"I didnt realise that you were actually looking for conclusive proof that Obama and memebers of the american adminsitration dont care"
Yes, I wanted conclusive proof. I do not care much for inconclusive conjecture.
"Now the proof is staring you in the face, you just need to recognise it, lets look at the facts"
actually, you stated that the evidence doesn't exist- a statement that is mutually exclusive with proof staring me in the face.
I am Brazilian
"government instigated an illegal war in Iraq that has led to the deaths of thousands of american soldiers"
I am sorry- but I think you have your American presidents mixed up. Obama is the one who killed Osama. Bush Jr. is the one who instigated the war.
"your asking for something that no researcher can prove and you know it"
I managed to find evidence based on economics. If you want me to give you some pointers on how to construct an argument against myself, message me and I can help you out.
"if you want to call me a liar"
I believe you read through articles. I was intending to emphasize the fact that you have no evidence despite your research.
"im sure you could find them yourself if you really wanted"
well, yes, but seeing as I am researching my arguments, not yours, it would e helpful for you to cite something
"circumstancs by which Bin Laden was assassinated have effectively been proven to be lies"
Are you surprised that Osama's family places more emphasis on US brutality than the US did? And that is not even my choice of words- the subtitle states
'Details emerge of what really happened when Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan – according to the survivors, at least'
and in that vein, there was still a firefight
"Kuwaiti's brother was killed as he prepared to fire a gun"
"[Osama had]an AK-47 assault rifle, most...[and] a Makarov pistol [within reach]"
I will definitely admit that the US version of the story was exaggerated. However, the first person they encountered did try to shoot them-which generally makes soldiers less likely to assume the rest of the house is friendly. And Osama did have two guns within reach. So- the US definitely exaggerated the story- but to say the have proven to be lies is taking it a bit far...
Also- your article from presstv is an opinion piece. That generally means it is not 'completely based on fact', and in fact is in conflict with your source from the guardian (a credible source)
And I seem to recall you stating that they assassinated him because he had information that Obama did not want to leak- which I claimed ridiculous. I was the one who said they killed Osama because he was shot at (as pulled from the guardian source, conveniently left out of your presstv 'source')
"Osama was killed to keep him from exposing shady dealings with the cia may have been a bit if a stretch"
my point entirely. I think there was little chance of Osama being taken in alive- simply because I would not suspect him of going down peacefully (again: first person encountered open fired, Osama had two guns)
"to be honest i think now it is more likely that he was assassinated solely for the political gain"
I disagree with that assessment though i think if an actual hypothesis test was performed on the incident (not that it would or could) the past dealings of Osama Bin Laden with the cia would have to be accounted for in the calculation, which would at the very least raise the probabily of the null hypothesis above 0
Actually, I am yet to find any news articles discussing peaceful Al-qaeda interactions.
a google news search: 1 result for: al-qaeda "acts of peace": an article which discussed Obama's lack of acts of peace against al qaeda. that makes 0 articles for peaceful al-qaeda interactions
a google news search: About 87 results: al-qaeda "acts of violence"
the proportion of violent actions =87/87
the proportion of peaceful interactions =0
since an SRS was not used, I will conduct a robust chi square goodness of fit
Ha: peaceful =/= 0
standard alpha level =5%
A chi test is robust, so the randomization of google search engine satisfies this condition
The sample size is large
Unfortunately, the expected values are not all greater than 10, so my results may be questionable
chi^2 value=0, significant at 5% alpha level
All you need to do is find a single peaceful interaction to prove this analysis questionable, and I suspect that you will. But you have not. So, technically, p value=0. I suppose I did that more for my own geeky fun rather than to actually prove a point.
Oh-also, the null hypothesis would still be zero. You would simply reject the null hypothesis. Are you sure you took an advanced statistics class? (just kidding, you seem to have a good grasp of the subject)