skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:
Another inane response lacking reason.
skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:
Apparently, you were not aware that bin Laden sent a tape in 2010, which meant he was not dead for many years.
Apparently you have not even taken the time to read my recent argument before making judgement, which adds ‘ignorance’ to your long list of failures, i.e. I don’t believe bin Laden was dead until May 2
nd, 2011. Do you actually check who you are responding to and whether your comments have any relevance to what is said?
skyeagle409, on 13 December 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:
That doesn't work, because al-Qaeda admitted that American special forces killed bin Laden, which is why al-Qaeda announced bin Laden's replacement. In other words, American forces kicked bin Laden out of the picture.
It works fine that ‘Al Qaeda’ is not the structured membership or organization that you want to believe and neither did any statement announce a ‘replacement’ for bin Laden. The gist is rather more that the authors, who identify themselves as leaders of this loosely defined collection, are sorry for bin Laden’s death and will strive to continue his work with al-Zawahiri foremost amir (of which there are many) of the cause.
I agree that American forces ‘kicked bin Laden out of the picture’. Though it appears that intelligence services of the ISI had bin Laden under control ever since 2001.