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
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Di0genes wrote: »
    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.



    Wrong

    http://www.renaissance.com.pk/janisla2y2.html


    Did he die on board the aircraft carrier ?


  • Options
    #153
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    weisses wrote: »
    Di0genes wrote: »


    Did he die on board the aircraft carrier ?

    The point is the claim about there not being a Islamic tradition for a quick burial, when there is in fact such a tradition.


  • Options
    #154
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    The point is the claim about there not being a Islamic tradition for a quick burial, when there is in fact such a tradition.

    That link doesn't say as much. In fact it says that Muslim bodies should be buried in the ground. Only at sea in exceptional cirumstances and if the person had died at sea.


  • Options
    #155
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Di0genes wrote: »
    The point is the claim about there not being a Islamic tradition for a quick burial, when there is in fact such a tradition.

    I know its difficult answering a simple question

    quote

    This way is to be adopted in normal circumstances. So if a person dies on a ship and the shore is far off, the only option left is to cast the body in the surrounding water.


  • Options
    #156
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    That link doesn't say as much. In fact it says that Muslim bodies should be buried in the ground. Only at sea in exceptional cirumstances and if the person had died at sea.

    No you're confused.

    jackie said
    In fact there isn't even a time stipulation.

    I responded.
    Wrong

    I made no mention of the burial at sea, rather that in fact yes there is a time constriction on Muslim burials. They should be done as soon as possible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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 conceivable 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.

    So, by virtue of there being no pre-packaged videos for the event of his death therefore..... what?

    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Why do you think Al Qaeda acknowledge his death when the could keep the game going indefinitely?

    In fact, do the even acknowledge it?
    They do.
    Simply because you think the SITE is a mossad front makes it neither true or relevant.

    Besides, there is still no word to the contrary from anyone claiming to be part of Al Qaeda, even if we accept that SITE is a mossad front for those pesky jews, there is still a shocking lack of anything that comes close to countering events as we currently know them.


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.

    It is. If you'd like to counter it, show me something that actually runs counter, find statements that show Al Qaeda calling bullshit on bin ladens death - something that's actually most than you trying to write everything off on the grounds that you have assigned an agenda to them, ergo it's true and therefore you can ignore it.

    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Simple is better because the issue is simple.

    As always, nothing is as simple as we'd like it to be.
    Simplifying it has no justifcation.

    jackiebaron 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?

    Because they felt it was news worthy?
    Unless you're trying to say that the media arm of republican party was, for the hell of it, just giving the game away?
    jackiebaron wrote: »
    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.

    Feel free to try and prove that assertion at any point, with as little of your usual hyperbole if you don't mind.


  • Options
    #158
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Besides, there is still no word to the contrary from anyone claiming to be part of Al Qaeda,

    أنا في تنظيم القاعدة. استطيع ان اؤكد لكم ان بن لادن توفي لأسباب طبيعية سنة مضت. الله الأخبار

    I'm in Al Qaeda. I can guarantee you that Bin Laden died of natural causes years ago. I too can use google translate
     speak the tongue of the glorious Propher Muhammed (PBUH)

    Unsupported claim to be Islamic terrorist: check
    Anonymous claim: check
    Internet forum:check
    Zero evidence: check
    Worthless unverified information: check
    hooradiation wrote: »
    It is. If you'd like to counter it, show me something that actually runs counter, find statements that show Al Qaeda calling bullshit on bin ladens death - something that's actually most than you trying to write everything off on the grounds that you have assigned an agenda to them, ergo it's true and therefore you can ignore it.
    I have no intention in countering anything. I am completely open to the notion that he may have been killed that night. However, there is no strong evidence that verifies this and I have no intention of taking proven liars on their word.
    hooradiation wrote: »
    As always, nothing is as simple as we'd like it to be.
    Simplifying it has no justifcation.
    I have no intention of simplifying it. Alive or dead? Can't be more simple than that.


  • Options
    #159
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Brown Bomber wrote: »

    أنا في تنظيم القاعدة. استطيع ان اؤكد لكم ان بن لادن توفي لأسباب طبيعية سنة مضت. الله الأخبار

    I'm in Al Qaeda. I can guarantee you that Bin Laden died of natural causes years ago. I too can use google translate
     speak the tongue of the glorious Propher Muhammed (PBUH)

    Unsupported claim to be Islamic terrorist: check
    Anonymous claim: check
    Internet forum:check
    Zero evidence: check
    Worthless unverified information: check

    And I can do the exact same thing but asserting that opposite and were back at square one. So what have you achieved with this? That it's possible to lie online?
    However, in your rush to score a point you've taken to asserting that this is all it would take to convince a group like SITE - effectively painting them as morons with no basis, so I'm left wondering just what exactly it was you wanted to demonstrate to me?

    Though this juxtaposed with the "I have no intention of taking proven liars on their word" line further down does make me giggle a little bit.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I have no intention in countering anything. I am completely open to the notion that he may have been killed that night. However, there is no strong evidence that verifies this and I have no intention of taking proven liars on their word.

    On that I disagree, there is enough evidence to verify, unless you want to get into the philosophical "how can we know anything?". We could ask that they release the pictures, but I do agree with the assessment that it'd simply fuel conspiracy theories rather than quench them.

    And while were at it, the fact that you hold people to be proven liars means nothing. They might well be, but it's irrelevant.
    You can either tackle what they're actually saying or not, simply going "they're liars and therefore I don't have to listen" is exactly the same as someone else going "he's a CT nut, let's not listen" but with the slightest trappings of moral superiority.
    It's weak.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I have no intention of simplifying it. Alive or dead? Can't be more simple than that.

    It's your presentation of the events that I have problem with as your "ark of the covenant" analogy showed.


  • Options
    #160
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    hooradiation wrote: »
    And I can do the exact same thing but asserting that opposite and were back at square one. So what have you achieved with this? That it's possible to lie online?
    Exactly. And anonymous claims without anything at all backing them up, hidden behind anonymous pseudonyms are completely worthless and therefore evidence of nothing and are not even worth any media attention.
    hooradiation wrote: »
    However, in your rush to score a point you've taken to asserting that this is all it would take to convince a group like SITE - effectively painting them as morons with no basis, so I'm left wondering just what exactly it was you wanted to demonstrate to me?
    It is all it takes to convince a group like SITE.

    Case in point. C.N.A. and their terrorism "expert" Will McCants.

    Remember this?
    A terror group, Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or the Helpers of the Global Jihad, issued a statement claiming responsibility for the attack, according to Will McCants, a terrorism analyst at C.N.A., a research institute that studies terrorism.

    It was the Oslo terror attacks by anti-Muslim fanatic Anders Breivik.
    hooradiation wrote: »
    Though this juxtaposed with the "I have no intention of taking proven liars on their word" line further down does make me giggle a little bit.

    On that I disagree, there is enough evidence to verify, unless you want to get into the philosophical "how can we know anything?". We could ask that they release the pictures, but I do agree with the assessment that it'd simply fuel conspiracy theories rather than quench them.
    So you obviously do take these proven liars on their word. Why do you automatically assume that these "pictures" exist to release? You've never seen them.
    hooradiation wrote: »
    And while were at it, the fact that you hold people to be proven liars means nothing. They might well be, but it's irrelevant.
    You can either tackle what they're actually saying or not, simply going "they're liars and therefore I don't have to listen" is exactly the same as someone else going "he's a CT nut, let's not listen" but with the slightest trappings of moral superiority.
    It's weak.
    I'm not saying that they should be automatically disbelieved and that everything that they say is automatically untrue, but they can and do lie. Pat Tillman is a good example. Another is the Hollywood "rescue" of Jessica Lynch.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IBZKCgobqo


    They are capable and very much prepared to present complete fiction as fact to their own public and therefore any claims they make should be subject to a high level of scrutiny.


  • Options
    #161
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It is all it takes to convince a group like SITE.

    Which makes the assumption that one incorrect analysis makes all future ones worthless
    Which is pointless and wrong.
    What is it about the case in question that you can demonstrate is false or questionable.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So you obviously do take these proven liars on their word.

    You keep pretending that's some kind of serious point.
    Everybody lies, there's no point using "they lied" to damn everything you hear, otherwise who do you believe?
    Show me anyone who's opinions you agree with, who's analysis you trust or even thought made some kind of sense and I'll show you a liar.

    Do you realise how fucking fruitless that attitude is?
    I could damn everything you ever said and will say with that exact same statement until the end of time, and it'd be just as valid as what you've said above.

    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Why do you automatically assume that these "pictures" exist to release? You've never seen them.

    Now we're getting back to the whole "how can we know anything" question.
    I or indeed you cannot know with a hundred percent certainty that the three pictures exist or not.

    However, in the absence of a compelling, consistent, alternative narrative to the events, I can comfortably state that for now I believe they do exist and that Bin laden died in the compound.
    Should anyone present a compelling, consistent, alternative narrative to events, I'll be happy look at this again.

    And for what it's worth they'll eventually be released, I await the claims of 'photoshop'

    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    They are capable and very much prepared to present complete fiction as fact to their own public and therefore any claims they make should be subject to a high level of scrutiny.

    Assuming that they're constantly lying about everything all the time isn't "a hight level of scrutiny" it's continuing a fabricated narrative of reality.

    This high level of scrutiny has not yielded anything of worth, so far, so the original narrative stands.
    You may disagree, but going "B-B-BUT LIARS!" isn't going to change much.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Which makes the assumption that one incorrect analysis makes all future ones worthless
    Which is pointless and wrong.
    It's not pointless or wrong. There is as much "analysis" (none) between McCanty reading an internet forum and SITE reading an internet forum. They could simply be writing this nonsense themselves under sock puppet accounts. I struggle to think of a more stupid thing to do than actual terrorists actually announcing their crimes on the internet when it is crawling with these SITE types.

    The Muslims did Oslo "scoop" simply highlights the complete lack of any "analysis" involved in supposedly reading an internet forum that only they and the Jihadis have access to.
    hooradiation wrote: »
    I or indeed you cannot know with a hundred percent certainty that the three pictures exist or not...And for what it's worth they'll eventually be released,
    :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
    hooradiation wrote: »
    Assuming that they're constantly lying about everything all the time isn't "a hight level of scrutiny" it's continuing a fabricated narrative of reality.

    This high level of scrutiny has not yielded anything of worth, so far, so the original narrative stands.
    You may disagree, but going "B-B-BUT LIARS!" isn't going to change much.

    FWIW I don't assume they are constantly lying about everything. In fact, I would've thought I was quite clear in the post you just quoted to make this point. I can only hope and assume that you missed this part rather than selectively quote me.
    I'm not saying that they should be automatically disbelieved and that everything that they say is automatically untrue, but they can and do lie. Pat Tillman is a good example. Another is the Hollywood "rescue" of Jessica Lynch.

    We seem to be going round in circles. In summary is this your sufficent proof?

    A - No more audio/video recordings of Bin Laden

    B - Anonymous, online posts that could've been written by anyone


  • Options
    #163
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It's not pointless or wrong. There is as much "analysis" (none) between McCanty reading an internet forum and SITE reading an internet forum. They could simply be writing this nonsense themselves under sock puppet accounts. I struggle to think of a more stupid thing to do than actual terrorists actually announcing their crimes on the internet when it is crawling with these SITE types.

    No, it is still pretty damn pointless.
    You're still using the "Oslo scoop" as proof positive that SITE does no analysis what so ever - which is pointless.

    Also, terrorist organisations tend to want to take responsibility for their actions, so i don't know how it'd 'stupid' to announce those actions via the best medium we have so disseminating information.

    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

    This is pretty funny, seeing as later on you have so much concern about me selectively quoting you.

    As I keep pointing out there is the whole "how can we know anything" aspect of any of these debates, but I believe the photos DO exist and they will eventually be released.
    In fact if you look to the first part of posted the entire first sentence then it's very obvious the first bit you selectively quoted speaks of the philosophical issues about knowing anything, the rest being the more concrete and going of my belief that the photos do, in fact, exist.


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    We seem to be going round in circles. In summary is this your sufficent proof?

    A - No more audio/video recordings of Bin Laden

    B - Anonymous, online posts that could've been written by anyone

    Not entirely

    A is correct, mostly
    B is a gross over simplification
    add to this
    C - the lack of any compelling alternative narrative

    So, with that in mind I have no real reason to doubt the current order and outcome of events, there is nothing presented so far that has managed to raise much by way of meaningful doubt.

    Which, oddly, I also went over in my last post, so I'm wondering what you seek to gain by asking for clarification?


Advertisement