gotta pay to maintain it. Like people complain the royal family gets tons of tax payer money but they also rake in tons of tourist dollars stonehenge wouldn't get as much traffic if the grass was overgrown and the ground was covered in old cans and bottles.
15:30 Supposedly burial at sea is permissible in Muslim culture. I don't remember the specifics but it has to be within a certain amount of time after death, and the ocean is a good place to chuck the corpse And they supposedly did it to adhere to his religion. Supposedly.
They charge at Stonehenge because of maintenance and especially safeguarding. Nobody would want to go to Stonehenge if it were shrouded by tall grass weeds and vines, and especially not if tourists littered trash everywhere and vandalized it. Also they did not deconstruct that bridge John showed, that is called tower bridge, and is often called London bridge by mistake. While a London bridge, which there are many of that have that name, was moved brick by brick to Arizona, it was not that historic bridge, there would’ve been riots if that happened.
On the thing about Osama's body being buried at sea, there were a few of reasons for it (if we ignore the conspiracy theory stuff). 1) Considering his fame, any kind of actual tomb/burial place he was known to be laid to rest was highly likely to become a shrine to like-minded people and potentially inspiration for them. Burying him at sea ensures that he is laid to rest but also not readily recovered, or at a site that will readily attract "pilgrims" interested in his ideals. Consider what kind of interest the graves/tombs of celebrities or major political figures garner, and then extrapolate that into what kind of interest a terrorist figurehead would garner. It seems like a legitimate concern. 2) If his body was repatriated anywhere, there was the potential that any sort of funeral/memorial services could turn into recruiting propaganda for organizations of the sort he supported. 3) Given the intense interest around him, there was a high likelihood there would have been international media interest - not just reporting the event, but wanting to show juicy details. Unveiling him in any capacity, like some kind of grotesque trophy, would have been the height of tackiness, and no matter how it was handled someone was going to be outraged. 4) The circumstances of his death were not exactly clean or peaceful, and there's a strong likelihood that anyone either strongly sympathetic to Osama bin-Laden or just with an axe to grind with United States might have tried to spin things in a way to emphasize how "cruel and wicked" the US is after seeing its condition. While it's one thing to read about what a person's injuries were, it's another thing to see them. On top of that, between decomposition and the fact even small, inconsequential injuries to the human body can look really bad (even IF you know what you're looking at), it was an easy way to spin the end results of the raid in a negative way for the US. Even if claims were made that were untrue, a lot of political capital would need to be spent by the government trying to dismiss them, and anyone already not inclined to believe the US government would just disregard any reasonable explanation anyway to fit their own perceptions. So as much as the decision can be questioned and raise it own conspiracy theory rumors, it seems like it was a decision made to try and mitigate larger controversy.
I see where you’re coming from, but we still could’ve seen some pictures, or video of his body before they decided to feed some sharks. They could’ve even cleaned his face up a little before doing so. So there’s no _so_ much gore. I think a little disclaimer beforehand would be enough.
Thats how you handle being different is to not let it get to you be it words ect, bec i know one group for example who can't control themselves when someone else utters a single word.
They only started charging stonehenge once idiots started acting like fools, pissing on the stones, and vandalizing stuff. The fee is basically for driving those types away, cleaning, and maintaining the area around it.
"is that real" I surely hope you're not referring to the joke about them taking it apart and rebuilding it in Arizona cus if you're referring to that....Holy shit
I think they threw him in the ocean so his remains couldn’t be recovered and his followers/contemporaries couldn’t deify his corpse.
Indeed.
gotta pay to maintain it. Like people complain the royal family gets tons of tax payer money but they also rake in tons of tourist dollars stonehenge wouldn't get as much traffic if the grass was overgrown and the ground was covered in old cans and bottles.
That tracks I guess
15:30
Supposedly burial at sea is permissible in Muslim culture. I don't remember the specifics but it has to be within a certain amount of time after death, and the ocean is a good place to chuck the corpse
And they supposedly did it to adhere to his religion. Supposedly.
They charge at Stonehenge because of maintenance and especially safeguarding. Nobody would want to go to Stonehenge if it were shrouded by tall grass weeds and vines, and especially not if tourists littered trash everywhere and vandalized it.
Also they did not deconstruct that bridge John showed, that is called tower bridge, and is often called London bridge by mistake. While a London bridge, which there are many of that have that name, was moved brick by brick to Arizona, it was not that historic bridge, there would’ve been riots if that happened.
ooooh. I see. Thanks for the correction
On the thing about Osama's body being buried at sea, there were a few of reasons for it (if we ignore the conspiracy theory stuff).
1) Considering his fame, any kind of actual tomb/burial place he was known to be laid to rest was highly likely to become a shrine to like-minded people and potentially inspiration for them. Burying him at sea ensures that he is laid to rest but also not readily recovered, or at a site that will readily attract "pilgrims" interested in his ideals.
Consider what kind of interest the graves/tombs of celebrities or major political figures garner, and then extrapolate that into what kind of interest a terrorist figurehead would garner. It seems like a legitimate concern.
2) If his body was repatriated anywhere, there was the potential that any sort of funeral/memorial services could turn into recruiting propaganda for organizations of the sort he supported.
3) Given the intense interest around him, there was a high likelihood there would have been international media interest - not just reporting the event, but wanting to show juicy details. Unveiling him in any capacity, like some kind of grotesque trophy, would have been the height of tackiness, and no matter how it was handled someone was going to be outraged.
4) The circumstances of his death were not exactly clean or peaceful, and there's a strong likelihood that anyone either strongly sympathetic to Osama bin-Laden or just with an axe to grind with United States might have tried to spin things in a way to emphasize how "cruel and wicked" the US is after seeing its condition. While it's one thing to read about what a person's injuries were, it's another thing to see them.
On top of that, between decomposition and the fact even small, inconsequential injuries to the human body can look really bad (even IF you know what you're looking at), it was an easy way to spin the end results of the raid in a negative way for the US. Even if claims were made that were untrue, a lot of political capital would need to be spent by the government trying to dismiss them, and anyone already not inclined to believe the US government would just disregard any reasonable explanation anyway to fit their own perceptions.
So as much as the decision can be questioned and raise it own conspiracy theory rumors, it seems like it was a decision made to try and mitigate larger controversy.
Good explanation and breakdown. Thanks
Tbf some of them could be trophy hunters
I see where you’re coming from, but we still could’ve seen some pictures, or video of his body before they decided to feed some sharks. They could’ve even cleaned his face up a little before doing so. So there’s no _so_ much gore. I think a little disclaimer beforehand would be enough.
@@himwhoisnottobenamed5427 yeah i dont think cleaning up his face wouldve hid the multiple bullet wounds to his cranium lol
10:51
lmao
Close, but I think you mean Celine Dion
Thats how you handle being different is to not let it get to you be it words ect, bec i know one group for example who can't control themselves when someone else utters a single word.
I think it's the first 8-15 seconds or something where you can't swear, you were well past that lol
They only started charging stonehenge once idiots started acting like fools, pissing on the stones, and vandalizing stuff. The fee is basically for driving those types away, cleaning, and maintaining the area around it.
6:47 "Chicago" is in the search history.
Edit: xd, they just mention Chicago afterwards anyway
Kira, I’m glad you’re back. Missed you.
Putting the body out to sea is meant to prevent their gravesite for becoming a symbol of martyrdom for their followers, Hitler was the same way.
Kira could really rock a Jill Valentine Resident Evil 3 cosplay.
Shame the guest in this video died recently. I think they said he choked on a pizza, had a seizure and died.
get Kira & Kit back in a video together
Attack on titan when. 😮
Girls love realms
"is that real" I surely hope you're not referring to the joke about them taking it apart and rebuilding it in Arizona cus if you're referring to that....Holy shit
I dont know what to comment
But we appreciate that you did anyway!