[lil weasel]

Do you get paid by the word? Anyway, I am sure the reason they threw the body into the sea was to prevent an autopsy. They took him alive and shot him. Probably theres a torture video somewhere just for kicks, like Mr. Hitler had made of the guys that tried to off him. 50 or 100 years from now it will be making the rounds.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, May 2 2012, 19:40)

Do you get paid by the word? Anyway, I am sure the reason they threw the body into the sea was to prevent an autopsy. They took him alive and shot him. Probably theres a torture video somewhere just for kicks, like Mr. Hitler had made of the guys that tried to off him. 50 or 100 years from now it will be making the rounds.

That's just uneducated drivel and you know it.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, May 2 2012, 17:40)

I am sure the reason they threw the body into the sea was to prevent an autopsy.

uh not exactly.

A. there's no need for an autopsy when assassinating an international criminal. he's dead, who gives a flying f*ck how exactly.

B. they burned the body and chucked it into the sea so that there wouldn't be a proper burial site that people could have gone to and made some kind of sick memorial out of. they don't want any piece of his body to be recovered and used as some kind of symbol of martyrdom.

QUOTE

They took him alive and shot him. Probably theres a torture video somewhere just for kicks

yeah.... except you just pulled that out of your ass.
all you've accomplished here is hyperbolic speculation.

and you want people to believe you're asking the logical questions?
yeah, no. this is more tinfoil hat stuff...

[Icarus]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Wednesday, May 2 2012, 19:44)

B. they burned the body and chucked it into the sea so that there wouldn't be a proper burial site that people could have gone to and made some kind of sick memorial out of. they don't want any piece of his body to be recovered and used as some kind of symbol of martyrdom.

This.

It's the exact same reasons the Allies disposed of Hitler's body in an unknown place so neo-Nazis or Nazi sympathizers wouldn't have a place of worship for Hitler.

On the subject of Hitler, I remember a few years ago, my friend said he heard that the Soviets actually took Hitler's body after they marched into Berlin and Stalin had him buried under a parade square back in the USSR so that every day, as troops were marching along the parade square, they would be, essentially, stomping on Hitler's grave. I don't believe the story, but I thought it was cute.

[GTAknowledge]

Edit: nevermind.

[Typhus]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 00:40)

Do you get paid by the word? Anyway, I am sure the reason they threw the body into the sea was to prevent an autopsy. They took him alive and shot him. Probably theres a torture video somewhere just for kicks, like Mr. Hitler had made of the guys that tried to off him. 50 or 100 years from now it will be making the rounds.

Let us say that you are right.
What is it you find so objectionable about the idea of Osama bin Laden being tortured? As I said, he was nothing but a wealthy charlatan exploiting the ignorance and superstition of uneducated commoners. He was a parasite.
Irviding has it wrong when he says that bin Laden had zeal. A zealot wouldn't hide behind a woman, a zealot wouldn't send others out to die whilst he lived in a mansion, a zealot would act instead of hiding behind a camera like a coward.

Think of all the people he killed, and think upon the fact that they died for a lie, for a cause their great leader didn't even believe in himself.
And now ask yourself if torturing him was wrong.

[lil weasel]

You're reading more into than I said. Which would mean you have a bias of some sort or feel guilty of something. Reread what I, (that's what I wrote.)
A zealot?
Let's see...
Obama sits in a mansion and sends people out to die?
Obama stands before cameras and ...
Obama is rich and is exploiting the ignorance and superstition of uneducated commoners...
(by the way what does uneducated mean in this context?)

Some things are just natural to men with money and a following.
The Bush family when in office did pretty much the same.

This post has been edited by lil weasel on Thursday, May 3 2012, 04:42

[Typhus]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 04:38)

You're reading more into than I said. Which would mean you have a bias of some sort or feel guilty of something. Reread what I, (that's what I wrote.) A zealot? Let's see... Obama sits in a mansion and sends people out to die? Obama stands before cameras and ... Obama is rich and is exploiting the ignorance and superstition of uneducated commoners.. Some things are just natural to men with money and a following. The Bush family when in office did pretty much the same.

Why do you keep turning this round on the American government?

[lil weasel]

Just showing parallels.
And, it was the death of the 20,000 women and children because of a preceived embargo by the U. S. and it's allies on food and drugs that is alledged to have started it all (9-11).

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, May 2 2012, 21:38)

Obama sits in a mansion and sends people out to die? Obama stands before cameras and ... Obama is rich and is exploiting the ignorance and superstition of uneducated commoners...

this is nonsense.
what point are you trying to make?

every president sits in the White House and sends people out to die.
that's war, that's how it works. keep in mind that Obama didn't start either of the wars that we're in. he's doing his best to manage them and draw down based on the timetable set by his predecessor.

Obama stands before the camera and ...?
and what?

Obama is not rich.
compared to you or I maybe, but not compared to the majority of presidents who came before him. before he became president he lived an extremely modest life by politician's standards. he turned down high-paying corporate lawyer jobs in order to work to help poor people in Chicago.
as president, his salary is only $400,000 a year. and if you've seen his tax returns (because they are obviously made public) then you would notice that he gives away the majority of that paycheck to charities.

he's not exploiting the ignorance of anyone.
that's what Republicans do to their own voting base. it's not how Obama talks or acts.

[lil weasel]

You carefully edited my first line in the quote
Charities? TAX WRITE-OFFs.
400,000$ poor? Golly I didn't know that!
Political Lies... Who are they directed to?

How blind are those who will not see?
How deaf are those who will not hear?

This post has been edited by lil weasel on Thursday, May 3 2012, 05:02

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, May 2 2012, 21:58)

Charities? TAX WRITE-OFFs. 400,000$ poor? Golly I didn't know that! Political Lies... Who are they directed to?

you are hopelessly off the deep end...

actually, let me clarify.
I didn't say 400 grand = poor, I said it's not rich compared to the vast majority of former and currently serving politicians.
learn2english.

secondly, not all charities are automatically tax write-offs.
the Obama's live - and have lived - an extremely modest lifestyle when considering where most presidents and politicians come from (old money, trust-fund inheritance, tax evasion through offshore accounts). they are perhaps one of the most normal families to live in the White House in nearly 100 years.

yes, politicians tend to lie and cheat.
but they're not all the same.

you're simply painting with one, large, ambiguous brush and it's not adding anything to the discussion.
when you rattle off some generalized, Illuminati-style diatribe like...

QUOTE

How blind are those who will not see? How deaf are those who will not hear?

you are adding literally NOTHING to the conversation.

I appreciate a healthy skepticism, but you're essentially talking drivel.

This post has been edited by El_Diablo on Thursday, May 3 2012, 07:11

[Allen14n]

It's painful that people were celebrating the killing. What they should have been celebrating was what it meant for the United States AND the rest of the world. I really don't think it's morally right to celebrate his death.

This post has been edited by Allen14n on Thursday, May 3 2012, 06:24

[lil weasel]

Has anyone mentioned how Upset the American People were when some military were killed in a 'copter downing, as the natives jumped for Joy and cheered, (And then the bodies were mutilated?)
Now, when the U.S. does the same thing it's OK.
Come on volks, have a heart ;(

[Linki]

Celebrating the deaths of soldiers is a little different than celebrating the death of the man who created Al Qaeda.

And hating on the U.S. doesn't make you look cool. It gets too much sh*t when cesspits around the world get a free pass for whatever reasons.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Linki @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 12:38)

And hating on the U.S. doesn't make you look cool. It gets too much sh*t when cesspits around the world get a free pass for whatever reasons.

I won't mind it he was actually making legitimate points- which, to be fair, he does sometimes. But most of the time it's just baseless diatribes- fair enough, you can express your opinions if you wish, but if they have no bearing on reality you end up looking a bit silly- and some of the statements that have been made are just factually untrue.

[Typhus]

QUOTE (Allen14n @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 06:20)

It's painful that people were celebrating the killing. What they should have been celebrating was what it meant for the United States AND the rest of the world. I really don't think it's morally right to celebrate his death.

He was their enemy. It's only natural and right to celebrate his death. Glorying in the downfall of a monster is a ritual as old as humanity itself.

[lil weasel]

I don't have my nose breathing the exhaust of any president or politico.
I find it hypocritical to denounce the celebrating the downing and mutilation of the soldiers in the ‘Blackhawk down’ by natives. Calling them Animals and then have jubilation in the streets for another man because he was killed by U.S. Military.
Maybe some of you aren’t old enough to realize that the Al Qaeda was trained by the older Bush’s CIA. Here’s one reference:
“Al-Qaeda is a U.S. sponsored Asset”
So to me it’s always interesting when suddenly (like in Viet Nam) when a U.S. puppet leader needs to have an attitude ‘adjusted’ they end up dead.
“Obama’s War on Terror “
I’ve already posted article references on assassination, which didn’t meet the standards of this topic, so were ignored.
The Rule is: the U. S. is always right. When leaders of other Governments don’t toe the line they do so at risk of their lives.
No Trials. End of Story.
It’s OK for U.S. Citizens to celebrate the death of anyone, BUT don’t you foreigners dare to celebrate the death(s) of U.S. Military aggressors killed in your own land.
Why Do Americans Hate the U.S. so much as to give up what Honour we have left. No wonder the 'World' also hates U.S.
"For OIL" is the easiest answer.
Did you all know, that a person who straddles (doesn't take sides) the fence can be pelted by stones thrown by zealots on both sides?

e: some may find this one amusing

This post has been edited by lil weasel on Thursday, May 3 2012, 17:41

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 18:19)

Maybe some of you aren’t old enough to realize that the Al Qaeda was trained by the older Bush’s CIA. Here’s one reference: “Al-Qaeda is a U.S. sponsored Asset”

This is the kind of bullsh*t that you always get caught out on. The CIA never trained, sponsored, or financed al-Qaeda; there is absolutely no evidence to suggest they did. It's well known that the CIA trained the Afghan Mujahideen. The Afghan Mujahideen, as anyone who has ever studied contemporary politics is an entirely separate entity from the Taliban, which in turn is entirely separate from al-Qaeda. But I digress. Let's look at the person in question used as the "source" for this article- Michel Chossudovsky

1) He's an economist and has absolutely no occupational or educational background in international relations or security studies.
2) He's the founder and director of the Centre for Research on Globalisation, who are one of the largest purveyors of the New World Order conspiracy theory in the world.
3) He's also made the following statements, all of which are very interesting in the context of that article-

• He believes that HAARP is an active weapon of mass destruction with the ability to control the weather (physically and scientifically impossible, not to mention the fact all HAARP research is public)
• He believes that the Libyan intervention is part of a conspiracy amongst multi-national oil conglomerates to steal the majority of the world's oil resources away from nation states
• He claimed that the threat of a Swine Flu epidemic was entirely fabricated to cause mass panic

4) His website, GlobalResearch, has been criticised for purveying anti-Semitic views and supporting holocaust denial.
5) And finally (and perhaps most amusingly) he appears in the second spot on the Western Standard's list of "Canada's Nuttiest Professors"

And how about a quick look at the author and interviewer, Joel P Garduce

1) He's a Filipino anti-Capitalist with quite impressive links to South Asian Communist organisations
2) He's a fellow of the "Center for Anti-Imperialist Studies", who are notable almost solely as a factory for producing 9/11 conspiracy theories and are well connected with the International League of People's Struggle, a worldwide Communist organisation who released this moving eulogy to departed despot, lunatic and mass-murder Kim Jong-Il.


So, what do we have here? A noted conspiracy theorist, with no background of international relations to speak of, is interviewed by a Filipino Communist for an editorial section in a third-rate, small-scale "alternative" newspaper and suddenly it's "evidence" of a US conspiracy to train al-Qaeda which is entirely divorced from political and historical reality, contradicts the works of many of those (mostly not American, it must also be said) who have developed and presented the best and most in-depth works on the structure, methodology and operation of al-Qaeda, and appears to have no academic basis to speak of.

Sometimes I really wish you'd give me an invite to the party in your head.

[lil weasel]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Posted: Thursday, May 3 2012, 18:44)

Sometimes I really wish you'd give me an invite to the party in your head.

I don't think you'd like it. There's no drugs or alcohol there.