rob Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 So now even Al Qaeda is confirming his death. How much more proof do you guys need? lol, buckaroo: the new kevbone? Stay tuned! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 The wanker's view from down under LINK Which says: "How secretive and shabby the Americans are There was no rejoicing in Times Square when Hirohito died, though he ordered the killing of 2350 Americans in Pearl Harbor. I remember no such gladness when Hitler died, or Ho Chi Minh, or Mao Tse Tung. Or Che Guevara. Or Salvador Allende. Or Joseph Stalin. These laughing, flag-waving, crowded scenes outside the White House and across America have no precedent (except, perhaps, in the South when Lincoln was shot) and it is to be wondered why they occurred. There was a magical-realist quality to Osama Bin Laden. He looked like the risen Christ, and was often thought dead and came always back to life. His broadcasts needed always to be authenticated because the CIA wanted him dead. He’d humiliated them so enormously they kept saying he was dead. He was ‘on dialysis’, they asserted, wrongly; he had to be dead by now. 9/11 was so clever. He had to be dead. And once again they are covering up, and in denial. As with John F Kennedy, whose brain was stolen, his car washed of its blood, film of his autopsy made to vanish, his alleged assassin murdered and that assassin’s evidence unrecorded, burnt or discarded, we have here, now, a significant body, the corpse of the world’s most wanted man, ‘buried at sea’. Why do this? Why even think of it, when identifying him forensically was critical to the peace of the Arab and Muslim world? Uday and Qusay weren’t buried at sea, nor the twenty-four-hour burial rule applied to these two cosmeticked enemy stiffs. Saddam was helicoptered home to his tribal city (by Mike Kelly MP and Minister for Cheese) for interment in his clan’s sacred ground. Why treat Osama any differently? Why put his body where it couldn’t be checked over? Why not have an autopsy? Why not give their most famous son back to the rich Bin Laden family, and see them set him down in their family plot? What right do Americans have to a fallen enemy’s corpse? Where did that new rule come from? How dare they? Clearly they feared the sight of his widow, wounded in the fire-fight, at the graveside of him and his dead son, and the sight of his grieving daughter and his other sons would humanise him in an inconvenient way. Clearly they feared his grave would become, like that of Karl Marx or St Thomas a Beckett, a pilgrim shrine for apostles yet unborn. But there were other, forensic reasons too. A coronial enquiry, with witnesses, would show if women were fired upon, or children. It would show if Bin Laden took his own life, as Allende did, it seems, or if his bodyguard, sworn to kill him in such a circumstance, shot him as well, in the back, perhaps. It would show if he had his hands up, and he was therefore killed against the rules of war, or if his wife said, ‘Please, no.’ It would also get from his wife and daughter evidence of who had lodged them in their splendid quarters, who paid the bills, who took the children to the local school, and what Mushareff knew, and what Azari knew, and indeed what Benazir Bhutto knew, of his five-year stay, if that is how long it was, only three minutes’ walk from an army academy, the West Point of Pakistan. How shabby the Americans are. How secretive and stupid. One thinks of the 600 plots to kill Castro: the poisoned face cream, the poisoned wetsuit, the exploding cigars, the former girlfriend who, after sex, couldn’t do it, even when he offered his gun. How low grade they are. How creepy. How overpaid for their shoddy scheming and their bungled midnight raids. And Osama Bin Laden was buried at sea. Full fathom five thy father lies. Of his bones are coral made. Those are pearls that were his eyes. Imagine Hitler, buried at sea. Or Trotsky. How stupid can they be? For there is no end to it now. As with Elvis, his voice, his image will recur on websites for fifty years. Was it him? Did he survive? Is he still alive? He must be. He must be. His widow will charge his American assassins with war crimes for killing and wounding civilians: her son, herself, her daughter. His family will spend millions cleansing his name. The Sunni clergy will denounce the blasphemous travesty of his last rites, not on family ground but the cruel sea. Karzai will demand compensation for the towns destroyed in America’s vain search for him, in the wrong country. The Saudi royals will be shown to have given him money and Bush to have known this while his father took fees from them. A good few Pakistani colonels will be tortured and shot. The Navy Seals that shot him (in the face, not the legs) will get jobs on Fox News. The Taliban will seize Pakistan and its WMD. And his legend, like Che’s, will grow luminous, and more and more twelve-year-old suicide bombers go into supermarkets whispering his name. And all they had to do was keep the body, film its autopsy, open it to media view and give it back, in due season, to his family for a proper Sunni funeral, as they did Saddam and Uday and Qusay, in the green, green grass of home. What klutzes they are. And how dearly we all must pay for their clumsiness, in a rejuvenated al-Qaeda and acts of terror without end, in this country too. And an atomic war, perhaps. And it’s a pity. PS. Osama was unarmed, we now are told, but he ‘resisted’ and so was shot ‘above the left eye’ and ‘part of his brain was blown away’. This, and other details, might explain why Barack Obama spent so long rewriting his speech, his worst thus far on a great specific occasion, and why he seemed uneasy giving it. What, we may ask, is he now to say of a murder committed by uninvited American troops on foreign soil, illegally? And what is he to do with an illegally kidnapped widow, daughter and sons, and their ongoing education in Abbottobad? And, indeed, with the question, why are we in Afghanistan? And with the further, larger question, why, if Osama Bin Laden was for five years in Pakistan, and Pakistan’s rulers knew of it, we are not making war on Pakistan today? In reprisal? As we did on Afghanistan? Why are we in Afghanistan, by the way? Is there any reason left? Bob Ellis is a writer and commentator" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 So now even Al Qaeda is confirming his death. How much more proof do you guys need? lol, buckaroo: the new kevbone? Stay tuned! The CIA infiltration is complete - you are way too naive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 I remember no such gladness when Hitler died, http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110502/news/705029804/photos//#navAnchor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 I remember no such gladness when Hitler died, http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110502/news/705029804/photos//#navAnchor come on, it's not like dirty sailors were gonna pass up a perfectly good opportunity to get a feel, dontcha know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 not like the italians were somber in the wake of mussolin getting strung up neither - course, then, they do have a bit more history of killing tyrants... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 The U.S. didn't surpass the indigenous population until 1900? Whatev. Still, we're guilty as charged on all accounts. But, the bin Laden conspiracy theory? Inevitable, I suppose, but...really? Remember, though, FUX says its now spelled USA-MA. USA! USA! USA! YO MAMA!!!! Wonder what Ubama thinks about that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 I remember no such gladness when Hitler died, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 So now even Al Qaeda is confirming his death. How much more proof do you guys need? This is more like it. I was waiting for his family to come out and directly discuss the killing (instead of being told what they said through a Pakistani official) but AQ acknowledging his death pretty much confirms it as far as I am concerned. Although, I do not entirely exclude that AQ could be playing along because OBL having been killed by the US military is a more useful symbol to them than his simply being disappeared. lol, buckaroo: the new kevbone? Stay tuned! why don't you losers make arguments instead of trying to disparage your opponents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Gee Whiz, this image alone makes me wonder why he wasn't brought back to the US for trial. Can you imagine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Although, I do not entirely exclude that AQ could be playing along because OBL having been killed by the US military is a more useful symbol to them than his simply being disappeared. why don't you losers make arguments instead of trying to disparage your opponents? No comment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 jb and I part company on the idea that our government is overstaffed. He thinks we need more of those folks running around to fulfill the essential role of government. I feel that the overstaffing of these petty fiefdoms and bureaucracies is counter productive to our freedom.. False. I do not want more or less gov employees. I want the right number of employees so that government can play its essential role in the republic: enforcing the social contract (including civil and human rights protection), as well as conduct the research, development and building of infrastructure needed to pursue the policies agreed upon by citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 If the decision to "take bin Laden out" from the get-go was even partially based on the desire to avoid an endlessly mediated, hyper-politicized cluster of a detention and circus trial, then I'm for it. One death to save the brains of millions. Let's move the fuck on and start dismantling the war machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 I do not want more or less gov employees. I want the right number of employees LOL! And for you the "right number" is more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 I do not want more or less gov employees. I want the right number of employees LOL! And for you the "right number" is more. The question has always been which ones, not "less gubmint = more freedom" or the opposite, numbnuts. Time to recall the centurions from our far-flung imperial outposts... Bloomberg to Lay Off Thousands of Teachers NYT 5/5/11 Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Friday that he intends to eliminate 4,100 teaching jobs through layoffs, and about 2,000 through attrition, marking the first significant layoffs of teachers since the fiscal crisis of the 1970s. The slashing of jobs are part of the Mr. Bloomberg’s effort to slice an additional $400 million from various city agencies to help plug a multibillion-dollar deficit in his $65.6 billion spending plan for the fiscal year that begins July 1. That budget is about the same size as the current one. Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan Borough president, criticized the mayor’s lack of transparency in releasing his budget. “This document is political,” he said. “This is not the way we should be running the city.” The deep cuts to the city’s schools that Mr. Bloomberg will unveil on Friday are similar to what he proposed in February, though the number of layoffs are slightly less. Mr. Bloomberg, during his budget presentation at City Hall, faulted the state for the necessity of teacher layoffs. In 2008, he said, the state paid 45 percent of the city’s education costs; next fiscal year, he said, the state would pay 39 percent. "I understand the frustration that parents and teachers feel; I feel it too," he said. " We are not going to walk away from our education system." The mayor’s budget proposal must still be approved by the City Council and Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn and other members said they would do everything possible to prevent such major cuts to the workforce. Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito said teacher layoffs were "unacceptable." "We continue to ask the least among us to bear the brunt," she said. "I’m really concerned." Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Mr. Bloomberg have clashed over the city’s financial situation with Mr. Cuomo saying that the city has enough money to avoid massive layoffs. But all of the news will not be bleak. The Bloomberg administration said that it would open 10 new senior centers, each serving 250 to 300 people. One of the centers will cater to the visually impaired, while another will be designed to serve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered older people. Heeding calls from members of the City Council and advocates for children from low-income families, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg retreated from his initial budget proposal to eliminate almost 16,000 child care slots. The city said it would preserve 4,400 of the 16,000 slots for low-income children at day care centers that faced elimination. An additional 10,500 slots will be covered by the Department of Youth and Community Development’s Out-of-School Time program, which provides after-school recreational and academic programs. The total cost is about $40 million. That leaves more than 1,000 slots facing elimination, though the Council may provide additional money as it finishes up the budget over the coming weeks. "While it is a step in the right direction, it is unclear if what the Administration has put on the table is really an appropriate solution to the significant reduction of funding to the child care system," said Council Member Annabel Palma, Chair of the General Welfare Committee. "More conversations and details are needed since it is unclear how services can remain in tact for all 16,500 children with $40 million instead of $91 million; it is also unclear what the impact will be on existing out-of-school programs, providers, child care centers and classrooms.”The city has benefited from better-than-expected tax revenue, with money from banking taxes up as Wall Street has rebounded. Personal income taxes are also strong, about 9 percent higher so far this fiscal year compared with the previous year, according to the Independent Budget Office. In addition, sales tax revenue is up slightly. Council members seemed universally upset by the budget - both the content and presentation. Several dismissed the $40 million that the administration had touted in additional child care funding as a "shell game" because the net result was still a $50 million drop in funding compared to last year. They also said the administration was unwilling to consider any tax increases, such as a tax on the wealthy, and unwilling to tap more money out of a health care retirement fund. "This is 3-card monte," said Council member David Greenfield of Brooklyn, a Democrat who has often been a Bloomberg ally. "They leak a story about how they’ve restored money but they’ve done anything but restore child care. It’s fundamentally dishonest." He continued, "the unmistakable message for the administration to the city of New York is our children are not worth funding." Several took umbrage at the fact that unlike in most years, Mr. Bloomberg did not show up to give his usual short address to members before turning the presentation over to his budget director, Mark Page. They also described Mr. Page’s presentation as unusually brief - about 30 minutes versus the normal hour. "His attitude was like, ’gotta go,’ " said Council member Letitia James of Brooklyn. "It reflects the mayor’s disdain, his disrespect and his lack of coalition-building with the city council." Ms. James added that there were a few unpleasant surprises in the briefing, including the news that a $1.2 million program for a sexual assault response team within the health and hospitals corporation would be cut entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) I wonder if al qaeda confirming his death will be enough proof for you. So what do we have here? a) Bin Laden's wife admits he was in the house b) his daughter witnesses his killing c) the U.S. President and major military officers say they've seen the body or photos d) if he isn't dead, it would be easy to disprove their stories e) burned out helicopter in the grounds of a secret compound f) Pakistani military confirms a battle took place g) U.S. military is capable of doing what they claim h) our enemy confirms his death And yet, somehow, believing all of this means that I'm willing to "accept ANY story from my government" without "even questioning." ANd what data do we have supporting the "it's a hoax" camp? The U.S. government killed a bunch of native americans once? Buckaroo, the new kevbone? Stay tuned! Edited May 6, 2011 by rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 lol, buckaroo: the new kevbone? Stay tuned! why don't you losers make arguments instead of trying to disparage your opponents? It sucks when the only people who will agree with you are internet retards, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 because you think that gratuitously insulting people, that you probably don't know in person, makes you look intelligent? major fail, dude. On the internet, what you say about others usually tells more about you than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Yes: internet = retard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 So what do we have here? a) Bin Laden's wife admits he was in the house b) his daughter witnesses his killing I have only seen second hand reports of what the family said. Why should you take take the words of a Pakistani official at face value on this, but likely not about many other things? c) the U.S. President and major military officers say they've seen the body or photos Sorry to break it you but the evidence shows your gov lies to you about foreign policy on a regular basis. d) if he isn't dead, it would be easy to disprove their stories I said the same thing up thread about 2 days ago. e) burned out helicopter in the grounds of a secret compound f) Pakistani military confirms a battle took place g) U.S. military is capable of doing what they claim that is only evidence the US military was there, nothing more. Have you noticed how many times a year the Pakistanis protest US military intrusion on their soil? h) our enemy confirms his death That one I agree seems to confirm he was killed. And yet, somehow, believing all of this means that I'm willing to "accept ANY story from my government" without "even questioning." on the face of it, it does look like you uncritically accepted what the gov said ANd what data do we have supporting the "it's a hoax" camp? The U.S. government killed a bunch of native americans once? as if disinformation about the war in Afghanistan (for example) wasn't rampant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Yes: internet = retard I am sure you are more tolerant than you are coming across, right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 alQaeda says "Osama dead." SOUNDS LEGIT?! USGOV says "Osama dead." LOL NICE TRY BRO?! hmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 this is like an alternate reality when the "patriots" refuse to learn the basic lessons from the Wikileaks releases: "NO, THEY COULD NEVER LIE TO US" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Just because they have lied to us doesn't mean every story they tell has an equal chance of being false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Just because they have lied to us doesn't mean every story they tell has an equal chance of being false. Yes it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.