I'm saying that if you watch the actual video I linked to that was the pretext for the large-scale invasion of Afghanistan, it's extremely clear that the man in that video looks nothing like every other photo/video of OBL from both before and after.
The U.S. government told us in 2001 that they found a video of OBL claiming credit for 9/11. Given the evidence, is it really that unreasonable to ask whether or not that video is actually authentic? Is it really that unreasonable to expect the government not to make unavailable critical evidence in the matter?
How come HN gets pissed off at the sort of people who say that evolution is fake without looking at the evidence, but when I ask for evidence that this video is actually authentic I get downmodded over 40 points?
We know their "evidence" for Iraq was multiple kinds of shit. They didn't even go out of their way to conceal that once they got into there. Why should they worry about protecting the lies of a disgraced ex-president this time?
And I believe the reason that you are being down-voted is 1) you sound like a wingnut, 2) your claims are unclear. It is quite hard to work out what exactly you are trying to suggest.
And comparing rolling eyes at 9-11 conspiracy theories with denying evolution probably isn't helping you either...
The U.S. government told us in 2001 that they found a video of OBL claiming credit for 9/11. Given the evidence, is it really that unreasonable to ask whether or not that video is actually authentic? Is it really that unreasonable to expect the government not to make unavailable critical evidence in the matter?
How come HN gets pissed off at the sort of people who say that evolution is fake without looking at the evidence, but when I ask for evidence that this video is actually authentic I get downmodded over 40 points?