Bin Laden corpse pics will be malware, says FBI This just in from the FBI's department of the bleedin' obvious: if someone emails you with pictures of Osama bin Laden's bullet-riddled corpse*, this is probably an attempt to compromise your computer rather than a public-spirited effort intended to confirm that he really is dead. According to the FBI announcement, which seems …
There are two reasons why I will not be exposed to this possible threat
The first is the obvious one of not opening attachments I'm not expecting and even if I am not opening them without first running them through a virus scanner.
The second and most important is that I have absolutely no interest in seeing a photo of anyone shot through the head.
I can think of several people I would like to see shot through the head, although now that you mention it bin laden wasn't high my list.
It is a democratic country sending hit squads out to murder people right? In that case I would like to participate in this democratic process by voting for David Cameron (and here was me thinking I would never vote for him!).
These were the only form of public entertainment allowed when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. They were public entertainment in every other country in medieaval times. No doubt these will still be popular amongst a minority everywhere. Chances are that those who want to see such things will also be too stupid to be running a secure email client on a secure host operating system.
There are "rumors" about a deviation from the standard douple-tap?
The standard is rather "shoot untill he's down", with the double plus headshot, (known as "SAS-Mozambique" to me, maybe they stole it from the SBS, I dunno) being strictly for the elites and strongly discouraged for ordinary grunts.
Grenade because that's what you do before you enter the room obviously.
What I liked best about this was the reaction of the Pakistanis when the CIA said "we didn't trust them not to leak it". Some bloke from their ministry gets on the interviews with a load of self-righteous indignation about that - and kind of skates over the point that Bin Laden was living in an army town, behind military checkpoints, within a short stroll from the country's main army training camp. Sort of suggests either incompetence or collusion, yeah?
It is a custom for him.
I guess it very much depends on the exact line of islam you follow (and im going deeper then just the Sunni/Shia divide here) and also the location your from. In a place like Afghanistan where refrigeration facilities are pretty much non-existant burying the body within 24 hours is not only a custom but a public health necessity. In the west, i imagine this is relaxed because the main reason behind the requirement (remembering Islam came from desert areas) of being a public health issue is no longer a problem.
Its the difference between Islam and christianity - in christianty the Pope (or Archbishop of Canterbury or whoever) decides what are the beliefs and rules for all followers of that branch of christianty. Islam has no centralised command structure and so each region, even each imam, can preach its own rules...
I'm not a conspiracy nutter but it's no big stretch of the imagination to wonder if the US Gov have been a bit naughty and not told us the whole truth.
They've had a few days, so they've grabbed some OBL look-a-like off the streets of some back-of-beyond shithole, stuck a bullet through his head, taken a few blurry/grainy shots of the corpse and they'll publish them as the proof. Meanwhile OBL is being gently requested to handover the info to the U.S. under torture.
FFS, we're still arguing about shootings from grassy knolls and dead film stars by the name of Marilyn, this is just another story that will run and run and provide endless cash for book publishers for years to come.
There is something about this that does stink like a rotten manx kipper...
the Americans are telling tales that he was shot dead, but was unarmed. whereas a woman ran towards them and they just "disabled" her...
What they are describing is nothing more than a government sponsored murder. Dont get me wrong, for what he is responsible for, he is not worthy to share in our oxygen.
The thing is, they had a few choices. Either capture him and make him stand trial for his crimes. which would result in his death. But in the meantime every other supporter of OBL will be kidnapping and holding hostages demanding his release, Kill him outright, or Capture him, take him off to Guantanamo Bay for "questioning" and issuing some "justice" under the pretence that he was already dead....
My money is on option 3
"take him off to Guantanamo Bay for "questioning" and issuing some "justice" under the pretence that he was already dead...."
This is simply lowering one's self to the level of those you're fighting against. Should the Allies have captured and put into extermination camps all Germans, simply because that's what they did to Jews in WWII? No. Ethics dictate that one would be held for crimes they committed and punished (executed for war crimes likely) in a humane way. Capturing a terrorist and torturing them for the sole relish of exacting some form of vengeance would make us no better than them.
I really don't care how they handled Bin Laden, just that he has finally paid the price for what he and others masterminded. As far as I am concerned, his death was too quick. Better that they push him out of a C-130 at 30,000 Feet without a chute. That would be more appropriate.
No terrorist should whine about their "treatment" when they commit the premeditated muder of thousands of truly innocent people.
As far as "Lowering ones self to the level of those you're fighting against" ; The only truth in this case is "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" and this plays into the Shariah Law "Eye for an Eye" belief structure of fundementalist Islamists.
Bin Laden got what he wanted, suicide by Seal Team. Any picture they release of his dead body won't be half as gruesome as the video of 9/11 victims leaping from the WTC towers, but hey that was "News Coverage". Have you noticed that "Fair & Balanced" network trotted that video out again so Conservaterrorists would feel righteous again.
Grenade Icon of course!
What you describe is the law of the jungle and far from any - in my opinion desirable - state of law. Good that most of our laws were not written by emotional dimwits.
It is somewhat understandable that, e.g. a soldier does act in your sense when involved in immediate, 'unreflectible' action. Psychologically, it's also somewhat understandable that people directly affected by 9/11 may have such thoughts. Although from a more distant point of view, the described actions (not the thoughts) still must be considered wrong. Taking your title a bit further, where would you draw the line? For example, last night I parked my car in a prohibited area - so I didn't recognise this respective law. Would you also drop me out at 30k? I'm glad I don't know you.
What many people fail to understand is that it is impractical if not impossible to superimpose so called "Christian Morals" on the subject of war and in particular war against terrorists.
BTW, I am far from an "emotional dimwit" thank you.
The fact is that when dealing with literal animals such as Al Qaida, the concept of "law" does not and can not apply as it would when dealing with rational human beings.
This situation comes down to as you said the Law of the Jungle, Kill or be killed, excise the cancer before it can spread and cause more harm, shoot the sick cow before the whole herd is infected.
This was no different.
The 'dimwits' was not intended for you - I apologise for the misunderstanding. It was rather a reference to some of our laws which were in fact written by emotional dimwits (and also accepted by such a lot).
I think we need to distinguish between the two situations: whether someone is facing an immediate threat or not. The first situation really may come down to kill or be killed. This applies not only to war or 'war on terrorism' but also to ordinary criminal acts. There is nothing wrong with it and the concept of law does apply here.
In the second situation, when you encounter someone who intends to cause harm on you, your country or whatever but at the very moment does not pose a threat, then there is absolutely no reason to execute such a subject. Doing so would be unlawful and must be prosecuted (drumhead court-martials should belong to a hopefully never recurring past).
I do believe that we cannot maintain a credible state of law as long as we tolerate and even encourage behaviour outside our concept of law no matter who the subject concerned is.
Again, I ask you: where do you draw the line? Quite a lot a people I've met are at least in parts irrational. Shoot 'em all? Or 'literal animals' only? (Btw, to entitle someone as an animal or something other not human is a common first step to the most inhumane treatment...)
"Nowadays [...] the initial central double-tap [...] is apparently followed by a headshot as a standard drill."
I can confirm this procedure (though only regarding a European forces). But Lewis, what do you mean with 'nowadays'? It's been almost 15 years since I was trained exactly this as the standard tactic for when you are under attack and other suitable situations. (Lucky me, I never got the chance to deploy this in real combat life.)
Take your time and check why OBL was wanted by the FBI. For the 1993 bombing of the WTC! The FBI admit that there is little or no evidence to link OBL with the attacks on 911.
Take a little bit more time and checkout all the professional and military groups who are demanding a new investigation into 911, where the only three steel-framed buildings ever to collapse due to fire did it on the same day, where 25ft wide aircraft with 48fy high tail-fins and two 6-ton engines make 16ft holes in the highly-protected (apparently) Pentagon with no video evidence.
Then ask yourself, who benefited from the aftermath of 911, and who had a lovely bogeyman they could frighten the world with?
Bogeyman eventually gets caught/killed/executed, and everyone gets a pat on the back, including Mr President.....18 months before an election.
Gerry Anderson would have been proud.
Perhaps you should take your time instead AC; the FBI wanted OBL for the embassy bombings in 1998. Not the '93 WTC attack. Why? Because the FBI had investigated both embassy bombings and produced a strong enough case to indict OBL. Revealing the results of 9/11 investigations made no sense; it risked giving away information on an active manhunt.
But hey, you're a truther (or are you "just asking questions"), so facts and evidence aren't terribly important to you.
and was shot recently in Pakistan, not died of illness in 2001. It's been confirmed by an AQ "press release", and by one of his wives who was present in the safe house at the time.
But no doubt the fraternity of the barking mad will come up with some elaborate explanation as to why AQ would want to support Obama's conspiracy ...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
