Osama Bin Laden is Dead

**Dannon Oneironaut** · 05-07-2011 08:31 AM

Saying that Al Qaida said anything is practically saying that Earth-First said anything. Both are decentralized terrorist organizations given a name for similar ideology that lumps them all together. Al Qaida is just a name for "any extreme Sunni Muslim jihadist terrorist" who is inspired by Bin Laden. It is decentralized leadership of regional groups using the al-Qaida brand name. Mark Sageman, a psychiatrist and former CIA officer, said that Al-Qaida is just a "loose label for a movement that seems to target the West". "There is no umbrella organisation. We like to create a mythical entity called Al-Qaida in our minds, but that is not the reality we are dealing with." At best Bin Laden's organization may have contributed funding and training to some would-be terrorists. Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote that the word Al-Qaeda should be translated as "the database", and originally referred to the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen militants who were recruited and trained with CIA help to defeat the Russians. In April 2002, the group assumed the name Qa'idat al-Jihad, which means "the base of Jihad".

Just like anybody can go spike a tree or blow up a parking lot of SUVs and claim that they are Earth-First and that Edward Abbey is to blame, or anybody can get trained in eco-terrorism by Earth-First inspired groups. This is one reason why Earth First cannot be stopped because there is nobody in charge to capture or kill, no scapegoat. Edward Abbey, Aldo Leopold, and Rachel Carlson provided the inspiration and the know-how and the original training, but they didn't take part or plan any of the events. Instead they became authors to spread their ideas. This mode of organization is the hallmark of 'terrorism'.

There is no "REAL" Al Qaida to make a statement to confirm anything or not. Anybody can claim that they are the "Real" Al Qaida and make any statement they want.

Video of "Osama Bin Laden" recorded on September 11, 2007:

Video of him UPLOADED onto Youtube JULY, 2007:

These aren't the same people. but both are on the wikipedia list of videos attributed to him. These were the first two videos I found on my first search. In other words, I didn't dig at all.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks.
—Usama bin Laden, CNN, "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks," September 17, 2001

BBC Monitoring Service, "Usama bin Laden Says Israeli Regime is Behind the 9-11 Attacks," September 28, 2001

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."
—Dick Cheney, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006

QUESTION: "Mr President, in your speeches, you rarely mention Osama Bin Laden. Why is that?"
GEORGE BUSH JR: "I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on him."

QUESTION: "But Osama bin Laden is the one that — you keep talking about his lieutenants, and, yes, they are very important, but Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11..."
DANA PERINO: "No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and hes sitting in jail right now."

"9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Ladens Most Wanted page. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
—FBI agent Rex Tomb, June 6, 2006

"The goal has never been to get Bin Laden."
—General Richard Myers, chairman, US Joint Chiefs of Staff

"Omar Sheikh the man who murdered Usama Bin Laden."
-Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, with David Frost on BBC TV, 2 Nov 2007 (she predicted her assassination and was murdered 1 month later

ABC News, "Spanish Lawmaker's Photo Used for Bin Laden Poster", Jan 16, 2010

THIS IS WHY MY POINT IS THAT IF THEY DID JUST FIND BIN LADEN JUST RECENTLY (LAST WEEKEND) THEY SHOULD HAVE PUT HIM ON TRIAL IN ORDER TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH. OF COURSE THE TRUTH MIGHT BE VERY INCONVENIENT. IF HE DIED PREVIOUSLY THEN THIS WHOLE THING IS A DECEPTION. The first scenario is only slightly 'conspiracy-theory' at a level that most people can expect, the second scenario borders on what most people do not expect. I am just wondering about the lack of evidence.

P.S. Where are Bin Laden's sons' bodies? They weren't buried at sea.

**no-Name** · 05-07-2011 08:57 AM

300 posts within a week? this thread sucks.

Originally Posted by Invader

It might be evidence, but I wouldn't call it strong. If I stop hearing from someone I know is trying to hide from me and has unpredictable behavior, I can't opt to think that they don't exist any more. Need something a little more conclusive. Am I just being anal?

someone in this thread said earlier that it was irrelevant to the "war on terror" (whatever that means) if he's dead or "virtually dead," in that we're holding him hostage or in a place where he has no control. he has none of the power he would have if he were alive, is what I'm saying.
the egg-on-face argument is very strong, in my opinion.

I will find you, eventually.

why did you choose the name you did? what inspired the technical invasion?
we've got an online radio station now. you might have seen the thread about it. I'm a host, and I'll need to interview you at some point.

**nina** · 05-07-2011 01:25 PM

Dannon, great examples of the ridiculousness of the entire situation. Though personally I'm glad there wasn't a trial. I've heard about as much of this shit as I can handle.

**illidan** · 05-07-2011 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Would you have felt better if Obama explicitly forbade the soldiers to kill Bin Laden?

That's not really to the point. I think it should go without saying that no one is to be killed unless it is absolutely necessary. The question in dispute was whether or not that was the case.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

So if this was Obama's second term do you think he wouldn't have bothered looking for Bin Laden at all?

Of course, he has the duties of his office in mind, just not "only" or "primarily". It's simply not a top priority for most politicians. Public opinion of themselves, of their party, upcoming elections etc. are more important to them. But that does not mean that they don't perform their duties at all. So, to answer your question: he would have bothered, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I wouldn't call this an assassination any more than any targeted raid of an insurgent compound in Afghanistan which happens every day.

That last paragraph you quoted starts with "If the plan was all along to kill and not just capture him …", so I was arguing on the premise that it was a kill operation (i.e. assassination). As I've stated earlier, we can't really know for sure if it was.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Safety. […]

Certainty. […]

I agree with you on the safety part. If it was a matter of self-defense or if it was otherwise absolutely necessary to kill him to ensure the safety of the soldiers, then it was certainly justified to shoot him.
I disagree about the certainty part, though. Certainty is not worth a human life and Bin Laden is not really that dangerous anymore.

---

I also wanted to comment on the role of al Quaeda today. Ever since the occupation of Afghanistan they lost the main ground they were operation from and now they are scattered all over the world, in fact, they're not much of a network anymore. They're more of a franchisor these days and rely on "Open Source Jihad" more than organizing terror attacks themselves. They publish this magazine called Inspire, trying to … well, 'inspire' young eager jihadists to take the initiative to perform a little terror attack on their own. A lot of little attacks instead of few big attacks (like 9/11) seems to be the their new approach.

In light of this, Bin Laden's death is not all that significant. Considering that a lot of jidhadist are rather keen to avenge him now, I'm not even sure if his death is going to be a net positive. Maybe in the long run.

**Dannon Oneironaut** · 05-10-2011 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Video of "Osama Bin Laden" recorded on September 11, 2007:

Video of him UPLOADED onto Youtube JULY, 2007:

These aren't the same people. but both are on the wikipedia list of videos attributed to him. These were the first two videos I found on my first search. In other words, I didn't dig at all.

I hate the news. They are liars. This first video I posted is definitely a fake. Yes, it has been proven to be a fake. But the news is now playing it on TV again! They are saying that Bin Laden would watch this video on TV because he loved to watch himself. But that ISN'T him! The news knows that, but they don't report the truth. You can even see how the actor who does the fake videos, his message is "I am a bogey man!!! I am scary!!! I am evil!!!" but the real videos by Bin Laden are him explaining why he advocates terrorism in a lucid way. Not that I agree with him at all, but his message does make sense. He denied having anything to do with 9/11 and apparently the Bush administration agrees.

**Xei** · 05-11-2011 12:41 AM

What are you guys talking about... that top video is by its own admission a mock up of an actor proving a point for God's sake, I don't believe you could think it needs 'disproving', or that the news is treating it as real. Jeeeeeeeesus.

**Dannon Oneironaut** · 05-11-2011 06:11 PM

Well, here in America they are treating it as real again. They are saying that this guy in the video is Bin Laden and that he would watch himself everytime this video was on Al Jazeera. The video is on the wikipedia lists of videos and audio recordings attributed to Bin Laden. Most of the videos on the list are either these two guys. Pictures of him on the news in America are more times than not the guy without any grey in his beard.

**Xei** · 05-11-2011 06:44 PM

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be insulting, but I really can't take you seriously any more after you failed to understand the basic premise of that video and involved it in your conspiracy theorising. It's just plain funny actually. You actually think Osama Bin Laden could plausibly say "I'll just pop off now" and thought the video needed debunking, haha...

Do you have any evidence that the American media are treating it as real? The thing you said about Wikipedia is flat out nonsense. If you took two seconds to read about the recording listed for 9/11/07 you'd discover it isn't talking about the above joke video, it's talking about an audio file over a still image.

**Dannon Oneironaut** · 05-18-2011 09:44 AM

Well, I think that Osama has been dead for a while. I saw the the CNN news while I was at the shop getting new tires on my car that they actually had that video on and were discussing how Osama was very proud of that video and vain and all that. They had removed the audio and were talking about it while the video was rolling. I wouldn't be surprised if it were Fox news, but it was CNN, which I guess is not much better. It is stuff like this that makes considering conspiracy theories so appealing. In America, people are a lot less trusting of their government than in Europe or Japan, and rightly so, because the Government here blatantly lies to us all the time. Anybody with any common sense knows that. That is why it is a popular plot device in movies also, because it doesn't take that much suspension of disbelief. This video that was on CNN is just one example, lies and half-truths and twisted truths are always in the News. Have you ever watched American News? I prefer to watch the BBC or listen to the BBC radio to get another perspective, but that also is not perfect. Democracy Now is the best News sight I have found, and the least biased.

Anyway: I have done a preliminary search and have not found the video that I saw yet, I will keep trying, but I found this: <yt>YSq0k7geC0A</yt>

This shows some CNN video footage. I will continue to look for the video I saw.
I am wondering, do most people think that there is no such thing as a conspiracy so any idea of a conspiracy is 'crazy' or do people trust governments in wartime bent on global domination of resources to not lie so that any suspicion of being lied to is dismissed as a "conspiracy theory"?

**Caden** · 05-20-2011 03:57 AM

**Xaqaria** · 05-22-2011 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

How long did it take for Saddam to be buried? Or his sons? Just out of curiosity.

Edit - Or any other high-priority Muslim person killed by the U.S.

Saddam was not a muslim.

**Descensus** · 05-22-2011 02:06 AM

Was he not a Sunni Muslim?

**Xaqaria** · 05-22-2011 03:50 AM

Well now that you ask, it looks like that isn't such an easy question to answer. I assumed he was irreligious because of his devotion to the Baa'th party's staunch secularism. Turns out he was at least partially raised by his sunni uncle, but the uncle was also a supporter of the secular Baa'ths. During most of his political career he was very anti-religion but then it looks like he adopted religion in order to get political support towards the end of his career (life). So I guess my answer is; I don't know. Either way, why do the Navy Seals give two shits about muslim burial practices anyway?

**Descensus** · 05-22-2011 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Well now that you ask, it looks like that isn't such an easy question to answer. I assumed he was irreligious because of his devotion to the Baa'th party's staunch secularism. Turns out he was at least partially raised by his sunni uncle, but the uncle was also a supporter of the secular Baa'ths. During most of his political career he was very anti-religion but then it looks like he adopted religion in order to get political support towards the end of his career (life). So I guess my answer is; I don't know. Either way, why do the Navy Seals give two shits about muslim burial practices anyway?

Well that's my question. Ignoring Saddam, it doesn't look like they've upheld any sort of burial practices for other Muslims they've killed.

**Xei** · 05-22-2011 04:01 AM

Armies are for following orders?

**Spartiate** · 05-22-2011 05:07 AM

Saddam seemed to have a Hitler-like approach to religion. He commissioned a Koran to be written in his blood and he also designed a mosque in the shape of AK-47s and Scud missiles...

**Xaqaria** · 05-22-2011 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Well that's my question. Ignoring Saddam, it doesn't look like they've upheld any sort of burial practices for other Muslims they've killed.

Right; I'd say the reason is probably because it was meant to keep some information from coming out, either that they didn't actually kill him and didn't have the body because he was never killed or killed/died previously, or because the manner in which he was killed needed to be supressed because the particular weapon or method that they used is illegal or otherwise embarrassing.

**Spartiate** · 05-22-2011 06:01 AM

I think it's clear that Bin Laden's burial customs were to appease a minority of muslims who would give a rat's ass and not out of concern for the departed one's immortal soul...

He was high profile.

**Xei** · 05-22-2011 03:47 PM

I still don't understand why you are treating the Seals as an autonomous unit, as if the burial was their decision.

**Xaqaria** · 05-22-2011 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

I still don't understand why you are treating the Seals as an autonomous unit, as if the burial was their decision.

I've mentioned it once. You know that right? I've only been involved in this thread for the last 9 posts. The initial article that I read refered to the seals as the ones who buried him at sea.

**Xei** · 05-23-2011 12:41 AM

And..? I just saw this:

"Either way, why do the Navy Seals give two shits about muslim burial practices anyway?"

and couldn't make head or tail of what you were trying to say. I'm sure the Seals don't care, but what is this relevant to? You think everything they do is stuff they personally decide to do..?

**Puffin** · 05-23-2011 01:38 AM

My friend said they buried him out at sea so the nations wouldn't tear each other up arguing over his body.

**Xaqaria** · 05-23-2011 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

And..? I just saw this:

"Either way, why do the Navy Seals give two shits about muslim burial practices anyway?"

and couldn't make head or tail of what you were trying to say. I'm sure the Seals don't care, but what is this relevant to? You think everything they do is stuff they personally decide to do..?

No, I don't. Disregard that sentence if you feel so inclined.

**Invader** · 05-24-2011 11:07 AM

I'm amazed that some here are willing to defend those that don't give a rat's ass about providing extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim. People that have attacked others on this very board for not providing evidence for their own beliefs.To those who are believing outright that Navy Seals have killed Osama and don't want a shred of solid evidence out of this, how does it feel being like the religious people you've harassed for so long?

I can't stand by with this hypocrisy and not say anything. This is fucking disgraceful.

**Xei** · 05-24-2011 01:19 PM

lol @ suggesting that Bin Laden's spontaneous existence failure, Al Qaeda's confirmation of such, etc. etc. etc., is not best explained by... his death.

You don't seem to understand the concept you're quoting, Invader. If the Seals had to gun down Bin Laden as he attempted an escape by flying out of the window into the night sky and leaving a shining rainbow trail in his wake, that would be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.

This is so unextrodinary that it's defaulted to by Occam's Razor. What exactly are you talking about?