|
Keep it civil guys.
Alright I am sick of warning people: Trolling, flame baiting, and derailing will result in insta bans.
The same goes for conspiracy theorists and stupidity generally.
Confirmation was as follows
- On-site DNA test which came back as 99% positive.
- photos of face sent to CIA and confirmed with photo analysis
- confirmed by 20 year old wife who live in pakistan.
This thread is specifically dedicated to the details surrounding the raid/his death. |
On May 03 2011 02:28 gundream wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:27 hmunkey wrote:
Someday I hope we never have a reason to celebrate the death of another human. Let's be happy he can never kill another person, but let's not celebrate his death. Hate is toxic. absolutely agree
No one was celebrating the death of another human. You act like Uncle John died down the street and instead of going to the funeral, you decide to throw a party.
No one was celebrating the actual physical death of Bin Laden. If he was caught and put into a secret prison, people would still be out celebrating.
Its the idea that the guy that killed thousands of people didn't get off scott free.
|
On May 03 2011 02:36 mahnini wrote:
why is everyone assuming the order to kill was there from the beginning? killing is usually a last resort and i'm sure they made risks assessment and decided it wasn't plausible to try and take the building without lethal force. unless i've missed something, it's not like they got everything under control then just decided to execute him on the spot.
Because it was. It's linked once or twice on the last 10 pages or so. Or google it. I tried before but it was just re-news, didn't find the source. anyway, as I was saying, backtrack the thread and you'll find it.
On May 03 2011 02:38 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:36 mahnini wrote:
why is everyone assuming the order to kill was there from the beginning? killing is usually a last resort and i'm sure they made risks assessment and decided it wasn't plausible to try and take the building without lethal force. unless i've missed something, it's not like they got everything under control then just decided to execute him on the spot. This is what I am wondering, we will never truly know the real situation(Unless the CIA hands us the report really) of what went down, I mean I assume it is not like they captured him and then decided to execute him for the hell of it because he didn't deserve to live.
Except that's definently what happened if he wasn't killed in the firefight, concidering the kill order was issued. Which way it went down isn't really important, though, just the fact that he was a dead man once they arrived on the scene.
|
On May 03 2011 02:36 mahnini wrote:
why is everyone assuming the order to kill was there from the beginning? killing is usually a last resort and i'm sure they made risks assessment and decided it wasn't plausible to try and take the building without lethal force. unless i've missed something, it's not like they got everything under control then just decided to execute him on the spot.
because cnn said the whitehouse said they went in the order to kill and had no intend to capture/take him alive.
|
On May 03 2011 02:36 mahnini wrote:
why is everyone assuming the order to kill was there from the beginning? killing is usually a last resort and i'm sure they made risks assessment and decided it wasn't plausible to try and take the building without lethal force. unless i've missed something, it's not like they got everything under control then just decided to execute him on the spot.
Because it means there was controversy. From what we've been told, the SEALS gave him a chance to surrender, he didn't take it, so they shot him. Osama's entire life's purpose was about dying in a moment of glory. There was no chance the guy was going to lay down arms and get captured.
|
On May 03 2011 02:38 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:25 Kennigit wrote:On May 03 2011 02:23 Rflcrx wrote:On May 03 2011 02:20 Kennigit wrote:
I reworded the warning. yeah, though I think you meant osama and not obama. And it is still disappointing. Did i type Obama again? fml. People seem to think America is the world police and that they need to smack hands and teach people lessons...they aren't. It's a war. You kill leaders in war. Also im not modding this thread anymore because i'm way too mad and super biased. Pardon me if i am mistaken, but wasnt both Iraq and Afghanistan operation labeled "police operations" rather than wars? So that captivities are denied Geneva convention rights-ie. not treated as enemy soldiers but rather hostile fighters. At least thats what i recall from early days of said oparations, maybe the retoric has changed since then. Ps. I am not saying Osama should be spared or even attempted to be taken alive. Ps2.I feel much better after You reworded the warning, previous version was kinda disturbing, thank You.
actually they are labeled police actions because the president doesn't have to go before congress and request that they declare war.
|
|
|
Hopefully we can use this as an excuse to bring our troops home.
|
On May 03 2011 02:25 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:22 thebigdonkey wrote:On May 03 2011 02:20 BlackFlag wrote:On May 03 2011 02:09 Bibdy wrote:On May 03 2011 02:00 uSnAmplified wrote:On May 03 2011 01:58 Bibdy wrote:On May 03 2011 01:54 uSnAmplified wrote:On May 03 2011 01:51 CurLy[] wrote:
Are people seriously mad that he was killed?
Seriously?
Like for real?
Fuck you guys man... he killed THOUSANDS of people. Rot in pieces osama. Honestly people are so lost in their anti america hate that they will believe anything america does is wrong, you cannot win in a TL thread that has anything to do with politics and america. You can't win a thread, nor can you win at politics without bludgeoning the opposing viewpoint to death. Which is, incidentally, how matters were generally dealt with in the last 5,000 years of human history and even to this day in some parts of the world. The fact that we can doubt, debate, argue, accuse, say our piece and generally be a bunch of assholes to one another without resorting to violence means we've come a long way. I didn't literally mean "win" a thread, the point is you reading through the posts so many people have unrealistic points of view its not worth arguing it. Absolutely. That some people are quicker to claim a conspiracy, rather than join in the closure and excitement everyone is feeling after the first piece of genuinely good news any administration has announced since the fall of the Berlin wall is quite sad, but that's their choice. The way I see it, Obama took a huge gamble. It could have been a political disaster if it turned out the intel was wrong. If Bin Laden was there, but wasn't killed, he could gloat once more. If they announced his death without near 100% certainty, we'd already be seeing videos of the guy announcing his continued existence. Not only is the world rid of a mass murderer, its greatly weakened the guy's hand-built network. Apparently nobody in Al Qaeda makes a pact with a cause - they made a personal pact with Osama. With him out of the picture, where does that leave the rest of Al Qaeda? The war is far from over, but the side of Peace just won a great battle. If someone prefers to wallow in continued misery and doubt after the fact, just let them. are you for real?! I'm not some anti-american ass, but you call the american mitlitary, the side of peace? are you for fuckin real? two wars, with no reason, where millions died. the terrorists coudn't even do this in the next 10 years. Umm millions? I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration. go look it up.
K I did, and you're wrong.
In Afghanistan:
14,000-34,000 approx. civilian deaths
11,758 deaths for the NATO-Afghani Security coalition
~38,000 killed or captured Insurgents
Total in Afghanistan: 63,000-83,000
In Iraq:
Coalition of Countries including:
United States
Iraq
Peshmerga
Awakening Councils
Withdrawn forces:
United Kingdom (2003–09)
Australia (2003–09)
Romania (2003–09)
Poland (2003–08)
South Korea (2003–08)
Italy (2003–06)
Georgia (2003–08)
Ukraine (2003–08)
Netherlands (2003–05)
Spain (2003–04)
Denmark (2003–07)
Casualties: 24,111
Insurgents and Iraq under Saddam Hussein's casualties: 38,778-70,278
Total in Iraq: 62,889-94389
Total over the two wars: 125,889-177,389
|
On May 03 2011 02:34 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:20 BlackFlag wrote:On May 03 2011 02:09 Bibdy wrote:On May 03 2011 02:00 uSnAmplified wrote:On May 03 2011 01:58 Bibdy wrote:On May 03 2011 01:54 uSnAmplified wrote:On May 03 2011 01:51 CurLy[] wrote:
Are people seriously mad that he was killed?
Seriously?
Like for real?
Fuck you guys man... he killed THOUSANDS of people. Rot in pieces osama. Honestly people are so lost in their anti america hate that they will believe anything america does is wrong, you cannot win in a TL thread that has anything to do with politics and america. You can't win a thread, nor can you win at politics without bludgeoning the opposing viewpoint to death. Which is, incidentally, how matters were generally dealt with in the last 5,000 years of human history and even to this day in some parts of the world. The fact that we can doubt, debate, argue, accuse, say our piece and generally be a bunch of assholes to one another without resorting to violence means we've come a long way. I didn't literally mean "win" a thread, the point is you reading through the posts so many people have unrealistic points of view its not worth arguing it. Absolutely. That some people are quicker to claim a conspiracy, rather than join in the closure and excitement everyone is feeling after the first piece of genuinely good news any administration has announced since the fall of the Berlin wall is quite sad, but that's their choice. The way I see it, Obama took a huge gamble. It could have been a political disaster if it turned out the intel was wrong. If Bin Laden was there, but wasn't killed, he could gloat once more. If they announced his death without near 100% certainty, we'd already be seeing videos of the guy announcing his continued existence. Not only is the world rid of a mass murderer, its greatly weakened the guy's hand-built network. Apparently nobody in Al Qaeda makes a pact with a cause - they made a personal pact with Osama. With him out of the picture, where does that leave the rest of Al Qaeda? The war is far from over, but the side of Peace just won a great battle. If someone prefers to wallow in continued misery and doubt after the fact, just let them. are you for real?! I'm not some anti-american ass, but you call the american mitlitary, the side of peace? are you for fuckin real? two wars, with no reason, where millions died. the terrorists coudn't even do this in the next 10 years. Case in point. This guy right here would prefer to argue over semantics of the word peace, strawman me with something I didn't say, and pretend like Osama being dead isn't a good thing for world peace.
Bin laden death being good for world piece is arguable not a fact. You don't think that extremists are going to want to revenge his death? You could argue that his death is demoralising for Al quaida but they won't vanish just because of this.
|
On May 03 2011 02:43 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:34 Bibdy wrote:On May 03 2011 02:20 BlackFlag wrote:On May 03 2011 02:09 Bibdy wrote:On May 03 2011 02:00 uSnAmplified wrote:On May 03 2011 01:58 Bibdy wrote:On May 03 2011 01:54 uSnAmplified wrote:On May 03 2011 01:51 CurLy[] wrote:
Are people seriously mad that he was killed?
Seriously?
Like for real?
Fuck you guys man... he killed THOUSANDS of people. Rot in pieces osama. Honestly people are so lost in their anti america hate that they will believe anything america does is wrong, you cannot win in a TL thread that has anything to do with politics and america. You can't win a thread, nor can you win at politics without bludgeoning the opposing viewpoint to death. Which is, incidentally, how matters were generally dealt with in the last 5,000 years of human history and even to this day in some parts of the world. The fact that we can doubt, debate, argue, accuse, say our piece and generally be a bunch of assholes to one another without resorting to violence means we've come a long way. I didn't literally mean "win" a thread, the point is you reading through the posts so many people have unrealistic points of view its not worth arguing it. Absolutely. That some people are quicker to claim a conspiracy, rather than join in the closure and excitement everyone is feeling after the first piece of genuinely good news any administration has announced since the fall of the Berlin wall is quite sad, but that's their choice. The way I see it, Obama took a huge gamble. It could have been a political disaster if it turned out the intel was wrong. If Bin Laden was there, but wasn't killed, he could gloat once more. If they announced his death without near 100% certainty, we'd already be seeing videos of the guy announcing his continued existence. Not only is the world rid of a mass murderer, its greatly weakened the guy's hand-built network. Apparently nobody in Al Qaeda makes a pact with a cause - they made a personal pact with Osama. With him out of the picture, where does that leave the rest of Al Qaeda? The war is far from over, but the side of Peace just won a great battle. If someone prefers to wallow in continued misery and doubt after the fact, just let them. are you for real?! I'm not some anti-american ass, but you call the american mitlitary, the side of peace? are you for fuckin real? two wars, with no reason, where millions died. the terrorists coudn't even do this in the next 10 years. Case in point. This guy right here would prefer to argue over semantics of the word peace, strawman me with something I didn't say, and pretend like Osama being dead isn't a good thing for world peace. Bin laden death being good for world piece is arguable not a fact. You don't think that extremists are going to want to revenge his death? You could argue that his death is demoralising for Al quaida but they won't vanish just because of this.
So, you think Osama Bin Laden not being alive today, makes the world a worse place a result?
|
On May 03 2011 02:37 Jimmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:34 Krehlmar wrote:On May 03 2011 02:30 Jimmeh wrote:On May 03 2011 02:25 BlackFlag wrote:On May 03 2011 02:22 thebigdonkey wrote:On May 03 2011 02:20 BlackFlag wrote:On May 03 2011 02:09 Bibdy wrote:On May 03 2011 02:00 uSnAmplified wrote:On May 03 2011 01:58 Bibdy wrote:On May 03 2011 01:54 uSnAmplified wrote:
[quote] Honestly people are so lost in their anti america hate that they will believe anything america does is wrong, you cannot win in a TL thread that has anything to do with politics and america.
You can't win a thread, nor can you win at politics without bludgeoning the opposing viewpoint to death. Which is, incidentally, how matters were generally dealt with in the last 5,000 years of human history and even to this day in some parts of the world. The fact that we can doubt, debate, argue, accuse, say our piece and generally be a bunch of assholes to one another without resorting to violence means we've come a long way. I didn't literally mean "win" a thread, the point is you reading through the posts so many people have unrealistic points of view its not worth arguing it. Absolutely. That some people are quicker to claim a conspiracy, rather than join in the closure and excitement everyone is feeling after the first piece of genuinely good news any administration has announced since the fall of the Berlin wall is quite sad, but that's their choice. The way I see it, Obama took a huge gamble. It could have been a political disaster if it turned out the intel was wrong. If Bin Laden was there, but wasn't killed, he could gloat once more. If they announced his death without near 100% certainty, we'd already be seeing videos of the guy announcing his continued existence. Not only is the world rid of a mass murderer, its greatly weakened the guy's hand-built network. Apparently nobody in Al Qaeda makes a pact with a cause - they made a personal pact with Osama. With him out of the picture, where does that leave the rest of Al Qaeda? The war is far from over, but the side of Peace just won a great battle. If someone prefers to wallow in continued misery and doubt after the fact, just let them. are you for real?! I'm not some anti-american ass, but you call the american mitlitary, the side of peace? are you for fuckin real? two wars, with no reason, where millions died. the terrorists coudn't even do this in the next 10 years. Umm millions? I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration. go look it up. No, you look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_WarAt absolute most you could push it to like 1million. And that's really, really, really pushing it. "Millions" is an extreme exaggeration. Really wish you'd read it through youknow, the most legit numbers are those that number at around 800 000. Anything bellow 100 000 would make Russia, Georgia, Tzhadjestan and 6 other "conflict zones" rank higher up in civilian deaths than the whole Iraqi war. Just use common knowledge, it numbers at around 700 000 at the very LEAST. Go read up on it if you want, I could look up the source article from one of the worlds most respected historical statisticians (he fixed the numbers on alot of conflicts, including WW2, teaches at Cambridge last time I read something about him) Show nested quote +Your reply:
Just use common knowledge, it numbers at around 700 000 at the very LEAST. "I really wish that you'd read through it you know." Million != millions.
Ignoring some of the pointless arguing going on, I do wonder if Muslim extremists view the deaths of those 100,000 civilians in Iraq and however many thousand in Afghanistan the same way that Westerners view the deaths of the civilians in the 9/11 attacks; as victims of senseless, targeted aggression.
|
On May 03 2011 02:41 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:38 Kipsate wrote:On May 03 2011 02:36 mahnini wrote:
why is everyone assuming the order to kill was there from the beginning? killing is usually a last resort and i'm sure they made risks assessment and decided it wasn't plausible to try and take the building without lethal force. unless i've missed something, it's not like they got everything under control then just decided to execute him on the spot. This is what I am wondering, we will never truly know the real situation(Unless the CIA hands us the report really) of what went down, I mean I assume it is not like they captured him and then decided to execute him for the hell of it because he didn't deserve to live. It said specifically in the swedish newpaper i was reading some hours ago that Obama had specifically given the order to kill him and under no circumstances let him live. However it's gone now or i can't find it, maybe because it was false. I'm not sure.
Sounds like a sensationist headline to draw views and get people talking. Then later edit the text or pull the article entirely. Nothing new in today's world.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On May 03 2011 02:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:54 uSnAmplified wrote:On May 03 2011 01:51 CurLy[] wrote:
Are people seriously mad that he was killed?
Seriously?
Like for real?
Fuck you guys man... he killed THOUSANDS of people. Rot in pieces osama. Honestly people are so lost in their anti america hate that they will believe anything america does is wrong, you cannot win in a TL thread that has anything to do with politics and america. This so much... I've read 4 threads in a row that were filled with nothing but hate towards america and americans generally. I understand there are a lot of people out there with such opinions, but I honestly don't understand why TL mods tolerate people blatantly attacking a country and it's citizens in thread after thread. We've been called selfish, wicked, immoral, uneducated, and more simply based upon my nationality. TL shouldn't entertain any double standards here: this is nothing but blatant bigotry and prejudice and would not be tolerated towards any other group.
Don't worry, TL is here for you. We ban idiots on any side.
|
On May 03 2011 02:36 iloveoil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:22 Kennigit wrote:On May 03 2011 02:19 iloveoil wrote:On May 03 2011 02:16 hifriend wrote:If you have outrageous liberal opinions about treating Bin Laden with respect, human dignity etc keep them to yourself. Wow, I expected a whole lot more from TL mod's than this. How is the principle of human rights so foreign to many people in this thread? This discussion on torture is one of the most disturbing things I have ever read on these forums. Agree with this 100% everyone deserves a fair trial regardless of what theyve done When you are at war, there are rarely trials. They "could" have tear gased/flash banged the shit out of the place and tried to capture him, but the risk of further deaths and the extreme danger it would put foreigners in (potential hostages) don't justify to positives of "we're better than that" imo. a) there are trials (especially for leaders) b) this operation seemed like it was very controlled with no casualities so it hardly seems impossible that they couldve at least tried to capture him ( not saying that they would succeed) c) there are ethical problems that arise when the US starts issuing kill orders on people this discussion is difficult for me to have at this time because we do not have all the facts, but i still believe that everyone deservers a fair trial also wanna point out that i am in no way a supporter of OBL
"Controlled" in the fact that they went in there with the orders to kill. There's a massive difference between capturing and killing. Why put more people's lives at stake here just so the man could have an extended death sentence?
|
Did you know that Bin Laden was never officially accused of 9/11 attacks?
Check yourself http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists
"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."
Not a word about the biggest terrorist attack in the history!
|
On May 03 2011 02:39 Rflcrx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:36 mahnini wrote:
why is everyone assuming the order to kill was there from the beginning? killing is usually a last resort and i'm sure they made risks assessment and decided it wasn't plausible to try and take the building without lethal force. unless i've missed something, it's not like they got everything under control then just decided to execute him on the spot. because cnn said the whitehouse said they went in the order to kill and had no intend to capture/take him alive.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE74151S20110502?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11563
A senior Obama administration official said the commandos knew that bin Laden probably would be killed rather than captured.
"U.S. forces are never in a position to kill if there is a way to accept surrender consistent with the ROE (rules of engagement). That said, I think there was broad recognition that it was likely to end in a kill," the administration official said.
|
TPM's Obama Wire sez:A national security official told Reuters that U.S. forces expected Osama bin Laden to put up a fight during the raid of the compound where he was hiding. And he did. "This was a kill operation," the official said, while adding: "If he had waved a white flag of surrender, he would have been taken alive." The official said bin Laden "participated" in the firefight, but did not say whether he had actually fired on the Americans.
So if he surrendered, he would have been captured and probably tried. Sometimes people engage in shoot-outs with cops and die, and they don't get trials either. I honestly don't think he would have been willing to be taken alive; being a martyr is easier for him.
|
On May 03 2011 02:44 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:37 Jimmeh wrote:On May 03 2011 02:34 Krehlmar wrote:On May 03 2011 02:30 Jimmeh wrote:On May 03 2011 02:25 BlackFlag wrote:On May 03 2011 02:22 thebigdonkey wrote:On May 03 2011 02:20 BlackFlag wrote:On May 03 2011 02:09 Bibdy wrote:On May 03 2011 02:00 uSnAmplified wrote:On May 03 2011 01:58 Bibdy wrote:
[quote]
You can't win a thread, nor can you win at politics without bludgeoning the opposing viewpoint to death. Which is, incidentally, how matters were generally dealt with in the last 5,000 years of human history and even to this day in some parts of the world.
The fact that we can doubt, debate, argue, accuse, say our piece and generally be a bunch of assholes to one another without resorting to violence means we've come a long way. I didn't literally mean "win" a thread, the point is you reading through the posts so many people have unrealistic points of view its not worth arguing it. Absolutely. That some people are quicker to claim a conspiracy, rather than join in the closure and excitement everyone is feeling after the first piece of genuinely good news any administration has announced since the fall of the Berlin wall is quite sad, but that's their choice. The way I see it, Obama took a huge gamble. It could have been a political disaster if it turned out the intel was wrong. If Bin Laden was there, but wasn't killed, he could gloat once more. If they announced his death without near 100% certainty, we'd already be seeing videos of the guy announcing his continued existence. Not only is the world rid of a mass murderer, its greatly weakened the guy's hand-built network. Apparently nobody in Al Qaeda makes a pact with a cause - they made a personal pact with Osama. With him out of the picture, where does that leave the rest of Al Qaeda? The war is far from over, but the side of Peace just won a great battle. If someone prefers to wallow in continued misery and doubt after the fact, just let them. are you for real?! I'm not some anti-american ass, but you call the american mitlitary, the side of peace? are you for fuckin real? two wars, with no reason, where millions died. the terrorists coudn't even do this in the next 10 years. Umm millions? I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration. go look it up. No, you look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_WarAt absolute most you could push it to like 1million. And that's really, really, really pushing it. "Millions" is an extreme exaggeration. Really wish you'd read it through youknow, the most legit numbers are those that number at around 800 000. Anything bellow 100 000 would make Russia, Georgia, Tzhadjestan and 6 other "conflict zones" rank higher up in civilian deaths than the whole Iraqi war. Just use common knowledge, it numbers at around 700 000 at the very LEAST. Go read up on it if you want, I could look up the source article from one of the worlds most respected historical statisticians (he fixed the numbers on alot of conflicts, including WW2, teaches at Cambridge last time I read something about him)
I said:
At absolute most you could push it to like 1million.
Your reply:
Just use common knowledge, it numbers at around 700 000 at the very LEAST. "I really wish that you'd read through it you know." Million != millions. Ignoring some of the pointless arguing going on, I do wonder if Muslim extremists view the deaths of those 100,000 civilians in Iraq and however many thousand in Afghanistan the same way that Westerners view the deaths of the civilians in the 9/11 attacks; as victims of senseless, targeted aggression.
Almost all politicians (yes, that includes American politicians), extremist leaders, and anyone else who calls the shots in wars and/or plans attacks of terror deserves the same fate as Osama. They all have about the same amount of blood on their hands. So Osama's death is good for the world, but true justice would be done only when all politicians (most notably Bush) who carelessly make decisions that lead to the death of many civilians are also punished.
|
On May 03 2011 02:45 BloodNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:41 zeru wrote:On May 03 2011 02:38 Kipsate wrote:On May 03 2011 02:36 mahnini wrote:
why is everyone assuming the order to kill was there from the beginning? killing is usually a last resort and i'm sure they made risks assessment and decided it wasn't plausible to try and take the building without lethal force. unless i've missed something, it's not like they got everything under control then just decided to execute him on the spot. This is what I am wondering, we will never truly know the real situation(Unless the CIA hands us the report really) of what went down, I mean I assume it is not like they captured him and then decided to execute him for the hell of it because he didn't deserve to live. It said specifically in the swedish newpaper i was reading some hours ago that Obama had specifically given the order to kill him and under no circumstances let him live. However it's gone now or i can't find it, maybe because it was false. I'm not sure. Sounds like a sensationist headline to draw views and get people talking. Then later edit the text or pull the article entirely. Nothing new in today's world.
This is a danish article:
http://politiken.dk/udland/ECE1270584/sikkerhedskilde-bin-laden-skulle-likvideres/
It's based on a source from Reuters which is usually pretty legit, the headline translates to:
"Security source says Bin Laden were to be execute".
EDIT:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502
Here is the link to reuters which is in english...
|
On May 03 2011 02:44 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 02:37 Jimmeh wrote:On May 03 2011 02:34 Krehlmar wrote:On May 03 2011 02:30 Jimmeh wrote:On May 03 2011 02:25 BlackFlag wrote:On May 03 2011 02:22 thebigdonkey wrote:On May 03 2011 02:20 BlackFlag wrote:On May 03 2011 02:09 Bibdy wrote:On May 03 2011 02:00 uSnAmplified wrote:On May 03 2011 01:58 Bibdy wrote:
[quote]
You can't win a thread, nor can you win at politics without bludgeoning the opposing viewpoint to death. Which is, incidentally, how matters were generally dealt with in the last 5,000 years of human history and even to this day in some parts of the world.
The fact that we can doubt, debate, argue, accuse, say our piece and generally be a bunch of assholes to one another without resorting to violence means we've come a long way. I didn't literally mean "win" a thread, the point is you reading through the posts so many people have unrealistic points of view its not worth arguing it. Absolutely. That some people are quicker to claim a conspiracy, rather than join in the closure and excitement everyone is feeling after the first piece of genuinely good news any administration has announced since the fall of the Berlin wall is quite sad, but that's their choice. The way I see it, Obama took a huge gamble. It could have been a political disaster if it turned out the intel was wrong. If Bin Laden was there, but wasn't killed, he could gloat once more. If they announced his death without near 100% certainty, we'd already be seeing videos of the guy announcing his continued existence. Not only is the world rid of a mass murderer, its greatly weakened the guy's hand-built network. Apparently nobody in Al Qaeda makes a pact with a cause - they made a personal pact with Osama. With him out of the picture, where does that leave the rest of Al Qaeda? The war is far from over, but the side of Peace just won a great battle. If someone prefers to wallow in continued misery and doubt after the fact, just let them. are you for real?! I'm not some anti-american ass, but you call the american mitlitary, the side of peace? are you for fuckin real? two wars, with no reason, where millions died. the terrorists coudn't even do this in the next 10 years. Umm millions? I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration. go look it up. No, you look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_WarAt absolute most you could push it to like 1million. And that's really, really, really pushing it. "Millions" is an extreme exaggeration. Really wish you'd read it through youknow, the most legit numbers are those that number at around 800 000. Anything bellow 100 000 would make Russia, Georgia, Tzhadjestan and 6 other "conflict zones" rank higher up in civilian deaths than the whole Iraqi war. Just use common knowledge, it numbers at around 700 000 at the very LEAST. Go read up on it if you want, I could look up the source article from one of the worlds most respected historical statisticians (he fixed the numbers on alot of conflicts, including WW2, teaches at Cambridge last time I read something about him)
I said:
At absolute most you could push it to like 1million.
Your reply:
Just use common knowledge, it numbers at around 700 000 at the very LEAST. "I really wish that you'd read through it you know." Million != millions. Ignoring some of the pointless arguing going on, I do wonder if Muslim extremists view the deaths of those 100,000 civilians in Iraq and however many thousand in Afghanistan the same way that Westerners view the deaths of the civilians in the 9/11 attacks; as victims of senseless, targeted aggression.
Hello,
I was born in Iraq and lived there for 8 years. Let me let you in on a secret.
The US can cure cancer and the people will find a theory on how the Jews are doing this so that they can poison and mindcontrol the Muslim nation.
You are taught to hate US/jews at an early age without really any explanation or whatever. I don't know if the US were sincere in their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, even if they were, the muslim/arab nations will still make the US out to be the bad guys. You can't win. And this is just the normal people.
Extremists will probably be 100x worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
