The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

The Osama Bin Laden assassination orchestrated by the U.S Obama administration on May 1-2 2011.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 564 times Debate No: 92309
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Resolution: Based on the evidence available, Osama Bin Laden was most likely not killed by the Obama Administrations supposed assassination on May 1-2 2011.

Pro, is arguing that Osama Bin Laden was most likely not killed by the Obama administrations 'assassination'in 2011.


Hi cocksucker, how are you (first time I introduce myself like that)

I do believe he was killed by USA marines.
First of all: the President of the United States said so in an official statement.
Seymour Hersh had a very critical (and interesting) report about the matter, but he never questioned whether there was a raid that killed Bin Laden. (The rest was a fantasy according to him). Everybody in the know (CIA and ISI) confirmed it.
This great journalist was pretty much right about My Lai and Abu Graib.
Furthermore, also Bin Laden's allies confirmed (and sometimes swore to revenge) the murder of that man with that beard.
Also he was succeeded by Al Zahwahri, the former number two.
We never heard of him again either. If I were Bin Laden I would fight back in this propaganda showdown you suggest is going on.


Call for revenge:

===== The debate should be the other way by te way, but who cares.
Debate Round No. 1


First off, I clarified that we are not debating whether Osama was killed by U.S marines, we are debating whether he was killed in the supposed U.S assassination attempt, on May 1-2 2011.

Keep in mind, the president saying so is not a 100% proof that that happened, obviously, he had a definite motive to lie about that, we'll get to that. And just stating a report by Hersh isn't enough, you need to elaborate on the report for it to do anything, you can't JUST give sources. And yes, Bin Laden was confirmed dead, but we'll get to that.

Now first, the evidence against the supposed assassination is a lack of evidence supporting it, the first is the refusal of the Obama administration to release photographic evidence that Osama Bin Laden was killed. After the assassination Obama refused to release death photos of Osama Bin Laden [1] This is very important because it while Obama claims to have killed Bin Laden, he refused to release evidence to prove his claim. However their refusal to release evidence goes further than this, the Obama administration was requested to release DNA evidence that proves that it was Bin Laden who was killed, as they supposedly did DNA tests. [2] Obama claimed to refuse to release photos due to fear that it would be used as a propaganda tool, (although if this was the fear I question why he would openly want to assassinate Bin Laden in the first place, in this case that could surely be used as a propaganda tool as well.) But with DNA evidence, this fear evaporates, but they still refused to give out this evidence.

Another strange instance is the 25 minute blackout on the cameras which were mounted on the helmets of the soldiers invading the compound. As said by the CIA director, Leon Panetta, who is as the know as you say, as the soldiers entered the compound, very conveniently, the cameras suffered from a blackout, however, after this was said and done, their cameras immediately came back. [3] While it is certainly possible that this could happen, this occurrence is highly improbable, and is yet another instance of a lack of evidence that Bin Laden was killed on May 1-2 2011.

Another anomaly with the assassination is that the official account of the assassination consistently changed after is supposedly occurred. Initially, a White House security adviser, John Brennan stated that, "He (Osama) was engaged in a firefight of those that entered the area of the house he was in." This left a strong impression that Osama was armed with a gun. However the story quickly changed, as the New York Times had an article in which administration said only two days after what Brennan said that the only shots fired were from the very beginning of the assault, and were not by Bin Laden but rather by his trusted courier, and then they were never fired upon. This is a dramatic change in the official account, and a stunning contradiction. It is only logical that top officials would have the same story if this assassination actually occurred. [4] yet there were more contradictions in the official account. Brennan also told reporters that "...there was a family at the compound and there was a female who was in fact in the line of fire that was reportedly used as a shield to shield Bin Laden from incoming fire." However the president's spokesman later contradicted the account by reporting that, "...In the room with Bin Laden, a woman, rather Bin Laden's wife, rushed a U.S assaulter and was shot in the leg and was not killed." Even on the state of the compound the report contradicted itself, defense officials told reporters on Monday that his facility was worth 1 million USD, however local estimates later said that the facility was worth only 250,000 USD, once again a stark contradiction in the official account. [4] It seems only fair to assume that if this actually happened, top officials would have some consensus on the events that actually transpired.

The last evidence I'll present in this round, if evidence that Osama Bin Laden was in fact dead before the U.S attack in 2011. A Fox News article [5] citing an article by the Pakistan Observer, reported '...he died a peaceful death due to an untreated health complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a TALIBAN LEADER WHO ALLEGEDLY ATTENDED THE FUNERAL OF THE AL QAEDA LEADER." This is extremely important to my case, it was con after all who stated ISIS was a group who is in the know, I'm sure they could agree that this applies to the Taliban and Al Qaeda as well. These are reports of people attending Osama's funeral in 2001, and also importantly, this report from December 2001 by Fox News was conducted before this alleged assassination in 2011. To support this article, we must note it was widely known that Bin Laden suffered from serious health issues. Steve Pieczenik, a doctor and award winning Harvard medical school luminary, states that 'Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, not because special forces has killed him, but because I as a physician has known that the CIA physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had marfan syndrome."
It was well known that Bin Laden was suffering from serious health problems in 2001. [6] And the people that say Bin Laden died in 2001, The Taliban, is a terrorist organization just like ISIS, which is a group that con claims is in the know.








tyana forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


cocksucker911 forfeited this round.


Hi cocksucker, sorry for missing my turn. I was visiting my mother who had her birthday.

I will first comment on your arguments, and present some new ones myself.

I'll start with the 'doctor', mr Pieczenik. I did not know him so did a quick google search.
He is a psychiatrist which does not make him an expert in kidney failure or Marfan syndrome in my book. He has some views that make it hard for me to take him or his statements and opinions seriously.
While he said Osama was dead in 2001, he also said Khadaffi was alive after October 20, 2011. He claimed the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax. He was kicked out of the APA because of unsubstantiated (psychiatrical) claims about Bush sr. So all of this is at most speculation from someone (but not an expert) who has been known to have some very weird and questionable beliefs. I myself would be more vocal and just call it utter BS.

Then there you have your Taliban leaders who said Obama was dead in december 2001. (A couple of weeks before (october 2001) they had claimed they could extradite him:
The statement you mentioned was made just when he USA was conducting a massive manhunt for Bin Laden (the winter of 2001).
Apparently they were hunting him near Tora Bora at that time. It would make sense for someone who wants to see him free and alive and happy, to claim he is no longer among the living.
If he were to be believed, the search would stop. Not very elaborate, but it could work. Guess it didn't, in the end.
There are a lot of signs of life from Bin Laden from after that date too, so they would all had to be fabricated if he were dead by then. Taliban leaders later also spoke of him in the present time, contradicting the statement you presented (and actually announced him dead again when the Americans did so too in 2011).

You point to inconsistencies in the official version. I do not disagree, but fail to see how that supports your argument.
I think the little story of Bin Laden firing back, or using a woman as a shield is bullshitpropaganda, just to make him look bad (/worse) / defend killing him in cold blood / defend shooting an unarmed woman. And it was so obvious they had to retract it.
You do not even represent Brennans words correctly: in your own source Brennan says he doesn't know if Bin Laden fired any rounds. In 'the official version' 'the courier' was the only one to fight back with a gun and an unarmed female was supposedly shot when she approached the marines, right there when they first saw Osama).
Apart from that, people will always have different accounts of events, even if they experienced them together. This is just basic human psychology.
If there was this big lie going on, you would expect that there was extensive briefing on getting all the stories exactly the same. So in both scenarios the stories should allign. That they don't neither supports your argument, nor mine.
How the debating of the property value of a house in the middle of nowhere would point to Osama not being killed there and then is beyond me.

There are no moving images of the raid or the bodies. At least: they were never released.
That makes perfect sense to me. They raided the place at night (and killed the electricity). So it was dark (but marines had night vision), there was a lot of noise (helicopters, maybe small explosions), screaming women and children and a few adult men, the sound of shooting.
They came in with about twenty, and shot a couple of probably unarmed people, who may have begged for their lives. That's not a pretty picture, and I can perfectly see why the USA wouldn't want pictures or video of that in the public domain.
It's just bad publicity and providing propaganda ammunition to your enemy. (Just like the president said). There obviously is a great difference between a clear short spoken message "Osama is dead, we killed him" and the footage of the raid, if you look at in terms of propaganda value.

Also: providing pictures or DNA wouldn't make much of a difference in how different groups perceive this event:
The average American would believe it, but doesn't really need it to believe it.
The sceptic / conspiracy theorist would not necessarily believe the provided evidence. Who knows if a laboratory tells the truth, or a picture is not doctored? You yourself must dismiss a lot of photo/audio/video material of Bin Laden as rubbish, if you'll continue claiming he died in 2001.

Apparently: there were pictures of a dead OBL, but they had to be destroyed:

There was also conducted a dna-test by the way, and there was a 'conclusive' match:
This one came from secret NSA files released by Snowden.

If I imagine your theory (which it is not quite yet) were to be true, there also arise some obvious problems. Why wouldn't Bush jr have faked this operation a long time ago?
OBL was apparently dead, so he could have gotten that trophy a long time ago. And there were times where he definitely needed a little publicity succes.
And why do it in Abottobad and cause problems with the Pakistani's, instead of 400 miles west and have a picknick in Afghanistan, instead of your chopper in the ditches right next to Pakistani millitary bases?

Ok, one more very strong suggestion OBL was killed in 2011.
Wikileaks had a report about the son of Osama who wanted a death certificate of his father short after the raid. If his father had been dead for 10 years I don't think he would make such a request.
This story would not have come out were it not for wikileaks, so it's not just for the show, just like the documents provided by Snowden on the DNA.

Another one: A Pakistani commission interviewed some 300 people over the matter and had an investigation. Family and other eye witnesses spoke in it of the attack.
Daughter telling about the place where the bullet hit her father, and how the blood ran over his forehead. Osama's daughter, we're talking about.

I think that so many groups and people with so many different interests and views have all confirmed this one there is no question if it happened there and then.
USA, Pakistan, Taliban, Israel, Hamas, Al Qaida on the Peninsula, Afghan warlords, Russia, Muslim Brotherhood, China, India, 'Assange', Bin Laden family, Seymour Hersh, 'Snowden', Al Zahwahri, a dude in Abottobad on twitter, US marines, DNA, to name just a few.

Last of all: Obama had a reason to just make up this story, you claim. I would argue that while it would give him some little popularity boost, the risks of such a blatant lie would by far outweigh the possible benefits.
Especially in a case that's so close to American hearts. The coverup would have to be massive, and a lot of people would be willing to tell the public for the love of money, truth or country. I don't see Obama willing to take that enormous risk, with so little possible reward. Say of him as you want, but he's no Bush jr.

I do realize there's a lot of linking by me, but if I want to defend something DID actually happen, I must back that up with good sources, from all angles (in this case: Western, Westerncritic, Islamist, Oriental, eye witness/ stakeholder/ whistleblower), and did not even use all of that out of fear for fatigue. Just showing one or two little (explainable) inconsistencies doesn't lead to a dismissal of the entire case, the way I look at it.
I think a different paradigm would have to be backed up by some substantial facts.
PS: in this debate I never mentioned ISIS (mostly because the mtf's weren't around by then, or have anything to do with this matter). I ment
Debate Round No. 3


cocksucker911 forfeited this round.


Well, that was a waste of time. Pro's account has been closed.
Anybody want to debate the issue?

Would make most sense if I would then take the pro-side and claim OBL died there and then.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by tyana 2 years ago
yes, that was a shame. Was it the name? :)
Posted by c0cksucker911 2 years ago
I was banned before I could finish this sh1t.
Posted by Cobalt 2 years ago
How on Earth did the DDO filter let you choose that name.
Posted by cocksucker911 2 years ago
But when I made the debate that didn't say title, that said 'topic' I was just stating the topic we were to debate about. I'll just make it more clear in the first round.
Posted by KRTxBallistic 2 years ago
You should be Con. The title implies that Osama was killed by the Obama Administration. Being Pro means you support the claim Osama was assassinated.
Posted by cocksucker911 2 years ago
I'm supporting that Osama Bin Laden was most likely not killed in the supposed attack on May 1-2 2011.
Posted by cocksucker911 2 years ago
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
You have pro and con messed up.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited more rounds than Con. Pro argued that there was a lack of public evidence of Osama Bin Laden's death, Con argued that it would be bad publicity for the US government and therefore it wasn't released. Pro doesn't rebut. Pro argues there was no DNA evidence released, Con gives links that show DNA evidence. Con also points out if the death was a lie, they would have made sure their stories match, and it would have been done earlier.