TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Osama Bin Laden Is Dead
Pages (38): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 »

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss This is why you should go to college, if you really want to learn about history. Our public education system is a joke. I went to a private high school and got a lot more history study than what seems to be going on in public schools.

So people should only be educated if they can afford it?

That makes sense to you?

Oh yea... It does.

Breaking news... He was not armed and he did not use his wife as a human shield.
... But we killed him anyway, even though he did not resist.

quote:

Originally posted by chlola Any retaliations or threats yet?

To answer your question, yes:

quote:

J'lem imam: Obama will soon hang Al-Aqsa Mosque imam vows to avenge killing of Osama bin Laden in Youtube video. 'Dogs should not rejoice too much for killing lions' JERUSALEM- An imam from the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem vowed to take revenge over "the western dogs" for killing Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on Sunday. In a Youtube video uploaded by the imam he said: "The western dogs are rejoicing after killing one of our Islamic lions. From Al-Aqsa Mosque, where the future caliphate will originate with the help of God, we say to them � the dogs will not rejoice too much for killing the lions. The dogs will remain dogs and the lion, even if he is dead, will remain a lion." The imam then verbally attacked US President Barack Obama saying: "You personally instructed to kill Muslims. You should know that soon you'll hang together with Bush Junior." "We are a nation of billions, a good nation. We'll teach you about politics and military ways very soon, with god's help," he vowed.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,...4064183,00.html


the video of his call to hang Obama is embedded in the link if you want to watch, but it's in Arabic.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby I want to see your sources on that. Also, even if thats true, it still reflects what the problem is. Everything that is covered in history books is either up to the end of World War I or II. After that its a brief pass over of the last 50-70 years and a chapter on the present day, when I was a kid that was of course Bill Clinton if the books were new enough, and Bush or even Reagan if the books were older, but even then details were sparse, no current events, nothing of any sort of real value. Most of the time teachers didn't even make it to that part of the book by the end of the year. The most influential part of our history on the current day is glossed over. Hell, we had a world issues class and most of that was rather pointless and didn't cover anything in detail, nor anything in the last 25 years.

Sounds a lot like my High school

quote:

Originally posted by chlola Breaking news... He was not armed and he did not use his wife as a human shield. But we killed him anyway, even though he did not resist.

It was a hit. Live with it, its how war works.

We do this shit every week with RPV attacks (drones), I know a number of the people that do them, quite well actually, one of them recently moved from flying them to teaching others in the USAF to fly them.

I read or heard a good quote about how hits like this are actually a progression in warfare. Instead of waging war against an entire country (this time Pakistan) we can go in an surgically remove who we need to and usually do it pretty well.

There is no doubt in my mind that this would have worked in Iraq. Why we need hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground is beyond me when the nations we are fighting are as a whole not raising arms against us.

The full AP article here (and cut up a bit down below):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110504...us/us_bin_laden

quote:

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. 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. "And obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him." For the long-term legacy of the most successful counterterrorism operation in U.S. history, the fact that bin Laden was unarmed is unlikely to matter much to the Americans he declared war against. President George W. Bush famously said he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive," and the CIA's top counterterrorism official once promised to bring bin Laden's head back on a stake. Yet just 24 hours before the White House acknowledged that bin Laden had been unarmed, Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, said: "If we had the opportunity to take bin Laden alive, if he didn't present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that."

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss To answer your question, yes: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,...4064183,00.html the video of his call to hang Obama is embedded in the link if you want to watch, but it's in Arabic.

Did he realize that those edicts have already been made in the US by pretty much every white person south of the Mason-Dixon?

Is getting shot point blank in the head called a drone?

So is there a hit out on George W for his idiotic war?
aka: WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby It was a hit. Live with it, its how war works.

According to White House press announcements, U.S. special forces would have taken him into custody if it were possible, so he wasn't necessarily marked for death, despite full awareness on all parties involved that it was a likely possibility that it would come to that.

FUUUUUCKKKKKK

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Did he realize that those edicts have already been made in the US by pretty much every white person south of the Mason-Dixon?

Never trust the White Folk, Mate.

quote:

Originally posted by chlola Is getting shot point blank in the head called a drone? So is there a hit out on George W for his idiotic war? aka: WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

Not that your fat-addled brain understands the point that I am making, but, no a shot in the face is NOT the same a drone, in most people's opinions it would be more humane than a drone since they actually saw the person they were killing.

When you kill someone with a drone you are dropping a 500lb bomb from 30,000ft on people that you can't even see, let alone have them even attempt to fight back.

We could have done that to Osama and it would have been not a big deal, but for some reason getting shot in the face is a lot worse than anonymous death from above...

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby It was a hit. Live with it, its how war works. We do this shit every week with RPV attacks (drones), I know a number of the people that do them, quite well actually, one of them recently moved from flying them to teaching others in the USAF to fly them. I read or heard a good quote about how hits like this are actually a progression in warfare. Instead of waging war against an entire country (this time Pakistan) we can go in an surgically remove who we need to and usually do it pretty well. There is no doubt in my mind that this would have worked in Iraq. Why we need hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground is beyond me when the nations we are fighting are as a whole not raising arms against us.

quote:

Originally posted by chlola Breaking news... He was not armed and he did not use his wife as a human shield. ... But we killed him anyway, even though he did not resist.

Jesus Christ. The call was to kill that sociopathic fuck. We did. Good riddance. Stop worrying about the rights of a terrorist who would gladly cut off your head if he could, and think of the fucking money we just saved on security measures, lawsuits, and a decade of court trials if bin Laden would have been brought into the country alive.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Jesus Christ. The call was to kill that sociopathic fuck. We did. Good riddance. Stop worrying about the rights of a terrorist who would gladly cut off your head if he could, and think of the fucking money we just saved on security measures, lawsuits, and a decade of court trials if bin Laden would have been brought into the country alive.

Despite this, him not advancing some threatening form of resistance mandates that he be taken into custody, as killing him in such a capacity would be inconsistent with the rules of engagement.

Don't make me pull out my 'If we _______, then the terrorists have won!' card on you.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Taipan is a pretty decent troll. Just hanging on that cusp of plausibility. He's almost as good as Mr. JBJ. Not quite at the pro level, but just look at the way he works. Great job.

I'm not 100% sure on the definition of a troll but if it means playing devils advocate then yes I'm a troll.

The difference between me and most of the people posting here whom support the validity of the white house statement is that they seem so cock-sure about their views while I'm open to different possibilities and am simply suggesting realistic alternative situations.

EDIT: I think that a person who believes something so adamantly "just because the government said so" is just as stupid as a person who does the opposite.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost Despite this, him not advancing some threatening form of resistance mandates that he be taken into custody, as killing him in such a capacity would be inconsistent with the rules of engagement. Don't make me pull out my 'If we _______, then the terrorists have won!' card on you.

yes I agree... so the logical conclusion must be that bin Laden did try to pull something, per your earlier box quote from Panetta:

quote:

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. "And obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him."

Wow, does anyone give a shit that he was essentially murdered? I don't. I'm sure there are millions upon millions of Americans and people around the globe that feel the same.

Bunch of hippie fucks.

who cares.. I want to see the pictures you fucking sand nigger

The bombs were also to take him into custody if he complied, but had full authority to kill him.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Jesus Christ. The call was to kill that sociopathic fuck. We did. Good riddance. Stop worrying about the rights of a terrorist who would gladly cut off your head if he could, and think of the fucking money we just saved on security measures, lawsuits, and a decade of court trials if bin Laden would have been brought into the country alive.

i dont think millions of dollars were spent on saddam's WMD trial do you?

bas raises a good point though.. imagine the amount of capital that would have been generated by fox broadcasting had his trial been publicized like OJ simpson.

Bas you smart SOB

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit i dont think millions of dollars were spent on saddam's WMD trial do you?

Well no... I was talking about the scenario if he was brought into the US.

Seeing that the original plan was to drop nearly a dozen GBU-31 on him... aka these...



...probably killing anyone within 200-400 meters of the compound in the process, I think the fact that he was armed or not when he was shot is rather fucking moot, no?

an old norwegian humor-sketch has suddenly gotten its revival

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.