POST HERE For Discussion About The DEATH OF OSAMA BIN LADEN (Updated) Watch

Poll: Osama's death?
He was killed on the 1st of may. (121)
46.36%
He was killed earlyer than the 1st of may (65)
24.9%
He is still alive (37)
14.18%
He is a myth (38)
14.56%
Iqbal007
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1921
Report 7 years ago
#1921
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
All you do is spout the same retarded line about people cannot believe everything that the media tells them.

That doesn't disprove what they have said.
Nor can they prove what they said, you may argue they have evidence, but there are so many flaws in the evidence and how they dealt with the situation.
0
reply
Mikl6969
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1922
Report 7 years ago
#1922
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
No, not quite.

Don't compare the fascist that advocated the murder of innocents to an aid worker.

You are the one who is dirty by coming up with such a stupid comparison.
my point was about the purposeful misinformation

I believe all murder and deceit is wrong
0
reply
HarryA
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1923
Report 7 years ago
#1923

The deceased terrorist was buried at sea because no country would accept bin Laden's remains, a senior defense official said.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Department officials are sure it was the body of bin Laden. CIA specialists compared photos of the body with known photos of bin Laden and said with 95-percent certainty it was the terrorist leader, a senior intelligence official said.

In addition, bin Laden's wife identified the al-Qaida leader by name while the strike team was still in the compound, said the intelligence official.

CIA and other specialists in the intelligence community "performed the initial DNA analysis matching a virtually 100-percent DNA match of the body against the DNA of several of bin Laden's family members," the official added.
0
reply
Dirac Delta Function
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1924
Report 7 years ago
#1924
(Original post by Barden)
- No actual body anymore, because the US 'buried him at sea' :confused: (this is the most bizarre part of this yarn).
This is was a mistake. They should have kept the body and let it be inspected by independent observers or something. They were too hasty to "respect Islamic law":rolleyes:
0
reply
SteveCrain
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1925
Report 7 years ago
#1925
(Original post by Manitude)
It might just be my imagination running wild, but if OBL was very much alive he'd almost definitely have recorded a video calling recent events a hoax and the tape sent to a local news service.


Just sayin'.
I doubt satisfying the West's appetite for gossip is one of OBLs major concerns. Also, there would be undoubted benefits for him if everyone thought he was dead.

Just to clarify, he probably is dead, but this event is unlikely to have anything to do with it.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1926
Report 7 years ago
#1926
(Original post by Mikl6969)
my point was about the purposeful misinformation

I believe all murder and deceit is wrong
I doubt you believe all murder is wrong. If someone ( IE Bin Laden) is trying to murder you, then I doubt you will still hold the same view.
0
reply
el scampio
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1927
Report 7 years ago
#1927
(Original post by Barden)
- A secret operation undertaken in Pakistan, without the knowledge of the Pakistani government.

- No Americans harmed in the operation, despite one helicopter crashing.

- Bin Laden alleged to have basically been hiding in plain sight.

- No picture of Bin Laden's body.

- No actual body anymore, because the US 'buried him at sea' :confused: (this is the most bizarre part of this yarn).

- No evidence other than claims by US government that DNA testing confirms it was him. (The mind boggles as to how they got a sample of his DNA anyway... it not like he would have sent them a cheek swab is it now...)


Yet despite the dubiousness of all the above claims, which come at a time when Obama needs to boost his approval ratings, the world seems to be taking the USA's word for it. :rolleyes:
A hellicopter crashed but no Americans were harmed? That right there is bull. Hellicopters don't have ejection seats like fighter jets, so it's implausible that nobody got injured, if they were telling the truth!

DNA sample proves it was Bin Laden? Surely they would need a prior sample of DNA in order to match it? I find it very unlikely they already had a smple of his DNA!!! Where and how would they have obtained Bin Laden's DNA prior to his supposed killing???

This is all lies, lies and more lies!
0
reply
vedderfan94
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1928
Report 7 years ago
#1928
(Original post by Barden)
- A secret operation undertaken in Pakistan, without the knowledge of the Pakistani government.

- No Americans harmed in the operation, despite one helicopter crashing.

- Bin Laden alleged to have basically been hiding in plain sight.

- No picture of Bin Laden's body.

- No actual body anymore, because the US 'buried him at sea' :confused: (this is the most bizarre part of this yarn).

- No evidence other than claims by US government that DNA testing confirms it was him. (The mind boggles as to how they got a sample of his DNA anyway... it not like he would have sent them a cheek swab is it now...)


Yet despite the dubiousness of all the above claims, which come at a time when Obama needs to boost his approval ratings, the world seems to be taking the USA's word for it. :rolleyes:
You forgot to add how right after he was supposedly killed, he was buried at sea in accordance with Islamic traditions. Yet Abbottabad is 1500km away from the sea. I call serious BS.
0
reply
SteveCrain
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1929
Report 7 years ago
#1929
1
reply
Dirac Delta Function
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1930
Report 7 years ago
#1930
(Original post by vedderfan94)
You forgot to add how right after he was supposedly killed, he was buried at sea in accordance with Islamic traditions. Yet Abbottabad is 1500km away from the sea. I call serious BS.
crazy right? It's almost like they could fly there or something.
2
reply
vedderfan94
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1931
Report 7 years ago
#1931
(Original post by el scampio)
A hellicopter crashed but no Americans were harmed? That right there is bull. Hellicopters don't have ejection seats like fighter jets, so it's implausible that nobody got injured, if they were telling the truth!

DNA sample proves it was Bin Laden? Surely they would need a prior sample of DNA in order to match it? I find it very unlikely they already had a smple of his DNA!!! Where and how would they have obtained Bin Laden's DNA prior to his supposed killing???

This is all lies, lies and more lies!
They claim to have a DNA sample from his dead sister, yet that is most likely just another lie. They have yet to provide any solid evidence he is dead. All we have seen so far are a whole lot of claims and a few photoshopped images.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1932
Report 7 years ago
#1932
(Original post by Iqbal007)
Nor can they prove what they said, you may argue they have evidence, but there are so many flaws in the evidence and how they dealt with the situation.
Well, whether they can prove what they said or not is up to the reader. For some people like you, they can never prove anything. Everything is a conspiracy.

They have evidence. There is even independent evidence of mobile phone pictures, twitter and witness statements.

Essentially what you are saying is that they had to create this elaborate hoax for some bizzare reason when they could have said they just killed him in a cave or just left him alone like Bush did.


I will agree with you on the last part.They should have brought him in and put him on trial.

Partly out of principle, but also because there are people like you who won't believe anything even if the alternative is more ridiculous.
0
reply
Mikl6969
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1933
Report 7 years ago
#1933
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
I doubt you believe all murder is wrong. If someone ( IE Bin Laden) is trying to murder you, then I doubt you will still hold the same view.
If a court of law convicted him of 9/11 and sentenced his to death that would be fine.
Killing someone in self defence is not murder

still misinformation is dirty and no justification
0
reply
Manitude
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1934
Report 7 years ago
#1934
(Original post by SteveCrain)
I doubt satisfying the West's appetite for gossip is one of OBLs major concerns. Also, there would be undoubted benefits for him if everyone thought he was dead.

Just to clarify, he probably is dead, but this event is unlikely to have anything to do with it.
I can see why he'd want to remain "officially dead" (IF he's alive - I'm pretty sure he's not) but the truth would leak out eventually. But he would have the opportunity of humiliating america and crushing the morale of the american people who were celebrating his death.

But seeing as they got a 99.9% DNA match with the man they killed the other day and OBL's family I think it's pretty safe to say they killed him recently.
0
reply
IGregg
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1935
Report 7 years ago
#1935
(Original post by Barden)
- A secret operation undertaken in Pakistan, without the knowledge of the Pakistani government.

- No Americans harmed in the operation, despite one helicopter crashing.

- Bin Laden alleged to have basically been hiding in plain sight.

- No picture of Bin Laden's body.

- No actual body anymore, because the US 'buried him at sea' :confused: (this is the most bizarre part of this yarn).

- No evidence other than claims by US government that DNA testing confirms it was him. (The mind boggles as to how they got a sample of his DNA anyway... it not like he would have sent them a cheek swab is it now...)


Yet despite the dubiousness of all the above claims, which come at a time when Obama needs to boost his approval ratings, the world seems to be taking the USA's word for it. :rolleyes:
How they got in

Lol you are so uninformed, why comment if you don't know wtf you are on about?

They don't have his DNA, they have that of a relatives who was killed a while ago and it was compared to that.

What else where they going to do with the body? Give him a grave for the nutters to travel to?

The helicopter managed to land but couldnt create enough lift to take off and so it was destroyed, it did not 'crash' as such.. this has been verified by locals.

If you listen to peole who lived close to the compound they say they never knew who lived there.

I am sure a picture will come out, you can see his brains in the picture, ofcourse they have to debate if to release it.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1936
Report 7 years ago
#1936
(Original post by Mikl6969)
If a court of law convicted him of 9/11 and sentenced his to death that would be fine.
Killing someone in self defence is not murder
Well, he wasn't wanted for 9/11. He was wanted for previous crimes.

A soldier killing someone in combat isn't murder either. From what I remember, the soldiers have a mandate from Congress to kill him anyway, from 2001.
0
reply
Rant
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1937
Report 7 years ago
#1937
(Original post by DH-Biker)
That's not what it sounded like a few posts back. Their "victims" are the enemy. The enemy, in war, is generally shot at.



Perhaps so. However, why fire at the "Liberators"? The Coalition are liberating Afghanistan from the regime of the Mujahadeen and the splinter factions of Al-Qaeda.
Where we under such regimes, I'd join the Liberators.
We're installing Democracy within a country that has been under the umbrella of oppression. We did it in Iraq, (albeit a hazy dilemma there), and we'll do it here. We've already built roads, schools, medical centers and food stations for those in the mountains. Is that not better then living under extremist groups such as the aforementioned?
We liberated the Poles, and we liberated the Dutch in World War Two in the Western European Theater. Along with the French, Belgians, Germans, Italians, and the rest.



As mentioned above, we're fighting the oppressive regimes there. Installing Democracy and the chance of a fair-system. There is also justification for every war. From the Crimean, to the Boer, Vietnam to World War One; usually its to cease atrocities and oppression in an area.
In fairness, what we are doing is beneficial. Hell, we (well, the USA) even armed the Afghans with the very weapons they are fighting us with now. The American CIA poured millions of dollars worth of arms and ammo into Afghanistan so they could fight the Soviets.
This was for the benefit of the Americans, of course; But now its backfired; the same Stingers we sent there are now a threat to our own Helicopters.



Nationalist? Pfft, I'm as far from a Nationalist as you can get. Still, the majority of the first few lines in that post are again there to simply piss me off. Meh, again, your entitlement to free-speech.

But they are heroes. Make no mistake of that.

I refrain from insulting you, as it doesn't get a post anywhere, but please don't be so naive enough to suggest all Soldiers are murderers. Sure, some go past being a force to eliminate a designated enemy and attack civilians.
But for the majority, and I could give you hundreds of examples, they are doing what they do because they believe its the right thing to do.

I don't want to see Islamic people oppressed by Religious Extremists; I would stop it if I saw it. We're there to stop Dictatorial, Religious Extremism endangering the lives of the many.

But no, not all killing is wrong. You aren't talking logically there; so suffice it to say, not all killing is wrong.



Oh yeah? People didn't seem to be chanting "oh that's wrong" around the War Memorials in the USA the other night. In fact, if anything, it seemed as if they were celebrating the death of a man who had caused the deaths of 4,000 people and was part of an organization planning the deaths of millions more. Is that right for him to do? Shouldn't he be punished?

Why should he be allowed to live? Why should he get away with tearing up the lives of so many thousands, gloating over it in numerous videos.
Sorry, when a Soldier of the Coalition kills an enemy, we don't gloat and publicize to the families of that man that we killed him.
My Brother and my Step-Brother have killed people. People who've engaged them in direct combat, threatened their lives and the lives of their comrades and civilians around them. What would you have them do? Run up and arrest them whilst being shot at? Ask them kindly to stop?

You aren't being logical. If you want to run up to a man who believes his sole purpose in life is to kill you and others like you, ask him to lay down his arms and stop, you be my guest.
Logical? Fascists like you are allergic to logic. Nationalists are allergic to logic. Patriots... I could go on. It's not logical to kill another human being. It's contrary to the survival of the species. It's not logical to fight wars, to waste millions that could be spent battling diseases instead on ridiculous playground scraps on a global scale.

No, I'm afraid your brothers are murderers, disgusting human beings. They deserve no respect, no warm welcome, no fanfare or whatever. If the laws side with them (as they will, because soldiers are merely pawns of the system) then the people should stand against these hired killers and shun them. Maybe then they won't be so keen to fight for their "country" and bring about "democracy" at gunpoint.
0
reply
metro2610
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1938
Report 7 years ago
#1938
(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
crazy right? It's almost like they could fly there or something.
:rofl:

"You have reached the limit of how many posts you can rate today!"

DAMN IT!!
0
reply
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1939
Report 7 years ago
#1939
(Original post by nosaer)
You're not going to claim Al Qaeda qualifies as a protected person under the 4th GC...

It would be interesting to know where you got that text inside the quotation bubble from, seeing as it introduces a bogus term "civilian combatant" which appears nowhere in the actual 4th GC

Completely and utterly wrong. The 3rd GC define who is a combatant protected under it, and neither OBL or Al Qaeda fall under this category, as they are irregular non-state actors.

Jesus freaking christ you dont honestly believe terrorists can legally be classified as civilians?!

Neither the 3rd or the 4th GC can be applied to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. I've already shown you what the US government consider them as, via the Military commission act 2006 which specifically mentions both these groups by name.

I mean wake up, how the hell do you think the US could keep these guys in Gitmo with no due legal process if they were to be considered POWs (3rd GC) or civilians (4th GC)?!

OK, Im going to go through this slowly once again.

And in case you were in any doubt what so ever what constitutes an unlawful enemy combatant, or whether the Taliban/Al Qaeda fall under this designation, its here in black and white:

End of story!
Firstly, I said:

If we assume Osama fell under the term "non-combatant" given he wasn't part of a permanent military armed force
Not at all "claiming" he was to fall under that category. I noted that Fourth Section of the Geneva Convention has complete relevance here. Though he wouldn't fall under the Fourth Section, he could potentially through an exploited loophole, if we assume (which Al-Qaeda nor any of the splinter-factions are) they bear no links to any Nation's armed Forces.

Given, too, they are under claimant of being Religions Followers; and thus another loophole is exploited.

Under several acts in Sections 1, 2 and 4; it claims that no member of any force, (any force, this including Al-Qaeda as a faction with ties to warfare and therefore classing as a military force) can be treated impartially to any other.
Said forces' backing, be it religious, political, whatever the criteria is not open to any leniency.

However much I disagree with the idea; Terrorist groups fall under this category. They didn't use to, but they do now. This dates back five years at the capture of several suspected Terrorists, members of two individual splinter-factions within Al-Qaeda.

Exploited loopholes (I know these were exploited, I followed the way they set out upon the trial and then followed in the way in which it was challenged the Convention reformed in 2006) were opened and these three men were tortured (whether this is true or not, it was challenged and is therefore as rightful as any case to be brought to the NATO Council) by six MI6 operatives, four CIA operatives and four FBI operatives. Well outside the jurisdiction of the latter two, they formed in International Waters, bringing along the three prisoners. It was never released where this action took place, but you'll have certainly heard of it.

The whole story is down to speculation, but the case was brought before the appeal of the Human Rights. They proved that the Convention had been illegally breached, and the three organisations faced massive internal shifts and the case was closed. It must have been true; sadly we stooped low; and as such, reforms upon the four Sections of the Conventions which had been, as you know, originally drafted on the 12th of August 1949. They were changed to include any member of a potentially militaristic unit, but one that bore no ties to any steadfast military force, wore no marks or indicators and could be made up of multinational units.

These fell under the Military Treatment, but have been in four cases in the past transferred to Civilian Treatment due to a complication in the terms.
Given that Al-Qaeda is of no ties to any steadfast military force, they were no marks or indicators and they are certainly multinational, they should have been treated under the Military act, of course.

However, during the four cases in 2007/8/9, they have been mistakingly given acts under Civilian jurisdiction and are complied, by both, to be treated fairly, they aren't allowed to be tested on, tortured, etc.

The trials ultimately faded, but as part of my last question during my personal study, my Teacher asked me to find any loopholes within the trials of the 2008 case involving the two members of the 7/7 bombings who were caught.
No loopholes I could find dubbed them as anything other then two civilians under Religious ideal to commit murder. However, given they were part of Al-Qaeda, they were to be treated as potentially military-personal, and therefore fell under the same level of safety as anyone other military officer.

Why? Its unfair, a blind man could see that. Why should they be given the same leagues of safety? They shouldn't.

However, they are under the protection of all acts within the Geneva Convention.

Hell, even Japanese prisoners, four years after the War, were still entitled to protection from American camps. Of course, this came too late for four hundred or so Japanese prisoners, but the point stands that any link to any military force, (it now doesn't have to be permanent) is classed as a direct out-line to one's own military stance. As such, no attacks may be made upon them.

They are prisoners of war. Its unfair, but that's what I was trying to get too.

I shall source the four articles.

Its nice to see you remained with a level head again, I like debating with you. :yep:

I would want to see Osama torture, but he would have been protected under the fact he was part of a military unit, he was acting under religious, political and ideological backing from an upper-echelon military source and yet he wore no stripes or identity chevrons.

Sad, really; Hitler, if exploited properly, could be classed as a victim of war and saved under Articles within the GC.

We detoured massively there, but the point is, under any pretense such persons can be classed as military or civilian, and are under the operating guidelines of treatment against both.

Still, the correct heading term for the GC is now 17th August, 1949 (R.T 7th May 2006).

I hope that made a bit more sense, I'm tired so if I leap from the lines, such is the reason.
0
reply
Iqbal007
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1940
Report 7 years ago
#1940
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Well, whether they can prove what they said or not is up to the reader. For some people like you, they can never prove anything. Everything is a conspiracy.

They have evidence. There is even independent evidence of mobile phone pictures, twitter and witness statements.

Essentially what you are saying is that they had to create this elaborate hoax for some bizzare reason when they could have said they just killed him in a cave or just left him alone like Bush did.


I will agree with you on the last part.They should have brought him in and put him on trial.

Partly out of principle, but also because there are people like you who won't believe anything even if the alternative is more ridiculous.
Its not a conspiracy, its an alternative theory to what actually happened.. to call it a conspiracy is trying to say that all these other views are very doubtful.

They dont have independent evidence of photos of the dead body or a video of the gunfight.... nor are there independent results of dna of the so called 'Osama'... Having pics and witnesses of the place isn't exactly helpful as it was dark and you can barely see much...

Well, he definitleu exists, i feel that the US government is covering for something they always have, for example the so called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... maybe they needed justification to show what there doin in Afghanisation is plausible despite the fact that in the last year they have found large sources of minerals.... The US get invloved for their own self-interest..

They should have definitley brought him, if i saw him on trial i would have believed the story.... i just dont like the fact how he was 'unarmed' and resisted arrest was a gd enough reason for them to shoot this guy in the head and chest :confused: then bury straight away saying its part of Islam which it aint.

Sometimes i do believe some of the stories as theres sound evidence, plus i use various news articles, but this incident doesn't add up.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (249)
38.97%
No - but I will (44)
6.89%
No - I don't want to (47)
7.36%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (299)
46.79%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed