I cannot conclude logically that evidence sufficient for me means that anyone who disagrees is per se operating in bad faith. I'm not going to argue for the Ta

I cannot conclude logically that evidence sufficient for me means that anyone who disagrees is per se operating in bad faith. I'm not going to argue for the Taliban. I have no idea whether they're good faith actors or not. Regardless, they're assholes, and I'm pretty sure, as far as I can ever be, that bin Laden is responsible. But to be fair, "he claimed responsibility" isn't by itself iron-clad proof for anything. All kinds of people claim all kinds of false things for all kinds of reasons. We know this. The Taliban knows this. I could easily come up with a plausible, reasonable explanation why bin Laden would falsely make such a claim. You could too. When someone rejects evidence that you find convincing, don't assume bad faith. Ask them what evidence they would accept no matter how unlikely. If they have something (e.g. "If I had a private meeting with bin Laden and he assured me personally..."), it means they just have a really high bar.