Originally Posted by ChainGangRed
An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy which says:
There is no evidence for X, therefore X is not true.
There is no evidence against X, therefore X is true.
Most people I know who doubt it fall into the first version where they say "There is no evidence he was killed during the raid, therefore he wasn't killed during the raid."
Uh, there isn't any evidence to confirm or deny he died from Marfan Syndrome which was widely reported 11 years ago, either. All I said was that I don't think he was killed in the raid, any my reasoning (note that I never claimed it as proof) is the contradictory statements and actions of a military that has reasoned not releasing it although they've already done far worse.
Originally Posted by Svart
Devoid of proof yet you lack evidence to the contrary. Your only evidence is a statement that can only be taken on face value. Considering I don't know you and have never discussed this topic with you, your post reads as a desperate attempt to condescend me. Why?
This is my point exactly. There is no proof for or against his death from a health issue 11 years ago or the raid. The only thing that we know, or think we know, is that he is dead.
It was no desperate attempt to condescend you, but rather a reply to your condescension of a previous poster who provided his input with an extremely sarcasm laced, "SOUNDS MUCH DIFFERENT WHEN YOU HEAR THE BACKSTORY, DOESN'T IT?", after you seemingly took it upon yourself to fill us in on the details. Kind of like a, "Hey, jackass, get your shit straight." type of deal.