Osama bin Laden is dead

[Juan_Bottom]

Waterboarding is not torture, for one.

Yes it is. America prosecuted and hung a Japanese War Criminal based on POW testimony that he water-boarded them. It's common knowledge at this point on CC because I have brought it up several times. I also linked sources.

[john9blue]

NightSTrikes, if we Chinese water-tortured them until they gave us the directions to bin Laden, would you say that's justified?


Isn't that the point of torture? To get answers?

Waterboarding is not torture, for one. For two, the argument has always been that under dire stress, a person will just say anything to make it stop, whether it's true or not. If this story is true, then it shows that reliable intelligence can be gathered through enhanced interrogations.

No, Nightstrike, I says that under torture people will lie just to get the torture to stop.

...but if waterboarding in this instance can be shown to have given reliable information that led to osama's capture, then it clearly can be justified in some cases.

this is assuming that bin laden was actually still dangerous and that the entire manhunt was even worth it, a dubious claim at best. but it doesn't detract from the main point about waterboarding.

[Night Strike]

NightSTrikes, if we Chinese water-tortured them until they gave us the directions to bin Laden, would you say that's justified?


Isn't that the point of torture? To get answers?

Waterboarding is not torture, for one. For two, the argument has always been that under dire stress, a person will just say anything to make it stop, whether it's true or not. If this story is true, then it shows that reliable intelligence can be gathered through enhanced interrogations.

No, Nightstrike, I says that under torture people will lie just to get the torture to stop.

Your point is debunked is this story is true.

[Juan_Bottom]

Your point is debunked is this story is true.

No it isn't. Some people lie, and some people tell the truth. And soldiers are all trained to tell lie's mixed with inconsequential truths to make them appear completely true. But physiologists agree that torture is not the best approach. And I would defer to the brain doctors instead of the jocks with electric sticks.

[Army of GOD]

Wait, are we just realizing now that torturing gets the truth out? I thought that was a given fact.

If I was being tortured, there would be no way I would lie, as I would expect to be tortured more if my information was eventually figured to be false.

[pimpdave]

If I was being tortured, there would be no way I would lie, as I would expect to be tortured more if my information was eventually figured to be false.

Turns out we have footage of that time you were tortured by the Fratellis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5UG7ISJfP0

[Army of GOD]

If I was being tortured, there would be no way I would lie, as I would expect to be tortured more if my information was eventually figured to be false.

Turns out we have footage of that time you were tortured by the Fratellis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5UG7ISJfP0

They also filmed me getting tortured by Angel Eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lTx6g6rNXY

[Night Strike]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-did ... tive-work/

bin Laden used a woman as a human shield.

F'ing coward!


By the way, that article said that KSM did not give up the actual courier names during the waterboarding, but some time later after regular interrogation.

[radiojake]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-did ... tive-work/

bin Laden used a woman as a human shield.

F'ing coward!

Ever notice that as we are told that military technology has become more sophisticated, which implies an ability to minimise innocent civillian deaths, the words 'collateral damage' has slowly evolved into 'human shield'?

edit: flame removed - I must have had too much angry salsa on my burrito for lunch.

[firsal901]

cool. they almost got my grandparents in 9/11

HE CAN SUCK D***

[Night Strike]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-did ... tive-work/

bin Laden used a woman as a human shield.

F'ing coward!

Ever notice that as we are told that military technology has become more sophisticated, which implies an ability to minimise innocent civillian deaths, the words 'collateral damage' has slowly evolved into 'human shield'?

Nightstrike, you are a cock-swalling, cum drizzling deuche bag that feeds on the myth of the American legacy being a beacon for all that is good and righteous while you systematically ignore the atrocities being perpetrated under the guise of Western Imperialism. If you were born in the Middle East, you would be one of those morons blowing themselves up.

eat shit and die.

Where the hell did that come from?

By the way, "human shield" means that the person being targeted hid themselves behind civilians to keep the attacker from shooting. "Collateral damage" means deaths caused during attacks such as bombing raids. They are two completely different situations: the former is the deliberate choice to risk innocents while the latter is accidental.

[radiojake]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-did ... tive-work/

bin Laden used a woman as a human shield.

F'ing coward!

Ever notice that as we are told that military technology has become more sophisticated, which implies an ability to minimise innocent civillian deaths, the words 'collateral damage' has slowly evolved into 'human shield'?

Where the hell did that come from?

By the way, "human shield" means that the person being targeted hid themselves behind civilians to keep the attacker from shooting. "Collateral damage" means deaths caused during attacks such as bombing raids. They are two completely different situations: the former is the deliberate choice to risk innocents while the latter is accidental.

I know what the meanings of the terms imply - But I am suggesting that rather than using a woman as a human shield (which we hear a lot of) I am saying that whoever busted into Osama's compound would have started shooting indiscriminantly and shot everyone on site.

I am not saying that Osama was a 'good dude' or anything - But that doesn't mean I will resort to mass-media style binary opposite bullshit where you have to pick one side or the other.

[Night Strike]

I know what the meanings of the terms imply - But I am suggesting that rather than using a woman as a human shield (which we hear a lot of) I am saying that whoever busted into Osama's compound would have started shooting indiscriminantly and shot everyone on site.

I am not saying that Osama was a 'good dude' or anything - But that doesn't mean I will resort to mass-media style binary opposite bullshit where you have to pick one side or the other.

Yes, they could have shot everybody, but they didn't. There were 23 children and 9 women on the compound that were turned over to Pakistani authorities (I don't know if the 9 women counted the 1 dead and 2 injured, or if those 9 were separate from the 3 harmed), so obviously they weren't killed by our troops. Our troops, especially the elite units, do not go around and murder innocent civilians willy-nilly like the people who hate our military (and country) like to perpetuate. The woman WAS a human shield, not a casualty of a stray bullet.

[stahrgazer]

Basically the president hasn't said it in public yet.

Yes he did

[radiojake]

. Our troops, especially the elite units, do not go around and murder innocent civilians willy-nilly like the people who hate our military (and country) like to perpetuate.

I guess you are right - It's only the US air-force and NATO who indiscriminately murder and mame innocent civillians

[Mr_Adams]

Basically the president hasn't said it in public yet.

Yes he did

Really want to do this? That comment is from page one, made several hours from before Obama made any statement. If you want to make somebody look stupid when they are not, at least use complex logic with hidden fallacies, not this crap

[radiojake]

Basically the president hasn't said it in public yet.

Yes he did

Really want to do this? That comment is from page one, made several hours from before Obama made any statement. If you want to make somebody look stupid when they are not, at least use complex logic with hidden fallacies, not this crap

I have to say that when I first saw his comment it made me chuckle a little inside.

[stahrgazer]

I sense there will be trouble because of this. In my opinion, if at least most of the reported things are true (which is debatable), US Government fucked up big time. Since he's dead, now we will never learn who was behind him: who was supporting and sponsoring him, who was protecting him (besides the obvious Paki's), was he just a small pawn in a big game. US government got 0 intel from this - all this extremely valuable information lost just because some idiots decide that it's better to kill him. All of this most likely will just lead him becoming a martyr...

Does anyone truly expect this to have any positive practical results? If anything, expect a new wave of terrorism suddenly bursting out. Well done, well done

What he had behind him was gold, and lots of it. He's been buying real gold for years. Nor does he stick with "certificates" - he pays to transport it. Paid. Some analysts estimate he had the 2nd or 3rd largest gold respository in the world.

They did get intel, they took a lot of documents to the CIA.

Yes, there are positive results. 1) terrorists now know the US won't just let it go away anymore. 2) we have a better understanding of our Pakistan "allies" so maybe we'll stop sending them a few billion each year.

As for it causing a new wave of terrorism? um.. forgive me, but I think the "little incident" that happened in New York about ten years ago, occurred before any UDT seals paid anyone a little visit behind 18-foot barb-wire walls in a mansion across from Pakistan's version of West Point.

The point being, you're assuming TERRORISTS need an excuse. I assure you, they don't; if they don't have an excuse, they make one up. Like they did when they planned what they've done worldwide so far.

So, again, now terrorists know that even if it takes decades, Americans can be as determined as they. That won't deter the real lunatics like OBL, but it'll help deter the wannabe's.

ps:

Basically the president hasn't said it in public yet.

Yes he did

Really want to do this? That comment is from page one, made several hours from before Obama made any statement. If you want to make somebody look stupid when they are not, at least use complex logic with hidden fallacies, not this crap

You really want to tie up a thread with this?

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuusse me for not checking for a timestamp

[jefjef]

now we will never learn who was behind him

He was behind himself. He was very wealthy with a vendetta and warped ideology.

Yeas their probably was also super secret support of him from inside a couple anti American/NATO governments but they will still support subversives no matter what name they go by and it's really no secret which countries are most anti western.

[radiojake]

The point being, you're assuming TERRORISTS need an excuse. I assure you, they don't; if they don't have an excuse, they make one up. Like they did when they planned what they've done worldwide so far.

Hmm.. . So 70 odd years of meddling in sovereign affairs of Middle Eastern countries in a direct resource grab isn't a legitimate greivance?
Thanks for the clarification, because now I feel safe in being able to launch an occupation and invasion of the US without fear of reprisal because, according to your logic, any retaliation on your behalf would be 'making up an excuse' -

Thanks

[stahrgazer]

The point being, you're assuming TERRORISTS need an excuse. I assure you, they don't; if they don't have an excuse, they make one up. Like they did when they planned what they've done worldwide so far.

Hmm.. . So 70 odd years of meddling in sovereign affairs of Middle Eastern countries in a direct resource grab isn't a legitimate greivance?
Thanks for the clarification, because now I feel safe in being able to launch an occupation and invasion of the US without fear of reprisal because, according to your logic, any retaliation on your behalf would be 'making up an excuse' -

Thanks

Oh, I see. I also see that by your logic, the US certainly shouldn't have joined WWII. Hitler was as justified as he made the Germans think he was, because of that "interference" called WWI. And, heck, Hitler's Germany never even attacked America.

gotcha.

Oh, but wait. There's a little thing about allies, and Geneva Conventions, and other various treaties that Americans (and other countries) signed over the decades that suggests that when a people is being massacred, or internal conflicts begin to affect worldwide interests, then maybe it is time to step in... or as you call it, "interfere."

Besides, the last I heard, Al Quaeda didn't represent a country.

Of course, if the grievance is "old interference" I'd think maybe Her Majesty's palace should have been Al Quaeda's first hit.. she's more descended from the Crusaders (the original mid-east "interferers") than Americans are

Plus, the folks who worked in those towers and the people on civilian airline flights weren't the ones who went over to "interfere" with the mid-east. The Pentagon, maybe, could be justified by your "logic".

But those aren't the targets they chose, are they? Nope. Because the targets they did choose caused more TERROR.

Obama chose a different route. Having a choice between bombing a know location and sending in a strike team, he chose a strike team. A woman got hit. Shield, as claimed; or crossfire as some suggest, that's a few thousand less civilian casualties and a lot less city-wide damage.

[radiojake]

The point being, you're assuming TERRORISTS need an excuse. I assure you, they don't; if they don't have an excuse, they make one up. Like they did when they planned what they've done worldwide so far.

Hmm.. . So 70 odd years of meddling in sovereign affairs of Middle Eastern countries in a direct resource grab isn't a legitimate greivance?
Thanks for the clarification, because now I feel safe in being able to launch an occupation and invasion of the US without fear of reprisal because, according to your logic, any retaliation on your behalf would be 'making up an excuse' -

Thanks

Oh, I see. I also see that by your logic, the US certainly shouldn't have joined WWII. Hitler was as justified as he made the Germans think he was, because of that "interference" called WWI. And, heck, Germany never even attacked America.

gotcha.

Oh, but wait. There's a little thing about allies, and Geneva Conventions, and other various treaties that Americans (and other countries) signed over the decades that suggests that when a people is being massacred, or internal conflicts begin to affect worldwide interests, then maybe it is time to step in... or as you call it, "interfere."

Besides, the last I heard, Al Quaeda didn't represent a country.

Of course, if the grievance is "old interference" I'd think maybe Her Majesty's palace should have been Al Quaeda's first hit.. she's more descended from the Crusaders (the original mid-east "interferers") than Americans are

Plus, the folks who worked in those towers and the people on civilian airline flights weren't the ones who went over to "interfere" with the mid-east. The Pentagon, maybe, could be justified by your "logic".

Obviously my last statement was ridiculous, but that was to point out the equally retarded sentiment of your previous post. Also, I don't see how you can compare joining WWII to the countless US operations in the Middle East since the early parts of last century, which have had nothing to do with stopping massacres. Speaking of massacres, where was the US in Rwanda circa 1994? - Oh wait, not giving a shit because there wasn't enough resources to justify intervention.


I suggest you check out a quick history of the US in the middle east, and maybe you would then understand the grevience of many of the Islamic extremists that have been bred in retalitation to this imperialism.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le6308.htm


ALTERNATIVELY: You can continue to ignore history and carry on your mindless flag waving pursuits, while chanting the moronic 'U-S-A! U-S-A!' mantra while stuffing your face with hot-dogs and clogging your arteries with cholesterol. Then on sundays make sure you go to church and pray to your deity and ask it to save your wretched country again. In the meantime, your tax dollars will contribute to further military occupations of foreign sovereign lands in a resource grab that will help you live your opulant and wasteful lifestyles.

[saxitoxin]

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think there was anything that we could have learned from Osama. He was at the top of the wanted list, and the top of al Qaeda. Our military had to start from the base of his organization and climb their way up it's hierarchy to find him. So we know what there is to know. If you listened to the White House they have already said this much. The last piece of the puzzle was in finding Osama and exterminating him.

Anyone killed who who might cause a down-tick in opinion polls was always "being used as a shield."

But, most westerners are dumb enough to believe this B.S. (see string of posts above) ... just like the body quickly dumped in the ocean in the middle of the night and the mansion, where all remaining physical evidence might reside, catching fire and burning to the ground within 15 minutes after the raid.

Most of these Westerners are bitching that this doesn't change anything and that there's some ridiculous conspiracy at work here. That's what the string of posts above are about. Those dumb westerners are on your side. Besides this, what physical evidence do we need? For what purpose do we need the mansion? It was fairly common place for American soldiers to destroy the homes of terrorists and insurgents until Rumsfeld issued the order for no collateral damage. After that our soldiers usually had to run from firefights or get permission to help out other squads. This is a return to the American military's symbolic "you burnt my house and now I'll burn yours." f*ck 'em all if they want to protect Osama. That's just common sense.


But me, I've got no time for whining about killing Osama or how it affects global politics. Nor do I care how it affects US relations with mountain people or wasteland tribes. He got what he had coming to him. Call it revenge or don't, some of my fellow Americans deserve a little justice.

It's important to understand and care about a certain topic if one actually wants to make a credible point about it.

Saying, "Derbalurb herb herb herb" followed by "I don't care about long-term costs and unintended consequences of previous actions which created Al-Qaida because justice has been served from my self-limited perspective," isn't very intelligent.

[stahrgazer]

The point being, you're assuming TERRORISTS need an excuse. I assure you, they don't; if they don't have an excuse, they make one up. Like they did when they planned what they've done worldwide so far.

Hmm.. . So 70 odd years of meddling in sovereign affairs of Middle Eastern countries in a direct resource grab isn't a legitimate greivance?
Thanks for the clarification, because now I feel safe in being able to launch an occupation and invasion of the US without fear of reprisal because, according to your logic, any retaliation on your behalf would be 'making up an excuse' -

Thanks

Oh, I see. I also see that by your logic, the US certainly shouldn't have joined WWII. Hitler was as justified as he made the Germans think he was, because of that "interference" called WWI. And, heck, Germany never even attacked America.

gotcha.

Oh, but wait. There's a little thing about allies, and Geneva Conventions, and other various treaties that Americans (and other countries) signed over the decades that suggests that when a people is being massacred, or internal conflicts begin to affect worldwide interests, then maybe it is time to step in... or as you call it, "interfere."

Besides, the last I heard, Al Quaeda didn't represent a country.

Of course, if the grievance is "old interference" I'd think maybe Her Majesty's palace should have been Al Quaeda's first hit.. she's more descended from the Crusaders (the original mid-east "interferers") than Americans are

Plus, the folks who worked in those towers and the people on civilian airline flights weren't the ones who went over to "interfere" with the mid-east. The Pentagon, maybe, could be justified by your "logic".

Obviously my last statement was ridiculous, but that was to point out the equally retarded sentiment of your previous post. Also, I don't see how you can compare joining WWII to the countless US operations in the Middle East since the early parts of last century, which have had nothing to do with stopping massacres. Speaking of massacres, where was the US in Rwanda circa 1994? - Oh wait, not giving a shit because there wasn't enough resources to justify intervention.


I suggest you check out a quick history of the US in the middle east, and maybe you would then understand the grevience of many of the Islamic extremists that have been bred in retalitation to this imperialism.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le6308.htm


ALTERNATIVELY: You can continue to ignore history and carry on your mindless flag waving pursuits, while chanting the moronic 'U-S-A! U-S-A!' mantra while stuffing your face with hot-dogs and clogging your arteries with cholesterol. Then on sundays make sure you go to church and pray to your deity and ask it to save your wretched country again. In the meantime, your tax dollars will contribute to further military occupations of foreign sovereign lands in a resource grab that will help you live your opulant and wasteful lifestyles.

My statements weren't retarded, but we'll agree that yours were -as you've admitted.

The US isn't an imperialist nation.

The US doesn't have as much gold as Bin Laden racked up over the years. Now, if Bin Laden decided to use his racked-up gold to help rather than kill people (including the Rwandans you seem so worried about) then you might have a point. He didn't, so you don't.

I don't go to church or have a deity.

And, since the US never kept any cities they occupied over there, and instead, gave those cities to people from there; nor kept the rights to any of the resources over there.. your point about military occupations of foreign lands is - like some of your other points - retarded.

As I said in the other thread: at best, you can say we supported the straggling remaining Jewish (another non-Christian religion) to regain a home in the middle east after their transitory home in Germany and other Europe was made less palatable by funky-mustached Hitler.

So, that justifies using civilian planes as suicide bombs to hit a totally civilian target?

Nope.

God Bless America.

p.s. the hot dogs I eat are made of beef, which Moslems don't mind but Hindus would. I guess we should expect an air strike on the superdome from India next, since, like the mid-east, India is currently benefitting from sucky United States' dollars buying products from them. That way they, too, can claim it's because of religion (STOP the terrible beef-hot-dog-eating imperialist football game vendors!)