Bin Laden -- anyone else watching this?

[GrayMatterWife]

So...what do we think about the debate over releasing the pictures of his body and the sea burial?

Kinda grim and grisly, but I understand the desire to put to rest the rumors...

But won't that also just enflame his supporters? And I have heard (correct me if I'm wrong, if anyone knows...) that sea burials for those who did not die at sea are not within the Islamic tradition and may violate a rule about burying with the head facing Mecca?

[PrincessFiona]

I have sort of held back on saying anything about this since yesterday. My feeling in general is that there isn't much to celebrate. I think we can consider this justice for the lives lost on 9/11, but beyond that I don't feel personally like celebrating. Bin Laden was very physically ill and I'm surprised he hadn't died on his own yet. He isn't the head of Alqaida anymore and hasn't been for some time. His activities have been taken over by up and coming members of the organization and terrorism as we have come to know it, will continue ... it might even be fueled. This symbolic victory is also tempered in my mind by not only the senseless deaths on 9/11 in this country, but also the innocent loss of life in the middle east that we have perpetrated in the name of the War on Terror. I am also reminded of who trained BinLaden and why ... a Hitler, for sure but ... who made sure that he was this way? If you fund mujahideen against the Soviets, you don't get to cry fowl when it is turned against you. Our CIA trained him and armed him. We, as a country played some role in the tragic loss of lives in this country. My dad says that this is irrelevent. "You dance with whomever shows up to dance." But I say that you don't get to cry when they step on your toes.

I don't have a problem with the sea burial. I have heard complaints that Islamic tradition says he be buried in the ground with his head towards Mecca. The at-sea burial is acceptable in Muslim tradition if a person dies at sea (which he didn't obviously), where cremation is unacceptable at all. I think in the efforts to prevent a shrine (which would be worshiped AND likely dessicated), the at-sea burial was a good compromise.

As far as pictures (have they released any?) - I imagine that they'll be required to put some doubts to rest. As Rapunzel said, though, the people who follow him (which, as the President reminded the world last night, are not true followers of Islam), will find fault in anything/everything. At this point it's just about proving it to the rest of his world.

I agree with that, but apparently it's been tradition for even the most heinous criminals to still receive a "Christian" burial, or whatever corresponds with their beliefs. Maybe something about being on their way to meet their God?

[GrayMatterWife]

I think it was done in an effort to be respectful, even if it wasn't Islamically correct. I'm glad we weren't deliberately awful about it. We exhibited a MUCH more charitable effort than his followers EVER made for his victims. I don't remember the terrorists being concerned about their victims' hearing the last rights, for example.

Thank goodness my husband wasn't in charge. He said he felt absolutely no obligation to ensure that an enemy had a religiously acceptable funeral. If it was up to him, he'd have cut up the body, fed it to pigs, and then threw the pigs in the ocean. A particularly Islamically insulting disposal of the body.

By "tradition"I meant US tradition, and the tradition (I assume) of countries that adhere to the Geneva Convention. Armed conflict in a civilized manner.

Being respectful shows we were better. Desecrating a body would put us at their level.

[GrayMatterWife]

Being respectful shows we were better. Desecrating a body would put us at their level.

This.

But I am trying not to be too judgmental of DH. Some anger never subsides.

[corn poffi]

I have a feeling they followed the Geneva Conventions properly, just because this whole thing seems to be so well-orchestrated. Obviously, I could be wrong since I wasn't there, but I have a feeling they were verrrrrrry careful.

[scrub-jay]

I have a feeling they followed the Geneva Conventions properly, just because this whole thing seems to be so well-orchestrated. Obviously, I could be wrong since I wasn't there, but I have a feeling they were verrrrrrry careful.

Just because it is well orchestrated doesn't make it legal.

[PrincessFiona]

Wow. I hadn't read that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DCJenn]

From msnbc.com

WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden was not armed when a U.S. Navy SEAL raiding party confronted him during an assault on his compound in Pakistan, the White House said Tuesday.

White House press secretary Jay Carney acknowledged that bin Laden did not have a weapon even though administration officials have said that bin Laden resisted during the 40-minute raid. Bin Laden was shot in the head and in the chest during the encounter, Carney said.
Carney said bin Laden's wife "rushed the U.S. assaulter" and was shot in the leg but not killed, contrary to what a White House official said on Monday, when reports said bin Laden used her as a shield.

Jenn

[PrincessFiona]

So confusing.

So how is it that Pakistan didn't *know* where bin Laden was ... He was apparently living pretty well there. Am I misinformed?

Kris

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DCJenn]

Nope- I three story mansion with 18 foot guard walls and all of the locals knew it wasn't exactly the place to go to borrow a cup of sugar...

I think they had a tacit understanding- we'll keep you here where we can keep an eye on you and you won't be found out by the Coalition forces (the Americans, specifically)

Jenn

[GrayMatterWife]

Who cares if he wasn't armed? This was not done in cold blood. This was not a situation where the SEALs stormed an unarmed home. He refused to surrender and was in a house full of people who worked for him, who opened fire on the SEALs. You don't have to be the one physically holding the gun. He presented an immediate and present danger to the lives of the SEALs. I am glad that shot him before any of our SEALs were killed by his flunkies.

It is not against international law to shoot someone in self-defense. If this wife was interfering with the SEALs' operation, she was presenting a threat to the lives of the SEAL. She was not an innocent bystander--she either rushed a SEAL or jumped in front of her husband. She picked a side and threatened the safety of the mission and the lives of the SEALs. The lady is lucky she didn't get her head blown off. She should thank her stars they exerted the minimal amount of force needed to stop her from shielding him or assaulting a SEAL or whatever it was that she was doing.

Thank god we are talking about dead and injured Bin Laden family members and cohorts, and not dead SEALs.

[diggitydot]

I agree, GMW -- he received far better than he deserved. Regardless of how things went down, I don't have a problem with dude being dead. I can't rejoice in death, but I'm not particularly sad he's gone.