Quote:
Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS
Not sure what your post means. But I probably shouldn't have lashed out. Sorry Bot, please forgive me 
Now, regardless of what any report created by those who have agenda and need to cover their hinders supposes and hypotheses with all sorts of complexity, when the principle actor comes back with simple corrective testimony to clear up inaccuracies in said report you have to give his claim about himself which is logical and in his own voice some credibility. To justify the report being of superior truth over primary later testimony requires all sorts of special circumstance. Proof, not speculation. You have to realize UBL read the report and commented to it.
If we are not honest about the actual facts, solutions will be more difficult. Denial is not a good strategy. Suppose for the sake of argument it is only what UBL's followers believe. That in itself is their truth, and matters.
Or, feel free to rewrite history in any speculative manner that you like. |
So "simple corrective testimony to clear up inaccuracies in said report you have to give his claim about himself which is logical and in his own voice some credibility", represents the only undisputable true fact. It may be a fact it was a statement directly attributable to OBL, but what makes the substance of any statement a proven fact?
Because only dumb arses don't know that OBL could never tell a lie and never had any agenda?
Obviously, that's what separates the "smart ones" from the rest of the unwashed masses!