Do you believe Bin Laden was killed in the Navy Seal raid and dumped in the ocean? If so, why?

[Philly'sFinest]

13 hours ago, LiterateStylish said:

You’re opposing the official story. The burden of proof is on you.

That's part of the trick. 

Make the claim, and then put the burden of proof on the the skeptics 

The "official story" is just that in many cases...a story that was made up for the sheep to feed on.

[ICRockets2]

13 hours ago, shiva2999 said:

Uh, I directed countless groups of extras through the years to react to scenes that had been filmed previously.

Getting that group to all look at a blank screen and look super concerned for the photos is something that's done all the time in the TV and movie business.

This, for everyone else who needs to hear this, is exactly how Russian disinformation works.

Shiva isn't using ONE bullshit claim, he's throwing out multiples.  He's claimed both that the people in the photo were pretending to look at something but that the photo was taken in real time AND that they've been entirely reconvened after the fact to stage it.

This is what's known as the "firehose of falsehoods".  It's a technique used to make it seem like the truth is unknowable and therefore insignificant to one's critical thinking process.

[ICRockets2]

1 hour ago, RichJ said:

Yet we should believe people like you who still believe in the delusions over people who believe in facts? 

What I believe about trans people is consistent with academic literature on the topic.  You refuse to engage with the academic literature.  That makes me better informed than you, by definition.

[RichJ]

21 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

What I believe about trans people is consistent with academic literature on the topic.  You refuse to engage with the academic literature.  That makes me better informed than you, by definition.

academic meaning quack activists. No thanks.

[ICRockets2]

11 minutes ago, RichJ said:

academic meaning quack activists. No thanks.

No, academic meaning they've studied this for years whereas you stopped letting yourself think about it after you turned 5.

[RichJ]

13 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

No, academic meaning they've studied this for years whereas you stopped letting yourself think about it after you turned 5.

I dont need a degree to know that men dont have vaginas and women dont have weiners.  

[ICRockets2]

3 minutes ago, RichJ said:

I dont need a degree to know that men dont have vaginas and women dont have weiners.  

Most men don't have vaginas and most women don't have penises, but some do. 

[shiva2999]

1 hour ago, ICRockets2 said:

     
Shiva isn't using ONE bullshit claim, he's throwing out multiples.  He's claimed both that the people in the photo were pretending to look at something but that the photo was taken in real time AND that they've been entirely reconvened after the fact to stage it.

 

Excuse me?

The photo initially was claimed by the Whitehouse to have been taken while the raid was in progress. It was later revealed that there was no live coverage of the raid for the first 25 minutes, so the claim was "mistaken."

It was also claimed by the Whitehouse that the picture of them looking at the screen was taken while they were watching the raid in progress which is entirely believable.

Nowhere did I claim they were reconvened later for the shot.

It could easily have been taken while they were waiting for the feed to be re-established.

Of course it's always possible they WERE watching the raid and later decided not to release the footage because it was problematic for various reasons not complimentary to the attackers.

But the initial report was they watched the raid in real time.

Then they changed their story.

So, they either lied initially or lied later.

But they DID lie.

And you are trying to cover it up.

Why?

If they were sincere there was no reason to lie. 

If they weren't sincere, there were all sorts of reasons for them to lie.

And now your little shitlib cabal is trying to cover it up.

Again, why?

I have my opinion based on logic and reason and facts.

Your opinion is based on nothing.

Hmmmm, who to believe?

[ICRockets2]

4 minutes ago, shiva2999 said:

 

It could easily have been taken while they were waiting for the feed to be re-established.

 

I agree.  And it only says the VIDEO feed was lost, it says nothing about the audio right?  So they likely still got to HEAR what was going on, and just reflexively looked toward screens because that's how the human brain operates for whatever reason. 

That's a plausible explanation, right?  No "staging" required, they're just listening with their eyes because human behavior is weird like that.

[shiva2999]

7 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

I agree.  And it only says the VIDEO feed was lost, it says nothing about the audio right?  So they likely still got to HEAR what was going on...

If that was the case there was no reason not to say so, but they didn't.

Plus, video isn't like film. There is no cameraman and sound recording required, just like your own video camera.

Both the sound and video work or they both don't.

[ICRockets2]

6 minutes ago, shiva2999 said:

If that was the case there was no reason not to say so, but they didn't.

Plus, video isn't like film. There is no cameraman and sound recording required, just like your own video camera.

Both the sound and video work or they both don't.

You have intimate knowledge of the A/V capabilities of Navy SEALs?

[shiva2999]

11 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

You have intimate knowledge of the A/V capabilities of Navy SEALs?

They're video cameras, not film cameras.

Record and broadcast both with the same device.

If you know different, then tell us the story.

[jc856]

17 hours ago, shiva2999 said:

Only in an authoritarian regime.

They made the claim and thus the burden of proof is on them.

The fact is it would have been simple to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was OBL that they killed in that raid.

But they declined to and gave some bs excuse about offending delicate Muslim sensibilities.

But hey, I bet you thought Saddam had WMDs, didn't you...

Releasing pics of obl with half a face might inflame the Islamic world into a frenzy of retribution. It’s not unreasonable to think that, anyway.

but, otoh, they did show pics of Saddams sons. 

[ICRockets2]

33 minutes ago, jc856 said:

Releasing pics of obl with half a face might inflame the Islamic world into a frenzy of retribution. It’s not unreasonable to think that, anyway.

but, otoh, they did show pics of Saddams sons. 

Different times.

In 2003 when we killed Saddam's sons, a 'frenzy of retribution' would have served the interests of the Bush admin. 

"See?  Look how crazed this violent extremist Muslims are!  We need to impose our presence on the region indefinitely and this is proof of why."

Obama won in 2008 thanks in part to rising anti-war sentiment, so a frenzy in 2011 was less desirable.  Better for Obama's portion of the "War on Terror" to fly under the radar so he could drone bomb weddings with as little public scrutiny as possible.

[shiva2999]

47 minutes ago, jc856 said:

Releasing pics of obl with half a face might inflame the Islamic world into a frenzy of retribution. It’s not unreasonable to think that, anyway.

but, otoh, they did show pics of Saddams sons. 

Why shoot him twice in the face?

Carping whiners and America hating conspiracy theorists might complain that it was to hide the fact it wasn't the real OBL.

Which would be a horrible travesty of juetice.

[SackMan518]

It comes down to this...

1. No video footage
2. No corpse

And you say we're crazy for doubting the narrative? I'm not a lawyer but even I know it's hard to convict someone for murder when #1 and #2 aren't present and the only circumstantial evidence are just parties agreeing that they witnessed it but without hard evidence.

[jc856]

2 minutes ago, shiva2999 said:

Why shoot him twice in the face?

Carping whiners and America hating conspiracy theorists might complain that it was to hide the fact it wasn't the real OBL.

Which would be a horrible travesty of juetice.

Well, I was always taught center mass was where you aimed. 
 

maybe they expected him to be wearing body armor, and two in the puss was not hard to do.

idk. I’m with you on the shitbirds who run this country (into the ground).

they suck.

but, do you have anything besides speculation?

 

 

[jc856]

5 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

It comes down to this...

1. No video footage
2. No corpse

And you say we're crazy for doubting the narrative? I'm not a lawyer but even I know it's hard to convict someone for murder when #1 and #2 aren't present and the only circumstantial evidence are just parties agreeing that they witnessed it but without hard evidence.

Idk.

most court cases are circumstantial, aren’t they?

im not even making a case that the govt EVER tells the truth.

it’s just that there isn’t anything concrete to definitively say, “this ISN’T the way it went down”.

it’s just speculation.

one thing I know from studying the JFK assassination, when the govt controls the narrative, and won’t release info unless they are sued, then begrudgingly hand over heavily redacted pages (national security), it’s hard to learn what they know.

[shiva2999]

6 minutes ago, jc856 said:

Well, I was always taught center mass was where you aimed. 
 

.

 

 

Or you could even have taken him alive since there was only him and his bitches in the place. 

But no, let's have the first guy in the room blow his face off.

Only America haters would EVER think there was some ulterior motive.

 

[Philly'sFinest]

3 minutes ago, jc856 said:

Idk.

most court cases are circumstantial, aren’t they?

im not even making a case that the govt EVER tells the truth.

it’s just that there isn’t anything concrete to definitively say, “this ISN’T the way it went down”.

it’s just speculation.

one thing I know from studying the JFK assassination, when the govt controls the narrative, and won’t release info unless they are sued, then begrudgingly hand over heavily redacted pages (national security), it’s hard to learn what they know.

When you don't have transparency...there's a reason why.

It's not hard to figure out the answers here

 

[shiva2999]

4 minutes ago, jc856 said:

Idk.

most court cases are circumstantial, aren’t they?

im not even making a case that the govt EVER tells the truth.

it’s just that there isn’t anything concrete to definitively say, “this ISN’T the way it went down”.

 

And there isn't anything concrete to say "this IS the way it went down."

[SackMan518]

7 minutes ago, jc856 said:

most court cases are circumstantial, aren’t they?

In general but it's exceedingly difficult without some form of physical evidence such a weapon, DNA from blood, anything.  If we relied too much on witness accounts these 2 "yutes" would still be rotting away in a country prison!

[jc856]

41 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

In general but it's exceedingly difficult without some form of physical evidence such a weapon, DNA from blood, anything.  If we relied too much on witness accounts these 2 "yutes" would still be rotting away in a country prison!

JC: “Your Honor, I would now like to call Marisa Tomei to be sworn in and proceed to sit on my face.”

[jc856]

51 minutes ago, shiva2999 said:

And there isn't anything concrete to say "this IS the way it went down."

That’s true. Maybe.

They could have evidence they choose not to disclose, but you’re right, they’ve proven nothing.

[jc856]

1 hour ago, shiva2999 said:

 

Or you could even have taken him alive since there was only him and his bitches in the place. 

There was talk of OBL always wearing (or keeping with him) a suicide vest*

I’m not saying that isn’t misinfo, but 

* or homicide vest, if you’re a Fox News type.