Bin Laden is DEAD, thread from Hell

[Wicked Jester]

I've addressed the situation plenty. I don't answer to your delusions, sorry.

OFFICIAL TRANSLATION:

Yeah, I know we are stone cold hypocrites. But we'll never admit it. If Bush had gone in using intel gleened partially through Waterboarding, we would definitely have been cackling like caged hens. Sure, we would have celebrated OBL's death, and then called for Bush's head......And yes Jarhead, I understand you're pointing out our typical loony liberal hypocrisy but, This is Obama. It's different. He farts rose scented fairy dust, while shitting ribbons of lilac infused rainbows. Now, back off!

END OF OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Personally, I'd give as many props to Bush as to Obama. This is a good thing for America, not for one particular party.

They both deserve a handshake for a job well done.

Those CIA and SEAL team members deserve some serious leave time, in the paradise of their choice, with all the women and beer they may desire.

'cause we all know that they'll be back doing what they do best. Taking it to the enemy without mercy.

 

[Spoonman]

I don't recall Bush doing anything of the sort. More's the pity.

lol...
Divert Divert Divert....

Are you afraid to debate?
Are you afraid to be exposed as a hypocrite?

Lets make this easy....

What was your complaint about Bush and the Iraq war?

Saddam was contained and had no power to hurt us. The war was a waste of lives and money.

Killing bin laden, not at all.

The issue with saddam was never about what HE could do to us but rather what tools he could supply to others who would do something to us. Saddam always made it appear he had more than he actually did have and his failure to allow inspectors in enhanced that perception. Prior to Bush all you ever heard from the Clinton Admin was the threat of Saddam and WMD's. He had the same intelleigence Bush had. Provided by the UK mostly and Clinton and Blair were very close.

 

[Sheldon]

Saddam was contained and had no power to hurt us.

Say, Bush ordered the CAPTURE rather than the Assassination of Sadam - but Obama ordered that Obama be killed on sight with no quarter given or surrender accepted.

Those two situations aren't the same though. Saddam was a recognized leader of a state, in charge of a state military with an identifiable insignia, etc, who clearly surrendered. Pretty sure that ordering his targeted assassination would have been a violation of the Geneva Conventions. ObL was a non-state actor with an enemy combatant designation who operated beyond state boundaries. Even though there have been some legal questions about targeted assassinations against that classification, the consensus seems to be that it's okay given a strict set of standards. And I'm pretty sure ObL and a lot of other al-Qaeda types were in this classification during Bush's term as well. I have a hard time believing Bush wouldn't have done the same as Obama in this situation.

Now are you going to quote this and call me a mentally-challenged liberal fascist hypocrite or something to that effect? That act is getting kind of old.

 

[Jarhead]

Saddam was contained and had no power to hurt us.

Say, Bush ordered the CAPTURE rather than the Assassination of Sadam - but Obama ordered that Obama be killed on sight with no quarter given or surrender accepted.

Those two situations aren't the same though. Saddam was a recognized leader of a state, in charge of a state military with an identifiable insignia, etc, who clearly surrendered. Pretty sure that ordering his targeted assassination would have been a violation of the Geneva Conventions. ObL was a non-state actor with an enemy combatant designation who operated beyond state boundaries. Even though there have been some legal questions about targeted assassinations against that classification, the consensus seems to be that it's okay given a strict set of standards. And I'm pretty sure ObL and a lot of other al-Qaeda types were in this classification during Bush's term as well. I have a hard time believing Bush wouldn't have done the same as Obama in this situation.

Now are you going to quote this and call me a mentally-challenged liberal fascist hypocrite or something to that effect? That act is getting kind of old.

Actually...you liberal fascist hypocrite...I agree with you.

What Obama did I support 100%.

My beef is with those that supported Obama doing what he did, but blasted Bush for doing what he did.

I supported both as both took action they beleived was in the best interest oif the US based on the intel they had to work with.

 

[Ravi]

Saddam was contained and had no power to hurt us.

Say, Bush ordered the CAPTURE rather than the Assassination of Sadam - but Obama ordered that Obama be killed on sight with no quarter given or surrender accepted.

Those two situations aren't the same though. Saddam was a recognized leader of a state, in charge of a state military with an identifiable insignia, etc, who clearly surrendered. Pretty sure that ordering his targeted assassination would have been a violation of the Geneva Conventions. ObL was a non-state actor with an enemy combatant designation who operated beyond state boundaries. Even though there have been some legal questions about targeted assassinations against that classification, the consensus seems to be that it's okay given a strict set of standards. And I'm pretty sure ObL and a lot of other al-Qaeda types were in this classification during Bush's term as well. I have a hard time believing Bush wouldn't have done the same as Obama in this situation.

Now are you going to quote this and call me a mentally-challenged liberal fascist hypocrite or something to that effect? That act is getting kind of old.

Your last two sentences are pretty much why I don't bother responding to the dork.

 

[Jarhead]

Say, Bush ordered the CAPTURE rather than the Assassination of Sadam - but Obama ordered that Obama be killed on sight with no quarter given or surrender accepted.

Those two situations aren't the same though. Saddam was a recognized leader of a state, in charge of a state military with an identifiable insignia, etc, who clearly surrendered. Pretty sure that ordering his targeted assassination would have been a violation of the Geneva Conventions. ObL was a non-state actor with an enemy combatant designation who operated beyond state boundaries. Even though there have been some legal questions about targeted assassinations against that classification, the consensus seems to be that it's okay given a strict set of standards. And I'm pretty sure ObL and a lot of other al-Qaeda types were in this classification during Bush's term as well. I have a hard time believing Bush wouldn't have done the same as Obama in this situation.

Now are you going to quote this and call me a mentally-challenged liberal fascist hypocrite or something to that effect? That act is getting kind of old.

Your last two sentences are pretty much why I don't bother responding to the dork.

And your excuse for not answering my question of...

"So your beef with the Iraq war was that the intel was wrong?"

Forget the excuse for not answering it....just answer it please.

 

[Ravi]

Those two situations aren't the same though. Saddam was a recognized leader of a state, in charge of a state military with an identifiable insignia, etc, who clearly surrendered. Pretty sure that ordering his targeted assassination would have been a violation of the Geneva Conventions. ObL was a non-state actor with an enemy combatant designation who operated beyond state boundaries. Even though there have been some legal questions about targeted assassinations against that classification, the consensus seems to be that it's okay given a strict set of standards. And I'm pretty sure ObL and a lot of other al-Qaeda types were in this classification during Bush's term as well. I have a hard time believing Bush wouldn't have done the same as Obama in this situation.

Now are you going to quote this and call me a mentally-challenged liberal fascist hypocrite or something to that effect? That act is getting kind of old.

Your last two sentences are pretty much why I don't bother responding to the dork.

And your excuse for not answering my question of...

"So your beef with the Iraq war was that the intel was wrong?"

Forget the excuse for not answering it....just answer it please.

I did. It is not my problem that you have trouble with your eyes. This isn't the first time you've claimed I didn't answer something when I did.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Say, Bush ordered the CAPTURE rather than the Assassination of Sadam - but Obama ordered that Obama be killed on sight with no quarter given or surrender accepted.

Those two situations aren't the same though. Saddam was a recognized leader of a state, in charge of a state military with an identifiable insignia, etc, who clearly surrendered. Pretty sure that ordering his targeted assassination would have been a violation of the Geneva Conventions. ObL was a non-state actor with an enemy combatant designation who operated beyond state boundaries. Even though there have been some legal questions about targeted assassinations against that classification, the consensus seems to be that it's okay given a strict set of standards. And I'm pretty sure ObL and a lot of other al-Qaeda types were in this classification during Bush's term as well. I have a hard time believing Bush wouldn't have done the same as Obama in this situation.

Now are you going to quote this and call me a mentally-challenged liberal fascist hypocrite or something to that effect? That act is getting kind of old.

Your last two sentences are pretty much why I don't bother responding to the dork.

You won't respond because he backed you and several others into a corner you can't escape from.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Your last two sentences are pretty much why I don't bother responding to the dork.

And your excuse for not answering my question of...

"So your beef with the Iraq war was that the intel was wrong?"

Forget the excuse for not answering it....just answer it please.

I did. It is not my problem that you have trouble with your eyes. This isn't the first time you've claimed I didn't answer something when I did.

Noooooooo, you didn't answer Jack Shit.

You simply diverted with your usual snarky bullshit.

 

[idb]

Are you making a serious argument or not?

{The SEALs' decision to fatally shoot bin Laden -- even though he didn't have a weapon — wasn't an accident. The administration had made clear to the military's clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive.}

For Obama, killing — not capturing — bin Laden was goal - Yahoo! News

Obama ordered the assassination of Bin Laden, not the apprehension nor capture. In doing so, he violated EO 11905 "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination." and EO 12333 as well as the Geneva convention.

These are all facts. Obama blatantly violated both domestic and international law.

That is an irrefutable fact.

Good for him. The type of war and enemy we face fairly demand these kinds of acts. Obama acted EXACTLY like Bush in this instance - again, good for him.

The difference is the reaction of the shameful democratic party and the corrupt press, who spent YEARS demagoguing against Bush for the same acts but praise Obama. An apology to Bush is in order.

What makes it a political assassination?
The guy was a terrorist - not affiliated to any country, let alone government.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Those two situations aren't the same though. Saddam was a recognized leader of a state, in charge of a state military with an identifiable insignia, etc, who clearly surrendered. Pretty sure that ordering his targeted assassination would have been a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Of course, just as ordering the assassination of Bin Laden was a violation of the Geneva Conventions and of US Law.

That's kind of my point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your last two sentences are pretty much why I don't bother responding to the dork.

Well that, plus the fact that you have a sub-80 IQ and get trashed every time you engage me...

 

[Uncensored2008]

What makes it a political assassination?

The killing by agents of the state of a political figure.

The guy was a terrorist - not affiliated to any country, let alone government.

Irrelevant. Bin Laden was a MAJOR political figure.

Once again, let me iterate that I approve of and support killing the sack of shit. My point is that Obama has violated the law in pursuing the war on terror EXACTLY as Bush did - Bush who the fascist left claim is a "war criminal" and want tried at the Hague.

It's the ******* hypocrisy. The left has VASTLY different rules and standards for Obama than were applied to Bush.

Own it.

 

[Valerie]

lol...
Divert Divert Divert....

Are you afraid to debate?
Are you afraid to be exposed as a hypocrite?

Lets make this easy....

What was your complaint about Bush and the Iraq war?

Saddam was contained and had no power to hurt us. The war was a waste of lives and money.

Killing bin laden, not at all.

The issue with saddam was never about what HE could do to us but rather what tools he could supply to others who would do something to us. Saddam always made it appear he had more than he actually did have and his failure to allow inspectors in enhanced that perception. Prior to Bush all you ever heard from the Clinton Admin was the threat of Saddam and WMD's. He had the same intelleigence Bush had. Provided by the UK mostly and Clinton and Blair were very close.

Yes, Saddam continued to thumb his nose at inspectors after 9/11 which just became unacceptable especially with the intel they had about WMD at the time... Also, Bush had an itchy trigger finger when it came to Saddam and all that oil.

 

[bodecea]

Your last two sentences are pretty much why I don't bother responding to the dork.

Well that, plus the fact that you have a sub-80 IQ and get trashed every time you engage me...

Made her point right there.

 

[boedicca]

Those two situations aren't the same though. Saddam was a recognized leader of a state, in charge of a state military with an identifiable insignia, etc, who clearly surrendered. Pretty sure that ordering his targeted assassination would have been a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Of course, just as ordering the assassination of Bin Laden was a violation of the Geneva Conventions and of US Law.

That's kind of my point.

And it's a bogus point.

The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists.

 

[bodecea]

Those two situations aren't the same though. Saddam was a recognized leader of a state, in charge of a state military with an identifiable insignia, etc, who clearly surrendered. Pretty sure that ordering his targeted assassination would have been a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Of course, just as ordering the assassination of Bin Laden was a violation of the Geneva Conventions and of US Law.

That's kind of my point.

And it's a bogus point.

The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists.

Oh dear....now you've done it, Cuz.

 

[CountofTuscany]

Saddam was contained and had no power to hurt us. The war was a waste of lives and money.

Killing bin laden, not at all.

The issue with saddam was never about what HE could do to us but rather what tools he could supply to others who would do something to us. Saddam always made it appear he had more than he actually did have and his failure to allow inspectors in enhanced that perception. Prior to Bush all you ever heard from the Clinton Admin was the threat of Saddam and WMD's. He had the same intelleigence Bush had. Provided by the UK mostly and Clinton and Blair were very close.

Yes, Saddam continued to thumb his nose at inspectors after 9/11 which just became unacceptable especially with the intel they had about WMD at the time... Also, Bush had an itchy trigger finger when it came to Saddam and all that oil.

A very interesting point. Less that 2% of Iraq's oil production flows to the US. None of it was ever controlled by GWB.

 

[syrenn]

Now i will never be able to catch up! just saying!

 

[Valerie]

The issue with saddam was never about what HE could do to us but rather what tools he could supply to others who would do something to us. Saddam always made it appear he had more than he actually did have and his failure to allow inspectors in enhanced that perception. Prior to Bush all you ever heard from the Clinton Admin was the threat of Saddam and WMD's. He had the same intelleigence Bush had. Provided by the UK mostly and Clinton and Blair were very close.

Yes, Saddam continued to thumb his nose at inspectors after 9/11 which just became unacceptable especially with the intel they had about WMD at the time... Also, Bush had an itchy trigger finger when it came to Saddam and all that oil.

A very interesting point. Less that 2% of Iraq's oil production flows to the US. None of it was ever controlled by GWB.

You think I'm going to do your homework for you? 2% of what subject to what vs what what? WUT?