Osama Bin Laden is dead

[biguglyamerican]

Originally Posted by Jking0821

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by Jking0821

No offense to pakistan....but please define Disastrous Consequences....

America about to be like "o you harbor osama and other terrorist we are searching your entire country...you don't like it

"

Pakistan has nuclear arms and a real army though. These are not Afghani rebels we are speaking of. Conflict with Pakistan would be a real war, not an invasion.

Dam just did a quick bit of research thier army is large 612,000 active troops.  If they have nuclear weapons this is going to suck.

Did we say we plan on doing more attacking in Pakistan? 

What if we read Osama's info we found in his compound and it has ties to other people in Pakistan in Al Queda (sp don't care) and we try to wipe them out? are they against that (kind of rhetorical feel free to answer though i know no one knows all hypothetical)

A conflict with the u.s.a. is the last thing pakistan wants on its plate. It would much rather keep us occupied with its proxy's and keep a hard on for india. All the while collecting billions of dollars from us.
  

 

[kix4kix]

People who believe in one conspiracy are highly likely to believe in a lot of them.

 

[kix4kix]

People who believe in one conspiracy are highly likely to believe in a lot of them.

 

[biguglyamerican]

I wouldnt doubt that the paki's knew about the raid through information sharing. But that has not been verified. One thing has been verified though, the birds that flew in did so undetected. This is not up for debate.

The helicopters that flew the Navy SEALs on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden were a radar-evading variant of the special operations MH-60 Black Hawk, according to a retired special operations aviator
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/

 

[biguglyamerican]

I wouldnt doubt that the paki's knew about the raid through information sharing. But that has not been verified. One thing has been verified though, the birds that flew in did so undetected. This is not up for debate.

The helicopters that flew the Navy SEALs on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden were a radar-evading variant of the special operations MH-60 Black Hawk, according to a retired special operations aviator
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/

 

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by Jking0821

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by Jking0821

No offense to pakistan....but please define Disastrous Consequences....

America about to be like "o you harbor osama and other terrorist we are searching your entire country...you don't like it

"

Pakistan has nuclear arms and a real army though. These are not Afghani rebels we are speaking of. Conflict with Pakistan would be a real war, not an invasion.

Dam just did a quick bit of research thier army is large 612,000 active troops.  If they have nuclear weapons this is going to suck.

Did we say we plan on doing more attacking in Pakistan? 

What if we read Osama's info we found in his compound and it has ties to other people in Pakistan in Al Queda (sp don't care) and we try to wipe them out? are they against that (kind of rhetorical feel free to answer though i know no one knows all hypothetical)

Edit:  good point JameEarlZones about the execution style but what does that entail i though it was shot to the back of the head does the bullet not come out of the skull in the front? you are def right though there are no body holes just head matter everywhere.

Conflict with Pakistan is the last thing WE want, as well as them. Our economy is already +#@#$*. An actual war would destroy us.

And it would not just be Pakistan we'd have to worry about.

Execution style could be from behind, the side, the front. The one guy took at least one bullet right under his mouth. The bodies I've seen seem to only have shots to one place, the head.

I can't say it was execution, it just looks like that's the case. I'm branded a conspiracy theorists for not believing the story that we are given, but it's impossible to me when every 7 hours a new story is developed or new details surface that contradict what we already "know". It's not my fault they can't keep their story straight.

I honestly just want the truth. If it's been done, show us proof. We saw Saddam's sons the day they were killed. Osama has died 9 or 10 times since 2002. This is the first time (I think) a president has said he's dead but that doesn't make me believe it any more than any other person saying it.

I've learned over my 22 years that I can't take everything for face value. People lie, especially when they know they can get away with it. African Americans were being injected with syphilis and researched from 1932 to 1972/73 in an experiment conducted by the US Public Health Service. They were never told they had it. They were never treated for it.

And I'm supposed to blindly just put my life and safety in these people's hands? That's not being an American.

Our founding fathers would be ashamed of some of you.

kix4kix wrote:

---

People who believe in one conspiracy are highly likely to believe in a lot of them.
"We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented."

People used to think the world was flat...

 

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by Jking0821

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by Jking0821

No offense to pakistan....but please define Disastrous Consequences....

America about to be like "o you harbor osama and other terrorist we are searching your entire country...you don't like it

"

Pakistan has nuclear arms and a real army though. These are not Afghani rebels we are speaking of. Conflict with Pakistan would be a real war, not an invasion.

Dam just did a quick bit of research thier army is large 612,000 active troops.  If they have nuclear weapons this is going to suck.

Did we say we plan on doing more attacking in Pakistan? 

What if we read Osama's info we found in his compound and it has ties to other people in Pakistan in Al Queda (sp don't care) and we try to wipe them out? are they against that (kind of rhetorical feel free to answer though i know no one knows all hypothetical)

Edit:  good point JameEarlZones about the execution style but what does that entail i though it was shot to the back of the head does the bullet not come out of the skull in the front? you are def right though there are no body holes just head matter everywhere.

Conflict with Pakistan is the last thing WE want, as well as them. Our economy is already +#@#$*. An actual war would destroy us.

And it would not just be Pakistan we'd have to worry about.

Execution style could be from behind, the side, the front. The one guy took at least one bullet right under his mouth. The bodies I've seen seem to only have shots to one place, the head.

I can't say it was execution, it just looks like that's the case. I'm branded a conspiracy theorists for not believing the story that we are given, but it's impossible to me when every 7 hours a new story is developed or new details surface that contradict what we already "know". It's not my fault they can't keep their story straight.

I honestly just want the truth. If it's been done, show us proof. We saw Saddam's sons the day they were killed. Osama has died 9 or 10 times since 2002. This is the first time (I think) a president has said he's dead but that doesn't make me believe it any more than any other person saying it.

I've learned over my 22 years that I can't take everything for face value. People lie, especially when they know they can get away with it. African Americans were being injected with syphilis and researched from 1932 to 1972/73 in an experiment conducted by the US Public Health Service. They were never told they had it. They were never treated for it.

And I'm supposed to blindly just put my life and safety in these people's hands? That's not being an American.

Our founding fathers would be ashamed of some of you.

kix4kix wrote:

---

People who believe in one conspiracy are highly likely to believe in a lot of them.
"We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented."

People used to think the world was flat...

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

People who believe in one conspiracy are highly likely to believe in a lot of them.

Whether you believe 9/11 was an inside job or not, or if Osama is dead or not...If you agree on some notion that these events have been used or exploited to further certain agendas
 for political, economic, or military means or goals, that's believing in a conspiray. 
  

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

People who believe in one conspiracy are highly likely to believe in a lot of them.

Whether you believe 9/11 was an inside job or not, or if Osama is dead or not...If you agree on some notion that these events have been used or exploited to further certain agendas
 for political, economic, or military means or goals, that's believing in a conspiray. 
  

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Conspiracies occur, it must be admitted. But the striking fact which, in spite of their occurrence, disproves the conspiracy theory is that few of these conspiracies are ultimately successful. Conspirators rarely consummate their conspiracy.

Why is this so? Why do achievements differ so widely from aspirations? Because this is usually the case in social life, conspiracy or no conspiracy. Social life is not only a trial of strength between opposing groups: it is action within a more or less resilient or brittle framework of institutions and traditions, and it creates – apart from any conscious counter-action – many unforeseen reactions in this framework, some of them perhaps even unforeseeable.

To try to analyse these reactions and to foresee them as far as possible is, I believe, the main task of the social sciences. It is the task of analysing the unintended social repercussions of intentional human actions-those repercussions whose significance is neglected both by the conspiracy theory and by psychologism, as already indicated. An action which proceeds precisely according to intention does not create a problem for social science (except that there may be a need to explain why in this particular case no unintended repercussions occurred). One of the most primitive economic actions may serve as an example in order to make the idea of unintended consequences of our actions quite clear. If a man wishes urgently to buy a house, we can safely assume that he does not wish to raise the market price of houses. But the very fact that he appears on the market as a buyer will tend to raise market prices. And analogous remarks hold for the seller. Or to take an example from a very different field, if a man decides to insure his life, he is unlikely to have intention of encouraging some people to invest their money in insurance shares. But he will do so nevertheless. We see here clearly that not all consequences of our actions are intended consequences; and accordingly, that the conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all results, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results...

http://ovo127.com/2011/01...iracy-theory-of-society/
Again, Not to say that certain conspiracies are not true, for instance, big foot for example, I have been convinced ever since I saw the youtube clip that he exists, or atleast existed. 
Honestly, how many of those who feel this is a conspiracy also believe in JFK, Roswell, TWA, Catholic Church ect...?

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Conspiracies occur, it must be admitted. But the striking fact which, in spite of their occurrence, disproves the conspiracy theory is that few of these conspiracies are ultimately successful. Conspirators rarely consummate their conspiracy.

Why is this so? Why do achievements differ so widely from aspirations? Because this is usually the case in social life, conspiracy or no conspiracy. Social life is not only a trial of strength between opposing groups: it is action within a more or less resilient or brittle framework of institutions and traditions, and it creates – apart from any conscious counter-action – many unforeseen reactions in this framework, some of them perhaps even unforeseeable.

To try to analyse these reactions and to foresee them as far as possible is, I believe, the main task of the social sciences. It is the task of analysing the unintended social repercussions of intentional human actions-those repercussions whose significance is neglected both by the conspiracy theory and by psychologism, as already indicated. An action which proceeds precisely according to intention does not create a problem for social science (except that there may be a need to explain why in this particular case no unintended repercussions occurred). One of the most primitive economic actions may serve as an example in order to make the idea of unintended consequences of our actions quite clear. If a man wishes urgently to buy a house, we can safely assume that he does not wish to raise the market price of houses. But the very fact that he appears on the market as a buyer will tend to raise market prices. And analogous remarks hold for the seller. Or to take an example from a very different field, if a man decides to insure his life, he is unlikely to have intention of encouraging some people to invest their money in insurance shares. But he will do so nevertheless. We see here clearly that not all consequences of our actions are intended consequences; and accordingly, that the conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all results, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results...

http://ovo127.com/2011/01...iracy-theory-of-society/
Again, Not to say that certain conspiracies are not true, for instance, big foot for example, I have been convinced ever since I saw the youtube clip that he exists, or atleast existed. 
Honestly, how many of those who feel this is a conspiracy also believe in JFK, Roswell, TWA, Catholic Church ect...?

 

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Conspiracies occur, it must be admitted. But the striking fact which, in spite of their occurrence, disproves the conspiracy theory is that few of these conspiracies are ultimately successful. Conspirators rarely consummate their conspiracy.

Why is this so? Why do achievements differ so widely from aspirations? Because this is usually the case in social life, conspiracy or no conspiracy. Social life is not only a trial of strength between opposing groups: it is action within a more or less resilient or brittle framework of institutions and traditions, and it creates – apart from any conscious counter-action – many unforeseen reactions in this framework, some of them perhaps even unforeseeable.

To try to analyse these reactions and to foresee them as far as possible is, I believe, the main task of the social sciences. It is the task of analysing the unintended social repercussions of intentional human actions-those repercussions whose significance is neglected both by the conspiracy theory and by psychologism, as already indicated. An action which proceeds precisely according to intention does not create a problem for social science (except that there may be a need to explain why in this particular case no unintended repercussions occurred). One of the most primitive economic actions may serve as an example in order to make the idea of unintended consequences of our actions quite clear. If a man wishes urgently to buy a house, we can safely assume that he does not wish to raise the market price of houses. But the very fact that he appears on the market as a buyer will tend to raise market prices. And analogous remarks hold for the seller. Or to take an example from a very different field, if a man decides to insure his life, he is unlikely to have intention of encouraging some people to invest their money in insurance shares. But he will do so nevertheless. We see here clearly that not all consequences of our actions are intended consequences; and accordingly, that the conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all results, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results...

http://ovo127.com/2011/01...iracy-theory-of-society/
Again, Not to say that certain conspiracies are not true, for instance, big foot for example, I have been convinced ever since I saw the youtube clip that he exists, or atleast existed. 
Honestly, how many of those who feel this is a conspiracy also believe in JFK, Roswell, TWA, Catholic Church ect...?

I wouldn't consider Bigfoot a conspiracy, more of an anomaly. There's more of a chance that Bigfoot exists than there is of it all being a hoax. It's not like the idea of Bigfoot is just an American thing.

But yeah... JFK for sure. Roswell for sure.

Not familiar with the other two...?
 

 

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Conspiracies occur, it must be admitted. But the striking fact which, in spite of their occurrence, disproves the conspiracy theory is that few of these conspiracies are ultimately successful. Conspirators rarely consummate their conspiracy.

Why is this so? Why do achievements differ so widely from aspirations? Because this is usually the case in social life, conspiracy or no conspiracy. Social life is not only a trial of strength between opposing groups: it is action within a more or less resilient or brittle framework of institutions and traditions, and it creates – apart from any conscious counter-action – many unforeseen reactions in this framework, some of them perhaps even unforeseeable.

To try to analyse these reactions and to foresee them as far as possible is, I believe, the main task of the social sciences. It is the task of analysing the unintended social repercussions of intentional human actions-those repercussions whose significance is neglected both by the conspiracy theory and by psychologism, as already indicated. An action which proceeds precisely according to intention does not create a problem for social science (except that there may be a need to explain why in this particular case no unintended repercussions occurred). One of the most primitive economic actions may serve as an example in order to make the idea of unintended consequences of our actions quite clear. If a man wishes urgently to buy a house, we can safely assume that he does not wish to raise the market price of houses. But the very fact that he appears on the market as a buyer will tend to raise market prices. And analogous remarks hold for the seller. Or to take an example from a very different field, if a man decides to insure his life, he is unlikely to have intention of encouraging some people to invest their money in insurance shares. But he will do so nevertheless. We see here clearly that not all consequences of our actions are intended consequences; and accordingly, that the conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all results, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results...

http://ovo127.com/2011/01...iracy-theory-of-society/
Again, Not to say that certain conspiracies are not true, for instance, big foot for example, I have been convinced ever since I saw the youtube clip that he exists, or atleast existed. 
Honestly, how many of those who feel this is a conspiracy also believe in JFK, Roswell, TWA, Catholic Church ect...?

I wouldn't consider Bigfoot a conspiracy, more of an anomaly. There's more of a chance that Bigfoot exists than there is of it all being a hoax. It's not like the idea of Bigfoot is just an American thing.

But yeah... JFK for sure. Roswell for sure.

Not familiar with the other two...?
 

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by kix4kix

People who believe in one conspiracy are highly likely to believe in a lot of them.

Whether you believe 9/11 was an inside job or not, or if Osama is dead or not...If you agree on some notion that these events have been used or exploited to further certain agendas
 for political, economic, or military means or goals, that's believing in a conspiray. 
  

Strawman much? There is a big difference between believing Osama is still alive, and Osama's death being used for political gain. The latter makes perfect sense, and is also one of the main arguments against conspiracy theories in general- self interest.
New research suggests people are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories if they would be willing to personally participate in such a conspiracy. … “At least among some samples and for some conspiracy theories, the perception that ‘they did it’ is fueled by the perception that ‘I would do it. … People who have more lax personal morality may endorse conspiracy theories to a greater extent because they are, on average, more willing to participate in the conspiracies themselves.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Hazeleyed Honey

Originally Posted by kix4kix

People who believe in one conspiracy are highly likely to believe in a lot of them.

Whether you believe 9/11 was an inside job or not, or if Osama is dead or not...If you agree on some notion that these events have been used or exploited to further certain agendas
 for political, economic, or military means or goals, that's believing in a conspiray. 
  

Strawman much? There is a big difference between believing Osama is still alive, and Osama's death being used for political gain. The latter makes perfect sense, and is also one of the main arguments against conspiracy theories in general- self interest.
New research suggests people are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories if they would be willing to personally participate in such a conspiracy. … “At least among some samples and for some conspiracy theories, the perception that ‘they did it’ is fueled by the perception that ‘I would do it. … People who have more lax personal morality may endorse conspiracy theories to a greater extent because they are, on average, more willing to participate in the conspiracies themselves.

 

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by BigUglyAmerican


I wouldnt doubt that the paki's knew about the raid through information sharing. But that has not been verified. One thing has been verified though, the birds that flew in did so undetected. This is not up for debate.

The helicopters that flew the Navy SEALs on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden were a radar-evading variant of the special operations MH-60 Black Hawk, according to a retired special operations aviator

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/

 

 

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by BigUglyAmerican


I wouldnt doubt that the paki's knew about the raid through information sharing. But that has not been verified. One thing has been verified though, the birds that flew in did so undetected. This is not up for debate.

The helicopters that flew the Navy SEALs on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden were a radar-evading variant of the special operations MH-60 Black Hawk, according to a retired special operations aviator

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/

 

 

[cato312]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by BigUglyAmerican


I wouldnt doubt that the paki's knew about the raid through information sharing. But that has not been verified. One thing has been verified though, the birds that flew in did so undetected. This is not up for debate.

The helicopters that flew the Navy SEALs on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden were a radar-evading variant of the special operations MH-60 Black Hawk, according to a retired special operations aviator

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/

 
Sorry, wrong type of helo.

FWIW, this is an artist rendering of what that helo may have looked like.

http://defensetech.org/20...id-helo-might-look-like/

 

[cato312]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by BigUglyAmerican


I wouldnt doubt that the paki's knew about the raid through information sharing. But that has not been verified. One thing has been verified though, the birds that flew in did so undetected. This is not up for debate.

The helicopters that flew the Navy SEALs on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden were a radar-evading variant of the special operations MH-60 Black Hawk, according to a retired special operations aviator

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/

 
Sorry, wrong type of helo.

FWIW, this is an artist rendering of what that helo may have looked like.

http://defensetech.org/20...id-helo-might-look-like/

 

[tkthafm]

James Earl Zones wrote:

---

Jking0821 wrote:

---

nestasprotege wrote:

---

No offense to pakistan....but please define Disastrous Consequences....

America about to be like "o you harbor osama and other terrorist we are searching your entire country...you don't like it 

"


Pakistan has nuclear arms and a real army though. These are not Afghani rebels we are speaking of. Conflict with Pakistan would be a real war, not an invasion.

Like I said previously, the Pakistani government needs us to survive. They can't even handle their own tribes/terror problems/India/ISI corruption let alone the US military. Anyone who is taking this Pakistani "tough talk" seriously is an idiot.

Obama is sitting back reading these statements like:  

Probably gonna call and let them know if they don't settle down he's not gonna buy them an ice cream cone and sign their 2 billion dollar aid check this year.

 

[tkthafm]

James Earl Zones wrote:

---

Jking0821 wrote:

---

nestasprotege wrote:

---

No offense to pakistan....but please define Disastrous Consequences....

America about to be like "o you harbor osama and other terrorist we are searching your entire country...you don't like it 

"


Pakistan has nuclear arms and a real army though. These are not Afghani rebels we are speaking of. Conflict with Pakistan would be a real war, not an invasion.

Like I said previously, the Pakistani government needs us to survive. They can't even handle their own tribes/terror problems/India/ISI corruption let alone the US military. Anyone who is taking this Pakistani "tough talk" seriously is an idiot.

Obama is sitting back reading these statements like:  

Probably gonna call and let them know if they don't settle down he's not gonna buy them an ice cream cone and sign their 2 billion dollar aid check this year.

 

[jd214]

So now they said he was unarmed, So the soldiers started shooting and were scared of dude when he was unarmed in bed

 

[jd214]

So now they said he was unarmed, So the soldiers started shooting and were scared of dude when he was unarmed in bed

 

[nestasprotege]

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
~Rahm Emanuel


He didn't mean to say it but I'm guessing this is truly how they think.

Just a thought...Bin Laden is standing before God waiting to hear his punishment, when God gets a tap on the shoulder. Behind him stand 343 firemen, 72 police officers, one K9 officer, 3,000 American citizens & a combination of over 5,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, Marines, & CoastGuardsmen. "Don't worry God, WE GOT THIS ONE!!!" Share this in memory of all of our fallen heroes!

 

[nestasprotege]

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
~Rahm Emanuel


He didn't mean to say it but I'm guessing this is truly how they think.

Just a thought...Bin Laden is standing before God waiting to hear his punishment, when God gets a tap on the shoulder. Behind him stand 343 firemen, 72 police officers, one K9 officer, 3,000 American citizens & a combination of over 5,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, Marines, & CoastGuardsmen. "Don't worry God, WE GOT THIS ONE!!!" Share this in memory of all of our fallen heroes!