Whose leadership led to the death of bin Laden?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed May 04, 2011 1:04 pm

null0010 wrote:What is the difference between assassination and murder?

Assassinations are usually for Political reasons. Murders are usually crimes of passion

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Wed May 04, 2011 1:06 pm

CUDA wrote:
null0010 wrote:What is the difference between assassination and murder?
Assassinations are usually for Political reasons. Murders are usually crimes of passion

What about a hired hitman? If caught killing, wouldn't they be tried for murder?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed May 04, 2011 1:10 pm

null0010 wrote:I do not think that murder is an appropriate response to Osama bin Laden, reprehensible though his actions have been. I think this man should have been tried in the United States Justice System and the International Criminal Court and questioned on the extent of his operation. The failure to do so is, at the very least, an incredible waste of an opportunity to gather intelligence to permanently dismantle the network of al-Qaeda, and at worst, a moral failing of the highest level.

and how did you plan to question him??? obviously waterboarding was out of the question with this administration and the left. were we supposed to just HOPE that out of the goodness of his heart and the guilt he felt for killing all of the thousand that he killed he would just voluntarily offer that information??

I'm QUITE sure they found a treasure trove of information at the compound where he was killed.

PLUS the last thing we wanted was the circus of a Trial.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed May 04, 2011 1:12 pm

null0010 wrote:
CUDA wrote:
null0010 wrote:What is the difference between assassination and murder?
Assassinations are usually for Political reasons. Murders are usually crimes of passion
What about a hired hitman? If caught killing, wouldn't they be tried for murder?

I'm sure if a hitman was caught trying to Assassinate someone they wouldn't be TRIED for anything

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Wed May 04, 2011 1:24 pm

CUDA wrote:
null0010 wrote:I do not think that murder is an appropriate response to Osama bin Laden, reprehensible though his actions have been. I think this man should have been tried in the United States Justice System and the International Criminal Court and questioned on the extent of his operation. The failure to do so is, at the very least, an incredible waste of an opportunity to gather intelligence to permanently dismantle the network of al-Qaeda, and at worst, a moral failing of the highest level.
and how did you plan to question him??? obviously waterboarding was out of the question with this administration and the left. were we supposed to just HOPE that out of the goodness of his heart and the guilt he felt for killing all of the thousand that he killed he would just voluntarily offer that information??

I'm QUITE sure they found a treasure trove of information at the compound where he was killed.

PLUS the last thing we wanted was the circus of a Trial.

There are plenty of methods of questioning people that do not involve "enhanced" techniques or torture.

No other terrorism suspect has caused a "circus" of a trial. Was it a "circus" at the Nuremburg Trials?

As far as hitmen go, should they be tried? Why?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed May 04, 2011 1:31 pm

CUDA wrote:
null0010 wrote: What about a hired hitman? If caught killing, wouldn't they be tried for murder?
I'm sure if a hitman was caught trying to Assassinate someone they wouldn't be TRIED for anything

I'd like to expound on that just a smidge. While the individual may go to court and be tried that way, it is more likely the case will only go before a judge and a sentence will be determined and not the question of guilt. In which case "due process" is to make sure that formalities are observed and punishment is sentenced within the law's purview of acceptable.

But here we are talking about laws that apply to the individual and not a nation. If that were not the case, then the marine that actually shot bin laden would be "tried". In war, taking out the leader of the other side is a common practice whether it's been televised or not. "moral Stature" changes somewhat in the light of war. I haven't read what the Geneva convention says about neutralizing a waring faction's leader. That would be the "yard stick" here.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed May 04, 2011 1:32 pm

there is precedent. Isoroku Yamamoto Comes to mind

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed May 04, 2011 1:44 pm

Was it a "circus" at the Nuremburg Trials?

Yes as a matter of fact it was. the Nuremburg trials were as much if not more for show than it was for Justice.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Wed May 04, 2011 1:45 pm

Ah, here we go. This is probably the most intriguing portion of the topic for me right now:

null0010 wrote:I think this man should have been tried in the United States Justice System and the International Criminal Court...

CUDA wrote:...the last thing we wanted was the circus of a Trial.

The United States has a long history of ensuring even the most heinous of criminals are brought to public trial when possible, whether internationally (e.g. WWII War Crimes trials, Saddam handed to Iraq for trial) or domestically (e.g. McVeigh's trial comes to mind as I was an OKC resident at the time). I've always felt this was a reflection of a higher standard, or at least a commitment to a system of justice that applied to all.

Of course, with that said, the U.S. has taken down enemy leaders with bombs and such (e.g. Zarqawi). However, in most of these cases, there wasn't a real opportunity for capture.

So, why was the operation specifically a "kill" order, rather than a "capture if possible, kill if necessary"? Or was it actually the latter, despite the political wrangling for credit?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed May 04, 2011 1:52 pm

null0010 wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:...

Do you think Obama should be tried for invading a sovereign country and assassinating a person living there?
Here I am conflicted. It is a difficult moral question. On the one hand, the death of Osama bin Laden is certainly going to have an effect that will benefit the United States and other targets of al-Qaeda by destabilizing their central leadership and affecting their funding. On the other hand, conducting this operation without the consent or knowledge of Pakistani officials seems to me to have been a bad idea. However, Barack Obama has made it very clear to the Pakistani government that he was going to authorize the death of Osama bin Laden, on multiple occaisions, stretching back to the 2008 campaign. That is a grey area. ...

Welcome to the Non Absolute world.
I think Bush and the congress flipped the switch on behalf of the country and because of that Obama has an exemption of sorts since he took over control. He could have declared the switch officially turned off if he wanted and then he would be bound to the normal conditions.
Considering the Pakistanis in and out of their government that support bin Laden I don't think Obama going into Pakistan is any different than Bush going into Afghanistan. In both instances there is no where near enough evidence to link the official government of the country to the crimes committed by the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11. In fact there is not enough evidence, at least that I'm aware of, that links bin Laden to the 9-11 attack. I think we can prove he gave financial aid to the participants and that he claims some credit for the attack after the fact but any good lawyer could put that 'admission of guilt' out of bounds in any criminal trial. I think a bin Laden trial would have been a tough one unless the judicial system wanted to operate under tweaked rules too....

So in spite of all that doubt and grey area I'm totally fine with what Obama did. I thank him. And likewise I thank Bush for putting it all in play. Considering the nature of the enemy I think they both did it right even though one of them came into this calling the other one all wrong and then adopted those same tactics and methods he rejected.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed May 04, 2011 6:08 pm

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed May 04, 2011 6:25 pm

and every other conspiracy lunatic. I will expect those very soon.

it's going to happen. especially when you don't provide the evidence of your claim. 9/11 is a perfect example of conspiracy nuts and what you can expect from this.
While I personally believe that we got him I still would have like to see the photos. not out of a morbid curiosity, but more a sense of closure. and of a, it sucks to live your life in fear doesn't it A**Hole, mentality.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed May 04, 2011 8:20 pm

null0010 wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Do you think Obama should be tried for invading a sovereign country and assassinating a person living there?
Here I am conflicted. It is a difficult moral question. ...

No it isn't. The answer is simply "not by us". If Bin Laden masterminded the 9/11 attacks then it was in our interest to go into Pakistan, and if they don't like it that's tough. To make too loud a fuss about their sovereignty being violated would be to risk a military beat-down, in a worst-case scenario. We went in and killed the bastard. They don't like it? We're real sorry about that. We had cause.

null0010 wrote:I do not think that murder is an appropriate response to Osama bin Laden, reprehensible though his actions have been. I think this man should have been tried in the United States Justice System and the International Criminal Court and questioned on the extent of his operation. The failure to do so is, at the very least, an incredible waste of an opportunity to gather intelligence to permanently dismantle the network of al-Qaeda, and at worst, a moral failing of the highest level.

That is a very interesting point. Mainly because it raises the question, in my mind, "why should we have just offed him?" Personally I have a big problem with the whole thing. In my mind it doesn't add up. The president twists the truth every time he's in front of the camera, and I'm supposed to believe that they killed Bin Laden in a very politically curious location in Pakistan, then dumped him at sea... without any photographic proof? We could conceivably end up going to war with Pakistan over this and there are no photos? If that's good enough for any of you then you don't ever get to lecture me about faith.

But a "moral failing of the highest level"? Killing a mass-murder mastermind? Come on...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed May 04, 2011 8:30 pm

I don't see how a photo is evidence. Unless everyone who sees the photo gets to examine the original and is also an expert on 'forensics' of film and digital media they are going to be free to assume it is real or not.

On the other hand, there are lots of people in the Muslim world who don't particularly align themselves with bin Laden and other islamo-facsists but they share with them a lot of the animosity toward us westerners and the way we would trot that photo out for all sorts of bravado and humor etc. just wouldn't serve us very well at all if we want to have them as neighbors.
There just is not enough good in it to make it worth doing.

I was hoping they wouldn't show it. "Spike the ball" is a pretty good analogy, chalk up another good thing done by Obama in my opinion.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed May 04, 2011 9:19 pm

1 photo... No, I wouldn't consider that proof. The process documented throughout, with photos, to me that starts to weigh in. Then you have the photos out there, and people can examine them, etc.

You may be right, I haven't really given it much thought yet. I just feel like I would like to know, myself, whether they got him, and be able to personally determined what that should mean for us going forward. Having to build future opinions regarding political maneuvers related to the "war on terror" without any solidity there is not something I look forward to. I'd like to know for myself. There are people in this country, I hear, with meaningful backgrounds, who say that Bin Laden has been dead for a while now. What should I think about that? Just because something could be classified as a "conspiracy theory" (I.E. historical, political, and significantly diverged from popular or widely-held opinion) doesn't necessarily mean there's no truth to it, in my mind

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Wed May 04, 2011 10:30 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There are people in this country, I hear, with meaningful backgrounds, who say that Bin Laden has been dead for a while now.

Who?

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Wed May 04, 2011 11:20 pm

All of the muddled 'news' out of the white house is just confusing everyone. It'll probably lead to Bin Laden becoming another D.B. Cooper...or Big Foot...or Elvis

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu May 05, 2011 6:32 am

Foil wrote:

So, why was the operation specifically a "kill" order, rather than a "capture if possible, kill if necessary"? Or was it actually the latter, despite the political wrangling for credit?

As it now appears this was a straight assassination job. By what is being said (at least by the Pakistani), there were no weapons found and if one is to believe a bin Laden daughter, Usama was already captured before he was executed. If all this is true, Glorius Leader may pay a political price if a smart contender for POTUS shows Obama as nothing more than a cold blooded murder who committed the crime by using proxies. And yet he continues to say waterboarding is torture.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Thu May 05, 2011 8:01 am

Killing a man does not suddenly change the definition of torture, nor does it magically make waterboarding humane or acceptable.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu May 05, 2011 8:29 am

woodchip wrote:If all this is true, Glorius Leader may pay a political price if a smart contender for POTUS shows Obama as nothing more than a cold blooded murder who committed the crime by using proxies. And yet he continues to say waterboarding is torture.

I disagree OBL was so hated in this country and the world that I think this might actually help him. shows a set that most of us didn't think he had.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu May 05, 2011 8:54 am

CUDA wrote:
woodchip wrote:If all this is true, Glorius Leader may pay a political price if a smart contender for POTUS shows Obama as nothing more than a cold blooded murder who committed the crime by using proxies. And yet he continues to say waterboarding is torture.
I disagree OBL was so hated in this country and the world that I think this might actually help him. shows a set that most of us didn't think he had.

Not a good argument CUDA. Adolf Eichmann was equally hated by the Jews and yet the Israeli's hunted him down, captured him and then brought him to trial. They did not summarily execute Eichmann on the spot. So we can surmise the Israeli's are better than us?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 05, 2011 9:17 am

If you believe there were no weapons in that house then you are off the reservation. No weapons after they were removed....yea...no weapons before the SEAL team entered...should be very hard to believe.
The Pakistani government has never been a reliable source of information and they don't exist to serve our interests. They say what ever they feel they need to say for their own purposes just like any other government does.

bin Laden's wife was there, she survived and she says bin Laden was killed. That is enough for me.
Could our government actually have taken him off to witness-protection-land in exchange for giving up all the details of al Queda's members and plans and left the wife there to say bin Laden was killed? Sure but I tend to go with what is most likely in a case like this.

The difference between this assassination and Obama arbitrarily ordering the death of Nutbag Ahmadinejad in Iran is bin Laden was hated by enough of our citizens and connected to the 9-11 and other attacks on america that there would be no political will to enforce what ever law may have been broken. Other than that there is no difference and I'm glad our Presidents all seem to understand that the world is still far too wild of a place to refuse to do what they did. Yes I know it is a slippery slope but in my mind it is a necessary option to maintain. One day we may have enough of a common world culture to operate under the same rules but we are a long way from it.

It's like jury nullification only this time the black guy who killed someone did the right thing. ( a little O.J. Simpson humor so back off race baiters)

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu May 05, 2011 9:28 am

Will Robinson wrote:If you believe there were no weapons in that house then you are off the reservation. No weapons after they were removed....yea...no weapons before the SEAL team entered...should be very hard to believe.
The Pakistani government has never been a reliable source of information and they don't exist to serve our interests. They say what ever they feel they need to say for their own purposes just like any other government does.

Didn't say this is what I believe. I implied what clever Rep. strategist could do with the info.

Will Robinson wrote:The difference between this assassination and Obama arbitrarily ordering the death of Nutbag Ahmadinejad in Iran is bin Laden was hated by enough of our citizens and connected to the 9-11 and other attacks on america that there would be no political will to enforce what ever law may have been broken.

And yet every other terrorist, when the opportunity arouse, we captured instead of killing.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Thu May 05, 2011 9:39 am

Risking a Godwin here, but we put the Nazis on trial after World War 2.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu May 05, 2011 9:59 am

woodchip wrote:And yet every other terrorist, when the opportunity arouse, we captured instead of killing.

do you think maybe we captured instead of killing them so we could get the information needed to find Bin Ladin??

Dead men tell no tales

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 05, 2011 11:14 am

I don't know what they were told to do or why but if I was being sent at night, by helicopter, into Pakistan to a place where bin Laden thought he was safe I would be on edge and expecting lots of bullets to come my way. So if the SEAL's shot him when, from a perspective thousands of miles away says they didn't need to shoot him...well 'too frikken bad, you weren't the guy in the ★■◆●' would be my response.

Unless someone in the loop comes out and says 'We could have brought him back but we were told to execute him on the site' then we shouldn't politicize the result of the SEAL's efforts.
We need some separation from politics for the soldiers if we want to have dedicated soldiers. That's why the military gets to judge the activity of it's personnel otherwise you'd have partisan congressional hearings on every other mission at the expense of the guys who actually put their lives on the line for us. If that means the likes of an Obama or Bush get to hide behind the excuse of it was out of his hands once he sent them in then so be it. We have a lot of good people in the military who won't let it be turned into a political wing because they know they can speak out if it looks like a politician is trying make them into a death squad or something.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 05, 2011 11:34 am

woodchip wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:If you believe there were no weapons in that house....
Didn't say this is what I believe. I implied what clever Rep. strategist could do with the info.

I was just speaking to the idea in general not saying you believe it.

woodchip wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:The difference between this assassination and Obama arbitrarily ordering the death of Nutbag Ahmadinejad in Iran is bin Laden was hated by enough of our citizens and connected to the 9-11 and other attacks on america that there would be no political will to enforce what ever law may have been broken.
And yet every other terrorist, when the opportunity arouse, we captured instead of killing.

We have lobbed lots of missiles into places...used drones etc. to kill them. It would strike me as odd to send a live team into such a bad place and tell them to kill not capture but we have no reason to think that was the order.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu May 05, 2011 12:35 pm

Will Robinson wrote:We have lobbed lots of missiles into places...used drones etc. to kill them. It would strike me as odd to send a live team into such a bad place and tell them to kill not capture but we have no reason to think that was the order.

I've kind of wondered that one myself. Obama was given the missile strike option first, which he rejected. If he'd wanted proof that Bin Laden was finally dead, why go for the boots on the ground risky surgical strike option just to kill, not capture Bin Laden, when everyone knows that pictures are not reliable sources of proof? Putting out pictures will not silence the detractors and skeptics. So why not keep the body? Maybe Obama knows for sure, but not the rest of the world. Sure the Seals know what they were ordered to do and how it went down, but they're sworn to secrecy. Even if they could speak out, they aren't about to broadcast their names to a world full of terrorists just waiting to issue some fatwa or another and make themselves and their families targets. Even touch-as-nails Seals don't want that hanging over them.

And something else bad came out of this operation. One of those choppers that crashed was apparently a newer stealth type. So new that we've never seen it in the press. Even though it was destroyed by the Seals, enough of it remained that the Pakistanis carted it off somewhere to either examine or give to who-knows-what country.

As for giving Bush credit for making it possible to find Bin Laden, he might as well be given credit for setting up and starting the ball rolling on the biggest national debt and economic crisis in U.S. history. He can't pick and choose what he wants for his presidential legacy, he has to take the bad with the good. Fair's fair.

But if we really dig deeper, this whole mess with Bin Laden can be traced to connections between the Bush Family, the Saudi Royals and the oil business. If it weren't for that unholy alliance, we may not have ever had Bin Laden to deal with in the first place. So I guess Bush was, and still is, part of the problem, not the solution. The Bush Family business dealings is coming back to burn us.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu May 05, 2011 12:38 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:We have lobbed lots of missiles into places...used drones etc. to kill them. It would strike me as odd to send a live team into such a bad place and tell them to kill not capture but we have no reason to think that was the order.
I've kind of wondered that one myself. Obama was given the missile strike option first, which he rejected. If he'd wanted proof that Bin Laden was finally dead, why go for the boots on the ground risky surgical strike option just to kill, not capture Bin Laden, when everyone knows that pictures are not reliable sources of proof? Putting out pictures will not silence the detractors and skeptics. So why not keep the body? Maybe Obama knows for sure, but not the rest of the world. Sure the Seals know what they were ordered to do and how it went down, but they're sworn to secrecy. Even if they could speak out, they aren't about to broadcast their names to a world full of terrorists just waiting to issue some fatwa or another and make themselves and their families targets. Even touch-as-nails Seals don't want that hanging over them.

And something else bad came out of this operation. One of those choppers that crashed was apparently a newer stealth type. So new that we've never seen it in the press. Even though it was destroyed by the Seals, enough of it remained that the Pakistanis carted it off somewhere to either examine or give to who-knows-what country.

As for giving Bush credit for making it possible to find Bin Laden, he might as well be given credit for setting up and starting the ball rolling on the biggest national debt and economic crisis in U.S. history. He can't pick and choose what he wants for his presidential legacy, he has to take the bad with the good. Fair's fair.

But if we really dig deeper, this whole mess with Bin Laden can be traced to connections between the Bush Family, the Saudi Royals and the oil business. If it weren't for that unholy alliance, we may not have ever had Bin Laden to deal with in the first place. So I guess Bush was, and still is, part of the problem, not the solution. The Bush Family business dealings is coming back to burn us.

Ya know you had me until you got to the part where it's all Bush's fault

TC it's time to grow up and stop blaming GW for all the worlds problems. it's actually quite childish

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Thu May 05, 2011 12:42 pm

tunnelcat wrote:But if we really dig deeper, this whole mess with Bin Laden can be traced to connections between the Bush Family, the Saudi Royals and the oil business. If it weren't for that unholy alliance, we may not have ever had Bin Laden to deal with in the first place. So I guess Bush was, and still is, part of the problem, not the solution. The Bush Family business dealings is coming back to burn us.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu May 05, 2011 1:28 pm

CUDA wrote:TC it's time to grow up and stop blaming GW for all the worlds problems. it's actually quite childish

Actually, I blame the entire sordid family line! Bastards! Lay the blame where blame is due. If Bush and all the conservatives weren't trying to buff his slime checkered image with this tenuous "I did the groundwork that paved the way to kill Bin Laden" bullcrap, I'd probably keep quiet. He, and Cheney, should just fade quietly into the shadows and quit torturing everyone with their faces!

If it weren't for him and his family, we may NOT have gotten a near depression and huge national debt and massive unemployment thrown on the next president's watch AND have lost 3000+ Americans on 9/11 AND we wouldn't have had to deal with 2 wars and the resulting casualties based on this moron's presidential decisions AND then have to go and kill Bin Laden because maybe this guy may not have ever gotten ideas of revenge against the U.S. in the first place! It's all connections. As it turns out, Bush has more blood on his hands than Bin Laden! So who's the evil one? No, I won't let this "childish" man and the legacy his family gave us live in peace.

http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

But you're right on one count, the past is the past and we should forget it. I guess we should never learn from that past, should we?

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Thu May 05, 2011 2:10 pm

Sorry to tell you TC, but if they ever do come up with a cure for Bush Derangement Syndrome (apparently Obama's election was not enough after all ...), I think it's a fair bet that it won't be covered under Obamacare. That way lefties can continue to feast off of these meme's for eternity.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu May 05, 2011 2:30 pm

Obama was supposed to be the cure for BDS, but he created a new variant, called Obama Derangement Syndrome, that virulently infected all conservatives as intended, but didn't have the benefit of helping liberals as was promised.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu May 05, 2011 5:58 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Obama was supposed to be the cure for BDS, but he created a new variant, called Obama Derangement Syndrome, that virulently infected all conservatives as intended, but didn't have the benefit of helping liberals as was promised.

well fortunately there is a cure for ODS. It's called an election, there are Minor side effects that show up after the treatment, but those usually wear off in a month or two after the election is administered.

sadly for you, you must be suffering from Huffingtons disease, it causes you to become immune to the same medication that was prescribed for BDS. It's been proven though that a continued drinking of Kool-aid will negate the effects of the Election medication and further the progression of Huffingtons, and that there are DANGEROUS side effects by continuing to drink Kool-aid, symptoms included delusions that Bush

"A" is responsible for the continuing debt crisis.
"B" is responsible for the continuation of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
"C" is responsible for OBL's terrorist attacks on the US
"D" is responsible for Global warming
"E" is responsible for the current oil prices
"F" is responsible for the Current Un-employment rate
"G" caused and staged the 9/11 attacks on our nation
"H" is responsible for the continued detention of the prisoners at Gitmo
"I" is responsible for the Aphids on the plants in your garden

But thankfully all these symptoms can be corrected if caught in time. A steady doses of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly, Have been shown to negate the delusional effect of Kool-Aid, which in turn allows you to get on with your life negating the sickness of BDS

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 05, 2011 7:31 pm

tunnelcat wrote:...
But if we really dig deeper, this whole mess with Bin Laden can be traced to connections between the Bush Family, the Saudi Royals and the oil business. If it weren't for that unholy alliance, we may not have ever had Bin Laden to deal with in the first place. So I guess Bush was, and still is, part of the problem, not the solution. The Bush Family business dealings is coming back to burn us.

You really need to use something other than democrat party rhetoric for information!
Look up Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carters National Security Advisor and see where it all began.

Then if you really want to read some interesting stuff read
Perfect Soldiers and pay special attention to the chapters on Saudi youth going to Peshawar to party and take weekend trips into Afghanastan to fight Soviet troops.
It is there that bin Laden became who he is. Basically a rich frat boy gone way wild in a psychotic fundamentalist kind of way.

When the Soviets started to leave Afghanastan and the CIA pulled out financial and material support bin Laden wanted to take the fight back to the home countries of his and his fellow arab fighters to rid their countries of the moderate muslims in power, the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia for one.
Their leader at the time scoffed at the idea of continuing the fight at home and instead suggested they all go home, that 'the war was over, enjoy your victory etc.'
bin Laden was angry and that leader and his son were murdered on the side of that mountain that night. Rumor was that bin Laden killed them and he took control of the group, which he then named "the base" (al Queda), and so it was born.

No Bush in sight. Jimmy Carter was the President who sent Zbigniew Brzezinski to Afghanistan to start the ★■◆● that inspired bin Laden.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu May 05, 2011 8:18 pm

don't know what they were told to do or why but if I was being sent at night, by helicopter, into Pakistan to a place where bin Laden thought he was safe I would be on edge and expecting lots of bullets to come my way. So if the SEAL's shot him when, from a perspective thousands of miles away says they didn't need to shoot him...well 'too frikken bad, you weren't the guy in the ****' would be my response.

Unless someone in the loop comes out and says 'We could have brought him back but we were told to execute him on the site' then we shouldn't politicize the result of the SEAL's efforts.

Even if they were told to execute him I just wouldn't care.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri May 06, 2011 4:52 pm

CUDA, you suffer from Faux Sarcoma, an incurable brain tumor that causes it's sufferers to glue their eyeballs to the TV tuned to the Fox News Channel and at the same time paste their ears to the radio tuned to Rush Limbaugh, ALL THE TIME! They can't get enough and their brains explode from the overload! Maybe you need to unplug yourself from both sources of pain before you die!

Will, I cede your point. I'm a little blinded by Bush hatred, and yes, I hate his guts. Bush, and sadly Obama, are just one small cog in the machine of our government's foreign policy self-serving insanity. But I still don't like Bush. I think he manipulated things to get what he wanted. I personally think he knew that 9/11 was going to go down and he just let it happen, all as a handy excuse (which they were looking for, by the way) to invade Iraq, kill Saddam as revenge for daddy's failure and divvy up those nice oil fields as a present to Big Oil. And it was all to buff up his image as a war president (yes, Obama's done the same stupid thing too). I'll never be able to prove it either, but I'll keep my tin hat on just the same.

But that smirk on his face as he sat looking off into space holding a children's book while thousands of Americans were being murdered is a big stain on his presidency. It sticks in my craw. What in God's green earth was going on behind the look in those eyes? He's not even looking at the book! Why in the hell he didn't get up, make a pleasant excuse to leave the class and go like any concerned president would normally do if our country was being attacked? It's either coldly calculated, insane or just plain weird. Buffing this guy's image for posterity while deriding Obama is nuts and I'll keep on the case of all right wingers trying to do it!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri May 06, 2011 6:46 pm

tunnelcat wrote: I cede your point. I'm a little blinded by Bush hatred,

A Little ?!?!?!?!?!

your hatred for GW is FAR beyond a little blinding you. it's obsessing you. you have lost touch with reality.

Why in the hell he didn't get up, make a pleasant excuse to leave the class and go like any concerned president would normally do if our country was being attacked? It's either coldly calculated, insane or just plain

and just exactly what is it that a President would Normally do when the Nation is attacked. is there a written protocol on how to behave?
And how many precedents (not Presidents) have there been for surprise attacks on our soil?

I can think of two probable explanations for his reaction.

1. Shock. Just as the whole country was feeling at that exact moment
2. Composure. the last thing a leader wants to do is show Panic. Panic trickles down to the people. and then you have problems

Apparently you've not been around too many people in command during a crisis situation to see how they react.

I've been in situations where the ones in command panicked and it affected the whole bridge crew of the ship I served on. in times of crisis people look towards their leaders for leadership. if you stay calm the people stay calm.
Regardless of how you feel Bush handled it, he showed Calm. I get the feeling you would have preferred if he had jumped up and yell OMG and run out the door. which you probably would have criticized him for that also.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat May 07, 2011 5:21 am

TC, first off I don't see a smirk. Corners of his mouth are turned down... not up. I see a man in a contemplative mood wondering what the hell is going on and what should he do next. Of course if someone on the Huffington post said it was a smirk then that is what it must be

I'm sure you would of felt better if Bush jumped to his feet yelling OMG ! OMG ! and dashed out of the room but you must not of raised kids of your own if you think that. The picture was taken immediately after Bush was told about the twin towers so I commend him for not showing panic, especially in front of a bunch of school kids.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat May 07, 2011 9:12 am

woodchip wrote:TC, first off I don't see a smirk. Corners of his mouth are turned down... not up. I see a man in a contemplative mood wondering what the hell is going on and what should he do next. Of course if someone on the Huffington post said it was a smirk then that is what it must be I'm sure you would of felt better if Bush jumped to his feet yelling OMG ! OMG ! and dashed out of the room but you must not of raised kids of your own if you think that. The picture was taken immediately after Bush was told about the twin towers so I commend him for not showing panic, especially in front of a bunch of school kids.

I always sort of felt Bush got a real bad rap on this score. I sort of agree with all said above. Now, might he have been thinking, "Oh, fudge, perhaps there was something to that memo Rice handed me last month...",or the like? Sure,but, as stated, he handled a public situation in front of a bunch of little kids just fine.