DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Al Qaeda confirms bin Laden death and vows revenge

**Janarealiti** · 06-05-2011, 05:49 PM

And that is YOUR ASSUMPTION since no where I (or anyone on this forum as far as I know) made any definitive statements as to the latest "news" from the WH.

As far as I KNOW, politicians and power elites are not to be believed without solid proofs of their "statements"; therefore OBL might've been killed in 2001, or died of kidney failier some 5 years ago, or was killed few days ago, or is still alive.

And how most conspiracy theorists define proof is pretty much pointless.

If Obama showed the pictures, you'd claim they are fake.

When Al Quida vow revenge, you claim or imply that it's some fabrication or that Al Quida is some CIA group.

There's really no use in bothering with proof when communicating with certain people.

All I'm saying is, "Believe what you want." Just don't be surprised if the majority of our interactions involve bickering rather than any coherent debate, since there's really no proof I could posit that you would accept.

06-05-2011, 05:49 PM	#24
Janarealiti Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 569 Senior Member	And that is YOUR ASSUMPTION since no where I (or anyone on this forum as far as I know) made any definitive statements as to the latest "news" from the WH. As far as I KNOW, politicians and power elites are not to be believed without solid proofs of their "statements"; therefore OBL might've been killed in 2001, or died of kidney failier some 5 years ago, or was killed few days ago, or is still alive. And how most conspiracy theorists define proof is pretty much pointless. If Obama showed the pictures, you'd claim they are fake. When Al Quida vow revenge, you claim or imply that it's some fabrication or that Al Quida is some CIA group. There's really no use in bothering with proof when communicating with certain people. All I'm saying is, "Believe what you want." Just don't be surprised if the majority of our interactions involve bickering rather than any coherent debate, since there's really no proof I could posit that you would accept.
	Quote