Osama bin Laden is dead

[CD007]

They are stating we have his body as well.

Today is a good day in my opinion.

[smc]

They are stating we have his body as well.

Today is a good day in my opinion.

Who is "we"? The United States military? This is an international site; the use of "we" implies that all our members are America, which is not the case.

[CD007]

Who is "we"? The United States military? This is an international site; the use of "we" implies that all our members are America, which is not the case.

Yes, the United States military killed him so are the reports at this time. I'm waiting for Obama to speak.

[smc]

Yes, the United States military killed him so are the reports at this time. I'm waiting for Obama to speak.

I knew the answer to my question. My point was about your use of "we" -- very presumptuous of you. Perhaps not everyone on this site considers what the United States to do to represent their interests. Just sayin' ...

[CD007]

I knew the answer to my question. My point was about your use of "we" -- very presumptuous of you. Perhaps not everyone on this site considers what the United States to do to represent their interests. Just sayin' ...

I undestand your point. I was just a tad to damn happy to hear he was killed.

[transjen]

^^^^Hey guys lets focaus on the important thing here and thats he's dead and they have the body to prove it,
Every Green Beret who took part deserve a big thankyou
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

^^^^Hey guys lets focaus on the important thing here and thats he's dead and they have the body to prove it,
Every Green Beret who took part deserve a big thankyou
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Yes indeed, this is a momentous occasion. The civilized world joined us in outrage at the 911 attacks that killed people of many nationalities and beliefs.

I find it rather nit picky to fuss about how the word "we" was used. It seems to me that the "we" refers to all the people who desire releaf from war and a chance to have a peaceful life.

The war on terrorism is not over but justice has been served for all the people killed by Osama bin Laden.

[transjen]

Monday should be a holiday
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Yes indeed, this is a momentous occasion. The civilized world joined us in outrage at the 911 attacks that killed people of many nationalities and beliefs.

I find it rather nit picky to fuss about how the word "we" was used. It seems to me that the "we" refers to all the people who desire releaf from war and a chance to have a peaceful life.

The war on terrorism is not over but justice has been served for all the people killed by Osama bin Laden.

Accuse me of what you wish. The world will also be a better place when the United States and its citizens are less presumptuous about the world, period. That has led to all sorts of horrible things on scales that exceed what we're talking about here.

bin Laden was a murderer. Of that, there is no question.

I look forward to the day when the United States is compelled, by its citizenry, to abandon the policies around the world that fuel the hatred that makes recruiting to Al-Qaeda so easy.

[randolph]

SMC Accuse me of what you wish. The world will also be a better place when the United States and its citizens are less presumptuous about the world, period. That had led to all sorts of horrible things on scales that exceed what we're talking about here.

In spite of the imperialistic policies of our government, the people of the Middle East and Africa want secular governments and a Western style economic system capable of bringing some prosperity to their impoverished citizens. The world is rapidly changing, if we don't change, we will be left behind.
Yes, Osama was symbolic of our failed imperialistic policies. The people of the Middle East want control of their own destinies. They don't want us or the Taliban or any other "foreign" entity bossing them around and controlling their lives.

[TracyCoxx]

YES!! The best thing to do is to put his head on a pike at Ground Zero, but I understand we have to go through proper political correctness and do a muslim burial at sea. Let's just hope they at least chose shark invested waters.

And I do thank Obama for keeping up the fight :respect:

[randolph]

YES!! The best thing to do is to put his head on a pike at Ground Zero, but I understand we have to go through proper political correctness and do a muslim burial at sea. Let's just hope they at least chose shark invested waters.

And I do thank Obama for keeping up the fight :respect:

Next on the list is the Egyptian Zawieri(sic) Osama's mastermind.

I am very pleased Obama chose to go in with Navy Seals rather than blow up the estate from a predator drone. We know for certain who was killed. It will be interesting to know how the Seals did it in view of the extensive security at the estate. :respect:

[St. Araqiel]

As Stalin said of Hitler, "So the bastard's dead? Too bad we didn't capture him alive!"
Hiding behind a woman. Why am I not surprised? First, the so-called "hero" flees at Tora Bora, then uses a human shield in his final moments. Just call him Osama ar-Jabaan?"The Cowardly." Good riddance.

[randolph]

As Stalin said of Hitler, "So the bastard's dead? Too bad we didn't capture him alive!"
Hiding behind a woman. Why am I not surprised? First, the so-called "hero" flees at Tora Bora, then uses a human shield in his final moments. Just call him Osama ar-Jabaan?"The Cowardly." Good riddance.

I suspect all charismatic domineering leaders (Stalin, Hitler, Gaddafi, Osama, etc,) are personally cowards. Training innocent young boys and girls to go out and blow themselves up is cowardly and evil.

[The Conquistador]

Obama got re-elected? What?

[parr]

YES!! The best thing to do is to put his head on a pike at Ground Zero, but I understand we have to go through proper political correctness and do a muslim burial at sea. Let's just hope they at least chose shark invested waters.

And I do thank Obama for keeping up the fight :respect:

I think we must keep in mind that these are extremists and were OBL
left off someone else will carry on, I don't think it's over yet. He was
one of many.

[TracyCoxx]

I think we must keep in mind that these are extremists and were OBL
left off someone else will carry on, I don't think it's over yet. He was
one of many.

Yes, there will always be more. But Bin Laden was the frontman for Al Qaeda. He's the one people know and who unites radical muslims for his cause. His replacements may be able to do that too, but I don't think as well. If we had decimated Al Qaeda and never found Bin Laden it would feel like an empty victory. But we have cut down Al Qaeda pretty good and we have killed UBL.

I think, perhaps, if we end the war in Afghanistan but keep a base there, and call the war on terror over then this just might be a point in time when radical muslims might think twice about getting into the fight and go play scrabble or something. And I'm not suggesting that we stop looking for Zawahiri and other high value targets or let our guard down wrt Al Qaeda because they, and others like them will always be there. Officially the war can be over. Unofficially we can keep going after these guys.

But if not now, then when should we declare victory and end the war? As you said, there will always be another one out there to resume the fight. It's time for the world to attempt to move on.

[smc]

Yes, there will always be more. But Bin Laden was the frontman for Al Qaeda. He's the one people know and who unites radical muslims for his cause. His replacements may be able to do that too, but I don't think as well. If we had decimated Al Qaeda and never found Bin Laden it would feel like an empty victory. But we have cut down Al Qaeda pretty good and we have killed UBL.

I think, perhaps, if we end the war in Afghanistan but keep a base there, and call the war on terror over then this just might be a point in time when radical muslims might think twice about getting into the fight and go play scrabble or something. And I'm not suggesting that we stop looking for Zawahiri and other high value targets or let our guard down wrt Al Qaeda because they, and others like them will always be there. Officially the war can be over. Unofficially we can keep going after these guys.

But if not now, then when should we declare victory and end the war? As you said, there will always be another one out there to resume the fight. It's time for the world to attempt to move on.

While I do not agree that we should keep a base in Afghanistan (it is not the right of the United States to do so, and I do not believe the majority of Afghanis would support it no matter what the Kharzai client government desires), I agree with TracyCoxx that the U.S. war in Afghanistan should be ended ... right now.

[Siju]

This is very true.
What people in underdeveloped countries wants more than anything is economic development, and a better future.
Democracy, as we in the west preach about is not necessarily that important to them, they want less corruption, and economic prosperity more than anything.

SMC

In spite of the imperialistic policies of our government, the people of the Middle East and Africa want secular governments and a Western style economic system capable of bringing some prosperity to their impoverished citizens. The world is rapidly changing, if we don't change, we will be left behind.
Yes, Osama was symbolic of our failed imperialistic policies. The people of the Middle East want control of their own destinies. They don't want us or the Taliban or any other "foreign" entity bossing them around and controlling their lives.

[parr]

Yes, there will always be more. But Bin Laden was the frontman for Al Qaeda. He's the one people know and who unites radical muslims for his cause. His replacements may be able to do that too, but I don't think as well. If we had decimated Al Qaeda and never found Bin Laden it would feel like an empty victory. But we have cut down Al Qaeda pretty good and we have killed UBL.

I think, perhaps, if we end the war in Afghanistan but keep a base there, and call the war on terror over then this just might be a point in time when radical muslims might think twice about getting into the fight and go play scrabble or something. And I'm not suggesting that we stop looking for Zawahiri and other high value targets or let our guard down wrt Al Qaeda because they, and others like them will always be there. Officially the war can be over. Unofficially we can keep going after these guys.

But if not now, then when should we declare victory and end the war? As you said, there will always be another one out there to resume the fight. It's time for the world to attempt to move on.

Very well said Tracy.

[GCharles]

About damn time, they should've made him walk the plank before he died

[TracyCoxx]

No pics of Bin Laden with a hole in his head will be released? WTF???!!

I smell a rat. What's the matter. Is the administration afraid their fakes aren't good enough?

[parr]

No pics of Bin Laden with a hole in his head will be released? WTF???!!

I smell a rat. What's the matter. Is the administration afraid their fakes aren't good enough?

More smoking mirrors perhaps. I think they shot somebody that looks like
him. But then again I usually don't take anything B.O. said face value. Just
remember, those pictures can come from anywere.

[smc]

And I do thank Obama for keeping up the fight :respect:

No pics of Bin Laden with a hole in his head will be released? ... I smell a rat. What's the matter. Is the administration afraid their fakes aren't good enough?

I am no Obama supporter.

But these posts above are a great example of why there is a continuing call for someone, anyone, on Tracy Coxx's ideological side to start acting like an adult.

[TracyCoxx]

I don't actually think they didn't get Bin Laden. Bin Laden could easily release another video with him and showing current news papers to show that he's still alive.

I'm just illustrating the impression people around the world are going to have with the way Obama handled it. They kill the worlds most wanted terrorist and dump him in the sea somewhere within hours and hide any photographic evidence that it ever happened. Why? Obama says we don't need to "spike the football". What does he call his trip to Ground Zero? If that's not spiking the football it's a campaign stop.

Oh well... yet another thing to wait for the next administration to do what should be done.

[smc]

I don't actually think they didn't get Bin Laden. Bin Laden could easily release another video with him and showing current news papers to show that he's still alive.

I'm just illustrating the impression people around the world are going to have with the way Obama handled it. They kill the worlds most wanted terrorist and dump him in the sea somewhere within hours and hide any photographic evidence that it ever happened. Why? Obama says we don't need to "spike the football". What does he call his trip to Ground Zero? If that's not spiking the football it's a campaign stop.

Oh well... yet another thing to wait for the next administration to do what should be done.

Tracy Coxx wrote: "I smell a rat. What's the matter. Is the administration afraid their fakes aren't good enough?" Note the use of the word FAKES.

Now Tracy Coxx tries to pull back from throwing a bomb by trying to rationalize an incendiary remark. This is the kind of immature political crap that makes the call for adult behavior so compelling.

I think my point's been made. Post away. I'll say no more on this particular sub-topic of the thread, unless falsehoods are posted that need to be corrected.

[franalexes]

While I tend to be on the conservative side with Tracy he is wrong. ( in my opinion)
The American soldier is efficient. They kill without mercy. I don't give a rat's ass if Usama didn't get a proper funeral or if he got shot with out him having a gun, or if they failed to read Miranda rights, or if they threw him into the ocean naked. I just don't give a s***.
No more than Usama cared about the people that died in New York. The pictures probably are so extreem they would inflame a muslim sect that we don't need to inflame. Now, we got #1. Let's move on to #2. The war against terror is not over. There are people out there that want to kill you just because you are alive. Nothing else is important to them, so don't think any negotiations are possible. "WE" ( those of us who are alive and engaged in this fight either personally or through our government actions ) got the son-of-a-bitch! I don't care how he died, who shot him, how the body was dispossed of, or who takes credit. People who want to see pictures couldn't tell if they were fake pictures or real so why bother? There are those that will always claim the truth is the un-truth.

Further, I don't believe Tracy cares either. I think he posted contraversy just to piss somebody off.

[randolph]

No pics of Bin Laden with a hole in his head will be released? WTF???!!

I smell a rat. What's the matter. Is the administration afraid their fakes aren't good enough?

Come on Tracy, it's obvious why he doesn't want to release a photo of Bin Laden with part of his head blown off and his brain exposed. His supporters would go insane.
If Bush had done in Bin Laden this would you have questioned his motives for withholding the photos?

[TracyCoxx]

Tracy Coxx wrote: "I smell a rat. What's the matter. Is the administration afraid their fakes aren't good enough?" Note the use of the word FAKES.

Now Tracy Coxx tries to pull back from throwing a bomb by trying to rationalize an incendiary remark. This is the kind of immature political crap that makes the call for adult behavior so compelling.

I think my point's been made.Please do not put down other users. I will try and do better with my adult behavior, but it's hard since so many people on here stray from adhering to serious mature discussion on this forum. It makes it confusing since you do not reprimand them as well. Perhaps if you could add some forum rules that would make it clearer what this adult behavior is that you expect?

[franalexes]

Shooting Bin Laden was the correct alternative to keeping him alive.
Dumping him in the ocean was correct even if they didn't get the details EXACTLY right.( I don't care)
The photos are most probably gruesome. I have never seen anything of Bin Laden except photos so how would I know anything else, true or false?
If there is anything to finish this, I think I'll go pee in the ocean. ( Pee on his grave)
let's spend our thoughts on those that died in New York and elsewhere that did not get fair warning, Did not get a trial, did not get to have a body to bury, did not get to say goodbye,
These are the people that deserve world recognition.

[TracyCoxx]

[QUOTE=franalexes;183825The pictures probably are so extreem they would inflame a muslim sect that we don't need to inflame. Now, we got #1. Let's move on to #2. The war against terror is not over. There are people out there that want to kill you just because you are alive. Nothing else is important to them, so don't think any negotiations are possible.[/QUOTE]

You're right, negotiations are not possible. But I don't think we should go out of our way so as not to offend anyone on how this mass murderer of muslims and non-muslims is disposed of. Some cultures need to understand that not everyone agrees with them. And that's ok!

[TracyCoxx]

Come on Tracy, it's obvious why he doesn't want to release a photo of Bin Laden with part of his head blown off and his brain exposed. His supporters would go insane.
If Bush had done in Bin Laden this would you have questioned his motives for withholding the photos?
I'm not questioning Obama's motives for not releasing the photos. I believe it's exactly as you said. But I'm sure there's at least one photo that doesn't highlight his thalamus. Or they can be cropped appropriately. If Bush hadn't released the photos I would be just as pissed. His number one stated goal at the beginning of this war was to get Bin Laden. And for him to just to make Bin Laden disappear without a trace would seem pretty fishy. I'm not saying it's fishy that BO did it, he's just way overly sensitive of Muslims. But it would be fishy for Bush to do so.

[franalexes]

You're right, negotiations are not possible. But I don't think we should go out of our way so as not to offend anyone on how this mass murderer of muslims and non-muslims is disposed of. Some cultures need to understand that not everyone agrees with them. And that's ok!

On that I agree. I think the funeral part was more for our own ( whatever) than his. I wouldn't have taken 45 minutes but I don't care.

[randolph]

On that I agree. I think the funeral part was more for our own ( whatever) than his. I wouldn't have taken 45 minutes but I don't care.

I think it was crucial for us to get rid of the body. If his followers had got hold of it all hell would have broken loose. He would have been paraded all over the Middle east as a martyr. Rather than the ocean, a pool of lava in a volcano would have been a good choice.

[smc]

Please do not put down other users. I will try and do better with my adult behavior, but it's hard since so many people on here stray from adhering to serious mature discussion on this forum. It makes it confusing since you do not reprimand them as well. Perhaps if you could add some forum rules that would make it clearer what this adult behavior is that you expect?

Bravo to franalexes for stating what should be obvious: "Further, I don't believe Tracy cares either. I think he posted contraversy just to piss somebody off."

You consistently post deliberately provocative and incendiary things, like a troll would do on any Internet site, and then when someone challenges the troll-like behavior you take umbrage. If someone wants to be treated as an adult, one must act that way. In political discourse, seriousness is the hallmark of mature behavior.

[smc]

No pics of Bin Laden with a hole in his head will be released? ... I smell a rat. What's the matter. Is the administration afraid their fakes aren't good enough?

I don't actually think they didn't get Bin Laden. ...

... Obama says we don't need to "spike the football". What does he call his trip to Ground Zero? If that's not spiking the football it's a campaign stop.

Oh well... yet another thing to wait for the next administration to do what should be done.

I'm not questioning Obama's motives for not releasing the photos. I believe it's exactly as you said. But I'm sure there's at least one photo that doesn't highlight his thalamus. Or they can be cropped appropriately. If Bush hadn't released the photos I would be just as pissed. His number one stated goal at the beginning of this war was to get Bin Laden. And for him to just to make Bin Laden disappear without a trace would seem pretty fishy. I'm not saying it's fishy that BO did it, he's just way overly sensitive of Muslims. But it would be fishy for Bush to do so.

First there is the allegation that the pictures would be fake.

Then there's the backtracking: Tracy Coxx doesn't really believe they didn't get bin Laden.

Then there is the allegation that the visit to Ground Zero is a campaign stop.

Finally, there is the obligatory mention of Bush, including the statement that Tracy Coxx would have been just as pissed had Bush not released the photos.

With the rapid-fire accusations and backtracking, it may be difficult to keep track of the recurring theme. What Obama does that Bush did is never the same. Yes, the trip to Ground Zero is a campaign stop. Yes, Bush continually made campaign-like spectacles during his administration against the backdrop of milestones in the "war on terror" (remember "Mission Accomplished"?)

It's hard to take seriously what someone writes when it seems to be all for theater, and meant -- as franalexes so aptly noted -- controversy designed to piss off, not to advance a discussion.

[franalexes]

A Navy Seal seems to have hit a target.:frown:

In a political forum, the best way to avoid being a target is not to re-act to being hit. Secondary of course is to not jump out of the foxhole everytime someone posts.

Now guys, keep it in perspective. I seriously doubt anyone making public policy is reading this forum.:respect:

[smc]

A Navy Seal seems to have hit a target.:frown:

In a political forum, the best way to avoid being a target is not to re-act to being hit. Secondary of course is to not jump out of the foxhole everytime someone posts.

Now guys, keep it in perspective. I seriously doubt anyone making public policy is reading this forum.:respect:

"Keep it in perspective" -- well, here's mine. Anyone who posts is subject to rebuttal. Some people are afraid of being targets; others are not. Some people don't mind there ideas and posts being scruitinized; others whine when it happens. We are all part of the polity, whether we officially make policy or not. Oh, and trolling is trolling, whether it is excused by anyone or not.

[TracyCoxx]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/face-off

[TracyCoxx]

Al Qaeda confirms that Bin Laden is dead. And now they vow to retaliate. Fine. We'll file that in the round file with their other 423 threats of retaliation.

[randolph]

Al Qaeda confirms that Bin Laden is dead. And now they vow to retaliate. Fine. We'll file that in the round file with their other 423 threats of retaliation.

What's the difference between "retaliation" and the killing of innocent civilians they have been doing all along?
A new era seems to be unfolding in the Middle East. The insane religious jihadists are becoming irrelevant. Young people throughout the Middle East know how to use their cell phones and the internet to organize and bring down corrupt authoritarian governments. They don't need jihad, their energy is far more effective than jihad ever was.

[Enoch Root]

Bravo to franalexes for stating what should be obvious: "Further, I don't believe Tracy cares either. I think he posted contraversy just to piss somebody off."

You consistently post deliberately provocative and incendiary things, like a troll would do on any Internet site, and then when someone challenges the troll-like behavior you take umbrage. If someone wants to be treated as an adult, one must act that way. In political discourse, seriousness is the hallmark of mature behavior.

You're stealing my thunder smc. I should have been the one to judge Tracy as troll.

[randolph]

For many years after WWII the Soviet Union was presented to us as the ultimate evil. The collapse of the USSR left a gap in our world view that was filled by Bin Laden, a man determined to destroy us and our way of life. Who or what will replace him as the new threat? We will have to wait and see what the neocons come up with next, to keep us scared and easy to manipulate and willing to spend umteen billions on military activities.

[TracyCoxx]

For many years after WWII the Soviet Union was presented to us as the ultimate evil. The collapse of the USSR left a gap in our world view that was filled by Bin Laden, a man determined to destroy us and our way of life. Who or what will replace him as the new threat? We will have to wait and see what the neocons come up with next, to keep us scared and easy to manipulate and willing to spend umteen billions on military activities.

I joke about Al Qaeda's latest threat against us, but the fact is as long as there is an Al Qaeda there is a constant threat. Do you really think they're gone?

But the good news is we do not have to take down countries anymore to get them. The rest is a mop-up operation.

But despite them, the biggest threat to the country right now is not military.

[transjen]

For many years after WWII the Soviet Union was presented to us as the ultimate evil. The collapse of the USSR left a gap in our world view that was filled by Bin Laden, a man determined to destroy us and our way of life. Who or what will replace him as the new threat? We will have to wait and see what the neocons come up with next, to keep us scared and easy to manipulate and willing to spend umteen billions on military activities.

Well there's still Iran and North Korea and if that doesn't work they'll invent someone

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

80 Dead in Bin Laden Revenge Attack (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/13/police-68-killed-bombings-nw-pakistan/)

Taliban bombers kill at least 80 at a paramilitary training center in Pakistan, claiming the attack is the 'first revenge' for the U.S. raid that killed Usama bin Laden.

To quote Captain Kirk:
You've managed to kill everyone else, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!

[randolph]

80 Dead in Bin Laden Revenge Attack (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/13/police-68-killed-bombings-nw-pakistan/)

Taliban bombers kill at least 80 at a paramilitary training center in Pakistan, claiming the attack is the 'first revenge' for the U.S. raid that killed Usama bin Laden.

To quote Captain Kirk:

According to a well informed person in Pakistan, the army could round up all the Taliban in Pakistan in a matter of hours. Why don't they do that? Billions of dollars from the good ol USA.

[TracyCoxx]

According to a well informed person in Pakistan, the army could round up all the Taliban in Pakistan in a matter of hours. Why don't they do that? Billions of dollars from the good ol USA.

Odds are that the Pakistani military did know Bin Laden was living right next to their equivalent of West Point and allowed him to live there in secrecy. The military in Pakistan is much more independent than in the US and is more sympathetic to Al Qaeda than the US. Our billions may have gone to the government of Pakistan. But if the government presses too hard on the military to go after Al Qaeda then they will simply sieze control of the country.

The Taliban attacked recruits leaving a paramilitary training center. If Pakistan's military is helping Al Qaeda, then the Taliban is helping the US.

[smc]

Odds are that the Pakistani military did know Bin Laden was living right next to their equivalent of West Point and allowed him to live there in secrecy. The military in Pakistan is much more independent than in the US and is more sympathetic to Al Qaeda than the US. Our billions may have gone to the government of Pakistan. But if the government presses too hard on the military to go after Al Qaeda then they will simply sieze control of the country.

The Taliban attacked recruits leaving a paramilitary training center. If Pakistan's military is helping Al Qaeda, then the Taliban is helping the US.

What I have bolded above may well be the most ridiculous application of the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" that I have ever read on this site, and there has been some ridiculousness of epic proportions posted here in the past.

The Pakistani military is, by all less-than-facile analyses, is not a monolith. Many of its officers were trained in the West, just like officers in the Egyptian armed forces, and thus often have somewhat dual value systems. The analyses by most of the foreign policy institutes in Washington suggest that the rank-and-file soldiers in the Pakistani military are more likely to have Taliban/Al Qaeda sympathies than officers, although there is nothing absolute about that. Most important is to draw a clear distinction between the Pakistani military and the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency. It is with the latter that the bigger problem for U.S. interests lies.

[TracyCoxx]

What I have bolded above may well be the most ridiculous application of the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" that I have ever read on this site, and there has been some ridiculousness of epic proportions posted here in the past.The text quoted above is yet another example of a strawman argument. The proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is used to illustrate that one of two parties who have a common enemy can use the other party to advance common goals. If the Pakistani military is harboring Bin Laden, I hardly think that puts any of the Pakistani military on the Taliban's enemy list.

So why do they attack Pakistani military recruits? Why has Al Qaeda killed at least as many muslims as Americans. Intelligence isn't one of their strong points.

[smc]

The text quoted above is yet another example of a strawman argument. The proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is used to illustrate that one of two parties who have a common enemy can use the other party to advance common goals. If the Pakistani military is harboring Bin Laden, I hardly think that puts any of the Pakistani military on the Taliban's enemy list.

So why do they attack Pakistani military recruits? Why has Al Qaeda killed at least as many muslims as Americans. Intelligence isn't one of their strong points.

If you are going to use words like "strawman argument" you ought to know what that means. First of all, the straw man component of an argument requires misrepresenting your opponent's position. I defy you to show how I misrepresented your position. After all, I quoted you directly: "If Pakistan's military is helping Al Qaeda, then the Taliban is helping the US." Unless you want to argue that the Taliban is NOT an enemy of the United States, then I submit -- and again defy you to prove otherwise -- that your statement is a classic example of the adage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The adage means that your enemy does something to aid your fight against your other enemy, but it also means that you assign to an enemy the "friend" moniker -- which can have disastrous implications, as the history of various appeasements throughout history clearly shows.

Attacking a straw man requires creating an illusion, refuting that illusion, and then claiming to have refuted your opponent in the argument's original proposition by refuting the illusion. I did not do that. I stated a direct opinion about the Pakistani military, which you did not refute.

So, Tracy Coxx, before you go off making accusations, I suggest you read up on the methods of argument that you want to mention in your posts so you at least are in the ballpark of what they actually mean. Perhaps then you can find the right ones to accuse me of.

As for why they kill Pakistani military recruits, one could speculate that it is designed simply to instill terror. Join the military, rather than Al Qaeda, and this may be the fate that awaits you. Have any truck with the Pakistani authorities, some of whom ARE sympathetic to U.S. interests, and you may be killed.

[TracyCoxx]

If you are going to use words like "strawman argument" you ought to know what that means. First of all, the straw man component of an argument requires misrepresenting your opponent's position. I defy you to show how I misrepresented your position. After all, I quoted you directly: "If Pakistan's military is helping Al Qaeda, then the Taliban is helping the US." Unless you want to argue that the Taliban is NOT an enemy of the United States, then I submit -- and again defy you to prove otherwise -- that your statement is a classic example of the adage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The adage means that your enemy does something to aid your fight against your other enemy, but it also means that you assign to an enemy the "friend" moniker -- which can have disastrous implications, as the history of various appeasements throughout history clearly shows.

Attacking a straw man requires creating an illusion, refuting that illusion, and then claiming to have refuted your opponent in the argument's original proposition by refuting the illusion. I did not do that. I stated a direct opinion about the Pakistani military, which you did not refute.

A strawman argument about a strawman argument accusation. I love the irony. You mischaracterize my last posting by implying that I did not show how you mischaracterized my argument. I wrote:

The text quoted above is yet another example of a strawman argument. The proverb "the enemy of

my enemy is my friend" is used to illustrate that one of two parties who have a common enemy can use the other party to advance common goals. If the Pakistani military is harboring Bin Laden, I hardly think that puts any of the Pakistani military on the Taliban's enemy list.

The 2nd bolded text refutes the first bolded text. The Pakistani military is not the enemy of the Taliban, therefore "the enemy[Pakistani military] of my enemy[Taliban]" does not apply here.

You go on to mischaracterize that my "statement is a classic example of the adage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"" if I am arguing "that the Taliban is NOT an enemy of the United States". I never argued that, and as I stated above I explained that my comment was not an application of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" adage because the Taliban and Pakistani military are not enemies.

As for why they kill Pakistani military recruits, one could speculate that it is designed simply to instill terror. Join the military, rather than Al Qaeda, and this may be the fate that awaits you. Have any truck with the Pakistani authorities, some of whom ARE sympathetic to U.S. interests, and you may be killed.

That sounds like the Taliban, but persuasion by terrorism doesn't make a strong ally.

[smc]

A strawman argument about a strawman argument accusation. I love the irony. You mischaracterize my last posting by implying that I did not show how you mischaracterized my argument. I wrote:



The 2nd bolded text refutes the first bolded text. The Pakistani military is not the enemy of the Taliban, therefore "the enemy[Pakistani military] of my enemy[Taliban]" does not apply here.

You go on to mischaracterize that my "statement is a classic example of the adage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"" if I am arguing "that the Taliban is NOT an enemy of the United States". I never argued that, and as I stated above I explained that my comment was not an application of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" adage because the Taliban and Pakistani military are not enemies.



That sounds like the Taliban, but persuasion by terrorism doesn't make a strong ally.

You can twist and turn the argument as much as you want, but until you refute the words you wrote in your original post that started this exchange, then I stand fully behind what I wrote in response. You wrote:

"If Pakistan's military is helping Al Qaeda, then the Taliban is helping the US."

Do you stand by that statement? Or do you refute it? If you stand by it, then you are asserting that the Taliban is helping the United States precisely in the terms of the adage under discussion. And if so, then my statement about how that "friend" characterization has been used through history is valid. I wrote:

"... it also means that you assign to an enemy the 'friend' moniker -- which can have disastrous implications, as the history of various appeasements throughout history clearly shows."

U.S. history is riddled with examples of how the United States backed brutal dictatorships because they were "helping" (your word) U.S. policy against this or that other enemy. Latin America is still recovering, as is Africa.

I trust you will raise the fallacious crap again that this is another strawman argument. But anyone who is willing to put ideology aside -- whether they agree with you or me about anything political -- and look strictly at the method of argument that has unfolded will see clearly that "crap" is the appropriate term to use.

[ila]

...As for why they kill Pakistani military recruits, one could speculate that it is designed simply to instill terror. Join the military, rather than Al Qaeda, and this may be the fate that awaits you. Have any truck with the Pakistani authorities, some of whom ARE sympathetic to U.S. interests, and you may be killed.

This is the argument that makes the most sense and I believe is the truth.

[randolph]

Oh my, Tracy and SMC are at it again.
I find this verbal backgammon rather boring. What is very interesting is the discovery of a stash of porn at Bin Laden's hideout. If this supposedly Pius Muslim was sitting in front of his TV wanking to porn, it is more than hilarious. With numerous wives he needs porn? Humm, what kind of porn? Interesting.:eek:

[TracyCoxx]

You can twist and turn the argument as much as you want

"Accuse others of what you do." - Karl Marx

but until you refute the words you wrote in your original post that started this exchange, then I stand fully behind what I wrote in response. You wrote:

"If Pakistan's military is helping Al Qaeda, then the Taliban is helping the US."

Do you stand by that statement? Or do you refute it?I stand not just by one sentence that you've taken out of context, but by all that I have written. I think I have explained it well enough so that anyone without an axe to grind can follow. Anything else you add to that are your own words, not mine.

and look strictly at the method of argument that has unfolded will see clearly that "crap" is the appropriate term to use.And we're done here. Take your vitriolic speech and bestow it on some other TLB member.

[TracyCoxx]

What is very interesting is the discovery of a stash of porn at Bin Laden's hideout. If this supposedly Pius Muslim was sitting in front of his TV wanking to porn, it is more than hilarious. With numerous wives he needs porn? Humm, what kind of porn? Interesting.:eek:Yes, I thought this was rather humorus. His numerous wives probably didn't have cocks, so he could have been unfulfilled.

[smc]

"Accuse others of what you do." - Karl Marx

I stand not just by one sentence that you've taken out of context, but by all that I have written. I think I have explained it well enough so that anyone without an axe to grind can follow. Anything else you add to that are your own words, not mine.

And we're done here. Take your vitriolic speech and bestow it on some other TLB member.

You see, on the Internet it's not supposed to work this way. You're supposed to be able to say whatever you want and get away with it. At least that appears to be what you were always hoping for, as any review of your numerous political posts and responses to being challenged on them reveals.

Yes, we're done here, because honesty is the coin of the realm and apparently your purse is empty.

[ila]

...What is very interesting is the discovery of a stash of porn at Bin Laden's hideout. If this supposedly Pius Muslim was sitting in front of his TV wanking to porn, it is more than hilarious. With numerous wives he needs porn? Humm, what kind of porn? Interesting.:eek:

Yes, I thought this was rather humorus. His numerous wives probably didn't have cocks, so he could have been unfulfilled.

I think I read somewhere that bin Laden had only three wives at his compound so naturally he was bored and needed something else to do. [/SARCASM]

Actually with all the people living in the compound it is not really possible to say who was looking at the porn. The situation, though, is quite humourous.

[randolph]

A few years ago, a coworker went on vacation to the Virgin Islands. When she arrived she noticed lots of Arabs and lots of very beautiful blond women. At a bar one evening she got to talking to one of the blonds. She said they were there for the Arabs. They are crazy for blonds and are paying $10,000 for a lay,we are getting rich down here, she said.
My friend didn't arrive back with blond hair, by the way. :innocent:

[Chichester]

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

[TracyCoxx]

Report: Stealth Drone Watched UBL (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/18/report-cia-used-stealth-drones-monitor-bin-ladens-compound-pakistan/)

Why do we need to know this, or any other details about the operation? Someone in the DoD or CIA has loose lips.

[randolph]

Report: Stealth Drone Watched UBL (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/18/report-cia-used-stealth-drones-monitor-bin-ladens-compound-pakistan/)

Why do we need to know this, or any other details about the operation? Someone in the DoD or CIA has loose lips.

Yeah, and the cobbled up reporting immediately after the assassination was irresponsible. Each subsequent report was a different version of what happened. Now it looks like the operation almost failed and they had to abandoned the original carefully laid plans of attack.

Also, Pakistan is a basket case, the most dangerous country in the world with nuclear missals, rockets and Al Qaeda and the Taliban just waiting to take over. aaargh!

[TracyCoxx]

Yeah, and the cobbled up reporting immediately after the assassination was irresponsible. Each subsequent report was a different version of what happened. Now it looks like the operation almost failed and they had to abandoned the original carefully laid plans of attack.

Also, Pakistan is a basket case, the most dangerous country in the world with nuclear missals, rockets and Al Qaeda and the Taliban just waiting to take over. aaargh!

They'll be bringing a fission bomb to a fusion fight. Besides, nuclear war is MADD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5_9Gi7w19Y).

[giggygig]

Most of the opinions here are the same as on the news. Anyway I saw (on the news LOL) the bin laden guy declared war on america, so I guess he lost and america won. he started a war and fired on people so no surprise they topped him. the people having parties out front of the white house was in bad taste the way it was reported.
Now where are my keys again

[johndowe]

Hi there.

They kill him (Yay!!!), but then they give him a naval burrial...

Dammed, i tought the americans were beter budinessmen than that, they should have burried him in a shrine near where the world trade center was and charge $20.00 to piss on his grave.


John Dowe.