bin Laden dead!

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

... The thing about sending the body to Saudi is that it becomes a test for the Saudis to see what side they are on.

After spending some time in the "Tragic Kingdom" at Kobar Towers and elsewhere, I have determined what side the Saudis are on: their own.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: dogancan

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Muslims are against shrines and statues. The reason is that the people might worship these things instead of worshipping god.

partly true. only Wahabis are against shriens and statutes (i.e. al-qaeda, suudi arabia, talibans etc.).

Wahabism is a relatively new sect in sunni Islam, founded sometime in 18th century. Sponsored by Saudi Arabia, and they are by far the most fundamentalist, radical, oppressive, cruel interpretation of the Islamic texts. Not any other sect in Islam (inc. middle ages) come close to their radicalism. There WAS a shrine of the prophet of Islam there in Mecca, but Wahabis simply destroyed it.

So they are something like the Muslim Reformation?

[dogancan]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: dogancan

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Muslims are against shrines and statues. The reason is that the people might worship these things instead of worshipping god.

partly true. only Wahabis are against shriens and statutes (i.e. al-qaeda, suudi arabia, talibans etc.).

Wahabism is a relatively new sect in sunni Islam, founded sometime in 18th century. Sponsored by Saudi Arabia, and they are by far the most fundamentalist, radical, oppressive, cruel interpretation of the Islamic texts. Not any other sect in Islam (inc. middle ages) come close to their radicalism. There WAS a shrine of the prophet of Islam there in Mecca, but Wahabis simply destroyed it.

So they are something like the Muslim Reformation?

It depends on how you define "reformation". If you define reformation only as a "reinterpretation of the existing canonical texts in a new way" surely the wahabis are the reformers of Islam.

But considering the inherent libertarian and individualist connotations of the Christian reformation, I tend to think more modarete sects of Islam (such as alevism, sufism and even the gulen movement) as the 'reformists in Islam' albeit the obvious fact that most of these moderate interpretations came into existance much before the Saudi wahabism.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Zap
I don't think that is a reason. Since they have gathered up all those hard drives and other information. With that treasure- trove of information. I think many of his cohorts will be legitimately worrying. When the Usa will be coming for them?

Just to see who in Pakistan was getting paid off and how much. Apparently $3 or so billion a year wasn't going to the right places.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: dogancan

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: dogancan



partly true. only Wahabis are against shriens and statutes (i.e. al-qaeda, suudi arabia, talibans etc.).

Wahabism is a relatively new sect in sunni Islam, founded sometime in 18th century. Sponsored by Saudi Arabia, and they are by far the most fundamentalist, radical, oppressive, cruel interpretation of the Islamic texts. Not any other sect in Islam (inc. middle ages) come close to their radicalism. There WAS a shrine of the prophet of Islam there in Mecca, but Wahabis simply destroyed it.

So they are something like the Muslim Reformation?

It depends on how you define "reformation". If you define reformation only as a "reinterpretation of the existing canonical texts in a new way" surely the wahabis are the reformers of Islam.

But considering the inherent libertarian and individualist connotations of the Christian reformation, I tend to think more modarete sects of Islam (such as alevism, sufism and even the gulen movement) as the 'reformists in Islam' albeit the obvious fact that most of these moderate interpretations came into existance much before the Saudi wahabism.

I tend to see these moderate interpretations as a "corruption" of Islam similar to the "corruption" of Christianity by the Catholic church. I'd interpret "reformation" as a return to the source texts as a source of knowledge about rules of religion.
And the source texts happen to have a mass murderer, slaver, misogynist, rapist and a paedophile as the main prophet, so obviously the results of following them aren't nice.

[dogancan]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
I tend to see these moderate interpretations as a "corruption" of Islam similar to the "corruption" of Christianity by the Catholic church. I'd interpret "reformation" as a return to the source texts as a source of knowledge about rules of religion.
And the source texts happen to have a mass murderer, slaver, misogynist, rapist and a paedophile as the main prophet, so obviously the results of following them aren't nice.

I am very supportive to these moderate interpretations, but I do agree with you that it is hard (not impossible) to interpret islamic text in that way, and life of the prophet is probably the biggest obstacle in that quest.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: E

ORIGINAL: Hertston
E, I think the White House have confirmed capture was not in the plan. The objective was to find him and kill him.

News to me (surprising, and a bit morally "wrong." But not sad or disheartening in this case. More like... "happy-making - jig dancing - happy feet - sort of crazy.").

ORIGINAL: Hertston
and c) would almost certainly have not provioded adequate proof of OBL's death.

The situation, as I've heard it, is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream already.

I do not see a moral issue. The Seal team did not have time to dig a hole, bury him to his waste, and then stone him to death. That would be morally acceptable in the Muslim world?
Putting a murderer to death is not a moral dilemma? I hope. [X(]

I have Muslim friends who are already claiming that the Seals did not kill UBL. And, they won't believe it until they see the pictures. Maybe then they will claim that the photos were doctored and UBL is still alive. Heck, how much of the population of the US believe that the moon landings were faked and Oswald was one of three shooters?

Still, it is better that, than have a "martyrs" grave for the nuts to focus on?

RR

[bigbaba]

you guys should realy know whats going on in germany over the elimination of this terrorist pate.

sudenly some "human rights experts" who do not care about genocides in sudan or other huge crimes come out and critisize the killing of bin laden. typicals this guys only open their mouth when they can defend ghaddafi, bin laden&co. but never their victims.

the german mainstream critisizes USA for everything. they say that bin laden is still alive because the US did not present toe dead body. now if the US would present them the body of bin laden they would say the same what they said after saddam was captured and captured on screen by US troops. they would complain how respectless the US handels prisoners...

you see, in germany USA is always guilty whetever it does.

its realy sad that 200.000 GIs died in WW2 in europe only to allow germans today saying such nonsense about the americans.

in germany its mainstream today to discuss about the rights of criminals and to ignore their victims totaly. can you imagine that some guys nearly killed a man few days ago in the berlin subway system and were set free immidiatly by the court instead of beeing jailed until their trial begins?

[ilovestrategy]

I'm just amazed the spambots haven't commented here yet! [:D]

[simovitch]

If we had hunted down and killed OBL on September 12 2001 it would have been a wholly justifiable act. It should not be any different now.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

This is interesting,seems its Islamic tradition to be buried withen 24 hours of death so Bin Laden was given a quick funeral and buried at sea ... Why would they give him quick funeral? Why give him such luxury?[&:]

Although it's Islamic tradition to bury a body quickly, there is no precedent to bury a muslim at sea when he died on dry land.

Reportedly UBL was "eased" into the sea from the deck of a US carrier.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: dogancan

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
I tend to see these moderate interpretations as a "corruption" of Islam similar to the "corruption" of Christianity by the Catholic church. I'd interpret "reformation" as a return to the source texts as a source of knowledge about rules of religion.
And the source texts happen to have a mass murderer, slaver, misogynist, rapist and a paedophile as the main prophet, so obviously the results of following them aren't nice.

I am very supportive to these moderate interpretations, but I do agree with you that it is hard (not impossible) to interpret islamic text in that way, and life of the prophet is probably the biggest obstacle in that quest.

To be honest, to me these moderate interpretations are just a cheap cop-out. It's like, "so our religion is pure evil but we will reinterpret it so that we don't have do the evil stuff because doing evil stuff is so inconvenient".
It just lacks intellectual honesty.

The problem still remains. These moderate interpretations just provide cover for the terrorists who will exist as long as as Islam is considered a legitimate religion.
Any intelligent young Muslim may read the Koran, read the history and realise that these interpretations are wrong and join some extremist/terrorist organization.

[Erik Rutins]

Ok, we left this thread open for a while as it's a major enough event to make an exception to our normal rules, but since we've moved on from the news itself to a larger and much more controversial "debate" on current events, politics, religion, etc. it's time to lock this up. Everyone, please keep in mind our forum rules.

I'd just like to add my personal thanks to the people involved in our military, intelligence services and in our civilian government for finally tracking Bin Laden down.

Regards,

- Erik