This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Osama Bin Laden is dead
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
None of this matters. The national debt is the real issue.
Post by
Bruunpala
And so the decade long game of hide and seek comes to it's conclusion.
Wait, wait, wait... Does that mean USA has to hide now?
Post by
Yutrippin
Does it not seem a little
too
convenient that he was living in a compound in an affluent suburb near a major city, a stone's throw from a military compound, bearing a most unusual description.
They realised immediately this was no normal residence. The walls of the 3,000 sq ft compound were 12-18ft high, topped with barbed wire. There were two security gates, and access to the compound was severely restricted. The main part of the residence was three storeys high but had few windows, and a third-floor terrace was shielded by a privacy wall. Built around five years ago, it was valued at about $1m but had no phone or internet connection.Wouldn't this have stood out like a dog's balls?
Yes, it
should
have. And that's the problem. The thing is, though, is that it was located in Pakistan. Pakistan has often come into question about how devoted it really is into driving out terrorism.
Again, many doubt whether Al'Qaeda ever actually existed; a point which I'm not going to argue, because I don't know. Neither do you.
I, however,
do
know that al-Qa'ida exists. Sure, you won't or don't need to believe me. I'm just some wowhead user.
I strongly suggest everyone in this thread who has an opinion on anything that's been said here have a look at
these
documentaries. Particularly those who are currently disagreeing with my opinion. Whether you agree with them or not is, of course, entirely up to you. But you should always try to see things from a different point of view.
I do agree with you here. Many radicals for a cause don't step outside their own box.
Post by
Dralas
I've been reading along and wanted to chime in on something real quick, regarding one of particular posts.
Okay. What the hell is wrong with this picture?
They decide not to take photos of his body after they killed him and dumped his body into the ocean. Why does this not make any sense?
I'd like to point out that the reason the U.S. did that was to have respect for the religion. The U.S. is attacking the terrorist, not the religion overall. According to Islamic beliefs, once a person is dead, the body must be returned to the earth within a day. Now, correct me if I'm wrong there (and please do so with a proper source), and I'll be happy to retract this statement.
The primary reason for that would be to show that, even though this man caused grave harm to the U.S., that the U.S. will still uphold respect and honor overall and not allow themselves to be painted as ruthless brutes who will parade a corpse around a city.
And now... they do this? They don't want to release pictures because they are too "violent" and won't tell us where he was buried at sea because they don't want people to worship the spot? Honestly? ARE THE TRYING TO BREED CONSPIRACY THEORIES? They just tell us to take their word for it so people can once again ask, "What the hell is going on here?" And so once again the internet is going to be flooded with claims of conspiracies because the government won't release proof... AGAIN.
On this quote, I'd like to make another point. The U.S. military did say they are worried about Osama being used as a martyr and invoking a mass counter-retaliation. I'd think that releasing photos and such would help contribute to that possible anger from the terrorist group, and that the main reason would be to wait until they believe it is safer to allow the photos to be released as to avoid potential lethal reactions.
And, for the spot buried at sea, I don't know what you'd get out of knowing that. If a body is thrown into an ocean, chances are, it has drifted off to some far other location now and will be near impossible to find at this point. I don't know what you would benefit out of trying to go there now.
Are they doing it on purpose? Don't tell me that it is too violent when we have children growing up on games like Mortal Kombat and GTA4, not to mention CSI and other gruesome shows. Just release the evidence of his death and people will be happy. Birthers wanted the birth certificate to be shown, and since Obama wouldn't do it people had a reason to think he had something to hide, and I don't blame them.
Well, really, not everyone plays those games or watches those shows. I do believe the general public would probably be able to handle a photo, but once again, I'd like to refer back to my prior statement.
Post by
Squishalot
According to Islamic beliefs, once a person is dead, the body must be returned to the earth within a day. Now, correct me if I'm wrong there (and please do so with a proper source), and I'll be happy to retract this statement.
From what I read, burial by sea is only if there is no one willing to accept the body to be buried by land. The thing is, there are plenty of people who would have been willing to bury OBL. The problem for the US is that the burial site would have been turned into a pilgrimage site for extremist martyrs. Therefore - easy way out. Certainly doesn't help quell the conspiracy theories.
Post by
Dralas
From what I read, burial by sea is only if there is no one willing to accept the body to be buried by land. The thing is, there are plenty of people who would have been willing to bury OBL. The problem for the US is that the burial site would have been turned into a pilgrimage site for extremist martyrs. Therefore - easy way out. Certainly doesn't help quell the conspiracy theories.
There may have been people willing to accept the body, but as you stated yourself, the site would have been a pilgrimage for extremists. The whole point of killing Osama was to help bring a 'decline' in the terrorist activities (Keep in mind I do believe that the death of one man won't stop terrorist, but it will cripple them in a vague sense at the very least temporarily). That certainly wouldn't happen if the U.S. allowed the body to become a site and gave more extremists a reason to strike back again.
Conspiracy theorists can poke and prod as much as they'd like at the burial by sea, but honestly, a lot of the theories are absolute rubbish without solid proof for me.
There really were no better options without causing him to be a greater martyr unless the body was disposed of altogether. If you do have a better suggestion, however, that would fall in line of a proper burial that would not cause him to rally up more extremists, I do wish to hear it.
Post by
Adamsm
Still going to be gatherings at the edge of the ocean where the body was dumped though.
Post by
Dralas
Still going to be gatherings at the edge of the ocean where the body was dumped though.
Eh, I suppose. Smidge less significant than a real site, but it's a possibility.
Edit: With that, I think I'll return to just glancing at this thread. I really just wanted to point out a reason
why
the body was going to sea, not really much else.
Post by
Adamsm
Still going to be gatherings at the edge of the ocean where the body was dumped though.
Eh, I suppose. Smidge less significant than a real site, but it's a possibility.
Not really.....after all, if they want to make a place for it, they will, and it will have just as much relevance to them as it would for any one else, whether the body is there or not.
Post by
Squishalot
I really just wanted to point out a reason why the body was going to sea, not really much else.
It's not really a real reason. They claim it's to respect Islamic tradition, but they flaunted it by not allowing him to be buried on land in the first place.
Post by
OverZealous
I really just wanted to point out a reason why the body was going to sea, not really much else.
It's not really a real reason. They claim it's to respect Islamic tradition, but they flaunted it by not allowing him to be buried on land in the first place.
Agreed. I think this one act is very stupid and shows disrespect towards Islam. As said above, the U.S are (I'm sure many would like to say
were
though) attacking the terrorist, not the religion. By denying Osama Bin Ladin burial at land they may very well have incited rage in family members that have in the past remained neutral. It's also possible that the decision to dump his ocean into the sea was a clever one, as his grave would (as has, too, been stated earlier) become a pilgrimage site. We'll have to wait and see how this all works out.
Post by
donnymurph
Thought I'd share this with y'all.
On May 1, 2011 Pres. Barack Obama appeared on national television with the
spontaneous announcement that Osama bin Laden, the purported organizer of
the tragic events of September 11th 2001, was killed by military forces in
Pakistan.
Within moments, a media blitz ran across virtually all television networks
in what could only be described as a grotesque celebratory display,
reflective of a level of emotional immaturity that borders on cultural
psychosis. Depictions of people running through the streets of New York and
Washington chanting jingoistic American slogans, waving their flags like
the members of some cult, praising the death of another human being,
reveals yet another layer of this sickness we call modern society.
It is not the scope of this response to address the political usage of such
an event or to illuminate the staged orchestration of how public perception
was to be controlled by the mainstream media and the United States
Government. Rather the point of this article is to express the gross
irrationality apparent and how our culture becomes so easily fixed and
emotionally charged with respect to surface symbology, rather than true
root problems, solutions or rational considerations of circumstance.
The first and most obvious point is that the death of Osama bin Laden means
nothing when it comes to the problem of international terrorism. His death
simply serves as a catharsis for a culture that has a neurotic fixation on
revenge and retribution. The very fact that the Government which, from a
psychological standpoint, has always served as a paternal figure for it
citizens, reinforces the idea that murdering people is a solution to
anything should be enough for most of us to take pause and consider the
quality of the values coming out of the zeitgeist itself.
However, beyond the emotional distortions and tragic, vindictive pattern of
rewarding the continuation of human division and violence comes a more
practical consideration regarding what the problem really is and the
importance of that problem with respect to priority.
The death of any human being is of an immeasurable consequence in society.
It is never just the death of the individual. It is the death of
relationships, companionship, support and the integrity of familial and
communal environments. The unnecessary deaths of 3000 people on September
11, 2001 is no more or no less important than the deaths of those during
the World Wars, via cancer and disease, accidents or anything else.
As a society, it is safe to say that we seek a world that strategically
limits all such unnecessary consequences through social approaches that
allow for the greatest safety our ingenuity can create. It is in this
context that the neurotic obsession with the events of September 11th, 2001
become gravely insulting and detrimental to progress. An environment has
now been created where outrageous amounts of money, resources and energy is
spent seeking and destroying very small subcultures of human beings that
pose ideological differences and act on those differences through violence.
Yet, in the United States alone each year, roughly 30,000 people die from
automobile accidents, the majority of which could be stopped by very simple
structural changes. That's ten 9/11's each year... yet no one seems to pine
over this epidemic. Likewise, over 1 million Americans die from heart
disease and cancer annually - causes of which are now easily linked to
environmental influences in the majority. Yet, regardless of the over 330
9/11's occurring each year in this context, the governmental budget
allocations for research on these illnesses is only a small fraction of the
money spent on “anti-terrorism” operations.
Such a list could go on and on with regard to the perversion of priority
when it comes to what it means to truly save and protect human life and I
hope many out there can recognize the severe imbalance we have at hand with
respect to our values.
So, coming back to the point of revenge and retribution, I will conclude
this response with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., likely the most
brilliant intuitive mind when it came to conflict and the power of
non-violence. On September 15, 1963 a Birmingham Alabama church was bombed,
killing four little girls attending Sunday school.
In a public address, Dr. King stated:
“What murdered these four girls? Look around. You will see that many
people that you never thought about participated in this evil act. So
tonight all of us must leave here with a new determination to struggle. God
has a job for us to do. Maybe our mission is to save the soul of America.
We can't save the soul of this nation throwing bricks. We can't save the
soul of this nation getting our ammunitions and going out shooting physical
weapons. We must know that we have something much more powerful. Just take
up the ammunition of love.”
- Dr. Martin Luther King, 1963 -
~Peter Joseph
Post by
151311
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
You can choose to go to work. You can't choose to have a person T-bone you as you drive through an intersection. There's no difference between the guy who died in a plane crash, be it an accident or a terrorist attack, and a guy who died because someone crashed into them. You know the risks of getting out of bed in the morning. You just choose to ignore the vast majority of them.
Post by
Yutrippin
I really just wanted to point out a reason why the body was going to sea, not really much else.
It's not really a real reason. They claim it's to respect Islamic tradition, but they flaunted it by not allowing him to be buried on land in the first place.
Agreed. I think this one act is very stupid and shows disrespect towards Islam. As said above, the U.S are (I'm sure many would like to say
were
though) attacking the terrorist, not the religion. By denying Osama Bin Ladin burial at land they may very well have incited rage in family members that have in the past remained neutral. It's also possible that the decision to dump his ocean into the sea was a clever one, as his grave would (as has, too, been stated earlier) become a pilgrimage site. We'll have to wait and see how this all works out.
How is it disrespectful? They placed the body below "ground" within 24 hours. It'd be a nightmare trying to determine who/where gets/wants to bury him, in addition to the pilgrammage bit.
You can choose to go to work. You can't choose to have a person T-bone you as you drive through an intersection. There's no difference between the guy who died in a plane crash, be it an accident or a terrorist attack, and a guy who died because someone crashed into them. You know the risks of getting out of bed in the morning. You just choose to ignore the vast majority of them.
Are you going to allow the driver that t-boned and killed the other to get away scott free? If they purposefully intended to injure or kill whomever they hit, especially. That's a more legitimate metaphor.
Post by
Adamsm
How is it disrespectful? They placed the body below "ground" within 24 hours. It'd be a nightmare trying to determine who/where gets/wants to bury him, in addition to the pilgrammage bit.Yes they put him below sea level....but not under the ground. Still.....
Islam
The sacred texts of Islam prefer burial on land, "so deep that its smell does not come out and the beasts of prey do not dig it out". However, if a person dies at sea and it is not possible to bring the body back to land before decay, or if burial at land becomes impossible, burial at sea is allowed. A weight is tied to the feet of the body, and the body is lowered into the water. This would preferably occur in an area where the remains are not immediately eaten by scavengers. Also, if an enemy may dig up the grave to mutilate the body, it is also allowed to bury the deceased at sea to avoid mutilation.
In the Sunni Fiqh book Umdat al-Salik wa Uddat al-Nasik, the condition for sea burial is:
It is best to bury him (the deceased) in the cementery... If someone dies on a ship and it is impossible to bury him on land, the body is placed (O: tightly lashed) between two planks (O: to obviate bloating) and thrown into the sea (O: so that it reaches shore, even if the inhabitants are non-Muslims, since a Muslim might find the body and bury it facing the direction of prayer (qibla)).
But others disagree:
fter giving Ghusl, Hunut, Kafan and Namaz-e-Mayyit it should be lowered into the sea in a vessel of clay or with a weight tied to its feet. And as far as possible it should not be lowered at a point where it is eaten up immediately by the sea predators
But it's still hypocritical of the government to interfere with that.
Post by
Yutrippin
I think we could just agree to disagree here. From my point of view, I see it as a logisitical nightmare.
Who
should/would we hand off the body to? His family who has disowned him? Pakistan? Afghanistan?
The accessibility of his remains would also bring up untold amounts of problems.
However, I
do
get what you're saying.
It's the cliché Catch 22.
Post by
812974
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
296147
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.