Osama Bin Laden dead - USA has his body

[Ulysses G.]

you obviously understand none of the facts and affinities i mentioned...

The only "fact" in your post is that some ignorant fanatics considered Bin Ladin - the mass murderer of innocent civililians - a hero. That pretty much sums it up.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[Wallaby]

a nation that can't do any wrong even if it bombs the living shit out of innocent human beings in various countries.

You missed another fact in his post.

[Ulysses G.]

For your information, that is a (rather absurd) opinion.

[FOODLOVER]

What really upset the USA was the fact that the weapons used were all US built obtained in the USA by the terrorists who were Saudi Arabian citizens who were residing in the USA and they were able to hit not only WTC#1 and WTC#2 but the very heart of the US defence system otherwise known as "The Pentagon".

The US thought they were invincible. They were not.

Psychic Much? How do you know what an American thinks. My paranormal abilities tell me that where you are from you sit and ponder and not much else. You do not act you complain which is the typical coward response when attacked. I think there is a goat that does the same thing, you scare it and it just falls over, and its foreign!( I think that would be considered a frightened sheeple). Boeing not Air Bus?. Oh the horror! Never mind the thousands dead. It was those dam_n Made in America tags! Outsourcing! Flaming foreign air planes is much more satisfactory. Unbelievable that you can actually type this out on a keyboard.

[Wallaby]

For your information, that is a (rather absurd) opinion.

Usual one liner from you that doesn't really enlighten anyone. Would you care to state WHY you think it is opinion only Her Ulysees?

If you think the US hasn't bombed any innocent people by mistake then I suggest it is time to pry those rose coloured glasses from your head.

The US also got lucky with OBL. The CIA had staked out the compound for 4 months and were still unsure he was in there. It was a calculated guess.

Lucky this time they got the person they were after.

According to you, they have never got it wrong. They should stop using the term 'suspected' when they drop a bomb, because they MUST know who they got, according to you (absurdly).

You after a job as PR for the US govt?

[chuckd]

Following is an article I received via e-mail. I DO NOT vouch for it's accuracy but found it more possible than most other conspiracy theories...YMMV.

________________________________________________________

White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden

I Note: This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.

_______

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

Read more in Issues

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East .

Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?

Continued here: http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-pan

etta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/#ixzz1LLRp2GTh

[venturalaw]

I read the whole thing and it is complete hogwash.

one man's hogwash is the other man's gospel. only an ignorant will deny that a good part of that "hogwash" consists of facts. and only an ignorant will deny that people do exist who see bin-Laden as a hero, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of his actions were deplorable crimes because innocent people were killed and maimed.

It is quite understanding Herr Naam why you would be understanding, perhaps able to appreciate, even perhaps have an affinity for, Bin Laden. Often those who are evil are given a pass by the 'progressives' as being simply 'misunderstood'. Fortunately, the majority of us are able to recognize evil for what it is - 'evil', and that it must be eliminated before it can eliminate us. We, the majority, are not taken in by, nor do we blindly follow, a person who choses to lead by promoting hatred and committing genocide.

you obviously understand none of the facts and affinities i mentioned. but then, as a citizen of The Greatest Nation on Earth™ you are not required to understand anything. feel free to accuse anybody sympathising with terrorists when he mentions facts and draws the attention to the feelings of millions. it just adds to some (not all) of your ridiculous and apologistic postings in favour of a nation that can't do any wrong even if it bombs the living shit out of innocent human beings in various countries.

The only words that could be interpreted as 'facts' that I read in your post was the brilliantly scintillating "one man's hogwash is the other man's gospel." Then of course you reverted to your lockstep insult mode about those who are beyond your understanding.

Some things never change.

[Ulysses G.]

Usual one liner from you that doesn't really enlighten anyone.

You called an opinion a fact. I accurately called an opinion an opinion. It only takes one line.

[Wallaby]

Usual one liner from you that doesn't really enlighten anyone.

You called an opinion a fact. I accurately called an opinion an opinion. It only takes one line.

In your opinion.

You seem to have great problems in answer questions.

Are you saying the US has never bombed innocents?

[venturalaw]

Usual one liner from you that doesn't really enlighten anyone.

You called an opinion a fact. I accurately called an opinion an opinion. It only takes one line.

In your opinion.

You seem to have great problems in answer questions.

Are you saying the US has never bombed innocents?

The U.S. has never sought to intentionally murder innocents. However, terrorists, by definition, do intentionally murder innocents. That is the difference which most in the civilized world understand.

[crusader79]

In your opinion.

You seem to have great problems in answer questions.

Are you saying the US has never bombed innocents?

The U.S. has never sought to intentionally murder innocents. However, terrorists, by definition, do intentionally murder innocents. That is the difference which most in the civilized world understand.

Some may differ with your belief that the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima wasn't intenionally killing civilians.

However, I did not ask about intent.

I asked if the US has bombed innocents. UG has said that the bombing of innocents is an opinon, not fact.

The families of the dead don't care whether it was intentional or not, dead is dead.

This casual American acceptance of the death of innocents 'as long as we kill them with the best of intentions' is what Graham Greene explored in The Quiet American (1955).

The problem is that America's self-image as the promoter and defender of freedom and democracy clashes with its necessity as the world's superpower to practice realpolitik in pursuit of long term goals (as the British did before them).

The combination of hypocrisy and self-delusion that results from that clash between self-image and reality drives other nationalities mad. They just want a little honesty and realism.

Americans in turn resent that the world often seems to take their country's half-century containment of the Soviet Union and enormous contribution to growth and stability since the Second World War for granted. They just want a little love and appreciation.

In the meantime the tit for tat sniping on ThaiVisa just goes on and on

[elcent]

There are strangers in your house, your country, your life, your computers, your minds ... - (the SECreTs)

Recap

Afghanistan: in the 80s various groups of Mujahedeen and Bin Laden were hired together with his Mujhedeens and mountain Muslims to fight Russia and turned the mountain Muslims into killing machines.(50 000 graveyards on the Russian side) with about 250 million $$$ budget and free training and weapons..

Long after the war there were still these close contacts, but that time for other reasons until 9/11 was accomplished.

The question is: What would you ask/command your special forces, after they have pinned a man for months, to do? - If it really was OBL.

Bring him here alive!!!. this man is the most genius living creature on earth. We could, for example learn how to avoid future terrorist attacks. How could he on 9/11 expose the most powerful nation as the most defenseless nation on earth? How did he mange to fly 4 passenger planes into the WTC buildings and the Pentagon and keep the airforce grounded? What did he mix into the fuel to get the heat to melt the steal construction and to have the two buildings fall into dust and as one post says, into its own footprints? How did he manage to get down the WTC 7 building, no aircaft crashed into, but fell as the two other buildings on the same day, the same style? How did he/it manage to avoid crime scene inspection afterwards? He is better than David Copperfield. He crashed a plane into the Pentagon with nothing left, no traces, valves and whatsoever, except the many street lamps which should have been mowed away before the impact?

TEN YEARS LATER STILL THE SAME DILEMMA, NO CAMERAS LIKE THE ONES THAT DIDN'T FUNCTION AT THE MOST SECURE BUILDING ON EARTH - THE PENTAGON.

Are there no helmet mounted cams to broadcast directly to the presidental office? Are there no mobile phones that could have taken images, - or were the memory cards full? What about the usual images from soldiers sending images like "Hi mom, this is me in OBL's bedroom. I just killed him"?

What is more valuable a dead or living OBL? I'd say: "bring him here alive, we need to learn every minute detail of his expertise". But then we need to admit, "Real Conspiracies Exist!"

DO MOST OF YOU GUYS STILL NOT GET IT?

[bonobo]

One final warning: makes posts on other posts and not on the posters. Suspensions will now begin to be awarded instead of warnings alone.

[Ulysses G.]

UG has said that the bombing of innocents is an opinon, not fact.

Please provide a quote to that statement that I never made.

[venturalaw]

The families of the dead don't care whether it was intentional or not, dead is dead.

This casual American acceptance of the death of innocents 'as long as we kill them with the best of intentions' is what Graham Greene explored in The Quiet American (1955).

The problem is that America's self-image as the promoter and defender of freedom and democracy clashes with its necessity as the world's superpower to practice realpolitik in pursuit of long term goals (as the British did before them).

The combination of hypocrisy and self-delusion that results from that clash between self-image and reality drives other nationalities mad. They just want a little honesty and realism.

Americans in turn resent that the world often seems to take their country's half-century containment of the Soviet Union and enormous contribution to growth and stability since the Second World War for granted. They just want a little love and appreciation.

In the meantime the tit for tat sniping on ThaiVisa just goes on and on

It really is simple. If a terrorist pledges that it is his goal to take American lives and has successfully carried out said aspiration on multiple occasions, then America has two choices: 1. Hope that he changes his mind, or 2. Stop him.

Do you really see any other way? Your position that if America defends itself then it is merely promoting it's superpower status does not make sense because you are ignoring the condition upon which America, for it's very survival, has taken action.

[elcent]

oh my, Peter Bergen, a security specialist, was just interviewed and announced that the war on terror is now over and we can concentrate now on other issues like Climate Change, China and Globalisation.

(bold are my comments) Na, China was planned ahead. . Pretty much the reason for the stunt.

He said it rightly: "It's time to burry the concept of AlQaeda

whose concept? Consider my last post above ...

Oh wait a minute. There's also the strategy of creating tensions and fear in order to control the masses. Here it is ... a couple of days before the attack on a man, women and children in Pakistan.

Wikileaks: Al-Qaeda plotted chemical and nuclear attack on the West

Guantanamo interrogators have uncovered a determined attempt by al-Qaeda to attack Western countries using chemical or nuclear weapons, according to the top-secret files, just before the attack on a man in Pakistan. http://www.telegraph...n-the-West.html

You can also read the full version of the leak from the department of defense, lol.

[Ulysses G.]

Some may differ with your belief that the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima wasn't intenionally killing civilians.

Good try, but every country killed civilians in warfare back then.

The US does not intentionally target civilians in modern times, but Bin Ladin did until justice was served.

[venturalaw]

Some may differ with your belief that the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima wasn't intenionally killing civilians.

Good try, but every country killed civilians in warfare back then.

The US does not intentionally target civilians in modern times, but Bin Ladin did until justice was served.

Precisely. What's odd is this simple fact must be explained over and over and over.

[elcent]

Some may differ with your belief that the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima wasn't intenionally killing civilians.

Good try, but every country killed civilians in warfare back then.

The US does not intentionally target civilians in modern times, but Bin Ladin did until justice was served.

you didn't consider the real murderers of 9/11. They are still free.

Waiting for the Chinese leaks to be revealed in one of these days, lol.

[dunkin2012]

certainly, I'd not expect him to be found in a compound........

in a cave is rather to be.

[Orac]

Some may differ with your belief that the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima wasn't intenionally killing civilians.

Good try, but every country killed civilians in warfare back then.

The US does not intentionally target civilians in modern times, but Bin Ladin did until justice was served.

Precisely. What's odd is this simple fact must be explained over and over and over.

So if OBL/AQ had been targetting someone or a group of people specifically who were in the WTC on 9/11 then it would have been acceptable as anyone else caught up in it could have been passed off as collateral damage??

[venturalaw]

Some may differ with your belief that the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima wasn't intenionally killing civilians.

Good try, but every country killed civilians in warfare back then.

The US does not intentionally target civilians in modern times, but Bin Ladin did until justice was served.

Precisely. What's odd is this simple fact must be explained over and over and over.

So if OBL/AQ had been targetting someone or a group of people specifically who were in the WTC on 9/11 then it would have been acceptable as anyone else caught up in it could have been passed off as collateral damage??

I could understand your argument/question if America had bombed, or more on point, flown a plane into the compound where OBL was residing. That is not what occurred. Those who lost their lives when America stopped OBL were not innocents. More importantly, OBL specifically was targeting all Americans, not just a few.

[Ulysses G.]

What is the point of dreaming up insincere, convoluted arguments to defend a mass murdering terrorist?

[elcent]

What is the point of making up insincere, convoluted arguments to defend a mass murdering terrorist?

nobody defends a terrorist when there is suffcient evidence

As Peter Bergen said in the latest interview - "It's time to burry the concept of AlQaeda" then I ask who was the creator of that concept at the beginning?

After some time you will always find some parrots especially when the issue is pushed up with so much free propaganda by your saviours.

The uproar in the middle east has nothing to do with the war on terror.

People woke up by themselves, without any tricks by anyone.

[venturalaw]

What is the point of making up insincere, convoluted arguments to defend a mass murdering terrorist?

nobody defends a terrorist when there is suffcient evidence

Is it your position that the evidence against OBL was lacking?

[elcent]

What is the point of making up insincere, convoluted arguments to defend a mass murdering terrorist?

nobody defends a terrorist when there is suffcient evidence

Is it your position that the evidence against OBL was lacking?

YES!

[crusader79]

The families of the dead don't care whether it was intentional or not, dead is dead.

This casual American acceptance of the death of innocents 'as long as we kill them with the best of intentions' is what Graham Greene explored in The Quiet American (1955).

The problem is that America's self-image as the promoter and defender of freedom and democracy clashes with its necessity as the world's superpower to practice realpolitik in pursuit of long term goals (as the British did before them).

The combination of hypocrisy and self-delusion that results from that clash between self-image and reality drives other nationalities mad. They just want a little honesty and realism.

Americans in turn resent that the world often seems to take their country's half-century containment of the Soviet Union and enormous contribution to growth and stability since the Second World War for granted. They just want a little love and appreciation.

In the meantime the tit for tat sniping on ThaiVisa just goes on and on

It really is simple. If a terrorist pledges that it is his goal to take American lives and has successfully carried out said aspiration on multiple occasions, then America has two choices: 1. Hope that he changes his mind, or 2. Stop him.

Do you really see any other way? Your position that if America defends itself then it is merely promoting it's superpower status does not make sense because you are ignoring the condition upon which America, for it's very survival, has taken action.

We were not talking about Bin Laden, we were talking about whether the U.S. bombs and kills innocent people.

The U.S. has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (to name just the most obvious examples) in pursuit of its geopolitical goals.

Only an American could argue in all sincerity that dropping bombs or firing missiles from such an altitude or distance that you can't actually see who is being killed means those deaths are 'unintentional'.

I tried to explain why.

[venturalaw]

The families of the dead don't care whether it was intentional or not, dead is dead.

This casual American acceptance of the death of innocents 'as long as we kill them with the best of intentions' is what Graham Greene explored in The Quiet American (1955).

The problem is that America's self-image as the promoter and defender of freedom and democracy clashes with its necessity as the world's superpower to practice realpolitik in pursuit of long term goals (as the British did before them).

The combination of hypocrisy and self-delusion that results from that clash between self-image and reality drives other nationalities mad. They just want a little honesty and realism.

Americans in turn resent that the world often seems to take their country's half-century containment of the Soviet Union and enormous contribution to growth and stability since the Second World War for granted. They just want a little love and appreciation.

In the meantime the tit for tat sniping on ThaiVisa just goes on and on

It really is simple. If a terrorist pledges that it is his goal to take American lives and has successfully carried out said aspiration on multiple occasions, then America has two choices: 1. Hope that he changes his mind, or 2. Stop him.

Do you really see any other way? Your position that if America defends itself then it is merely promoting it's superpower status does not make sense because you are ignoring the condition upon which America, for it's very survival, has taken action.

We were not talking about Bin Laden, we were talking about whether the U.S. bombs and kills innocent people.

The U.S. has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (to name just the most obvious examples) in pursuit of its geopolitical goals.

Only an American could argue in all sincerity that dropping bombs or firing missiles from such an altitude or distance that you can't actually see who is being killed means those deaths are 'unintentional'.

I tried to explain why.

I suggest that you read the title of this thread.

[venturalaw]

What is the point of making up insincere, convoluted arguments to defend a mass murdering terrorist?

nobody defends a terrorist when there is suffcient evidence

Is it your position that the evidence against OBL was lacking?

YES!

Interesting. You are the first person that I know of that believes this. The admission by OBL of causing the killings and stated determination to cause more deaths does not provide sufficient evidence for you of his guilt. What would?