Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Osama take down

24

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Lets get back to the conspiracy theory anyway.
    Showing Osama dead apparently would do what again?
    Ok so they buried him at sea and there was images of him.
    Im takig this from jonny's comment
    The Bin Laden death photos according to those who've seen them are quite gruesome, large chunk of skull missing and brain exposed. Obama thought it could pose an incitement to further violence, the Bush admin would have probably released.

    So will these be released and what is the reason why?
    I mean for those who really want to know, not your average person who doesnt.
    The Ct is im thinking, that Osama is not dead at all right?
    And this is all a big manouvre t mkae it look like they took large steps just to get to him and take him out without any doubts of the result.
    Its annoying the "result" has no evidence for the general public and the rest of the "result" was lost at sea.

    A very convenient thing for a good CT.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Fattes wrote: »
    Ok a few things; the heli’s are flown by pilots from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment known as the Knight Stalkers. They would probably be very aware and accustomed to the new helis they were flying that night but would also have known things can go wrong.

    There is a reason they had Choppers sitting on a river bed near bye for backup and F22 on patrol at the border if required.

    Osama is dead, the Seal team that executed the raid did an incredible job and there is nothing more to it
    .

    Zero Dark Thirty isn't evidence.

    The helicopter crashing is a red herring. It could have crashed whether they killed him or not,


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Sixtus wrote: »
    No there are flat out contradictions.

    Al Qaeda can't be USA controlled and a Fundamentalist Religious Organisation dedicated to bringing the world under Sharia law.

    The Soviet-Afghan War proves you wrong - as does the USA's support of jihadi suicide bombers, organ-stealers and throat slitters in the Balkans, Syria and Libya.

    Can you really not understand why an "Al Qaeda" is so valuable to US foreign policy?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Torakx wrote: »
    So will these be released and what is the reason why?

    Who is left to convince? Republicans have accepted it, Pakistan, Al Qaeda, Russia, even Iran.

    Some press outlets are trying to apply for freedom of information to access the photo's but it's generally a bit lackluster.

    The photo's might come out at some stage, but they won't assay conspriracy theorists. There's plenty of photos and footage of 911 and the moon landings when you think about it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭Stainless_Steel


    Why release the photos? What would be a good reason? It would not stop CTers from doubting...as jonny points out there are photos/videos about the moon landing but that is still doubted.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    And why, if they were faking the entire thing could they not just fake the photos and the video?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Why release the photos? What would be a good reason? It would not stop CTers from doubting...as jonny points out there are photos/videos about the moon landing but that is still doubted.
    It has nothing to do with "CTers". It's called scepticism. No hard evidence at all has been presented from President Change and transparency about the supposed killing of the most wanted man in the world.

    Obama told the world that the CIA guy who murdered two Pakistanis in Pakistan was a diplomat. He wasn't.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    It has nothing to do with "CTers". It's called scepticism. No hard evidence at all has been presented from President Change and transparency about the supposed killing of the most wanted man in the world.

    Uh huh.

    Which is why you are so skeptical about conspiracy theories that have little evidence what-so-ever, let alone "hard" evidence.

    Selective skepticism I call it


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Uh huh.

    Which is why you are so skeptical about conspiracy theories that have little evidence what-so-ever, let alone "hard" evidence.

    Selective skepticism I call it

    I couldn't care less what you call it. You don't know me so please don't pretend that you do.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,208 ✭✭✭Fattes


    Zero Dark Thirty isn't evidence.

    You are right it is hollywood, I take my facts from what USSOC have released, form the book no easy day and from a nice contact I have in the US Special forces.

    I guess Osama is just shy and does not want to be seen on film anymore as he is so camera shy


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Fattes wrote: »
    You are right it is hollywood, I take my facts from what USSOC have released, form the book no easy day and from a nice contact I have in the US Special forces.
    Cool. What are the facts? And how have they been supported by actual evidence?

    And while you are here could you explain to Sixtus about the US Governments Special Forces use of terrorists groups for carrying out false-flags? He doesn't understand.
    US (2009) US Special Forces counterinsurgency manual analysis

    WikiLeaks released theForeign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces (1994, 2004) document, the official US Special Forces doctrine for Foreign Internal Defense or FID. FID operations are designed to prop up "friendly" governments facing popular revolution or guerilla insurgency. FID interventions are often covert or quasi-covert due to the unpopular nature of the governments being supported.


    The manual directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and (under varying circumstances) the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates employing terrorists or prosecuting individuals for terrorism who are not terrorists, running false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it repeatedly advocates the use of subterfuge and "psychological operations" (propaganda) to make these and other "population & resource control" measures more palatable.

    http://wikileaks.org/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,208 ✭✭✭Fattes


    Brown Bomber; there are facts in the form of witness statements of those that carried out the raid and others in the compound, then there is what Jim Corr thinks are facts.

    Its up to you to believe what you will but the US Gov has no interest in anything other than protecting its physical and economic position.Which like an accountant helping a client reduce their tax bill is their job whether you like it or not.


    War is just one big cluster Fu*k of human rights abuses on every side.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Put it this way:

    If you were working for the Guinness Book of Records and I called you up and said I've just caught the biggest fish in the history of the world would you say "Wow! That's amazing! Well done! I'll get straight on the editors!!!"

    I assume you'd ask for evidence?

    Now what if I say well I have some photos but I can't show you and I threw the fish back into the seat but...but...but...these guys that work for me saw it and they'll say the seen it....and...uhm...I took a DNA sample...but...I can't release that either....but you can trust me...:)...I know I lie all the time but ... but I swear I aint lying this time. I tellyou what - I'll show you a picture of me looking at the fish (but you can't see the fish in the photo) .

    Would you accept this bull****? Hardly, so what's the difference?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,208 ✭✭✭Fattes


    Brown Bomber Where is he gone? His regular video tapes his audio recording nothing?

    I look at the fact that since his death the US are with striking regularity drone striking their top terrorist targets (Signs at the very least the house was a treasure trove of intelligence info)

    Releasing the photos does nothing but stoke hate and just like project Arizona in the 70's in 20 or 30 years the information you seek will become pubic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Put it this way:

    If you were working for the Guinness Book of Records and I called you up and said I've just caught the biggest fish in the history of the world would you say "Wow! That's amazing! Well done! I'll get straight on the editors!!!"

    I assume you'd ask for evidence?

    Now what if I say well I have some photos but I can't show you and I threw the fish back into the seat but...but...but...these guys that work for me saw it and they'll say the seen it....and...uhm...I took a DNA sample...but...I can't release that either....but you can trust me...:)...I know I lie all the time but ... but I swear I aint lying this time. I tellyou what - I'll show you a picture of me looking at the fish (but you can't see the fish in the photo) .

    Would you accept this bull****? Hardly, so what's the difference?

    Yeah but if it was said that maybe the man with the fish was part of a nefarious plan by the Guiness book of Records to indoctrinate people with false lies... with even less evidence.

    Guess who'd swallow it hook, line and sinker ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭Stainless_Steel


    Put it this way:

    If you were working for the Guinness Book of Records and I called you up and said I've just caught the biggest fish in the history of the world would you say "Wow! That's amazing! Well done! I'll get straight on the editors!!!"

    I assume you'd ask for evidence?

    Now what if I say well I have some photos but I can't show you and I threw the fish back into the seat but...but...but...these guys that work for me saw it and they'll say the seen it....and...uhm...I took a DNA sample...but...I can't release that either....but you can trust me...:)...I know I lie all the time but ... but I swear I aint lying this time. I tellyou what - I'll show you a picture of me looking at the fish (but you can't see the fish in the photo) .

    Would you accept this bull****? Hardly, so what's the difference?

    I am sorry but this is completely ridiculous.

    Do you not understand the seriousness of releasing the photos? I know Obama is the anti Christ but he made a good decision on this one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭Sacksian


    Put it this way:

    If you were working for the Guinness Book of Records and I called you up and said I've just caught the biggest fish in the history of the world would you say "Wow! That's amazing! Well done! I'll get straight on the editors!!!"

    I assume you'd ask for evidence?

    Now what if I say well I have some photos but I can't show you and I threw the fish back into the seat but...but...but...these guys that work for me saw it and they'll say the seen it....and...uhm...I took a DNA sample...but...I can't release that either....but you can trust me...:)...I know I lie all the time but ... but I swear I aint lying this time. I tellyou what - I'll show you a picture of me looking at the fish (but you can't see the fish in the photo) .

    Would you accept this bull****? Hardly, so what's the difference?

    I'm going to stick my neck out on this one:

    One is a sporting feat that requires defined standards of evidence to be certified by an appropriate authority (not the Guinness book of records) who are starting from a neutral position.

    The other is a military act involving extremely sensitive political considerations which could be inflamed for the sake of meeting shifting standards of proof set by disparate groups who are starting from a position of disbelief and are unlikely to be satisfied by any evidence offered.

    A further difference is that if you rang up the Guinness Book of Records and told them you'd caught the biggest fish in the world, they'd direct you to the appropriate angling authorities.

    Whereas if you rang them up and told them you'd killed Osama Bin Laden, they'd hang up on you because you'd obviously not be the sharpest tool in the box. And possibly a little dangerous.

    Summary of differences:
    nature of act, standards of evidence required, certification of evidence by neutral jury. Fish and helicopters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    I am sorry but this is completely ridiculous.

    Do you not understand the seriousness of releasing the photos? I know Obama is the anti Christ but he made a good decision on this one.
    Please do explain this one ^^


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    On the Ct topics , what is the story on Osama being trained by the CIA or american agencies?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭Stainless_Steel


    Torakx wrote: »
    Please do explain this one ^^

    Just a joke mate.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    Fattes wrote: »

    Osama is dead, the Seal team that executed the raid did an incredible job and there is nothing more to it.
    If you call spending millions to kill one man an incredible job.. I wonder has there ever been a more expensive 'hit'?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 442 ✭✭Arpa


    Put it this way:

    If you were working for the Guinness Book of Records and I called you up and said I've just caught the biggest fish in the history of the world would you say "Wow! That's amazing! Well done! I'll get straight on the editors!!!"

    I assume you'd ask for evidence?

    Now what if I say well I have some photos but I can't show you and I threw the fish back into the seat but...but...but...these guys that work for me saw it and they'll say the seen it....and...uhm...I took a DNA sample...but...I can't release that either....but you can trust me...:)...I know I lie all the time but ... but I swear I aint lying this time. I tellyou what - I'll show you a picture of me looking at the fish (but you can't see the fish in the photo) .

    Would you accept this bull****? Hardly, so what's the difference?

    Hahahah....that's genius and sums it up nicely. Look everybody thinks conspiracy theorists are paranoid whackjobs, but this isn't about conspiracy theorists. This is just people wanting evidence of what is claimed as fact. You can't say something is true and not back it up. I guess that's all I was after in the first place.

    Mission: To kill most wanted man in the world. Result: A bit of a mess. They lost a million dollar chopper and decided to dump the body at sea. Also decided not to release photos. It's just all a little suspect when you consider they had been chasing him for years. With all the 'Murika crap you'd think they'd be delighted to have a picture of his head with three rounds in it.

    But even after all of that is taken into account...the wider world deserves to know conclusively the exact nature of events. Grand, he's dead, I believe you, but show me the evidence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    This is just people wanting evidence of what is claimed as fact. You can't say something is true and not back it up.

    But it is backed up, just not the way you, personally, might want it. For instance, the most wanted fugitive, Chris Dorner, why are the same people who are asking for photographic evidence of Bin Laden's death not asking for the same of Dorner's death. Why would they just be accepting what the authorities and mass media say.
    Mission: To kill most wanted man in the world. Result: A bit of a mess.

    I would class it as a success, they got him, they got a lot of info, they didn't lose any men. They only lost materials.

    No countries, even traditional "enemies" of the US appear to be challenging any of this information, nor the intelligence agencies of those countries. Pakistan, who were host to Bin Laden, who have lost the most face over this whole episode, who have complete access to the compound, and no doubt Pakistani insiders knew he was there - are accepting that this was Bin Laden.

    In fact the only entities that appear to be pushing for the photo's to be released are the "mainstream media" (ironically which conspiracy theorists often pigeonhole as being part of any conspiracy)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 442 ✭✭Arpa


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    But it is backed up, just not the way you, personally, want it. The fugitive, Chris Dorner, I haven't come across anyone asking for "hard evidence" of his death, they are just accepting what the authorities say.

    That's the problem right there. Accepting what the authorities say? Dangerous frame of mind in which to find yourself.

    I'm not denying that the likelihood is they got him and his body is at sea, but why all the secrecy? Show me the photos, show me the DNA. If they got him and he's dead what's the problem? It just screams of something dodgy going on if they can't even show evidence. What gives them the right to withold the evidence? He was a mass murderer, the most notorious terrorist in the world so surely the world deserves to see the evidence of his death. It's not JFK and the magic bullet, it's Bin Laden, dead...good...so show me the pics of him dead. Quite simple really.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    What right did the American government have to his body in the first place?
    Shouldnt that have been down to the state he was registered to or born in?
    If they wanted to make a mecca out of his grave that would of been their business.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    Jonny7 wrote: »

    But it is backed up, just not the way you, personally, might want it. For instance, the most wanted fugitive, Chris Dorner, why are the same people who are asking for photographic evidence of Bin Laden's death not asking for the same of Dorner's death. Why would they just be accepting what the authorities and mass media say.
    Did the US ransack an entire region, break numerous international laws and spend billions trying to find that guy? The difference is pretty large tbh.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Kold wrote: »
    Did the US ransack an entire region, break numerous international laws and spend billions trying to find that guy? The difference is pretty large tbh.

    First of all the war in Afghanistan was not about finding one guy, so I sincerely hope the above isn't an exaggeration of that.

    Secondly, the US spent a vast amount of resources in unsuccessfully trying to capture Bin Laden, the trail went cold. It's not like the Jason Bourne films, despite their inflated budgets and fancy tools, they still rely heavily on old-fashioned human intelligence.

    I used Chris Dorner to highlight a very obvious contradiction about photographic proof and relying on the word of the authoritie".


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    Cool. What are the facts? And how have they been supported by actual evidence?

    So lets be clear on the 9/11 thread a unnamed police officer's unsubstantiated reports about a car bomb is good enough evidence for you that a car bomb exploded on King St, but if the US government announce they killed Osama, and you demand much evidence.

    Honestly if you didn't have double standards you'd have no standards.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    I am sorry but this is completely ridiculous.

    Do you not understand the seriousness of releasing the photos? I know Obama is the anti Christ but he made a good decision on this one.

    What "seriousness"???

    What are you trying to say? That the release of the supposed photos might be the final straw for the otherwise peaceful movement of Al Qaeda and that they may be forced to take up terrorism?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    But it is backed up, just not the way you, personally, might want it. For instance

    Finally! This should be most interesting. So what is the evidence?
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    the most wanted fugitive, Chris Dorner, why are the same people who are asking for photographic evidence of Bin Laden's death not asking for the same of Dorner's death. Why would they just be accepting what the authorities and mass media say.
    WTF was the relevance of that...? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Finally! This should be most interesting. So what is the evidence?

    I wasn't directing that at you. We already know you refuse to fully accept Bin Laden died in that raid until you see a photograph and/or a video of it.

    This account is what's most likely going into the history books (as mentioned in a previous thread)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

    I'm fairly confident there are a few who won't accept it. Likewise I'm confident that if/when photographs are released there are those who still won't accept it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    A The New York Times/CBS poll taken after bin Laden's death showed that 16% of Americans feel safer as the result of his death while 60% of Americans of those polled believe killing bin Laden would likely increase the threat of terrorism against the U.S. in the short term.
    Alot of people didnt like the idea it seems.(Although a MSM poll is a joke haha)
    They thought it would cause more trouble than leaving him alive,which says alot about the war in Afghanistan and Iraq IF you take the New York Time seriously.
    The deputy leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said that, with bin Laden dead, Western forces should now pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan; authorities in Iran made similar comments.[148] Palestinian Authority leaders had contrasting reactions. Mahmoud Abbas welcomed bin Laden's death, while Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, condemned what he saw as the assassination of an "Arab holy warrior"

    Wait a second!
    I just read they have DNA evidence but are not required to releas that to the public press or the public at all.
    They may not be legally required..but it would settle thwe arguement to a great extent surely.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭asherbassad


    NIMAN wrote: »
    If he was alive, would he not just come out and say "hello, here I am, the imperialists did not kill me".

    Eh, because he's dead. But he was killed December 2001. The west with their laughable color-coded threat levels and terror-alert-du-jour nonsense kept him alive, well the concept of him, with all those fake videos, etc.

    But they realised that at some stage they would have to end their charade and pretend that they finally killed him. Hence this fake operation and report that they "got him". But they didn't release an image of the body because there was none.
    They had no problem showing photos of the corpses of Uday and Qusay Hussein when people demanded proof of their deaths. So why get all sensitive to offending people by showing Osama's corpse?

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/05/bush-knew-bin-laden-murdered-in-2001/

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

    http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/18/gen.musharraf.binladen/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Eh, because he's dead. But he was killed December 2001.

    Any evidence of this?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭asherbassad


    Arpa wrote: »
    Probably been done ad infinitum but is pi*sses me offf.

    Don't know too much about these tactics but surely crashing a chopper is pretty drastic? Are the Navy Seals really up to these kind of missions? The last major gaffe I know of is the SAS and the Iranian embassy...but surely as we always hear, these are the best trained soldiers in the world who train specifically for this type of mission. How did they f*ck it up so royally...and why don't we get to see Osamas body? Trying not to be a conspiracy theorist here, but surely if you've beeen looking to kill some guy for ten plus years then you would want to show him dead no matter how graphic.

    SAS took a bad rap for this I think? Where is the downed chopper? Where is Osamas body? Buried at sea?> Convenient.

    All we get instead is a Hollywood version of events and no real mission info. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but this is irritating...show me footage of the actual entry, show me Osama...and above all don't...once you'vre killed the man you've been chasing...don't throw him overboard. All smells of conspiracy, and if it's not then why run the risk of making it look like one, considering all the U.S government has been through in terms of allegations?

    It sickens me that people feel obligated to state "I'm not a conspiracy theorist"....you ARE a believer, you just apparently don't know it yet. We are ALL conspiracy theorists - just some of us recognize the fact. A conspiracy is collusion by two or more parties to commit illegal acts - it happens all the time! Anyone claiming to **not** be a conspiracy theorist is either:

    Fearful of ridicule - i.e., they do not have enough confidence in their own intellect/powers of analysis, and feel called upon to subscribe to 'permissible' discourse, or else they feel obligated to 'obey' official narratives (e.g., concerning the 9/11 false flag attacks, et al); and/or,
    naive enough to actually believe that conspiracies don't exist or that all crimes are committed by lone criminals (something which I'm pretty sure no expert on crime would agree with).


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭asherbassad


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Any evidence of this?

    Any evidence of him being killed 10 years after he was reported to have died. In fact 10 years after any physician (and you're not one) claimed that he couldn't have lasted 10 months in a hospital with 2 dialysis machines let alone 10 years in a cave without ANY.

    So if Bush believes him to be dead along with the ISI, CIA, Pentagon on Dec 2001/March 2002......but now that's not au fait, why do you doubt them then. They said it, Jonny. Why don't you believe them?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭asherbassad


    Sixtus wrote: »
    No they didn't. Landing a stealth helicopter (something many of us didn't realise existed until the Osama assassination) at night in the middle of a urban area is something that could only even be attempted by a expert pilot.

    It was a dramatic attack, the fact that everyone walked away (including the dog) without injury, and with the loss of only a helicopter makes this a success. Your theories are idiotic.


    :pac: Like the daring "raid" to rescue Jessica Lynch.

    Iraqi surgeons standing there looking at idiots with guns drawn and fake CNN crews screaming "Go! Go! Go!" and not an Iraqi soldier in sight, only nurses and doctors trying to treat the wounded.
    And then they tried to have Lynch fake that she had fired her gun till it jammed and wasted a load of terrorists. The girl had the strength of character and the principle to say "fcuk you people. It wasn't like that. I crashed the truck, got knocked unconscious and was treated by Iraqi doctors".

    Wonder how many "Saving Private Lynch" decals and fridge stickers were slowly taken down by the morons after that.


    And the idiots waving flags in front of the White House after Osama was "taken out".
    Were any of them saying "the war is over, bring our 200,000 men and 1000 humvees, 400 f-16s, 2 carrier groups, etc home now. We managed to whack a 70 year-old."


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭asherbassad


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    The mission was risky. The easy option would have been to just fire a missile at the compound. However, they wanted concrete evidence it was Osama.

    The fact that they were prepared for one or more of the choppers to have an incident should speak volumes to you. They had chinooks on stand-by. They had explosives ready to blow the downed chopper.

    Hell, the pilot had the skill and foresight to nose down and roll the chopper, saving everyone on board, then to smash the equipment in the front.

    All the Seals escaped alive, in a 40 minute mission, 1 mile from the Pakistani officers academy, without Pakistani knowledge or greenlight for such a mission.


    "The mission was risky"

    This is brilliant stuff.
    Jonny, step outside of your fantasy for one moment and re-enter reality. The US spends $800 BILLION on toys of warfare per annum. Now I can go down to an electronics store and buy a listening device that will allow me to clearly hear a conversation 200 yards away in a crowded street and it will cost me $50. I can also buy wire cutters that will clip off any electrical supply to any house for $10. A few thousand more will allow me to have a few guys sit around for days until the guy that we're trying to trap is out of food and water.

    If you and a cadre of maybe 10 had a place surrounded and you only had pitchforks, you'd still win if you waited it out.

    "it was risky"....haha. Like a dying nobody had a H-bomb strapped to his diaper.

    HELL! We even saved one of the mo'fcukaz wives, y'all!

    :pac:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭asherbassad


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    First of all the war in Afghanistan was not about finding one guy, so I sincerely hope the above isn't an exaggeration of that.

    Secondly, the US spent a vast amount of resources in unsuccessfully trying to capture Bin Laden, the trail went cold. It's not like the Jason Bourne films, despite their inflated budgets and fancy tools, they still rely heavily on old-fashioned human intelligence.

    I used Chris Dorner to highlight a very obvious contradiction about photographic proof and relying on the word of the authoritie".

    Actually it was.
    The Bush administration said to the Taliban "hand over bin Laden or we will invade". the Taliban responded "we will gladly hand him over when evidence is presented that we should or that he was involved in the 9/11 events".
    Bush administration didn't attempt to provide evidence.....just invaded.
    Likewise with Iraq. 2 days before the attack on Iraq, emissaries from the Swiss Embassy delivered surrender, oil concession and yield to a neutral power from Saddam in return for not destroying Iraq. Bush and his lads didn't want to know.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Any evidence of him being killed 10 years after he was reported to have died. In fact 10 years after any physician (and you're not one) claimed that he couldn't have lasted 10 months in a hospital with 2 dialysis machines let alone 10 years in a cave without ANY.

    Just rumour, like many others. There was never any confirmation.
    So if Bush believes him to be dead along with the ISI, CIA, Pentagon on Dec 2001/March 2002......but now that's not au fait, why do you doubt them then. They said it, Jonny. Why don't you believe them?

    Nope, they didn't believe he was dead


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Actually it was.
    The Bush administration said to the Taliban "hand over bin Laden or we will invade". the Taliban responded "we will gladly hand him over when evidence is presented that we should or that he was involved in the 9/11 events".

    The aim in Afghanistan was to smash the Taliban and stop Al Qaeda and other militants from using the country as a base to recruit and train.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,749 ✭✭✭weisses


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    The aim in Afghanistan was to smash the Taliban and stop Al Qaeda and other militants from using the country as a base to recruit and train.

    Bit more complicated then that statement Johnny

    http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/August/20%20o/Pipelines%20to%20911%20US%20Invasion%20of%20Afghanistan%20Was%20about%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20By%20Rudo%20de%20Ruijter.htm


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    weisses wrote: »

    You mean the proposed Turmenistan to Pakistan natural gas pipeline that still hasn't been built yet?

    They went to war in Afghanistan for that? or which pipeline exactly?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,749 ✭✭✭weisses


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    You mean the proposed Turmenistan to Pakistan natural gas pipeline that still hasn't been built yet?

    They went to war in Afghanistan for that? or which pipeline exactly?


    Oil and gas

    Or do you really believe they started a 12 year and ongoing occupation to bring democracy to the poor people of Afghanistan ?

    conveniently surrounding Iran in the process

    How long does it take for the Taliban to take over the country again once the coalition leaves ?

    I will not say i know all the ins and outs but your statement saying to smash the Taliban and stop Al Qaeda and other militants from using the country as a base to recruit and train is way to simple

    Are they invading Pakistan next ? (thats where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are hiding atm )


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    weisses wrote: »
    Oil and gas

    Or do you really believe they started a 12 year and ongoing occupation to bring democracy to the poor people of Afghanistan ?

    conveniently surrounding Iran in the process

    How long does it take for the Taliban to take over the country again once the coalition leaves ?

    I will not say i know all the ins and outs but your statement saying to smash the Taliban and stop Al Qaeda and other militants from using the country as a base to recruit and train is way to simple

    Are they invading Pakistan next ? (thats where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are hiding atm )

    Excuse me, but what oil and gas? name the specific projects..

    I too came up with this line in 2002, until I actually researched it and found it to be largely a myth


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Aquarius34


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Just rumour, like many others. There was never any confirmation.



    Nope, they didn't believe he was dead

    He died 10 years ago. They cot Saddam Hussain within a few days of been in Iraq and Saddam was ruling an entire country, and yet Osama was literally running from cave to cave (whilst trying to survive with Kidney cancer)

    They couldn't find him but all the major news networks in America could easily get video clips of him. It was funny to me 10 years ago, it's actually plain retarded that people still fall for the media crap on this. Photoshopping and video editing is great. The CIA love that kind of stuff.

    He's toasted a long time ago.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,749 ✭✭✭weisses


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Excuse me, but what oil and gas? name the specific projects..

    I too came up with this line in 2002, until I actually researched it and found it to be largely a myth

    So you swapped one myth for another ?

    And what changed your mind ... if you share it here maybe i will change too


    http://collateraldamagemagazine.com/2012/08/04/the-rationale-behind-the-invasion-of-afghanistan-is-not-control-of-oil-and-gas/

    How about this one ?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    weisses wrote: »
    So you swapped one myth for another ?

    And what changed your mind ... if you share it here maybe i will change too


    http://collateraldamagemagazine.com/2012/08/04/the-rationale-behind-the-invasion-of-afghanistan-is-not-control-of-oil-and-gas/

    How about this one ?

    I'm sorry you said the US invaded Afghanistan for Oil and Gas and that article directly refutes your claim.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,749 ✭✭✭weisses


    Sixtus wrote: »
    I'm sorry you said the US invaded Afghanistan for Oil and Gas and that article directly refutes your claim.


    Correct i still believe it has to do with oil and gas but as showed above open for suggestions ... i asked him could he provide the info that changed his mind


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    weisses wrote: »
    Correct i still believe it has to do with oil and gas but as showed above open for suggestions ... i asked him could he provide the info that changed his mind

    You still believe it was to do with Oil and Gas despite not having any evidence to support this notion?

    :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
Advertisement