Bin Laden is DEAD, thread from Hell

[Spoonman]

People who either favor or continue to vote for politicians who will attack countries for a reason other than defense.

like obama attacked libya?

Yes exactly like that.

For some reason you assumed I'm a democrat, I've never voted for a single democrat in my entire life.

did you ever vote?

 

[Dr.Drock]

i guess it softened him up a bit. of course it worked right away on the other guy.

I see, here's how it went in your mind;

1.) He was waterboarded, didn't give up the information.
2.) Months later he gave up the information, under standard interrogation.
3.) Credit goes to when he was waterboarded.


I've never understood why people in society view it as a negative to admit when they're wrong. Just say it, it's a GOOD thing to do, I'm not going to say "haha I showed you, I win!"

Mr King, the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, told host Bill O'Reilly "we obtained that information [about the courier] through waterboarding".

"So for those who say that waterboarding doesn't work ... we got vital information which directly led us to bin Laden," he said.

"It came from an overseas prison where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was interrogated and waterboarding was used. KSM gave us the first lead."

Thank god for bush era intelligence and techniques.

Peter King claims key bin Laden information came through waterboarding | Courier Mail

See there you go, you at least read your link this time. Of course Bill O'Reilly is going to put someone on who says it directly led to the information they received, despite MONTHS and MONTHS passing before he gave up the information post-waterboarding.

By the way, I'm going to eat a ham sandwich for lunch today because I didn't eat one christmas morning.

 

[tigerbob]

At heart 95% of democrats and republicans are warmongers, they just want their guy to be the one doing the killing.

Can we get your definition of a warmonger?

People who either favor or continue to vote for politicians who will attack countries for a reason other than defense.

Hmmmm. Well, I'd never considered myself as a warmonger but, by that narrow distinction, I probably am and your 95% figure sounds about right.

 

[Dr.Drock]

like obama attacked libya?

Yes exactly like that.

For some reason you assumed I'm a democrat, I've never voted for a single democrat in my entire life.

did you ever vote?

Your posts are a lot better when you resist the urge to post a childish insult.

Yes, your assumption was wrong, hence you were wrong again within a handful of posts.

I'm anti-war, so I don't vote for politicians who are pro-war, I stick to my principles.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Can we get your definition of a warmonger?

People who either favor or continue to vote for politicians who will attack countries for a reason other than defense.

Hmmmm. Well, I'd never considered myself as a warmonger but, by that narrow distinction, I probably am and your 95% figure sounds about right.

How is that narrow? A politician warmongers and you respond by voting for him.


Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Spoonman]

Yes exactly like that.

For some reason you assumed I'm a democrat, I've never voted for a single democrat in my entire life.

did you ever vote?

Your posts are a lot better when you resist the urge to post a childish insult.

Yes, your assumption was wrong, hence you were wrong again within a handful of posts.

I'm anti-war, so I don't vote for politicians who are pro-war, I stick to my principles.

no no, I mean did you ever vote for a president. I'm not talking about your favorite American Idol contestant or something

 

[Dr.Drock]

did you ever vote?

Your posts are a lot better when you resist the urge to post a childish insult.

Yes, your assumption was wrong, hence you were wrong again within a handful of posts.

I'm anti-war, so I don't vote for politicians who are pro-war, I stick to my principles.

no no, I mean did you ever vote for a president. I'm not talking about your favorite American Idol contestant or something

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[tigerbob]

People who either favor or continue to vote for politicians who will attack countries for a reason other than defense.

Hmmmm. Well, I'd never considered myself as a warmonger but, by that narrow distinction, I probably am and your 95% figure sounds about right.

How is that narrow? A politician warmongers and you respond by voting for him.


Seems pretty simple to me.

Well, I'm glad it seems simple to you but I don't see anything simple in turning your back on people in other countries who are crying out for help, using a "Tough shit pal, it's not us being attacked" rationale.

Being prepared to come to the defense of the defenseless is not, IMO warmongering.

Not so simple in my view, which is why I consider your definition to be narrow.

 

[tigerbob]

People who either favor or continue to vote for politicians who will attack countries for a reason other than defense.

Hmmmm. Well, I'd never considered myself as a warmonger but, by that narrow distinction, I probably am and your 95% figure sounds about right.

How is that narrow? A politician warmongers and you respond by voting for him.


Seems pretty simple to me.

And, BTW, I don't vote for someone based solely on his or her position with regard to foreign policy. Your "simple" is my "simplistic".

 

[slukasiewski]

And thank God for good old American torture !!

Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, detainees in the CIA's secret prison network told interrogators about an important courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who was close to bin Laden. After the CIA captured al-Qaida's No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he confirmed knowing al-Kuwaiti but denied he had anything to do with al-Qaida.

Then in 2004, top al-Qaida operative Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq. Ghul told the CIA that al-Kuwaiti was a courier, someone crucial to the terrorist organization. In particular, Ghul said, the courier was close to Faraj al-Libi, who replaced Mohammed as al-Qaida's operational commander. It was a key break in the hunt for in bin Laden's personal courier.

"Hassan Ghul was the linchpin," a U.S. official said.

Phone call by Kuwaiti courier led to bin Laden - Yahoo! News

 

[Spoonman]

Hmmmm. Well, I'd never considered myself as a warmonger but, by that narrow distinction, I probably am and your 95% figure sounds about right.

How is that narrow? A politician warmongers and you respond by voting for him.


Seems pretty simple to me.

And, BTW, I don't vote for someone based solely on his or her position with regard to foreign policy. Your "simple" is my "simplistic".

if you admit you're wrong he might rep you

 

[George Costanza]

I have to say this, and I will - secure that it is buried in a huge, Mega-Thread so nobody will ever notice it . . .

I thought we didn't take out individuals. We capture them, we try them, we execute or imprison them - but we do not just send our troops on a surgical mission to kill them.

When Saddam crawled out of his hole in the ground, no one shot him. Hitler died by his own hand. As I understand it, one of the main reasons we don't take out foreign bad guys we don't like, is that we don't want them doing the same thing to our leaders.

So what's with the killing of Bin Laden? It doesn't look to me like those boys were going in there to capture him. Looks to me like they went in to do exactly what they did. It is CLAIMED he refused to surrender. It is CLAIMED he fought back. Maybe. Maybe not. Our government has been know to shade the truth a bit when it serves its own interests to do so.

I am glad the monster is dead. But I question the way in which that was brought about.

OK - let the flaming begin . . . .

 

[tigerbob]

I have to say this, and I will - secure that it is buried in a huge, Mega-Thread so nobody will ever notice it . . .

I thought we didn't take out individuals. We capture them, we try them, we execute or imprison them - but we do not just send our troops on a surgical mission to kill them.

When Saddam crawled out of his hole in the ground, no one shot him. Hitler died by his own hand. As I understand it, one of the main reasons we don't take out foreign bad guys we don't like, is that we don't want them doing the same thing to our leaders.

So what's with the killing of Bin Laden? It doesn't look to me like those boys were going in there to capture him. Looks to me like they went in to do exactly what they did. It is CLAIMED he refused to surrender. It is CLAIMED he fought back. Maybe. Maybe not. Our government has been know to shade the truth a bit when it serves its own interests to do so.

I am glad the monster is dead. But I question the way in which that was brought about.

OK - let the flaming begin . . . .

Quite reasonable observations. I was under the impression that a "dead or alive" position had been in place for some years, but I may be wrong. Either way, if there was any threat to the safety of the SEAL team members I have no problem with a shoot to kill policy.

 

[Spoonman]

I have to say this, and I will - secure that it is buried in a huge, Mega-Thread so nobody will ever notice it . . .

I thought we didn't take out individuals. We capture them, we try them, we execute or imprison them - but we do not just send our troops on a surgical mission to kill them.

When Saddam crawled out of his hole in the ground, no one shot him. Hitler died by his own hand. As I understand it, one of the main reasons we don't take out foreign bad guys we don't like, is that we don't want them doing the same thing to our leaders.

So what's with the killing of Bin Laden? It doesn't look to me like those boys were going in there to capture him. Looks to me like they went in to do exactly what they did. It is CLAIMED he refused to surrender. It is CLAIMED he fought back. Maybe. Maybe not. Our government has been know to shade the truth a bit when it serves its own interests to do so.

I am glad the monster is dead. But I question the way in which that was brought about.

OK - let the flaming begin . . . .

i wish i had a rep, but i'll remember this post later

 

[gautama]

At least President Obama kept his eye on the true target.

THANK YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!

**** Marxist Obama, the Community organizer, i.e., the Monumental Fraud who rose thru the ranks of the notorious Chicago Political machine laden with Commies and Mafiosos where even a dog catcher can't get elected without the OK of the Top Crooks in that Political Machine.

Sunday's action really upset you, didn't it?

If you can misread my contempt for Obami Salaami for the fact that he is a Monumental Fraud, and an immense danger to America than any other President past or probably future as some sort of an idiotic conclusion that I am not rejoicing re the death of that Terrorist whackjob Bin laden you are more of a whcked-out lesbian Freako than I thought you are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is.

It's moving slowly, but has been on a steady rise for some time now.

The economy is in decline. The anemic recovery has stagnated and out of control fuel costs will plunge the US back into recession. In fact, we are already in recession - the numbers are lagging but we are in a recession.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have to say this, and I will - secure that it is buried in a huge, Mega-Thread so nobody will ever notice it . . .

I thought we didn't take out individuals. We capture them, we try them, we execute or imprison them - but we do not just send our troops on a surgical mission to kill them.

When Saddam crawled out of his hole in the ground, no one shot him. Hitler died by his own hand. As I understand it, one of the main reasons we don't take out foreign bad guys we don't like, is that we don't want them doing the same thing to our leaders.

So what's with the killing of Bin Laden? It doesn't look to me like those boys were going in there to capture him. Looks to me like they went in to do exactly what they did. It is CLAIMED he refused to surrender. It is CLAIMED he fought back. Maybe. Maybe not. Our government has been know to shade the truth a bit when it serves its own interests to do so.

I am glad the monster is dead. But I question the way in which that was brought about.

OK - let the flaming begin . . . .

Bin Laden can be considered to have been a high ranking officer in a military or para-military organization at war with the United States, or, he can be considered a common criminal who committed crimes against the US and our people. Or some of both.

So we get to either apprehend him as criminal suspect or shoot him as an enemy combatant.

 

[Sheldon]

I have to say this, and I will - secure that it is buried in a huge, Mega-Thread so nobody will ever notice it . . .

I thought we didn't take out individuals. We capture them, we try them, we execute or imprison them - but we do not just send our troops on a surgical mission to kill them.

When Saddam crawled out of his hole in the ground, no one shot him. Hitler died by his own hand. As I understand it, one of the main reasons we don't take out foreign bad guys we don't like, is that we don't want them doing the same thing to our leaders.

So what's with the killing of Bin Laden? It doesn't look to me like those boys were going in there to capture him. Looks to me like they went in to do exactly what they did. It is CLAIMED he refused to surrender. It is CLAIMED he fought back. Maybe. Maybe not. Our government has been know to shade the truth a bit when it serves its own interests to do so.

I am glad the monster is dead. But I question the way in which that was brought about.

OK - let the flaming begin . . . .

That post is worth its own thread.

But I'm not really buying it.

If Hitler was blasting his Luger at the Rooski soldiers, I'm sure they'd shoot back. If Saddam crawled out of that hole spraying an AK-47 at our troops, I'm sure they'd shoot back.

As far as the killing of ObL my speculation, and that's all it is, is that the preference would be to capture him alive in order to try and get whatever intel you could from him. The guy would know a lot, maybe some stuff that wasn't on the captured hard-drives, so you could at least try. Shooting him on site instead of apprehending him tells me he was putting the SEALS in danger. I just have a hard time seeing a religious fanatic like him surrendering to The Great Satan; in his eyes it probably would have been a slap in the face to Allah for him to give up without a fight against American troops.

But there's gray area and I think only a handful of people on this planet will every truly know and understand what exactly went down in those moments.

One things for sure. I wish I was in that room watching the live feed!

 

[Robert]

I have to say this, and I will - secure that it is buried in a huge, Mega-Thread so nobody will ever notice it . . .

I thought we didn't take out individuals. We capture them, we try them, we execute or imprison them - but we do not just send our troops on a surgical mission to kill them.

When Saddam crawled out of his hole in the ground, no one shot him. Hitler died by his own hand. As I understand it, one of the main reasons we don't take out foreign bad guys we don't like, is that we don't want them doing the same thing to our leaders.

So what's with the killing of Bin Laden? It doesn't look to me like those boys were going in there to capture him. Looks to me like they went in to do exactly what they did. It is CLAIMED he refused to surrender. It is CLAIMED he fought back. Maybe. Maybe not. Our government has been know to shade the truth a bit when it serves its own interests to do so.

I am glad the monster is dead. But I question the way in which that was brought about.

OK - let the flaming begin . . . .

The same question has been asked about Gaddafi and the policy of assassination which has been all but ignored with a few notable neg reps from blurry eyed liberals.

 

[xsited1]

Saw this twitter feed:

They buried Osama out to sea right after Japan released radioactive water into the ocean. This has the makings of an awesome monster movie.