Osama Bin Laden is dead

[kingramey]

Originally Posted by spacerace

Originally Posted by KingRamey

In my opinion, the "conspiracy theorists" come off as the thinkers in this thread. Even though some of the stuff may be a little crazy 

Some of you other guys seem to be the "followers" and come off a tad bit naive i.e. "Obama said it so it must be true

" "My government would NEVER lie to me! 

"
I'm not going to eat every word spewed out of someone's mouth just because it's that person. Nor am I a conspiracy theorist.

With that said, I'll just be over here making observations 

"Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see"

So because some of us chose to BLINDLY believe what the President of the United States said over the persons without any credentials or support who want us to believe in a incredible tale about how Obama lied about killing Osama simply for political gain, we are "naive followers" 

if you say so...

and yes, that was a long run on sentence. 

Fixed 
And to a certain extent (IMO) yes. Not you specifically but some of you seem to believe follow it no questions asked at all and that feels like complete naivety to me 

 

 

[spot rusherz]

Originally Posted by hymen man

This fool on CNN right now isn't answering any questions, AT ALL.

 

[in yo nostril]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by In Yo Nostril

look, i already mentioned to you that the war on Iraq was going down regardless. the foreign policy and embargos on that country were set up to slowly destroy them and military action was always going to finish the job. stop with your "9/11 was necessary" rhetoric. if you've done research into this, you would know thats not true.

Sorry, I will keep believing my rhetoric. With the sanctions on Iraq, doesn't necessarily mean it was to weaken him in order to invade him with a full out war. It was just to ensure he does not regain his power and even hoping elements from within (inside Iraq) would topple him.

again, look at everything. The US and UK imposed and then routinely bombed targets in No Fly zones in Iraq for years. no fly zones that made up like 60 percent of the country. what exactly do you think the purpose of that was? to allow a new "leader from within" to come to power?

this was planned for years in advance. 9/11 just happened to fall in that time frame. not trying to be an @@$ towards you but you need to look at the bigger picture here.

 

[in yo nostril]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by In Yo Nostril

look, i already mentioned to you that the war on Iraq was going down regardless. the foreign policy and embargos on that country were set up to slowly destroy them and military action was always going to finish the job. stop with your "9/11 was necessary" rhetoric. if you've done research into this, you would know thats not true.

Sorry, I will keep believing my rhetoric. With the sanctions on Iraq, doesn't necessarily mean it was to weaken him in order to invade him with a full out war. It was just to ensure he does not regain his power and even hoping elements from within (inside Iraq) would topple him.

again, look at everything. The US and UK imposed and then routinely bombed targets in No Fly zones in Iraq for years. no fly zones that made up like 60 percent of the country. what exactly do you think the purpose of that was? to allow a new "leader from within" to come to power?

this was planned for years in advance. 9/11 just happened to fall in that time frame. not trying to be an @@$ towards you but you need to look at the bigger picture here.

 

[spot rusherz]

Originally Posted by hymen man

This fool on CNN right now isn't answering any questions, AT ALL.

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

WOW Obama gets a +1 for not releasing those photos.  Glad he listened to his National Security advisors.  I mean we're talking about a group of people whom threaten South Park creators, Danish cartoonists and killed violently over the burning of the Koran.  Imagine how these people will react if they see their leader Usama is shown with a bullet in his head.  
Thank you Obama! 

I think you are being sarcastic, but let's break down how dumb this way of thinking is.
The SP creators, the Danish cartoonists, the Florida minister....all created new targets (themselves) through their actions. No one was actively trying to murder them before they took action.

On the other hand,

The US govt/troops have already been targets and will continue to be so whether or not pictures are released. 

Killing the man is fine, but we really gotta watch our backs if we show a picture 

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

WOW Obama gets a +1 for not releasing those photos.  Glad he listened to his National Security advisors.  I mean we're talking about a group of people whom threaten South Park creators, Danish cartoonists and killed violently over the burning of the Koran.  Imagine how these people will react if they see their leader Usama is shown with a bullet in his head.  
Thank you Obama! 

I think you are being sarcastic, but let's break down how dumb this way of thinking is.
The SP creators, the Danish cartoonists, the Florida minister....all created new targets (themselves) through their actions. No one was actively trying to murder them before they took action.

On the other hand,

The US govt/troops have already been targets and will continue to be so whether or not pictures are released. 

Killing the man is fine, but we really gotta watch our backs if we show a picture 

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by 8H2i9Frs

we do this to Pablo Escobar

but can't show a couple pictures of americas most wanted mass murder in the history of time.

Escobar was far less harmful then osama.

this is all funny to me. my bread aint gon stop for this so i couldnt careless

Those aren't U.S. military personnel in that picture.
  

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by 8H2i9Frs

we do this to Pablo Escobar

but can't show a couple pictures of americas most wanted mass murder in the history of time.

Escobar was far less harmful then osama.

this is all funny to me. my bread aint gon stop for this so i couldnt careless

Those aren't U.S. military personnel in that picture.
  

 

[8h2i9frs]

oh my bad, forgot the logistics of us military personnel.
they were hired by the us...

 

[8h2i9frs]

oh my bad, forgot the logistics of us military personnel.
they were hired by the us...

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by In Yo Nostril

again, look at everything. The US and UK imposed and then routinely bombed targets in No Fly zones in Iraq for years. no fly zones that made up like 60 percent of the country. what exactly do you think the purpose of that was? to allow a new "leader from within" to come to power?

this was planned for years in advance. 9/11 just happened to fall in that time frame. not trying to be an @@$ towards you but you need to look at the bigger picture here.

There were many options laid out for Iraq and war being one of them too. I am not disagreeing with you.  It is a continuation of the First Gulf War which needed to finish off the job. I am saying that 9/11 enabled them to go to war a heck lot easier than if the tragedy did not happen. So without 9/11, how much easier was it going to be to get approval from the public and the approval of the electorate for a regime change for an all out war to topple Saddam ?

Right when 9/11 happened, Bush basically threw Osama on the back burner for Iraq. Basically it is as if they were waiting on 9/11, yes, let's get to Afghanistan for those oil pipelines and now let's jump on Iraq rather than focusing on Osama. Did he say Osama was not a concern. A genuine government would not go kill off +4000 troops based on false bolded lies. 9/11 allowed them to scare the masses and lie to them to prop up these wars.    

 

[extraordinary swag]

Originally Posted by 8H2i9Frs

we do this to Pablo Escobar

but can't show a couple pictures of americas most wanted mass murder in the history of time.

Escobar was far less harmful then osama.

this is all funny to me. my bread aint gon stop for this so i couldnt careless

Well for one those aren't American soldiers that killed him, those are Colombian police. Now I don't remember if the American media platsered that picture across newspapers or television because I was like 8 years old but if we did the same thing to bin Laden in this day in age all hell would break loose. Escobar's cartel was not a major threat to the US like a pissed off Al Queda would be to us now

  

 

[extraordinary swag]

Originally Posted by 8H2i9Frs

we do this to Pablo Escobar

but can't show a couple pictures of americas most wanted mass murder in the history of time.

Escobar was far less harmful then osama.

this is all funny to me. my bread aint gon stop for this so i couldnt careless

Well for one those aren't American soldiers that killed him, those are Colombian police. Now I don't remember if the American media platsered that picture across newspapers or television because I was like 8 years old but if we did the same thing to bin Laden in this day in age all hell would break loose. Escobar's cartel was not a major threat to the US like a pissed off Al Queda would be to us now

  

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by In Yo Nostril

again, look at everything. The US and UK imposed and then routinely bombed targets in No Fly zones in Iraq for years. no fly zones that made up like 60 percent of the country. what exactly do you think the purpose of that was? to allow a new "leader from within" to come to power?

this was planned for years in advance. 9/11 just happened to fall in that time frame. not trying to be an @@$ towards you but you need to look at the bigger picture here.

There were many options laid out for Iraq and war being one of them too. I am not disagreeing with you.  It is a continuation of the First Gulf War which needed to finish off the job. I am saying that 9/11 enabled them to go to war a heck lot easier than if the tragedy did not happen. So without 9/11, how much easier was it going to be to get approval from the public and the approval of the electorate for a regime change for an all out war to topple Saddam ?

Right when 9/11 happened, Bush basically threw Osama on the back burner for Iraq. Basically it is as if they were waiting on 9/11, yes, let's get to Afghanistan for those oil pipelines and now let's jump on Iraq rather than focusing on Osama. Did he say Osama was not a concern. A genuine government would not go kill off +4000 troops based on false bolded lies. 9/11 allowed them to scare the masses and lie to them to prop up these wars.    

 

[reeeem0]

Originally Posted by RickFoxJr

Originally Posted by 8H2i9Frs

we do this to Pablo Escobar

but can't show a couple pictures of americas most wanted mass murder in the history of time.

Escobar was far less harmful then osama.

this is all funny to me. my bread aint gon stop for this so i couldnt careless

cot damn thats disrespectful 

NOBODY IN THAT PICTURES FIRST LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH

 

[reeeem0]

Originally Posted by RickFoxJr

Originally Posted by 8H2i9Frs

we do this to Pablo Escobar

but can't show a couple pictures of americas most wanted mass murder in the history of time.

Escobar was far less harmful then osama.

this is all funny to me. my bread aint gon stop for this so i couldnt careless

cot damn thats disrespectful 

NOBODY IN THAT PICTURES FIRST LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH

 

[DownByLaw]

Originally Posted by 8H2i9Frs

oh my bad, forgot the logistics of us military personnel.
they were hired by the us...

Stop, you already look stupid for trying to pass that picture off.

  

 

[DownByLaw]

Originally Posted by 8H2i9Frs

oh my bad, forgot the logistics of us military personnel.
they were hired by the us...

Stop, you already look stupid for trying to pass that picture off.

  

 

[in yo nostril]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by In Yo Nostril

again, look at everything. The US and UK imposed and then routinely bombed targets in No Fly zones in Iraq for years. no fly zones that made up like 60 percent of the country. what exactly do you think the purpose of that was? to allow a new "leader from within" to come to power?

this was planned for years in advance. 9/11 just happened to fall in that time frame. not trying to be an @@$ towards you but you need to look at the bigger picture here.

There were many options laid out for Iraq and war being one of them too. I am not disagreeing with you.  It is a continuation of the First Gulf War which needed to finish off the job. I am saying that 9/11 enabled them to go to war a heck lot easier than if the tragedy did not happen. So without 9/11, how much easier was it going to be to get approval from the public and the approval of the electorate for a regime change for an all out war to topple Saddam ?

wouldnt have been hard considering we had already been bombing them routinely for 10 years. it didnt take much for desert storm to win public approval. even without 9/11, Iraq cockblocking UN inspectors and the "threat" of them producing chemical weapons would have been enough to fully invade. might not have pleased everyone in America, but it wouldnt have held GW back.

i know you think there were many options for Iraq. i dont, and thats what im trying to say. The US-UK coalition bombed/patrolled those regions on the north-south borders for one reason, to be able to quickly and easily move troops in once the invasion began. think about how much of that country was already"controlled" by allied forces before the invasion began.

 

[in yo nostril]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by In Yo Nostril

again, look at everything. The US and UK imposed and then routinely bombed targets in No Fly zones in Iraq for years. no fly zones that made up like 60 percent of the country. what exactly do you think the purpose of that was? to allow a new "leader from within" to come to power?

this was planned for years in advance. 9/11 just happened to fall in that time frame. not trying to be an @@$ towards you but you need to look at the bigger picture here.

There were many options laid out for Iraq and war being one of them too. I am not disagreeing with you.  It is a continuation of the First Gulf War which needed to finish off the job. I am saying that 9/11 enabled them to go to war a heck lot easier than if the tragedy did not happen. So without 9/11, how much easier was it going to be to get approval from the public and the approval of the electorate for a regime change for an all out war to topple Saddam ?

wouldnt have been hard considering we had already been bombing them routinely for 10 years. it didnt take much for desert storm to win public approval. even without 9/11, Iraq cockblocking UN inspectors and the "threat" of them producing chemical weapons would have been enough to fully invade. might not have pleased everyone in America, but it wouldnt have held GW back.

i know you think there were many options for Iraq. i dont, and thats what im trying to say. The US-UK coalition bombed/patrolled those regions on the north-south borders for one reason, to be able to quickly and easily move troops in once the invasion began. think about how much of that country was already"controlled" by allied forces before the invasion began.

 

[spacerace]

Originally Posted by KingRamey

Originally Posted by spacerace

Originally Posted by KingRamey

In my opinion, the "conspiracy theorists" come off as the thinkers in this thread. Even though some of the stuff may be a little crazy 

Some of you other guys seem to be the "followers" and come off a tad bit naive i.e. "Obama said it so it must be true

" "My government would NEVER lie to me! 

"
I'm not going to eat every word spewed out of someone's mouth just because it's that person. Nor am I a conspiracy theorist.

With that said, I'll just be over here making observations 

"Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see"

So because some of us chose to BLINDLY believe what the President of the United States said over the persons without any credentials or support who want us to believe in a incredible tale about how Obama lied about killing Osama simply for political gain, we are "naive followers" 

if you say so...

and yes, that was a long run on sentence. 

Fixed 
And to a certain extent (IMO) yes. Not you specifically but some of you seem to believe follow it no questions asked at all and that feels like complete naivety to me 

 

how am i perceiving this situation blindly if i see both side of the discussion and chose to side with the persons that are more credible and puts forth more evidence to back its claims up?
your naivete is believing in a conspiracy that holds no merit. 

like i stated earlier: skepticism is warranted in this situation, ignorance is not. 

 

[spacerace]

Originally Posted by KingRamey

Originally Posted by spacerace

Originally Posted by KingRamey

In my opinion, the "conspiracy theorists" come off as the thinkers in this thread. Even though some of the stuff may be a little crazy 

Some of you other guys seem to be the "followers" and come off a tad bit naive i.e. "Obama said it so it must be true

" "My government would NEVER lie to me! 

"
I'm not going to eat every word spewed out of someone's mouth just because it's that person. Nor am I a conspiracy theorist.

With that said, I'll just be over here making observations 

"Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see"

So because some of us chose to BLINDLY believe what the President of the United States said over the persons without any credentials or support who want us to believe in a incredible tale about how Obama lied about killing Osama simply for political gain, we are "naive followers" 

if you say so...

and yes, that was a long run on sentence. 

Fixed 
And to a certain extent (IMO) yes. Not you specifically but some of you seem to believe follow it no questions asked at all and that feels like complete naivety to me 

 

how am i perceiving this situation blindly if i see both side of the discussion and chose to side with the persons that are more credible and puts forth more evidence to back its claims up?
your naivete is believing in a conspiracy that holds no merit. 

like i stated earlier: skepticism is warranted in this situation, ignorance is not. 

 

[bboy1827]

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

Originally Posted by 8H2i9Frs

oh my bad, forgot the logistics of us military personnel.
they were hired by the us...

Stop, you already look stupid for trying to pass that picture off.

  

Umm, not saying I agree with him, but on that point he's actually right. Those were Columbian Military troops, at that time the United States was providing Columbia with guns, weapons, intelligence and training, not to fight Escobar, but in our effort in the "War on Drugs" and also to help the "democratic" Columbia government fight against the FARC, which was a communist movement spreading throughout Latin America at the time. So while those weren't US soilders, those were more thank Likely US guns in that pic, and what really counts? Either way, I don't think those pics were plastered all over the news, nor do I agree with the point he's trying to make...but the Columbian (Along with just about every other Latin American "democratic" nation)  military was hired by the US in an attempt to stop drugs and the spread of Communism...not asking you to believe me, but read the various books on the subject.

 

[bboy1827]

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

Originally Posted by 8H2i9Frs

oh my bad, forgot the logistics of us military personnel.
they were hired by the us...

Stop, you already look stupid for trying to pass that picture off.

  

Umm, not saying I agree with him, but on that point he's actually right. Those were Columbian Military troops, at that time the United States was providing Columbia with guns, weapons, intelligence and training, not to fight Escobar, but in our effort in the "War on Drugs" and also to help the "democratic" Columbia government fight against the FARC, which was a communist movement spreading throughout Latin America at the time. So while those weren't US soilders, those were more thank Likely US guns in that pic, and what really counts? Either way, I don't think those pics were plastered all over the news, nor do I agree with the point he's trying to make...but the Columbian (Along with just about every other Latin American "democratic" nation)  military was hired by the US in an attempt to stop drugs and the spread of Communism...not asking you to believe me, but read the various books on the subject.