Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Shadowfax
Participant[quote=gandalf]I don’t know. I like the MLK quote and all, but this is Bin Laden we’re talking about. 9/11 was horrible.
I think we had some tentacles in there somewhere. It’s possible people in the know let it happen, but AQ was the perpetrator, what happened was evil, and justice has been done.
Q: Why does Bin Laden carry a bag of shit around in his pocket?
A: Photo ID…[/quote]
Rus: I like the MLK quote too but unfortunately light and love are poor weapons–look at the massacre of the monks in Tibet(?) a year or so ago. I will say again that his death was a necessary evil but it was still revenge.
The higher ground would have been capture and trial, along the lines of Hussein. From news reports, it doesn’t seem like he significantly resisted capture. Maybe he was just executed to make the mission easier. I wouldn’t make much noise if bringing him back alive would have jeopardized the mission–kill him and be done. But I don’t find much joy in it, like I’ve said.
It’s been bad form for the US to celebrate his death by what was essentially another act of terrorism, if you think about it.
Gandalf: is that tentacles or Tentacles?
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]This should dispel any rumors as to whether OBL is actually dead … or not.
(AP Photo/MBC via APTN) By MATT APUZZO and ADAM GOLDMAN 05/3/11 09:31 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALs burst into his room and shot him to death, the White House said Tuesday, a change in the official account that raised questions about whether the U.S. ever planned to capture the terrorist leader alive.
The Obama administration was still debating whether to release gruesome images of bin Laden’s corpse, balancing efforts to demonstrate to the world that he was dead against the risk that the images could provoke further anti-U.S. sentiment. But CIA Director Leon Panetta said a photograph would be released.
“I don’t think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public,” Panetta said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.” Asked again later by The Associated Press, he said, “I think it will.”
Asked about the final confrontation with bin Laden, Panetta said: “I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.” The CIA chief told PBS NewsHour, “It was a firefight going up that compound. … I think it – this was all split-second action on the part of the SEALs.”
Panetta said that bin Laden made “some threatening moves that were made that clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that’s the reason they fired.”
The SEALs were back in the U.S. at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington for debriefing on the raid, lawmakers said after meeting with Panetta…
[/quote]
Thanks, BG. That answers my question about resisting capture…
Oh, and why are they giving the location of where the actors in that mission are now located for debriefing? Does this strike anyone else as stupid? Let’s just offer up the next terrorist attack location! Another revenge killing in the making.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]This should dispel any rumors as to whether OBL is actually dead … or not.
(AP Photo/MBC via APTN) By MATT APUZZO and ADAM GOLDMAN 05/3/11 09:31 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALs burst into his room and shot him to death, the White House said Tuesday, a change in the official account that raised questions about whether the U.S. ever planned to capture the terrorist leader alive.
The Obama administration was still debating whether to release gruesome images of bin Laden’s corpse, balancing efforts to demonstrate to the world that he was dead against the risk that the images could provoke further anti-U.S. sentiment. But CIA Director Leon Panetta said a photograph would be released.
“I don’t think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public,” Panetta said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.” Asked again later by The Associated Press, he said, “I think it will.”
Asked about the final confrontation with bin Laden, Panetta said: “I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.” The CIA chief told PBS NewsHour, “It was a firefight going up that compound. … I think it – this was all split-second action on the part of the SEALs.”
Panetta said that bin Laden made “some threatening moves that were made that clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that’s the reason they fired.”
The SEALs were back in the U.S. at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington for debriefing on the raid, lawmakers said after meeting with Panetta…
[/quote]
Thanks, BG. That answers my question about resisting capture…
Oh, and why are they giving the location of where the actors in that mission are now located for debriefing? Does this strike anyone else as stupid? Let’s just offer up the next terrorist attack location! Another revenge killing in the making.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]This should dispel any rumors as to whether OBL is actually dead … or not.
(AP Photo/MBC via APTN) By MATT APUZZO and ADAM GOLDMAN 05/3/11 09:31 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALs burst into his room and shot him to death, the White House said Tuesday, a change in the official account that raised questions about whether the U.S. ever planned to capture the terrorist leader alive.
The Obama administration was still debating whether to release gruesome images of bin Laden’s corpse, balancing efforts to demonstrate to the world that he was dead against the risk that the images could provoke further anti-U.S. sentiment. But CIA Director Leon Panetta said a photograph would be released.
“I don’t think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public,” Panetta said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.” Asked again later by The Associated Press, he said, “I think it will.”
Asked about the final confrontation with bin Laden, Panetta said: “I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.” The CIA chief told PBS NewsHour, “It was a firefight going up that compound. … I think it – this was all split-second action on the part of the SEALs.”
Panetta said that bin Laden made “some threatening moves that were made that clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that’s the reason they fired.”
The SEALs were back in the U.S. at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington for debriefing on the raid, lawmakers said after meeting with Panetta…
[/quote]
Thanks, BG. That answers my question about resisting capture…
Oh, and why are they giving the location of where the actors in that mission are now located for debriefing? Does this strike anyone else as stupid? Let’s just offer up the next terrorist attack location! Another revenge killing in the making.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]This should dispel any rumors as to whether OBL is actually dead … or not.
(AP Photo/MBC via APTN) By MATT APUZZO and ADAM GOLDMAN 05/3/11 09:31 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALs burst into his room and shot him to death, the White House said Tuesday, a change in the official account that raised questions about whether the U.S. ever planned to capture the terrorist leader alive.
The Obama administration was still debating whether to release gruesome images of bin Laden’s corpse, balancing efforts to demonstrate to the world that he was dead against the risk that the images could provoke further anti-U.S. sentiment. But CIA Director Leon Panetta said a photograph would be released.
“I don’t think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public,” Panetta said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.” Asked again later by The Associated Press, he said, “I think it will.”
Asked about the final confrontation with bin Laden, Panetta said: “I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.” The CIA chief told PBS NewsHour, “It was a firefight going up that compound. … I think it – this was all split-second action on the part of the SEALs.”
Panetta said that bin Laden made “some threatening moves that were made that clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that’s the reason they fired.”
The SEALs were back in the U.S. at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington for debriefing on the raid, lawmakers said after meeting with Panetta…
[/quote]
Thanks, BG. That answers my question about resisting capture…
Oh, and why are they giving the location of where the actors in that mission are now located for debriefing? Does this strike anyone else as stupid? Let’s just offer up the next terrorist attack location! Another revenge killing in the making.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]This should dispel any rumors as to whether OBL is actually dead … or not.
(AP Photo/MBC via APTN) By MATT APUZZO and ADAM GOLDMAN 05/3/11 09:31 PM ET
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALs burst into his room and shot him to death, the White House said Tuesday, a change in the official account that raised questions about whether the U.S. ever planned to capture the terrorist leader alive.
The Obama administration was still debating whether to release gruesome images of bin Laden’s corpse, balancing efforts to demonstrate to the world that he was dead against the risk that the images could provoke further anti-U.S. sentiment. But CIA Director Leon Panetta said a photograph would be released.
“I don’t think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public,” Panetta said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.” Asked again later by The Associated Press, he said, “I think it will.”
Asked about the final confrontation with bin Laden, Panetta said: “I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.” The CIA chief told PBS NewsHour, “It was a firefight going up that compound. … I think it – this was all split-second action on the part of the SEALs.”
Panetta said that bin Laden made “some threatening moves that were made that clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that’s the reason they fired.”
The SEALs were back in the U.S. at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington for debriefing on the raid, lawmakers said after meeting with Panetta…
[/quote]
Thanks, BG. That answers my question about resisting capture…
Oh, and why are they giving the location of where the actors in that mission are now located for debriefing? Does this strike anyone else as stupid? Let’s just offer up the next terrorist attack location! Another revenge killing in the making.
Participant[quote=Hobie]Not sure how you define bungled, but probably the instances where she ‘bungled’ is just what people can personally relate and like.
People are getting tired of politicians that are too polished and smooth. Fast talking, slick are terms that can be applied equally to both parties.
Palin personality comes off more genuine and real. And this is why she continues to have audiences.
” they all suck” is a fine description as we all voted for one who ‘sucked’ less. Hence the winners percentage margins. If any candidate was truly exceptional, they would pull much larger percentage wins.[/quote]
I can make allowances for someone who is not “polished” or gets nervous in an interview because they are not groomed or used to the limelight, which would have been legitimate excuses for Palin to make in her thankfully short-lived run at the VP seat. Someone with a quick mind and grasp of facts and history and current issues could formulate answers with substance, albeit in a simple form or while showing some nervousness.
But Palin showed herself to be close to or approaching idiocy level. There was no humble, “I’m sorry, I was just nominated yesterday and have been focusing on issues in Alaska so give me a moment to think over your questions….” She just whipped out her talking points and tried to bulldozer over those failings, and pretend she actually could think up an answer…. She couldn’t form a coherent sentence half the time, which is convenient when you are hedging your responses and trying to hide what a moron you are. It made her look like the fool she is. If she was legitimately “folksy”, she could have pulled it off by being MORE sincere. Instead she tried to play a game she was completely unqualified for. And it was pretty obvious that her handlers tried to give her the immersive course in the issues–but they weren’t dealing with a very porous subject, most of it flowed through like a sieve.
So don’t try to make the argument that “intelligent” = “slick”. One of my favorite politicians (oxymoron?) is Tony Blair, not because of what he stood for necessarily, but because he could speak contemporaneously on just about any subject thrown at him–in stark contrast to stuttering, stammering Bush II. There are a lot of slimey politicians out there, but I’d rather support someone with intellect than a cute, folksy retard in expensive suits.
Participant[quote=Hobie]Not sure how you define bungled, but probably the instances where she ‘bungled’ is just what people can personally relate and like.
People are getting tired of politicians that are too polished and smooth. Fast talking, slick are terms that can be applied equally to both parties.
Palin personality comes off more genuine and real. And this is why she continues to have audiences.
” they all suck” is a fine description as we all voted for one who ‘sucked’ less. Hence the winners percentage margins. If any candidate was truly exceptional, they would pull much larger percentage wins.[/quote]
I can make allowances for someone who is not “polished” or gets nervous in an interview because they are not groomed or used to the limelight, which would have been legitimate excuses for Palin to make in her thankfully short-lived run at the VP seat. Someone with a quick mind and grasp of facts and history and current issues could formulate answers with substance, albeit in a simple form or while showing some nervousness.
But Palin showed herself to be close to or approaching idiocy level. There was no humble, “I’m sorry, I was just nominated yesterday and have been focusing on issues in Alaska so give me a moment to think over your questions….” She just whipped out her talking points and tried to bulldozer over those failings, and pretend she actually could think up an answer…. She couldn’t form a coherent sentence half the time, which is convenient when you are hedging your responses and trying to hide what a moron you are. It made her look like the fool she is. If she was legitimately “folksy”, she could have pulled it off by being MORE sincere. Instead she tried to play a game she was completely unqualified for. And it was pretty obvious that her handlers tried to give her the immersive course in the issues–but they weren’t dealing with a very porous subject, most of it flowed through like a sieve.
So don’t try to make the argument that “intelligent” = “slick”. One of my favorite politicians (oxymoron?) is Tony Blair, not because of what he stood for necessarily, but because he could speak contemporaneously on just about any subject thrown at him–in stark contrast to stuttering, stammering Bush II. There are a lot of slimey politicians out there, but I’d rather support someone with intellect than a cute, folksy retard in expensive suits.
Participant[quote=Hobie]Not sure how you define bungled, but probably the instances where she ‘bungled’ is just what people can personally relate and like.
People are getting tired of politicians that are too polished and smooth. Fast talking, slick are terms that can be applied equally to both parties.
Palin personality comes off more genuine and real. And this is why she continues to have audiences.
” they all suck” is a fine description as we all voted for one who ‘sucked’ less. Hence the winners percentage margins. If any candidate was truly exceptional, they would pull much larger percentage wins.[/quote]
I can make allowances for someone who is not “polished” or gets nervous in an interview because they are not groomed or used to the limelight, which would have been legitimate excuses for Palin to make in her thankfully short-lived run at the VP seat. Someone with a quick mind and grasp of facts and history and current issues could formulate answers with substance, albeit in a simple form or while showing some nervousness.
But Palin showed herself to be close to or approaching idiocy level. There was no humble, “I’m sorry, I was just nominated yesterday and have been focusing on issues in Alaska so give me a moment to think over your questions….” She just whipped out her talking points and tried to bulldozer over those failings, and pretend she actually could think up an answer…. She couldn’t form a coherent sentence half the time, which is convenient when you are hedging your responses and trying to hide what a moron you are. It made her look like the fool she is. If she was legitimately “folksy”, she could have pulled it off by being MORE sincere. Instead she tried to play a game she was completely unqualified for. And it was pretty obvious that her handlers tried to give her the immersive course in the issues–but they weren’t dealing with a very porous subject, most of it flowed through like a sieve.
So don’t try to make the argument that “intelligent” = “slick”. One of my favorite politicians (oxymoron?) is Tony Blair, not because of what he stood for necessarily, but because he could speak contemporaneously on just about any subject thrown at him–in stark contrast to stuttering, stammering Bush II. There are a lot of slimey politicians out there, but I’d rather support someone with intellect than a cute, folksy retard in expensive suits.
Participant[quote=Hobie]Not sure how you define bungled, but probably the instances where she ‘bungled’ is just what people can personally relate and like.
People are getting tired of politicians that are too polished and smooth. Fast talking, slick are terms that can be applied equally to both parties.
Palin personality comes off more genuine and real. And this is why she continues to have audiences.
” they all suck” is a fine description as we all voted for one who ‘sucked’ less. Hence the winners percentage margins. If any candidate was truly exceptional, they would pull much larger percentage wins.[/quote]
I can make allowances for someone who is not “polished” or gets nervous in an interview because they are not groomed or used to the limelight, which would have been legitimate excuses for Palin to make in her thankfully short-lived run at the VP seat. Someone with a quick mind and grasp of facts and history and current issues could formulate answers with substance, albeit in a simple form or while showing some nervousness.
But Palin showed herself to be close to or approaching idiocy level. There was no humble, “I’m sorry, I was just nominated yesterday and have been focusing on issues in Alaska so give me a moment to think over your questions….” She just whipped out her talking points and tried to bulldozer over those failings, and pretend she actually could think up an answer…. She couldn’t form a coherent sentence half the time, which is convenient when you are hedging your responses and trying to hide what a moron you are. It made her look like the fool she is. If she was legitimately “folksy”, she could have pulled it off by being MORE sincere. Instead she tried to play a game she was completely unqualified for. And it was pretty obvious that her handlers tried to give her the immersive course in the issues–but they weren’t dealing with a very porous subject, most of it flowed through like a sieve.
So don’t try to make the argument that “intelligent” = “slick”. One of my favorite politicians (oxymoron?) is Tony Blair, not because of what he stood for necessarily, but because he could speak contemporaneously on just about any subject thrown at him–in stark contrast to stuttering, stammering Bush II. There are a lot of slimey politicians out there, but I’d rather support someone with intellect than a cute, folksy retard in expensive suits.
Participant[quote=Hobie]Not sure how you define bungled, but probably the instances where she ‘bungled’ is just what people can personally relate and like.
People are getting tired of politicians that are too polished and smooth. Fast talking, slick are terms that can be applied equally to both parties.
Palin personality comes off more genuine and real. And this is why she continues to have audiences.
” they all suck” is a fine description as we all voted for one who ‘sucked’ less. Hence the winners percentage margins. If any candidate was truly exceptional, they would pull much larger percentage wins.[/quote]
I can make allowances for someone who is not “polished” or gets nervous in an interview because they are not groomed or used to the limelight, which would have been legitimate excuses for Palin to make in her thankfully short-lived run at the VP seat. Someone with a quick mind and grasp of facts and history and current issues could formulate answers with substance, albeit in a simple form or while showing some nervousness.
But Palin showed herself to be close to or approaching idiocy level. There was no humble, “I’m sorry, I was just nominated yesterday and have been focusing on issues in Alaska so give me a moment to think over your questions….” She just whipped out her talking points and tried to bulldozer over those failings, and pretend she actually could think up an answer…. She couldn’t form a coherent sentence half the time, which is convenient when you are hedging your responses and trying to hide what a moron you are. It made her look like the fool she is. If she was legitimately “folksy”, she could have pulled it off by being MORE sincere. Instead she tried to play a game she was completely unqualified for. And it was pretty obvious that her handlers tried to give her the immersive course in the issues–but they weren’t dealing with a very porous subject, most of it flowed through like a sieve.
So don’t try to make the argument that “intelligent” = “slick”. One of my favorite politicians (oxymoron?) is Tony Blair, not because of what he stood for necessarily, but because he could speak contemporaneously on just about any subject thrown at him–in stark contrast to stuttering, stammering Bush II. There are a lot of slimey politicians out there, but I’d rather support someone with intellect than a cute, folksy retard in expensive suits.
Participant[quote=bubba99]If OBL is dead, any terrorist actions they had planned may continue on their original timelines. If he is alive, all planned actions must be cancelled or executed immediately – before we can get the intel out of OBL.
But if we have him, and have lied about him being alive, everything we get is actionable. If we did capture him, it is in the national interest to make the world think he is dead.[/quote]
While reeking of some Hollywood spy thriller, I actually think this would be pretty ingenious. Make the world think he’s dead, create a bunch of top secret film footage to “paper” the file, and then pump him full of high tech chemicals to make him spill (traditional torture probably wouldn’t produce many results, not that I am a fan of physical torture).
I have no idea if the chemicals exist, but it seems a more humane and effective way of getting the info we want. I can waive my usual respect for civil liberties here with a clear conscience given the person involved.
Participant[quote=bubba99]If OBL is dead, any terrorist actions they had planned may continue on their original timelines. If he is alive, all planned actions must be cancelled or executed immediately – before we can get the intel out of OBL.
But if we have him, and have lied about him being alive, everything we get is actionable. If we did capture him, it is in the national interest to make the world think he is dead.[/quote]
While reeking of some Hollywood spy thriller, I actually think this would be pretty ingenious. Make the world think he’s dead, create a bunch of top secret film footage to “paper” the file, and then pump him full of high tech chemicals to make him spill (traditional torture probably wouldn’t produce many results, not that I am a fan of physical torture).
I have no idea if the chemicals exist, but it seems a more humane and effective way of getting the info we want. I can waive my usual respect for civil liberties here with a clear conscience given the person involved.
Participant[quote=bubba99]If OBL is dead, any terrorist actions they had planned may continue on their original timelines. If he is alive, all planned actions must be cancelled or executed immediately – before we can get the intel out of OBL.
But if we have him, and have lied about him being alive, everything we get is actionable. If we did capture him, it is in the national interest to make the world think he is dead.[/quote]
While reeking of some Hollywood spy thriller, I actually think this would be pretty ingenious. Make the world think he’s dead, create a bunch of top secret film footage to “paper” the file, and then pump him full of high tech chemicals to make him spill (traditional torture probably wouldn’t produce many results, not that I am a fan of physical torture).
I have no idea if the chemicals exist, but it seems a more humane and effective way of getting the info we want. I can waive my usual respect for civil liberties here with a clear conscience given the person involved.
-
AuthorPosts