Nope - they just huff and puff some more and stomp their feet about how awful the war against Islamic terrorism is. Their agenda is so transparent it's not even remotely amusing. It's just sick.
The investigative journalists should have been able to figure out just how obvious the solution to this puzzle was. They all write that a man named Abd al-Asis al-Umari had been named as a perpetrator by the FBI, and that there are apparently many individuals with this name. Bröckers and Hauß even noticed that the FBI had initially released an incorrect first name to the press. All of this certainly suggests that there was a mix-up, but it's also something that the conspiracy theorists apparently did not consider plausible.
In the case of the supposedly surviving terrorist Walid al-Shari, the truth is even more obvious. At least Bülow had the opportunity to avoid making this mistake. In his book, he writes that the alleged assassin Shari "lives in Casablanca and works as a pilot, according to information provided by the airline Royal Air Maroc."
If Bülow had inquired with the airline, he would have discovered that the name of the pilot who lives in Casablanca is Walid al-Shri and not, like that of the assassin, Walid al-Shari. This minor detail makes a big difference, namely the difference between a dead terrorist and a living innocent man. But to conspiracy theorists, discovering the truth is like solving a crossword puzzle for children: What's a four-letter word for a domesticated animal? Hrse.
LINK: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html
Thanks for the link to this excellent article. Can you (or anyone else reading this post) list some links to other sites refuting these ridiculous theories? I saw one a few weeks ago, but I forgot to bookmark it.
My husband, who is generally conservative, has read many of these conspiracy theories and believes them. I used to try to argue with him, but there is just no moving him/them.
I'm reminded of the story about the man who was convinced he was dead. His family and friends tried to convince him that he was not dead but was in fact alive. Finally the man agreed to see a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist tried to reason with the man, who was unconvinced. Finally, the doctor asked the man if dead men bleed. The man said, "Of course dead men don't bleed." The psychiatrist then lanced the man's finger and blood came out. "Well, what do you know!" the man said. "Dead men DO bleed."
No matter what evidence you show them, it only confirms to them that their theories are true.
Thanks in advance for any links.