Osama Bin Laden dead - USA has his body

[luckizuchinni]

I read online that Obama laid a wreath at Ground Zero today. I read online that Cam Newton was drafted by Carolina in the NFL draft. I read that the temperature in Dusseldorf was 66 F today. Is any of that "evidence?" Yet do I have any reason to disbelieve any of that. And if I do believe that, does that mean I have an inferior intellect?

Given nothing to the contrary, I accept those as facts. But if you told me you were in Dusseldorf today, and it was only 50 F, then I would have to take what you said into account and do more investigation.

You are throwing what is "evidence" in a court of law, but your analogy is faulty. If I am on the jury and a witness says he heard someone admit to a robbery, well, that is not firsthand, but it is admissible. And if you are the defense lawyer, and all you have to say is "I believe my client didn't do it," well, given no other evidence, I will probably vote for guilty.

And in this case, since I do not have access to the SEALs who conducted the operation, well, I have to rely on second, third, or fourth hand stories. But you are asking me to believe no hand stories, in other words, fantasy which you have come up with while sitting at your computer. And you accuse me of limited intellect?

There is something called Occam's Razor. More people should take that to heart.

I wasn't there. I didn't pull the trigger. So I don't know for a 100% certainty what happened. But until you or anyone else gives evidence, any evidence, then why should I immediately assume that what the evidence so far presented supports is all some sort of collosal scam?

As far as my comfort level, well, I am glad you know me so well. I happen to be a huge fan of authors as I mentioned above, and I would actually really love to find out that there is more to this than meets the eye. I get a kick out of this kind of thing, and I read avidly real historical cases of subterfuge. But just because I like it does not mean that I will jump into the conspiracy pool willy nilly without any evidence, heck, any indication that we are being scammed on this.

So take the flames personal, if you wish and criticize my intellect. But all you are ding is shouting "No, no no!" without anything to back it up.

You repeatedly use the word evidence.

"I wasn't there. I didn't pull the trigger. So I don't know for a 100% certainty what happened. But until you or anyone else gives evidence, any evidence, then why should I immediately assume that what the evidence so far presented supports is all some sort of collosal scam?" (Bold mine)

But your definition of it is far off. You seemingly accept "news reports" as evidence. It is not. No one in our government has given us evidence about this matter. It is their obligation to quell doubt, to bring unity rather than division. They have instead, poured gasoline on the fire of believability, and the citizens are divided and fighting one another.

No newspaper or government official has reason to be deceptive about laying wreaths, drafting football players nor posting the temperature. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve them.

And if they did lie about the temperature in a particular town, and if it was a big enough lie to change the course of history, then someone in that town, many in that town, would immediately go online and on the phone and spread the word about the lie.

Unfortunately, in this case, the folks in the town in question are Pakistanis, who have their own agenda to begin with, and are quite susceptible to the whims of the American government by any number of means.

My "analogy" about evidence in court is not an analogy. It's called procedure.

If you are on a jury and a witness testifies that he heard Robert confess to a robbery, it is hearsay. You can not, contrary to your claim above, convict on this. It can only be admissible to the extent that the witness heard Robert say that Robert committed a crime. It can not be admitted as evidence that Robert actually committed the crime.

Although motive, contrary to the movies, is not an element of any crime and can not be considered when deciding guilt or innocence, it can however go a very long way in deciding whether or not someone has a reason to commit a given crime. Our government has been deceptive on many occasions, caught red-handed sometimes, such as the lies they spouted that allowed the US to go into Viet Nam. President Johnson lied through his yellow teeth about the USS Maddox, and all the news agencies obediently published amazingly heroic stories about the American navy, and vilified the Vietnamese.

Unfortunately, people around the globe believed the newspapers and Time Magazine, et al, and America entered into a sad, costly and tumultuous period in its history.

And so, like a child who lies to his mother a few times, then promises to never lie again, it requires some time to get that trust back. It hasn't been long enough for me, nor millions of others who do not appreciate the officials we vote into office being dishonest with us.

..."But until you or anyone else gives evidence, any evidence, then why should I immediately assume that what the evidence so far presented supports is all some sort of collosal scam?" (bold mine)

I just gave you evidence. This evidence is readily available on the internet. But you can also request it through the Freedom of Information Act, therefore getting it directly from the source. The Gulf of Tonkin is evidence that our government is willing to lie to the world to complete a certain agenda.

Your jury analogy?

What if you are on a jury, and the prosecution presents a beautiful case for guilt. Absolutely full of horror and emotion and a slam-dunk.

Then the defense lawyer stands and says, "Well, I'd like to defend my client, but the government has refused to give me discovery. Further, they disposed of all the evidence they collected immediately after the crime. They disposed of photos, the body, trace evidence, and they have all eyewitnesses in protective custody and I can never, ever interview them.

Would you, in keeping with your analogy above, still find him guilty?

If you answer yes. I'll retire from this "debate" with you and grant you a win by default.

EDIT: By the way, you are saying, basically, that you know OBL was killed last week by SEALS.

I am not saying he was not, I am simply stating, I don't know.

You are misquoting me. I never wrote that I "know" bin Laden was killed by SEALs last week. In fact, I wrote just the opposite. I wrote that as I didn't pull the trigger, I was not 100% sure of what happened.

What I do contend is that until given evidence to the contrary, the most reasonable assumption is that he was killed last week and in Pakistan.

And my trial analogy was in response to yours, that hearing reports are valid reasons to garner information. Your making some sort of difference between what the government says and what the press says is silly. If the press was reporting incorrectly, then don't you think the government would make mention of that?

Also, hearsay testimony is often admissible (link) But as this not a trial, all it has to do in this case is convince the public. Some posters here point to Bhutto's quote as proof that bin Laden was killed 10 years ago. Is that not the same thing?

And that is my main problem with all these conspiracy theories. Why would those avowed enemies of the US not speak up if there is some big scam? What would be their motivation.

you write above that you have given me evidence. What evidence. Because governments have lied in the past, that means it is lying now? That certainly would not hold up in your courtroom analogy.

I don't know what went on. I wasn't there. But until Al Qeda or Pakistan or the Taliban or bin laden's family or whoever comes forward with something contrary, until any of the people involved come forward with something contrary, then if I was a betting man, I would wager that things went down basically as described as that is the most reasonable conclusion. Outlandish explanations need some sort of logic and backing to be taken seriously.

SECreTs, as elent seems to relish, can only survive as secrets if as few people as possible know about them. The more people who know, the sooner they will leak out.

Show me any evidence, and I will gleefully reexamine my conclusions, as if anybody really cares what I think.

[mrmillersr]

The only ones who don't believe the US government was behind 9/11 are the ones who haven't read the mountain of concrete evidence that supports that conclusion.

"Concrete evidence".That's a good one!

Glad it takes so little to amuse you. Get a shiny object, put it on a string and you will probably be entertained for hours.

[luckizuchinni]

But the sheeple absolutely refuse to say, I don't know for sure. Isn't that odd?

(snip)

They repeatedly say they read this or saw it on the news, but they totally ignore rules of law and logic. When confronted with a rebuttal that breaks down each of their points, rather than employ logic to do their own rebutting, they say things about football players and temperatures and many then also break out the hot button phrases like conspiracy theorists or tin hat brigade or birthers, of which I myself am none.

As one who I think you refer to as a sheeple, I think my below quote refutes your first statement:

I wasn't there. I didn't pull the trigger. So I don't know for a 100% certainty what happened. But until you or anyone else gives evidence, any evidence, then why should I immediately assume that what the evidence so far presented supports is all some sort of collosal scam?

And as far as your second point, how is pointing out that I accept many things on the news a lack of my own logic? That baffles me. Where in any of your posts have you written anything which is different as far a logic goes. You only mentioned that your parameters seem to be that news reports should not be believed when the events described are of historical significance after I made my post. So you expect me to read your mind before making a post.

You wrote essentially that getting information from the news is faulty, and I gave three simple examples of where we all accept information from the media. Just because you changed the rules after my post does not mean my logic was faulty.

Your posts really baffle me. Not because of your beliefs, which at least you admit that you don't know what went on. But you write like you are an intelligent person, but you accuse anyone of disagreeing with you as being of a lower "intellect," and you deride their logic without giving any concrete logic of your own. You don't seem to attack any of the arguments with your own logic, but seem to trot out "you're wrong" and "the government lies" as your base pillars. (Pardon me if I have glossed over more concrete arguments which you might have made.)

You seem to think there is some vast conspiracy. I don't. Fair enough. But i hardly think it is proper netiquette for you to deride others who disagree as somehow being inferior to you just because they come to a different conclusion.

[flying]

They repeatedly say they read this or saw it on the news, but they totally ignore rules of law and logic. When confronted with a rebuttal that breaks down each of their points, rather than employ logic to do their own rebutting, they say things about football players and temperatures and many then also break out the hot button phrases like conspiracy theorists or tin hat brigade or birthers, of which I myself am none.

America is no longer a government by the people for the people.

No, it's easier to believe that their votes count and that by doing the same thing over and over they will eventually get a different result and all will be cheery in the world.

Logic will never prevail over the emotional.

snipped the post to save space but would like to say....

Another good post Robert with which I agree 100%

I also wanted to add to your list of their favorite sidesteps ....silly clip art

In the end I am sad though to also agree that the government by the people & for the people is long gone.

Individual critical thinking.... using reason & logic... in regards to what IS & not what they are told has long left the majority.

Partly because as you say it takes them out of their comfort zone & partly I believe out of pure laziness.

Anyway......as I said good to see your posts but remember what I said about the camel & the needle

[flying]

You see, Flying? That didn't take long did it?

haha yes that was what I just referred to in my post ( clip art )

remember...camel/needle

[elcent]

All deemed fakes long ago

I could not find one mainstream source that he even hinted that they were not real.

Then please by all means point out an actual recording or video from recent years

( wikipedia need not apply nor any claims by the US of a verified tape/video )

Why don't we also rule out all the nuts on the internet, silly conspiracy theories and anyone who calls average people with common sense "sheeple'.

Back to square one.

Do you mean to say that destroying the main evidence is lawful, even when it is for your god-father? Do you mean that changing the story over and over again is rightous? (I'm not blaming the SEALS, but someone very high in the command line has created a big big mess) -

Have you voted for amateurs? What are you trying to protect?

Bring, show, procede with the evidence and everything is alright.. Can you?

I just can't stop wondering.

[jazzbo]

It's been swell visiting with you fellas but Planet Earth is a-callin' -- just my version of 'Next?' or 'Good Day' (kudos to Paul Harvey)

[happyrobert]

You are misquoting me. I never wrote that I "know" bin Laden was killed by SEALs last week. In fact, I wrote just the opposite. I wrote that as I didn't pull the trigger, I was not 100% sure of what happened.

You insinuated it.

What I do contend is that until given evidence to the contrary, the most reasonable assumption is that he was killed last week and in Pakistan.

And my trial analogy was in response to yours, that hearing reports are valid reasons to garner information. Your making some sort of difference between what the government says and what the press says is silly. If the press was reporting incorrectly, then don't you think the government would make mention of that?

I can not find where I differentiated the two.

Also, hearsay testimony is often admissible (link) But as this not a trial, all it has to do in this case is convince the public. Some posters here point to Bhutto's quote as proof that bin Laden was killed 10 years ago. Is that not the same thing?

No, as I stated in #837, hearsay evidence as we are speaking to it is not admissable in criminal proceedings. I have not mentioned Bhutto, why bring it up here? But I agree, it should be necessary to convince the public. Not meaning to misquote you, news stories and White House announcements are all that seem necessary to convince the public. I disagree.

And that is my main problem with all these conspiracy theories. Why would those avowed enemies of the US not speak up if there is some big scam? What would be their motivation.

I have not proposed a theory. I simply, sigh, once again say that there is no evidence and the government has lied before. Our government has provided zero, 0, that's ZERO evidence and we are expected to accept it as gospel. (And I'm not even bringing up the contradictions here.)

you write above that you have given me evidence. What evidence. Because governments have lied in the past, that means it is lying now? That certainly would not hold up in your courtroom analogy.

It does not mean they are lying now, only that they could be.

And actually, yes it would be used in court. Although it can not, with one exception, be brought up during the trial phase, it can and is brought up during sentencing. Once convicted, or a confession is made, past lies and crimes are considered, even years later. Courts don't forget past transgressions, why should I?

Governments are composed of men and women. We all lie, don't we. The more to gain or lose, the more willing to lie.

I don't know what went on. I wasn't there. But until Al Qeda or Pakistan or the Taliban or bin laden's family or whoever comes forward with something contrary, until any of the people involved come forward with something contrary, then if I was a betting man, I would wager that things went down basically as described as that is the most reasonable conclusion. Outlandish explanations need some sort of logic and backing to be taken seriously.

When I was a cop, a homicide detective with a high grade, I had significant and undeniable proof that a high-ranking officer in my department had raped a woman, murdered her and buried her in the woods. I came forward with all of the evidence. It would easily have convicted him. The upper echelon shut me down. I went to the media. The crime reporter, who is now a best selling author, was very excited, and spent considerable time verifying my info and evidence.

The story never got printed. The journalist later "whispered" to me that his upper echelon had shut him down on orders from, well, you know, and that he and his editor had received very explicit phone calls from people who said their children would be hamburger.

Nothing makes the news, Lucki, that the powers that be do not want to see there. No one is going to come forward and if they do, you and I and all the little people will never hear about it.

SECreTs, as elent seems to relish, can only survive as secrets if as few people as possible know about them. The more people who know, the sooner they will leak out.

I would refer you back to the above. Secrets can survive if people are terrified for their lives.

Show me any evidence, and I will gleefully reexamine my conclusions, as if anybody really cares what I think.

Again, I have no evidence and do not claim to have any. I am simply stating that you don't have any either.

You can still accept my challenge at the end of Post # 837. I'll gleefully declare you the winner.

[Ulysses G.]

Certain members use this term repeatedly (and not just you). They don't seem to get the fact that many members feel that they deserve the name much more than those they intend to malign.

[happyrobert]

Certain members use this term repeatedly (and not just you). They don't seem to get the fact that many members feel that they deserve the name much more than those they intend to malign.

So, two wrongs make a right?

I don't follow you.Baaaaaah.

[Ulysses G.]

....Baaaaaah...

You said it. Not me.

[luckizuchinni]

You are misquoting me. I never wrote that I "know" bin Laden was killed by SEALs last week. In fact, I wrote just the opposite. I wrote that as I didn't pull the trigger, I was not 100% sure of what happened.

You insinuated it.

What I do contend is that until given evidence to the contrary, the most reasonable assumption is that he was killed last week and in Pakistan.

And my trial analogy was in response to yours, that hearing reports are valid reasons to garner information. Your making some sort of difference between what the government says and what the press says is silly. If the press was reporting incorrectly, then don't you think the government would make mention of that?

I can not find where I differentiated the two.

Also, hearsay testimony is often admissible (link) But as this not a trial, all it has to do in this case is convince the public. Some posters here point to Bhutto's quote as proof that bin Laden was killed 10 years ago. Is that not the same thing?

No, as I stated in #837, hearsay evidence as we are speaking to it is not admissable in criminal proceedings. I have not mentioned Bhutto, why bring it up here? But I agree, it should be necessary to convince the public. Not meaning to misquote you, news stories and White House announcements are all that seem necessary to convince the public. I disagree.

And that is my main problem with all these conspiracy theories. Why would those avowed enemies of the US not speak up if there is some big scam? What would be their motivation.

I have not proposed a theory. I simply, sigh, once again say that there is no evidence and the government has lied before. Our government has provided zero, 0, that's ZERO evidence and we are expected to accept it as gospel. (And I'm not even bringing up the contradictions here.)

you write above that you have given me evidence. What evidence. Because governments have lied in the past, that means it is lying now? That certainly would not hold up in your courtroom analogy.

It does not mean they are lying now, only that they could be.

And actually, yes it would be used in court. Although it can not, with one exception, be brought up during the trial phase, it can and is brought up during sentencing. Once convicted, or a confession is made, past lies and crimes are considered, even years later. Courts don't forget past transgressions, why should I?

Governments are composed of men and women. We all lie, don't we. The more to gain or lose, the more willing to lie.

I don't know what went on. I wasn't there. But until Al Qeda or Pakistan or the Taliban or bin laden's family or whoever comes forward with something contrary, until any of the people involved come forward with something contrary, then if I was a betting man, I would wager that things went down basically as described as that is the most reasonable conclusion. Outlandish explanations need some sort of logic and backing to be taken seriously.

When I was a cop, a homicide detective with a high grade, I had significant and undeniable proof that a high-ranking officer in my department had raped a woman, murdered her and buried her in the woods. I came forward with all of the evidence. It would easily have convicted him. The upper echelon shut me down. I went to the media. The crime reporter, who is now a best selling author, was very excited, and spent considerable time verifying my info and evidence.

The story never got printed. The journalist later "whispered" to me that his upper echelon had shut him down on orders from, well, you know, and that he and his editor had received very explicit phone calls from people who said their children would be hamburger.

Nothing makes the news, Lucki, that the powers that be do not want to see there. No one is going to come forward and if they do, you and I and all the little people will never hear about it.

SECreTs, as elent seems to relish, can only survive as secrets if as few people as possible know about them. The more people who know, the sooner they will leak out.

I would refer you back to the above. Secrets can survive if people are terrified for their lives.

Show me any evidence, and I will gleefully reexamine my conclusions, as if anybody really cares what I think.

Again, I have no evidence and do not claim to have any. I am simply stating that you don't have any either.

You can still accept my challenge at the end of Post # 837. I'll gleefully declare you the winner.

Goodness gracious! Where are you coming from?

I "insinuated it?" Pray tell how when I specifically came out and write the opposite?

I categorically state here and now that I don't know what happened. Good enough for you? Clear enough? All I have written is that given a lack of any evidence to the contrary, the easiest and most logical assumption is that things happened pretty much as described. I THINK, as of this moment in time, that this is close to the facts. To be far off, too many other pretty difficult things need to happen. Those are not impossible, but less likely in my opinion.

How about this quote: But your definition of it is far off. You seemingly accept "news reports" as evidence. It is not. No one in our government has given us evidence about this matter. It is their obligation to quell doubt, to bring unity rather than division. They have instead, poured gasoline on the fire of believability, and the citizens are divided and fighting one another.

I think that does differentiate between the two. And you really need to post the rules for this forum if I can't mention Bhutto as a valid example where others here are taking someone in a government's word to justify a position.

I know you have not proposed a theory of your own. All you have done is belittle and demean anyone who dares to profess a belief that bin Laden was killed last week by the SEALs.

Of course governments lie. History teaches us that. So of course, it is POSSIBLE that they are lying here. However, with something so big, with people on the "other side" in the equation, it just isn't a probability, in my most humble opinion. And as far as the Gulf of Tonkin and the other examples you mentioned. well, it they all came to light, right? And that was before the internet and the vast exchange of ideas and information that we have today.

I am not sure how relevant your police story is. Let's say that CNN, BBC, Fox, and the like can be threatened by the US government. Does that include Al Jazeerah and the Iranian press? Does that include the various extremist mullahs who regularly take the US to task? How about the Chinese and Russian presses?

As far as you "challenge," no, I would not convict. However, last time I was a juror, I was told that for a conviction, guilt had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the prosecution did as you said, well, I would most likely not be convinced to those parameters. However, I still may feel the defendant was guilty, and the bin Laden case is not a trial. I only have to feel that bin Laden was killed. The US government is not on trial, and I am not judging guilt or innocence.

Happyrobert, I am sorry I "depress you." If you care so much on what I think, well, that is your problem. I am a little perturbed that you go online and attack my "intellect" (yea, I admit I care about that.) But I also find it somewhat amusing that you affect all this lofty logic, demeaning others who don't agree with you, yet you can't even see the holes in your own logic.

And even when faced with a specific refutation of a post of yours (writing that I say I "know" what happened when I specifically stated I did not,) you can't even concede that one small point but have to cry out that I "insinuated" it. Rather amusing, really.

So I tell you what. if being "right" on an anonymous forum is so important to you, if you really need it, I concede. You win. You are the master. Enjoy.

[bangkokrick]

So now we find that there was no courageous fire fight and that the Helicopter actually crashed and was not destroyed by the Navy seals as first reported. This is turning into the biggest embarrassment in American history. This is being reported by CNN for Christ's sake the major American news source. So is he dead or not, who do we believe?

[Ulysses G.]

So is he dead or not, who do we believe?

Maybe al-Qaeda?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/466462-al-qaeda-confirms-bin-laden-is-dead/page__view__findpost__p__4405485

[luckizuchinni]

So now we find that there was no courageous fire fight and that the Helicopter actually crashed and was not destroyed by the Navy seals as first reported. This is turning into the biggest embarrassment in American history. This is being reported by CNN for Christ's sake the major American news source. So is he dead or not, who do we believe?

More embarrassing than Desert One?

[george]

Al Qaeda confirms death of Osama bin Laden, according to group that monitors militant messages.

[bangkokrick]

So is he dead or not, who do we believe?

Maybe al-Qaeda?

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4405485

So now even you believe al-Qaeda over the US Government?

[Ulysses G.]

No, but they are both saying the same thing.

[bangkokrick]

No, but they are both saying the same thing.

OK they say the same thing but in different ways. So explain the lies that have been given to the American and the world public. Everything has changed from the original announcement by Obama. why is that what is the motive?

I am as glad as anyone if he is dead, but I just don't see any reason in lying about the circumstances. My Country has been in this 'war' from day one and we deserve a factual account of what happened, not some glorified hollywood script.

[Ulysses G.]

Fog of War. Obama was not there and a little helmet camera does not give the whole picture. It would also take several days to properly debrief the Seals.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[bangkokrick]

Fog of War. Obama was not there and a little helmet camera does not give the whole picture.

We all know that Obama is not writing the script. This farce is doing untold damage to European / US relations. so you just might find your selves on your own again. You do not tell lies to your allied populations. The truth will out in the future as it always does, Maybe Wikileaks or similar will expose the facts going forward and I sincerely hope it does.

Your over use of Smiley's really does show your embarrassment.

Enough said best to just agree to disagree.

[OriginalPoster]

Fog of War. Obama was not there and a little helmet camera does not give the whole picture.

We all know that Obama is not writing the script. This farce is doing untold damage to European / US relations. so you just might find your selves on your own again. You do not tell lies to your allied populations. The truth will out in the future as it always does, Maybe Wikileaks or similar will expose the facts going forward and I sincerely hope it does.

Your over use of Smiley's really does show your embarrassment.

Enough said best to just agree to disagree.

How typical.

[transam]

No, but they are both saying the same thing.

OK they say the same thing but in different ways. So explain the lies that have been given to the American and the world public. Everything has changed from the original announcement by Obama. why is that what is the motive?

I am as glad as anyone if he is dead, but I just don't see any reason in lying about the circumstances. My Country has been in this 'war' from day one and we deserve a factual account of what happened, not some glorified hollywood script.

LOOK, Bin is with his ladies now, end of his story. LET'S MOVE ON.

[IvanDobsky]

Incredible that because of the US inability to get the story straight, unwillingness to release the photographs or video, history of Hollywood scripts (Pat Tillman/Jessica Lynch, Iraq invasion, Gulf of Tonkin "incident" et al) we had to wait for confirmation from a bunch of scumbags.

Peace be with you all :jap:

[Wallaby]

Fog of War. Obama was not there and a little helmet camera does not give the whole picture. It would also take several days to properly debrief the Seals.

If that is the case then why did they give everyone a bullshit story to start with. They shouldn't have told us what happened before the Seals where debriefed, otherwise it is just a guess and that is what has caused the confusion.

[rubl]

Fog of War. Obama was not there and a little helmet camera does not give the whole picture. It would also take several days to properly debrief the Seals.

If that is the case then why did they give everyone a bullshit story to start with. They shouldn't have told us what happened before the Seals where debriefed, otherwise it is just a guess and that is what has caused the confusion.

True, but after things happened the US government felt / had a need to say something. It's not like 100 - 150 years ago when a country could sent a gunboat, shoot some locals and tell about it months later. If it's not big brother watching you it must be CNN or one of the others

[TAWP]

I love topics like this, it brings out the nut-cases to stay far away from if there ever is another TV Pissup/Party...

[happyrobert]

BREAKING WIND:

An anonymous source just quoted MSNBC as reporting that CNN was told that Fox news just released a statement from Al Qaeda revealing that the BBC has nothing further to say on the matter until everybody gets their stories in sync.

In other news, an Indian fishing trawler claims to have snagged a body wrapped in an American flag and are demanding a $100 ransom.

Another unamed White House official said, "we don't negotiate with fishermen." Five battleships and a Starkist Tuna boat are enroute to engage the fishing trawler with "all we've got."

[happyrobert]

All you have done is belittle and demean anyone who dares to profess a belief that bin Laden was killed last week by the SEALs.

Hmmm, I reread my last post #852 and the ones before that, #837 and #843 , and I can not see, by any stretch of the imagination where I was belittling or demeaning. Not that I wasn't tempted.

Goodnight. Sleep tight. Your government is protecting you 24/7.

Edited May 6, 2011 by happyrobert

[VegasVic]

Incredible that because of the US inability to get the story straight, unwillingness to release the photographs or video, history of Hollywood scripts (Pat Tillman/Jessica Lynch, Iraq invasion, Gulf of Tonkin "incident" et al) we had to wait for confirmation from a bunch of scumbags.

Peace be with you all :jap:

The invasion of Iraq was the most covered (both video and print) military incursion in the history of mankind so you are way off base on that one, as for your other examples I sadly agree with you, and as for the handling of the Bin Laden killing the White House (Obama) has screwed the pooch ever since the imprpomtu press conference on Sunday evening! Given the fact that gas at the pump in the U.S. has gone to over $4.00/gallon recently and Obama's approval rating dipped to just 42% last week(the lowest so far) this whole thing sure does smack of "wag the dog" If it were not for the fact that Al Kaeda came out yesterday and admitted that Bin Laden had been killed, I might find myself in the camp that this was just a staged event I mean after 10 years the U.S. military finally catches up with its #1 high value terrorist target, and instead of capturing him and extracting intel they put two in an unarmed mans head? then instead of producing the body they bury it at sea?? then they fail to publish the photos saying that it is in the interest of national security??? If there was ever a real life script for "wag the dog" this sure fits the bill