Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
It doesn't really unless you want to believe that all the Seals looked like Matt Damon, the Star Spangled was piping in the background, and God threw confetti down on everyone once Osama was officially dead.
Bin Laden is dead
- Thread starter Archie Moses
- Start date
It doesn't really unless you want to believe that all the Seals looked like Matt Damon, the Star Spangled was piping in the background, and God threw confetti down on everyone once Osama was officially dead.
If no one from the house was shooting, that would mean we executed him without even a trial.
If Osama had no gun, but other people in the house (and in particular in the room with Osama) were shooting, it's no big deal.
Last edited:
The local John Birchers have advanced the following claims:
(1) Osama actually died of kidney failure in 12/2001; Benazir Bhutto was murdered for reporting it;
(2) Osama's CIA name was "Tim Osman" and he dined at the White House;
(3) US intervention in the Middle East is meant to change Muslim culture to accept central banks.
What say you oh jazzfanz guru of conspiracies?
My understanding from reading the reports is that the latter was true.
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
Are you just presenting the other side, or does that really bother you in this situation?
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
If you ever talk to Birchers tell them you think they are a part of the Illuminati....because they are.
1) Possible. It really comes down to sources and who you trust. I don't trust the CIA director or Obama over the guy that used to run the Pakistani ISI or Bhutto who was considered a fairly reputable woman. Those countries are worse off economically, but that doesn't mean their government/people are equally low on the character scale, though of course you have to take into account what Pakistan could gain by saying he was dead. I'm okay with going along with the current US government led narrative of Osama's death until there are enough anomalies to make it implausible. It's too early to say. But yes, before this new development I was leaning towards Osama being dead. If this changes that, so be it.
2) Definitely was Tim Osman at one time and probably assumed other names as well. I don't know whether he has ever been to the White House. Anwar Al-Awlaki did dine at the Pentagon. 3 out of the top 4 current Al Qaeda guys were raised in the US. The CIA/Pentagon does run/aid Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood is ran by MI-6. The big terror events were all staged, most of the suicide bombings are legitimate terror, and the ethnic fighting all over the globe is all real.
3) Destory OPEC, get somebody else to start a fight Iran, and ruin the dollar. The Middle East already has central banks, they just aren't owned by the black nobility banking cartels. There isn't enough non-oil money to make that interesting yet.
And we thought birthers were nuts.
I believe in the rule of law, even (and especially) for the worst scum of the earth.
Details please. I would love to torment the Madame's parents with this one.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
If you believe Rumsfeld, as SKAss does, there was no torture. There was normal to intense interrogation...legal interrogation techniques. CIA interrogators are vindicated from liberal lies that they were using torture.
Lets not go that far. Rumsfeld says they weren't waterboarding at Gitmo. That's a far cry from saying the US government wasn't waterboarding anywhere.
Personally I think it's a question of fact as to where the waterboarding actually occurred, but it's not a question of fact that they ceased waterboarding KSM (unless they've managed to do it secretly and have no leak) in or around 2005. There's also no indication that the evidence used to track the courier in this instance was obtained in 2005 or earlier because the timeline given by officials indicates they received the name of the courier in around 2007. Therefore, and this is the tricky part for those who are challenged in deductive reasoning, because they stopped waterboarding KSM before they got the critical intelligence they could not have received the information from KSM as a result of waterboarding.
I believe Millsapa's considered response will be something nonsensical that uses the word "liberal" as an epithet. Her skull is not a permeable membrane to reasoned argument.
Reminds me of someone else...
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Too bad there are holes in your "reasoned argument" big enough for Obama to fit through without getting his ears stuck.
First of all the Obama Regime said the information came from multiple detainees, so you have a problem if you want to hang your hat on one terrorist.
Secondly, you would have to assume that KSM was one of those detainees, and that the waterboarding that occurred before the information came out had no effect on KSM's willingness to talk.
Frankly, I value Cheney's informed beliefs over your "reasoned arguments" any day.
Both of these would make sense if I wasn't rebutting the following claim:
Marcus said:
So you see you're arguing against something else entirely while I'm rebutting Marcus' claim specifically. Your point #1 and half of your point #2 actually support my argument. The second half of your point #2 (that waterboarding "softened him up" for later) is not the point that Marcus was trying to make (in which he claimed that waterboarding was the direct link rather than a far back in time indirect link) and is not supported by any evidence and is thus irrelevant.
What is that opinion based on? He just baldly said it with no basis other than a belief that justifies things he already believed. He has acknowledged he has no inside information on the subject in his ABC interview today: "And I don't know the details. All I know is what I've seen in the newspaper at this point ... "
The Press Secretary and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, both of whom have a more current window than Cheney, are saying that there's no evidence that some key piece of information was obtained as a result of waterboarding. There is some evidence (reported by NPR today) that KSM specifically denied al Kuwaiti's involvement while being waterboarded. Those involved seem to indicate it was the culmination of a lot of intelligence gathered from a lot of different sources. Trying to say that the specific decision to torture a specific person was the key is specious and the worst kind of false patriotism.
Put frankly, if the killing of Osama Bin Laden is used to justify torture tactics going forward then everybody loses.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Gotta love this dandy from troutbum:
Actually, not.
I just figured I said all that needed to be said. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
I wonder if you would have a different opinion had you actually gotten off your fat *** and served in the military. Or if the only remains of your "madame" was some charred fingers at ground zero. Too easy to criticize your fellow Americans while playing poker and "talking" about war.
It's real easy to play call of duty and call yourself a hard ***. Or to act all tough on the Internet while selling insurance, *** wipe.
But it's completely wrong to judge the American nation after this. Many people had their lives ruined by this man. Most military men have been influenced in one way or another. While all Americans have felt his influence.
With all the other **** that's going on with this country, it's about ****ing time we have something to get excited about. Our intelligence can still find answers, our military can still accomplish something, and the war on terror might not be a losing war (for us).
So yeah, that's it buddy. I guess you really destroyed me. Had my *** handed to me....
Actually, not.
I just figured I said all that needed to be said. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
I wonder if you would have a different opinion had you actually gotten off your fat *** and served in the military. Or if the only remains of your "madame" was some charred fingers at ground zero. Too easy to criticize your fellow Americans while playing poker and "talking" about war.
It's real easy to play call of duty and call yourself a hard ***. Or to act all tough on the Internet while selling insurance, *** wipe.
But it's completely wrong to judge the American nation after this. Many people had their lives ruined by this man. Most military men have been influenced in one way or another. While all Americans have felt his influence.
With all the other **** that's going on with this country, it's about ****ing time we have something to get excited about. Our intelligence can still find answers, our military can still accomplish something, and the war on terror might not be a losing war (for us).
So yeah, that's it buddy. I guess you really destroyed me. Had my *** handed to me....
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
It is best not to make a rebuttal to Marcus when you are responding to me.
These are the key parts of our debate, and it appears as though you kicked your own *** in it:
See how you claim we got him without resorting to torture but then go on to say in your "reasoned argument" that we resorted to torture but it didn't work because waterboarding occurred before we got the information.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
That is liberal nonsense. The only people that lose are the terrorists.