LGF Poll: Should Osama Bin Laden Pix Be Released?
Poll • Views: 23,446
287 comments
1 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 11:17:04am |
I vote ‘not sure’, because while I sure want to see them, I assume that they’re not being released on the advice of CIA analysts and folks like that, who know more about the possible outcomes than I do.
| 3 |
HappyWarrior Wed, May 4, 2011 11:17:39am |
re: #1 SanFranciscoZionist
I vote ‘not sure’, because while I sure want to see them, I assume that they’re not being released on the advice of CIA analysts and folks like that, who know more about the possible outcomes than I do.
This
| 4 |
windsagio Wed, May 4, 2011 11:17:42am |
terrorist fodder >
or alternatively revenge death porn.
Either thing we don’t need.
| 5 |
Kragar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:18:12am |
The asshole is dead. He lived just long enough to see his dreams of a new Caliphate crumble to dust as popular democratic revolutions take hold. Dump him in the dustbin of history and move along.
| 6 |
Vicious Babushka Wed, May 4, 2011 11:18:45am |
I don’t see any positive result from releasing the pics.
| 7 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Wed, May 4, 2011 11:19:53am |
If you release the photos they will claim forgeries.
| 8 |
Vicious Babushka Wed, May 4, 2011 11:20:14am |
| 9 |
Four More Tears Wed, May 4, 2011 11:21:14am |
| 10 |
Jack Burton Wed, May 4, 2011 11:21:18am |
re: #5 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
The asshole is dead. He lived just long enough to see his dreams of a new Caliphate crumble to dust as popular democratic revolutions take hold. Dump him in the dustbin of history and move along.
THIS.
QFT, and all that stuff.
| 11 |
HappyWarrior Wed, May 4, 2011 11:21:27am |
Like SFZ, I’d like to see the photos out of sheer curiosty for the same reason I watched the leaked video of saddam Hussein’s execution. However, I trust the policymakers one way or the other here. And it’s been said already but no photos are going to make the conspiracy nuts happy so why try to placate em?
| 12 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:21:37am |
I voted not sure
I would like to see them, but blow back is a bitch in the parts of the world we are fighting in, and seeing his pictures is not worth having somebody get a case of the ass and making an IED that blows up our people, or going apeshit at a base and shooting 5 or 6 NATO personnel.
| 13 |
windsagio Wed, May 4, 2011 11:22:18am |
If I may ask, why do people want to see them so much anyways? (like in this circle I mean)
| 15 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Wed, May 4, 2011 11:23:56am |
re: #13 windsagio
If I may ask, why do people want to see them so much anyways? (like in this circle I mean)
I don’t, but I think I would go and look anyway, because human curiosity is too strong.
| 16 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, May 4, 2011 11:24:08am |
re: #5 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Okay. I take my yes vote back.
(plus? I’ve seen it *thanks Charles*)
| 17 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 11:24:18am |
re: #12 celticdragon
I voted not sure
I would like to see them, but blow back is a bitch in the parts of the world we are fighting in, and seeing his pictures is not worth having somebody get a case of the ass and making an IED that blows up our people, or going apeshit at a base and shooting 5 or 6 NATO personnel.
Exactly my thoughts, my morbid curiosity is not worth it in the least. I voted not sure because if the POTUS had good reasons for releasing, I wouldn’t be opposed. “Above my pay grade” might have been a better choice for me.
| 18 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, May 4, 2011 11:24:59am |
OT… watching “The Last Waltz”.
Damn, those guys were good.
| 19 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:25:18am |
re: #13 windsagio
If I may ask, why do people want to see them so much anyways? (like in this circle I mean)
It satisfies a deep human need to connect with the conclusion of an important event. It simply feels more real to you when you can see it. (This also has to do with why you are more likely to have a car accident when talking on a cell phone, even if it is hands-free. It takes far more concentration power in your mind to imagine the person you are talking to on a phone, and that leaves less for driving.)
| 20 |
HappyWarrior Wed, May 4, 2011 11:25:38am |
re: #13 windsagio
If I may ask, why do people want to see them so much anyways? (like in this circle I mean)
morbid curiousity. I believe the President but I just would like to see them. I am not going to get worked up over not seeing them though. The decision not to release the photos doesn’t change my mind one way or the other abotu the president’s actions.
| 21 |
simoom Wed, May 4, 2011 11:25:38am |
My main concern would have been the photo used in Photoshop simulated corpse desecrations posted all across the internet. I can particularly imagine them being posted by Spencer/Geller’s acolytes in response to every Muslim related story, on news site comment sections for months or years to come.
| 23 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:26:02am |
| 24 |
Charles Johnson Wed, May 4, 2011 11:26:23am |
There’s a live briefing going on now about this:
[Link: www.whitehouse.gov…]
| 25 |
kreyagg Wed, May 4, 2011 11:26:24am |
Voted “Not Sure”
I don’t want or need to see them, it might put some of the “It wasn’t Osama” crowd to rest. OTOH, it’s probably the same jerks that worry about layers in a scanned document that are clamoring the loudest for the corpse porn.
| 26 |
elizajane Wed, May 4, 2011 11:26:45am |
I don’t want to see them. I don’t want them plastered across the front pages of the newspapers where my kids and their friends will see them. I don’t want to have to explain to them, “this is what your country does” — even if it’s what we do to bad people. I support the killing of Bin Laden but it was an existential necessity, not something to gloat about in the materiality of death.
Moreover — why rub it in the face of the Islamic world, where the tensions (within individual countries, not just between us and them) are bad enough already? Why behave with that kind of disrespect?
| 28 |
Kragar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:27:30am |
If a reputable site posted a WH released pic, would I click on it? Probably out of morbid curiosity.
Am I going to google for the pic and try to figure out if one is a forgery? No
| 29 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 11:27:50am |
I voted Yes, but not because I want to see it. I just think there are people who will benefit from the closure.
I also think that the delay and other less than transparent moves have simply fueled ANOTHER Obama controversy.
As much as it might rally support among the Jihadist, it will also rally support with the anti-jihadist.
| 32 |
iceweasel Wed, May 4, 2011 11:28:09am |
This is from the link in Charles’ prior post:
“The risks of release outweigh the benefits,” Rogers said. “Conspiracy theorists around the world will just claim the photos are doctored anyway, and there is a real risk that releasing the photos will only serve to inflame public opinion in the Middle East.”
“Imagine how the American people would react if Al Qaeda killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the internet,” Rogers continued. “Osama bin Laden is not a trophy - he is dead and let’s now focus on continuing the fight until Al Qaida has been eliminated.”
That sounds right to me. No release.
| 33 |
Vicious Babushka Wed, May 4, 2011 11:28:16am |
If they do decide to release the photos of Bin Laden, at the same time they should also release all the photos of the WTC jumpers after they landed on the sidewalk. Just to put things in their proper context.
| 34 |
jamesfirecat Wed, May 4, 2011 11:28:45am |
re: #29 Buck
I voted Yes, but not because I want to see it. I just think there are people who will benefit from the closure.
I also think that the delay and other less than transparent moves have simply fueled ANOTHER Obama controversy.
As much as it might rally support among the Jihadist, it will also rally support with the anti-jihadist.
I believe you mean another Obama nontroversy Buck.
| 35 |
Stan the Demanded Plan Wed, May 4, 2011 11:28:54am |
marcambinder Marc Ambinder
POTUS on UBL photos: “…we should not spike the football.” Not “trophies”.”You will not see bin Laden walking on this earth again.”
| 36 |
wrenchwench Wed, May 4, 2011 11:28:59am |
re: #18 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
OT… watching “The Last Waltz”.
Damn, those guys were good.
They were good, but I thought the movie was kind of fakey (I saw it recently). Some of it was shot later with no audience. They don’t make that clear if you don’t wach the “extras” on the DVD.
| 37 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:29:16am |
re: #26 elizajane
I don’t want to see them. I don’t want them plastered across the front pages of the newspapers where my kids and their friends will see them. I don’t want to have to explain to them, “this is what your country does” — even if it’s what we do to bad people. I support the killing of Bin Laden but it was an existential necessity, not something to gloat about in the materiality of death.
Moreover — why rub it in the face of the Islamic world, where the tensions (within individual countries, not just between us and them) are bad enough already? Why behave with that kind of disrespect?
It might smack of those old time photos you would see of bank robbers posed in their coffins propped up on main street. Ghoulish triumphalism.
| 38 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Wed, May 4, 2011 11:29:31am |
re: #33 Alouette
If they do decide to release the photos of Bin Laden, at the same time they should also release all the photos of the WTC jumpers after they landed on the sidewalk. Just to put things in their proper context.
I see your sentiment, but I would protect the privacy and the dignity of the jumpers.
| 39 |
makeitstop Wed, May 4, 2011 11:29:57am |
No, because we’re better than that. At least I’d like to think so.
Having said that, I can understand the curiosity to see them.
| 40 |
iceweasel Wed, May 4, 2011 11:30:20am |
re: #38 EmmmieG
I see your sentiment, but I would protect the privacy and the dignity of the jumpers.
Not to mention their families!
| 41 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 11:30:37am |
re: #13 windsagio
If I may ask, why do people want to see them so much anyways? (like in this circle I mean)
I’m not entirely sure, to be honest. I think I want to have an image of him dead to sort of finish off the file I have in my head marked ‘Bin Laden’.
Like I said, I’ll get the Time and Newsweek issues with this, and go over them. Probably keep them for a while. Examine all the maps and pictures. Seeing Bin Laden’s body in pictures would be part of that.
I’m OK without, though.
| 42 |
Bubblehead II Wed, May 4, 2011 11:31:15am |
re: #13 windsagio
I have no desire to see them. (Voted No.).
| 44 |
Semper Fi Wed, May 4, 2011 11:32:15am |
re: #5 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
The asshole is dead. He lived just long enough to see his dreams of a new Caliphate crumble to dust as popular democratic revolutions take hold. Dump him in the dustbin of history and move along.
So true. He did live to see change emerging. Makes me feel even better. No way do I want to see any photos.
| 46 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:32:24am |
re: #29 Buck
I voted Yes, but not because I want to see it. I just think there are people who will benefit from the closure.
I also think that the delay and other less than transparent moves have simply fueled ANOTHER Obama controversy.
As much as it might rally support among the Jihadist, it will also rally support with the anti-jihadist.
I understand what you are saying, although I vehemently disagree with the whole idea of “closure”.
I don’t believe in it. The death of a loved one from violence is an open wound and it does not heal or go away. It is popular to use the term to get people to move on…but even having moved on does not in any way bring “closure” to the emotional reality of what you experience.
| 47 |
Four More Tears Wed, May 4, 2011 11:32:29am |
@CBSNews
CBS News
Obama on refusal to release Osama death photo: “We don’t need to spike the football”
| 48 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, May 4, 2011 11:32:54am |
Was it determined whether the picture from yesterday was real. Looked real to me. Looked like the sob (with a little ventilation thrown in).
| 49 |
Killgore Trout Wed, May 4, 2011 11:33:20am |
| 50 |
albusteve Wed, May 4, 2011 11:33:28am |
re: #18 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
OT… watching “The Last Waltz”.
Damn, those guys were good.
a magnificent piece of work….epic
| 51 |
makeitstop Wed, May 4, 2011 11:34:13am |
| 52 |
Vicious Babushka Wed, May 4, 2011 11:34:19am |
re: #48 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Was it determined whether the picture from yesterday was real. Looked real to me. Looked like the sob (with a little ventilation thrown in).
It was OBL’s chin Photoshopped on to some other poor shmuck’s destroyed face.
| 53 |
HappyWarrior Wed, May 4, 2011 11:35:04am |
re: #27 windsagio
So closure and curiousity, got it :D
Yep, pretty much. I’ll be honest. I am still in shock abotu the news since the guy literally had been the FBI’s most wanted man for just about half of my life. I was a freshman in high school when 9-11 happened. re: #49 Killgore Trout
Isn’t the fact that we pursued the guy for a decade enough of a warning to those who seek America’s destruction. Palin is just being a troll if you ask me. And you know damn well she’d find fault if they did release the photos.
| 54 |
darthstar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:35:22am |
| 55 |
General Nimrod Bodfish Wed, May 4, 2011 11:36:16am |
If there are any dead OBL photos released from the WH, it would probably be one of him being dumped into the sea as that would show that the US showed respect to his body.
But, as I’ve said before, I don’t need to see a photo of him dead to know that he’s dead. If a photo is leaked, I’m not going to go out of my way to find it, but I’ll look if someone linked to a real one.
| 56 |
iceweasel Wed, May 4, 2011 11:36:17am |
re: #46 celticdragon
I understand what you are saying, although I vehemently disagree with the whole idea of “closure”.
I don’t believe in it. The death of a loved one from violence is an open wound and it does not heal or go away. It is popular to use the term to get people to move on…but even having moved on does not in any way bring “closure” to the emotional reality of what you experience.
Closure, in my experience, is not something that another person (or outside event) can ever give you. It’s a state we eventually achieve on our own with time.
People often tell me they need to talk to their ex just one more time to “get closure”. Rubbish. It never works like that.
| 57 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:36:20am |
re: #49 Killgore Trout
As a warning?
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
She really thinks we will “warn” the followers of a nihilistic personality death cult who regularly blow themselves up in order to kill a few of us?
Wow.
| 58 |
Stan the Demanded Plan Wed, May 4, 2011 11:36:21am |
shannynmoore Shannyn Moore
Sorry, @SarahPalinUSA, #OBL isn’t a caribou to hang on the wall or a bear hide on the sofa. Real life is different.
| 59 |
Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Wed, May 4, 2011 11:36:29am |
re: #49 Killgore Trout
*facepalm* if he did show the photo she’d come out and say he was just puffing his chest and giving the islamists more reason to attack us.
| 60 |
Four More Tears Wed, May 4, 2011 11:36:35am |
re: #54 darthstar
Palin’s trying to spike the flounder.
And if Obama did release the photos we’d hear about how he was putting Track in danger.
| 61 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:37:06am |
| 62 |
wrenchwench Wed, May 4, 2011 11:37:09am |
| 63 |
General Nimrod Bodfish Wed, May 4, 2011 11:37:35am |
re: #52 Alouette
Who ever photoshopped it did a damn good job on it.
| 64 |
darthstar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:37:53am |
re: #60 JasonA
And if Obama did release the photos we’d hear about how he was putting Track in danger.
Who would name their kid after a forearm?
| 65 |
makeitstop Wed, May 4, 2011 11:38:36am |
re: #59 Dreggas
*facepalm* if he did show the photo she’d come out and say he was just puffing his chest and giving the islamists more reason to attack us.
That sums up the quandary that Obama faces every day.
If he does Thing A, they bash him for doing it. If he doesn’t, they bash him for not doing it.
I’m so glad the man is nowhere near as petty and nit-picky as those who hate him.
| 66 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:39:10am |
re: #64 darthstar
Who would name their kid after a forearm?
I came across a Palin family name generator a couple years back.
My Palin name is Spackle Camshaft Palin.
| 68 |
darthstar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:39:37am |
re: #63 commadore183
Who ever photoshopped it did a damn good job on it.
| 69 |
Feline Fearless Leader Wed, May 4, 2011 11:39:51am |
re: #66 celticdragon
I came across a Palin family name generator a couple years back.
My Palin name is Spackle Camshaft Palin.
But I bet it is pronounced “Throatwarbler Mangrove” though.
| 70 |
Kragar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:40:13am |
re: #51 makeitstop
Good grief. I just wish she would STFU and leave governing to the adults.
Clearly defined mission goals; Take glamor shots of the dead guy to show the folks
| 71 |
elizajane Wed, May 4, 2011 11:40:49am |
| 72 |
Stan the Demanded Plan Wed, May 4, 2011 11:40:50am |
re: #66 celticdragon
I came across a Palin family name generator a couple years back.
My Palin name is Spackle Camshaft Palin.
Seagull Junker Palin was mine!
| 73 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 11:40:57am |
I voted “No”. If the pictures had been un-gory, I might have voted yes.
| 74 |
Kragar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:41:35am |
re: #57 celticdragon
As a warning?
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
She really thinks we will “warn” the followers of a nihilistic personality death cult who regularly blow themselves up in order to kill a few of us?
Wow.
I thought the warning is we tracked the guy down to a house in the suburbs after 10 years and put a bullet in his head, then dumped him in the ocean.
| 76 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 11:41:57am |
re: #70 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Her idea of it sending a warning is a little bit weird. I mean, all the terrorist types we’re trying to intimidate are very familiar with what dead bodies look like. These guys are not unfamiliar with violence and death. When they hear Obama was shot in the face, they know what that means. They don’t need to be shown a picture.
| 77 |
Stan the Demanded Plan Wed, May 4, 2011 11:42:20am |
LOL
DanaHoule Dana Houle
RT @KagroX: I guess if I had been on TV missing five shots at an apparently deaf caribou, I might need proof that guns can hit stuff.
| 78 |
Four More Tears Wed, May 4, 2011 11:42:34am |
re: #74 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I thought the warning is we tracked the guy down to a house in the suburbs after 10 years and put a bullet in his head, then dumped him in the ocean.
The suburbs in another, sovereign nation no less. And have basically told them to deal with it.
| 79 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 11:42:43am |
re: #76 Obdicut
Osama!
Motherfucker. I”m calling him Bin Laden from now on. Or sign me up for my gig on Fox news.
| 80 |
iceweasel Wed, May 4, 2011 11:42:46am |
re: #73 Obdicut
I voted “No”. If the pictures had been un-gory, I might have voted yes.
If they were ungory, they REALLY wouldn’t satisfy the wingnuts craving revenge death porn. Whoever said they would photoshop every possible way of desecrating the body is right.
| 81 |
darthstar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:44:32am |
re: #77 Stanley Sea
LOL
DanaHoule Dana Houle
RT @KagroX: I guess if I had been on TV missing five shots at an apparently deaf caribou, I might need proof that guns can hit stuff.
Sarah flinches when she shoots. Is her Alaska show over now or are they planning another season of “keep her away from the GOP’s real candidates”?
| 82 |
General Nimrod Bodfish Wed, May 4, 2011 11:44:48am |
re: #79 Obdicut
Hehehe, I’ve been using either bin Laden or OBL, while I use the President for Obama, just to avoid such a thing. But we all know what you meant, it’s not like it’s FOX Nation or Freeperville here :) .
| 83 |
darthstar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:45:22am |
re: #79 Obdicut
Osama!
Motherfucker. I”m calling him Bin Laden from now on. Or sign me up for my gig on Fox news.
I have to use ‘bin Laden’ because since he died, I’ve been catching myself typing ‘Obama’ too many times to count.
| 84 |
Stan the Demanded Plan Wed, May 4, 2011 11:45:47am |
re: #81 darthstar
Sarah flinches when she shoots. Is her Alaska show over now or are they planning another season of “keep her away from the GOP’s real candidates”?
No idea.
| 85 |
Kragar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:46:16am |
| 86 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 11:47:01am |
re: #67 Obdicut
What less-than-transparent moves, Buck?
Dumping the body at sea without any independent witness.
| 87 |
Four More Tears Wed, May 4, 2011 11:47:53am |
re: #86 Buck
Dumping the body at sea without any independent witness.
If we can’t trust the crew of the Carl Vinson… I dunno, man.
| 88 |
Canuckistan Wed, May 4, 2011 11:47:59am |
Voted “no.” Even if non-gory, it would be used as a symbol by the Al Qaida movement, appearing on posters, literature, etc.
| 89 |
Kragar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:48:23am |
re: #87 JasonA
If we can’t trust the crew of the Carl Vinson… I dunno, man.
We asked the Brits, but they were busy last weekend.
| 90 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 11:48:34am |
re: #86 Buck
Dumping the body at sea without any independent witness.
Either you trust the US military or you don’t. Has absolutely nothing to do with the President.
| 91 |
Talking Point Detective Wed, May 4, 2011 11:48:41am |
re: #29 Buck
Closure? Is that a joke? When do the Obama-hating obsessed gain closure on any issue?
No to releasing the photos. Conspiracy theoreticians deserve to be ridiculed. Trying to prove them wrong is a waste of time and energy - because as others have pointed out above, they refuse to integrate facts into their world view.
| 93 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:48:59am |
re: #81 darthstar
Sarah flinches when she shoots.
Pet peeve of mine.
I had a to “buddy coach” some guy in Basic Training who kept flinching when he would shoot his rifle. It was December and raining…and I was freezing my ass off trying to deal with this guy who was actually afraid of his weapon. He would shut his eyes and jerk the trigger instead of being steady and squeezing the trigger between breaths.
I finally got so exasperated with him that I asked him what the hell he was doing in the Army if he was nervous around firearms.
He said he had just come to learn to drive trucks.
Meh.
| 94 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 11:49:11am |
re: #86 Buck
Dumping the body at sea without any independent witness.
How is that untransparent, Buck? What the hell? You think that officers and servicemen in the US Navy are going to lie about shit like that?
What, were we supposed to invite a Canadian to prod the body with a stick?
| 95 |
simoom Wed, May 4, 2011 11:49:16am |
It sounds like congress members have been getting an opportunity to see the photo, so some greater detail of what’s in image has been getting around. From Fox’s story on the decision not to release the photo:
Details emerging about the image suggest that it is, as the White House claimed, “gruesome.” Fox News has learned that the image shows a large, open gunshot wound on bin Laden’s forehead, revealing brain matter. A senior U.S. official who has had access to the images said one of bin Laden’s eyes is open while the other is “completely gone.”…
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the intelligence committee, earlier put out a statement opposing the release. He told Fox News he’s using a simple test — if the release of the photo would make a village elder in Afghanistan less cooperative and less likely to snitch to U.S. troops about potential attacks, then he’s against it.
Rogers argued that conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied anyway, telling Fox News that releasing the picture could make things more difficult for soldiers in the field without dispelling the bin Laden myths.
Rogers has seen the photos, according to a source, as have a number of other lawmakers. After having more than two days to think about it, members of Congress were sharply divided over the issue.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said she shares the concern about the impact the release could have on U.S. troops.
“We need to make sure that these families’ and these troops’ well-being is looked after,” she told Fox News.
But Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., who has seen a photo and confirmed that it shows bin Laden, disputed the notion the image is too gruesome for the public to see.
| 96 |
Talking Point Detective Wed, May 4, 2011 11:49:43am |
re: #86 Buck
Who would you accept as an “independent witness?” Donald Trump? Sarah Palin?
| 97 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 11:49:55am |
re: #94 Obdicut
How is that untransparent, Buck? What the hell? You think that officers and servicemen in the US Navy are going to lie about shit like that?
What, were we supposed to invite a Canadian to prod the body with a stick?
I only wish JTF2 could have been involved with this.
| 98 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:49:55am |
re: #86 Buck
Dumping the body at sea without any independent witness.
I’m sure next time they will ask you to come along as an unbiased and credible witness.
/
| 99 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 11:50:36am |
re: #87 JasonA
If we can’t trust the crew of the Carl Vinson… I dunno, man.
It is not about trust. Often a government will use the members of the Free Press to be witness. Embedding journalists in units was not done becasue of a lack of trust, but rather to have that independent witness.
| 100 |
iceweasel Wed, May 4, 2011 11:50:36am |
re: #92 MikeySDCA
Every loudmouth in every souq in the Muslim world will say he’s alive. Our humanitarian scruples will be seen as weakness and despised as such.
Rubbish. Our humanitaian scruples, as you call them, are our values. We don’t violate our own values just because others don’t share them. They’re our greatest strength as a nation and as a people.
| 101 |
makeitstop Wed, May 4, 2011 11:50:58am |
re: #79 Obdicut
Osama!
Motherfucker. I”m calling him Bin Laden from now on. Or sign me up for my gig on Fox news.
Don’t feel bad. TPM’s ‘Bin Laden Wire’ had a headline this morning saying a majority in a CNN poll believed ‘Obama is in Hell.’ (since corrected)
| 102 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 11:51:21am |
re: #49 Killgore Trout
I know I’m usually the one arguing with people doing a pat version of their idea of radical Islamist culture, but what part of ‘cult of martyrdom’ do people like Palin not GET?
“Oh, shit, if I take up the jihad, the Americans may come and shoot me. I never thought of that! I will lead a life of peace now.”
| 103 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 11:51:33am |
re: #100 iceweasel
Heh. The fanatics despise our values, therefore we should drop those values.
Kind of missing the point.
| 104 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:51:56am |
re: #94 Obdicut
How is that untransparent, Buck? What the hell? You think that officers and servicemen in the US Navy are going to lie about shit like that?
What, were we supposed to invite a Canadian to prod the body with a stick?
It would be irresponsible not to speculate…
/
| 105 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 11:51:57am |
re: #99 Buck
It is not about trust. Often a government will use the members of the Free Press to be witness. Embedding journalists in units was not done becasue of a lack of trust, but rather to have that independent witness.
When was the last time anyone has seen an embedded journalist? Also, independent my ass.
| 106 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 11:52:22am |
re: #58 Stanley Sea
shannynmoore Shannyn Moore
Sorry, @SarahPalinUSA, #OBL isn’t a caribou to hang on the wall or a bear hide on the sofa. Real life is different.
Having…bad…image…of…Bin Laden…as…a…rug…
| 107 |
Kragar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:52:52am |
re: #106 SanFranciscoZionist
Having…bad…image…of…Bin Laden…as…a…rug…
How would you match it to the drapes?
| 108 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 11:53:22am |
re: #86 Buck
Dumping the body at sea without any independent witness.
Who might be asked to be an independent witness at such an event?
| 110 |
Canuckistan Wed, May 4, 2011 11:54:04am |
As a precedent of sorts, here’s what happened after Che Guevara’s death photos were released:
The Economist magazine has also pointed out how Che’s post death photos resemble Andrea Mantegna’s The Lamentation over the Dead Christ. Thus fixing Guevara as a modern saint, the man who risked his life twice in countries that were not his own before giving it in a third, and whose invocation of the “new man”, driven by moral rather than material incentives, smacked of Saint Ignatius of Loyola more than Marx.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]
| 111 |
albusteve Wed, May 4, 2011 11:54:22am |
re: #108 SanFranciscoZionist
Who might be asked to be an independent witness at such an event?
somebody from the media?
bwahahaha….fuck those guys
| 112 |
Kragar Wed, May 4, 2011 11:54:24am |
| 113 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 11:54:35am |
re: #96 Talking Point Detective
Who would you accept as an “independent witness?” Donald Trump? Sarah Palin?
members of the Press? Does that really sound so outrageous?
| 114 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:54:41am |
re: #106 SanFranciscoZionist
Having…bad…image…of…Bin Laden…as…a…rug…
William Wallace had the English commander at the Battle of Stirling Bridge skinned and turned into a belt…
Now there is some “going Medieval on your ass” for you…
| 115 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 11:54:56am |
re: #112 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
It was terrible and funny, thus the upding. My brain shuts down while trying to process the joke.
| 116 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 11:54:58am |
re: #99 Buck
It is not about trust. Often a government will use the members of the Free Press to be witness. Embedding journalists in units was not done becasue of a lack of trust, but rather to have that independent witness.
Also, that doesn’t really make shit all sense. What are they going to do to verify it? And do we tell a journalist in advance what they’re there for? I wouldn’t risk compromising the mission for what amounts to a couple of photos.
| 117 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 11:55:24am |
re: #113 Buck
Why is it necessary at all, Buck? Why aren’t the members of the US Navy good enough?
| 118 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 11:55:28am |
re: #99 Buck
It is not about trust. Often a government will use the members of the Free Press to be witness. Embedding journalists in units was not done becasue of a lack of trust, but rather to have that independent witness.
But the press are all in Obama’s pocket, and got him elected, so how’s THAT gonna help?
//
| 119 |
celticdragon Wed, May 4, 2011 11:55:41am |
re: #107 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
How would you match it to the drapes?
Put more beard on the window treatments.
| 120 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 11:56:25am |
re: #103 Obdicut
Heh. The fanatics despise our values, therefore we should drop those values.
Kind of missing the point.
That’s pretty much what ‘the Constitution is not a suicide pact’ MEANS.
| 121 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 11:56:49am |
re: #117 Obdicut
Why is it necessary at all, Buck? Why aren’t the members of the US Navy good enough?
Clearly they are for you, so that is it then.
| 122 |
albusteve Wed, May 4, 2011 11:57:20am |
re: #113 Buck
members of the Press? Does that really sound so outrageous?
innecessary…I guess people will just have to suffer with their ignorance
the pictures prove nothing….anybody listening?
| 123 |
Talking Point Detective Wed, May 4, 2011 11:57:27am |
re: #113 Buck
members of the Press? Does that really sound so outrageous?
You mean the liberally-biased lamestream press? The ones who refused to report anything negative about Obama during the election?
There is no “evidence” that would make any difference whatsoever to those who seek to question the official story.
This is absurd. You are advocating that the administration cater to conspiracy theorists, despite the potential negative blowback.
It is a naked Obama-bash. Nothing less.
| 124 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 11:59:26am |
| 125 |
iceweasel Wed, May 4, 2011 11:59:32am |
re: #103 Obdicut
Heh. The fanatics despise our values, therefore we should drop those values.
Kind of missing the point.
Yeah, that would really show them. Let’s stop being a humane and secular society too while we’re at it. THEN they’ll FEAR us. /
Then we’d meet the enemy and discover he is us.
| 126 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 11:59:52am |
re: #113 Buck
members of the Press? Does that really sound so outrageous?
Not outrageous, ludicrous. We’re on the Carl Vinson, somewhere in the North Arabian Sea, five foot waves, sailors, Bin Laden in a cannonball chest or whatever, “We therefore consign his body to the deep”, and a couple dozen journalists in lifevests snapping photos.
Also, it would convince no one who didn’t plan to be convinced.
It would, however, have been one hell of an Irish wake afterward.
| 127 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:00:10pm |
re: #116 McSpiff
Also, that doesn’t really make shit all sense. What are they going to do to verify it? And do we tell a journalist in advance what they’re there for? I wouldn’t risk compromising the mission for what amounts to a couple of photos.
They were in Afghanistan, in a hanger, before they went to the ship. Would it have been a security risk to gather up some press? Anyway… it doesn’t really matter. Except when people talk about transparency they don’t usually mean Take his word about it.
| 128 |
darthstar Wed, May 4, 2011 12:00:45pm |
re: #86 Buck
Dumping the body at sea without any independent witness.
Oh for the fucking love of god, Buck. Shut the fuck up before someone you know sees you.
| 129 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:01:48pm |
re: #124 Obdicut
Why aren’t they good enough for you?
You clearly have a different definition of government transparency than I do. Once again you and I are speaking the same language with words that don’t have the same meaning.
| 130 |
albusteve Wed, May 4, 2011 12:02:00pm |
re: #127 Buck
They were in Afghanistan, in a hanger, before they went to the ship. Would it have been a security risk to gather up some press? Anyway… it doesn’t really matter. Except when people talk about transparency they don’t usually mean Take his word about it.
talk about obstinant….what do the pictures prove?
spill it
| 131 |
albusteve Wed, May 4, 2011 12:02:46pm |
re: #128 darthstar
Oh for the fucking love of god, Buck. Shut the fuck up before someone you know sees you.
heh…
| 132 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 12:02:55pm |
re: #129 Buck
It’s generally considered transparent when you’re involving as many other people as this operation involved. Unless you’re willing to engage in conspiracy theories involving the US Navy, which, apparently, you now are.
Unbelievable. It’s like you’re seeing how low you can go in order to attack Obama.
| 133 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 12:03:13pm |
re: #129 Buck
You clearly have a different definition of government transparency than I do. Once again you and I are speaking the same language with words that don’t have the same meaning.
Government transparency is for hiring practices and tax codes.
This was special ops.
| 134 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:03:35pm |
re: #130 albusteve
talk about obstinant…what do the pictures prove?
spill it
I didn’t say the pictures would be the end all proof for everyone? For some it would put the nightmares to rest.
| 135 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 12:03:46pm |
re: #127 Buck
They were in Afghanistan, in a hanger, before they went to the ship. Would it have been a security risk to gather up some press? Anyway… it doesn’t really matter. Except when people talk about transparency they don’t usually mean Take his word about it.
We’ve already established that the US government does not want photos released. So for whatever reason, you’re claiming that you’d believe a random journalist saying “yeah, pretty much looked like him” as compared to the US Military, CIA and FBI performing DNA analysis, facial analysis, various measurements, all in addition to statements by his wife and daughter.
I can’t tell if your hate for the president is blinding you, or if your stupidity makes you more susceptible to the hate.
| 136 |
albusteve Wed, May 4, 2011 12:05:03pm |
re: #134 Buck
I didn’t say the pictures would be the end all proof for everyone? For some it would put the nightmares to rest.
too bad for them…they might seek out therapy then
put the nightmare to rest with a potentially phony picture?…idiots
| 137 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:05:09pm |
re: #132 Obdicut
It’s generally considered transparent when you’re involving as many other people as this operation involved.
Like I said, different understanding of the same words.
| 138 |
Achilles Tang Wed, May 4, 2011 12:05:39pm |
re: #99 Buck
It is not about trust. Often a government will use the members of the Free Press to be witness. Embedding journalists in units was not done becasue of a lack of trust, but rather to have that independent witness.
Come on Buck you can’t be serious. There is actually a difference between this type of mission and a patrol in Afghanistan, whether you believe it or not.
However I’ll make a concession. Any journalist can apply to join the seals and if they pass the training they can go on missions with one difference only. They can have a camera strapped to their headband on top of the night vision goggles.
| 139 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:06:31pm |
re: #138 Naso Tang
Come on Buck you can’t be serious. There is actually a difference between this type of mission and a patrol in Afghanistan, whether you believe it or not.
However I’ll make a concession. Any journalist can apply to join the seals and if they pass the training they can go on missions with one difference only. They can have a camera strapped to their headband on top of the night vision goggles.
I never said they should have had a journalist on the mission. Catch up or admit you just put up a strawman.
| 140 |
albusteve Wed, May 4, 2011 12:06:52pm |
the whole argument is beyond stupid….I should not even respond
| 141 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 12:07:18pm |
re: #137 Buck
Like I said, different understanding of the same words.
Anything else Buck? Any questions about Obama’s Birth certificate? How about 9/11? USS Liberity?
God damn I am sick of political conspiracy theories.
| 142 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 12:07:19pm |
re: #137 Buck
Yes. You have an interpretation of transparent that means when you include hundreds of other people as witnesses, you’re not being transparent. Apparently because they belong to the US military, and you have an incredibly low view of the ethics and honest of US military members.
Look at yourself, Buck. Look at what the fuck you’re doing. You’re smearing the US Navy to attack Obama. What is wrong with you?
| 143 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:07:51pm |
re: #135 McSpiff
you’re claiming that you’d believe a random journalist saying “yeah, pretty much looked like him”
I am claiming nothing of the sort.
| 144 |
wrenchwench Wed, May 4, 2011 12:07:56pm |
re: #133 SanFranciscoZionist
Government transparency is for hiring practices and tax codes.
This was special ops.
He can ignore your point because you didn’t ask a question or request a response.
| 145 |
3CPO Wed, May 4, 2011 12:08:09pm |
Is anyone else watching the WH briefing right now? I can’t believe this guy is asking if Obama will ask to meet Will & Kate in the middle of a discussion about the killing of OBL.
| 146 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 12:08:41pm |
re: #143 Buck
I am claiming nothing of the sort.
Then spit it out. What can a journalist do other than take pictures?
| 147 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:08:57pm |
re: #142 Obdicut
Yes. You have an interpretation of transparent that means when you include hundreds of other people as witnesses, you’re not being transparent. Apparently because they belong to the US military, and you have an incredibly low view of the ethics and honest of US military members.
Look at yourself, Buck. Look at what the fuck you’re doing. You’re smearing the US Navy to attack Obama. What is wrong with you?
I am not doing anything like that. You once again have tried to move what I said to fit your smear.
| 148 |
leftynyc Wed, May 4, 2011 12:09:15pm |
re: #86 Buck
Dumping the body at sea without any independent witness.
You don’t trust the crew of the ship/aircraft carrier? EVERYBODY is lying? For what purpose?
| 149 |
Interesting Times Wed, May 4, 2011 12:09:17pm |
re: #135 McSpiff
I can’t tell if your hate for the president is blinding you, or if your stupidity makes you more susceptible to the hate.
I vote “all of the above”.
| 150 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 12:09:43pm |
re: #144 wrenchwench
He can ignore your point because you didn’t ask a question or request a response.
That’s OK. I’m just commenting.
| 151 |
Kragar Wed, May 4, 2011 12:10:37pm |
Until we see the long form Death Certificate, we’ll never be able to know for sure…
| 152 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 12:11:54pm |
re: #147 Buck
Buck, in the last two threads where you’ve made accusations of me, I’ve asked you to back them up and you simply vanished without a trace, as is your wont.
You have called the actions of the US in the disposal of Bin Laden’s body less-than-transparent. To believe this, requires that you believe that there is any way that the US Navy personnel on the mission, the ones on the USS Carl Vinson, and any others involved in this— such as the technician testing the DNA— are involved in a massive conspiracy against the American people, about one of the more emotionally charged subjects of all time.
That is a smear of the US Navy. There is nothing in the military code of justice or the ethics of military men that would force them to remain silent while a lie of that magnitude was told; in fact, most would be honor bound to reveal the lie.
| 153 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:11:58pm |
re: #141 McSpiff
Anything else Buck? Any questions about Obama’s Birth certificate? How about 9/11? USS Liberity?
God damn I am sick of political conspiracy theories.
Now you are just smearing me with things I have never said, or even hinted at.
Transparency means something. I commented that dropping the body into the sea without any independent witness was less than transparent.
You want to bring in the Liberty? Fine, but I think that it reflects poorly on you.
| 154 |
albusteve Wed, May 4, 2011 12:13:06pm |
re: #147 Buck
I am not doing anything like that. You once again have tried to move what I said to fit your smear.
it’s your own smear and he’s trying to point that out to you…elevating the press above our soldiers and sailors is insulting
| 155 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 12:13:56pm |
re: #153 Buck
Now you are just smearing me with things I have never said, or even hinted at.
Transparency means something. I commented that dropping the body into the sea without any independent witness was less than transparent.
You want to bring in the Liberty? Fine, but I think that it reflects poorly on you.
Transparency means two different things. One when there’s a democrat in office, one when theres a Republican. The type of independent verification you’re requesting never occurred under Bush. Deal with it.
| 156 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 12:14:50pm |
re: #154 albusteve
it’s your own smear and he’s trying to point that out to you…elevating the press above our soldiers and sailors is insulting
Right on Steve.
| 157 |
3CPO Wed, May 4, 2011 12:18:30pm |
re: #29 Buck
I’m curious… your original post said “moves,” plural. We’ve established that you consider dumping a body at sea in the presence of the 5,000+ crew of a supercarrier as “less than transparent.”
What else?
| 158 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:19:37pm |
re: #148 leftynyc
You don’t trust the crew of the ship/aircraft carrier? EVERYBODY is lying? For what purpose?
I didn’t say that. Not at all. Again, transparency is not about trust.
| 159 |
Talking Point Detective Wed, May 4, 2011 12:19:47pm |
re: #127 Buck
They were in Afghanistan, in a hanger, before they went to the ship. Would it have been a security risk to gather up some press? Anyway… it doesn’t really matter. Except when people talk about transparency they don’t usually mean Take his word about it.
I always love it when a “fiscal conservative” advocates for a complete waste of money and resources because they can score cheap political points by doing so.
| 160 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:20:56pm |
re: #156 McSpiff
Right on Steve.
OK, so in your mind embedding journalists in units was insulting to the soldiers.
Fine, agian we have different definitions of the word transparency.
| 161 |
Achilles Tang Wed, May 4, 2011 12:21:47pm |
re: #139 Buck
I never said they should have had a journalist on the mission. Catch up or admit you just put up a strawman.
I thought you did. Sorry.
| 162 |
albusteve Wed, May 4, 2011 12:21:51pm |
re: #160 Buck
OK, so in your mind embedding journalists in units was insulting to the soldiers.
Fine, agian we have different definitions of the word transparency.
in this case yes
| 163 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:23:26pm |
re: #155 McSpiff
Transparency means two different things. One when there’s a democrat in office, one when theres a Republican. The type of independent verification you’re requesting never occurred under Bush. Deal with it.
Never occurred under Bush, according to you. You will excuse me if I don’t take YOUR word on that.
| 164 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 12:25:02pm |
re: #163 Buck
Why do you think there is any possibility of the Navy members involved in this all lying? Or staying silent while a lie is told?
| 165 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:26:19pm |
re: #157 3CPO
I’m curious… your original post said “moves,” plural. We’ve established that you consider dumping a body at sea in the presence of the 5,000+ crew of a supercarrier as “less than transparent.”
What else?
It does not matter. If we can’t even agree on the meaning of the word. There is no point in discussing this.
I withdraw my remarks.
| 166 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 12:27:32pm |
re: #163 Buck
Never occurred under Bush, according to you. You will excuse me if I don’t take YOUR word on that.
You’ve truly gone off the deep end. Find me a single picture of a terrorist autopsy that was not released by American or coalition Forces in either Iraq or Afganistan. That is, a picture that was taken by a authorized journalist of the autopsy. You can’t. It doesn’t exist. Same with the disposal of a body. You can search as long as you want, because they simply don’t exist.
| 167 |
jamesfirecat Wed, May 4, 2011 12:27:45pm |
re: #165 Buck
It does not matter. If we can’t even agree on the meaning of the word. There is no point in discussing this.
I withdraw my remarks.
Why don’t you try to clearly define your terms then?
| 168 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 12:28:31pm |
re: #167 jamesfirecat
Why don’t you try to clearly define your terms then?
Because Buck is a piss poor troll that is smart enough to color within the lines enough to annoy the majority of posters but keep his account.
| 169 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:29:45pm |
re: #167 jamesfirecat
Why don’t you try to clearly define your terms then?
I did. Asking for independent witness in the absence of photos, x-rays etc seems to be an act of treason, so I withdraw.
| 170 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 12:29:53pm |
re: #168 McSpiff
I think he’s painfully sincere. No matter what happens, he will reflexively attack Obama and reflexively defend the GOP, even if it means implying that hundreds or thousands of US Navy members would all lie about a subject of grave national importance.
He’s Poe’s Law made flesh.
| 171 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:30:36pm |
re: #170 Obdicut
I think he’s painfully sincere. No matter what happens, he will reflexively attack Obama and reflexively defend the GOP, even if it means implying that hundreds or thousands of US Navy members would all lie about a subject of grave national importance.
He’s Poe’s Law made flesh.
Again, you are making up the part where I call anyone (except you) a liar.
| 172 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 12:30:46pm |
re: #169 Buck
You’re Canadian, remember? You can’t commit treason against the US.
It’s the way that you apparently don’t think that members of the US military are independent enough to reveal a lie like this that’s the problem.
| 173 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 12:31:10pm |
re: #171 Buck
Again, you are making up the part where I call anyone (except you) a liar.
Why don’t you consider the US Navy personnel independent witnesses?
| 174 |
garzooma Wed, May 4, 2011 12:31:19pm |
I voted yes, even though I probably won’t go look myself. More information is good. Anyway, it’s only a matter of time before Wikileaks releases them.
I’m not too worried about how people in Afghanistan are going to view them. If gruesome was a deal killer, the Taliban would be out of business.
| 175 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 12:32:12pm |
re: #174 garzooma
I think the photos will get out as well. But it’s important for the US government not to be the ones publishing them for all to see.
| 176 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:37:25pm |
re: #173 Obdicut
Why don’t you consider the US Navy personnel independent witnesses?
Again we are using the same word but have different meanings.
Fine you think that our armed forces are to be considered independent of their command. I thin that shows a lack of transparency. But we can’t even agree on what the word mean.
So again, lacking any basic understanding of the same words I withdraw.
| 177 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 12:37:51pm |
re: #172 Obdicut
You’re Canadian, remember? You can’t commit treason against the US.
It’s the way that you apparently don’t think that members of the US military are independent enough to reveal a lie like this that’s the problem.
He can’t commit treason against the US, but if he’d expect the same type of verification if Canadian Forces had been the ones to kill Bin Laden, than my opinion of Buch just managed to sink even lower.
So what is it Buck? Would you expect the same independent verification from the Canadian Forces? Or is it just Americans you don’t trust.
| 178 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:38:41pm |
re: #172 Obdicut
You’re Canadian, remember? You can’t commit treason against the US.
It’s the way that you apparently don’t think that members of the US military are independent enough to reveal a lie like this that’s the problem.
I never called it a lie. I called you a liar…. not the same thing.
| 179 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:39:56pm |
re: #177 McSpiff
He can’t commit treason against the US, but if he’d expect the same type of verification if Canadian Forces had been the ones to kill Bin Laden, than my opinion of Buch just managed to sink even lower.
So what is it Buck? Would you expect the same independent verification from the Canadian Forces? Or is it just Americans you don’t trust.
Absolutely, I would expect the same transparency (remember we don’t seem to agree what that word means) from every government.
| 180 |
Talking Point Detective Wed, May 4, 2011 12:40:15pm |
re: #170 Obdicut
I think he’s painfully sincere. No matter what happens, he will reflexively attack Obama and reflexively defend the GOP, even if it means implying that hundreds or thousands of US Navy members would all lie about a subject of grave national importance.
He’s Poe’s Law made flesh.
He’s sincere - and run of the mill if you go look at the standard rightwing website. The need to reflexively pound on Obama is ubiquitous.
I have to say, even as a long-time political observer, as someone who watched the venom directed towards Clinton and Carter, I am still continuously surprised by the complete lack of integrity in the “attack Obama at all costs” approach.
As much as I would expect it, I still find myself amazed when I listen to a Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, or someone like Buck. The complete disregard for at least trying to make viable arguments is what makes Republicans so politically effective, much to the detriment of the country.
| 181 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 12:40:36pm |
re: #179 Buck
Absolutely, I would expect the same transparency (remember we don’t seem to agree what that word means) from every government.
Then don’t ever dare to claim you support the troops around me.
| 182 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 12:41:08pm |
re: #176 Buck
Buck, disagreeing about what terms mean isn’t a difference in understanding. I understand that by “independent” you mean something different than I do. I understand that your term, for whatever reason, means that members of the US military are not trusted to be independent— that they could all, by virtue of being in the military, be credibly expected to lie, allow a lie to be told, and otherwise cover-up something of this magnitude.
In addition, the President and every member of his national security team would have to be lying.
Instead of withdrawing your remarks, why not define what you mean by transparency and independent?
| 183 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:41:21pm |
re: #181 McSpiff
Then don’t ever dare to claim you support the troops around me.
You don’t know me, you just think you do.
| 184 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 12:41:37pm |
re: #178 Buck
I never called it a lie. I called you a liar… not the same thing.
Then please point out a lie I’ve told, Buck.
| 185 |
Sionainn Wed, May 4, 2011 12:42:33pm |
re: #182 Obdicut
Buck, disagreeing about what terms mean isn’t a difference in understanding. I understand that by “independent” you mean something different than I do. I understand that your term, for whatever reason, means that members of the US military are not trusted to be independent— that they could all, by virtue of being in the military, be credibly expected to lie, allow a lie to be told, and otherwise cover-up something of this magnitude.
In addition, the President and every member of his national security team would have to be lying.
Instead of withdrawing your remarks, why not define what you mean by transparency and independent?
It appears that transparency to him means letting everyone and their brother know every little thing regardless of the national security implications. Is that right, Buck?
| 186 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 12:43:19pm |
re: #183 Buck
You don’t know me, you just think you do.
I can only judge you based on what you post here. If you don’t trust the Canadian or American Forces to not engage in a conspiracy equal in size only to a hoax moon landing, then no, you clearly do not support the Canadian or American Forces.
| 187 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:45:55pm |
re: #184 Obdicut
Then please point out a lie I’ve told, Buck.
Two actually:
“implying that hundreds or thousands of US Navy members would all lie about a subject of grave national importance.”
I was doing no such thing.
apparently don’t think that members of the US military are independent enough to reveal a lie like this
And I never said there was a lie to begin with, so I never said anything about the US Military revealing it.
| 188 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 12:46:58pm |
re: #187 Buck
Two actually:
I was doing no such thing.
And I never said there was a lie to begin with, so I never said anything about the US Military revealing it.
Do you think War Crimes have been committed by coalition forces in Iraq and Afganistan?
| 189 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 12:48:12pm |
re: #187 Buck
I was doing no such thing.
You were, if you don’t consider them independent witnesses suitable for transparency’s sake.
And I never said there was a lie to begin with, so I never said anything about the US Military revealing it.
I didn’t say that you said there was a lie, Buck. I’m saying that if you say this wasn’t transparent, then the implication is that— if it were that it hadn’t been Bin Laden— they would lie.
I do not in any way think that you actually believe there has been a lie. I think you absolutely believe Osama is dead. I just think that you are using any opportunity you can, as usual, to take shots at Obama. Because that’s what you do: defend the GOP at all costs and attack Obama.
| 190 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:50:04pm |
re: #186 McSpiff
I can only judge you based on what you post here. If you don’t trust the Canadian or American Forces to not engage in a conspiracy equal in size only to a hoax moon landing, then no, you clearly do not support the Canadian or American Forces.
You and I disagree on what the words mean. I do not think (for example) that embedding members of the press in units is an act that speaks to distrust of the military. In fact I think that it is in the best interest of the armed forces to have independent witness.
I also think that transparency is in the best interest of an armed force that is civilian lead. As much as can be taking in mind security needs.
| 191 |
Ericus58 Wed, May 4, 2011 12:51:27pm |
Buck - you are pissing me off.
Shut the hell up.
signed,
Ex-USN guy
| 192 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 12:59:54pm |
re: #189 Obdicut
You were, if you don’t consider them independent witnesses suitable for transparency’s sake.
Only if I accept your definition of independent. I stated clearly that I didn’t.
I didn’t say that you said there was a lie, Buck. I’m saying that if you say this wasn’t transparent, then the implication is that— if it were that it hadn’t been Bin Laden— they would lie.
Your implication based on what you think the words mean despite that I have clearly said I don’t agree with your definition.
I do not in any way think that you actually believe there has been a lie. I think you absolutely believe Osama is dead.
Well, then you can leave it at that. Instead you made up stuff about what YOU would like to smear me with. Instead of actually using what YOU knew I said.
You are right, I believe Osama is dead. I don’t need any further confirmation. However I gave my opinion that I think I would have recommended they handle a few things in the 48 hours after his death differently.
I really don’t like the repercussions that are going to come out of what I think were acts that lacked more transparency.
I have explained my POV, and I think I have a right to it, without you blowing all out of proportion, and lying about what I said. Especially when you admit that you know I didn’t mean that.
| 193 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:00:49pm |
re: #191 Ericus58
Buck - you are pissing me off.
Shut the hell up.signed,
Ex-USN guy
Thank you for your service. But I might say you misunderstood what that “free speech” thing meant when they explained it to you.
| 194 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 1:01:28pm |
re: #192 Buck
I have explained my POV, and I think I have a right to it, without you blowing all out of proportion, and lying about what I said. Especially when you admit that you know I didn’t mean that.
I never lied about what you said at all, Buck. I pointed out that if you don’t think involving several hundred people is transparent, then you have to believe those people could credibly lie. Otherwise, how is it not transparent?
Please just answer that: How is it not transparent when this many people were involved?
| 195 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 1:02:00pm |
re: #179 Buck
Absolutely, I would expect the same transparency (remember we don’t seem to agree what that word means) from every government.
Let’s say that they let the crowd of journalists onto the Vinson. Let’s say we believe that they perceive correctly that Osama is dead.
How do they know how he got that way? Maybe the journalists should have followed the SEALS in for the firefight. Maybe they should have been notified in advance, so they could prepare to document it all adequately as independent observers.
Or maybe that’s not how Special Ops works, at all, at all.
| 196 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 1:02:32pm |
re: #193 Buck
Thank you for your service. But I might say you misunderstood what that “free speech” thing meant when they explained it to you.
Buck, free speech means that the government is not allowed to inhibit your right to free speech.
It does not mean that other individuals can’t tell you, and anyone else, to shut up.
Again: You really don’t get the Constitution.
| 197 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 1:03:17pm |
re: #190 Buck
You and I disagree on what the words mean. I do not think (for example) that embedding members of the press in units is an act that speaks to distrust of the military. In fact I think that it is in the best interest of the armed forces to have independent witness.
I also think that transparency is in the best interest of an armed force that is civilian lead. As much as can be taking in mind security needs.
An embedded journalist there to report news, not to act as an independent witness.
| 198 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:03:18pm |
re: #188 McSpiff
Do you think War Crimes have been committed by coalition forces in Iraq and Afganistan?
Really you ask ME that? If any crimes have been committed, they would be investigated and if found guilty the person or persons would be punished with in the boundaries of the law.
| 199 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:05:07pm |
re: #195 SanFranciscoZionist
Let’s say that they let the crowd of journalists onto the Vinson. Let’s say we believe that they perceive correctly that Osama is dead.
How do they know how he got that way? Maybe the journalists should have followed the SEALS in for the firefight. Maybe they should have been notified in advance, so they could prepare to document it all adequately as independent observers.
Or maybe that’s not how Special Ops works, at all, at all.
That is not what I said. You add a bunch of maybes that have nothing to do with what I said.
| 200 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 1:07:16pm |
re: #199 Buck
That is not what I said. You add a bunch of maybes that have nothing to do with what I said.
I’m attempting to demonstrate some problems with what you said.
There was no reason on God’s green earth for throwing Osama Bin Laden’s body into the ocean to become a press event, and many reasons it should not have been.
| 201 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 1:07:25pm |
re: #190 Buck
You and I disagree on what the words mean. I do not think (for example) that embedding members of the press in units is an act that speaks to distrust of the military. In fact I think that it is in the best interest of the armed forces to have independent witness.
I also think that transparency is in the best interest of an armed force that is civilian lead. As much as can be taking in mind security needs.
What you’re speaking of goes well beyond any simple embedding. I agree that a certain level of transparency is needed. The Somalia inquiry in this country is a perfect example. In that case, there was numerous logical inconsistencies in the story, a unit with troubling patterns and motivation for the Chain of Command to engage in a cover up of a crime.
In this case, you’re suggesting the US Military may or may not be engaged in falsifying the killing of one of its primary targets. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this has occurred, nor any logical reason that doesn’t quickly descend into the realm of “Because someone in the National Command Authority hates America.”
The outline of the intelligence gathering is clear, starting with the integration of KSM and ending with the identification of the residence as likely having housing Bin Laden. I’ve read reports going so far as to say the CIA managed to obtain audio recordings of OBL in the residence.
The raid itself has been confirmed to have occurred as outlined by the Pakistani government. Their reports also state that the daughter of OBL has identified him as the one killed.
The only remaining pieces of the puzzle that the US could release is pictures of the corpse taken either in Pakistan, Afganistan or on the Vince. The US has NEVER allowed independent documentation of the corpses of enemy fighters. Since the authenticity has never been questioned before, I see no reason to change that protocol now.
Either you believe the body that went over on the Vince was OBL or you don’t. If you don’t, there’s no reason to believe an autopsy photo was faked as well. Its simply not reasonable, short of any other evidence to assume this has occurred. Occam’s razor simply fails. Otherwise we’re logically forced to question every other raid that resulted in the successful termination of a terrorist, because they all used the same protocol for public verification, mainly the US telling the world.
You’ll need to tell me why this raid was different before I’m willing to apply a different standard of proof.
| 202 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 1:07:49pm |
re: #198 Buck
Really you ask ME that? If any crimes have been committed, they would be investigated and if found guilty the person or persons would be punished with in the boundaries of the law.
Why would you trust the military to investigate them?
| 203 |
jamesfirecat Wed, May 4, 2011 1:10:59pm |
re: #196 Obdicut
Buck, free speech means that the government is not allowed to inhibit your right to free speech.
It does not mean that other individuals can’t tell you, and anyone else, to shut up.
Again: You really don’t get the Constitution.
///What do you expect from a Canadian?
| 205 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:12:17pm |
re: #194 Obdicut
I never lied about what you said at all, Buck. I pointed out that if you don’t think involving several hundred people is transparent, then you have to believe those people could credibly lie. Otherwise, how is it not transparent?
Please just answer that: How is it not transparent when this many people were involved?
Again, I am pointing out (although I know you already know, and are purposely trying to move the goals around. You do it all the time, many have commented on it) that we don’t have the same definition of the two words that are the basis for what I said. “Government Transparency”, and “Independent witness”.
| 206 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:13:54pm |
re: #201 McSpiff
“In this case, you’re suggesting the US Military may or may not be engaged in falsifying the killing of one of its primary targets. “
No I am not. AND I have stated that I am not multiple times. I stopped reading the rest of your post #201 as it is basis is a lie.
| 207 |
Ericus58 Wed, May 4, 2011 1:15:03pm |
re: #193 Buck
Thank you for your service. But I might say you misunderstood what that “free speech” thing meant when they explained it to you.
Buck, let me be brief.
In no way, shape or form are you superior to me.
Not in intelligence, life experiences or manly good looks.
Only my Wife is above my paygrade.
In three weeks, when I pin the new 2nd Lt. bars on my son at his commissioning - I won’t be thinking of you.
But by God, thinking of those idiots like you who clammer for photos that somewhere down the road could impact my son’s duty or life…..
No amount of worldly pain would equal my thoughts.
| 208 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 1:15:27pm |
re: #206 Buck
“In this case, you’re suggesting the US Military may or may not be engaged in falsifying the killing of one of its primary targets. “
No I am not. AND I have stated that I am not multiple times. I stopped reading the rest of your post #201 as it is basis is a lie.
Fine, then I’ll post the most relevant piece you skipped over, that does not attempt to suggest any opinion on your part. Just because I like you so much.
Either a person believe the body that went over on the Vince was OBL or they dont don’t. If they don’t, there’s no reason to believe an autopsy photo was not faked as well. Its simply not reasonable, short of any other evidence to assume this has occurred. Occam’s razor simply fails. Otherwise we’re logically forced to question every other raid that resulted in the successful termination of a terrorist, because they all used the same protocol for public verification, mainly the US telling the world.
You’ll need to tell me why this raid was different before I’m willing to apply a different standard of proof.
| 209 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:16:07pm |
re: #202 McSpiff
Why would you trust the military to investigate them?
In an open and transparent way. Giving the accused the right to a defence?
Hmm let me think about that…. because I believe in the freedoms, democracy and laws.
| 211 |
jamesfirecat Wed, May 4, 2011 1:18:14pm |
re: #210 Buck
I never clamored for photos.
You voted “yes” they should release photos.
So I guess you only “politely requested” photos then?
| 212 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 1:19:02pm |
re: #209 Buck
In an open and transparent way. Giving the accused the right to a defence?
Hmm let me think about that… because I believe in the freedoms, democracy and laws.
Then you should be quite happy. The OBL raid is MUCH more publicly transparent than any Canadian investigation into accusations of War Crimes in Afghanistan. Standard of transparency met?
| 213 |
Varek Raith Wed, May 4, 2011 1:20:36pm |
Geez, Buck.
Can your ODS be anymore severe.
Chillout. Have a beer.
| 214 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 1:21:58pm |
re: #212 McSpiff
Then you should be quite happy. The OBL raid is MUCH more publicly transparent than any Canadian investigation into accusations of War Crimes in Afghanistan. Standard of transparency met?
Sorry, in my haste I forgot to write “involving Special Forces”. I know of at least one regular infantry that ended up at trial, requiring the government to make the investigation more public.
| 215 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:22:51pm |
re: #208 McSpiff
Fine, then I’ll post the most relevant piece you skipped over, that does not attempt to suggest any opinion on your part. Just because I like you so much.
SO far off topic, but I do not think it is protocol to bury each of them at sea. Remember you are the one trying to compare Osama to the other terrorists, not me.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Pictures were released and I think they gave his body to his family. Again, I am not the one comparing this to other events. I think it is unique, but YOU brought it up.
| 216 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:23:45pm |
re: #212 McSpiff
Then you should be quite happy. The OBL raid is MUCH more publicly transparent than any Canadian investigation into accusations of War Crimes in Afghanistan. Standard of transparency met?
Or saddened by the way the Canadian investigations took place.
| 217 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:25:16pm |
re: #211 jamesfirecat
You voted “yes” they should release photos.
So I guess you only “politely requested” photos then?
No, I stated my opinion, when invited, on the subject. I never asked for photos, or requested them in any way.
| 218 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 1:26:46pm |
re: #215 Buck
SO far off topic, but I do not think it is protocol to bury each of them at sea. Remember you are the one trying to compare Osama to the other terrorists, not me.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Pictures were released and I think they gave his body to his family. Again, I am not the one comparing this to other events. I think it is unique, but YOU brought it up.
They may have decided, based on later intelligence, that the way they handled Zarqawi was a miscalculation, or they may figure this is, indeed, very different.
There are people with advanced degrees in this sort of thing, and I’m not one of them.
| 219 |
Varek Raith Wed, May 4, 2011 1:28:09pm |
All I know is this;
If Bush were still pres, Buck would not be complaining like this.
| 220 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 1:28:33pm |
re: #215 Buck
SO far off topic, but I do not think it is protocol to bury each of them at sea. Remember you are the one trying to compare Osama to the other terrorists, not me.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Pictures were released and I think they gave his body to his family. Again, I am not the one comparing this to other events. I think it is unique, but YOU brought it up.
Well at least we’re getting into a discussion. I don’t think the DOD releasing picturing makes a difference to the transparency. Photoshop and all that. We’d have no way of verifying the verification pictures.
The only thing I can find in regards to the body of al-Zarqawi is:
“The remains of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi were turned over to the appropriate government of Iraq officials and buried in accordance with Muslim customs and traditions,” the military said in a statement. “Anything further than that would be addressed by the Iraqi government.”
Which doesn’t immediately suggest to me that the family received the body. If they did, it wasn’t from the US government.
What makes this event unique in the sense that it requires unique verification?
| 221 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 1:29:33pm |
re: #220 McSpiff
as well:
Al-Zarqawi’s family had called for his body to be returned to Jordan for burial, but the Jordanian authorities had refused.
From [Link: www1.albawaba.com…]
| 222 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 1:32:50pm |
re: #216 Buck
Or saddened by the way the Canadian investigations took place.
I’m confused, you said before that:
re: #198 Buck
Really you ask ME that? If any crimes have been committed, they would be investigated and if found guilty the person or persons would be punished with in the boundaries of the law.
But now you say:
re: #216 Buck
Or saddened by the way the Canadian investigations took place.
So you trust that the crimes will be properly investigated, but you’re saddened by how those investigations are carried out?
| 223 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:35:19pm |
re: #220 McSpiff
Well at least we’re getting into a discussion. I don’t think the DOD releasing picturing makes a difference to the transparency. Photoshop and all that. We’d have no way of verifying the verification pictures.
We are discussing, BUT two very different topics.
I never said that releasing the pictures would make a difference to the transparency.
| 224 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 1:35:57pm |
re: #223 Buck
We are discussing, BUT two very different topics.
I never said that releasing the pictures would make a difference to the transparency.
What would increase transparency?
| 225 |
Spocomptonite Wed, May 4, 2011 1:38:42pm |
re: #26 elizajane
I don’t want to see them. I don’t want them plastered across the front pages of the newspapers where my kids and their friends will see them. I don’t want to have to explain to them, “this is what your country does” — even if it’s what we do to bad people. I support the killing of Bin Laden but it was an existential necessity, not something to gloat about in the materiality of death.
Moreover — why rub it in the face of the Islamic world, where the tensions (within individual countries, not just between us and them) are bad enough already? Why behave with that kind of disrespect?
Exactly this.
| 227 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:41:13pm |
re: #218 SanFranciscoZionist
They may have decided, based on later intelligence, that the way they handled Zarqawi was a miscalculation, or they may figure this is, indeed, very different.
There are people with advanced degrees in this sort of thing, and I’m not one of them.
OK, but you would agree that one does not need an advanced degree in what to do with dead terrorists to give an honest opinion? And that once a person gives that opinion, reading into it all kinds of evil that was NOT said would be wrong.
| 228 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 1:41:26pm |
re: #226 Buck
Going around in circles. I am dizzy.
Go there and follow that right back to here.
Could you expand a bit? I’ve heard a few different people say that and they all mean different things. Do you mean asking a reporter to ID the body or are you suggesting something more along the lines of an independent autopsy?
| 229 |
SanFranciscoZionist Wed, May 4, 2011 1:46:43pm |
re: #227 Buck
OK, but you would agree that one does not need an advanced degree in what to do with dead terrorists to give an honest opinion? And that once a person gives that opinion, reading into it all kinds of evil that was NOT said would be wrong.
Buck, you haven’t given an opinion at all. You keep doing this little side-step about what other people might think.
| 230 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:51:17pm |
re: #228 McSpiff
Could you expand a bit? I’ve heard a few different people say that and they all mean different things. Do you mean asking a reporter to ID the body or are you suggesting something more along the lines of an independent autopsy?
Really you need to have “Dumping the body at sea without any independent witness.” expanded on? Did you even try to read the thread?
I am afraid you are asking me to start all over with you once I have already explained it three times to others in this thread.
I am NOT anti Obama, or anti armed forces. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am not a Birther, or Truther. I don’t think that Israel attacked the USS Liberty on purpose.
I do think that the USA had men land on the moon. I think the world is round. I am Pro Choice, but I would like to have some rules about third trimester abortions.
I am convinced that Osama is dead, and was right from the start. I am not asking for pictures, or to have his body strung up in the square to be spit on, although I understand some peoples need for more, and I don’t judge them on that need/desire.
At the start of this thread I state my opinion that I thought a lot of BS could be avoided with a little more transparency. Independent witness if you will. And I suggested members of the press.
For that I have been (digitally) spit on by a Vet, and accused of many horrible deeds that I did not commit.
| 231 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 1:52:55pm |
re: #229 SanFranciscoZionist
Buck, you haven’t given an opinion at all. You keep doing this little side-step about what other people might think.
Really?…. well that is funny to me. Maybe that will be the last thing I get accused of. “He was just not opinionated enough for people around here”
| 232 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 1:53:16pm |
re: #205 Buck
Again, I am pointing out (although I know you already know, and are purposely trying to move the goals around. You do it all the time, many have commented on it) that we don’t have the same definition of the two words that are the basis for what I said. “Government Transparency”, and “Independent witness”.
Then goddamn explain what your definitions are, Buck.
| 233 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 2:01:47pm |
re: #232 Obdicut
Then goddamn explain what your definitions are, Buck.
Not again, no. I withdrew, twice now.
| 234 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 2:03:38pm |
re: #230 Buck
Well in that case we fundamentally disagree. Reasonable people like you and me know OBL is dead. NATO, Pakistan and the Taliban all accept this. Those who don’t believe it will simply accuse any independent member of the media as being an Obama plant or some other thing.
I simply cannot support pandering to those who base their interpretation of these events based on their emotional impression of the president. Unless a credible source says that more verification was needed, then I stand by the administrations handling of the events.
My references to 9/11, the moon landings, USS Liberty were to demonstrate that a portion of the population will never, ever accept the official story. I feel those who don’t believe that OBL body went over the side on the Vance fall into this category.
There’s no controversy here, except for those who are determined to find one to fit their own biases.
| 235 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 2:12:05pm |
re: #233 Buck
Not again, no. I withdrew, twice now.
You mean you said something indefensible and won’t back down.
You didn’t ‘withdraw’ one whit.
| 236 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 2:19:17pm |
re: #235 Obdicut
You mean you said something indefensible and won’t back down.
You didn’t ‘withdraw’ one whit.
I certainly did not say “something indefensible”. Third lie on you part.
| 237 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 2:21:42pm |
re: #236 Buck
You haven’t shown any lies on my part, Buck. And what is indefensible is obviously a subjective matter, so you can’t actually call it a lie.
It’s really nifty how often you call me a liar, but when you make accusations against me— like the thread where you accused me of demonizing people— you can’t actually back it up.
Your claims here that hundreds, if not thousands, of US military members, in addition to the civilians running the operation, in addition to whoever did the DNA test, are not independent witnesses, and that burying the body in this manner is not transparent, are, to me, absolutely indefensible. And to quite a few other people as well, you’ll note.
| 238 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 2:24:42pm |
re: #234 McSpiff
Well in that case we fundamentally disagree.
Fine, and that should be OK without the gang downding and slander.
I have an opinion… it is not indefensible, many other have the same one. It is not a knock against the Armed Forces (not that they are in anyway asked to bear witness).
Your opinion is different than mine, wow…. someone on the internet with a different opinion than mine….
Just seems that the need to take a chainsaw to me is a bit over the top.
| 239 |
Gepetto Wed, May 4, 2011 2:29:03pm |
re: #207 Ericus58
But by God, thinking of those idiots like you who clammer for photos that somewhere down the road could impact my son’s duty or life…
No amount of worldly pain would equal my thoughts.
Do you include the photos of Abu Gharaib, for which an even greater clamor was raised, and because of which our soldiers have been killed and maimed, in your anger? This is not intended to be a flippant question. I believe Pres. Obama and his chain of command did indeed dispatch OBL, or he already would have shown up castro-like in some video with todays paper in hand.
But, most assuredly the Abu Gharaib photos were incendiary, and DID and WILL STILL result in deadly actions against our soldiers, just as the assassination of Bin Laden will be a very potent “recruitment tool” for jihadists.
| 240 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 2:29:11pm |
re: #238 Buck
Thing is, myself and many other do consider your opinion a knock against the Armed Forces.
| 241 |
3CPO Wed, May 4, 2011 2:33:15pm |
re: #238 Buck
You are the one who engaged in slander by saying Obama made “moves that were less than transparent.” And implying that thousands of members of the military potentially witnessing the burial at sea is not enough, that it must be covered by a journalist as well, seems pretty slanderous towards those service members.
| 242 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 2:33:44pm |
re: #237 Obdicut
You haven’t shown any lies on my part, Buck. And what is indefensible is obviously a subjective matter, so you can’t actually call it a lie.
It’s really nifty how often you call me a liar, but when you make accusations against me— like the thread where you accused me of demonizing people— you can’t actually back it up.
Your claims here that hundreds, if not thousands, of US military members, in addition to the civilians running the operation, in addition to whoever did the DNA test, are not independent witnesses, and that burying the body in this manner is not transparent, are, to me, absolutely indefensible. And to quite a few other people as well, you’ll note.
No I simply claim that it is less than transparent. AND your use of the word “whoever” to describe the independent witness just means that we (as I have stated over and over) have a different understanding of the words. You don’t know who they are, and it has not been released.
My opinion is that a lot of shit could be avoided if they were just a little bit more transparent. (SFZ, that is for you in case you missed it the multiple times I stated it earlier).
AND you had full knowledge of that position, while you continued to paint my position differently means to me very clearly that you are a liar. I have been very specific about your lies…. I have quoted you in your lies. You knew them to be untrue, but stated them boldly and bald faced.
Just because you see the herd running me over, doesn’t mean you have to participate. Numbers do not make it right.
| 243 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 2:34:23pm |
re: #240 McSpiff
Thing is, myself and many other do consider your opinion a knock against the Armed Forces.
Well, you are jumping to an conclusion that is unsupported in fact. Enjoy.
| 244 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 2:36:57pm |
re: #243 Buck
Well, you are jumping to an conclusion that is unsupported in fact. Enjoy.
Its been explained to you countless times in this thread why that is indeed very much the case. But you’re unwilling or unable to understand, so at this point I’ll simply say cheers.
| 245 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 2:38:01pm |
re: #241 3CPO
You are the one who engaged in slander by saying Obama made “moves that were less than transparent.” And implying that thousands of members of the military potentially witnessing the burial at sea is not enough, that it must be covered by a journalist as well, seems pretty slanderous towards those service members.
That is not slander. If I said that he did it that way to avoid the awful truth, then maybe you might have something.
BUT that is not the case. I am not accusing him of doing anything illegal or immoral. I am just stating my opinion that there could have been more transparency and that would lead to less BS.
| 246 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 2:38:06pm |
re: #242 Buck
Why claim that you have withdrawn when you haven’t?
My opinion is that a lot of shit could be avoided if they were just a little bit more transparent. (SFZ, that is for you in case you missed it the multiple times I stated it earlier).
No, your opinion was that they were less-than-transparent. That’s what you said. Remember? Here is what you said:
I also think that the delay and other less than transparent moves have simply fueled ANOTHER Obama controversy.
It’s not that you want more transparency, it’s that you’re saying that military disposal of the body without— just to use the example you’re giving— a journalist, is less-than-transparent.
I have quoted you in your lies.
You haven’t shown anything that I’ve said to be remotely untrue. You always claim you have, yet you can never actually point to a lie on my part.
Just because you see the herd running me over, doesn’t mean you have to participate. Numbers do not make it right.
Buck, you know me. You know what I think of you. Do you really think I’m criticizing you now because everyone else is? I’m attacking you because I find your reflexive need to attack Obama no matter what ridiculous, ethically shameful positions you have to adopt absolutely nauseatingly disgusting.
| 247 |
McSpiff Wed, May 4, 2011 2:39:31pm |
re: #245 Buck
That is not slander. If I said that he did it that way to avoid the awful truth, then maybe you might have something.
BUT that is not the case. I am not accusing him of doing anything illegal or immoral. I am just stating my opinion that there could have been more transparency and that would lead to less BS.
Its nice that you have opinions. It would be better if you had some facts.
| 248 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 2:47:23pm |
Wow, so now asking for more transparency is not the same as pointing out the was less…
Again, I don’t think we are speaking the same language.
Yes, every time you accuse me saying some thing that I didn’t say, you are lying.
You said that I “don’t think that members of the US military are independent enough to reveal a lie like this”.
I never said that. Lie on your part.
You say that I am “implying that hundreds or thousands of US Navy members would all lie about a subject of grave national importance.”
And again, I never said that, and I was clear that I didn’t say that, yet you repeated it. Liar liar pants on fire.
ANd stating that what I said was “something indefensible”, even though you knew I was simply stating my opinion on the subject at hand was your third lie…
Nothing I said was missing any facts. It is not indefensible to believe that there could have been a lot of bullshit avoided if there had been independent witness to the burial at sea.
| 249 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 2:48:42pm |
re: #247 McSpiff
Its nice that you have opinions. It would be better if you had some facts.
OK, what fact was I missing? When I say that there was no independent witness to the burial at sea, and that would have meant more transparency if there was…. what fact am I missing?
| 250 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 2:49:16pm |
re: #248 Buck
I never said that. Lie on your part.
You don’t consider them to be independent witnesses, correct?
You say that I am “implying that hundreds or thousands of US Navy members would all lie about a subject of grave national importance.”
You’re saying that it was less-than-transparent to dispose of the body with ‘only’ them as witnesses, correct?
ANd stating that what I said was “something indefensible”, even though you knew I was simply stating my opinion on the subject at hand was your third lie…
Again, Buck, indefensible is subjective. You also can’t say that me calling you nauseating is a lie. Especially since I really do.
| 251 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 2:58:10pm |
re: #250 Obdicut
You don’t consider them to be independent witnesses, correct?
I never said they would lie about this, or anything like this. That is pure and simple. You made that part up.
I have the up most respect for the armed forces, and I explained that having reporters present is not a reflection on the trustworthiness of the armed forces.
Yet you keep pretending that you heard me say otherwise, and then you paraphrase the words in order to say that I was accusing them of lying.
AGAIN, I am now hoping that you and I just have a completely different understanding of the word independent as it relates to this story.
Having an independent free press to witness and record history is not because we think that the armed forces are liars, or that they would cover up something. It is so that no one can accuse them of that.
Is the Armed forces independent of the armed forces? Not by my definition.
| 252 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 3:20:26pm |
re: #251 Buck
I never said they would lie about this, or anything like this. That is pure and simple. You made that part up.
Then why don’t they qualify as transparent, independent witnesses?
Please just answer that one question, Buck.
| 253 |
Usually refered to as anyways Wed, May 4, 2011 3:21:27pm |
Buck,
Do you have any evidence that the US Govt lies?
Do you have any evidence that soldiers would cover up a crime?
Bring some facts or move along.
| 254 |
bratwurst Wed, May 4, 2011 3:35:33pm |
re: #183 Buck
You don’t know me, you just think you do.
What I DO know of you I find to be intellectually dishonest on a regular basis.
| 255 |
Gepetto Wed, May 4, 2011 3:50:47pm |
re: #253 ozbloke
I believe OBL is dead at the hands of President Obama’s chain of command. However, I haven’t seen or read any confirmation of this by the boots on the ground/deck service members, have you? So, really, that point is moot. we have only heard from the highest parts of our government, and Pakistani news sources, which contradict our own government spokesmen.
It is up to our independent journalists to either verify the stories, or explore the contradictions. When the party line is swallowed, unexplored, and then spat back by journalists, thats when we are in greatest danger of being misled. As I recall, several high ranking members of the armed services, the Bush administration, and a whole lot of Congress people (including HRC) swore up and down that Hussein had dangerous WMD’s ready to pop.
Ozbloke, was that lying?
| 256 |
Usually refered to as anyways Wed, May 4, 2011 3:59:59pm |
re: #255 Gepetto
I believe OBL is dead at the hands of President Obama’s chain of command. However, I haven’t seen or read any confirmation of this by the boots on the ground/deck service members, have you? So, really, that point is moot. we have only heard from the highest parts of our government, and Pakistani news sources, which contradict our own government spokesmen.
It is up to our independent journalists to either verify the stories, or explore the contradictions. When the party line is swallowed, unexplored, and then spat back by journalists, thats when we are in greatest danger of being misled. As I recall, several high ranking members of the armed services, the Bush administration, and a whole lot of Congress people (including HRC) swore up and down that Hussein had dangerous WMD’s ready to pop.
Ozbloke, was that lying?
Gepetto,
That bolded part was funny.
Next your going to tell me the US does torture and ok’s assassinations against US citizens.
You may have dainty sensibilities, apparently there is a lot of it going around.
Are you a US citizen?
| 257 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 5:14:20pm |
re: #252 Obdicut
Then why don’t they qualify as transparent, independent witnesses?
Please just answer that one question, Buck.
This is you moving the goal posts again and again. You ask a question, that is not at all related to what I was talking about… and then you go on and on about answering that one question.
It is not related to what I am talking about because it is obvious that “they” are not ” transparent, independent witnesses” for what they themselves do.
AGAIN it is irrelevant to what I am saying because, as I have stated over and over (and you know it) having an independent free press to witness and record history is not because we think that the armed forces are liars, or that they would cover up something. It is so that no one can accuse them of that.
You said that I “don’t think that members of the US military are independent enough to reveal a lie like this”.
People read that, and think that I am calling members of the US military liars.
I never said that. So they are misinformed because of your lie. It is not Lie on your part. It is not subjective. It is a LIE.
When you say that I said something that I didn’t say, then you are lying.
Maybe if you said that I said something that you felt was indefensible, and actually quoted it, then it might be subjective as the party reading could read what I actually said, and decide for themselves. You didn’t do that.
You made up what you wanted and said that I said it, which I didn’t.
Three lies.
| 258 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 5:17:27pm |
re: #253 ozbloke
Buck,
Do you have any evidence that the US Govt lies?
Do you have any evidence that soldiers would cover up a crime?Bring some facts or move along.
Very important…. I never said that the US Govt lies, or that soldiers would cover up a crime.
Obdicut said that I did say that, and you believed his lie.
| 259 |
Usually refered to as anyways Wed, May 4, 2011 5:22:04pm |
re: #258 Buck
Very important… I never said that the US Govt lies, or that soldiers would cover up a crime.
Obdicut said that I did say that, and you believed his lie.
Are you sure I believed what you term ‘his lie’?
| 260 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 5:22:53pm |
re: #259 ozbloke
Are you sure I believed what you term ‘his lie’?
I never said that the US Govt lies, or that soldiers would cover up a crime. Where did you read that I did?
| 261 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 5:22:59pm |
re: #257 Buck
This is you moving the goal posts again and again. You ask a question, that is not at all related to what I was talking about… and then you go on and on about answering that one question.
How on earth is asking why the Navy personnel don’t count as independent witnesses sufficient for transparency not related to what you were talking about— which is how Obama was less-than-transparent?
as I have stated over and over (and you know it) having an independent free press to witness and record history is not because we think that the armed forces are liars, or that they would cover up something. It is so that no one can accuse them of that.
That doesn’t make much sense, Buck. If there’s no reason to believe in this massive conspiracy, why shouldn’t we just treat people who do like any other conspiracy loon? And why would those loons be appeased by the presence of a photographer?
Why is a reporter there taking pictures or whatever more of an independent verification than the hundreds of military men— unless you believe that those hundreds of military men and women might keep quiet about the lie?
You’ve never answered this. You keep saying that a reporter is independent. That’s true, and fine, and well. But why is a reporter necessary for transparency? Why aren’t the servicemen— and the entire staff Obama had with him during the raid— sufficient for you? Why do you consider that less-than-transparent?
| 262 |
Usually refered to as anyways Wed, May 4, 2011 5:29:47pm |
re: #260 Buck
I never said that the US Govt lies, or that soldiers would cover up a crime. Where did you read that I did?
I never said that you did.
| 263 |
Gepetto Wed, May 4, 2011 5:29:52pm |
re: #256 ozbloke
I’m not sure I’ve ever been thusly described. Dainty Sensibilities? And, yes, I am a US citizen.
Torture would be dependent upon definition. If you believe waterboarding, as popularly described, is torture, then, yes. Absolutely.
And, obviously, we OK assassinations against US citizens, by Presidential Order, as a matter of fact. I remain unconvinced of the constitutionality of summary execution without trial of a US citizen, but I fully understand the efficacy of such a deed. Harsh Times call for Harsh Measures, a bromide being fully explored by our current Leadership.
I note my actual statements stand unchallenged, despite your commentary on my mispercieved daintiness and questions about my citizenship.
| 264 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 5:38:04pm |
re: #261 Obdicut
I am sorry you don’t understand what I am saying. I am being very clear.
Having an independent free press to witness and record history is not because we think that the armed forces are liars, or that they would cover up something. It is so that no one can accuse them of that.
Let me make another way.
In a democracy we have trials that are open to the public. Not because we think that all judges are liars who will try and cover things up.
In the house and Senate, we have public viewing and allow the press to view the proceedings and report on them. Not because we think they are not trustworthy and would lie to cover something up.
| 265 |
Gepetto Wed, May 4, 2011 5:38:38pm |
re: #261 Obdicut
You’ve never answered this. You keep saying that a reporter is independent. That’s true, and fine, and well. But why is a reporter necessary for transparency? Why aren’t the servicemen— and the entire staff Obama had with him during the raid— sufficient for you? Why do you consider that less-than-transparent?
Have the myriad lessons taught us by the last administration been lost on you as well? Why aren’t the servicemen, the Congress—and the entire staff Bush had working for him during the run-up to the Iraq War—sufficient for you?
While I have a tendency to believe in the overall honesty of our government, the ability of a free and healthy press to keep them honest should not be underrated.
| 266 |
Usually refered to as anyways Wed, May 4, 2011 5:39:31pm |
re: #263 Gepetto
I note my actual statements stand unchallenged, despite your commentary on my mispercieved daintiness and questions about my citizenship.
I think President Obama wanted to look forward not backward.
I don’t think I questioned any of your statements by the way.
I did ask if you were a citizen, sorry if that offended you.
Oh and #253 was tongue in cheek…
| 267 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 5:40:48pm |
re: #253 ozbloke
Buck,
Do you have any evidence that the US Govt lies?
Do you have any evidence that soldiers would cover up a crime?Bring some facts or move along.
OK, let me try again.
Way would you think I should bring these topics up at all?
Are you saying that if I am not willing to discuss what you want me to discuss then I should move along?
| 270 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 5:48:21pm |
re: #261 Obdicut
Why aren’t the servicemen— and the entire staff Obama had with him during the raid— sufficient for you? Why do you consider that less-than-transparent?
You and I don’t understand the words independent and transparent in the same way if you can ask that question.
AND I was not talking about during the raid, and you know that.
| 271 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 5:50:41pm |
re: #266 ozbloke
Oh and #253 was tongue in cheek…
It sure didn’t sound like it. It would have been nice if you had said that right away, and not three replies later..
| 272 |
Usually refered to as anyways Wed, May 4, 2011 5:56:56pm |
re: #271 Buck
It sure didn’t sound like it. It would have been nice if you had said that right away, and not three replies later..
Here, have a beer. Sorry to wreck your whole day.
| 273 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 5:57:34pm |
re: #264 Buck
I am sorry you don’t understand what I am saying. I am being very clear.
Having an independent free press to witness and record history is not because we think that the armed forces are liars, or that they would cover up something. It is so that no one can accuse them of that.
But what are you talking about? When have we done this before? And why would we give any credence to their accusers, anyway?
In a democracy we have trials that are open to the public. Not because we think that all judges are liars who will try and cover things up.
In fact, we do have trials that are not open to the public, as well. You know that, right?
In the house and Senate, we have public viewing and allow the press to view the proceedings and report on them. Not because we think they are not trustworthy and would lie to cover something up.
And we do have private senate and house meetings that the public is not allowed to attend.
You’re doing a bang-up job of disproving yourself, as always, Buck.
Why can’t you just explain why you feel that it’s less-than-transparent to only have Navy personell— and the entire staff that was with Obama— as witnesses? Why isn’t that transparent enough for you?
| 274 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 5:58:35pm |
re: #270 Buck
You and I don’t understand the words independent and transparent in the same way if you can ask that question.
AND I was not talking about during the raid, and you know that.
Then, again, define what you mean instead of complaining we’re not using it the same way. Explain how your definition means those Navy members are not independent and involving hundreds of them— as well as Obama’s staff— makes this less-than-transparent.
You seem unable to define your terms. Why?
| 275 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 6:30:37pm |
re: #274 Obdicut
Then, again, define what you mean instead of complaining we’re not using it the same way. Explain how your definition means those Navy members are not independent and involving hundreds of them— as well as Obama’s staff— makes this less-than-transparent.
You seem unable to define your terms. Why?
Independant: Free from outside control and not depending on another’s authority.
Do you understand when someone refers to the free press they don’t mean how much it costs, but rather the freedom from outside control?
Having no independent witness to the burial at sea is less transparent than having one.
The Navy personnel (and we don’t know how many witnessed this burial at sea, or who) are all honorable men and women. However they are not independent of the Navy.
Now I am going to pull an Obdicut… watch,,,
Obdicut, why are you against freedom of the press? Why are you trying to change the first amendment? Don’t you think that the first amendment is good? Are you also against free exercise of religion? What have you got against the free exercise of religion?
Just tell me what you would want instead of a first amendment.
| 276 |
Obdicut Wed, May 4, 2011 6:37:15pm |
re: #275 Buck
Independant: Free from outside control and not depending on another’s authority.
Do you think that the military has control over its members extending to telling them to lie about what they’ve seen?
Do you understand when someone refers to the free press they don’t mean how much it costs, but rather the freedom from outside control?
Yep.
Having no independent witness to the burial at sea is less transparent than having one.
Why, by your definition of transparent? Why is the word of a sailor less trustable than that of a reporter?
The Navy personnel (and we don’t know how many witnessed this burial at sea, or who) are all honorable men and women. However they are not independent of the Navy.
Sure, they’re not. But in order to believe that dependence matters, you have to believe that A) they would lie when ordered to and B) that they would be given the orders to lie. Since only a conspiracy theorist would believe either of those, I fail to see why they’re not acceptable as independent witnesses.
Obdicut, why are you against freedom of the press?
I’m not, and you can’t point to a single thing I said that’s in any way indicative of that. You, however, misconstrued the first amendment in your usual laughable fashion, to claim that someone telling you to shut up was a violation of it. Remember? That was kind of funny.
The difference is, Buck, that i’m pointing out actual flaws in your argument.
Each and every sailor there is an independent person. None of them has any stake or say in whether or not the truth is revealed or not. Only a conspiracy theorist could believe that it’s possible for an order to be given to them to lie, or that they would follow such an order. As such, having a reporter there would not add to transparency, given that you could also claim that whatever reporter was not actually independent— if you believe the Navy members could lie, you could also believe that they would threaten or otherwise coerce the reporter.
You continue to dishonestly pretend that what you said was that you wanted more transparency. This is a continued falsehood on your part, and I’m asking you to think about why you’re perpetrating it. What you actually said was that Obama was less-than-transparent in the way that the body was disposed of. As in, it was not transparent, it was less than.
Obviously it would be ‘more’ transparent to have a reporter there, or have every member of congress file by. But what you said was that it was less-than-transparent.
That is false, and wrong. And you are only saying it to attack Obama.
You are, indeed, transparent.
| 278 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 6:46:26pm |
re: #276 Obdicut
Do you think that the military has control over its members extending to telling them to lie about what they’ve seen?
Why, by your definition of transparent? Why is the word of a sailor less trustable than that of a reporter?
Which sailor? You don’t even know if there were sailors to witness anything. What is his name? What did he witness?
It really doesn’t matter. This is not about the sailors. I am just sorry you don’t have any respect for the free press. When you state that “having a reporter there would not add to transparency” you demean and disrespect the journalist.
You didn’t answer me, why can’t you just answer my question?
| 279 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 7:02:48pm |
Yes I said that dumping the body at sea without any independent witness was less-than-transparent.
Navy personnel are not independent witnesses for the purposes of government transparency.
This isn’t a I HATE OBAMA thing. It is a I would state my opinion on the subject thing.
Now why do you hate the first amendment? Why do you think that free reporters are not trustworthy enough to add transparency?
And why do you want to take away freedom of religion?
| 280 |
shai_au Wed, May 4, 2011 7:03:55pm |
I voted ‘no’, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I think that they should never be released. It’s just too risky to do that now.
| 281 |
jamesfirecat Wed, May 4, 2011 7:05:47pm |
re: #279 Buck
Yes I said that dumping the body at sea without any independent witness was less-than-transparent.
Navy personnel are not independent witnesses for the purposes of government transparency.
This isn’t a I HATE OBAMA thing. It is a I would state my opinion on the subject thing.
Now why do you hate the first amendment? Why do you think that free reporters are not trustworthy enough to add transparency?
And why do you want to take away freedom of religion?
The first amendment is a right to say things not the right to see things Buck.
I support a free press also but don’t muddy what the First Amendment stands for.
| 282 |
3CPO Wed, May 4, 2011 7:58:47pm |
re: #245 Buck
So “less than transparent” is not a bad thing by your definition, and you really have no argument.
btw, if you have “withdrawn” your accusations, why do you keep defending them? Doesn’t that mean you re-thought them and decided you were wrong?
| 283 |
3CPO Wed, May 4, 2011 8:06:04pm |
re: #279 Buck
Yes, we all understand that you consider several thousand potential witnesses, from various branches of the government and military, as wells as civilian tagalongs to be a “lack of transparency.” Forgive us if we, as you stated, resorted to “mass downdinging” and an attack mentality to say, “No, Buck. You’re wrong.”
(PS - telling us that we’re only disagreeing with you because we’re all lemmings is also slanderous.)
| 284 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 8:50:33pm |
re: #281 jamesfirecat
The first amendment is a right to say things not the right to see things Buck.
I support a free press also but don’t muddy what the First Amendment stands for.
The whole first amendment thing is me doing an obdicut. Asking inane questions slightly unrelated, responding with even more inane questions that take you farther and father from the original point, until his victim is ignoring him and he keeps asking “when are you going to answer my questions?”
| 285 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 8:56:05pm |
re: #283 3CPO
Yes, we all understand that you consider several thousand potential witnesses, from various branches of the government and military, as wells as civilian tagalongs to be a “lack of transparency.” Forgive us if we, as you stated, resorted to “mass downdinging” and an attack mentality to say, “No, Buck. You’re wrong.”
(PS - telling us that we’re only disagreeing with you because we’re all lemmings is also slanderous.)
potential witnesses? Potential?
Who steps forward with an independent account of the burial at sea? Are you making this up, or do you have a link that can be confirmed…
Anyone of the the millions who potentially witnessed it? Anyone you can verify??? Just send me one witness… if you really have 100000000000000 to chose from, this should be easy.
AND IF you do have an independent witness, then my feeling that there should be one is fulfilled.
However in the meanwhile the “several thousand potential witnesses, from various branches of the government and military, as wells as civilian tagalongs” is just a fantasy.
Also I never used the word lemmings…
| 286 |
Buck Wed, May 4, 2011 9:00:37pm |
re: #282 3CPO
So “less than transparent” is not a bad thing by your definition, and you really have no argument.
btw, if you have “withdrawn” your accusations, why do you keep defending them? Doesn’t that mean you re-thought them and decided you were wrong?
I withdrew because it was clear that we could not agree on what independent or Transparency meant.
I continued because people kept making up things and attributing them to me.
AND less than transparent is not a bad thing, it just helps the conspiracy nuts, and I would prefer to not feed that.
| 287 |
Flavia Wed, May 4, 2011 11:01:43pm |
I voted “Not sure” because even tho’ I applaud the decision - I was hoping he wouldn’t because it would drive his detractors of all sorts (both in the country & terrorist supporters) absolutely crazy* - I can also see some benefit to it. There is a certain sort that needs cold proof of threats carried out, of punishment to come, in order to behave properly. If these monsters think we;re going to bomb,looking for them, they’re not that worried: they’ll leave their wives & children in the buildings with the weapons & sneak out the back way themselves. But if we prove to them that they, personally, are next…? I strongly suspect the al Qaida guy who just turned himself could very well have managed to see a shot (so to speak) of bin Laden…
So, to summarize: I approve of the decision, but could see some benefits to releasing them.
*friends of mine started thinking of all the cool “Yeah, he’s still alive” campaigns WE could come up with to further torture them: “Yep - he’s repented of his sins & is living in Jerusalem, studying Torah, & engaged to a nice Jewish girl (10 months later, show him at “his son’s bris”)” or, “Hey, I just caught sight of him, in New Orleans, having a pulled pork sandwich!”
This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.
Comments are closed.
Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
- Featured PagesClick to refresh
Gateway Pundit, Sued by Election Workers, Declares BankruptcyA onetime favorite, now just pathetic figure around these parts, Jim Hoft aka SMOTI ("Stupidest Man On The Internet"), has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in response to the defamation lawsuits filed against him to the same election workers that ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
5 days ago
Views: 233 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 3
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 1,017 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 991 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 1,393 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 535 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1- Pictures From Today’s Exhibition of Paintings Done by Jane LilienthalPROPS TO MICHELE AND SAGEHEN FOR CATCHING THE SPELLING ERROR IN THE TITLE THAT MY DIABETIC EYES COULDN'T CATCH I wanted to share pictures of the art show I visited today. The portraits were created by the mother of my ...Joe Bacon ✅
4 weeks ago
Views: 621 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 11
- Recent PagesClick to refresh
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ... Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
Yesterday
Views: 72 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
3 days ago
Views: 175 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 5
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 418 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
