Osama Bin Ladin is no more

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Osama Bin Ladin is no more
125
Sun, 05-01-2011 - 11:09pm

And I, for one, have mixed emotions.

Jabberwocka

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-04-2010
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 1:36pm
What do you think they should have done with his body instead?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-09-2001
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 1:40pm
Good riddance! About time!


Blessings,

Gypsy

)O(



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 1:55pm

I think they should have invited journalists to see it. Get video footage from reputable organizations with high journalistic standards who do NOT practice Photoshopping or other software forms of image editing. The SEALS could also have helicoptered his body to land and buried it without marking.

For me, the fitting burial would have been at Ground Zero. With a black plinth to commemorate his black heart--and a spittoon for those who wished to express their emotions with something more than verbal contempt.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2009
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 1:58pm

Not sure about him being unrecognizable after being shot twice in the head.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2009
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 2:02pm

Bury him at Ground Zero?

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-12-2004
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 2:17pm

It was not the burial at sea that was following Muslim tradition, but the prompt burial. Muslims, like Jews, do not believe in embalming, and, therefore, bury their dead quite promptly, usually within 24 hours (that's why you'll often see funeral processions on the same day as the protesters are killed in some of the ongoing strife in the Middle East).

According to reports I've seen, after the action was complete, the U.S. took custody of the body and moved it to a near-by aircraft carrier. The U.S. then sought to find some Muslim country that would take it for burial, and no country agreed. I'm guessing they were worried about the problem of creating a memorial, and an unmarked grave probably would not have been practical. Anyway, when they couldn't find a spot on land, the Navy decided to bury him at sea, in a Muslim ceremony where a Muslim sailor said all the right prayers. Why did they do this? Well, the U.S. didn't want to be disrespectful of the body in death, because this could have inflamed Muslims who had no use for bin Laden but still wanted to see respect for Muslim tradition. In the absence of this resepect, it would have fed the

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 2:42pm
It would have been controversial and perhaps painful for some--I understand that. But to my mind, there's a certain cosmic justice in burying the dead wolf near the lambs he slayed.

Point is moot.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 3:06pm

If one is truly concerned about following protocols imposed by religion, the urgency for a speedy burial

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2009
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 3:16pm

You'd put him in

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2009
Mon, 05-02-2011 - 3:23pm
We have no duty to protect his body. I hope the fishes have already eaten him up.

As to having an unmarked grave where he can be disinterred over and over again, not necessary. If people don't believe the DNA tests now, why would they believe it was really him in the grave and that new DNA tests would prove that?

 

Pages