Osama bin Laden is dead

[HAL9000]

Why does everyone pick on the OP?

pomes

 

[rudeguy]

this is a haha at you.



this is a haha with you.

:thumbsup:

I wish I could find the article that is stuck in my mind. I read it in the 90's before 9/11. It detailed out how Clinton had the chance but called off the strike because some prince's jet was spotted nearby.

Now as Boomer stated, I was drinking heavily back then and this could all just be a made up memory or a dream that I perceive as reality. Either way I will drop it since it appears as though I am wrong.

But I really thought I was right

 

[darkswordsman17]

Damn dude, I don't know if you were too young to remember the goings on of the 90's, or have just drunk too much of the kool-aid and it's fogged your memory...Clinton tried to go after Bin Laden many times, but was stopped repeatedly by the Republicans who had control of Congress...


http://www.americablog.com/2006/09/gop-congress-blocked-clinton-push-for.html

http://www.thenewsisbroken.com/blog/calendar/index/29,09,2006
"Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"."

http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news...proved-stronger-than-republicans-on-terrorism

"Ironically, when Clinton attempted to kill bin Laden in 1998, he was criticized by some Republicans in Congress for attempting to "wag the dog"-- their apparent zeal to keep Clinton's sexual escapades in the limelight prompted them to make a number of assertions about Clinton's effort. Arlen Spector said, "here's an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation." Republican Jim Gibbons stated it outright, "Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie." He went on to call it a "knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems." John Ashcroft asked, "were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems?" John McCain criticized Cinton's excessive focus on bin Laden."


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/57128/the_truth_about_clinton_and_bin_ladin.html

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp


I very much remember Clinton being accused of "Wagging the dog" to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky affair, every damned time he tried to get aggressive against terrorism.
BTW, the "Sudan offered OBL to Clinton and he declined" story has been proven wrong many times.

He is a recovering alocoholic.

The sad thing is, I know a lot of people who believe the same stuff and they have no excuse other than being misinformed idiots.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Op > hal9000

 

[darkswordsman17]

I wish I could find the article that is stuck in my mind. I read it in the 90's before 9/11. It detailed out how Clinton had the chance but called off the strike because some prince's jet was spotted nearby.

Now as Boomer stated, I was drinking heavily back then and this could all just be a made up memory or a dream that I perceive as reality. Either way I will drop it since it appears as though I am wrong.

But I really thought I was right

:thumbsup:

That's a big problem with discussion any more, people aren't willing to come to terms with being wrong. Its even worse when its due to bias that they are wrong to begin with (not saying that's necessarily the issue here, but it often is in other "discussions" I've had with people).

Kudos to not making excuses about it either or your past.

 

[yllus]

http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news...proved-stronger-than-republicans-on-terrorism

"Ironically, when Clinton attempted to kill bin Laden in 1998, he was criticized by some Republicans in Congress for attempting to "wag the dog"-- their apparent zeal to keep Clinton's sexual escapades in the limelight prompted them to make a number of assertions about Clinton's effort. Arlen Spector said, "here's an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation." Republican Jim Gibbons stated it outright, "Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie." He went on to call it a "knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems." John Ashcroft asked, "were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems?" John McCain criticized Cinton's excessive focus on bin Laden."

You know, for a supposed foreign policy guru, McCain really sucks ass at making the big calls. I saw this earlier today:

Washington Post - McCain Calls Obama 'Naive'

YELLOW SPRINGS, Ohio -- Sen. John McCain intensified his attacks on Sen. Barack Obama, saying he was "naive" for publicly suggesting several months ago he would attack targets in Pakistan.

"The best idea is not broadcast what you are going to do. That's naive," McCain said at a news conference in Columbus.

"You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is," McCain added. "You don't broadcast and say you are going bomb the country without their permission or without consulting them. This is the fundamentals of the conduct of national security policy. I believe in working with the other country."

The Bush administration, however, did not follow that strategy last month, when on Jan. 29 a CIA Predator aircraft flew over the Pakistani town of Mir Ali and fired Hellfire missiles that killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander.

According to an article in The Washington Post this week, "Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities."

 

[HAL9000]

OP > hal9000

I know a good few people that disagree.

 

[BoomerD]

I wish I could find the article that is stuck in my mind. I read it in the 90's before 9/11. It detailed out how Clinton had the chance but called off the strike because some prince's jet was spotted nearby.

Now as Boomer stated, I was drinking heavily back then and this could all just be a made up memory or a dream that I perceive as reality. Either way I will drop it since it appears as though I am wrong.

But I really thought I was right

Nah, it was claimed many times that Clinton had the opportunity...that He was "offered on a platter" by the Sudanese government...but there just wasn't as much truth to the story as has been claimed. At the time, the government didn't have enough evidence to convict Bin Laden of any crime against the US, (remember, like it or not, we ARE a nation of laws) and we didn't even have any formal indictments against him...

It's nice to be able to look back in history and say, "We could have had the guy before he committed those heinous acts against us," but at the time we could have had him...we didn't want him because he hadn't done anything verifiable to/against us...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html

"Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?
A:

Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.

It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa's claims were not in fact present for the meeting."

 

[Brigandier]

pomes

People hate him because of fruit?

 

[JEDI]

I like to think he's held somewhere where they can extract every bit of information from him. This way they don't have to worry about terrorists taking hostages and demanding the release of OBL.

so whats to prevent poeple from diving the ocean to find the body?

heck, how about the body floating to the surface?

 

[brianmanahan]

 

[rudeguy]

:thumbsup:

That's a big problem with discussion any more, people aren't willing to come to terms with being wrong. Its even worse when its due to bias that they are wrong to begin with (not saying that's necessarily the issue here, but it often is in other "discussions" I've had with people).

Kudos to not making excuses about it either or your past.

"...and when we were wrong promptly admitted it"

My past has brought me to where I am. I still hate admitting that I was wrong, but I am getting very good at it (because I am freaking wrong a lot)

Contempt prior to investigation is one thing that will piss me off to no end as well. If I am going to comment on something, I try to be informed. In this case I really thought I was informed but it turns out I was misinformed. Which kind of sucks because I thought I was smarter than everyone else. Turns out I'm an idiot just like all of you

 

[SandEagle]

Hey, you're right - this is fun!

haha thats great.

 

[BoomerD]

"...and when we were wrong promptly admitted it"

My past has brought me to where I am. I still hate admitting that I was wrong, but I am getting very good at it (because I am freaking wrong a lot)

Contempt prior to investigation is one thing that will piss me off to no end as well. If I am going to comment on something, I try to be informed. In this case I really thought I was informed but it turns out I was misinformed. Which kind of sucks because I thought I was smarter than everyone else. Turns out I'm an idiot just like all of you

Welcome to the fucking party Rudee...have a near-beer on me...

The folks on the right really pushed the story about Clinton and Sudan...even though they knew the truth wasn't what they claimed...(no surprise there...both sides like like dogs)

 

[manlymatt83]

Bah, ended up flying

 

[rudeguy]

Welcome to the fucking party Rudee...have a near-beer on me...

The folks on the right really pushed the story about Clinton and Sudan...even though they knew the truth wasn't what they claimed...(no surprise there...both sides like like dogs)

I found the article I was thinking of! It turns out it had nothing to do with Clinton or anything close to what I was thinking. Drugs are bad....ok kids???

The positive side is its a great first person interview with Bin Laden by an American reporter. It was from a 1999 issue of Esquire. Its long but worth the read:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936520/posts

 

[BoomerD]

I found the article I was thinking of! It turns out it had nothing to do with Clinton or anything close to what I was thinking. Drugs are bad....ok kids???

The positive side is its a great first person interview with Bin Laden by an American reporter. It was from a 1999 issue of Esquire. Its long but worth the read:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936520/posts

From freerepublic? Wow...even more biased than Faux News...

BUT, after reading the content in the link, I vaguely remember that story coming out way back when...

 

[erikistired]

reported for stupidity.

 

[HAL9000]

People hate him because of fruit?

Search the forum, or his previous threads. for pome

 

[Rumpltzer]

so whats to prevent poeple from diving the ocean to find the body?

heck, how about the body floating to the surface?

So, they planned this mission for 6 months or whatever, flew birds in there, did their thing, gathered the body and then forgot to tie a rock to the body when they tossed it overboard?

Really?



Do we really believe that they tossed the body? I mean, it's a good story. Complying with Muslim ritual, no location for the pilgrims, People like JEDI spending time bobbing around in the Gulf looking to retrieve the body... but do think they really tossed the body??

 

[busydude]

US officials say Osama Bin Laden's body was treated with respect and buried at sea, but some Muslims argue there was no good reason for not burying it on land.


Islamic tradition requires the dead to be buried as soon as possible, unless an autopsy is required.


The US military took this requirement very seriously, burying the body within hours.


"Traditional procedures for Islamic burial were followed," an official said.
Religious rites were carried out on the deck of a US aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson. The body, shrouded in a white sheet and placed in a weighted bag, was then placed on a flat board, tipped up, and eased into the Arabian Sea.


This occurred at 0600GMT, approximately 12 hours after the firefight during which Osama Bin Laden was shot in the head.


After this first shot, reports ABC News' The Blotter, he was shot again, to make sure that he was dead.


‬The body was then flown to Afghanistan and Bin Laden's identity was confirmed. Officials say a DNA sample was taken that matched that of several other family members. Some sources say facial recognition technology was also used.


From Afghanistan, the body was, it appears, flown to the USS Carl Vinson.
"A military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic by a native speaker," a US defence official said.
Why at sea?

According to UK-based Imam Dr Abduljalil Sajid, Chairman of the Muslim Council for Religious & Racial Harmony, four key steps need to be followed:

• Washing
• Shrouding in white cloth
• Ritual prayer
• Burial

There is no necessity for an imam to be present, he says, but the procedures should be carried out by Muslims at least one of whom "knows the minimum basic Muslim law of burial".


Whether any such person was present is impossible to know, he says, based on the limited information provided. But he also questions whether sea burial was appropriate in this case.


It is correct to carry out a burial at sea when someone dies on a sea journey, he says, but in this case there was no sound reason for it.
The US authorities could surely have found someone - a member of the extensive Bin Laden family, or even one of the many supporters of his "evil" ideology - who would have been prepared to give the body a proper burial, he argues.


His words were echoed by Mohammed Qudah, a professor of Islamic law at the University of Jordan, who told the Associated Press news agency that burying Bin Laden at sea was not forbidden if there was nobody to receive the body and provide a Muslim burial.


But he went on: "It's neither true nor correct to claim that there was nobody in the Muslim world ready to receive Bin Laden's body."
The agency also quoted Dubai's grand mufti Mohammed al-Qubaisi, saying that sea burials were permissible only in extraordinary circumstances, adding: "This is not one of them."


"If the family does not want him, it's really simple in Islam: You dig up a grave anywhere, even on a remote island, you say the prayers and that's it," he said.


No location

US officials have given two reasons why a sea burial was chosen. First, that they did not want his grave to become a shrine. Second, that there was no time to negotiate with other countries to arrange a possible burial on land.


According to CBS News, Saudi Arabia refused to take the body. If correct, this suggests that an offer was made - and that had Saudi Arabia accepted the body, there would have been a grave, which could in theory have become a shrine.


However, ABC's Jonathan Karl, writing before the burial was confirmed, painted a different picture:
"US officials tell me the last thing they want is for his burial place to become a terrorist shrine.


"To avoid that, an informed source tells me, the intention is the bury his body at sea - leaving no definitive location for the final resting place of his body."




Source

 

[ibex333]

And knowing a former Iraqi Soldier with many family members still in Iraqi, he and his family are glad for the war and the overthrowing of Saddam. Polls in Iraq confirm that feeling.

Bin Laden has admitted to planning 9/11 and the men on those planes can be traced back to him but that's not good enough for you. Let me guess, you believe the US Gov't performed 9/11?

Do you spout any of this crazy talk to people in real life? Do they laugh at you uncontrollably?

No. Not at all. In fact many of them agree with me, or at least admit the remote possibility of a conspiracy.
So, let's get this straight. Any talk that goes against YOUR beliefs is crazy talk... Right?

Off course Bin Laden admitted to planning 9/11. It was the best course of action for him. Why wouldn't he admit to it? Terrorists tend to take credit for acts they didn't commit as long as those acts go in line with what they would have liked to happen. Also, I never seen any videos of OBL admitting to this and never heard any recordings... Care to link me to one of those? I may even "slightly" doubt myself after this.

You just said it yourself. You know a FORMER Iraqi soldier. Read my post again. I said that in the beginning the attitudes were generally positive. And polls? Give me a break. Those are faked by the govt. They want you to support the war, not want it to stop.

And yes, I do not dismiss the possibility that it may have been the govt. that destroyed the WTC. Again, I don't know anything for sure, I simply cant, but I see no reason to blindly believe what is being fed to me by the media.

Finally, if I am spouting so much crazy talk, why is it that hundreds of people constantly rally next to the white house to express their discontent with the govt.? Are they all crazy just like me?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

I know a good few people that disagree.

you don't know any good people

 

[erikistired]

Op > hal9000

even i disagree with this, and i still think neckbeard is a RBM.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I think they should have dumped the carcass without worrying about the whole ritual stuff.