Osama?
 

There are theories going around that Osama Bin Laden wasn't the terrorist of the 9/11 attacks at all, but rather just the face of the whole ordeal. Many are saying that there was a ruse that the Iraqi terrorists were just using this man as a cover while the U.S was searching for this man, the terrorists were using this proxy to cover their actual intents.

I tend to believe this could be true. I mean, if I were in any danger of getting caught for something that could sentence me to death I'd find a scapegoat too

That sounds like a load of crap.

I agree with you

There would be a certain amount of truth to that. A lot of leaders are primarily figureheads with people behind them calling some of the shots. Look at Bush...

Thank you^^^
And this sounds perfectly logical to me. i mean are we disregarding the fact that these are people, and many may in fact be as strategically cognitive of certain precautions to take as the U.S?

Are you arguing that they cannot have thought to use a scapegoat?

Who exactly is "they"? Iraq? Afghanistan? Al Qaeda? Are you saying Osama Bin Laden was nothing but a fall guy? And what exactly were we distracted from? There's not enough logic in this theory.

Hey, its not my theory, but "they" i would assume, would be the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Which one, i wouldn't know. i don't think anyone has any hard evidence to pinpoint either mentioned.

But i do say that no one can deny, that this is in fact a possibility, as i cannot deny that it may very well be "a load of crap"... as vulgar as that sentiment is...

and i dont believe u answered the question, rather than just respond with several other questions.

When the question is unclear, I need things clarified.

And i did clarify to the best of my extent.
In order to obtain that "clarification" for you, id need all the answers. Which i do not have.

However, i still stand to say that the question: "Are you arguing that they cannot have thought to use a scapegoat?", can be answered to the best extent of your understanding of the word "they" as well as my response after your question. And being that it is a question of opinion, i wouldn't imagine it being too far past your understanding.

Let me see if I have this straight. You write in a theory that you didn't come up with, that has zero evidence to back it up, and is extremely vague (to say the least) and get upset when someone questions whether this could possibly be true. Okay. I think I've had my fill of this tomfoolery.:rolleyes:

People seem to come up with stuff like this a lot and i dont understand. Why is looking at the easiest answer so difficult for people?

Im glad you have, your inability to adequately express yourself bores me. And i am not upset at all, i didnt ask you to agree with me but simply answer a question of your own opinion... which obviously can contain no value what so ever, especially now. And being that this is a "Theory", it inst necessary for this to have "evidence" as you say. Being that the actual definition of a theory is "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. " Thus, this "theory" is allowed to be flawed, because it is a "theory" in itself.

i am happy to see the capacity of your intellect in political matters and that you cannot hold your ground. good day to you :p