Would be excellent news. President Obama will address the nation shortly
If true, what a great day for our country and the world!!!
I love that Obama and the White House are interrupting Celebrity Apprentice to announce this.
about freaking time!!!
Trump demands to see the death certificate.
Just watching Channel 4 .. I totally want to believe this... but it just seems impossible as long as he has escaped getting caught
Yea with the release of the birth certificate, the roast of Trump at the White House dinner, and now this I'd say Obama 3 Trump 0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hdKTaUA1sk
Video of Seth Meyers and Obama ripping on Trump^
Quote from: stephendare on May 01, 2011, 11:12:54 PM
Apparently, Obama timed the announcement to preempt the end of Donald Trumps show, and push him off the airwaves, nice elegant fuck you very much from the President.
Freaking Hilarious.
I noticed that LOL .. Good for Obama! :)
Amen!
AMAZING!!!! This should become a national Holiday.
Let's make it a two fer Tues and try and nail Gaddafi this week as well.
RIGHT?
To those people involved in getting that monster. Thank You and well done.
I'm thinking someone will be re-elected...
Quote from: SarahTay on May 01, 2011, 11:58:50 PM
I'm thinking someone will be re-elected...
I was going to say.... I think Trump sealed his own demise of any hope of becoming President.
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 12:00:34 AM
Apparently it was a very small team of young men who took him out, at close quarters.
No one knows if they know the shooter who did it, but if they do, then I think there is about to be a new american Hero.
We should have parades for the whole team.
And book deals too.
I'm sure those guys don't want to be targets themselves. They will have the best story that no one will hear about for a long long time. They are truly selfless heroes deserving of the highest honor our country can bestow on them.
Very strong chance that it was the CIA's Special Activities Division who did it. SAD is comprised of the best of the best in our special ops and pull off most of our major covert ops. They call in most of the drone attacks and were responsible for capturing Saddam.
The military command likes them flying under the radar though and will likely either give credit to another unit or downplay their involvement.
Secret or not, I wonder if the team that carried out this act get the reward money?
Its crazy how this is suppose to be a good thing yet all I keep seeing is the anti Obama comments online. Took the US long enough to get this guy.
Looks like the Navy SEALS got him...
Sea, Air, or Land... :) 8)
What a freaking GREAT BIRTHDAY PRESENT! God bless those military boys that took that bastard out. Looks like he and ADOLPH HITLER both died on the same day...good because right about now, their both in the same place!
OCKLAWAHA
Burial at sea is the best possible outcome. Don't give the bastards the satisfaction of having a shrine built around the dude!
QuoteCNN is reporting that the operation had been carried out by the Navy Seals, who had practiced the mission several times.
The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) also confirmed bin Laden's death to SPIEGEL ONLINE. An ISI source said the world's most sought-after terrorist had been located and killed in a "highly secret action coordinated between Pakistani and US forces."
According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, the operation began at 1:30 a.m. on Sunday morning when three US Apache helicopters attacked the complex. Bin Laden's people allegedly fought back to defend themselves and, according to eyewitnesses, one helicopter had to make an emergency landing. The ensuing firefight, according to the witnesses, lasted until 4 a.m. Several people, including women, were arrested, some of whom had been injured in the firefight and were then taken to the military hospital in Abbottabad.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,760025,00.html
great news! Ock I like your post!
Am I the only one here who sees how ridiculous this all is....Bin Laden authorized/planned the killing of 2,000-3,000 people. He was a figurehead at best. Congrats, we 'got the guy'. Meanwhile, we invade 2 countries, kill hundreds of thousands of people, spend trillions of dollars, see 5,000+ American deaths, and ten years later, all we have to show for it is the death of this guy? Really people? How low are our standards.....
Probably the best rallying-cry/propaganda tool a US president has had since 9/11 itself...
Not glorifying the guy, or saying he shouldn't be dead, but this seems like the biggest "news that isn't news" in recent memory. Nothing about Al Qaeda or US foreign policy has changed or will change because of this ONE death. Yipee!
Moreover, very telling that Al Qaeda's new #1 enemy is Pakistan, or "friend and ally", and the US, the people who killed bin Laden, come in at #2. So, let's be frank here..our friend and ally, Pakistan, probably knew bin Laden was there, and was clearly hiding the guy via the ISI. Do I smell some double crossing?? And no, this isn't a conspiracy theory...this is 10+ years of careful reading/news watching.
Quote from: RiversideLoki on May 02, 2011, 07:46:34 AM
Burial at sea is the best possible outcome. Don't give the bastards the satisfaction of having a shrine built around the dude!
Don't know about that, this is REALLY going to piss Davey Jones and Neptune Rex off! Watch for a rough hurricane season. I just wish they'd of caught him alive then shoved him into fire... figure he needed a preview of things to come. OCKLAWAHA
Mission actually Accomplished.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 02, 2011, 09:14:47 AM
Quote from: RiversideLoki on May 02, 2011, 07:46:34 AM
Burial at sea is the best possible outcome. Don't give the bastards the satisfaction of having a shrine built around the dude!
Don't know about that, this is REALLY going to piss Davey Jones and Neptune Rex off! Watch for a rough hurricane season. I just wish they'd of caught him alive then shoved him into fire... figure he needed a preview of things to come.
OCKLAWAHA
Oh snap! NOT Davy Jones! I don't like that scum nor do I want to be around the vicinity of that ship if I was in the Bermuda Triangle.
-Josh
Can we just be happy he's dead? Geez! Or would you rather him be alive and orchestrate another attack on us??? Some people are such idiots.
Quote from: CityLife on May 01, 2011, 10:57:55 PM
I love that Obama and the White House are interrupting Celebrity Apprentice to announce this.
I know right! I wanted to see who got voted off. I heard it was hope. She was a whimp anyways
It was buried at sea to avoid a shrine or twisted holy place.
Is he actually already buried at sea?
Yes, buried at sea.
QuoteAfter spending many years hunting down the world's most wanted man, why did the U.S. bury Osama bin Laden at sea within 24 hours of killing him?
The reason is bound up within Islamic practice and tradition. And that practice calls for the body of the deceased to be buried within 24 hours, according to a U.S. official, who spoke Monday on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters.
"We are ensuring that it is handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition," confirmed the official. "This is something that we take very seriously. And so therefore this is being handled in an appropriate manner."
But the lingering question is why at sea? The official said that finding a country willing to accept the remains of the world's most wanted terrorist would have been difficult, so the decision was made to bury bin Laden at sea. Furthermore, one suspects that the U.S. would not have wanted there to be a physical grave site for fear of it turning into a place of worship for bin Laden's followers. There are rumors, however, that the U.S. asked Saudi Arabia to take the body (bin Laden was born in Saudi) but they allegedly refused.
Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/02/why-was-bin-laden-buried-at-sea-so-quickly/#ixzz1LCokQD6Z
Quote from: duvaldude08 on May 02, 2011, 09:41:42 AM
Can we just be happy he's dead? Geez! Or would you rather him be alive and orchestrate another attack on us??? Some people are such idiots.
Eye for an eye....wow....how far we've come as a society since Hammurabi's Code....
And I'm an idiot for thinking 'nothing changes' as far as American foreign policy or Al Qaeda's tactics? That's some...progressive thinking there...
Quote from: ben says on May 02, 2011, 11:13:59 AM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on May 02, 2011, 09:41:42 AM
Can we just be happy he's dead? Geez! Or would you rather him be alive and orchestrate another attack on us??? Some people are such idiots.
Eye for an eye....wow....how far we've come as a society since Hammurabi's Code....
And I'm an idiot for thinking 'nothing changes' as far as American foreign policy or Al Qaeda's tactics? That's some...progressive thinking there...
So Ben... please inform us how a proper "progressive" should react to this news...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 02, 2011, 11:20:53 AM
Quote from: ben says on May 02, 2011, 11:13:59 AM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on May 02, 2011, 09:41:42 AM
Can we just be happy he's dead? Geez! Or would you rather him be alive and orchestrate another attack on us??? Some people are such idiots.
Eye for an eye....wow....how far we've come as a society since Hammurabi's Code....
And I'm an idiot for thinking 'nothing changes' as far as American foreign policy or Al Qaeda's tactics? That's some...progressive thinking there...
So Ben... please inform us how a proper "progressive" should react to this news...
Uh....for starts....quit celebrating like there's not a care in the world and it's New Years Eve. Personally, rejoicing over death, no matter who died, is disgusting and counter productive. Doesn't show
any thought, progressive or otherwise.
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 11:24:00 AM
stop with the partisanship BT.
Not a conservative or liberal issue
Agree.....nothing partisan about it. Nor is it an issue...god forbid someone has a comment that goes against the grain of what every single person is saying. Jesus! Are we sheep?
I sincerely hope that the Obama Administration does the right thing and releases the reported photographs of Bin Laden's body. Don't care how gruesome they are, after all the sacrifices the American people have been asked to make in the last ten years, and all the spillover world-wide that has resulted from 9/11, the world is owed final proof that this man is dead. Failing to release the photographs will do nothing but ignite further conspiracy theories about whether he is truly dead.
There will be conspiracy theories either way, Ken. I agree, release the photo(s). But nothing will silence the kooks on the fringes (left and right).
Quote from: ben says on May 02, 2011, 11:24:31 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 02, 2011, 11:20:53 AM
Quote from: ben says on May 02, 2011, 11:13:59 AM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on May 02, 2011, 09:41:42 AM
Can we just be happy he's dead? Geez! Or would you rather him be alive and orchestrate another attack on us??? Some people are such idiots.
Eye for an eye....wow....how far we've come as a society since Hammurabi's Code....
And I'm an idiot for thinking 'nothing changes' as far as American foreign policy or Al Qaeda's tactics? That's some...progressive thinking there...
So Ben... please inform us how a proper "progressive" should react to this news...
Uh....for starts....quit celebrating like there's not a care in the world and it's New Years Eve. Personally, rejoicing over death, no matter who died, is disgusting and counter productive. Doesn't show any thought, progressive or otherwise.
Really?? Well then YOU ARE progressive! Actually... people rejoiced over Hitlers death... same for Mussolini... Bin Laden falls into that category for alot of people. But please... by all means... continue with your progressive reaction to the news that a mass murderer died.
How about Obama's Speech from August 2007,
"Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.
This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It’s a tough place.
But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.
As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair â€" our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
QuoteIt was just wonderful to hear the news, put it to rest somewhere in a little place that I didnt realize needed to be comforted internally, and just enjoy seeing huge crowds of people acting like Americans on the street again.
Seeing the people in front of the White House and at Ground Zero did me good. What about you guys?
I agree! Wonderful news... and people should celebrate.
Now Stephen, I'm sure those videos offend ben says in some way. That's not very PC of you. ;)
I think it's great, and agree mightily with KenFSU's comments regarding the sacrifices we've made over the last decade (TSA gropings, Patriot Act, etc.) and that this is vindication and a well-deserved new era of good feelings.
Now, let's bring the boys and girls home.
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 11:40:18 AM
Seeing the people in front of the White House and at Ground Zero did me good. What about you guys?
I have very mixed feelings. I'm
very happy that Bin Laden is dead. Personally though, I have a hard time throwing a party. In every situation, I have to ask myself if the means justified the ends. When I flash back on the ten years since 9/11, to the endless occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Pakistan; to the numerous gross human rights violations we've committed in the name of capturing Bin Laden; to the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths that have come from our actions (some estimates up to 1,000,000 in Iraq alone); to the billions upon billions upon billions of dollars we have committed overseas while our infrastructure, schools, and health care systems crumble; to the blatant fear-mongering and disregard to the U.S. constitution; to the thousands of new potential terrorists we have created via situations like Abu Grahib; I don't know, my mood is more somber than celebratory. Killing Bin Laden came at a
tremendous cost. To me, and this is just my personal opinion, dancing in the street and chanting USA seems rather flippant. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the enthusiasm, but to me, it's not that black and white. I have a hard time separating the what from the how. My happiness comes less from the fact that the is finally dead, and more from the hope that maybe, somehow, this madness can all come to an end. And I will be dancing in the streets when our brave soldiers are out of Pakistan, out of Iraq, and out of Afghanistan.
QuoteMy happiness comes less from the fact that the is finally dead, and more from the hope that maybe, somehow, this madness can all come to an end.
One madman has been deleted from the equation... undoubtedly there will be others.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 02, 2011, 12:07:24 PM
QuoteMy happiness comes less from the fact that the is finally dead, and more from the hope that maybe, somehow, this madness can all come to an end.
One madman has been deleted from the equation... undoubtedly there will be others.
Well of course there will be.
Until they surface, let's get the hell out of the places where we are ostensibly present in order to "wage the war on terror" or whatever.
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 12:10:53 PM
I agree Ken, if only Obama had been President in 01, this day wouldnt have been so long in coming.
Our SEALS, our military and our Intelligence Community could have done this at any time. Imagine how different the world would be if this had happened in 03 instead of 11.
Where do you come up with this?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 02, 2011, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 12:10:53 PM
I agree Ken, if only Obama had been President in 01, this day wouldnt have been so long in coming.
Our SEALS, our military and our Intelligence Community could have done this at any time. Imagine how different the world would be if this had happened in 03 instead of 11.
Where do you come up with this?
Another thread circling the drain of partisan bullshit.
This mission was 4 years in the making. It wasn't until the compound was built that a real opportunity surfaced. This is a great day for America not just one political party.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 02, 2011, 12:07:24 PM
QuoteMy happiness comes less from the fact that the is finally dead, and more from the hope that maybe, somehow, this madness can all come to an end.
One madman has been deleted from the equation... undoubtedly there will be others.
Hopefully, the next time a madman kills 3,000 of our citizens, we send in this same group of special forces to take him out, rather than waging war on half the middle east for ten years, sacrificing our values and founding principals, and nearly bankrupting the country. Hindsight is 20/20, no doubt, but hopefully we'll take some lessons away from all of this.
And the next time a madman does strike our nation, prompting tens of thousands of brave men and women to enlist in our military to help bring him to justice, hopefully we'll send them to the right fu**ing place. All these young soldiers who joined the military to combat Al Qaeda, only to be killed by an IED while patrolling an oil field in Baghdad, something tells me their parents aren't dancing in the streets this morning.
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 12:10:53 PM
I agree Ken, if only Obama had been President in 01, this day wouldnt have been so long in coming.
Our SEALS, our military and our Intelligence Community could have done this at any time. Imagine how different the world would be if this had happened in 03 instead of 11.
Well we can't have the murder of 3,000 people interfering with Carlyle Group's profits, now can we?
Seriously, Stephen, I wonder what gets into you sometimes...
Quote from: KenFSU on May 02, 2011, 12:23:18 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 02, 2011, 12:07:24 PM
QuoteMy happiness comes less from the fact that the is finally dead, and more from the hope that maybe, somehow, this madness can all come to an end.
One madman has been deleted from the equation... undoubtedly there will be others.
Hopefully, the next time a madman kills 3,000 of our citizens, we send in this same group of special forces to take him out, rather than waging war on half the middle east for ten years, sacrificing our values and founding principals, and nearly bankrupting the country. Hindsight is 20/20, no doubt, but hopefully we'll take some lessons away from all of this.
And the next time a madman does strike our nation, prompting tens of thousands of brave men and women to enlist in our military to help bring him to justice, hopefully we'll send them to the right fu**ing place. All these young soldiers who joined the military to combat Al Qaeda, only to be killed by an IED while patrolling an oil field in Baghdad, something tells me their parents aren't dancing in the streets this morning.
+1!
The compound was built in 2005. It wasn't discovered by us until August 2010. There is no doubt that we could have found Bin Laden and the compound earlier if we had put our full efforts towards Afghanistan/Pakistan, but I think Stephen may be using a little hyperbole there.
I read somewhere that the CIA unit that found the courier that led them to the site may have been created by Bush. So Obama may not be completely responsible for the kill. However, there is no doubt that he did a wonderful job of managing the operation, keeping things hush, and making sure that the attack wasn't rushed. You can't deny that it is a big win for Obama.
Quote from: Shwaz on May 02, 2011, 12:18:42 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 02, 2011, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 12:10:53 PM
I agree Ken, if only Obama had been President in 01, this day wouldnt have been so long in coming.
Our SEALS, our military and our Intelligence Community could have done this at any time. Imagine how different the world would be if this had happened in 03 instead of 11.
Where do you come up with this?
Another thread circling the drain of partisan bullshit.
This mission was 4 years in the making. It wasn't until the compound was built that a real opportunity surfaced. This is a great day for America not just one political party.
Well said I would push the like button if there was one. I am normally pretty partisan but today I just feel American.
Quote from: KenFSU on May 02, 2011, 12:04:36 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 11:40:18 AM
Seeing the people in front of the White House and at Ground Zero did me good. What about you guys?
I have very mixed feelings. I'm very happy that Bin Laden is dead. Personally though, I have a hard time throwing a party. In every situation, I have to ask myself if the means justified the ends. When I flash back on the ten years since 9/11, to the endless occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Pakistan; to the numerous gross human rights violations we've committed in the name of capturing Bin Laden; to the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths that have come from our actions (some estimates up to 1,000,000 in Iraq alone); to the billions upon billions upon billions of dollars we have committed overseas while our infrastructure, schools, and health care systems crumble; to the blatant fear-mongering and disregard to the U.S. constitution; to the thousands of new potential terrorists we have created via situations like Abu Grahib; I don't know, my mood is more somber than celebratory. Killing Bin Laden came at a tremendous cost. To me, and this is just my personal opinion, dancing in the street and chanting USA seems rather flippant. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the enthusiasm, but to me, it's not that black and white. I have a hard time separating the what from the how. My happiness comes less from the fact that the is finally dead, and more from the hope that maybe, somehow, this madness can all come to an end. And I will be dancing in the streets when our brave soldiers are out of Pakistan, out of Iraq, and out of Afghanistan.
Excellent post Ken. I feel the same way.
The more I think about it, the more I realize at least something in this country is still working right! There has been so much negativity about everything, it just feels good to see our military and Specials Forces doing their job and getting it right!
Quote from: CityLife on May 02, 2011, 12:31:25 PM
The compound was built in 2005. It wasn't discovered by us until August 2010. There is no doubt that we could have found Bin Laden and the compound earlier if we had put our full efforts towards Afghanistan/Pakistan, but I think Stephen may be using a little hyperbole there.
I read somewhere that the CIA unit that found the courier that led them to the site may have been created by Bush. So Obama may not be completely responsible for the kill. However, there is no doubt that he did a wonderful job of managing the operation, keeping things hush, and making sure that the attack wasn't rushed. You can't deny that it is a big win for Obama.
Not from what I've read.
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110502/inside-the-raid-that-killed-bin-laden-110502/20110502?hub=BritishColumbiaHome (http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110502/inside-the-raid-that-killed-bin-laden-110502/20110502?hub=BritishColumbiaHome)
Quoteaccording to a report in The New York Times, al Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, told U.S. military interrogators years ago that bin Laden so trusted the courier that he likely had him living alongside him. Then, four years ago, interrogators were able to extract the courier's name and aliases.
From Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/story/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/05/02/bin_laden
The killing of Osama bin Laden is one of those events which, especially in the immediate aftermath, is not susceptible to reasoned discussion. It's already a Litmus Test event: all Decent People -- by definition -- express unadulterated ecstacy at his death, and all Good Americans chant "USA! USA!" in a celebration of this proof of our national greatness and Goodness (and that of our President). Nothing that deviates from that emotional script will be heard, other than by those on the lookout for heretics to hold up and punish. Prematurely interrupting a national emotional consensus with unwanted rational truths accomplishes nothing but harming the heretic (ask Bill Maher about how that works).
I'd have strongly preferred that Osama bin Laden be captured rather than killed so that he could be tried for his crimes and punished in accordance with due process (and to obtain presumably ample intelligence). But if he in fact used force to resist capture, then the U.S. military was entitled to use force against him, the way American police routinely do against suspects who use violence to resist capture. But those are legalities and they will be ignored even more so than usual. The 9/11 attack was a heinous and wanton slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians, and it's understandable that people are reacting with glee over the death of the person responsible for it. I personally don't derive joy or an impulse to chant boastfully at the news that someone just got two bullets put in their skull -- no matter who that someone is -- but that reaction is inevitable: it's the classic case of raucously cheering in a movie theater when the dastardly villain finally gets his due.
But beyond the emotional fulfillment that comes from vengeance and retributive justice, there are two points worth considering. The first is the question of what, if anything, is going to change as a result of the two bullets in Osama bin Laden's head? Are we going to fight fewer wars or end the ones we've started? Are we going to see a restoration of some of the civil liberties which have been eroded at the alter of this scary Villain Mastermind? Is the War on Terror over? Are we Safer now?
Those are rhetorical questions. None of those things will happen. If anything, I can much more easily envision the reverse. Whenever America uses violence in a way that makes its citizens cheer, beam with nationalistic pride, and rally around their leader, more violence is typically guaranteed. Futile decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may temporarily dampen the nationalistic enthusiasm for war, but two shots to the head of Osama bin Laden -- and the We are Great and Good proclamations it engenders -- can easily rejuvenate that war love. One can already detect the stench of that in how Pakistan is being talked about: did they harbor bin Laden as it seems and, if so, what price should they pay? We're feeling good and strong about ourselves again -- and righteous -- and that's often the fertile ground for more, not less, aggression.
And then there's the notion that America has once again proved its greatness and preeminence by killing bin Laden. Americans are marching in the street celebrating with a sense of national pride. When is the last time that happened? It seems telling that hunting someone down and killing them is one of the few things that still produce these feelings of nationalistic unity. I got on an airplane last night before the news of bin Laden's killing was known and had actually intended to make this point with regard to our killing of Gadaffi's son in Libya -- a mere 25 years after President Reagan bombed Libya and killed Gadaffi's infant daughter. That is something the U.S. has always done well and is one of the few things it still does well. This is how President Obama put it in last night's announcement:
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.
Does hunting down Osama bin Laden and putting bullets in his skull really "remind us that we can do whatever we set our mind to"? Is that really "the story of our history"? That seems to set the bar rather low in terms of national achievement and character.
In sum, a murderous religious extremist was killed. The U.S. has erupted in a collective orgy of national pride and renewed faith in the efficacy and righteousness of military force. Other than that, the repercussions are likely to be far greater in terms of domestic politics -- it's going to be a huge boost to Obama's re-election prospects and will be exploited for that end -- than anything else.
Quote from: Shwaz on May 02, 2011, 12:40:59 PM
Quote from: CityLife on May 02, 2011, 12:31:25 PM
The compound was built in 2005. It wasn't discovered by us until August 2010. There is no doubt that we could have found Bin Laden and the compound earlier if we had put our full efforts towards Afghanistan/Pakistan, but I think Stephen may be using a little hyperbole there.
I read somewhere that the CIA unit that found the courier that led them to the site may have been created by Bush. So Obama may not be completely responsible for the kill. However, there is no doubt that he did a wonderful job of managing the operation, keeping things hush, and making sure that the attack wasn't rushed. You can't deny that it is a big win for Obama.
Not from what I've read.
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110502/inside-the-raid-that-killed-bin-laden-110502/20110502?hub=BritishColumbiaHome (http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110502/inside-the-raid-that-killed-bin-laden-110502/20110502?hub=BritishColumbiaHome)
Quoteaccording to a report in The New York Times, al Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, told U.S. military interrogators years ago that bin Laden so trusted the courier that he likely had him living alongside him. Then, four years ago, interrogators were able to extract the courier's name and aliases.
They've been tracking the courier for years, but he didn't lead them to the compound until last fall. Obama even said so in his address last night.
Pretty much every news service is reporting it was built in 2005.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-abbottabad-mansion_n_856206.html
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 12:44:21 PM
QuoteThe compound was built in 2005. It wasn't discovered by us until August 2010. There is no doubt that we could have found Bin Laden and the compound earlier if we had put our full efforts towards Afghanistan/Pakistan, but I think Stephen may be using a little hyperbole there.
Im pretty sure that the search was for Osama, rather than the compound that he built four years after the fact, and two years after we declared war on Afghanistan. ;)
No hyperbole at all. But finding Osama and bringing him to justice should have been the main focus of our policy from the beginning. Shouldnt have waited until there was a President who would be serious about it.
But Obama is all our President, not just a few. Just as Bush was.
And now the person who actually attacked our country is dead. Thank the good Lord.
I fully agree that we should have directed our efforts at Bin Laden and Al Queda the entire time.
You said that if Obama had been President he would have killed him in 2003. As if catching Osama happened entirely because of efforts that happened during Obama's 2 year term. It was the result of an ongoing effort from the CIA that they've been working on for some time.
If the compound wasn't even built until 2005, it is hard to say that he would have been killed prior to that if Obama was President. He was likely hiding in the Tribal Areas and in caves prior to the compound.
So yea I agree that we would have killed him much sooner had we directed all our efforts to finding him, but to suggest it would have happened in 2003 is hyperbole.
This Topic is HOT!! everysite is talking about it....Whats up with dumping him in the water???? Lame.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 02, 2011, 12:13:16 PM
Where do you come up with this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o&feature=player_embedded
I love how I am reading he was given the proper burial...who cares. I am sure he was dumped out of the side of a helicopter circling around 140 mph or so! good riddence.
Reporter on CNN just said that the attack team found quite a bit of intel within the compound and also took that back with them.
I read somewhere that there were 24 members of the team. I bet a few of them were designated to specifically look for that info once the building was secure.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 02, 2011, 06:42:48 AM
Looks like the Navy SEALS got him...
Sea, Air, or Land... :) 8)
Wonder if any of those Seals were based in Jax?? How cool would that be??
Also know that many key details from the events will either never be reported or falsely reported.
My Dad worked for the Department of Defense for 37 years and traveled to just about every military base in the US and Europe in his time. He has always told me that the government never releases accurate or detailed info about National Security issues. Also told me that the public would freak out if they knew how many terror threats we have dealt with since 9/11. Not that these are surprises or anything.
Quote from: Coolyfett on May 02, 2011, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 02, 2011, 06:42:48 AM
Looks like the Navy SEALS got him...
Sea, Air, or Land... :) 8)
Wonder if any of those Seals were based in Jax?? How cool would that be??
Nope it was Seal Team 6. They are based in Virginia.
Also, like I said earlier, I guarantee you that the CIA's Special Activities Division was also there with Seal Team 6. They are what our military leaders call the "sharp end of the stick". They are comprised of elite CIA Operatives and the best of the best from the Seals, Delta Force, etc.
They are "black ops" and we never even hear when they are killed or what they typically do. If they were part of the attack (which they likely were), the government would never release that info. They like the group to fly under the radar. You can find a lot of interesting info about the group on the internet, but I'm sure we'll never know all they do.
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 11:24:00 AM
stop with the partisanship BT.
Not a conservative or liberal issue
Wow! Bin Laden is one expensive guy! Or ex guy.....
1.3 trillion dollars....trillion!!!
http://www.salon.com/news/osama_bin_laden/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/02/cost_of_bin_laden_wars
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 01:04:52 PM
Meh. I think normally I would agree with you, ben says.
But this is just a case of killing the bad guy.
He lost the right to have the simple morality of a private murder brought into consideration when he decided to transcend the life of a mere man and become a symbol and to engage in symbolic murders.
He had no care for the lives of the men about the US Cole, nor the diplomats working in Africa, and certainly none for the people who were killed directly in the Twin Towers, the fallen flight 93 or related deaths from the air around ground zero.
He judged rightly that their deaths would be symbolic instead of personal as he waged a symbolic war against the US, in hopes that his symbolic war would lead to the defeat and downfall of our country.
And now, the symbolic circle completes. His death is a symbol, not of the individual, but of the symbol for what he attempted to accomplish.
The Americans cheering in the streets are overjoyed because one man has been murdered, because he transcended to role of being a mere man. They are cheering for the symbolic.
People do not have the right to conduct a campaign of random death against civilians for their political purposes.
The bullet through Osamas eye socket was the answer to that idea, and people everywhere feel that emotion. It is a life affirming, not a death affirming jubilation.
We have the right not to be killed for someone else's politics.
There is no shame in celebrating this basic principle of self preservation.
It is a rite as old as language. You have to see the body swinging before the sociological ritual is complete.
A simpler way of putting it, despite your code of Hammurabi reference:
This is Justice.
Well put. This sums up my feelings fairly well. Not that another person is dead, or even that Osama Bin Laden is dead... Not even that a mass murderer is dead. I'm happy that we sent the message to the world that your politics aren't allowed to kill me.
Obama deserves kudos to the same degree any sitting Commander in Chief would.
Congratulations to lovers of liberty.
On of my co workers told me this and I had to look it up to see if it was true. Though if you read the whole thing Limbaugh later retracted his statement. Also I knew there was more to it than that.
From: http://www.politicususa.com/en/rush-limbaugh-bin-laden (http://www.politicususa.com/en/rush-limbaugh-bin-laden)
snip
QuoteThe death of Osama Bin Laden has turned the political world on its ear. On his radio show today, even Rush Limbaugh praised Obama. Limbaugh said, “President Obama single-handedly came up with the technique in order to pull this off.â€
snip
QuoteLimbaugh opened his show with, “We need to open the program today by congratulating President Obama. President Obama has done something extremely effective, and when he does, this needs to be pointed out. President Obama has continued the Bush policies of keeping a military presence in the Middle East. He did not scrub the mission to get Bin Laden.â€
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 01:04:52 PM
People do not have the right to conduct a campaign of random death against civilians for their political purposes.
We have the right not to be killed for someone else's politics.
There is no shame in celebrating this basic principle of self preservation.
This is Justice.
I normally agree with you Stephen, but surely you can appreciate the irony in the above statement. Take out the context, and the above statement could just as easily be used to justify the assassination of our Commander in Chief. It's an unpopular opinion, but regardless of intent, we have a hell of a lot more civilian blood on our hands as a result of 9/11 than Bin Laden. It's not conjecture, but rather documented fact. That's why his death is so bittersweet to me. A celebration of his killing seems a de facto celebration of our methods. As previously stated, that's something I just don't feel comfortable lauding.
And perhaps I'm still jaded from the capture of Saddam Hussein. From
those celebrations in the street. From the partying, and cheering, and chants of USA! USA! And still, here we are, years upon years upon years later, still reading the death tolls in the daily paper, still hearing excuses from Bush, and then Obama, and then whoever else, as to why deadlines for withdrawal are repeatedly ignored or pushed back while billions upon billions upon billions of dollars drains from our nation's coffers each month.
Personally I like the Vatican's statement on the issue:
"In the face of a man's death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred,"
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101730.htm
Quote from: iluvolives on May 02, 2011, 05:45:10 PM
Personally I like the Vatican's statement on the issue:
"In the face of a man's death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred,"
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101730.htm
+100
Quote from: KenFSU on May 02, 2011, 05:26:01 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2011, 01:04:52 PM
People do not have the right to conduct a campaign of random death against civilians for their political purposes.
We have the right not to be killed for someone else's politics.
There is no shame in celebrating this basic principle of self preservation.
This is Justice.
I normally agree with you Stephen, but surely you can appreciate the irony in the above statement. Take out the context, and the above statement could just as easily be used to justify the assassination of our Commander in Chief. It's an unpopular opinion, but regardless of intent, we have a hell of a lot more civilian blood on our hands as a result of 9/11 than Bin Laden. It's not conjecture, but rather documented fact. That's why his death is so bittersweet to me. A celebration of his killing seems a de facto celebration of our methods. As previously stated, that's something I just don't feel comfortable lauding.
And perhaps I'm still jaded from the capture of Saddam Hussein. From those celebrations in the street. From the partying, and cheering, and chants of USA! USA! And still, here we are, years upon years upon years later, still reading the death tolls in the daily paper, still hearing excuses from Bush, and then Obama, and then whoever else, as to why deadlines for withdrawal are repeatedly ignored or pushed back while billions upon billions upon billions of dollars drains from our nation's coffers each month.
Amen...
It's hilarious that some people think Obama had anything to do with this other than giving the go ahead after being briefed on the situation, come on.
Quote from: acme54321 on May 02, 2011, 06:25:41 PM
It's hilarious that some people think Obama had anything to do with this other than giving the go ahead after being briefed on the situation, come on.
From the Trump school of reasoning aren't you. Yea the President didn't hold 5 meetings with the National Security Council in the last few months. He had nothing to do with the CIA's renewed focus in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He just merely signed off on an order.....
This article from Time will make you think otherwise. I'll copy and paste a neat little excerpt.
"The likelihood, officials told the President, was between 50% and 80%. No slam dunk. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenariosâ€"the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President’s senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above.
Obama left the meeting without signaling his intent. He wanted to sleep on it. At about 8:00 a.m. on Friday, just before he boarded a helicopter that would take him to tour tornado damage in Alabama, Obama called his senior aides into the Diplomatic Room. He told them his decision: A helicopter assault."
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/02/inside-the-situation-room-weve-idd-geronimo/#ixzz1LEqNeJtN
"I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."
-Mark Twain
Quote from: CityLife on May 02, 2011, 06:55:46 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 02, 2011, 06:25:41 PM
It's hilarious that some people think Obama had anything to do with this other than giving the go ahead after being briefed on the situation, come on.
From the Trump school of reasoning aren't you. Yea the President didn't hold 5 meetings with the National Security Council in the last few months. He had nothing to do with the CIA's renewed focus in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He just merely signed off on an order.....
This article from Time will make you think otherwise. I'll copy and paste a neat little excerpt.
"The likelihood, officials told the President, was between 50% and 80%. No slam dunk. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenariosâ€"the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President’s senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above.
Obama left the meeting without signaling his intent. He wanted to sleep on it. At about 8:00 a.m. on Friday, just before he boarded a helicopter that would take him to tour tornado damage in Alabama, Obama called his senior aides into the Diplomatic Room. He told them his decision: A helicopter assault."
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/02/inside-the-situation-room-weve-idd-geronimo/#ixzz1LEqNeJtN
Yeah me and Trump are tight ::)
Your little article says exactly what I did. He was briefed on the situation and have the go ahead on an assault. Helicopters, groundstrike, whatever it be. Do you thing any other president would have done anything radically different? To suggest that he was found all because of Obama is rather far fetched.
Quote from: acme54321 on May 02, 2011, 07:04:58 PM
Quote from: CityLife on May 02, 2011, 06:55:46 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 02, 2011, 06:25:41 PM
It's hilarious that some people think Obama had anything to do with this other than giving the go ahead after being briefed on the situation, come on.
From the Trump school of reasoning aren't you. Yea the President didn't hold 5 meetings with the National Security Council in the last few months. He had nothing to do with the CIA's renewed focus in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He just merely signed off on an order.....
This article from Time will make you think otherwise. I'll copy and paste a neat little excerpt.
"The likelihood, officials told the President, was between 50% and 80%. No slam dunk. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenariosâ€"the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President’s senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above.
Obama left the meeting without signaling his intent. He wanted to sleep on it. At about 8:00 a.m. on Friday, just before he boarded a helicopter that would take him to tour tornado damage in Alabama, Obama called his senior aides into the Diplomatic Room. He told them his decision: A helicopter assault."
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/02/inside-the-situation-room-weve-idd-geronimo/#ixzz1LEqNeJtN
Yeah me and Trump are tight ::)
Your little article says exactly what I did. He was briefed on the situation and have the go ahead on an assault. Helicopters, groundstrike, whatever it be. Do you thing any other president would have done anything radically different? To suggest that he was found all because of Obama is rather far fetched.
He had 5 meetings with the National Security Council in the last few months. That article just detailed the final decision of action. From the other 4 meetings the National Security Council gave the orders to the CIA and JSOC to begin training teams for a helicopter mission, to prepare plans for a ground attack, drone/missile attacks, and the many other logistical matters that were involved.
I've yet to see anyone say that he was found solely because of Obama. In fact, earlier in the thread I said that the intel that led to the courier may have even come as a result of a team Bush had organized.
However, to say that Obama did not play a major role throughout the entire situation is preposterous.
Well obviously he did, he's the commander in chief. He gives the go ahead. Maybe my original post was a little misworded. I should have said that to say that Bush wasted all that time and didn't really want to catch bin laden (which is what some of the earlier posts I saw were hinting at), then Obama came in and got him right away was a little much. They were both presidents doing their jobs. Why would Bush not want to catch him?
Quote from: acme54321 on May 02, 2011, 07:22:48 PM
Well obviously he did, he's the commander in chief. He gives the go ahead. Maybe my original post was a little misworded. I should have said that to say that Bush wasted all that time and didn't really want to catch bin laden (which is what some of the earlier posts I saw were hinting at), then Obama came in and got him right away was a little much. They were both presidents doing their jobs. Why would Bush not want to catch him?
Just stop. You are in way over your head.
Guess who nominated Leon Panetta head of the CIA? You guessed it, Barack Obama. Guess who found Bin Laden? The CIA...Is this starting to make sense?
You clearly have no idea about US Foreign policy with your Bush comments, but I've gotta go to dinner, so I'll let Stephen or someone else educate you.
(http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i372/RalphW1/docDownload.jpg)
Quote from: Ralph W on May 02, 2011, 07:33:15 PM
(http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i372/RalphW1/docDownload.jpg)
ughhhh I hate that graphic
Quote from: CityLife on May 02, 2011, 07:30:51 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 02, 2011, 07:22:48 PM
Well obviously he did, he's the commander in chief. He gives the go ahead. Maybe my original post was a little misworded. I should have said that to say that Bush wasted all that time and didn't really want to catch bin laden (which is what some of the earlier posts I saw were hinting at), then Obama came in and got him right away was a little much. They were both presidents doing their jobs. Why would Bush not want to catch him?
Just stop. You are in way over your head.
Guess who nominated Leon Panetta head of the CIA? You guessed it, Barack Obama. Guess who found Bin Laden? The CIA...Is this starting to make sense?
You clearly have no idea about US Foreign policy with your Bush comments, but I've gotta go to dinner, so I'll let Stephen or someone else educate you.
Ummmm sorry lets give the professionals there due. The Cia has screwed the pooch so much that they deserve one. But the analysts and professionals don't change regardless of what political hack is in charge. "THE ONE" gave the go ahead, props to him, it was a risky adventure and if it went south, he would have been jimmy carter (hostage rescue) or gerald ford (mayaguez incident). Look the last one up on wiki. I'm just glad we didn't decide to arrest him and bring him back for trial. Osama got what he long deserved, but its not overwith and hopefully the "war on terror" or what the latest term we use will continue successfully
Quote from: civil42806 on May 02, 2011, 09:47:14 PM
Quote from: CityLife on May 02, 2011, 07:30:51 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 02, 2011, 07:22:48 PM
Well obviously he did, he's the commander in chief. He gives the go ahead. Maybe my original post was a little misworded. I should have said that to say that Bush wasted all that time and didn't really want to catch bin laden (which is what some of the earlier posts I saw were hinting at), then Obama came in and got him right away was a little much. They were both presidents doing their jobs. Why would Bush not want to catch him?
Just stop. You are in way over your head.
Guess who nominated Leon Panetta head of the CIA? You guessed it, Barack Obama. Guess who found Bin Laden? The CIA...Is this starting to make sense?
You clearly have no idea about US Foreign policy with your Bush comments, but I've gotta go to dinner, so I'll let Stephen or someone else educate you.
Ummmm sorry lets give the professionals there due. The Cia has screwed the pooch so much that they deserve one. But the analysts and professionals don't change regardless of what political hack is in charge. "THE ONE" gave the go ahead, props to him, it was a risky adventure and if it went south, he would have been jimmy carter (hostage rescue) or gerald ford (mayaguez incident). Look the last one up on wiki. I'm just glad we didn't decide to arrest him and bring him back for trial. Osama got what he long deserved, but its not overwith and hopefully the "war on terror" or what the latest term we use will continue successfully
I can't really decipher what you are trying to say, but somewhere in there are you trying to say that the Director of the CIA didn't have an impact on the organizational capacity of the CIA? You can damn well bet Panetta, a CIA outsider shook things up when appointed. He has also made capturing Bin Laden the organizations #1 priority after Obama told him to do so.
You can also bet that they didn't have a bunch of GS-7's straight out of college handling the case. It was handled by the cream of the crop who Panetta, the NSC, and Obama hand picked to do so.
It is freaking killing a lot of people that Barack did well here.
I feel very fortunate to not hold myself to any political ideology and thus not have to lie to myself to justify positions.
Quote from: acme54321 on May 02, 2011, 07:22:48 PM
Well obviously he did, he's the commander in chief. He gives the go ahead. Maybe my original post was a little misworded. I should have said that to say that Bush wasted all that time and didn't really want to catch bin laden (which is what some of the earlier posts I saw were hinting at), then Obama came in and got him right away was a little much. They were both presidents doing their jobs. Why would Bush not want to catch him?
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority" -- G. W. Bush 3/13/02
Iraq was Dubya's #1 priority. Had we not wasted valuable time, money, and resources in Iraq Bin Laden would have been found far sooner.
When Obama took charge, he made finding and killing Bin Laden the #1 priority of the CIA and JSOC.
Dubya's Priorities SOMEWHAT had to do with Oil.. seeing as he and Daddy are in the Oil business.
Don't forget old Dicky C, with his ties to Haliburton.
Even though he is likely dead, you still have to ask yourself who really won in the end. Funny how you never hear a word about the below.
Quotehttp://articles.cnn.com/2004-11-01/world/binladen.tape_1_al-jazeera-qaeda-bin?_s=PM:WORLD
CNN - Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S.
November 01, 2004
The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
As part of the "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan," bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States.
"Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said. "As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
The total U.S. national debt is more than $7 trillion (Ken note: $15 trillion now). The U.S. federal deficit was $413 billion in 2004, according to the Treasury Department.
"It is true that this shows that al Qaeda has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something that anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced.
"And it all shows that the real loser is you," he said. "It is the American people and their economy."
U.S. government officials said Friday that the tape appeared to be authentic and recently made. It was the first videotaped message from the al Qaeda leader in nearly three years.
Quote from: KenFSU on May 03, 2011, 09:51:36 AM
Even though he is likely dead, you still have to ask yourself who really won in the end. Funny how you never hear a word about the below.
Quotehttp://articles.cnn.com/2004-11-01/world/binladen.tape_1_al-jazeera-qaeda-bin?_s=PM:WORLD
CNN - Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S.
November 01, 2004
The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
As part of the "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan," bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States.
"Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said. "As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
The total U.S. national debt is more than $7 trillion (Ken note: $15 trillion now). The U.S. federal deficit was $413 billion in 2004, according to the Treasury Department.
"It is true that this shows that al Qaeda has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something that anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced.
"And it all shows that the real loser is you," he said. "It is the American people and their economy."
U.S. government officials said Friday that the tape appeared to be authentic and recently made. It was the first videotaped message from the al Qaeda leader in nearly three years.
WE certainly didn't win much....2 wars, 1.3 trillion dollars later....terrorized half the world's population, and I guarantee, created a whole new generation of US-hating, intolerant freedom fighters.
Perspective from Pakistan...
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/05/201152102627169176.html
Quote
Bin Laden death: Views from Pakistan
While Americans breathe sigh of relief, many Pakistanis are apprehensive of the future after al-Qaeda leader's death.
Sunniya Pirzada Last Modified: 02 May 2011 11:46
Years on the run before finally being killed by the US forces - that is how Osama bin Laden met his end but the interest in his story will not wane easily - and definitely not in Pakistan, the country where he was killed.
To the surprise of many, he was not found in the lawless tribal region of Pakistan where he was believed to have been hiding but in a compound in an upscale and busy part of Pakistan's garrison city of Abbottabad - home to its military academy - and about 60km from Pakistan's capital, Islamabad.
And then the reports that his body has already been buried at sea, which the US authorities say has been done according to the Islamic Sharia Law, has raised many eyebrows in Pakistan.
Speaking to Al Jazeera, General Hameed Gul, the former head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), said that "We knew all along that it (the war on terror) will eventually come to Pakistan".
"And now with this incident, they have the reason to justify what they have been saying all along that there are al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan.
"Pakistan has been the target of this so-called 'war on terror'which began in Afghanistan, then was taken to Iraq and finally has come to Pakistan.
"The anti-Pakistan lobby can now say 'go for Pakistan'â€" they knew that they couldn' go against a nuclear Pakistan so the best way forward was to create internal problems and then ultimately come up with the stance that Pakistan’s nukes were not in safe hands."
The surprise factor
For many like Khurshid Kasuri, Pakistan's former foreign minister, the news has come as a surprise. He told Al Jazeera that "the news has surprised the entire world but it is not surprising that he was still alive.
"When I was foreign minister (2002 - 2007), there was incorrect information about Osama bin Laden's arrest â€" it turned out that a lookalike had been arrested.
"Again it is not surprising that he was not found in the tribal region, there had been rumours circulating that he was living in Karachi because he needed medical care.
"I myself read reports which clearly stated that he was not in the tribal region so it is not a surprise that they found him in a city.
'Political win'
Many Pakistanis believe that they have paid a heavy price for the "war on terror" being waged by the US.
Shahzad Chaudhry, former air vice marshal Pakistan Air Force, said: "We may ignore for a second if Pakistanis agree with the war or not, but we cannot ignore the fact that the government and armed forces have been heavily involved in this war.
"It is a massive political win for the US. And [president Barack] Obama will now be able to implement his Afghan withdrawal plan very easily.
And then there are doubts about the operation having been 'managed' as Gul said, "There is a big question mark over the timing â€" Obama can now say Mission Accomplished! And his re-election campaign will get a tremendous boost."
Speaking on Pakistan's Geo News TV channel, General Pervez Musharraf, former Pakistani president, said that "I do not believe the conspiracy theories that it has been managed."
"Incidentally, it has happened at a time when it will definitely benefit Obama. But it will be a crucial mistake on the part of US if they believe that the war on terror is over - that is not the case, a battle has been won but the war continues.
"So they shouldn’t think that it is alright to just wrap up and leave, that will be a huge mistake.
Pakistan role?
President Obama, in his announcement of bin Laden's death, acknowledged Pakistan's co-operation in the hunt for him.
However, it has not yet been established, to what extent did the intelligence agencies of US and Pakistan work together.
Gul said: "If they carried the operation without the cooperation of ISI, then it will definitely be seen as a direct attack on Pakistan’s integrity and its sovereignty.
"And if ISI and CIA co-operated on this operation then this entire rhetoric of tense relations between the two agencies was a complete drama."
"Given that the helicopters flew at night, and helicopters fly very low so there is no way that they could have escaped the radar of Pakistan intelligence," said Kasuri.
"So this indicates that there was a degree of cooperation. Now what we do not know is the extent of the co-operation."
Ayaz Amir, a Pakistan-based columnist, says it is highly unlikely that "the Pakistani intelligence agencies would have known where he was. They couldn't have played this high-risk game of knowing his whereabouts and pretending otherwise".
"And it is surprising that it took place near a very busy road, it shows sheer audacity that on his part that he chose to seek refuge in a compound in that area.
"The US forces couldn’t have carried out the operation on their own so the question is who gave them the tip-off?"
Many did believe he was already dead - including some CIA officials.
And General Pervez Musharraf, during his time as the president of Pakistan, also said that the man was probably dead but speaking to Geo News on Monday, he said that, "If I had the intelligence report, then I could have confirmed his whereabouts.
"I used to get agitated if someone made a claim that they knew where he was â€" I have to say I was surprised to find out that he was found in Abbottabad."
"When I held the presidential office, in terms of military operations, intelligence cooperation, human intelligence was always ours.
"We had zero technical expertise - no aerial surveillance so we started developing it. But we needed technical support from CIA and gradually we developed our own which was still not comparable to that of the US.
"The policy was clear that only Pakistani troops will operate, no foreign troops will operate. US forces were never allowed, Pakistani forces always operated independently."
And like many others Musharraf acknowledged that "US had always said that in case of actionable intelligence, we will act. But it is a violation of our country, we have well-trained troops."
Worry for Pakistan?
The initial surprise and disbelief have already started to transform into worry for many Pakistanis.
"Pakistan has the most to fear in terms of the reaction, from wherever al-Qaeda has strength in the Islamic World, including Asia and Middle East," said Kasuri.
"In the short term, there will be many more incidents by terrorists, these will be acts to avenge Osama bin Laden’s death......and not just in Pakistan but across the globe.
"In the medium term, US public opinion has been swayed, they feel that justice has been done and it will help Obama finalise his exit strategy from the region.
"In the long term, there will be a quiet debate in the US quarters on how did the phenomenon (of al-Qaeda) come about, they will not acknowledge it but they will talk about it.
Imran Khan, Chairman Movement for Justice, who staged a sit-in just over a week ago to stop NATO supplies to protest US drone strikes in Pakistan says that, "It will be very difficult for Pakistan now.
"If our leadership fails to handle it properly, there will be a backlash from Osama bin Laden’s followers who will hail him as a martyr and try to avenge his death.
"And on the other hand, the idea will be presented to the world and is already being presented by the US media that Pakistan is the hub of terrorism.
Just a symbol
Osama bin Laden, the man who indeed founded al-Qaeda although was no longer the chief operations commander of the outfit, will surely be missed by many of his followers.
Raja Zafar-ul-Haq of Pakistan Muslim League says that "he had just been a symbol (of terrorism) for the last few years but we must remember that the network is still present.
"There will be anger, and the target will not just be US but also Pakistanis so the Pakistan government as well armed forces need to strategise."
Musharraf reminded of a true threat that he believes is very much present still despite the death of the man.
"Al-Qaeda will not just crumble and disappear, whenever someone gefts eliminated from their leadership campaign then new people come and take charge, so we must all realise that it is a long drawn campaign."
"Technical training of Pakistani Taliban such as preparing and using IEDs, suicide jackets, all this training has been given by al-Qaeda... so it is actually al-Qaeda not Osama, that is Pakistan’s main enemy.
"No foreigner has the right to spread terrorism on Pakistan' soil."
Those wacky Germans...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,760358,00.html
QuoteJustice, American Style
Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal?
An Analysis by Thomas Darnstädt
Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was killed on Sunday in a secret military operation in Pakistan. Americans are celebrating, but there are serious doubts about whether the targeted killing was legal under international law and the laws of war.
US President Barack Obama gets precious few opportunities to announce a victory. So it's no wonder he chose grand words on Sunday night as the TV crews' spotlights shone upon him and he informed the nation about the deadly strike against Osama bin Laden. "Justice has been done," he said.
It may be that this sentence comes back to haunt him in the years to come. What is just about killing a feared terrorist in his home in the middle of Pakistan? For the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and for patriotic Americans who saw their grand nation challenged by a band of criminals, the answer might be simple. But international law experts, who have been grappling with the question of the legal status of the US-led war on terror for years, find Obama's pithy words on Sunday night more problematic.
Claus Kress, an international law professor at the University of Cologne, argues that achieving retributive justice for crimes, difficult as that may be, is "not achieved through summary executions, but through a punishment that is meted out at the end of a trial." Kress says the normal way of handling a man who is sought globally for commissioning murder would be to arrest him, put him on trial and ultimately convict him. In the context of international law, military force can be used in the arrest of a suspect, and this may entail gun fire or situations of self-defense that, in the end, leave no other possibility than to kill a highly dangerous and highly suspicious person. These developments can also lead to tragic and inevitable escalations of the justice process.
It is unfortunate. And it is certainly no reason for the indescribable jubilation that broke out on Sunday night across America -- and especially not for applause inside the CIA's operations center.
Not Everything the US Declares To Be War Really Is
But Obama and his predecessor Bush never sought the kind of justice that would have seen bin Laden tried in an international court. As early as his election campaign in 2008, Obama swore he would "kill bin Laden" and finish the job begun by his predecessor after 9/11. "We went to war against al-Qaida to protect our citizens, our friends and our allies," the president explained on Sunday night. A US national security official didn't beat around the bush, telling Reuters, "This was a kill operation." And why shouldn't it be? The very goal of war is the defeat of the opponent, the killing of enemies through legal means. War is war.
In truth, it isn't quite that simple. And not everything that the United States declares to be war really is. Legal experts like Kress say it is "questionable whether the USA can still claim to be engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaida."
It was certainly still war when Bush began the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Operation Enduring Freedom targeted the Taliban government in Kabul as well as Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization which it backed. At the time, al-Qaida maintained bases and training camps in Afghanistan -- just like a warring party, in fact. The war on terror was understood to be an "asymmetrical war," and the laws of war also permit the targeted killing of non-state combatants, provided they are really combatants who are organized in units with a military-like character, and that they are integrated into those units either as armed fighters or as a leader who issues commands.
Was Bin Laden Still Even Giving Orders?
For years, Osama bin Laden was, without a doubt, a combatant according to the latter definition. Many terror experts today, however, doubt that definition still applied to him in the end. "Al-Qaida has obviously had a network structure for some time. In a network, it isn't clear who gives the orders in individual instances," Kress says. "Outsiders also know very little about al-Qaida's structures in the Pakistani border areas. It is in no way certain that bin Laden still had the authority to issue commands as head of a quasi-military organization."
But if bin Laden was no longer a leader, it would no longer be permissible to treat him as an enemy combatant or kill him.
Nor is it clear which conflict this operation was actually part of. The operation didn't take place on the actual battlefield of Operation Enduring Freedom, i.e. in Afghanistan, but rather on Pakistani territory. On this point, too, the official American view of international law also diverges from that of most experts on the subject. The commanders of the war on terror consider the entire world to be a battlefield. The US would seek to justify a military operation like the one that took place Sunday anywhere it believes the enemy is hiding -- regardless whether it be in Europe or Islamabad.
Kress and the vast majority of other experts on the law of armed conflict find this view unacceptable. "The theater of an asymmetrical conflict is regularly confined to the territory of the country in, or from, which the non-governmental actors act in quasi-military ways," says Kress. "Anything else would lead to the incalculable escalation of the use of force." Or is another asymmetrical war raging on Pakistani territory today, with al-Qaida waging war against the government there? If so, what role does the Taliban play in this conflict? Or bin Laden, for his part?
"It is in no way clear that bin Laden, at the time of his killing, commanded an organization that was conducting an armed conflict either in or from Pakistan," Kress says.
What Business Did the US Have in Pakistan?
And what business did the United States even have acting within the territory of Pakistan, a foreign power? A military strike that crosses national borders, barring acts of self-defense, is generally viewed as an infringement on sovereignty -- unless Pakistan's government requested help from the Americans.
Did Islamabad actually make that request? Obama sought to gloss over the subject on Sunday night. "Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations."
But was Sunday a good day for justice?
For years, the very principle of international law has been to pursue justice rather than war. On Sunday, Obama said that bin Laden's fate is a "testament to the greatness of our country." If the United States had used the same power it deployed during the invasion of Iraq to force tyrants such as Saddam Hussein or Moammar Gadhafi -- not to mention the mass murderer Osama bin Laden -- into the dock of an international court, one might have believed him.
Should we post the picture when it comes out?
QuoteWHITE HOUSE TO RELEASE BIN LADEN DEATH PHOTO
Tue May 03 2011 10:22:50 ET
President Obama decided Tuesday morning to release at least one photo showing Osama Bin Laden's death, a top source claims.
The images, being described as 'graphic', are bound to stir emotions in the east and the west, and will likely become the most viewed photographs in modern history.
One image shows a bullet wound to his head above his left eye.
Will it remove all doubt about the death?
The exact timing on the release is being debated.
I don't think so, BT. There will be plenty of other places to see it.
I don't need to see a picture of him.. I believe he is dead. I just hope there is not major retaliation for this.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html
Virtually every major newspaper account of the killing of Osama bin Laden consists of faithful copying of White House claims. That's not surprising: it's the White House which is in exclusive possession of the facts, but what's also not surprising is that many of the claims that were disseminated yesterday turned out to be utterly false. And no matter how many times this happens -- from Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight against Iraqi captors to Pat Tillman's death at the hands of Evil Al Qaeda fighters -- it never changes: the narrative is set forever by first-day government falsehoods uncritically amplified by establishment media outlets, which endure no matter how definitively they are disproven in subsequent days.
Yesterday, it was widely reported that bin Laden "resisted" his capture and "engaged in a firefight" with U.S. forces (leaving most people, including me, to say that his killing was legally justified because he was using force). It was also repeatedly claimed that bin Laden used a women -- his wife -- has a human shield to protect himself, and that she was killed as a result. That image -- of a cowardly through violent-to-the-end bin Laden -- framed virtually every media narrative of the event all over the globe. And it came from many government officials, principally Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan.
Those claims have turned out to be utterly false. From TPM toda:
It was a fitting end for the America's most wanted man. As President Barack Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan told it, a cowardly Osama bin Laden used his own wife as a human shield in his final moments. Except that apparently wasn't what happened at all.
Hours later, other administration officials were clarifying Brennan's account. Turns out the woman that was killed on the compound wasn't bin Laden's wife. Bin Laden may have not even been using a human shield. And he might not have even been holding a gun.
Politico's Josh Gerstein adds: "The White House backed away Monday evening from key details in its narrative about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, including claims by senior U.S. officials that the Al Qaeda leader had a weapon and may have fired it during a gun battle with U.S. forces." Gerstein added: "a senior White House official said bin Laden was not armed when he was killed."
Whether bin Laden actually resisted his capture may not matter to many people; the White House also claimed that they would have captured him if they had the chance, and this fact seems to negate that claim as well. But what does matter is how dutifully American media outlets publish as "news reports" what are absolutely nothing other than official White House statements masquerading as an investigative article. And the fact that this process continuously produces highly and deliberately misleading accounts of the most significant news items -- falsehoods which endure no matter how decisively they are debunked in subsequent days -- doesn't have the slightest impact on the American media's eagerness to continue to serve this role.
* * * * *
Mona Eltahwy has an excellent column in The Guardian today headlined: "No dignity at Ground Zero. As a US Muslim I abhor the frat boy reaction."
Speaking of "frat boy reactions," Leon Panetta is excitingly speculating about which actors should portray him in the movie about the Hunt for bin Laden, helpfully suggesting Al Pacino. It's been a long time since Americans felt this good and strong about themselves -- nothing like putting bullets in someone's skull and dumping their corpse into an ocean to rejuvenate that can-do American sense of optimism.
OH BOY OH BOY! DO bring the gory photo to us! -rubs hands-
-serpent style eyes glaring at the photo-
(sarcasm)
-Josh
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_speaks_on_osama_bin_ladens_death_20110502/
I know that because of this announcement, that reportedly Osama bin Laden was killed, Bob [Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer] wanted me to say a few words about it … about al-Qaida. I spent a year of my life covering al-Qaida for The New York Times. It was the work in which I, and other investigative reporters, won the Pulitzer Prize. And I spent seven years of my life in the Middle East. I was the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. I’m an Arabic speaker. And when someone came over and told ... me the news, my stomach sank. I’m not in any way naive about what al-Qaida is. It’s an organization that terrifies me. I know it intimately.
But I’m also intimately familiar with the collective humiliation that we have imposed on the Muslim world. The expansion of military occupation that took place throughout, in particular the Arab world, following 9/11â€"and that this presence of American imperial bases, dotted, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Dohaâ€"is one that has done more to engender hatred and acts of terror than anything ever orchestrated by Osama bin Laden.
And the killing of bin Laden, who has absolutely no operational role in al-Qaidaâ€"that’s clearâ€"he’s kind of a spiritual mentor, a kind of guide … he functions in many of the ways that Hitler functioned for the Nazi Party. We were just talking with Warren [Beatty] about [Ian] Kershaw’s great biography of Hitler, which I read a few months ago, where you hold up a particular ideological ideal and strive for it. That was bin Laden’s role. But all actual acts of terror, which he may have signed off on, he no way planned.
I think that one of the most interesting aspects of the whole rise of al-Qaida is that when Saddam Hussein … I covered the first Gulf War, went into Kuwait with the 1st Battalion, 1st Marines, was in Basra during the Shiite uprising until I was captured and taken prisoner by the Iraqi Republican Guard. I like to say I was embedded with the Iraqi Republican Guard. Within that initial assault and occupation of Kuwait, bin Laden appealed to the Saudi government to come back and help organize the defense of his country. And he was turned down. And American troops came in and implanted themselves on Muslim soil.
Advertisement
When I was in New York, as some of you were, on 9/11, I was in Times Square when the second plane hit. I walked into The New York Times, I stuffed notebooks in my pocket and walked down the West Side Highway and was at Ground Zero four hours later. I was there when Building 7 collapsed. And I watched as a nation drank deep from that very dark elixir of American nationalism … the flip side of nationalism is always racism, it’s about self-exaltation and the denigration of the other.
And it’s about forgetting that terrorism is a tactic. You can’t make war on terror. Terrorism has been with us since Sallust wrote about it in the Jugurthine wars. And the only way to successfully fight terrorist groups is to isolate [them], isolate those groups, within their own societies. And I was in the immediate days after 9/11 assigned to go out to Jersey City and the places where the hijackers had lived and begin to piece together their lives. I was then very soon transferred to Paris, where I covered all of al-Qaida’s operations in the Middle East and Europe.
So I was in the Middle East in the days after 9/11. And we had garnered the empathy of not only most of the world, but the Muslim world who were appalled at what had been done in the name of their religion. And we had major religious figures like Sheikh Tantawi, the head of al-Azharâ€"who died recentlyâ€"who after the attacks of 9/11 not only denounced them as a crime against humanity, which they were, but denounced Osama bin Laden as a fraud … someone who had no right to issue fatwas or religious edicts, no religious legitimacy, no religious training. And the tragedy was that if we had the courage to be vulnerable, if we had built on that empathy, we would be far safer and more secure today than we are.
We responded exactly as these terrorist organizations wanted us to respond. They wanted us to speak the language of violence. What were the explosions that hit the World Trade Center, huge explosions and death above a city skyline? It was straight out of Hollywood. When Robert McNamara in 1965 began the massive bombing campaign of North Vietnam, he did it because he said he wanted to “send a message†to the North Vietnameseâ€"a message that left hundreds of thousands of civilians dead.
These groups learned to speak the language we taught them. And our response was to speak in kind. The language of violence, the language of occupationâ€"the occupation of the Middle East, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistanâ€"has been the best recruiting tool al-Qaida has been handed. If it is correct that Osama bin Laden is dead, then it will spiral upwards with acts of suicidal vengeance. And I expect most probably on American soil. The tragedy of the Middle East is one where we proved incapable of communicating in any other language than the brute and brutal force of empire.
And empire finally, as Thucydides understood, is a disease. As Thucydides wrote, the tyranny that the Athenian empire imposed on others it finally imposed on itself. The disease of empire, according to Thucydides, would finally kill Athenian democracy. And the disease of empire, the disease of nationalism … these of course are mirrored in the anarchic violence of these groups, but one that locks us in a kind of frightening death spiral. So while I certainly fear al-Qaida, I know its intentions. I know how it works. I spent months of my life reconstructing every step Mohamed Atta took. While I don’t in any way minimize their danger, I despair. I despair that we as a country, as Nietzsche understood, have become the monster that we are attempting to fight.
I hope they reconsider releasing the photo. What's the reason for it? To prove that he's dead? To humiliate his supporters?
I don't hear a lot of people questioning whether or not he's dead. And those who believe he's still alive will say the photos are faked. There are still birthers out there who think the Birth Certificate Obama released is faked so what's the point?
Look at all the hell that broke loose when that nutty preacher in Gainesville burned a Quran. All it will do is fan the flames of America's enemies, and quite frankly it's a cheap, undignified thing to do. Hell, why dump him in the ocean? Why not parade his body around the country and charge people $2 to throw darts at it? String him up from the top of the Freedom Tower. That makes about as much sense of releasing gruesome pictures of his corpse.
These groups learned to speak the language we taught them. And our response was to speak in kind. The language of violence, the language of occupationâ€"the occupation of the Middle East, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistanâ€"has been the best recruiting tool al-Qaida has been handed. If it is correct that Osama bin Laden is dead, then it will spiral upwards with acts of suicidal vengeance. And I expect most probably on American soil. The tragedy of the Middle East is one where we proved incapable of communicating in any other language than the brute and brutal force of empire.
Quote from: Ajax on May 03, 2011, 01:16:50 PM
I don't hear a lot of people questioning whether or not he's dead. And those who believe he's still alive will say the photos are faked. There are still birthers out there who think the Birth Certificate Obama released is faked so what's the point?
Closure. Plain and simple. If you don't hear people questioning whether he is truly dead, you aren't listening closely enough. Doubts have already arisen, both at home and world wide. There is a massive difference between discretely releasing the photos and parading him around the nation on a stick. We have spent $1.3 trillion dollars to bring this man to justice, and after all that we've sacrificed in the last ten years as a nation, and all of the sacrifice we've asked (or taken) from the world, we owe irrefutable proof that the mission was successful. There's nothing bloodthirsty about it. We simply need that closure, in the same way a victim's family sometimes needs the closure of witnessing an execution.
The Arab world also needs closure. Bin Laden had to have known this day would come eventually. You've got to believe he has produced some videos to be released after his death, likely claiming not to believe any story of him being killed. Last thing we need is to leave doubt that he is still alive only to have him return from the dead via modern technology and become this Messianic figure.
Bin Laden took something very personal from each and every one of us, and it's not in the rights of the United States government to decide to keep that proof to themselves.
Show us a body, not for high-fives and vengeance, but for simple closure. That way we can all move on with our lives.
As was noted above, the story we have been told is ALREADY falling apart.
You have a point, Ken. Right after I posted, I came across an article where the Taliban is saying they doubt OBL's dead. However, it doesn't change my position - I'm not in favor of allowing the Taliban to manipulate us into releasing the pictures.
Once we 'discretely' release the photos, we lose control over what is done with them. They will be splashed across newspapers in a less-discrete manner. I would be willing to bet there are at least a couple of budding entrepreneurs who will be willing to make t-shirts.
It's one thing to have news footage of a murder or an assassination, but another to deliberately release photos of a dead person - no matter how evil that person is. It debases us.
I agree that Osama bin Laden took something personal away from us, but instead of releasing pictures of his corpse, I think a better way of healing is for us to start to regain some of the freedoms that were taken away from us by the 'war on terror.'
Quote from: Ajax on May 03, 2011, 01:52:04 PM
I agree that Osama bin Laden took something personal away from us, but instead of releasing pictures of his corpse, I think a better way of healing is for us to start to regain some of the freedoms that were taken away from us by the 'war on terror.'
I'm definitely with you on that, but I guess we'll agree to disagree on the release of the photos :D
Also, there should be a drinking game where a person has to guess whether an article comes from the Onion or the Florida Times-Union.
http://jacksonville.com/community/clay/2011-05-02/story/bin-ladens-death-means-green-cove-springs-woman-finally-gets-burn
Bottoms up for me because I definitely would have thought that was from the Onion! ;D
I am sure the photos will get out no matter what.
Quote from: ben says on May 03, 2011, 01:18:15 PM
These groups learned to speak the language we taught them. And our response was to speak in kind. The language of violence, the language of occupationâ€"the occupation of the Middle East, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistanâ€"has been the best recruiting tool al-Qaida has been handed. If it is correct that Osama bin Laden is dead, then it will spiral upwards with acts of suicidal vengeance. And I expect most probably on American soil. The tragedy of the Middle East is one where we proved incapable of communicating in any other language than the brute and brutal force of empire.
How profound. I love these guys whose sole job is to show us how smart they are... Really? He is actually predicting acts of suicidal vengeance? Who woulda thunk it??
His analysis of bin laden as a mere figurehead is wrong also. Oh it may be true on the day of his death... His guidance, financing and leadership of "the cell" is well documented.
With all his wisdom he never really suggests how we should have reacted to 9/11 had we been as enlightened as him... nor how to deal with bin laden and al qaida except for some vague reference to "isolate them". Yeah right... I can see that going well. "Today I announce a program of isolation against al qaida. I know you all want to just go get em... but we were told that simply isolating them within their own communities will be punishment enough". Sure thing boss... That speech will go over well in Peoria.
Terrorism is a tactic?? WTF? Who knew? Thank you Mr Hedges! Off to the national security council for you.
I could go on... there are not enough "roll eyes" for junk like this...
And while we are talking about pictures, there is a story going round Facebook that a supposed video of his execution is actually a virus. So be careful if you get any e-mails with such attachments. For me personally, I don't need to see a picture of his body. While I am not an Obama fan at all, I will take him at his word on this. Why? Because if this really is a lie and someone, somewhere down the road uncovers the truth, Obama would not get re-elected and probabaly wouldn't even be able to get a job as a dogcatcher. He is not a stupid man.
Quote from: KenFSU on May 03, 2011, 01:39:21 PM
Quote from: Ajax on May 03, 2011, 01:16:50 PM
I don't hear a lot of people questioning whether or not he's dead. And those who believe he's still alive will say the photos are faked. There are still birthers out there who think the Birth Certificate Obama released is faked so what's the point?
Closure. Plain and simple. If you don't hear people questioning whether he is truly dead, you aren't listening closely enough. Doubts have already arisen, both at home and world wide. There is a massive difference between discretely releasing the photos and parading him around the nation on a stick. We have spent $1.3 trillion dollars to bring this man to justice, and after all that we've sacrificed in the last ten years as a nation, and all of the sacrifice we've asked (or taken) from the world, we owe irrefutable proof that the mission was successful. There's nothing bloodthirsty about it. We simply need that closure, in the same way a victim's family sometimes needs the closure of witnessing an execution.
The Arab world also needs closure. Bin Laden had to have known this day would come eventually. You've got to believe he has produced some videos to be released after his death, likely claiming not to believe any story of him being killed. Last thing we need is to leave doubt that he is still alive only to have him return from the dead via modern technology and become this Messianic figure.
Bin Laden took something very personal from each and every one of us, and it's not in the rights of the United States government to decide to keep that proof to themselves.
Show us a body, not for high-fives and vengeance, but for simple closure. That way we can all move on with our lives.
As was noted above, the story we have been told is ALREADY falling apart.
Problem is ,, there are so many people out there who so closely resemble him. I know they said DNA proved that it is him. That is enough , for me personally.
and I know I already said this ,but rest assured, there will be some sort of retaliation attempt. It is just the sort of evil person he was and the group that he was a part of and what they represent.
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on May 03, 2011, 02:11:53 PM
While I am not an Obama fan at all, I will take him at his word on this. Why? Because if this really is a lie and someone, somewhere down the road uncovers the truth, Obama would not get re-elected and probabaly wouldn't even be able to get a job as a dogcatcher. He is not a stupid man.
Does the term "WMD" ring a bell :)
Yep except there were WMD found...and I am not going to get into any kind of argument over that..
Quote from: wsansewjs on May 03, 2011, 01:15:40 PM
OH BOY OH BOY! DO bring the gory photo to us! -rubs hands-
-serpent style eyes glaring at the photo-
(sarcasm)
-Josh
That's exactly how I feel. Except I'm not being sarcastic.
Watch the video "jumpers" and tell me you don't want to see that fucker with a bullet hole through his head.
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on May 03, 2011, 02:52:35 PM
Yep except there were WMD found...and I am not going to get into any kind of argument over that..
Oh, there were? Where?
That would be serious news, to everyone including our own government!
Osama is now not only dead, but had become increasingly irrelevant to the young people of the Arab world who are right now finding and fighting their own way to freedom and not his way.
"Violence never settles anything!" Oh, yeah. Ask the people of Carthage about that.
Speak the "language of violence" to me a guess how I'll answer.
Quote from: Timkin on May 03, 2011, 12:44:21 PM
I don't need to see a picture of him.. I believe he is dead. I just hope there is not major retaliation for this.
hear hear! With that being done, All essential management of Al Quaida was eliminated a while ago. Great job Mr President,
God bless America.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 03, 2011, 02:54:23 PM
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on May 03, 2011, 02:52:35 PM
Yep except there were WMD found...and I am not going to get into any kind of argument over that..
Oh, there were? Where?
That would be serious news, to everyone including our own government!
From the U.S Department of Defense
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 â€" The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on May 03, 2011, 03:05:55 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 03, 2011, 02:54:23 PM
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on May 03, 2011, 02:52:35 PM
Yep except there were WMD found...and I am not going to get into any kind of argument over that..
Oh, there were? Where?
That would be serious news, to everyone including our own government!
From the U.S Department of Defense
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
Some leftover poison gas from Saddam's Kurdish campaign in the 1980s?
Seriously?
Are you kidding?
So when you can't find the WMD's, you just redefine "WMD" and claim you were right? LMAO...
So let's dispense with the B.S., shall we? What Bush said was that Saddam was buying Yellowcake Uranium on the black market and was developing a nuclear weapons program. So...where are THOSE WMDs? You know, the ones Bush talked about? The ones we invaded Iraq for? What's next? Saddam ate some beans at dinner, had a particularly bad fart, now it's a "WMD"?
Well, then a cluster bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction" or so is a runaway car. They were stretching the definition of "weapon of mass destruction" to try to cover their rear end by defining anything that could kill more than one person at a time as one.
What they were looking for and had said existed were atomic bombs or radioactive dirty bombs, or biological weapon, not small shells with mustard gas in them. Remember the truck mounted "biological weapons factories"?
QuoteA Senior US Official tells CNN 10 hard drives, 5 computers and more than 100 storage devices which includes discs, DVDs and thumb drives were taken from the compound.
What remains of al qaida is scurrying like cockroaches when you turn on the light...
Those are not my words Chris. They came from DOD. I said I was not going to get into a debate about this Chris. And I'm not. You believe what you want and I will believe what I want.
Tons of yellow cake urainium were found and disposed of.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 03, 2011, 03:16:12 PM
QuoteA Senior US Official tells CNN 10 hard drives, 5 computers and more than 100 storage devices which includes discs, DVDs and thumb drives were taken from the compound.
What remains of al qaida is scurrying like cockroaches when you turn on the light...
I wonder if there are some high-level Pakistani leaders whose buttholes are puckering a little bit right now too.
Quote from: Ajax on May 03, 2011, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 03, 2011, 03:16:12 PM
QuoteA Senior US Official tells CNN 10 hard drives, 5 computers and more than 100 storage devices which includes discs, DVDs and thumb drives were taken from the compound.
What remains of al qaida is scurrying like cockroaches when you turn on the light...
I wonder if there are some high-level Pakistani leaders whose buttholes are puckering a little bit right now too.
No doubt... unless of course bin laden really liked porn...
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 03:20:18 PM
Tons of yellow cake urainium were found and disposed of.
Source? http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
The Pakistani leaders are going to be in a real bind. They were either complicit in hiding Ben Ladin or their vaunted military and intelligence services are going to be revealed as clueless buffoons who can't find their behinds with both hands on a clear day.
Either way we should stop sending them a billion dollars a year.
1000 feet from their own version of West Point and they didn't know!?
Quote from: KenFSU on May 03, 2011, 02:34:47 PM
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on May 03, 2011, 02:11:53 PM
While I am not an Obama fan at all, I will take him at his word on this. Why? Because if this really is a lie and someone, somewhere down the road uncovers the truth, Obama would not get re-elected and probabaly wouldn't even be able to get a job as a dogcatcher. He is not a stupid man.
Does the term "WMD" ring a bell :)
Yes ,,,that was Dubyah's broken record during his entire term at the Whitehouse.
And umm..... Where exactly were those WMDs ? I never knew anything at all about those being found.
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 03, 2011, 03:29:41 PM
The Pakistani leaders are going to be in a real bind. They were either complicit in hiding Ben Ladin or their vaunted military and intelligence services are going to be revealed as clueless buffoons who can't find their behinds with both hands on a clear day.
Either way we should stop sending them a billion dollars a year.
1000 feet from their own version of West Point and they didn't know!?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight . They didn't know ;)
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 03:20:18 PM
Tons of yellow cake urainium were found and disposed of.
Yes, just unfortunately not in Iraq...
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on May 03, 2011, 03:18:45 PM
Those are not my words Chris. They came from DOD. I said I was not going to get into a debate about this Chris. And I'm not. You believe what you want and I will believe what I want.
Then post the DOD's words for us. Otherwise your ship sunk before it left the dock.
And, FWIW, saying "I'm not going to get into a debate" after dropping some absurd nonsense doesn't accomplish anything other than signaling to everyone else that you're not only wrong, but that you actually knew you were wrong when you said it, and are now just trying to foreclose others from pointing out that you haven't (or in this case, can't) back up your viewpoint. Absurd.
Quote from: Jimmy on May 03, 2011, 03:27:01 PM
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 03:20:18 PM
Tons of yellow cake urainium were found and disposed of.
Source? http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
The snopes piece confirms that approximatly 550 tons of yellow cake urainium were found, secured, and transported out of Iraq by the US.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-07/us/iraq.uranium_1_yellowcake-uranium-cameco?_s=PM:US
Right, but it was already known to us. It wasn't what Colin Powell told us, that which we were told was coming from Niger.
To put it another way: this wasn't what we were told about in order to sell the war to the American people.
Whatever you say. I was just pointing out a fact.
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 04:22:19 PM
Whatever you say. I was just pointing out a fact.
No, you were obscuring the truth. You said we "found" it. That's not true. We knew it was there.
See:
Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War.
There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
Jimmy, at the risk of "obscuring" the purpose of this website, let me correct you. The material was documented and secured by U. N. inspectors...who were kicked out of the country prior to the second gulf war. One of the primary causes of the war was the refusal of Iraq to cooperate with the U. N. on WMD supervision. Once the inspectors were not allowed to inspect, and were actually kicked out of the country, then we don't know what the yellowcake is being used for, do we? This material was found and secured by the U. S. Army during the invasion. It was secured by teams of specialists, and was safely transported out of Iraq. That is exactly how it happened. I am sorry if the truth hampers your "Bush sucks" party, but facts are just that...facts. Nonpartisan, nonjudgmental...facts.
I can only assume that the Bush haters would agree that securing this precursor material and getting it out of Iraq was a good thing, as was destruction of chemical weapons, no matter who is the President. Just as I would assume that the Obama haters would agree that killing OBL and securing massive intelligence on AQ is a good thing, no matter who is President.
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 04:22:19 PM
Whatever you say. I was just pointing out a fact.
No, you were being disingenuous.
We all know the rationale for the war was the supposed Iraqi weapons program. So, I'll ask again, where were the WMDs? I'm not interested in material that the U.S. originally sold Hussein in the 70s and 80s, that was controlled by the UN, and that we already knew about. I asked you about the supposed black market purchases and the nuclear weapons program Bush alleged Hussein was running, but which turned out to be a complete fabrication.
So, again, where were those WMDs? Mustard gas from the 80s and un-enriched powerplant fuel from the 70s were never what we were talking about, was it? This is seriously ridiculous. You can just say "I was wrong" and "Bush was wrong" and "the War was wrong" it wouldn't kill you. Or you're going to be like my nutty marine-colonel uncle who 30 years later will still argue we needed to go into Vietnam because the government said so?
NotNow, The facts and reality as reported by those in the know do not appear to support your version. I've done a quick search of the site's archives and I see you've been around this merry-go-round with others in the past. I don't have the time or energy that they might to devote to another trip around - at least not at this moment.
I don't hate anyone, including the former President. He was a disaster of epic proportions for the United States and his reign was a blackeye for our country.
His successor has surpassed him, and his efforts, in a short period of time. President Obama has done in two years what Mr. Bush could not accomplish in two terms. Most of this is my opinion. I know you have a different one.
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 04:38:41 PM
Jimmy, at the risk of "obscuring" the purpose of this website, let me correct you. The material was documented and secured by U. N. inspectors...who were kicked out of the country prior to the second gulf war. One of the primary causes of the war was the refusal of Iraq to cooperate with the U. N. on WMD supervision. Once the inspectors were not allowed to inspect, and were actually kicked out of the country, then we don't know what the yellowcake is being used for, do we? This material was found and secured by the U. S. Army during the invasion. It was secured by teams of specialists, and was safely transported out of Iraq. That is exactly how it happened. I am sorry if the truth hampers your "Bush sucks" party, but facts are just that...facts. Nonpartisan, nonjudgmental...facts.
I can only assume that the Bush haters would agree that securing this precursor material and getting it out of Iraq was a good thing, as was destruction of chemical weapons, no matter who is the President. Just as I would assume that the Obama haters would agree that killing OBL and securing massive intelligence on AQ is a good thing, no matter who is President.
And you see no logical issue at all with arguing, simultaneously, that Hussein was sitting on 500+ tons of Yellowcake he bought from us in the 70s, but that for some reason, he was hell-bent on buying a comparatively miniscule amount in a nigerian black market that couldn't supply a fraction of what he already had? Makes total sense! I'm sure the CEO of Coca-Cola has to go to the Shell station to get a Coke too.
Quote from: Jimmy on May 03, 2011, 04:46:20 PM
NotNow, The facts and reality as reported by those in the know do not appear to support your version. I've done a quick search of the site's archives and I see you've been around this merry-go-round with others in the past. I don't have the time or energy that they might to devote to another trip around - at least not at this moment.
I don't hate anyone, including the former President. He was a disaster of epic proportions for the United States and his reign was a blackeye for our country.
His successor has surpassed him, and his efforts, in a short period of time. President Obama has done in two years what Mr. Bush could not accomplish in two terms. Most of this is my opinion. I know you have a different one.
+1 certainly is how it appears to me, as well , although I admit I did not vote for Obama.
I pointed out that there was 550 tons of yellow cake urainium in Iraq. It was not secured by anyone but the Iraqis. If you don't think that was a threat, fine. I don't want to do this over and over again either. IMHO, this is not a political issue, but here everything is a political issue. That's fine too. Only approved opinions stay up on this site anyway. "Facts and reality"? Really? Who are "those in the know"? I have a friend who was permanantly disabled on this mission. The news media is hardly "in the know".
Please continue with your echo chamber.
Not in disagreement with you Not Now. Simply in agreement with Jimmy , that Obama's administration clearly accomplished what Bush's entire duration of Administration miserably failed at.
If they had 550 tons of Uranium, may I ask if you know where they got it? They sure did not process it out of the desert.
Many of your opinions are on the site . Many of mine (even if I am wrong ) are here as well.
I understand Timkin. I simply tire of the same old partisan crap. Bush was not "bad" and Obama is not "perfect". Mr. Obama has pretty much continued Mr. Bush's policies in foreign policy. I do think that he has fought the Pakistani war much more intelligently by using drone strikes. But essentially, the prosecution of the wars have not changed much. Gitmo has been an exercise in vacillation, but we seem to have settled on continuing with Mr. Bush's plan there. Libya is new and I don't like it, but I will be the first to admit that I am not privy to the information that POTUS is, so I'll back up the President in these situations.
Most of us with a few years on this Earth should know that little in this world is black and white. I am not in 100% agreement with any politician, local, state, or federal. I think we owe it to our politicians to give them the benefit of the doubt. While I draw the line at screwing twenty one year old girls entrusted to your care, or casting aside a wife or wives without a care, not to mention storing cash in a freezer, I believe that these guys have a tough job and are often faced with no win decisions. It is easy to second guess Presidents, but we shouldn't change or forget the facts that were known at the time of the decision. They have to live with their legacy, much of it out of their control.
Oh, and they did have the urainium, that is without question. It came from several sources in many different purchases.
Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2011, 05:55:08 PM
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 05:12:23 PM
I pointed out that there was 550 tons of yellow cake urainium in Iraq. It was not secured by anyone but the Iraqis. If you don't think that was a threat, fine. I don't want to do this over and over again either. IMHO, this is not a political issue, but here everything is a political issue. That's fine too. Only approved opinions stay up on this site anyway. "Facts and reality"? Really? Who are "those in the know"? I have a friend who was permanantly disabled on this mission. The news media is hardly "in the know".
Please continue with your echo chamber.
Well then you must really hate W, who explicitly denied that any such thing was ever discovered.
StephenDare!, as you well know, the 550 tons of urainium is well documented. I'll leave the spin up to you guys, but there is no doubt that the material was there, it was secured and moved by the US.
As I said, I'll leave the spin up to you guys. The facts (and if you listen to President Bush in your video, you might hear the qualifier) speak for themselves.
I think we all forgot how ineloquent Bush was. It was painful to watch the above video and a couple others I just watched.
I don't know how to embed video on here (feel free edit it Stephen), but here is a funny little clip from a Bush/Kerry debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc
The full clip of him saying how he's not worried about Bin Laden, is a great example of how clueless Bush was with wording things related to the Middle East:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o
Oh and I forgot just how big of a f up the Tora Bora operation was until I read about it again yesterday. We screwed up in a huge way there and should have easily killed UBL then, just a few months after 9/11. Possibly the biggest military blunder in US History.
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 05:12:23 PM
I pointed out that there was 550 tons of yellow cake urainium in Iraq. It was not secured by anyone but the Iraqis. If you don't think that was a threat, fine. I don't want to do this over and over again either. IMHO, this is not a political issue, but here everything is a political issue. That's fine too. Only approved opinions stay up on this site anyway. "Facts and reality"? Really? Who are "those in the know"? I have a friend who was permanantly disabled on this mission. The news media is hardly "in the know".
Please continue with your echo chamber.
Well, we can rehash it all you want until someone points out where those WMDs were that Bush cited as the justification for our going to war against Iraq. Maybe you'd care to explain how un-enriched powerplant fuel that we originally sold him in the 1970s or old mustard gas cannisters left over from the 1980s somehow *magically* constitute the nuclear weapons programs that Bush cited as his justification for war?
Because that was a complete fabrication, wasn't it?
I hear an echo....
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 05:55:51 PM
Oh, and they did have the urainium, that is without question. It came from several sources in many different purchases.
Yeah, it was old fuel from 30 years ago, it was not a 1999 black market purchase in Nigeria, as Bush claimed.
This really blows your whole argument up, don't you see that? Bush claimed Saddam was trying to purchase a small amount of yellowcake uranium on the black market, and that was his main justification for war. Meanwhile, it turns out saddam already had almost 600 TONS of the stuff for the past 3 decades. Something tells me if he was going to make a bomb he would've gotten around to it sometime in the course of 3 decades, and it seems equally unlikely that a dictator sitting on 600 tons of yellowcake would bother trying to buy a few kilograms on a Nigerian black market. Or does any of this actually make sense to you? In that case I'd have no choice but to feel bad for you.
One more time, where was that weapons program again? They didn't find the thing they jutified war with, did they?
I am not making an "argument". I pointed out that the Iraqi's had 550 tons of yellow cake urainium. It was secured by the US military and was transported out of the country. It is a simple fact.
There is no use in going over the history with all of you again. This is your website. Tell each other whatever you want. I am simply stating a fact and look at the little frenzy that it causes!
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 06:38:10 PM
I am not making an "argument". I pointed out that the Iraqi's had 550 tons of yellow cake urainium. It was secured by the US military and was transported out of the country. It is a simple fact.
There is no use in going over the history with all of you again. This is your website. Tell each other whatever you want. I am simply stating a fact and look at the little frenzy that it causes!
So answer this simple question; Were Bush's statements about Iraq's weapons program true?
I have repeated the only statement of fact I have made here several times. Iraq possessed 550 tons of yellow cake urainium. It was secured by US forces. It was transported to Canada by the US.
Is this not a fact? Of course it is. Now, as I have also stated several times, you guys spin it any way you want...the facts remain the same. Making up "questions" about arguments that you have invented is an interesting exercise...for you.
StephenDare!, we have discussed this ad nauseum. I made a statement of fact. You are aware that this is a fact. It is that simple. Whether you accept my choice of participation or not is not of concern to me.
As has been obvious for some time, this is your site. You can state anything you want. You don't need my "opinions" here.
And if you don't want me to state facts, then just say so and I will not post them any longer as well.
Chicken? Really? You think I am a coward?
Cute. I stand by my statement...and remain amused at your choice of words for me. I suppose I have been called worse.
Gee whiz. I guess that I will just have to look to you and Chris as "examples" of "moral courage". ;)
You do understand the difference between "fact" and "opinion" don't you StephenDare!?
Like I said...your site, enjoy yourself.
The man with the epic monocle strikes again! :D
I lol'd how the way the thread turned 90 degrees there and there and there then arrive at the current conclusion.
-Josh
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 07:16:13 PM
Gee whiz. I guess that I will just have to look to you and Chris as "examples" of "moral courage". ;)
You do understand the difference between "fact" and "opinion" don't you StephenDare!?
Like I said...your site, enjoy yourself.
I'd rather just have a straight answer to the very simple question; Did Saddam have WMDs or not?
This isn't some hypothetical question, you know. We invaded another country wrongfully, and we all know how that WMD claim turned out, don't we? Your ongoing refusal to acknowledge the basic realities that everyone else already knows only speaks to your character, not to the issue. There isn't a person on the planet, up to and including President Bush, who hasn't already acknowledged that the justification for the Iraq war was incorrect.
You're like that Japanese soldier who walked out of the jungle on Iwo Jima in the 60s and finally realized the war was over. 20 years too late. Enjoy eating the cockroaches in your jungle cave while you wait for orders from the Chimperor.
A simple statement of fact. Is it that hard to take? You guys have discussed it completely. Why do you need me to step in?
Ah, my character...and the name calling. Thanks for your "opinion". Don't you want to call me a "coward" as well?
Of course, none of this changes the fact that Iraq had 550 tons of yellow cake uranium, does it?
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 08:05:43 PM
Ah, my character...and the name calling. Thanks for your "opinion". Don't you want to call me a "coward" as well?
Well speaking personally, I never called you a coward. I wouldn't use that term, this is different. I don't know what exactly you'd call it, but how you handle situations where you're uncomfortable with the obvious, or where you have some emotional objection to doing the right thing, for whatever reason, is the true measure of a man. It doesn't take much to go through life blaming others and refusing to accept responsibility for incorrect views or mistakes. That's a coward's way out, and even then only in his own mind. Admitting you're wrong is far more difficult than not, even when everyone else already knows it. Quirk of human nature. I think this was Stephen's point. You're the first one to make others admit they're wrong on this site, the rules can't change simply because the shoe is on the other foot.
So there was not 550 tons of yellow cake uranium in Iraq? That is the only statement I have made. I have made no other claim. How am I wrong?
Perhaps you guys have confused your ferver in your own arguments with my statement of fact. I have not contradicted you in any way. Is it possible that in your own mind, your dislike for the truth of what I have stated drives you to make me say...something? Why is your own explanation of the situation not enough for you?
And yes, when factually wrong, I have pressed you and others to correct themselves. I have had to retract factually wrong statements myself. So I will ask again, what have I said that is factually wrong? Or are you forming my opinion in your own mind?
NotNow, you seem to lack a certain grasp on nuclear physics and the sheer amount of economic power it takes to turn that much "yellowcake" into a bomb.
The uranium (which was found rusting in drums and clearly not used) would have to have been refined. Which (ask Iran) is no easy task.
Iraq possessed neither the economic ability, nor the scientific capability to refine that uranium into anything other than an annoyance. Might I add that we've dispersed nearly that much in depleted uranium rounds during the entire span of both wars.
That yellowcake was a ruse. Anyone with any scientific know how laughed at that. So use that as your smoking gun if you want, but be prepared to be called out on it.
Riverside, I have not mentioned any smoking gun. I simply said one thing. Iraq possessed 550 tons of yellow cake uranium. The US secured it and transported it out of Iraq. I have not commented on it's use, or claimed expertise in nuclear physics. I have made no other claims. I have not offered any opinion on the subject. If you say it was a "ruse", that's OK with me. You back up your own statements.
I do have a question for you though, if you don't mind. With your expertise in nuclear physics, what would you say is the difference between yellow cake uranium and depleted uranium ammunition?
Let me ask the question then.. because I really do not know for a fact, the answer... and for the record , Chris nor Stephen asked me to do this. I am asking on my own, because I honestly do not know ...
Not Now....Was there Weapons of Mass Destruction in Sadaam's possession? If so , where were they and what became of them? Where did the yellow cake uranium that is the topic of discussion here, come from? I do not have answers to any of that.
Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2011, 09:58:06 PM
Did Sadaam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction or not?
That is a yes or no question.
actually I think its more of a "I'm not sure" answer...there was proof at one time that he did have them...and he may or may not have had them in 2003.
I think the correct question would be "Did we or did we not find WMD?"
Chris,.. what do you think Bush's real reason for the invasion of Iraq, was? I always was under the impression that it had to do with oil, since he is in the oil business... not really the events of 9/11.
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 03, 2011, 10:22:32 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2011, 09:58:06 PM
Did Sadaam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction or not?
That is a yes or no question.
actually I think its more of a "I'm not sure" answer...there was proof at one time that he did have them...and he may or may not have had them in 2003.
I think the correct question would be "Did we or did we not find WMD?"
The intelligence claiming Saddam had WMDs was completely fabricated, as everyone in the CIA and NSA, together with most of our State Department (example: Joe Wilson) knew and said at the time. Bush chose to ignore the myriad objections and proceed on known-faulty intelligence for personal reasons we'll probably never understand. But there was no credible threat, even at the time half this country, the UN, and the rest of the world knew the pretext was B.S. and said as much. If MetroJacksonville had existed in 2003, I would have been here saying the same, along with Stephen Dare, and NotNow, BridgeTroll, and RiversideGator would have been calling us liars. It was obvious to everyone who cared to look.
And this is no longer a hypothetical of "who knew what when" Tufsu. As everyone including Bush himself has since acknowledged, Saddam never had the WMDs we claimed he did. It was total rubbish.
Even the silly Elvis-sighters like NotNow who want to argue that some mustard gas leftover from the 1980s and decayed powerplant fuel left over from the 1970s somehow constitutes the "WMDs" Bush claimed Saddam had, that argument is still blown up because it's not a hypothetical anymore, we wrongfully took over the country to find a handful of decrepit containers rusting into the desert, where they were left three decades ago. So much for these alleged nuclear weapons programs.
If anyone wants to continue arguing this, answer the simple question; Did Saddam have WMDs or not?
It's interesting that you guys have erupted in such a manner on the basis of stating a single fact. Facts make no inferences. Individuals infer from facts. It is obvious that you guys feel strongly about your opinions. You have drawn your own conclusions. What I think makes no difference. I think that your reaction is what is interesting here. I'll go way back in the discussion to find agreement. I am sure we all agree that the US action in securing and removing the YCU was a good thing, just our recent success in locating and eliminating OBL was a good thing.
I am quite impressed that the controllers of this site have no problem with the military operation that resulted in OBL's death. I am assuming that you feel that the incursion into Pakistan was at least justified, if not legal?
Quote from: Timkin on May 03, 2011, 10:40:45 PM
Chris,.. what do you think Bush's real reason for the invasion of Iraq, was? I always was under the impression that it had to do with oil, since he is in the oil business... not really the events of 9/11.
I think the movie "W" pegged that pretty well. That's just my opinion though. No way to know WTF he was really thinking. Not like he's going to truthfully admit whatever his motivation was at this point.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 03, 2011, 10:41:45 PM
If anyone wants to continue arguing this, answer the simple question; Did Saddam have WMDs or not?
fine...I'll play...at one time, YES...he used them on his own people!
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 10:45:39 PM
It's interesting that you guys have erupted in such a manner on the basis of stating a single fact. Facts make no inferences. Individuals infer from facts. It is obvious that you guys feel strongly about your opinions. You have drawn your own conclusions. What I think makes no difference. I think that your reaction is what is interesting here. I'll go way back in the discussion to find agreement. I am sure we all agree that the US action in securing and removing the YCU was a good thing, just our recent success in locating and eliminating OBL was a good thing.
I am quite impressed that the controllers of this site have no problem with the military operation that resulted in OBL's death. I am assuming that you feel that the incursion into Pakistan was at least justified, if not legal?
Actually, I'm downright thrilled OBL was executed. What I can't understand is why your Chimperor called off the search for him in 2003, and instead decided it would be an awesome idea to invade a country that posed no threat to us and hadn't had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. Real stroke of genuis there.
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 03, 2011, 10:46:25 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 03, 2011, 10:41:45 PM
If anyone wants to continue arguing this, answer the simple question; Did Saddam have WMDs or not?
fine...I'll play...at one time, YES...he used them on his own people!
Mustard gas isn't any more of a "WMD" than bullets or bombs, Tufsu. It's a perversion of the term.
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 10:45:39 PMSneakily changed my post.
In the classical sense of the word, the answer is "no". Yellowcake is no more a WMD than a drum full of coffee creamer (which is explosive) if you can't do anything with it.
He had left over nerve gas shells from forever ago that couldn't have been fired. (I'm assuming you've seen the pictures of those shells, right?) Which wouldn't amount to nothing more than a weapon of mass annoyance in the fact that they were so rusted and leaking that they probably didn't have much potency.
I find both of those facts to be hardly the basis for invading a country. And why the hell are we talking about Iraq anyway? This is a thread about Bin Laden being dead. Which is a good thing, but some right wingers are so intent on sticking their heads in the sand and screaming "LALALALALA" that they can't see the benefit of the guy being dead, or they don't want "our side" to be awarded the victory that bush stated "I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you." (direct quote.)
At least I can honestly say that Chris has exposed his thought process completely here. Thanks Chris! You have lived up to my expectations of you.
The oil angle is interesting. How much profit has been made on Iraqi oil by American companies? A lot?
It was simply a theory... Pretty much everyone knows W is in the oil business.
Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2011, 10:49:39 PM
I know that Im not really interested in talking about anything else o this subject with you until you address the question you refuse to answer.
I think it is quite clear to most readers here that you seem to have some bizarre reason for not answering a very easy, straightforward question.
Did Saddaam Hussein have WMDs that Bush claimed?
What on earth would keep you from answering this?
Until you do, I don't think you are very credible on this subject.
At all.
Why should I answer the question? Haven't you answered it yourself? Haven't you stated, over and over, that there was no WMD in Iraq?
I haven't asked for credibility. I simply stated a fact. There was 550 tons of yellow cake uranium in Iraq. It was secured and transported out of the country by the US. What could be more "credible" than a simple fact that we all agree on, don't we?
Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2011, 10:51:04 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 03, 2011, 10:46:25 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 03, 2011, 10:41:45 PM
If anyone wants to continue arguing this, answer the simple question; Did Saddam have WMDs or not?
fine...I'll play...at one time, YES...he used them on his own people!
quoted for posterity.
So, you are claiming that Saddaam nuked the iraqi people?
"The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a massacre that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iranâ€"Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians;[1][2] thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.[5]
The Halabja attack has been recognized as a separate event from the Anfal Genocide that was also conducted against the Kurdish people by the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein.[6] The Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as an act of genocide on March 1, 2010, a decision welcomed by the Kurdistan Regional Government.[7] The attack was also condemned as a crime against humanity by the Parliament of Canada.[8]"
Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2011, 10:59:13 PM
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 10:55:19 PM
At least I can honestly say that Chris has exposed his thought process completely here. Thanks Chris! You have lived up to my expectations of you.
The oil angle is interesting. How much profit has been made on Iraqi oil by American companies? A lot?
Uninteresting.
Did Saddaam Hussein have nukes?
Uninteresting. How much money has America made on Iraqi oil?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 03, 2011, 10:48:59 PM
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 10:45:39 PM
It's interesting that you guys have erupted in such a manner on the basis of stating a single fact. Facts make no inferences. Individuals infer from facts. It is obvious that you guys feel strongly about your opinions. You have drawn your own conclusions. What I think makes no difference. I think that your reaction is what is interesting here. I'll go way back in the discussion to find agreement. I am sure we all agree that the US action in securing and removing the YCU was a good thing, just our recent success in locating and eliminating OBL was a good thing.
I am quite impressed that the controllers of this site have no problem with the military operation that resulted in OBL's death. I am assuming that you feel that the incursion into Pakistan was at least justified, if not legal?
Actually, I'm downright thrilled OBL was executed. What I can't understand is why your Chimperor called off the search for him in 2003, and instead decided it would be an awesome idea to invade a country that posed no threat to us and hadn't had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. Real stroke of genuis there.
I agree that we were justified in entering Pakistan AND in killing OBL. I do not agree with name calling and attempts to personalize. Seems a bit...childish.
Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2011, 11:14:13 PM
avoiding a basic question arising from your posts is way more childish.
Do you think that Saddam Hussein had the weapons of Mass Destruction that Bush accused him of having?
I am avoiding nothing. I made a statement of fact, not an argument. If you think the fact is wrong, prove it. Your resultant hissy fit and series of questions and demands means nothing, and requires no action from me.
But now it seems even facts are not welcome.
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 11:09:19 PM
Quote from: RiversideLoki on May 03, 2011, 10:53:12 PM
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2011, 10:45:39 PMSneakily changed my post.
In the classical sense of the word, the answer is "no". Yellowcake is no more a WMD than a drum full of coffee creamer (which is explosive) if you can't do anything with it.
He had left over nerve gas shells from forever ago that couldn't have been fired. (I'm assuming you've seen the pictures of those shells, right?) Which wouldn't amount to nothing more than a weapon of mass annoyance in the fact that they were so rusted and leaking that they probably didn't have much potency.
I find both of those facts to be hardly the basis for invading a country. And why the hell are we talking about Iraq anyway? This is a thread about Bin Laden being dead. Which is a good thing, but some right wingers are so intent on sticking their heads in the sand and screaming "LALALALALA" that they can't see the benefit of the guy being dead, or they don't want "our side" to be awarded the victory that bush stated "I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you." (direct quote.)
I find the fact that my quote was changed to be pretty revealing. Honest exchange anyone?
River,
Yellow cake in fine powder is an inhalant risk. Coffee creamer, by itself in a drum, is not explosive. It is a fuel which must be mixed within its explosive limits in air in order to "detonate". YCU is very dangerous when ingested, as I am sure you know. If you have the education that you seem to, then you know the differences between YCU and depleted uranium as well. DU as used by the military in ammunition and armor has been studied for half a century.
RiversideLoki,
I have been told that you must have changed the quote in reply #220. Frankly, I had not expected such an action by you based on my past exchanges with you. Is this true? And of course I would expect a correction and apology if so.
Quote from: stephendare on May 03, 2011, 11:10:49 PM
uninteresting.
And far less interesting than your claim that saddam used yellow cake as a nuclear device against the Kurds
I have made no such claim. Would you like to retract this statement?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 03, 2011, 04:13:16 PM
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on May 03, 2011, 03:18:45 PM
Those are not my words Chris. They came from DOD. I said I was not going to get into a debate about this Chris. And I'm not. You believe what you want and I will believe what I want.
Then post the DOD's words for us. Otherwise your ship sunk before it left the dock.
And, FWIW, saying "I'm not going to get into a debate" after dropping some absurd nonsense doesn't accomplish anything other than signaling to everyone else that you're not only wrong, but that you actually knew you were wrong when you said it, and are now just trying to foreclose others from pointing out that you haven't (or in this case, can't) back up your viewpoint. Absurd.
I did post the DOD's words Chris but obviously being a gator that wasn't obvious to you. And there is no sense in wasting my time or your time in debating a topic that neither side is going to change the otherrs mind. Its simply not worth the effort. Good day.
I think everyone is missing the point...whether Iraq had nukes or yellow cake is irrelevant. There are dozens of countries w/ nukes. More with yellow cake. When did the USA sign up to be the world's police force? Why isn't every sovereign nation allowed to have what we have? There is no justification for war! End of story...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 03, 2011, 10:50:17 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 03, 2011, 10:46:25 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 03, 2011, 10:41:45 PM
If anyone wants to continue arguing this, answer the simple question; Did Saddam have WMDs or not?
fine...I'll play...at one time, YES...he used them on his own people!
Mustard gas isn't any more of a "WMD" than bullets or bombs, Tufsu. It's a perversion of the term.
not to argue this too much, but my understanding is that chemical weapons are considered WMD...and that always useful source, Wikipedia (and apparently the US Military), agrees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction
Chemical weapons absolutely are weapons of mass destruction. This has been included within the WMD term for quite some time.
Quote from: Timkin on May 03, 2011, 10:40:45 PM
Chris,.. what do you think Bush's real reason for the invasion of Iraq, was? I always was under the impression that it had to do with oil, since he is in the oil business... not really the events of 9/11.
I remember a NY times ed by british PM Tony Blair that said probably the most important point of the invasion was that by confronting such a draconian, evil dictator to turn back and give in on the terms would give a signal to all such evil leaders in the world that they could continue to oppress their people at their own desire.
Quote from: stephendare on May 04, 2011, 08:45:20 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on May 04, 2011, 08:40:13 AM
Chemical weapons absolutely are weapons of mass destruction. This has been included within the WMD term for quite some time.
and?
How much yellow cake goes into one of them?
LOL, none that I know of. That wasn't the issue I was answering. Someone incorrectly stated that chemical weapons aren't those of mass destruction. I wasn't weighing back in on yellowcake. President Bush lied about that. It's unnecessary to put forth an ignorant argument about WMD in order to show that Bush lied.
::) :D
Hey everybody!!! CNN is reporting.... Bin Laden is DEAD! :o
Quote from: stephendare on May 04, 2011, 09:32:19 AM
In order to be considered a WMD it has to comply with two elements of the definition.
A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that
1. can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms)
and/or
2. cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.
The attacks referred to by TUFSU don't comply with both elements of the definition, and certainly don't meet the scale requirements of the second.
the term 'and/or' means that the second element must be present in all cases, but that the first element (loss of life) isnt required.
while I can see how one could interpret the and/or statement that way, I have not always used it in that way
and as to your other questions, I never said Saddam had yellow cake (obviously Bush lied)...but I satnd by my statement at one time he did have WMD
You know who has more WMDs than every single country on earth combined right?? Yeah...we do....what hypocrites...
Whats really sad about this whole thread is that its started after I complimented Pres Obama by saying I felt he was telling the truth about OBL because it was just too big a deal to get caught in a lie. And thats the first time I can recall I have ever said anything nice about Obama. Boy did this thing get turned 180 degrees.
This is no longer a thread it is more of a crocheted quilt.
The term "and/or" in the FBI definition of weapons of mass destruction means that either element (loss of life or destruction of buildings) or the presence of both qualify the weapon as a WMD.
The nerve gas attacks on the Kurds are considered WMD attacks.
Legal definition:
The United States Code, at Title 18:
"[W]eapon of mass destruction means any destructive device ... (i.e. explosive, incendiary, or poison gas destructive device or bomb); any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors; any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector... ; or any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life."
Quote from: JeffreyS on May 04, 2011, 11:58:25 AM
This is no longer a thread it is more of a crocheted quilt.
True.. and I notice now that some of my postings were removed as well. Not shocking.
I blame FBC....
Works for me. point is , whether postings are offensive or not, they do get removed. Kind of ridiculous ,really.
Quote from: ben says on May 04, 2011, 10:27:09 AM
You know who has more WMDs than every single country on earth combined right?? Yeah...we do....what hypocrites...
Source? The US currently has about 5100 nuclear warheads total. Russia? About 13,000.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
Obama will not release photographic proof of OBL death:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20059739-503544.html?tag=breakingnews
Big mistake, IMO.
Quote from: KenFSU on May 04, 2011, 01:46:02 PM
Obama will not release photographic proof of OBL death:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20059739-503544.html?tag=breakingnews
Big mistake, IMO.
Agree... no worries. It will leak out...
Releasing a photo will not convince skeptics.
Any sophisticated propaganda agency can produce a convincing photo set.
Now, if President Obama can kill the deficit, debt and revitialize the economy he'll be getting a vote from me in the upcoming election.
Quote from: ben says on May 03, 2011, 01:15:53 PM
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_speaks_on_osama_bin_ladens_death_20110502/
I know that because of this announcement, that reportedly Osama bin Laden was killed, Bob [Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer] wanted me to say a few words about it … about al-Qaida. I spent a year of my life covering al-Qaida for The New York Times. It was the work in which I, and other investigative reporters, won the Pulitzer Prize. And I spent seven years of my life in the Middle East. I was the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. I’m an Arabic speaker. And when someone came over and told ... me the news, my stomach sank. I’m not in any way naive about what al-Qaida is. It’s an organization that terrifies me. I know it intimately.
But I’m also intimately familiar with the collective humiliation that we have imposed on the Muslim world. The expansion of military occupation that took place throughout, in particular the Arab world, following 9/11â€"and that this presence of American imperial bases, dotted, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Dohaâ€"is one that has done more to engender hatred and acts of terror than anything ever orchestrated by Osama bin Laden.
And the killing of bin Laden, who has absolutely no operational role in al-Qaidaâ€"that’s clearâ€"he’s kind of a spiritual mentor, a kind of guide … he functions in many of the ways that Hitler functioned for the Nazi Party. We were just talking with Warren [Beatty] about [Ian] Kershaw’s great biography of Hitler, which I read a few months ago, where you hold up a particular ideological ideal and strive for it. That was bin Laden’s role. But all actual acts of terror, which he may have signed off on, he no way planned.
The guy who wrote the above article didnt know what the hell he was talking about.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/3/how-bin-laden-led-operations/print/
Quote
The covert operation that killed Osama bin Laden produced new evidence that the "emir" of al Qaeda actively commanded the terror group's affiliates in Yemen, Somalia and other parts of North Africa and was not just an inspirational leader....
Probably just as well they are not released.. His death will anger enough people.... seeing graphic images of him will only fuel the fire
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on May 04, 2011, 10:41:10 AM
Whats really sad about this whole thread is that its started after I complimented Pres Obama by saying I felt he was telling the truth about OBL because it was just too big a deal to get caught in a lie. And thats the first time I can recall I have ever said anything nice about Obama. Boy did this thing get turned 180 degrees.
Top 5 funniest post I've seen on this site. ^
You think you complimented Obama by saying, "I don't think he is lying about killing Bin Laden"?
Is that how crazy the far right has gotten, that you think taking the President, The CIA, The JSOC, etc at their word is complimenting them?
I bet you think you are a political moderate because you aren't as far right wing as Glen Beck and some Tea Partiers that you know.
Quote from: CityLife on May 04, 2011, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on May 04, 2011, 10:41:10 AM
Whats really sad about this whole thread is that its started after I complimented Pres Obama by saying I felt he was telling the truth about OBL because it was just too big a deal to get caught in a lie. And thats the first time I can recall I have ever said anything nice about Obama. Boy did this thing get turned 180 degrees.
Top 5 funniest post I've seen on this site. ^
You think you complimented Obama by saying, "I don't think he is lying about killing Bin Laden"?
Is that how crazy the far right has gotten, that you think taking the President, The CIA, The JSOC, etc at their word is complimenting them?I bet you think you are a political moderate because you aren't as far right wing as Glen Beck and some Tea Partiers that you know.
Anyone see any irony here?
Quote from: CityLife on May 04, 2011, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on May 04, 2011, 10:41:10 AM
Whats really sad about this whole thread is that its started after I complimented Pres Obama by saying I felt he was telling the truth about OBL because it was just too big a deal to get caught in a lie. And thats the first time I can recall I have ever said anything nice about Obama. Boy did this thing get turned 180 degrees.
I bet you think you are a political moderate because you aren't as far right wing as Glen Beck and some Tea Partiers that you know.
Well after looking up the definition of what a "political moderate" is, then yes I guess I am. So now I guess i'll be drug over the coals for that huh? Can't win in this place.
Quote from: buckethead on May 04, 2011, 02:48:44 PM
Quote from: CityLife on May 04, 2011, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: johnnyroadglide on May 04, 2011, 10:41:10 AM
Whats really sad about this whole thread is that its started after I complimented Pres Obama by saying I felt he was telling the truth about OBL because it was just too big a deal to get caught in a lie. And thats the first time I can recall I have ever said anything nice about Obama. Boy did this thing get turned 180 degrees.
Top 5 funniest post I've seen on this site. ^
You think you complimented Obama by saying, "I don't think he is lying about killing Bin Laden"?
Is that how crazy the far right has gotten, that you think taking the President, The CIA, The JSOC, etc at their word is complimenting them?I bet you think you are a political moderate because you aren't as far right wing as Glen Beck and some Tea Partiers that you know.
Anyone see any irony here?
I don't. Feel free to point it out.
FBI to announce 'major development' in Jacksonville mosque bombing case
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-05-04/story/fbi-announce-major-development-jacksonville-mosque-bombing-case#ixzz1LQ7vZ4ew
Quote from: Jumpinjack on May 04, 2011, 05:13:01 PM
FBI to announce 'major development' in Jacksonville mosque bombing case
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-05-04/story/fbi-announce-major-development-jacksonville-mosque-bombing-case#ixzz1LQ7vZ4ew
I betcha it's Hogan! (inside joke here). Oh wait, it is not the abortion clinic. Darn!
-Josh
The clown show just keeps getting more infuriating:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/04/senators-misled-by-likely-fake-bin-laden-photos/?hpt=T1
Blind faith in anything, including the US government, is a very dangerous thing.
I was happy on Sunday, curious on Monday, confused yet open-minded on Tuesday, and now, I'm legitimately suspicious that we've gotten the full story. The story has changed too much, and though the world has serious doubts about the success of our mission, the administration has chosen to keep, in their own words, "secret" and "hidden" the irrefutable proof of their success.
Further, despite polls today showing that nearly 60% of Americans want photographic proof, Obama has chosen to come out and use the infuriating language that "no one credible has demanded to see the photos." Wording like that is just simply unacceptable. Quite frankly, it pisses me off.
At this point, perception is reality, and the perception out there is that we're back peddling and withholding evidence.
So our choices are:
A) We release photos and ensure that half the country and most of the world doesn't think us a joke.
B) We keep them "secret and hidden" (again the Obama Admin's words, not mine) to prevent the extremists from seeking retribution (because, of course, otherwise they would just walk away and find a new hobby).
At this point, I just don't see an upside to keeping this proof on ice.
I think the extremists are going to seek retribution anyway... Have no idea of the capacity of the Taliban at present,but there are many who saw this man as a holy person and who are angered , no doubt that he was killed.
As to seeing the photographs, I personally do not need proof.
I need our kids back home not fighting for some stink hole about a man who is now dead.
Quote from: KenFSU on May 04, 2011, 09:33:44 PM
Obama has chosen to come out and use the infuriating language that "no one credible has demanded to see the photos." Wording like that is just simply unacceptable. Quite frankly, it pisses me off.
Truth hurts!
Who of significance would demand to see them, other than our own people? And what difference would it make if we did see them?
Quote from: hillary supporter on May 04, 2011, 10:15:35 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on May 04, 2011, 09:33:44 PM
Obama has chosen to come out and use the infuriating language that "no one credible has demanded to see the photos." Wording like that is just simply unacceptable. Quite frankly, it pisses me off.
Truth hurts!
Speaking plainly is fine with me.
yup
Quote from: Timkin on May 04, 2011, 10:17:59 PM
Who of significance would demand to see them, other than our own people? And what difference would it make if we did see them?
How about the 56% of the American public that, according to polls, want to see the photos? How about families of those who were killed at the hands of Bin Laden? How about those who have suffered unemployment and lost their homes as a direct result of the post 9/11 recession? How about the tax payers who have ponied up $1.3 trillion to find him? How about the friends and families of those brave soldiers who were killed in service after volunteering after the 9/11 attacks? How about those who have been afraid to fly for the last ten years?
I can appreciate and respect the fact that many Americans do not feel the need to see the photos. But it is incredibly arrogant and disrespectful to dismiss as insignificant, worthless, or invalid the opinion of those who feel differently. And for the president, or anyone else, to dismiss these people as insignificant and their very real opinions and emotions as meaningless, that is a truly inexcusable thing.
But hey, if you guys would rather appease the terrorists than the victims, more power to you.
Ummm... "you guys" aren't trying to appease the terrorists. I think the President's position is simply not to rub this in. I believe your position/anger should be directed to the President , who decided not to circulate these photos. While I DO GET YOUR POINT and you have a VALID point, IMO the risks outweigh the benefits, certainly at this juncture...days following ridding the world of this terrorist.
You are kidding yourself if you do not think there will be backlash from this action.
I agree that the photo's should be held. There is no legitimate reason to release them. Photo's prove nothing and are in demand by the media simply to gin up business. The USG should make no more comments on this incident or what was obtained during the raid. Forget the talking heads.
I guess if the secretary of Defense and the Pentagon ask you not to show the photos because it might put the kids we have fighting for us at increased risk you better concentrate on saying things in a non offensive tone. That's what is important right. The answer was no and he said it straight and for good reason. I respect that.
Quote from: NotNow on May 04, 2011, 11:42:14 PM
I agree that the photo's should be held. There is no legitimate reason to release them. Photo's prove nothing and are in demand by the media simply to gin up business. The USG should make no more comments on this incident or what was obtained during the raid. Forget the talking heads.
+1
They will eventually get out , I am sure.. but I don't think it is wise at this point ...
Quote from: NotNow on May 04, 2011, 11:42:14 PM
I agree that the photo's should be held. There is no legitimate reason to release them. Photo's prove nothing and are in demand by the media simply to gin up business. The USG should make no more comments on this incident or what was obtained during the raid. Forget the talking heads.
Agree completely. I suspect they'll find their way our (wikileaks or otherwise). But the US should not strut. We shouldn't gloat. No victory laps. That job is done, now back to work on the other real problems confronting the country.
For argument's sake, let's put victims' rights to closure aside. Let's also assume that Americans -- despite the last four Presidents having been caught in some pretty significant lies, from Iraq, to Monica Lewinsky, to Iran-Contra -- are willing to completely give the President the benefit of the doubt on this one and not demand any empirical evidence.
What about the rest of the world?
Bin Laden has been a world wide menace for decades. His attacks and the results of his attacks have left trails of dead bodies in Libya, Riyadh, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and even Iraq.
Do we not owe the world proof?
Don't you guys consider it to be a pretty significant problem that, within days of Bin Laden's death, much of the world simply does not believe us and is demanding further proof? Afghanistan and Pakistan, two countries that have suffered great losses in our pursuit of Bin Laden, do not believe that we killed him in the absence of photographic or physical evidence. The Taliban doesn't believe us. Egyptians are expressing doubt. Even Canadian politicians are publicly requesting proof. And we're less than four days removed from his death.
Let's face it, we certainly haven't earned a free pass from the world in the last ten years.
It's not gloating if the world is out there asking for the proof.
And is denying the rest of the world the photographic evidence that they are actively requesting preferable to having them actually believe that he is dead?
A previous poster mentioned that "photos prove nothing."
There are tens of thousands of people behind bars who will tell you otherwise.
Nothing is what proves nothing.
I understand the point some of you are trying to make, and I really do think it is a fundamental difference of opinion (general trust vs. skepticism), but this isn't your ordinary case. This man's reign of terror has defined the last ten years. Tens of thousands of people have died, directly and indirectly, by his hand. Millions more have been affected. He brought America to her knees. He made us afraid to fly and afraid to open our mail. He's taunted us on television. We've watched his henchman decapitate Americans on the evening news. For ten years, we've lived in his shadow. We've felt his presence in the airport security line, at the library, when reading our email, when placing phone calls, and when making financial transactions. We've given up the right to travel anonymously within our own country. In hopes of capturing him, we've violated the Geneva Convention (putting our soldiers in far graver danger than releasing a photograph ever could), subjected prisoners -- some later found innocent -- to torture involving simulated drowning, insects, and sexual humiliation. We've rendered others to third world countries where they likely suffered far worse. We've lost over 10,000 lives.
America, and the world, needs the finality that can only come from seeing with our own eyes that he has been vanquished and is not coming back.
If people still doubt it, there's really nothing else you can do. But we saw Saddam hang, and the world believed it. We saw the bodies of his sons Uday and Qusay, and no one doubted. We've seen the dead bodies of numerous Al Qaeda leaders in the news pages and on TV, and people were convinced.
Yes, you run the risk of retaliation, but I question if there is a terror group out there that is going to retaliate simply because we release a photo of Bin Laden's body. If they are going to attempt to attack us, it's coming regardless of whether a photo is in the newspaper or not.
I'm sorry if I come off as abrasive, it's just something I feel very strongly about it. It's not about blood lust, it's about closure. 9/11 was something deeply personal to me, and seeing with my own eyes that this man is finally gone is the only thing that will truly provide that catharsis necessary to move on.
Ken, you make some very valid points. IF it would bring closure to those who have suffered because this man has lived and that was the only purpose that providing proof ,by photographs would do , FINE, I would be all for it, although personally, I did not like images of the man when he was alive, when he did all of the horrific acts as you very well laid out. I really wish it was as simple as showing a picture or two of him dead. But you see, THEN the masses would say, oh no.. that is not him.. that is someone who looks like him.. VERY possible for that to be the case.. there are countless similar-looking men to Bin Laden as there are to Saadam Hussein. As I indicated earlier, If Bush had bothered to do his job right in his 2 terms in office, HE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE JOB DONE, and GLADLY had the images up within the day.. he had no problem doing that with Hussein.
Without a body.. Without DNA, Without some kind of physical proof ( other than pictures) I seriously doubt that the general masses of the world will accept that he is dead. Hell, for all I know, he is still alive, but in my heart, I do not think Obama would risk the consequences of lying and the consequences of such. I have been reading all of the same sources about doubts, and I AGREE WITH YOU....to a degree that there are some that deserve proof that OBL is dead. I hate to say it about another human being, but I sure as hell hope he is because he certainly never seemed to display any remorse for a single soul whose life he either personally took , or had someone else take. I wish there had been a capture , rather than a killing, but it went down as it went down. I do not like people like this man who think it serves a god they worship to kill masses of people. From where I come from, the God I pray to , would not want that.
I hope there will be some amicable solution to this. But however it turns out.. pictures or no pictures, body, no body, DNA, no DNA, Terrorism did not cease to exist, last Sunday, IMO As sure as I am sitting in my favorite chair posting this, it is merely my opinion, that retaliation will follow. It is what those types do. I hate it. I wish it would end. I am SICK of wars, of attacks , of people like this murdering others and creating havoc. I am sick of the United States of America having to be World Police, instead of putting its Country and People FIRST, just as every other Nation in the World does.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/top-secret-stealth-helicopter-program-revealed-osama-bin/story?id=13530693
QuoteTop Secret Stealth Helicopter Program Revealed in Osama Bin Laden Raid: Experts
Before an elite team of U.S. Navy SEALs executed a daring raid that took down Osama bin Laden, the commandos were able to silently sneak up on their elusive target thanks to what aviation analysts said were top secret, never-before-seen stealth-modified helicopters....
Quote from: Timkin on May 05, 2011, 12:12:56 AM
They will eventually get out , I am sure.. but I don't think it is wise at this point ...
I think the Obama administration may even want them to get out too, but diplomatically they know that it will play better if they are somehow "accidentally leaked".
Wonder how much NY Times, Washington Post, Time, or heck even TMZ would pay for the pictures? Don't they pay like a million dollars to see a picture of celebrities new born babies? Bet someone could make an 8 figure payday with a copy of the pics.
I care not one whit for the "feelings" of AQ or their cheerleaders. I don't care about "gloating" or "spiking" any footballs. OBL was killed by our military. I don't want him captured or displayed. I don't need his body provided to anyone for "proof". We bore the load and we continue to bear the responsibility. We don't owe the world any further explanation. War is not a people please'n business.
I'll take the President at his word. There is no reason to distrust the man, and anybody here can tell you that I am not a democratic cheerleader.
Photo's do not prove a thing without documentation, a proper chain of custody, and corroborating evidence. There are tens of thousands roaming our nation free who should be behind bars that can attest to that.
The jihadist will retaliate whether they see photo's or not. There are plenty more that need to be killed. This is not over. This is not political. All of the Bush v. Obama crap is just demagogging, and detracts from what we should be discussing and thinking about...what is the next step? What is the next strategy? How can we better thwart those that would kill us?
NN right on target.
Quote from: NotNow on May 05, 2011, 11:16:03 AM
I care not one whit for the "feelings" of AQ or their cheerleaders. I don't care about "gloating" or "spiking" any footballs. OBL was killed by our military. I don't want him captured or displayed. I don't need his body provided to anyone for "proof". We bore the load and we continue to bear the responsibility. We don't owe the world any further explanation. War is not a people please'n business.
I'll take the President at his word. There is no reason to distrust the man, and anybody here can tell you that I am not a democratic cheerleader.
Photo's do not prove a thing without documentation, a proper chain of custody, and corroborating evidence. There are tens of thousands roaming our nation free who should be behind bars that can attest to that.
The jihadist will retaliate whether they see photo's or not. There are plenty more that need to be killed. This is not over. This is not political. All of the Bush v. Obama crap is just demagogging, and detracts from what we should be discussing and thinking about...what is the next step? What is the next strategy? How can we better thwart those that would kill us?
Well-put , Not Now +1
Clear, correct and to the point!
Pretty cool story about a dog or dogs possibly being used on the UBL mission.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110505/ts_yblog_thelookout/intense-interest-surrounds-dog-who-helped-capture-bin-laden
Quote from: NotNow on May 05, 2011, 11:16:03 AM
All of the Bush v. Obama crap is just demagogging, and detracts from what we should be discussing and thinking about...what is the next step? What is the next strategy? How can we better thwart those that would kill us?
I, for one, would love to see the President come out and say "mission accomplished - for reals this time" and then promptly get our troops the hell out of there. All of this counterinsurgency/nationbuilding bullshit is not making us safer. By most accounts I've read, there are about 100 al Qaeda members left in and around Afghanistan, and keeping 100,000 troops over there is just pissing off the locals and pretty much every other Muslim that sees us occupying multiple Muslim countries. No matter how much money we throw into that region, Afghanistan will not be a nation - it's a collection of tribes. If we start having trouble from that region again, send over some CIA operatives, a team of SEALs and a few drones. So far that appears to have been our most effective counterterrorism strategy.
+1,000,000 Ajax!!!!
Love it Ajax.
Ajax, That is what we did in the first place to run the Taliban off. Special forces guys allied with some of the tribes and did the job in a matter of weeks. That's when we should have pulled back and let the Afghans run their own thing. If the Taliban or Al-Quaeda came back; repeat step one.
We find Saddam Hussien, turn him over to the Iraqis and then LEAVE.
We need to leave both places NOW and get ready to go into Pakistan which is actively supporting terrorist groups in Afghanistan, Kashmir and India. It's only a matter of time before one of those groups starts hitting targets in Europe and the US.
Pakistan has nukes! Most of the people there hate the US and India. There are people in the Pakistani intelligence services and military who would not hesitate to smuggle one into India and set it off in Delhi.
Somehow we knew this was coming... :D
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-pornography-found-bin-laden-hideout-officials-162214194.html
Quote..Exclusive: Pornography found in bin Laden hideout:
By Mark Hosenball and Tabassum Zakaria | Reuters â€" 31 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A stash of pornography was found in the hideout of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. commandos who killed him, current and former U.S. officials said on Friday.
The pornography recovered in bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The officials said they were not yet sure precisely where in the compound the pornography was discovered or who had been viewing it. Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials.
Reports from Abbottabad have said that bin Laden's compound was cut off from the Internet or other hard-wired communications networks. It is unclear how compound residents would have acquired the pornography.
But a video released by the Obama administration confiscated from the compound showed bin Laden watching pictures of himself on a TV screen, indicating that the compound was equipped with video playback equipment.
Materials carted away from the compound by the U.S. commandos included digital thumb drives, which U.S. officials believe may have been a principal means by which couriers carried electronic messages to and from the late al Qaeda leader.
Three other U.S. officials familiar with evidence gathered during investigations of other Islamic militants said the discovery of pornography is not uncommon in such cases.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 03, 2011, 03:25:18 PM
Quote from: Ajax on May 03, 2011, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 03, 2011, 03:16:12 PM
QuoteA Senior US Official tells CNN 10 hard drives, 5 computers and more than 100 storage devices which includes discs, DVDs and thumb drives were taken from the compound.
What remains of al qaida is scurrying like cockroaches when you turn on the light...
I wonder if there are some high-level Pakistani leaders whose buttholes are puckering a little bit right now too.
No doubt... unless of course bin laden really liked porn...
Oh, you called it - about 10 days ago! Well done! ;)
Hard core, US haters and potential suicide bombers are not going to believe that their holy guru, the one they are more than willing to die for, is nothing but an ordinary pervert.
But if they do believe, I think we should capitalize on this with plenty of leaflets and other media bombardment in the hope that some of those will turn away from the dark side.
Eat more pork, too.
Quote from: Ajax on May 13, 2011, 01:29:56 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 03, 2011, 03:25:18 PM
Quote from: Ajax on May 03, 2011, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 03, 2011, 03:16:12 PM
QuoteA Senior US Official tells CNN 10 hard drives, 5 computers and more than 100 storage devices which includes discs, DVDs and thumb drives were taken from the compound.
What remains of al qaida is scurrying like cockroaches when you turn on the light...
I wonder if there are some high-level Pakistani leaders whose buttholes are puckering a little bit right now too.
No doubt... unless of course bin laden really liked porn...
Oh, you called it - about 10 days ago! Well done! ;)
I wonder if they will leak what genre he was interested in...?
Hajib Girls Gone Wild.
I'm glad I'm not the only person wondering exactly what was in his porn stash. I'm not even going to speculate on what that says about us... ::)
Quote from: Ralph W on May 13, 2011, 02:29:07 PM
Hard core, US haters and potential suicide bombers are not going to believe that their holy guru, the one they are more than willing to die for, is nothing but an ordinary pervert.
For what it's worth, several of the 9/11 hijackers regularly frequented strip clubs, solicited prostitutes, and drank heavily leading up to the attacks.