Maybe you should walk into your local cop shop or JP's office and file a complaint
Osama bin Laden is dead.
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
President Obama walks into a bar. “What’ll it be, Mr. President?” asks the bartender. “I’ll have a bin Laden,” the President replies. “Never heard of that one, how do I make a bin Laden?” asks the bartender. “Two shots and a splash of water.”
You're right, Osama's death makes no practical difference. Neither does your cities team winning the Stanley Cup. Who cares. Celebrate.
So you want to see terrorism close up? Maybe lose someone or get a little injured? What is it that you're asking for here?
Truth be told: The criticisms of the U.S. actions in killing bin Laden are a bunch of theories in search of evidence. You can tell this by how broad the various criticisms are. "OBL isn't really dead. The U.S. is lying to further their own ends." "OBL actually died years ago, and the U.S. is announcing it now for their own ends." "OBL was killed by the U.S. on Sunday, but he's a victim of a violation of international law." "Pakistan's soverignty was violated." "The burial at sea is somehow an affront to Islam or decency." Perhaps they go the more moralistic route: "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind." Or perhaps they do what the British tabloid Daily Mail does, and resort to quoting American posters in the comment sections of websites in an attempt to make a point about the supposed brutishness of Americans.
You can practically hear the desperation in the critics' voices, trying to find something ... anything ... to justify their negative feelings of the topic.
In actuality, the U.S. government pulled off the mission to capture or kill OBL flawlessly, and that's undeniable.
As Stephen M. Walt, the Robert and Renee Belfer professor of international relations at the Kennedy School of Government put it:
There's some second-guessing going on in the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden, mostly having to do with whether he actually "resisted" or whether the SEAL team that took him out did so deliberately. Although it would be better if the Obama administration's original story had been more complete from the start, I'm inclined to cut them a bit of slack on this one. To me, it's not that surprising that some details were wrong in the initial accounts, and to their credit the administration has been forthcoming about amending the basic account.
Did the Obama administration deliberately send the team in to take him out? I don't know. But I'm sure the SEALs were given very loose "rules of engagement," such that even a minimal degree of "resistance" could be met (as it was) with deadly force. At the same time, I suspect that one reason Obama decided to send a team in rather than simply bomb the compound was a desire to use discriminate force, and to minimize the danger to bystanders. Killing bin Laden during the raid is one thing; killing his wives or the children present there would have played far worse in the eyes of much of the world. Sending a team in was also a way to ensure that we could prove we had got him; leveling the compound would have given even more fodder to conspiracy theorists to argue that he had actually escaped (presumably to join Elvis and Hitler somewhere in South America).
Did the United States Murder Bin Laden? | Stephen M. Walt
You can practically hear the desperation in the critics' voices, trying to find something ... anything ... to justify their negative feelings of the topic.
In actuality, the U.S. government pulled off the mission to capture or kill OBL flawlessly, and that's undeniable.
As Stephen M. Walt, the Robert and Renee Belfer professor of international relations at the Kennedy School of Government put it:
There's some second-guessing going on in the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden, mostly having to do with whether he actually "resisted" or whether the SEAL team that took him out did so deliberately. Although it would be better if the Obama administration's original story had been more complete from the start, I'm inclined to cut them a bit of slack on this one. To me, it's not that surprising that some details were wrong in the initial accounts, and to their credit the administration has been forthcoming about amending the basic account.
Did the Obama administration deliberately send the team in to take him out? I don't know. But I'm sure the SEALs were given very loose "rules of engagement," such that even a minimal degree of "resistance" could be met (as it was) with deadly force. At the same time, I suspect that one reason Obama decided to send a team in rather than simply bomb the compound was a desire to use discriminate force, and to minimize the danger to bystanders. Killing bin Laden during the raid is one thing; killing his wives or the children present there would have played far worse in the eyes of much of the world. Sending a team in was also a way to ensure that we could prove we had got him; leveling the compound would have given even more fodder to conspiracy theorists to argue that he had actually escaped (presumably to join Elvis and Hitler somewhere in South America).
Did the United States Murder Bin Laden? | Stephen M. Walt
Sponge Bob on welfare! How dare you. Sponge Bob works his butt off at the Krusty Crab night and day for very little money. You'll never see Sponge Bob on welfare. And even if he was on welfare... that would not change his species... a sponge.
My bad if this was already covered
The breaking news of OBL's murder came during Trumps Apprentice Show.
The argument about showing the death pic to appease conspiracy theorists doesn't work.
They would only argue that it has been photo shopped.
Not that I disagree with all who venture from the main stream
p.s...my guess is his death pic has him looking like a jetliner crashed into his face.
The breaking news of OBL's murder came during Trumps Apprentice Show.
The argument about showing the death pic to appease conspiracy theorists doesn't work.
They would only argue that it has been photo shopped.
Not that I disagree with all who venture from the main stream
p.s...my guess is his death pic has him looking like a jetliner crashed into his face.
Last edited:
Apples and oranges. Celebrating the slaughter of 3000 innocents does not equal celebrating the death of those who did the slaughtering.
Like I said.....WHO CARES????
If the Pakistanis can not, or will not control the flow of fighters, and supplies across the border into Afghanistan.....where they attack and kill NATO troops, including Canadians........well, Pakistan can go to Hell.
Hunt down your enemies and kill them where you find them.
There is no alternative to that. Half measures produce failure.
Pakistan, btw, has not exactly proven to be a reliable ally.
Exactly. I think by not showing the photo, that gets them upset because they WANT a fake pic conspiracy. This "dumped in the ocean" thing doesn't give them the longevity that a picture would. Just look at all the videos they claim as faked by the CIA.
Obama has snatched that victory too.
Absolutely. They said a portion of his skull is blown off. After someone dies a violent death, their face looks very different from the way it looked a moment before. Come on, we've all been to Drivers Ed and seen those pictures.
Those half closed lifeless eyes, the grayish pale skin, the pain distorted face, blood, gore. It would have been perfect for the deniers and conspiracy nuts.
It's more than they won't. It's just like in vietnam where the north used countries like Cambodia to move supplies and people. I also say to hell with them.
Yeah, because the US will soon be spending billions or trillions to invade and control Pakistan as is typical when any foriegn nation doesn't want to cooperate with the global takeover.
They have some really rotten folk within their borders. If management didn't know, they couldn't collude....