I'm not going to spend more time than this on your conspiracy theories; the link is there, and that's only one of many sources. As for being intellectually disabled... if you can't tell wild conjecture and paranoid delusions from evidence and logic, than that insult coming from you weighs nothing at all.

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
Oh yeah, the Arab Spring revolts were such a NATO conspiracy. They really had to spread it, topple a couple of other dictators peacefully, all that to be able to... whatever it is they're scheming to do.

Also: "It's already been admitted that NATO had special forces on the ground from the beginning of the "humanitarian mission"." --> [citation needed]
As for the WTC, people far more informed than I have debunked the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding it (first site Google offers, for some among many examples). But hey, those are all just guv'mint paid shills perpetuating the lies, and the evidence they present is really just very, very elaborate smoke screens, right?




>> ^marbles:

>> ^hpqp:
I already gave you links to journals debunking these 911 conspiracies, under one of your other vids. And yes, I did watch the video, although skipping through it, because I've heard all these conjectures before. Nothing new nor convincing has been added to the truther delusions so far.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
The tags are almost right: the claims made in this video are indeed lies and conspiracy theories, that have been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

Not that I actually believe you watched the video, but care to be more specific on what "claims" you're talking about and cite where they have been "thoroughly debunked over and over again"?


No specifics then? I didn't think so.
Run along now, no time for the intellectually disabled to start thinking on their own.

was reading today about the special forces in Libya before the revolution. Nobody said that all of the arab spring revolutions were CIA instigated. I think the CIA has done about 50 coups over the last 50 years BTW.

Nobody said the government did 9/11. The "government" didn't make any profit on 9/11. Other people did.

@marbles

Oh yeah, the Arab Spring revolts were such a NATO conspiracy. They really had to spread it, topple a couple of other dictators peacefully, all that to be able to... whatever it is they're scheming to do.


Also: "It's already been admitted that NATO had special forces on the ground from the beginning of the "humanitarian mission"." --> [citation needed]

As for the WTC, people far more informed than I have debunked the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding it (first site Google offers, for some among many examples). But hey, those are all just guv'mint paid shills perpetuating the lies, and the evidence they present is really just very, very elaborate smoke screens, right?

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
Yes, the Sift is not ready for the TRUTH, what with reason and evidence getting in the way and all that.
But keep preachin' brother!

@marinara
It's one thing to know that stepping in in Libya to aid a grassroots revolt (while not doing the same elsewhere, e.g. Syria) is about oil, it's another entirely to suggest that the big evil guv'mint would take the risk murdering 3000 of its citizens for a 700bio$ in contracts. The terrorist attack on 9/11 was definitely opportunistically manipulated, but that doesn't make it a big conspiracy.


I'm still waiting... please share.

And for someone calling out lies to believe Libya was a "grassroots revolt" is hilarious. It's already been admitted that NATO had special forces on the ground from the beginning of the "humanitarian mission". The so called rebels were a bunch of incapable dumbfuks that were more interested in killing each other than taking on Gaddafi. Those damn conspiracy nuts were right AGAIN.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^theali:
Yep, this is why these oppressive regimes don't allow reporters to cover the events. Its easy to dismiss citizen journalism and question its authenticity. Both Iran and Syria kicked out all international reporters right before the crackdown.
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.

Your statements are utterly disgusting Marbles. I don't care if you honestly believe the propaganda garbage being spewed by Bashir Al-Assad's government or not. The last time a revolution was tried in Syria, his father went to war with the Muslim brotherhood(not a gang the west is liable to use as a loving proxy) and the Syrian army turned nearly an entire town into a parking lot to demonstrate their 'point'.
Go listen to the accounts of the thousands of Syrian refugees in Turkey who fled the Military onslaught against civilians. Bashir Al-Assad's special forces executed nearly 120 army soldiers when the refused to fire on unarmed civilians.
It's is simply disgusting and inexcusable to defend the horrific onslaught against civilians that Syria is pursuing, even if you do loath America and deem it as the great Satan responsible for all the world's ills, in what world does that make it ok for Syria's army to go around killing unarmed civilians in massive numbers????????

I'm sorry you feel that way. I find it really disgusting you have to make me into something I'm not so you can attack me. I didn't say anything about killing unarmed civilians. The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians. And for you to get so emotionally invested in it is foolish. BTW The Muslim brotherhood was started by British Intelligence. When you own both sides of the conflict, you always win.
I don't hate America, but I do hate the power elite that use the US government to be economic hit-men all around the world. Don't be fooled. That is exactly what is going on in North Africa/Middle East.


The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.

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.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^theali:
Yep, this is why these oppressive regimes don't allow reporters to cover the events. Its easy to dismiss citizen journalism and question its authenticity. Both Iran and Syria kicked out all international reporters right before the crackdown.
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.

Your statements are utterly disgusting Marbles. I don't care if you honestly believe the propaganda garbage being spewed by Bashir Al-Assad's government or not. The last time a revolution was tried in Syria, his father went to war with the Muslim brotherhood(not a gang the west is liable to use as a loving proxy) and the Syrian army turned nearly an entire town into a parking lot to demonstrate their 'point'.
Go listen to the accounts of the thousands of Syrian refugees in Turkey who fled the Military onslaught against civilians. Bashir Al-Assad's special forces executed nearly 120 army soldiers when the refused to fire on unarmed civilians.
It's is simply disgusting and inexcusable to defend the horrific onslaught against civilians that Syria is pursuing, even if you do loath America and deem it as the great Satan responsible for all the world's ills, in what world does that make it ok for Syria's army to go around killing unarmed civilians in massive numbers????????


I'm sorry you feel that way. I find it really disgusting you have to make me into something I'm not so you can attack me. I didn't say anything about killing unarmed civilians. The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians. And for you to get so emotionally invested in it is foolish. BTW The Muslim brotherhood was started by British Intelligence. When you own both sides of the conflict, you always win.
I don't hate America, but I do hate the power elite that use the US government to be economic hit-men all around the world. Don't be fooled. That is exactly what is going on in North Africa/Middle East.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^theali:
Yep, this is why these oppressive regimes don't allow reporters to cover the events. Its easy to dismiss citizen journalism and question its authenticity. Both Iran and Syria kicked out all international reporters right before the crackdown.
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.


Your statements are utterly disgusting Marbles. I don't care if you honestly believe the propaganda garbage being spewed by Bashir Al-Assad's government or not. The last time a revolution was tried in Syria, his father went to war with the Muslim brotherhood(not a gang the west is liable to use as a loving proxy) and the Syrian army turned nearly an entire town into a parking lot to demonstrate their 'point'.

Go listen to the accounts of the thousands of Syrian refugees in Turkey who fled the Military onslaught against civilians. Bashir Al-Assad's special forces executed nearly 120 army soldiers when the refused to fire on unarmed civilians.

It's is simply disgusting and inexcusable to defend the horrific onslaught against civilians that Syria is pursuing, even if you do loath America and deem it as the great Satan responsible for all the world's ills, in what world does that make it ok for Syria's army to go around killing unarmed civilians in massive numbers????????

Pfft. Never heard the saying "don't bring a knife/sword to a gun fight"? Fucking ninjas and samurais don't belong with mercenaries and special forces! Playstation can keep their crappy Metal Gear shite.

>> ^blankfist:

If I had to take over where Bush left off, I'd probably seek the advice of my intelligence advisors and see if tracking down Osama was doable within a reasonable timeframe.

That is in fact what Obama did. They found him two years later.

>> ^blankfist:
If yes, I'd bring him to trial.

You're skipping some steps. First you find out that he's living in a compound with 22 people, including armed guards. It's also just down the street from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point, and intelligence believes that bin Laden is under the protection of the Pakistani military.

The military says to just bomb the building with a pair of B-2 bombers, because sending special forces poses a lot more risk, both to the soldiers themselves, and to the mission of killing or capturing bin Laden.

So how are you going to capture him, with no possibility of him winding up dead? If for whatever reason, your mission to capture him winds up with him dead instead, are you to automatically be treated as a murderer?

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^BoneyD:
>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.
Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?
Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.

LOL!
The irony of your icon, by the way, is delicious.
You validate everything I say about your own fake outrage by agreeing with my statements and then concluding with your "inside" knowledge of that the orders were "period."
Unless you want to out yourself as someone who was involved in the mission and has first-hand knowledge of what the "orders" were, please, do stfu about what they were "period."
It is exactly that kind of hyperbole that makes your outrage fake.


You call in to question my character by calling me 'fake' and wonder why I might take offence? I don't mind you critisising the points of my arguement, but don't try to suggest that I'm simply doing it to score points on here. I am not a troll and I am always genuine when stating my position. I will concede that I can't know for sure their exact orders and was wrong to claim otherwise, I based my statement on the evidence of recent US actions. I should have used the term "highly likely".

However! You don't get away that easily, please answer my question. Do you think it is okay for someone who has been accused of committing crime to face execution without trial? (Whether or not capturing Bin Laden was even possible in this case)

>> ^BoneyD:

>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.
Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?
Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.


LOL!

The irony of your icon, by the way, is delicious.

You validate everything I say about your own fake outrage by agreeing with my statements and then concluding with your "inside" knowledge of that the orders were "period."

Unless you want to out yourself as someone who was involved in the mission and has first-hand knowledge of what the "orders" were, please, do stfu about what they were "period."

It is exactly that kind of hyperbole that makes your outrage fake.

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.


Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.

Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?

Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.

>> ^chilaxe:
Some asshole dying is so sad! Where are the carebears when you need them??

>> ^blankfist:


For me, I don't mourn his passing; I mourn the disregard for his right to a fair trial. I don't think anyone ever intended to bring him in to give him a fair trial. Revenge makes for a great movie premise, and it feels awesomely satisfying when the bad guy dies at the end, but in the real world it's scary to think some people's rights can be skirted completely as long as the majority of people think it's okay.




Problem is, by elevating him to Hitler level status (and btw there was a genuine threat to the current order of things) you also empower his ideology. Treat him as the criminal he was instead of engaging on the level he wanted and the U.S could easily have avoided the nonsense and horror of two major wars. As Netrunner has said we should have have intel-led special forces running around dealing with this criminal conspiracy in the first place and bringing those criminals to justice in the first place.

If ever there was a sensible way of dealing with external threats and asserting the rule of law and democracy as the most desirable political ideology that was surely it.

Your last comment is a disgrace to everyone who's died and suffered in the last ten years.

Dennis, GeeSuss and me. Oh, and Arvana.

Thanks. I was being to feel very lonely.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Eak, justice is a hit squad ordered by the president...I am afraid. I am with you @bareboards2, but I am maybe more scared of the monsters we are becoming. Saddam got a trial, Osama got 2 in the head from a special forces task squad.

Eak, justice is a hit squad ordered by the president...I am afraid. I am with you @bareboards2, but I am maybe more scared of the monsters we are becoming. Saddam got a trial, Osama got 2 in the head from a special forces task squad.