It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Here's the problem; people have been tried successfully for murder without actual dead bodies before.
Originally posted by Realtruth
With all the comments on this thread and others about how he was disposed of (Opp's, I mean buried), I think it was a brilliant tactic.
Ever hear the term Habeous Corpus?
No body, no case, nothing to argue over.
They can always say or argue "that is how we were told he should be buried, we are sorry for the mix up."
Whether it did happen or not, if you keep repeating something over and over, sooner of later it will become the truth.edit on 3-5-2011 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)
How is is "miraculous"? We know basically nothing about how he was found, what intelligence legwork they had to do, or how long it took to plan the operation. He was killed during a 40 minute firefight, and it only takes a second to pull a trigger.
Originally posted by atty2011
Before I write my view on this topic, I would just like to say I am incredibly pleased by those ATSers who put very valuable information and threads on here. I have been reading various threads regularly for the past 6 or so months now and feel thankful that my eyes are wide open.
Anyhow, back to this topic, it feels too predictable that the 'Most Wanted' man in the world for over 10 years miraculously is found 'hiding' in Pakistan, killed overnight and within 12 Hours buried so called 'Islamically' in the sea.
1. Source.
First of all it is not Islamic at all to be buried at sea unless it is due to severe circumstances ie. death at sea etc. No photos or proof have been provided relating to his death and no witnesses at all who live in the supposed area where he was killed had even seen him or a member of his family.
That sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
This is too much of a blatant cover-up to hide something which is being planned or in the works to take affect or just a sad way of blaming all those Muslim countries that All Muslims should now be feared as they will retaliate.
Ah, yes, the ol' "I'm open-minded, but everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" chestnut.
I think it is a load of garbage and those who beleive this to be true, you really need to keep your eyes open for what the government is planning.
Nope. It was turbulence.
Originally posted by cd5love96
I had to create an account just to post what I thought because there's still a lot of questions you guys aren't asking. I, for one, believe this is a lie and there never was a OBL to begin with. Here are some questions you should be asking (feel free to answer you opinion):
How come there weren't any casualties in the downed Apache?
(it would indicate their was some kind of resistance since it was supposedly "shot" down)
He did, which is exactly why it took 40 minutes. They took out the guards, then went room to room. Really, you could get this info from Wikipedia, which is what I'm using.
How come the leader of Al-Queda didn't have a bunch of security with him?
(the operation supposedly took 40 minutes, in and out which is not believable for a person of his status)
With US troops crawling all over Iraq, yes. Osama was a jumped-up rich kid with houses and support all over the Middle East.
Why would someone on the run be living in a multi-million dollar hideout?
(Saddam was found in a hole and left his lavish palace when he fled)
Still classified. There were also plenty of guards.
Why haven't they released the identities of the other casualties in the compound?
(I believe there was a female and two males)
They, including Osama, refused to surrender.
How come they didn't take any prisoners?
(I highly doubt they were the only ones in the compound "if it's true at all")
They didn't. They destroyed the crashed chopper(to keep the bad guys from learning anything), but the compound itself wasn't on fire. The photos and videos you may have seen are of the chopper.
Why would they burn the compound down? What's the purpose of that?
(obviously burning evidence, if the blood near that bed was phony they'd want to get rid of it)
Assuming that's true, the US didn't tell Pakistan what was going on. There's a difference between looking the other way and declaring war on the US. No accusations...yet.
If Osama supposedly near a military compound they would have known of his existence and were obviously in his pockets. Why wasn't a fight put up to protect him? Why no accusations pointing the finger at Pakistan for hiding him?
Because he refused to surrender and was shooting back. Soldiers shoot to kill, except in very, very rare circumstances. These were not those rare circumstances.
Why didn't they take him alive? It seems like a fight wasn't put up if one bullet to the head supposedly did the trick. I'm willing to bet that they captured one of his sons and were holding him for this situation. They'll release the name of the captured son but by that time he would have already been killed and MIA for some time.
Enough people saw the body, and it was DNA tested. That's more than enough for any court.
If they saw the dead body, and the DNA results proving who it was, and the actual body and results are unavailable to the court, the judge would conclude that person X was dead. Cases have been tried without bodies before, you know.
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Enough people saw the body, and it was DNA tested. That's more than enough for any court.
So, if I told the "court" hearsay information that my cousin's brother-in-law and his whole family saw the dead body and the DNA test results, that should be more than enough evidence.
This is the same sort of DNA testing that ID'd Saddam(as opposed to a double), and apparently it was fine then. Why is it suddenly unsatisfactory now?
Especially, if you're a moron with no critical thinking abilities and dealing with courts which have completely shut down the 9/11 issue. Gotcha...I see how that works now.edit on 3-5-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)
No, the photos would make retaliation worse. Read closer.
Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by Beowolfs
So, let me get this straight. Terrorists are out there, and have the ability to attack us, but no longer wish to do so, they are no longer angry at us. The news that the U.S. supposedly killed their main guy, isn't enough to anger them into retaliation...
Originally posted by Beowolfs
What if to make matters worse, we then proceed to ridicule his character around the world through photos of his mutilated corpse? (Keep in mind; these are terrorists groups we’re dealing with!) It’s bad enough for them we’re all rejoicing his death and our media is almost mocking how simple it was to take him out! “Bam, bam” two shots to his face by our Navy Seals.
Originally posted by 000063
No, the photos would make retaliation worse. Read closer.
Originally posted by Beowolfs
Why is our government not releasing photographs as proof of his death?
Let me ask you this… What course of action do you foresee his followers taking against the country who assassinated the person they admired and held profound loyalty? What if to make matters worse, we then proceed to ridicule his character around the world through photos of his mutilated corpse? (Keep in mind; these are terrorists groups we’re dealing with!) It’s bad enough for them we’re all rejoicing his death and our media is almost mocking how simple it was to take him out! “Bam, bam” two shots to his face by our Navy Seals.
I’m positive our government has to be alarmed by the upcoming retaliation al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups are conjuring! If Osama was in fact killed some time ago (As some believe), this is most likely the reason for which it never made headlines.
Surely the situation has not changed… So why would our government choose to take a chance knowing full well this will bring increased bloodshed to our nation?
The answer is very simple. Our president is running for re-election. Many of his past loyal voters have lost confidence in his abilities to lead the country. If he is to be re-elected, he must regain the faith of those who put him in the presidency. It is imperative that we view him as a commander in chief that can get things done! Therefore, in an effort to regain our loyalty and to revamp his faltering polls, this type of headlines was necessary.