Sic just has nothing of substance, no motive, nothing, so he just makes tangential statements to hide that theres nothing there. See: Darwyn

Virtually every country has lied to go to war
That doesn't mean that everything governments say are lies. you make a compelling case.

If they lie about war, arguably the worst thing humanity has ever dreamt up, what wouldnt they lie about. You Lie so you can go to the movies later? fine, you can regain my trust. You lie so you can kill thousands upon thousands indiscriminately all for greed??

How the fuck are you supposed to trust anything they say?
espeacially "hey everyone you know that thing, everyone said we could never do? and if we did it great things would happen for us (us at the top at least)? well we did it. but you cant see. just beleive it. trust me"

would you let charles manson out of prison if he promises not to anymore?
really.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON FOR THEM TO LIE IN THIS CASE AT THIS TIME.

NONE.

Hitler lied about Van der Lubbe to consolidate his hold over Germany, The Japanese about Mukden to invade China and form the Greater East Asian Prosperity Sphere, Gulf of Tonkin was played up to justify U.S. escalation in Vietnam and the containment of communism.

There is NO reason for the U.S. or the powers that be to release this info 1 and a half years away from an election as opposed to say a half year a way. If perhaps Obama tied this to pulling all troops out of Afganistan, perhaps you would have a motive, as he has not moved that way you do not. You have no motive, no evidence, so all you do is make stupid analogies and irrelevent points about the past.

But whatever, go and keep us safe from a government, never trust Sic, you are so wise

"what purpose does faking OBLs death serve, and whatever purpose that is, why is RIGHT NOW the best time?"

For us Little People, the answers to these questions will never really be known. Many of the real justifications for our government's foreign policy adventures remain a mystery to this day (Panama, anyone?). Maybe things in the White House executive bedroom haven't been so great lately, and Barack needed some way to prove to Michelle that he was a still badass. Maybe they knew that this news would travel quickly through the AQ communications network and were planning on observing all the traffic in real time through a new techo-whatsit that was just invented. Maybe an important figure in the administration who was 'in the loop' about OBL already being on ice or in an unmarked grave somewhere was threatening to release the fact because he was tired of sitting on it. Maybe a powerful and shadowy cartel that has been manipulating the commodities market needed an excuse to pull the drain plug, so they called up their puppet Obama and ordered him to produce some really really good news that people would believe (because no one is buying this "the recession was over two years ago and everything is back to normal" crap). Maybe Obama did this as a wedding present to Prince what's-his-name so he and his wife could have their honeymoon in peace while the international media was distracted ("one day - and that day may never come - I will call upon you to do a service for me in return for this favor."). Who knows? No one can prove that any of these theories are untrue.

I'm willing to believe the official story on this one, but there will always be a fair amount of doubt in my mind. That doubt could've been significantly reduced if the government had been more open and honest about the whole thing and released more hard data instead of just the series of contradictory narratives with a "just trust us on this one". Heck, they won't even release the audio from OBL's death tape - why, exactly, would they need to hide that?

"do you just do this for its own sake, or do you ACTUALLY believe all this shit is being hidden?"

I really and truly believe that 60-80% of the important happenings that go on in this world are never reported on CNN. There are many reasons for this. Important people like to keep their business private these days. Most reporters don't know what important news looks like. Most newspaper editors and TV news producers don't think important news will sell papers or get ratings, and if it did, it would likely result in a big advertiser pulling out. Since most of the important things going on in our lives are never reported, it's up to us Little People to fill in the blanks as best we can. Or you can continue believing the government/media/corporatocracy is infallible and gives you all you need to know.

"care to explain the following people who agree that the story is true?"

Most of them are - like the rest of us - going by what they've seen on TV. And so far as I know, Osama's wife is being held captive by the Pakistanis pending transfer to US custody - so any confirmation we're getting from her is likely third or fourth hand and passing through people who have a very obvious stake in the situation. And she could be lying anyways - nothing would make OBL's life easier *were he still alive* than having the whole world think he's dead. Just think about all the "experts" and "authorities" who "agreed" that Saddam Hussein was going to attack the United States any minute now with chemical and biological weapons, killing millions... Whoopsy!

"Wow Sicarius and Darwyn, it must be great to be the only two people on this forum who see the world how it really is. You two must be so much smarter and more perceptive than everyone else to see through all the lies. I'm just in awe of your might intellects. You've got me totally convinced."

I never cease to be amazed by the complete lack of skepticism WRT news events of people who spend their free time playing a game that relies on their ability to perceive deceit and trickery in others. Do you really believe the newsreaders tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth every single time?

"Do you really believe the newsreaders tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth every single time? "

Not even close, but what is strange to me is you demand ironclad proof for the government's story while requiring very little for your own alternative versions of the facts.

"Just think about all the "experts" and "authorities" who "agreed" that Saddam Hussein was going to attack the United States any minute now with chemical and biological weapons, killing millions... Whoopsy!"

There were plenty of serious people who disputed the evidence that Hussein was doing anything of the sort, and at the very least they said that more time was required for inspections to verify the allegations against Hussein. All you have to go on is that there was deception in the past, so there is deception in this case. That's very weak.

"No one can prove that any of these theories are untrue."

Right, you concoct any story you want and provide no evidence but yet demand all the evidence in the world from the government and still refuse to believe it.

Tolstoy- People here question all the time, invasion of Iraq, real motives of the tea party, The real reason for getting involved in Libya, there is no shortage of skepticism at all. There IS a low tolerance for bull shit though and this talk about a faked killing/rekilling of OBL is indeed bullshit. Do I believe that everything is being told to the public? No. I think that perhaps they had 0 intention of capturing OBL and were ordered to kill him, I believe the operation might not have been nearly as clean as they say, and I feel the buial at sea was a completely political rather than a religious motivation.

But only small minds will say this is completely made up, very small minds. All the work and risk such a lie would entail would not be worth the tiny political reward. The fact remains is that OBLs death was just a bright light and the "deathers" are the moths. You stated yourself that 75% of the major happenings in the world arnt reported by CNN, why then would the all powerful government put a conspiracy into motion that involves inherently highly publicized issues that would raise the skepticism of tso many?

I would say being skeptical is a smart, but this seems to have taken it too far. There are three major elements here that would have to agree to this type of conspiracy: Pakistani ISS, the Oval Office, and the US Navy. All of these have independently reported Osama's death. It doesn't seem like those three bodies could coordinate such a widespread lie without someone blowing a whistle from within.

Another problem with this conspiracy theory is that you citing other supposed conspiracies as evidence. Those are not credible sources of information. For example, "Just think about all the experts and authorities who agreed that Saddam Hussein was going to attack the US." Please tell me one expert who said that. The UN plainly stated that there were no WMDs, and there weren't any. Also, people were worried about Saddam attacking Israel and US-friendly powers in the region, not the North American continent. In the end, I think your case is full of holes and that the president's story is not.

I'm still patiently awaiting an answer about what changed, as I noted before.

"Will it make any difference that before 48 hours had passed the story had changed so much that it no longer bore any resemblance to President Obama's Sunday evening broadcast and has lost all credibility?"

In what ways had it changed? That's a big statement that is never explored at all in the ensuing post.

"Sic just has nothing of substance, no motive, nothing"

So if I constantly lie to you all your life, then claim to've killed the guy who stole your car but have no evidence, you should believe me because I have no reason to lie about it?

"There is NO reason for the U.S. or the powers that be to release this info 1 and a half years away from an election as opposed to say a half year a way"

You're assuming that the only reason to release a fake bin Laden death story is to influence an election. But all the examples you provide of lying governments deal with situations where no one was trying to win an election. There could be a great multitude of reasons to concoct a story, but why should people have to find proof for an alternate theory, when the "official story" has not been sufficiently proved? Isn't the burden of proof generally on the party making the claim?

The "deathers" are simply asking for proof about a pivotal event from an institution that has done nothing but lie to them all their lives. Demanding to see evidence is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, especially since the "deathers" are (in part) paying the bill. The fact that said institution is saying "we have proof, but we don't feel like showing it to you" is just feeding the mistrust - like a spouse who is caught cheating, tries to make amends, but insists on keeping all kinds of things secret.

we're not 'concocting' any stories. As far as I see it, we've expressed doubt or skepticism from a known liar. no one has seriously suggested any alternative theories, and no one as far as i have seen, has expressly said they thought osama bin laden was still alive.

we're saying its fishy, and even more so, ridiculous that so many bought into it hook line and sinker, apparantly without much, if any question.

"So if I constantly lie to you all your life, then claim to've killed the guy who stole your car but have no evidence, you should believe me because I have no reason to lie about it?"

If the police tell me the guys daughter says she saw you smoke him, I will believe it, yes indeed.

"There is NO reason for the U.S. or the powers that be to release this info 1 and a half years away from an election as opposed to say a half year a way"

Indeed, the government has released information gleaned from sensitive materials recieved in the raid, has put 4 OBL wives into paki custody, has caused the guys own organization, who has every reason to want him to be alive, to admit he is dead.
And all of that is arrayed against...
"They have lied to us in the past so perhaps they are doing it again (even though we have no reason then"

The government HAS provided me with evidence, the deathers cant even come up with a motive

"
The "deathers" are simply asking for proof about a pivotal event from an institution that has done nothing but lie to them all their lives. Demanding to see evidence is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, especially since the "deathers" are (in part) paying the bill. The fact that said institution is saying "we have proof, but we don't feel like showing it to you" is just feeding the mistrust - like a spouse who is caught cheating, tries to make amends, but insists on keeping all kinds of things secret."

Trying to preserve the scraps of good foreign relations we have left > then appeasing a few idiots. And yes, they are idiots,.

and forget elections, NAME ONE reasonable motive, and no BOs bedroom prowess is not reasonable.

"but what is strange to me is you demand ironclad proof for the government's story while requiring very little for your own alternative versions of the facts."

Eh? So far as I can recall, I haven't floated an alternative version of the facts. Like I said, I'm moderately inclined to believe the official story. I'm not demanding anything - I know the Powers That Be will just laugh at me if I do that - but I am remarking at the oddity of claiming to have ironclad proof but refusing to produce it for people who have some reasonable doubts.

"There were plenty of serious people who disputed the evidence that Hussein was doing anything of the sort"

Those people were just paranoid conspiracy theorists. Sure, the government has lied to us in the past, but why would they lie about something so serious as this? Those doubters were all secretly on Saddam's payroll anyway; one of them was a CHILD MOLESTER!!!!![cue sirens]!!!!! And have you forgotten 9/11?
[/sarcasm]

As I'm sure you recall, NONE of the Doubting Thomases were taken seriously and given any of the media attention that, say, Colin Powell's UN 'presentation' got.

"All you have to go on is that there was deception in the past, so there is deception in this case. That's very weak."

So if you're on a jury, and you hear from one witness who has a reputation for dishonesty and has changed their story and another who didn't lie at all, you're both going to give them equal weight?

"Another problem with this conspiracy theory is that you citing other supposed conspiracies as evidence. Those are not credible sources of information. For example, "Just think about all the experts and authorities who agreed that Saddam Hussein was going to attack the US." Please tell me one expert who said that. The UN plainly stated that there were no WMDs, and there weren't any. Also, people were worried about Saddam attacking Israel and US-friendly powers in the region, not the North American continent. In the end, I think your case is full of holes and that the president's story is not."

snackattack - it sounds like you are a 'furner. Here in the United States, government officials and the media were telling people constantly that Saddam posed a direct threat to the mainland United States in the leadup to the Iraq War. I believe it was Condoleeza Rice who said "we don't want the proof to be a mushroom cloud". There was a constant flood of stories in the news media about what kind of attacks Saddam was just about to pull the trigger on - Drones of Death that fly halfway around the planet and spray anthrax, nuclear bombs shipped in cargo containers, etc., etc.

"In what ways had it changed? That's a big statement that is never explored at all in the ensuing post."

Initially it had been claimed there had been a massive firefight, then we were told that only one person on the AQ side actually fired a weapon. We were told Osama's wife was used as a human shield, then she wasn't. We were told Osama fired on the SEALS, then he didn't. There are a few more points of divergence.

"and forget elections, NAME ONE reasonable motive, and no BOs bedroom prowess is not reasonable."

They decided to shut down the high-security freezer bin Laden's body has been in the last 9 years to save on electric bills and help close the budget deficit.

There is a difference between outright lying and manipulating circumstantial evidence.

If this turns out nit to be true not only thus administration, but the whole US security apparatus, maybe also the muilitary, will look like utter morons.

Governments lie when they think they'll get away with it. Iraq didn't stop Bush fir a second term. If this is fishy there're no winners. So, it ain't.

That's why people above were asking for a motive. Someone has to have a gain for a conspiracy, right?

The liar 'might look like a moron' is not a reason for a liar not to lie.
(which, we all agree that they ARE in fact liars, is the important part I think)

If it was a lie, they just did get away with it. cuz everyone just belived them, they didnt even have to show evidence.

Idk, support for our five wars?

"So if you're on a jury, and you hear from one witness who has a reputation for dishonesty and has changed their story and another who didn't lie at all, you're both going to give them equal weight?"

Who didn't lie at all? I'm assuming in your analogy Obama and Bush are treated as the 'same witness'. Anyway, this isn't a court of law. Yours is the same logic that was used to 'convict' Saddam Hussein in lieu of any evidence. The argument was - well he deceived us in the past, so therefore we can't trust him now. The only foolproof way of getting at the WMD question was to eliminate Hussein, etc. The same argument is used with Gaddafi now, even though he turned a new leaf, he's still a "bad man" because of what happened in the 1980s. This is the same logic that allows police to assume that all criminals who committed crimes previously will recommit them in the future. It's a sloppy argument.

"Idk, support for our five wars? "

Yeah, good one genius, Bin Laden's killing has caused people to call for the end of Afganistan, our largest war and most precarious at the moment.

Try Again.

The United States government props up whichever dictator will support it's greed for foreign natural resources(oil mostly) and weapons dealing. It has been doing this for some time now in the Middle East.

They have been lying shamelessly regarding the Middle East for decades.

It's NEVER a stretch to simply assume that the U.S. government is making up stories for the yokels.

Call me on this, bitches. I dare you.......

What dictator are they propping up by claiming bin Laden is dead "bitch" the ally they just alienated in Pakistan. Was OBL's body filled with fossil fuels?

Ahhhhh the Jew terrorist sympathizer chimes in. Typical.

How's the Palestinian genocide going, Solly? Blow up any schools or hospitals lately(with U.S. weapons)?

Nah, but I hear US B52s lit up some of your breatheren a while back, hopefully they can aim closer to Toronto next time, maybe invent a prune juice seeking missile just for you.

No offense to Canadians, but it's not exactly as if Canada hasn't engaged in American style chicanery. Canada helped oust the democratically elected government of Haiti and has supported the Honduran coup to the hilt. Canada can be counted to support the US in virtually every dirty deed it engages in. Don't act like you're angels over there. Canada even privately supported the dastardly invasion/war on Iraq of 2003 but spent a lot of effort hushing up their so-called "indirect" involvement. Hell, a Canadian led the Coalition of the Willing's navy. A Canadian now leads the effort to carpet bomb Libya to death.

Putin, you're just bitter from '72

True.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/20115614515651422.html

The circumstances and timing of Osama bin Laden's death can be explained by one word: Politics.

someone grasping at straws, much like you