Don't you find it a bit weird, that you're more likely to believe an un-named, anonymous Taliban source, over the President of the United States?
|
|
|
Osama
- Thread starter DDON
- Start date
Don't you find it a bit weird, that you're more likely to believe an un-named, anonymous Taliban source, over the President of the United States?
Yes because the presidents of the united states have always been an honest bunch
.Obama being the exception of course.
Just because you put the year in parentheses after someone's name, doesn't mean they're a credible source.
I work with steel. You heat it, it weakens. You can bend it, form it, shape it. You don't have to melt it.
Duster929 (2011)
Yes because the presidents of the united states have always been an honest bunch
Obama being the exception of course.
You didn't get my point. How honest is your average unnamed Taliban source?
Oh I totally got your point. I think what you mean is how credible is it? Well how honest have the past US presidents been? Its all political games, be it the taliban or the US. It would be foolish to take anything said by anyone as the honest truth.
They've been more honest than anonymous Taliban people who don't even have names, and may not even exist. It's as foolish to take something said publicly by an elected official, as it is to believe in photographs or videos. If you believe someone is lying, you'll believe they faked the photos and videos. If you believe something different, you'll believe it when it comes out of the mouth of an anonymous source.
And no, I don't think you really got my point.
Last edited:
I didn't post an article... I was just argueing that the US presidency is no measure of Honesty or credibility. EVER.
That's why I edited my post. I realized it wasn't you.
I never argued that they are the measure of honesty or credibility. That's why I keep saying you're not getting my point. You seem to think that I said the President is the model of honesty. My point is, I can't think of a source less credible than "an unnamed Taliban source". And yet millions of people read that article and believed it, while at the same time calling the President a liar. You don't find that weird?
Last edited:
Like I said I got your point. I just don't agree that an unnamed Taliban source is less credible than the president. In my opinion they are both as credible as each other. Thus I can understand why people believed the article.
Now Obama in specific I would trust as more credible. But the past presidents I am going with no. Not Bush, not Clinton, not any of those big liars (and they all have proven to be such). And if Osama turns out to be alive Obama will join them in my eyes.
It's your opinion that an unnamed source is less credible than a line of proven liars. That is all you are debating here.
i can't believe that people are debating this.
if osama bin laden is alive, it's because he's being waterboarded until his eyes are floating in their sockets. . .either way he'll never see the light of day again.
there's no way the president of the united states goes out on a limb to categorically claim that bin laden is dead unless he's certain.
the price to be paid if he were to make such a public statement and then be proven wrong is just too high to be worth a debate on this topic.
. . .time to move on people
if osama bin laden is alive, it's because he's being waterboarded until his eyes are floating in their sockets. . .either way he'll never see the light of day again.
there's no way the president of the united states goes out on a limb to categorically claim that bin laden is dead unless he's certain.
the price to be paid if he were to make such a public statement and then be proven wrong is just too high to be worth a debate on this topic.
. . .time to move on people
Really? What exactly is the price that is too high to pay?
As I recall his predecesessor declared war based on WMDs that were never there. The guy before them got head while on the job and lied about that. What exactly is the price these people have to pay? They are basically the most powerful people in the world. They don't pay for their mistakes. Basically everyone, and anyone, but them will pay the price of their mistakes. Bill Clinton gets head in the oval office and Monica is forever only known as the ***** that sucked his dick.
I know eh. Who's to say Osama even EXISTS?
There's probably some poor illiterate schmuck in Afghanistan going "Why the F is my picture always in the papers?"
what the hell are you on about? have you lost the plot?
if the truth about the wmds had been out by by 2004, bush would have gotten the political beating of his life. clinton's peccadillos are nothing compared to being wrong about osama. that mistake would call into question not just obama, but his administration's credibility and the intelligence community and military operatives that obama used.
as for your theory, it doesn't hold water. ask bob rae and john turner about paying for their mistakes. likewise, nixon. in 1993, mulroney would have had his hat handed to him if he stayed on. . .
Which would you rather have testifying on your behalf in a trial? A real live person, named Barack Obama, President of the United States, or an article from the Pakistan Observer saying an unnamed Taliban source claims you're innocent?
You're being ridiculous saying that the two sources carry the same weight. I understand you're maybe trying to be a bit provocative, but you've stretched it beyond the point where it makes any sense. It's good to be reasonable, skeptical and critical, of course, but when you say such things,it shows that you're not.
I understand you have tunnel vision that's ok. If I was in a North American court yes I would want Barack Obama to testify on my behalf. If I was in a court in Pakistan, or probably just about any middle eastern country, I would want the dude form the Taliban testifying on my behalf. I am not being unrealistic stop viewing the world from your narrow little angle.
Wow, this is getting silly. There is no dude from the Taliban to testify on your behalf. He is an UNNAMED source! You would rather have that, than an actual person?
In other news, Al Qaeda has issued a press release this morning confirming that Osama was killed in Pakistan. I know, I know, it's nothing compared to the unnamed source quoted in the Pakistan Observer.
It's simpler than that.
You know people are telling the truth when it's against their own self-interest.
Well said.
I'm expecting a slew of American movies to come out to tell the "truth" so the sheep can know what really happened. Like how they won the war in Iraq or....
Like the Brave passengers of flight 93 and the accurate recount of "what really happened". Which is the opposite of what was recorded in NORAD in North Bay but it's probably best not to bring that up. Oh, too late.
USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!!!!!!!!
I'm expecting a slew of American movies to come out to tell the "truth" so the sheep can know what really happened. Like how they won the war in Iraq or....
Like the Brave passengers of flight 93 and the accurate recount of "what really happened". Which is the opposite of what was recorded in NORAD in North Bay but it's probably best not to bring that up. Oh, too late.
USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!!!!!!!!
roadtoruin
Well-known member
lol, al qaeda, the organization created by the CIA has come out to confirm the official story of Osama being killed, shocking!
|
|
|
|
|