The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 7:44 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 493 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Midgen wrote:
Midgen wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I am unsure what is extraordinary about having killed an enemy leader during a war (of sorts)


I don't claim to be an expert on such matters, but isn't it against the law (or at very least against U.S. Policy) to assassinate political leaders?


Anyone care to tackle this?

I'm truly curious...


Don't know, but if so I suspect they can wiggle out of it. Not a world leader, active war zone, he resisted, we really didn't like him, whatcha gonna do about it, etc.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:35 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Midgen wrote:
Midgen wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I am unsure what is extraordinary about having killed an enemy leader during a war (of sorts)


I don't claim to be an expert on such matters, but isn't it against the law (or at very least against U.S. Policy) to assassinate political leaders?


Anyone care to tackle this?

I'm truly curious...


Bush set the policy of not treating terrorists as legal combatants, and therefore not subject to the restrictions of the Geneva convention. Following this to its logical conclusion, terrorist leaders would not be legitimate political leaders, and therefore not subject to any law or policy against assassination.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Pelosi seems to have had a curious change of heart regarding her feelings about the importance of OBL...

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/ ... cy-pelosi/

commentarymagazine.com wrote:
The Intellectual Dishonesty of Nancy Pelosi
Peter Wehner 05.03.2011 - 9:40 AM

Here’s Nancy Pelosi from a press conference on September 7, 2006:
[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.

And here’s Nancy Pelosi yesterday:
The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic. . . .

This devastating then-and-now comparison comes to us courtesy of John Hinderaker of Power Line. It underscores the degree to which partisanship can ravage people’s fair-mindedness and, in the process, make them look like fools and hacks. Such things aren’t uncommon in politics—but what is rare is to see such intellectual dishonesty proven so conclusively.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:43 pm 
Offline
Mountain Man
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:15 pm
Posts: 3374
Midgen wrote:
Midgen wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I am unsure what is extraordinary about having killed an enemy leader during a war (of sorts)


I don't claim to be an expert on such matters, but isn't it against the law (or at very least against U.S. Policy) to assassinate political leaders?


Anyone care to tackle this?

I'm truly curious...

I'd have to look it up, but the rule was specifically changed in the wake of 9/11. If I remember correctly, that's why we have JSOC - Joint Special Operations Command - so that they can do stuff like this and not be subject to that law. Pretty sure it only applied to agencies that existed at the time - FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. Just going by memory, though.

I'm still pretty sure they dumped the body so that no one could say exactly how he was killed.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm
Posts: 3455
Location: St. Louis, MO
Midgen wrote:
Anyone care to tackle this?

I'm truly curious...

It is not, so far as I am aware, a law on the books. Three Executive Orders were issued (by Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan) banning assassination. Reagan's E.O. was amended 3 times by George W. Bush. The relevant portion of the amended E.O. reads as follows:
Executive Order 12333 wrote:
2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government
shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination.
2.12 Indirect Participation. No element of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to
undertake activities forbidden by this Order.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Hehe...

Journalist describes staging of photo....

(more links and photos here)
poynter.org

poynter.org wrote:
the White House debated whether to release photos showing Osama bin Laden’s body. In theory, the photos would be proof to any doubters that the terrorist is dead. But not all photos can be believed — not even when they seem to show the president of the United States making a historic speech.

Reuters White House photographer Jason Reed describes how the president made his speech to a single TV camera, then immediately after finishing, he pretended to speak for the still cameras.

Reed writes:

“As President Obama continued his nine-minute address in front of just one main network camera, the photographers were held outside the room by staff and asked to remain completely silent. Once Obama was off the air, we were escorted in front of that teleprompter and the President then re-enacted the walk-out and first 30 seconds of the statement for us.”
That means the photograph that appeared in many newspapers Monday morning of Obama speaking may have been the staged shot, captured after the president spoke. This type of staging has been going on for decades.


John Harrington, president of the White House News Photographers Association, tells me that the Obama Administration has used this technique before and they are not the first.

“I am aware of it happening in previous administrations. I believe Bush 41 [George H.W. Bush] did it too,” Harrington says. “The times where I have known of it happening before is when the president is in the Oval Office and you are working in a very tight space.”

Other photographers who work at the White House told Poynter.org that since the Reagan era (and possibly before) it has been the standard operating procedure that during a live presidential address, still cameras are not allowed to photograph the actual event.

“AP understands why the still photographers are not allowed into the live address area and the captions disclose that these are re-enactment situations as well,” says David Ake, the Associated Press’ assistant bureau chief for photos in Washington.

Because of the noise from the camera shutters and the placement of the teleprompter, “we are not able to photograph those events.”

Senior AP Staff Photographer Pablo Martinez Monsivais was called in from vacation on Sunday to cover the White House announcement.


The AP’s Pablo Martinez Monsivais, who took this photo, told Poynter, “What was very unique this time was that the White House actually allowed the still press photography pool to photograph the president’s ‘walk in’ so that images could be distributed prior to the late, 11:45 p.m. address.”
“There is nothing that we do as photojournalists that is unethical” about this, he says. “We fully disclose in our captions that this is a re-enactment, after the live announcement. We put that in.”

“The statement for the photographers took place two to three minutes after the live speech and it happened very quickly — extremely fast — with each photographer rotating into the center position.”

Doug Mills, New York Times photojournalist and former Associated Press staffer, says it has been done this way “always, always … well, as long as I have covered the White House, going back to the Reagan administration. We [still photographers] have never, never, never, ever been allowed to cover a live presidential address to the nation!”

Poynter’s Senior Faculty for Visual Journalism, Kenny Irby, explains, “The most obvious concern is noise. The 35mm cameras emit shutter noise, that would be multiplied by several photographers and increased by the echo which resonates off of the marble floors. The other visual distraction is the placement of the teleprompter that impedes the photographers’ line of sight to the president.”

Harrington says there are alternatives to staging the photographs.

As video images are increasingly detailed, it is easier to use screen captures that meet still photograph standards. He also points to devices like the “Jacobson blimp,” which he demonstrates in a YouTube video.

The blimp is a hard case with a cut-out for the camera and a remote control that allows a photographer to capture images while the case mutes the sound of the camera. Harrington says other photographers have customized still cameras to make them quieter. In fact, a camera was customized to take an unusual photo of Obama during his inauguration.


Photographers take pictures of U.S. President Barack Obama after he announced live on television the death of Osama bin Laden from the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., May 1, 2011. (Jason Reed/Reuters)
But this practice of re-enacting a historic speech flies directly in the face of the National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics, which includes this relevant passage: “Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.”

Harrington says, “I know we are splitting hairs here, but the White House photographers covering those re-enactments did not stage, request or direct them. They are covering an event. They photograph what they are presented with.”

Harrington says the re-enactment is an alternative to just handing out a White House photo. “Obviously you should refer to it as a re-enactment in the cutline of the photo; it does need to be disclosed.”

Both Reuters and the AP did disclose the re-enactment in the cutlines they transmitted with photos. For example, the AP cutline reads:

“President Barack Obama reads his statement to photographers after making a televised statement on the death of Osama bin Laden from the East Room of the White House in Washington, Sunday, May 1, 2011.”
However, not all newspapers reprinted those disclosures.

Some newspapers disclose

Poynter’s Library Director David Shedden searched 50 newspaper front pages from Monday morning to see if papers that used the staged image disclosed it. Keep in mind, newsrooms were scrambling to create new front pages late Sunday evening.


This cutline was transmitted with this Reuters photo: “U.S. President Barack Obama is pictured after announcing live on television the death of Osama bin Laden, from the East Room of the White House in Washington May 1, 2011. Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed on Sunday in a firefight with U.S. forces in Pakistan and his body was recovered, President Obama announced on Sunday.” (Jason Reed/Reuters)
Some newspapers that we viewed used both the AP photo and its cutline, which disclosed the image’s origins.

The Wausau Daily Herald, Wisconsin State Journal, Biloxi Sun Herald, Lodi News-Sentinel, Yuma Sun, The Sarasota Herald-Tribune, The Detroit Free Press, The Wichita Eagle and The Orange County Register used the AP photo and its cutline (or a variation).

The Orlando Sentinel page simply states, “President Barack Obama is shown after his announcement about Osama bin Laden Sunday.” The San Jose Mercury News had a similar caption with a Getty image.

Thirty other front pages we reviewed used an AP, Reuters or Getty photo, credited appropriately, with a caption that implied or strongly suggested it was an image of the live address.

The remaining nine front pages don’t say where the photos came from; although several look like the re-enactments, they could be screen captures from the live address.

What should happen next

It is time for this kind of re-enactment to end. The White House should value truth and authenticity. The technology clearly exists to document important moments without interrupting them. Photojournalists and their employers should insist on and press for access to document these historic moments.

In the meantime, anyone who uses these recreations should clearly disclose to the reader the circumstances under which they were captured.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 5:31 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Midgen wrote:
Midgen wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I am unsure what is extraordinary about having killed an enemy leader during a war (of sorts)


I don't claim to be an expert on such matters, but isn't it against the law (or at very least against U.S. Policy) to assassinate political leaders?


Anyone care to tackle this?

I'm truly curious...


To the best of my knowledge, it is against executive order to assassinate people. However, even a token attempt to take him alive would make any accusation of "assassination" questionable at best.

Not only that, but enemy military leaders are generally legitimate command and control targets in wartime.

The question of whether it is wartime or not is one that has been debated endlessly, and unfortunately a great many people (many for their own purposes) are still trying to fit current conflicts into obsolete 19th-century and earlier dichotomies of "war between nation-states" and "peacetime".

In any case, any claim that this was an assassination would run smack into the problem of an incredibly vague standard. Pretty much anyone can argue this was an assassination by arbitrarily proclaiming the bar for attempt to capture to be higher than what occured. Similarly, anyone can equally argue it was not by setting the bar arbitrarily low.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
To be fair, one needs to recognize Obama's obligation to the American people.

He needed to pursue Osama and bring him to justice. That's been accomplished to his satisfaction, but there isn't any obligation for him to satisfy anonymous internet posters or the population at large by presenting a body.

I think he should release the photo's though, because I'm sure he will be forced to do so in the future. It'll be another case of him rethinking a decision and after his release of his birth certificate, it'll show him to be a weak leader.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
And if it could somehow be determined that he was not resisting (i.e. he was executed in lieu of being taken into custody), Navy Seal Team 6 would take that fall?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 5:44 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Khross wrote:
It's not a matter of legality; it's a matter of accountability. If the government makes a claim, then substantiating that claim should be a first priority of action. Assuming there are national security interests in play, then means of verifying that claim which do not compromise national security must be preserved. In this case, it's the body.


I don't see any reason why this must necessarily be true. Why should "substantiating" it be a first priority of action? Why is the body so important? Who is doing the verifying? Why should tangible claims that a certain event did or did not occur automatically trigger a need to "verify" them?

Just because the President might gain political benefit from it? I don't see that this is the case; I think the potential harm from any attempt to construct a false event plus the likelyhood of whistleblowing means that lying for political gain is going to be almost always restricted to much more malleable things like economic indicators.

Quote:
You are confusing this with a general claim of military success, when in reality it is the ostensible assassination of the man on top of the United States's effective International Most Wanted List for the last 10 years. It is the death of the guy responsible for the single largest act of terrorism against the United States; the guy that gave impetus to two military engagements over the same period of time. I'm fairly certain this goes beyond "Mission Accomplished" in Baghdad or Islamabad.


So? I'm not confusing it with anything. You're drawing a line of some sort between "general military success" and this event. Why does that line exist? Certainly it goes beyond those other events, but how does that subject it to some other set of standards?

Diamondeye wrote:
This would be more comparable to Roosevelt announcing the assassination of Emperor Hirohito.


Or, perhaps, Admiral Yamamoto? I think the analogy suffers from the fact that Roosevelt was President on December 7th, 1941, and at the time, eligable to run for another term while the same did not apply to George Bush in 2008 and therefore a transition had already taken place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 5:47 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Midgen wrote:
And if it could somehow be determined that he was not resisting (i.e. he was executed in lieu of being taken into custody), Navy Seal Team 6 would take that fall?


In that case we would run smack into the problem of "is it assassination to kill an enemy leader when we are at war" and " is this a war"?

People might like to appeal to the simplicity of "declared war" but that standard has been obsolete since August 6th, 1945. If we applied that standard, other nations could attack us with strategic weapons and the best we could do to respond before a declaration of war (which would require Congress to not have been incinerated) would be to try to demand the arrest and deportation of their leaders.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Seems like a pretty tough sell to me. He's apparently been hanging out at Cabo san Pakistan for five or six years.

Suddenly we feel compelled to send stealth helicopters an seal teams in to a sovereign country without their permission to kill a guy who's been off the grid for 10 years?

NinjaEdit:
I wonder how this would have been received if those War Mongers(tm) Bush/Cheney would have been at the helm?

War Crimes!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:30 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Midgen wrote:
Seems like a pretty tough sell to me. He's apparently been hanging out at Cabo san Pakistan for five or six years.

Suddenly we feel compelled to send stealth helicopters an seal teams in to a sovereign country without their permission to kill a guy who's been off the grid for 10 years?


It's not like we just suddenly got a wild hankering to get this guy.

He also has not been "off the grid." He's been keeping a low profile, but there's no reason to think he's been doing nothing.

As for "soverign country without their permission".. so what? Maybe they should have been more diligent looking for him.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Here's a theory...

We've (US Intelligence) known where he was for a long time (see Amanpours 2008 comments about the villa), and had an agreement with the Pakistani's to let him rot in that compound, as long as he stayed off the grid...

And then, something changed, and... {insert the rest of your favorite consipiracy theory here}....

I guess if it wasn't wikileaked it can't be true :P


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 7:05 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
Warning: Pictures of dead people from the raid. Yes, that's a squirt gun underneath one guy's shoulder. Released by Reuters.

Spoiler:
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 7:15 pm 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Wait -- they'll release those, but Osama would be "too gory"?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 7:17 pm 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
Reuters (international press) got in after the raid, before the clean-up. Actually, it was probably a freelancer who sold them to Reuters.

ST6 didn't wait around to clean up after themselves.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Those photos were purchased from a "Pakistani Official" who chose to remain nameless...

They were taken in the hours after the raid (during the day!).

There are other photos including the remains of the Helicopter, which shows a rather high tech stealthy looking tail rotor section hanging over a wall in the compound...

Edit:
Link to a slideshow of said photos on foxnews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/world/ ... y/#slide=1

I wonder how much China will pay Pakistan for that hardware?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 7:34 pm 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
So we washed and shrouded Osama's body before tossing it in the sea on the grounds of not wanting to offend Muslim sensibilities about death. But all those other (presumably) Muslim dudes we killed -- **** 'em! We just left their bodies behind to rot.

Makes perfect sense.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Stathol wrote:
So we washed and shrouded Osama's body before tossing it gently lowering it into in the sea on the grounds of not wanting to offend Muslim sensibilities about death. But all those other (presumably) Muslim dudes we killed -- **** 'em! We just left their bodies behind to rot.

Makes perfect sense.



Made a few minor changes for you, :thumbs:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 7:52 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Inorite.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Stathol wrote:
So we washed and shrouded Osama's body before tossing it in the sea on the grounds of not wanting to offend Muslim sensibilities about death. But all those other (presumably) Muslim dudes we killed -- **** 'em! We just left their bodies behind to rot.

Makes perfect sense.


The others weren't the leader of Al'Qaeda.
The others didn't need to have their DNA checked to confirm they indeed were Osama Bin Laden.
The others wouldn't have a shrine made for them were they left lying around or buried in the ground.
The assumption was that Pakistani officials would take care of whatever funeral arrangements were necessary.

So yes, it does make perfect sense.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Except that not one single one of those things were given as reasons that OBL's body was taken off that compound and dropped... er... lowered gently into the arabian sea...

And if Pakistan can make arrangements for those other dead souls, why not OBL? The DNA sample could have been taken from his dead body in the very spot where they ventilated his skull...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 8:31 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Midgen wrote:
Here's a theory...

We've (US Intelligence) known where he was for a long time (see Amanpours 2008 comments about the villa), and had an agreement with the Pakistani's to let him rot in that compound, as long as he stayed off the grid...

And then, something changed, and... {insert the rest of your favorite consipiracy theory here}....

I guess if it wasn't wikileaked it can't be true :P


It could be true... but why go with this more complex hypothesis when the existing story fits the facts?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 8:33 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4709
Location: Cincinnati OH
Midgen wrote:
Except that not one single one of those things were given as reasons that OBL's body was taken off that compound and dropped... er... lowered gently into the arabian sea...

And if Pakistan can make arrangements for those other dead souls, why not OBL? The DNA sample could have been taken from his dead body in the very spot where they ventilated his skull...


How many extra bodies can you fit in a black hawk helicopter? (remember they had 2, lost 1) so had to squeeze everyone into one. If you gotta take one, Usama would be the one.

edit: or a secret stealth helicopter

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/04/cou ... er/?hpt=C2


Last edited by TheRiov on Wed May 04, 2011 8:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 493 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 190 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group