Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
i would have liked to have seen him taken alive and suffer in captivity for a bit - then tortured and killed by Michael Madsen on a live tv free ppv event sometime in September.
But alas this was not to be.
We will never know the truth of what happened in that 'firefight' but like fuck did he deserve a fair trial so lets not even go there.
And yes the Pakistan govt knew he was there for sure.
The body photos should be released though to silence the doubters. Stand him up by a tape meausre as he was about 6 foot 6 or something ridiculous wasnt he.
or stand him next to Vitali Klitschko
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
He wasn't killed at all. He's been dead 9 years.
The Bin Ladens are a wealthy family, in cahoots with the leading American familes and a part of the Carlye group. This is all factual, google it.
Osama died of kidney failure in 2002, too soo for the US who were using him as the face of fear and a pretext for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. So they did not report his death, and preferred to keep him alive.
These kind of lies are something they have a history of doing, and I invite you to look up the proven factual fabrications of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where they faked an attack on the USS Maddox by the Vietnamese in order to get justification to go to war with them, and Operation Northwoods where they planned attacks on their own people, including shooting down planes, to blame on the Cubans. This went as high as the US Army's chief of staff, and was only ruled out by JFK, who it has to be said, was assassinated in suspicious circumstances, maybe for refusing to carry out the whims of those really in charge.
Already Obama has covered himself in case of future revelations by revealing he did not actually witness the assassination live on cam in the control room himself. They have no body because they threw it in the ocean. They took no photo's becauase he's too badly mutilated, therefore the only thing we have to go on is their word.
Sorry but after Vietnam, Northwoods, Pearl Harbour, Saddam's WMD's, their word doesn't mean a whole lot.
They were just waiting for the best timing to announce his death and now with revolutions going on all around the Arab world and a very different Middle East emerging, it made sense to get rid of the face of fear and end the post 911 era. They will create a new story for the Arab world in the coming months and years.
What about my thread sounds so absurd? All you have is you assured belief that America wouldn't act in this way, even though it has been proven and documented that they do. They have given no evidence whatsoever that Bin Laded was killed, or that he has been alive for the last 10 years.
He made one video in 2004, contradicting his earlier denials of being involved in 911 and that's all we've heard of him. They claim they have a new video now, I guess they need to create the illusion he was still active and a threat.
Open your minds people, and start looking into this.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Video: Protests in Pakistan follow Bin Laden's death - Asia, World - The Independent
It seems that some Pakistani's are not happy about what the US did and I think their arguments are perfectly valid. I mean where do you draw the line? Some US politicians were calling for Julian Assange to be assasinated just a few months ago. Going on the Osama precedent it would be quite acceptable for US forces to go to the UK, find Assange, and then shoot him dead.
That is unbelievable really. The President of the USA should not have the right to assasinate anyone, anywhere and at any time. It raises many serious questions and is an extremely slippery slope IMO.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
He wasn't killed at all. He's been dead 9 years.
The Bin Ladens are a wealthy family, in cahoots with the leading American familes and a part of the Carlye group. This is all factual, google it.
Osama died of kidney failure in 2002, too soo for the US who were using him as the face of fear and a pretext for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. So they did not report his death, and preferred to keep him alive.
These kind of lies are something they have a history of doing, and I invite you to look up the proven factual fabrications of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where they faked an attack on the USS Maddox by the Vietnamese in order to get justification to go to war with them, and Operation Northwoods where they planned attacks on their own people, including shooting down planes, to blame on the Cubans. This went as high as the US Army's chief of staff, and was only ruled out by JFK, who it has to be said, was assassinated in suspicious circumstances, maybe for refusing to carry out the whims of those really in charge.
Already Obama has covered himself in case of future revelations by revealing he did not actually witness the assassination live on cam in the control room himself. They have no body because they threw it in the ocean. They took no photo's becauase he's too badly mutilated, therefore the only thing we have to go on is their word.
Sorry but after Vietnam, Northwoods, Pearl Harbour, Saddam's WMD's, their word doesn't mean a whole lot.
They were just waiting for the best timing to announce his death and now with revolutions going on all around the Arab world and a very different Middle East emerging, it made sense to get rid of the face of fear and end the post 911 era. They will create a new story for the Arab world in the coming months and years.
What about my thread sounds so absurd? All you have is you assured belief that America wouldn't act in this way, even though it has been proven and documented that they do. They have given no evidence whatsoever that Bin Laded was killed, or that he has been alive for the last 10 years.
He made one video in 2004, contradicting his earlier denials of being involved in 911 and that's all we've heard of him. They claim they have a new video now, I guess they need to create the illusion he was still active and a threat.
Open your minds people, and start looking into this.
He was one of triplets now there's one left who will wreak havoc on us. Bin Laden.
Pedal Bin Laden and Recycle Bin Laden.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
He wasn't killed at all. He's been dead 9 years.
The Bin Ladens are a wealthy family, in cahoots with the leading American familes and a part of the Carlye group. This is all factual, google it.
Osama died of kidney failure in 2002, too soo for the US who were using him as the face of fear and a pretext for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. So they did not report his death, and preferred to keep him alive.
These kind of lies are something they have a history of doing, and I invite you to look up the proven factual fabrications of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where they faked an attack on the USS Maddox by the Vietnamese in order to get justification to go to war with them, and Operation Northwoods where they planned attacks on their own people, including shooting down planes, to blame on the Cubans. This went as high as the US Army's chief of staff, and was only ruled out by JFK, who it has to be said, was assassinated in suspicious circumstances, maybe for refusing to carry out the whims of those really in charge.
Already Obama has covered himself in case of future revelations by revealing he did not actually witness the assassination live on cam in the control room himself. They have no body because they threw it in the ocean. They took no photo's becauase he's too badly mutilated, therefore the only thing we have to go on is their word.
Sorry but after Vietnam, Northwoods, Pearl Harbour, Saddam's WMD's, their word doesn't mean a whole lot.
They were just waiting for the best timing to announce his death and now with revolutions going on all around the Arab world and a very different Middle East emerging, it made sense to get rid of the face of fear and end the post 911 era. They will create a new story for the Arab world in the coming months and years.
What about my thread sounds so absurd? All you have is you assured belief that America wouldn't act in this way, even though it has been proven and documented that they do. They have given no evidence whatsoever that Bin Laded was killed, or that he has been alive for the last 10 years.
He made one video in 2004, contradicting his earlier denials of being involved in 911 and that's all we've heard of him. They claim they have a new video now, I guess they need to create the illusion he was still active and a threat.
Open your minds people, and start looking into this.
What I find absurd about that idea is that you mention the Carlyle group and Bin Ladens ties etc, and then fail to realize that George H and W BUSH are both members for crying out loud. If Osama had died in 2002, you don't think perhaps it would have been in the corporate interest, better timing to stage his death before the election in 2008? You're talking absolute nonsense in actuality. I'm referring strictly to the Bin Laden theory I should add though, you've got the Gulf of Tonkin and Northwoods, WMDS, etc. This just doesn't share ties.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
THAT would incite attacks and kidnappings etc with the crazy muslims wanting to free their zealot leader.
very true. Could have been like Airforce One, Die Hard II , Toy Soldiers etc..
this outcome was for the best - though a short period in captivity and torture would have been better
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
He wasn't killed at all. He's been dead 9 years.
The Bin Ladens are a wealthy family, in cahoots with the leading American familes and a part of the Carlye group. This is all factual, google it.
Osama died of kidney failure in 2002, too soo for the US who were using him as the face of fear and a pretext for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. So they did not report his death, and preferred to keep him alive.
These kind of lies are something they have a history of doing, and I invite you to look up the proven factual fabrications of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where they faked an attack on the USS Maddox by the Vietnamese in order to get justification to go to war with them, and Operation Northwoods where they planned attacks on their own people, including shooting down planes, to blame on the Cubans. This went as high as the US Army's chief of staff, and was only ruled out by JFK, who it has to be said, was assassinated in suspicious circumstances, maybe for refusing to carry out the whims of those really in charge.
Already Obama has covered himself in case of future revelations by revealing he did not actually witness the assassination live on cam in the control room himself. They have no body because they threw it in the ocean. They took no photo's becauase he's too badly mutilated, therefore the only thing we have to go on is their word.
Sorry but after Vietnam, Northwoods, Pearl Harbour, Saddam's WMD's, their word doesn't mean a whole lot.
They were just waiting for the best timing to announce his death and now with revolutions going on all around the Arab world and a very different Middle East emerging, it made sense to get rid of the face of fear and end the post 911 era. They will create a new story for the Arab world in the coming months and years.
What about my thread sounds so absurd? All you have is you assured belief that America wouldn't act in this way, even though it has been proven and documented that they do. They have given no evidence whatsoever that Bin Laded was killed, or that he has been alive for the last 10 years.
He made one video in 2004, contradicting his earlier denials of being involved in 911 and that's all we've heard of him. They claim they have a new video now, I guess they need to create the illusion he was still active and a threat.
Open your minds people, and start looking into this.
What I find absurd about that idea is that you mention the Carlyle group and Bin Ladens ties etc, and then fail to realize that George H and W BUSH are both members for crying out loud. If Osama had died in 2002, you don't think perhaps it would have been in the corporate interest, better timing to stage his death before the election in 2008? You're talking absolute nonsense in actuality. I'm referring strictly to the Bin Laden theory I should add though, you've got the Gulf of Tonkin and Northwoods, WMDS, etc. This just doesn't share ties.
The Bush family and Bin Ladens are friends, or at least business partners. The day after 911 when a no fly zone was enacted over the whole of the US the US government flew the Bin Laden family out of America in secrecy. Again, factual.
The whole Al Qadea threat was created by America as a pretext for war in Iraq and carrying out there vested interests in the middle east. They absolutely wanted Bin Laden alive as he was the face of that fear, makes no sense at all to stage his death before that.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Some good stuff here
Bin Laden Ties
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
In answer to the question: Yes.
Considering what happened to Saddam Hussien, I would of thought the same would have been done to OBL.
To show the world he had been captured and paraded on global television, then tried in court for his criminal activities would have been better imo.
Maybe the is some truth in what Bilbo is saying, who knows? and I guess we wont till the US divulges all the info regards to shooting.
Capture him, parade the capture, try him, then a public execution would have been the way I would have done it.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
I think in the morden world the law does not always seem to equel justice.
Bin Laden deserved to die in a horrible way and thats what he got IMO.It was justice
Also what benifit would it serve to keep him alive.All it would do is fan more extreamists when he would spout his hatred at his trail.
The SEAL team were give the nod and wink the same way the British SAS were when dealing with the IRA.Bring him in dead.
Job well done!;D
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
porkypara
I think in the morden world the law does not always seem to equel justice.
Bin Laden deserved to die in a horrible way and thats what he got IMO.It was justice
Also what benifit would it serve to keep him alive.All it would do is fan more extreamists when he would spout his hatred at his trail.
The SEAL team were give the nod and wink the same way the British SAS were when dealing with the IRA.Bring him in dead.
Job well done!;D
Miles has a point though about Assange. Had the US dropped a killing squad into the mansion he was staying in and slaughtered a bunch of people there would have been an outcry.
Had the Pakistani's launched an attack on some enemy of their state on American soil they would now be facing two weeks of carpet bombing.
Also it makes the British look stupid. America send in their navy seals and kick ass, we sent our SAS into LIbya to help the rebels and they captured us and sent us packing tail between legs.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
porkypara
I think in the morden world the law does not always seem to equel justice.
Bin Laden deserved to die in a horrible way and thats what he got IMO.It was justice
Also what benifit would it serve to keep him alive.All it would do is fan more extreamists when he would spout his hatred at his trail.
The SEAL team were give the nod and wink the same way the British SAS were when dealing with the IRA.Bring him in dead.
Job well done!;D
Miles has a point though about Assange. Had the US dropped a killing squad into the mansion he was staying in and slaughtered a bunch of people there would have been an outcry.
Had the Pakistani's launched an attack on some enemy of their state on American soil they would now be facing two weeks of carpet bombing.
Also it makes the British look stupid. America send in their navy seals and kick ass, we sent our SAS into LIbya to help the rebels and they captured us and sent us packing tail between legs.
The seal mission and the sas in Libya are two totaly different cases and they cant really be compaired.
If Pakistan had been willing or able to do the job they would have been left to do it.But unfortunaly Pakistan could not be trusted and the US had to do the job.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Another good question in addition to the thread title is :
"Should a photo be released to prove Bin Laden is dead?"
The fact it's been stated he was behind the worst terrorism attack on American soil ever,,, on the World's most wanted list for the better part of the last 10 years,,, had probably 100's of millions of dollars of American taxpayer money spent on finding him and his posse,,, the fact it actually TOOK America 10 years to find him,,, I think it needs to be released...
I don't really buy into any of the reasons given of why they can't provide evidence other than their word...
Assange has some work to do!
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dizaster
Another good question in addition to the thread title is :
"Should a photo be released to prove Bin Laden is dead?"
The fact it's been stated he was behind the worst terrorism attack on American soil ever,,, on the World's most wanted list for the better part of the last 10 years,,, had probably 100's of millions of dollars of American taxpayer money spent on finding him and his posse,,, the fact it actually TOOK America 10 years to find him,,, I think it needs to be released...
I don't really buy into any of the reasons given of why they can't provide evidence other than their word...
I think Bush should take some of the blame as to why its taken so long as he started the pointless war in Iraq which made the world a more dangerouse place and made millions of new enemys for the west.Also it diverted much needed resourses from the hunt for Bin Laden.
