More Lies Surround the Alleged Killing of OBL.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

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!

We paid for it, but they are the heroes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Slim, the guy was living in a compound with armed men and had a treasure trove of information relating to the organisation of Al Qaeda and it's plans for terrorist attacks. He was caught with his pants down certainly, but to call the guy a noncombatant is utterly laughable.

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

That's circular logic. Terms relating to a person's status are grounded in legal terminology, not semantics from the dictionary.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Once again, this is a perception you have because your entire frame of reference for the opinions of others is derived from partisan preconceptions. You want to believe there's hypocrisy at work and that people's opinions are driven by who occupies the White House, so naturally you do. The correct phrase for this is 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. It's nothing new. In fact, it's a bit of a cliche.

It seems that when faced with a situation that isn't terribly controversial, some USC's seem to have an almost pathological need to manufacture controversy.

Edited May 5, 2011 by fishdude

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

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.

The proper designation has been given to them: detainees.

Then you had better revisit your idea of what a non-combatant is. The aim of the mission was to render a terrorist suspect inoperable = the man labelled public enemy No 1 by the US government under President Bush no less and he was the one and only target of the operation. With or without arms or clothes and no matter what room in the house he was standing in, he was a combatant, the enemy combatant sought in the mission.

Of course, we could redefine all enemies as 'non combatant' as soon as they take off their day clothes and head up the wooden hill, but that is a really odd definition even for you. I can really see that working well for our soldiers in Afghanistan as they struggle to cope with insurgency and guerrilla tactics. "Time to go home now lads, the insurgents are in their PJ's and must now be considered non-combatant until day break" Yes, I can totally see how that would work out.

The normal definition of combatant is one who has declared aggressive intent, Bin Laden has done that against America and the American military in spades. No Slim, even the weirdest wing nut can't spin this as the murder of a non-combatant.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

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!"

The hypocrisy is a good thing Slim, it points out the hypocrisy. You are correct of course, about what they would have said about Bush had he done it. So what? Does anyone question this?

Obama's approval ratings, in the aftermath of killing UBL have "soared" to 52% and will drop bacl to where they were in a few weeks. The reason that something gets called an "october Surprise" is because it happens in October...2012. He is a year and a half too early to help himself in the election.

[Peikko 1,575]

The hypocrisy is a good thing Slim, it points out the hypocrisy. You are correct of course, about what they would have said about Bush had he done it. So what? Does anyone question this?

Obama's approval ratings, in the aftermath of killing UBL have "soared" to 52% and will drop bacl to where they were in a few weeks. The reason that something gets called an "october Surprise" is because it happens in October...2012. He is a year and a half too early to help himself in the election.

Was Obama being a hypocrite when he gave the order for the mission to go ahead? Clearly, he could not have ordered the mission to go ahead without giving the SEAL's the go ahead to kill Bin Laden if that became expedient so we know when he gave the order that there was a possibility, even a probability that Bin Laden would be killed, Obama knew that so in that light, was he acting hypocritically or in accordance with stated Democratic policy?

Edited May 6, 2011 by The Truth™

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Was Obama being a hypocrite when he gave the order for the mission to go ahead? Clearly, he could not have ordered the mission to go ahead without giving the SEAL's the go ahead to kill Bin Laden if that became expedient so we know when he gave the order that there was a possibility, even a probability that Bin Laden would be killed, Obama knew that so in that light, was he acting hypocritically or in accordance with stated Democratic policy?

What?

I am not talking about Obama. Obama did good. I am talking about the hypocrisy of people that support everything Obama does and hated anything Bush did. I do not like Obama and I will not vote for him, ever. Killing Bin Laden was a good thing.

[_Simpson_ 250]

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

Exactly.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

What?

I am not talking about Obama. Obama did good. I am talking about the hypocrisy of people that support everything Obama does and hated anything Bush did. I do not like Obama and I will not vote for him, ever. Killing Bin Laden was a good thing.

Who are you voting for, Trump or Palin?

[Peikko 1,575]

What?

I am not talking about Obama. Obama did good. I am talking about the hypocrisy of people that support everything Obama does and hated anything Bush did. I do not like Obama and I will not vote for him, ever. Killing Bin Laden was a good thing.

Right, so if killing Bin Laden is a good thing, how come it can't be a good thing no matter what party you support or if you support none at all? Or is it only allowed to be a good thing if you supported the entirety of Bush foreign policy?

Furthermore I don't know anyone who supports 'everything' Obama does and also hated everything Bush did - of for that matter vice versa. Who are these people?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Who are you voting for, Trump or Palin?

Gary's vote goes to Ron Paul. Whether he's on the ballot or not.

[Peikko 1,575]

I suspect that Gary hasn't participated in a presidential election since the Gipper left office. Clearly he doesn't need to because taking part in elections is less important than carrying a concealed weapon in establishing citizen rights and responsibilities as free citizens.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What?

I am not talking about Obama. Obama did good. I am talking about the hypocrisy of people that support everything Obama does and hated anything Bush did. I do not like Obama and I will not vote for him, ever. Killing Bin Laden was a good thing.

Gary, for someone who counts himself as an "amused" observer, detached from mainstream politics, you are surprisingly partisan. Why?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Gary's vote goes to Ron Paul. Whether he's on the ballot or not.

Awesome.

[slim 1,530]

Slim, the guy was living in a compound with armed men

Men or man?

Keep in mind also that many people in America live in compounds with armed men. I personally live in a house that's fenced off and has armed men. Should the SEALs come kill us too?

and had a treasure trove of information relating to the organisation of Al Qaeda and it's plans for terrorist attacks.

So, you can shoot someone for carrying information?

He was caught with his pants down certainly, but to call the guy a noncombatant is utterly laughable.

Laughable? I'm telling you, if Bush would've ordered the killing of an unarmed man, nobody would be laughing.

That's circular logic. Terms relating to a person's status are grounded in legal terminology, not semantics from the dictionary.

Perhaps you could post a link to where it says unarmed people should be shot on sight.

And while you're at it, Mr. attorney, why did they shoot the wife in the leg but the prinicple in the chest and head?

Once again, this is a perception you have because your entire frame of reference for the opinions of others is derived from partisan preconceptions.

If that's true, which part do I fall into? Which side of the aisle am I sitting on?

You want to believe there's hypocrisy at work and that people's opinions are driven by who occupies the White House, so naturally you do. The correct phrase for this is 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. It's nothing new. In fact, it's a bit of a cliche.

It seems that when faced with a situation that isn't terribly controversial, some USC's seem to have an almost pathological need to manufacture controversy.

The only reason it's not controversial is because of who's in office. That is my point. That was Paul's point. That is what most of you are denying.

Then you had better revisit your idea of what a non-combatant is. The aim of the mission was to render a terrorist suspect inoperable

So it doesn't matter if he was armed or not? The ROE for this mission dictated he could be shot on sight? And if so, how is that not a combat action? And if it is a combat action, doesn't Pakistan have all rights to retaliate against us?

I suspect that Gary hasn't participated in a presidential election since the Gipper left office. Clearly he doesn't need to because taking part in elections is less important than carrying a concealed weapon in establishing citizen rights and responsibilities as free citizens.

How can you vote if you're not allowed to carry your gun into a polling place?

This has always confused me a little bit. You're going to take part in an election but you can't exercise your rights while doing so. Hmmmmmm.....