I was responding to this:

  "Actually, they say they found time bomb detonators based on this watch."

Which, as a response to raising the false positive rate issue, is entirely missing the point.

For what it's worth: Also, you probably don't know whether this watch actually was common in Afganistan in early 2000s.

Also doesn't actually address the issue with false positive rates and conditional probability, but it is a fair point that the (clearly stated) oversimplification is, in fact, oversimplified.