This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Boise_Lib.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/What-Really-Happened-to-Osama-s-Body

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by doogle. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Osama? That guy is sooooo 2011.

From National Confidential site:

Fox News host Sean Hannity thanked the wrong president for killing Osama Bin Laden on his Thursday night program. Hannity, who reliably repeats Republican talking points on his conservative program, claimed that Bin Laden had been killed thanks to the actions of former President George W. Bush.

In fact, it was under Bush that Bin Laden committed the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history and was able to escape capture in large part thanks to the invasion of Iraq authorized by Bush.

Remember when George W. Bush used to say the names "Osama bin Laden" and "Saddam Hussein" in close proximity to one another in order to transfer the fear many had of Osama to Saddam? That's a type of psychological manipulation called 'fear conditioning'. The point is to teach you to be afraid of something by associating it with something else that you are already afraid of. I sense the cold war has shaped your politics to a large degree - which is common among conservatives and conservative libertarians - so the word Marxism is likely something that causes you great fear. Through conditioning, your fear of Marxism has been projected onto the Democratic party by FOX news, Glenn Beck and the entire corporate media echo chamber. In reality, the Democratic party is in no way Marxist. It's actually quite conservative, economically speaking.

In order to illustrate my point, I'd like you to explain to me what you believe Marxism to be, and then to detail how, in your own words, you see the Democratic party as Marxist. If indeed this is a case of fear conditioning, you won't be able to do it.

Good luck.

Ron Paul deserved to be booed, but you can be pretty sure that the crowd was right for all the wrong reasons.

Al Qaeda listed support for the state of Israel at the top of the USA's crimes. Paul is correct in pointing that out. He is WRONG to simply leave it at that, as though by capitulating and turning our backs on Israel that we could live at peace with Al Qaeda.

The truth is, the majority of people killed by Al Qaeda and similar jihadist groups are muslims living in the middle east. Either Shia's for simply not being Sunni's as the late Osama was, or for any other failure to adopt the specific brand of Sharia that the jihadist groups want.

These terrorists have killed countless more of their neighbouring muslims than imperialist Americans, it is dishonest, contemptible, and worthy of booing Ron Paul suggesting American actions made the difference between the attacks of these terrorists and them leaving us to our own ways. These terrorists ARE enemies of the free world, starting most importantly with their own fellow muslim neighbours.

You may stop watching this bullsh1t at 1:29 when the entire Vietnam war is labeled as US soldiers--without any context--killing 4 million people in Southeast Asia. REALLY?

NEWSFLASH: the world has always been a violent place. Spin the globe, point to any country and there's a long history of military failures and maybe a few successes. If you're looking for utopian perfection, check the Fiction section.

RoPaul doesn't seem to know that the cult of islam has been at war with everyone around it since its inception. osama was a prick now and forever, and if we aligned with him it was to fight even bigger pricks.

NEWSFLASH 2: Right now, in 2011, the world is also more peaceful than ever

9/11 Motivated Excessive Fiscal Spending

The wars are a tiny portion of the debt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-war-on-terror-costs_n_856390.html

"If Congress also approves the president’s FY2012 war-funding request, the cumulative cost of post-9/11 operations would reach $1.415 trillion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

"As of October 22, 2011, the gross debt was $14.94 trillion."

This is not even addressing the point that the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11. You're going to have to explain your lack of conservative bona fides when Bush was in power another way.

Banks should have been allowed to fail

Not bailing out the banks would have trashed the economy. When banks fail, financing dries up, businesses can't meet their short term cash flow requirements and they default. The economy collapses. The end. It doesn't matter how you're ideologically attuned to government assistance in times of crisis, that this would have happened is simply a fact.

Better yet follow it through further. When banks collapse, without federal deposit insurance, individuals lose their personal savings. How far would you follow through your rigid and impractical ideological principles? Would you say free markets dictate they lose their savings for the bad judgement of those in the financial services industry.

Keynesian Fiscal Policy Works

Every other major economy is doing it. Take a look at how much China spent and how it's barely sputtered in growth. Every economist worth a damn is saying the US is not spending enough to prop up the economy. That whatever you're reading is drawing a comparison FDR rather than you know, something in the last 50 years should tell you they're full of the BS.

If you go back and read forecasts for unemployment before Obama was inaugurated, none of them expected to fall significantly or quickly in a short period of it. The prolonged European debt crisis has exacerbated that. Unemployment falling marginally is not evidence that stimulus spending does not work.

Look, what is it about fiscal spending that you don't understand? Economic uncertainty in Europe. Businesses don't know what demand will be like, so they sit on their money instead of investing or hiring more workers. Countries face that risk that as they wait, short term unemployed become long term unemployed because they've been out of the workforce and skills atrophy. So they spend in the short term to keep people employed or incentive through deductions for companies to hire. Tax cuts improve returns marginally. Spending to keep people employed reduces the cost of social services in the long-long term from people being shunned out of the workforce. You spend but you make your money back over time.

It's simple. And it makes perfect logical sense.

How is it that hard to understand?

The rest

I'll be honest, your writing manner makes you look stupid when you're trying to make factual arguments. Have you seen a newspaper article or dissertation written like this? No. Exactly.

FYI, I live in Australia. We have free hospital visits, virtually no government debt, almost record low unemployment and we never went into a recession. Funnily enough Keynesian fiscal policy works over here, must be an anomaly though.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The question that can't be answered is whether Bush would've spent like the amateur liberal he is without 9-11. There was plenty of criticism leveled at Bush by the right during his tenure. The left was so focused on ensuring America lost in Iraq it didn't have time to thank Bush for rubber stamping all of their usual failed social "programs".
The failouts and scamulus sealed Bush 43's legacy as a failure. Everyone should've been "allowed" to fail.
Now enter His Earness. Questionable background, no experience, gets shunted through by obeisant media fawns. Tries the same Keynesian BS that FDR did with predictable results. As FDR's antics prolonged the Depression by a decade, so His Earness has spent and spent with nothing to show for it but enormous new debt (and no WW2 to save his bacon). Now this regime's media says with a straight face that the scamuli "prevented even worse unemployment". Hippie PLEASE.
We've now had six years of Taxocrats running Congress...what's better now than before?
You are going to have to defend the indefensible next year. Be sure to vote November 3rd.




>> ^RedSky:
@quantumushroom
QM, my problem with your point of view is throughout Bush's term, you didn't appear to have any issues with his profligacy as he (and the Republican congress at the time) pushed through bill after a bill that took the country massively into debt. Now your concerns are presumably that in the worst economic crisis in 60 years, the Democrat government is spending too much to prop up the economy and prevent the skills of the short term unemployment stagnating and turning into the long term unemployed dependent on social benefits.
Where are your standards here?
Or your consistency?

But they killed Osama. Doesn't that mean terrorism is over?

>> ^hpqp:

It's no secret that OBL was trained by the CIA during Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, as a part of the proxy wars between USSR and USA during the cold war.
As for the evidence, you might like to start with the links I've already provided you with. Twice. Oh well, "Third time's the charm" for you superstitious types: http://www.debunking911.com/

_{(Btw, if you're going to defend your questionable beliefs, try linking articles that are a tad more convincing than the conjecturing ramblings filled with leading questions of a Srebrenica-massacre-denialist and defender of a renowned war criminal.)}>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
Yes, why do truthers keep avoiding the evidence and logic?

I'm not avoiding anything. Please share all credible evidence backing the official theory. No such evidence exists.
And logic? Maybe you should do some research on who Osama bin Laden aka Tim Osman really was.
Osama bin Laden: Made in USA



And it's no secret that al-Qaeda was a database of "freedom fighters" of a CIA proxy army. It's also no secret they were given 6+ billion dollars in the 80s by the CIA and Saudi Intelligence to fight the Soviets over Afghanistan under the invented threat of Communism. Now here's where that "logic" comes in.

When did OBL stop working for the CIA?
OBL was immediately blamed for 9/11 (within a few hours after the attacks) and now we are fighting wars under the invented threat of Muslim jihadists.

Why were some of the alleged hijackers living with CIA and FBI informants?

Why were some of the alleged hijackers training at US military bases?

Why did Anwar al-Awlaki dine at the Pentagon just months after 9/11?

What was ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad (who wired $100,00 to Mohammed Atta) doing at the Pentagon the week leading up to and morning of 9/11?

Oh, I'm looking for "logical" answers here.

And for "evidence" supporting the official story, don't be a chicken shit. List your best supporting evidence. Of course, I know this is impossible for you. For it would require you to actually construct a coherent argument.
Maybe instead of letting debunking.com do your thinking for you, you should try getting all the facts and confirm them for yourself.

And my "questionable beliefs" are grounded solidly on credible evidence and sound logic, so question away. The link was to an article, not a guy. I'm glad you can google, but if you want to refute the article, try to avoid using logical fallacies (after all).

_{(Btw, "conjecturing" isn't an adjective. You can google that too! It's funny, you keep accusing me of "conjecturing", but you're too much of a chicken shit to demonstrate it!)}

It's no secret that OBL was trained by the CIA during Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, as a part of the proxy wars between USSR and USA during the cold war.

As for the evidence, you might like to start with the links I've already provided you with. Twice. Oh well, "Third time's the charm" for you superstitious types: http://www.debunking911.com/


_{(Btw, if you're going to defend your questionable beliefs, try linking articles that are a tad more convincing than the conjecturing ramblings filled with leading questions of a Srebrenica-massacre-denialist and defender of a renowned war criminal.)}>> ^marbles:

>> ^hpqp:
Yes, why do truthers keep avoiding the evidence and logic?

I'm not avoiding anything. Please share all credible evidence backing the official theory. No such evidence exists.
And logic? Maybe you should do some research on who Osama bin Laden aka Tim Osman really was.
Osama bin Laden: Made in USA

>> ^hpqp:

Yes, why do truthers keep avoiding the evidence and logic?


I'm not avoiding anything. Please share all credible evidence backing the official theory. No such evidence exists.

And logic? Maybe you should do some research on who Osama bin Laden aka Tim Osman really was.

Osama bin Laden: Made in USA

>> ^marbles:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
I don't know how much more evidence is required.
Of course you don't. One wonders why doesn't the FBI count it as evidence then? Maybe because it's only purpose is political propaganda to achieve an agenda that doesn't include actually pursuing a criminal via the rule of law.
Bin Laden didn't "confess" to 9/11 in that video. Bin Laden confessed in the 2001 video where he had a big nose. The one that's been all out confirmed to be a fake. The CIA even admits it created fake Bin Laden tapes.
The video released in 2004 is the one Walter Cronkite called a setup orchestrated by Karl Rove to help Bush get reelected.
EPIC FAIL: The US Government’s History Of Fake Bin Laden Tapes

Oh no, I'm not going to get drawn into a debate with a truther.

Good call. Know when you're over-matched.

Hahaha, you're funny. No, that's not it at all. I just know not to waste my time banging my head against a brick wall.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
I don't know how much more evidence is required.
Of course you don't. One wonders why doesn't the FBI count it as evidence then? Maybe because it's only purpose is political propaganda to achieve an agenda that doesn't include actually pursuing a criminal via the rule of law.
Bin Laden didn't "confess" to 9/11 in that video. Bin Laden confessed in the 2001 video where he had a big nose. The one that's been all out confirmed to be a fake. The CIA even admits it created fake Bin Laden tapes.
The video released in 2004 is the one Walter Cronkite called a setup orchestrated by Karl Rove to help Bush get reelected.
EPIC FAIL: The US Government’s History Of Fake Bin Laden Tapes

Oh no, I'm not going to get drawn into a debate with a truther.


Good call. Know when you're over-matched.