More Lies Surround the Alleged Killing of OBL.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm not saying Bush is great, Obama is a liberal or anything even remotely close to that. What I'm attempting to do is support Paul's position of regardless which facts are presented, it's whom is presenting them that's making all the difference.

Had this raid been carried out by the Bush administration, it would've been "Secret stealth helicopters used to infiltrate a sovereign nation and a team of assassins being deployed to a private residence to murder non-combatants." Instead, what we end up with is, "Obama has the balls to get the job done." HUGE difference in perception there, wouldn't you agree?

No, I don't agree. Even the most ardent librul was never ever going to portray Bin Laden as a non combatant. The headlines would have been different, but I can't agree in any way at all that it would have been perceived or reported as anything but a good result, never mind if there are people who would rather have seen him captured not killed. I can argue about the relevance or not of making Bin Laden public enemy no1, and I most certainly do, but I don't argue with the outcome once he had been so designated. It's the same with Iraq. I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq or the justification for doing so. However, I would not have expected or desired a Democratic Government to simply leave Iraq after the fact. Once a course of aciton is in motion, it can be rather difficult to change direction. Guantanamo is yet another example. The mistake was not in capturing the prisoners, but in not giving them a proper designation, be they prisoner's of war or criminals. They have absolutely no status at all, that's the problem and one that a change in the WH can't solve. The end of Guantanamo will come when the last prisoner dies. It's not right, it is in fact very, very wrong, but I don't see a way out that makes sense for the US.

Edited May 5, 2011 by The Truth™

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's only a huge difference in perception if your means of perception relies on partisan assumptions. If some VJers are any indication, apparently quite a few Americans don't exactly that. Hey ho

[slim 1,525]

LOL. Then why are you coming after me on the other thread dude? I'm saying the same thing!

I'm catching friendly fire?

Coming after you? Wow. Some people on here are waaaaaay to sensitive.

I'll have to go back over there but I'm not sure why you think I'm coming after you.

Even the most ardent librul was never ever going to portray Bin Laden as a non combatant.

I wouldn't consider myself an ardent librul, but in this incident, bin Laden was a non-combatant. They woke the man up and he was standing there in his PJs for goodness sake.

Guantanamo is yet another example. The mistake was not in capturing the prisoners, but in not giving them a proper designation, be they prisoner's of war or criminals.

The proper designation has been given to them: detainees.

[Vi-Jay 218]

It's only a huge difference in perception if your means of perception relies on partisan assumptions. If some VJers are any indication, apparently quite a few Americans don't exactly that. Hey ho

Are you using your phone to post?

I'm not being sarcastic.

I ask because, some of your posts, seem to be missing some words, and your thought? Incoherent.

I kinda like how my innocent question turned out to be a backhand at the same time.

Karma is good to me sometimes!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think the man with many plans can be described as a non combatatant, in the sense that the term has been used to describe others.

Nor is "detainee" a legally recognised definition

Are you using your phone to post?

I'm not being sarcastic.

I ask because, some of your posts, seem to be missing some words, and your thought? Incoherent.

I kinda like how my innocent question turned out to be a backhand at the same time.

Karma is good to me sometimes!

I am, but I'm not sure why you think I'm replying to you.

[Vi-Jay 218]

I am, but I'm not sure why you think I'm replying to you.

I don't think your replying to me.

I read your posts, some I like, some I don't but, I still enjoy considering your perspective.

When it's coherent!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I'm not saying Bush is great, Obama is a liberal or anything even remotely close to that. What I'm attempting to do is support Paul's position of regardless which facts are presented, it's whom is presenting them that's making all the difference.

Had this raid been carried out by the Bush administration, it would've been "Secret stealth helicopters used to infiltrate a sovereign nation and a team of assassins being deployed to a private residence to murder non-combatants." Instead, what we end up with is, "Obama has the balls to get the job done." HUGE difference in perception there, wouldn't you agree?

Perfectly predictable which still does not remove credit where credit is due. Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again.

I do not believe UBL is dead because Obama says so. I believe he is dead because Hamas says so, and the Taliban says so and, as already pointed out,...no video from UBL. In fact I am, surprised the guy didn't MAKE a video just in such a case that could be released by his followers after he was killed. Maybe too hard to prove the date.

UBL is dead. Obama had the NADS to give the order to kill him (if necessary) Clinton did not when he could have. Bush never had the chance.

The work was done by the SEALS and those are the guys with the biggest and hairiest NADS, but the order to proceed came from Obama. get over it. Everyone else will, I doubt it will have any affect on next year's election.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think your replying to me.

I read your posts, some I like, some I don't but, I still enjoy considering your perspective.

When it's coherent!

Noted. While you're at it you should take look at your use of grammar and punctuation. In particular, you should tighten up your use of the comma. As we know from the endless threads about the constitution, a misplaced comma can cause no end of headaches.

Edited to add - I'd fix the 'your' when you aren't referring to the possessive.

Edited May 5, 2011 by fishdude

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Noted. While you're at it you should take look at your use of grammar and punctuation. In particular, you should tighten up your use of the comma. As we know from the endless threads about the constitution, a misplaced comma can cause no end of headaches.

The headaches were ended in June 2008. Read Heller vs. District of Columbia.

[B_J 2,752]

No, I don't agree. Even the most ardent librul was never ever going to portray Bin Laden as a non combatant. The headlines would have been different, but I can't agree in any way at all that it would have been perceived or reported as anything but a good result, never mind if there are people who would rather have seen him captured not killed. I can argue about the relevance or not of making Bin Laden public enemy no1, and I most certainly do, but I don't argue with the outcome once he had been so designated. It's the same with Iraq. I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq or the justification for doing so. However, I would not have expected or desired a Democratic Government to simply leave Iraq after the fact. Once a course of aciton is in motion, it can be rather difficult to change direction. Guantanamo is yet another example. The mistake was not in capturing the prisoners, but in not giving them a proper designation, be they prisoner's of war or criminals. They have absolutely no status at all, that's the problem and one that a change in the WH can't solve. The end of Guantanamo will come when the last prisoner dies. It's not right, it is in fact very, very wrong, but I don't see a way out that makes sense for the US.

Just look at the Pelosi quotes concerning bin Laden. She totally changes her opinion depending on who is President.

Pelosi

[Vi-Jay 218]

Noted. While you're at it you should take look at your use of grammar and punctuation. In particular, you should tighten up your use of the comma. As we know from the endless threads about the constitution, a misplaced comma can cause no end of headaches.

Edited to add - I'd fix the 'your' when you aren't referring to the possessive.

Yes. I agree.

I often make that mistake; your / you're. It comes from typing fast, relying on secretary's and spell check for too many years.

Commas? Ditto.

I will make an effort to correct both. Thanks!

Constitution threads?

Edited May 5, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[_Simpson_ 250]

I could give a ** less who got the job done. It's done. I would have been just as happy if it was Bush. In fact, I wish it had been Bush, back in 2001. It would have carried much more weight with the terrorist world if he had been waxed right after September 11th.

I like how Bush has chosen to stay out of this and how its been handled by the media. I also think the media has been fair in giving Bush credit. That said we all know who the real heroes are though.

Edited May 5, 2011 by _Simpson_

[slim 1,525]

I don't think the man with many plans can be described as a non combatatant, in the sense that the term has been used to describe others.

Used by whom?

Since you're a legal expert, perhaps you can tell me the appropriate term for an unarmed man standing in the bedroom of his house wearing his pajamas.

Nor is "detainee" a legally recognised definition

It may not be recognised, but it is most certainly recognized.

the order to proceed came from Obama. get over it. Everyone else will, I doubt it will have any affect on next year's election.

I applaud the order and fully support the commander in chief in regards to this incident. Everyone else already has. What very few of us on here are saying is not that we disagree with the order or the action itself, we disagree with the hypocrisy in which it's being supported. Had this happened under Bush, we'd be seeing a call for impeachment and probably a war crimes trial at the Hague or something like that.

And of course it'll have no effect on the election. It, like everything else, will be forgotten too soon. "Dancing with the Stars is on tonight!"

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I like how Bush has chosen to stay out of this and how its been handled by the media. I also think the media has been fair in giving Bush credit. That said we all know who the real heroes are though.

Quite true, the real heroes are the ones that executed the mission.

[slim 1,525]

Quite true, the real heroes are the ones that executed the mission.

What about those of us who paid for it? Can't we claim some credit too?

I'd like something for my 81 Billion dollars!