Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyClips
lol so now it's "not trustworthy"....haha how convenient...
|
You don't think the article is trustworthy, either, whether you realize that fact or not.
It's very simple: If you believe that Bin Laden died over a decade ago, then you
can't believe what is reported in that Daily Mail article.
Think about it for a second, and you'll realize there's a pretty simple logical construction that backs up my point:
A) According to you, it is common knowledge that Bin Laden died a decade ago (only a person with one or fewer brain cells would think otherwise, right?)
B) The article implicitly accepts the proposition that Bin Laden was killed in the raid last year; what the source the article cites is disputing is merely the claim about the manner in which his remains were disposed, not the U.S. government's claim concerning when he was killed.
C) If (A) is true,
then the article cannot be trustworthy
If your whole point is that Bin Laden wasn't buried at sea, whenever he might have died, then fine - that's a reasonably coherent and debatable point - but you can't have it both ways on the question of WHEN he died.
Either he died a decade ago, or he died in the SEAL raid last year.
Even you can't argue with that.... right?