-Snafu-

You stated both sides had good points and then said, 'So now that this thread is officially only for celebratory posts of this great victory'. Obviously, you believe these guys arguments have some validity to them. Hence why I ask for the evidence that makes them valid. Well done, you found a link again confirming that the US supplied the insurgents in Afghanistan in the 1980s to help them fight the Soviets. Much like how the USSR and the PRC supplied the DRV and by extension the NLF in the 1960s and 1970s. Sounds like the FBI did not communicate the information they had to the DoD which, unsurprisingly, the article goes on to state. The US government and military is not a homogeneous all knowing and all seeing organisation The departments and branches are separate and run by people that unsurprisingly make mistakes. The Daily Mail is also a newspaper of dubious quality. These first two ones do not show that Bin Laden was not killed in that compound by DEVGRU. Interesting, however, not a smoking gun though as in an interview a few days later with Greta van Susteren Bhutto states Bin Laden was alive. Linky She also states that he was alive in earlier interviews too.

I am simply asking you guys to back up your claims with credible evidence. A very valid and reasonable question that I fail to see as trolling.

Where's the evidence?

You clearly have not read the book as it is a collection of sources from AQ, for example, statements they posted on the internet and excerpts from Ayman Al-Zawahiri's books. Ah yes, the old 'I know better than everybody else' line. Yes, only you know the truth, know better than people and academics who have the benefit of years of training and research, and you're here to enlighten us all to the truth. The ego and paternalistic crap you guys have never ceases to amaze me.

Only arguments backed up by solid evidence are worth considering. Your argument has none and is thus worthless in the pursuit of accuracy. If you were dealing with it you would simply admit your argument is lacking and/or stop posting but you don't. It's your 'show'. ---------- Post added at 00:28 ---------- Previous post was at 00:13 ---------- Al-Qaeda is not an organisation that is centralised. Rather, the internet is its main form of global communication where it puts up its ideology, strategy, tactics, technical guides and statements for members and sympathetic groups to utilise. A now common long established practice. Please see the books on AQ by Raymond Ibrahim and Abdel Bari Atwan. Yes, I know books aren't as fun as reading some guys post on a forum saying AQ is run by the NSA, but they're worth a read.

At the end of the day all you have are doubts, and that isn't evidence and nor is a villager saying it did not happen a smoking gun for reasons previously stated. On the other hand, AQ confirming his death, is incredibly substantial. The weight of evidence indicates he was present in that compound and killed in that compound by DEVGRU. You have nothing substantial to indicate otherwise. Deal with it.

It is irrelevant that he is the most wanted on all lists (is that even so or just hyperbole?) and known by almost everyone. It somehow implies that it would be impossible for him to hide and that everybody was utilising maximum resources in order to find him since 2001. The war in Afghanistan is being waged for a multitude reasons too. People evade detection. It is an indisputable fact and history is filled with examples. If you want something more current just take a look at the wanted list of the FBI. One person that immediately springs to mind is Ayman Al-Zawahiri. You are also assuming he had no help from elements of the government and military of Pakistan. I did. Still seeing conflicting reports all over the place, on more than one issue too. The time and technology is irrelevant. It does not make people, organisations and governments all seeing and all knowing. You also fail to understand the WW2 example so I will state this as clear as I can. It will take time to get an accurate picture of what exactly happened. It's obviously limited footage but it looks like him so the responsibility lies with those who argue it isn't him to provide evidence. Doubts aren't enough. I also think we need a new law. It will be called 'Snafu's Law' and the first one to mention Fox News loses. You said: Have you watched the video of him watching himself? I naturally thought you put some significance onto it.

It is a perfect example that wanted people can easily hide in areas with a high concentration of population. Yes, the situations are different, statement of the bleeding obvious. Nevertheless, there are thousands of wanted people out there evading the authorities for years, the example stands. In addition, it has not been stated that he was there for 6 years. The event is too recent to get a clear picture and considering it was a top secret mission certain details will remain sketchy. Very simple to understand. Just look at the historiography of certain subjects, take WW2 for example. Do you think an accurate view of the conflict existed in the 1940s and 1950s? No, it was too recent and not enough source materiel was available to gain an accurate view. Only now are we beginning to possess one. The same applies here. Many agencies have reported different versions of the events. A good example is how the helicopter crashed. Neither can you prove that it is not him. Unless you are claiming to have significant enough knowledge of Bin Laden to be able to determine what he would and would not do and what would and would not be going on in that compound. To be honest, I hardly find him watching Al Jazeera to be strange. It is well known that Al Qaeda and similar groups are quite reliant on the news media for information and the like.

To expect crystal clear, 100% accurate information, on a recent event is ridiculous in the extreme. Discrepancies will inevitably appear but instead of recognising this fact people cry conspiracy theory. Another issue is that some criticise people for taking the word of Obama and members of the US government and public but then they take the word of others over them, as if they don't have their own agendas and are somehow more worthy of trust and belief. Also, I bring to peoples attention a recent incident where a fugitive hid in a place that was crawling with security forces. That person being Raoul Moat who moved around Rothbury and its outskirts under the noses of hundreds of cops and residents. Very embarrassing for the police. http://news.scotsman.com/news/Raoul-Moat-played-cat-and.6400092.jp RAOUL Moat was able to evade the hundreds of police officers patrolling the village of Rothbury and its rural hinterland even though he was hiding right among them. Much of the time, he was in the village itself – an idea that shocked the villagers. Disturbingly for one resident, Moat appeared to have smashed a window, broken into her home, raided her kitchen cupboard and spilled her food. It's getting tiring seeing these theories when something comes up almost immediately with little critical analysis involved, again, something conspiracy theorists criticise the rest of us for. I am not saying that governments are not involved in shady goings on. Take the Diem assassination for example, an event the US government had a limited involvement in (although it was really the Ambassador to RVN who played an independent role outside the remits of his job) and this information is readily available, provided by the US government in fact. To cry conspiracy when something can't be explained straight away is ridiculous. They should take their 'theories' and ask experts in the field of politics and intl. relations (doesn't have to be that university, any reputable one will do) to comment on them and see what they think. They have training in studying these matters, using a wide variety of sources and possessing an ability to critically analyse information and forming it all into a coherent argument. They can be easily contacted and I am sure they will be happy to address any arguments

Excellent thread, sir! Reading it reminded me a bit about Close Combat.

Stupid peasant reporting in.

Excellent guys, thanks very much for finding those addons. :) No problem, hopefully someone has it. You don't need to register to download Area 52 but enter a verification code instead. That would be great, thanks! That's a shame to hear but I'll give it a try anyway. Before ice's site went down I managed to grab the rest of his addons but sg_weaponrack1 came out corrupt. Bielow, if you are missing some of the SG addons I can send them to you and you can put them up on your Megaupload site.

Thanks for that link Zulu1. I think I might be able to replace the corrupted PBOs with those. I'll have a go and see. ---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 ---------- OK, I was able to replace most of the broken addons in the SG mini mod. The 4 addons that elude me are: - ALDI_alienStructure1.pbo - AREA52.pbo - BRG_n2.pbo - doe1.pbo Once I get these I'll rar up the mini mod and put it up for download.

Does anybody have the Stargate mini mod? It was once available from this site but it has gone offline sometime in the last several months. I tried to download the mod several times last year but it was always corrupt. I can't seem to find any working download links.

R. Lee Ermey'd anyone? :D I don't have access to my PC right now.

Gentlemen. The Ban man is pleased. He hopes we will be internets famous. Well done.

Unlock more and get achievements with more bans. Get double points for banstreaks. Some will be sold as DLC.

I really need to get back to work.

Fired from BIS already? :eek:

In the same spirit as PuFu's though not as good. Yes, that's a thief. :D

Fixed, thanks! :)

I don't want to give up my W0lle'd!

Oh noes, now I've been W0LLE'D! :D

I've been walled. :(