>> ^bcglorf: It seems silly, the link is to the page you are reading now!
Here's the quotes for the benefit of others so there's no risk of anyone falling for your foolishness.
1. I claimed You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Unbiased? So no mainstream news media then? Which covers the CNN and BBC claim.
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say. Which covers the citizen journalism side.
2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) Seems that Al Jazeera is sinful by association with Qatar, which is supporting the Benghazi rebels like a good American puppet. For those new to this, the Al Qaeda claim is not only taking Gadhafi at his word, it is also stated in the belief that America or it's evil puppet masters support Al Qaeda, making Qatar's support of Al Qaeda proof it's all still part of the conspiracy.
Suffice it to say, you've soundly rejected Al Jazeera as biased against the Syrian public and part of some foreign sourced insurrection there.
3.My last claim was You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure they kicked out all foreigners. Can't really blame them when Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
And the best gem of them all:
The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
All you seem to know is that Assad is the one making sure everyone is silenced and that no information gets out. How convenient you can then throw up your hands and say we just don't know who is killing who.
The truth is survivors and defectors that escape are all telling the same story, Assad's men are killing unarmed civilians and are shooting any soldiers refusing to fire on the unarmed civilians as well.




I didn't dismiss anything. Earlier in the thread, I made a dig at mainstream media in general when ali wanted an "unbiased" source. I've posted links from Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, so you're not making any fucking sense.
And as far as "Assad's regime's media outlets", I have no idea what you're talking about.

In wars and armed conflicts you never know all the facts. You shouldn't accept any report from any news source at face value unless you can corroborate it with other sources. Even then you're likely only getting part of the truth. Al Jazerra repeatably makes disclaimers in this video that they don't know the facts.

Given the circumstances and Assad's short history, I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin and given the fact that Qatar is openly supporting NATO in Libya, they are clearly going to be biased when reporting on Syria. There's little credibility to anything they choose to broadcast on the subject.

There was a story about a month ago or so, where the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed. Did unarmed civilians do that? I also remember first hearing about civilians being killed by snipers that were part of Assad's "secret police". So I guess it could be Assad's men, but why would he use covert police AND the military? Doesn't make any sense. The more likely scenario is that foreign agents dressed as Assad's security force are opening fire on civilians. They're probably even doing it behind the backs of the activists they recruited and organized to protest.

But even if it is Assad that's gunning down civilians, it's not our fight. It's an internal conflict. Aiding one side or the other only brings about wider conflict with more fighting and more death.

Are these also Assad's forces shooting indiscriminately from inside this car?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say.
BTW, Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar
As I guessed, you consider even Al Jazeera to be a right wing funded anti-arab propaganda machine...
You are insane.
For the sane people, it's Al Jazeera interviewing Syrian refugees in Turkey and reporting that Al-Assad's forces are deliberately and systematically killing unarmed protesters. Your insistent denial of this and refusal to acknowledge it is beyond sick, it's actively harmful. It's people like you that are the paid tools and sycophants of the worst murderous dictators in the world today.

Instead of trying to characterize me into something you don't like and attacking me, try attacking my argument.

You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications. Fine.
You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda. Crazy, but if you like tinfoil hats that's your choice.
You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth...
The above is the characterization you've painted for yourself, and it's infinitely worse than anything I could try and project onto you.

Please provide a citation for any and all of your claims if you wish to be taken seriously.


It seems silly, the link is to the page you are reading now!

Here's the quotes for the benefit of others so there's no risk of anyone falling for your foolishness.

1. I claimed You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Unbiased? So no mainstream news media then? Which covers the CNN and BBC claim.
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say. Which covers the citizen journalism side.

2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) Seems that Al Jazeera is sinful by association with Qatar, which is supporting the Benghazi rebels like a good American puppet. For those new to this, the Al Qaeda claim is not only taking Gadhafi at his word, it is also stated in the belief that America or it's evil puppet masters support Al Qaeda, making Qatar's support of Al Qaeda proof it's all still part of the conspiracy.
Suffice it to say, you've soundly rejected Al Jazeera as biased against the Syrian public and part of some foreign sourced insurrection there.

3.My last claim was You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure they kicked out all foreigners. Can't really blame them when Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.

And the best gem of them all:
The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.

All you seem to know is that Assad is the one making sure everyone is silenced and that no information gets out. How convenient you can then throw up your hands and say we just don't know who is killing who.

The truth is survivors and defectors that escape are all telling the same story, Assad's men are killing unarmed civilians and are shooting any soldiers refusing to fire on the unarmed civilians as well.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:
I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.
So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.

That IS disgusting. We do know who is killing them. The refugees that have succeeded in fleeing to Turkey are telling us it was Assad's troops killing them. The SAME Assad that kicked out all journalists that didn't work directly for him. Defectors who've fled to Turkey have similarly reported witnessing first hand that Assad's secret service executed Syrian soldiers that refused orders to fire upon unarmed civilians.
We KNOW who is killing who. Your refusal to acknowledge it is sick.
---------

Your a piece of work. You understand nothing of the regions actual history. Instead, you've invented a fantasy built upon every single shred of anti-american propaganda being true and every shred of anything decent being said about them by anyone is utterly and blatantly false.
Go try following Al-Jazeera for awhile, you need some pro-western grounding to the perspective you've invented for yourself. I don't say that in jest either, I follow Al Jazeera more closely than any other news source, and the 'facts' you believe are 100% at odds and in contradiction to Al Jazeera's reporting on the region's activity.


Sorry, your support for foreign-funded sedition is disgusting. Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say.

BTW, Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) which is in direct violation of their own contrived UN Security resolution in 1973.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.
So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.


Your a piece of work. You understand nothing of the regions actual history. Instead, you've invented a fantasy built upon every single shred of anti-american propaganda being true and every shred of anything decent being said about them by anyone is utterly and blatantly false.

Go try following Al-Jazeera for awhile, you need some pro-western grounding to the perspective you've invented for yourself. I don't say that in jest either, I follow Al Jazeera more closely than any other news source, and the 'facts' you believe are 100% at odds and in contradiction to Al Jazeera's reporting on the region's activity.

>>@bmacs27: marbles
Who flew planes into the WTC on 9/11? By the way, I read "Which Path to Persia".
Have you heard of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"



Haha, let me guess. You have a argument to make that the "Which Path to Persia" manual is fraudulent?

So is that 9/11 question troll bait or what? Who made all the abnormal amount of Wall Street put bets on American Airlines and United between Sept 6 and 7. And on American Sept 10 at the Chicago Board of Options Exchange. Better yet, who sent US government made anthrax with hand written notes saying "Allah is great" to Congress men who were likely to oppose the Patriot Act?

Oh the alleged hijackers (courtesy of Paul Joseph Watson/Infowars.com):
Every single shred of evidence concerning the alleged 9/11 hijackers points to the fact that they were patsies controlled by informants working for the US government.
The US Special Operations Command’s Able Danger program identified the hijackers and their accomplices long before 9/11, but when the head of the program, Colonel Anthony Shaffer, tried to pass the information on to the 9/11 Commission, he was gagged and slandered and the vital information his team had passed on was ignored and buried.
Curt Weldon, Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, documented how the US government tracked the hijackers’ movements before 9/11.
Louai al-Sakka, the man who trained six of the hijackers, was a CIA informant. A number of the other alleged hijackers were trained at US air bases. In the months prior to 9/11, alleged hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were renting rooms in a house owned and lived in by an FBI informant.
In a 2002 article entitled The Hijackers We Let Escape, Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman documented how, “The CIA tracked two suspected terrorists to a Qaeda summit in Malaysia in January 2000, then looked on as they re-entered America and began preparations for September 11.”
The fact that there were numerous Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists involved in the pre-planning stages of 9/11 is unsurprising given former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds’ testimony that Bin Laden was working for the US right up until the day of 9/11.

On the very morning of 9/11, the money man behind the alleged hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials.
Indeed, even after 9/11, the so-called spiritual leader of the very hijackers who allegedly slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Anwar al-Awlaki, was himself invited to dine with Pentagon top brass mere months after the attack.

>> ^bcglorf:

I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.


So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.

http://www.fixgunchecks.org/al-qaeda

Here is a link to the vid. The embed code isn't working.


>> ^marbles:

dead

I'm afraid it's just cops I feel that way about. Only with cops (because that's whose job it is) do I think the good ones should protect me from the bad ones. No other group do I expect that from.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
>> ^eric3579:

No,I don't think it's justified. It just didn't bother me when I saw the cop getting a beat down.
Until the majority good cops, and police departments, start ridding themselves of the bad cops, I will fear and thus hate them all. It's impossible for me to know which are good and which are bad sense they all look the same.
>> ^SDGundamX:
>> ^eric3579:
Men in uniform, or with big funny hats, have never done it for me.
Usually I can't stand violence, but this just didn't bother me. Who knew?

I'm curious, do you think this is justified? I personally hope every person involved--including the cop--stands trial. I don't want to live in a world where people "gets what's comin' to 'em" through vigilante/mob violence rather than through the court of law.
As to whether the cop was justified or not, I'd like to see another angle (I'm sure there must be one) that shows what that guy on the ground was doing. If he's reaching for the cops' weapons while they're trying to hold him down then I'd say the cop was justified in using violence to get him to comply. On the other hand, if he simply was refusing to put his hands behind his back and this cop lost his patience then no, the cop wasn't justified--but neither was the beating and knocking out of a completely different officer that wasn't even doing the striking in the first place.



Looks like that vid is about to be duped to oblivion, so I figured I'd profile reply too.

I understand your viewpoint, but I find it hard to believe you actually think that way. It seems a bit illogical. Let's change your argument a little by substituting "black people" for police.

"Until the majority of black people start ridding themselves of all the bad black people, I will fear and thus hate them all. It's impossible for me to know which are good and which are bad sense[sic] they all look the same."

I'm not saying you're a racist, but the logic of your argument clearly parallels that which a racist person might use to justify their hatred. Are you seriously saying it's okay for all people of a given group (whether that group is cultural, professional, ethnic, or whatever) to be punished for the sins of certain individuals in the group? That is the exact logic by which Al-Qaeda and most other terrorist groups justify the targeting of civilians, by the way.

>> ^eric3579:

No,I don't think it's justified. It just didn't bother me when I saw the cop getting a beat down.
Until the majority good cops, and police departments, start ridding themselves of the bad cops, I will fear and thus hate them all. It's impossible for me to know which are good and which are bad sense they all look the same.
>> ^SDGundamX:
>> ^eric3579:
Men in uniform, or with big funny hats, have never done it for me.
Usually I can't stand violence, but this just didn't bother me. Who knew?

I'm curious, do you think this is justified? I personally hope every person involved--including the cop--stands trial. I don't want to live in a world where people "gets what's comin' to 'em" through vigilante/mob violence rather than through the court of law.
As to whether the cop was justified or not, I'd like to see another angle (I'm sure there must be one) that shows what that guy on the ground was doing. If he's reaching for the cops' weapons while they're trying to hold him down then I'd say the cop was justified in using violence to get him to comply. On the other hand, if he simply was refusing to put his hands behind his back and this cop lost his patience then no, the cop wasn't justified--but neither was the beating and knocking out of a completely different officer that wasn't even doing the striking in the first place.



I understand your viewpoint, but I find it hard to believe you actually think that way. It seems a bit illogical. Let's change your argument a little by substituting "black people" for police.

"Until the majority of black people start ridding themselves of all the bad black people, I will fear and thus hate them all. It's impossible for me to know which are good and which are bad sense[sic] they all look the same."

I'm not saying you're a racist, but the logic of your argument clearly parallels that which a racist person might use to justify their hatred. Are you seriously saying it's okay for all people of a given group (whether that group is cultural, professional, ethnic, or whatever) to be punished for the sins of certain individuals in the group? That is the exact logic by which Al-Qaeda and most other terrorist groups justify the targeting of civilians, by the way.

>> ^eric3579:

No,I don't think it's justified. It just didn't bother me when I saw the cop getting a beat down.
Until the majority good cops, and police departments, start ridding themselves of the bad cops, I will fear and thus hate them all. It's impossible for me to know which are good and which are bad sense they all look the same.
>> ^SDGundamX:
>> ^eric3579:
Men in uniform, or with big funny hats, have never done it for me.
Usually I can't stand violence, but this just didn't bother me. Who knew?

I'm curious, do you think this is justified? I personally hope every person involved--including the cop--stands trial. I don't want to live in a world where people "gets what's comin' to 'em" through vigilante/mob violence rather than through the court of law.
As to whether the cop was justified or not, I'd like to see another angle (I'm sure there must be one) that shows what that guy on the ground was doing. If he's reaching for the cops' weapons while they're trying to hold him down then I'd say the cop was justified in using violence to get him to comply. On the other hand, if he simply was refusing to put his hands behind his back and this cop lost his patience then no, the cop wasn't justified--but neither was the beating and knocking out of a completely different officer that wasn't even doing the striking in the first place.



Looks like that vid is about to be duped to oblivion, so I figured I'd profile reply too.

I understand your viewpoint, but I find it hard to believe you actually think that way. It seems a bit illogical. Let's change your argument a little by substituting "black people" for police.

"Until the majority of black people start ridding themselves of all the bad black people, I will fear and thus hate them all. It's impossible for me to know which are good and which are bad sense[sic] they all look the same."

I'm not saying you're a racist, but the logic of your argument clearly parallels that which a racist person might use to justify their hatred. Are you seriously saying it's okay for all people of a given group (whether that group is cultural, professional, ethnic, or whatever) to be punished for the sins of certain individuals in the group? That is the exact logic by which Al-Qaeda and most other terrorist groups justify the targeting of civilians, by the way.

Anyone know which bill he's referring to?

He is referring to what I think is the H.R. 1540

With the infamous endless war section 1034.

Here it is in all of it's glorious unconstitutionality.

SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.

Congress affirms that--

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--

(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, then I suppose it isn't worth it, is it? Because this all started because of US interventionism, I'd probably take steps to close out US hegemony in that area of the world, and then seek a diplomatic dialog in the hopes of having Osama turned over for trial.

The Pakistani say they don't know where he is. Jumping back to the real world, they still insist they didn't know he was there, even now.

So...you'd tell the American people what, exactly? Never mind about bin Laden. Yes, we know where he is, no we're not going to try to capture him, because I'm afraid we might kill him accidentally, and I'm definitely not going to kill him, not because it'd be illegal, but because I think I'm some sort of saint?

How did you win the election in the first place?

>> ^blankfist:
I think what's important here are the things I wouldn't do. I wouldn't continue to kill people with drone planes. I wouldn't continue to create more wars in that part of the world. I wouldn't seek to radicalize more militants by making their families casualties of war. I wouldn't occupy sovereign countries.

I'd withdraw from Afghanistan, if I'd replaced Obama from the start I'd have never surged there. I'd never have gone into Libya. I'm not so mad about the drones, but I'd mostly been giving them a pass because I thought they were the only force we were truly applying to Al Qaeda. If they're not even doing that, I'm all for stopping them.

Oh, and nobody's "seeking to radicalize" anyone. Nor are we occupying a sovereign nation.

Koombaya my lord, koombaya.
>> ^NetRunner:

I'd have sat him down, had a really long, cathartic talk about his issues with his parents, and convinced him to set aside his crusade.
Afterwards, he'd have a joint press conference with me, and tell his followers that he was wrong, and that they should surrender themselves, and beg for forgiveness for their sins they've committed against the true will of Allah. He'd then tearfully apologize to the world, and thank me personally for showing him the error of his ways. Then he'd donate all of Al Qaeda's funds to helping Muslim women get a better education, and dedicate his life to preaching non-violence to Muslim extremists.
After that, I'd go talk to Ahmedinejad and Kim Jong Il, then maybe convince Hu Jintao to forgive the US's debts to China.
That might be over 500 words, sorry.

@NetRunner, well, let's assume the government never lies and their version of the story is 100% accurate. Granted. How did they expect OBL to surrender exactly? Surely if this was a "capture or kill" order, then they must've offered a chance for him to surrender, right?

Their first story was that a gun battle occurred, then later it was revealed he was unarmed. Also they claimed he used his wife as a shield, then later it came out that he didn't. So, the real story is he was unarmed and asleep when they stormed in and shot him. I'm curious when and how was he supposed to surrender and get his day in court?

Too circumstantial for you? Okay. How about Obama's track record? In 2009 military commanders told Obama's Administration they were able to located and capture one of the most wanted leaders of Al Qaeda, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan. Instead of capturing, Obama's Administration said they wanted him dead. And the SEALS bombed him from the sky. No arrest attempt.

And the drone aerial attacks have increased over Pakistan under Obama, according to Long War Journal, a website dedicated to tracking the attacks. They estimate that the drones over Pakistan have killed almost 1500 people. Not capture, killed. Innocent people live there in tribes. Murdered as a casualty. But look at you and people like Yogi, the brave people who're out of range of danger that just don't give a fuck about those who are targeted and murdered - unless of course it furthers your political agenda, right? Yep.

Most damning is the time when Obama's Administration authorized the assassination of US Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. He wasn't even Osama. He was some radical cleric they gave "explicit" authorization to murder without due process. That's your guy, Obama, side-stepping the rights of people like a pro authoritarian fascist.

Osama's murder without trial looks like more bloodthirsty progressivism to me. Hiding behind civil righteousness. By contrast the Bush Administration "captured" (not killed) thousands of suspected terrorists. And we all hated him.

I'd have sat him down, had a really long, cathartic talk about his issues with his parents, and convinced him to set aside his crusade.

Afterwards, he'd have a joint press conference with me, and tell his followers that he was wrong, and that they should surrender themselves, and beg for forgiveness for their sins they've committed against the true will of Allah. He'd then tearfully apologize to the world, and thank me personally for showing him the error of his ways. Then he'd donate all of Al Qaeda's funds to helping Muslim women get a better education, and dedicate his life to preaching non-violence to Muslim extremists.

After that, I'd go talk to Ahmedinejad and Kim Jong Il, then maybe convince Hu Jintao to forgive the US's debts to China.

That might be over 500 words, sorry.