Osama

[imkruzen]

President Obama can now finally claim he delivered on a promise with his public announcement four years ago that “We will kill Bin Laden” but it is common knowledge in intelligence circles that Bin Laden died in December, 2001 due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. Story

 

[AdRath]

Good Osama is dead... now lets give the Afghans back their country and get the hell out of that tribal wasteland that has claimed too many empires.

You can't bring democracy to a tribal society. It just doesn't work.

 

[Bandit Bill]

President Obama can now finally claim he delivered on a promise with his public announcement four years ago that “We will kill Bin Laden” but it is common knowledge in intelligence circles that Bin Laden died in December, 2001 due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. Story

Heh, Faux-news .. again an apt source for you.

Aren't they the network that shared in taking the insulting jabs by Obama at his 'roast' for Trumph, in which following the humorous Obama birth film clip (a cut from Lion King) shown, as an aside he then stated to the effect of "to the Foxnews desk, btw, It's a joke. It's really not my birth video. You can see the long-form version by Disney. Really, check with them".

Even so-called mainstream media outlets aren't immune from conspiracy spinning and agenda leading. Indeed, some thrive on it.

Bin Laden has died so many times and Arisen again, in various conspiracy theories, that he makes Jesus H. Christ look like some second fiddle fish-monger playing with parlor tricks in comparison. He's died in 2001, 2002 and every year thereafter since, from lung complications, old age, Lead (bullet) poisoning, kidney failure, Marfan's Syndrome, Diabetes, etc etc. I'm not 100% sure on it yet, this time, but so far the indications show that it's fairly safe to say now that he's finally gone from Bin Hiden' to Bin swimming with the Fishes. Time to put all those those silly conspiracy theories to a rest, finally.

 

[oilycreek]

In the caseof 9/11, however, we are vastly more fortunate. As a consequence of inquiries by Nafeez Ahmed (2002), Thierry Meyssan(2002), Paul Thompson (2004), Michael Ruppert (2004), and David Ray Griffin(2004, 2005), among others, we already know that the official account of 9/11cannot possibly be correct. That accountcontends that 19 Arabs, with feeble ability to pilot aircraft, hijacked fourairliners and then executed demanding maneuvers in order to impact the WorldTrade Center and the Pentagon; that the damage created by their impact combinedwith the heat from burning jet fuel brought down WTC1 and WTC2; that WTC7 wasthe first building in history to be brought down by fire alone; and that thePentagon was struck by United Flight 77, which was a Boeing 757. The basic problem with this "conspiracytheory", as in the case of JFK, is that its truth would violate laws ofphysics and engineering that cannot be transgressed.

The extremelyhigh melting point of structural steel (about 2,800° F) is far above themaximum (around 1,700° F) that could have been produced by jet fuel underoptimal conditions. UnderwritersLaboratories had certified the steel used in the World Trade Center to 2,000° Ffor up to six hours.38 Even lowermaximum temperatures result after factoring in insulation, such as asbestos,and the availability of oxygen. Sincesteel is a good conductor, any heat applied to one part of the structure wouldhave been dissipated to other parts. WTC1, the North Tower, was hit first at 8:46 AM/ET and collapsed at10:29 AM/ET, whereas the South Tower, hit second at 9:03 AM/ET, collapsed at9:59 AM/ET. They were exposed to firesfor roughly an hour and a half and an hour, respectively. Insofar as most of the fuel was burned off inthe gigantic fireballs that accompanied the initial impacts, that these towerswere brought down by fuel fires that melted the steel is not just improbablebut physically impossible.
Source

And wet sidewalks are the cause of rain.

This explains how and why the towers collapsed.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Sent from my Archos5 using Tapatalk

 

[Edders]

You are confusing civilians with military personnel.

I think we all need to read some more history. There is a very long tradition of leaders causing significant crises to chip away the freedoms of people. History will tell what really happened here.

So are you suggesting the military did this without civilian oversight?

And besides, it would be easy to get military people to keep weapon systems and such a secret. But to mass murder your own countrymen? Do you know how many people in the military have family ties to folks in Manhattan? Or even the Pentagon? I don't care if you are military or not, if someone told you to keep secret a plan that could potentially kill your friends or family, and that would definitely kill thousands of the people you swore to protect, I bet you would blow the whistle.

 

[Bandit Bill]

A lot of aviation boards are abuzz as to what exactly went down in that Pakistani compound - it certainly wasn't a Chinook in the initial assault - and there is much doubt that it is of any publically known MH-60 Special Forces variant, either.

This is all definitely entering into rumor territory, but photos analysed so far indicate that it may be a chopper loosely based upon the MH-60, but built stealthy - possibly from the now defunct MH-X stealth helicopter development and procurement program.

Beyond the SOP of Blow in Place of any disabled military equipment in potentially hostile territory that renders any later recovery doubtful, it's doubly important that such a classified aircraft type be destroyed. Case in point would be that the very expensive F-117 Stealth bomber program/weapons system was in effect rendered obsolete, when a downed airframe fell into the wrong hands before it could be destroyed, during the Kosovo NATO intervention under Clinton.

As i understand it, they brought in two of these helicopters for the the initial assault portion of the operation - one as the primary, and one as backup for extraction. If the operation went off without loss of any helicopters, all of the individuals captured/not killed would have gone for a chopper ride for intelligence debriefing .. rather than just Osama's corpse, one other live individual, and seized computer equipment, along with the extracting assault team. There may well have been CH-47 Chinooks involved after the initial assault, but your guess is as good as mine.

Artistic 'what if's' from http://defensetech.org/2011/05/04/w...den-raid-helo-might-look-like/#comment-229900 They could be accurate, approximate, or a crock of poo for all i know.



A non-destroyed section of the downed helicopter as it was being removed by Pakistani military after the assault.

The conspiracy theorists could be right about one thing - silent black helicopters may be out there to get ya!!!

Gyum:

A Chinook has a crew of three. Pilot, co pilot and flight engineer. Fully loaded it will carry an extra 23 000 LBS. You can carry four SEAL teams and all their gear quite easily. 30 people was pretty standard going from KAF to the FOBs in Afghanistan. It happened daily.

If it were to go down in a "hostile" area it would be BIPed. (Blow in place) as standard operating procedure. Blackhawk or Chinook the cost is irrelevant to SOP.

Don't think the US gives a second thought to a measly $14 or $35M... just the cost of doing business.

Not saying I swallowed any of this **** they tried to feed us. Just answering your questions.

Quite possible they mobilized team 6 for a high value target but it doesn't mean the account was accurate. Team 6 never has any paper trail on what they have done/do/or will do in the future.

Even Johhny keyboard and the paintball brigade know that.

 

[BLUE_KAWI]

LOL...they won't release any photos of this so called raid. They have no real evidence of getting him. This very well run staged lie that the population fell for. No wonder the bankers robbed the peeps of over $700 billion. The population is so well trained that they'll never question the government.



No Photo: Why Obama Won't Release Osama bin Laden Death Image

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/201105...wontreleasebinladenphotoxidrssfullnationyahoo

A desire for catharsis, or perhaps just gruesome curiosity, has further stirred the photo frenzy.

 

[BLUE_KAWI]

'US can't accept it created Bin Laden & Al Qaeda'

Love the comment on the American education system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMM-kqngHc8

 

[Bandit Bill]

LOL...they won't release any photos of this so called raid. They have no real evidence of getting him. This very well run staged lie that the population fell for. No wonder the bankers robbed the peeps of over $700 billion. The population is so well trained that they'll never question the government.



No Photo: Why Obama Won't Release Osama bin Laden Death Image

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/201105...wontreleasebinladenphotoxidrssfullnationyahoo

Remember the American outrage when the Al Quada video of the Daniel Steele beheading video surfaced? Times that x10 on the Arab street if those photo images are released - for Al Quada and the Mujahadeen, photo's would be just as good as the body itself for martyrdom propaganda. There was also a shitstorm on the Arab street, that followed Saddam Hussein's death video being leaked, for the way that he was treated during the execution - It's good that the American government isn't stooping to that level by releasing those photo's of dubious value to the general public.

Best to not release them, which would be stooping to the level of these terrorist organizations - and in the process keep the Al Quada organization remnants guessing as to where the US is gonna play wack-a-mole next, with their new-found intelligence trove.

 

[Duster929]

President Obama can now finally claim he delivered on a promise with his public announcement four years ago that “We will kill Bin Laden” but it is common knowledge in intelligence circles that Bin Laden died in December, 2001 due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. Story

Don't you find it a bit weird, that you're more likely to believe an un-named, anonymous Taliban source, over the President of the United States?

 

[Freestyle72]

Don't you find it a bit weird, that you're more likely to believe an un-named, anonymous Taliban source, over the President of the United States?

Yes because the presidents of the united states have always been an honest bunch .


Obama being the exception of course.

 

[Duster929]

In the caseof 9/11, however, we are vastly more fortunate. As a consequence of inquiries by Nafeez Ahmed (2002), Thierry Meyssan(2002), Paul Thompson (2004), Michael Ruppert (2004), and David Ray Griffin(2004, 2005), among others, we already know that the official account of 9/11cannot possibly be correct. That accountcontends that 19 Arabs, with feeble ability to pilot aircraft, hijacked fourairliners and then executed demanding maneuvers in order to impact the WorldTrade Center and the Pentagon; that the damage created by their impact combinedwith the heat from burning jet fuel brought down WTC1 and WTC2; that WTC7 wasthe first building in history to be brought down by fire alone; and that thePentagon was struck by United Flight 77, which was a Boeing 757. The basic problem with this "conspiracytheory", as in the case of JFK, is that its truth would violate laws ofphysics and engineering that cannot be transgressed.

The extremelyhigh melting point of structural steel (about 2,800° F) is far above themaximum (around 1,700° F) that could have been produced by jet fuel underoptimal conditions. UnderwritersLaboratories had certified the steel used in the World Trade Center to 2,000° Ffor up to six hours.38 Even lowermaximum temperatures result after factoring in insulation, such as asbestos,and the availability of oxygen. Sincesteel is a good conductor, any heat applied to one part of the structure wouldhave been dissipated to other parts. WTC1, the North Tower, was hit first at 8:46 AM/ET and collapsed at10:29 AM/ET, whereas the South Tower, hit second at 9:03 AM/ET, collapsed at9:59 AM/ET. They were exposed to firesfor roughly an hour and a half and an hour, respectively. Insofar as most of the fuel was burned off inthe gigantic fireballs that accompanied the initial impacts, that these towerswere brought down by fuel fires that melted the steel is not just improbablebut physically impossible.
Source

And wet sidewalks are the cause of rain.

Just because you put the year in parentheses after someone's name, doesn't mean they're a credible source.

I work with steel. You heat it, it weakens. You can bend it, form it, shape it. You don't have to melt it.

Duster929 (2011)

 

[Duster929]

Yes because the presidents of the united states have always been an honest bunch .


Obama being the exception of course.

You didn't get my point. How honest is your average unnamed Taliban source?

 

[Freestyle72]

You didn't get my point. How honest is your average unnamed Taliban source?

Oh I totally got your point. I think what you mean is how credible is it? Well how honest have the past US presidents been? Its all political games, be it the taliban or the US. It would be foolish to take anything said by anyone as the honest truth.

 

[Duster929]

Oh I totally got your point. I think what you mean is how credible is it? Well how honest have the past US presidents been? Its all political games, be it the taliban or the US. It would be foolish to take anything said by anyone as the honest truth.

They've been more honest than anonymous Taliban people who don't even have names, and may not even exist. It's as foolish to take something said publicly by an elected official, as it is to believe in photographs or videos. If you believe someone is lying, you'll believe they faked the photos and videos. If you believe something different, you'll believe it when it comes out of the mouth of an anonymous source.

And no, I don't think you really got my point.

 

[Freestyle72]

They've been more honest than anonymous Taliban people who don't even have names, and may not even exist. It's as foolish to take something said publicly by an elected official, as it is to believe in photographs or videos. If you believe someone is lying, you'll believe they faked the photos and videos. If you believe something different, you'll believe it when it comes out of the mouth of an anonymous source.

And no, I don't think you really got my point.

I didn't post an article... I was just argueing that the US presidency is no measure of Honesty or credibility. EVER.

 

[Duster929]

I didn't post an article... I was just argueing that the US presidency is no measure of Honesty or credibility. EVER.

That's why I edited my post. I realized it wasn't you.

I never argued that they are the measure of honesty or credibility. That's why I keep saying you're not getting my point. You seem to think that I said the President is the model of honesty. My point is, I can't think of a source less credible than "an unnamed Taliban source". And yet millions of people read that article and believed it, while at the same time calling the President a liar. You don't find that weird?

 

[klr_guy]

Just because you put the year in parentheses after someone's name, doesn't mean they're a credible source.

I work with steel. You heat it, it weakens. You can bend it, form it, shape it. You don't have to melt it.

Duster929 (2011)

Well played.

This thread's been great (for adding to my ignore list).

 

[Freestyle72]

That's why I edited my post. I realized it wasn't you.

I never argued that they are the measure of honesty or credibility. That's why I keep saying you're not getting my point. You seem to think that I said the President is the model of honesty. My point is, I can't think of a source less credible than "an unnamed Taliban source". And yet millions of people read that article and believed it, while at the same time calling the President a liar. You don't find that weird?

Like I said I got your point. I just don't agree that an unnamed Taliban source is less credible than the president. In my opinion they are both as credible as each other. Thus I can understand why people believed the article.

Now Obama in specific I would trust as more credible. But the past presidents I am going with no. Not Bush, not Clinton, not any of those big liars (and they all have proven to be such). And if Osama turns out to be alive Obama will join them in my eyes.

It's your opinion that an unnamed source is less credible than a line of proven liars. That is all you are debating here.

 

[afong56]

i can't believe that people are debating this.

if osama bin laden is alive, it's because he's being waterboarded until his eyes are floating in their sockets. . .either way he'll never see the light of day again.

there's no way the president of the united states goes out on a limb to categorically claim that bin laden is dead unless he's certain.

the price to be paid if he were to make such a public statement and then be proven wrong is just too high to be worth a debate on this topic.

. . .time to move on people