Again, I'm not purporting to know what happened on that day, nor am I a "conspiracy theorist" looking to rile anyone. However, it appears that no human shield was used as cover, Osama was not armed, and his own people did not casually give him up or point him out as first reported.

My entire point in this whole debate was to be wary of what is reported as it has much in common with past events reported which are designed to inflame, enrage and generally distort the real truth (I will say I'm shocked at how many people bought the first story without so much as a second thought about how broken and odd the story sounded)

Again, would it not have been more beneficial to everyone involved if he were captured alive? If he was not armed why shoot him? They say he 'resisted', how so? Perhaps a very strong NO! Accompanied by a very stern finger wave? Also note that apparently the human shield he did not use was actually ready to assault the Seals before they subdued her by shooting her in the... leg.

If he was captured alive the Liberals would be demanding he be released on bail pending the trial... the ACLU would be defending his right to kill Americans as a violation of his first amendment rights... and demand the American taxpayer foot the bill. Not to mention the cost of the trial.

They would also be whining he wasn't Mirandized.


After all... thats what they were doing with the terrorists detained in Gitmo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

If he was captured alive the Liberals would be demanding he be released on bail pending the trial.

---

I'm pretty sure you don't know how the legal system works if you think this is possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I'm pretty sure you don't know how the legal system works if you think this is possible.

---

Maybe not in Canada... after all criminals have greater rights than the public has there.

THIS is the USA however.

And really... want something to put THAT into perspective?


How about the Detainees in GITMO. Lots of proof that's EXACTLY what they would do because that's EXACTLY what they have been doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Maybe not in Canada....after all criminals have greater rights than the public has there.

---

Citation please?

Your gun laws...

Your privacy laws...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Your gun laws....

Your privacy laws....

---

What? No citation that shows that our criminals have more rights than our citizens?
BTW we have WAY more privacy than you do, by a long shot. I have some inside knowledge as my sister goes through her citizenship application for the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BMI

Again, I'm not purporting to know what happened on that day, nor am I a "conspiracy theorist" looking to rile anyone. However, it appears that no human shield was used as cover, Osama was not armed, and his own people did not casually give him up or point him out as first reported.

My entire point in this whole debate was to be wary of what is reported as it has much in common with past events reported which are designed to inflame, enrage and generally distort the real truth (I will say I'm shocked at how many people bought the first story without so much as a second thought about how broken and odd the story sounded)

Again, would it not have been more beneficial to everyone involved if he were captured alive? If he was not armed why shoot him? They say he 'resisted', how so? Perhaps a very strong NO! accompanied by a very stern finger wave? Also note that apparently the human shield he did not use was actually ready to assault the Seals before they subdued her by shooting her in the.................leg.

---

You can blame the President's policies about detention. The short answer is that he doesn't have any. He wants to shut down GITMO and can't... but you know he will not add to the population.

Therefore his strategery is simply "western justice"... shoot to kill... drop a bomb from a drone. Not that I object ;but where does the next generation of intel come from ?

There is a huge weakness in this policy ;and you make a valid point. We now learn (thanks to another enemy organization) Wikileaks this operation was the culmination of a number of years of interrogations in GITMO and elsewhere. The President's hands were forced to move fast or risk having OBL move on .


Your point being that effective intel could've been extracted by interrogating OBL is correct. But the President doesn't want anything to do with that . He and his people are more inclined to apply "criminal justice' ;and all that implies. (right to remain silent ) .


Edit... by the way there is an old saying (paraphrase ) the first three reports in war are wrong.There are some that will latch onto information corrections as proof that there is some kind of coverup or conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What? No citation that shows that our criminals have more rights than our citizens?
BTW we have WAY more privacy than you do, by a long shot. I have some inside knowledge as my sister goes through her citizenship application for the USA.

---

Really... Have seen many cases where the privacy rights of suspects excede the rights of the neighbors to know...

YOU don't have the right to kill intruders... or even the right to own guns that Big Brother doesn't know about... and pay to license those they so graciously let you pay to possess, as long as you keep paying.

Most of mine aren't registered... will never be registered... and certainly won't pay for the privilege of having. Because I have the constitutional right to have them.

And if I find someone in my house at 3am and my wife is in bed with me... they won't be walking or running out.. (or carried out breathing).and they will never see the sun rise again. And its my right to do... and I won't be prosecuted for it either.

OK... your sister applied for her citizenship so you know all about this...

Um... OK... except for the fact that process is a joke... and what she has to know is really basic stuff.

Yeah I know what's involved... I've taken someone all the way through the naturalization process before from getting them a green card to their becoming a citizen with an American Passport. Specifically my wife. No she wasn't fast tracked... and it wasn't an automatic right by marriage. Contrary to popular opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Specifically my wife.

---

Mail order? LOL!
Anyway how many years ago was that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Mail order? LOL!
Anyway how many years ago was that?

---

Pull your head out of your azz, OK? Perhaps YOU have a mail order bride...

I met, dated, and married mine in Europe while I was living and working over there. And I was over there for more than 5 years.

I can also work in the EU at my discretion (only need my work papers stamped when I arrive)... as well as move there if I decided to again (have an apartment there and I have several vehicles registered over there now). Without any papers I haven't already possessed for the last 24 years.

I know, you've told us how incredibly powerful and important you are several times. :rolleyes: I'm guessing the naturalization process you 'took someone through' likely didn't include biometrics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

We now learn (thanks to another enemy organization) Wikileaks this operation was the culmination of a number of years of interrogations in GITMO and elsewhere.

He and his people are more inclined to apply "criminal justice' ;and all that implies. (right to remain silent ) .

---

Hello:

Toms statement above describes to a tee, the schizophrenic response we have. We LOVE what Wikileaks did, but we MUST declare them to be the enemy... I don't know about you, but that makes NO sense... Just like this entire episode makes no sense.

In fact, what Obama did, demonstrates the correctness of dealing with Bin Laden as a common criminal.. As it turns out, it took a law enforcement action to get him, whereas two wars and the loss of more than 5,000 of our troops couldn't do it.

Does torture work? Sure. So does shooting down demonstrators. We don't do the latter because it would change WHO WE ARE, just like torturing people changed WHO WE ARE. Unbelievably, if you listen close enough, there IS a call for its return... Congressman Peter King says that torture is a "moral imperative". Is shooting down demonstrators next?

Yes, of course he should have been brought back to NY to stand trial, just like any criminal.. But, apparently, NY and Peter King are too scared.

What becomes clear here, is that there are some amongst us, who DON'T relish our Constitutional safeguards. Oh, they SAY they like the Constitution, but they really don't... If they LIKED the Constitution, they'd close Gitmo. After all, Gitmo was set up specifically to AVOID the Constitution...

That, all by itself, is offensive to me...

It's HARD to keep a democracy... Oh, it's easy to TALK about it, but it's hard to DO it. That's why there aren't many. But, we used to PROMOTE our brand of democracy, instead of sinking down to the level of rest of the world.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma;

I know, you've told us how incredibly powerful and important you are several times. I'm guessing the naturalization process you 'took someone through' likely didn't include biometrics.

---

How about sticking to a topic you know something about for a change.

Or should I start insulting YOUR wife or family in return as you have done.

Well, did it include biometrics?
Reminder, you started this topic back in post #64. It's OK to say you don't know about something; also if you're going to post inflammatory topics be prepared to respond to somepne when they ask you to back up your words with evidence. Otherwise you just sound like any other mad old man who follow fanatical rhetoric without the ever bothering to check out facts.

Quote:

---

As it turns out, it took a law enforcement action to get him

---

Didn't know the Seals were working for Holder.

Quote:

---

Does torture work? Sure.

---

My response says nothing about torture. The information gathered was due to a combination of interrogation techniques. Peter King is incorrect if he is saying that coercive techniques were the only ones employed.

Either way ; the point is that IF it was a 'law enforcement ' operation they would never've extracted the intel. It was the CIA that did the interrogations .

Quote:

---

Yes, of course he should have been brought back to NY to stand trial, just like any criminal.. But, apparently, NY and Peter King are too scared.

---

Roosevelt ordered a hit on Admiral Yamamoto in WWII called 'Operation Vengeance '. Obama ordered a hit on OBL. In both cases they were enemy leaders at war with the US and legit targets.

Quote:

---

We LOVE what Wikileaks did, but we MUST declare them to be the enemy...

---

I don't... they forced the President's hand . Anyway you slice that it's not good news regardless of the outcome.

Pelosis Flip-flopping like a fish out of water... but does this really surprise anyone?

It seems everyone's jumping on the bin Laden bandwagon — even former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Just five years ago, when President Bush was still in power leading the hunt for the world's most wanted terrorist, the California Democrat said capturing or killing Osama bin Laden was not vital to national security.

“Even if he's is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. Even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer,” she said according to Powerline.

But now the deed has been done and the president is a member of her own party, Pelosi has changed her tune. “The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida,” she said on Monday.

“I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment.”

I do agree with what Ex is saying. I'd like to further the last part a bit if I may (and I may).

People here, and elsewhere, defend the American position for no other reason than they are, in fact, American. I think that is what skews the outlook and objectivity of an event such as this.

I read posts supporting the killing, cheering it, praising its inherent "goodness", etc. etc. I find this very disturbing and quite telling.

Some of the American people believe Osama, a man alleged to have murdered thousands of innocent people, deserves death. I ask, who are they to make that judgement? Is there a number of people one must kill before this type of 'justice' is exacted?

After 9/11 people in the middle east rejoiced at the chaos and death that was taking place in America. It upset and enraged many an American and most probably other nationalities as well. However, the same scenes played out this week all across America. We, as North Americans (I'm Canadian), viewed 'those' people as moral heathens and wanted revenge (not justice, revenge). All that this hate and ignorance produced was the killing of many more innocents, a deep hatred and division between East and West and a very costly and unnecessary war.

The American leaders always preach the values and moral fibre of America and its people. How then, does one understand those values when it is the Americans celebrating just like the East did when their 'victory' happened? Or when the U.S Government wants someone dead, he dies? How is that justice, proper justice not revenge fueled justice? Can't preach what you don't practice.

I suppose this rambling connects with my earlier posts about the media fanning the flames of the American people. Indeed, when you stir up the people and have them react to emotion rather than logic, people will accept any action, any lie, any explanation. All for the "greater good". Being what exactly is even more confusing now than it was last week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Pelosis Flip-flopping like a fish out of water....but does this really suprise anyone?

It seems everyone’s jumping ... blah blah blah

---

Copy and pasted word for word from any one of these conservative blogs:
"Just five years ago, when President Bush was still in power leading the hunt for the world’s most wanted terrorist, the California Democrat " - Google Search

Please refer to the source next time instead of passing other's words as your own.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Well, did it include biometrics?
Reminder, you started this topic back in post #64. It's ok to say you don't know about something; also if you're going to post inflammatory topics be prepared to respond to somepne when they ask you to back up your words with evidence. Otherwise you just sound like any other mad old man who follow fanatical rhetoric without the ever bothering to check out facts.

---

Exactly WHAT in the hell does biometrics have to do with someone's application to immigrate to the USA? YOU used them in the same post.

MY opinion on Biometrics? Here it is.

Its just a form of ID that's far less susceptible to counterfeiting. I personally take no issue with it. And I think its good idea for that reason. It proves you are who you claim on your ID. Particularly with passports it's a good idea, same with green cards and drivers licenses when they can be applied. Any of those are faked far too often. Particularly with Illegals and wannabe terrorists.

Yeah... my fingerprints are on file and have been for nearly 30 years for ID purposes, most of which were job related. The oldest was an application for a GOV surplus M-1 Garrand via the civilian Marksmanship program back in the early 80's.

I don't see YOU posting any damn proof to back up your incessant inflamitory comments.


But then in typical liberal fashion... liberals have to prove nothing... and conservatives CAN priove nothing with your tunnel vision relating to reality and facts.