dgerndt
Well-known member
Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering how they got the DNA to compare his to.
Osama Bin Laden is Dead?
- Thread starter patrickfraser
- Start date
Help Support Mantidforum:
PhilinYuma
Well-known member
Great story, but it just isn't done that way! DNA samples are obtained by scraping a little mucus membrane from the inside of the mouth, though blood can be used, too. No need for a hulking great brain taking up room in an ice box! Also, they could record her genome on a computer read out and compare it with a sample taken from Bin Laden's body. Much easier.
Here's something that might interest you. It couldn't have been very hard to see that he was dead, and it is unlikely that they would bother to put someone in a shroud just to dump him off a carrier. Muslim law has strict rules about cleaning and dressing the dead. Only martyrs are buried in the clothes in which they died.
dgerndt
Well-known member
Well I figured keeping the entire brain was probably a bit much. But all the same, they might have wanted to keep some part of her just in case.
So, what are you saying, Phil?
So, what are you saying, Phil?
Last edited by a moderator:
PhilinYuma
Well-known member
Fair question. bin Laden was an avowed enemy of the United States. He engineered brilliant strikes against the most powerful country in the world, which after living here for half a century, I consider my country, and struck terror into the the hearts of its citizens. He then spent a decade evading US and British forces despite the millions of dollars and massive military manpower spent in the attempt.
Strategically, his death probably means very little. Al Qaeda will manage very well without him; his contact with them had long been limited to a few couriers. But he was an important figurehead, and the Americans wisely buried him at sea to prevent his grave from becoming a shrine. But he is certainly a martyr to those who believed in him. Ironically, since they never knew him, most will experience less loving sorrow at his death than an urge to avenge it.
He is no more or less "evil" than the leaders of the US who attacked Iraq and Afghanistan and killed lots of "innocent" civilians (no more or less innocent than those who died during the 7/11 attack). The war in Afghanistan, like that in Vietnam and Korea, is a "proxy war" a means for the US and communist China to wage war without risking a head on confrontation. Our kids learn that in high school, surely. Tough luck on the host countries of such confrontations.
It is human nature to look on our enemies as evil, just as they look on us. It keeps wars going and somehow seems to justify the deaths of our young men who were sent out to die while the sons of the men who sent them wisely stayed at home. I live in a small military (marines) town and every day I see the vehicles with "In Honor of..." signs in neat white lettering on the rear windows.
Am I saying that we shouldn't have tried to kill him? Of course not. But to see footage of kids -- and adults -- dancing ecstatically in celebration of the death of a man that they never knew, while waiting to be told the next person to hate, saddens me.
lots of opinions, and I for one agree with Phil, one goes another comes along, but gotta keep trying to rid ourselves of them. True or not, only God knows for sure.
alicenwnderlnd
Well-known member
I have to agree also, if he is really dead, than the next person will stand up and now probably try to avenge his death by doing something else... I am not saying he shouldn't have been executed by all means he deserved what he got, but at the same time what next? its a vicious cycle, and we are right in the middle of it; usually with a large death toll. 
angelofdeathzz
Well-known member
It was VERY far from brilliant, it was a cowardly act of hate and nothing more or less by any means, We could do that 24/7 to all we appose to be brilliant if we wanted but we don't. There is a difference if you ask me between being able to do and doing...
But I do know thats not how you meant it to sound ???
I just don't think his kind deserve any credit AT ALL.
Ntsees
Well-known member
+1 to Phil.
kamakiri
Well-known member
Phil, the use of 'engineered' and 'brilliant' offend me on a couple levels. :angry: He was a wealthy, cowardly brat that couldn't use legitimate means to wage war. I celebrate his death.
PhilinYuma
Well-known member
@ Angel and Kamakiri: Gentlemen, I am sure that many fellow members and fellow Americans share your view. Tomorrow, we can look at the dishonorable sneak attacks against the British at Trenton and Princeton (late 1776/early 1777) by that dishonored, renegade British officer George Washington, compare the wealthy cowardly brat bin Laden with his wealthy and not-terribly-brave counterpart, Bush, and examine the clandestine overthrow of a variety of democratically elected governments by the CIA. Right now, though, Netflix, basing its judgment on my previous preferences has mandated that I watch Emmanuelle, presumably to brush up on my rusty French.
Besides, I love the smell of gunpowder in the morning!
Besides, I love the smell of gunpowder in the morning!
lion
Well-known member
Who's the guy they hanged 2 years ago then?
PhilinYuma
Well-known member
O.K. This post is only made because two members raised objections to my earlier post in a civil fashion. I don't plan on a running debate.
I said that the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon was brilliant because it used a handful of actual attackers, was effected with weapons provided by the enemy --us -- and brought Al Qaeda into prominence as a powerful and terrifying force throughout the world.
Some of us remember the old game that goes I am strong willed, you are obstinate, he is pigheaded, In this case it would run, I won a brilliant victory, you were lucky, he cheated. If they were lucky, their luck got them through months of preparation in hostile territory and let them evade one of the largest secret police agencies (FBI not secret police? O.K.!) in the world, not to mention the CIA.
The attack on New York is still seen as a cowardly sneak attack designed to kill not American forces but civilians. In the latter case, we have evidently forgotten the fire bombing of Dresden and the atomic crisping of Nagasaki in which the US targeted civilian populations "for the greater good" (of the U.S.). Again, morality hinges on which side you are on. I have always admired Washington's victories at Trenton and Princeton because they defeated the British by using tactics that wouldn't be considered "fair" by European armies who were still fighting "honorable" pitched battles as late as the Crimean War. In particular, the attack on Trenton took place when the occupying troops were hung over from celebrating Christmas Day!
When you want to defeat an enemy, you use the method most likely to succeed, bin laden would have hardly had the same success if he had invaded the US with his band of warriors. The US has long recognized this. In 1992, the year before the second invasion of Iraq, The CIA's SAD paramilitary forces had already snuck across the border where the suborned Iraqi commanders to surrender or refuse to fight when the invasion started and if memory serves, were even involved in a couple of firefights.
I was going to list here a bunch of countries whose democratic governments were toppled and much bloodshed with the help of or instigation bythe CIA, but I am sure that you all either know them or can look them up. Not very ethical politics for the Land Of the Free, though, and such actions, surely make it hard for us to make moral judgments about our enemies. All of America's wars in the last century and this have been wars of aggression. We have never had to face an invasion or even a sustained air attack or naval bombardment. I suspect that this is the reason for the shocked outrage that greeted the Twin Towers attack. For almost every other country in the world, it would have been a tragedy, but a familiar one.
Finally I'll spend a moment on the idea that bin Laden was a wealthy, cowardly brat who couldn't use legitimate means to wage war. Again, the game goes, I am a freedom/resistance fighter, you are an insurgent he is a cowardly brigand. We might well ask if the massacre of the Native Americans was a legitimate way to wage war, or our secret involvement in Nicaragua. He has been accused of cowardice in sending off young men to their death while he stayed in his compound. I have to admit that in this comparison he comes off rather better than his rich counterparts in the American Presidency who managed to "avoid" the draft in one way or another and kept their families out of harm's way. In fact, he served as an infantryman in the Taliban's fight against the Russians. At that time his type of warfare was considered dashing bravery, supported both by the American government and by James Bond, Agent 007. Finally, rather than surrender and submit to "aggressive interrogation" he died with his son fighting against overwhelming odds. Not a bad way for a leader to go.
Osama bin Laden was one of the worst kind of enemies, a religious fanatic who seems to have believed that by killing large numbers of U.S. civilians he would lead the survivors to his vision of Islam and to renounce their fornication, alcohol consumption, and usury (he was against music, too).. You can't bribe or threaten him, you can't cut a deal. It's either total victory or martyrdom for such a man, and I am very happy that he got the latter rather than the former. But to demonize him? To foment the belief that the strategies and actions of our American leaders are automatically morally right and their opponents, sniveling murderers and cowards?That's just sad.
I said that the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon was brilliant because it used a handful of actual attackers, was effected with weapons provided by the enemy --us -- and brought Al Qaeda into prominence as a powerful and terrifying force throughout the world.
Some of us remember the old game that goes I am strong willed, you are obstinate, he is pigheaded, In this case it would run, I won a brilliant victory, you were lucky, he cheated. If they were lucky, their luck got them through months of preparation in hostile territory and let them evade one of the largest secret police agencies (FBI not secret police? O.K.!) in the world, not to mention the CIA.
The attack on New York is still seen as a cowardly sneak attack designed to kill not American forces but civilians. In the latter case, we have evidently forgotten the fire bombing of Dresden and the atomic crisping of Nagasaki in which the US targeted civilian populations "for the greater good" (of the U.S.). Again, morality hinges on which side you are on. I have always admired Washington's victories at Trenton and Princeton because they defeated the British by using tactics that wouldn't be considered "fair" by European armies who were still fighting "honorable" pitched battles as late as the Crimean War. In particular, the attack on Trenton took place when the occupying troops were hung over from celebrating Christmas Day!
When you want to defeat an enemy, you use the method most likely to succeed, bin laden would have hardly had the same success if he had invaded the US with his band of warriors. The US has long recognized this. In 1992, the year before the second invasion of Iraq, The CIA's SAD paramilitary forces had already snuck across the border where the suborned Iraqi commanders to surrender or refuse to fight when the invasion started and if memory serves, were even involved in a couple of firefights.
I was going to list here a bunch of countries whose democratic governments were toppled and much bloodshed with the help of or instigation bythe CIA, but I am sure that you all either know them or can look them up. Not very ethical politics for the Land Of the Free, though, and such actions, surely make it hard for us to make moral judgments about our enemies. All of America's wars in the last century and this have been wars of aggression. We have never had to face an invasion or even a sustained air attack or naval bombardment. I suspect that this is the reason for the shocked outrage that greeted the Twin Towers attack. For almost every other country in the world, it would have been a tragedy, but a familiar one.
Finally I'll spend a moment on the idea that bin Laden was a wealthy, cowardly brat who couldn't use legitimate means to wage war. Again, the game goes, I am a freedom/resistance fighter, you are an insurgent he is a cowardly brigand. We might well ask if the massacre of the Native Americans was a legitimate way to wage war, or our secret involvement in Nicaragua. He has been accused of cowardice in sending off young men to their death while he stayed in his compound. I have to admit that in this comparison he comes off rather better than his rich counterparts in the American Presidency who managed to "avoid" the draft in one way or another and kept their families out of harm's way. In fact, he served as an infantryman in the Taliban's fight against the Russians. At that time his type of warfare was considered dashing bravery, supported both by the American government and by James Bond, Agent 007. Finally, rather than surrender and submit to "aggressive interrogation" he died with his son fighting against overwhelming odds. Not a bad way for a leader to go.
Osama bin Laden was one of the worst kind of enemies, a religious fanatic who seems to have believed that by killing large numbers of U.S. civilians he would lead the survivors to his vision of Islam and to renounce their fornication, alcohol consumption, and usury (he was against music, too).. You can't bribe or threaten him, you can't cut a deal. It's either total victory or martyrdom for such a man, and I am very happy that he got the latter rather than the former. But to demonize him? To foment the belief that the strategies and actions of our American leaders are automatically morally right and their opponents, sniveling murderers and cowards?That's just sad.
patrickfraser
Well-known member
That's looooooooooooong
PhilinYuma
Well-known member
kamakiri
Well-known member
To assume that the above is so, is what is sad and upsetting to me. I do not automatically assume anything. Please, no need to debate.
PhilinYuma
Well-known member
No, that's O.K., my friend. It was you, not I who made the assumption that bin Lauden was a coward, without any evidence. I just gave you evidence, readily available, that if we go by his actions, you are mistaken.
kamakiri
Well-known member
So you mean I am mistaken that attacks on civilians are *not* cowardly? That was not an assumption, it is an assertion, based on the facts as I understand them.
dgerndt
Well-known member
Can't we all just be happy that the world is rid of a bad person? Sure, governments are corrupt, people have different opinions, another "bad guy" will eventually rise again... but we should just be happy that right now, he can't hurt anyone else.
angelofdeathzz
Well-known member
Too true Deby, too true.
Ricardo
Well-known member
I think killing children can never truly be justified. . . . But you've been through a lot. I won't ream you out or anything.
I also don't think Osama is a coward but I wouldn't say he or his men are brave either. They think when they die they get a bunch of virgins and glory in the afterlife.
what they do is merely to benefit THEM . Suicide isn't bravery in some cases.
Last edited by a moderator:
