Twenty long years.

exactly, it gives closure to 9/11. it justifies the entire war on terror.

saying we went in and killed osama is a major thing. him being dead isn't.

and bacon, you are aware you gave pretty much nothing aside from far too convenient anecdotal evidence, right?

an image of osamas dead, non mutilated corpse wouldn't be a recruitment tool for the taliban. because its a symbol of the fact that we can get them whereever they want to hide. sooner or later, we'll get them too.

NBC reported that the Black Hawks that were used in the raid are likely new stealth variants being tested by the US Military. This is based on evidence from the tail of the black hawk that crashed and was partially destroyed, minus the tail, appearing weird, with a disk the partially covers the back rotor and the blades appearing smaller than normal.

Pakistan has appearently taken the majority of it. It was also reported that the US and China have been in a arms race involving said technology, which is not that much of a surprise.

And so, a conspiracy theory is born.

Ruski wrote:NBC reported that the Black Hawks that were used in the raid are likely new stealth variants being tested by the US Military. This is based on evidence from the tail of the black hawk that crashed and was partially destroyed, minus the tail, appearing weird, with a disk the partially covers the back rotor and the blades appearing smaller than normal.

Pakistan has appearently taken the majority of it. It was also reported that the US and China have been in a arms race involving said technology, which is not that much of a surprise.

really isn't, kind of was obvious after the J-20 was revealed, fact is China can make the technology faster and cheaper

basically, 2011 is having the opening causes of WWIII popping up.

Vtrooper wrote:

Ruski wrote:NBC reported that the Black Hawks that were used in the raid are likely new stealth variants being tested by the US Military. This is based on evidence from the tail of the black hawk that crashed and was partially destroyed, minus the tail, appearing weird, with a disk the partially covers the back rotor and the blades appearing smaller than normal.

Pakistan has appearently taken the majority of it. It was also reported that the US and China have been in a arms race involving said technology, which is not that much of a surprise.

really isn't, kind of was obvious after the J-20 was revealed, fact is China can make the technology faster and cheaper

basically, 2011 is having the opening causes of WWIII popping up.

I don't understand why you are thinking WWIII is going to occur, especially with China of all countries. The US and China depend on each other economically. An attack would hurt both, a la MAD, and not in the sense of Nuclear retaliation. I also don't understand why you say really isn't to the highlighted text, yet go on an make an argument saying there is.

The J-20 wasn't really a surprise anyways. The US had known about it for a long time before it even took to the air. It design doesn't even really make it all that stealthy in all directions either.

But really, V, we should keep this on topic so....I read a report where a commando canine accompanied the SEALs. The dogs they train to go with Navy SEALs on missions are pretty cool.

Lets just hope we can get out of this oil sink hole.

As for Osama, I have a feeling that his face is conquered people's images with terrorists as such terrible people.

They have no idea how extreme some of those members are.

Osama was in it for the liberation of Palestine and the elimination of Israel.

Who ever now steps in will expose the true face of religious extremism, and not in a good way. However this turns up, its going to be bad.

TNine wrote:How you deem harmless lying is a level of contempt not found in our government is beyond me.

They aren't just lying though. They aren't covering up something that is confidential, or enhancing the truth to look better publically.

They are MAKING SHIT UP.[/quote]

Technically, I asserted that they were enhancing the truth to look better publicly, in that that they had likely killed some high up al Qaeda leader, but used Osama bin Laden's name for recognizability.

TNine wrote:BTW, it doesn't hurt us, but if ANYONE involved in the lie leaks it, or even if papers get out, EVERYONE involved in the operation is out permantely. It just isn't worth the risk.

If we find out this is a lie, there is a minor scandal. Some people will get yelled at. That's about it. This isn't a conspiracy that they perpetrated 9/11 or some bullshit like that. It's just a lie.

TNine wrote:Edits:
And, as Rasq had pointed out, it was "competency" not "contempt". I have no illusions of the effectivity of the governemtn or its moral standing.

Fair enough. Point stands. The government might not be amazing, but they aren't dipshit retarded, either. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to throw a body in the ocean and realize that, without any evidence, you can say it was whoever you'd like to.

TNine wrote:Additionally, the reason will killed Osama was because that was the mission. It was an action done in war. There were never any pretenses that this was a mission to capture Osama, so it didn't matter if he was unarmed (think of it this way, if you ambush a camp, is killing all the soldiers who don't have time to get to their weapons unlawful?).

That doesn't really sit right with me. We have the opportunity to capture the mastermind behind al Qaeda who likely knows all their secrets, has information about all their operations, etc, and instead, we decide to just shoot him?

TNine wrote:

CNN.com wrote:Bin Laden, considered a combatant by virtue of his position as head of al Qaeda, needed to immediately make clear a desire to surrender, if that was his decision, in order to avoid being shot. That apparently didn't happen, Groves said.

That's like saying "President Obama, considered a combatant by virtue of his position as head of the United States military..." Combatants are very clearly defined, and I'm pretty sure there are also rules of engagement concerning combatants that don't include "surrender immediately, and if you don't, we'll shoot to kill immediately".

Baconsen wrote:I was going to address this when you responded to my post, but i'll do it here.

Alright simply put, BEFOREHAND where did we think Osama was hiding? We thought he was sitting in some cave either in Afgan or Paki, in the middle of a desert. Not some mansion a short walk from a military academy. That is one of the last places we would think Osama would be, besides maybe underwater or on the moon...

Not really. We believed he was living in the tribal district of Pakistan, likely in a cave or mud hut. He was found a mere 100 miles away, in Pakistan. Now, the last place we expected him to be was, say, Europe, or Africa, or pretty much any country that wasn't Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, or Iran. Last time I checked, Abbottabad does not qualify as any of those. We expected him to be in the tribal areas, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have been looking elsewhere in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Baconsen wrote:Its not an obvious safe house. There are a lot of rich people in the middle east that would make a house just like that. It was more likely that the house belonged to a man or family that owned oil reserves compared to Osama living there.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but generally speaking, when a rich person buys a house, some government somewhere knows who lives there, right? I mean, especially a million dollar armed compound with privacy walls and one-way glass windows, you'd probably know who lived there. Right?

Baconsen wrote:Like i said, we weren't even thinking he'd be there.

If our intelligence agencies are so stupid as to assume that Osama bin Laden might not be in the one place we thought, then frankly, they ought to all be shot.

Baconsen wrote:We don't know the whole story Rot. If anything he could have been hit by a stray bullet.

Two stray bullets. To the head and chest. Stray bullets fired by the most elite unit in the United States, who don't misfire or accidentally shoot someone in the head. I'm not buying it.

Baconsen wrote:Or was threatening to kill a hostage.

The fact that he had time to get a hostage is kind of strange. I mean, this isn't Call of Duty. I would imagine that SEAL Team 6 was competent enough that he would be unable to do something like that.

Baconsen wrote:There are many possibilities. There may have been some circumstance they had to prepare for that required them to go lethal. We don't know, we don't have the official report.

The government doesn't even acknowledge that DEVGRU units like SEAL Team 6 exist. I doubt we're going to get an official report. Point stands. An average SWAT team probably could have taken him alive. Why did SEAL Team 6 fail in this?

Baconsen wrote:Seriously? Like honestly? Did you ever think about the repercussions if that would happen? Being in a third party will increase the chances of things being leaked. The image of Osama being dead would turn into a recruiting tool for those damn terrorists and so forth. To put it another way, THEY'D BE PISSED OFF EVEN MORE. Why the hell should we get them even more angry so they (god forbid) try something even more drastic than before? Do you honestly think that is worth it just saying oh I see nao he's dead?

That's what you're going with? If we released pictures, they might be even more angry. God forbid we piss off the fucking terrorists. I'm sure if they want a picture of Osama bin Laden's death to use as a recruiting tool, that photoshopped one from 2005 will work just fine.

Baconsen wrote:Maybe they were waiting for a confirmation of his identity? I mean saying "Oh yeah we killed him, we just got to make sure he's the right guy." Seems like a waste of time.

According to the news, the DNA results were in a day short of a week ago.

Baconsen wrote:Alright, honestly Rot, i'm surprised this is coming from you. I'd expected this crap to come from someone else. All conspiracy theories like this just make the supporter of them look like an ass. Whether he's dead (which i'm sure he is) or not, it finally gives those families whose lost someone in 9/11 after 10 years have some fucking closure. Trying to disprove this just makes you look like a dick to those families.

I would just like to point out that I am asserting that bin Laden has been dead for a really long time, and that we probably took out some other important, though lesser known al Qaeda operative. Though, from what I've heard, some of the aforementioned 9/11 families were kind of put off by the fact that there are no pictures, no body, just the government's word for it.

Baconsen wrote:Plus the whole argument of Obama releasing it now just the help him get reelected is stupid. Geroge Bush Senior was president when we won the Gulf War, yet he lost to Clinton...

Presidents have done worse to try and get reelected. Every little bit counts.

Rot...what President has made up such a bold-faced lie as a publicity stunt (and only a publicity stunt). Nixon?

Caught in a lie is one thing, but getting caught in a lie this big is by no means a "minor scandal".

Rotaretilbo wrote:

TNine wrote:Edits:
And, as Rasq had pointed out, it was "competency" not "contempt". I have no illusions of the effectivity of the governemtn or its moral standing.

Fair enough. Point stands. The government might not be amazing, but they aren't dipshit retarded, either. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to throw a body in the ocean and realize that, without any evidence, you can say it was whoever you'd like to.

It also doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to realize that there are a million holes in that plan.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

TNine wrote:Additionally, the reason will killed Osama was because that was the mission. It was an action done in war. There were never any pretenses that this was a mission to capture Osama, so it didn't matter if he was unarmed (think of it this way, if you ambush a camp, is killing all the soldiers who don't have time to get to their weapons unlawful?).

That doesn't really sit right with me. We have the opportunity to capture the mastermind behind al Qaeda who likely knows all their secrets, has information about all their operations, etc, and instead, we decide to just shoot him?

What would we do with Osama? Put him on trial? Would take too long, and is unnecessary. Try to get information from him? He's too much of a patriot. Hold him hostage? He would be martyred.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

TNine wrote:

CNN.com wrote:Bin Laden, considered a combatant by virtue of his position as head of al Qaeda, needed to immediately make clear a desire to surrender, if that was his decision, in order to avoid being shot. That apparently didn't happen, Groves said.

That's like saying "President Obama, considered a combatant by virtue of his position as head of the United States military..." Combatants are very clearly defined, and I'm pretty sure there are also rules of engagement concerning combatants that don't include "surrender immediately, and if you don't, we'll shoot to kill immediately".

Well, no, there aren't more sophisticated rules of engagement...you see the enemy, you shoot the enemy, unless there is some reason not to (ie he is surrendering). Also, Osama declared war on us.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Baconsen wrote:I was going to address this when you responded to my post, but i'll do it here.

Alright simply put, BEFOREHAND where did we think Osama was hiding? We thought he was sitting in some cave either in Afgan or Paki, in the middle of a desert. Not some mansion a short walk from a military academy. That is one of the last places we would think Osama would be, besides maybe underwater or on the moon...

Not really. We believed he was living in the tribal district of Pakistan, likely in a cave or mud hut. He was found a mere 100 miles away, in Pakistan. Now, the last place we expected him to be was, say, Europe, or Africa, or pretty much any country that wasn't Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, or Iran. Last time I checked, Abbottabad does not qualify as any of those. We expected him to be in the tribal areas, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have been looking elsewhere in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Pakistan/Afghanistan are not small places...

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Baconsen wrote:Its not an obvious safe house. There are a lot of rich people in the middle east that would make a house just like that. It was more likely that the house belonged to a man or family that owned oil reserves compared to Osama living there.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but generally speaking, when a rich person buys a house, some government somewhere knows who lives there, right? I mean, especially a million dollar armed compound with privacy walls and one-way glass windows, you'd probably know who lived there. Right?

The government did know about it. Unfortunately, that government was the Pakistani government, who were withholding information or truly clueless.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Baconsen wrote:Like i said, we weren't even thinking he'd be there.

If our intelligence agencies are so stupid as to assume that Osama bin Laden might not be in the one place we thought, then frankly, they ought to all be shot.

Not our intelligence agencies.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Baconsen wrote:We don't know the whole story Rot. If anything he could have been hit by a stray bullet.

Two stray bullets. To the head and chest. Stray bullets fired by the most elite unit in the United States, who don't misfire or accidentally shoot someone in the head. I'm not buying it.

Two bullets to the torso, one to the left side of the face, right above the eye. Doesn't seem that unusual to me...

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Baconsen wrote:Or was threatening to kill a hostage.

The fact that he had time to get a hostage is kind of strange. I mean, this isn't Call of Duty. I would imagine that SEAL Team 6 was competent enough that he would be unable to do something like that.

I don't remember exactly what he was doing, but i'm pretty sure his wife was in the line of fire.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Baconsen wrote:There are many possibilities. There may have been some circumstance they had to prepare for that required them to go lethal. We don't know, we don't have the official report.

The government doesn't even acknowledge that DEVGRU units like SEAL Team 6 exist. I doubt we're going to get an official report. Point stands. An average SWAT team probably could have taken him alive. Why did SEAL Team 6 fail in this?

They didn't try.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Baconsen wrote:Seriously? Like honestly? Did you ever think about the repercussions if that would happen? Being in a third party will increase the chances of things being leaked. The image of Osama being dead would turn into a recruiting tool for those damn terrorists and so forth. To put it another way, THEY'D BE PISSED OFF EVEN MORE. Why the hell should we get them even more angry so they (god forbid) try something even more drastic than before? Do you honestly think that is worth it just saying oh I see nao he's dead?

That's what you're going with? If we released pictures, they might be even more angry. God forbid we piss off the fucking terrorists. I'm sure if they want a picture of Osama bin Laden's death to use as a recruiting tool, that photoshopped one from 2005 will work just fine.

It could be used as a propaganda by both sides. We don't want more of his fans to become extremist, and we don't want a "look what they did to our leader" or "let's take our revenge in kind". Similarly, i don't think we really want people showboating a picture of a dead man and saying "oh yeah, we won" and increasing the gap between the US and Islam.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Baconsen wrote:Maybe they were waiting for a confirmation of his identity? I mean saying "Oh yeah we killed him, we just got to make sure he's the right guy." Seems like a waste of time.

According to the news, the DNA results were in a day short of a week ago.

If i recall correctly, they released the info pretty quickly. You also have to consider how much information had to be cleared for public.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Baconsen wrote:Alright, honestly Rot, i'm surprised this is coming from you. I'd expected this crap to come from someone else. All conspiracy theories like this just make the supporter of them look like an ass. Whether he's dead (which i'm sure he is) or not, it finally gives those families whose lost someone in 9/11 after 10 years have some fucking closure. Trying to disprove this just makes you look like a dick to those families.

I would just like to point out that I am asserting that bin Laden has been dead for a really long time, and that we probably took out some other important, though lesser known al Qaeda operative. Though, from what I've heard, some of the aforementioned 9/11 families were kind of put off by the fact that there are no pictures, no body, just the government's word for it.

When are conspiracy theories ever true?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Baconsen wrote:Plus the whole argument of Obama releasing it now just the help him get reelected is stupid. Geroge Bush Senior was president when we won the Gulf War, yet he lost to Clinton...

Presidents have done worse to try and get reelected. Every little bit counts.

Such as?

TNine wrote: Similarly, i don't think we really want people showboating a picture of a dead man and saying "oh yeah, we won" and increasing the gap between the US and Islam.

They should not read facebook pages from May 1st or 2nd.....

Al-Queada confirmed the death of Osama Bin Laden.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/06/pakistan.bin.laden/index.html?hpt=T1

You do realise that the very same link is EXACTLY above yours, right Ruski?

RX wrote:You do realise that the very same link is EXACTLY above yours, right Ruski?

Didn't realize because from the wording, I thought it to be a link to a conspiracy site.

TNine wrote:It also doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to realize that there are a million holes in that plan.

Apparently not, since most of the US has just bought it.

TNine wrote:What would we do with Osama? Put him on trial? Would take too long, and is unnecessary.

We did it with Saddam Hussein. I don't see why it wouldn't work with bin Laden as well. Real closure would come from seeing bin Laden convicted of his crimes and executed for them. Not hearing that he got shot during a raid a week ago.

TNine wrote:Try to get information from him? He's too much of a patriot.

If he was really a patriot, he'd have partaken in a suicide bombing rather than hide from us. He's a man concerned with his own life. And frankly, we could probably get stuff out of him without him telling us.

TNine wrote:Hold him hostage? He would be martyred.

No more martyred than he is dead.

TNine wrote:Well, no, there aren't more sophisticated rules of engagement...you see the enemy, you shoot the enemy, unless there is some reason not to (ie he is surrendering).

Actually, we do have more sophisticated rules of engagement. Unless bin Laden had a weapon and would kill or otherwise cause harm to someone immediately if not killed, lethal force is not authorized in this situation.

TNine wrote:Also, Osama declared war on us.

Bush declared war on terror. Does that make him a combatant?

TNine wrote:Pakistan/Afghanistan are not small places...

Both are around the size of Texas. We've had ten years to search them. It isn't like we had to search them all by hand. We have satellite images and intelligence agencies that make things a lot easier.

TNine wrote:The government did know about it. Unfortunately, that government was the Pakistani government, who were withholding information or truly clueless.

I would imagine that we are at least vaguely aware of the armed compounds in Pakistan, and who owns them, considering we believed the most wanted man in the world was living there.

TNine wrote:Not our intelligence agencies.

What do you mean, not out intelligence agencies. Whether or not Pakistan knew, we should have found bin Laden some three or four years ago.

TNine wrote:Two bullets to the torso, one to the left side of the face, right above the eye. Doesn't seem that unusual to me...

Consider the close quarters nature of being inside a house. How exactly does one accidentally shoot someone in the face from maybe a dozen meters away? And not just once, but three times? Left side of the face, right above the eye, is quite an acceptable place to hit if you were aiming for the face.

TNine wrote:I don't remember exactly what he was doing, but i'm pretty sure his wife was in the line of fire.

I just don't get why SEAL Team 6 didn't just dump tear gas into the place at night after cutting the power. There would have been little resistance from anyone inside.

TNine wrote:They didn't try.

Then it really was an assassination that broke the rules of engagement.

TNine wrote:It could be used as a propaganda by both sides. We don't want more of his fans to become extremist, and we don't want a "look what they did to our leader" or "let's take our revenge in kind". Similarly, i don't think we really want people showboating a picture of a dead man and saying "oh yeah, we won" and increasing the gap between the US and Islam.

Well, they failed, because people on both sides have likely been doing that with the fake picture from 2005. Neither side needs a real picture for those purposes.

TNine wrote:If i recall correctly, they released the info pretty quickly. You also have to consider how much information had to be cleared for public.

Where pretty quickly is nearly a week after he is shot, his identity has been confirmed, and his body has been disposed of. It doesn't take a week to decide whether or not to announce it.

TNine wrote:When are conspiracy theories ever true?

They stop being conspiracy theories and start being scandals when they are true, such as the Pentagon Papers.

TNine wrote:Such as?

Nixon claimed that he had a plan to win Vietnam. Johnson lied about pretty much the entire war.

TNine wrote:Is Al Queda in on the plot too? Obama/Osama 2012?

What a wonderful opportunity for them to rally the masses against the US, even though their leader has been dead all these years. They don't need pictures of his body, they have Obama on live TV.

TNine wrote:Well, no, there aren't more sophisticated rules of engagement...you see the enemy, you shoot the enemy, unless there is some reason not to (ie he is surrendering). Also, Osama declared war on us.

Not true. ROEs can differ greatly from AO to AO, city to city, operation to operation.

Considering the Value of Osama, and the fact that the Team was relatively large that went in. There is almost no reason that lethal force would be immediately authorized. Especially when we have plenty of advanced less than lethal weapons that would work amazingly in a compound like he had. Just a few flash bangs would have quickly fucked everyone up.

And Osama can't declare war. He has no sovereign control.

You know, the best place to hide is in plain sight, Our witness protection system as done that for years. and have been successful for years.

You know when storming a fortress filled with heavily armed guards, traps
and barbed wire. And given two choice, Nonlethal and letah force? i'm going lethal.

You Know its not proper to parade pictures of dead leaders around like trophies, that usually turns said leader into a martyr something that should be avoided

You know Conspiracy theory makes you look like a government fearing nut

You know starting debates like this makes you look like an ass

You know this whole argument probably shouldn't be happening right, the government doesn't lie about everything, and if they are there is "nothing you can do about it except float and sputter"

I'm done arguing here. Honestly, listen to your own arguments, cause they apply to ^that^ so freaking well its unbelievable. Neither I nor Obama need to sit here and prove to you something we already know, especially when you reject all evidence and instead opt to the side that has nothing more than improbable reasoning and highly unlikely circumstance to support it.

they don't really at all.

our entire argument is simply "there is no proof, outside of 1 groups story"

and you guys countered with "we don't need proof"....

what evidence have we rejected?

i'll just add that Al Queda did officially come out and say Bin Laden is dead

now we got to go after number 2, i suspect him in Yemen... of course thats my guess, he could be anywhere.

funny how the news just says "al queda confirmed osama's death online" and even pretends to put links to where this may have happened and they don't link anywhere at all...

CNN actually had a report on how incompetent the new Al Qaeda leader was.

Honestly, Osama wouldn't let an incompetent fool take over after he hit the can. Why would ANYONE let one?

It is completely engineered. It's SO convenient that tradition requires the body buried within a day. And why the hell should we care what traditions a mass murderer's burial requires? Also, Zaki confirmed that that IS NOT ACTUALLY A TRADITION. So the only 'evidence' we have to go on is Obama saying "Oh yeah btw we killed Osama."

It's a PR stunt! Even if Osama is dead, don't you think it's at least a little too convenient?

actually, islamic one day burials are a cultural tradition in the area. As is why so much of an effort was always made to clear city streets of bodies when the coalition was nearby. Many a bodycount was created from individuals simply recovering bodies.

dragoon9105 wrote:You know, the best place to hide is in plain sight, Our witness protection system as done that for years. and have been successful for years.

Successful at keeping people out of the eyes of thugs and maybe even organized crime. Not out of the eyes of intelligence agencies with more technology and resources than most criminals can begin to imagine.

dragoon9105 wrote:You know when storming a fortress filled with heavily armed guards, traps
and barbed wire. And given two choice, Nonlethal and letah force? i'm going lethal.

That's because you harbor doubts about the success of your raid. SEAL Team 6 doesn't know what doubt is. They could have gone in unarmed, and probably still eliminated everyone in the compound, using only stealth-friendly technology.

dragoon9105 wrote:You Know its not proper to parade pictures of dead leaders around like trophies, that usually turns said leader into a martyr something that should be avoided

I'm not asking them to parade the picture around. I'm asking them to let us see, so that we can see for our own eyes that said leader was dead. No one objected to Saddam Hussein being publicly executed on live TV. Why is one goddamn picture such a big fucking deal?

dragoon9105 wrote:You know Conspiracy theory makes you look like a government fearing nut

You know that sweeping generalizations make you look like an ignorant fool.

dragoon9105 wrote:You know starting debates like this makes you look like an ass

I don't, actually. This isn't a debate in which any of us have any stake. I'm not calling anyone here sheep or blind for not believing me. I am simply saying that my belief is not without merit.

dragoon9105 wrote:You know this whole argument probably shouldn't be happening right, the government doesn't lie about everything, and if they are there is "nothing you can do about it except float and sputter"

And I'm not saying the government lies about everything. But, by using that as a counterargument, you are basically purporting that the government doesn't lie about anything. And if you really believe that, maybe I should be calling people here sheep.

And there is something we can do about it. It's called voting. Its this revolutionary new thing that allows us to get rid of politicians we don't like.

TNine wrote:

I'm done arguing here. Honestly, listen to your own arguments, cause they apply to ^that^ so freaking well its unbelievable. Neither I nor Obama need to sit here and prove to you something we already know, especially when you reject all evidence and instead opt to the side that has nothing more than improbable reasoning and highly unlikely circumstance to support it.

You know what, let's apply Mr. Munroe's comic to this argument.

Randall Munroe wrote:Conspiracy theories represent a known glitch in human reasoning.

Generally speaking, I agree. To be fair, however, either some conspiracy theories are true, or the world is without any conspiracies, and the latter is a somewhat ridiculous claim.

Randall Munroe wrote:The theories are occasionally true, but their truth is completely uncorrelated with the believer's certainty.

This is again generally true. However, we hit our first bump, here. That last word is a bit of a snag for your proposal that this fits so perfectly. I'm not certain of my conspiracy theory. I am not preaching that my opinion is definitely the truth. I am just not so quick to believe that Obama's story is also definitely the truth.

Randall Munroe wrote:For some reason, sometimes when people think they've uncovered a lie, they raise confirmation bias to an art form.

Again, this is generally true. However, I am not trying to confirm that what Obama is saying is a lie. I am simply saying that it is a possibility. Obama could be lying. There are elements in play here that do not necessarily add up.

Randall Munroe wrote:They cut context away from facts and arguments and assemble them into reassuring litanies.

Which is not what I am doing at all. I am actually demanding you look at the context of the facts and arguments. It is the context that so bothers me.

Randall Munroe wrote:And over and over I've argued helplessly with smart people consumed by theories they were sure were irrefutable, theories that in the end proved complete fiction.

Which, again, is not the case here. I am not claiming my side to be irrefutable. I am simply claiming it to be possible. I, personally, do not buy it. You don't have to, as long as you can accept that my belief is plausible too, just as I accept that yours is plausible.