What facts? I went to the trouble of doing a bunch of nested quotes above to try to get you back on the subject of what we were talking about. You come up with these non sequitors all the time.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
What facts? I went to the trouble of doing a bunch of nested quotes above to try to get you back on the subject of what we were talking about. You come up with these non sequitors all the time.
You have already admitted that you don't read most of the things you quote from.
I've admitted no such thing.
You deny that and then in the next statement prove my statement to be true.
**When I read articles with an interest of furthering a case I'm making in an argument, I read as much of the article as I think is necessary to do so. Based on what I've read from others, I tend to do more of it than most if not all the other people I debate with.
**
The only thing that quote provides evidence for is that i don't read all the articles I quote in full.
The fact that you are now repeating false claims about what is in the Mueller report
I literally quoted a passage from the Mueller report. Once again, the passage is this:
**
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
**
This passage can be found in the source that you yourself provided:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report
I then commented on it, saying the following:
**
I doubt this is true. I suspect that poster Matt Dillon was right in his belief that it was Seth Rich who leaked the DNC files, and for good reason too, and that they were in fact involved in his assassination.
**
It's all there in post #364:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...moved-just-rebranded-RT&p=5401546#post5401546
Proving you can't tell fact from opinion.
You claimed that I was making false claims about what is in the Mueller report. I then proceeded to point out that I literally quoted Mueller's report. Instead of apologizing for your error, you just repeated your "can't tell fact from opinion" soundbite.
Many journalists have suspected this. Here's an article on the murder of Seth Rich that I thought was interesting:
Who Really Killed Seth Rich? | American Thinker
ROFLMAO. The American Thinker has no journalists.
Apparently you don't know the definition of a journalist. I'll do my best to educate you. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
**
noun One whose occupation is journalism.
noun One who keeps a journal.
**
Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/journalist
For our purposes, the first applies.
Next, the definition of journalism:
**
noun The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles.
noun Material written for publication or broadcast as news.
**
Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/journalism
For our purposes, the first applies once more. The American Thinker site certainly qualifies as a place where journalists publish articles by this definition. For more information on their staff, feel free to take a look here:
https://www.americanthinker.com/static/about_us.html
What evidence do you have for your belief that Seth Rich took documents from the Clinton campaign?
Many journalists have suspected this. Here's an article on the murder of Seth Rich that I thought was interesting:
Who Really Killed Seth Rich? | American Thinker
An interesting excerpt from the article:
**
The DNC denied the FBI access to the actual DNC servers. A real investigation wouldn't have allowed this – another big red flag. Again, what if the DNC hack was a local leak delivered by hand to Assange?
LOL. That has to be some of the stupidest shit I have ever seen.
And you're back to the insults. We're done here.
Of course I know the origins of that.
Glad to hear it. Wouldn't want you falling for such a foolish conspiracy theory. There's another I suspect you've fallen prey to though. This one:
Are you arguing that you don't believe it was 19 people that were recruited by Al Qaeda? Or are you saying you don't believe the bullshit in the video?
As the video suggests, I believe that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is full of holes and contradictions that strongly suggest that it's a false narrative.
Always with this black and white notion of reading an article or source. As I've mentioned before, there is such a thing as -partially- reading a source of information. Anyway, I went back to where this all started and found the passage that you're referring to:
**
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”
However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).
Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.
Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video.
**
Source:
No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org
I'm part of the "some" that believe the video is fake and that the man depicted in the video isn't Osama Bin Laden. I certainly don't claim to have proof. I -do- believe that the Taliban had good reason to distrust the U.S.'s claims that Osama was responsible for 9/11 and their request for hard evidence that this was the case before turning him over.
Proving once again you can't tell fact from opinion.
I give you an essay you and you respond with a sound bite you've repeated numerous times now. Did you even read the post above or did you just do a TLDR and decide to just hit the thing with your trademark refrain?
There is no reason to provide anything more than the soundbite because your 'essay' proves my statement.
My essay provides evidence for my assertions. All you're giving in return here are soundbites with no evidence to back them up.
Did you read the article I linked to above? I had only read a bit of it, but I decided to read through more of it this time. It turns it, it includes a long transcript of a dialogue between Saddam Hussain and U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Based on my reading, my view of what she said has changed. While it's true that she said that she had "no opinion" of Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait, there are some nuances that need to be pointed out. I'll quote the part of the transcipt that includes her "no opinion" remark, but then continue with what she said aftewards:
**
***** GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.
HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.
***** GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?
My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.
I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.
**
Source:
How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com
Proving once again you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.
Proof? I haven't even seen you show -evidence- for your assertion. What's more, I've been doing the heavy lifting here, providing article after article, frequently quoting them with evidence for my claims, whereas you tend to opt more for sound bites and insults, with some exceptions. Yes, I don't always read the articles in their entirety, but I can always go back to them if you reference a point in them and make it clear where you got the information.
Providing article after article that disprove what you think isn't much support for you.
Saying that my articles disprove what I think is not the same thing as providing evidence for your assertion. What I'm wondering is if you even read what I quoted above concerning April Glaspie's conversation with Saddam Hussein.
Later in the same article Saddam says he won't attack Kuwait.
You clearly didn't read very carefully. I'll quote Hussein's final dialogue in the quoted exchange and bold the relevant part:
**
HUSSEIN: Brother President Mubarak told me they were scared. They said troops were only 20 kilometers north of the Arab League line. I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them. When we meet and when we see that there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death, even though wisdom is above everything else. There you have good news.
**
I think it's safe to say that they did not find a solution.
So we both agree to the same fact that says the US didn't tell Iraq to attack Kuwait but you somehow think that means they tricked them into it.
How you arrived at that conclusion is beyond me. I believe it's possible that some power brokers in the U.S. tricked Saddam Hussein into attacking Kuwait based on what former U.S. Ambassador in Iraq April Glaspie said in a conversation with Saddam Hussein prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
It's hardly a conclusion on my part. You agreed that the US didn't tell Iraq to attack Kuwait.
Yes.
Your statement here proves the second part of my statement.
No, it does not.
My statement is clearly a statement of fact since both parts are true. Which part do you think is false?
The part where you state that because I agree with you that the U.S. didn't tell Iraq to attack Kuwait that I "somehow think that means they tricked them into it."
Oh.. So suddenly you want to pretend you don't believe something you insisted I read because it supported a conspiracy theory?
Suddenly? You clearly haven't been paying close attention to what I've been saying. My changed stance happened 2 days ago, back in Post#421. It's there at the top of the nested quotes above, but I'll requote it below so you don't have to go looking for it:
"Did you read the article I linked to above? I had only read a bit of it, but I decided to read through more of it this time. It turns it, it includes a long transcript of a dialogue between Saddam Hussain and U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Based on my reading, my view of what she said has changed. While it's true that she said that she had "no opinion" of Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait, there are some nuances that need to be pointed out. I'll quote the part of the transcipt that includes her "no opinion" remark, but then continue with what she said aftewards:"
Can you tell us what the nuance is in Arabic since that is what the conversation was in? Applying nuance to a translation is an exercise in deception on your part.
If you think there was an error in the translation, by all means, point out what part you think was mistranslated.
Once again, you didn't read the entire article but only selected what you wanted to support your conspiracy theory.
Saddam said this...
**
I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them.
**
Saddam made this promise 1 week before his attack on Kuwait.
Have you considered the possibility that Saddam kept his word? All he said that was that he wouldn't do anything until he met "them". I'm not completely sure who he's referring to by them, but my take, from everything Saddam said in his conversation with April Glaspie, is that he was essentially saying that if the Kuwaitis agreed to his demands, he wouldn't invade. I believe it's safe to say that they didn't meet his demands, so he invaded.
Are you incapable of reading? Do you not understand how pronouns work in the English language? They normally refer back to the previous noun.
Normally, but not always. There were a lot of parties involved and thus I had some doubts as to who Hussein was referring to. However, after taking another look, it seems that you are right that Hussein was referring to the Kuwaitis.
No opinion does not mean we don't care if you attack.
In retrospect, I think it's evidently clear that the U.S. had a very strong opinion about Iraq attacking Kuwait.
Secondly, the transcript is an English translation from the Arabic transcript. Translations often don't capture the true meaning of what was said. Relying on transcripts for a single word or phrase is a good way to create a conspiracy theory but it shouldn't be relied on by people that can think for themselves.
We go with the information we can get. When it comes to the evidence that certain U.S. power brokers may have wanted Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, I think the strongest piece is James Baker's order to April Glaspie to tell Iraq that the U.S. had no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." At the very least, I think that any reasonable person would want to know why James Baker made that decision.
Except you don't go with the information you get. You go with the information that proves your conspiracy bullshit [snip]
Ah, more insults -.- We're done here.
If viruses don't exist then how can smallpox exist since it is caused by a virus?
You have yet to provide solid evidence that contagious viruses exist at all. You need to start there first.
It seems you can't explain why smallpox exists. That is what I asked you to do. Give us a valid explanation of how smallpox exists and is transmitted that does not include any microorganism.
Ah, I see. I'm guessing you meant to say that if viruses don't exist, how can smallpox exist, full stop. Your adding that it was caused by a virus got me to focus on the fact that you hadn't shown strong evidence of that assertion.
Anyway, I don't claim to know the specifics as to what causes smallpox, but I do believe that I know the general outline of its cause, as well as the cause of any other disease- toxicity, malnutrition and stress. Have you heard of Terrain Theory? It arose at around the same time as Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory. There are plenty of articles on it online, I personally like the following one:
Germ Theory Versus Terrain: The Wrong Side Won the Day | westonaprice.org
Quoting the relevant passage:
**
Béchamp’s various discoveries led him to conclude that our bodies are, in effect, “miniecosystems.” When an individual’s internal ecosystem becomes weakened—whether due to poor nutrition, toxicity or other factors—it changes the function of the microbes that are naturally present in the body, producing disease.20 In other words, microorganisms only become pathogenic after environmental factors cause the host’s cellular “terrain” to deteriorate.15
As one example of the powerful influence of weakening forces on the host’s ecosystem, a mid-1980s study looked at French children who experienced complications of wild-type varicella (chickenpox).22 (Note: France has never implemented varicella vaccination.) Although three deaths resulted from what is ordinarily an extremely benign childhood illness, all three fatalities took place within a subset of nine children who had been taking steroid medications on a long-term basis. In comparison, ninety-four previously healthy children recovered from varicella without incident. The researchers concluded that the deaths occurred “as a function of the [weakened] terrain.”
**
Humans are visibile to the naked eye, and I imagine you consider yourself part of the species, as do I. My analogy of a microbe being confused for a contagious virus being the equivalent of a Narwhal's horn being confused with a unicorn's horn was more accurate.
That does not meet the requirements I set out.
I'm pretty sure you don't think that people don't actually exist. If you'd like an hour and a half of doctors going over fine points as to what's missing in terms of evidence for viruses, I invite you to take a look at the hour and half video from Dr. Sam Bailey, her husband Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. Tom Cowan here. And in case you're wondering, yes, I saw the whole thing myself:
Baileys & Cowan Respond to Kevin McKernan | drsambailey.com
Last edited:
I give you an essay you and you respond with a sound bite you've repeated numerous times now. Did you even read the post above or did you just do a TLDR and decide to just hit the thing with your trademark refrain?
Once again proving you can't tell fact from fiction.
Your essay doesn't provide the evidence you think it does.
If I provided an excerpt from Alice in Wonderland would that prove that children can shrink if they drink from a bottle?
Partially reading an article isn't the same thing as reading an article. If you only partially read it how do you know if you missed the part where they say it is satire? Reading an article and cherry picking the parts that support your bias while ignoring the rest of the article and every other source only shows you have no desire to indulge in critical thinking. It makes you an ignorant troll.
What facts? I went to the trouble of doing a bunch of nested quotes above to try to get you back on the subject of what we were talking about. You come up with these non sequitors all the time.
If you don't trust what RT says then why do you use them as a source? This goes to your gullibility and to your disingenuous trolling.
Claiming you don't trust something and then repeatedly using them as a source shows what?
Apparently you don't know the definition of a journalist. I'll do my best to educate you. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
**
noun One whose occupation is journalism.
noun One who keeps a journal.
**
Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/journalist
For our purposes, the first applies.
Next, the definition of journalism:
**
noun The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles.
noun Material written for publication or broadcast as news.
**
Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/journalism
For our purposes, the first applies once more. The American Thinker site certainly qualifies as a place where journalists publish articles by this definition. For more information on their staff, feel free to take a look here:
https://www.americanthinker.com/static/about_us.html
Using the equivocation fallacy doesn't help your case.
News articles aren't supposed to be devoted to "the thoughtful exploration of issues." They are supposed to provide news that the reporter has personally researched and questioned sources about in an unbiased fashion answering the who, what, when, where and why questions.
You continue to prove you can't tell an opinion article from a news article.
As the video suggests, I believe that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is full of holes and contradictions that strongly suggest that it's a false narrative.
The holes in that video are so large you have fallen through them and are now wandering around your own wonderland and playing the parts of the mad hatter and the red queen yourself.
Point to one specific fact that you think would show that planes were not flown into the towers and the Pentagon. I will be happy to destroy your argument by proving it has more holes than the truth of what happened that day.
My essay provides evidence for my assertions. All you're giving in return here are soundbites with no evidence to back them up.
The essay also provides evidence that disputes your assertion. The fact that you haven't read the entire essay would point to why you can't dispute my claim.
You clearly didn't read very carefully. I'll quote Hussein's final dialogue in the quoted exchange and bold the relevant part:
**
HUSSEIN: Brother President Mubarak told me they were scared. They said troops were only 20 kilometers north of the Arab League line. I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them. When we meet and when we see that there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death, even though wisdom is above everything else. There you have good news.
**
I think it's safe to say that they did not find a solution.
Was Iraq going to die in a week? Do you have evidence they met with Kuwait? Once again, you cherry pick a quote and ignore any evidence that exists outside that quote. Iraq had moved troops to the border with Kuwait as evidenced by part of the quote you didn't bolden. Sadaam giving reassurances that the troops that were positioned for an invasion were not positioned for an invasion is what in your opinion?
If you think there was an error in the translation, by all means, point out what part you think was mistranslated.
If you are gullible enough to think that translations are true representations of the intent of a speaker then I can't help you. But you ignore the fact that you have ignored the rest of the conversation which shows Sadaam had already positioned troops and promised to not invade until meeting with Kuwait show you are not approaching this with anything but bias.
Ah, I see. I'm guessing you meant to say that if viruses don't exist, how can smallpox exist, full stop. Your adding that it was caused by a virus got me to focus on the fact that you hadn't shown strong evidence of that assertion.
Anyway, I don't claim to know the specifics as to what causes smallpox, but I do believe that I know the general outline of its cause, as well as the cause of any other disease- toxicity, malnutrition and stress. Have you heard of Terrain Theory? It arose at around the same time as Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory. There are plenty of articles on it online, I personally like the following one:
Germ Theory Versus Terrain: The Wrong Side Won the Day | westonaprice.org
Quoting the relevant passage:
**
Béchamp’s various discoveries led him to conclude that our bodies are, in effect, “miniecosystems.” When an individual’s internal ecosystem becomes weakened—whether due to poor nutrition, toxicity or other factors—it changes the function of the microbes that are naturally present in the body, producing disease.20 In other words, microorganisms only become pathogenic after environmental factors cause the host’s cellular “terrain” to deteriorate.15
As one example of the powerful influence of weakening forces on the host’s ecosystem, a mid-1980s study looked at French children who experienced complications of wild-type varicella (chickenpox).22 (Note: France has never implemented varicella vaccination.) Although three deaths resulted from what is ordinarily an extremely benign childhood illness, all three fatalities took place within a subset of nine children who had been taking steroid medications on a long-term basis. In comparison, ninety-four previously healthy children recovered from varicella without incident. The researchers concluded that the deaths occurred “as a function of the [weakened] terrain.”
**
I'm pretty sure you don't think that people don't actually exist. If you'd like an hour and a half of doctors going over fine points as to what's missing in terms of evidence for viruses, I invite you to take a look at the hour and half video from Dr. Sam Bailey, her husband Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. Tom Cowan here. And in case you're wondering, yes, I saw the whole thing myself:
Baileys & Cowan Respond to Kevin McKernan | drsambailey.com
Frankly your arguments are so stupid, I don't know where to begin.
If viruses don't exist then how can smallpox exist? You need to prove that smallpox can't exist in order to prove that it isn't caused by a virus. The medical and scientific literature is full of data that you would have to prove wrong. Your credulity doesn't disprove it. It only proves you can't produce an actual argument. Smallpox as a disease and the symptoms were known long before we knew about what caused it. It has specific symptoms that are not caused by malnutrition or stress. Toxicity requires a substance that is toxic be ingested. Did native Americans eat the blankets that were given to them that were infected with small pox?
You don't seem to know the first thing about how science works. You seem to prefer to dispute the best explanation for something and instead promote ideas that have huge holes in them
Tell me if smallpox exists as a disease with specific symptoms? Yes or no.
By the way, Dr Sam Bailey is not an actual doctor anymore as the medical board has revoked her license for promoting unscientific bullshit about Covid and putting patients at risk.
Always with this black and white notion of reading an article or source. As I've mentioned before, there is such a thing as -partially- reading a source of information. Anyway, I went back to where this all started and found the passage that you're referring to:
**
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”
However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).
Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.
Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video.
**
Source:
No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org
I'm part of the "some" that believe the video is fake and that the man depicted in the video isn't Osama Bin Laden. I certainly don't claim to have proof. I -do- believe that the Taliban had good reason to distrust the U.S.'s claims that Osama was responsible for 9/11 and their request for hard evidence that this was the case before turning him over.
Proving once again you can't tell fact from opinion.
I give you an essay you and you respond with a sound bite you've repeated numerous times now. Did you even read the post above or did you just do a TLDR and decide to just hit the thing with your trademark refrain?
Once again proving you can't tell fact from fiction. [snip]
Dodging the question I see. I'm guessing you just pulled a TLDR and slapped your trademark refrain as a response. Are you even aware that this is the second time you've responded my post #451, or that your last response in this sub-thread (post #443) is just a variation of your trademark refrain that you said in your response this time around?