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

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by 000063
Wanting more than DNA tests is an usual level of proof, one which calls into question every other DNA test the US military has ever conducted.

Not true. I cannot send a sample of my DNA to my insurance company and have them match it against my relatives and use that as proof I am dead. Can I? You also need a dead body. Or fragments of a body in sufficient quantity to prove the person who lost those fragments could not have survived their loss

They had a body. They buried it at sea. If the DNA sample was taken from your dead body by CSIs who have done this sort of thing before, I'd say it's pretty much proof you're dead, unless it's provable you are not. The CSIs might be corrupt, but evidence is needed for that.

Speaking of which, if they wanted to fake it, why not just bomb the compound, and test the DNA publicly in the US later? There would be no way to determine whether it was from the bombing or from the corpse they had on ice and quietly disposed of.

Is that all we had? Because I remember video of him coming out of his hidey hole, and video of him being examined and having his cheek swabbed, and ................video of his trial and execution. Maybe you missed all that.

Without the DNA ID, that could easily have been one of his doubles.

I have legitimate questions about the extraordinary lack of proof and destruction of proof.

This isn't extraordinary. DNA has been used to ID dead foes before. Once that's been done, there's no need to keep the body.

There is also the risk your President may ask you to dig the body up, or some international court may call for exhumation. Quickly dumping it at sea precludes that, doesnt it?

Speculation. They could've dumped it at sea to prevent people digging it up, or they could've done it as a cover up. Hanlon's Razor indicates the former.

Even if he did, the people feeding him information have precluded his ever having access to more than hearsay.

So you can't prove he didn't ask questions. Got it.

And you are wrong. Your trust is unreasonable.

edit on 4-5-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

I'd like to point out my definition of "unreasonable" is entirely subjective, as is yours.

reply to post by 27jd


Your insistence on the terrorist’s desires to attack U.S. soil is not in question.
Obviously you have not understood what I wrote. Go back and read it again. Also pay attention what the other member said to you about my post. If you don’t wish to do so, let me reiterate my explanation.

Here it is in a nut shell… Attacks of mockery (Or what they feel as disrespect) towards their martyr, will only serve to increase their motivation? The key word is “increase”
I’m not inferring they’ve lacked it in the past.

Seems to me, again, that if they could hit us, they would

That is correct! However, your method of thinking seems arrogant. Don’t underestimate al-Qaeda. They may be insignificant both in numbers and firepower when compared to our armed forces, yet they still represent a serious threat to our nation.

reply to post by 000063


You have no evidence other than hearsay, and your hearsay evidence has morphed and changed more than a transformer over the last 48 hours. And thats really all that needs to be said to you.

Clearly, the lack of evidence doesnt bother you.

And since it does not, there is really no point in debating you.

The extraordinary lack of evidence bothers many of us. And you are on no rational or moral high ground because you accept on blind faith what we refuse to. Ultimately, those of us who are NOT accepting this on blind faith are making a difference. The administration has changed its story, several times, has to consider releasing more information they have, or manufacturing some if they have none, because it isnt just a few nut on ATS questioning the lack of evidence. Its thinking people everywhere.

You can rant all you want about how not blindly accepting the word of a few CIA operatives being passed through the Obama administration is "unreasonable." YOU are the one taking liberties with the word.

dictionary.reference.com...

rea·son·a·ble
   /ˈrizənəbəl, ˈriznə-/ Show Spelled[ree-zuh-nuh-buhl, reez-nuh-] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman.
2.
not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive: reasonable terms.
3.
moderate, especially in price; not expensive: The coat was reasonable but not cheap.

Accepting something on faith is clearly "exceeding the limit prescribed by reason." Reason requires facts, and evidence. We have neither. The only reasonable position to take when one has no fact or evidence is one of skepticism. Not blind faith.

Originally posted by Beowolfs
That is correct! However, your method of thinking seems arrogant. Don’t underestimate al-Qaeda. They may be insignificant both in numbers and firepower when compared to our armed forces, yet they still represent a serious threat to our nation.

It's not arrogant, I'm under no illusion that they can hit us in a variety of ways, they always could have. But, releasing the photos will not increase the risk, in my opinion. We can agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by 000063

 

You have no evidence other than hearsay, and your hearsay evidence has morphed and changed more than a transformer over the last 48 hours.

No, the reports of what's going on have changed. Hearsay of hearsay. There was similar confusion after 9/11, with several conflicting reports as to what was going on. This is absolutely normal.

And thats really all that needs to be said to you.

Somehow, I doubt you'll leave it at that.

Clearly, the lack of evidence doesnt bother you.

I consider it sufficient evidence. You do not. It's called an opinion.

The extraordinary lack of evidence bothers many of us.

Asserting opinions as facts again.

And you are on no rational or moral high ground because you accept on blind faith what we refuse to.

Not blind faith. Precedent. If I go to a hot dog stand for lunch every Tuesday for five years because I like their relish, it's reasonable to assume that they will continue using that relish, and I will continue liking it, unless I get evidence to the contrary. If DNA tests from the US military have proved reliable in tons of other cases, I assume this one is as well, unless I get evidence to the contrary.

Ultimately, those of us who are NOT accepting this on blind faith are making a difference. The administration has changed its story, several times,

No, the reports have changed. And for that matter, the US could be assembling the materials they have and revising it as info is reviewed. If they had all their ducks in a row already, that I would consider suspicious.

has to consider releasing more information they have,

Because some of it is still classified, which happens in counter-terrorist operations.

or manufacturing some if they have none,

Unsupported assertion.

because it isnt just a few nut on ATS questioning the lack of evidence. Its thinking people everywhere.

"Thinking people" can't agree on pizza toppings. Bandwagon fallacy.

You can rant all you want about how not blindly accepting the word of a few CIA operatives being passed through the Obama administration is "unreasonable." YOU are the one taking liberties with the word.

CIA operatives, Navy SEALs, FBI agents, and the lab techs. I have freely admitted that my definition of "unreasonable" is subjective.

Accepting something on faith is clearly "exceeding the limit prescribed by reason." Reason requires facts, and evidence. We have neither. The only reasonable position to take when one has no fact or evidence is one of skepticism. Not blind faith.

Blind doubt is just as unreasonable as blind faith. I have precedent on my side. All you have is doubt and supposition.

Originally posted by 000063
Precedent. If I go to a hot dog stand for lunch every Tuesday for five years because I like their relish, it's reasonable to assume that they will continue using that relish, and I will continue liking it, unless I get evidence to the contrary. If DNA tests from the US military have proved reliable in tons of other cases, I assume this one is as well, unless I get evidence to the contrary.

That was hilariously bad logic. And it explains a lot. You know the "terms" or "labels" but you cannot actually apply the form.

Your liking their relish says NOTHING about whether or not they will continue to use it. And it is NOT reasonable to assume so. You may be the only one of 100 customers that do, and they may choose to please them, (which would be good business sense) rather than you.

It may say something about your continuing to like it IF they do continue to use it. But it may not. Its not a foregone conclusion. You may one day find a bug in that relish, or get sick after eating it and develop an aversion to it. You are assuming nothing can change from now to the future. The company might change their recipe, (New Coke?) your tastes might change, some negative event might cause aversion, etc.

Originally posted by 000063
If they had all their ducks in a row already, that I would consider suspicious.

I highly doubt that.

Originally posted by 000063
"Thinking people" can't agree on pizza toppings. Bandwagon fallacy.

No, its not the bandwagon fallacy. Someone sucks at logic.

www.nizkor.org...

If I were claiming that because many people believed a thing it must be true, which I did not, you would acutally be looking at "Appeal to popularity."

www.nizkor.org...

Originally posted by 000063
I have freely admitted that my definition of "unreasonable" is subjective.

Ok. If "subjective" means, "inconsistent with the definition of the word" I can accept that.

Originally posted by 000063
Blind doubt is just as unreasonable as blind faith.

Blind doubt? How is not having evidence in THIS CASE blind doubt? You are pretending, apparently, that doubting this means people doubt everything. Another recent and similar scenario, the capture, trial and execution of Saddam Hussein does not cause me to doubt he is actually dead. There was evidence presented for that. There is none here. Lol. Grasping at straws.

Originally posted by 000063
I have precedent on my side. All you have is doubt and supposition.

Another fallacy.

www.nizkor.org...

If you are going to play at logic, you better make sure there is no one on the field who actually know the game.

reply to post by 000063


Your comparison of this to CSI's taking DNA is unreasonable.

If a murder occurs, the investigators are the unbiased third party to verify what happened. The murdered person is the first party and the murderer is the second.

Plus if you are murdered, your family comes to identify the body which is more confirmation from sources that have no reason to lie.

The proof is "in the pudding," so to speak. No there is no direct evidence pointing to a conspiracy but there is much circumstatial evidence pointing to one.

The government claims to have a policy of transparency. To be transparent in this situation, the burden of proof is on the government to show a reasonable evidence of what they have accomplished especially when that proof was in their possession but conveniently destroyed in a way it could never be recovered.

One, they claim to have used top secret special forces operatives, Seal Team Six, to do the job. They will never divulge the identity of these special forces operatives because of the nature of what they do. That means we will never be able to go to the person who they claim actually killed him and interview him.

Two, they did not lose a single man in the operation although they claim a helicopter was shot down and a fire fight ensued inside of the compound. Although Seal Team Six are probably very good at their jobs, this means one of three things. Either Osama bin Laden was not very well guarded, which makes no sense because he is the figurehead of a terrorist organization, the Seal Team is just that good to assault a compound of armed individuals and not lose a single man, or it is too convenient to say "we didnt loose anyone" so you dont have to produce a body of a fallen Seal Team member.

Three, they threw the one piece of evidence that could be verified over the side of the ship in the middle of the ocean. Now, no one can verify their claims. Many nations have assisted us in the war against these terrorists and the efforts to capture Osama bin Laden. There are probably many nations that would have taken the body for testing to prove to their citizens that he was killed. Instead, the story is the body was tossed over the side of a ship in a weighted bag so there is no chance of digging the body up later. That begs me to ask the question, why didnt they take it to a land base in Afghanistan which was probably much closer?

The government does not have the luxury of saying "take our word for it" when the proof is clear and undeniable and in their possession. Especially when certain people, who are making these decisions, will benefit from the story. Even if they are telling the truth, this is a terrible policy for our government.

Originally posted by boncho
Fits in nicely with the current theme:

1. Planes hit towers, rubble is shipped off for recycling weeks after excavation.

2. Osama is killed, body is disposed of in the Ocean a week later.

Try within 24 hours, they dumped his body into the ocean from an aircraft carrier supposedly within 24 hours of his death. Also just now they decided not to release photos. How can anyone believe their story?

The body is laying on the ocean floor. Somebody go get it. I don't have enough money to do it. If it is not found, it never existed.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by 000063
Precedent. If I go to a hot dog stand for lunch every Tuesday for five years because I like their relish, it's reasonable to assume that they will continue using that relish, and I will continue liking it, unless I get evidence to the contrary. If DNA tests from the US military have proved reliable in tons of other cases, I assume this one is as well, unless I get evidence to the contrary.

That was hilariously bad logic. And it explains a lot. You know the "terms" or "labels" but you cannot actually apply the form.

Your liking their relish says NOTHING about whether or not they will continue to use it. And it is NOT reasonable to assume so. You may be the only one of 100 customers that do, and they may choose to please them, (which would be good business sense) rather than you.

In which case I'd go to the stand, buy a hot dog, and find that they've changed their relish.

It may say something about your continuing to like it IF they do continue to use it. But it may not. Its not a foregone conclusion. You may one day find a bug in that relish, or get sick after eating it and develop an aversion to it. You are assuming nothing can change from now to the future. The company might change their recipe, (New Coke?) your tastes might change, some negative event might cause aversion, etc.

Yep. But I cannot assume, on any given day, that any of those changes have actually occurred, unless I either hear about them from a third party, or I buy a hot dog and the relish is actually different.

I highly doubt that.

Well, that's sorted, then.

If I were claiming that because many people believed a thing it must be true, which I did not, you would acutally be looking at "Appeal to popularity."

Then why did it matter how many "thinking people" believed in it?

www.google.com... Third result.
www.google.com...# First result
en.wikipedia.org...

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including [...] bandwagon fallacy,

Ok. If "subjective" means, "inconsistent with the definition of the word" I can accept that.

I already pointed out that you're dismissing this result of the test as possibly tainted, while refusing to provide evidence all the other examples of it are not.

Blind doubt? How is not having evidence in THIS CASE blind doubt?

A DNA test is evidence. Doubting it, in the face of several examples of the same test being accepted as valid, is blind doubt.

You are pretending, apparently, that doubting this means people doubt everything.

Straw Man. I have read several people in this thread start dismissing everything that comes from the government. That's blind doubt. You refuse, once again, to explain why this iteration of the DNA Test cannot or even should not be trusted, yet the other examples of it can, and have cloaked it in "skepticism".

Another recent and similar scenario, the capture, trial and execution of Saddam Hussein does not cause me to doubt he is actually dead. There was evidence presented for that. There is none here. Lol. Grasping at straws.

One of the first things they did was a DNA test. Presumably, the same or a similar one to the one conducted on Bin Laden.

Another fallacy.

www.nizkor.org...

If you are going to play at logic, you better make sure there is no one on the field who actually know the game.

www.nizkor.org...

"Lets just assume that this one time the test was conducted, it was false, without any evidence to back it up! Sure, it was accurate all the other times, but this time it can't be trusted, just because it's an important case!"

Please explain: why can the DNA test not be trusted? Back it up with evidence. Not speculation about a conspiracy, evidence.

reply to post by onehuman


My question is, why not bring in some outsiders to witness the body before dumping it. They could have flown in some members of the press... CNN, al Jazeera , BBC, etc and let them see and then report confirmation of the story. Surely there was enough time to accomplish this before they dumped it.

There is very little reason to trust someone who has proven themselves to you as a liar, especially if they have so much to gain from your belief in their lies.

SH

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by 000063

 

Your comparison of this to CSI's taking DNA is unreasonable.

If a murder occurs, the investigators are the unbiased third party to verify what happened. The murdered person is the first party and the murderer is the second.

Plus if you are murdered, your family comes to identify the body which is more confirmation from sources that have no reason to lie.

The proof is "in the pudding," so to speak. No there is no direct evidence pointing to a conspiracy but there is much circumstatial evidence pointing to one.

And as any lawyer will tell you, direct evidence > circumstantial evidence.

The government claims to have a policy of transparency. To be transparent in this situation, the burden of proof is on the government to show a reasonable evidence of what they have accomplished especially when that proof was in their possession but conveniently destroyed in a way it could never be recovered.

Again, why is the DNA Test not proof?

One, they claim to have used top secret special forces operatives, Seal Team Six, to do the job. They will never divulge the identity of these special forces operatives because of the nature of what they do. That means we will never be able to go to the person who they claim actually killed him and interview him.

Of course not. This is standard OpSec, not any sort of policy break.

Two, they did not lose a single man in the operation although they claim a helicopter was shot down and a fire fight ensued inside of the compound.

The helicopter crashed due to turbulence, not a firefight.

Although Seal Team Six are probably very good at their jobs, this means one of three things. Either Osama bin Laden was not very well guarded, which makes no sense because he is the figurehead of a terrorist organization, the Seal Team is just that good to assault a compound of armed individuals and not lose a single man, or it is too convenient to say "we didnt loose anyone" so you dont have to produce a body of a fallen Seal Team member.

A little from column A, a little from column B. Reports indicate that there were just two guards. This may seem incredible, but Osama was trying to lie low.

Three, they threw the one piece of evidence that could be verified over the side of the ship in the middle of the ocean. Now, no one can verify their claims. Many nations have assisted us in the war against these terrorists and the efforts to capture Osama bin Laden. There are probably many nations that would have taken the body for testing to prove to their citizens that he was killed. Instead, the story is the body was tossed over the side of a ship in a weighted bag so there is no chance of digging the body up later. That begs me to ask the question, why didnt they take it to a land base in Afghanistan which was probably much closer?

And do what? The Saudis, his home country, didn't want him. Afghanistan probably wouldn't want him. They can't bury him on US soil for obvious reasons. That have about 24 hours to get rid of him. Why not dispose of him in the most expedient manner possible allowed by his beliefs?

The government does not have the luxury of saying "take our word for it" when the proof is clear and undeniable and in their possession. Especially when certain people, who are making these decisions, will benefit from the story. Even if they are telling the truth, this is a terrible policy for our government.

Why? Barring the sea burial, they've done this before. Kill someone, take DNA, ID, release the body.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Just look at the name of the guy you are wasting all of this time arguing with. He is most likely just trolling my friend, and if he is not let him be (either way you'll come out ahead trust me). Stick to the topic at hand. As for them dumping his body within 24 hours... yeah something's up with that. Also, I don't care how horrible the images of his body may be I would like to see the proof. Otherwise I'm forced to take the governments "word" on it, and that just doesn't cut it on this site.

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by boncho
Fits in nicely with the current theme:

1. Planes hit towers, rubble is shipped off for recycling weeks after excavation.

2. Osama is killed, body is disposed of in the Ocean a week later.

Try within 24 hours, they dumped his body into the ocean from an aircraft carrier supposedly within 24 hours of his death. Also just now they decided not to release photos. How can anyone believe their story?

Pretty easily. Just assume that they didn't want to piss off Al Qaeda any more than they have already, and thus decided to bury him at sea--which is allowed in Islam--or release the photos which could incite more anger. It's not like Truthers hadn't already declared that any such photos would be shooped.

Originally posted by Broll
reply to post by onehuman

 

My question is, why not bring in some outsiders to witness the body before dumping it. They could have flown in some members of the press... CNN, al Jazeera , BBC, etc and let them see and then report confirmation of the story. Surely there was enough time to accomplish this before they dumped it.

Possibly, but they're already trying not to turn this into a bigger media circus than it would be already.

Originally posted by nathanscottecho
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

Just look at the name of the guy you are wasting all of this time arguing with.

Some guy who likes the number 63. I recently registered on JREF, which requires a six-character username, so I added a few zeroes.

I do note the irony of you telling someone called "Illusions are grander" to pay attention to someone else's name.

He is most likely just trolling my friend, and if he is not let him be (either way you'll come out ahead trust me). Stick to the topic at hand. As for them dumping his body within 24 hours... yeah something's up with that.

Islamic custom gives about 24 hours for burial, and allows sea burial if the body is at risk of mutilation.

Also, I don't care how horrible the images of his body may be I would like to see the proof. Otherwise I'm forced to take the governments "word" on it, and that just doesn't cut it on this site.

edit on 5/4/2011 by nathanscottecho because: Terrible spelling

People can easily claim the photos were doctored. In fact, Truthers were already claiming any photos that would be released would be doctored shortly after the death announcement.

It was an illegal raid and murder carried out in another country..they had to hide the evidence
all criminals try

reply to post by nathanscottecho


I know, and I appreciate your comment. I responded to him more to show others that he has no good grasp of logic than to prove anything to him personally.

He really has no good grasp of logic, he is just pretending to to shut people down and boondoggle them.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by Broll
reply to post by onehuman

 

My question is, why not bring in some outsiders to witness the body before dumping it. They could have flown in some members of the press... CNN, al Jazeera , BBC, etc and let them see and then report confirmation of the story. Surely there was enough time to accomplish this before they dumped it.

Possibly, but they're already trying not to turn this into a bigger media circus than it would be already.

Surely they would know this would be the story of the century (at least to this point). He's been the most wanted man on Earth for 10 years. One way or the other ITS A HUGE MEDIA CIRCUS.