+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/23/2018 01:17 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  5.021 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality: Good
Back to Overview  
05/02/2011 12:25 PM ID: 89082 Permalink   

Osama Bin Laden Killed, then Quickly Buried at Sea


U.S. Forces have reportedly killed and buried Osama Bin Laden. In an operation involving 4 helicopters, U.S. forces stormed Bin Laden´s mansion in Pakistan.

After a short gunfight, the United States´ most wanted terrorist was dead. The entire ground operation reportedly took under 40 minutes.

In accordance with Islamic tradition, U.S. forces buried his body within 24 hours after death. Osama Bin Laden´s body was buried at sea in an undisclosed location.

    WebReporter: Questioning_Answers Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
What a nice cover up.
  by: N3T_K1LLA     05/02/2011 12:43 PM     
  what the f?  
There´s like only one picture of his "dead body" getting circled around the web. Is he fking dead or what??? now we find out that he was "buried at sea" ????

maybe Now we´re scared of terrorist retaliation or something??
or is this sea burial just a single rumor and media outlets are all trying to get their hands on the action and it´s false?
idk what to think guys lol
This is really strange but more so scary.
  by: Dr.DiMiTree   05/02/2011 01:12 PM     
  @N3T_K1LLA & Dr.DiMiTree  
I believe a quick burial is more likely because their are trying to mitigated the response from moderate Muslims by burying him within the 14hr period as with Muslim tradition although this unfortunately will give credence to the tinfoil hat brigade.

[ edited by tommyab ]
  by: tommyab   05/02/2011 01:21 PM     
  by: RReese1016     05/02/2011 01:47 PM     

His rich family who has alot of business ties would have wanted his body back.
  by: smgordon1259   05/02/2011 01:50 PM     
"MAJOR COVERUP" Being that Bin Laden and presumably his family a strict muslims they would almost certainly want his body to be buried as with Muslim practises and tradition. that being said they where not to keen on him anyway and no country would have accepted his body

[ edited by tommyab ]
  by: tommyab   05/02/2011 01:54 PM     
anyone else smell that?
  by: chadatcondonethis   05/02/2011 02:08 PM     
  Since Obama is prez.  
The mainstream media will never stop praising him. However, if there were a republican president he would be vilified for inhumane treatment of osama and how he was denied a fair trial, blah blah...
  by: ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh   05/02/2011 02:13 PM     
  goddamn tinfoil asshats  
The fooker is dead. Done.
Go peddle your conspiracy shit elsewhere.
  by: jediman3     05/02/2011 02:52 PM     
  That other f***k, Suddam was brought in alive..  
and stood the humiliation of trial and then execution. They could easily have brought Osama in alive. Don´t get me wrong, I am glad he´s dead but I would´ve been happier if he was brought to America to stand trial.

That would be the ultimate humliation for him and his followers and would be a more drawn out punishment than the quick pain free death he got. Also he will regarded as a martyr now!
  by: MalcolmB   05/02/2011 03:15 PM     
Your assumption about how bush would be treated is wrong. Bush did a lot of damage and said so many stupid things that, nobody needs to exaggerate by blaming him for killing ladin in a war. On the contrary, it would be like when your retarded autistic cousin finally learns to wipe his own ass at the age of 6, everyone will be so happy and surprised they would praise him.
  by: kmazzawi     05/02/2011 03:33 PM     
  he´s been dead for years  
Really, he lived in a mansion in pakistan? Drone could have easily taken him out and his whole mansion.

Didn´t our media tell us he was living in some caves? Seriously, a mansion?

40 minutes total ? And we´ve spent a little less than 10 years screwing up afghanistan, making it the biggest opium producing country in the world, and bombing the living sh*t out of iraq, and now we´re busting Libya?

Quickly buried at sea, oh okay, hahaha. Such BS. Presidential Candidate Bhutto was assasinated for leaking information about her meeting the CIA´s hitman that killed Bin Laden way back in 03.

I think this is A: A cover up, and B: Obama can now say that he killed Bin Laden, and it will be a +1 for his re-election campaign.

If this forum had a BS flag like ATS or GLP, i´d be raising two of them.
  by: meshuggahfan   05/02/2011 03:52 PM     
  living next  
to a military compound? no one there knew? ha ha ha ha.. most likely had dinner with top officials weekly.should have done like old blackjack did. dig a hole and bury him with a pig!there will be uprisings and attacks to get revenge here over this.
  by: shannon853   05/02/2011 04:43 PM     
Conspiracy theorists, how are you sooo convinced that this is a cover-up? Noone but a select few knows the actual truth. All everyone else can do is speculate and listen to (should listen to) multiple media sources and judge if there are any fallacies in the story. If the same story is being spread, then chances are its legit. The whole thing of being buried at sea within 24 hours makes perfect sense. The operation taking ~40 minutes makes sense. The information about where he was has been known for awhile and a plan with the utmost secrecy had been in place for awhile. From the get-go it was to be a quick, painless mission. That´s how ALL missions are planned, they just don´t always go that way.

What´s funny about the conspiracy theorists as they had to have an open mind at one point to even accept the belief of something that is different than is mainstream. But somewhere along the lines, you lost that openmindedness and are now just as closeminded and stubborn as the "brain-washed" fools you point everyone else out as being. What if the government´s real conspiracy is making you believe that its all a conspiracy, therefor covering up the real issues which there really is no conspiracy.
  by: drykul     05/02/2011 04:44 PM     
  So they finally defrosted him  
I already thought he was dead for years. I wouldnt be surprised to still be right too. I mean it wouldnt be that hard to pull his corpse out of a freezer, shoot it, and dump it in the ocean.

Its really just for publicity. Keep people talking about something other than the banks seizing their homes, losing their jobs to China, and their USD´s becoming worthless!
  by: slavefortheman     05/02/2011 04:49 PM     
Just curious as to how you have such supreme knowledge as to say "Its really just for publicity. Keep people talking about something other than the banks seizing their homes, losing their jobs to China, and their USD´s becoming worthless!"? Seriously, stop spouting stuff that you THINK might be true, but saying it in such a way that makes you sound like you ARE being truthful. There´s a huge difference. Nothing personal, just irks me when people say things like they are 100% infallable when they really have no idea IRL. To me, that = bold-faced lie.
  by: drykul     05/02/2011 04:53 PM     
  Efforts From the Right  
It´s recorded in history that the right didn´t support Clinton´s effort to bomb Osama Bin Lauden in the 90´s. They said it was a diversion to take the heat off the Monica Lewinski story.

Then there was Bush´s impossible to believe statement that he wasn´t too concerned with finding him. This was, in my opinion, a story to explain why we haven´t found him.

One has to wonder what would have happened if the right really had the best interests of our country in mind instead of politics.
  by: Jim8   05/02/2011 05:03 PM     
  Where´s the Death Certificate?  
Just preparing to hear from the loony conservatives.
  by: Jim8   05/02/2011 05:04 PM     
I love how Short News is a magnet for crazy people. All you conspiracy theory idiots are laughable and you need one of these:
  by: Lurker     05/02/2011 05:06 PM     
  @Conspiracy Theorists  
Always looking for a vacuum aren´t you? Osama´s body will be confirmed by DNA analysis. When Adolf Hilter was killed, they didn´t carry his body around the world to show it off, they quickly disposed of it to make sure there would be no shrine.

The fact that Osama is buried at sea shows several things... firstly that Saudi Arabia would not take his body, and secondly that the U.S. honored a tradition to bury the body of an Islamic person - regardless of who they were before they were dead, you have to bury the body of a muslim within a day, it´s religious tradition.

Even if the Saudi´s took the body, they would most likely have destroyed it and given it no exact resting place either. The last thing you want is a shrine to a mad man for sympathizers to turn into a religious site.

As for the people making comparisons to Saddam Hussein. He was found literally in a hole, and put up no fight. He was tried for war crimes in Iraq and executed (poorly).

He surrendered and was taken into custody when he was found. The U.S. ops who went after bin Laden yesterday encountered resistance. Osama made it clear a long time ago he would never be taken a alive, and that he would never give up his weapon. He chose his own fate.

So go ahead with your tinfoil hats and keep up the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense that has been thoroughly debunked for years, it doesn´t change the facts. As for the photos, there most definitely will be photos of his body as part of the kill confirmation. If the one floating around online is legitimate, it is very grizzly and is unlikely to be shown on daytime TV at least, but more details will be released to the press in the coming weeks for sure as it gets cleared for release.

Don´t be mad now because the guy who gave you a vacuum of information to shove any bullshit into it is confirmed DEAD... of course you will use the 24 hour burial at sea as your new vacuum anyway... and don´t forget to vote Trump in 2012!
  by: Dela     05/02/2011 05:17 PM     
Quote:I love how Short News is a magnet for crazy people

Yeah me too, and I am sure you realize you´re the largest piece of scrap metal in the bunch.
  by: hellblazer     05/02/2011 05:20 PM     
Hey, like mcink2 said. We just want to see Osama´s Long Form Death Certificate. And why is it spelled Usama on Fox and Osama everywhere else? Were there two Bin Ladens? And if so which one died? Was it the one that Glenn Beck hired to crash planes into New York City or was it the one that the U.S. hired to fight the commies?

Hey, I´m not suggesting anything. I´m just asking questions.

[ edited by VermiciousG ]
  by: VermiciousG     05/02/2011 05:26 PM     
  On the subject  
In the article it states, The reason is bound up within Islamic practice and tradition. And that practice calls for the body of the deceased to be buried within 24 hours.

If that is a fact then I can see where they had to dump the piece of shit. If they hadn´t buried him within that time frame you would have the Muslim nation in an uproar and emboldening al Qaeda even more.

Myself I would have brought him here and buried him in a dump

  by: hellblazer     05/02/2011 05:27 PM     
It´s not al Qaeda´s current line-up that concerns me. It´s the line of volunteers that are on the fence that would have signed up had we not respected the Muslim burial traditions.
  by: VermiciousG     05/02/2011 05:36 PM     
>>I am glad he´s dead but I would´ve been happier if he was brought to America to stand trial.

Considering the FBI says that there is no credible evidence to link UBL to 9/11, the trial would have been about the 1998 bombing for which he was deemed responsible - not for anything after that.

Forget what I just said - this is what would have happened in a country where justice, truth and peace were relevant factors. In America, however, he would have received the kind of mock trial Hussein got - and then executed.

Only fascists would call that "justice".
  by: scrut999   05/02/2011 05:45 PM     
>>If the same story is being spread, then chances are its legit.

Only if you take non-american sources into account. By relying only on US sources, chances are you are just being fed the same story over and over again.

I do agree with you, however, that the story that I read so far sounds believable. (even though the picture of UBL being dead is a known and proven fake - which doesn´t help the "legit" claim)
  by: scrut999   05/02/2011 05:50 PM     
Do yourself a favor and download a BBC documentary called...

"The Conspiracy Files: Osama bin Laden, Dead of Alive?"

This was released around January 2010 or so. It goes over all the claims that bin Laden is dead and/or not responsible for 9/11 and examines it. Of course, the claims about bin Laden not being responsible are complete nonsense, there is a massive amount of evidence against bin Laden. The FBI most wanted list didn´t mention 9/11 because Osama hadn´t been indicted.. but he had been indicted for embassy bombings in late 90s, 2000, as well as U.S.S Cole bombing.

As for his death, he died in a gun fight with U.S. forces. Unlike Hussein, he didn´t surrender and he was killed.
  by: Dela     05/02/2011 05:51 PM     
There was the one videotape where they show bin Laden watching footage of 9/11 and saying words to the effect "it went better than we could have dreamed."

That´s all the proof I need.
  by: VermiciousG     05/02/2011 05:55 PM     
>>He was tried for war crimes in Iraq and executed

Hussein was only charged with being responsible for the killing of 142 people in a village where an attempt on his life was made.

He was NOT charged for all the other things he did because that would have revealed the extremely vital role of the United States in absolutely everything he did. And since the Bush admin didn´t want the world to know how America created Hussein, built him up, gave him the weapons that he used to kill approx. 200.000 people, and gave him permission to invade Kuwait, he was sentenced after a short mock trial which had absolutely NOTHING to do with a fair trial or truth or justice.
  by: scrut999   05/02/2011 05:56 PM     
Yeah, thats why I said multiple media sources. That includes other countries´ views as well.

As for "(even though the picture of UBL being dead is a known and proven fake - which doesn´t help the "legit" claim)", show me the money, as I´m not aware of this.

[ edited by drykul ]
  by: drykul     05/02/2011 05:56 PM     
How the U.S. made Saddam Hussein is well known and documented. I even saw a movie based on how the U.S. helped him build that gigantic gun. That cat´s been out of the bag for a long time.

Regardless, the U.S. didn´t put him on trial. The Iraqi people did.
  by: VermiciousG     05/02/2011 06:07 PM     
Ok, I see now that that one famous picture was faked. But who initially released it? If it was from an official government claiming it to be legit that was later found as fake, the conspiracy theorist have a BIT more credence. If it was just some random person, then it means absolutely nothing.
  by: drykul     05/02/2011 06:10 PM     
You are one of the top wingnuts in the world. You have no room to talk, hypocrite.
  by: Lurker     05/02/2011 06:25 PM     
  Let´s be honest  
not a single one of us knows exactly what happened. All we know is that the US government says they killed him, quickly took DNA samples and transported him 1000 Km to be buried at sea; all within 24 hours.

The major media outlets are all getting the same story; as the story originated from within the US government. I then repeat what has been told to them and write it on shortnews.

I don?t know if what I wrote is accurate at all. All I know is that?s what the media outlets are reporting.

I can?t confirm or deny it, just as nobody else can.

Bin Laden could have easily been killed a year ago, but the administration could have been waiting for a politically opportune time to release the information. The same was accused of the Bush Admin.

There?s a mountain of possibilities here, but none of us knows for sure which possibility is the reality.

All we?re going off here is what the always-honest government is telling us.

[ edited by Questioning_Answers ]
  by: Questioning_Answers     05/02/2011 06:43 PM     
  @scrut999 + About Pictures  
The U.S. is well known to have made massive mistakes in the past. Everyone has seen the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Husseins´s hand, it is nothing new, and not that surprising.

That doesn´t change the fact that Saddam was a murdering bastard who terrorized Iraq and had offered to pay families of suicide bombers who attacked the West after 9/11. He set himself up for his fall and the world is a better place without such a tyrannical nut case governing over millions of people. His execution wasn´t carried out very well and was rightly condemned by the Bush administration.

Today the U.S. government gave details on Osama. Firstly, Osama was identified at the scene by a woman believed to be a wife, but the ops only decided to get away with the body and some materials of possible intelligence value. He was taken to an aircraft carrier where samples were taken for DNA and his body was washed and dressed in accordance with Islamic tradition. After that, his body was weighed down and thrown into the ocean, where he cannot have a shrine like he would have had on land.

Prayers were even said while his body was being prepared, so clearly the U.S. showed him a lot more respect after his death than he ever showed to a victim of any of his crimes.

The fact that they prepared his body in such a way suggests to me that the first official pictures will be of his body once it was cleaned up, but then again, they might not want to release cleaned up photos of him until they gage the reaction of the Muslim world, they don´t want him to appear as some kind of martyr either.
  by: Dela     05/02/2011 06:48 PM     
  another man dead  
and more murder to follow. i hate that this is being made into such a big deal and so many folks i know are excited and celebrating and taking pride in that "the job" is finally done. trying hard not to rain on their parade by keeping my mouth shut but i can´t help feeling a deepening sadness and hopelessness.
  by: calilac     05/02/2011 06:55 PM     
>>Regardless, the U.S. didn´t put him on trial. The Iraqi people did.

Yeah right. And Iraq is now a sovereign country ruled according to the interests of the Iraqi people alone. This may fool some foxnews-consumers but certainly not people with a brain.

Since 2003 Iraq is ruled by the US. Period. The just used different puppets to mask this fact.
  by: scrut999   05/02/2011 07:03 PM     
  The Sea Burial  
Denies his followers a place for a shrine.

It will make it impossible to hold pilgrimages to his place of burial.

It mitigates his martyrdom, in my opinion to a major extent.

I think it was a grand idea.

Now they need to tell the world over and over about how he suffered in a million dollar compound just miles from the West Point equivalency in Pakistan.

Expose him for the martyr he was not.
  by: ichi     05/02/2011 07:05 PM     
>>Ok, I see now that that one famous picture was faked. But who initially released it? If it was from an official government claiming it to be legit that was later found as fake, the conspiracy theorist have a BIT more credence. If it was just some random person, then it means absolutely nothing.

Just read what I wrote: I didn´t say that because this pic is a fake, the whole story is fake. Instead I said that the story (at least the portion that I read) sounds believable to me.
However, using a fake pic didn´t help.

According to the news sources that I consumed, the pic was used by some media stations - not the government.
  by: scrut999   05/02/2011 07:05 PM     
  @ calilac  
Agreed. While most people celebrate this man´s death, they completely ignore the fact that assassinations like this are why people like Bin Laden attack the US in the first place.

No they don´t hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we constantly mess with and attack their countries.

You can´t expand attacks and expand peace.

That´s why the head of the CIA says that we´re likely to see retaliation for this.

Americans Put on Alert Amid Warnings of Al Qaeda Retaliation

  by: Questioning_Answers     05/02/2011 07:09 PM     
Well, that question wasn´t really directed towards you personally. I apologize for the miscommunication. I was just asking a hypothetical question.

And if you read one news source that used that pic as "evidence" and that´s causing you to think the whole story MIGHT be farce, then you are contradicting yourself. Don´t let one source (this source I haven´t seen yet) that uses a fake picture lean you towards the thinking that this is a conspiracy when there are many, many other sources that even agree that this pic is fake yet still giving the same story. Not saying that you don´t think the story is true thus far, I get that. But I wouldn´t let one obviously unreliable source begin to discredit a whole host of others.
  by: drykul     05/02/2011 07:12 PM     
>>That doesn´t change the fact that Saddam was a murdering bastard who terrorized Iraq

Yes. But not as bad as the US has been doing since 2003. Polls among the Iraqi people as well as research by countless universities, amnesty international and human rights watch prove that the Iraqi people are actually worse off now since the US is in charge.
This doesn´t change the fact that Hussein was a very bad person - but the US is far worse and has killed more people in less than 10 years than Hussein did in over 30.
I am glad he is gone but I am sad for the Iraqi people that they are now even worse off.
Besides: he was only such a brutal tyrant because we (the West) gave him the tools to be. We are responsible for both his and our murders - those that died before and after 2003. Hussein is "only" responsible for those before 2003.

>>and had offered to pay families of suicide bombers who attacked the West after 9/11.

Can you please provide some credible evidence of this "fact"?

>>He set himself up for his fall and the world is a better place without such a tyrannical nut case governing over millions of people.

True. But unfortunately, the Iraqi people were better off with him than with the US.
This doesn´t show that he was a nice guy after all. It just shows the massive failure of the US operation there.
  by: scrut999   05/02/2011 07:14 PM     
  @Haters and idiots  
  by: ben_reilly     05/02/2011 07:14 PM     
>>But I wouldn´t let one obviously unreliable source begin to discredit a whole host of others.

As I said - I don´t :)
  by: scrut999   05/02/2011 07:16 PM     
I agree with you that the U.S. Government polices the globe too much. But at the same time, we don´t expand attacks in order to expand peace in the short run. Its a long term thing. If a tyrannical leader is in charge somewhere wreaking havoc with no end in site, the best and sometimes only option is a violent overthrow. Obviously this will result in resistance, but ultimately ends in the ruler being taken out of power and hopefully a more peaceful ruler put into place that can guide the people to peace. So no, noone ever expects war to bring peace immediately and you´d be ignorant to believe that. But also spouting it as an insult or a way to belittle a government is pretty ignorant as well.
  by: drykul     05/02/2011 07:21 PM     
You can argue U.S. influence in Iraq as much as you´d like. It still has a freely elected government.

P.S. I´ve watched faux noise exactly once in 10 years and that was at about 1am last night.
  by: VermiciousG     05/02/2011 07:22 PM     
The term "we"... that one really gets me too. I understand that you put (the West) in there, but that doesn´t really change the fact that you are lumping the ENTIRE population into one pack. What about the people that were completely ignorant to the fact that U.S. even supplied them weapons. What about the people that knew that the U.S. supplied them weapons, but the original intentions were not for them to be used against us? While it is a legitimate theory that we set him/them up to be the force we are now fighting to take down, the vast majority didn´t do this or agree with this for those intentions. Therefore, I am NOT responsible for his murders. Its terminology like this that makes all other countries think that America is full of red-neck, towel-head hating, trailor trash. Be more specific when you are placing blame otherwise you risk making the innocent seem guilty.

[ edited by drykul ]
  by: drykul     05/02/2011 07:26 PM     
If he picks up a gun and fires on the people trying to catch him then it´s not an assassination. As it is that´s the official story and you have absolutely nothing but speculation to suggest otherwise.
  by: VermiciousG     05/02/2011 07:29 PM     
  How would *you* have done thing differently?  
If I had controlled the most heavily-tooled armed force on the planet...
If I had the military might of an entire contnent...

... looking for a 6´4" arabaian, whose face was more globally recognizable than Oprah.

If I´d finally caught him after almost a decade and several trillion dollars and million lives ... I´d actually do some verfication tests certify it´s authenticity.

That body has more coverup secrecy over it than the ´Roswell Aliens´ bull****.

[ edited by redstain ]
  by: redstain   05/02/2011 07:46 PM     
DNA evidence not enough? What more do conspiracy theorists want? Revive the body from the dead and get an actual answer from him?

[ edited by drykul ]
  by: drykul     05/02/2011 07:50 PM     
"Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war."
- Albert Einstein

I fully understand the supposed logic behind going to war to prevent war. The only thing is, it´s completely and utterly irrational; even in the long term.

"The past is prophetic in that it asserts loudly that wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows."
- Dr. Martin Luther King

Going to war has never proved to provide an everlasting peace. In fact, it only proves to intensify conflict, death, rape, and murder until peaceful diplomacy is finally re-introduced (or until one side is completely eradicated). All you have to do is look at history to see this.

Just look at the US itself.

We overthrow the Nazis, then smuggle their scientists to the US so we can create the same war machines that the Nazis did.

Did that end our wars? Of course not. We have been in a nearly-constant state of war somewhere else in the world ever since.

The most amusing part is that in the cold war, we help arm Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded. Just a few decades later, whaddya know, the same people we arm become our sworn enemies.

Same with Iraq. We help arm Saddam Hussein against Iran. Not long after, whaddya know, Saddam is an evil dictator and our enemy.

War is completely irrational. You probably need an IQ well below genius level to even consider it.

War is what you get yourself into when you admit your ideas have given out.

  by: Questioning_Answers     05/02/2011 08:03 PM     
  From the Drudge Report  
SIGN: ´Obama Forgot To Say Thank You President Bush!´"

I could not bring myself to read the article. But that´s what we expect from Drudge and the right. Lies and spin.

[ edited by Jim8 ]
  by: Jim8   05/02/2011 08:09 PM     
"If he picks up a gun and fires on the people trying to catch him then it´s not an assassination."

You can´t be serious. In case you are...


Assassinate: "to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person"

  by: Questioning_Answers     05/02/2011 08:17 PM     
>>It still has a freely elected government.

A freely elected government which takes orders from abroad.
That is the exact definition of a puppet regime - and far from the idea of genuine democracy.

Eastern Germany had a "freely elected government" as well - but was controlled from Moscow. Back then it was the US that was the loudest among those that said that this is not "free" at all.
Now the US is doing the same thing - and we all should believe that, unlike the DDR, Iraq is actually free? Sorry, I call that hypocrisy and BS.
  by: scrut999   05/02/2011 08:17 PM     
If you seriously dont think those things are happening then you truly are a fool... I guess you forgot the last 5 years since the economy imploded. Distractions from reality are what keeps the "decider´s" in power.
  by: slavefortheman     05/02/2011 08:21 PM     
>>you are lumping the ENTIRE population into one pack

The leader of a nation speaks and acts in the name of the entire nation even if individuals might disagree.
You might not have cause the financial crisis - but you are paying for it.
This is how communal entities work.

And this is why "we" as the people of a nation can not say "well, I did not support this policy, therefore I won´t pay the consequences". This is not how things work. Unfortunately, I might add, because in a way, this is unfair.

But unfortunately, this is reality.
Besides: the next question would be: if you disagreed with e.g. the fiscal policy of the Bush admin (which caused the financial crisis) or the war policy of Bush & Obama (which caused 3 wars) - what did you do about it? If you were against it and did nothing about it, you are as guilty as a bystander who witnesses e.g. a rape and doesn´t do anything about it.

If the world did not work this way, nations would not have to suffer for the mistakes of their leaders. But they have to.

Unless this fact of human life changes, I must put "we" into statements like this.
  by: scrut999   05/02/2011 08:26 PM     
While I agree with you wholeheartedly on the principles of your last post, this is not a black and white world.

I know that hate breeds hate, contempt breeds contempt, and violence breeds violence and that all war is on a practical sense is a "my peen is bigger than yours". Your quotes all make sense in another world. In our reality, its not so cut and dry.

Tyrants don´t think that way, and even if you do, it´d be like a pacifist vs. a starved tiger. You can talk to it all you want, but its still going to eat you. And thats just how our world operates and always has. Until the time comes when all the world´s leaders are in a state of enlightenment that they can all agree that fighting each other is not the answer, then if one country declares war on another, that country will NEED to retaliate or be overtaken. That´s just the way it works right now. I wish it were different and it should be, but it isn´t.

Also, just because we end one war, doesn´t mean all other wars will or should cease. WWII and OEF aren´t directly connected. They are similar, but just because WWII ensued isn´t the reason this war has taken place.
  by: drykul     05/02/2011 08:41 PM     
What are you talking about? I never said any of that. I was just referring to the one direct quote I gave from you. How is it that you know for certain that´s exactly what is going on? So don´t start name calling before you understand what´s going on, you´ll make yourself look like a fool.

First and foremost, I didn´t like ANY of the candidates, so my choice was to vote for none. This is the first time I have made this decision, and I didn´t want to just "vote for the lesser amongst the evils". I´ll go with the flow and not complain about whats happening unless I feel like I myself am being wronged personally. That is my right as a non-voting citizen. I won´t bitch about you unless you come at me personally. With that being said, how am I guilty of something I didn´t know would happen? Using your reason, everyone who was in the vicinity of the rape area, let´s say, 15 minutes prior to the rape is responsible for the rape as well. The president never said, when I take office, I´m going to lie and keep us/put us into war. So how am I responsible for somoene else´s actions that I had no comprehension of or foreknowledge? I´m talking in common sense, which this nation IS steeply lacking in. Yes, elected officials are the voice of the nation as a whole. They are elected into office because they tell the people a message they want to hear. Once they get into power, they are not held to act on the same messages they spouted to get into power. How is that anyone elses´ fault except said politician? This is the kind of common sense I´m talking about. Unfortunatley, our world doesn´t work on common sense, hence our conversation about wars in general. It would be nice if everyone would understand and agree on the best way to get things done without war, but there are always going to be knuckleheads who don´t understand anything unless you kick em in the ass.
  by: drykul     05/02/2011 09:00 PM     
  This story...  
is lacking!
For all the talk, very little information has been given about what actually happened and after all the lies we have had to live with over these past years this latest event has left me in doubt!
  by: captainJane     05/02/2011 09:02 PM     
  As many of you guys say in here....  
pictures or it didn´t happen.
  by: captainJane     05/02/2011 09:03 PM     
  @drykhul: "DNA evidence not enough? "  
I saw those records - they were *clearly* not Osama´s DNA. My word against ´official sources´.

Gimme an address, I can send over a ´sample´ of DNA, and I´m clearly still alive.
  by: redstain   05/02/2011 09:29 PM     
  The whole time  
I was watching the Pres. address.
I couldn´t help but think about all those stupid fuckers that for the past year where barking up Obama´s ass.
All those loud mouth cry-babies who used Obama as a way to take out.

See for the past year they were caught in the "magic" of TV and Radio and couldn´t understand that the Pres. isn´t a media whore like most of them.

While they where all so used to TV land
they couldn´t fathom that someone was actually doing some work that didn´t involve make-up.

And yeah the president may be an easy target, but the level some people took it to was staggering.

I´m not a "with" Obama on everything, and I have some very different views.
But I certainly can do nothing but shake my head at all the people who were easily swayed by lies and political fabrications.

Obama has basically done in 3 years what some could only dream of.

Its okay that people were frustrated, and spoke out. The lack of insight and genuine nature political and media spin(you know exactly what I´m talking about.).

Usama Bin Laden finally was killed.
By valiant effort of U.S. Military
dedication of the Commander and Chief.

Usama is dead, I´m all that surprised,
this was not a traditional war, but a ongoing conflict.

The fledging attempts to spin this achievement is beyond pathetic.

At a glance, from this moment, the eggs are juicy and the faces are primed.

  by: Mannyishere     05/02/2011 09:33 PM     
Here is a link for you, click once to get to picture #2. Sorry i made the same post in the forum. Careful the man on the left is a disgusting ugly mutant pig:

[ edited by kmazzawi ]
  by: kmazzawi     05/02/2011 09:53 PM     

[ edited by kmazzawi ]
  by: kmazzawi     05/02/2011 09:56 PM     
  The bottom of the sea  
is where they buried Megatron.

It´s seems only fitting that another threat to humanity is put there, as well.

This will also prevent a burial site for the terrorists and Liberals to make a pilgramage to and honor the SOB.

Burn in hell, bin Laden.
  by: carnold     05/02/2011 10:36 PM     
  Buried @ Sea  
Is that an euphemism for: they flushed him?
  by: Moral_Hazard   05/02/2011 11:00 PM     
  there is a stark contrast here..  
Those who believe what they are told, & those who think for themselves. I think for myself & take the news with a grain of salt. Haters going to hate, so why hate people ho don´t believe everything they bare told. @_@
  by: vhan     05/02/2011 11:09 PM     
WMDs are in iraq. Where you fooled?
  by: vhan     05/02/2011 11:11 PM     
Well, as he was in fact an international criminal and they´ve clearly made no secret of the fact that they were after him I fail to see your point.
  by: VermiciousG     05/02/2011 11:25 PM     
"A freely elected government which takes orders from abroad.
That is the exact definition of a puppet regime "

Prove it. Provide a legitimate source. I´ll read it.
  by: VermiciousG     05/02/2011 11:26 PM     
"I shot Bigfoot yesterday. I ate him and dumped the remains in the lake before I could prove it. Just take my word for it. Seriously." Doug Stanhope Seriously, there should have been a trial. U.S. Team´s Mission Was To Kill -- Not Capture -- Bin Laden

[ edited by Kaleid ]
  by: Kaleid   05/02/2011 11:27 PM     
If their mission was to kill him then wouldn´t a very large bomb have been easier?
  by: VermiciousG     05/02/2011 11:45 PM     
  Osama was already on trial  
in the court of public opinion and found guilty.

He released batches of video and audio tapes flagrantly claiming responsibility, gloating in the deaths of the Americans killed, and praising the hijackers involved.

Verdict: guilty
Punishment: death

His sentence was successfully carried out, yesterday.

[Insert Toby Keith´s "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue", here.]
  by: carnold     05/02/2011 11:54 PM     
  :) I love shortnews  
Really awesome discussions here folks. Respect.

We all "know" he´s dead.Yes. It took about 10 years but We got confirmation from the President himself. .

but.. go ahead, show your hate and opinions now.. it´s a good thing, we are human. But

THE picture... Why is there only one so far circulating the web/media and why is it so blurry?? that bothers me and alot of others i know. answer it as unbiased as possible now and make me look dumb.

on a darker note.

Expect and Prepare for more well-planned out terrorist retaliation within the next couple years. These radical bastards did it once and were beyond successful(oh and a bunch of other attacks are documented by the same/similar radicals fuks ,just 9/11 was by far the worst we have ever experienced) it will happen again.

Think for Yourselves.
Much respect guys.

[ edited by Dr.DiMiTree ]
  by: Dr.DiMiTree   05/03/2011 12:07 AM     
  No x2  
@ VermiciousG
No, as they wanted DNA evidence that it was Osama who was dead. If all is bombed into pieces how are you going to collect it?

@ "in the court of public opinion and found guilty." Oh, what a great system. Collectively in Rwanda people thought they could be judge, jury and executioner and they took action. And you vote?

Boasting doesn´t have to mean a fucking thing.
When serial killers are on the loose and the papers write about the killings there will often be some idiots claiming responsibility, even though they have done nothing. For AQ and Osama boasting about things which they *might* not have had anything to do with brings up their status, the credibility of AQ. "Look what we did, join in our holy war against the great satan blah blah".

No part three to Toby Keith. Blaaah.

[ edited by Kaleid ]
  by: Kaleid   05/03/2011 12:13 AM     
They identified thousands of bodies after 2 enormous sky scrapers fell on them. I´m reasonably sure they could´ve sifted through one large house.
  by: VermiciousG     05/03/2011 12:32 AM     
  It´s not so easy  
when you are in "enemy" territory and have limited amount of time and a small team.

The British SAS could have done this too. Small, quick and well planned operation.
  by: Kaleid   05/03/2011 12:48 AM     
  did any  
of these guys have a helmet cam or something so we could have seen what went down at this place and or why wouldn´t they video tape his body they sure as hell have no problem broadcasting our dead bodies on their news channels

kind of a fishy story on the news last night... who knows what to think?
  by: Devil Duck     05/03/2011 01:05 AM     
Pakistan isn´t enemy territory. It´s a U.S. ally. Abbottabad is an affluent, wealthy city. Not a war zone and most importantly the people getting DNA wouldn´t have had to zip in and zip out like a thief in the night. We´re talking about lab techs not green berets.

Bomb it, cordon off the area, defend it with Paki troops if necessary. The point is just because it was a lightning operation doesn´t prove a damned thing. In fact quite the opposite.
  by: VermiciousG     05/03/2011 01:06 AM     
  Wait. I am losing my point here  
I´m not actually saying that the weren´t trying to kill him. I don´t know that anymore than any of you know that they were. But the nature of the operation IS exactly what they´d do to try to capture him but it is not necessarily what they´d do just to kill him. For now I´m taking the president at his word.
  by: VermiciousG     05/03/2011 01:11 AM     
  What they should have done  
is wrap his corpse in a pig´s skin, and parade it in New York. Then let it rot in a cage somewhere. If Moslems don´t like how Osama bin Laden is treated, they would complain if the devil was cursed.

But nooooo, they have to give him an "honourable Islamic burial"...
  by: H. W. Hutchins   05/03/2011 02:17 AM     
Not doing things like that is another way of showing that what America is doing is not a war against the religion of Islam.

Doing things like that would convince many "Moslems" that we are waging war on their religion, and it would turn some of them into terrorists.
  by: ben_reilly     05/03/2011 03:21 AM     
  Still only one photo guys. bin laden dead pictures&usg=__dqAVQwG8o-n1VO7oZHODH9ln6Hk=&sa=X&ei=D1q_Ta8ri_aAB5WZrOUG&ved=0CC4Q9QEwBQ

?? ummm....

[ edited by Dr.DiMiTree ]
  by: Dr.DiMiTree   05/03/2011 03:28 AM     
  I KNow it´s just a photo but. the only one we  
can access right now!? why is this the only one??? bin laden dead pictures&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=Dhk&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1429&bih=892&tbm=isch0,3590&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=964&vpy=621&dur=385&hovh=97&hovw=179&tx=139&ty=114&page=6&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:19,s:185&biw=1429&bih=892 bin laden dead pictures&usg=__dqAVQwG8o-n1VO7oZHODH9ln6Hk=&sa=X&ei=Xl2_TdXhDcuugQfH2_jkBg&ved=0CCQQ9QEwBQ I hope our government releases more photos/footage of the actual dead body of Osama. Maybe this is for the better but wow

[ edited by Dr.DiMiTree ]
  by: Dr.DiMiTree   05/03/2011 03:48 AM     
  Not a conspiracy....  
  by: smgordon1259   05/03/2011 05:29 AM     
Here is my link again for the picture, click on the First one to get the 2nd picture and spot the fake:
  by: kmazzawi     05/03/2011 05:32 AM     
  Of course, if it was faked,  
we should probably anticipate bin Laden releasing a video pretty soon that says, you know, "I´m not really dead."

[ edited by ben_reilly ]
  by: ben_reilly     05/03/2011 06:05 AM     
You do realize that in that video Bhutto says she could be mistaken, right?
  by: VermiciousG     05/03/2011 06:21 AM     
Why? Do you actually believe that THAT´s what would send him to hell? Are you a secret Muslim?

[ edited by VermiciousG ]
  by: VermiciousG     05/03/2011 06:23 AM     
  Any one think it´s weird  
that "Erin Burnett to Work for CNN" got twice as many hits as this story?
  by: VermiciousG     05/03/2011 06:46 AM     
for those ppl that have never been in combat,,that head shot is very real,,don´t compare it with what you see on tv.i am a vietnam vet for 4 years,in the middle east for 2 years,,south africa for 2 more years,,i have seen alot and have been alot of battles,i know a good kill when i see it.
  by: diehard   05/03/2011 09:33 AM     
I believe that is what radical Moslems would despair. I also believe it´s not half what he deserved...
  by: H. W. Hutchins   05/03/2011 09:38 AM     
  @ VermiciousG  
I don´t have time to adress your points at this time but aerial bombing was ruled out by Obama

I haven´t even read it yet, just passing it along.
  by: Kaleid   05/03/2011 10:11 AM     
  Ok, the important part from the link  
"At first, a drone attack was considered, but President Obama decided against it, partly to avoid civilian casualties and partly because: “He wanted proof. He didn’t want to just leave a pile of rubble.”"

So..ehm :P
  by: Kaleid   05/03/2011 10:13 AM     
Yeah, okay. Looks like he wanted him dead. I´m glad I always leave wiggle room to retract myself gracefully. Disregard.

Oh! Still not an assassination.

[ edited by VermiciousG ]
  by: VermiciousG     05/03/2011 01:10 PM     
So your only reasoning is to further anger still living radical Muslims? Are you one of those Christians that wants to escalate existing tensions into a full blown holy war?
  by: VermiciousG     05/03/2011 01:15 PM     
  Warning graphic content!  
The photo doing the rounds on the internet is old and a fake.

Now I´m not saying it didn´t happen, all I´m saying is the "photo" has been shopped

The link below is one of many that proves this
  by: Zmethod     05/03/2011 01:32 PM     
yeah, we covered that. thanks though.
  by: VermiciousG     05/03/2011 01:55 PM     
Didn´t he as much as confess he was behind it on videos that they released. That would hold up in court as a confession and many people who are innocent get locked away on circumstantial evidence and Osama certainly had motive!
  by: MalcolmB   05/03/2011 02:36 PM     
Bin Laden has always said that he had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Some excerpts:

On 2001-09-16 he let the french news agency AFP categorically that he had nothing to do with 9/11.
In an interview on 2001-09-28 he repeated his claim.
On 2001-11-08 he repeated this in an interview with a pakistani journalist H. Mir.
Mr. Mir asked "then why did you say that the attacks were carried out by muslims"? Answer: "I read the news. America has created a list with the suspects"

In November 2001 a 40 minute long, grainy video was aired by US TV stations which supposedly shows UBL confessing his involvement.
This video was used by the DoD and Bush to invade Afghanistan.
However, for several reasons this video was quickly proven to be a fake by international intelligence agencies. (I could name a few of the many reasons if you wish)
Only Bush and a few other fascists believed that it was a confession.

But not even the FBI believed that this video was credible evidence - so even though UBL was on the FBIs most wanted list, he was NEVER wanted for 9/11. (ask the fbi if you dont believe me - you can even read it on their official homepage)

Dick Cheney explained why in 2006: "We´ve never made the case or argues the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11."

So not even the vice president nor the FBI believe that UBL had anything to do with 9/11.

Do you?
  by: scrut999   05/03/2011 03:25 PM     
>>Osama was already on trial in the court of public opinion and found guilty.

Does this mean the nations of this planet should gather and nuke America?
Because the court of public opinion outside the United States shows in countless polls that most people believe that America is guilty of war crimes, starting illegal wars of aggression, genocide torture and much more. Many polls even show that most people outside the US believe the US is worse and more guilty than Hussein and UBL combined. So according to you we should nuke you?

I won´t disagree with your motion as it would make the world a better place.

>>He released batches of video and audio tapes flagrantly claiming responsibility, gloating in the deaths of the Americans killed, and praising the hijackers involved.

These videos were proven fakes and prove nothing. Not even the FBI nor Dick Cheney believe they were evidence of his involvement in 9/11.

[ edited by scrut999 ]
  by: scrut999   05/03/2011 03:29 PM     
Right, he just finances a terrorist training operation, ordered the bombing of two U.S. embassies, ordered the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, ordered the first bombing of the WTC and writes the paycheck of the guy who actually did mastermind 911 but because he initially confirms and then denies his involvement in 911 he shouldn´t have been treated so roughly.

Sure, that makes sense.
  by: VermiciousG     05/03/2011 03:45 PM     
I think the renowned iraqi poet Saadi Youssof summarized the overall conception of the iraqi people quite well last month when he said "Iraq is a US colony ruled by an Islamic regime"

Apart from that I would like to refer you to the web sites of the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. State Department where you can read about the role of the US in Iraq.

At this point it makes sense to read Article 42 of the Hague Convention: "a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

Let me summarize the story (documented at the UN, the US State Dept and the DoD) for you:
A military occupation was established and run by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which later appointed and granted limited powers to an Iraq Interim Governing Council.
On 28 June 2004, the occupation was nominally ended by the CPA. Sovereignty was transferred to a Governing Council Iraqi interim government led by Iyad Allawi as Iraq´s first post-Saddam prime minister; however this government was not allowed to make new laws without the approval of the CPA. (so it was far from being "sovereign") Consequently, the US occupation continues - but it is now called "assistance".
On 10 May 2007, 144 Iraqi Parliamentary lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal.
Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790, the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq was extended until 31 December 2008, after which there is no justification for foreign militaries to remain in the country.
In 2008 the United States was applying pressure to the government of Iraq to sign a “strategic alliance” continuing to operate in Iraq.
On August 18, 2010 the final U.S. combat troops were reported to have crossed the border into Kuwait, but a spokesman for the U.S State Department noted that the U.S. presence in Iraq would continue.
Today, the US-dominated multinational force in Iraq still exercise considerable power in the country.

I think, the Guardian summarized the reality pretty well in 2010 when they wrote "The US isn´t leaving Iraq, it´s rebranding the occupation".

  by: scrut999   05/03/2011 05:16 PM     
I never said that UBL was innocent.
All I said was there is no evidence linking him to 9/11. That´s all.

For the bombing you mentioned he should have been captured and tried in a court of law. Very simple, very straight forward - because the FBI seems to have sufficient evidence for this terrorist act. And in some backwards countries this would be sufficient for the death penalty - in all modern countries he would be jailed for life. So either way, the rule of law would be sufficient to prosecute and at least lock him away for forever.

Nobody needs to spread lies about 9/11 to do this.

These lies are only necessary to distract from the vast amount of crimes the US has committed after 9/11 in the name of "war on terror". During this operation, the US has caused more death and suffering than all terrorists of the world combined. Since they did this e.g. by creating and starting an illegal war of aggression, I claim that the US is, by definition and by fact, the greatest terrorist of all.

Again and to make that clear: I never said that UBL was innocent. I believe he was far from being innocent and should be treated like a criminal.
However, I stand by my claim that the US is far worse than him.
  by: scrut999   05/03/2011 05:24 PM     
Stay on track. You talking about Iraq or Afghanistan? Make up your mind. Two different places, two different motives, two different wars.

[ edited by drykul ]
  by: drykul     05/03/2011 05:33 PM     
  I´d say both have to do with  
US expensionalism. PNAC, full spectrum dominance crap really...permanent boots on the ground.
  by: Kaleid   05/03/2011 05:41 PM     
“…the court of public opinion outside the United States shows in countless polls that most people believe that America is guilty of war crimes, starting illegal wars of aggression, genocide torture and much more.”

Sorry, but Liberals and jihadists don’t make up “most of the world”. Show us a link.

“These videos were proven fakes and prove nothing. Not even the FBI nor Dick Cheney believe they were evidence of his involvement in 9/11.”

False, again. Show a link.

The last time I asked you for links, you came back with a page of garbage. One link went to the table of contents of a site. Another one in which you said the Iraq war was illegal, you gave a link to a what some German court said.

Try to do better in the future.
  by: carnold     05/03/2011 06:08 PM     
No, I provided links to the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

If you call that "garbage" feel free.

But you only ever come up with links to sites such as foxnews - or you don´t provide anything at all. As for the video being a link: I provided a name: Dick Cheney. He and the head of FBI said in 2006 that they don´t have any evidence linking UBL to 9/11. Ask them for links of their sources. Based on their official statements, it remains a fact that this video does NOT prove his involvement. Provide credible evidence of the contrary if you can.

[ edited by scrut999 ]
  by: scrut999   05/03/2011 07:15 PM     
  What? No links?  
Why am I not suprised?

And, wrong. All your links were irrelevant garbage that didn´t pertain to any of the claims you made. That´s why I didn´t waste my time responding.

Here´s the link:
  by: carnold     05/03/2011 07:46 PM     
Look, I don´t disagree with you on principle but you discuss an editorial in the Guardian as if it were point of fact. China, Japan and Venezuela exercise pressure on the U.S. from time to time on trade and debt issues. That doesn´t mean we´re occupied by them.

Everyone knows Iraq was a huge mistake but, in the opinion of the people in charge, to simply jump on a boat and come home would create a serious security problem. Myself I don´t know. I had friends that said as soon it was confirmed that there were no WMD´s we should have dropped the whole thing and sent all the troops to Afghanistan. In which case today Iraq would still be in complete ruins and would have (perhaps justifiably) one single export. Extremists.

Hind sight is 20/20. You don´t take apart the wrong car and just leave it in a pile of parts. It´s your responsibility to fix it. The U.S. is leaving Iraq. It´s doing it slower than most people would like including myself but to think that the only real pressure we´ve put on Iraq is having them extend our stay is the same as Russia´s hold on Eastern Europe is hyperbole at best.

As for bin Laden, Maybe you´re right. Maybe he didn´t get what he deserved. But he did get what he asked for.
  by: VermiciousG     05/03/2011 07:58 PM     
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I only quoted the Guardian in my very last and closing sentence ("The US isn´t leaving Iraq, it´s rebranding the occupation")

The rest is not from the Guardian - I would not take a newspaper article as "fact".

Political pressure does not mean occupation - that is entirely true. But that´s not my point. My point is that Iraq may have a democratically elected government - but this government is largely influenced and even controlled by the US. If you re-label a box of lemons to "oranges", you still have a box of lemons.

>>In which case today Iraq would still be in complete ruins and would have (perhaps justifiably) one single export - Extremists.

Sorry, but I must disagree here. Iraq was not in complete ruins before the invasion - the US turned it into ruins by means of the invasion. I have several Iraqi friends who left Iraq during Husseins reign. They say (and actually, the United Nations agree) that under Hussein, Iraq was a middle class society in which you could get your education, work and live in peace if you followed one rule: Don´t mess with the Dictator. Religious prosecution, terrorism, or muslim extremists were largely unknown under Hussein. He did not support terrorists nor did he fund them or muslim extremists. All this only happened after the US bombed the country to ashes.
If the invasion did not happen, Iraq would now be a country still ruled by a dictator, still suffering from trade embargos. But that´s all. By all accounts, Iraq is now worse off. Even seemingly little things like women rights got even worse since the US is there.

Besides, even 2003 the facts were clear: Iraq did not have any WMDs, Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism, there is no legal means whatsoever to invade that country. Since the people know this, they would resist. You call them insurgents, but by international law they are actually just legally protecting their country against an army that started an illegal war of aggression.
All this was known 2003 - so I don´t think talking about "hindsight" and "knowing this only after the fact" is not truthful.

>>simply jump on a boat and come home would create a serious security problem.

I agree with you on this one. The coalition forces can´t just leave that country over night. They have caused and created this mess the nation is in now - and they need to fix it. But the Iraqi people should control this "fixing it" - but they don´t because the US doesn´t take orders from any other nation. And that´s actually the problem and part of the argument as to why Iraq is still no sovereign nation.

But leaving this aside, I agree: withdrawal must happen slowly but completely. A quick withdrawal would be even worse than the status quo.

[ edited by scrut999 ]
  by: scrut999   05/03/2011 09:54 PM     
Ok, I don´t know why we went off on a tangent about the whole Iraq thing cause that is a different story than the Afghanistan thing. But I know from being in Afghanistan multiple times and working along side the local nationals (LNs) that rebuilding projects ARE directed by the local people. We speak with the village elders and ask them what they need. They tell us they want a school or a hospital or whatever at some particular location. We get the funding approved and either hire contractors or LNs and sometimes we even build them ourselves. That is from first hand accounts of mine.
  by: Drykul     05/04/2011 12:20 AM     
I´m giving up. I can tell you´re not a malevolent prick like 3 others (who shall go nameless for now) but we definitely have agreements and disagreements. You´re clearly willing to engage and that´s pretty cool.

Naming the pariah now. I recommend not talking to anyone named ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, shannon or CArnold. HellBlazer has similar views but he´s not a revolting troll. He will actually engage and isn´t even all that wrong sometimes. Of course I could be wrong. I have been drinking.

L8r T8r
  by: VermiciousG     05/04/2011 05:42 AM     
"While I agree with you wholeheartedly on the principles of your last post, this is not a black and white world."

If you actually did agree with those principals, then you would also agree that the geniuses who discovered them were not talking about some abstract black and white fantasy world. The black and white fantasy worldview says it´s "Us vs Them"; and peace will never be achieved until they are eradicated.

"Everybody´s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there´s a really easy way: stop participating in it."
- Noam Chomsky

Then we have people like Bush, Obama and Bin Laden, who buy into this black and white mindset, advocating attacks on people they don´t even know.

All that does is terrorize people. It terrorizes people in the US. It terrorizes people in the Middle East. It makes people in the US and the Middle East want to fight back.


"Tyrants don´t think that way, and even if you do, it´d be like a pacifist vs. a starved tiger. You can talk to it all you want, but its still going to eat you"

Let´s shoot all hungry tigers dead then. Just like in war, it ignores the actual problem; the hunger.

In fact, your mindset is the same mindset terrorists have about the US. "Let´s eradicate the US before it gets done eradicating us". Both sides holding this mindset will never have peace; therefore it´s never going to be the solution.

"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
- Nelson Mandela


"Until the time comes when all the world´s leaders are in a state of enlightenment that they can all agree that fighting each other is not the answer, then if one country declares war on another, that country will NEED to retaliate or be overtaken."

So by that logic you actually do sympathize with the terrorists´ viewpoint. They see the US attacking nations in the middle east. So by your very own logic, you have no problem with them defending their lands and attacking back through terrorism.

  by: Questioning_Answers     05/04/2011 06:10 AM     
Which came 1st, The AQ or the QA?
  by: VermiciousG     05/04/2011 06:20 AM     
"Well, as he was in fact an international criminal and they´ve clearly made no secret of the fact that they were after him I fail to see your point."

My point is that the word assassination is the correct word to use, by definition. My point is that an assassination is an assassination regardless of whether the killed had a gun in his hands or not.

BTW, the White House later admitted that Bin Laden wasn´t armed.
  by: Questioning_Answers     05/04/2011 06:31 AM     
>>that rebuilding projects ARE directed by the local people

Thank you for your first hand account; that´s interesting to hear. It seems that rebuilding efforts work differently than "peacekeeping" undertakings and I think that´s pretty neat.
Even though I must add that what you describe still doesn´t sound like directing to me - more like "specifying the demand - but command structure remains with the US". Or could the locals actually say "we do not want your help, please leave our province" and the US would then pack and go?

If you don´t mind: would you mind summarize your perceptions about Afghanistan and its people and the situation they are in now? Since you have been there, such account would be much more interesting to hear than the stuff some media outlets produce.
  by: scrut999   05/04/2011 06:32 AM     
>>You´re clearly willing to engage and that´s pretty cool.

Thank you - same to you. While I see that we disagree on some issues, I can totally live with this and am looking forward to future discussions. :)

As for the three nameless users: brainwashed people are certainly a different story - but let´s be glad that mental institutions now even provide internet access to their inmates. :) Even though they are not capable of actually and factually discussing a topic, let´s be nice to these underprivileged people, pat them on the back, and say "there, there, now you go and play with the others". Just a suggestion :)
  by: scrut999   05/04/2011 06:37 AM     
Yes, I agree with those principles, but that is not how the world or how the majority of humans think in this day and age. While it would be great if everyone who stepped up to lead every nation didn´t believe that violent conflict and trying to flex military muscle wasn´t the answer to building your nation or achieving goals, there will always be people who are stuck in this mindset. And you can´t bring a knife to a gunfight. I do not believe this mindset will ever be eradicated, as that is how human civilization has always been. Its in our very nature. We are a flawed species.

And I´m not saying to ignore the hypothetical "hunger" problem. What I´m saying is while you are face to face with said tiger, you can´t be wasting your time digging in your pockets for a steak that isn´t there. The only way I can see this as becoming less of a problem is through foreign diplomacy. Attempting to find a middle ground that all sides can agree upon. This has been attempted, but has never came to fruition (NATO). There is always that one that doesn´t want to play along. So what do you do about him?

And lastly, I sympathize with anyone´s viewpoint who are justly defending themselves. The "terrorists" you speak of are defending themselves, yes, but they did start the conflict. All conspiracy theory possibilities aside. We´re speaking hypothetically here. If a nation lashes out against another, and the latter nation retaliates, I have no sympathy for the former. And my same viewpoint still stands unfaltering. Yes, we did declare war on another country, so yes they will retaliate and they have. That is just proving my point. It doesn´t mean I sympathize with terrorists. Do you understand my meaning here?
  by: drykul     05/04/2011 06:37 AM     
Gladly, but be forewarned I only spent time in the central and south-central areas of Afghanistan, so my description of the nation as a whole wouldn´t be so accurate. But most of the ones that I did interact with seemed very happy that we were there. The majority of them were older males and they all had their own war stories of when Russia had invaded and they were stepping up to defend themselves at that time. Most of them talked and joked around with me and I them. After you get past the language and culture barrier and see each other as common humans instead of Afghani and American, its very easy to get along with them. They do get offended pretty easily on certain issues, such as their women. But that is just a culture difference and things like that you just have to take into consideration and try to explain yourself and apologize ahead of time if you say or do something accidentally to offend them.

The areas we were in, if they hadn´t had much contact with U.S. yet, they were very timid and stayed at a distance. However, once your presence was established and they warmed up to you, MOST of them were actually very friendly. As long as you were respectful towards them, they would give you the shirt off their backs. A very giving people. Although I worked with one LN I´ll never forget. I was working my patrol with him along for sake of presence. I had my iPod with me. He said he wanted to hear American music, so I let him listen to it. I happened to be listening to either Five Finger Death Punch or Avenged Sevenfold at the time and he just started dancing and singing along with it. Very funny. But then he didn´t want to give it back. He thought I had given it to him as a gift. Very hard to explain that I didn´t and to get it back. And then he kept trying to get me to give him something else in replace. My wedding ring, my boots, my Oakleys, just about anything. He wasn´t a bad guy, just a bit annoying.

BUT, there were also those that would give us the death stares. And to be honest, I had more negative interactions with the Afghanistan National Army (ANA) than I did the civilian LNs. The ANA were usually unfriendly, even if I would just be waving and saying hello, they would usually just stare at me and seemed angry I was even there. Which some would say is understandable as our presence there isn´t welcomed by some. But that aside, my experience there with LNs was overall a good one. I shared in a few lunches with LNs. I worked alongside LNs. I talked with them, listened to them, and basically just treated them like I would any other normal human being. They seemed to respect that alot more than my M4 I was carrying around. ;)

Kind of a long summary, but believe me. Could be A LOT longer.
  by: drykul     05/04/2011 07:01 AM     
Guess I kinda went off topic there a little.

They know their situation isn´t a good one, obviously. And like I said, the majority of them were happy we were there. We gave them employment and we are boosting their economy. There are special funds set aside specifically for the purchase of goods and materials directly from the Afghan people for the sheer purpose of helping to circulate money and boost their economy. They are very grateful for the opportunity of employment, and by their standards some of them do pretty well for themselves. Especially the interpreters. And even in the lowest paying job that we employ for them, as long as they are on the straight and narrow, they each get the opportunity for advancement to take on more responsibility and get paid more. The areas I was in wasn´t HEAVILY under the influence of any Taliban regime. So it seemed to me our basic mission there was to help the Afghan people rebuild not only what U.S. had physically destroyed, but what the Russians and Taliban had destroyed. I had a few stories from the older LNs about how they were mistreated by the Taliban and were very gracious for us wiping them out. I´d say overall, at least in the areas I was in, U.S. is a good influence. For the time being.
  by: drykul     05/04/2011 07:10 AM     
  @ drykul  
It´s almost as if you didn´t read a single word that I wrote. That´s ok, it seems that you´d like stay set in your ways. You don´t need my approval for that.

It´s probably best that we just decide to kill everyone that doesn´t comply with us. That´ll spur peace.

BTW the terrorism seen in the US, according to Bin Laden, was in response to what the US had already done to them:

"Allah knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed – when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

– Osama bin Laden

Since we attacked his people first, Bin Laden attacking back on 9/11 was justified by your logic. Think about how poorly his own retaliation strategy worked (or not).

"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses."
- Thomas Jefferson
  by: Questioning_Answers     05/04/2011 07:33 AM     
YOUR definition:

Assassinate: "to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person"

I´ll give you "suddenly" but not "secretively" nor "politically".
"international Terrorist/Mastermind/supporter/financier" at the very least.
  by: VermiciousG     05/04/2011 07:45 AM     
Just because your arguments aren´t convincing enough to change my mind doesn´t mean I´m ignorant or stubborn. You are proving yourself to be they type of person wrong with this world. If someone doesn´t hold your beliefs, then they are the wrong ones. Why can´t we just agree to have differing opinions and leave it at that. Discussion of the differing opinions and the SHOULD be civilized debate that ensues is what makes things interesting and opens up peoples´ minds. But when people like you start making personal attacks, that ruins everything and everyone.

With that being said, I don´t know how else to tell you that I´m no arguing with you on princie. He´ll I´m not really arguing with any of your points. All I´m saying is although that is the way it should be and the way I, one day, hope it turns out, that´s just simply not how the world works. So please quit attempting to belittle me, because it´s not working.

[ edited by Drykul ]
  by: Drykul     05/04/2011 01:33 PM     
Bin Laden´s terrorist activities have been traced all the way back to the late 80s/early 90s because him and his newly formed al qaeda group didn´t like america being in kuwait because we were "non muslims". So saying things started off with the 9/11 attacks is extremely inaccurate.
  by: Drykul     05/04/2011 01:42 PM     
I retract my last statement as the edit function isn´t working for me and I misread your last statement making my last statement not make any sense. It´s early for me, let me get some caffeine and I´ll respond later.
  by: Drykul     05/04/2011 02:00 PM     
ok, have you done any research on that particular war between lebanese (sp?) and israelis? If you had, PLO started attacks against Israel during a ceasefire. So yeah, PLO was in the wrong, so Israel retaliated. Osama (still unclear of his connection to PLO, so his point might not even be relevant in my opinion) saw that attack LED by Israeli forces that was not hindered by US and decides from that point forward that US is the devil? Unless I´m misunderstanding that whole situation, seems like a pretty stupid reason to want to destroy our towers which apparently he decided on doing back in the early 80s as he witness this PLO/Israeli war? This doesn´t mesh up at all for me.
  by: Drykul     05/04/2011 02:14 PM     
  what is overlooked  
is obama authorized the cold blooded murder of an unarmed man. that is how it will be looked at by others. islam will possibly seek revenge. had he been armed or put up a fight even with a sword, it would have been justified. the statement he resisted would then justify any police officer simply saying the suspect resisted so i shot them dead!
  by: shannon853   05/04/2011 04:31 PM     
Yes, that is how the extremists and people that sympathize with Al Qaeda will look at it, regardless if he was holding a gun or not. Its not being overlooked. Some people are going to have a problem with this, but the majority of people are very happy about it. It is very possible that the mission was supposed to be bring back dead or alive and in the fight either he was accidently shot or he was shot to prevent his escape once again. Were you there and know exactly how the firefight went down? No, none of us were.

While it would of been great to bring him back alive, it didn´t work out that way. And I am in no way going to disrespect the ones that finally took him down because of that.

[ edited by drykul ]
  by: drykul     05/04/2011 04:40 PM     
Actually no one is overlooking that at all but yes, you´re right. It´ll be seen as murder of one innocent man despite the fact that he´s murdered thousands of unarmed non-combatants.
  by: VermiciousG     05/04/2011 04:44 PM     
I don´t think shannon was condemning the killing of bin Laden. He hates Obama with a passion but he hates bin Laden as much as any other American.
  by: VermiciousG     05/04/2011 04:52 PM     
Ok, I can see the implied meaning in his message now rereading it. But "islam will possibly seek revenge"? Islam is not some militant group, or a country, or any other thing that would seek revenge.

Definitions of islam on the Web:

•the civilization of Muslims collectively which is governed by the Muslim religion; "Islam is predominant in northern Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, and Indonesia"
•the monotheistic religious system of Muslims founded in Arabia in the 7th century and based on the teachings of Muhammad as laid down in the Koran; "Islam is a complete way of life, not a Sunday religion"; "the term Muhammadanism is offensive to Muslims who believe that Allah, not Muhammad ...

UBL did not represent Islam as a whole, only a small portion we label as terrorists.

Now when the Islamic population gets to a certain %, Sharia Law is usually incited then that new group will most likely be branded as terrorists as well. But saying that the Islamic people will now retatilate is, no offense shannon, ignorance. Uneducation. I´m sure there are plenty of Islamic people who are glad UBL is gone as well.
  by: drykul     05/04/2011 06:11 PM     
Oh yeah, I know that but shannon believes religion is genetic. I mean literally genetic.
Ex: Obama´s father was a moslim so Obama´s a moslim.
  by: VermiciousG     05/04/2011 10:29 PM     
lol. I hope thats a joke. I´m not one to judge, by any means. But that is complete ludicrous.
  by: drykul     05/04/2011 10:35 PM     
As I looked back through the comments that were made on another thread I see that it was in fact someone named raqsqquelch directly beneath his and hellblazer´s comments. So I owe shannon an apology.

Sorry shannon, apparently you´re not quite as dumb as I´d thought you were.

I love humility. It allows sincerity even in your backhanded compliments.
  by: VermiciousG     05/04/2011 11:40 PM     
So assassination is the correct word then. Why that was a problem with you in the first place remains a bit amusing.
  by: Questioning_Answers     05/05/2011 02:29 PM     
  @ drykul  
"If someone doesn´t hold your beliefs, then they are the wrong ones."

I just wanted to quote this to point out the irony. If you weren´t doing this yourself then there would be no debate.


"Why can´t we just agree to have differing opinions and leave it at that."

Bravo. That´s what I have been advocating the entire time. This not only applies to conversation, but war as well. However, in war, we don´t just "leave it at that". In war we decide to get nasty and kill people instead of talking to them.


"Discussion of the differing opinions and the SHOULD be civilized debate that ensues is what makes things interesting and opens up peoples´ minds. But when people like you start making personal attacks, that ruins everything and everyone."

I agree entirely. I havn´t been attacking you, but your ideas. It´s the very spirit of honest debate.


"All I´m saying is although that is the way it should be and the way I, one day, hope it turns out, that´s just simply not how the world works"

If you agree that it´s the way it should be, then why not advocate it or participate in it? The world will never work that way until people like us change it to be that way.

BTW, the way things are isn´t any kind of argument against changing to the way things should be. By that logic, we should still participate in slavery too.

What we can do to help end war is to not participate in it. What we can do to help end slavery is to not participate in it. We can´t take part in something and say we´re against that thing; it´s a logical fallacy.
  by: Questioning_Answers     05/05/2011 03:02 PM     
  @ Drykul  
I agree entirely that Bin Laden´s reasoning was bad. In fact, this entire time I have been railing against his reasoning; as well as the US´s reasoning to do the same against him.

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."
— Thomas Jefferson

Our founders warned us against making alliances. They knew very well that alliances lead to wars. When you form alliances, you also form enemies.

That´s exactly what happened regarding our alliance with Israel. Bin Laden saw it and now we´re in a "never ending war against terrorism" which helps to put the entire world at war. The never ending war is bankrupting us. The never ending war is also destroying our citizen´s rights through things like the Patriot Act.

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
- James Madison
  by: Questioning_Answers     05/05/2011 03:14 PM     
No, You are wrong. It wasn´t an assassination and Your definition confirms it. So There!
  by: VermiciousG     05/05/2011 03:37 PM     
  @ VermiciousG  
Assassinate: "to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person"

Was Bin Laden killed suddenly or secretively? Of course.

Does the definition say that all assassinations absolutely must be of a politically prominent person? Of course not. Otherwise instead of "especially" it would say "to kill a politically prominent person suddenly or secretively"

Even so, Bin Laden was a politically prominent person; especially in the middle east.

The definition fits perfectly; whether you acknowledge that fact or not.
  by: Questioning_Answers     05/05/2011 04:01 PM     
and Tu Pac was assassinated. BS
  by: VermiciousG     05/05/2011 04:22 PM     
your concerns about the definition to Random House Dictionary.
  by: Questioning_Answers     05/05/2011 04:33 PM     
I really like the quotes you stated and, like I said, I agree with them wholeheartedly. I guess the only disagreement me and you have is in the faith of humanity. I don´t believe the mindset ever will change. The minute I see our leaders stand up and take responsibility of their actions and admit that we´ve been doing it wrong and actively AND honestly commit to change and on top of all that do completely (sorry for the break here. Sometimes I hate my iPhone.) revamp the way foreign diplomacy is looked at and done, then I will stand behind that leader and support him in those actions fully. But as common individuals, the best we can do is hope a leader candidate like this comes along and isn´t assassinated by someone holding on to old ideals and ways.

[ edited by Drykul ]
  by: Drykul     05/05/2011 05:19 PM     
I do indeed have faith that people can change. I also know that we can. We changed to oppose slavery not too long ago. Not too far down the road we will change to oppose war as well. It´s inevitable one way or the other.

Either we end war or war will end us. Either way, war is doomed to fail.

I also have faith that you can find faith in humanity; no matter how many slaveholders or warmongerers currently remain.

It seems to me that there is only 1 Major Presidential candidate which fits your description of recognizing our foreign policy failures. Dr. Ron Paul. Perhaps that´s why he earned by far the most financial support from our military men and women last election.
  by: Questioning_Answers     05/07/2011 05:11 PM     
  @If I was Obama...  
I would have kidnapped Osama, given him a new identity in the US, and allowed him to mold himself into the exact thing Muslims "hate" about Americans. In a couple months release pictures of him having a threesome, drinking alcohol, or something "offensive" in the Muslim community, then throw him to the wolves he created.

But that´s just me.

[ edited by id0pa ]
  by: id0pa   05/07/2011 05:54 PM     
  Well that´s....  
  by: VermiciousG     05/07/2011 07:20 PM     
  Heard a joke yesterday  
A guy walks into a bar and orders a "bin Laden"
The bartender says "Never heard of that. What´s In It?"
The guy says "Two shots and a splash of water."
  by: VermiciousG     05/07/2011 08:44 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: