Why Usama was "buried at sea"

I havent seen anyone else bring this up (although I am sure someone has). The 'buried at sea' propaganda is quite obvious to me. I dont believe he was actually buried at sea. But that info was released for a specific reason-to deter any hostage taking as a bargaining chip for the body.

If it was known that the US was still in possession of the body, it would quickly become a catalyst. Announcing that the body is already gone eliminates this, before it even starts.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I think the reasons given for his burial at sea make perfect sense. If he was buried on land there is the risk that his grave would become a shrine for martyrs - somewhere at sea is nice and vague so the idiots that follow him have no shrine.

Originally posted by 3finjo
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I think the reasons given for his burial at sea make perfect sense. If he was buried on land there is the risk that his grave would become a shrine for martyrs - somewhere at sea is nice and vague so the idiots that follow him have no shrine.

Thats a valid point. However, I am more speaking on the timing that the location. There is little justification for 'burying' him so quickly. It was as if their first priority was to make it clear that the body was not in their possession. The only reason for this that I can see is to deter any action to try and retrieve the body.

i agree however i think it made it worse because now there even angrier

The sea seems appropriate because all sewage winds up there eventually.

Originally posted by 3finjo
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I think the reasons given for his burial at sea make perfect sense. If he was buried on land there is the risk that his grave would become a shrine for martyrs - somewhere at sea is nice and vague so the idiots that follow him have no shrine.

That is a really good point however it is a fallacy to believe it would have became a shire.

Under OBL’s religion of Wahhabism, most people have unmarked graves and as such there would be no grave to turn into a shire. The real reason was probably because they didn’t know who to give the body to or find a state to take it off them and they were probably worried to some extent it would have became a shire but like I said, this is a fallacy.

i Just find it funny they dropped him in the north arabian sea. and for the shrine read this islamizationwatch.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by 3finjo
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I think the reasons given for his burial at sea make perfect sense. If he was buried on land there is the risk that his grave would become a shrine for martyrs - somewhere at sea is nice and vague so the idiots that follow him have no shrine.

Oh what the mansion he was killed in won't be a shrine ???? Burial at sea for their given reason is garbage ! The OP's explanation is more valid the the offical excuse.Just when you thought it was safe to swim in the water

reply to post by captaintyinknots


They were honouring his muslim beliefs (some of them anyway) in that muslims should be laid to rest within 24 hours of death.

IMO If any of this were true, they should have delivered his body right to his family in Saudi.. let them have the albatross around their necks concerning his disposal.. err.. disposition.

Originally posted by Advantage
IMO If any of this were true, they should have delivered his body right to his family in Saudi.. let them have the albatross around their necks concerning his disposal.. err.. disposition.

According to CBS News, Saudia Arabia refused to accept his body:

Bin Laden was a Saudi national, but officials tell CBS News that the Kingdom was unwilling to have his remains repatriated.

Source: www.cbsnews.com...

Originally posted by manta78

Originally posted by Advantage
IMO If any of this were true, they should have delivered his body right to his family in Saudi.. let them have the albatross around their necks concerning his disposal.. err.. disposition.

According to CBS News, Saudia Arabia refused to accept his body:

Bin Laden was a Saudi national, but officials tell CBS News that the Kingdom was unwilling to have his remains repatriated.

Source: www.cbsnews.com...

Too bad.
Id have dropped him accidentally from the helicopter on the palace yard. Darned faulty Chinese made GPS...

Well, that could all very well be. I doubt it, but it is possible. What gets me is that more reverence was dealt to him than to the people that, allegedly, he killed.

I am not sure about the whole Osama bin Laden thing. I find it rather humorous that his death occurred at an opportune time for Obama. I mean, really, it pretty much clinched a re-election for Obama....Seems rather fishy to me.


Also, I find it rather odd that Osama's "palace" was right across the street from a military installation for the past 5 years. Yet, the government's of both the U.S and Pakistan would have us believe that they didn't know where he was all this time. The official line may have credence with some people, but not with me.

While all of the above theories have merit has anyone considered the fact that burial at sea would exclude any forensics who would point out that the body had been dead for 'years' and had been kept in cold storage. Or what if it was not the correct man?

If Bin Laden was already dead years previously(as many reports have stated) then the easiest way to navigate this problem would be to claim that the evidence is lying at the bottom of the ocean within hours of death.

That why we were told he was "buried at sea"

No body,no problem.

Personally, I wouldn't care if the mudering psycopath was buried in the sea,
in a coffee can on the top of Mt Everest or hauled off by Endeavor and thrown
out of the cargo bay!

Good riddence to trash disguising himself as human.

( I also enjoyed reading how he got his hair dye and viagra ,
just to keep up that GQ image he maintained).

Sorry to all Muslims that I offened, but then I know your really not,
your glad he's dust also, or seafood!

He was buried at sea to hide the fact that he'd actually been killed months earlier.

There simply is no logical reason to do so unless you don't want independent parties to see the body. Simple as that. As far as I know, there is NO precedent for this type of disposal for a body of a well-known personage killed in this kind of operation.

Don't get me wrong, I believe he's dead, if for no other reason than I doubt they'd allow the President to go on the air and say it, only to have him pop up later alive and well.

However, a lot of things simply don't add up in it going down the way the official story states. In addition, now we've set the dangerous precedent of going onto a foreign, sovereign nation's land, without permission or approval, and committing state-sponsored and sanctioned murder. He needed to die, but I'm sure we didn't need to break several international laws in the process.

Scarier yet, we seem to be getting away with it, without so much as a slap on the wrist.

Come on people he was not flushed into the sea. He is being held captive by the CIA somewhere in the deep dark basement at hq Langley Va. Since it was announced he was disposed of they can keep him as long as they want then quietly make him vanish. Just my thoughts.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com