Usama bin Laden: is he actually dead?

[jts963]

I do find this whole situation quite interesting aswell as fishy. But really I feel that the most important aspect of all of this is to realize the three main possibilities and of course the aftermath of this.

1. Osama's been dead for quite some time and used as a method to propell Obama to win next year's election. Either way he's dead, so who gives a fuck?

2. We actually got him. Okay break out the liquor, it's party time!

3. He's not actually dead/we have him and are interrogating/we fucked up and didn't get him. Either way the publicity from this still helps Obama UNLESS another tape is released showing and taunting us that he's still alive. (Of course a tape such as this could have been pre-recorded before hand and meant to be delivered to us after his death)

Now of course no matter which of these three it is here's the most important part. Arguing about this is pointless as hell. We're never going to know because our government is shady as all hell. Conspiracy theorists have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to talk about their opinions as the overly trusting government backers and all inbetween.

That's because, yes we got our most hated enemy, but here's a newsflash, there's no way of knowing 100% he was indeed the "leader" of those terrorists.
Don't get what I mean? Think about this from a Mafia perspective: Does the Don go out and do the daily killings? Hell no, he has his "family" do it. Osama was a constant media drawer, that doesn't mean he was the number one incharge, what we need to do instead of bitching at one another like a bunch of castrated poodles is to instead keep vigilant because a counter attack could very well be coming.

So yeah, to those of you who can't handle an opinion from the other side: Stop ya' bitchin' :3

I have no problem with opposing opinions as long as they're well thought out. But some people are contrary just to be contrary. And I have no respect for uninformed opinions (e.g., "It has to be a conspiracy because I don't like Obama.")

 

[JackVanderson]

I have no problem with opposing opinions as long as they're well thought out. But some people are contrary just to be contrary. And I have no respect for uninformed opinions (e.g., "It has to be a conspiracy because I don't like Obama.")

I understand what you mean. The whole "counter" culture is just hilarious. Like the kids in highschool who HAD to constantly do the opposite of what the popular kids did, so that they themselves could become the very thing they hated.

I'm seeing that from alot of the old Bush supporters. It's funny because they like saying that Bush killed him and put him on ice (I've heard this is an actual conspiracy lol) either way it means Bush is just as much in on it as Obama. Some of them don't bother to think it out very well lol

 

[the_jimmy_james]

Let's all masturbate to my own greatness.

After all, I hoped we'd get him too, so I contributed just as much to the effort as all of the politicians who will get credit.

 

[JackVanderson]

Let's all masturbate to my own greatness.

<.< Sounds good. I'm dtf :lol

 

[U.N.Owen]

1. Osama's been dead for quite some time and used as a method to propell Obama to win next year's election.

This theory makes absolutely no sense. First, you do realize that the heavily Republican military would have to be in on such a plot, don't you? And that "quite some time" means he was dead under Bush and Bush didn't say anything about it?

And secondly, who the hell launches a trick to win an election 18 months before the election?

 

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

Ideally, we'd have given the suitably dried-up corpse to Jeff Dunham for a special performance at the Capital.

 

[JackVanderson]

This theory makes absolutely no sense. First, you do realize that the heavily Republican military would have to be in on such a plot, don't you? And that "quite some time" means he was dead under Bush and Bush didn't say anything about it?

And secondly, who the hell launches a trick to win an election 18 months before the election?

As I'd mentioned with possibility one at the end of it: Either way he's dead, who gives a fuck?

I frankly don't care why or how or for who they'd do these kinds of things, as I said, they're possibilities, and they're possibilites because we'll never know if they're true or not.

The point in all of this is that conspiracy theorists have just as much a right to say what they want as the blind government trusters. Trying to fight one or the other is just as, if not even more, pointless as getting into a which is better: republican or democrat debate. There's no end to it, and all it does is get people more and more pissed off at those on the opposing side, leading to animosity and the continual spiral of turning debates into shouting bitch fests which transfter over into the average people. Ultimatly leading to communication breakdown based on a persons political alignment.

 

[PurpleStyle]

No that's not "all" you said. The title of this thread is Usama bin Laden: is he actually dead? Then you go on to say "I'm skeptical of his sudden death." Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Okay, because I'm so much smarter and nicer than most human beings, I'm going to spell this out for you in a way that most people can understand.

Conspiracy
con·spir·a·cy
[kuhn-spir-uh-see]
–noun, plural -cies.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

Theory
the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Let me preface by stating that I don't think it's evil or unlawful to kill Usama bin Laden. Now, the first thing you'll notice is that I asked a question.

Usama bin Laden: is he actually dead?

This is not a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

The next thing you'll notice is that I made a statement that contains no actual claims about the situation:

I'm skeptical of his sudden death.

This is also not a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

Please, if you would be so kind, explain the link between a question and statement that contains no claims, to "conspiracy theory". :lol

 

[Travalion]

I don't think you could go anywhere and have your government tell you every detail about what it does. Some things the public just does not need to know, or if they did know it would just cause more problems then if they didn't. I don't trust the government at face value, but at the same time I don't think everything that comes out of their mouth is a lie.
Part of me wishes all the conspiracy theory's about anything were true, would be nice to know we live in a world where our government has total control of what is going on, be it good or bad, rather then the more obvious truth that being shit happens that our government is not secretly behind. Osama is dead, that is good, but we don't all need to have the prove in our hands, only people who deserve it are those who were effected during 9/11 or any of his other attacks, also those in the military to some degree. The rest of us in my opinion should just for once enjoy this at face value, may or may not be the truth, but who cares, it's good news so don't twist it into a dark conspiracy with other motives behind the whole thing. There is such a thing as over thinking too many people today can't accept the simple answers anymore

 

[Inverse]

Is it really that hard? I mean~ you even said it yourself. With all this intelligence nearby, and not even the neighbors knew? Not saying I believe it was faked~ but is it really that hard to imagine it was? I'm beginning to think it's a lot easier to bullshit people than I gave them credit for. Just, go ahead and let me know your sources of current information being true outside of the media. Like, how do you know it's personally true outside of the LCD screen in your living room and on your computer desk telling you it is. *Shrugs~*

You speak of reality, but can you even define it?

 

[Mash]

Wondering on and on about something that you will likely never know for sure is not healthy. I'm highly paranoid, and even I say that it's best to just do what the Government wants and not question it.

Besides, even if you discover through some source that it's not true...how do you know that the source isn't some Anti-Obama organization that's just pulling up false evidence? There is nothing you can know for sure when you delve into things like this...so it's better to just not delve into them.

 

[Inverse]

I don't worry or wonder about it~ what is said, is what is said and that's all that currently is going to matter. I just hate people who disregard things just because it sounds ludicrous to them.

They don't even entertain the notion that they don't know. They go on to say that NOT placing trust in people who have trespassed on that trust many, many times before is somehow irrational. I find that a bit irritating. I also dislike the apathy that goes with being lied to so often, that you can't trust in anything. I'm guilty of this by association. It affects me too~ but I'd rather keep an open perspective, and not insult individuals for having justified concerns about what is presented as truth to them.

Doing otherwise, is unhealthy as a population. When you're willing to accept everything told to you as truth, by people who lie to your face~ you give more power than you probably should.

I find it interesting that this logic of faith~ also comes from the same people who disregard religion for almost the exact same concepts.

 

[jts963]

Okay, because I'm so much smarter and nicer than most human beings, I'm going to spell this out for you in a way that most people can understand.

Conspiracy
con·spir·a·cy
[kuhn-spir-uh-see]
–noun, plural -cies.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

Theory
the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Let me preface by stating that I don't think it's evil or unlawful to kill Usama bin Laden. Now, the first thing you'll notice is that I asked a question.

Usama bin Laden: is he actually dead?

This is not a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

The next thing you'll notice is that I made a statement that contains no actual claims about the situation:

I'm skeptical of his sudden death.

This is also not a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

Please, if you would be so kind, explain the link between a question and statement that contains no claims, to "conspiracy theory". :lol

Here's a more intelligent way to define conspiracy theory click on the link.

To say "I'm skeptical about his death" is to give credence to the CONSPIRACY THEORY that the government faked his assassination this week. It's to say that you're open to the possibility that our government deliberately faked killing the world's most famous living terrorist and that terrorist is (a) alive and free somewhere, (b) alive and captured somewhere, or (c) long-dead and secretly frozen by the Bush Administration, so they could help Obama get reelected? Occam's razor exists for a reason: the simplest explanation is the most likely, until contrary evidence comes along. OBL was killed last Sunday. Enjoy the moment and stop with the useless overtheorizing.

 

[PurpleStyle]

Wow, even after I spelled it out for you, you managed to not understand.

I asked a question and then made a statement without any claims. How does that give credence to conspiracy theory?

That's like making the claim;

I experienced a strange phenomena I can't explain.
I have no explanation for it, and am skeptical of what it actually is.
Therefore, the cause was a three-legged aardvark named Ethel who did a little happy dance.

You'll notice that I said absolutely nothing about whether or not he was dead, captured, or "overtheorized" about anything otherwise. So do yourself a favor and pull your head out of your ass before you misrepresent other people's words.

 

[jts963]

Wow, even after I spelled it out for you, you managed to not understand.

I asked a question and then made a statement without any claims. How does that give credence to conspiracy theory?

That's like making the claim;

I experienced a strange phenomena I can't explain.
I have no explanation for it, and am skeptical of what it actually is.
Therefore, the cause was a three-legged aardvark named Ethel who did a little happy dance.

You'll notice that I said absolutely nothing about whether or not he was dead, captured, or "overtheorized" about anything otherwise. So do yourself a favor and pull your head out of your ass before you misrepresent other people's words.

You can't "explain" how bullets fired into a terrorist tend to be lethal? Your analogy is the same type of braindead word salad I'd expect from the mouthbreathers now trying to give credit to Bush for killing OBL.

You've been caught with your pants down around your preening "I'm a top scientist" ankles and now it's my failing? Get over yourself and stop projecting.

It's been a long time since I put anybody on my ignore list. I guess a useless narcissistic misanthrope qualifies. Good riddance.

 

[waddleman1]

I think I speak for most people that are skeptical in saying that it simply was handled a little strangely. I mean, this guy did mastermind the 9/11 attacks, attacks in the UK, and a host of other horrible stuff. I mean, in the entire time since they killed him not a single person involved decided to take a picture?

I'm not saying there's some big conspiracy here, but it's just strange to me that no one would have taken a picture for the news, or for the higher ups, or just because they just shot Osama fuckin Bin Laden straight in the dome. I think it was just a tightly run operation and nobody was worried about that stuff, and no one was smart enough to snag a photo for the press or for some reason weren't allowed to.

Still, it's very weird so I can understand why some people might jump to conclusions. After all, it's not like we KNOW that this happened, the news is after all second hand information, we didn't see it. So on some level it's good to be somewhat skeptical. Don't believe everything you hear ya know?

 

[Mash]

You can't "explain" how bullets fired into a terrorist tend to be lethal? Your analogy is the same type of braindead word salad I'd expect from the mouthbreathers now trying to give credit to Bush for killing OBL.

You've been caught with your pants down around your preening "I'm a top scientist" ankles and now it's my failing? Get over yourself and stop projecting.

It's been a long time since I put anybody on my ignore list. I guess a useless narcissistic misanthrope qualifies. Good riddance.

Well, this was a little harsher than necessary, but here's the deal.

How do you know that it was Osama that was shot? Until you can answer that with a completely reliable source, then your retaliation was unjustly critical, and about all the wrong points.

The point is that you CANNOT speculate over what you do not know. You don't know that it was him that was shot. You don't know what happened to the body.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm not saying that he's dead, or that he's alive. I'm just trying to tell people that they DO NOT KNOW SHIT, before they end up making themselves look like idiots.

 

[JackVanderson]

You can't "explain" how bullets fired into a terrorist tend to be lethal? Your analogy is the same type of braindead word salad I'd expect from the mouthbreathers now trying to give credit to Bush for killing OBL.

You've been caught with your pants down around your preening "I'm a top scientist" ankles and now it's my failing? Get over yourself and stop projecting.

It's been a long time since I put anybody on my ignore list. I guess a useless narcissistic misanthrope qualifies. Good riddance.

I'm agreeing with Mash on this one. Unless you were there and saw the bullets go into his body you don't know jack shit if he's dead or not. As Purple had mentioned earlier, first in crafted wording, and secondly in plain speak: You've got your head up your ass. So frankly take your ignorant comments somewhere else, and if you're going to put anyone with a differing opinion on your ignore list, get ready it's going to be a mile long.

 

[jts963]

I'm agreeing with Mash on this one. Unless you were there and saw the bullets go into his body you don't know jack shit if he's dead or not. As Purple had mentioned earlier, first in crafted wording, and secondly in plain speak: You've got your head up your ass. So frankly take your ignorant comments somewhere else, and if you're going to put anyone with a differing opinion on your ignore list, get ready it's going to be a mile long.

You've been talking out of your ass from your first post in this thread, if not earlier. As U.N. Owen pointed out, your list of "possibilities" is just plain retarded. Obviously I was being too polite to not rub your face in it. My mistake.

Good riddance to you as well.

 

[JackVanderson]

It's sad that intelligent conversation is on the downswing. Well hopefully to those left in this thread maybe we can converse with different opinions but peacefully.

 

[PurpleStyle]

You can't "explain" how bullets fired into a terrorist tend to be lethal? Your analogy is the same type of braindead word salad I'd expect from the mouthbreathers now trying to give credit to Bush for killing OBL.

You've been caught with your pants down around your preening "I'm a top scientist" ankles and now it's my failing? Get over yourself and stop projecting.

It's been a long time since I put anybody on my ignore list. I guess a useless narcissistic misanthrope qualifies. Good riddance.

Lol, I guess it's easier to hurl ad-hominem attacks and then flee to protect your already-broken e-peen than to admit that you were wrong.

So, on a scale of 1 to 10, how badly did I pwn jts963? I'm gonna give myself an 8.

 

[Mash]

Well, can't say I didn't try.

 

[desk]

He's dead as Elvis, leaked photos and videos soon forthcoming. Has anyone actually heard from Elvis or Bin Laden in the last few days? Anyone check out the tweets from one of Bin Laden's neighbors, they were incredile as he described the scene unfolding. Bin Laden is now in another world with 72 sturgeons.

 

[Dave2112]

Well, I'll make an attempt here to bring this back into a civilized discussion.

You guys have really got to see this as something beyond the 24-hour-a-day news cycle on cable...from one side or the other. I don't mean this in a bad way, or to pick anyone out in particular...but it's very obvious that a bulk of people on the internet don't really have a full grasp of the complexities of military operations, intelligence gathering, international and domestic politics and the balance between government and journalism. It's very easy to speculate and repeat what's on Fox News or MSNBC. You've got to put things in perspective and face some realities.

1) Osama bin Laden is dead. Period. There is NO government body in the industrialized world that is going to engage in a world-wide conspiracy of this magnitude. Even the possibility of the ramifications can be measured in terms of "biblical proportions". There is NOTHING to gain, and NO WAY to pull it off with so many distinct and separate organizations involved.

2) To show or not to show? You know, really...who cares? Let's drop the bickering for a second and consider something...the decision to release death photos or not is one of those "impossible decisions" that a president and leader sometimes has to make. On this one, there's a positive and negative to either decision with no third option. Actually, I stand by this decision not to release them...at least now and at least not unless put in a position to HAVE to. Conspiracy theorists are going to stick with their theories with or without a photo. Theorists and religious zealots ironically follow the same pathology...a strong enough belief will never be dislodged by even the most empirical of facts.

I think the decision to not show the images is complex, but the best overall. It's multi-faceted. One, the Defense Department's own study showed that the #1 recruiting tool for extremists during the Iraq War were pictures of Saddam Hussein's dead sons, his capture photos and video of his hanging...not to mention the infamous Abu Gahraib photos. We really don't need to be giving what's left of Al-Qeida a new flag. Two...let's think of here at home. How long do you think it would be before any photo of a dead bin Laden goes viral? 30 seconds? A minute, maybe? And then, it's another day or two before every college kid with Flash is trying to impress his gamer bois with his version of "Shoot the OTHER Side of Bin Laden's Face Off!" It would be EVERYWHERE. Youtube, Facebook...and probably even a fascinating enough feller on this very board who'd decide it's cool to use it as a signature pic. It completely cheapens a somber event, insults the families of the victims and turns us into the very pigs that the people we call "animals" accuse us of being.

Third...and I agree with Obama's wording on this one. We're America. We don't sport these things as trophies. We don't spike the football. We HAVE decency...or at least did. Remember when we were the good guys? Over the past ten years, it seems we've grown into a society that can't do anything without shooting our guns into the air and yelling YEE-HAAAAAAW while waiting for Roy Clark to pop out of the cornfield with a bad joke. We're supposed to better than the British Crown of the time we RAN FROM who paraded their dead enemies' heads on pikes. We're supposed to be the fucking good guys. Or else, what the hell are our sons and daughters even fighting for anymore?

3) Why did it take ten years, etc? Well guys...it's that "the world's more complicated" thing again. I think the younger generation might not get this, and I can't fault you for being born into a completely electronic world....BUT...

...military operations are NOT a game of Halo or Call of Duty. You don't just get your guys together, strap on a machine gun with unlimited ammo, get to level 4, then storm the compound. There are more things involved than you will ever know in the real world. If you had ANY idea of the complexity of piecing together the various bits of intelligence that led to finding a needle in a haystack, you'd realize that. It's like me telling you that the guy you're looking for is somewhere in either Texas or Louisiana, but we DO know he gets pizza from a guy named Bubba and he might have a southern accent. Ok...GO! Hell, how long did it take us to find Ted Kazinski (sp)? And he was in our own country? If you're off the grid, you can hide in a LOT of places, even with global mapping these days. And that's not even counting diplomatic concerns. These are real things, those diplomatic relations...even though the cable news would lead you to believe it should be swept away when we want something. It's a tool AND a hindrance...you need to balance the two to your advantage. It's very easy to say "Pakistan isn't our friend, fuck them!" Yeah, well...even if we knew he was there, there's a lot to consider. We ARE going to have strained relations with a country that we need, even if it seems we don't. Remember that war we have going in Afghanistan? Where do you think we stage that thing from? The inside of Afghanistan? Please. Our supply lines, troop movements in and out...all of it...goes right through or is staged in Pakistan. We tell them to fuck off, we HAVE TO pack everyone in and come home. War over. Again...unlike a game of Halo...military actions can't be staged from your living room. And this is just ONE aspect of diplomatic relations that get in the way of accomplishing things that the masses think should be easy.

4) Obama didn't really do anything. Yeah. OK. If you really think this, then you really don't understand politics or our own history. President Obama took a leadership role of the highest stakes trying to pull this off. If one thing went wrong...it could easily have been the end of his presidency. He even went against the advice of one of his own advisors to just bomb the place. He made a decision to bring counter-terrorism into the 21st century, where it should have been since 9/11. You fight Hitler with tanks. You fight the Taliban with surgical strikes. Don't say he doesn't understand the state of military action.

And as to the stakes? The balls to even try this? Let's even leave out what he already knew...the inevitable conspiracy theories, the political crap, the endless news cycles that would follow. For those of you old enough...think back to Desert One. Jimmy Carter's rescue attempt of our hostages in Iran. It failed. And, that one failure of a military action probably cost him his presidency. Think for a moment...if Desert One had worked, if Jimmy Carter were the one who (only a few months before a presidential election, not a year and a half) rescues our hostages AND brokered peace between Egypt and Israel. It's VERY likely he wins re-election. No Reagan. No Bush dynasty. No Iran-Contra. No arming of Iraq and Al-Qeida when it served us. Quite possibly...the entire Middle East develops in a completely different way. But it didn't. Very possibly over that one failed military strike that once again painted a Democratic president as weak on international affairs.

THAT'S what was at stake for Barak Obama. Give the guy some credit. If ONE thing about this went wrong...game over.

And finally, one more note about why it took so long. Remember that we spent eight of those years doing a 180 and invading Iraq under Bush. Kinda got in the way of the hunt for bin Laden. Remember Bush's own words only six months after 9/11..."I don't know where he is. To be honest, I really don't even think about him." Probably not, since the highest levels of the administration dropped the ball on capturing a cornered Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora those years ago.

And the statements about this being innacurate, or how did this happen? It's like anyone in the military will tell you...all first reports of covert operations are always inaccurate and always subject to revision. especially in a 24-hour-a-day newsworld.

Rather than bring this stupid fight of "did they, didn't they?" to our forum...why can't we just take this for what it is? A somber moment where we killed the most despicable human being since Hitler. As the good guys. Without "spiking the football" or showing the world how devolved we've become even when we do something good. The guy's dead. It took awhile, and will always be steeped in conspiracy and controversy. That's what happens with world-changing events. Anyone here think they could have done better? Really? I sure as hell don't.

He's dead, and I'm glad he is. And I have no reason not to believe he is, and I can completely understand every decision that went into the operation and the aftermath. There's nothing "fishy", but there's a lot that's complex. The "fishy" things happen in Tom Clancy movies, not on the real world stage. Let's move on, act like adults, take a victory graciously, understand its necessity and get on with fixing everything that got broken along the way.

 

[Mash]

...military operations are NOT a game of Halo or Call of Duty. You don't just get your guys together, strap on a machine gun with unlimited ammo, get to level 4, then storm the compound.

Well no shit. You get to level 10, god damnit. Only a moron storms the compound at four. You'd get fucked over faster than you could say 'Jive Turkey'.