Osama Bin Laden not buried at sea, cremated, according to leaked intelligence
87 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Reimu;35034646]
According to several articles LulzSec was the agency who actually obtained the e-mails.[/QUOTE]
See, I've only heard Anonymous, who historically is anti-Lulzsec. Lulzsec itself was more or less disbanded as a group a while ago. Lulzsec wouldn't do something like this anyhow-their style is humiliation and stupidity, not leaking document secretly and then handing them over to Wikileaks and taking credit afterwards.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35037092]Again though, we don't know that. The Daily Mail article says it, and they could very well be paraphrasing. NoDachi is just saying that you need to be very skeptical of this source and sources like it, because they will skew the story or even make it up entirely.
Frankly, there should be some kind of rule against terrible sources.[/QUOTE]
We don't know what, that the mails exist? It seems to me that the majority of the people here are dismissing a source without even reading it. It's alright to be skeptical, but if you don't even want to acknowledge a source because of things they've done before, you're starting to get biased.
And about rules against terrible sources. We had a talk about it in the mods forum, it got nowhere. I was against it since I think it's simply wrong.
I made a post earlier that had a link to the documents the Dailymail article is taking info from.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;35035118]That's why you have to be critical and do your own work of digging up the source they are using. Face it, news papers doesn't make up their own news. They can bend and twist their words however the much they want, but they won't get away with spewing out lies or doing weird stuff. (look at The Sun)
This is what they are referring to, whether they are true or not I cannot know.
[url]http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/releasedate/2012-02-29-18-obl-s-body-transfered-to-delaware-with-cia.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Awww, no zombie Bin Laden then.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;35036856]No that's the thing, I do acknowledge it was there. But so what? He does not work for the government, he is not the lead guy, he is not even claiming something as a fact. This is some guys at work (in a private firm) exchanging what is basically small talk.
It's only because this firm has a reputation for being some super secret cool wannabe CIA company. Without it, it might as well be a barrista from a Starbucks in Beverly Hills :v:[/QUOTE]
Can you point out where I implied that the content of the mail was true?
[QUOTE=Starpluck;35035388]Remember this?
[IMG]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/366575/DAILY-MAIL.jpg[/IMG]
It was made up.[/QUOTE]
Technically, [I]no[/I]. They wrote two vague articles in advance to get the story out as soon as possible, it's a common practice in journalism. That's why it's so brief and nondescript, because it's supposed to be touched up with actual events.
They are using his ashes to create an army of suicidal super soldiers. Called it.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;35037839]Technically, [I]no[/I]. They wrote two vague articles in advance to get the story out as soon as possible, it's a common practice in journalism. That's why it's so brief and nondescript, because it's supposed to be touched up with actual events.[/QUOTE]
Yup, my uncle is a journalist and he says they do that in larger cases where there are only two options. Like football team winning or loosing or some hospitalized famous person being dead or alive.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;35037762]
And about rules against terrible sources. We had a talk about it in the mods forum, it got nowhere. I was against it since I think it's simply wrong.
[/QUOTE]
No we didn't, it was something else, on a specific user. I'm not going to get into detail so lets move this discussion into the mod forums if you wish
[QUOTE=Starpluck;35037941]No we didn't, it was something else, on a specific user. I'm not going to get into detail so lets move this discussion into the mod forums if you wish[/QUOTE]
I assumed it was over that source in general. Alright.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35037467']See, I've only heard Anonymous, who historically is anti-Lulzsec. Lulzsec itself was more or less disbanded as a group a while ago. Lulzsec wouldn't do something like this anyhow-their style is humiliation and stupidity, not leaking document secretly and then handing them over to Wikileaks and taking credit afterwards.[/QUOTE]
When I reread the article I realized that Daily Mail mentioned "Anonymous," not LulzSec.
But then the above article I posted from the guardian says that the man who actually leaked the e-mails was part of LulzSec. Which makes sense, seeing how, as the article states, LulzSec members were becoming fearful of retribution.
How is the way they disposed of the body such a big deal in that situation ? the point is that it's not easily findable so the place it's lying at does not become a place of pilgrimage for anyone. If this leak is actually real, then it just means they lied at this point to add even more confusion and make a mistery out of the body, scrapping away any chance of possibly making any place on earth a place for anyone who loved Bin Laden and what he represented to travel at.
Cremating Osama would be disrespectful to him religiously, while burying him at sea would not be.
Thus that would upset Islamic nations and entities.
[QUOTE=Reimu;35039048]Cremating Osama would be disrespectful to him religiously, while burying him at sea would not be.
Thus that would upset Islamic nations and entities.[/QUOTE]
I think vaguely throwing a body at large so he does not have a proper grave is already quire disrespectful on its own.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35039449]I think vaguely throwing a body at large so he does not have a proper grave is already quire disrespectful on its own.[/QUOTE]
The difference is though, one complies with Islamic religious customs, the other doesn't.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35038975]How is the way they disposed of the body such a big deal in that situation ? the point is that it's not easily findable so the place it's lying at does not become a place of pilgrimage for anyone.[/QUOTE]
It's the fact that the government are lying in the first pla-
[quote][B]mistery[/B][/quote]
Nope, not gonna continue.
iirc fox news reported false shit about chavez
I don't understand what they'd gain from cremating him over dumping him in the ocean. If anything it seems like the latter would be cheaper. Unless you take distance into account, but even then the closest place where they could safely cremate him was probably rather far away anyways.
[QUOTE=froztshock;35040018]I don't understand what they'd gain from cremating him over dumping him in the ocean. If anything it seems like the latter would be cheaper. Unless you take distance into account, but even then the closest place where they could safely cremate him was probably rather far away anyways.[/QUOTE]
they said they did it to respect muslim beliefs and to make sure nobody could somehow make his body into a martyr or so
[QUOTE=muesli23;35040083]they said they did it to respect muslim beliefs and to make sure nobody could somehow make his body into a martyr or so[/QUOTE]
Well yes but wasn't the ocean burial supposed to be the more respectful of the two?
I thought it was Wikileaks that released these files, not Anonymous?
THe fuck does Anon think they are Wikileaks now?
[QUOTE=NO ONE;35045306]THe fuck does Anon think they are Wikileaks now?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=blerb;35042391]I thought it was Wikileaks that released these files, not Anonymous?[/QUOTE]
WikiLeaks officially leaked the files.
However, according to the Guardian article, a member of LulzSec actually obtained the files. Not Anonymous.
As if anyone believes the U.S's version of events to begin with.
that obama bin ladin wouldev deserved to be burned alive!!!
[QUOTE=SammySung;35049175]As if anyone believes the U.S's version of events to begin with.[/QUOTE]
So we must trust this source instead because it's a dissenting opinion?
Please.
[editline]8th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Starpluck;35035388]Remember this?
[IMG]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/366575/DAILY-MAIL.jpg[/IMG]
It was made up.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/KCwSq2.jpg[/img]
The Daily Mail in a nutshell.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;35036111]I didn't claim that anything got confirmed.
All I'm saying is:
[B]How does that change the fact that these emails did appear in the heap of leaked mails? [/B]
That's the main point of my post.
What I'm wanting people to do is to stop shitting up threads with lines such as :
"dailymail"
"russia today"
"the sun"
"fox news"[/QUOTE]
What it changes is that all four of those newspapers are known to be the biggest pieces of propagandized bullshit. Which means anything they say is put into a massive question of authenticity, it also means that must of the time if not all, they're fucking wrong.
ooh, the VICE-PRESIDENT of STRATFOR has reservations about the official story! definitive proof of a conspiracy!
Who cares, dead is dead. The more his death offends his followers the better
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.