I guess the burial at sea isn't good enough for some Muslim scholars, who say his body is supposed the return to the earth. As in buried. Well, too late for that.
isn't Silt good enough?
I guess the burial at sea isn't good enough for some Muslim scholars, who say his body is supposed the return to the earth. As in buried. Well, too late for that.
I guess the burial at sea isn't good enough for some Muslim scholars, who say his body is supposed the return to the earth. As in buried. Well, too late for that.
We take note with grave concern that part of the statement in which President Obama said that the firefight in which Osama bin Laden was killed took place in Abbottabad "deep inside Pakistan".
This fact underlines our concern that terrorists belonging to different organisations find sanctuary in Pakistan.
Quoted for truth. And we all know that unless there is solid evidence to the contrary, it is always prudent to assume that anything that a government, secret/security service or military organization (among others) says, is most likely a lie.The U.S. Army claims to have killed Bin Laden. They recovered the body. Then a U.S. Army forensics expert took a DNA sample and send that to a U.S. Army lab. After that, the U.S. Army dumped Bin Laden's body, awaiting confirmation of his identity from it's own crime lab.
Being a bit German here: At least the "attempts" here were foiled in such a way that it is equally likely they have just been setups by the government and the police for the show effect. In at least one instance the evil terrorist was persuaded to go his way by the police who then "catched" him.there have been hundreds of attempts which have been foiled by security services
Congrats - if true. I am one of those who believe Bin Laden has been dead for quite a while. And well, disappearing an already pretty much disappeared man doesn't really convince me otherwise.
What's the occasion they have been doing this now? You know, a claimed success (which can be true, but doesn't have to be) in hunting down terrorists usually comes in time for an election or a parliament decision about some terror laws. Or is the war in Afghanistan finally becoming a bit expensive?
Quoted for truth. And we all know that unless there is solid evidence to the contrary, it is always prudent to assume that anything that a government, secret/security service or military organization (among others) says, is most likely a lie.
Being a bit German here: At least the "attempts" here were foiled in such a way that it is equally likely they have just been setups by the government and the police for the show effect. In at least one instance the evil terrorist was persuaded to go his way by the police who then "catched" him.
The security forces need to have terrorist attempts they can foil. And they have the means to simulate them.
Being a bit German here: At least the "attempts" here were foiled in such a way that it is equally likely they have just been setups by the government and the police for the show effect. In at least one instance the evil terrorist was persuaded to go his way by the police who then "catched" him.
The security forces need to have terrorist attempts they can foil. And they have the means to simulate them.
I know that, I'm saying I don't think it was necessary. At least not as a knee-jerk response. We made no honest effort at diplomacy, just labeled them all terrorists and went to war. I don't know if Mohammad Omar would've turned Osama over to Bush, but he sure as hell didn't want war with the US. Now we've only succeeded in replacing his theocratic autocracy with a corrupt theocratic republic.The invasion of Afghanistan was too take out the Taliban which, at the time, wasn't an insurgency. It was the government of Afghanistan and the protectors of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Agreed.How is it vulgar for a nation to celebrate justice being served after 18 years of hunting the man responsible for several terrorist attacks, one being the worst attack on American soil (note, we entered WW2 for a less fatal attack)? No one is burning flags, burning effigies of Bin Laden, or shouting for the destruction of a whole nation. This is a hugely symbolic (and possibly practical, no one can say for sure) achievement in the war on terror for the US, and frankly a success for the entire world. America may be showing it the most, but the muslim world has suffered at the hands of Bin Laden and AQ far more.
isn't Silt good enough?
Exactly what I was thinking.Yeah because no Muslim has EVER died at sea... I call bullshit to those "scholars".
Of course, they also did not want to create a shrine for his supporters, so the ocean burial served that purpose.
I didn't say the US (or anybody) killed him. I just find it highly possible that he's just been dead for quite some time now.Riddle me this. If the U.S. killed Osama years ago
That's what Reuters claim to be told by a "U.S. national security official". Didn't they also have a bounty on information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden? Oh yeah right, he's not apprehended and won't be convicted. Nice way to save some bucks.U.S. team's mission was to kill bin Laden, not capture
By the way:
That's what Reuters claim to be told by a "U.S. national security official". Didn't they also have a bounty on information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden? Oh yeah right, he's not apprehended and won't be convicted. Nice way to save some bucks.
I`ve been pretty worthless at work today....I`ve been reading articles on MSNBC, Fox, CNN, BBC News, Al Jazeera, etc. I`ve just been trying to absorb as many different angles as possible. Something that worries me is the threat of increased tension between India and Pakistan... I`m not liking this quote by Palaniappan Chidambaram who is the Indian home minister...
source
How is it vulgar for a nation to celebrate justice being served after 18 years of hunting the man responsible for several terrorist attacks, one being the worst attack on American soil (note, we entered WW2 for a less fatal attack)? No one is burning flags, burning effigies of Bin Laden, or shouting for the destruction of a whole nation. This is a hugely symbolic (and possibly practical, no one can say for sure) achievement in the war on terror for the US, and frankly a success for the entire world. America may be showing it the most, but the muslim world has suffered at the hands of Bin Laden and AQ far more.
I think the point was that we had no need to start a land war in Afghanistan. You don't defeat an insurgency by just dumping men and bombs at it. Should've just been special forces and the CIA hunting these pricks, but that wasn't politically possible after 9/11.
If the case is clear-cut enough to justify a targeted killing, even a Bin Laden who'd not say a word in court would be sentenced with near-certainty. No need for torture. I can only repeat that they found a way to deal with the Nazis who were in another galaxy of evil in court. They could have done so with Bin Laden.The problem is that Bin Laden could never have taken alive. He would most certainly have never given up any information. It would have brought in the thorny issue of torture.
Unlike the U.S., my country has a history of domestic terrorism. We had it all: Hunger strikes, kidnappings in order to exchange prisoners, the works. We dealt with it while not compromising our juridical system. Mostly.If we had taken him alive there would have been hordes of kidnappings and attempts to get him set free, death is the safer option for everyone.
The naivete that claims that war should have no collateral damage is staggering. Ask Germans about Dresden, or the Japaneese about Tokyo and then we can get counts about how much collateral damage takes place in war. If anything it's been reduced in subsequent wars.
The invasion of Afghanistan was too take out the Taliban which, at the time, wasn't an insurgency. It was the government of Afghanistan and the protectors of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
WikiLeaks: Osama bin Laden killed after tip-offs from Guantanamo
The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who was interrogated using ?torture? techniques, gave the United States the breakthrough that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden.
By Tim Ross 7:02PM BST 02 May 2011
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who was repeatedly subjected to methods including ?waterboarding? and stress positions, provided the CIA with the name of bin Laden?s personal courier, according to US officials.
A second source ? also an al-Qaeda ?leader? held at Guantanamo Bay ? then confirmed the courier?s identity, sparking an intense manhunt that resulted in the dramatic final raid.
Secret documents seen by The Daily Telegraph disclose that this second source ? the terrorist operations chief, Abu Faraj al-Libi ? played a key role in finding ?safe havens? for bin Laden and lived in the military town where he was finally found.
The killing of the world?s most wanted man as a direct result of information obtained from Guantanamo detainees such as KSM will reignite the debate over whether torture is a legitimate interrogation technique in the "war on terror". Both KSM and al-Libi were subjected to harsh techniques during their interrogations in CIA prisons.
Amnesty International has already warned that the killing of bin Laden must not be used as evidence that torture is ?justifiable?.
Bin Laden went into hiding shortly after the 9/11 attacks and the White House has been criticised for a series of failures that meant he evaded capture for almost 10 years.
During his time as a fugitive, bin Laden?s communications with the outside world were handled by a network of trusted couriers, who carried letters to and from senior al-Qaeda commanders. Using a telephone or the internet would have been too risky as electronic communications were monitored by the US and its allies.
But the CIA revealed that American spies have also been watching many of bin Laden?s couriers for years.
?One courier in particular had our constant attention,? a senior US government official said. ?We identified him as both a protege of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi.?
American spies learned his name four years ago; two years later they pinpointed the general region where he was hiding. Still, it was not until August when they tracked him to the compound in Abbotabad.
Secret US government files on the Guantanamo detainees disclose that al-Libi had several dealings with one key courier for bin Laden, who may be the same aide that led the US to the compound where the al-Qaeda leader was killed.
Al-Libi?s Guantanamo file, dated 10 September 2008, states: ?In July 2003, detainee [al-Libi] received a letter from UBL?s designated courier, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, requesting detainee take on the responsibility of collecting donations, organizing travel, and distributing funds to families in Pakistan.
?UBL stated detainee would be the official messenger between UBL and others in Pakistan.?
In mid-2003, al-Libi ?moved his family to Abbottabad, PK and worked between Abbottabad and Peshawar,? according to the file.
In 2001 and 2003, he arranged ?save havens? for bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is currently still at large.
It may not be a coincidence that the ?safe haven? where bin Laden was finally caught was in the Pakistani garrison town where al-Libi lived in 2003.
Al-Libi?s file states that he had several further attempted contacts with the courier and set up a shop front to be used as a ?drop point? for the meetings in April 2005, one month before he was captured. The courier's name does not appear in KSM's Guantanamo file.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...en-killed-after-tip-offs-from-Guantanamo.html