In defense of history's worst: Osama Bin Laden is innocent (Part 1)

One thing I want to clear up about the standard of proof. Yes, I must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Osama is guilty. However, note the word “reasonable”. It is not true that you can’t have any doubt whatsoever, you just can’t have a reasonable doubt. So, if we find Pro’s rebuttals unreasonable, I have fulfilled my BOP. An example, you walk in and see your child that you left alone next to a broken vase. The most plausible conclusion using abductive reasoning is that he broke the vase. Of course the child could claim that a leprechaun or a burglar broke in just to break the vase. We can’t know for certain that this didn’t happen and indeed it is a doubt. However, it is not a reasonable doubt. All I must do is demonstrate that it is reasonable to think Osama is that child who broke that vase. Moving on then. 9/11 Pro claims 9/11 was a hoax. This supports my case, as using occam’s razor it is unreasonable to think this is the case. It would be highly complex to think 9/11 and these hijackers were all one big hoax. It adds an unnecessary step making it unreasonable. It should be dismissed a priori unless there is strong a posteriori evidence to support it. Next he attacks my source. He claims it must be dismissed as it doesn’t show the video. However, this again would be claiming one big hoax to make you think poor ole Osama is a criminal. This is violating occam’s razor. Regardless, I will present the video [1]. However I believe Pro will probably dismiss it. The Guardian has left wing bias. However, this is a fallacy of composition. Being biased in some aspects doesn’t mean being biased in all aspects, or even being unreliable. It is also a genetic fallacy. He rejects it solely because of where it’s from. Furthermore, his argument from bias fails, because this is a partyless issue. Even the right wing Fox news reported the same thing [2] along with other news reports [3][4]. My opponent here is doing nothing short of a card stacking fallacy. He is dismissing evidence against his case for no good reason, positing wild and unreasonable conspiracy theories . Other Crimes It is irrelevant that El-Hage wasn’t charged for this bombing. It seems he was just doing legal business with him. Although, on an interesting note, Hage was charged with conspiracy to murder in 2001 and was sent to prison later that year [5]. I meant to include source [5] in my original argument, but I’m not sure what happened to it. It does say Laden had contact with the Nairobi cell. Which creates the link. It is unlikely that Bin Laden would have showed up during the trial or that it would have made a difference, for obvious reasons. If he is found guilty, he has no place to hide. It is simply smart for Osama to not show up. I am not saying it is certain that Osama ordered the bombings, but it is the best explanation. The evidence isn’t based on one witness, but on many other evidences. Al-Qaeda Pro’s entire argument here commits the genetic and card stacking fallacies. Along with improbable statements like the guardian could have just made it all up. Regardless there’s many other sources that say the same things [6][7][8]. Conclusion Ultimately, Pro’s rebuttals are based on an unreasonable amount of skepticism. Filled with fallacies of composition, genetic and card stacking. Along with implausible and complex claims of conspiracy that should be rejected a priori. My arguments remain standing [1] . http://www.youtube.com... [2] . http://www.foxnews.com... [3] . http://www.nytimes.com... [4] . http://www.cbc.ca... [5] . http://www.pbs.org... [6] . http://www.britannica.com... [7] . http://books.google.com... [8] . http://www.pbs.org...