Revenge is a dish best served cold Osama!!!

[TRF_Cymro]

Apparently (though I read this on the day so other information might have been released by now) the helicopter didn't crash, it had a mechanical failure so they had to land it - so it wouldn't have been a crash/explosion, just a helicopter landing nearby

Or that :lol:

 

[candybum]

Oh that clears that up somewhat Just that some of the info changes every time i hear it.

 

[Teh Mite]

It's all ******** I'm telling you. Obama now is the president who took care of the Osama issue in a time when he and Trump are taking the **** off eachother before elections. ( Politics) We're not even sure it's Osama. In Belgium there are lots of articles about the pictures being photoshoped. On a side note, why would you shoot an unarmed men, just catch him and bring him to court so the entire world can see it instead of acting all suspicous about it.

http://twitter.com/#!/OldHoborn/status/65460074381979648

WARNING: Do not look if you are squeamish or easily offended. Or have a fear of ketchup.

 

[gingergenius]

So you therefore believe that this justifies the 7/7 and 9/11 terrorist acts. You believe that Bin Laden and his cronies were wholly justified in planning and carrying out those acts? I hope not.

And what about Somalia, and Tunisia, and Kenya. They weren't part of the Iraq Coalition, yet their citizens were murdered in bomb attacks carried out by Al Queda terrorists. How do you account for that?

We've gone off on such a tangent that you've missed the initial arguments I was making. There's a theme running through all my posts on this topic, and that's that violence is never justified in any case.

What I do think is that

1) With my British hat on, a terrorist attack on the USA is their problem not ours. I don't have any links to the USA, and I don't subscribe to their way of life. We became involved in two wars that have left us open to terrorist attacks in our own countries, cost us billions in supporting the army and counter-terrorism, and lost us hundreds of soldiers. Had we not been involved, the soldiers would still be alive, the 50 odd casualties from 7/7 would still be alive, and the money could have been spent on other things like healthcare, foreign aid etc which would mean a lot more people would still be alive.

2) With my human hat on, I recognise that bin Laden etc. are international criminals and therefore need to be stopped. Like domestic criminals are amongst us and must be found by solid detective/ undercover work, so the international criminal is amongst us and must be found by Intelligence Services. While the Taliban and Hussein may have run regimes distasteful to my, yours and others' values, the fact remains that if they hadn't been invaded then the hundreds of thousands of people who died as a result would still be alive. And bin Laden would still have been found by good police-work, and not by a tank accidentally crashing into his secret lair.

And as for Somalia, Tunisia and Kenya... what's your point? I wasn't saying the only reason al-Qaeda launch terrorist attacks is because of Iraq; I was saying that the only attack in Britain was because of Iraq. And if you don't believe me, read the statements of the bombers beforehand - where they specifically state that the attacks are a punishment for the British government's foreign policy, at a time when the Blair government had just been re-elected (and therefore it could be argued that the foreign policy had the blessing of the British people).

I find it incredible how so many people fail to grasp that human life is human life, and just because several thousand Americans were murdered on 9/11, does not justify actions that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more non-Americans whether they were killed by insurgents, soldiers or whoever. If you ever wanted an example of 'an eye for an eye will make the world blind', here you go.

 

[nickdnz]

We've gone off on such a tangent that you've missed the initial arguments I was making. There's a theme running through all my posts on this topic, and that's that violence is never justified in any case.

I find it incredible how so many people fail to grasp that human life is human life, and just because several thousand Americans were murdered on 9/11, does not justify actions that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more non-Americans whether they were killed by insurgents, soldiers or whoever. If you ever wanted an example of 'an eye for an eye will make the world blind', here you go.

I understand to what you are saying, but I do not subscribe to it. I think a majority of people here would agree that the US should not have entered Iraq, and the reasons given for doing so were not directly linked to Bin Laden but Weapons of Mass Destruction. It turned out that there were none, and it is seen as a huge blunder, with the effect of over throwing a cruel dictatorship, but at the cost of American forign relationships and the lives of innocents.

Regardless, the killing of Osama Bin Laden did need to be done. No one is claiming that the United States is this altruistic bringer of peace, however their involvement in killing the worlds most wanted terrorist is hardly any reason to condemn them. It's very easy to say things along the lines of "violence is never the answer", however that's clearly not the case. Think about how different the world would be, if taking the higher road never involved violence, if no one ever opposed terrorists, murderers and fascists. Sure there wouldn't be any wars, but there would be plenty of slaughters. I'm not saying that killing is right, but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils, when the other parties fundamental goal, is your erradication.

In terms of Britain going into Iraq, I can see why you and many other didn't want it. I guess the only thinking is than if Britain found themselves in need of allies, they wouldn't be in short supply.

 

[Amobokoboko]

The reason for entering Iraq was oil.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

http://twitter.com/#!/OldHoborn/status/65460074381979648

WARNING: Do not look if you are squeamish or easily offended. Or have a fear of ketchup.

Image has been removed.

 

[TNT88]

There are currently NO images of Osama dead circulating the internet. All those ones are faked and photoshopped. In fact, 90% of the ones i have seen, have been circulating the net for years, just do a google search for these images and you will find all the ones circulating facebook and such have been posted on blogs for years now.

 

[TNT88]

It's all ******** I'm telling you. Obama now is the president who took care of the Osama issue in a time when he and Trump are taking the **** off eachother before elections. ( Politics) We're not even sure it's Osama. In Belgium there are lots of articles about the pictures being photoshoped. On a side note, why would you shoot an unarmed men, just catch him and bring him to court so the entire world can see it instead of acting all suspicous about it.

The USA's claims can easily be falsified. Osama, his wife, his son or anyone else supposedly killed in that raid just has to put out a video on youtube confirming none of the events ever occurred.

The USA haven't provided much evidence as of yet, but it's only been a few days. And with such easily falsifiable claims you would think if they are lying someone would have come out by now.

 

[gingergenius]

The USA's claims can easily be falsified. Osama, his wife, his son or anyone else supposedly killed in that raid just has to put out a video on youtube confirming none of the events ever occurred.

The USA haven't provided much evidence as of yet, but it's only been a few days. And with such easily falsifiable claims you would think if they are lying someone would have come out by now.

but do you really think the USA would risk the global embarrassment of bin Laden making a video saying 'hahahha I'm still alive'???? No, I think we can be pretty sure he's dead.

The only possible conspiracy theory is that he died naturally before, and the USA knew this, and they staged this just to take the glory of killing him. But that's pretty far-fetched too.

 

[Seaton]

We've gone off on such a tangent that you've missed the initial arguments I was making. There's a theme running through all my posts on this topic, and that's that violence is never justified in any case.

What I do think is that

1) With my British hat on, a terrorist attack on the USA is their problem not ours. I don't have any links to the USA, and I don't subscribe to their way of life. We became involved in two wars that have left us open to terrorist attacks in our own countries, cost us billions in supporting the army and counter-terrorism, and lost us hundreds of soldiers. Had we not been involved, the soldiers would still be alive, the 50 odd casualties from 7/7 would still be alive, and the money could have been spent on other things like healthcare, foreign aid etc which would mean a lot more people would still be alive.

2) With my human hat on, I recognise that bin Laden etc. are international criminals and therefore need to be stopped. Like domestic criminals are amongst us and must be found by solid detective/ undercover work, so the international criminal is amongst us and must be found by Intelligence Services. While the Taliban and Hussein may have run regimes distasteful to my, yours and others' values, the fact remains that if they hadn't been invaded then the hundreds of thousands of people who died as a result would still be alive. And bin Laden would still have been found by good police-work, and not by a tank accidentally crashing into his secret lair.

And as for Somalia, Tunisia and Kenya... what's your point? I wasn't saying the only reason al-Qaeda launch terrorist attacks is because of Iraq; I was saying that the only attack in Britain was because of Iraq. And if you don't believe me, read the statements of the bombers beforehand - where they specifically state that the attacks are a punishment for the British government's foreign policy, at a time when the Blair government had just been re-elected (and therefore it could be argued that the foreign policy had the blessing of the British people).

I find it incredible how so many people fail to grasp that human life is human life, and just because several thousand Americans were murdered on 9/11, does not justify actions that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more non-Americans whether they were killed by insurgents, soldiers or whoever. If you ever wanted an example of 'an eye for an eye will make the world blind', here you go.

Would you have prefered it if the Britsh/ French governments sat with their hands under their @rses when Hitler invaded Poland? Mind their 'little war' had no immediate consequences for us, but it would have been highly unlikely for the Nazis not to go after the UK after it was finished with France, I don't what would have been worse, living under the tyranny of the Nazis or living 'safe' in the knowledge that we had survived, whilst the rest of Europe and most other cultures would have been subject to the Final Solution.

I bet that ethnic group that lives in the north of Iraq are mightily happy that the Americans/ Brits came in, after all they were the test subjects for Saddam Hussiens chemical weapons (which are bloody weapons of mass destruction, the one missile wiped out the population of a small town FFS). I really doubt that the whole reason they went in there was for oil, they have their own supplies which could have been developed or even privatised at a portion of the cost of even the initial invasion and conflict ( I'm not including the occupation because otherwise people say that they couldn't predict the continued resistance.)
I don't think most Americans are the brightest of people, but I doubt a combination of some of the most powerful organisations on earth could perform the screw up mentioned. ( That said I do believe they would have factored in the oil when making decisions about Iraq)

 

[TNT88]

but do you really think the USA would risk the global embarrassment of bin Laden making a video saying 'hahahha I'm still alive'???? No, I think we can be pretty sure he's dead.

The only possible conspiracy theory is that he died naturally before, and the USA knew this, and they staged this just to take the glory of killing him. But that's pretty far-fetched too.

I don't think you read my post correctly.

I am saying that the USA's claims about Osama's death are easy to falsify. So if Osama didn't get killed last week, we would probably already know about it. Furthermore, all those people saying it didn't happen can easily prove the US government wrong by finding any one of the people supposedly killed in that building.

The fact is they haven't come close to proving the US government wrong yet, even though it shouldn't be a hard thing to do if the US are lying.

 

[lucky number 7]

5 terror suspects arrested after taking photos recording and acting suspiciously around selafield nuclear power plant..

 

[TNT88]

5 terror suspects arrested after taking photos recording and acting suspiciously around selafield nuclear power plant..

I guess they didn't watch this video

 

[gingergenius]

Would you have prefered it if the Britsh/ French governments sat with their hands under their @rses when Hitler invaded Poland? Mind their 'little war' had no immediate consequences for us, but it would have been highly unlikely for the Nazis not to go after the UK after it was finished with France, I don't what would have been worse, living under the tyranny of the Nazis or living 'safe' in the knowledge that we had survived, whilst the rest of Europe and most other cultures would have been subject to the Final Solution.

I bet that ethnic group that lives in the north of Iraq are mightily happy that the Americans/ Brits came in, after all they were the test subjects for Saddam Hussiens chemical weapons (which are bloody weapons of mass destruction, the one missile wiped out the population of a small town FFS). I really doubt that the whole reason they went in there was for oil, they have their own supplies which could have been developed or even privatised at a portion of the cost of even the initial invasion and conflict ( I'm not including the occupation because otherwise people say that they couldn't predict the continued resistance.)
I don't think most Americans are the brightest of people, but I doubt a combination of some of the most powerful organisations on earth could perform the screw up mentioned. ( That said I do believe they would have factored in the oil when making decisions about Iraq)

 

[nickdnz]

Not really a valid form of rebuttle..

 

[gingergenius]

I fail to see how referencing a political situation from the 1930s, when

a) The world was very different, and
b) The threat was an entire nation just across the sea who we (UK) had only just been to war with,

is in any way relevant to al-Qaeda. I thought it was a convention when arguing sensibly not to use Reductio Ad Hitlerum logic.

 

[lucky number 7]

Well the current threat posed by terrorists to UK and the US are now in their nations to be fair..the threat posed by nuclear bombs/warfare, suicide bombings and other horrendous acts are just as dangerous if not more than a military invasion by large groups of soldiers.

Its the same world in my opinion just more politically correct now.

 

[Teh Mite]

http://twitter.com/#!/OldHoborn/status/65460074381979648

WARNING: Do not look if you are squeamish or easily offended. Or have a fear of ketchup.

Image has been removed.

Try this one, carries the same warnings.

http://twitter.com/#!/OldHoborn/statuses/65857902086332416

 

[smartcooky]

We've gone off on such a tangent that you've missed the initial arguments I was making. There's a theme running through all my posts on this topic, and that's that violence is never justified in any case.

Have a wee think about the freedoms you (and indeed all of us) have in making these statements on this forum.

If Winston Churchill and other Allied Leaders had followed your "violence is never justified in any case" philosophy in 1939-45 (the way Neville Chamberlain tried), then we would not have the freedoms to say the things that we do.

We can all thank our lucky stars they understood that sometimes, violence DOES need to be met with violence!