Why didn't they show DNA or photographic evidance to prove it? We'll just have to take their word for it because I don't think we'll ever know what happend.
Perhaps he wants people to think he's dead? Who knows. It's naive to believe everything your told by the state.
Look... just because you can SAY something doesn't mean its even the slightest bit more valid.
If they provided DNA there would be someone questioning whether it was faked. What do YOU know about DNA?
False suspicion, as in this case, is usually traceable to a perspective that the doubter already has and seeks to re-inforce...
For example... almost everything Anti-Obama folks are willing to believe is deeply rooted in their own racism. The WANT the first black president to fail... they Want him to prove lesser, unable, or suspect...
And so they are willing to dismiss all rationality in lending credence to any narrative that reinforces that racism.
You say you shouldn't trust your government... well if you lived in Russia I could understand that...
But you trust them to purify and supply your water. You trust them to deal with your sewage. You trust them to monitor the safety of your food supply. You trust them to make your car safer to drive, your appliances safer to use.
Hell... you trust them to manage and control the world's largest arsenal of nuclear and other weapons.
So the question is... What is the governments PERCENTAGE in lying about Bin Laden's death?
Why didn't Bush just lie about killing him during his administration?
( deep inside, you know that either you distrust government in general, or you distrust Obama or Democrats in government... and that is mere partisanship and/or racism )
The answer is clearly that any President lying about Bin Laden's death would be opening himself up to major humiliation should that become revealed....
Your only 'rational' way out of that logical box is to imagine that Bin Laden and Obama, or the government are in cahoots... coordinating their actions with each other... which only spans an ever growing and increasingly fantastical conspiracy which involves exponentially growing numbers of co-conspirators, Each of whom has the power to upset the whole applecart with a tell all book that will make them independently wealthy.
And, of course, the only answer to that is that you believe these conspirators are "true believers" who would not sell out over money...
But then, if not for money and power... then why aren't these dedicated souls equally capable of being dedicated to the causes they actually publicly espouse?
Its a self defeating argument... if they are self interested villains... then one of them would sell out the other at the first chance to profit...
If they are loyal to some unrevealed cause, then they are more likely to be loyal to the cause they actively promote.
You want real conspiracies? They , Too, leave evidence and you can ferret them out readily simply by weighting all narratives against what they stand to gain.
The Kock Brothers is a perfect example... Every political act they have underwritten has been predicated in lies and misrepresentations.
Why?
Because they want to influence politics in a way that will increase their profits, truth is not a concern... only the bottom line matters.
Spend 100 million to defeat Obama? Sure, When Haliburton gave big to Bush/Cheney, that few tens of millions garnered them 20 billion in return on investment. ( and then they skipped town to evade subpoena )
And What is Obama's big incentive to lie or subvert the war on Al Qaeda?
He'll be in power for 4 or 8 years... total... then, like other presidents, he'll retire to a fat pension and huge speaking fees and not have to deal with any of this anymore...