Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 30
103
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
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.
You still haven't shown why this version of the military DNA test should not be trusted, but all the others should, including in the case of Saddam which you yourself mentioned. I've asked several times. If you don't have said evidence, just say so. That's all I ask.
edit on 2011/5/4 by 000063 because: +




posted on May, 4 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

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.


Are we supposed to believe our government without any evidence? At least with the photos you could say they tried to prove it. You say the dna test is evidence, how is that evidence? Did you actually see the dna test result? Did you see them taking a blood sample from his body? Did you make sure they didn't switch the blood sample with another?



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 





You still haven't shown why this version of the military DNA test should not be trusted, but all the others should. I've asked several times. If you don't have evidence, just say so. That's all I ask.


What DNA test?? you have any proof that is not hearsay that a DNA test was done? how was it tested? where was it tested? on the ground? in flight? at sea??
where are the results? who did the testing?



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by 000063

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.


Are we supposed to believe our government without any evidence? At least with the photos you could say they tried to prove it. You say the dna test is evidence, how is that evidence? Did you actually see the dna test result?
I didn't see the DNA test for Saddam or any of a ton of other terrorists either, yet no one is protesting those.


Did you see them taking a blood sample from his body? Did you make sure they didn't switch the blood sample with another?
Speculation. Unless there's evidence that tomfoolery has occured, all you have is "maybe"e and "could've"s.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by 000063
 





You still haven't shown why this version of the military DNA test should not be trusted, but all the others should. I've asked several times. If you don't have evidence, just say so. That's all I ask.


What DNA test?? you have any proof that is not hearsay that a DNA test was done? how was it tested? where was it tested? on the ground? in flight? at sea??
where are the results? who did the testing?
Argument from incredulity, not actual facts.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


I have told you time and time again, that the test can be 100% reliable, and it still says nothing about when the DNA sample was taken, and whether or not the person was alive or dead WHEN the sample was taken.

You keep asking questions that have nothing to do with the point.

The point is, a reliable DNA test in this case does not prove he is dead, nor does it prove he was killed May 1-2, depending on time zone. All a reliable DNA test proves, notice the limiting factor, ALL it proves is that they had his DNA. Not when they got it, or whether or not he is alive or dead.

I cant make you smarter, and there is no clearer way to say it.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by 000063
 


I have told you time and time again, that the test can be 100% reliable, and it still says nothing about when the DNA sample was taken, and whether or not the person was alive or dead WHEN the sample was taken.

You keep asking questions that have nothing to do with the point.

The point is, a reliable DNA test in this case does not prove he is dead, nor does it prove he was killed May 1-2, depending on time zone. All a reliable DNA test proves, notice the limiting factor, ALL it proves is that they had his DNA. Not when they got it, or whether or not he is alive or dead.

I cant make you smarter, and there is no clearer way to say it.
I asked for evidence, not speculation. You provided a scenario in which the DNA results were falsified. What evidence do you have that this scenario actually took place?



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
You provided a scenario in which the DNA results were falsified. What evidence do you have that this scenario actually took place?


No. I didnt. I provided a scenario in which the results were 100% reliable. You are just a troll.

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



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by 000063

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.


Are we supposed to believe our government without any evidence? At least with the photos you could say they tried to prove it. You say the dna test is evidence, how is that evidence? Did you actually see the dna test result?
I didn't see the DNA test for Saddam or any of a ton of other terrorists either, yet no one is protesting those.


Did you see them taking a blood sample from his body? Did you make sure they didn't switch the blood sample with another?
Speculation. Unless there's evidence that tomfoolery has occured, all you have is "maybe"e and "could've"s.


Most people didn't care about Saddam or any of the other terrorists, besides with Saddam they provided video of his hanging.

Unless they provide evidence no one should believe their claims.
edit on 4-5-2011 by Leto because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You are just a troll.


I suspect he's more than just as troll, as I've made clear. This is a public opinion agent, on the clock.

Doing damage control overtime because it's becoming more and more obvious to everybody, that our government is playing us for fools, again.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by 000063
You provided a scenario in which the DNA results were falsified. What evidence do you have that this scenario actually took place?


No. I didnt. I provided a scenario in which the results were 100% reliable. You are just a troll.

/ignore
edit on 4-5-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)
A scenario with an extraordinary level of proof, which you have repeatedly failed to justify the need for, or explained why this level would be needed for only this test of all tests.

Good day.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You are just a troll.


I suspect he's more than just as troll, as I've made clear. This is a public opinion agent, on the clock.

Doing damage control overtime because it's becoming more and more obvious to everybody, that our government is playing us for fools, again.
Personal attacks again? That's maybe the fifth time you've alleged I'm something I've repeatedly said I'm not, and you have no evidence of.

Argue with the facts, don't attack the poster. The world thinks you're nutjobs, and Truthers almost never admit they're wrong anyway, so arguing with them would be counterproductive. And you aren't important enough for the government to argue with you.
edit on 2011/5/4 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


And in the case of evidence supporting the government's claims there is no direct evidence. It has only been this is what happened "because we say so."

The DNA test is not good enough because why settle for the DNA...WHEN YOU HAVE THE BODY? Plus they are not giving the details of the DNA test. What are they comparing it to? And like others have stated, a DNA test does not verify when and how he was killed. It only verifies that they have some DNA that they claim is Osama bin Laden's.

I understand the need for anonymity when it comes to Seal Team Six. This just shows that it is very convenient that it was not some Private in the Marine Corps or Army that wasted him. A Private would champion the fact that he was the one to kill Osama bin Laden and all his Private buddies would verify his claims.

I will concede on the fact of the helicopter crashing and the fact that there were only a few guards. I am not fully aware of the real reason the helicopter crashed and the low profile of Osama bin Laden makes sense.

What countries did they ask to independently verify it was Osama bin Laden. Probably none. If they did then they should say they did and provide examples of what countries refused and why. Why the time limit? Are they really that worried about Muslim tradition? Should they be? Moderate Muslims around the world should recognize the need to break tradition in this case.

If the government has undeniable proof of something, they should not get rid of it within 24 hours. And now we will not see any pictures of the body or video of the burial at sea. They have thereby provided absolutely no evidence of what they have accomplished whatsoever except for the fact that they said it happened in exactly the way they said it happened.

On a side note, if he was not armed during the encounter, why was he shot and not captured alive? I am not saying that they would have not been justified in killing him, but they have provided no reason he was shot. If you are satisfied that just because he physically resisted he was killed then fine. But you cannot tell me that with all the extensive training of the Navy Seals, in a hand to hand battle with Osama bin Laden the Seal (or multiple SEALS) could not easily overcome him and take him into custody. If they said Osama reached for the SEAL's weapon or something to that effect, I would say fine. But they didnt offer any explaination whatsoever other than he resisted physically.

You can not tell me that the SEAL team was not extensively debriefed on the operation. That does not sound like an extensive explaination of the occurance.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by 000063
 



On a side note, if he was not armed during the encounter, why was he shot and not captured alive? I am not saying that they would have not been justified in killing him, but they have provided no reason he was shot. If you are satisfied that just because he physically resisted he was killed then fine. But you cannot tell me that with all the extensive training of the Navy Seals, in a hand to hand battle with Osama bin Laden the Seal (or multiple SEALS) could not easily overcome him and take him into custody. If they said Osama reached for the SEAL's weapon or something to that effect, I would say fine. But they didnt offer any explaination whatsoever other than he resisted physically.



... and its just as easy to put two in his knee rather than his eye. Quite an effective technique when trying to incapacitate someone for capture.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by 000063
 


And in the case of evidence supporting the government's claims there is no direct evidence. It has only been this is what happened "because we say so."

The DNA test is not good enough because why settle for the DNA...WHEN YOU HAVE THE BODY?
Because they have the DNA to ID.


Plus they are not giving the details of the DNA test. What are they comparing it to?
His dead sister who died of brain cancer. I'm getting most of my sources from Wikipedia, BTW, which takes only seconds of looking it up. You could find the answers to your questions a lot faster.


And like others have stated, a DNA test does not verify when and how he was killed. It only verifies that they have some DNA that they claim is Osama bin Laden's.
However, it doesn't prove that it wasn't taken when they say it was, either. Given that no one has questioned any other DNA test from the US military, I need more evidence before I blow this particular one off.


I understand the need for anonymity when it comes to Seal Team Six. This just shows that it is very convenient that it was not some Private in the Marine Corps or Army that wasted him. A Private would champion the fact that he was the one to kill Osama bin Laden and all his Private buddies would verify his claims.
Speculation.


What countries did they ask to independently verify it was Osama bin Laden. Probably none.
They offered his body to Saudi Arabia, who would've been able to verify. They didn't want it. If Saudi Arabia had taken it, that would've thrown a monkey wrench into the conspiracy. Best not to make the offer in the first place.


If they did then they should say they did and provide examples of what countries refused and why. Why the time limit? Are they really that worried about Muslim tradition? Should they be? Moderate Muslims around the world should recognize the need to break tradition in this case.
If they have a positive ID of a dead guy, they don't actually need anything else. It's not the moderates they're worried about, it's the extremists and borderline extremists.


If the government has undeniable proof of something, they should not get rid of it within 24 hours.
The second DNA sample is being flown to the US to be tested.


And now we will not see any pictures of the body or video of the burial at sea. They have thereby provided absolutely no evidence of what they have accomplished whatsoever except for the fact that they said it happened in exactly the way they said it happened.
And no one has provided any evidence to the contrary.


On a side note, if he was not armed during the encounter, why was he shot and not captured alive? I am not saying that they would have not been justified in killing him, but they have provided no reason he was shot. If you are satisfied that just because he physically resisted he was killed then fine. But you cannot tell me that with all the extensive training of the Navy Seals, in a hand to hand battle with Osama bin Laden the Seal (or multiple SEALS) could not easily overcome him and take him into custody. If they said Osama reached for the SEAL's weapon or something to that effect, I would say fine. But they didnt offer any explaination whatsoever other than he resisted physically.
I can't see that part sits well with me either, but I'm waiting for the official account before I pass judgment.


You can not tell me that the SEAL team was not extensively debriefed on the operation. That does not sound like an extensive explaination of the occurance.
Still classified.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broll

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by 000063
 



On a side note, if he was not armed during the encounter, why was he shot and not captured alive? I am not saying that they would have not been justified in killing him, but they have provided no reason he was shot. If you are satisfied that just because he physically resisted he was killed then fine. But you cannot tell me that with all the extensive training of the Navy Seals, in a hand to hand battle with Osama bin Laden the Seal (or multiple SEALS) could not easily overcome him and take him into custody. If they said Osama reached for the SEAL's weapon or something to that effect, I would say fine. But they didnt offer any explaination whatsoever other than he resisted physically.



... and its just as easy to put two in his knee rather than his eye. Quite an effective technique when trying to incapacitate someone for capture.
There is no such thing as an incapacitating shot. Any shot to the body, head, or limbs, can kill with the slightest of variables.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by Broll

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by 000063
 






... and its just as easy to put two in his knee rather than his eye. Quite an effective technique when trying to incapacitate someone for capture.
There is no such thing as an incapacitating shot. Any shot to the body, head, or limbs, can kill with the slightest of variables.



Sure he COULD bleed to death from a leg shot. You guarantee an immediate kill with a shot to the head. Let's not nitpick.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
SOOOOO, they released photos of the other dead bodies in the raid, including Bin Laden's son...but somehow, it's in bad taste, and "not who we are" to release the photo of Bin Laden himself...YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP...

www.cbsnews.com...

Very graphic images in that link.

** please disregard above comment, the Pakis released those photos
edit on 4-5-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Let me make this clear, once and for all.
The Dumping on the Sea, have nothing to do with Islam. However, the Hindu does have ceremony for the death in the river, sea, ocean. Islam and Hindu are both different religion, this is something which seem suspicious to me. As I had witnessed these two different religion burial ceremony.
As much as I know, they must had mistaken between Hindu and Muslim.

Sea burial of Osama bin Laden breaks sharia law, says Muslim scholars -----> http://(link tracking not allowed)/juBPoR ^bitly

^ Just make sure to put "bitly".



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 

Could someone please explain this to me? Saddam Hussein had a trial. The Nazi's had the Nuremberg Trials. Why didn't Osama Bin Laden get a trial? This buried at sea story seems a bit shady.






top topics



 
103
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join