Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 My question is, why did we give that piece of garbage Muslim burial rites? We should have treated him with the same respect and courtesy his Somalian lackeys showed our soldiers.
LeviF Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 What is your point? I didn't want to offend anybody... There is nothing wrong with apologizing. I'm just joshin' ya, EiIL. There isn't anything wrong with apologizing. My question is, why did we give that piece of garbage Muslim burial rites? We should have treated him with the same respect and courtesy his Somalian lackeys showed our soldiers. "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster"
Like A Mofo Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 "I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy (unless it helps some politician that I blindly cheer for that really does not give a rat's ass about me or anyone else) ." Libs and Cons Edited for accuracy.
Buftex Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) Edit for clarification: In my previous post, greater doesn't mean better. more significant, larger effect/impact is what I was trying to imply. Now, if you want to continue to argue the partisan point: Good to see you're an idiot. How will taking out Bin Laden change the world? Taking out Ghadaffi (or however it's spelled) will have a more significant impact on the world than taking out Bin Laden. Great response...you make an idiotic statement, attempt to clarify your idiotic statement, in an iditoic way, call someone else an idiot, and then change the subject.... Edited May 3, 2011 by Buftex
Chef Jim Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Great response...you make an idiotic statement, attempt to clarify your idiotic statement, in an iditoic way, call someone else an idiot, and then change the subject.... And this tactic is new to you?
The Poojer Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 not sure if this has been addressed but my cynical self has to say it... Not sure I buy what is being reported. I have heard too many conflicting reports of the timing of the mission etc...did it happen sunday afternoon or did it happen early in the weekend, thereby allowing time to get dna proof. I have no doubt OBL is dead, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he has been dead for years and this was the time to make it official with some grand account. They instantly 'bury' him at sea, no pictures of it yet, giving everyone plenty of time to build the back story. Just doesn't sit well with me, and I hope I am completely off base. Mind you, I am not criticizing any of the officials for this report. I think announcing OBL is dead is a good thing for the Country and the World and I feel that this was done as a psychological boost and it is a great move. There would be no 'glory' in announcing that OBL withered away and died from liver failure. I applaud how this account has been handled(even if it is a big elaborate story). I just feel there is waaaaay more to it then we will ever know. OK, i gotta go put my aluminum foil helmet on and wait for the end of the world....
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 not sure if this has been addressed but my cynical self has to say it... Not sure I buy what is being reported. I have heard too many conflicting reports of the timing of the mission etc...did it happen sunday afternoon or did it happen early in the weekend, thereby allowing time to get dna proof. I have no doubt OBL is dead, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he has been dead for years and this was the time to make it official with some grand account. They instantly 'bury' him at sea, no pictures of it yet, giving everyone plenty of time to build the back story. Just doesn't sit well with me, and I hope I am completely off base. Mind you, I am not criticizing any of the officials for this report. I think announcing OBL is dead is a good thing for the Country and the World and I feel that this was done as a psychological boost and it is a great move. There would be no 'glory' in announcing that OBL withered away and died from liver failure. I applaud how this account has been handled(even if it is a big elaborate story). I just feel there is waaaaay more to it then we will ever know. OK, i gotta go put my aluminum foil helmet on and wait for the end of the world.... there are some details that need clearing up....
Chef Jim Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 there are some details that need clearing up.... D-Day happened nearly 70 years ago and there are still plenty of details that need to be clear up. Jesus, why does everyone need to know everything and why do they need that information NOW?
Booster4324 Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 not sure if this has been addressed but my cynical self has to say it... Not sure I buy what is being reported. I have heard too many conflicting reports of the timing of the mission etc...did it happen sunday afternoon or did it happen early in the weekend, thereby allowing time to get dna proof. I have no doubt OBL is dead, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he has been dead for years and this was the time to make it official with some grand account. They instantly 'bury' him at sea, no pictures of it yet, giving everyone plenty of time to build the back story. Just doesn't sit well with me, and I hope I am completely off base. Mind you, I am not criticizing any of the officials for this report. I think announcing OBL is dead is a good thing for the Country and the World and I feel that this was done as a psychological boost and it is a great move. There would be no 'glory' in announcing that OBL withered away and died from liver failure. I applaud how this account has been handled(even if it is a big elaborate story). I just feel there is waaaaay more to it then we will ever know. OK, i gotta go put my aluminum foil helmet on and wait for the end of the world.... Maybe this? Typical lab-based DNA matching tests like this can take up to 14 days; they're painstaking and need to be repeated several times to ensure the sample's not contaminated from any other DNA sources. But that's not necessarily the only way to do these tests: late in 2010, a University of Arizona team presented research on a machine that can do the analysis in just two hours in a largely automated way. It's possible that knowing they were engaged on a mission to capture bin Laden, U.S. forces arranged for access to a machine like this to be on quick alert - probably for flying blood, cheek cells, and other samples taken from the body to the lab for expedited analysis. Eaton also pointed out that DNA matching isn't an exact science and that sibling matching is even less exact: "It all comes down to a probability, with a statement like, 'There's a 1 in 1 quadrillion chance this isn't the same person in both DNA samples.' In other words: conspiracy theorists still have something to talk about."
Joe Miner Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Great response...you make an idiotic statement, attempt to clarify your idiotic statement, in an iditoic way, call someone else an idiot, and then change the subject.... So now that I've dumbed it down to where you can begin to understand what I was saying, do you still want to argue and call people partisan, or would you care to retract what you said?
KD in CA Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Fake. Just like the WTC demolition. The WTC demolition was fake?? You mean they're still there? Did they cover them with invisible paint or something?
Buftex Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) So now that I've dumbed it down to where you can begin to understand what I was saying, do you still want to argue and call people partisan, or would you care to retract what you said? You can't dumb things down any more than the original statement. I wasn't trying to argue, just commending you on your ability to spin everyting in a partisan way. Edited May 3, 2011 by Buftex
3rdnlng Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 The WTC demolition was fake?? You mean they're still there? Did they cover them with invisible paint or something? Ah, that David Copperfield. What a joker, eh?
Joe Miner Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) You can't dumb things down any more than the original statement. I wasn't trying to argue, just commending you on your ability to see everyting in a partisan way. And how do you see a statement saying that the removal of Saddam in 2003/2004 will be more significant than the death of Bin Laden in 2011 as partisan? Because clearly you're reading something into that statement that isn't there. But I would expect that from an idiot. Edited May 3, 2011 by Joe Miner
truth on hold Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Well I knew the "woman was killed acting as obl shield" was a bit fishy. Now theyre reporting the dead woman was on a different floor than obl. And the woman with him was shot in the leg and survived. . Hardly what you expect from a "shield"
The Poojer Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 I was there on sunday...and i thought i saw some paint brushes laying around...they did do a great job on the painting though...it really appears as if there is another building being constructed The WTC demolition was fake?? You mean they're still there? Did they cover them with invisible paint or something?
GG Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Well I knew the "woman was killed acting as obl shield" was a bit fishy. Now theyre reporting the dead woman was on a different floor than obl. And the woman with him was shot in the leg and survived. . Hardly what you expect from a "shield" You do realize that most of the early reporting came from 2nd & 3rd hand accounts, so it's not surprising that there are many inconsistencies? AFAIK, there has been no detailed account of the events offered by CIA or Pentagon yet, so everything is still being pieced together from various sources who may not have any detail.
truth on hold Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) Ummmm no I wasn't aware of that. But I'm quite sure the reports are coming from administration press conferences and officials speaking off the record who are usually trusted sources for major media outlets. If you have the data showing it's all 3rd hand then put it forth. Not sure why anyone would care since the only people there were seals, dead or muzzled in a Paki jail. Anyway the main point was the fishiness of the woman shield story, and how peope were nonetheless reacting to it. Its turning out to have been worthy of skepticism. Edited May 3, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack
GG Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Ummmm no I wasn't aware of that. But I'm quite sure the reports are coming from administration press conferences and officials speaking off the record who are usually trusted sources for major media outlets. If you have the data showing it's all 3rd hand then put it forth. Not sure why anyone would care since the only people there were seals, dead or muzzled in a Paki jail. Anyway the main point was the fishiness of the woman shield story, and how peope were nonetheless reacting to it. Its turning out to have been worthy of skepticism. If the source is from administration officials, then it's at least a 3rd person account, because A: they're not the guys in combat and B: not the commanding officer. So do the math. And the female human shield story has changed from Osama using a woman as a human shield to his courier using a human shield. Easy to see how the two got transposed in the initial reports. In any event, if the US was going to go through the trouble of orchestrating this kill, wouldn't it be an easier sell to kill him in some remote mountain dugout, instead of middle of Pakistan, knowing that you will inflame an already tense relationship in the latter? Are people at all capable of non-serial thought?
Recommended Posts