|
Where should the credit go?
On 04/05/2011 6:50 PM, Gene wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:10:34 -0400, John wrote: From yesterday's Washington Post: "U.S. analysts and operatives spent years figuring out the courier’s identity, senior administration officials said, concluding that he was a former protege of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-declared mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The courier "had our constant attention," one official said. Detainees "identified this man as one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden, [and] indicated he might be living with or protecting bin Laden," the official said. But until four years ago, the United States was unable to track the courier down or uncover his real name. In 2009, U.S. officials narrowed down the region in Pakistan where the courier was working, senior administration officials said." 'Years' it says. "Four years ago..." Well, that dumps it in Bush's lap. http://tinyurl.com/6f65um6 Yesterday, Panetta admitted to Brian Williams that 'enhanced interrogation techniques', including waterboarding, provided intel which ultimately lead to the attack. http://tinyurl.com/6kz5423 I'll give Obama a 'C' for allowing the action to take place. He didn't do much else. You would benefit from a deeper pursuit of this than what Panetta said. He was wrong about releasing photos and he was wrong about reliable responses from people under torture. I don't know how we got so stupid, but we had a LOT more effective interrogation techniques when dealing with captured Japanese in WWII than we do now..... Funny, with todays cocktails (drugs) I would have thought the opposite unless years of apathy have set in. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial? |
Where should the credit go?
On Wed, 04 May 2011 20:50:46 -0400, Gene
wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:10:34 -0400, John H wrote: From yesterday's Washington Post: "U.S. analysts and operatives spent years figuring out the courier’s identity, senior administration officials said, concluding that he was a former protege of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-declared mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The courier "had our constant attention," one official said. Detainees "identified this man as one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden, [and] indicated he might be living with or protecting bin Laden," the official said. But until four years ago, the United States was unable to track the courier down or uncover his real name. In 2009, U.S. officials narrowed down the region in Pakistan where the courier was working, senior administration officials said." 'Years' it says. "Four years ago..." Well, that dumps it in Bush's lap. http://tinyurl.com/6f65um6 Yesterday, Panetta admitted to Brian Williams that 'enhanced interrogation techniques', including waterboarding, provided intel which ultimately lead to the attack. http://tinyurl.com/6kz5423 I'll give Obama a 'C' for allowing the action to take place. He didn't do much else. You would benefit from a deeper pursuit of this than what Panetta said. He was wrong about releasing photos and he was wrong about reliable responses from people under torture. I don't know how we got so stupid, but we had a LOT more effective interrogation techniques when dealing with captured Japanese in WWII than we do now..... JohnH continues to qualify himself as a partisan hack. When Bush did well, there wasn't a liberal here who wasn't willing to give credit. Obama revived a group that Bush had disbanded and those are the people who doggedly pursued this to the conclusion we've witnessed. Bush never had much patience, being a petulant little boy. |
Where should the credit go?
Canuck57 wrote:
On 04/05/2011 6:50 PM, Gene wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:10:34 -0400, John wrote: From yesterday's Washington Post: "U.S. analysts and operatives spent years figuring out the courier’s identity, senior administration officials said, concluding that he was a former protege of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-declared mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The courier "had our constant attention," one official said. Detainees "identified this man as one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden, [and] indicated he might be living with or protecting bin Laden," the official said. But until four years ago, the United States was unable to track the courier down or uncover his real name. In 2009, U.S. officials narrowed down the region in Pakistan where the courier was working, senior administration officials said." 'Years' it says. "Four years ago..." Well, that dumps it in Bush's lap. http://tinyurl.com/6f65um6 Yesterday, Panetta admitted to Brian Williams that 'enhanced interrogation techniques', including waterboarding, provided intel which ultimately lead to the attack. http://tinyurl.com/6kz5423 I'll give Obama a 'C' for allowing the action to take place. He didn't do much else. You would benefit from a deeper pursuit of this than what Panetta said. He was wrong about releasing photos and he was wrong about reliable responses from people under torture. I don't know how we got so stupid, but we had a LOT more effective interrogation techniques when dealing with captured Japanese in WWII than we do now..... Funny, with todays cocktails (drugs) I would have thought the opposite unless years of apathy have set in. You know about as much about that as you know about paper and documents. In short, you know nothing. |
Where should the credit go?
On Wed, 04 May 2011 20:50:46 -0400, Gene wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:10:34 -0400, John H wrote: From yesterday's Washington Post: "U.S. analysts and operatives spent years figuring out the courier’s identity, senior administration officials said, concluding that he was a former protege of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-declared mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The courier "had our constant attention," one official said. Detainees "identified this man as one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden, [and] indicated he might be living with or protecting bin Laden," the official said. But until four years ago, the United States was unable to track the courier down or uncover his real name. In 2009, U.S. officials narrowed down the region in Pakistan where the courier was working, senior administration officials said." 'Years' it says. "Four years ago..." Well, that dumps it in Bush's lap. http://tinyurl.com/6f65um6 Yesterday, Panetta admitted to Brian Williams that 'enhanced interrogation techniques', including waterboarding, provided intel which ultimately lead to the attack. http://tinyurl.com/6kz5423 I'll give Obama a 'C' for allowing the action to take place. He didn't do much else. You would benefit from a deeper pursuit of this than what Panetta said. He was wrong about releasing photos and he was wrong about reliable responses from people under torture. I don't know how we got so stupid, but we had a LOT more effective interrogation techniques when dealing with captured Japanese in WWII than we do now..... Release of the photos was his opinion. Are you saying he lied about the 'enhanced interrogation techniques'? Would Obama knowingly keep a liar in such a job? |
Where should the credit go?
On May 4, 8:50*pm, Gene wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:10:34 -0400, John H wrote: From yesterday's Washington Post: "U.S. analysts and operatives spent years figuring out the courier’s identity, senior administration officials said, concluding that he was a former protege of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-declared mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The courier "had our constant attention," one official said. Detainees "identified this man as one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden, [and] indicated he might be living with or protecting bin Laden," the official said. But until four years ago, the United States was unable to track the courier down or uncover his real name. In 2009, U.S. officials narrowed down the region in Pakistan where the courier was working, senior administration officials said." 'Years' it says. "Four years ago..." Well, that dumps it in Bush's lap. http://tinyurl.com/6f65um6 Yesterday, Panetta admitted to Brian Williams that 'enhanced interrogation techniques', including waterboarding, provided intel which ultimately lead to the attack. http://tinyurl.com/6kz5423 I'll give Obama a 'C' for allowing the action to take place. He didn't do much else. You would benefit from a deeper pursuit of this than what Panetta said. He was wrong about releasing photos and he was wrong about reliable responses from people under torture. I don't know how we got so stupid, but we had a LOT more effective interrogation techniques when dealing with captured Japanese in WWII than we do now..... -- Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage *http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm Even the liberal Washington Post is giving the credit where due. Notice that they also credit the interrogation techniques so down- played by the Obama bunch. Maybe the liberals will learn something after all. Sure hope so. http://tinyurl.com/3gklkaw |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 5 May 2011 04:32:19 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote: On May 4, 8:50*pm, Gene wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:10:34 -0400, John H wrote: From yesterday's Washington Post: "U.S. analysts and operatives spent years figuring out the courier’s identity, senior administration officials said, concluding that he was a former protege of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-declared mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The courier "had our constant attention," one official said. Detainees "identified this man as one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden, [and] indicated he might be living with or protecting bin Laden," the official said. But until four years ago, the United States was unable to track the courier down or uncover his real name. In 2009, U.S. officials narrowed down the region in Pakistan where the courier was working, senior administration officials said." 'Years' it says. "Four years ago..." Well, that dumps it in Bush's lap. http://tinyurl.com/6f65um6 Yesterday, Panetta admitted to Brian Williams that 'enhanced interrogation techniques', including waterboarding, provided intel which ultimately lead to the attack. http://tinyurl.com/6kz5423 I'll give Obama a 'C' for allowing the action to take place. He didn't do much else. You would benefit from a deeper pursuit of this than what Panetta said. He was wrong about releasing photos and he was wrong about reliable responses from people under torture. I don't know how we got so stupid, but we had a LOT more effective interrogation techniques when dealing with captured Japanese in WWII than we do now..... -- Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage *http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm Even the liberal Washington Post is giving the credit where due. Notice that they also credit the interrogation techniques so down- played by the Obama bunch. Maybe the liberals will learn something after all. Sure hope so. http://tinyurl.com/3gklkaw If anything the water boarding perhaps confirmed other sources. All this nonsense about OBL as though his capture is going to solve all the problems of terrorism is astounding. Water boarding just brings us down to their level. The "actionable" intelligence that perhaps was gleaned from using it for sure had nothing to do with any immediate threat. |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:55:37 -0400, sent the
following message On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:42:22 -0700, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:25:15 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 11:38:43 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 04/05/2011 9:46 AM, John H wrote: On Wed, 4 May 2011 04:50:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Here, just for the fun of it... http://utopianist.com/wp-content/upl...ama-bin-laden- killed-trump.jpg Careful, Tim. The liberals are already *extremely* upset that Osama didn't receive a fair trial, but was instead shot while defenseless. You know, I've reached a decision. When Harry accuses Scotty of pedophilia, and therefore is accusing Scotty's daughter of incest, I think he's committing a vile act. Likewise, when Scotty accuses Harry of pedophilia, without any basis, Scotty is committing a vile act. Therefore, I've decided to have nothing to do with either of them. They both owe each other an apology. Hopefully they're both man enough to do so. Freaking fleabagger lefties, didn't get to spend millions on useless liberal lawyers? Wow, my sympathies not. Osama needed it. Over 300 indictments and warrants properly processed from multiple countries...Osama just needed a bullet. Think of the money it saved taxpayers, the chopper loss was peanuts. Keeping Osama for trial then incareration costs... best spent bullets were the ones sent to Osama. I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. There was no such repeal of any policy. We target people all the time. I believe it's mostly appropriate, given what they've done or are doing. So, you're claiming to know all the details of the raid, including the motion by motion action? Sounds to me like you really don't give Obama an "A". Rather, you're just looking for a way to put him down. Not at all but it is clear this was a hit, no more, no less. The SEALs have reported that there was only one armed person there, the courier, who they shot right away, then they shot 3 more unarmed people, including Bin Laden. This is the report the government has released. I think they all needed killing. Silly you. You say the murders of obl and company were premeditated. Like a mob hit? Or first degree murder? The libbers ain't gonna like their pres. being named a common fellon. There must be some way to blame it on GWB. |
Where should the credit go?
|
Where should the credit go?
John H wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of 'American values'. The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq. Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down. |
Where should the credit go?
wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:17:11 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:55:37 -0400, sent the following message On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:42:22 -0700, wrote: Not at all but it is clear this was a hit, no more, no less. The SEALs have reported that there was only one armed person there, the courier, who they shot right away, then they shot 3 more unarmed people, including Bin Laden. This is the report the government has released. I think they all needed killing. Silly you. You say the murders of obl and company were premeditated. Like a mob hit? Or first degree murder? The libbers ain't gonna like their pres. being named a common fellon. There must be some way to blame it on GWB. I think the correct term is "executive action" I think the correct procedure is to ignore a "regular" hiding behind a new id and who can't spell a simple word like felon. |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:55:37 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:42:22 -0700, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:25:15 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 11:38:43 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 04/05/2011 9:46 AM, John H wrote: On Wed, 4 May 2011 04:50:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Here, just for the fun of it... http://utopianist.com/wp-content/upl...lled-trump.jpg Careful, Tim. The liberals are already *extremely* upset that Osama didn't receive a fair trial, but was instead shot while defenseless. You know, I've reached a decision. When Harry accuses Scotty of pedophilia, and therefore is accusing Scotty's daughter of incest, I think he's committing a vile act. Likewise, when Scotty accuses Harry of pedophilia, without any basis, Scotty is committing a vile act. Therefore, I've decided to have nothing to do with either of them. They both owe each other an apology. Hopefully they're both man enough to do so. Freaking fleabagger lefties, didn't get to spend millions on useless liberal lawyers? Wow, my sympathies not. Osama needed it. Over 300 indictments and warrants properly processed from multiple countries...Osama just needed a bullet. Think of the money it saved taxpayers, the chopper loss was peanuts. Keeping Osama for trial then incareration costs... best spent bullets were the ones sent to Osama. I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. There was no such repeal of any policy. We target people all the time. I believe it's mostly appropriate, given what they've done or are doing. So, you're claiming to know all the details of the raid, including the motion by motion action? Sounds to me like you really don't give Obama an "A". Rather, you're just looking for a way to put him down. Not at all but it is clear this was a hit, no more, no less. The SEALs have reported that there was only one armed person there, the courier, who they shot right away, then they shot 3 more unarmed people, including Bin Laden. This is the report the government has released. I think they all needed killing. So, you don't know all or even most of the details, yet you're claiming you know it was a "hit." Sounds like you're just looking around for an excuse to claim Obama is evil. |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:57:16 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:17:11 -0400, Percy wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:55:37 -0400, sent the following message On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:42:22 -0700, wrote: Not at all but it is clear this was a hit, no more, no less. The SEALs have reported that there was only one armed person there, the courier, who they shot right away, then they shot 3 more unarmed people, including Bin Laden. This is the report the government has released. I think they all needed killing. Silly you. You say the murders of obl and company were premeditated. Like a mob hit? Or first degree murder? The libbers ain't gonna like their pres. being named a common fellon. There must be some way to blame it on GWB. I think the correct term is "executive action" Actually, it's really easy to blame it on Bush. He wasn't really interested in getting OBL after the first try. He said so publically. If he had not invaded Iraq, he could have concentrated on the situation in Afg. |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. 40 minutes of firefight and only one armed man? Total BS. It's clear what your agenda is here. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...en-raid-emerge |
Where should the credit go?
|
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:05:40 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:00:49 -0400, Harryk wrote: John H wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of 'American values'. The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq. Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down. I doubt there was much of an offer to surrender. They certainly could have taken him alive if that was what the mission was. If nothing else they could have knee capped him. These guys can hit whatever they shoot at inside of a room Sure. You know everything about everything. We get it. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...en-raid-emerge |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:01:16 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:44:29 -0700, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:13:20 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 10:55:14 -0700, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:19:08 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 09:14:47 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: And Obama agreed with Bush so what is your point? The reality is it became politically convenient to kill Osama. -- I think Obama went as quickly as he could. They did not want to **** this up so they built a mock up of the compound and trained for months to get it right., I really think the populace will have forgotten about this by 3q12 anyway. There will be dozens of things that went through the news cycle by then. The election is still going to come down to mundane things like gas prices, unemployment and I bet inflation will have showed it's ugly head by then. Obama's biggest fear is going to be the recurrence of the terms "malaise" and "stagflation". Really? His biggest fear? There's no indication of either of those things. There is no indication of inflation??? Do you go to the grocery store or a gas station? Have you paid any "fuel surcharges" lately? The falling dollar is going to make that a lot worse since we import most of our hard goods these days. As for malaise, have you read any of Bob's posts. That is one depressed man. Maybe he read the Daily Beast article about the worst 10 college degrees you can seek, based on what you can expect to earn. "Chemistry" is #9. It was in Newsweek this week (the one with the royals on the cover) Aside from gas prices, nothing much is happening, and even those are likely temporary. Of course, for you, the sky is continually falling. I hope you haven't made any plans for after May 21st. Now you're claiming that because one person complains, therefore, there is a general malaise. Whatever. I guess your maid does all the shopping for you. Maybe you should go to the store and compare prices to what they were a year or so ago. Have you looked at the spot price of corn lately. That is not just corn on the cob, corn is in just about everything you eat. (animal feed, starch or high fructose corn syrup) Of course the ethanol fuel program is part of that increase but corn flakes are still $4 a box. . I guess you've got to worry about something, so it might as well be the imaginary inflation rather than the imaginary financial meltdown scheduled for tomorrow or the imaginary end of the world scheduled for the 21st. |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:05:40 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:00:49 -0400, Harryk wrote: John H wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of 'American values'. The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq. Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down. I doubt there was much of an offer to surrender. They certainly could have taken him alive if that was what the mission was. If nothing else they could have knee capped him. These guys can hit whatever they shoot at inside of a room The 'given a chance to surrender' bit is horse crap. You got it right. |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:02:21 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:45:32 -0700, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:03:52 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 13:40:34 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:23:56 -0400, wrote: If that's your evaluation, give Bush an "F," because he stated several times he just wasn't that interested in running down Osama. I really think this was just to do what I have been saying we should be doing all along, lull OBL into a bit of complacency so we can catch up to him, Remember my squirrel hunting analogy. When you want to hunt squirrels you sit quietly by a tree and ignore them until they get comfortable enough to come out and run around. If you are looking for them you will seldom see them Note we are talking about wild squirrels, not the ones in your bird feeder. Even those would get pretty hard to find if you started shooting at them. Osama apparently moved to his palatial estate in 2005 or 2006, during the Bush Admin, when it became apparent the Bush Admin was not looking for him. ... where we found him. That was my point. If he was still running around in the mountains or slipped off into Somalia or Yemen we may never have found him. Our best chance was if he settled down somewhere and let his guard down. Personally I think this would have worked out faster if we had not invaded Afghanistan. He may have become less guarded and made the critical mistake sooner. Wow... so basically you're claiming Bush's incompetence was really just brilliance hiding. Talk about delusional! I have said Bush's invasions were all mistakes but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. You're claiming that because of Bush's incompetence, we got OBL. Thus, Bush must be brilliant and playing chess like Big Blue. |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:14:51 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 09:18:52 -0700, wrote: All this nonsense about OBL as though his capture is going to solve all the problems of terrorism is astounding. I don't have to mine many of your posts to see you saying OBL was the key to stopping terrorism (trying to justify our crusade in Afghanistan). BS. I never said that. Show us. |
Where should the credit go?
wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 12:31:39 -0600, wrote: On 05/05/2011 12:04 PM, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. Yep, saved millions in legal, pandering, pussy footing around, no court and judge costs and no expensive keep. Gitmo isn't needed, a mass execution is. You can't execute those people but we could have a horrible plane crash where the crew were the only ones with parachutes. Did you ever hear the Willie Nelson song about the detainees? (on the Highwayman album I think) I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the rule of law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans. When the government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than those it executes. |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 5 May 2011 04:32:19 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote: On May 4, 8:50*pm, Gene wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:10:34 -0400, John H wrote: From yesterday's Washington Post: "U.S. analysts and operatives spent years figuring out the courier’s identity, senior administration officials said, concluding that he was a former protege of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-declared mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The courier "had our constant attention," one official said. Detainees "identified this man as one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden, [and] indicated he might be living with or protecting bin Laden," the official said. But until four years ago, the United States was unable to track the courier down or uncover his real name. In 2009, U.S. officials narrowed down the region in Pakistan where the courier was working, senior administration officials said." 'Years' it says. "Four years ago..." Well, that dumps it in Bush's lap. http://tinyurl.com/6f65um6 Yesterday, Panetta admitted to Brian Williams that 'enhanced interrogation techniques', including waterboarding, provided intel which ultimately lead to the attack. http://tinyurl.com/6kz5423 I'll give Obama a 'C' for allowing the action to take place. He didn't do much else. You would benefit from a deeper pursuit of this than what Panetta said. He was wrong about releasing photos and he was wrong about reliable responses from people under torture. I don't know how we got so stupid, but we had a LOT more effective interrogation techniques when dealing with captured Japanese in WWII than we do now..... -- Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage *http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm Even the liberal Washington Post is giving the credit where due. Notice that they also credit the interrogation techniques so down- played by the Obama bunch. Maybe the liberals will learn something after all. Sure hope so. http://tinyurl.com/3gklkaw From a racist/liar like you? |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 12:31:39 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: Yep, saved millions in legal, pandering, pussy footing around, no court and judge costs and no expensive keep. Not to mention hostage taking, exchange demands, muslim outrage, etc. He's enough of a martyr already. |
Where should the credit go?
On 05/05/2011 2:45 PM, Harryk wrote:
wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 12:31:39 -0600, wrote: On 05/05/2011 12:04 PM, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. Yep, saved millions in legal, pandering, pussy footing around, no court and judge costs and no expensive keep. Gitmo isn't needed, a mass execution is. You can't execute those people but we could have a horrible plane crash where the crew were the only ones with parachutes. Did you ever hear the Willie Nelson song about the detainees? (on the Highwayman album I think) I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the rule of law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans. When the government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than those it executes. Why? You want to see Obama in a comunity jail and have the Islamic nut cases try to free him? While I generally agree with your statement, for Osama I make an exception as with over 300 indictments and warrants, 9.5 years to surrender ont eh 9/11 one, he had his chances. Kadafi is a different story, that is about a vendetta of the egalitarian back room powerful. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial? |
Where should the credit go?
On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, Harryk wrote:
John H wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of 'American values'. The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq. Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down. He had 9.5 years on the 9/11 charges. Good enough? I thinks so. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial? |
Where should the credit go?
On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, Harryk wrote:
John H wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of 'American values'. The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq. Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down. If it were you son looking Osama in the eye, and Osama pull a hand into hidden view -- Would you want your son to chance it that Osama wasn't going for a grenade, bomb or firearm? -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial? |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:20:23 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:32:09 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:55:37 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:42:22 -0700, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:25:15 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 11:38:43 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 04/05/2011 9:46 AM, John H wrote: On Wed, 4 May 2011 04:50:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Here, just for the fun of it... http://utopianist.com/wp-content/upl...lled-trump.jpg Careful, Tim. The liberals are already *extremely* upset that Osama didn't receive a fair trial, but was instead shot while defenseless. You know, I've reached a decision. When Harry accuses Scotty of pedophilia, and therefore is accusing Scotty's daughter of incest, I think he's committing a vile act. Likewise, when Scotty accuses Harry of pedophilia, without any basis, Scotty is committing a vile act. Therefore, I've decided to have nothing to do with either of them. They both owe each other an apology. Hopefully they're both man enough to do so. Freaking fleabagger lefties, didn't get to spend millions on useless liberal lawyers? Wow, my sympathies not. Osama needed it. Over 300 indictments and warrants properly processed from multiple countries...Osama just needed a bullet. Think of the money it saved taxpayers, the chopper loss was peanuts. Keeping Osama for trial then incareration costs... best spent bullets were the ones sent to Osama. I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. There was no such repeal of any policy. We target people all the time. I believe it's mostly appropriate, given what they've done or are doing. So, you're claiming to know all the details of the raid, including the motion by motion action? Sounds to me like you really don't give Obama an "A". Rather, you're just looking for a way to put him down. Not at all but it is clear this was a hit, no more, no less. The SEALs have reported that there was only one armed person there, the courier, who they shot right away, then they shot 3 more unarmed people, including Bin Laden. This is the report the government has released. I think they all needed killing. So, you don't know all or even most of the details, yet you're claiming you know it was a "hit." Sounds like you're just looking around for an excuse to claim Obama is evil. I am saying he did the right thing and I have consistently said so. You are the one who argues with me, even when I am giving Obama props. It is still no reason to call this anything but what it was, a mission to kill OBL, even if it offends your sensibilities. The more that comes out, the more it becomes apparent there was no attempt to take him alive. There was only one armed person in this compound and that was the first one shot according to the news today. Maybe you don't get CNN at work. Maybe you didn't listen to the four-hour old clip that says they were fighting for 40 minutes. |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:31:39 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:45:41 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 12:31:39 -0600, wrote: On 05/05/2011 12:04 PM, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. Yep, saved millions in legal, pandering, pussy footing around, no court and judge costs and no expensive keep. Gitmo isn't needed, a mass execution is. You can't execute those people but we could have a horrible plane crash where the crew were the only ones with parachutes. Did you ever hear the Willie Nelson song about the detainees? (on the Highwayman album I think) I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the rule of law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans. When the government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than those it executes. I guess the question is what are we going to do with the several hundred people we are holding. Two presidents agree they will never see the inside of a regular court room and they are too dangerous to turn loose. I don't see anyone on the GOP horizon that has a different opinion. The Dems are going to stick with Obama and I don't see his policy changing The number is 172 unless others have been released. Obama wanted to house them in SuperMax or equiv. But, Congress said no. |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:26:43 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:44:12 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:14:51 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 09:18:52 -0700, wrote: All this nonsense about OBL as though his capture is going to solve all the problems of terrorism is astounding. I don't have to mine many of your posts to see you saying OBL was the key to stopping terrorism (trying to justify our crusade in Afghanistan). BS. I never said that. Show us. What's in it for me? You would just change the subject to blaming Bush for something. Which means... you can't. |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:22:00 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:40:24 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:05:40 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:00:49 -0400, Harryk wrote: John H wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of 'American values'. The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq. Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down. I doubt there was much of an offer to surrender. They certainly could have taken him alive if that was what the mission was. If nothing else they could have knee capped him. These guys can hit whatever they shoot at inside of a room Sure. You know everything about everything. We get it. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...en-raid-emerge Turn on the news Interesting how the story keep changing. I wonder what the Oracle will say next. |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:45:41 -0400, Harryk
sent the following message wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 12:31:39 -0600, wrote: On 05/05/2011 12:04 PM, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. Yep, saved millions in legal, pandering, pussy footing around, no court and judge costs and no expensive keep. Gitmo isn't needed, a mass execution is. You can't execute those people but we could have a horrible plane crash where the crew were the only ones with parachutes. Did you ever hear the Willie Nelson song about the detainees? (on the Highwayman album I think) I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the rule of law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans. When the government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than those it executes. It' hard to guess what Obama will do next now that he has a taste for blood. |
Where should the credit go?
On May 5, 6:18*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Harryk" wrote in message m... I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the rule of law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans. When the government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than those it executes. As a layperson and American, I support and agree with Obama's actions with regard to getting bin Laden. Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree that the action taken was legal under American and International law. http://www.spiegel.de/international/...760358,00.html Eisboch You're right Richard. It seems that in more than one circumstance, "international" law only applies to the US. Lets face it. the US is going to be scrutinized by someone, somewhere 24/7 |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 5 May 2011 19:18:16 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "Harryk" wrote in message om... I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the rule of law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans. When the government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than those it executes. As a layperson and American, I support and agree with Obama's actions with regard to getting bin Laden. Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree that the action taken was legal under American and International law. http://www.spiegel.de/international/...760358,00.html Eisboch Well, Alan Dershowitz thinks it is, and he thinks the photos should be release as a 1st Amendment argument. I think that has merit. |
Where should the credit go?
On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:10:34 -0400, John H
wrote: From yesterday's Washington Post: "U.S. analysts and operatives spent years figuring out the courier’s identity, senior administration officials said, concluding that he was a former protege of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-declared mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The courier "had our constant attention," one official said. Detainees "identified this man as one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden, [and] indicated he might be living with or protecting bin Laden," the official said. But until four years ago, the United States was unable to track the courier down or uncover his real name. In 2009, U.S. officials narrowed down the region in Pakistan where the courier was working, senior administration officials said." 'Years' it says. "Four years ago..." Well, that dumps it in Bush's lap. http://tinyurl.com/6f65um6 Yesterday, Panetta admitted to Brian Williams that 'enhanced interrogation techniques', including waterboarding, provided intel which ultimately lead to the attack. http://tinyurl.com/6kz5423 I'll give Obama a 'C' for allowing the action to take place. He didn't do much else. oh for christ's sake and what would you have given him if he'd sat on the info and waited for more info you morons just hate obama so there's NOTHING he could do that would force you to admit he's more competent than your right wing ponies |
Where should the credit go?
On Wed, 04 May 2011 09:24:37 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 04/05/2011 5:50 AM, Tim wrote: Here, just for the fun of it... http://utopianist.com/wp-content/upl...lled-trump.jpg I will say this, the timing of getting Osama Bin Laden stinks of politics. Don't get me wrong, Osama was a first class kill that was long over due. But right after the NATO/US-FR killed Gadhafi grand children and innocents in Libya and the growing lack of support of assassination without indictment, without due process? Osama had over 300 indictments and warrants. Obama even admitted he knew since August. But why just days after the child murders in Libya? Might I suggest it was about PR...not just Pakistan knew...US did too. It was about convenience to draw focus off of Libya NATO-US murders of the children. more moronic comments from an idiot the US wasnt involved in the bombing there is no proof ghaddafi was targetted give us a break with the moralistich horse****, OK? |
Where should the credit go?
On Wed, 4 May 2011 11:46:06 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On 04/05/2011 5:50 AM, Tim wrote: Here, just for the fun of it... http://utopianist.com/wp-content/upl...lled-trump.jpg I will say this, the timing of getting Osama Bin Laden stinks of politics. Don't get me wrong, Osama was a first class kill that was long over due. But right after the NATO/US-FR killed Gadhafi grand children and innocents in Libya and the growing lack of support of assassination without indictment, without due process? Osama had over 300 indictments and warrants. Obama even admitted he knew since August. But why just days after the child murders in Libya? Might I suggest it was about PR...not just Pakistan knew...US did too. It was about convenience to draw focus off of Libya NATO-US murders of the children. Gotta' admit, just a week or so after officially kicking off his campaign for 2012, you could be on to something. Either way, it's now a campaign prop for Obama, and you can be sure nothing will be done for Americans until after the next election.. And if Obamas first term was any indication, nothing will get done then either. At least nothing but paying off the folks who re-elected him... no he's not on to something, idiot. it's too far from the election for this to count you cynical racists just hate obama and will not consider ANY actions he does as reflective of competence. the klan strikes again |
Where should the credit go?
On Wed, 04 May 2011 11:46:08 -0400, John H
wrote: On Wed, 4 May 2011 04:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: Here, just for the fun of it... http://utopianist.com/wp-content/upl...lled-trump.jpg Careful, Tim. The liberals are already *extremely* upset that Osama didn't receive a fair trial, but was instead shot while defenseless. yeah everyone here knows i'm a right winger and i'm not upset osama got killed. you right wingers just are unhappy your white poodle, bush, didnt get him |
Where should the credit go?
On Thu, 5 May 2011 19:18:16 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "Harryk" wrote in message om... I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the rule of law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans. When the government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than those it executes. As a layperson and American, I support and agree with Obama's actions with regard to getting bin Laden. Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree that the action taken was legal under American and International law. http://www.spiegel.de/international/...760358,00.html Eisboch Yeah, I don't think they thought what bin Laden did was legal either. |
Where should the credit go?
In article ,
says... On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, Harryk wrote: John H wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of 'American values'. The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq. Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down. If it were you son looking Osama in the eye, and Osama pull a hand into hidden view -- Would you want your son to chance it that Osama wasn't going for a grenade, bomb or firearm? The way they are trained, they could have taken him alive.. Period. It was a hit, pure and simple. There is no way they were gonna' let Osama tell the world about the co-operation he was getting from all the countries involved... -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
Where should the credit go?
I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, Harryk wrote: John H wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination. Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000 troops. It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they made the right choice and blew his head off on site. Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story. I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter. That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop." Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists. The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice. Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of 'American values'. The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq. Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down. If it were you son looking Osama in the eye, and Osama pull a hand into hidden view -- Would you want your son to chance it that Osama wasn't going for a grenade, bomb or firearm? The way they are trained, they could have taken him alive.. Period. It was a hit, pure and simple. There is no way they were gonna' let Osama tell the world about the co-operation he was getting from all the countries involved... I find it humorous that Canuck and Snotty, two of the three most ignorant conspiracy theorists on rec.boats, in this and in other posts, have yet more conspiracies. Since I wasn't in the room and videos haven't been shown, I don't know what happened immediately before Osama was shot dead. My *hope* was that he was indeed first given an opportunity to surrender. As I have stated previously, it wouldn't bother me to learn he was shot while resisting capture/arrest. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com