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.

 

Osama Buried at Sea...within 24 hours. Really?

page: 27
103
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by 000063
You're not. 27jd just can't wrap his mind around the fact that the big evil gubmint might want to show respect to a fallen foe, because he wouldn't do the same.




Seriously, respect for Osama Bin Laden? Seems to me the psychological well being of Americans should come before some lofty "respect" for a mass murderer.
What was that? I couldn't hear you over all the cheering.




They could have done their best to balance the two, but as it stands, the whole thing looks extremely suspicious to the critical thinker.
Suspicion is not evidence.


And you're right, I am jaded towards our government. They do not represent we the people, they represent the highest bidder. So yes, I do outright think they're lying about most things. I readily admit that.
You've spent this threat operating under the assumption that everything they say is a lie. What's your theory as to what happened?




posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
There was a DNA test conducted. Standard procedure for identifying terrorist leaders. It's Osama. Unless you have evidence that this particular DNA test was fixed, but not the ones they used on Saddam or a load of other bad guys.


They say a DNA test was conducted, but they haven't released anything other than that. Once again I will reference Bigfoot (I don't why I chose him/her as an example, I just did :roll
. If I told someone I killed Bigfoot and took a DNA test, they would say prove it. If I said this to you I assume you would just believe it because I said so.


The official video cuts off before the actual pull of the lever. The guard's video was entirely unauthorized.


If that be your argument then at least they released SOMETHING.


The gov't, apparently. I don't see the flaw in showing respect to your enemies.


So he should get more respect then our soldiers who are buried in the ground (I mean they can be dug up a mutilated right)? He should get more respect then the Westboro Baptist Church who are allowed to publicly insult a soldiers burial? The government cares nothing for respect.


Straw man. You cannot claim something is a lie without evidence to prove it. Otherwise, all you have is truthiness.


Please tell me what I am supposed to do. I have already told you THEY HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE. Without evidence then there is nothing to believe other than someone else's word (my word against their's). Based on your assertion they can also not claim something is true without evidence, and you seem to be doing a fine job of chalking that up.


www.thedailybeast.com...
blogs.marketwatch.com...
www.theatlantic.com...

evidence people distrust the gov't.


Did you read the last website (they are all the same poll)? According to him (he may have no authority, but I'm only working with what has been provided) this is part of an overall steady decline in public trust. These polls also seem to be more related to peoples trust on whether or not the government can pull us out of our recession, not if they believe the government is withholding secrets from us (JFK, Roswell, 9-11, etc).


I'm talking about the implicative language you used.


I don't know of any implicative language I used, so please enlighten me

edit on 3-5-2011 by StruggleTogether because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-5-2011 by StruggleTogether because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by 000063
 


The other poster said it was a lie, so as far as our conversation goes, yours and mine, I made the first request for you to prove it's not a lie. You guys claimed to have the body in custody, so prove to us, the American public, that you got him. I'll be waiting, you got 3 posts...
For the last time, I don't work for the gov't.

DNA testing has sufficed on every other occasion, and it'll have to suffice now. If you want to say this test is reliable, you're basically saying none of the other DNA tests are reliable either. Baby and bathwater. unless you have actual evidence that this test is suspicious, all you've got is doubt. I'd have no problem with that if you didn't seem to think doubt is as good as proof.

1



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I would be disappointed if our military didn't give him a respectful burial. It is only right. I don't believe he didn't deserve one just because of the things he has or has not done. It is not a matter of feeling.

www.un.org...



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Exclusive: 'Bin Laden Dead' Hoax Exposed



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
There are many things that i do not believe that our government says,however i am now wondering if this could be true and they did kill him.....I am thinking that there are to many people involved in this whole scenario that went down and if it were not true all it would take is 1 person involved to spill the beans..

There were many people at his compound that got out alive and we have heard that our military went door to door in the neighborhood before they struck,i just find it hard to believe that ALL the people involved are lieing.....



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawaii50th
Exclusive: 'Bin Laden Dead' Hoax Exposed


I just watched this tape and i would like to see the video on Fox news where Madelaine Albright says in 2003 that Bin Laden is dead and on ice....I think this guy makes stuff up...



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
This isn't solid proof of anything fishy by any means, but today I was watching an episode of chuck, and noticed something odd. Now this particular episode was aired on may 2nd, so I'm guessing they didn't tape it may 1st, and release it on may 2nd. Either way they are talking about going to Vegas, and the one military man, who happens to be an ex assassin, starts talking about the shooting ranges in Vegas. Then proceeds to say he brought his special targets, which has Osama on the target paper with a target on his head and chest. I will agree those are common to shoot for mortal wounds, I just found it very odd that it was how they say Osama died, & also very odd that it had to of been taped a few days before they announced it.

Like I said though I just happened to find it odd, I don't think it's a grand conspiracy just something worth noting. Also at the end of the episode they talk oddly about how If the CIA has an operative that has done some pretty bad stuff, They'd def try to cover it up if they created him.

Sorry if I got off topic, just wanted to see if anyone else thought that was weird, or if I've been watching to many conspiracy videos

edit on 3-5-2011 by thesolutionisrevolution because: long long long day



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
What was that? I couldn't hear you over all the cheering.


I know, real classy, huh? Pretty disgraceful since we constantly denounce it as barbaric when Muslims celebrate the killing of other human beings. Not saying that Bin Laden didn't have it coming if he is who they say he is, but we could have shown a bit more class than hooting and jumping around like flag waving monkeys celebrating his murder (and killing an unarmed man is murder, the SEALs are not judges). But I guess that isn't enough to prompt the sleeper cells who aren't interested in attacking us anymore to gain interest in attacking us, ONLY if the government were to prove they killed him, would they become enraged and retaliate, according to you and your sidekick.




Suspicion is not evidence.


Neither is the word of our government and media.


What's your theory as to what happened?


I said it before, I think he probably died from renal failure many years ago, you don't just bounce back from that. I have an idea that they were securing something in Afghanistan, some kind of resource perhaps, and they are just about done. So, they staged this show to say "we won", now we can leave. Not saying I'm positive, it's just an idea. But, the government certainly hasn't proven their claim, to the contrary the entire story just doesn't add up.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
DNA testing has sufficed on every other occasion, and it'll have to suffice now. If you want to say this test is reliable, you're basically saying none of the other DNA tests are reliable either. Baby and bathwater. unless you have actual evidence that this test is suspicious, all you've got is doubt. I'd have no problem with that if you didn't seem to think doubt is as good as proof.


How on earth would a DNA test be reliable proof, when it's carried out by the very people who I suspect of lying?? A DNA test is just results, on paper. Are you saying there is no way they could have fabricated it? A DNA test, unless carried out by an independent 3rd party, is not proof of anything, in my eyes. But, what does it even matter what I believe? It doesn't.
edit on 3-5-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by 000063
What was that? I couldn't hear you over all the cheering.


I know, real classy, huh? Pretty disgraceful since we constantly denounce it as barbaric when Muslims celebrate the killing of other human beings. Not saying that Bin Laden didn't have it coming if he is who they say he is, but we could have shown a bit more class than hooting and jumping around like flag waving monkeys celebrating his murder (and killing an unarmed man is murder, the SEALs are not judges). But I guess that isn't enough to prompt the sleeper cells who aren't interested in attacking us anymore to gain interest in attacking us, ONLY if the government were to prove they killed him, would they become enraged and retaliate, according to you and your sidekick.
As I and the other poster have said several times and you keep distorting, we are not saying they would not attack us otherwise. We are saying that provoking them would make the attack worse.. It's like the difference between getting into a fight with a guy because he spilled your beer, and then you find out just before the fight starts that same guy has been sleeping with your wife.

If you continue to misrepresent this claim, I will assume you are either unwilling or unable to understand it.


Neither is the word of our government and media.
Who can be trusted, then?


I said it before, I think he probably died from renal failure many years ago, you don't just bounce back from that. I have an idea that they were securing something in Afghanistan, some kind of resource perhaps, and they are just about done. So, they staged this show to say "we won", now we can leave. Not saying I'm positive, it's just an idea. But, the government certainly hasn't proven their claim, to the contrary the entire story just doesn't add up.
In your opinion, no, it doesn't. And even you admit it's just an unsupported theory.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by 000063
DNA testing has sufficed on every other occasion, and it'll have to suffice now. If you want to say this test is reliable, you're basically saying none of the other DNA tests are reliable either. Baby and bathwater. unless you have actual evidence that this test is suspicious, all you've got is doubt. I'd have no problem with that if you didn't seem to think doubt is as good as proof.


How on earth would a DNA test be reliable proof, when it's carried out by the very people who I suspect of lying??
Affirming the consequent, or "begging the question". The test is only unreliable if you've already assume the people conducting it are unreliable. Unless you have third-party verification, all you have is unfounded suspicion.


A DNA test is just results, on paper. Are you saying there is no way they could have fabricated it?
I made no such claim.


A DNA test, unless carried out by an independent 3rd party, is not proof of anything, in my eyes. But, what does it even matter what I believe? It doesn't.
edit on 3-5-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)
Quite right, since all you have is doubts, not evidence.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
As I and the other poster have said several times and you keep distorting, we are not saying they would not attack us otherwise. We are saying that provoking them would make the attack worse.. It's like the difference between getting into a fight with a guy because he spilled your beer, and then you find out just before the fight starts that same guy has been sleeping with your wife.


That comparison is not valid. Anger will not make them anymore capable of carrying out an attack. In fact, I argue it will only make them sloppier, and easier to catch slipping. We've infuriated the Muslim community time and again. And, I argue if we let them dictate our actions, THEY win. We live in terror, which is their aim. The American people finance these operations with our tax dollars. After the fact, we have EVERY right to see for ourselves the results those who are supposed to work for us claim to have delivered. We deserve to know, other than just taking the government's word, that our # 1 enemy has in fact been killed.


Who can be trusted, then?


My own eyes. That's about it, to be honest.


And even you admit it's just an unsupported theory.


That's all any of us have right now.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
Quite right, since all you have is doubts, not evidence.


I readily admit that. I have doubts, that's all. If they provide evidence, I'll eat my crow. I'm not a die hard conspiracy theorist who will stick to my guns in the face of proof, and I'm willing to accept evidence, if they provide it. We shall see, I guess.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
we are not saying they would not attack us otherwise. We are saying that provoking them would make the attack worse..


How do you know? Did they tell you that? You are making a claim with nothing at all to back it up. You have absolutely no evidence that showing the pictures would make anything worse.



Originally posted by 000063

Neither is the word of our government and media.
Who can be trusted, then?


Here is a truth. Your President didnt see Osama's body in person. And per a guy in the Situation room with him as the event was allegedly unfolding, they DID NOT have visual. They were getting "live updates" from "other media." (Piers Morgan interviewed him minutes ago)

So, I ask you, what does your President have as evidence this happened the way he thinks it did? Broadcasts on a radio? Remember "War of the Worlds" on Radio? The most he has as visual proof is the death photos. And who knows how good Obama is at spotting photo shopping. In fact, that may be WHY they wont release them. They may have shown him crap that will never make it past real photo experts, knowing he would trust them.

So what evidence do YOU have this happened? Dont you find it strange they would dump the body before Obama even got to see it? Maybe thats why everyone reporting it had their eyes bug out when they said "oops, body gone now, too bad." Not even our leader saw it.

In other words, some Operatives somewhere are the only ones in the world who know what happened. How do you know THEY arent lying not only to us, but to Obama too? Because the CIA would never lie?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
You guys should be thankful that Barack Obama is doing a wonderful job and the U.S. Military put their lives on the line to defend our COUNTRY.

How dare you question our Government for their defensive measures. Stop believing in these nutty conspiracy theories. I am an insider into the Illuminati and I know a lot about research programs such as HAARP etc, and I am telling you now, you guys need to have more faith in the media.

If the media says they found him dead on Monday, THEN BELIEVE THEM! Stop using Conspiracy Theories to defend your lack of faith in our Government.

Mind you, the reason why they buried Osama in the ocean within 24 hours is because it's part of his religious beliefs to bury the dead within 24 hours, now where is your respect for Islam?

Additionally, there is a wonderful mental health service in most cities in the US, there are psych wards there, most of you should enquire on making an appointment to get some help. I am literally laughing at this thread for an hour, it is ridiculous BS.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOexposed
 


Your whole post only demonstrates one thing. That you are misinformed and/or lying.

They did not have to bury him within 24 hours. For the love of God if you are going to pretend to be Illuminati, do a google search first.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOexposed
 


Really?

Drink the kool-aid.

We try to question things here because, oh, I don't know - it's a conspiracy theorist board?? Your presence here does nothing to allude us from questioning the truth, and not take things as face value. TYVM.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I don't think that poster is being serious. I know disingenous sarcasm when I see it, best to just ignore trolls.

Islam gives 2 sunsets to bury the body, but Bin Laden bastardized Islam to the point most Muslims don't care how his body is treated. His body should have been brought back to the U.S. for an autopsy and independent exam for verification. Moderate Muslims don't consider him a true Muslim anyway, since he's gone against the teachings of Islam, according to moderates anyway.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by StarLightStarBright2
 

This could be where this is coming from. She made this comment to a journalist while waiting to appear on a Fox news program.


WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 (UPI) -- Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright denied Wednesday she implied news of Osama bin Laden's capture was being withheld for political gain. The insinuation that President George W. Bush was holding back such an announcement until just before next year's election was apparently made to a journalist while waiting to appear on a Fox News television program. "She said, 'Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?'" Morton Kondracke, Roll Call executive editor and Fox News analyst said. "She was not smiling." Fox News said makeup artists in the room backed his observation. Read more: www.upi.com...

www.upi.com...




From the NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story... Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 1:22 a.m. EST Madeleine Albright: Bush Planning Bin Laden October Surprise It was bad enough on Monday when Washington state Congressman "Baghdad" Jim McDermott suggested that President Bush could have captured Saddam Hussein long ago, but moved only when the news would have had maximum political effect. But now, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is telling reporters that the Bush administration may already have captured Osama bin Laden and will release the news just before next year's presidential election.
archive.newsmax.com...




top topics



 
103
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join