOST every single neighbor has said they never saw bin Laden there. Well, as the WH story goes, he never left his room. I'm more interested in the article's use of "almost every". That means at least one neighbor claimed to have seen him there. I want to know more about this guy.

"Almost" doesn't mean that neccessarily. " Some may very well have said "I thought there was something suspicious".....but what does that prove?

7) I'm not sure of what "facts" are used here. Some people just say it doesn't look like bin Laden to them.

So, because it's their opinion, it's not true?

8) These guys can't claim that it has been "erroneously asserted" that intel from Gitmo interrogations led to UBL's capture. They don't know. They say - as I do - that they didn't bother capturing this guy despite all the valuable intel he knows. That's an opinion, not a fact and again, could be part of a disinformation campaing.

Could be.

9) Past fabrications or media lies by the military (Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman) show a history of BS but it doesn't mean that this one isn't true. In a court of law, a person can't be guilty of committing a crime simply because he has committed crime before.

You're right again.

10) So politicians used the bin Laden story to gain political points. Yeah, so what? That's what they do with any good news. That doesn't mean the whole bin Laden story is a fable.

Indeed.

Some true and good points you make.....but no point actually refutes the conspiracy theory points of the article..

I know it's against the rules but in the circumstances, to save the reader, I will write my responses inside your post.....it\s just easier reading when you have the point and the response/counter one below the other.......and I can't be stuffed quoting each point individually.

I've posted several times that something isn't right with the story and that I hope we really captured UBL and that all we have been told is simply disinformation in a time of war. That said, the article really doesn't use actual facts to support its case.

I'll cover each of their points briefly because I really don't want to spend that much time on it...

1) The "fact" they used here is that other experts have long said he is dead. Those were opinions, not facts.

Point taken.

2) The White House struggled to keep its story straight. That may be a fact but it doesn't prove that bin Laden wasn't there. It might be part of a disinformation campaign - or plain incompetence.

Point taken.

3) The WH said they buried him at sea in accordance with Muslim burial rituals but they have scholars who dispute it. That doesn't prove they didn't dump him in the sea anyway.

You are right.

4) Situation room photo - The video was turned off during the raid so the Prez could not have been watching it! That doesn't prove bin Laden wasn't there. They go on to say the photo was a staged photo opp. But they are politicians - would they really do that? duh.

You are right, but it shows some deliberate contrivedness that adds to the whole conspracy idea.

5) I don't know if that SITE is a US-funded site or not. If it is, it sounds like more disinformation.

Your opinion, and one that adds to the whole "disinformation is the name of the game" idea.

6) ALMOST every single neighbor has said they never saw bin Laden there. Well, as the WH story goes, he never left his room. I'm more interested in the article's use of "almost every". That means at least one neighbor claimed to have seen him there. I want to know more about this guy.

"Almost" doesn't mean that neccessarily. " Some may very well have said "I thought there was something suspicious".....but what does that prove?

7) I'm not sure of what "facts" are used here. Some people just say it doesn't look like bin Laden to them.

So, because it's their opinion, it's not true?

8) These guys can't claim that it has been "erroneously asserted" that intel from Gitmo interrogations led to UBL's capture. They don't know. They say - as I do - that they didn't bother capturing this guy despite all the valuable intel he knows. That's an opinion, not a fact and again, could be part of a disinformation campaing.

Could be.

9) Past fabrications or media lies by the military (Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman) show a history of BS but it doesn't mean that this one isn't true. In a court of law, a person can't be guilty of committing a crime simply because he has committed crime before.

You're right again.

10) So politicians used the bin Laden story to gain political points. Yeah, so what? That's what they do with any good news. That doesn't mean the whole bin Laden story is a fable.

Indeed.

Some true and good points you make.....but no point actually refutes the conspiracy theory points of the article..

I know it's against the rules but in the circumstances, to save the reader, I will write my responses inside your post.....it\s just easier reading when you have the point and the response/counter one below the other.......and I can't be stuffed quoting each point individually.

I guess it boils down to what definition of the word "fact" is used - I I don't think anyone reading this wants us to start posting entires from various dictionary sites.

It probably doesn't matter very much whether or not Osama is dead (personally, I believe he is). Al Qaeda is slipping off into the mists of history. That's not to say they won't commit a few more outrages, but they will gradually fade away.

What is reality now is the uprising of the Muslim people across the Middle East, the gradual disappearance of the various dictatorships, and then what? That's much more interesting than Obama bin Laden... sorry, typo!

I hope the Muslim people open their eyes and realise that [massive] peaceful protest has accomplished more for them in a matter of months than all that al Qaeda and other terror organizations have over decades.

What would be disastrous for their imagined puppet-masters in the West would be to fall the way of resistance.....towards all those who wish to impose their will.

4) Situation room photo - The video was turned off during the raid so the Prez could not have been watching it! That doesn't prove bin Laden wasn't there. They go on to say the photo was a staged photo opp. But they are politicians - would they really do that? duh.

Well whaddaya know...

http://news.yahoo.co...a_photographers

White House: No more photo re-enactments

NEW YORK – The White House said it is ending its long-running practice of having presidents re-enact televised speeches for news photographers following major addresses to the country, a little-known arrangement that fed suggestions of fakery when Barack Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden.

...

The practice of re-enactments has a long history. Washington veterans say President Harry Truman would deliver speeches over radio and then repeat them for newsreel cameras. Doug Mills, a photographer for The New York Times who was on duty May 1, said he has seen every president from Ronald Reagan to Obama take time after a speech so still photographers could get their shots.

...

The White House usually has an official photographer on duty, and the administration's Pete Souza took pictures of the president's real speech that night. But news organizations generally resist using handouts unless necessary — as was the case with the official photos of the White House Situation Room during the mission that killed bin Laden.

It probably doesn't matter very much whether or not Osama is dead (personally, I believe he is). Al Qaeda is slipping off into the mists of history. That's not to say they won't commit a few more outrages, but they will gradually fade away.

What is reality now is the uprising of the Muslim people across the Middle East, the gradual disappearance of the various dictatorships, and then what? That's much more interesting than Obama bin Laden... sorry, typo!

I hope the Muslim people open their eyes and realise that [massive] peaceful protest has accomplished more for them in a matter of months than all that al Qaeda and other terror organizations have over decades.

What would be disastrous for their imagined puppet-masters in the West would be to fall the way of resistance.....towards all those who wish to impose their will.

Please explain, zzaa; I do not understand.