Archived Topic

Bin Laden dead.

by BroncoBot · 5/2/2011

Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BoiseBYU
declocoug wrote:
Boise and sno,



I appreciate what you are both saying, and realize that you both aren't saying the same thing. Generally I'll agree with what jvquarterback is saying. The longer we stay in the middle east the stronger their hatred for America becomes. Sure some of the middle eastern people appreciate what the USA is trying to do, but too many citizen deaths are just fueling the hatred for our country.



We are fighting an enemy that is nearly impossible to define. We are arming AQ in some instances (Libya), and killing them at other times. I'd prefer the USA leaving the middle east completely and letting the different groups there fight amongst themselves instead of unifying against America because of our presence there.


I appreciate your insights; they are valid. For me the crucial point is the USA cannot leave the Middle East completely. It will come to us. (trade, terror, culture, oil, ideology, etc.) Does that mean we get involved in every which way militarily? No. But the fact is that there are and will be circimstances when our national interests demand that we be in and involved in the Middle East. Drawing that line might at time be hard. But it is a line we need to appreciate and draw
B
BoiseBYU
imuakahuku wrote:
On Iraq I have been a little torn but for two thoughts. First, we did Iraq the Bush way and Iran the U. N. way. Which is closer to having a nuke? Second, our entering Iraq was a huge assist to change the focus of terrorism. They were flocking there to fight our soldiers which I think resulted in our soldiers fighting them and not our police and civilians. So, even though I hate that many of our young men have died over there, I believe we have "escaped" the main focus of foreign terrorists coming to our shores and causing more blood and death here. I like the odds of our soldiers surviving the fight than I do our civilians.



And I don't buy the argument that our being over there has led to even more terrorists. The feeble minded that are endoctrinated by Islamic leaders to seek martyrdom would do so regardless of anything that we do. They bombed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Cole, the WTC twice, Lebanon baracks, were all before Iraq and Afganastan. We even helped support Bin Laden (not intentionally as he was just there fighting) and the Mujahadeen in Afganastan against the Russians and yet they still wage holy war against us.



Monday was a great day and the intelligence that will be garnered from the prisoners and the computers will be invaluable in fighting and destroying Al Qaeda and other terror orgs. Congratulations for our brave men and women in this victory over evil.

There was never a credible Iraqi nuclear threat that President Bush needed to spend one trillion dollars and the blood of our finest to prevent.
I
imuakahuku
jvquarterback wrote:
imuakahuku,

Are you really arguing that the US military presence in the middle east has nothing to do with inciting terrorism? Talk about rolling over and sticking your head in the sand. All evidence points to an increase in attacks when a country has a foreign military encamped there. That is the only thing for which the evidence bears out a correlation. That comes from CIA/pentagon reports but should be evident to anyone willing to look. So if OBLs death leads to a withdrawal of US troops from the middle east it will help, otherwise it just doesn't matter one bit.



The thing that puzzles me the most is that a delta/seal squad was facing only four armed men and a woman and they simply killed them. They should have been trained well enough to take him alive. Wouldn't that have been the better option? They could have gotten more information in the field even if they weren't able to extract him.


Please quote me the evidence. Lot's of people say it is because we are in Iraq or Afganastan or Saudi Arabia but nobody has ever given a shred of proof. So please provide me the proof. My proof is the found in the history of Islam. BTW- I wholeheartily believe that Islam is an inspired religion (inspired of and by the second plan as it seems to follow all of its precepts).



Here is some of that "all evidence", we are still in Germany, when was the last German suicide bomber? We are still in Japan, when was their last Kamakazi? We are in England, haven't heard of an attack there yet. Italy and Korea? We had some in Vietnam but not any more gee I wonder how the republic of Vietnam is doing- oh I mean the Socialist republik of Vietnam.



Our withdrawl from Iraq and Afganastan will not lead to a reduction in terrorist plots against us. To even ponder that is to "roll over and stick your head in the sand". Islamic extremists are by the very definition of Islam those that do not want to kill us. Islam calls for the conversion of, death of, or dhimitude of every non-muslim. They will never stop because that is what their "religion" calls for them to do. And those that do not subscribe to this view are labeled "apostates" and are to be killed as well.
I
imuakahuku
BoiseBYU wrote:
On Iraq I have been a little torn but for two thoughts. First, we did Iraq the Bush way and Iran the U. N. way. Which is closer to having a nuke? Second, our entering Iraq was a huge assist to change the focus of terrorism. They were flocking there to fight our soldiers which I think resulted in our soldiers fighting them and not our police and civilians. So, even though I hate that many of our young men have died over there, I believe we have "escaped" the main focus of foreign terrorists coming to our shores and causing more blood and death here. I like the odds of our soldiers surviving the fight than I do our civilians.



And I don't buy the argument that our being over there has led to even more terrorists. The feeble minded that are endoctrinated by Islamic leaders to seek martyrdom would do so regardless of anything that we do. They bombed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Cole, the WTC twice, Lebanon baracks, were all before Iraq and Afganastan. We even helped support Bin Laden (not intentionally as he was just there fighting) and the Mujahadeen in Afganastan against the Russians and yet they still wage holy war against us.



Monday was a great day and the intelligence that will be garnered from the prisoners and the computers will be invaluable in fighting and destroying Al Qaeda and other terror orgs. Congratulations for our brave men and women in this victory over evil.

There was never a credible Iraqi nuclear threat that President Bush needed to spend one trillion dollars and the blood of our finest to prevent.


Except for the Iraqi scientists working in Lybia that Mohmar refused to pay since it wasn't his program. But that is not the point. Sadam wanted nukes as did/does Iran. Which of the two countries is closest to actually developing a nuke?
J
jvquarterback
What evidence do you have anyone will come to us? The last offensive war lead by Muslims was the Mughal Empire against the Hindus in the 1700s, or maybe you count the defense of Crimea or Palestine? When was the last terrorist offensive against the US without US troops occupying a foreign country or US taxes subsidizing a foreign army? When was the last time a policy of free trade induced a country or group of people to attack? People need to wake up and bring our best home to build something rather than send them to die or waste their lives protecting a bunch of Kuwaiti sheiks as they continue their diagonal drilling of oil beneath Iraq and the warlords who now rule Afghanistan.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BigCougsFan
All we know is... Obama "Jimmered" Osama!
J
jvquarterback
There were [about] 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to [2009]. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically -- from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90-percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American (it had previously been about 10 percent). The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90-percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans.



Prior to 9/11, the expert debate on the causes of suicide terrorism was divided largely between two explanations -- religious fanaticism and mental illness. In the years after 9/11, new research on who becomes a suicide terrorist showed that virtually none could be diagnosed as mentally ill, while many were religious and, most striking, nearly all emerged from communities resisting foreign military occupation.



ince Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent.



Excerpted from Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop. Which was written by Robert Pape who was funded by the Department of Defense.



For a more detailed response see this article from Dr. Pape (which addresses your arguments re: Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc)
U
urroner
BigCougsFan wrote:
All we know is... Obama "Jimmered" Osama!

I just saw this in the Deseret News: BYU roundup: Osama bin Laden 'Jimmered?'



http://static.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres/460984/460984.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



:lol: :lol: :crazy: :crazy:
B
BigCougsFan
:lol:



Awesome!



Its a coming out truth!



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
B
BoiseBYU
imuakahuku wrote:
imuakahuku wrote:
On Iraq I have been a little torn but for two thoughts. First, we did Iraq the Bush way and Iran the U. N. way. Which is closer to having a nuke? Second, our entering Iraq was a huge assist to change the focus of terrorism. They were flocking there to fight our soldiers which I think resulted in our soldiers fighting them and not our police and civilians. So, even though I hate that many of our young men have died over there, I believe we have "escaped" the main focus of foreign terrorists coming to our shores and causing more blood and death here. I like the odds of our soldiers surviving the fight than I do our civilians.



And I don't buy the argument that our being over there has led to even more terrorists. The feeble minded that are endoctrinated by Islamic leaders to seek martyrdom would do so regardless of anything that we do. They bombed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Cole, the WTC twice, Lebanon baracks, were all before Iraq and Afganastan. We even helped support Bin Laden (not intentionally as he was just there fighting) and the Mujahadeen in Afganastan against the Russians and yet they still wage holy war against us.



Monday was a great day and the intelligence that will be garnered from the prisoners and the computers will be invaluable in fighting and destroying Al Qaeda and other terror orgs. Congratulations for our brave men and women in this victory over evil.

There was never a credible Iraqi nuclear threat that President Bush needed to spend one trillion dollars and the blood of our finest to prevent.


Except for the Iraqi scientists working in Lybia that Mohmar refused to pay since it wasn't his program. But that is not the point. Sadam wanted nukes as did/does Iran. Which of the two countries is closest to actually developing a nuke?


Iraqi scientists working in Libya means there was a credible nuclear threat in Iraq? How? I repeat: there was NO credible Iraqi nuclear threat when the US invaded Iraq in 2003. ZERO. Various adminstration figures saying at the time that there were such weapons does not make it so. Pounding a place into the Stone Age for something it did not have makes about as much sense as carpet bombing the Congo purportedly to eliminate all polar bears.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BYUROCKS
The latest, is enraging, a local 12 year old boy talks about how everyone knew OBL lived there, and knew him, he even gave the kid some bunnies.



Also he did not use a woman as a shield, and he was unarmed at the time, they did not try to capture him, but double tap the head.
I
imuakahuku
BoiseBYU wrote:
BoiseBYU wrote:
On Iraq I have been a little torn but for two thoughts. First, we did Iraq the Bush way and Iran the U. N. way. Which is closer to having a nuke? Second, our entering Iraq was a huge assist to change the focus of terrorism. They were flocking there to fight our soldiers which I think resulted in our soldiers fighting them and not our police and civilians. So, even though I hate that many of our young men have died over there, I believe we have "escaped" the main focus of foreign terrorists coming to our shores and causing more blood and death here. I like the odds of our soldiers surviving the fight than I do our civilians.



And I don't buy the argument that our being over there has led to even more terrorists. The feeble minded that are endoctrinated by Islamic leaders to seek martyrdom would do so regardless of anything that we do. They bombed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Cole, the WTC twice, Lebanon baracks, were all before Iraq and Afganastan. We even helped support Bin Laden (not intentionally as he was just there fighting) and the Mujahadeen in Afganastan against the Russians and yet they still wage holy war against us.



Monday was a great day and the intelligence that will be garnered from the prisoners and the computers will be invaluable in fighting and destroying Al Qaeda and other terror orgs. Congratulations for our brave men and women in this victory over evil.

There was never a credible Iraqi nuclear threat that President Bush needed to spend one trillion dollars and the blood of our finest to prevent.


Except for the Iraqi scientists working in Lybia that Mohmar refused to pay since it wasn't his program. But that is not the point. Sadam wanted nukes as did/does Iran. Which of the two countries is closest to actually developing a nuke?


Iraqi scientists working in Libya means there was a credible nuclear threat in Iraq? How? I repeat: there was NO credible Iraqi nuclear threat when the US invaded Iraq in 2003. ZERO. Various adminstration figures saying at the time that there were such weapons does not make it so. Pounding a place into the Stone Age for something it did not have makes about as much sense as carpet bombing the Congo purportedly to eliminate all polar bears.


So we just needed them to have a nuke built then maybe it would be believable. Otherwise all the leads, reports, etc. that



Yep no proof and Yossef Bodansky was an idiot and didn't know what he was talking about when he wrote this report and gave it to congress



http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/house1.htm



But I just live with my head in the sand after all these people in the middle east are not evil, they are just misunderstood and if we could just talk with them I'm sure we could come to an agreement and have peace.



BTW - the WikiLeaks documents also show that WMD's were found in Iraq but were never reported to the media (of course with the liberal media they probably wouldn't have reported them anyways)
U
urroner
BYUROCKS wrote:
Also he did not use a woman as a shield, and he was unarmed at the time, they did not try to capture him, but double tap the head.


I believe in capital punishment. What good would it have done to have kept him alive? Sometimes, we need to do things that would normally be reprehensible to prevent things even more reprehensible. Life isn't fair and we can't expect that a "one rule fits all" attitude. We don't have a world of ivory towers and plastic flowers and I don't see it any time soon.



Yes, we should be working towards a world of love and peace, but that isn't going to happen until all humankind gets an attitude change. The characteristics that got our earliest ancestors through life, the characteristics that gave them a chance to survive, don't work well in a civilized world, but it's what we have to deal with.



A characteristic in blacks that helped them survive malaria now causes sickle cell anemia in their descendants. The characteristics that helped the people survive in ancient Central and South America now gives them a very high rate of diabetes and in Native Americans, another similar characteristic makes them highly susceptible to alcoholism.



I'm glad he wasn't taken alive and I hope that the timing of his death will solve more problems then it creates.
G
Guest
Interestingly enough, I've heard that some ultra liberal news organizations in Europe are now starting to question the legalities of the raid and the killing of Osama, putting Obama into the 'war criminal' type status that they normally reserve for republicans.
S
SpiffCoug
hawkwing wrote:
Interestingly enough, I've heard that some ultra liberal news organizations in Europe are now starting to question the legalities of the raid and the killing of Osama, putting Obama into the 'war criminal' type status that they normally reserve for republicans.

I hope the US reconsiders its policy on no-assassination. Both wars we're in now might have been unnecessary if we had simply pursued eliminating those two individuals instead of invading their countries (or countries from which they were operating).
Sponsored Advertisementad content
J
jvquarterback
imuakahuku wrote:
But I just live with my head in the sand after all these people in the middle east are not evil, they are just misunderstood and if we could just talk with them I'm sure we could come to an agreement and have peace.


BoiseBYU never said you were sticking your head in the sand about WMD, (though even if there were WMD, including nuclear weapons, they would not have legitimized the invasion of Iraq), I said it when you asserted it was the evil of Islam that prompted terrorist attacks rather than the presence of foreign troops in the middle east. Your assertion is demonstrably false.



Free trade is the one thing that will change the attitudes of the people of the middle east and lead to peace.
I
imuakahuku
jvquarterback wrote:
There were [about] 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to [2009]. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically -- from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90-percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American (it had previously been about 10 percent). The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90-percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans.


Thanks for proving my point that it was good for us to be in Iraq since they are mostly attacking our military and not our civilians over here. Also, we were not officially "at war" with radical islam at the time (although it is not radical but actually islam). Those bombings are their way of fighting this war. Not sure if you noticed but I have yet to see an Al Qaeda or Hamas fighter jet or tank.


jvquarterback wrote:

Prior to 9/11, the expert debate on the causes of suicide terrorism was divided largely between two explanations -- religious fanaticism and mental illness. In the years after 9/11, new research on who becomes a suicide terrorist showed that virtually none could be diagnosed as mentally ill, while many were religious and, most striking, nearly all emerged from communities resisting foreign military occupation.



ince Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent..




What country were we occupying when they bombed the WTC twice, the Cole, the Embassy bombings? Also notice that nearly all the attacks are over there. Aren't you glad that our leaders were able to take the fight to over there instead of doing it here at our malls and pizza shops. Or do you really believe they would stop attacking if we just pulled out and said we were sorry. But who am I, just a guy with his head in the sand.

Also you failed to mention all the attempted attacks along with the thousands of rockts now launched at Isreal from that wonderfully peacful area called Gaza. You know the area that all the intellectuals said would stop the violence if Isreal gave it to the Palestinians. Or the rockets that continue to be launched from Lebannon. And did Pape take into account that Lebanese suicide bombers no longer have easy acess to Isreali soldiers?

BTW isn't the deffinition of "occupying a country" when you establish a presence w/o the consent of the government? So how do Germany, Italy, England, S. Korea fit into that?



As for Dhimmi Pape, yeah I take the word of a guy who is was keynote speaker for a fundraiser for Muslim groups. I also noticed in his article how he discounts Islamic tenants of the suicide attacks (martydom). I would love to debate this guy on his area of expertise because he appears to be one of those intellectual giants that can't seem to see the forest through the trees. And here is a nice little blurb for Mr Pape



"Osama Hamdan, the Hamas representative in Lebanon, told Iranian television that suicide bombing attacks against Israel were justified, especially attacks in buses. He rejected the historical Jewish connection to the Land of Israel and stated that Hamas’ avowed intention was to wipe Israel off the face of the map."



Also the statistics don't mention all the attempted attacks along the border and at checkpoints, or the thousands of rockets now launched at Isreal from that wonderfully peacful area called Gaza. You know the area that all the intellectuals said would stop the violence if Isreal gave it to the Palestinians. Nor does he mention the rockets that continue to be launched from Lebannon. Yep it's definitly peaceful over there now. Just don't ride any school buses because a misfired firecracker might hit it. You know I should just take my head out of the sand and accept that if we just left the middle east it would turn into paradise.



So lets drop the middle east hates us cause were there. They hate us because they hate all non-muslims and intend to take over the world. The USA is their biggest obsticle so we get the lion's share of it now because nobody else has the balls nor the strength to stand up to this evil idiology. Did you know england now has around 85 Sharia courts? Suckers!
I
imuakahuku
jvquarterback wrote:
But I just live with my head in the sand after all these people in the middle east are not evil, they are just misunderstood and if we could just talk with them I'm sure we could come to an agreement and have peace.


BoiseBYU never said you were sticking your head in the sand about WMD, (though even if there were WMD, including nuclear weapons, they would not have legitimized the invasion of Iraq), I said it when you asserted it was the evil of Islam that prompted terrorist attacks rather than the presence of foreign troops in the middle east. Your assertion is demonstrably false.



Free trade is the one thing that will change the attitudes of the people of the middle east and lead to peace.




Free trade? LMAO. You made pop come out my nose. They want to dominate the world. There will NEVER be peace with them unless we wipe out or remove all the leaders that are endoctrinating the masses. Free trade, they already have it. How much money do we send to Saudi Arabia? BIllions and much of that money ends up in terrorist bank accounts.



BTW I didn't say Boise said my head was in the sand, it was a reference to your post since both or the posts were kind of in the same vein. But since you didn't understand that I will explain it to you.
I
imuakahuku
jvquarterback wrote:
What evidence do you have anyone will come to us? The last offensive war lead by Muslims was the Mughal Empire against the Hindus in the 1700s, or maybe you count the defense of Crimea or Palestine? When was the last terrorist offensive against the US without US troops occupying a foreign country or US taxes subsidizing a foreign army? When was the last time a policy of free trade induced a country or group of people to attack? People need to wake up and bring our best home to build something rather than send them to die or waste their lives protecting a bunch of Kuwaiti sheiks as they continue their diagonal drilling of oil beneath Iraq and the warlords who now rule Afghanistan.


Fort hood, underwear bomber, Times square, Christmas tree lighting, shoe bomber, hmm don't know of any evidence that they would come after us.
Page 2 of 6
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.