Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Osama Drama: The Facts
Options
Comments
-
Thats kind of silly comparison.
The White House refuses to allow the photo to be released to the Media, because of how the media might portray the death of Osama.
Now you're expecting a instance were the media had free and unfettered access to the photo/video of Gadaffi, to police themselves, and exercise self restrain
The way Gadaffi's death has been splashed over all media, is a vindication of the White House Policy not to release the photo.
And arguing that editors/owners/ and advertising are the same as the US government is a absurd notion.
Ehm, never said it was the same. I said the media treatment has been the total opposite. You asked who the authorities were in the media, I told you.
That he was summarily executed while he was defenseless and not while he was initially captured.And what does that prove?
Nope. I'm saying the rebel soliders who captured him weren't authorised to kill him. The leadership of the NCT were and who themselves are answerable to the allied powers who they couldn't exist without.So we're agreed the NCT didn't authorise his death?Please tell me which members of the NCT are receiving salaries from various nato governments and how much they are getting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13707685Representatives for Libya's rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) transitional council say it needs cash urgently to pay for salaries and food supplies.
Italy said it would give the rebels up to $586m (400m euros; £360m) in cash and fuel aid backed by frozen Libyan assets.
France said it would release $420m (290m euros; £257m) of frozen Libyan funds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8831420/William-Hague-declares-watershed-moment-in-Libya-relations.htmlDuring the visit to the Libyan capital, the Foreign Secretary said the world had consistently underestimated the NTC, which continued to make progress, and pledged Britain’s ongoing support, including £20 million pounds ($32 million) for Libya’s stabilisation fund and another £20 million to support political and economic reform.
And they are just examples.0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »Ehm, never said it was the same. I said the media treatment has been the total opposite. You asked who the authorities were in the media, I told you.
So what's your point. The Clear difference between the two events is that the media weren't given access to images of Osama's death, and were given access in the case of Gadaffi's.
I struggle to see what tenuous conspiracy theory you're struggling to generate here.That he was summarily executed while he was defenseless and not while he was initially captured.
So? What point are you trying to make?Nope. I'm saying the rebel soliders who captured him weren't authorised to kill him. The leadership of the NCT were and who themselves are answerable to the allied powers who they couldn't exist without.
Great, and what wider point are you trying to make out this?
Thank you.0 -
We're getting too far off topic here. We can discuss Libya in the other thread. I'm interested in seeing evidence for Osama's death. Do you have any?0
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »We're getting too far off topic here.
You took us here.
What evidence would you consider acceptable to satisfactorily say he was dead?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »Well you tell me what evidence that has been presented that has convinced you and I'll tell you if it convinces me.
No it's a serious question, what would satisfy you that he was dead?
We often have to take as fact many things without any evidence.
For example, I've no actual evidence that the state of Utah exists. Or the large hadron collider isnt something that is photoshopped and isn't real.
What convinces me isnt relevant, I'd like to know what could be offered to you the OP to satisfy you?0 -
No it's a serious question, what would satisfy you that he was dead?
We often have to take as fact many things without any evidence.
For example, I've no actual evidence that the state of Utah exists. Or the large hadron collider isnt something that is photoshopped and isn't real.
What convinces me isnt relevant, I'd like to know what could be offered to you the OP to satisfy you?
A body, obviously. Independent post mortem analysis. The photos they claim to have taken during the assault.
Your turn. What has convinced that he died last May?0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »A body, obviously. Independent post mortem analysis.
Serious question.Who do you think should do the this independent post mortem analysis and why would you trust their results?The photos they claim to have taken during the assault.
Well lets see you're already played your hand here already;Brown Bomber wrote:Gadaffis supposed corpse
You have photos that purport to be of Gadaffi's corpse. Why did you include the word "supposed" in that sentence? If the photo of Gadaffi's body isn't enough to completely convince you that he's dead, why will the Osama photo convince you?Your turn. What has convinced that he died last May?
I don't even think you've come anywhere near letting us know what would convince you Osama's death yet.0 -
why are you so afraid to share the reasons that you are convinved the OBL was killed May 1?0
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »why are you so afraid to share the reasons that you are convinved the OBL was killed May 1?
I'm not in the slightest. It's just I'd really like know what would convince you he's dead.
Gaddaffi's bloodied corpse can be splashed across every newspaper on the planet, videos of the moments leading up to his capture and death can be looped on News Channels for days, and you're still calling it his "supposed" corpse.
So I'm genuinely curious as to why I should believe you're going to be satisfied that Osama is dead if the US government release a photo of his corpse.0 -
Advertisement
-
With supposed meaning:accepted or believed as true, without positive knowledge: the supposed site of an ancient temple.
I'm not disputing Gadaffi is now dead.
If your not afraid to share what's convinved you then please do. If you are then stop wasting my time pretending your not.0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »With supposed meaning:accepted or believed as true, without positive knowledge: the supposed site of an ancient temple.
I'm not disputing Gadaffi is now dead.
If your not afraid to share what's convinved you then please do. If you are then stop wasting my time pretending your not.
Then why did you say his supposed corpse a few hours ago.
Would a photo of Osama convince you? And who should carry out your independent post mortem.
Finally why are you convinced that Im convinced that hes dead?0 -
Then why did you say his supposed corpse a few hours ago.
Would a photo of Osama convince you? And who should carry out your independent post mortem.
Finally why are you convinced that Im convinced that hes dead?
I'm getting less and less patient of your childish games.
Firstly you are changing the meaning of what I actually said to suit yourself.
This is what I said;In light of the stark contrast between the media/authorities handling of OBL and Gadaffis supposed corpses I think now is a good time to revisit this topic.
You've erroneously or dishonetly taken an ambiguous statement that refers to two people and distorted the meaning, Please stop these kind of antics.
Secondly, if your not prepared to offer your own views I have no interest in discussing anything with you.
a) Do you believe Bin Laden was killed last May?
b) What evidence has convinced you?
They are not trick questions.0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »I'm getting less and less patient of your childish games.
Thats dangerously close to personal abuse.Firstly you are changing the meaning of what I actually said to suit yourself.
This is what I said;
And then you said.accepted or believed as true, without positive knowledge: the supposed site of an ancient temple.
So which is it. Do you suppose Bin Laden, and Gaddaffi are dead. Or are you claiming you think one is dead and the other is only allegedly dead.
I'm trying to find clarity in your confusion.
If you think Bin Laden isn't dead, whats the logical behind your thinking. I mean according to you yourself you know only suppose Gaddaffi is dead.
Oh and who should be the independent body carrying out the autopsy of Obama's corpse. And why are you happy to suppose Gaddaffi is dead, before such a autopsy was carried out?You've erroneously or dishonetly taken an ambiguous statement that refers to two people and distorted the meaning, Please stop these kind of antics.
Again borderline personal attack. I will report further posts.
I'm not. I'm confused. You raised the death of Gadaffi. You start by saying you suppose Gadaffi is dead, and then you say you don't dispute Gadaffi is dead. I wonder what evidence has been presented that makes you convinced of one case and not the other. I'm also curious as to what evidence could be presented to satisfy you that Osama is dead?Secondly, if your not prepared to offer your own views I have no interest in discussing anything with you.
a) Do you believe Bin Laden was killed last May?
b) What evidence has convinced you?
They are not trick questions.
They may as well not be trick questions, but I don't like your tone, just because you started the thread you are not entitled to bark orders as to the tone or content of my reply, and demand I leap to attention and obey you.
It's rather dictatorial.0 -
Thats dangerously close to personal abuse.
And then you said.
So which is it. Do you suppose Bin Laden, and Gaddaffi are dead. Or are you claiming you think one is dead and the other is only allegedly dead.
I'm trying to find clarity in your confusion.
If you think Bin Laden isn't dead, whats the logical behind your thinking. I mean according to you yourself you know only suppose Gaddaffi is dead.
Oh and who should be the independent body carrying out the autopsy of Obama's corpse. And why are you happy to suppose Gaddaffi is dead, before such a autopsy was carried out?
Again borderline personal attack. I will report further posts.
I'm not. I'm confused. You raised the death of Gadaffi. You start by saying you suppose Gadaffi is dead, and then you say you don't dispute Gadaffi is dead. I wonder what evidence has been presented that makes you convinced of one case and not the other. I'm also curious as to what evidence could be presented to satisfy you that Osama is dead?
They may as well not be trick questions, but I don't like your tone, just because you started the thread you are not entitled to bark orders as to the tone or content of my reply, and demand I leap to attention and obey you.
It's rather dictatorial.
This post made me laugh ... you of all people blaming others for abusive language come on man
If you have trouble answering questions then say so don't use the same all distraction tactics over and over0 -
Thats dangerously close to personal abuse.
And then you said.
So which is it. Do you suppose Bin Laden, and Gaddaffi are dead. Or are you claiming you think one is dead and the other is only allegedly dead.
I'm trying to find clarity in your confusion.
If you think Bin Laden isn't dead, whats the logical behind your thinking. I mean according to you yourself you know only suppose Gaddaffi is dead.
Oh and who should be the independent body carrying out the autopsy of Obama's corpse. And why are you happy to suppose Gaddaffi is dead, before such a autopsy was carried out?
Again borderline personal attack. I will report further posts.
I'm not. I'm confused. You raised the death of Gadaffi. You start by saying you suppose Gadaffi is dead, and then you say you don't dispute Gadaffi is dead. I wonder what evidence has been presented that makes you convinced of one case and not the other. I'm also curious as to what evidence could be presented to satisfy you that Osama is dead?
They may as well not be trick questions, but I don't like your tone, just because you started the thread you are not entitled to bark orders as to the tone or content of my reply, and demand I leap to attention and obey you.
It's rather dictatorial.
WTF?????????????????????????????
Anyway...Here is the OP again for anyone who is interested in discussing the topic:It is claimed that by Obama (a proven liar - CIA murderer Raymond Davis was a "diplomat) that bin Laden was recently murdered by US forces in his compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan.
The burden of proof lies with the US. I have seen nothing that remotely comes close to convincing me that he died in that compound.
To the people who accept this claim what has convinced you?
What is the best case that can be put forward to support his having been killed?0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »WTF?????????????????????????????
Anyway...Here is the OP again for anyone who is interested in discussing the topic:
And what convinced you Gadaffi was dead?0 -
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »To the people who accept this claim what has convinced you?
What is the best case that can be put forward to support his having been killed?
Anyone else?.......anyone? It's a simple question
Well, if he *is* still alive he's doing a great impression of being dead.
since the second of May, there's been no messages form anyone purporting to be him, and Al-Qaeda themselves have declared that they will have revenge for his death.
Works for me.0 -
I am sure the hag fish can tell you about Bin Laden
Gaddaffi , his son , Hussein and his sons are as alive as Michael Jackson .0 -
Advertisement
-
hooradiation wrote: »
Fair enough. Thanks for being straightforward.
However, there have been no messages from Genghis Khan or Adolph Hitler since May 2011 either. They were both dead before.
I suspect that we would be quite far apart in our opinions on just how far removed Al Qaeda are from the CIA but for arguments sake let's assume that they are enemies, there is still motive through propoganda from either side to falsely claim the murder of OBL on May 2nd in the Abottobad raid. For AQ Bin Laden's death takes on a inspirational significance as he becomes a Shaheed (martyr). For the US there is any number of reasons the one that stands out for me is that it was a trump card played by Obama to silence the condemnation for murdering Gadaffi's young grandchildren in cold blood. The news broke just hours after this event. It should be apparent now, even if it wasn't then that the goal was always regime change and to take Gadaffi out.0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »Fair enough. Thanks for being straightforward.
However, there have been no messages from Genghis Khan or Adolph Hitler since May 2011 either. They were both dead before.
I suspect that we would be quite far apart in our opinions on just how far removed Al Qaeda are from the CIA but for arguments sake let's assume that they are enemies, there is still motive through propoganda from either side to falsely claim the murder of OBL on May 2nd in the Abottobad raid. For AQ Bin Laden's death takes on a inspirational significance as he becomes a Shaheed (martyr). For the US there is any number of reasons the one that stands out for me is that it was a trump card played by Obama to silence the condemnation for murdering Gadaffi's young grandchildren in cold blood. The news broke just hours after this event. It should be apparent now, even if it wasn't then that the goal was always regime change and to take Gadaffi out.
If Osama was dead before, how many people would be in on the secret roughly?0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »Fair enough. Thanks for being straightforward.
However, there have been no messages from Genghis Khan or Adolph Hitler since May 2011 either. They were both dead before.
That's a non-sequitur though. The point isn't that the lack of messages is the sole reason for believing he is dead, but that the US claims of having him killed, and all the reports that go with that, plus the confirmation by his own organisation plus nothing from the man himself, or even someone purporting to be speaking on his behalf leads me to believe that the result of events were broadly as we were told they were.Brown Bomber wrote: »I suspect that we would be quite far apart in our opinions on just how far removed Al Qaeda are from the CIA but for arguments sake let's assume that they are enemies, there is still motive through propoganda from either side to falsely claim the murder of OBL on May 2nd in the Abottobad raid. For AQ Bin Laden's death takes on a inspirational significance as he becomes a Shaheed (martyr). For the US there is any number of reasons the one that stands out for me is that it was a trump card played by Obama to silence the condemnation for murdering Gadaffi's young grandchildren in cold blood. The news broke just hours after this event. It should be apparent now, even if it wasn't then that the goal was always regime change and to take Gadaffi out.
Well this meanders a bit - but lets take that central premise that AL Qaeda are real and not part of some hyper competent conspiracy.
The idea you put forward is plausible-ish but the main problem on the side Al Qaeda of using this as a PR stunt. Either he's dead before now (which I gather is the theory you're going with) which creates numerous problems, mainly along the lines of who did the US target and kill in that compound and that they'd have to wait until the US performed a raid, then somehow were conned into believing they'd achieved their goal before using this to score points.
Which then makes me wonder how they would be keeping up the pretence of a dead man still being alive long enough for all the other pieces to fall into place.
Of course, if you go with "he's still alive" nothing would be a bigger achievement than once the US declared to the world that Bin laden was dead for him to release a video going "Nope. Still here. Morons."
On the US side - it was a bit of PR bump for the Obama administration, but not as much as you'd think. Fortuitous for a president who was and still is doing badly domestically but only in a limited amount. Given at that point the president was heading into what was to become the debt ceiling crisis I think in hindsight the more cynical would view the death of Osama Bin Laden at that time as a bit of waste, the boost was short lived and evaporated the second the debt ceiling debacle broke out.
The whole hyperbole about "[obama] murdering Gadaffi's young grandchildren in cold blood" getting covered up, which I disagree with as an assessment of what happened and on the grounds of it being nothing but tabloid style farce, doesn't track because nobody cares. The american public is far too inward looking right now to care too much about some people they've never met getting killed in an airstrike. "Shit happens - but what about the deficit?"0 -
Jeboa Safari wrote: »If Osama was dead before, how many people would be in on the secret roughly?
Ever seen Weekend at Bernie's`?0 -
hooradiation wrote: »That's a non-sequitur though. The point isn't that the lack of messages is the sole reason for believing he is dead, but that the US claims of having him killed, and all the reports that go with that, plus the confirmation by his own organisation plus nothing from the man himself, or even someone purporting to be speaking on his behalf leads me to believe that the result of events were broadly as we were told they were.
Well this meanders a bit - but lets take that central premise that AL Qaeda are real and not part of some hyper competent conspiracy.
The idea you put forward is plausible-ish but the main problem on the side Al Qaeda of using this as a PR stunt. Either he's dead before now (which I gather is the theory you're going with) which creates numerous problems, mainly along the lines of who did the US target and kill in that compound and that they'd have to wait until the US performed a raid, then somehow were conned into believing they'd achieved their goal before using this to score points.
Which then makes me wonder how they would be keeping up the pretence of a dead man still being alive long enough for all the other pieces to fall into place.
Of course, if you go with "he's still alive" nothing would be a bigger achievement than once the US declared to the world that Bin laden was dead for him to release a video going "Nope. Still here. Morons."
On the US side - it was a bit of PR bump for the Obama administration, but not as much as you'd think. Fortuitous for a president who was and still is doing badly domestically but only in a limited amount. Given at that point the president was heading into what was to become the debt ceiling crisis I think in hindsight the more cynical would view the death of Osama Bin Laden at that time as a bit of waste, the boost was short lived and evaporated the second the debt ceiling debacle broke out.
The whole hyperbole about "[obama] murdering Gadaffi's young grandchildren in cold blood" getting covered up, which I disagree with as an assessment of what happened and on the grounds of it being nothing but tabloid style farce, doesn't track because nobody cares. The american public is far too inward looking right now to care too much about some people they've never met getting killed in an airstrike. "Shit happens - but what about the deficit?"
The Vatican have just released a statement claiming they've just found the Ark of the Covenant capable of all kinds of wonderful miracles. Their own scientists have authenticated it before anyone else could get a look at it. They claim to have photos but won't show them to anyone but show a photo of the Pope with his Cardinals in his chambers watching a video of it being found. And now they've dumped it into the middle of the ocean.
Would you believe them0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »The Vatican have just released a statement claiming they've just found the Ark of the Covenant capable of all kinds of wonderful miracles. Their own scientists have authenticated it before anyone else could get a look at it. They claim to have photos but won't show them to anyone but show a photo of the Pope with his Cardinals in his chambers watching a video of it being found. And now they've dumped it into the middle of the ocean.
Would you believe them
I see the point your trying to make, but it's a non-sequitur. Again.
We know that bin laden was a real person, not an artefact that is thousands of years old, also bin ladin was not magical, where as this supposed ark is meant to be. So even on a superficial level we're already not dealing with anything comparable.
Your line of reasoning also doesn't follow because you're taking some events in isolation and misrepresenting them as the entirety of the evidence.
Where, in this bad analogy, is the equivalent of al Qaeda confirming that this has happened?
Where in this bad analogy is the equivalent of the ark being able to issue a statement to reject the claims that it's not at the bottom of the ocean?
Presenting the situation in a simplified way is dishonest, be better than that.0 -
If we accept the evidence-light Bin Laden is dead conspiracy theory then the most wanted man in the world was living unprotected in a house in an Abbotobad neighbourhood for years then he must surely have been aware that at any given moment he was likely to be bombed/assasinated or otherwise neutralised. He had ample time to make video/audio messages for every concievable scenario after his death and therefore continue to be an inspiration to his followers. Gadaffi made such an audio message which was sent out to his followers denying he had been killed (when he had been), that he was in hiding, keep fighting the good fight etc.hooradiation wrote: »I see the point your trying to make, but it's a non-sequitur. Again.
We know that bin laden was a real person, not an artefact that is thousands of years old, also bin ladin was not magical, where as this supposed ark is meant to be. So even on a superficial level we're already not dealing with anything comparable.
Your line of reasoning also doesn't follow because you're taking some events in isolation and misrepresenting them as the entirety of the evidence.
Where, in this bad analogy, is the equivalent of al Qaeda confirming that this has happened?
Where in this bad analogy is the equivalent of the ark being able to issue a statement to reject the claims that it's not at the bottom of the ocean?
Why do you think Al Qaeda acknowledge his death when the could keep the game going indefinitely?
In fact, do the even acknowledge it?
LINK 1
The Taliban comments came as Al-Qaeda confirmed Bin Laden’s death but warned that those celebrating his killing would have their “blood mixed with tears” and vowed the movement would live on, the US monitoring group SITE Intelligence reported.
In a statement posted on jihadist Internet forums on Friday Al-Qaeda said, “We… pledge to Allah the Almighty and ask His help, support and steadfastness to continue on the path of jihad, the path walked upon by our leaders, and on top of them, Sheikh Osama,” SITE said, quoting the statement.
Link 2:The statement was released on forums sympathetic to al-Qaeda and translated by the SITE monitoring service on Friday.
"It [bin Laden's blood] will remain, with permission from Allah the Almighty, a curse that chases the Americans and their agents, and goes after them inside and outside their countries," al-Qaeda said.
It was not clear what country the statement had been posted from.
These are my comments on SITE before Bin Laden was executed:I knew this video would have been "released" by SITE. SITE who somehow find the (fake) bin Laden tapes by just monitoring Islamic forums WTF??
Site who are always one step ahead of the American Intelligence services.
SITE who were founded by Rita Katz former IDF, and the daughter of an alleged Israeli spy in Iraq.
SITE are a definite Mossad front IMO.
What you have are anonymous internet posts in a forum that is not even named and then translated by a group which exists solely to demonise Muslims. Evidence it aint.
Link 3: Not worth going into as the Al Aqsa Brigade never actually released that statement.GAZA CITY (Ma’an) -- The spokesman of Fatah's military wing on Tuesday denied issuing a statement marking Osama bin Laden's death.
Abu Uday of the Al-Aqsa Brigades said the group did not and had no plans to comment because bin Laden's death was unrelated to Palestine.
He said a statement received by Ma'an's Gaza City office must have been forged as the armed group "doesn't know anything about it."
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=384458
Simple is better because the issue is simple. Dead or alive and what's the evidence.hooradiation wrote: »Presenting the situation in a simplified way is dishonest, be better than that.0 -
No, never heard of itBrown Bomber wrote: »Ever seen Weekend at Bernie's`?Brown Bomber wrote: »The Vatican have just released a statement claiming they've just found the Ark of the Covenant capable of all kinds of wonderful miracles. Their own scientists have authenticated it before anyone else could get a look at it. They claim to have photos but won't show them to anyone but show a photo of the Pope with his Cardinals in his chambers watching a video of it being found. And now they've dumped it into the middle of the ocean.
Would you believe them
Thats not really a comparable situation though is it0 -
hooradiation wrote: »
Nobody's saying he's STILL alive. People are alluding to the fact that he died nearly a decade ago:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html
Now I know it's Fox News, that comic book noise channel...but why would they report this back in 2001?
Osama was awesome in his power to scare the bejeesus out of the US public and have them take their shoes and their knickers off at airports or not squeek a word about having their emails and bank accounts snooped on and such shït. So....if word got out that the mastermind of 9/11 was dead, the fear was that Joe Public would go back into "I'm happy and safe and fearless" mode again and that would be that.
But there's big money to be made in keeping people terrified, especially if you can make them believe that their taxes are better spent on aircraft carriers to catch a 60 year old fogey with kidney problems. I'm in my early 40's and I'm fücked after a weekend camping nevermind being 60, on dialysis, living in mountains without medication or any kind of pain relief for 10 years and US Special forces after me.
The thing about the Soviet "threat" was that the US could just use this concept of "Reds" to terrify people. With Bin Laden, they made a mess of it. They, having lost a boogeyman in the form of an ideology in 1990, replaced it with a person.....who has a finite lifespan. You can't use Bin Laden as a threat in 20 years time so the plug had to at some stage be pulled on the hoax otherwise these cretinous assertions like "we believe Bin Laden to be holed up in XYZ" in, like 2018 would just sound retarded. What is this guy, Connor McLeod?
So, they announced that they killed him.....even though they could so easily, truth be known, have captured him if their story wasn't so lame and fake.
They even made up this crap about how he was buried quickly at sea in accordance with Islamic tradition :pac:. There is NO tradition in Islam of burying someone at sea. In fact there isn't even a time stipulation. So that's another schoolboy howler right there.
The man died yonks ago, but the spectre of him was an excellent catalyst to keep things going. It just reached it's sell-by date, and that's how amateurish the Pentagon and the White House are.0 -
Advertisement
-
jackiebaron wrote: »They even made up this crap about how he was buried quickly at sea in accordance with Islamic tradition :pac:. There is NO tradition in Islam of burying someone at sea.In fact there isn't even a time stipulation. So that's another schoolboy howler right there.
Wrong
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/janisla2y2.html0
Advertisement