Bin Laden kill mission on RTE

ITS_A_BADGER

Bin laden was killed in Pakistan??

seems like that was Abbottabad place to hide

karma_

donalg1 wrote: »

And by saying you feel sympathy for those killed in 1945 in Hiroshima are you also saying that the Japanese have atoned for those killed in Pearl Harbour in 1941.

Atoned? Pearl Harbour was a military target, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian cities and their bombing was punitive barbarism and a certain war crime. There were even US POW's in Hiroshima when it was bombed.

Border-Rat

Bin Laden died in 2001 of renal failure, after a lengthy denial of any involvement in 9/11. Its just plain disturbing how many people believe that farce from last year.

juan.kerr

Border-Rat wrote: »

Bin Laden died in 2001 of renal failure, after a lengthy denial of any involvement in 9/11. Its just plain disturbing how many people believe that farce from last year.

And that was before 9/11 even happened, right?

telecaster

Corkblowin wrote: »

But now you're believing that they did execute him - its more likely he was either dead already or died in a gunfight.

I don't know what happened, and neither do you, but its very easy to second guess those who have to make these decisions from behind our keyboards after the event.

I never made any claim to know what happened. You seem to be implying I've flip-flopped?

My points are this:
1. The American president authorized the murder of OBL. This is against American law.
2. The Whitehouse backslapfest of a broadcast aired last night was propaganda masquerading as historical documentary.

The US military under Obama has been responsible for the deaths of many civilians across Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen. If the leaders of their nations arranged to fly a swot team in to another sovereign nation and murder Obama, then produce a documentary celebrating how very clever they all were to kill him and dump his body at sea would this be aired by RTE?

Hande hoche!

karma_ wrote: »

Atoned? Pearl Harbour was a military target, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian cities and their bombing was punitive barbarism and a certain war crime. There were even US POW's in Hiroshima when it was bombed.

Hiroshima was a significant manufacturing centre for both military and civilian goods.

kevin james murray

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Anyone just see it.
Seems like they took a huge risk with the operation.

why do yanks keep crashing helecopters on these black op missions

Border-Rat

juan.kerr wrote: »

And that was before 9/11 even happened, right?

I guess this is supposed to be some witty put-down?

Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest,

- Osama Bin Laden, 19.09.2001

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.

Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel.

There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya, and Bosnia?

Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims .

The US has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates.

However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that, it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of United States, or the latter itself considers them as its enemies. Or the countries, which do not agree to become its slaves, such as China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria, and the former Russia as received .

Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.

- Osama Bin Laden, 28.09.01

Bin Laden died of renal failure in 2001 and was buried in the AFPAK mountains by the Taliban.

karma_

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Hiroshima was a significant manufacturing centre for both military and civilian goods.

Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military.

This does not excuse launching a nuclear attack against a densely populated city.

kevin james murray

why do yanks keep crashing their helecopters on these missions dun the same in iran

Hande hoche!

karma_ wrote: »

This does not excuse launching a nuclear attack against a densely populated city.

Attacks on densely populated cities be it with conventional or incendiary bombs were a feature of the time period. All sides engaged in so called "strategic bombing".

Corkblowin

telecaster wrote: »

I never made any claim to know what happened. You seem to be implying I've flip-flopped?

That was in response to you saying they should have captured him.

telecaster wrote: »

propaganda masquerading as historical documentary.

Of course it was! A sanitaised version which showed the US military and their commander in chief as heros who remained calm under pressure and took out the bad guy! There is an election this year! But just because they hammed it up doesn't make OBL any less dead.

telecaster wrote: »

If the leaders of their nations arranged to fly a swot team in to another sovereign nation and murder Obama, then produce a documentary celebrating how very clever they all were to kill him and dump his body at sea would this be aired by RTE?

Thats not the same at all - it would be nations attacking nations - which is war. Here we have a fugitive organisation who are 'at war' with the US - which is terrorism. Unfortunately there are no rules when it comes to terrorism.

Why didn't OBL attack a military target?

karma_

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Attacks on densely populated cities be it with conventional or incendiary bombs were a feature of the time period. All sides engaged in so called "strategic bombing".

That makes it no more acceptable. Here we are, condemning, rightly so a cowardly terrorist attack in NY that killed about 3000 people, yet some are absolving the almost complete obliteration of TWO cities, packed with civilians. If one is to be condemned, then it is proper and just that both be condemned.

Higher

Border-Rat wrote: »

I guess this is supposed to be some witty put-down?



- Osama Bin Laden, 19.09.2001



- Osama Bin Laden, 28.09.01

Bin Laden died of renal failure in 2001 and was buried in the AFPAK mountains by the Taliban.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. That statement was made after Omar was visited by Pakistan's ISI and told that if he didn't hand over Bin Laden, Afghanistan would be invaded.

Bin Laden had ordered the assasination of Massoud two days before September 11th with the intention of placating the Taliban before the inevitable reaction from America after September 11th. However, the unforeseen scale of the attacks cause Bin Laden to question whether the Taliban would protect him. Indeed, the Taliban were already becoming tired of the constant influx of foreign jihadis that were training at Bin Laden affliated camps.

Initially he denied it, uncertain if the Taliban would protect him. When he gained their assurance, then he openly admitted to it.

books4sale

Bin Laden was killed last year by Navy Seals in Pakistan. FACT

Neil Armstrong did walk on the moon. FACT

The twin towers collapsed from two airplanes hitting them not exposives or George Bush. FACT

There no such thing as Aliens. FACT

The holocaust did happen. FACT

Now if you're over 25 and deny any one of the above then its time to grow up, move out of your parents, get a girlfriend and stop reading comic books.

.....also stop dressing like your 16.

Border-Rat

Higher wrote: »

You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh, God. I suppose you're right when you say that Bin Laden made three towers implode in perfect symmetry with two planes?

That statement was made after Omar was visited by Pakistan's ISI and told that if he didn't hand over Bin Laden, Afghanistan would be invaded.

No, it was an interview given to The Daily Ummat (Pakistani Newspaper).

Bin Laden had ordered the assasination of Massoud two days before September 11th with the intention of placating the Taliban before the inevitable reaction from America after September 11th.

Massoud was assasinated by the CIA.

However, the unforeseen scale of the attacks cause Bin Laden to question whether the Taliban would protect him. Indeed, the Taliban were already becoming tired of the constant influx of foreign jihadis that were training at Bin Laden affliated camps.

LMAO.

Initially he denied it, uncertain if the Taliban would protect him. When he gained their assurance, then he openly admitted to it.

Osama Bin Laden never admitted to 9/11. Ever.

karma_

books4sale wrote: »

There no such thing as Aliens. FACT

This one is far from fact.

Hande hoche!

karma_ wrote: »

That makes it no more acceptable. Here we are, condemning, rightly so a cowardly terrorist attack in NY that killed about 3000 people, yet some are absolving the almost complete obliteration of TWO cities, packed with civilians. If one is to be condemned, then it is proper and just that both be condemned.

One was in wartime conditions and the other peacetime. Also the notable change in attitudes to death counts.

telecaster

Corkblowin wrote: »

Unfortunately there are no rules when it comes to terrorism.

Agreed.

But there are rules when it comes to how nations behave. And America pi$$ all over these every single day.

America are as guilty of terrorism as any terrorist organization you may care to mention.

Can terrorist activity be legitimized as an acceptable act of war as long as it is commited by a state rather than some faction which the state has labelled 'terrorists' ?

karma_

Hande hoche! wrote: »

One was in wartime conditions and the other peacetime. Also the notable change in attitudes to death counts.

Criminal acts happen within or without wartime, hardly justification, for either.

Lawrence1895

Didn't know yet, that they dropped him into the sea

Higher

Border-Rat wrote: »

Oh, God. I suppose you're right when you say that Bin Laden made three towers implode in perfect symmetry with two planes?

LOL, I can't believe I actually replied to you. I wouldn't have wasted my time if I knew you were one of those people who believe in loose change.

No, it was an interview given to The Daily Ummat (Pakistani Newspaper).

Where did I say it wasn't? I said OBL made that statement after Omar was paid a visit by the ISI.

Massoud was assasinated by the CIA.

And why would the CIA assasinate their biggest ally in Afghanistan?

LMAO.

Maybe read up on it.

Osama Bin Laden never admitted to 9/11. Ever.

You really should stop getting all your 'facts' from conspiracy nut websites...

"We counted in advance the number of casualties from the enemy who would be killed, based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors," he said.
"I was the most optimistic of them all … due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and the floors above it only. This is all that we hoped for …
"I was sitting with Dr Ahmad Abu-al-Khair," he said. "Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Centre. We turned the radio station to the news from Washington.
"They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building, so I said to them: be patient."
He added: "The brothers who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America, but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter.
"But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the plane".

Corkblowin

telecaster wrote: »

Agreed.
Can terrorist activity be legitimized as an acceptable act of war as long as it is commited by a state rather than some faction which the state has labelled 'terrorists' ?

Well here we are kind of on the same page - in WWII all nations engaged in bombing of civilian cities. It was not acceptable but could not be described as terrorism - the fact a global conflict was taking place 'legitimized' the actions as far as one can legitimize such things.

But the detonation of a dirty bomb in a city by an unaffiliated organisation would be terrorism.

In the first case the people know a war is occurring, know they are targets, and take measures to protect themselves (bomb shelters, move from area etc) and some would argue is counter productive. In the second there is no nation to strike back at and no means to retaliate in kind -which has led to most of the problems we have today.

karma_

Corkblowin wrote: »

Well here we are kind of on the same page - in WWII all nations engaged in bombing of civilian cities. It was not acceptable but could not be described as terrorism - the fact a global conflict was taking place 'legitimized' the actions as far as one can legitimize such things.

But the detonation of a dirty bomb in a city by an unaffiliated organisation would be terrorism.

In the first case the people know a war is occurring, know they are targets, and take measures to protect themselves (bomb shelters, move from area etc) and some would argue is counter productive. In the second there is no nation to strike back at and no means to retaliate in kind -which has led to most of the problems we have today.

There are laws to observe when fighting wars also. It certainly does not legitimise targeting civilians in any respect.

Hank Scorpio

I killed Bin Laden with a shovel

Corkblowin

karma_ wrote: »

There are laws to observe when fighting wars also. It certainly does not legitimise targeting civilians in any respect.

I agree - which is why I said as far as one can legitimise these things.

Ash.J.Williams

are both sides of this thread talking through their holes?

BlatentCheek

What exactly did this assassination achieve?

The situation in Afghanistan appears unaffected.

Al-Qaeda seemed to be on the wane in any case, with both popular revulsion towards it across the Muslim world and even other jihadist organisations such as the LIFG disassociating from it a couple of years before OBL's death. I'm unaware of any acceleration in this decline caused by the death of OBL. They now have another martyr

The relationship between the US and Pakistan, a nuclear armed unstable state, deteriorated further. While it's (relatively) moderate government was considerably discredited to it's own people as powerless lackeys whose "allies" can kill at will within its sovereign territory without informing it until after the event

An opportunity to put OBL, and thus his entire poisonous ideology, on trial for the whole world to see was lost. This may seem nebulous but the example of the Anders Breivik trial shows how a man who may have been a martyr for a certain disaffected extremist fringe was instead exposed as a pathetic joke.

An incalculable opportunity for the US to prove what it has been saying since 9/11, that it is taking military action in defence of freedom and democratic values, was also lost by not going for the trial option. Instead the action taken was totally in keeping with the form displayed since 9/11: extrajudicial killings, invasions of dubious legality on falsified evidence, abductions and irregular renditions to a sinister and secret global network of torture camps and drone attacks that kill civilians within the sovereign territory of an allied nation.

It got rid of an evil mass murderer who was the head of an organization waging a global terrorist jihad against the US, the West and any opposing points of view within Islam. But this could have been achieved with the trial option anyway.

It gave Obama an ace in the hole on any charges of being weak on defence from the Republican's. One unmatched by any Democrat in decades.

IMO concerns over domestic politics dictated a course of action that cost America a great opportunity in it's foreign affairs.

telecaster

Corkblowin wrote: »

Well here we are kind of on the same page

No, I don't believe we are.

Using the word terrorism has clear implication of a moral hierarchy in conflict.

Without aspiring to objectivity there can be no reasoned analysis.

If Dresden and the A-Bombs weren't dirty bombings I don't know what are.

Any deliberate action which will knowingly result in the death of civilians is an act for which those authorizing it need to be held accountable.

Whether someone's death is reported as being at the hands of "terrorists", or an "enemy nation" should not alter the judicial consequences for the perpetrators.....but it does, and that's very wrong.

There are seemingly no judicial consequences for the killing of Bin Laden. America has apparent impunity to execute whoever it wants, whenever it wants. This is not a good thing. This is the thrust of my argument and I shall let it rest at that.

B.A._Baracus

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

are both sides of this thread talking through their holes?

Always happens on boards
But each side fights with such conviction that the other is wrong.

D1stant

BlatentCheek wrote: »

What exactly did this assassination achieve?

Welcome to the 2012 Obama re-election campaign

--Kaiser--

ITS_A_BADGER wrote: »

Bin laden was killed in Pakistan??

seems like that was Abbottabad place to hide

You told that terribly. See below

Did you hear that Osama was hiding in Pakistan? Talk Abbatobad place to hide....

Corkblowin

telecaster wrote: »

Whether someone's death is reported as being at the hands of "terrorists", or an "enemy nation" should not alter the judicial consequences for the perpetrators.....but it does, and that's very wrong.

Of course its wrong, but there is a perceived difference.

Just for the avoidance of doubt - I'm not trying to defend civilian deaths of any kind!

--Kaiser--

books4sale wrote: »

Bin Laden was killed last year by Navy Seals in Pakistan. FACT

Neil Armstrong did walk on the moon. FACT

The twin towers collapsed from two airplanes hitting them not exposives or George Bush. FACT

There no such thing as Aliens. FACT

The holocaust did happen. FACT

Now if you're over 25 and deny any one of the above then its time to grow up, move out of your parents, get a girlfriend and stop reading comic books.

.....also stop dressing like your 16.

Apart from the bit in bold I agree (not saying they definitely do exist but saying they definitely don't is foolish). And what's wrong with reading comic books?

Corkblowin

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

are both sides of this thread talking through their holes?

Of course - thats what AH is about!

end of the road

Rabidlamb wrote: »

The bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki was the greatest humanitarian act in memory.

meh, it was an experiment to see the effects. a humanitarian act is usually to help people not vapourrise them but each to their own.

Rabidlamb wrote: »

The lily hearted liberals

and of course the right wingers are always right. would rather be a (lily hearted liberal) then a right winger who all the things they would like to happen have probably been tried all ready and failed.
do realise that the reason why their are always conspiracy theories about anything the US does is because the US have told so many lies and talked so much bull that people just can't believe a word they say now. its like a person who constantly lies, eventually you won't believe anything they say.

end of the road

Corkblowin wrote: »

Because he wants to be re-elected.

in fairness looking at the candidates who are up against him i'd say he will be re-elected anyway.

minidazzler

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

How has it stopped more violence. Are we are to believe what we are being told and that the killing of one man has made the world a safer place. If anything it has made things worse.

My entire previous post which was the conversation I was having was about Hiroshima Nagasaki. THAT'S What stopped more violence. You really do twist posts to whatever you want them to say though. So go ahead, find another way around this one.

--Kaiser--

end of the road wrote: »

do realise that the reason why their are always conspiracy theories about anything the US does is because the US have told so many lies and talked so much bull that people just can't believe a word they say now. its like a person who constantly lies, eventually you won't believe anything they say.

Why are you anthropomorphising an entire country? A country can't lie

Craptacular

Another guy claiming to be a member of the SEAL team realeased a book titled Seal Target Geronimo last year in which he said they dropped from the 1st helicopter to the roof and shot OBL in his bedroom as he was reaching for a gun. He also claims his wife was injured in the leg during the shooting. That sounds more plausible than him hanging around while they crash in his yard, shoot people and blow holes in his building. It also seems more likely than the idea that they shot his wife in the leg to stop her charging them when they already mentioned the possibility of suicide vests.

ejmaztec

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You told that terribly. See below

Did you hear that Osama was hiding in Pakistan? Talk Abbatobad place to hide....

He wasn't hiding, it's a little known fact outside Pakistan, but he was taking part in a Pakistani TV version of Celebrity Big Brother. He'd just been in the diary room bellyaching about one of the other contestants, and assumed that Big Brother had sent in people dressed as Navy Seals as a joke.

end of the road

juan.kerr wrote: »

Although the PC Brigade might disagree.

yeah, the PC brigade are major supporters of the drug cartels. or maybe they realise Prohibition has failed, and are saying leave them to it.

johnwest288

books4sale wrote: »

Bin Laden was killed last year by Navy Seals in Pakistan. FACT

Neil Armstrong did walk on the moon. FACT

The twin towers collapsed from two airplanes hitting them not exposives or George Bush. FACT

There no such thing as Aliens. FACT

The holocaust did happen. FACT

Now if you're over 25 and deny any one of the above then its time to grow up, move out of your parents, get a girlfriend and stop reading comic books.

.....also stop dressing like your 16.

You forgot this

http://www.google.ie/imgres?q=dettol+fact&num=10&um=1&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=677&tbm=isch&tbnid=M5QwPL1JpGgbiM:&imgrefurl=http://www.lunch.com/Reviews/d/Dettol-1450050.html&imgurl=http://media.lunch.com/d/d7/458519.jpg&w=400&h=400&ei=XyY-ULOhHYK5hAfg34CICw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=105&vpy=166&dur=601&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=123&ty=117&sig=104037263880884409681&sqi=2&page=1&tbnh=152&tbnw=155&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:0,i:102

karma_

minidazzler wrote: »

My entire previous post which was the conversation I was having was about Hiroshima Nagasaki. THAT'S What stopped more violence.

Yeah... No, just no. It was indefensible.

end of the road

books4sale wrote: »

Bin Laden was killed last year by Navy Seals in Pakistan. FACT

no its not.

books4sale wrote: »

Neil Armstrong did walk on the moon. FACT

prove it.

books4sale wrote: »

The twin towers collapsed from two airplanes hitting them not exposives or George Bush. FACT

prove it. their are many valid theories and a lot of valid research to prove otherwise. the american government would certainly be capible of killing their own people if they needed to.

books4sale wrote: »

There no such thing as Aliens. FACT

how do you know? and its not (fact) as it can't be proven they exist or don't exist

books4sale wrote: »

Now if you're over 25 and deny any one of the above then its time to grow up

maybe you should stop being gullible rather then telling people who believe alternative views to grow up? you don't sound to intelligent to be honest when you tell people to grow up for having a different view to yours. like i said, america have told so many lies and talked so much bull that its hard for anyone to believe anything they say, nothing they do would surprise a lot of people.

enfant terrible

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Pearl harbour was a naval base and I think roughly about 2400 people died in the attack very few civilians, compare that to the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and tell me that their actions were justifiable.

The Japanese preferred the slow approach to their massacre's

"The Nanking Massacre or Nanjing Massacre, also known as the Rape of Nanking, was a mass murder and war rape that occurred during the six-week period following the Japanese capture of the city of Nanking (Nanjing), the former capital of the Republic of China, on December 13, 1937 during the Second Sino-Japanese War. During this period, hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians and disarmed soldiers were murdered by soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army.[1][2] Widespread rape and looting also occurred.[3][4] Historians and witnesses have estimated that 250,000 to 300,000 people were killed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

--Kaiser--

end of the road wrote: »

no its not.


prove it.

prove it. their are many valid theories and a lot of valid research to prove otherwise. the american government would certainly be capible of killing their own people if they needed to.

how do you know? and its not (fact) as it can't be proven they exist or don't exist

maybe you should stop being gullible rather then telling people who believe alternative views to grow up? you don't sound to intelligent to be honest when you tell people to grow up for having a different view to yours. like i said, america have told so many lies and talked so much bull that its hard for anyone to believe anything they say, nothing they do would surprise a lot of people.

Actually the burden of proof is on you to prove your ridiculous theories. There are no credible theories for either the moon landing conspiracy or the twin tower one. The twin tower one especially, more theories come out as the last one gets demolished by sensible thinkers (the latest one I've heard is that energy weapons destroyed the towers and the planes were holograms - hilarious!)

You probably think you are open minded or a forward thinker when really you're merely delusional and irrational

end of the road

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Actually the burden of proof is on you to prove your ridiculous theories.

they are not my (as you put it ridiculous theories.) and some are not ridiculous

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

There are no credible theories for the twin tower one.

yes their are. not many of them but they are there, and very possible, but you go ahead and believe every little thing your told, as i said theirs a lot of stuff out there on the twin towers which could be just as easily the truth, as i said the american government would have no problem killing their own people if it came to it.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You probably think you are open minded or a forward thinker when really you're merely delusional and irrational

really? no i'l think you'l find i don't just take the official version of an event such as the twin towers as the truth without being openminded to alternative theories that if you bothered to realy look you might find they could be possible, if that makes me (delusional and irrational) so be it. its better then being gullible. and for the record i don't believe every little conspiracy theory, if it makes any sense to me or its one i wouldn't be surprised if it was possible or true then i keep an open mind.

--Kaiser--

end of the road wrote: »

they are not my (as you put it ridiculous theories.) and some are not ridiculous

yes their are. not many of them but they are there, and very possible, but you go ahead and believe every little thing your told, as i said theirs a lot of stuff out there on the twin towers which could be just as easily the truth, as i said the american government would have no problem killing their own people if it came to it.


really? no i'l think you'l find i don't just take the official version of an event such as the twin towers as the truth without being openminded to alternative theories that if you bothered to realy look you might find they could be possible, if that makes me (delusional and irrational) so be it. its better then being gullible. and for the record i don't believe every little conspiracy theory, if it makes any sense to me or its one i wouldn't be surprised if it was possible or true then i keep an open mind.

Actually I've looked at a lot of the theories and none of them have any merit.

You accuse me of believing everything I'm told, yet you listen to internet nutjobs with ZERO evidence to back up their claims. The ironing is delicious.

As for the moon landing proof:

The Soviet Union were tracking the mission at all times and never did they dispute that the US landed.

The rock samples brought back are universally acknowledged as non-terrestrial.

Over 400,000 people were involved, yet the only people who disputed it happened are laymen. No astronomers, no physisists, no rocket scientists, just nutters who have no a notion of what they speak.

They left a paraboplic reflector on the moon which you can fire a laser beam at and get a signal back.

Clareman

People comparing the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to what has happened recently is a bit of a joke imvho, you are not comparing like with like at all.

During World War 2, bombing of strategically important cities was widespread of both sides of the conflict, the German's were bombing London (and other cities), the British Dresden and others, it was common place for innocent people to get out of the cities as soon as possible. The Americans were also carrying out a long standing bombing raid on Japan for years, the reason the planes were able to get over the cities (in the middle of the day) was because the gunners were saving their bullets for the larger squadrons which were expected. The Americans had warned the Japanese of a swift and complete destruction of Japan if they didn't surrender by the end of July, this was ignored, the first bomb was dropped and the Japanese were warned again, which was ignored. Tha Americans had planned on waiting ~1 week before dropping a second bomb, but due to bad weather they brought it forward to just 3 days after the first bomb, it's often over looked as well that Nagasaki was the backup target for the the bombing, Kokura was covered in clouds. There also wasn't the same understanding of the utter devastation left behind by a nuclear bomb, they knew they were making someone immense, but the fallout and other side effects weren't fully understood, they also used 2 types of bomb and fuel (1 implosion the other involved shooting the plutonium into more fuel) and they weren't sure how they would work.

The American media/culture make a massive thing about everything about the individual, to them Bin Laden was the enemy and was al-Qaeda, it was paramount that they got him and they were going to do anything to make sure they did. The whole Obama made the decision, it was 50/50, etc. etc. was a load of bull imvho, I've been working in large organisations for long enough to know that senior management NEVER make a decision without having all their research done and having their trusted advisers on their side, to say that a leader of a country could authourise a millitary act on soverign soil without the backing of senior folks is madness.

Finally, I can't believe the naievity of the compound that Bin Laden was in, fair enough if you want to be at the top of the stairs, put some protection in place or have people fighting/shooting etc., also, don't have all this invaluable data lying around that can be just carried out in bin bags, imvho a lot more happened in the downing of the helicopter rather than just "it got caught in a down draft", I wouldn't be surprised if it was taken down while they were taking out any defences that were put in place.

On a side note, this whole "60 million helicopter" thing always annoys me, ok, they may cost 60 million to develop and make, but the rubble on the ground isn't worth 60 million, that was pumped into the people back in the States making them, it's a bit like saying the 500 million spent on the Mars rover is a waste cause it'll be left on Mars.