More Lies Surround the Alleged Killing of OBL.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Can you imagine if the Mexican military choppered commandos into Texas to execute a drug lord? That wouldn't be legal, would it? Or would that be OK with you guys since we don't like drug lords either?

If we were hiding that individual, I don't think I'd complain. Of course, we wouldn't that.

[^_^ 5,021]

If we were hiding that individual, I don't think I'd complain. Of course, we wouldn't that.

You know, it is widely believed that there are many US government officials who are corrupt and in bed with the cartels.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know, it is widely believed that there are many US government officials who are corrupt and in bed with the cartels.

They are. That's why we keep drugs illegal. If we were to legalize them, the cartels would go bust. Overnight. But hiding a known mass murderer from the nation that is seeking that offender we do not. The Pakistanis have done just that. So, ** them.

[Peikko 1,575]

What I'm saying is someone - regardless of their alleged affiliations - who is unarmed typically cannot be eliminated as a combatant.

For every legality against it, there's one authorizing it so it's kind of a moot point. That being said, the hypocrisy of certain posters - and people in America as a whole - is rampant.

People are saying it's just fine for our military special forces to invade a sovereign foreign country, infiltrate a private residence in the dark of night, and shoot unarmed people. "It's OK because we don't like the people they shot." When we allow our government to do things such as this, we start down a slippery slope in which the rule of law becomes acceptable to break. Is that really what we want to do? Is that really what you folks are celebrating?

Who said he was a non hostile civilian?

Which party do I belong to? You keep saying I have partisan mindset. Well, which party?

You folks? I am not 'you folks' and I haven't done any celebrating. Some people have been delighted over this turn of events, some satisfied and some accepting. The differences in opinion are not partisan at all no matter how obstinately you stick to your belief that it is.

[_Simpson_ 250]

While I disagree with Michael Moore on pretty much everything. He's the only person on the left, that I'm aware of, that has not changed his position with the change in Presidents.

Michael Moore

Yup, consistently crazy.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Second warning - another two posts containing personal attacks have been removed. Personal attacks violate the Terms of Service for Visa Journey and are unacceptable. Stick to discussing the topic, not the poster.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Kathryn41

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Did I miss anything good? Who was attacking who?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm no expert on Pakistani law, but I'm pretty sure choppering into someone's private compound in the middle of the night, executing them and then stealing all their technological equipment is illegal. Not to mention snatching a body and dumping it into the sea.

Our military members are beholden to follow local law while in foreign countries. Doesn't sound like they did that in this instance.

Now, I'm pretty sure they followed official orders but since the US kind of forgot to inform the Pakistanis about it, what's that say about the legality of the mission?

Can you imagine if the Mexican military choppered commandos into Texas to execute a drug lord? That wouldn't be legal, would it? Or would that be OK with you guys since we don't like drug lords either?

Now who's making assumptions?

Also, I'm noting that it's now acceptable to say "You stupid." Way to keep it classy!

Slim, you are saying, quite plainly, that opinions over bin ladens killing differ because obama, rather than bush is in the white house. *that* is pure assumption, because you seem to believe that people here have some emotional investment in obama. It's a baseless argument

[Vi-Jay 218]

Did I miss anything good? Who was attacking who?

I'm pretty sure it was "fishdude" and maybe "slim".

Last I saw, "fishdude" wrote a post and he "qualified" "slim's" intelligence.

That post is gone.

but Kathryn missed 1.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Zero Sum 305]

They are. That's why we keep drugs illegal. If we were to legalize them, the cartels would go bust. Overnight. But hiding a known mass murderer from the nation that is seeking that offender we do not. The Pakistanis have done just that. So, ** them.

Ohh... I shiver at the appropriate use of context here.

[slim 1,525]

If we were hiding that individual, I don't think I'd complain. Of course, we wouldn't that.

We'd definitely let a foreign military's commandos come in and kill our citizens. - If Obama said it was OK.

They are. That's why we keep drugs illegal. If we were to legalize them, the cartels would go bust. Overnight. But hiding a known mass murderer from the nation that is seeking that offender we do not. The Pakistanis have done just that. So, ** them.

They're claiming they didn't know. We claimed a nation had weapons of mass destruction. Is there really a difference?

The differences in opinion are not partisan

Slim, you are saying, quite plainly, that opinions over bin ladens killing differ because obama, rather than bush is in the white house. *that* is pure assumption, because you seem to believe that people here have some emotional investment in obama. It's a baseless argument

Read The Truth's quote above.

I'm pretty sure it was "fishdude" and maybe "slim".

To my knowledge, I've never had a topic removed because of little girl stuff. I do just what the mod said - stick to the topic at hand, not attack the person. It's always been kind of suspect to me that certain folks here on VJ (who are not partisan) resort to name calling after the third or fourth time of, "NO, you're wrong!"

Last I saw, "fishdude" wrote a post and he "qualified" "slim's" intelligence.

It's funny to me how I'm the stupid one yet I'm not the one that resorts to behaving like a little girl when I lose an argument.

That post is gone.

but Kathryn missed 1.

Yeah, mods are supposed to remove posts quoting the TOS violations as well. For the record, I don't think someone calling me stupid is really much of a violation, but like international law and sovereignty you can't just follow the rules some of the time. Well, not unless Obama is president.

[Peikko 1,575]

We'd definitely let a foreign military's commandos come in and kill our citizens. - If Obama said it was OK.

They're claiming they didn't know. We claimed a nation had weapons of mass destruction. Is there really a difference?

Read The Truth's quote above.

To my knowledge, I've never had a topic removed because of little girl stuff. I do just what the mod said - stick to the topic at hand, not attack the person. It's always been kind of suspect to me that certain folks here on VJ (who are not partisan) resort to name calling after the third or fourth time of, "NO, you're wrong!"

It's funny to me how I'm the stupid one yet I'm not the one that resorts to behaving like a little girl when I lose an argument.

Yeah, mods are supposed to remove posts quoting the TOS violations as well. For the record, I don't think someone calling me stupid is really much of a violation, but like international law and sovereignty you can't just follow the rules some of the time. Well, not unless Obama is president.

I was telling you that the differences of opinion aren't partisan, you quite plainly are trying to portray them as though they are. In fact the only reason you got on to the whole bizarre 'Bin Laden as innocent non combatant in pajamas' malarkey was in your attempt to show how libruls (not sure if you mean actual liberal politicians as per the US definition of Liberal, or talking head liberals in the media, or merely those you perceive to be libruls on VJ - clarity is not your strong suit) would have made some song and dance about how wrong it was for the US to kill Bin Laden had it happened under Bush while they are dancing on his grave because it happened under Obama. Your thinking is very much clouded by this attempt to portray people's reaction to this event as purely partisan.

[Vi-Jay 218]

It's funny to me how I'm the stupid one yet I'm not the one that resorts to behaving like a little girl when I lose an argument.

I know you're busy debating but, when you have a moment.

Would you mind explaining how a "little girl" behaves when she loses an argument?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Slim - given your penchant for extravagant assumption, I don't think anyone else need participate in a thread when you post. You may as well talk to yourself.

[slim 1,525]

I was telling you that the differences of opinion aren't partisan, you quite plainly are trying to portray them as though they are. In fact the only reason you got on to the whole bizarre 'Bin Laden as innocent non combatant in pajamas' malarkey was in your attempt to show how libruls (not sure if you mean actual liberal politicians as per the US definition of Liberal, or talking head liberals in the media, or merely those you perceive to be libruls on VJ - clarity is not your strong suit) would have made some song and dance about how wrong it was for the US to kill Bin Laden had it happened under Bush while they are dancing on his grave because it happened under Obama. Your thinking is very much clouded by this attempt to portray people's reaction to this event as purely partisan.

Let me be perfectly clear - many of you here on VJ are hypocrites. Parties and leanings aside you're all too often saying, "It's OK for the government to do this (even though it's clearly illegal) because we need them to."

In short, we don't need the governmnent to do much at all. Especially when it's illegal!

I know you're busy debating but, when you have a moment.

Would you mind explaining how a "little girl" behaves when she loses an argument?

Typically there's some foot stomping, arms crossed, pouty lips and a fake tear or two followed by some name calling. Since this is a virtual forum, we don't see a lot of the first few (except when someone UNLEASHES ON US THE POWER OF ALL CAPS!) so we're typically left with just the name calling.

Slim - given your penchant for extravagant assumption, I don't think anyone else need participate in a thread when you post. You may as well talk to yourself.

I often feel like I'm talking to myself and that's OK with me because eventually someone comes along and says, "Hey, that crazy nut, Slim, has been talking that crazy stuff for years. I think I'm finally ready to listen. I hate to admit it, but he may've been right."

You don't have to believe me if you don't want to. I sincerely hope we continue down the path of SUVs to McDonalds at Wal-Mart and we never stray from "'Merica, f'k yeah" continuing to live out our days in blissful ignorance being fat, dumb and happy. But, the way I see it, the die is cast. It's not a question of if it's going to happen, but when it's going to happen.

How's that for an extravagent assumption?