Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Osama Confession Video [View all]William Seger
(11,047 posts)It seems you don't even understand what's being argued here. It IS NOT what other people think of the video; it's your so-called "logical reasoning" that if an FBI PR guy said in a casual phone interview that there was no "hard evidence," that means that either the translation or the video itself is fake. There is nothing "logical" about that "reasoning," and you haven't addressed the obvious problems with your logic except to blithely deny that there are any. Nor have you even attempted to offer any actual evidence that the video is fake. All you've got is argument from arrogance that Tomb and everyone else is required to share your opinion about what constitutes "hard evidence," despite your unwillingness to even attempt to define the term. You simply believe that your own opinions are "fact" and your own invalid inferences are the epitome of "logical reasoning," and that anyone who says otherwise is a "troll" regardless of the reasons they provide.
If your objective was to make a fool of yourself, then yes, your work is pretty much done. But I'm gonna bet that your ego won't allow you to let it go, and you'll keep digging the hole deeper. And, yes, I'm happy to keep egging you on, because the subplot on this forum is what sort of fuzzy thinking underlies the process of promoting unbridled paranoid conspiracy speculation to be "truth."