Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Osama is dead


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 721
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Celebrating landing on on the US is probably a bit daft, but a bit understandable. It's daft because you know they're going to lash out insome hugely stupid way. I'm amazed they didn't carpet bomb a boeing factory after 11/9, because they make planes.

 

It's a bit different usually though, because of the vast difference in power between the two. That and the fact that there's about a one in three chance that the people celebrating have been fucked in the arse by the US recently. If they haven't had their democratically elected leader killed or deposed, they've probably seen their enemy funded in some way or their school drone-bombed. It's so short sighted, but then if you are thinking that they actually don't want the violence to continue then you've already taken the wrong path. On the news they should caption all the pictures of dead kids from Turbanistan and Arabistan with the party funding from arms companies. I think it would look kinda cool.

 

I hold the US to a higher standard than some mental mullah in Pakistan, what with them being the most powerful civilisation in history and claiming to stand for liberty and freedom. You should too.

 

What would you think if Americans were ruled by a dictator or military leader and lived poor

while continually obcessing about their neighbor Canada while getting aid from Palestine

and Pakistan and they went around cheering when Pakistan or Palestine got attacked,

understandable?

 

I say you probably hold the US to a higher standard than even yourself. Liberty and freedom

are ideals not always reality. Irish and British authorities can detain suspects for days and then convict

them in a court with no jury. America tries to put suspects infront of a 12 person military

jury with a judge and it is the end of the world. There is a double standard when it comes

to America but we bring it on ourselves with our actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

amoy9t.jpg

 

OMG. Moment of clarity.

 

There were some planes in some random Pakistani village and a couple of blasts. Blasts in Pakistan? Surely not! Must be a first.

 

Theres no way that could have been staged as part of an effort to make this story believable.

 

[/sarcasm]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well he timed killing the most hated man in the world PREEEEEETTY well.

 

People who think America actually killed this guy yesterday are too naive. Hes probably dead, America didnt do shit though.

 

Conspiracy theories

 

* yawns

 

condescending conspiracy theorists.

 

*negged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osama Bin Laden's legacy: It will depend in part on what Obama does next. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

 

Death of a Madman

 

What Obama does next will help define the legacy of Osama Bin Laden.

By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Monday, May 2, 2011, at 10:30 AM ET

 

There are several pleasant little towns like Abbottabad in Pakistan, strung out along the roads that lead toward the mountains from Rawalpindi (the garrison town of Pakistani's military brass and, until 2003, a safe-house for Khalid Sheik Muhammed). Muzaffarabad, Abbottabad … cool in summer and winter, with majestic views and discreet amenities. The colonial British—like Maj. James Abbott, who gave his name to this one—called them "hill stations," designed for the rest and recreation of commissioned officers. The charming idea, like the location itself, survives among the Pakistani officer corps. If you tell me that you are staying in a rather nice walled compound in Abbottabad, I can tell you in return that you are the honored guest of a military establishment that annually consumes several billion dollars of American aid. It's the sheer blatancy of it that catches the breath.

 

There's perhaps some slight satisfaction to be gained from this smoking-gun proof of official Pakistani complicity with al-Qaida, but in general it only underlines the sense of anticlimax. After all, who did not know that the United States was lavishly feeding the same hands that fed Bin Laden? There's some minor triumph, also, in the confirmation that our old enemy was not a heroic guerrilla fighter but the pampered client of a corrupt and vicious oligarchy that runs a failed and rogue state.

 

But, again, we were aware of all this already. At least we won't have to put up with a smirking video when the 10th anniversary of his best-known atrocity comes around. Come to think of it, though, he hadn't issued any major communiqués on any subject lately (making me wonder, some time ago, if he hadn't actually died or been accidentally killed already), and the really hateful work of his group and his ideology was being carried out by a successor generation like his incomparably more ruthless clone in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I find myself hoping that, like Zarqawi, Bin Laden had a few moments at the end to realize who it was who had found him and to wonder who the traitor had been. That would be something. Not much, but something.

 

In what people irritatingly call "iconic" terms, Bin Laden certainly had no rival. The strange, scrofulous quasi-nobility and bogus spirituality of his appearance was appallingly telegenic, and it will be highly interesting to see whether this charisma survives the alternative definition of revolution that has lately transfigured the Muslim world. The most tenaciously lasting impression of all, however, is that of his sheer irrationality. What had the man thought he was doing? Ten years ago, did he expect, let alone desire, to be in a walled compound in dear little Abbottabad?

 

Ten years ago, I remind you, he had a gigantic influence in one rogue and failed state—Afghanistan—and was exerting an increasing force over its Pakistani neighbor. Taliban and al-Qaida sympathizers were in senior positions in the Pakistani army and nuclear program and had not yet been detected as such. Huge financial subventions flowed his way, often through official channels, from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. As well as running a nihilist international, he was the head of a giant and profitable network of banking and money-laundering. He could order heavy artillery wheeled up to destroy the Buddhist treasures of Afghanistan in broad daylight. A nexus of madrassas was spreading the word from Indonesia to London, just as a nexus of camps was schooling future murderers.

 

And he decided to gamble all these ripening strategic advantages in a single day. Then, not only did he run away from Afghanistan, leaving his deluded followers to be killed in very large numbers, but he chose to remain a furtive and shady figure, on whom the odds of a successful covert "hit," or bought-and-paid-for betrayal, were bound to lengthen every day.

 

It seems thinkable that he truly believed his own mad propaganda, often adumbrated on tapes and videos, especially after the American scuttle from Somalia. The West, he maintained, was rotten with corruption and run by cabals of Jews and homosexuals. It had no will to resist. It had become feminized and cowardly. One devastating psychological blow and the rest of the edifice would gradually follow the Twin Towers in a shower of dust. Well, he and his fellow psychopaths did succeed in killing thousands in North America and Western Europe, but in the past few years, their main military triumphs have been against such targets as Afghan schoolgirls, Shiite Muslim civilians, and defenseless synagogues in Tunisia and Turkey. Has there ever been a more contemptible leader from behind, or a commander who authorized more blanket death sentences on bystanders?

 

Theocratic irrationality is not so uncommon that defeats like this are enough to render it unattractive. No doubt some braggarts will continue to tell instant opinion polls in the region that they regard him as a holy sheik or some such drivel. (Funny how those polls never picked up the local appetite for constitutional democracy.) With any luck, there will even be demented rumors that Bin Laden is not "really" dead. Fine: He'd probably already done the worst damage he was going to do. In anything describable as the real world, his tactics were creating antibodies and antagonists, or no longer matched observable conditions, or had at least hit diminishing returns.

 

The martyr of Abbottabad is no more, and the competing Führer-complexes of his surviving underlings will perhaps now enjoy an exciting free rein. Yet the uniformed and anonymous patrons of that sheltered Abbottabad compound are still very much with us, and Obama's speech will be entirely worthless if he expects us to go on arming and financing the very people who made this trackdown into such a needlessly long, arduous and costly one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

condescending conspiracy theorists.

 

*negged

 

A) How am I being condescending towards you or others? Im saying it is very naive to automatically believe that the USA have killed Osama in some kind of Triumphant raid, solely because the USA are telling you they have.

 

B) Calling me a conspiracy theorist because I dont necessarily toe the fucking party line is condescending in itself, you thick fuck.

 

I think I need to subscribe to neg back. Please can somebody tell me how to subscribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) How am I being condescending towards you or others? Im saying it is very naive to automatically believe that the USA have killed Osama in some kind of Triumphant raid, solely because the USA are telling you they have.

 

B) Calling me a conspiracy theorist because I dont necessarily toe the fucking party line is condescending in itself, you thick fuck.

 

I think I need to subscribe to neg back. Please can somebody tell me how to subscribe.

 

ask your mum for some money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) How am I being condescending towards you or others? Im saying it is very naive to automatically believe that the USA have killed Osama in some kind of Triumphant raid, solely because the USA are telling you they have.

 

B) Calling me a conspiracy theorist because I dont necessarily toe the fucking party line is condescending in itself, you thick fuck.

 

I think I need to subscribe to neg back. Please can somebody tell me how to subscribe.

 

 

Negged for wanting to revenge neg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG. Moment of clarity.

 

There were some planes in some random Pakistani village and a couple of blasts. Blasts in Pakistan? Surely not! Must be a first.

 

Theres no way that could have been staged as part of an effort to make this story believable.

 

[/sarcasm]

 

So the President that many people already compare to Jimmy Carter (ie: Operation Eagle Claw) would

purposely stage this deep inside Pakistan instead of say a cave closer to the border? Then crashed

a helicopter, blew it up and left it there, splattered blood all over the place, and took a bunch of crap?

Then announced it at 11pm when half the country was asleep and 19 months before an election?

They are either telling the truth or really bad at staging something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B) Calling me a conspiracy theorist because I dont necessarily toe the fucking party line is condescending in itself, you thick fuck.

 

I think people are calling you a conspiracy theorist because you're a conspiracy theorist who has banged on and on about various conpiracies in the past.

 

If I've got the wrong person I apologise, I might not be the only one today...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the President that many people already compare to Jimmy Carter (ie: Operation Eagle Claw) would

purposely stage this deep inside Pakistan instead of say a cave closer to the border? Then crashed

a helicopter, blew it up and left it there, splattered blood all over the place, and took a bunch of crap?

Then announced it at 11pm when half the country was asleep and 19 months before an election?

They are either telling the truth or really bad at staging something.

 

A) We are talking about America here. They are really bad at most stuff.

 

B) They may have been in Pakistan for numerous other reasons. They could have just seen this as an ideal time to announce that they found Bin Laden.

 

C) If you really think Osama was just chilling in some Pakistani mansion, reading TLW fanzines and having a wank whilst America quietly crept up on him you're crazy. If he spent 10 years hiding and the world was after him, I'm sure he'd have some kind of lookout telling him Helicopters were closing in on him. And i'm certain he wouldn't have just sat in his bedroom waiting to be killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you are not an idiot, then you count of facts and evidence, how many 'would be' jack the rippers were there who claimed to have done it.

What I think is not really relevant, they wouldn't have been able to convict him for 9/11, even a show trial can be appealed and Bin Laden wasn't going to struggle to get a decent lawyer either. There simply is no evidence.

 

Even in a US court they would have had an impossible case to make to convict him, hopeless and also the Obama administration would have been accused of going 'soft' by going to a trial instead of just killing him as they all wanted revenge like in Hollywood.

I have no real opinion as the people who say he did it have never provided a shred of evidence, they are idiots with interests who operate in secrecy, so why should I?

 

Sorry Dennis, I misread your post. I thought you were arguing about whether he planned it and not whether they could prove he orchestrated it, which I agree, they couldn't(or wouldn't be willing to share how in court).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are calling you a conspiracy theorist because you're a conspiracy theorist who has banged on and on about various conpiracies in the past.

 

If I've got the wrong person I apologise, I might not be the only one today...

 

You really have got the wrong person :|

 

I hardly ever post on the GF mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...