Bin Laden is dead

[babe]

Huh?

I would say the wrong way to govern Americans is to go against what the majority want. Such as repubs oath to not raise any taxes. Despite the majority supporting it.

Agreed that most Americans want OTHER PEOPLE'S taxes raised, perhaps. Some altruistic folks with no real difficulties in their own finances, maybe. But even all those solid blue dems whether living off the entitlements/social security ponzi scheme or off their very stable plush gov jobs, or merely doing well enough as school teachers and janitors or maybe even working for companies that derive a significant amount of business from continued government spending. . . . almost all of these, hmmmm that could be a stretch, so well. . . . whatever of those are actually still thinking will vote against THEIR taxes going up.

You would have made a better argument picking a different part of the elephant. . .. er. . . . donkey. . . . . to analyze, perhaps.

It could be the people you rub shoulders with are a different slice of the pie. I think the polls are sayin' it best. Obama is still way down, and almost everyone is disappointed with the "change". The truth is, he has continued the oligarchal rule virtually without any change. Bush would have privately favored almost everything Obama has done, he just wouldn't have dared to alienate his voter base. That's the only reason.

But most Americans still want more say in their government and their lives than what they're getting now, and the obvious reason most Americans are unhappy with this "status quo" is that they know they have significantly lost their power over their government. The fundamental reason is high-handed corruption and departure from constitutional principles.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I'm all for raising taxes for the majority of people as long as I am in the minority that doesn't have my taxes raised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQNJjvaaMEk

 

[Deleted member 848]

What's your scriptural justification of this? I understand that you're allowed to change religions, but from what I understand the Koran states that if your father is a Muslim, you are a Muslim or something along that lines.

For the record I'm also looking for scriptural justification. I'm seeing more islamic experts in favor of that view i brought to the table. Something about the seed of Mohammed

The way I see it, simply being born in a muslim family certainly does not make one muslim, since it paves the way to this (taken from Wikipedia):

"Cultural Muslims" are religiously unobservant, agnostic or atheist individuals who still identify with the Muslim culture due to family background, personal experiences, or the social and cultural environment in which they grew up.

Malise Ruthven (2000) discussed the terms "cultural Muslim" and "nominal Muslim" as follows:[1]

There is, however, a secondary meaning to Muslim which may shade into the first. A cultural Muslim is one born to a Muslim father who takes on his or her parents' confessional identity without necessarily subscribing to the beliefs and practices associated with the faith, just as a Jew may describe him- or herself as Jewish without observing the Halacha. In non-Muslim societies, such Muslims may subscribe to, and be vested with, secular identities. The Muslims of Bosnia, descendants of Slavs who converted to Islam under Ottoman rule, are not always noted for attendance at prayer, abstention from alcohol, seclusion of women and other social practices associated with believing Muslims in other parts of the world. They were officially designated as Muslims by nationality to distinguish them from Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats under the former Yugoslav communist regime. The label Muslim indicates their ethnicity and group allegiance, but not necessarily their religious beliefs. In this limited context (which may apply to other Muslim minorities in Europe and Asia), there may be no contradiction between being Muslim and being atheist or agnostic, just as there are Jewish atheists and Jewish agnostics... It should be noted, however, that this secular definition of Muslim (sometimes the terms cultural Muslim or nominal Muslim are used) is very far from being uncontested.

In order to become a Muslim person regardless of birth, one must repeat a quranic verse, that roughly translates to there is no other god but Allah (arabic for God, same God as christians excluding trinity) and the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) is his messenger.

Heres the clincher of my argument:

But, first, think for a while: What does the word ‘Muslim’, which we all use so often, really mean? Can a person a Muslim simply because he is the son or grandson of a Muslim? Is a Muslim born a Muslim just as a Hindu Brahman’s son is a Brahman, or an Englishman’s son is born an Englishman, or a white man’s son is born a white man, or a Negro’s son is born a Negro? Are ‘Muslims’ a race, a nationality or a caste? Do Muslims belong to the Muslim Ummah like Aryans belong to the Aryan race? And, just as a Japanese is a Japanese because he is born in Japan, is a Muslim similarly a Muslim by being born in a Muslim country?

Your answer to these questions will surely be: No. A Muslim does not become truly a Muslim simply because he is born a Muslim. A Muslim is not a Muslim because he belongs to any particular race; he is a Muslim because he follows Islam. If he renounces Islam, he ceases to be a Muslim. Any person, whether a Brahman or a Rajput, an Englishman or a Japanese, a white or a black, will, on accepting Islam, become a full member of the Muslim community; while a person born in a Muslim home may be expelled from the Muslim community if he gives up following Islam, even though he may be a descendant of the prophet, an Arab or Pathan.

https://www.quranforall.org/islam/FunofIslam1.htm

I did some scripture searching, to no avail. This is certainly a credible source though, Im sure you agree. And quite frankly, its makes perfect logical sense. "The seed of Muhammed" like you coined could not be a literal part of, say Bernard Hopkins due to the fact that his ancestors were not muslim; hence, there would eb a sense of intra-racial hierarchy within the religion. I feel like it is something much mroe spiritual, and any islam "expert" that you know would be foolish to refuse this simple logic.

 

[LogGrad98]

Going into Pakistan without them knowing, without their permission, to do a special operation that could have resulted in damage to their property or people thus risking relations with that government which already has nuclear arms wasn't a gutsy call?

Are you a complete dumbass?

I get it I get it, a black demo sucks. He's black.. And demo... And black... And liberal... And black!

We should bring back Bush. We should shock and aw another country into submission and fork out another trillion dollars for it. And give more tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies. They're really struggling right now.

Apparently you don't get it. The intelligence groups and special forces have been at this FOR A ****ING DECADE. They did not just barely start looking in places like this because of Saint Obama. These types of missions are what they had been working on for years. Don't let your partisan blinders stop you from recognizing that fact. On second thought, go ahead and let them blind you. Don't want you to have to worry about independent thought or anything. If you really think this is the very first time we stepped foot in a country without their permission looking for OBL, you really are truly blinded.


And where did I mention black, or dem, or whatever? How did you pull that out of you ***?

Oh yeah, I forgot, when you have no true point to argue, or nothing of substance to add, you have to create something out of thin *** to rail against. Good show old chap!

 

[LogGrad98]

What I mean by a gutsy call was invading a sovereign nation and sending in ground forces as opposed to dropping 3k lb bombs and sending cruise missles to flatten the town. Had he done the latter we prolly would have never known for sure if he was dead or not. I agree, any president would have taken action.

Putting ground troops in with the possibility of them having to fight a called ally just to get out is a gutsy decision.

The fallacy is in giving Obama all the credit. How do you know they haven't been working exactly these kinds of missions from the very beginning? I don't think any president deserves much credit for this other than telling the special forces and intelligence agencies to get the guy no matter what it takes. If you really think for 8 years these groups tried nothing of this kind until Obama came up with the plan, you are really kidding yourself and doing our special forces and intelligence groups a grave disservice.

They deserve the credit, not the guy who merely signed on the bottom line (no matter who that might have been, Bush, Obama, Clinton, Mr. Magoo, Mr. Rogers, or whoever).

 

[SaltyDawg]

The fallacy is in giving Obama all the credit. How do you know they haven't been working exactly these kinds of missions from the very beginning? I don't think any president deserves much credit for this other than telling the special forces and intelligence agencies to get the guy no matter what it takes. If you really think for 8 years these groups tried nothing of this kind until Obama came up with the plan, you are really kidding yourself and doing our special forces and intelligence groups a grave disservice.

They deserve the credit, not the guy who merely signed on the bottom line (no matter who that might have been, Bush, Obama, Clinton, Mr. Magoo, Mr. Rogers, or whoever).

I agree that the guys who actually did the job deserve the most credit, hard to argue against that. But you are selling Obama short here. He sent them in to do the job. This was a supposed ally of the US and he sent armed forces in there to carry out a mission without asking or warning.

Not only that, but he did it with his top advisers telling him not to. Some of them were against any action at all until we had proof, or at least more info. Others wanted an air strike, which would have left everyone wondering if Bin Laden was really even there.

And even beyond that, he did it with the top intelligence people telling him that they weren't 100% positive any high value targets were even there and they were even less sure the potential high value target there was Bin Laden.

If you think any president would have done that, you're crazy. Especially after Bush let Bin Laden get away by sub contracting it out to the Afgans.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Had he done the latter we prolly would have never known for sure if he was dead or not.

so now we are sure he is dead?

really what evidence is their. i'm still not sure he is dead or alive.

 

[The-Joker]

The way I see it, simply being born in a muslim family certainly does not make one muslim, since it paves the way to this (taken from Wikipedia):



In order to become a Muslim person regardless of birth, one must repeat a quranic verse, that roughly translates to there is no other god but Allah (arabic for God, same God as christians excluding trinity) and the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) is his messenger.

Heres the clincher of my argument:


https://www.quranforall.org/islam/FunofIslam1.htm

I did some scripture searching, to no avail. This is certainly a credible source though, Im sure you agree. And quite frankly, its makes perfect logical sense. "The seed of Muhammed" like you coined could not be a literal part of, say Bernard Hopkins due to the fact that his ancestors were not muslim; hence, there would eb a sense of intra-racial hierarchy within the religion. I feel like it is something much mroe spiritual, and any islam "expert" that you know would be foolish to refuse this simple logic.

Eh, rep'd.

 

[DutchJazzer]

i have my issues with the government just like everyone else, but i believe obama isn't trying to hide much here in regards to osama... He ordered an operation that supposedly successfully killed the most notorious terrorist of our time.

fixed

 

[LogGrad98]

I agree that the guys who actually did the job deserve the most credit, hard to argue against that. But you are selling Obama short here. He sent them in to do the job. This was a supposed ally of the US and he sent armed forces in there to carry out a mission without asking or warning.

Not only that, but he did it with his top advisers telling him not to. Some of them were against any action at all until we had proof, or at least more info. Others wanted an air strike, which would have left everyone wondering if Bin Laden was really even there.

And even beyond that, he did it with the top intelligence people telling him that they weren't 100% positive any high value targets were even there and they were even less sure the potential high value target there was Bin Laden.

If you think any president would have done that, you're crazy. Especially after Bush let Bin Laden get away by sub contracting it out to the Afgans.

I think you are giving him too much credit. Where is the evidence that we weren't in there already looking for him for years now? How do you know the ONLY reason we even thought about going there was because Obama ordered it. I think this kind of thing does not evolve overnight. We have had people scouring that part of the world for a DECADE. I really doubt that in some meeting Obama said "So in 10 years did you try looking in Pakistan?" and they said "Holy crap, what a great idea! I mean, we have never before had operatives in a country that didn't welcome us with open arms, so we never thought of that! You saved the day Obama!" I would bet dollars to donuts that the plan was PRESENTED to Obama after intelligence discovered OBL had ties in Pakistan and Obama signed off on it. As any president would have done. The bottom line is, in no way does that mission reflect on Obama being "gutsy" or having super-human courage. That is just yet another spin his party is trying to put on the whole thing (just like the repubs are spinning the whole debt thing right now). No, Obama just did what any sitting president would, and should, have done in his place. No great heroics there.



I have also heard what you are saying (above in bold) in forums and in conversations but have yet to find corroborating evidence of that. Do you happen to have any links?

 

[babe]

fixed

I think, after going over various scenarios, that the raid and killing of Osama is the most probable reality. Counting against that the apparent need for a "straw man" enemy to justify the wars, the apparent failure to directly pursue him, and the insane decision to drop the body in the Ocean which really does throw question on the operation, I just have a hard time believing our Navy Seal team would stage a fiction like that. Photos are hardly evidence anymore with all our computer editing aps. Media reports are definitely not credible, and "official statements" are unblievable. So the only way to create lasting public certainty would have been to have brought him home alive and held the trial. Could have been played by his supporters, but since when have we ever been afraid of having to beat their weak stuff. He would have been standing there in court raving about "criminal" American international relations, but we had 3000 dead bodies. Would have been a strong card for public relations.

It just makes sense to me that Obama would mess it up and just dump the body. He's just like that.

 

[LogGrad98]

https://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/...meline_of_the_mission_to_kill_osama_bin_laden
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/...laden-is-killed.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
https://blogs.abcnews.com/political...in-laden-is-killed-white-house-time-line.html

From the last link:

The operation had been in the works for years. Since 9/11, the CIA gathered leads on those in bin Laden’s inner circle, including personal couriers. During interrogations and questioning, various detainees flagged individuals who may have been providing support to OBL and Zawahiri. One courier in particularly was identified by detainees as one of the few al Qaeda couriers who had bin Laden’s trust. He was identified as a “protégé” of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and a trusted assistant of Abu Faraj al –Libbi, the former #3 of al Qaeda, who was captured in 2005. There were even indications the courier may have been living with bin Laden.

In 2007, intelligence officers discovered his identity. In 2009, intelligence officials identified areas in Pakistan where the courier and his brother operate – but they were still unable to pinpoint precisely where.

In August 2010 came a big break. Intelligence identified a compound that aroused their suspicion – eight times larger than other homes in the area, built in 2005, on a property valued at $1 million. But access to the compound was severely restricted, with elaborate security and 12 to 18 foot walls topped with barbed wire. Incongruently, the compound has no phone service or televisions. The main building had few windows and a seven foot wall for privacy. Residents burned their trash.

https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/death_of_bin_laden_took_many_t.html

Although the mission may seem ripped from a big-budget action movie or the pages of a spy thriller, some said such operations are not unusual. Officials just keep them quiet.
"They carry out lots of operations like this," Lindsay said. "We never hear about them because the targets are far less well known to the American public."
Today Pakistan sharply criticized the operation as "unauthorized unilateral action" and a "threat to international peace and security."
"The government of Pakistan further affirms that such an event shall not serve as a future precedent for any state, including the U.S.," the Foreign Office said in a statement.
But U.S. forces have been active in Pakistan for years.
"The significance (of the operation) was that it was bin Laden, not that we were in Pakistan," said Rutgers-Camden foreign policy professor Wojtek Wolfe.

These all support the fact that this mission was years in the making. It was not the brainchild of Obama alone, and he did not act against anyone's advice. They waited until they had the proper intelligence and acted, as any sitting president would have (and should have).

These are not all. Virtually every source I could find supports what these say.

Obama did the right thing. There is no doubt of that. Of course, up until they decided to dispose of the body for very specious reasons. But he didn't do anything heroic. Don't kid yourself. Any president in the white house at that point in time, following the wars that came after 9/11, would have done the same thing. Any and all presidents would KILL to be able to be "the one" who brought down OBL. You really underestimate the power of positive press in politicians' decision-making.