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

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1940

Tommyjw

Original post by an_end_has_a_start

i don't care that he was shot, but he should NOT have been thrown into the sea.

Makes complete perfect logical sense to do it, actually.

Reply 1941

itsmyname

Original post by Dirac Delta Function

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:

Yeah that's what I find most weird about this whole situation. And burial within 24 Hours isn't as important as burial on land according to Islamic law. So that 'We wanted to uphold Islamic law' bull**** that they're coming out with is essentially.... bull****

Reply 1942

DorianGrayism

Original post by Iqbal007

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...

They do have photos. They do have a video of the gun fight since they watched it.

They have DNA. I am sure they can do another one if they wanted to do but I don't see the point.

No, the pictures and witness colerate with the original reports of the story as well.

As I said before, they don't need to go to such absurd lengths just to pretend to kill Bin Laden or whatever story you believe in.

Original post by Iqbal007

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.

So basically you are saying that people in the Bush Administration are psychic and also that the US spent 1 trillion on invading a backward hole to get a few mineral deposits which can be found in lots of other countries at cheaper prices..... O K then.

You can believe that.

I agree with you on the last part. The entire mission was a kill mission. There have been sources in the white house that have said that.

Reply 1943

DH-Biker

Original post by Rant

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.

Once again, Rant, I stress my Left-Wing stance. I'm neither Fascist nor Nationalist.

It is logical; would you kill Hitler if you had the chance? Would you kill Stalin if you had the chance? Any number of mass-murderers, and you're telling me you wouldn't kill them? What makes them so much better then the thousands if not millions they kill?

The survival of the species deems we stop any threat of anyone attempted to kill us. They don't want us as a society to survive, so should we not stop them? Or are we expendable as long as they are safe?

Also; do not forget the millions of advancements brought on through war. Many of them being medical advancements. More then the money from the Afghan war could compensate for.

No, they aren't murderers. If you want to allow someone to kill you, and not defend yourself, what use is your argument? You're telling me, if you and your family were being threatened and they were going to kill you, yet you had the chance to kill them, you wouldn't?

Its the exact same situation. If Ryan and his brothers in arms were about to be killed, yet he could stop it and did, is that murder?

Thankfully, they represent a higher stance of unwavering support for something better. Its OK for Dictators to reign supreme down upon their people, but we can't do anything to save those they kill?

Say Dictator X is going to kill off tens of thousands. Group Y has a chance to kill him, and prevent that. Is that still murder? Are you honestly going to tell me this example and the two others above are cases of murder?

Hardly at gunpoint. Thomas travels to villages high in the mountains and valleys and they are forming one-hundred and seventy-three peaceful deals with the locals there to bring in things such as medical supplies, roads, food, water, vehicles, better building supplies, more livestock, etc.

Though, that's not good enough is it? However many the pair have saved doing that, however many families they've aided. They are still murderers for protecting their friends lives when they were attacked?

You avoided this question in my last post, so I've highlighted them so you can make sure you read them.

Please answer the questions in bold.

Reply 1944

Dirac Delta Function

Original post by RectalExamination

Care to show us any concrete evidence of his death at this event anywhere on the news? The story is complete baloney, burried at sea in keeping with islamic tradition :rofl:

They couldn't find a country to take him :tongue:

Sure they found a country when it came to Sadam.

The US didn't kill Saddam, the Iraqis did.

They were even reluctant to pass the body to the custody of the Iraqi government.

Reply 1945

Mikl6969

Original post by DorianGrayism

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.

Breaking into someones home and killing a unarmed wanted person but not yet charged trial is nothing like killing a soliders on the battlefield

you think yea ? well id hope when somebody is about to take the life of another person he is 100% confident its legal

Reply 1946

an_end_has_a_start

Original post by a.posteriori

So where do you bury him? No country was willing to take the body.

I understand why that is, but personally I find it hard to believe that he's actually dead because there's no hard evidence... I'd like to believe he is and I hope that it is the case but I find it hard not to listen to some of the conspiracy theories; all the stuff about coincidentally dying the same day as hitler and photos that have supposedly been tampered with etc.

Reply 1947

DorianGrayism

Original post by Mikl6969

No, what I am saying is that congress gave the soldiers legal authority to kill him in 2001.

Therefore, it was legal, at least under American law.

Reply 1948

Bookmark

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???

They took DNA samples from his living relatives.

This is all lies, lies and more lies!

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies.....

Reply 1949

LaughingBro

Original post by SteveCrain

Unless those yanks release video footage of the shoot-out, I'm not gonna believe fully what they say!

Reply 1950

vilongo

Original post by Drunk Punx

There's nothing wrong with skepticism.

I half-heartedly believe he is dead. **** it, I want to believe he is dead just so it puts an end to this "Is he? Isn't he?" bs.

But there are questions:
How did he die? I've heard 4 different accounts of how he died, each as plausible as the other.
Given that he was apparently living in a mansion in Pakistani village that had a military training centre in, how was he not found sooner? Why now?
Why are there no pictures or other proof of his death rather than just what someone has said?

Undoubtedly answers will come, but seeing as everyone has a different opinion on what happened then it's hard to separate fact from fiction.

NB: I'm not a conspiracy nutter by any stretch of the imagination. I like hard factual evidence for shiz, not contradicting opinions.

That's your problem though: you're speculating on mere opinion than reading about the actual situation. I understsnd that skepticism needs to be applied when speaking of politics, but the information being circulated doesn't jjust come in text, it comes in video and pictures. The problem in releasing these things is that the its q risk to do so since we still live in countries that sustain these extremist. Though I think me and you would agree that living in fear isn't exactly our choose of Joe, we also must consider these presumed retaliation scenarios, and the lives thst might be taken. I honestly do believe that they should release these pictures and videos. I just don't think that reasons that might not suffice our expectation are reasons in itself to not at least give credence to the information beobg circulated . I had strong doubts myself about his death. Now I'm more wondering when they're going to release these videos.

Reply 1951

manchild007

Original post by SteveCrain

Is that how long it takes to download photoshop pro 7.8?

Well in that case, I look forward to hearing from Osama at some point in the future, if he really is not dead as you are saying. Oh and by-the-by, a small matter, but do you have ANY evidence to back up your claim that he is alive; and by evidence, I don't mean your needless hearsay, but actual objective evidence?

Though I assume in your idiocy, you also have another 'story' (because that's what it is, a fantastical story without ANY evidence to back the claim up), that Osama was killed ages ago - probably at the time when Dinosaurs were around :rolleyes:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1952

el scampio

Original post by Bookmark

They took DNA samples from his living relatives.

That just proves the corpse was related to Bin Laden's family members!

Were the DNA tests overseen by an independent body who could check and verify the validity of the results?

If the answer is no, then it's all just taking a proven liars word for it. Which is something most intelligent people are not prepared to do.

Reply 1953

4TSR

Original post by KissMyArtichoke

As I understand it, he was shot and killed in a fire fight/ stand-off, and not executed. There's a difference

He was unarmed when shot...

Reply 1954

green chica

Original post by Psuedo

He should have been tried and punished by an international criminal court.

Discuss.

none of us were there, so we can't really say either way.

Reply 1955

Tommyjw

Original post by 4TSR

He was unarmed when shot...

He was resisting and a threat when shot.

Reply 1956

DorianGrayism

Original post by el scampio

Well no. You can tell from the DNA sample how the person is related.

I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary to disprove what they have said. Neither am I sure why they would create such an elaborate story when they could say they shot him dead in a cave with no witnesses.

Reply 1957

JGR

Capturing him alive would be very difficult, especially as he'd rather die than be captured.
It'd also be very politically thorny and cause a lot of other problems.

In the heat of battle, soldiers seek to preserve their own life and that of their allies. Bin Laden is by definition the enemy and so of course they're going to shoot at him if fire is being exchanged and he won't surrender, and they don't know for sure if he really is unarmed.

You can't expect soldiers to risk death for the sake of capturing someone who's intent on killing them.

Original post by Tommyjw

He was resisting and a threat when shot.

I was just correcting the post I quoted... he did not fire at soldiers, but resisted arrest. So saying he was shot because of a "fire fight" is slightly inaccurate and unfair...

Any evidence to the threat bit? considering the room was raided by navy seals? I mean how much threat can him, his wife and a few kids be to navy seals?