Are Muslims really trying to take over, or are some people just suffering from Islamaphobia? — Page 10

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

 I think Bush was right that bin Laden wasn't the that important a target

tell that to the friends and family members of the 3000 people he murdered(not to mention the friends and family member of people that died in other attacks like on the USS Cole).

Well, I am sure the friends and family members of the 3000 that died have heard it, and if they haven't they can read it here and in many other places.

While we are at it, let's tell the more than 3000 dead civilians and non-military casualties of these two wars that while their loss was regrettable, it was a necessary sacrifice in order to bring justice to Bin Laden. Unfortunately, we have no way to get this information to them, being as they are dead and all. Hopefully they understand and were cool with it.

fuck it, I've had enough of this bullshit.   I am out of here.

CP3S said:

Hey, it's me. said:

So something as momentous as that operation is only worthy of a conference room? Was the the actual Situation Room busy at the time with something more important? 

I agree with a lot of what you and Bingo have been saying. First, Bin Laden was a has been, and I feel like at that point he served his cause better as a martyr than as a living breathing bag of bones. Second, the whole thing is a bit sketchy. As a naturally very skeptical sort of person, I need more than Obama getting in front of the TV cameras and essentially saying, "Who's a badass? THIS GUY!"

So where is he? Oh, we killed him! Where's the body? Oh, yeah, um, we gave him a proper burial at sea, in accordance with his religious beliefs. So, do we have photographs of him being detained by US forces? No, we killed him straight away, he resisted. So, do we have photographs of the body? Eww! No! That's disgusting and inappropriate, you sick bastard! Okay then, that settles it, clearly we got him! USA, USA, USA!!!

 

However, I can't for the living life of me figure out what point you are trying to make with this situation room thing. I'm not even sure if you know what point you are trying to make with it. The situation room Obama and Biden are in looks like an HR office, rather than some crazy badass room I'd expect to see in movies, therefore I smell something fishy... Oh, well it is one of the situation room's conference rooms. Ah ha! If they really got Bin Laden, surely they would have used the real situation room rather than one of its conference rooms!

As if Obama and Biden wouldn't be allowed to use the real situation room for a staged fake. Sorry guys, we've got real government stuff going on in here at the moment, if you want to fake this thing to help you win the next election you guys can setup in-- here, let me check my clipboard and see what's open-- Ah, yeah, you can setup in conference room seven over there."

The point clearly is its a secret government/military operation. Where's the need for a picture of the President et al looking involved and concerned? Surely that shit would just be taken for granted anyway? Sources say the President and (whoever) beared witness to the operation via live feed in the White House Situation Room. That's all anyone needed to know. It was staged bullshit and no one (to my knowledge) has questioned why the fuck it was necessary? 

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/313.php

Most Iranians were not fond of him.

According the following link, it looks like he maintained a limited working relationship...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_ideology_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Jews.2C_Christians.2C_and_Shia_Muslims

...but he certainly considered them heretical, and I doubt he would have been content to live among them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Beliefs_and_ideology

And in spite of the official stance of the Iranian government, many Iranians are pro-US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Divide_between_public_opinion_and_state_policy

Yes I am listening to Darth Ender but the issue your avoiding is no matter the conflict between the two divisions of the Muslim faith, America and the West is the common enemy. IF many Iranians are pro-US as you put it (hard to believe considering Israel) Bin Laden being amongst them would've been refuted by ALL due to him being a MUSLIM despite all else. You seem to underestimate the sheer hatred these people have of the West.

Ender said it best when he said,

darth_ender said:

I'm not just talking out my backside here.  You're just speculating.

He provides links to support what he is saying, and you write off those links and his points with a simple, "You seem to underestimate the sheer hatred these people have of the West."

I spent several years living in a predominantly Muslim country, I had many good Islamic friends that I spent time with regularly. I actually lived there during 2001, and while I had several violent encounters following September of that year and the beginning of the campaign in Afghanistan, my Muslim friends were extremely saddened by the event. A few of them even had friends and relatives in New York and were absolutely terrified for the safety of their loved ones the day it happened.

My previous room mate (as of just four months ago) was an immigrant Muslim, and besides being a little uptight and perturbed by my morally loose lifestyle, he and I got along well and would frequently have some pretty good conversation during afternoon tea.

I've seen this hate of which you speak, I've been a victim of it, and I've been forced to react in ways I wish I hadn't had to because of it. But I have also not seen it this hate, and have shared some very good memories with people from countries that, according to you, ought to have nothing but hatred for me.

Warbler said:

if he is not really dead, how he hasn't announced that he is still alive?    Surely he would have loved to make fools of us by shooting "ha! ha! I am still alive! you didn't get me!"  yet there have been no videos of him after it was announced that he was dead.  

also they did DNA tests on him and confirmed it was him.

CP3S, I have never heard you question the story of his death, why are you doing so now?

If you remember, years ago I used to always argue that the man was probably already dead.

And I've expressed my skepticism regarding his death here before. I don't really necessarily think there is a conspiracy or anything involved. I just feel that we can't really know for sure. No evidence has been provided other than the word of men who have been known to lie. Yes, THEY did a DNA test on him, who is they and can they be trusted? If they can be trusted, is the source of the DNA dependable? Or the source of the DNA it was being compared to trustworthy?

Bottom line is, I don't really care. It isn't that big of a deal, and I have never considered that one man the human superpower so many Americans visioned him as. His death was of very little consequence. Had that event never happened, the shape of the world would likely be exactly the same, only with Obama having one less line on his resume for the 2012 election, and with people occasionally talking about how much they wish we could find and kill the bastard.

He didn't single handedly carry out 9/11, whether or not he actually masterminded it or not is even a bit of a question. All this data came to us during the same time period that the CIA discovered WMDs in Iraq. Not a shred of evidence suggests those nukes ever existed. They also told us about networks of massive underground complexes hidden in the mountains, going several stories deep and containing all sorts of luxuries and technology. None of these complexes have ever been found, not a single photo exists. Such a structure would be a massive undertaking, requiring A LOT of manual labor. Surely with all the money that was offered by the US government for Bin Laden and information about him, we would have had a laborer or two, or at least a disgruntled henchmen, come out and point us in the direction of one of these complexes.

I'm sorry, it is a cool story, but I just don't find the sources of this information to be very reliable, and the lack of solid evidence to any of it isn't exactly surprising, but it is enough to make me take all of it with a grain of salt.

Hey, it's me. said:

The point clearly is its a secret government/military operation. Where's the need for a picture of the President et al looking involved and concerned?

We live in a shallowly media driven world. The need for the picture was so there would be something to put on newspapers, and later in history textbooks. Seems like the answer is pretty obvious. 

It isn't a big deal, there is really no benefit or harm to such a thing. Such things really have been the norm since long before you or I were born. You're reading way too much into it.

No I'm not reading too much into it as you say. The shallowly,media driven world means next to fuck all regarding what the military gets up to. This isn't/wasn't a Hollywood motion picture, or tabloid press exclusive. This was a Military operation. Give me an example of a relative Military op where I can gauge some kind of relation to it. 

Perhaps I am just a bit dense, but I am having a difficult time figuring out exactly what you are trying to say. So I am going to break it down into tiny bites, to try to digest it.

No I'm not reading too much into it as you say. The shallowly,media driven world means next to fuck all regarding what the military gets up to.

Okay, so I guess this is still regarding the conference room photo. Its existence seems to indicate to you that the whole death of Bin Laden has something fishy going on behind it, or did I misread that?

Yes, the shallow media driven world does mean fuck all next to what the military actually gets up to. We don't even know the half of it. But a historic event like the death of Bin Laden is to become public information, and is going to sell a lot of papers and generate a lot of buzz, a picture for the occasion seems reasonable enough. I don't see the issue?

I am sure you are trying to make some kind of a point here, but it is going way over my head. :(  Some smaller words perhaps, or better yet, some bigger ones.

This isn't/wasn't a Hollywood motion picture, or tabloid press exclusive. This was a Military operation. Give me an example of a relative Military op where I can gauge some kind of relation to it. 

I am having a hard time deciphering that last sentence. You want an example of a related military operation so that you can measure some kind of relation to it???

Are seriously asking for a similar military operation where the press took staged photos in order to have something to print in the papers along with the story, as if this is something ridiculous and unheard of? That is probably not at all what you are asking, like I said, I am having some difficulties here.

CP3S said:

Perhaps I am just a bit dense, but I am having a difficult time figuring out exactly what you are trying to say. So I am going to break it down into tiny bites, to try to digest it.

 

No I'm not reading too much into it as you say. The shallowly,media driven world means next to fuck all regarding what the military gets up to.

Okay, so I guess this is still regarding the conference room photo. Its existence seems to indicate to you that the whole death of Bin Laden has something fishy going on behind it, or did I misread that?

Yes, the shallow media driven world does mean fuck all next to what the military actually gets up to. We don't even know the half of it. But a historic event like the death of Bin Laden is to become public information, and is going to sell a lot of papers and generate a lot of buzz, a picture for the occasion seems reasonable enough. I don't see the issue?

I am sure you are trying to make some kind of a point here, but it is going way over my head. :(  Some smaller words perhaps, or better yet, some bigger ones.

 

This isn't/wasn't a Hollywood motion picture, or tabloid press exclusive. This was a Military operation. Give me an example of a relative Military op where I can gauge some kind of relation to it. 

I am having a hard time deciphering that last sentence. You want an example of a related military operation so that you can measure some kind of relation to it???

Are seriously asking for a similar military operation where the press took staged photos in order to have something to print in the papers along with the story, as if this is something ridiculous and unheard of? That is probably not at all what you are asking, like I said, I am having some difficulties here.

Okay the gauge/relation line was stoopid, you got me on that one. The point I was trying to make was that it all seemed too contrived. His apparent death and sea burial, (no need for proof of that, you just take our word for it) where was the obligatory photo of the wrapped carcass going overboard and cheesy smiles and thumbs up from Navy personnel? I dunno, something about the whole thing just didnt seem kosher. Maybe its just me.

Bin Laden is the stuff myths are made off, either the bogeyman myth of the West (which is largely played out now) or the hero legend of some people in the Middle East.

Every legend has to have an end, the monster slain, the hero rests to return at the appointed hour.

By giving Bin Laden an off screen, unverifiable death by assassination the hero legend (the most dangerous of the two for us) has it's finishing flourish.

If he was put on trial, evidence was brought forward and he was exposed to the world as a human being and not killed, the hero legend would have been largely dissolved and the bogeyman myth with have been exorcised with the Americans seen as the good guys.

Justice was not served by assassinating him, revenge 'maybe'. We pride ourselves that people are considered innocent until proven guilty in which case he technically died innocent regardless of whatever he actually did in life.

Since the death of Kennedy the majority of people have a degree of skepticism about what our governments are up to (the Prism scandal just confirms what we often suspect).

Having the Bogeyman killed out of view, without trial, posting fake photos and then retracting them and burying the body at sea is playing into that speculation. If we can be skeptical you can bet his followers are beyond skeptical.

I apologize to the forum for my outburst yesterday. 

I guess 911 and Bin Laden are topics that fill me with so much anger that sometimes I can not think clearly.

imperialscum said: Yet in the history, you remain the only nation who used nuclear weapons on other nation (on civilians to be precise).

and haven't done so in 68 years, despite having some many enemies since then.    And the reason we did it 68 years was to a avoid having to invade mainland Japan which would have cost countless lives on both sides. 

imperialscum said:

Oh you thought he had weapons of mass destruction. So what if he did (he didn't anyway)? You have weapons of mass destruction.

some nations can be trusted with wmds,  Iraq under Saddam was not one of them. 

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Oh and talking about Saddam... can you remind me why exactly did you invade Iraq?

He was an evil dictator that murdered many of his own people, certainly kept them oppressed, and we though he had wmds.   For all we know he did have wmds and disposed of them or sent them somewhere else before we could stop him.    I am not sure we should have gone into Iraq, what I do know is that Saddam was a bad guy and would have developed wmds and used them against the US, if he could have. 

Well decisions of your leaders caused unproportionally more deaths around the world than that of Saddam.

I do not approve of everything we did there.  Maybe you are right and we should never have gone there in the first place, but it still doesn't change the fact that we took out a very bad guy.

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

 Or millions of people around the world suffering because of your foreign policy and military invasions.

yeah, sure it is all the fault of the big bad US, and Saddam and Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have nothing to do with it.   what bullshit.

What does Saddam has to do with South East Asia in 60' and 70', for example?

I didn't know you were talking about South East Asia in 60's and and 70's. 

I was talking in general.

well if you want to talk in general, I'd in general we usually either go after people that attacked us, threatened us, or those that are pretty bad guys.

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Oh you thought he had weapons of mass destruction. So what if he did (he didn't anyway)? You have weapons of mass destruction.

some nations can be trusted with wmds,  Iraq under Saddam was not one of them. 

And you will be the judge of that?

You Americans are every bit as stupid and arrogant as people usually say you are. No offence.

ALOL

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

 I think Bush was right that bin Laden wasn't the that important a target

tell that to the friends and family members of the 3000 people he murdered(not to mention the friends and family member of people that died in other attacks like on the USS Cole).

Well, I am sure the friends and family members of the 3000 that died have heard it, and if they haven't they can read it here and in many other places.

While we are at it, let's tell the more than 3000 dead civilians and non-military casualties of these two wars that while their loss was regrettable, it was a necessary sacrifice in order to bring justice to Bin Laden. Unfortunately, we have no way to get this information to them, being as they are dead and all. Hopefully they understand and were cool with it.

here is what I should have said yesterday:

the world trade center bombing in 1993

the embassy bombings

the USS Cole

911

what were we supposed to do?   how long were supposed to let this crap continue?  Who many Americans were we supposed to let die before we did something about it?   What would you have done about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?  just let them get away with it?  You've never answered that.

As for the the families and friends of those that died in the war in Afghanistan, perhaps they ought to be asking why the regimes there were harboring terrorists.    The people in charge of Afghanistan were not good people.   But maybe we should have tried harder to find a way to do what needed to be down with causing so many civilian deaths.

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said: Yet in the history, you remain the only nation who used nuclear weapons on other nation (on civilians to be precise).

and haven't done so in 68 years, despite having some many enemies since then.    And the reason we did it 68 years was to a avoid having to invade mainland Japan which would have cost countless lives on both sides. 

Do not give me that crap... Japan wanted to surrender under a condition to keep the Emperor. You bombed their cities to test the effects of the bomb on real population and to show off in front of USSR. Then after you bombed them you let them keep the Emperor... So much about the "unacceptable" condition...

now THAT is bullshit.

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Oh you thought he had weapons of mass destruction. So what if he did (he didn't anyway)? You have weapons of mass destruction.

some nations can be trusted with wmds,  Iraq under Saddam was not one of them. 

And you will be the judge of that?

some one has to.    or do you really think Iran and N. Korea can be trusted with nukes?

 

imperialscum said:

You Americans are every bit as stupid and arrogant as people usually say you are. No offence.

fuck you asshole.

Warbler said:

here is what I should have said yesterday:

the world trade center bombing in 1993

the embassy bombings

the USS Cole

911

what were we supposed to do?   how long were supposed to let this crap continue?  Who many Americans were we supposed to let die before we did something about it?   What would you have done about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?  just let them get away with it?  You've never answered that.

As for the the families and friends of those that died in the war in Afghanistan, perhaps they ought to be asking why the regimes there were harboring terrorists.    The people in charge of Afghanistan were not good people.   But maybe we should have tried harder to find a way to do what needed to be down with causing so many civilian deaths.

I could with ease do one of my parody misquotes replacing every terrorist event you listed with an outrage against Arabs and Muslims and swapping America and Afghanistan around.

It would be very cold comfort indeed to the families of the people who died in 9/11 to say to them, "Maybe you shouldn't have voted for that sort of leader".

Especially as some of those countries didn't have leaders or votes at the time.

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said: Yet in the history, you remain the only nation who used nuclear weapons on other nation (on civilians to be precise).

and haven't done so in 68 years, despite having some many enemies since then.    And the reason we did it 68 years was to a avoid having to invade mainland Japan which would have cost countless lives on both sides. 

Do not give me that crap... Japan wanted to surrender under a condition to keep the Emperor. You bombed their cities to test the effects of the bomb on real population and to show off in front of USSR. Then after you bombed them you let them keep the Emperor... So much about the "unacceptable" condition...

*ahem*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombing_of_japan#Debate_over_bombings