Undoubtedly, the fire at the compound was from the downed helicopter. I've seen no report that the building had any fire damage. If you look closely at the fire video, for a split second, you can see two men walking out of the building. They don't look like they're dressed as Navy Seals. I don't know what that means other than you'd think the Seals would have been in complete control of all the occupants in the compound.
A couple of things convinced me Navy Seals attacked Osama Bin Laden's compound. First, Sohaib Athar's Twitter of events taking place in real time at the compound. http://tinyurl.com/3lm8e3j <http://tinyurl.com/3lm8e3j> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700132011/Timeline-of-coverage-in-Osa\ ma-bin-Ladens-death.html Second, the intensity of the look on the faces of Obama's national security team as they watched Navy Seals attack the compound. I wonder how much of the carnage they actually witnessed. [http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/05/03/1226048/909060-03-05-20\ 11.jpg] "The mission to kill Osama Bin Laden took 40 minutes." http://tinyurl.com/3f3a9zx <http://tinyurl.com/3f3a9zx> The White House is debating whether to release photos of Osama. I hope they do. I want proof positive even if his brains are falling out of his head. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Reuters reports that Osama bin Laden's body was taken to > > > > Afghanistan after he was killed in Pakistan and was later > > > > buried at sea. [Poof! No body, no evidence.] > > > > > > No evidence? You sure about that? You really think they > > > wouldn't have kept enough of him to prove who it was? > > > > > > > So what really happened? Did the Osama's compound burn down > > > > or not? > > > > > > Did anybody say it had "burned down"? Or did they merely > > > say it was on fire? The two aren't necessarily equivalent. > > > > > > And in the videos, it appears that the fire was *in front* > > > of the building, not inside it. > > > > > > C'mon, raunchy. Don't embarrass yourself. This one's a > > > slam-dunk. > > > > > > > Osama's sister's brain has been on ice for DNA comparison with Osama for years. Also, Obama didn't want to bomb the compound so he could show a body for evidence. It certainly appears as if they're serious about proving to the world that it truly is Osama's dead body responsible for boosting Obama's polls. Unfortunately, ever since Nixon's impeachment, I've felt like Winston Smith living in Oceania, and perhaps out of habit or just plain cynicism, I'm skeptical of anything our government says or does. > > > > It makes sense to bury Osama at sea but why so quickly? I > > don't buy that it's for religious reasons. After all, they > > kept Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay's bodies around for > > several days, then buried them, then exhumed them, then > > buried them again. So much for respect of religious > > observances of the dead. > > I agree that respect for religious observance is a little > suspect. But Uday and Qusay were of nowhere near the stature > of Osama among radical Islamists; there wasn't much of a > risk of a widespread popular movement developing to make > martyrs of them and make their graves a shrine. Plus which, > the U.S. may not have had an operation in place to quickly > gather incontrovertible evidence as to their identity. Such > an operation was clearly a feature of the Osama action, > something planned well in advance. > > The U.S. just wanted to get rid of Osama as quickly as we > possibly could so that his corpse couldn't become an issue > once we had the proof it was him. > > > Also, why the fake photo? Is it just a red herring to make > > us doubt it was really Osama they killed? Surely, whoever > > produced the photo must have known someone would eventually > > prove it was a fake. > > According to the story, it came from "a video transmitted > by a TV station in Pakistan." Heaven only knows what the > motive was of whoever dunnit, but TV stations are anxious > enough for eyeballs they don't always care much about the > authenticity of what they put on the tube. I would imagine > that's even more the case in Pakistan than it is here. > Could have been the station was so eager to show that > Pakistan was in on the operation that they didn't check > out the photo, just threw it up on the screen. > > > Raw Story's video seems to show it was the compound on fire > > and not just something burning outside the building, perhaps > > from the helicopter that crashed. But still, the question > > remains, why didn't ABC report on *any* fire but simply gave > > us a video tour of the compound's interior? > > If the fire was the remains of the helicopter burning outside > the compound--which is what it looks like to me--it may have > been extinguished fairly quickly and not thought to be of much significance. > > I really don't think it makes sense to suggest that the > compound *really* burned to the ground and that the ABC > reporter filmed the inside of a different ransacked building > with blood all over the floor and then claimed it was the > Osama compound. What would be the payoff? > > Oh, and the NYTimes Web site has a photo of the compound > from the outside that doesn't show any fire damage. So it > would have to be in on the scam too. > > Bottom line, you really have to stretch to fit what we've > seen and heard into a conspiracy. That wasn't the case > with Watergate. >
