Jump to content

Osama Bin Laden is Dead


Recommended Posts

The MSM is mostly biased left.

No it isn't. It doesn't matter that you keep repeating it; but it's interesting that I can't get anyone--anyone--who makes this claim to engage in an actual, serious debate on the matter.

If you like, we can have such a debate. My primary source will be Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda model...though I will bring in other sources also, as well as some of my own observations and opinions. You can choose any source you like, of course, or eschew any in favour of your own insights.

However, I've discovered that these debates don't work well; because those who claim a "biased left" media don't tend to have enough meat to engage in it intelligently. Usually, they don't engage at all; or else they abandon it after a single post and response. (I would generously believe it was me, and not the subject, except this is about the only topic in which I see this happening.) I would enjoy having this disproven, incidentally, if only for the sake of a sober discussion to overtake the usual repetitious, evidence-free claims.

"Leftist bias" is not a given; it's a proposition, and so requires analysis and evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 486
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Famous pic of Hillary (hand over mouth), Barack & co. looking concerned in the situation room wasn't them "watching" the OBL raid live. from The Telegraph:

The head of the CIA has admitted that there was no live video footage of the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound as further doubts emerged about the US version of events.

Leon Panetta said there was a 25-minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.

A photograph issued by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening for long periods.

Some media spin put to rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, would we not want to interrogate Bin Laden so he can tell us exactly how 9/11 was pulled off? He'd be a wealth of information under torture correct?

Also check this out.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20110511/obama-approval-rating-highest-point-in-2-year-110511/

Obama riding high on this event. Enough to push his approval rating to the HIGHEST in two years.

Four more years!!!

Edited by GostHacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

This is rich, coming from bin Laden's sons: "We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems, justice must be seen to be done." link One set of standards for us, and a completely different set of standards for dear old dad et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is rich, coming from bin Laden's sons: "We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems, justice must be seen to be done." link One set of standards for us, and a completely different set of standards for dear old dad et al.

:) If it were anyone else, there'd at least be grounds for discussion.

This sounds almost like a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is rich, coming from bin Laden's sons: "We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems, justice must be seen to be done." link One set of standards for us, and a completely different set of standards for dear old dad et al.

Would the hypocrisy not depend on which son(s) signed the document and to whether or not he/they actually partook in terrorist activity?

Or are you assuming that any and all sons of OBL must be terrorists because they are the son(s) of OBL?

I don't know enough about OBL's family so I can't say that I can judge the way you have....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Would the hypocrisy not depend on which son(s) signed the document and to whether or not he/they actually partook in terrorist activity?

No, it wouldn't depend on whether or not they actually participated in terrorist activity; it would depend on whether or not they ever actually spoke out against terrorism, the acts their father committed, the way they are now making a statement about his death. To my knowledge, Omar is the only one who has ever spoken out against his father's activities, and the article said "sons," hence the reference to "we" in the statement, so I'm going on the idea that it was, indeed, more than one.

Or are you assuming that any and all sons of OBL must be terrorists because they are the son(s) of OBL?

No. See above.

I don't know enough about OBL's family so I can't say that I can judge the way you have....

I'm not judging the family; I said nothing about the "family." But regarding the sons, if they publicly criticize us, while not doing the same regarding their dad, while not expressing that they expected the same of their dad, then they indeed have two different sets of standards, just as I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not judging the family; I said nothing about the "family."

Given that the family is primarily composed of the sons I don't really see the point of this comment.

Are you being pedantic here?

Or did you honestly not know what was being referred to?

But regarding the sons, if they publicly criticize us, while not doing the same regarding their dad, while not expressing that they expected the same of their dad, then they indeed have two different sets of standards, just as I said.

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article:

Omar bin Laden, a metals trader who has been living in Cairo, appears at pains to disassociate himself from his father's belief in political violence. "We want to remind the world that Omar bin Laden, the fourth-born son of our father, always disagreed with our father regarding any violence and always sent messages to our father, that he must change his ways and that no civilians should be attacked under any circumstances," the statement said.

So there doesn't seem to be hypocrisy there, does it ? I think most normal people see OBL's acts as criminal, and deserving of justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, would we not want to interrogate Bin Laden so he can tell us exactly how 9/11 was pulled off? He'd be a wealth of information under torture correct?

Not really. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was much more valuble.

Also check this out.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20110511/obama-approval-rating-highest-point-in-2-year-110511/

Obama riding high on this event. Enough to push his approval rating to the HIGHEST in two years.

Four more years!!!

Yep. It's amazing how great your approval rating can look when 46% Democrats are used in the poll vs 29% Republicans! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. It's amazing how great your approval rating can look when 46% Democrats are used in the poll vs 29% Republicans! :lol:

What are you referring to? The fact that more people in the U.S. are registered Democrat than Republican? Should they skew the sample of Americans to favour Republicans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you referring to?

It's not about registration as it is about party affiliation. But that's not the only thing. The poll is great if you think that independent voters make up only 4%. :rolleyes:

Also...

The Dem/Rep/Ind breakdown in this poll is 46/29/4, as AP assigned most of the leaners to the parties. That is a 17-point gap, more than twice what was seen in the 2008 actual popular vote that elected Obama. It only gets worse when independents are assigned properly. When taking out the leaners, the split becomes — I’m not kidding — 35/18/27. Oh, and another 20% “don’t know.” That’s significantly worse than the March poll, in which the proper D/R/I was 29/20/34, and far beyond their post-midterm sample of 31/28/26. It’s pretty easy to get Obama to 60% when Republicans are undersampled by almost half.

Yep, it's amazing how good one's poll numbers can be, with samples like that! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Given that the family is primarily composed of the sons I don't really see the point of this comment.

Are you being pedantic here?

Or did you honestly not know what was being referred to?

The family is hardly composed primarily of the sons. There are wives and daughters, not to mention brothers and sisters and in-laws etc., whom I don't dismiss as "family." So in light of your questions, I thought perhaps you had assumed that I had judged the whole family by the sons' statement when I realize there are actually family members who have distanced themselves or disowned Osama, so I wanted to make it clear that I was in no way speaking of the family, but of the sons; I had no idea why you went from "sons" to "family" as they are definitely not one and the same.

Fair enough.

I'm glad you recognize I wasn't unfairly judging. As I pointed out, Omar is the only one who has spoken out, even his brothers seem to acknowledge that, so I see any of the other sons as speaking out about us while remaining silent about their father as ludicrous in light of what his father has done and what the SEALS did. They don't get to ride on Omar's coattails, nowhere does it indicate that he was ever speaking for anyone but himself, especially since I still haven't seen any of the other "we" speak out against Osama even as this statement was released.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The family is hardly composed primarily of the sons. There are wives and daughters, not to mention brothers and sisters and in-laws etc., whom I don't dismiss as "family." So in light of your questions, I thought perhaps you had assumed that I had judged the whole family by the sons' statement when I realize there are actually family members who have distanced themselves or disowned Osama, so I wanted to make it clear that I was in no way speaking of the family, but of the sons; I had no idea why you went from "sons" to "family" as they are definitely not one and the same.

Given the topic and the link provided I am going to assume you are an extreme pedantic anal retentive head. :P

But, seriously, I do think it is fair to shorten up, given the assumption that a person is reasonable (or, at least, not unreasonably pedantic), the son(s) referred to in the link to "family."

Guess I'll be more anal next time.

I'm glad you recognize I wasn't unfairly judging. As I pointed out, Omar is the only one who has spoken out, even his brothers seem to acknowledge that, so I see any of the other sons as speaking out about us while remaining silent about their father as ludicrous in light of what his father has done and what the SEALS did. They don't get to ride on Omar's coattails, nowhere does it indicate that he was ever speaking for anyone but himself, especially since I still haven't seen any of the other "we" speak out against Osama even as this statement was released.

Oh, don't misunderstand me: I think your comment is "fair" enough but I think it shows incredible cognitive dissonance.

The credibility of a person stating something may be important to you but it is the objective substance of what has been said that is important to me.

To use an extreme example: had Hitler came out and stated "killing Jews is wrong" he would, of course, be correct.

His credibility on the issue, on the other hand, would be laughable.

Given how you and others here have twisted yourselves into pretzels in order to justify an execution order carried out by a government that is supposed to follow the rule of law, well, I suppose you would prefer to look at who is saying things more-so than what values are continuously being undermined by actions.

IOW: deflect the argument away from the substance of the issue by gossiping about "he said" this, and "they said" that with all kinds of mock moral outrage regardless of whether or not that "what" has any merit regardless of the "who."

Edited by msj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is rich, coming from bin Laden's sons: "We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems, justice must be seen to be done." link One set of standards for us, and a completely different set of standards for dear old dad et al.

Makes you wonder what took them so long to say something. Just like how 'upset' Pakistan was .. a week later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the hypocrisy not depend on which son(s) signed the document and to whether or not he/they actually partook in terrorist activity?

Or are you assuming that any and all sons of OBL must be terrorists because they are the son(s) of OBL?

I don't know enough about OBL's family so I can't say that I can judge the way you have....

You should also look into the Bush family connections with the Bin Laden family.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

CBC show called 'The Fifth Estate' investigative program in the same vein like 60 Minutes

Don't let the title misslead you, everything in the article is fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should also look into the Bush family connections with the Bin Laden family.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

CBC show called 'The Fifth Estate' investigative program in the same vein like 60 Minutes

Don't let the title misslead you, everything in the article is fact.

Then why didn't Bush find some other culprit for the September 11 attacks? This makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why didn't Bush find some other culprit for the September 11 attacks? This makes no sense.

By that question, you are asking if Bush could have found someone else to carry out the September 11 attacks? Which is a good question. But why would Bush want to find someone to carry out the attacks? Ready to put your tinfoil hat on JBG?

Maybe you should take a look at this .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-RAD2000-12

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from early 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.

And this ....

http://www.webcitation.org/5e3est5lT

PNAC (Project for a New American Century) Document, Rebuilding America's Defenses.

page 49, 50.

A transformation strategy that solely

pursued capabilities for projecting force

from the United States, for example, and

sacrificed forward basing and presence,

would be at odds with larger American

policy goals and would trouble American

allies.

Further, the process of transformation,

even if it brings revolutionary change, is

likely to be a long one, absent some

catastrophic and catalyzing event like a

new Pearl Harbor.

Edited by GostHacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that question, you are asking if Bush could have found someone else to carry out the September 11 attacks? Which is a good question. But why would Bush want to find someone to carry out the attacks? Ready to put your tinfoil hat on JBG?

No, I mean someone else to blame. But you knew that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Makes you wonder what took them so long to say something. Just like how 'upset' Pakistan was .. a week later.

Makes me wonder how they had the gall to say anything at all. They even point out that Omar spoke out against his father's terrorism, which only emphasizes the fact that they didn't. Takes a lot of nerve to judge and criticize others under the circumstances.

As for Pakistan, I'm guessing they needed a little time to figure out how to play the fact that bin Laden was living in their country for years - either with their knowledge or without their knowledge; either way, it doesn't look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I mean someone else to blame. But you knew that.

Bush had to blame someone. He did not want to blame himself, or the previous administration that warned Bush about Bin Laden wanting to attack in the USA. The USA was not blindsided by the 9/11 attacks, they were given a heads up by several countries, Germany being one of them.

Also, you would not be able to get a whole country to submit to new security measures without first scaring the shit out of them, by telling them that they are going to get attacked by terrorists who hate your freedoms (you have a better chance of dying in a car accident .. should we ban cars?? ... you also have a better chance of getting cancer than dying in a terror attack). All the security is not about catching terrorists, it is about controlling the citizens of the US. DHS, NSA, TSA ect ect ....

But that is for another thread I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush had to blame someone. He did not want to blame himself, or the previous administration that warned Bush about Bin Laden wanting to attack in the USA. The USA was not blindsided by the 9/11 attacks, they were given a heads up by several countries, Germany being one of them.

Yes, the U.S. Government had word there'd be some attack somewhere and sometime. No specifics though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush had to blame someone. He did not want to blame himself, or the previous administration that warned Bush about Bin Laden wanting to attack in the USA.

Complete nonsense. Saying Bin Laden wanted to attack in the USA is like saying the sky is blue, and water is wet. Duh. There were no special security measures in place before Bush took office. So your theory pretty much falls apart.

But that is for another thread I guess.

Yes, please take your truther bullshit somewhere else. Or better yet, just put in a cork in it. I still can't believe that you're a real live 911 truther. :lol:

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...