Osama Confession Video

[William Seger]

15. What you just did there is called "logical reasoning" huh?

Sez you. I call it bad logic and pointed you to the two most glaring faults. Your rebuttal amounts to hysterical hand-waving.

> Video has been used both to indict and prosecute individuals since its inception. It is practically the very definition of 'hard evidence'.

Really? And whose "very definition" is that? Yours, obviously. If you don't understand why a video of someone bragging to his buddies is weak circumstantial evidence, then you're a prime example of why I believe "truthers" should be barred from jury duty.

> Tombs stated what he knew, and he never refuted his claim. What he stated was not 'an opinion'.

Except that you don't actually have any legal definition of the term "hard evidence," and even if you did, whether or not a particular piece of evidence fit that definition would generally be a matter of opinion. About the only exception would be a genuine "smoking gun," which we don't have.

> I understand that you, like so many people these days, can't tell the difference between facts and opinions, ...

One of the things I really love about this particular board is the irony.

> ... so I'll help you out a little: a 'fact' is either 'true' or 'false'. An opinion is neither true or false, it just has degrees of validity.

Which is PRECISELY why Tombs' comment about "hard" evidence was a matter of opinion! Jeez.

> So either Tombs was lying, or he was stating a fact. Since his statement was never refuted by the FBI or anyone else, the conclusion is that his was a statement of fact.

What I just did there is called 'logical reasoning'.

No, what you just did there is try support an invalid inference with an unsound premise. The unsound premise is that Tombs was either lying or stating a fact, whereas he was actually stating an opinion, and as I pointed out, not one necessarily shared by FBI lawyers. The invalid inference is that your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from your premises, even if they were factual, because there could be other reasons why the FBI never refuted Tombs' opinion.

> Lemme guess, it's also not a 'fact' that Obama was born in the US, right? Because I can use your exact reasoning to shoot down all the evidence that he was.

LOL, I don't see how you could make that claim unless you simply don't understand my reasoning. Where Obama was born is a genuine matter of fact, not a matter of opinion about the meaning of the words "where" and "born."

> But the best part is how you go on to say that the video is not 'hard evidence' thereby proving my entire point. There is no 'hard evidence' linking bin Laden to 9/11.

Wow, you seem to have forgotten your own "entire point" pretty quickly, so let's look at it again:

> When we apply reason again, there are only a few possible answers, and none of them can possibly be that the video represents a confession. The answers are:

> a) The video is entirely faked, which would be child's play for the FBI to have determined.

> -OR-

> b) The CIA translation, for whatever reason, is false... which would also be easily determined.

> Either way, we've been sold bad goods. The video is not any kind of 'confession'.

What I said was, indeed, the video is weak circumstantial evidence, not "hard evidence," and it needs to be considered along with all the other evidence, in view of which the confession is quite credible. That statement in no way, shape, or form, proves the "entire point" that you actually made above. Which brings us back to the title of you post:

> LMAO! You've just proven beyond doubt that you can't be taken seriously.

Did I mention how much I love irony?