RaySmuckles posted:

i guess i don't see what you're getting at yug.

spell it out for me.

Yug posted:

pretend fantasy raid that was fabricated to boosts obamas approval ratings before an election.

Yug posted:

RaySmuckles posted:

more details, please

like, where is osama now?

who contacted pakistan, what did they tell them, how did they sell them?

where are those weird new helicopter picks from?

just more details.

give me like 10 sentences at least on what you think this all is

Yug posted:

Osama probably died of natural causes but I really have no idea.

The helicopter pics could be from anywhere, I really have no idea but there's no proof whatsoever they're from some super duper secret pakistani compound.

Again, I don't believe the story because zero evidence has been provided for it existing. That's literally all I'm saying. I don't believe things without evidence and so far the government has failed to provide any.

new phone who dis posted:

The one place all the guys with the Trump avatars won't talk about Hillary Clinton is in the Hillary Clinton thread.

RaySmuckles posted:

so just to be clear, you have nothing to refute the official story other than "nah"

like two navy seals wrote books about the raid. did they collaborate despite hating each other, knowing that only one would be able to rake in profits from the action?

both book long stories are virtually identical, though do vary in some of the specifics of action inside the house, among other things, but no more than the way two eyewitness stories typically diverge

the intercept put out a long article recently about how our special forces are basically ruthless kill squads the go around committing atrocities including desecrating dead bodies (via "canoeing") and within that article it spends a lot of time talking about the raid. wouldn't the intercept, of all outlets, be the first to raise red flags if they noticed anything suspicious about the story?

RaySmuckles posted:

so just to be clear, you have nothing to refute the official story other than "nah"

like two navy seals wrote books about the raid. did they collaborate despite hating each other, knowing that only one would be able to rake in profits from the action?

both book long stories are virtually identical, though do vary in some of the specifics of action inside the house, among other things, but no more than the way two eyewitness stories typically diverge

the intercept put out a long article recently about how our special forces are basically ruthless kill squads the go around committing atrocities including desecrating dead bodies (via "canoeing") and within that article it spends a lot of time talking about the raid. wouldn't the intercept, of all outlets, be the first to raise red flags if they noticed anything suspicious about the story?

spacetoaster posted:

skasion posted:

Look, if some person or institution displays a pattern of telling lies, that means you can't trust anything they say and shouldn't respect a single one of their claims.

*votes for donald*

Yug posted:

There is no actual hard evidence for the raid ever having happened and until it is provided I will view it with a great deal of skepticism. Like how many times do you have to fall for this poo poo before you learn your lesson?

new phone who dis posted:

The one place all the guys with the Trump avatars won't talk about Hillary Clinton is in the Hillary Clinton thread.

VikingSkull posted:

yo my dude she's a reptilian

RaySmuckles posted:

i'm not falling for poo poo, i was just wondering if you had any evidence to disprove the narrative that numerous other skeptics with far more truth seeking resources seem to buy

i agree that there is an immense necessity to question government narratives on everything from the strategic, like iraq, to the operational, like pat tillman.

but the osama raid seems to be pretty well accepted by people who are better at figuring this stuff out than you or i. there have been interviews of people in the surrounding area who heard/witnessed the raid and who said they knew osama lived there, so that seems pretty concrete.

like, i'm with you that they government lies all the time, but i see their lies as being about things where the specificity is considerably less important. like, if you're going to claim you captured saddam or killed bin laden, you better be drat sure you did, even if you can't "prove it" because being caught on that lie would be like watergate levels of controversy.

getting caught on stuff that's less specific like "reasons to start a war" or "what actually happened to that random guy" seems orders of magnitude lower than "claiming to have killed the guy that did 9/11 and sent this country on a horrific spiral of violence and self destruction with no end in sight"

but hey, that's just me. i was just hoping to see what your alternative narrative or proof against it was, but you don't have anything other than "nah, the government lies"

VikingSkull posted:

yo my dude she's a reptilian

Yug posted:

Burden of proof is not on me to disprove the government's made up fantasy.

Yug posted:

Burden of proof is not on me to disprove the government's made up fantasy. Like I don't have any proof that the governments aren't holding aliens in area 51 either.

Space Camp fuckup posted:

I don't think it works like that

new phone who dis posted:

The idea that the Bin Laden raid was somehow faked is stupid as gently caress. Like, profoundly stupid even for a subforum that is specifically known for stupidity. Do you know how many right-wing jingoistic assholes who are in the military that would love to blow the lid off that poo poo? When you delve into conspiracy theories the first question you should ask yourself is how many people would know about it and how many would have to say nothing and go along with it against their own interests.

Yug posted:

I think that's exactly how it works. Like all I'm asking for is proof that this thing ever happened the way the government said and so far no one has been able to do it. The best they can do is ask ME to provide proof that it didn't happen. That's ridiculous.

VikingSkull posted:

I don't have any proof you don't lick windows please convince me otherwise

Colonel Cancer posted:

If osama wasn't dead wouldn't several explicitly anti-western terrorist groups given a "nuh-uh" statement by now? Unless they never existed in the first place and isis is a branch of cia?! Lol

Yug posted:

How convenient then that most of those seals involved in the raid were reported as dead shortly after. Really gets that noggin thumpin.

Yug posted:

He probably died a long time ago and they're alright playing along and pretending their leader died a martyr instead of from rear end cancer.

VikingSkull posted:

"he was dead before 9/11"

*ignores videos released that mention contemporary events after 9/11*

"IT WAS A CGI BIN LADEN"

VikingSkull posted:

"he was dead before 9/11"

*ignores videos released that mention contemporary events after 9/11*

"IT WAS A CGI BIN LADEN"

Yug posted:

I didn't say before 9/11, it was probably late 2000's when he died. Too late to make a difference for bush or republicans in any case.