# Osama Bin Laden Killed - It's about time!



## ShinaKonga

I heard it was a member of the CIA who shot him through the head and killed him. US has the body in possession.
Thats just what I've heard from the news, though, I could be wrong.


----------



## capades

How ironic that it happens at the same time Pope John Paul gets beautified.
Amen!


----------



## ShinaKonga

Well now I'm hearing it was a bomb. Not sure either way.


----------



## Poseidon

Osama bin Laden, the face of terror, killed in Pakistan - CNN.com

There's CNN's report. I haven't read it all, but according to my flooded facebook feed, it was a bomb from an air attack, I believe.


----------



## Sunny

I'm watching NBC right now, waiting for Obama's announcement.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

The news just said he was shot in a mansion in Pakistan.


----------



## Katesrider011

And now I assume conspiracy theorists will now rant about how this is all just rigged. 

But I'm so happy to hear that Osama has been killed. Closure has finally been made for all the family members of the victims.


----------



## Whisper22

Oh I'm sure they will lol. I feel pretty good about it though.


----------



## ShinaKonga

I just know I'm going to make a typo and tell everyone how happy I am 'Obama' is dead...


----------



## Allison Finch

Trump is going to demand a death certificate....the long form!!!


----------



## Katesrider011

I would like for them to show the body for proof though. That is if it is still recognizable


----------



## Sunny

I know, AF! I was actually enjoying that episode. :lol:
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Moonstruck

Allison Finch said:


> Trump is going to demand a death certificate....the long form!!!


LOL :lol: best response ever


----------



## lovesmyhawse

lol.... I posted the exact same thing on facebook when I heard about it Whisper22....
I am glad that that sleezy creature is dead!
WoooHooo!!!

btw... too funny AF!


----------



## PintoTess

Thank gosh!


----------



## ridingismylife2

ShinaKonga said:


> I just know I'm going to make a typo and tell everyone how happy I am 'Obama' is dead...











Oh dear...:lol:


----------



## PintoTess

That would suck big time!


----------



## franknbeans

After reading the "details" as they are printed and have been distributed for the masses, it sounds like an elite force breeched the compound, there was a fire fight, and he was shot. They have been accumulating specific intel on this compound for a few months now, apparently. Something in me says that the timing is a political ploy by the Obama admin. Now he looks like the hero, which is sad. 
I just smiled when I read that our team only had boots on the ground for 40 minutes.....just what "my" SEAL used to do. Go around the world for a 40 minute "extract" and come home. Pretty amazing stuff that always had me in awe. I am sure he is smiling down on this.:wink:
Now to go to the SEAL forum to find out more....if they are saying......:wink:


----------



## jinxremoving

What a wonderful day! I'm a bit disappointed though that they gave him a "proper" burial at sea... I think being wrapped in pig skin and having the whole process video taped and broadcast around the world would be more of a deterrent to Islamic extremists. Regardless, nine years later and thousands of troops dead... hope it was worth it. Sigh. 

@franknbeans:

It would have been S.A.D or at the very minimum the team were composed of some members:

Special Activities Division - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## franknbeans

Jinx-it is being reported that it was SEAL team 6, which, as we all know, may or may not be true. I have no doubt it was a "black ops" team, which many deny even exist. (including the people in them.....:wink Whoever it was-THANK YOU, and I am truly glad it was up close and personal He knew it was us. Paybacks are hell.

Don't let our guard down tho-he was but one of many.


----------



## RedTree

Don't you think that killing him could of made this so much worse?
He was in hiding so he wasn't doing anything, now someone else who want be in hiding will take over and take action


----------



## Whisper22

Good feeling gone. 
I just found out myself that he was burried at sea. IMO, massive fail government. I wanted to believe he was dead just as much as the next guy, but give me a break. They couldn't have possibly thought this was going to go over well with the American people. Why do we care about THIS mans traditions? This all being so close to the whole birth certificate thing makes them both seem fake, like Obama is trying to do too much all at once, and conveniently the only REAL evidence is gone already. This makes me sad and I sincerely hope it is not true.


----------



## jinxremoving

RedTree said:


> Don't you think that killing him could of made this so much worse?


Exactly! Bin Laden will become a martyr now which basically gives him more power than what he had when he was alive. In effect, he has become a God to thousands of extremists who will have to carry on his legacy. This will sure as hell stir up the hornets nest... it'll be interesting to see what happens in the months to come.

Edit:

I'm happy that he's dead. It was inevitable after a while. Just saying, he's now become a martyr. There was no way around this.


----------



## franknbeans

Whisper-do you not understand that if he had been "buried" in a more traditional way that would have become a mecca for his followers?

I would give the government some creds-and a chance. I would guess that there may be follow up releases from them, perhaps with photos.

Redtree-are you kidding me? "he was in hiding and wasn't doing anything" REALLY?? If nothing else he is an iconic figurehead. 

Good on the US for this.


----------



## HopalongCassidy

RedTree said:


> Don't you think that killing him could of made this so much worse?
> He was in hiding so he wasn't doing anything, now someone else who want be in hiding will take over and take action



RedTree don't you think while he was in "Hiding" that maybe he had been planing another attack on the US? Just hopeful if he was that he kept it to himself so it died with him. 

Also i don't think anyone will try anything for a while knowing that our guys will hunt them down... Hiding or no hiding. (tho i can't say if our guys hunted him down or just ran across him)


----------



## Heatherloveslottie

I'm worried this will stir things up, but at least the message has been sent that you will be found no matter how long it takes. The issue is whether that will be enough of a deterrant :/


----------



## Whisper22

franknbeans said:


> Whisper-do you not understand that if he had been "buried" in a more traditional way that would have become a mecca for his followers?
> 
> I would give the government some creds-and a chance. I would guess that there may be follow up releases from them, perhaps with photos.
> 
> Redtree-are you kidding me? "he was in hiding and wasn't doing anything" REALLY?? If nothing else he is an iconic figurehead.
> 
> Good on the US for this.


They better come up with something, their credibility is going to die fast if they don't.

I don't think it matters how we burry him at all. The fact that we killed him in the first place is going to **** his followers off. If we're screwed, our fait was sealed when we shot him.


----------



## ptvintage

His followers (and him) were already ****ed off. They hate America, and they wanted to take it down. Without their main leader, they are at a huge disadvantage.


----------



## Katesrider011

America is aware of the risk and they are raising National Security, If I heard right.


----------



## Whisper22

ptvintage said:


> His followers (and him) were already ****ed off. They hate America, and they wanted to take it down. Without their main leader, they are at a huge disadvantage.


Well, if you think they were ****ed off before how do you think they're feeling now? Don't think they didn't have someone ready to go to take his place, they're not that stupid.


----------



## ptvintage

Whisper22 said:


> Well, if you think they were ****ed off before how do you think they're feeling now? Don't think they didn't have someone ready to go to take his place, they're not that stupid.


 
I think they're about as ****ed off as they were before. It's a setback to them to lose their leader, but they still have the same hate they had before. And yes, they do have someone to step up to fill the place. 

Are you actually saying that Osama shouldn't have been killed? Because I'm a little confused as to what point you're trying to make. Do you think they're going to retaliate harshly? Because they'd attack us either way.


----------



## Whisper22

ptvintage said:


> I think they're about as ****ed off as they were before. It's a setback to them to lose their leader, but they still have the same hate they had before. And yes, they do have someone to step up to fill the place.
> 
> Are you actually saying that Osama shouldn't have been killed? Because I'm a little confused as to what point you're trying to make. Do you think they're going to retaliate harshly? Because they'd attack us either way.


My point is that dumping his body in the sea so as not to offend his people was a mistake. You're right, they were ****ed off before and you may not think so but I do believe killing him will **** them off even more. Obviously so does the government if what they say is true. But not only did they acomplish nothing with the terrorists by giving him a "proper buriel" but the their credibility goes way down with not being able to prove it.


----------



## franknbeans

Whisper-you would rather have him buried on land, in a place hois followers could make into a mecca? Persoanlayy the thought of him as shark bait (and what it becomes as it goes out the other end ) I find satisfying. 
How would you like them to "prove it" to the masses?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Katesrider011

I would agree with burying him on land if he was respected by the USA. But he's kinda not cause he killed 3,000 US citizens, so he can rot.


----------



## Whisper22

I don't mind them dumping him in the sea but as soon as we got the news he was already gone. I don't think showing his face after they have cleaned him up is asking too much. It's done at funerals everyday. Especially since this man holds a lot of peronal feelings for a lot of people. We saw Hussein's face after he died, not by our government but we did see it.

I agree, I would like to see him as shark poo too.


----------



## jinxremoving

I read a good opinion piece on the burial at sea, and I'd have to agree with what the author talked about:

My Take: Burying bin Laden at sea an elegant solution – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## Speed Racer

I'm not exactly ecstatic that he's dead, but I do think there's justice in the way he died. _Those who live by the sword will perish by the sword._

From what I understand no country wanted the body interred in their soil, since as someone stated, it would become a mecca to his followers. That's why he was buried at sea.

Following Islamic law, the body _must_ be buried within 24 hours of death. He was a very bad man, but it would have been wrong not to have the decency to follow the tenets of his religion. Being barbaric to a barbarian only makes us what we despise.

Retaliation is expected, but the U.S. couldn't afford to let him continue to live. We have to show that there are consequences for attacking our country.

Those who say it's about time, seem to forget that Osama was protected and hidden by his followers and army. It wasn't any easier to get to him than it would be to get to our own President.

As always, I'm in awe of our military personnel. They're the ones who made this happen, and they're the ones fighting and dying in a foreign land.

Old men and those in power make wars, and it's the young men who fight them.

God bless our troops, especially the men who accomplished this particular mission.


----------



## Whisper22

If they can provide photos and preferebly videos of his body I would be okay with that. I also agree that burying his body on land wasn't a good idea but I just don't understand why we care what the Islam traditions are when it comes to this man. I think holding on to the body for a little longer would have made people feel better, at least I would have felt better. There was barely time to process it before he was gone. When I read that we had posession of his body I thought "Awsome, we deserve it" but in reality, while I was reading that he was probably already gone.


----------



## Speed Racer

Whisper, if we desecrated the body and didn't respect his religion, we'd be _no_ _better_ than the rest of the barbarians and terrorists. People need to remember that. If you want to _be_ respected, you need to _show_ respect, however undeserving you might think the other person.

I'm sure there are plenty of photos and video which will surface in time, just like the pictures of Sadam Hussein's dead sons, and the video of U.S. troops finding Hussein.


----------



## SEAmom

I'm shocked that any american citizen would not be elated knowing that he's dead. Would you say that to someone who lost their child, spouse, or other lived one in the 9/11 attacks? I sure hope not. People overseas have been warned to stay away from anti-u.s. Countries and stay out of large crowds. National security has ben stepped up. I'm appalled that anyone would be thinking that killing him was the wrong thing to do. He was still the leader whether he was in hiding or not, and he was still carrying out plans and making sure plans were executed. You'd have to be extremely naive to believe otherwise.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

I'm sorry, I just don't agree with that. Would you be saying the same thing about the BTK killer if he had a preference in the way he was burried. Maybe you would, but I sure as hell wouldn't. And who cares what they think of us, they already hate us and doing it or not doing it has no effect on their plans for us. I am all for respecting ones religious beliefs when that respect is deserved. This man was a mass muderer of inocent people. That about says it all as far as deserving goes.

I started to respond to your previous post but got distracted. I didn't mean "it's about time" in that we should be blaiming he government it took so long. I should have been more clear, I meant justice wise it was about time.


----------



## Whisper22

SEAmom said:


> I'm shocked that any american citizen would not be elated knowing that he's dead. Would you say that to someone who lost their child, spouse, or other lived one in the 9/11 attacks? I sure hope not. People overseas have been warned to stay away from anti-u.s. Countries and stay out of large crowds. National security has ben stepped up. I'm appalled that anyone would be thinking that killing him was the wrong thing to do. He was still the leader whether he was in hiding or not, and he was still carrying out plans and making sure plans were executed. You'd have to be extremely naive to believe otherwise.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think anyone is arguing that he shouldn't be dead. Maybe that it wont do a whole lot of good but definately not that he shouldn't be.


----------



## Speed Racer

SEAmom said:


> I'm shocked that any american citizen would not be elated knowing that he's dead.


You misunderstand me. I think justice was served, but I have no illusions that his death does anything more than escalate the hatred for the U.S. and its people.

If anyone thinks the death of Bin Laden is going to stop the terrorism, they're naive. He's now a martyr for the cause. He's been grooming his replacements for years, and one of them will step smoothly into the gap his death created.

I can't be ecstatic over his death, because I'm not a bloodthirsty monster who thinks only of revenge. However, I _do_ think his death was necessary, because rabid dogs need to be put down.

I lost a friend at the Pentagon that day, so your being 'shocked' that I'm not dancing in the streets holds no sway over me. At that time I worked only 2 miles from the Pentagon, so I got to see and hear the actual destruction up close and personal, not just on the TV.

Whisper, for someone who's an avowed Christian, you're awfully judgmental and bitter. It's not, 'do unto others before they do it to you', it's supposed to be, 'do unto others as you would have done to you'. So yes, the BTK killer should have whatever type of burial his family would like for him when his time comes.


----------



## GeminiJumper

All in all I'm so glad he is finally dead! I just wish there was some way he could of gone through hell the way the people did in the 9/11 attacks. And even though he is dead, what's to stop his followers from carrying out more attacks? I hope though, the troops can come home soon!


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Speed Racer said:


> God bless our troops, especially the men who accomplished this particular mission.


I second that thought!


----------



## equiniphile

ridingismylife2 said:


> Oh dear...:lol:


 Someone's without a job this morning :shock:


----------



## SEAmom

I'm not dancing in the streets either. I'm sitting at work doing my daily business. It obviously wasn't meant to send a message that terrorism is over because there are many other terrorist groups regardless of what happens with bin Laden. I lost a best friend and her sister that day. I'm not concerning with holding sway over anyone.

By that same logic, none of the nazis should have ben hunted down for their war crimes even though they'd been in hiding, living otherwise normal lives for decades? They weren't still outright killing Jews anymore. Ridiculous. It's not about instantly eradicating terrorism, but bringing justice to people who have done terrible wrongs. I'm not out there hunting these people down, nor am I blinded by revenge - obviously - or a "bloodthirsty monster". Honestly, people who america and would actively do harm hate us completely. This won't make them hare us more. They'll have the same amount of resolve and determination.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Moonstruck

Well.... I guess I will have to mention this.

CIA-Osama bin Laden controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Speed Racer

SEAmom said:


> By that same logic, none of the nazis should have ben hunted down for their war crimes even though they'd been in hiding, living otherwise normal lives for decades?


Where did I state that they should be allowed to live out their lives? Please point it out to me, since I never said that nor even inferred it. I've always believed that people should be held accountable for their actions.

You can be insulted and snarky all you want, but you're misconstruing my words and intent. I suggest you start reading for _comprehension_, and stop crediting me with thoughts I never had.

And with that, I'm out of this thread. Some of you apparently _want_ to be outraged if someone isn't cackling with glee that Osama has finally been cornered and killed like the vermin he was.


----------



## Whisper22

Speed Racer said:


> Whisper, for someone who's an avowed Christian, you're awfully judgmental and bitter. It's not, 'do unto others before they do it to you', it's supposed to be, 'do unto others as you would have done to you'. So yes, the BTK killer should have whatever type of burial his family would like for him when his time comes.


I never claimed to be perfect. You got me, my lack sympathy for mass murderers might be my downfall, but I can live with that. When it comes to what this man did, I would think a lot, if not most, people are bitter about it. My faith does not believe in cremation, but just so you know where I stand personally, I am forfeiting my right to be buried whole if ever I decide to murder a bunch of inocent people.


----------



## Whisper22

ridingismylife2 said:


> Oh dear...:lol:


I'm not exactly Obama's biggest fan so I got a special little kick out of that as well.


----------



## SEAmom

On the radio, they played one clip where the news caster actually said president obama. There was a moment and then he corrected it. I chuckled.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

Is it wrong that I would have been just as happy either way.:wink:


----------



## SEAmom

Not in my opinion. I'm sure there are a few who would disagree. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Alwaysbehind

I am sure there are lots of people who fall on either side of that debate. But starting a political debate never leads to friends at the end so I strongly suggest we not go there.


----------



## Whisper22

I agree. It was a joke anyway.


----------



## Endiku

I have to say that I agree with SpeedRacer. Osama Bin Laden deserved his death, and it was neccessary that justice be brought, but we do not have to be elated that he has been killed to be 'true american citizens.' Laden was a terrible man, I agree, but so much could go wrong that really, we're in in way wrong to be nervous about what has happened. We have to wonder when the next Bin Laden will pop up, and what the person is going to do. Laden has been hiding for almost a decade, more than enough time to train dozens of young men to carry out his plans before he died. This is, IMO, a time to celebrate, but also a time to fear. He is dead, and that will bring peace to many 9-11 victims and their families, but it will not reverse what has already happened. We must prepare for what is to come. Al Quida and many other men are still out there, seeking revenge, and seeking destruction. It is not over.


----------



## SEAmom

I never said anyone was or wasn't a "true american citizen" one way or the other. Please don't morph my words or imply somethimg I never said. I understand people have differing opinions. I refuse to fear terrorists because that's what they want. I will not give them that satisfaction. Caution is in order, and I agree with that, but not fear.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sarahver

Same day Hitler died apparently, weird right?

I hope that this can bring some closure to the victims of 9/11 and other victims of Bin Laden around the world. Sadly this will not end the war but it is a morale boost for the US and their troops. 

I went to see off a Captain in the army a couple of weeks ago, he was headed to Afghanistan for a year to serve, I can only imagine how the troops over there must feel. The army send off was one of the most traumatic things I have seen in a long time: Young families seeing off their mother or father, children crying as the buses left, young pregnant women left alone. Bin Laden has had a terrible effect on _many_ lives beyond that sad day in 2001. Lives both here and overseas, of many nations and many religions. Truly an evil, evil man.

Keep the troops safe so they can keep us safe is all I can say.


----------



## lilkitty90

well all in all we can all agree that Osama deserved what he got, and it's a good thing we don't live by "an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" or it could have been MUCH worse, i'm glad they are raising national security, as i blantly recall the radio report saying that they were just as ****ed as ever and because of their leader taken out they will retaliate, but i kind of doubt that. i hate that we finally got him 10 years from when we should have though.. -_- but all the same he's gone finally.

as for evidence as previously said i'm sure there are TONS of pictures, and i seen a video on the news of him under the white sheet, they said they would show us but it was really to gruesome of a sight.

him being dead does nothing for m e but maybe thats because i was only 8 years old when 9/11 happened and i was to young for that to really effect me.


----------



## bsms

Speed Racer said:


> .. I think justice was served, but I have no illusions that his death does anything more than escalate the hatred for the U.S. and its people.
> 
> If anyone thinks the death of Bin Laden is going to stop the terrorism, they're naive...


The folks who hate the US are going to do so anyways.

When I was in Afghanistan (2007), 2 incidents happened that highlighted, to me, both why we cannot be friends and why the death of Bin Laden is only a small step at best:

A woman collapsed while doing some shopping. American military nearby saw it and went to her aid. She was taken to a good hospital and delivered a baby boy - that was a big part of the reason she collapsed. Our folks found the husband/father and told him. His response? "You should have killed her. Now I have to."

Why? She had been 'seen' by infidels, and thus needed to die to satisfy the family honor. The guy who told me about the incident was standing there when the husband made his statement.

In another incident, a teen girl was injured in a firefight between the Taliban and SF. The bad guys were killed, but she had been shot in the leg and the wound was severe. They took her to Bagram, where her life was saved - by an Afghan doctor working there.

The result? The family insisted she must be returned and killed. There was a riot held in support of the family. A New York Times report said the riot was in protest of Bush's policies in Afghanistan, but we were told 3 days in advance when and where it would happen, and that it was in support of a man's right to kill his daughter.

In the end, one of the top politicians in the area agreed to personally take responsibility for her safety, and a compromise was reached that would allow her to go back to her family 'with honor'. Since the politician had been known to kill his enemies, it seemed likely he could back up his word. Last I heard, at least, she was still alive...

I don't see much room for compromise there. Those people will always hate us, and I have no use for them. Guess I'm not a tolerant enough soul to tolerate someone who would kill their wife or daughter.

They won't hate us more because Bin Laden is dead, nor will they love us more. At best, they might be a little more fearful and a little more inclined to mind their own business. But at best, only a little. Bin Laden was a symptom, not the disease.


----------



## BFFofHorses

I held a little party when I found out  However, his death was more symbolic than anything else. He is (WAS rather ) no longer in charge of things, his son had taken over a few years ago. Anyway, Osama wasn't the only one killed. His son, who is basically in charge AND his brother was taken down. I am thrilled with the news, but do expect some form of retaliation.


----------



## equiniphile

BFFofHorses said:


> I held a little party when I found out  However, his death was more symbolic than anything else. He is (WAS rather ) no longer in charge of things, his son had taken over a few years ago. Anyway, Osama wasn't the only one killed. *His son, who is basically in charge AND his brother was taken down*. I am thrilled with the news, but do expect some form of retaliation.


 Really? I heard on the news that Osama was the only one killed/captured.


----------



## BFFofHorses

equiniphile said:


> Really? I heard on the news that Osama was the only one killed/captured.


 You might be right. I heard about it on the news as well, but I have heard about 30 different stories so far.


----------



## GeminiJumper

I read that is son and a brother were taken down as well.


----------



## BFFofHorses

GeminiJumper said:


> I read that is son and a brother were taken down as well.


 I just read it all again to be sure. An intelligence officer stated that this morning so it's probably true


----------



## Moonstruck

Its all a darn conspiracy as far as I can see it. But thats just my opinion. OPERATION : DESTROY OSAMA mission complete! 

I don't expect we are safe. But I don't expect that this is a bad thing either. Keeping Bin Laden alive is just as bad as having him dead. *shrugg* IMO..


----------



## sarahver

Moonstruck said:


> Its all a darn conspiracy as far as I can see it. But thats just my opinion. OPERATION : DESTROY OSAMA mission complete!
> 
> I don't expect we are safe. But I don't expect that this is a bad thing either. Keeping Bin Laden alive is just as bad as having him dead. *shrugg* IMO..


Yep, I saw your link (as others probably did) and have heard of this conspiracy before. You are welcome to your opinion. Here's mine: To bring all that up right now is disrespectful to those soldiers who have died and those who are still over there right now. IMO.


----------



## Moonstruck

sarahver said:


> Yep, I saw your link (as others probably did) and have heard of this conspiracy before. You are welcome to your opinion. Here's mine: To bring all that up right now is disrespectful to those soldiers who have died and those who are still over there right now. IMO.


Absolutely. I agree with you and I hope that the troops are able to arrive safely.
The only reason I posted the link was so that those who have an open mind can sort of play with the possibility. I don't believe that its true but I'm open to the possibility. Like, for me its possible that it COULD be a conspiracy and at times it's convincing, but other times I just look at it like "enough is enough" and "it is what it is". Don't take it the wrong way, I just wanted to see what people though about the controversy. Because that is what it is, a controversy. Not fact nor fiction.

I just hope things turn out okay, just like anybody else.


----------



## Whisper22

Moonstruck said:


> Absolutely. I agree with you and I hope that the troops are able to arrive safely.
> The only reason I posted the link was so that those who have an open mind can sort of play with the possibility. I don't believe that its true but I'm open to the possibility. Like, for me its possible that it COULD be a conspiracy and at times it's convincing, but other times I just look at it like "enough is enough" and "it is what it is". Don't take it the wrong way, I just wanted to see what people though about the controversy. Because that is what it is, a controversy. Not fact nor fiction.
> 
> I just hope things turn out okay, just like anybody else.


I understand what you are saying. Until I see proof, I will play with the idea that it might all be fake. I don't completely trust our government though. I don't think the troops have anything to do with that. For sure they are there risking their lives for a good cause but a cover up wouldn't be something they would have anything to do with.


----------



## TaMMa89

jinxremoving said:


> What a wonderful day! I'm a bit disappointed though that they gave him a "proper" burial at sea... I think being wrapped in pig skin and having the whole process video taped and broadcast around the world would be more of a deterrent to Islamic extremists. Regardless, nine years later and thousands of troops dead... hope it was worth it. Sigh.


Have to remember that there are also a lot of all proper moslems in the world and that'd be a huge insult toward them. There's no need to run someone's religion down.



Speed Racer said:


> Whisper, if we desecrated the body and didn't respect his religion, we'd be _no_ _better_ than the rest of the barbarians and terrorists. People need to remember that. If you want to _be_ respected, you need to _show_ respect, however undeserving you might think the other person.


Exactly! Couldn't say it better.



RedTree said:


> Don't you think that killing him could of made this so much worse?
> He was in hiding so he wasn't doing anything, now someone else who want be in hiding will take over and take action


Hidden or not, I believe he had his network and he was able to lead the organization despite of the fact that he was hidden.

Even I don't believe in killing people nor death sentences etc, I think that with very, very bad people like that the most securest way is to harvest them away. Even it doesn't destroy terrorism in the world, it destroys a piece of it and might saves some lives. If you want to knock a wall down, it's useful to start with singular bricks so the wall will be weaker.

Hopefully their revenge won't cause too much misery and the world manages to get ready for it even a bit.

Also I'd want to be sure that he really was OBL who they killed. This man seems to be sly, he wouldn't have been able to hide himself that long in mountains or where ever he was.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

SpeedRacer said it for me. 

The burial of the body was required to take place within 24 hours of death. Burial at sea is not a "proper" burial in Islamic terms. If we were going that route we would have just buried him somewhere in the sand so all his followers could visit his burial site. Burying him within the 24 hours is the most basic thing we could do. What were we supposed to do with his body? Photos can be faked. It's reported that DNA has been taken and is being analyzed currently -- I'm much more interested n hearing that then seeing a picture of his face. 

The best thing this is going to do is give a boost to the American people and our troops. It'll also provide some closure for the people whose lives have been affected by the war and 9/11

Obviously someone is going to easily slide into Osamas place. It's not the end of the war or of the Taliban. Whoever said it was more of a symbolic thing was spot on. 

Just want to also point out that the average Muslim is vastly different from your "KILL THE INFADEL" fanatic. It's like if I said that every catholic is like the members of the westboro baptist church. It's just not exactly true.


----------



## equiniphile

Spastic_Dove said:


> Just want to also point out that the average Muslim is vastly different from your "KILL THE INFADEL" fanatic. It's like if I said that every catholic is like the members of the westboro baptist church. It's just not exactly true.


 This, this, this! Not every Muslim is a terrorist.


----------



## zurmdahl

I'm asking this only because I'm honestly curious, I'm a little ashamed to say I know much less than I probably should about politics, but why did they kill him instead of capturing him? I feel like he could have potentially been more useful alive, but I really don't know.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

From what I heard they asked him to surrender and he did not, he was advancing. There were also many of his men there as well firing so killing him was the best response without letting him get away. 

At least that's what it sounds like from the most recent report I have heard.


----------



## tinyliny

Spastic_Dove said:


> SpeedRacer said it for me.
> 
> The burial of the body was required to take place within 24 hours of death. Burial at sea is not a "proper" burial in Islamic terms.
> 
> *Yes, if we were abiding by proper Muslim ettiquette. We are not.*
> 
> If we were going that route we would have just buried him somewhere in the sand so all his followers could visit his burial site.
> 
> 
> Burying him within the 24 hours is the most basic thing we could do.
> 
> What were we suppo
> *Exactly why burial at sea is best; so that no shrine can be created at his resting place for followers to worsip at.*
> sed to do with his body? Photos can be faked. It's reported that DNA has been taken and is being analyzed currently -- I'm much more interested n hearing that then seeing a picture of his face.
> 
> The best thing this is going to do is give a boost to the American people and our troops. It'll also provide some closure for the people whose lives have been affected by the war and 9/11
> 
> Obviously someone is going to easily slide into Osamas place. It's not the end of the war or of the Taliban. Whoever said it was more of a symbolic thing was spot on.
> 
> 
> Just want to also point out that the average Muslim is vastly different from your "KILL THE INFADEL" fanatic. It's like if I said that every catholic is like the members of the westboro baptist church. It's just not exactly true.


 
*Yes and our challenge is to keep them from feeling that they are in a position of defending their faith. People like nothing more than a riteous , religious war to the death.*


----------



## franknbeans

zurmdahl said:


> I'm asking this only because I'm honestly curious, I'm a little ashamed to say I know much less than I probably should about politics, but why did they kill him instead of capturing him? I feel like he could have potentially been more useful alive, but I really don't know.


OK-if we captured him, we would be duty bound to protect him (at a cost of millions)try him with democratic process( again at a cost of millions) and then try and find someone-ANYONE-who would take this POS to jail him for the rest of his life. THis was a much better solution.

From what I am hearing, there was a firefight, Bin Laden was a part of it, so the ROE (Rules of engagement that typically keep our guys from killing those who would easily and willingly kill them) were such that they could double tap him (2 shots) and be done with it.

BSMS-thanks for your service. I am only sorry that you even had to go to that $h7thole. We should have finished the job there years ago when we had it under control.

Let me be clear. Before there was a SEAL in my life I had no clue that there were (a) so many truly BAD people in the world and (b) people who we (the US) use on a regular basis, that none of us know about who deal with these bad people. I can understand where you all are coming from, believe me. However, it keeps us all safe, living our little suburban lives in oblivion. 

I have a much greater appreciation for those who serve and all that they do that most of us will have NO comprehension of as we go about our lives. That is their job. They take it very seriously, which we should all be grateful for.

To those who doubt they got him-sorry for you. I can assure you that the guys involved know they got the right guy. This was not some chance encounter.


----------



## Whisper22

I am not so delusional as to think that there will ever be anything we can do to make them feel like they don't have to defend their religion. Islam does not co-exist. It is their way or death. They will always come after us, they will always hate us. Why would I care about a man who has already put in to motion a way to kill me. Maybe it's just me, but that's pretty personal.

His DNA means nothing to me without a body. How am I supposed to know that DNA belongs to him?

Again, I am not against throwing his body in the ocean, but was it necessary to be broadcasting that we had his body in our posession when in reality it was already gone? I am not saying that I for sure think it's a coverup, but definately stupid on the governments part considering their low credibilty with at least half of the American people already. I would LOVE to see video, because I agree, photos can be doctered. I think the government owes us at least that much.


----------



## franknbeans

And videos can't be doctored? Just saying.

I am one who believes that we (the masses) already know more than we need to in many cases, and that by telling and showing us so much we are also telling our enemies more than they should know. Hell-as the fiance of a SEAL my daughter had to live with not knowing where he was going when he left for "work"! Sometimes she knew about when he would come home. When he got injured-she didn't get notified until he was safe in Germany. 

You may just have to realize that the powers of the world may not feel it necessary to prove anything to you. There is a reason why we have leaders. Everyone does NOT need to know all.


----------



## Whisper22

I'm not really sure I agree with that. People were dancing in the streets over this, it was in no way low key. It could have been, if they really didn't think we needed all that information. I think the body should have been held on to long enough for all leading members of both parties to view it. The government is not so stupid as to think people wouldn't want proof, and if they don't think they owe us that, then they have no one to blame but themselves when the people still don't trust them.

I just find it kinda funny, because really it doesn't surprise me, but that's the sad part.


----------



## wyominggrandma

They have photos of his body, they have photos of his burial also. the reason they stated "we have his body" is to prove that it was him, his son, his brother and the others that were killed, including the messenger and his brother.
One of the reasons they are debating whether to show the photos is because once it is published on tv or internet, photoshop will kick in and millions of doctored photos will show up, which could stir up more hassles. If you saw this mornings news, they showed the group, including the president, who watched the WHOLE thing while it was happening, you can see a woman in the room with the president and the others holding her mouth, obviously it was not a pretty picture. They are also showing video of the house he was in, showing the bloodstains from the fight.
This will of course stir up the USA haters in the world, but if anyone thinks that these same USA haters have not been stirred up for years and years, then you need to wake. Alot of countries and their people HATE us and always will be thinking of ways to hurt the US. Killing the scumbag and alot of his top people,, taking all the inteligience on CD/DVD, harddrives and whatever info they got during the raid WILL help us in the long run. Its not a easy fix and never will be. Alot of the USA haters live right here in the US, live in our cities, use our public assistance and use our taxpayer money to help them live lavish livestyles right here. The worst thing I remember on 9/11 was watching the bin laden lovers living in the US dancing in the american streets GLAD about the killings of americans. That made me sick and does to this day. 
I think of the men and women fighting for us everyday and losing their lives over it. Do I like it, no. But seems it has to be done to keep the US as safe as we can. To me, the Seals in this group that made the trip to carry out a plan, being able to kill bin laden and his "gang' in the house, take what they could take in the minutes that they were there and getting away without any of our citizens being injured or killed is a job well done. 
I think they will post photos of him at some date, I also think they will release the video of his burial, but they are trying to figure out how to do it with the least potential backlash. After all, once the photos are released, the bin laden followers will be able to use them to their advantage against the "bad USA" who killed their leader. As far as the burial at sea, they did that so there is noplace for the AlQueda followers to raise a shrine or trek to pray on the sight. It was not for the religous anything, it was the best place to get rid of a body that nobody will be able to shovel up in the future, and nobody can say the US did anything horrible to the body. Personally, I hope they stirred up the sharks first before releasing the body, but that is just me.


----------



## lovesmyhawse

It is the custom of Muslims to bury their dead as quickly as possible, preferably within 24 hours. If the Americans had not buried his body as quickly as they did, it would have been very disrespectful to his faith.

There are international rules to war. 
All wounded must be treated on a basis of triage, regardless of whether they are your troops, or your opponents. 
Weapons and ammunition must not be altered to cause unecessary suffering. 
The religious customs and practices of opposing forces must be respected whenever possible.... etc....etc...etc.


----------



## lovesmyhawse

I should also point out, that violating the international rules of war could be considered a war crime.


----------



## Whisper22

There has to be more to their traditions than just burrying them within 24 hours. We shouldn't have to acomidate them on everything, there has to be something else we could have done to show our respect for the religion. I'm trying very hard to understand that but finding it very hard to accept. I think the people should be a bigger priority than this mans wishes. A live video of even a covered body would have been better than nothing. Instead it was like "Oops, sorry, already dumped it." Am I seriously the only person that has a problem with it? I find that kind of disturbing. This man was the cause of so much suffering and everyone is just accepting that they dumped it almost as soon as they got it. That just doesn't sound right to me.


----------



## wyominggrandma

If you have been watching the news, they HAVE live video of him being dumped into the sea. They HAVE shots of his body, including his face after being shot, for heck sakes, they described the shot as going into his head above his left eye and removing most of the back of his skull. Itsn't that graphic enough for you? They TOOK DNA from his body before they wrapped him in a body bag and weighted it. They are now discussing whether to release the photos and video.
You must not be watching the news, it is still going on and updating every few minutes. I can see from your posts you WANT to see this dead man. Keep watching, it will happen
They didn't dump him in the sea for religion reasons, they dumped him there to prevent his burial spot on land from being turned into a shrine for him and also, there were no countries really wanting his body for the same reasons.
Turn your tv to fox or cnn or any news channels and the coverage is non stop.


----------



## Arksly

I'm almost glad he's gone but there's always that lingering thought that someone had to be the one to pull the trigger. John 8:7 always pops up into my head when I think about it (*7*So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.). It's a difficult ordeal to comprehend.


----------



## wyominggrandma

oh man, I am sure it will be in the persons thoughts that actually did kill him. Two shots, one to the head and one to the chest. The thing is, the Seals are trained to do this and know what has to be done, I am sure the thought of killing a human being is a tough one, but lets face it, this man was worst than an animal, just like Sudan Hussain. The Seals did what they did for the good of all of us who live here.They did what had to be done.


----------



## franknbeans

I can only speak for the one I knew, as I never talked with others in any depth. It is their job. They view it as such and take great pride in it. It is also a fact that the people they kill are not exactly good upstanding citizens. When they are in battle, there is no time to even have a hint of doubt. It will get them killed. They need to be on task 200% at all times.

Do they ever have regrets? Rarely, from the one I knew.

With regards to all the "rules" of war-I will only say that I have always found it difficult because the good guys seem to be the only ones who pay any attention to it. They tortured, mame, kill, rape...but we have to be "good boys". Don't let them hurt themselves on the way to prison.:evil:

Rules of engagement-much the same. 

Whisper-think that they made a movie or proved anything to the general public when they killed Hitler? At least not right away. Give them time. This is a delicate subject that has to be handled appropriately. Plus-what would it prove to show a wrapped body being thrown into the ocean? Really? Think you would know OBL even if you saw his face?? Hmmm.


----------



## wyominggrandma

great post frankandbeans. this is touchy subject and all will be handled the best way in time
I agree with what you said, I don't know any Seals personally, but from what I have read, they are proud to fulfill the job they are assigned and to them I am sure it is just that, a job to be done quickly and efficiently.
my thoughts and prayers are out to anyone who fights in the wars to help us have freedom to enjoy life as we want. Both past wars and present ones. alot of soldiers give their lives for us and go out and do what needs to be done.


----------



## tempest

Veterans and soldiers don't get as much credit as they should. Especially the Vietnam veterans.


----------



## franknbeans

None of them do. I will also say that as a nurse the best job I EVER had was at the VA. Those guys were happy if you just showed up with a smile. Few demands, and very, very grateful for anything. The most rewarding job ever. Not the same as a private hospital, for sure.

I too, admire them greatly, and miss "mine" terribly, even with the idiosyncracies many of them have.


----------



## Whisper22

Honestly no, I havn't been watching the news. The whole thing just made me sick. My husband does though, and let's me know if there is anything note worthy. There is very little that can be done to prove it I guess, I just thought it was in bad taste to dispose of the body so quickly without considering the feelinds of those who have suffered. I'm proud to be an American, for the most part. I'm glad we rocognize the rules of warfare but sometimes it's hard to wrap my head around because it really does seem like we are the only ones that care. Sometimes I feel like if we were only more aggressive, things would get done quicker and last longer. 

I understand what everyone is saying and I guess I don't really have any good suggestions of what could be done to prove it. I just know when I went to bed that night I had a good feeling, and a couple hours later when my husband told me the body was already gone, that good feeling vanished and I never went back to sleep that night. I just think it was in bad taste is all, and doesn't put them very high on my credibility scale.


----------



## wyominggrandma

Fox news is saying things now, including bin laden was taken to an airplane hanger where further photos of him were taken before he was put on the boat to be buried at sea.


----------



## ptvintage

Whisper, I'd recommend following the news. Asking us here for our opinions is information second hand (technically third hand, after the media) and therefore is going to be biased according to our own beliefs. Plus, sticking your head in the sand and ignoring it won't undo it. 

I think it's strange the body was dumped so fast. I understand the reasoning behind it completely though, but I'll be interested in what other information comes out. 

Death of Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not convinced that this is completely accurate, but it certainly makes for a good read. 

Has anyone seen any sort of offical reaction from the Osama side?


----------



## Whisper22

When I started this thread I had been watching the news and continued to all night. I even watched the news after I found out they dumped his body but it all started to really bother me so I stopped. I trust my husband enough to know that he wouldn't only give me his biased take on it. He is a very political person and very into details. Whatever proof they come out with would be in their best interest IMO, but I probably wont change my mind about it being a mistake to dump his body that fast.


----------



## Allison Finch

wyominggrandma said:


> Fox news is saying things now, including bin laden was taken to an airplane hanger where further photos of him were taken before he was put on the boat to be buried at sea.


Fox is going nuts right now. They are saying that Obama said that Usama was not a muslim?? What a crock. He said he wasn't a Muslim LEADER, not that he wasn't a muslim. I watch Fox, but I am so sick of their skewing the facts and downright passing on faulty information. Anything to try to make the president look untruthful. I am so tired of it all. They are really pounding the conspiracy theories, pandering to the paranoid folks out there.:evil:


----------



## Allison Finch

Oh, great....now they are bowing to Karl Rove! The man who "outed" a CIA agent and caused the deaths of a dozen (or more) people she handled...all because her husband refused to lie for him about Iraq and WMD's. Can't Fox find someone with integrity to interview?

I may have to start watching another news station, it seems.


----------



## franknbeans

CNN. That is all I will say.


----------



## bsms

Rove didn't out anyone. If you are referring to Plame, Robert Novak used information from Richard Armitage to out her. Rove was a second source:

"Novak testified he got confirmation from White House political adviser Karl Rove, who replied to him: 'Oh, you've heard that, too.' "

Speaking as someone who has read a lot of classified information, it becomes very hard at times to separate what you've heard from classified sources versus unclassified ones. Many times, classified information is available from unclassified sources. When I've asked about that, I was told that it was the US government confirmation that was classified, not the information by itself. If you've ever spent 12 hours in a meeting that mixed classified and open source information, you would know what I mean.

I once was investigated for disclosing secret information. My defense - which worked - was that the photo they complained about came from a Lockheed Martin press release.

At the O-5 level, the solution was easy - never, ever talk to the press about anything. Never discuss work with my family or friends, either. But that isn't an option for people working in the White House. And several years after retiring, there are still subjects where I don't know how much of my memory is classified and how much is open source...but then, no one wants to talk to me, so I'm safe.

You also might want to read this:

The Plame Game: Was This a Crime? (washingtonpost.com)

Also this:

Armitage Says He Was Source of CIA Leak - washingtonpost.com


----------



## DrumRunner

okay, I haven't even read through this thread but I just HAVE to post this..

Obama DID NOT kill him..He should not get credit and I don't feel like he really did anything just like he hasn't done ANYTHING for our country..I am not an obama fan and I sure as H*** didn't vote for him..

and another thing..

I am soo glad bin laden is dead but, I think that this is only going to create another problem. Just because the leader died doesn't mean that the group goes away. They just replace him with the next idiot that is going to try to "get back" at the US..and now that he is dead I say bring our military home! I don't think we are responsible for fixing other country's problems when we have SO many here. I think we need to work on our own country before we try to fix others. We might be the land of the free but we have to be the most screwed up country too..

Gah..I get a little worked up over this..and I don't like that Obama is getting a huge pat on the back that is not his victory to claim, he just happened to be in office when it happened..


----------



## Allison Finch

Drum, no one would have "gotten" Bin Ladin if Obama had not given the go ahead. And he did it only after thoroughly being involved in the planning stage.

Like Obama, or not, at least give him some credit for this at least. Even Rush Limbaugh said "Thank God for president Obama". Go figure.....

Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck: 'Thank God for President Obama' | Richard Adams | World news | guardian.co.uk


----------



## DrumRunner

I see your point and I respect it but, he wouldn't have had any clue to Bin Laden's whereabouts, plans, people, anything without our military over there..He didn't do it..Someone else did and he said "ok, go"..


----------



## Whisper22

I started watching the news again after I was acused of sticking my head in the sand and hiding from it :wink:. Turns out there is about a million different stories as to what actually happened. Why is that not surprising? Oh, and the President will NOT be releasing the photos. SHOCKING!:roll:


----------



## beauforever23

I don't want to stick my nose into something it just doesn't belong in right now but, personally I'm glad he's gone. He killed over 3,000 people. I had what was a big brother to me killed in the 9/11 attacks and now people from all the 9/11 families have the peace that this terrorist is dead. Now all the people who lost their lives can finally rest in peace. 

Does anyone else find it funny how the whole Obama Birth Cert scam came up and than Osama was found and killed? 

Either way I think Osama being dead is going to cause more problems than we even are aware of at this point but, as it was pointed out before if we would have buried him, than that would have given people a shrine to go to. He doesn't deserve that.


----------



## Northern

DrumRunner said:


> Obama DID NOT kill him..He should not get credit and I don't feel like he really did anything just like he hasn't done ANYTHING for our country..I am not an obama fan and I sure as H*** didn't vote for him.. *Amen! Glad that I didn't vote for him, either.*
> 
> I am soo glad bin laden is dead* yes, thank God for His righteous judgments*! but,... Just because the leader died doesn't mean that the group goes away. ...bring our military home! I don't think we are responsible for fixing other country's problems when we have SO many here....we have to be the most screwed up country too..*Amen!*
> 
> I don't like that Obama is getting a huge pat on the back that is not his victory to claim, he just happened to be in office when it happened..


DING, DING, DING! DrumRunner, well said!


----------



## Whisper22

DrumRunner said:


> okay, I haven't even read through this thread but I just HAVE to post this..
> 
> Obama DID NOT kill him..He should not get credit and I don't feel like he really did anything just like he hasn't done ANYTHING for our country..I am not an obama fan and I sure as H*** didn't vote for him..
> 
> and another thing..
> 
> I am soo glad bin laden is dead but, I think that this is only going to create another problem. Just because the leader died doesn't mean that the group goes away. They just replace him with the next idiot that is going to try to "get back" at the US..and now that he is dead I say bring our military home!* I don't think we are responsible for fixing other country's problems when we have SO many here. I think we need to work on our own country before we try to fix others. We might be the land of the free but we have to be the most screwed up country too..*
> 
> Gah..I get a little worked up over this..and I don't like that Obama is getting a huge pat on the back that is not his victory to claim, he just happened to be in office when it happened..


While I agree with most of this, I would have to disagree with the bolded bart.

We are not only over there to help them fix their problems. Al Queda is very much our problem, the 9/11 attacks being a prefect example. That didn't happen because we were over there trying to fix their problems. They hate America, and will never STOP hateing America. So we are over there trying to stop them from being able to do this again. And I'm sad to admit that that might be a very long time before that will happen.


----------



## Jake and Dai

Slightly off topic but thank you *bsms* for posting those links about the Plame incident. For whatever reason a few days ago (before Osama was killed), that popped in my head and as I didn't follow the story as it happened, it got my curiosity up. I just haven't found time to do some research.

And whilst Obama didn't pull the trigger, he did have to sort through all the ramifications of that action and take the decision on how to ultimately act. I believe it was the right and a courageous decision on his part. I don't agree with everything he has done whilst in office, but on this I agree.


----------



## bsms

Allison Finch said:


> ...Even Rush Limbaugh said "Thank God for president Obama". Go figure.....
> 
> Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck: 'Thank God for President Obama' | Richard Adams | World news | guardian.co.uk


_COSTELLO: Rush Limbaugh came out with a line saying, "Thank God for President Obama," but he meant it very sarcastically. If you take a look his website he actually meant, "Congratulations, Mr. President, for Continuing the Bush Anti-Terror Policy."

RUSH: So a reporter who works this beat got the story correct...So we concluded that these people had to want to believe this so badly that they did. They wanted to believe "Thank God for Obama," that only Obama was capable of this.

"The military are a bunch of warmongering hawks. They were gonna go in and obliterate the place!" only Obama, Obama alone knew the right way to do this...So he [Costello] listened. So he did listen. He called H.R. back and said, "Sounds to me like there's a little sarcasm here," and H.R. said, "Well, don't quote me, but I don't think I could disagree with you on that."_

For myself, I don't see this as a political issue. Any President - Clinton, Bush or Obama, was going to take a chance to nail the guy responsible for 911. I loathe Obama, but I'm glad he got it right on this. Club Gitmo is still operating, we'll have military tribunals, and Bin Laden has finally been killed.

There are evil men who need to be stopped, and I'm glad the US military stopped Bin Laden. The pity is that there are a great many evil people out there who will never reconcile themselves to freedom...so the war against terror goes on.


----------



## beauforever23

Does anyone realize that as soon as he was killed that, that's the only thing on the news. I think Obama is doing this to cover something up.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

It's the only thing on the news because it's Breaking News and a thing that the majority of Americans want to know about. 

The only thing on the news before it seemed to be about the royal wedding or what Snooki was doing.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

I liked the royal wedding better. Funny hats, pretty dresses, gorgeous bride, lots of smiles.


----------



## Jake and Dai

Alwaysbehind said:


> I liked the royal wedding better. Funny hats, pretty dresses, gorgeous bride, lots of smiles.


Here here! And don't forget all the pretty ponies!


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Yes, lots of pretty ponies!!!!


----------



## beauforever23

Well i'm sure everyone including me want to know what's going on but, I think Obama is covering something up that he doesn't want anyone to know. 

Another question that comes to my mind is why when the birth cert scam comes up, than a couple of days later Osama is found and killed. It just doesn't add up


----------



## Spastic_Dove

*sigh* 

What is Obama covering up? 

The birth certificate thing has been going on before he was even president. I just fail to understand how the two are connected.


----------



## beauforever23

See, that I didn't know. Maybe I'm wrong 110% i am but, that's my logic in it.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

The birth certificate thing -- Was brought up all during the campaign and his birth certificate was already shown. It is just recently with the attention from Trump that the 'Full' version (or long I think they were calling it) of his birth certificate was again published. 

Is that the part you didnt know about?


----------



## beauforever23

Yeah, see I didn't know that. Bleh.


----------



## Whisper22

Spastic_Dove said:


> The birth certificate thing -- Was brought up all during the campaign and his birth certificate was already shown. It is just recently with the attention from Trump that the 'Full' version (or long I think they were calling it) of his birth certificate was again published.
> 
> Is that the part you didnt know about?


Funny you bring that up. Him showing the short form whenever he did means nothing to me. This video breaks it down pretty well. IMO he's been scamming us from the beginning. I think the birth certificate thing is a pretty legitamant concern. The criteria to become president is there for a reason. Trump raised no concerns for me, they have always been there.


----------



## bsms

I'm inclined to suspect that Barack Obama's middle name is Antichrist, but I see no point in claiming he wasn't born in Hawaii, or eligible to run. 50 states agreed to put him on the ballot, and no Congressman of either party raised an objection to his being sworn in.

In approving the raid, Obama did a good thing. I can loathe 90% of his policies and still be glad he did what he did that time.

For those worried about the timing: When you put together an operation of that difficulty, there are lots of logistical and operational concerns driving the timing. I've worked the planning of operations with maybe 1/20th (or less) the difficulty of the OBL raid, and you don't just pull a day out of a hat. It is difficult to get all the right parts in the right places without being noticed, and once they are there, you have a limited time to use them. For a raid of that difficulty...well, I'm glad someone better than I was working the planning! They did a great job, and so did the folks who carried out the plan and made it a success at the risk of their lives!


----------



## DrumRunner

^^ haha, people in my community call him, NObama..because he has done nothing for the country..


----------



## franknbeans

Back to Osama....not Obama. 

Here is a quote from another forum I am on. That is a specific forum for Special ops personnel. As a "family" member, I have had some dealings with these guys. They are the real deal. Many still are SEALs, or other related fields.
This pretty much reflects the way many of them feel about what intel the public, as well as anyone not directly involved with a specific mission is owed. NOTHING. But, they say it SO perfectly. They are referring to some former (VERY former, lol) SEALs being interviewed for the "education" of the public.

It is also pretty crystal about how they feel about their jobs.

You will have to excuse the language-it is a direct quote. I did clean it up a bit..... (BTDT is one who has been credentialed by the mods and is a legit "been there done that" (SEAL, spec forces, etc)

_Trust me when I say we have guys on XXXXX right now who are more currently connected than both of them and none of us know 100% what really happened. And the thing is, we don't really care. Some of you guys may think all us BTDTs are PMing and calling each other like a bunch of teenagers with hardons looking for details like it's the day after the prom. Believe me, we're really not. Most of us couldn't give two ****s about anything except the fact that Bin Laden's dead.

There's nothing to be gained by parading anyone that's former anything in front of a camera. *The public doesn't need to know. I don't need to know and neither do you.* If 99% of the US didn't forget 9/11 a few months after it happened, I might have a different mindset. They can enjoy their bucket of extra crispy, six pack of Coors Lite, tonights American Idol vote and fart in their sleep soundly on a bed they're bending in the middle without that knowledge.

Otherwise, John Q Public can wallow in blissful ignorance about the operation. F*&^ the morons. I'll still stand up and protect them with my life for their God given American right to be as retarded as they want to be, but when it comes to details of classified operations: f$%& 'em. _

Ahhh-I love it when someone can articulate so well.....
And now, from what I am reading, the Paki gov't is saying this was "cold-blooded.". Can't wait to hear what they say about that one!:wink:


----------



## Spastic_Dove

bsms said:


> I'm inclined to suspect that Barack Obama's middle name is Antichrist, but I see no point in claiming he wasn't born in Hawaii, or eligible to run. 50 states agreed to put him on the ballot, and no Congressman of either party raised an objection to his being sworn in.
> 
> In approving the raid, Obama did a good thing. I can loathe 90% of his policies and still be glad he did what he did that time.
> 
> For those worried about the timing: When you put together an operation of that difficulty, there are lots of logistical and operational concerns driving the timing. I've worked the planning of operations with maybe 1/20th (or less) the difficulty of the OBL raid, and you don't just pull a day out of a hat. It is difficult to get all the right parts in the right places without being noticed, and once they are there, you have a limited time to use them. For a raid of that difficulty...well, I'm glad someone better than I was working the planning! They did a great job, and so did the folks who carried out the plan and made it a success at the risk of their lives!


This exactly this.


----------



## faye

Right I've reead through all of this thread.

I am British, Osama did enough damage to London that I can be glad that he is dead. I'm not going to go out and party about it.

America (and Britain to a lesser extent) entered into this war claiming to hold the moral high ground. If you want to maintain the moral high ground then you cannot do anything to contravene the agreements entered into such as the Geneva agreement.
Also If you wish to maintain the Moral High Ground then one must reat the enemy as you *would wish* to be treated and not how they would actualy treat you.

Muslim customs dictate that the body must be buried quickly (which if you look at the time and place thier scriptures were written makes a heck of alot of sense). So by burying the body quickly and with a modicum of dignity one can essentialy hold it up to the world and say "we are better then them as we at least accord them some respect in death"

As for photos I have absolutly no wish for them to be put up online or in the news. Releaseing the photos to the media means that potentialy young children could see them and that is not something anyone should see.

Whisper22 - I do wonder if you have ever seen a dead body. In my line of business it is unfortunatley something I see quite often, thankfully generaly little old ladies who have passed in their sleep. A body is something very difficult for people to see, no matter how often you see them it is a distressing experiance (and yes we have full councelling after every one but it never gets easier). whilst I hated Osama I have no wish to traumatise myself and others by seeing a partialy caved in skull on a dead body.

Muslim does not equal terrorist. I have had great conversations with moderate muslims. Ther was a Mosque right next to my Uni and they did the most amazing curry at lunch times during term time and it didnt matter who you were, male or female they were unfailingly polite and helpful. If you respected them and thier religion then there was never any issue. 
One guy even started teaching my friends and I arabic whilst we were sitting at a picnic table eating curry in the garden of the mosque (yes it was even a mixed group).
they went to great lengths to after the london bombings to publicly condemn The bombings (cant talk about 9/11 as I was not at uni at that time) and to express thier outrage that all the hard work they had done at becoming a usefull and accepted part of the community was undone in seconds.

Finaly I would say a huge well done to the soldiers who actualy did it. You have done your country and indeed the whole of the western world Proud.


----------



## Whisper22

I have seen a lot more than I care to see. While it was not in person, it was still real, and Osama is something, I personally, would love to see. While showing them throwing a covered body in the ocean will not necessarily prove anything, what do they have to lose, if it in fact happened that way. They wont be traumatizing anyone, so what's the big deal? My guess is they don't have photos of his body being thrown in the ocean and it's going to take some time to forge them up.

I'm not saying Osama isn't dead, but I definately don't believe it unfolded the way anyone is saying. I find it irresponsible to release that he is dead to the public without having your facts straight. If someone doesn't believe they have a right to know details, that is their business, but I do. Especially with the joke of a government we have. Obama is the most unreliable President IMO. Saying "I have the answers, but I'm not gonna tell you" doesn't help his case. Not just with this, but with the birth cert. thing also. So not a big deal, if he was telling the truth, but he had to be a child about it. Now it is SO poorly done, and laughable, it makes me wonder if it wasn't done that way on purpose. What could be so important to distract us from that he would throw himself under the bus for. 

I completely give credit to our troops and to whoever it may have been that was actually there to kill Osama, but the President will never be a trustworthy man in my eyes, never.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Curious. Why do you (generally speaking) have a right to know the details? 

I can at least understand the idea behind the birth certificate nonsense. But why do you have a right to have pictures of the body and the details behind his death?


----------



## JustDressageIt

My two cents: Americans can't want a one-way-street. They can't get mad at anyone else for parading around when they kill an enemy and then do it themselves when they catch their foe.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## gypsygirl

agreed jdi !


----------



## JustDressageIt

I completely and totally respect the decision to keep details and photos quiet. Why does anyone need proof? Why does anyone need to see pictures of a man whose head is likely mostly gone anyways, so distorted that one can't recognize him anyways? Conspiracy theorists are going to have their stories no matter how much proof, and who else cares if there is proof?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

JustDressageIt said:


> My two cents: Americans can't want a one-way-street. They can't get mad at anyone else for parading around when they kill an enemy and then do it themselves when they catch their foe.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Strongly disagree! *We didn't ask for this fight*. We didn't want it. We didn't invade Afghanistan and force our beliefs down their throats. *They attacked us. There is no moral equivalence between us.* They hate freedom, they want the right to kill their wives and daughters, and they want to kill us. And when they killed 3,000 of us, we responded.

The ^&%$# who celebrated in the streets when 3000 innocent people died are NOT in any way equivalent to those who took pleasure in knowing the master murderer was caught and punished. Osama Bin Laden was a murderer. The 3000 who died on 9/11 were not. *There is no moral equivalence!*


----------



## bsms

faye said:


> ...America (and Britain to a lesser extent) entered into this war claiming to hold the moral high ground. If you want to maintain the moral high ground then you cannot do anything to contravene the agreements entered into such as the Geneva agreement...


The Taliban didn't sign the Geneva Convention. While I was in Jalalabad, an Afghan Army unit was overrun. Americans retook the hill about 30 minutes later. They found the captured Afghans...with their throats hacked to bits.

We didn't ask for a fight with the Taliban. They sought out and killed 3000 innocent Americans. That started the fight.

If it were needed for training, I would agree to be waterboarded. I would NOT agree to have my throat chopped up for training. There is a difference. When the Taliban agree to live by the Geneva Convention, I'll feel obligated to extend them every protection the GC offers. Until then, they are wild animals - much worse than wild animals, because no wild animal invades NYC and kills for pleasure.

However, the US has given them protections they do not deserve. Discomfort does NOT equal torture. I experienced lots of discomfort going thru survival school, but I wasn't tortured. I'm sure waterboarding isn't fun, but it beats the snot out of having one's throat shredded.

BTW - while I was in a different part of Afghanistan, a convoy of truck drivers was stopped by the Taliban. Although they were not carrying anything for the US military, they hadn't paid tribute to the Taliban - so the Taliban cut the ears off of the drivers. Please do not expect any sympathy from me for the Taliban.


----------



## Shasta1981

I agree with bsms. Not the same. Since there seems to be some confusion as to why anyone would celebrate the end of this horrible person, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce you to the story if Michael Lynch, if you are interested. if you can read about him and his family and still come out without a sense of relief or happiness that this family now has SOME kind of resolution and that Bin Laden will not do is to another family, then I'm speechless. The murder of michael Lynch and everyone else who lost their lives that day is very different than the removal of OBL. 

MLMF: About Us


----------



## JustDressageIt

Not the same? I disagree. They completely think they are right. Americans completely think they are right. 
Doesn't matter who is actually IN the right.... the thought pattern behind the celebrations are the exact same: "we won and defeated our enemy. Rejoice."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## beauforever23

I also agree with bsms. Although I am not one to celebrate someones death but, he had it coming to him. I would also like to introduce Michael Kiefer FDNY. Only 26 years old and he died in the 9/11 attack. He is my best friend's brother and a big brother to me, someone I always looked up to and although Osama is dead we still mourn him. 

9-11 Victim Memorial: Michael Kiefer

The sense of relief that he will never darken a doorway again is my peace.


----------



## bsms

In case anyone wonders why I approve of the Geneva Convention needing to be a two-way street, consider Kipling (1895):

"If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier...

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

That pretty well summarizes the plan of everyone I talked to in 2007. An updated version that made the Internet rounds runs:

_When you’re lying alone in your Afghan bivvy,_
_And your life it depends on some MOD civvie_
_When the body armour’s shared (one set between three),_
_And the firefight’s not like it is on TV,_
_Then you’ll look to your oppo, your gun and your God,_
_As you follow that path all Tommies have trod._
_When the Gimpy has jammed and you’re down to one round,_
_And the faith that you’d lost is suddenly found._
_When the Taliban horde is close up to the fort,_
_And you pray that the arty don’t drop a round short,_
_Stick to your sergeant like a good squaddie should,_
_And fight them like Satan or one of his brood._


_Brit squaddie rewrites Kipling poem as attack on soldier’s lot today | The Sun |News|Campaigns|Our Boys
_


----------



## kevinshorses

BSMS I wasn't going to even read this thread until I saw that you posted. Thank you for your service. I'm glad they shot the murdering SOB instead of smearing him around with a bomb. I would bet that the men that went in after him won't have to buy a drink for the rest of thier lives. I sure would like to buy them a round. 

I think the US should publish the photos of Osama and we should crow about this a little. Maybe some little would-be terrorists that think they might get away with something will realize that the only thing waiting for them is a 5.56 round to the forehead.

Also, if I had been in charge of burying Osama he would be resting updie down in a pile of pig **** as far from Mecca as geographically possible.


----------



## bsms

JustDressageIt said:


> Not the same? I disagree. They completely think they are right. Americans completely think they are right.
> Doesn't matter who is actually IN the right.... the thought pattern behind the celebrations are the exact same: "we won and defeated our enemy. Rejoice."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That is the sort of moral equivalence garbage that allows evil to flourish!

"Doesn't matter who is actually IN the right..."

It doesn't? Killing 3000 innocent people is no different than killing a self-confessed mass murderer? Rejoicing because 3,000 innocent people were murdered is no different morally than rejoicing that a self-confessed mass murderer is dead?

So...the news of Hilter's death should have been met with the same response as news of FDR's death? After all, the Germans didn't love FDR - so his death was no different morally from FDR's?!?! When Chairman Mao - who killed an estimated 20-80 million Chinese - died, that was no different than if the Pope died?

I'm glad my Dad (WW2, Korea, Vietnam, killed in Vietnam), and I (25 years in the USAF, shot at badly over Iraq, time on the ground in Afghanistan), my son (one tour Army Guard Iraq, currently in Afghanistan) and oldest daughter (one tour Iraq with USMC) have different values. I wouldn't want to live in a world where there should be no moral difference between the news that 3,000 innocent people were murdered, and 1 self-confessed mass murderer met his end. :shock::evil::shock::evil::shock::evil:

Oh, and BTW - don't EVER go to rural Afghanistan. You would be tortured, raped and killed in a heartbeat. But of course, that is just their values at work, and who would we be to complain?


----------



## winstonsgrl

Yep it's about time! 
People are partying everywhere!


----------



## franknbeans

_"Otherwise, John Q Public can wallow in blissful ignorance about the operation. F*&^ the morons. I'll still stand up and protect them with my life for their God given American right to be as retarded as they want to be....."_

JDI-this pretty much describes you, but I sure am glad you are not an American that our guys are laying their lives down for if you don't seem to know the difference between right and wrong.

You can go to bed at night and sleep in peace because OUR guys are out there doing their jobs, just because Canada is just sort of "there". Don't get involved, so it doesn't cost them anything, but they can criticize? 
Just sort of ....."switzerland". Be careful, don't **** anyone off, and just keep the peace. Well, I have a newsflash. These are BAD people. Thet are out to kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do. Shoot-they kill their own if they look wrong.

I would also suggest you not vacation in the middle east. You may not get to come home.
Sleep tight.:evil:


----------



## franknbeans

kevinshorses said:


> BSMS I wasn't going to even read this thread until I saw that you posted. Thank you for your service. I'm glad they shot the murdering SOB instead of smearing him around with a bomb. I would bet that the men that went in after him won't have to buy a drink for the rest of thier lives. I sure would like to buy them a round.
> 
> _I think the US should publish the photos of Osama and we should crow about this a little. Maybe some little would-be terrorists that think they might get away with something will realize that the only thing waiting for them is a 5.56 round to the forehead._
> 
> Also, if I had been in charge of burying Osama he would be resting updie down in a pile of pig **** as far from Mecca as geographically possible.


Kevin-to publish this would feed right into them. Remember-these people love to die for the cause.....72 virgins and all that crap. They would be lining up like ducks at a carnival shooting gallery!


----------



## JustDressageIt

That is some hatred towards me for two comments I meant relatively nothing by. 
Wow. 
I'm quite surprised at the animosity shown towards me. All I meant by my comment was that each side thinks they are right. It is quite contradictory to celebrate a death but say the enemy is wrong and shameful for celebrating their perceived victory. That is all. I don't think that THEY are right, for the record...
I meant no disrespect whatsoever - I have and have had family serving the military and have nothing but thanks to give for their service. 
I would actually appreciate my comments in this thread be taken down. They were obviously taken in the wrong light.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## beauforever23

I think everyone has their own opinion on this. I don't think the videos or pictures should be published. It just wouldn't be right.


----------



## bsms

JustDressageIt said:


> ...All I meant by my comment was that each side thinks they are right. It is quite contradictory to celebrate a death but say the enemy is wrong and shameful for celebrating their perceived victory....


No, it is not contradictory. When their victory - facts matter - consists of killing 3,000 people who did them no harm, and our victory consists of killing the guy who admitted responsibility for killing 3,000 innocent people, then it is in no way a contradiction to condemn one and give the other a pass. The only way it would be equivalent would be for the original events to be equivalent.


----------



## kevinshorses

franknbeans said:


> Kevin-to publish this would feed right into them. Remember-these people love to die for the cause.....72 virgins and all that crap. They would be lining up like ducks at a carnival shooting gallery!


Cool! Lets get this over with!


----------



## Allison Finch

Jake and Dai said:


> Slightly off topic but thank you *bsms* for posting those links about the Plame incident. For whatever reason a few days ago (before Osama was killed), that popped in my head and as I didn't follow the story as it happened, it got my curiosity up. .


 
Please, don't just read those links and feel you have the whole story. The Plame's themselves give a far different story. Consider these one part of the story. Rove had much more to do with the DECISION to expose them than the links indicate. All I will say is read further.

I simply did not want to hijack this thread.


----------



## Allison Finch

bsms said:


> Oh, and BTW - don't EVER go to rural Afghanistan. You would be tortured, raped and killed in a heartbeat. But of course, that is just their values at work, and who would we be to complain?


 
My mother spent a good while in rural Afghanistan in the time shortly before the Russians moved in. She said it was fierce, but that the people were very hospitable and giving. You are tar and feathering every person living there with the same brush. How Christian of you. 

I don't agree with their way of life (living in the 14th century) But I refuse to outright hate a whole country for the sins of a few.

Glad you can feel so comfortable with it.



Ohh, and JDI, I was able to understand your post and saw no disrespect in it. What I see here is an amazing amount of hatred on this forum and I am shocked. I dislike everything the Taliban and Bin Ladin stood for, but refuse the solace of such hatred.

I don't profess any "born again" beliefs, but believe strongly in the Christian ethics. I see none of that here, sadly.


----------



## faye

yes I'm glad he is dead, no I dont think they should show the pictures, yes I can fully understand the reasons for burying him as they did and yes I think that the world is a better place without him and without a grave that extremeists could use as a shrine

that said:
No the taliban did not enter into the GC however the US *did* and if you want to maintain the moral high ground then you must abide by it. The GC is not something you pick up and put down at will. The Nazi's were war criminals because the german nation signed the 3rd GC (we are currently on the 4thGC) and then patently ignored it, do you realy want the US to be concidered in the same category?

JDI I understood your posts as they were ment. 

Oh and I was born in Saudi, My mother and father were working there in the 80's and 90's. I agree with Allison you are tarring everyone with the same brush.


----------



## bsms

faye said:


> ...No the taliban did not enter into the GC however the US *did* and if you want to maintain the moral high ground then you must abide by it. The GC is not something you pick up and put down at will...
> 
> Oh and I was born in Saudi, My mother and father were working there in the 80's and 90's. I agree with Allison you are tarring everyone with the same brush.


1 - The Geneva Conventions offer mutual protections. Those who sign them will be treated that way by other signers. Those who don't are not covered. As a matter of policy, we have extended those protections to the Taliban, which is why wounded Taliban are treated by American doctors. However, the incentive to sign them and abide by them is that by doing so, you protect your soldiers.

Sleep deprivation isn't torture. Cutting throats of captives is. There is no moral equivalence to how we treat the Taliban, and how they treat us. Waterboarding is unpleasant, but not as unpleasant as allowing terrorist attacks to continue against innocent people. And I would volunteer to be waterboarded if needed for training...but I'd pass on having my ears cut off.

2 - I haven't tarred everybody. I have pointed out that in rural Afghanistan, they will kill their wives and daughters, and are protected in doing so. In Kabul, you'd probably be safe walking down the street. In much of rural Afghanistan, you would be in severe danger. The Afghanistan prior to the Russian invasion doesn't exist any more. The Russians and the Taliban have radicalized it. Many of those who wanted peace or were willing to be tolerant of others died.

If you wish to walk the length of the Korengal Valley, feel free to try. I doubt you will live to see the far end - unless the Taliban want to keep you alive for propaganda.

The incidents I mentioned earlier were not made up. The riot to support the right of a man to kill his daughters happened. The NYT reported it wrong, but there isn't much new to that. The truck drivers who didn't pay off the Taliban did have their ears cut off. The Taliban are evil. And on 911, we didn't invade Afghanistan to force our beliefs on them - they came here to kill 3,000 innocent people. Even after we invaded Afghanistan, we agreed to a Constitution that puts Sharia law as the basic principle of Afghanistan justice.

We didn't start the fight. Nor will we stay in Afghanistan long enough to really change it - that would take a 50-100 year commitment, and I don't see that happening. But we have killed some of the Taliban leadership, which is a small step in the right direction. We killed OBL, which is a good thing. And in praising it, I am not acting just like the people who celebrated 911, because killing a self-confessed mass murderer isn't the same as killing 3,000 innocent people.


----------



## JustDressageIt

Thank you, AF and Faye - I didn't think I had worded my posts to come off badly, I was truly shocked reading the replies.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kitten_Val

bsms said:


> We didn't invade Afghanistan and force our beliefs down their throats.


As far as I understand most of 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. So I didn't understand all these years how come Afgan and (especially) Iraq came in game then? SA was not touched at all. I DO respect highly those who sacrifice the lives (solders, officers, civilians helping down there), it breaks my heart when those people die, but I do NOT see terrorism coming to the end. In fact considering what's been going on it's just getting worse all around the world. And killing Osama won't stop it, I think there are more to come just because of that. 

P.S. To the kevin's comment... From what I read Israel did wrap the terrorists in pig skin in past to prevent them from "going to Heaven" (until "Rights" activists started to scream it's inhumane).


----------



## bsms

kitten_Val said:


> As far as I understand most of 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. So I didn't understand all these years how come Afgan and (especially) Iraq came in game then? SA was not touched at all...


Afghanistan was simple - it was home to the Taliban, and it was protecting Bin Laden. They were told to hand him over, they refused, and we wouldn't take no for an answer. To use the Wikipedia summary:

"The United States requested the Taliban to shut down all al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, open them to inspection and turn over Osama bin Laden. The Taliban refused all these requests. Instead they offered to extradite Osama bin Laden to an Islamic country, for trial under Islamic law, if the United States presented evidence of his guilt.[97] The Taliban had previously refused to extradite bin Laden to the United States, or prosecute him, after he was indicted by the US federal courts for involvement in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.[98] The Taliban deemed eyewitness testimony and satellite phone call recordings entered in the public record in February 2001 during a trial as insufficient grounds to extradite bin Laden for his involvement in the bombings.[_citation needed_] 

Because of the Bush Doctrine, which stated "We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them", the United States and Britain invaded and overthrew the Taliban regime in 2001, using air power, special forces and the Northern Alliance as a land army."

Responsibility for the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you harbor someone who has killed 3,000 people, you have to expect some negative consequences...

Iraq was a much more complex issue. It was more a resumption of the 1991 war than it was retaliation for 9/11. It was a strategic response rather than a tactical one, so to speak. I think the idea was to change the Middle East and provide a democratic government that would then show the extremists that moderate Muslims could rule without attacking everyone around them.

Was it a good idea? That is debatable, although the status quo wasn't a great option either. We were being shot at almost daily patrolling the no fly zones, it was widely believed that they were working or trying to resume work on nukes, they were sponsoring terrorism and a democratic muslim government would help defuse the extremists...but was it worth the cost? I'm not a big Rumsfeld fan, but I think he was right on Iraq - get in, get out, and let the Iraqis pick up the pieces. Or don't go in at all.

I think I understand what GWB was trying to do, but I don't think I agree with the decision itself. One of the problem with governments is the belief that good intentions = good outcomes. That often backfires. That said, I'm glad I wasn't the one making the decision. For much of the 90s, I spent 5-6 months each year in Turkey or Saudi supporting the no fly zones. We were being shot at regularly and I wasn't a fan of just letting that go on forever either. In all of this, it helps to remember both that there is a lot of classified information we don't see, and that classified information can be totally wrong.

Saudi Arabia is another issue altogether. I don't like the status quo, but I sure don't know of any good alternatives either.


----------



## Allison Finch

So, it's OK to completely support Saudi Arabia, which is equally as repressive in many ways as the taliban? Why? Because we want oil and are willing to look the other way when they perform their "honor" killings and stonings. How convenient for us. How nice that we can demonize some for what we find acceptable for others.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Afghanistan had oil and were willing to deal with us as Saudi Arabia does.......


----------



## bsms

Allison Finch said:


> So, it's OK to completely support Saudi Arabia, which is equally as repressive in many ways as the taliban? Why?...How nice that we can demonize some for what we find acceptable for others...


I don't completely support Saudi Arabia. I also don't believe invading Saudi Arabia would be a good idea. However, if they had sheltered Bin Laden after 9/11, I'd have a different opinion.

The Iraq war obviously was not about oil, since we haven't taken over their oil fields. However, if Afghanistan has as much oil as Saudi Arabia, I could see staying there for the 50+ years it would take to bring a measure of civilization to their country...

I demonize those in Afghanistan who believe a husband/father has the right to kill the women in his household. I demonize ANYONE who believes that. If that is not a demonic belief, what is? I didn't advocate invading Afghanistan over it, and I don't advocate invading Saudi Arabia over it - but the practice is evil and repulsive. Those who fight for that right - such as the Taliban - are not a group I see much room for compromising with, or for saying we are all morally equivalent.


----------



## Whisper22

bsms said:


> I demonize those in Afghanistan who believe a husband/father has the right to kill the women in his household. I demonize ANYONE who believes that. If that is not a demonic belief, what is? I didn't advocate invading Afghanistan over it, and I don't advocate invading Saudi Arabia over it - but the practice is evil and repulsive. Those who fight for that right - such as the Taliban - are not a group I see much room for compromising with, or for saying we are all morally equivalent.


I agree with this 100%.


----------



## kitten_Val

bsms said:


> Afghanistan was simple - it was home to the Taliban, and it was protecting Bin Laden. They were told to hand him over, they refused, and we wouldn't take no for an answer.


Well, then history definitely didn't teach our politicians. Unfortunately... Russia spent what? 10 or 15 years trying to fight there. Should leave eventually. Now US taking the exact turn there... 

You don't come to someone's country to fight for idea (or whatever else) and killing civilians for the sake of it. It's their country and their traditions even though they may look terrifying to you (and yes, they are). People WILL consider you as an enemy even though you try to bring the "better future". Which what's happening now, and I don't think continuing wars there will bring love in hearts of citizens (or any change towards the "democracy").


----------



## kitten_Val

Allison Finch said:


> So, it's OK to completely support Saudi Arabia, which is equally as repressive in many ways as the taliban? Why? Because we want oil and are willing to look the other way when they perform their "honor" killings and stonings. How convenient for us. How nice that we can demonize some for what we find acceptable for others.


Exactly. How Saudi Arabia any different? Like this one seems to be OK then? Saudi woman killed for chatting on Facebook - Telegraph 

And Pakistan (which for the fact lets many terrorists to hide) is "our very good friend" per US government...


----------



## lovesmyhawse

kitten_Val said:


> You don't come to someone's country to fight for idea (or whatever else) and killing civilians for the sake of it. It's their country and their traditions even though they may look terrifying to you (and yes, they are). People WILL consider you as an enemy even though you try to bring the "better future". Which what's happening now, and I don't think continuing wars there will bring love in hearts of citizens (or any change towards the "democracy").


 I think you misunderstand why there is a war being fought in Afghanistan. Parts of Afghanistan are being occupied by a Taliban regime. The Taliban are a terrorist group who were Led by Bin Laden. The Taliban terrorize the Afghani people. The traditions and practices of the Taliban are not the traditions and practices of the Afghani people.
I am in the Canadian Air Force and we are currently leading operations in Afghanistan. I have'nt done a tour there myself but I work with many people who have. What I have been told by my co-workers, is that they have found that the Afghanis are generally appreciative of what we are doing there. They fear the Taliban. The Taliban force the people to work for them, take their money, physically abuse them, kill and rape their children and wives. 
The problem is that, there is not a sufficient military force over there right now. In alot of areas where we are fighting along with the Afghanistan government to over-throw the Taliban, things are fine during the day when we have enough resources to provide security for the people, but at night time, which is when most of the fighting takes place, we don`t have enough resources to provide enough security within their communities, and that is when the Taliban move in again. It is a very complex situation.


----------



## bsms

kitten_Val said:


> Well, then history definitely didn't teach our politicians. Unfortunately... Russia spent what? 10 or 15 years trying to fight there. Should leave eventually. Now US taking the exact turn there...
> 
> You don't come to someone's country to fight for idea (or whatever else) and killing civilians for the sake of it. It's their country and their traditions even though they may look terrifying to you (and yes, they are). People WILL consider you as an enemy even though you try to bring the "better future"...


Russia tried to terrorize Afghanistan, to include utterly destroying entire villages, man, woman and child. That has hardly been US policy.

Zor Orgun Journal - Afghans Make New Lives Among the Old Ruins - NYTimes.com

And while civilians have been killed at times, that has hardly been US policy either. When it happens, it is typically the result of the Taliban using the civilians as shields - which under international law makes the Taliban responsible for their deaths. I will say this - no war in history has been fought where one side tied it own hands the way we have tied ours in an attempt to prevent civilian deaths.

Nor has the US tried to impose its will on Afghanistan, apart from driving out the Taliban. The Afghan Constitution, with the support of the USA, made Sharia law supreme in Afghanistan. I'd argue that was an error on our part, but it certainly shows we are not trying to impose western values against the will of the Afghan people.

Unlike the Taliban, we don't execute people for not supporting us. We have built roads, and we have built hospitals and schools. If that be evil, then I've supported evil - and did so gladly.

Our problem with getting support from the Afghan people is due in part (not entirely) to the fact that they know full well that we will leave before the Taliban does, and that the Taliban is willing to kill those who cooperate with us. There is no long term incentive to work with the US unless they believe we will be there as long as it takes. That isn't likely, and they know it.

I'm not a fan of nation building. It takes too long and needs more resources than we will commit. For Afghanistan, it would take 50 years minimum. Since we are not going to stay, I prefer to get out now...if now is defined as 2007 or earlier. It would be a noble deed to pull Afghanistan into the modern age, but it isn't worth the cost to the US.

As for Saudi Arabia...again, I abhor much of what they do...but they didn't commit 9/11. Saudi nationals living outside Saudi did - harbored in Afghanistan. Saudi had already thrown them out. And do you want to invade a country that includes Mecca? I don't. Of course, I didn't want to invade Afghanistan for fun. That happened after we were attacked, and they refused to turn over Bin Laden and let us inspect Taliban training camps.

Do you want to invade Pakistan, a country with nukes? I don't. I wouldn't want to even if they had no nukes. We DO go across the borders at times to pursue the Taliban into Pakistan. Our focus is on those who promote and hide terrorists.

There is no moral equivalence here. Those who are glad a self-confessed mass murdered was killed are not the same as those who rejoiced when 3,000 innocent people died. American soldiers are not in any way the moral equivalents of the Taliban - or the Russians! And no, we didn't start this fight or ask for it. We were entirely content to leave Afghanistan alone - until people operating out of Afghanistan attacked our people in New York.


----------



## Allison Finch

lovesmyhawse said:


> The Taliban are a terrorist group who were Led by Bin Laden..


Mullah Omar would be very surprised to hear that Bin Ladin was the leader of the Taliban. He probably thought that HE was (until we got him). Bin Ladin was the leader of Al qaeda, never Afghanistan. The Taliban protected him for quite a while, until he got too hot in Afghanistan. He did help organize resistence against Russia with the Mujahadeen.


----------



## lovesmyhawse

Whoops lol.... my bad... but, same diff


----------



## Allison Finch

BSMS

Finally, a very well informed thoughtful post. AND, not filled with hatred for Obama and all things middle eastern. Thank you.

Posts like this will go so much further with moderates like me.


----------



## lovesmyhawse

Allison Finch said:


> Bin Ladin was the leader of Al qaeda, never Afghanistan. The Taliban protected him for quite a while, until he got too hot in Afghanistan. He did help organize resistence against Russia with the Mujahadeen.


The Afghanistan government is not the same thing as the Taliban regime tho. )


----------



## Allison Finch

Sigh.....Bin Ladin was not the leader of the Taliban.


----------



## AlexS

faye said:


> America (and Britain to a lesser extent) entered into this war claiming to hold the moral high ground. If you want to maintain the moral high ground then you cannot do anything to contravene the agreements entered into such as the Geneva agreement.
> Also If you wish to maintain the Moral High Ground then one must reat the enemy as you *would wish* to be treated and not how they would actualy treat you.
> 
> Muslim customs dictate that the body must be buried quickly (which if you look at the time and place thier scriptures were written makes a heck of alot of sense). So by burying the body quickly and with a modicum of dignity one can essentialy hold it up to the world and say "we are better then them as we at least accord them some respect in death"
> 
> ....Finaly I would say a huge well done to the soldiers who actualy did it. You have done your country and indeed the whole of the western world Proud.


 Faye wonderful post, and so completely my opinion. 




bsms said:


> Strongly disagree! *We didn't ask for this fight*. We didn't want it. We didn't invade Afghanistan and force our beliefs down their throats. *They attacked us. There is no moral equivalence between us.* They hate freedom, they want the right to kill their wives and daughters, and they want to kill us. And when they killed 3,000 of us, we responded.
> 
> The ^&%$# who celebrated in the streets when 3000 innocent people died are NOT in any way equivalent to those who took pleasure in knowing the master murderer was caught and punished. Osama Bin Laden was a murderer. The 3000 who died on 9/11 were not. *There is no moral equivalence!*


 Who is they? They few people who flew planes, or *the entire population of a country*? (as you seem to like bold and underlined words)
When a white crazy American goes nuts in a school, we view him as a crazy - we do not go to war with every white American. We do not go to war with everyone. 

But for some reason this is different, we were hurt, so they can hurt. It's not right that we put up an American flag in Baghdad and it is not right that we are chanting USA USA now. We will create more of them, and the morons chanting are too stupid to see this. Don't we hate it when they run through the streets with our military guys heads? Are we not doing something similar now with the USA USA USA chanting crowds?




bsms said:


> Sleep deprivation isn't torture. Cutting throats of captives is. There is no moral equivalence to how we treat the Taliban, and how they treat us. Waterboarding is unpleasant, but not as unpleasant as allowing terrorist attacks to continue against innocent people. And I would volunteer to be waterboarded if needed for training...but I'd pass on having my ears cut off.


Well then apparently the rest of the word disagrees with you, as Guantanamo was thought of as war crimes. You are deluded if you think you will get the truth from techniques like this, I would admit to anything to make it stop, does that make it the truth? How does that make us better than them? Torture is typically better than death, but does that make torture right?


----------



## Shasta1981

Alexs our war is with the Taliban which happens to be taking place in Afghanistan with the help of the Afghan government and army. Our troops are fighting alongside Afghanis. It is NOT a war against the country of Afghanistan. Sadly, Time recently reported that the afghan military is seeing some attrition issues. This is why it's important for us to stay and help them as BSMS mentioned.


----------



## kevinshorses

AlexS said:


> Well then apparently the rest of the word disagrees with you, as Guantanamo was thought of as war crimes. You are deluded if you think you will get the truth from techniques like this, I would admit to anything to make it stop, does that make it the truth? How does that make us better than them? Torture is typically better than death, but does that make torture right?


I think the "rest of the world" that views Guantanamo as a war crime is the loud, obnoxious, american hating liberal press both here and internationally. In fact, under the Geneva convention, enemy combatants (people shooting at soldiers) that are not uniformed can be shot as spies immediately upon capture. No military court, no miranda rights just a bullet to the head. 

The questions ask during enhanced interigation are not yes and no questions nor are they looking for a confession. They want names and aliases and adresses. These are very hard to make up under extreme stess and that is why much of the information is valuable. The U.S. Army is using all of its vast resources and know-how to prevent civilian casualties. Many soldiers have been killed because of policies restricting what tactics can be used in certain circumstances.


----------



## JustDressageIt

Enhanced interrogation. Interesting terminology. Except that torture can and does lead to false confessions/false information - people will say what it takes to make the torture stop. 

I thank all the troops out there that are protecting my safety and my ability to sleep soundly at night. My heart does weep for all the Middle Eastern innocent civilians that have been killed in this war. It goes without saying that my heart goes out to the American civilians and soldiers (and supporting countries' soldiers) as well. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

AlexS said:


> Faye wonderful post ["If you wish to maintain the Moral High Ground then one must reat the enemy as you *would wish* to be treated and not how they would actualy treat you."], and so completely my opinion.
> 
> Who is they? They few people who flew planes, or *the entire population of a country*? (as you seem to like bold and underlined words)
> 
> When a white crazy American goes nuts in a school, we view him as a crazy - we do not go to war with every white American. We do not go to war with everyone.
> 
> But for some reason this is different, we were hurt, so they can hurt. It's not right that we put up an American flag in Baghdad and it is not right that we are chanting USA USA now. We will create more of them, and the morons chanting are too stupid to see this. Don't we hate it when they run through the streets with our military guys heads? Are we not doing something similar now with the USA USA USA chanting crowds?
> 
> Well then apparently the rest of the word disagrees with you, as Guantanamo was thought of as war crimes. You are deluded if you think you will get the truth from techniques like this, I would admit to anything to make it stop, does that make it the truth? How does that make us better than them? Torture is typically better than death, but does that make torture right?


Good grief! If the only thing I faced upon being captured in Afghanistan was waterboarding, sleep deprivation and standing for hours or having an 'infidel' touch my copy of the Bible they provided me, I'd have wet myself with joy! I quoted Kipling because what he wrote in 1895 was the belief of every soldier I knew in Afghanistan, and mine as well:

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, 
And the women come out to cut up what remains, 
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains 
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

We didn't believe that because we were worried about sleep deprivation!

We already DO treat the inmates of Club Gitmo like I would want to be treated. They get medical care. Most gain 15-20 lbs in weight eating food chosen to meet their religious beliefs. They get copies of their religious material, and we 'infidels' aren't supposed to touch it so as not to offend them. The prisoners captured in WW2 or Korea or Vietnam would have given their left nut to be treated as well as we treat the Club Gitmo crowd!

"Who is they?" Well, they obviously are not everyone, since I haven't advocated nuking Afghanistan. I've explained in multiple posts on this thread that our opponents were the terrorists and the people who sheltered them - the Taliban, and at one time the Afghan government. I've argued for the Rumsfeld approach - get in, get done what we needed, and get back out quickly.

An interpreter working at one of the FOBs I was on had his entire family murdered by the Taliban - parents, wives and children. Do you think I hated him, or wanted him to die? Is there any post on this thread where I've suggesting killing everyone in Afghanistan?

But people also ought to understand what we face in Afghanistan. I didn't until 2007, because I didn't understand that many Afghans believe in the right to kill their wives and daughters. That is the sort of belief that gives rise to the terrorists, and that sort of belief doesn't change in a year or two. Changing that would require 50-100 years in Afghanistan. That is one of the reasons I think we ought to get out - we aren't going to change their beliefs, we aren't even *trying* to change their beliefs, so what is the point in remaining?

But we needed to deal with more than just the few who flew the planes. We needed to go after the terror network that planned, funded, and supported the attack. We needed to make clear to foreign governments that harboring terrorists would have bad consequences for the foreign government. And because we did, many foreign governments who hate us and like the terrorists gave us some grudging intelligence and support.

"We do not go to war with everyone." Good grief! We're building roads, schools and hospitals in Afghanistan - and I've said I was glad to support those efforts!

"But for some reason this is different, we were hurt, so they can hurt."

Some reason? Some reason?!?!?!?! Maybe it is different because they came to the USA and killed 3,000 innocent people, while we went into Pakistan and killed a self confessed mass murderer! This isn't about "we hurt, they hurt". It is about protecting ourselves from future hurt by convincing those who want to hurt us that it isn't worth the cost. We didn't start the fight! *NO ONE advocated invading Afghanistan in 2001 to change their culture.*

"Don't we hate it when they run through the streets with our military guys heads? Are we not doing something similar now with the USA USA USA chanting crowds?"

Golly! Guess I missed the scenes where Barack Obama held up OBL's head, or where he chopped OBL's head off on live TV! Why were we outraged when they dragged a soldier's body thru Somalia? Here is a hint - we were there to feed starving people, and the military was there in part to try to get the food past the warlords and into the hands of the starving people.

The people chanting USA were glad that a self confessed mass murderer who was still trying to figure out how to kill more of us was caught and killed. That is not in any way morally equivalent to cheering because 3,000 innocent people who meant you no harm were murdered!

"Well then apparently the rest of the word disagrees with you, as Guantanamo was thought of as war crimes."










_"Detainees in orange jumpsuits sit in a holding area under the watchful eyes of Military Police at Camp X-Ray at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during in-processing to the temporary detention facility on Jan. 11, 2002. The detainees will be given a basic physical exam by a doctor, to include a chest x-ray and blood samples drawn to assess their health. DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st class Shane T. McCoy, U.S. Navy."_

The world is full of weenies who like to feel good without considering the consequences of their feelings. The other day, a guy told me how he would never harm an animal, and would carry a cricket out of the house rather than kill it. I'd have been more convinced if he hadn't been eating a hamburger at the time...

What happened at Gitmo was not torture. It was legal. Torture has a legal meaning, and making someone uncomfortable is not it. Just as I get upset with birthers who want to ignore the law about what a natural born citizen is, I get upset with people bandying around words like torture without knowing their meaning. As a military officer, I sometimes went 60 hours without sleep. That wasn't torture. As a military officer (and ALO), I sometimes spent days living in the back end of a Humvee - not comfortable, but not torture.

Other countries have been offered a chance to take some of the Gitmo crowd (Chinese Detainees Are Men Without a Country Guantanamo Bay detention camp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but complaining is ever so much more fun than actually doing something. 

The rest of the world is free to proclaim unicorn poop because the rest of the world doesn't have to deal with the problem. When it comes time for blood to be shed, most of it will be American or British blood. (In Afghanistan, the Canadians have also fought hard, and paid dearly in blood - over 150 dead). But much of the 'civilized world' has been allowed to forget about the horror of war. I'd like to slug the PAOs and politicians who talk about surgical strikes - war is not surgery! There are evil people who supported the killing of 3000 Americans, and who would be glad to kill more British or Americans if they can. We can wait for them to try, or we can go after them. I vote for Door #2.

The alternative isn't living in the world we live in now, only free of the war on terror. We have the world we live in now - largely free of terrorism on a daily basis - because of our success in the war on terror. That war can and will go on regardless of OBL's death. We don't have a choice in that. The other side isn't going to leave us alone, just as they were not willing to leave us alone before 9/11.


----------



## JustDressageIt

Bsms, I understand that you're passionate about this subject. 
I don't want to throw a wrench in this at all- but I am curious if there are any reliable stats out there on how many civillian lives have been taken while this war has been going on in the middle east?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

A short legal review of what constitutes torture by John Yoo:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/020801.pdf

A 50 page review by Jay Bybee:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/020801.pdf

Both were written in 2002. For those who have forgotten, there were many who believed another 9/11 scale attack was likely to occur within the year.

Further:

"Since passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, the military has been restricted by law from using any technique beyond the Army Field Manual, whose 19 approved methods include tactics like “good cop-bad cop,” isolation from other prisoners and “false flag,” in which American interrogators pose as representatives of another country....

...The C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, has spoken repeatedly about the training of the interrogators and the relatively few prisoners who have been subjected to the toughest techniques. Intelligence officials have said that of about 100 prisoners held to date in the C.I.A. program, the “enhanced” techniques were used on about 30, and waterboarding used on just three."

Lawmakers Back Limits on Interrogation Tactics - New York Times

"For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director...

...The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in *breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed*, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States...

...The CIA sources described the list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques: 
1. *The Attention Grab*: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him. 
2. *The Attention Slap*: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear. 
3. *The Belly Slap*: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach... 
4. *Longtime Standing*: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions. 
5. *The Cold Cell*: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water... 
6. *Waterboarding..."*


Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA - The Blotter


----------



## bsms

JustDressageIt said:


> Bsms, I understand that you're passionate about this subject.
> I don't want to throw a wrench in this at all- but I am curious if there are any reliable stats out there on how many civillian lives have been taken while this war has been going on in the middle east?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not that I would trust, on either side of the issue. LOTS in Iraq, far fewer in Afghanistan. The idea of a war without civilian deaths is insane. That is why I hate PAOs and politicians who talk about surgical strikes. War almost always will include a lot of innocent civilians dying.

This link has pictures of the aftermath of the firebombing of Hamburg during WW2. I won't bring the pictures to this forum, but I wish politicians had to see them before contemplating war:

Defending Against the Allied Bombing Campaign: Air Raid Shelters and Gas Protection in Germany, 1939-1945

I know some of what we have done to reduce civilian deaths. I've sat in the Ops Center while viewing video from drones and listening to debates on if we know enough to be certain the people are combatants or innocent bystanders. We try very hard to avoid killing civilians. Flying over the no-fly zones of Iraq, we had to wait until we were shot at to respond...and there are reports of similar ROE in Afghanistan (I don't know for certain what the ROE is in Afghanistan now). 

I also know it isn't always possible to be so particular. What do you do when a man comes out in the open, shooting at your squad, while using his wife as a shield? That is theoretical for me, but a friend of mine faced that in Iraq. I know what the law says...

I wish I had good answers, but I don't. My Dad fought in WW2, Korea and Vietnam. Years after his death in Vietnam, my Mom told us how he would wake at night, covered with sweat, sometimes moaning - and he never told her what it was he saw in his dreams. Whatever it was, I've never had to face anything like it myself.

How do you balance the horror of war against the horror of a 9/11 attack? I do know that if it was up to me, I'd waterboard a hundred people before taking a chance on another 9/11...


----------



## Whisper22

kevinshorses said:


> I think the "rest of the world" that views Guantanamo as a war crime is the loud, obnoxious, american hating liberal press both here and internationally. In fact, under the Geneva convention, enemy combatants (people shooting at soldiers) that are not uniformed can be shot as spies immediately upon capture. No military court, no miranda rights just a bullet to the head.
> 
> The questions ask during enhanced interigation are not yes and no questions nor are they looking for a confession. They want names and aliases and adresses. These are very hard to make up under extreme stess and that is why much of the information is valuable. The U.S. Army is using all of its vast resources and know-how to prevent civilian casualties. Many soldiers have been killed because of policies restricting what tactics can be used in certain circumstances.


I like you.


----------



## franknbeans

Kevin-again-great post.

JDI-does it occur to you that perhaps, just perhaps.....BSMS is "passionate" about it because he has BEEN THERE? (HIMSELF, not a relative, years ago.) He has been part of the fight, and certainly knows much more about the subject than I ever will (and you, unless you decide to go on a vacation to the sandbox.)

Sidebar-I am a little annoyed today at the attention the press is giving to tapes that were apparently found in OBL's compound. I, personally, think we should not give him any more airtime. Showing tapes he had made just to see that he dyed his beard for public appearances is just silly, let alone the one of him in a typical "guy pose" holding the remote, watching tapes of...guess what...himself! Big shock? NOT! Cnn must have spent at least an hour today on this......**rant over** *sigh*


----------



## JustDressageIt

Bsms, it is NOT necessary to post those photos. I am well aware of what happened on 9/11, you do not have to use photos with "shock value" to convince me how horrific it was. I'm actually a little upset that you felt the need to post those photos in the first place. 
I am NEVER happy when innocent civilians die - but there HAVE been deaths on both home soil and overseas, and I mourn all of them. I am curious, compared to the ~3000 American/"our" side (for lack of a better term) civilan deaths, how many Middle Eastern civilians have been killed in this war? 
As I said before - I have (and have had) family in the military. You do NOT need to convince me that war is a horrible thing. It is. I cry every time I hear or see of something that reminds me that my brother is putting his life on the line. 
A lot of innocent people have been hurt. Period. I mourn those deaths. Period.


----------



## JustDressageIt

franknbeans said:


> JDI-does it occur to you that perhaps, just perhaps.....BSMS is "passionate" about it because he has BEEN THERE? (HIMSELF, not a relative, years ago.) He has been part of the fight, and certainly knows much more about the subject than I ever will (and you, unless you decide to go on a vacation to the sandbox.)


Why on Earth are you attacking my posts? I don't understand the animosity when I've been posting fairly neutral things. I am sad that there have been civilan deaths. I personally think it's hypocritical for one side to condemn the other for celebrating victory, but then doing it themselves and saying it's a-ok. No matter what side is doing it, I think it's wrong. 
Moreover, I'm disgusted at how certain people have jumped to conclusions on this thread and attacked others for their thoughts.


----------



## Whisper22

JustDressageIt said:


> Why on Earth are you attacking my posts? I don't understand the animosity when I've been posting fairly neutral things. I am sad that there have been civilan deaths. I personally think it's hypocritical for one side to condemn the other for celebrating victory, but then doing it themselves and saying it's a-ok. No matter what side is doing it, I think it's wrong.
> Moreover, I'm disgusted at how certain people have jumped to conclusions on this thread and attacked others for their thoughts.


I do not think it's wrong to rejoice over the death of an evil man, nor do I think it's wrong that they rejoice, as they also think WE are evil. But there is absolutely no comparison in dragging a dead body through the streets and simply chanting "America". Showing some sort of evidence that things happened in the way they say it did, because I personally have no faith in our government what so ever, and I have no doubt others feel the exact same, is not for the purpose of rejoicing or mocking, but to give myself and others the peace of mind that it is done and the government is telling the truth. You don't have to be graphic and traumatizing, there are tactful ways of doing things.


----------



## JustDressageIt

They think we are evil and rejoice just the same. That's what I'm saying. As right as we think we are, they think they're just as right. Why is it ok for "us" to rejoice a human death, and not them? 
Can't have it both ways. Can't say it's okay for "us" to celebrate a death, and not "them" because they're evil and we're not. They think the exact same thing on their end.


----------



## bsms

JustDressageIt said:


> They think we are evil and rejoice just the same. That's what I'm saying. As right as we think we are, they think they're just as right. Why is it ok for "us" to rejoice a human death, and not them?...


That is moral equivalency: that there is no moral difference between rejoicing over the deaths of 3,000 innocent people who have done you no harm, and rejoicing that a self confessed mass murderer is dead. But there is a difference, because the facts of the case are so totally different. If we were dancing in the streets because a bomb killed innocent civilians, I would agree with you. People who rejoice over the deaths of innocent people are repulsive. That is why, even during combat, we go to such lengths to avoid civilian deaths instead of glorying in them! But OBL wasn't innocent...



JustDressageIt said:


> Bsms, it is NOT necessary to post those photos. I am well aware of what happened on 9/11, you do not have to use photos with "shock value" to convince me how horrific it was. I'm actually a little upset that you felt the need to post those photos in the first place.
> I am NEVER happy when innocent civilians die - but there HAVE been deaths on both home soil and overseas, and I mourn all of them. I am curious, compared to the ~3000 American/"our" side (for lack of a better term) civilan deaths, how many Middle Eastern civilians have been killed in this war?...


I disagree. No one should start a war lightly. Once it starts, innocent people will die. So don't start a war without justification. It is worth remembering and repeating:
*
We didn't start this war! We didn't ask for it!*

In Afghanistan, we told the government to turn over Bin Laden and to drive the Taliban out, or else. They chose "or else". They were willing to have their people die to protect OBL, so that is what happened. The blame is on the Afghan Government for actively supporting terrorists who wanted to kill more Americans. 

Our choice was to either let the terrorists continue to attack us from their safe place in Afghanistan, or attack Afghanistan. We did the latter, and it was a good thing. Yes, innocent people died. Lots of innocent people died in WW2, but we could not allow Hitler to continue attacking the West, and neither could we allow terrorists harbored in Afghanistan to continue attacking us.

When the husband drug his wife out and used her as a shield so he could shoot at Americans, my friend shot and killed them both. Under the law, he had every right to do so. The woman's death was caused by her husband, not by my friend's self defense. When, with the consent of the Afghan government, the terrorists attacked the US, we had the right to self defense. The innocent who have died did so because their government supported the terrorists. 

I posted the pictures to make a very important point: We didn't want this war. We didn't start it. We fought it in self defense. And now we are building roads and schools and hospitals in an attempt - probably vain - to convince the people of Afghanistan not to let this happen again. We didn't go to Afghanistan to change their religion or culture. We didn't go there in revenge. We went there to get the Taliban, because the Taliban and the Afghan government were protecting the terrorists.


----------



## Allison Finch

bsms said:


> The prisoners captured in WW2 or Korea or Vietnam would have given their left nut to be treated as well as we treat the Club Gitmo crowd!


*Well, you didn't fight in WWII in the pacific theater. My father did. He was a flight surgeon in New Guinea. He didn't talk about it much, but in many cases the US forces didn't take prisoners while fighting island to island. That's right....no prisoners. They "disposed" of them. As in shot in the head....You need to do a little research about this little known secret.*





> "Who is they?" Well, they obviously are not everyone, since I haven't advocated nuking Afghanistan. I've explained in multiple posts on this thread that our opponents were the terrorists and the people who sheltered them - the Taliban, and at one time the Afghan government. I've argued for the Rumsfeld approach - get in, get done what we needed, and get back out quickly.


*That is exactly what they are expecting us to do, which is why they don't throw their lot in with us. We leave, the Taliban come back and terrorize the collaborators.*



> An interpreter working at one of the FOBs I was on had his entire family murdered by the Taliban - parents, wives and children. Do you think I hated him, or wanted him to die? Is there any post on this thread where I've suggesting killing everyone in Afghanistan?


*Not exactly, but you do make your distaste for the population pretty widely scattered. You don't seem to specify the Taliban.*




> But people also ought to understand what we face in Afghanistan. I didn't until 2007, because I didn't understand that many Afghans believe in the right to kill their wives and daughters. That is the sort of belief that gives rise to the terrorists, and that sort of belief doesn't change in a year or two. Changing that would require 50-100 years in Afghanistan. That is one of the reasons I think we ought to get out - we aren't going to change their beliefs, we aren't even *trying* to change their beliefs, so what is the point in remaining?


*True, they have horrible customs. But, so do our "buddies" in Saudi Arabia (where the actual terrorists who killed those 3,000 people came from). You don't see a hue and cry trying to change them, do you? They give us oil for our cooperation/protection. We will sell our souls, if the price is right, sometimes. I wish our outrage was consistent.*





> "Some reason? Some reason?!?!?!?! Maybe it is different because they came to the USA and killed 3,000 innocent people, while we went into Pakistan and killed a self confessed mass murderer! This isn't about "we hurt, they hurt". It is about protecting ourselves from future hurt by convincing those who want to hurt us that it isn't worth the cost. We didn't start the fight! *NO ONE advocated invading Afghanistan in 2001 to change their culture.*


*No? We wanted to change their whole system of government and choose their leadership.*





> Golly! Guess I missed the scenes where Barack Obama held up OBL's head, or where he chopped OBL's head off on live TV!


*I think the reference was the comparison if we had paraded the photos of the body. THAT would have been about the same thing, as well as the chanting. I still remember my horror watching the people cheering and celebrating when the towers fell. That is an image I will never forget. I'm glad our leadership took the moral high road, if not the people dancing in the streets.*



> The people chanting USA were glad that a self confessed mass murderer who was still trying to figure out how to kill more of us was caught and killed. That is not in any way morally equivalent to cheering because 3,000 innocent people who meant you no harm were murdered!


*No one said they should not have been happy. I, for one, was thrilled! Dance in the streets? no way. Did you dance in the streets when McVeigh was executed? Why not?*




> The alternative isn't living in the world we live in now, only free of the war on terror. We have the world we live in now - largely free of terrorism on a daily basis - because of our success in the war on terror. That war can and will go on regardless of OBL's death. We don't have a choice in that. The other side isn't going to leave us alone, just as they were not willing to leave us alone before 9/11.


*I spend a lot of time in Papua New Guinea. They are famous for their tribal warfare. Payback is a way of life there. So, how does it ever stop? when everyone is dead? I want Al Qeada dead and gone. I can't help it. But, if we can do it without increasing the numbers of people hating us, more the better. Do what you have to do, but do it without parading gory photos. Do it without desecrating bodies, do it without killing innocents (as best you can) and BSMS, there really are such things as innocents. I was so pleased when the president stood tall and refused to pander to the people screaming to see the bloody photos of UBL's body.*


----------



## bsms

"*Well, you didn't fight in WWII in the pacific theater. My father did. He was a flight surgeon in New Guinea. He didn't talk about it much, but in many cases the US forces didn't take prisoners while fighting island to island. That's right....no prisoners. They "disposed" of them. As in shot in the head....You need to do a little research about this little known secret.*"

I'm well aware of it. What does that have to do with my statement that many of those captured in WW2, Korea or Vietnam would have been thrilled to be taken to Club Gitmo. In fact, those shot would have preferred it too!

"*Not exactly, but you do make your distaste for the population pretty widely scattered. You don't seem to specify the Taliban.*"

I suggest you need to read more carefully. But yes, I do have a strong distaste for those who kill their family members. I guess I lack your tolerance for those little idiosyncrasies. 

"*No? We wanted to change their whole system of government and choose their leadership"

*Darn right! Their government wanted to continue protecting the terrorists who attacked us. Odd that we would consider that unacceptable, isn't it. We should have understood their hatred for us and continued to let them attack from a secure base provided by the Afghan government. < / sarcasm >

*"**Did you dance in the streets when McVeigh was executed? Why not?*"

I didn't dance in the streets when OBL died, but I sure didn't lose any sleep. Nor did I lose any sleep when McVeigh was executed. So...what makes you think I approved of McVeigh? Do you think conservatives approved of the OKC bombing? If so, why?

"* Do it without desecrating bodies, do it without killing innocents (as best you can) and BSMS, there really are such things as innocents."

*You need to put down your political hatred glasses. Only a true idiot could read my posts and miss all the references to innocent people. You don't seem to believe it, but the US military not only recognizes that there are innocents, but we work very hard to keep them alive. It would, tho, be easier if their own families didn't want to kill them after a trip to the hospital...

The US military has been a tremendous force for good in Afghanistan. I advocate our leaving, but I'm proud of how we've performed in Afghanistan.


----------



## franknbeans

"*Not exactly, but you do make your distaste for the population pretty widely scattered. You don't seem to specify the Taliban.*"

"I suggest you need to read more carefully. But yes, I do have a strong distaste for those who kill their family members. I guess I lack your tolerance for those little idiosyncrasies." 

I would also suggest that most people who have BEEN there have a general distaste for the population. Certainly true of any I know personally. Perhaps...just MAYBE....because none of them can be trusted. Even the dogs have been known to be rigged with bombs. Sad, but true. They rig women, children, animals....anything they think we might have a "soft spot" for. Again-being soft will get you killed. Period. That is a fact of war, but particularly this war. Sad, but true.

I am tired of the "bleeding hearts" accusing our guys who are over there doing their jobs as callous killers. Just like I am tired of the Rules of Engagement that basically send them over there and tie one hand behind their back. It is kill or be killed. Just like any other war.


----------



## kevinshorses

If we really wanted to get along well in the middle east and stop much of the terrorism then we would have tracked down the families of all the conspiritors of the 9/11 attacks and killed every one of them. That is how you earn respect in the middle east. You don't earn respect by showing mercy to your enemy or blundering around trying to keep from making a mess. 

That's not who we are as a country and I'm glad we didn't murder Osama's 56 siblings and thier families but that is what some of these people understand. If an Arab country had the power of the U.S. military that is EXACTLY what they would have done. They would have flattened every structure in Afganistan and raped every woman. We make a major mistake when we look at another culture that is so far removed from ours through our own morality and social ethos and think that we understand them. You have to look at a culture through the eyes of the people that live in it to truely understand it. We have not been attacked because we are big and powerful. T=It's stupid to attack something that you can see is much bigger and more powerful than you are. We are attacked because our enemies see us as Large and rich but morally corrupt and weak so they seek to take advantage of that. They stir up the masses of ignorant people by declaring that we are infidels and the great satan but make no mistake they want what we have and will kill us to get it. *When we are as "at war" with them as they are with us then terrorism will end.*


----------



## Tennessee

I find it pretty sad that there are always people out there that try to criticize America for everything. We had a victory and we're happy about it. Why is that such a bad thing? 

I read through all this, and it's interesting to see all of the different view points. I have a really good friend who lost her father in the 9/11 attacks. Now she finally has some peace and has found it easier to say goodbye. How can you look down upon someone who is happy about that? 

I was very happy to find out about his death, although I realize this could only be the beginning. If anything, this has inspired me to want to join the military even more (I have to wait until I graduate high school lol).


----------



## lovesmyhawse

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that more than a few of the people taking part in this discussion seem to be of the opinion that all or most muslims hate America, and that all muslims advocate Sharia law. 
That is simply not the case. I happen to have quite a few arab (yes... muslim even) friends, and I can guarantee, none of them share those beliefs. As I am sure neither do many if not most Afghanis. There are different types of muslims, Shiite, Sunni, and Wahabi. Wahabists being the most extreme. 
And guess what peeps.... I've got news for y'all.... There are muslims serving in your military. Protecting your country. That's right! I'm not lying!
There are actually muslims out there fighting for your rights. Keeping your country secure and safe.
They are not many, but they are there.


----------



## Allison Finch

> =franknbeans;1026903
> 
> I am tired of the "bleeding hearts" accusing our guys who are over there doing their jobs as callous killers. Just like I am tired of the Rules of Engagement that basically send them over there and tie one hand behind their back. It is kill or be killed. Just like any other war.


 
WHOA, there....!!

I have said nothing against our brave soldiers over there. Ever!am only trying to challenge those who are making blanket statements about how grateful people would be to be OUR prisoners (Not true in WWII where we executed "prisoners") or how all the people are devious and distrustful. Many have bravely given THEIR lives in their desire to improve the country at our sides. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of their culture and the way they treat their women. But, unfortunately, it IS their country. I will simply choose not to live there. I would be furious if the taliban came to MY country to tell us how to change. Or even if France did!

DO NOT tar me as a bleeding heart. I also believe in fighting a war to win it. I just think we should be very careful in choosing the causes that we send our soldiers to, Afghanistan? Yes. Iraq? No.


----------



## franknbeans

Was I addressing you directly, or are you just ASSUMING that?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

Allison Finch said:


> Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of their culture and the way they treat their women. But, unfortunately, it IS their country. I will simply choose not to live there.* I would be furious if the taliban came to MY country to tell us how to change. Or even if France did*!


That is exactly what they did to the US though. What do you think the attacks on 9/11 where for? This explains it pretty well

"Now let's consider the position of these radical and angry extremists. They have a fantasy: Living within their culture and lifestyle, practicing Islam the way they would like to, with their women cloistered from public view, covered from head to toe in abayas, chadoras, hejabs, and veils, or burkas, living off the land, following the Five Pillars of Islam, praying to Mecca five times a day, with nothing but a Koran to read, all without any influence from anything foreign to their way of life and beliefs. ​ 
And that is the rub. With electricity, radio, television, movies, newspapers, books, trade, and the Internet; the culture, clothing styles, music, stories, and sheer raw power of the outside world reaches even the remotest villages. What can anger a traditional man more than his own son wearing blue jeans and a shirt emblazoned with the logo of UCLA or some other American university? His daughter dreaming of driving her own car down Interstate 90 at 75 miles per hour or even faster on a German autobahn? Free from the tight controls of her own traditional society? And knowing that if she just makes it out to where Western values dominate, the Western governments will actually protect her right to make her own decisions in life? Whether to marry and to whom? Even to convert from Islam to Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, "New Age", or to abandon religion altogether? ​ 
How dare we! We do not force anyone to adopt our lifestyle or beliefs. But we make the suggestion of our lifestyle and beliefs available. The success of our way of life is represented by the Twin Towers over 1360 feet high! The money that we can pay for the petroleum we use that makes the likes of Osama bin Laden rich. ​ 
They just can't stand it." ​


----------



## Allison Finch

Whisper22 said:


> That is exactly what they did to the US though. What do you think the attacks on 9/11 where for? This explains it pretty well
> 
> "Now let's consider the position of these radical and angry extremists. They have a fantasy: Living within their culture and lifestyle, practicing Islam the way they would like to, with their women cloistered from public view, covered from head to toe in abayas, chadoras, hejabs, and veils, or burkas, living off the land, following the Five Pillars of Islam, praying to Mecca five times a day, with nothing but a Koran to read, all without any influence from anything foreign to their way of life and beliefs. ​
> And that is the rub. With electricity, radio, television, movies, newspapers, books, trade, and the Internet; the culture, clothing styles, music, stories, and sheer raw power of the outside world reaches even the remotest villages. What can anger a traditional man more than his own son wearing blue jeans and a shirt emblazoned with the logo of UCLA or some other American university? His daughter dreaming of driving her own car down Interstate 90 at 75 miles per hour or even faster on a German autobahn? Free from the tight controls of her own traditional society? And knowing that if she just makes it out to where Western values dominate, the Western governments will actually protect her right to make her own decisions in life? Whether to marry and to whom? Even to convert from Islam to Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, "New Age", or to abandon religion altogether? ​
> How dare we! We do not force anyone to adopt our lifestyle or beliefs. But we make the suggestion of our lifestyle and beliefs available. The success of our way of life is represented by the Twin Towers over 1360 feet high! The money that we can pay for the petroleum we use that makes the likes of Osama bin Laden rich. ​
> 
> They just can't stand it." ​


 
Actually, I agree with most of what you have said. My only divergence is that 911 was not intended in changing our *culture*, per se...It was only about inflicting pain to who they percieved to be their enemy. Bin Ladin told us to get out of the holy cities in Saudi Arabia. We didn't and he declared "war" on us as a result. It was a punishment.

What we did by getting rid of the Taliban and Bin Ladin was the right thing, IMHO. Now, however, we need a way to get out without throwing Afghanistan right back into the Taliban's hands. In my opinion, education is the only way to do it. Education that does not seek to eliminate the culture, which would alienate everyone there, but education that builds on the culture slowly enough for the culture to assimilate it.


----------



## kevinshorses

Allison Finch said:


> Actually, I agree with most of what you have said. My only divergence is that 911 was not intended in changing our *culture*, per se...It was only about inflicting pain to who they percieved to be their enemy. Bin Ladin told us to get out of the holy cities in Saudi Arabia. We didn't and he declared "war" on us as a result. It was a punishment.


Been on an airplane lately? The whole purpose of terrorism is not to punish a group of people but to change them. It seeks to gain capitulation of any sort.


----------



## lovesmyhawse

franknbeans;1026903[/B said:


> I am tired of the "bleeding hearts" accusing our guys who are over there *doing their jobs as callous killers*. Just like *I am tired of the Rules of Engagement that basically send them over there and tie one hand behind their back. It is kill or be killed. Just like any other war*.


Wow.... buddy.... is that really what you think?? 

First of all..... the guys over there (and women too I might add) are not just out there as "callous killers".... seriously that is OFFENSIVE! What an ignorant statement to make about military service members.

Secondly..... ROE are essential. You cannot just send armed troops into a country and say "of you go! Go shoot, maim, kill, at random!"... Think about it. Please!

Thirdly...... Our troops in Afghanistan are not out there killing civilians at random. Any fire that takes place is aimed at specific military targets. Please.... I invite you to read the Geneva Conventions. You might learn something.

And another thing..... We are not fighting a war in Afghanistan to impose our own ideals on their country. We are helping the Afghani government reestablish itself. So that the Afghani people can live in a democracy that will best represent THEIR ideals.

And finally.... there have been some good things that have come about as a result of this war. For one.... It has been made possible for some brave Women, to go to school now, in Aghanistan, for the first time in over a thousand years! That in itself is a significant worthwhile achievement.


----------



## franknbeans

lovesmyhawse said:


> Wow.... buddy.... is that really what you think??
> 
> First of all..... the guys over there (and women too I might add) are not just out there as "callous killers".... seriously that is OFFENSIVE! What an ignorant statement to make about military service members.
> 
> Secondly..... ROE are essential. You cannot just send armed troops into a country and say "of you go! Go shoot, maim, kill, at random!"... Think about it. Please!
> 
> Thirdly...... Our troops in Afghanistan are not out there killing civilians at random. Any fire that takes place is aimed at specific military targets. Please.... I invite you to read the Geneva Conventions. You might learn something.
> 
> And another thing..... We are not fighting a war in Afghanistan to impose our own ideals on their country. We are helping the Afghani government reestablish itself. So that the Afghani people can live in a democracy that will best represent THEIR ideals.
> 
> And finally.... there have been some good things that have come about as a result of this war. For one.... It has been made possible for some brave Women, to go to school now, in Aghanistan, for the first time in over a thousand years! That in itself is a significant worthwhile achievement.


I have no intention of arguing with you (a Canadian) about how I (an American) feel about this. As the adopted family of a Navy SEAL, I will tell you that I am MUCH more familiar than most of EXACTLY what the implications are of the ROE for the guys and girls with boots on the ground over there. I am in NO way suggesting that we need NO rules, but with all the training we put into these forces, at some point we have to let them do the job we have trained them for. In practical every day use, that is not what is happening.

As a SEAL, he was ostercized by many "bleeding hearts", including his blood relatives. There are people in this country and others who DO think they are callous killers, not the heros we have finally been seeing them as very recently on the news.

I assure you, that I know much more than you will ever want or need to know, unless, of course you are a SEAL, or related to one.


----------



## kitten_Val

lovesmyhawse said:


> We are helping the Afghani government reestablish itself. So that the Afghani people can live in a democracy that will best represent THEIR ideals.


There is no such thing as a "democracy" there. And won't be for quite long time (if ever). Just because of the customs and the way of living. And most people there don't even want "help" to represent the ideas (at least based on news NOT just from US, but from Europe and some other parts of the world). 

IF the terrorism war was indeed why it all started for then there should be other countries to start with, not Iraq and Afghan. And again I don't think there will be a victory in this war - people are dying for nothing from both sides. It'd be much more effective not to let all of them in here (hey, now US let more immigrants from those countries in BTW) and put a full economical blockage on those countries. 

I did read while back China created a list of "dangerous" countries (like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, eta-eta-eta) citizens of which are NOT allowed to fly on Chinese lines. China was badly criticized by other countries (including US) for "not being democratic". They didn't care though. THAT's the way to go IMHO. There is NO democracy when it comes to blowing out innocent people (whether it's 9/11 or bomb in subway).


----------



## lovesmyhawse

*I assure you, that I know much more than you will ever want or need to know, unless, of course you are a SEAL, or related to one. *

Read more: http://www.horseforum.com/general-o...-killed-its-about-85493/page20/#ixzz1MF4spii8

****! Oooohhhh.... I see. Knowing, or being related to someone who is a SEAL (Our equivalent here in Canada is the JTF, btw) Is the equivalent to getting an education. Right! That is the finest bit of ******* logic I have ever heard! 
But just in case you are not aware, we Canadians are currently leading operations in Afghanistan. I spend everyday, working with people who have done tours in Afghanistan. I am an NCM in the Canadian military. I am studying to earn my comission, and I took a course in military law last year.

And I promise you. We Canadians feel every bit as strongly about the events of 911 as Americans. In case you have'nt noticed our borders are not that far apart. Our men and women are dying in the fight over there, the same as yours.

And I mention once again.... calling military service members "callous killers" is IGNORANT and OFFENSIVE!


----------



## bsms

lovesmyhawse said:


> *...*And I mention once again.... calling military service members "callous killers" is IGNORANT and OFFENSIVE!


The actual quote was "I am tired of the "bleeding hearts" accusing our guys who are over there *doing their jobs as callous killers*."

There are some who DO believe the soldiers there are killers, but I haven't seen anyone on this thread make the accusation. Certainly not franknbeans*.* I do have heartburn with the ROE, if what I heard is true.



kitten_Val said:


> ...IF the terrorism war was indeed why it all started for then there should be other countries to start with, not Iraq and Afghan. And again I don't think there will be a victory in this war - people are dying for nothing from both sides...


Afghanistan was definitely about terror. We offered them a chance to turn over Bin Laden and shut down the camps, but the Afghan government refused. Letting OBL stay in Afghanistan and letting his terrorists train unopposed there was not acceptable.

Changing Afghan culture would take 50+ years, minimum. Convincing them we are not evil, but that we have the ability to go after those who attack us? That shouldn't take so long. In fact, I think we already done about as much as we can along those lines, which is why I'd like to see us get out, or at least reduce our presence. Afghan culture is very xenophobic, and a heavy presence is probably counter-productive. IMHO. But I was there in 2007, and have no current knowledge of how things are going. My son is there now, but he doesn't discuss military stuff with his family (nor should he).


----------



## ella

the news are now saying he had huge amounts of porn in his hideout lol


----------



## franknbeans

bsms said:


> The actual quote was "I am tired of the "bleeding hearts" accusing our guys who are over there *doing their jobs as callous killers*."
> 
> There are some who DO believe the soldiers there are killers, but I haven't seen anyone on this thread make the accusation. Certainly not franknbeans*.* I do have heartburn with the ROE, if what I heard is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Afghanistan was definitely about terror. We offered them a chance to turn over Bin Laden and shut down the camps, but the Afghan government refused. Letting OBL stay in Afghanistan and letting his terrorists train unopposed there was not acceptable.
> 
> Changing Afghan culture would take 50+ years, minimum. Convincing them we are not evil, but that we have the ability to go after those who attack us? That shouldn't take so long. In fact, I think we already done about as much as we can along those lines, which is why I'd like to see us get out, or at least reduce our presence. Afghan culture is very xenophobic, and a heavy presence is probably counter-productive. IMHO. But I was there in 2007, and have no current knowledge of how things are going. My son is there now, but he doesn't discuss military stuff with his family (nor should he).


 
Thank you BSMS.. At least someone can actually comprehend what they read. I would NEVER say a bad word about any of our troops. But, as you said, apparently more clearly than I was able to, there are those who think our troops are callous killers. They cannot trust anyone, man, woman, child or even dog in this war, and many times have to risk being blown up instead of shooting them on sight since many times they are rigged with IED's.

I have no intention of defending what I know as a result of my relationship with a SEAL, especially, and no offense intended, to a person who is trying to compare other troops to the SEALs. There IS no comparison. PERIOD. Why do you think they are ALWAYS the ones who do this stuff? Yeah, they work with CIA, Rangers, etc, but they truly are the best of the best. Most of you will never be fortunate enough to know one. I only wish he were still around. 

You can read whatever you want, I prefer to go with what I have been told by those who actually have been there, done that, for nearly 20 yrs, thank you. You believe what you want, as will I.:wink:


----------



## franknbeans

lovesmyhawse said:


> *I assure you, that I know much more than you will ever want or need to know, unless, of course you are a SEAL, or related to one. *
> 
> Read more: http://www.horseforum.com/general-o...-killed-its-about-85493/page20/#ixzz1MF4spii8
> 
> ****! Oooohhhh.... I see. Knowing, or being related to someone who is a SEAL (Our equivalent here in Canada is the JTF, btw) Is the equivalent to getting an education. Right! That is the finest bit of ******* logic I have ever heard!
> But just in case you are not aware, we Canadians are currently leading operations in Afghanistan. I spend everyday, working with people who have done tours in Afghanistan. I am an NCM in the Canadian military. I am studying to earn my comission, and I took a course in military law last year.
> 
> And I promise you. We Canadians feel every bit as strongly about the events of 911 as Americans. In case you have'nt noticed our borders are not that far apart. Our men and women are dying in the fight over there, the same as yours.
> 
> And I mention once again.... calling military service members "callous killers" is IGNORANT and OFFENSIVE!


You are ridiculous. Nothing short of that. Please read the above post, and then, perhaps a remedial reading comprehension course would help.

I am well aware of where the borders are, as well as how truly "involved" your troops are. I do believe we have you outnumbered. MANY TIMES OVER.

You inferring that I am anything short of supportive of our troops, past and present, as well as what they do AND calling me a ******* along with it is what is IGNORANT and OFFENSIVE.


----------



## JustDressageIt

Amazing how a few posts can completely change one's opinion of someone. 
Franknbeans: I have an opinion that matters just as much as yours. You flippant, dismissive attitude is really quite shocking.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

There's a reason boys are told to avoid politics and religion when talking to their girlfriend's parents...


----------



## franknbeans

JustDressageIt said:


> Amazing how a few posts can completely change one's opinion of someone.
> Franknbeans: I have an opinion that matters just as much as yours. You flippant, dismissive attitude is really quite shocking.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am done. I was not addressing you. But, whatever. I am called a ******* as well as other things, by people who take my comments out of context, and cannot seem to comprehend what they read, but I am flippant?? Really. Hmm. 

Guess that must mean I am flippant about the SEAL I dearly loved being DEAD TOO??? Until you have been there, again,I say you do not know. But, sometimes those who do not know what they do not know are the worst. (might have to read that sentence REALLY carefully so that you undersatand it).:wink:

I have no idea who your opinion has been changed about, but, so be it. We will have to agree to disagree. To continue to beat my head against a brick wall is fruitless.


----------



## kitten_Val

lovesmyhawse said:


> And I mention once again.... calling military service members "callous killers" is IGNORANT and OFFENSIVE!


Granted I didn't go through ALL pages, but on those I've read I haven't seen a _slight hint_ on it from anyone here.


----------



## Allison Finch

franknbeans said:


> I have no intention of defending what I know as a result of my relationship with a SEAL, especially, and no offense intended, to a person who is trying to compare other troops to the SEALs. There IS no comparison. PERIOD. Why do you think they are ALWAYS the ones who do this stuff? Yeah, they work with CIA, Rangers, etc, but they truly are the best of the best. Most of you will never be fortunate enough to know one. I only wish he were still around.
> 
> :wink:


One of my good friends is retired DELTA force and one of the president's 100 (if you even *know* what that is). To say SEALS are the only tactical team worth anything is just too much and shows what little you know.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

You people bloody terrify me. Nothing like this event to show the true colors. I am for justice, I am for punishment, I am for repaying your debt when you have done wrong regardless of the scale. But some of these comments make my jaw drop how typically sensible people can be SO unbelievably hypocritical and so venomous to anyone who disagrees.

The blood on the hands of America and Canada and _every other bloody country _is repugnant. Nobody is innocent. To suggest that there is no moral equivalence makes you just as ignorant as the enemy. The blood shed in the Middle East at the hands of the so called "innocent country" is no less then the blood that was spilled on 9/11. Innocent people die every single day on BOTH SIDES.

The slaughter and the horror and the maiming in the name of religion or power or money or anything other reason has been occurring since the beginning of time. The idea that "you did it to me, so you deserve it back" is so childish it's beyond words. It's one thing when you're taking down the enemy, it's a complete other to take INNOCENT lives and actually JUSTIFY it with "he killed our innocent people, so it's ok to kill his."

Disgusting. A Muslim life is not worth any less then an American or Canadian one. The hypocrisy of democracy at it's very finest.


----------



## bsms

MacabreMikolaj said:


> You people bloody terrify me. Nothing like this event to show the true colors. I am for justice, I am for punishment, I am for repaying your debt when you have done wrong regardless of the scale. But some of these comments make my jaw drop how typically sensible people can be SO unbelievably hypocritical and so venomous to anyone who disagrees.
> 
> The blood on the hands of America and Canada and _every other bloody country _is repugnant. Nobody is innocent. To suggest that there is no moral equivalence makes you just as ignorant as the enemy. The blood shed in the Middle East at the hands of the so called "innocent country" is no less then the blood that was spilled on 9/11. Innocent people die every single day on BOTH SIDES.
> 
> The slaughter and the horror and the maiming in the name of religion or power or money or anything other reason has been occurring since the beginning of time. The idea that "you did it to me, so you deserve it back" is so childish it's beyond words. It's one thing when you're taking down the enemy, it's a complete other to take INNOCENT lives and actually JUSTIFY it with "he killed our innocent people, so it's ok to kill his."
> 
> Disgusting. A Muslim life is not worth any less then an American or Canadian one. The hypocrisy of democracy at it's very finest.


Without a military or the right to fight a war, there would be no United States. If the USA could not fight wars now, there would be no USA. You may not agree with concepts of just war, but in the real world, no war means no freedom. There is no democracy without the ability to wage war to defend our way of life from attack.

Thru war, we gained our freedom. Thru war, we ended slavery in the US. Thru war, we ended Nazi Germany. And thru the threat of war, we prevent uncounted acts of violence against us and our citizens.

Wars do kill civilians. But there is a difference between those who target civilians, and those who try to minimize civilian deaths. No one in the USA is killing civilians anywhere and claiming "you did it to me, so you deserve it back"

If we had used that as our basis, there would be no Afghanistan. Or we would have destroyed Kabul from the air and said, "Take that!"

There is no moral equivalence between those who came here to kill our civilians, and those who went to Afghanistan to stop them from continuing. There is no moral equivalence between those who invaded Kuwait and those who drove them out. There is no moral equivalence between Saddam Hussein and George Bush, or OBL and GWB.

There is only moral blindness that would allow evil to flourish unchecked.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

I am not so stupid as to not realize that war is a necessary evil, and must be waged in times of great distress for the better protection of the good.

I am saying innocent blood is innocent blood, and regardless of WHY, there is no moral innocence in war. Osama had reasons for doing what he did in the name of whatever he believed in, and a large chunk of that was triggered by what the USA was ALREADY doing in the Middle East. To try and act like he went bat**** crazy and just decided to kill a bunch of people with absolutely no provocation is ignorant.

I fail to understand how Hiroshima was much different. Oh because they struck first? That's a bloody fantastic reason to obliterate an urban CITY and leave it's residents still dying from the after effects decades later. THAT'S not evil? That is winning war at any cost, and the cost was huge, or does it not count when it's America dishing it out?

Losing compassion and losing the ability to care that INNOCENT people have died on both sides of this war makes you just as evil and incapable of understanding as the enemy.


----------



## bsms

Osama Bin Laden had no reason to target innocent people. He did NOT target our people in Saudi Arabia. He did NOT go after our military folks. He deliberately targeted civilians in an office building as easier to kill.

We do not. Not in any way. We go to great lengths to avoid civilian deaths.

I think there is a significant moral difference in someone who wants to kill civilians, and someone who targets enemy soldiers. OBL did the former, we do the latter - thus no moral equivalence.

There is also a difference in goals. OBL's goal is to make us all subject to Islam. Our goal is to be left alone. His goal is purely offensive. He isn't asking for the right to believe, but to impose his beliefs on others - or to kill them. We are NOT trying to impose our beliefs, but to prevent terrorists a safe haven from which to attack and kill us. Different goals results in no moral equivalence.

I'm sorry to hear you would have preferred an invasion of Japan. You might want to read up on the Battle for Okinawa before writing about how Americans used nukes as a way to get revenge on Japan. It wasn't a choice between 1) bomb or 2) live in peace and harmony. Our goal was unconditional surrender. It was a reasonable goal, given who was in power. We did what we needed to get unconditional surrender, then stopped.

"Losing compassion and losing the ability to care that INNOCENT people have died on both sides of this war makes you just as evil and incapable of understanding as the enemy."

No. Again, there is a difference between targeting civilians, and targeting enemy soldiers. And there is a difference in fighting to impose your beliefs on others, and to defend your right to believe as you wish. No amount of unicorn poop will give us freedom. We have it because men (and women) and fought and died for it. You have it because others have fought for you. Without those soldiers - who to you are no different from the terrorists - you would be under sharia law. Maybe you are willing to do that in the name of peace, but I'm not willing for my wife and daughters to live under it. So I have fought, my son is there now, and I'm happy OBL is in hell!


----------



## franknbeans

Thanks BSMS, good post. I am a bit surprised that the ones who seem to feel the strongest and think they know so much are the Canadians.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

franknbeans said:


> Thanks BSMS, good post. I am a bit surprised that the ones who seem to feel the strongest and think they know so much are the Canadians.


I am going to refrain from what I really want to say to you and just remind you OUR people are dying in this as well. How dare you suggest we have no right to an opinion.


----------



## franknbeans

MacabreMikolaj said:


> I am going to refrain from what I really want to say to you and just remind you OUR people are dying in this as well. How dare you suggest we have no right to an opinion.


Good, since that is NOT what I said, or suggested. **head-desk**


----------



## Tennessee

franknbeans said:


> Thanks BSMS, good post. I am a bit surprised that the ones who seem to feel the strongest and think they know so much are the Canadians.


 
Oh I agree with this completely. I also don't like that they assume that just because they've got people serving over there with us that they know it all (and I'd like to add that their deployed numbers to Afghanistan were only in the tens of thousands, whereas our numbers reached the million point, if not more).


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Even people in the US assume they know the military inside and out just because we have troops there or they know someone who is serving.

I really don't understand the hostility. :? I don't think anyone here is saying that world peace is possible or that war is avoidable. What I am understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is that a civilian life lost is tragic regardless of what country that life holds citizenship in.


----------



## Tennessee

Spastic_Dove said:


> For the record, our current deployment is around:
> 
> Iraq - Approximately 50,000 US personnel (advisors) as of 19 Aug, 2010.
> Afghanistan – Approximately 98,000 US personnel as of 25 Aug, 2010.
> 
> Not really millions...
> 
> 
> Even people in the US assume they know the military inside and out just because we have troops there or they know someone who is serving.


 
955,609 (about 36%) of our total Active Duty/Reserve/National Guard forces have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan 

At one point in time when our focus was mainly in Iraq, we had about 150,000 serving there AT ONE POINT continuously.


----------



## lovesmyhawse

Navy SEALs are NCMs who are selected to become SEALs... or JTF as they are called here in Canada. It is not rare to meet a SEAL or JTF member, when you are in the military. But considering they are bound by contract and by law, not to reveal anything about their operations or training, I find it interesting that you claim to know so much about those things, simply from knowing a former SEAL.

And Frankandbeans, I sincerely apologise if I misunderstood what you had meant. I thought YOU were calling military members callous killers.

And yes, your military is larger than ours. For obvious reasons, the population in Canada is just over 33 million, much less than the U.S.

But do to our smaller numbers, we are better trained. My trade alone is divided into something like 8 different trades in the American military. 

I think it is also worth noting, that the first 11 Canadians killed in Afghanistan were killed in a "friendly fire" incident. 
Because an American bomber jet accidently dropped a bomb on us.

The american military has a high rate of "friendly fire" incidents. Mostly only involving your own troops.

The Canadian military has never been the cause of a "friendly fire" incident.


----------



## JustDressageIt

Right, because we don't read up and "know" just as much as the Americans? Why? Because there's a border between us, certain information doesn't get passed to us? Because we aren't American, we aren't as edumacated? 
Give me a flipping break. Informed Canadians know just as much as informed Americans. There are Americans (and I must put this disclaimer, Canadians too) that don't know the first thing about the war currently being fought. 
To say that we don't know anything (or our opinions don't count as much) because we're Canadian is quite probably one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on this board.
We are backing your behinds in this war. Good to know you're grateful for the support and help.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Sorry Tennesse, I edited because I realized you meant total, not current deployment. My bad.


----------



## Tennessee

Spastic_Dove said:


> Sorry Tennesse, I edited because I realized you meant total, not current deployment. My bad.


 
Oh. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


----------



## Shasta1981

Yikes, guys. I'm not sue how this thread turned in this direction but Canada is not the enemy here. They are our allies. Personally, I would be thankful if Canada only had one soldier who fought in this war, just as Im thankful for each soldier from the U.S.


----------



## lovesmyhawse

Noting how many American troops are in Iraq, really proves nothing either. The Canadian military never went into Iraq. That is your war. Not ours. 
We are in Afghanistan because of a little thing called NORAD. There was never an attack on American soil from Iraq, so we have no cause to join that battle.


----------



## lovesmyhawse

Whoops... sorry, not NORAD. 
Because of our NATO treaty.

And my bad again.... I just found out that there have been incidents involving the canadian army.
I guess we all make mistakes. )


----------



## Allison Finch

bsms said:


> We do not. Not in any way. We go to great lengths to avoid civilian deaths.



Wrong!!

I preface this by saying I love this country and, after traveling all over the world, there is no other place for me. BUT....

Our country has a LONG history of killing innocent civilians, sometimes just because they were nuisances. We sent woolen blankets to native american tribe in an effort to create genocide. The entire Mandan Nation is now extinct as a result.

We have a history of civilian massacres, one well known one is Mi Lai. No way you can tell me that naked child running for its life just before it was machine gunned was an enemy combatant. Or those women and children gathered in the village center who were machine gunned.

One of the two Japanese cities vaporized by the bomb was an industrial city. The other was NOT. It was solely civilian. We bombed it to terrorize the Japanese people into surrender.

I don't need to go on. I love this country, but am not blind to our transgressions. DON'T paint us as the complete moral white knights. It makes you look foolish and hypocritical.


----------



## Allison Finch

bsms said:


> I'm sorry to hear you would have preferred an invasion of Japan. You might want to read up on the Battle for Okinawa before writing about how Americans used nukes as a way to get revenge on Japan.



Were YOU there? My father was. AND, that was one of the many instances where we did not bother to take prisoners, when they were captured or surrendered. We put a bullet in their heads. Hmmmmmm.....


----------



## Whisper22

Allison Finch said:


> Wrong!!
> 
> I preface this by saying I love this country and, after traveling all over the world, there is no other place for me. BUT....
> 
> Our country has a LONG history of killing innocent civilians, sometimes just because they were nuisances. We sent woolen blankets to native american tribe in an effort to create genocide. The entire Mandan Nation is now extinct as a result.
> 
> We have a history of civilian massacres, one well known one is Mi Lai. No way you can tell me that naked child running for its life just before it was machine gunned was an enemy combatant. Or those women and children gathered in the village center who were machine gunned.
> 
> One of the two Japanese cities vaporized by the bomb was an industrial city. The other was NOT. It was solely civilian. We bombed it to terrorize the Japanese people into surrender.
> 
> I don't need to go on. I love this country, but am not blind to our transgressions. DON'T paint us as the complete moral white knights. It makes you look foolish and hypocritical.


Things change, people change, laws change. What you are saying might have been true in the past, what bsms is saying is true right now.


----------



## Allison Finch

franknbeans said:


> Good, since that is NOT what I said, or suggested. **head-desk**


Of course that is what you have insinuated all through this thread. You have bashed Canadians and made light of their efforts in this situation. And quite rudely on a couple of occasions.


----------



## bsms

Allison Finch said:


> ...Our country has a LONG history of killing innocent civilians, sometimes just because they were nuisances. We sent woolen blankets to native american tribe in an effort to create genocide. The entire Mandan Nation is now extinct as a result.
> 
> We have a history of civilian massacres, one well known one is Mi Lai...
> 
> One of the two Japanese cities vaporized by the bomb was an industrial city. The other was NOT. It was solely civilian. We bombed it to terrorize the Japanese people into surrender.
> 
> I don't need to go on. I love this country, but am not blind to our transgressions. DON'T paint us as the complete moral white knights. It makes you look foolish and hypocritical.


You post doesn't paint you in a very informed light, either. We gave blankets in an attempt at genocide against the Mandan? I suppose you also believe GWB flew planes into the WTC!

"The *smallpox epidemic* that ravaged the people of the Great Plains in 1837 and 1838 was believed to have begun in spring of 1837 when a deckhand became ill aboard an American Fur Company steamboat named S.S. St. Peter.[1] The steamboat traveling up the Missouri River to Fort Union from St. Louis, docked at Fort Clark near the two earth-lodge villages of the Mandan people on June 18, 1837. The disease spread to the Mandan people.[2] In July 1837, the Mandan numbered no more than 2,000, by October that number had dwindled to 138. On August 11, Francis Chadron, a trader at Fort Clark, wrote,“I Keep no a/c of the dead, as they die so fast it is impossible”.[3]"

Maybe you should learn about history from someone other than a fake Indian like Ward Churchill.

"The Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado at Boulder reviewed a claim by Ward Churchill, comparing to the cited source his claim that in 1837 the United States Army deliberately infected Mandan Indians by distributing blankets that had been exposed to smallpox, and reported "Professor Churchill therefore misrepresents what Thornton says." Most other historians who have looked at the same event disagree with Churchill's interpretation of the historical evidence, and believe no deliberate introduction of smallpox occurred at the time and place Churchill claimed it had."

1837?1838 smallpox epidemic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also see:

Ward Churchill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for My Lai:

It was a war crime. Nixon was wrong to let Calley go. And while it was investigated, proving a war crime in a court of law isn't as easy as it sounds. Medina was tried and found 'not guilty'. Most of the soldiers who did the killing were out of the military and could not be court-martialled.

"A 1955 Supreme Court decision, _Toth vs Quarles_, held that military courts cannot try former members of the armed services "no matter how intimate the connection between the offense and the concerns of military discipline." 

An Account of the My Lai Courts-Martial

"Five months after he had been honorably discharged from the United States Air Force and had returned to his home and was privately employed, an ex-serviceman was arrested by military authorities on charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder while he was an airman in Korea. When arrested, he had no relationship of any kind with the military. Under authority of Art. 3(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he was taken to Korea to stand trial before a court-martial. _Held:_ He could not constitutionally be subjected to trial by court-martial."

United States v. Quarles

Getting convictions in a civilian court would have been even harder.

So has a war crime ever been committed by US forces? Yes, and more than once. Has it been US policy? No. Does the current military get lectured a lot about My Lai at Squadron Officer School or Air Command and Staff College (if USAF)? Yes. And no, it is not held up as an example to follow...

Did we bomb Japan with the goal of making an invasion unnecessary? Darn right, and it was worth it.



Allison Finch said:


> Were YOU there? My father was. AND, that was one of the many instances where we did not bother to take prisoners, when they were captured or surrendered. We put a bullet in their heads. Hmmmmmm.....


Darn right again. Anyone who knows anything about the war in the Pacific would know that taking Japanese prisoners was a high risk activity. Taking Japanese prisoners during a vicious battle was even more dangerous. If you haven't thought about what it involved to capture, disarm and transport Japanese captured in WW2, try it before you condemn those who didn't bother.

Okinawa cost us 12,000 soldiers dead and 50,000 wounded. Roughly 100,000 Japanese soldiers died. Estimates of civilian dead on Okinawa run around 100-150,000. That was roughly 1/4 of the civilian population. With 70 million for a population, similar losses in 1945 would have run 17 million dead civilians if we invaded Japan and had similar loss of civilian life. Most thought the loss would be higher, with the Japanese Army even more dangerous than it was in defending Okinawa.

And look what followed the defeat of Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan: the Marshall Plan. You might want to read up on it...then get back with me on our war crimes against Japan.

Now lets jump into the current world - Afghanistan. We're busting our butts to prevent civilian deaths, and were doing so when I was there in 2007. We are NOT shooting prisoners, in part because we have the ability to safely take them. A member of my extended family DID shoot a pregnant woman (in Iraq), but she was wired with explosives so it wasn't a war crime.

Current reports of the ROE is that we must be shot at before we can fire back. (That was also the ROE when I was patrolling Iraq before GW2) And we can be certain enemy soldiers are in a building, but not be allowed to destroy the building for fear of hurting civilians. Ever heard of a war fought like that? Not very darn often!

"DON'T paint us as the complete moral white knights."

We are not perfect, but we're better than anyone else has ever been. Take a look at Germany, Japan and Korea - we were amazing in victory. Take a look at Vietnam - we lost, and millions died at the hands of the communists. GW1 & GW2 were fought with amazing concern for civilian life, and contrary to the left, we haven't occupied Iraq and stolen their oil. We're building schools and roads and hospitals in Afghanistan, and I'm glad we are - but it isn't the way very many others have ever fought a war! We are *NOT IN ANY WAY* the moral equivalent of the Taliban or the terrorists!


----------



## Allison Finch

Early Bioterrorism and Native Americans

Smallpox, Indians, and Germ Warfare

Personally, I don't refer much to Wiki.

STARVATION AT REMAGEN

After the capture of the Remagen Bridge, the US Army hastily erected around 19 Prisoner of War cages around the bridge-head to hold an estimated one million prisoners. The camps were simply open fields surrounded by concertina wire. Those at the Rhine Meadows were situated at Remagen, Bad Kreuznach, Andernach, Buderich, Rheinbach and Sinzig. The German prisoners were hopeful of good treatment from the GIs but in this they were sadly disappointed. Herded into the open spaces like cattle, some were beaten and mistreated. No tents or toilets were supplied. The camps became huge latrines, a sea of urine from one end to the other. They had to sleep in holes in the ground which they dug with their bare hands. In the Bad Kreuznach cage, 560,000 men were interned in an area that could only comfortably hold 45,000. Denied enough food and water, they were forced to eat the grass under their feet and the camps soon became a sea of mud. After the concentration camps were discovered, their treatment became worse as the GIs vented their rage on the hapless prisoners.

In the five camps around Bretzenheim, prisoners had to survive on 600-850 calories per day. With bloated bellies and teeth falling out, they died by the thousands. During the two and a half months (April-May, 1945) when the camps were under American control, a total of 18,100 prisoners died from malnutrition, disease and exposure. This extremely harsh treatment at the hands of the Americans resulted in the deaths of over 50,000 German prisoners-of-war in the Rhine Meadows camps alone in the months just before and after the war ended. It must however be borne in mind that with the best will in the world it proved almost impossible to care for such a huge number of prisoners under the strict terms of the Geneva Convention. The task of guarding these prisoners, numbering around 920,000, fell to the men of the US 106th Infantry Division. The Remagen cage was set up to accommodate 100,000 men but ended up with twice that number. On the first afternoon 35,000 prisoners were counted through the gate. About 10,000 of these required urgent medical attention which in most cases was completely absent. All roads leading to the camps were clogged with hundreds of trucks bringing in even more prisoners, sent to the rear by the advancing 9th US Army. By April 15, 1945, 1.3 million prisoners were in American hands. At war's end, 1,056,482 German prisoners were held in US camps in Europe, 692,895 were classified as Prisoners of War and 365,587 classified as DEF's (Disarmed Enemy Forces) In May, 1945, the number of prisoners held in Allied camps in northern Europe numbered 5,235,700.

Tourists, cruising down the Rhine today can pick out a small memorial and plaque built on the site of the former POW cage. In the Remagen cemetery there are 1,200 graves and at Bad Kreuznach, 1,000 graves.


THE TERRIBLE CONDITIONS AT THE SINZIG CAMP

HOW MANY?

Just how many German POWs died in Allied camps? For over forty years we have been told that many hundreds of thousands of German soldiers had died in Soviet prison camps while at the same time keeping quiet about the number of prisoners who had died in American, French and British camps. In 1997, around 1.1 million German soldiers were still officially listed as missing. According to the recently opened Soviet archives, which have been proved to be extremely precise and detailed, the Red Army captured 2,389,560 German soldiers. Of these, 423,168 died in captivity. In October, 1951, the West German government stated in the United Nations that 1.1 million soldiers had not returned home. In other words, we were led to believe they had died in Soviet camps. If we subtract the proven number of deaths in Soviet camps from the missing in Germany we arrive at the figure of around 677,000. Where are these men?. They must have been interned by the western Allies, the greatest majority being held in American and French camps where they died in their thousands through deliberate starvation, disease and hard work.

The standards set by the Geneva Convention were, in most cases, totally ignored by the Americans and French in relation to their treatment of German prisoners-of-war. The French deliberately starved many of their POWs in order to force them to join the French Foreign Legion. Thousands of Legionnaires who fought in the Vietnam conflict were Germans, handed over by the Americans to the French in 1945/46 to work as slave labourers in the rebuilding of France's war damaged cities. Conditions in the French camps were just as bad if not worse than in the American camps. It is estimated that at least 167,000 German soldiers died in French captivity between 1945 and 1948.

Again, ALL I say is that we are just human, bad and good alike. We should not try to tell people we hold the moral high ground on all occasions. We need to NEVER stop asking OURSELVES if we should be participating where, how and why.


----------



## bsms

Personally, I don't pay much attention to Ward Churchill.

And maybe Wiki would help you:

"After the failure of the Ardennes offensive 250,000 German soldiers surrendered. After the breakdown of the Ruhr pocket another 325,000 were taken prisoner. After capitulation there were 3.4 million German soldiers in the custody of the Western Allies. With such large numbers of prisoners, it seemed more logical to keep them in Germany. The camps were founded in April 1945 and remained in existence until September...

...In these camps 5,000 of 500,000 inmates died... In total, the number of American-held German POWs that died could not have exceeded 1% (56,000).[9] The death rates for German POWs held by Americans were lower than every other country except another Allied member, Britain."

For American POWs held by the Japanese, the figure was 33%.

Rheinwiesenlager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Allison Finch

bsms said:


> Personally, I don't pay much attention to Ward Churchill.
> 
> And maybe Wiki would help you:
> 
> 
> Rheinwiesenlager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


YOU quoted Churchill, not me. I quoted Amherst with quotes HE made admitting what he did.

I still find it interesting that you touted how well we upheld the Geneva Conv. when dealing with other signers, but them turn around and praise when we flaunted the GC. You simply can't have it both ways.

You say it is OK to slaughter anyone whose country did not sign? Wow....simply wow.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

Anyone who touts WIKIPEDIA as a reliable source has already shown their true merit at any debate or intellectual conversation.

Thank you for that read Allison.


----------



## bsms

Allison Finch said:


> YOU quoted Churchill, not me. I quoted Amherst with quotes HE made admitting what he did.
> 
> I still find it interesting that you touted how well we upheld the Geneva Conv. when dealing with other signers, but them turn around and praise when we flaunted the GC. You simply can't have it both ways.
> 
> You say it is OK to slaughter anyone whose country did not sign? Wow....simply wow.


You wrote:



Allison Finch said:


> ...Our country has a LONG history of killing innocent civilians, sometimes just because they were nuisances. We sent woolen blankets to native american tribe in an effort to create genocide. The entire Mandan Nation is now extinct as a result...


That was nonsense pushed by Ward Churchill. It didn't happen. You also cite a pre-Revolutionary War letter advocating the use of infected blankets without bothering to understand the context of the times. If you would bother to read the history of warfare in colonial times, you would find the Indians who allied with the French were far more than "nuisances". It was a bitter fight on both sides long before the Geneva Conventions.

I know you dislike Wiki, perhaps because it makes it so easy to show what you don't want to discuss:

"The war began in May 1763 when Native Americans, offended by the policies of British General Jeffrey Amherst, attacked a number of British forts and settlements. Eight forts were destroyed, and hundreds of colonists were killed or captured, with many more fleeing the region. Hostilities came to an end after British Army expeditions in 1764 led to peace negotiations over the next two years. Native Americans were unable to drive away the British, but the uprising prompted the British government to modify the policies that had provoked the conflict.

Warfare on the North American frontier was brutal, and the killing of prisoners, the targeting of civilians, and other atrocities were widespread. In what is now perhaps the best-known incident of the war, British officers at Fort Pitt attempted to infect the besieging Native Americans with smallpox using blankets that had been exposed to the virus...

...Colonists in western Pennsylvania fled to the safety of Fort Pitt after the outbreak of the war. Nearly 550 people crowded inside, including more than 200 women and children.[59] Simeon Ecuyer, the Swiss-born British officer in command, wrote that "We are so crowded in the fort that I fear disease…; the smallpox is among us."[60] Fort Pitt was attacked on June 22, 1763, primarily by Delawares. Too strong to be taken by force, the fort was kept under siege throughout July. Meanwhile, Delaware and Shawnee war parties raided deep into Pennsylvania, taking captives and killing unknown numbers of settlers in scattered farms. Two smaller strongholds that linked Fort Pitt to the east, Fort Bedford and Fort Ligonier, were sporadically fired upon throughout the conflict, but were never taken.[61]
Before the war, Amherst had dismissed the possibility that the Native Americans would offer any effective resistance to British rule, but that summer he found the military situation becoming increasingly grim. He ordered subordinates to "immediately ... put to death" captured enemy Native American warriors. To Colonel Henry Bouquet at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who was preparing to lead an expedition to relieve Fort Pitt, Amherst wrote on about June 29, 1763: "Could it not be contrived to send the small pox among the disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them."[62]"

Pontiac's War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's see...besieged fort with over 200 women and children, those inside are dying to smallpox, and the fort commander was willing to try to spread it to the attackers. The context makes it look a bit different than what you presented. The fort was relieved after a two month siege. Would you like to hazard a guess what would have happened to those inside if it had fallen?

And how did that war go? "The total loss of life resulting from Pontiac's War is unknown. About 400 British soldiers were killed in action and perhaps 50 were captured and tortured to death.[90] George Croghan estimated that 2,000 settlers had been killed or captured, a figure sometimes repeated as 2,000 settlers _killed_.[91] The violence compelled approximately 4,000 settlers from Pennsylvania and Virginia to flee their homes.[92] Native American losses went mostly unrecorded, but it has been estimated that about 200 warriors were killed in battle, with additional war-related deaths if germ warfare initiated at Fort Pitt was successful."

Now, when have we flaunted the Geneva Conventions?

"The standards set by the Geneva Convention were, in most cases, totally ignored by the Americans and French in relation to their treatment of German prisoners-of-war. The French deliberately starved many of their POWs in order to force them to join the French Foreign Legion. Thousands of Legionnaires who fought in the Vietnam conflict were Germans, handed over by the Americans to the French in 1945/46 to work as slave labourers in the rebuilding of France's war damaged cities. Conditions in the French camps were just as bad if not worse than in the American camps. It is estimated that at least 167,000 German soldiers died in French captivity between 1945 and 1948."

From the dreaded Wiki:

% of POWs who died:

Italian POWs held by Soviets 84.5% 
Russian POWs held by Germans 57.5% 
German POWs held by Soviets 35.8% 
American POWs held by Japanese 33.0% 
German POWs held by Eastern Europeans 32.9% 
British POWs held by Japanese 24.8% 
British POWs held by Germans 3.5% 
German POWs held by French 2.58% 
German POWs held by Americans 0.15% 
German POWs held by British 0.03%

Rheinwiesenlager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Golly. We're not looking nearly so evil, are we? And the British were awesome! During a 6 month period, faced with unexpected numbers (millions), people died. But far fewer died in British & American hands, and the French had a better record than the Germans.

As for saying it was OK to slaughter anyone who didn't sign, when have we done that, and when have I advocated it?


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

Oh good grief, she/we dislike Wikipedia because ANYONE can post and edit. How can someone who acts so smart be so ignorant? What's wrong, difficult drumming up REAL sources to push your points? :roll:

For all we know, you bloody well edited it yourself!


----------



## bsms

MacabreMikolaj said:


> Anyone who touts WIKIPEDIA as a reliable source has already shown their true merit at any debate or intellectual conversation.
> 
> Thank you for that read Allison.


Wikipedia is a lot more accurate than Allison's posts. Perhaps you would care to show where it is in error...was there no French Indian War? Perhaps you would support Ward Churchill...if so, why?

Take a look at the non-attributed screed posted as fact:

"In 1997, around 1.1 million German soldiers were still officially listed as missing. According to the recently opened Soviet archives, which have been proved to be extremely precise and detailed, the Red Army captured 2,389,560 German soldiers. Of these, 423,168 died in captivity. In October, 1951, the West German government stated in the United Nations that 1.1 million soldiers had not returned home. In other words, we were led to believe they had died in Soviet camps. If we subtract the proven number of deaths in Soviet camps from the missing in Germany we arrive at the figure of around 677,000. Where are these men?. They must have been interned by the western Allies, the greatest majority being held in American and French camps where they died in their thousands through deliberate starvation, disease and hard work."

REALLY? We killed 677,000 Germans and no one noticed? Every missing German was a POW killed by Americans?

You find THAT believable?

Yes, it is a pity one doesn't have to go further in research than Wiki to show how false the claims are. Perhaps if some here would read Wiki before posting anti-American rants, they could at least realize not everyone buys their version of history. In fact, almost no one does...


----------



## bsms

MacabreMikolaj said:


> Oh good grief, she/we dislike Wikipedia because ANYONE can post and edit. How can someone who acts so smart be so ignorant? What's wrong, difficult drumming up REAL sources to push your points? :roll:
> 
> For all we know, you bloody well edited it yourself!


Again - do you deny the existence of the French & Indian War? Do you believe a rant that suggests every missing German was a POW murdered by the US or French? Do you think the Battle of Okinawa didn't take place? Or that only soldiers were killed there?

If you have some facts, present them. Cite your sources. Right now, all that has been offered is the idea that all missing Germans were killed as POWs...

The figures on POWs comes from, according to Wiki:

Ferguson, Niall, _Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat_, War in History, Vol. 11, 2004, Part 2, page 186


----------



## Allison Finch

You know, this post has degenerated and strayed too far from the OP. I think enough has been said on both sides to satisfy my curiosity about who believes what. As such, I am done. It has just become too personally attacking and "one-upsmanshippy".

See you at the next debate.


----------



## martyall

This is a good for us that the leader of terrorism has been killed. I hope that terrorism will extinguish.


----------



## tempest

martyall said:


> This is a good for us that the leader of terrorism has been killed. I hope that terrorism will extinguish.


One can hope, but in truth it will never go away.


----------



## HopalongCassidy

(I haven't read it all and don't plan to) but i just wanted to say: I think we need to get prepared for a hell of a fight.


----------

