Pictures of the Bin Laden raid aftermath.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 3311
My bad, let me address my grammatical shortcomings.

"those who are already radicalized, and the young, yet to be radicalized Muslims"

Does that help?


So you're the one with the air leak?

All you really needed to make sense in terms of grammar was a plural s and a comma in your original sentence.

In terms of making sense, showing pictures of a dead guy, who is perceived as a hero by his followers, isn't a deterrent.
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Wow.

There are actually people upset that we just put down a murderous sociopath and monster?


Shocking isn't it.

A small part of me wanted him alive for trial and execution.

But the rational part says "Never have bullets been put to better use."

Way to go SEALS!!!!
 
Originally Posted By: Volvo_ST1
In terms of making sense, showing pictures of a dead guy, who is perceived as a hero by his followers, isn't a deterrent.


Yep ... nothing is really a detergent except to actually capture and/or kill them. These terrorist nut-jobs don't need any extra excuses or motivation to do what they do. We should all know this by now.

Maybe our Gov't should show the Osama death photos to get the terrorist networks buzzing ... easier to home in on them when the chatter is going on.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Volvo_ST1
Originally Posted By: 3311
My bad, let me address my grammatical shortcomings.

"those who are already radicalized, and the young, yet to be radicalized Muslims"

Does that help?


So you're the one with the air leak?

All you really needed to make sense in terms of grammar was a plural s and a comma in your original sentence.

In terms of making sense, showing pictures of a dead guy, who is perceived as a hero by his followers, isn't a deterrent.
I didn't want to confuse you anymore more than I already had with my gibberish.
Hows your headache? Sometimes nappies help me with mine.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Volvo_ST1
In terms of making sense, showing pictures of a dead guy, who is perceived as a hero by his followers, isn't a deterrent.


Yep ... nothing is really a detergent except to actually capture and/or kill them. These terrorist nut-jobs don't need any extra excuses or motivation to do what they do. We should all know this by now.

Maybe our Gov't should show the Osama death photos to get the terrorist networks buzzing ... easier to home in on them when the chatter is going on.
wink.gif

I disagree, not showing the photo simply makes us look weak and vulnerable in the eyes of these Islamic radicals.
 
For a Canadian I find this an interesting read.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/06/kevin-libin-obama-bungles-his-osama-opportunity/

This is also very interesting.
http://michellemalkin.com/

Take your Dramamine, and let’s review.

Take One: Bin Laden died in a bloody firefight.

On Sunday night, Obama dramatically told the world that “after a firefight,” our brave men in uniform “killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.”

Embellishing the story the next morning, White House deputy national security adviser John Brennan said at his briefing that bin Laden “was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in. … And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don’t know. … It was a firefight. He, therefore, was killed in that firefight.”

Take Two: Bin Laden did not engage in a firefight.

The day after Brennan disclosed such vivid details, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney walked them back Michael Jackson-style. Bin Laden, he said in version 2.0, “was not armed.” Brennan had clearly implied that bin Laden “resisted” with arms. Carney amended the narrative by insisting that “resistance does not require a firearm.” How exactly bin Laden resisted, Carney would not say.

It’s been all downhill, uphill, K-turns and 180s ever since. Fasten your seatbelts:

Take Three: Bin Laden’s wife died after her feckless husband used her as a human shield.

Take Four: Bin Laden’s wife did not die, wasn’t used as a human shield and was only shot in the leg. Someone else’s wife was killed, somewhere else in the house.

Take Five: A transport helicopter experienced “mechanical failure” and was forced to make a hard landing during the mission.

Take Six: A top-secret helicopter clipped the bin Laden compound wall, crashed and was purposely exploded after the mission to prevent our enemies from learning more about it.

Take Seven: The bin Laden photos would be released to the world as proof positive of his death.

Take Eight: The bin Laden photos would not be released to the world because no one needs proof and it’s more important to avoid offending peaceful Muslims who supposedly don’t embrace bin Laden as a “true” Muslim in the first place.

Take Nine: Bin Laden’s compound was a lavish mansion.

Take Ten: Bin Laden’s compound was a glorified pigsty.

Take Eleven: Bin Laden’s compound had absolutely no television, phone or computer access.

Take Twelve: Bin Laden’s compound was stocked with hard drives, thumb drives, DVDs and computers galore.

Take Thirteen: Er, remember that statement about bin Laden being armed? And then not armed? Well, the new version is that he had an AK-47 “nearby.”

Take Fourteen: A gung-ho Obama spearheaded the “gutsy” mission.

Take Fifteen: A reluctant Obama dithered for 16 hours before being persuaded by CIA Director Leon Panetta.

Take Sixteen: Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and close advisers watched the raid unfold in real time — “minute by minute,” according to Carney — and a gripping insider photo was posted immediately by the White House on the Flickr picture-sharing website for all to see.

Take Seventeen: Er, they weren’t really watching real-time video “minute by minute” because there was at least nearly a half-hour that they “didn’t know just exactly what was going on,” Panetta clarified. Or rather, un-clarified.

Take Eighteen: Stalwart Obama’s order was to kill, not capture, bin Laden.

Take Nineteen: Sensitive Obama’s order was to kill (SET ITAL) or (END ITAL) capture — and that’s why the SEAL team gave him a chance to surrender, upon which he resisted with arms, or actually didn’t resist with arms, but sort of resisted without arms, except there was an AK-47 nearby, sort of, or maybe not, thus making it possible to assert that while Decisive Obama did tell the SEALs to kill bin Laden and should claim all credit for doing so, Progressive Obama can also be absolved by bleeding hearts because of the painstakingly concocted post facto possibility that bin Laden somehow threatened our military — telepathically or something — before being taken out.

Take Twenty: “We’ve been as forthcoming with facts as we can be,” said an irritated Carney on Wednesday.

And they wonder why Americans of all political stripes think they’re blowing smoke.
 
Last edited:
Don, I often wonder how people from outside the US view our bumbling politicians. The number of mistakes from the reporting of this mission has been classic US politician posturing. As one of the many US taxpayers who funded this mission I honestly just wish everyone would shut their mouths and make the terrorists that are left wonder what happened. Fear of the unknown is very powerful.
 
And whoever stated that we should have waited before invading Iraq....um were the 16 UN resolutions that Saddam ignored not enough? He was a mass murderer of his own countrymen, and I find it hard to believe that this world is worse off now because of his death.
 
The only problem with invading Iraq was that we lost our focus on OBL. SH wasn't going anywhere and certainly didn't have out ducks lined up on what the mission was or prepared for the war. It was far more important to get OBL no matter where he went while AQ was still a relatively small centralized org that if you got OBL you would damage it and maybe effectively kill it.
 
Originally Posted By: 65cuda
The only problem with invading Iraq was that we lost our focus on OBL. SH wasn't going anywhere and certainly didn't have out ducks lined up on what the mission was or prepared for the war. It was far more important to get OBL no matter where he went while AQ was still a relatively small centralized org that if you got OBL you would damage it and maybe effectively kill it.


No the media focus the average American on Iraq ... the US is a mass media oriented society like it or not...we are glued on it. The media controls the emotions of Americans...
 
Originally Posted By: 3311
I didn't want to confuse you anymore more than I already had with my gibberish.


anymore more

Where's the Tylenol?
 
Originally Posted By: 65cuda
The only problem with invading Iraq was that we lost our focus on OBL. SH wasn't going anywhere and certainly didn't have out ducks lined up on what the mission was or prepared for the war. It was far more important to get OBL no matter where he went while AQ was still a relatively small centralized org that if you got OBL you would damage it and maybe effectively kill it.


+1. I was not in favor back then of opening a second front in Iraq. It had nothing to with any delusions as to what Hussein was, nor that he didn't richly deserve the end he came to (and maybe then some), and more to do with the fact that every resource devoted on Iraq - and they were considerable - was one less resource that could be used fin OBL, and secure and pacify Afghanistan.

In time Hussein may have proved to be a threat to Western interests in the region. He was, however, at that time no threat to the US and contained within his 3rd rate little piece of the ME. OBL, on the other hand, was a very real threat both to the US and its allies, every moment he remained at large, while Afghanistan was far from secure, let alone pacified.

This is not meant to be construed in anyway to suggest Hussein didn't get what he richly deserved, nor any kind of condemnation or revisiting the rationale for the Iraq operation. But there was ample evidence at the time - for anyone willing to dig beyond what the US MSM was putting out - to conclude it could keep. And perhaps if we'd finished what we started in Afghanistan instead of getting caught up in peripheral - and unrelated - issues with dictators in other regions, we would not have to wait a decade to finally see the matter closed.

That is just my own way of thinking: deal with the primary threat first, and finish what you started. Once that's taken care of, other matters can be addressed.

-Spyder
 
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: 65cuda
The only problem with invading Iraq was that we lost our focus on OBL. SH wasn't going anywhere and certainly didn't have out ducks lined up on what the mission was or prepared for the war. It was far more important to get OBL no matter where he went while AQ was still a relatively small centralized org that if you got OBL you would damage it and maybe effectively kill it.


+1. I was not in favor back then of opening a second front in Iraq. It had nothing to with any delusions as to what Hussein was, nor that he didn't richly deserve the end he came to (and maybe then some), and more to do with the fact that every resource devoted on Iraq - and they were considerable - was one less resource that could be used fin OBL, and secure and pacify Afghanistan.

In time Hussein may have proved to be a threat to Western interests in the region. He was, however, at that time no threat to the US and contained within his 3rd rate little piece of the ME. OBL, on the other hand, was a very real threat both to the US and its allies, every moment he remained at large, while Afghanistan was far from secure, let alone pacified.

This is not meant to be construed in anyway to suggest Hussein didn't get what he richly deserved, nor any kind of condemnation or revisiting the rationale for the Iraq operation. But there was ample evidence at the time - for anyone willing to dig beyond what the US MSM was putting out - to conclude it could keep. And perhaps if we'd finished what we started in Afghanistan instead of getting caught up in peripheral - and unrelated - issues with dictators in other regions, we would not have to wait a decade to finally see the matter closed.

That is just my own way of thinking: deal with the primary threat first, and finish what you started. Once that's taken care of, other matters can be addressed.

-Spyder


In the end it has to do with more than what we think...one is gullible ... who can't add A + B ... by the way it's a gamble ...
 
Originally Posted By: Mamala Bay

In the end it has to do with more than what we think...one is gullible ... who can't add A + B ... by the way it's a gamble ...


I'm not following whatever it is you're trying to say here.

-Spyder
 
should have had a trial and execution, we're better than that.

but good riddance anyway.

just saying.
 
Originally Posted By: crinkles
should have had a trial and execution, we're better than that.

but good riddance anyway.

just saying.


Agreed. We are better than terrorists but also seem to be a vengeful nation.
 
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Something doesn't smell right with the official version(s) of the events. Looks like this was an assassination, not an operation to capture Bin Laden.


Who Cares..... I cannot stand a bleeding heart that worries over whether a Bin Ladin got 'off'ed in the wrong way... There was no justice for the 9/11 victims, at least let them have this... I would cap him and his supporters without blinking an eye.
 
More and more people are coming up with 'US is lying' non-sense; I say we show proof now and get it over with:

I like how sri lanka did it in 2008- they killed probably an even more ruthless terrorist leader, responsible for 30 yrs of civil war and about 40k innocent lives in that time (the LTTE was named the most ruthless terrorist organization on the US state dept's list of terror organizations before 9/11, and even after that; they even had submarines and a few planes, and had killed 2 world leaders, something the AQ never was able to do, although it was in s. asia, where it didn't get much publicity. LTTE was also the group that invented suicide bomb vest,).

When the sri lankan army did him in (after capturing live or not, we will never know), they showed in plain view, the proof that the leader was dead: (the 'light' version with head shot covered with cloth; other versions are available but needs youtube account to watch)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtLxxUQdBPI

3 days later they showed bodies of his wife and 2 children, too. Those videos are now gone from youtube.
 
Originally Posted By: Volvo_ST1
Originally Posted By: 3311
I didn't want to confuse you anymore more than I already had with my gibberish.


anymore more

Where's the Tylenol?
Nice catch! That one was for you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top