Gimmi; I was just courious but sense you asked, I worked with a old guy once who used to say
"if you want to be part of the sulition that's great but if not then be quite"
point is anybody can complain but what are they doing to help solve the problem ?
are they voicing their opinions to the right people ?
do they position them selfs to help make effictive change ? we always complain about politions
(myself included ) but as far as we get to making an honest effort voting is it for the
most of us and the people that step up to the plate get knocked down for trying to help.
as I have said in the past America my not be perfect but it's one of the best places to live in the world.
Godfather.
I think you make a good point with the part I bolded, but I think this is applicable to the whole Train, not just those who live in other countries. When it comes to Byrnzie in particular, I'd say he's more a part of the solution than half the people here. I know I have learned a lot from his educated, fact-based, well-thought-out posts. He may not be able to vote here, but educating those who can is a huge part of the solution.
i agree with what Godfather stated and what _ bolded too. i think being part of the solution is asking serious questions about things that actually matter and not wasting time on things that are made issues for the sake of distraction. being part of the solution is bringing things to people's attention, especially things that criticize their government and challenge their way of thinking. i think that all of us have a certain level of comfort, and when someone presents us with things we have never thought before or things that we might not agree with we are taken aback by it. it is natural instinct to get offended by new ideas that we might not agree with, but i do know that being presented with those things actually furthers the discussion instead of hindering it. and we all know that change does not just happen, it is made to happen, and a stupid population is an easily controlled population. i am thankful for all of the posters on here from outside the US and for their opinions and for their contributions here. i believe that has made me a better, more intelligent, more critical, and more well rounded person. i have learned a lot from many of them. and i think everyone else would if they were not so sensitive to criticism of their country or their country's policies.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
not so sensitive to criticism of their country or their country's policies.
Some people just have an ability to discuss hot topics in a manner that informs without attacking, and some don't. I'm not surprised by many of the responses.
I've certainly learned a lot here...but it could be a lot less "painful" at times.
Gimmi; I was just courious but sense you asked, I worked with a old guy once who used to say
"if you want to be part of the sulition that's great but if not then be quite"
point is anybody can complain but what are they doing to help solve the problem ?
are they voicing their opinions to the right people ?
do they position them selfs to help make effictive change ? we always complain about politions
(myself included ) but as far as we get to making an honest effort voting is it for the
most of us and the people that step up to the plate get knocked down for trying to help.
as I have said in the past America my not be perfect but it's one of the best places to live in the world.
Godfather.
I think you make a good point with the part I bolded, but I think this is applicable to the whole Train, not just those who live in other countries. When it comes to Byrnzie in particular, I'd say he's more a part of the solution than half the people here. I know I have learned a lot from his educated, fact-based, well-thought-out posts. He may not be able to vote here, but educating those who can is a huge part of the solution.
i agree with what Godfather stated and what _ bolded too. i think being part of the solution is asking serious questions about things that actually matter and not wasting time on things that are made issues for the sake of distraction. being part of the solution is bringing things to people's attention, especially things that criticize their government and challenge their way of thinking. i think that all of us have a certain level of comfort, and when someone presents us with things we have never thought before or things that we might not agree with we are taken aback by it. it is natural instinct to get offended by new ideas that we might not agree with, but i do know that being presented with those things actually furthers the discussion instead of hindering it. and we all know that change does not just happen, it is made to happen, and a stupid population is an easily controlled population. i am thankful for all of the posters on here from outside the US and for their opinions and for their contributions here. i believe that has made me a better, more intelligent, more critical, and more well rounded person. i have learned a lot from many of them. and i think everyone else would if they were not so sensitive to criticism of their country or their country's policies.
"and i think everyone else would if they were not so sensitive to criticism of their country or their country's policies."........whoooo meeee ?
it's a learning process you'll have to give me a little more time.
my way of thinking has changed a bit sense I have been on the train, there are some good people with great ideas and views,ones A lot different than I grew up with for sure so I learn a little from people on the train..a little at a time but it dosn't matter what I have learned or come to understand,talking down my country is a sore spot with me.
as I have said before our country is very new compared to most other countrys yet in the few years this country has been around we have become a world power that also helps countrys less fortunate (money food medical supplys etc.) and all things concidered we have it pretty damn good here so as intelligent as Byrnzie is or as right as he may be one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).
as I have said in the past America my not be perfect but it's one of the best places to live in the world.
Godfather.
Where else have you lived ('properly' lived, ie worked, etc. for any length of time)?
only Mexico and just for 6+ months, why do you ask ?
Godfather.
Just wondering what you had to compare to as you are stating the US is one of the best countries to live in. Wondering if it was from personal experiences or just from what you see on TV/read. Nothing more.
Well put Gimmie. For me, one of the most important things is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I believe a lot of problems set in when someone finds a piece of information that fits their particular agenda and reports it as fact. For me, doing this just makes someone lose credibility.
Sure criticism is good, but you have to look at where and who its coming from. I enjoy hearing other people's perspective on things, not their agenda. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
"and i think everyone else would if they were not so sensitive to criticism of their country or their country's policies."........whoooo meeee ?
it's a learning process you'll have to give me a little more time.
my way of thinking has changed a bit sense I have been on the train, there are some good people with great ideas and views,ones A lot different than I grew up with for sure so I learn a little from people on the train..a little at a time but it dosn't matter what I have learned or come to understand,talking down my country is a sore spot with me.
as I have said before our country is very new compared to most other countrys yet in the few years this country has been around we have become a world power that also helps countrys less fortunate (money food medical supplys etc.) and all things concidered we have it pretty damn good here so as intelligent as Byrnzie is or as right as he may be one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).
Godfather.
no that was not directed at you specifically G/F. you have done a good job with being open to new ideas and you have shown a great willingness to read up on what people post here, and that is very worthy of respect. a lot of people do not do that. looking back at some of your old posts when you first started out over here you have definitely expanded your way of thinking and applied your ability to see both sides on most of these issues that we talk about on here, and i think that is really cool.
i know that you hate "usa bashing", but i do not view it as bashing, i expect my country to be what it claims to be, a beacon for the rest of the world but it makes it very hard to view it as such in light of everything that we have done and continue to do policywise. i have greater expectations of america. a lot of times i am let down by her, but sometimes she surprises me
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
this is definitely an interesting twist on things. sounds like typical cia black ops with the pakistanis feigning anger at the raid. this should be front page news in the US, and across the world.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
there is no way this happens without Pakistan goverment know about it..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
there is no way this happens without Pakistan goverment know about it..
The only thing I would question was the tough talk from the President and State Department the last couple of days. I guess there's no indication that the same deal was used for the new administration.
Some people just have an ability to discuss hot topics in a manner that informs without attacking, and some don't. I'm not surprised by many of the responses.
I've certainly learned a lot here...but it could be a lot less "painful" at times.
talking down my country is a sore spot with me.... one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).
I would like to know, please, how each of you would rephrase what Byrnzie said so as to make it more palatable without changing his point. Because it seems like we are agreeing that critical thinking is important & valuable, but y'all just don't like the way it comes across.
Some people just have an ability to discuss hot topics in a manner that informs without attacking, and some don't. I'm not surprised by many of the responses.
I've certainly learned a lot here...but it could be a lot less "painful" at times.
talking down my country is a sore spot with me.... one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).
I would like to know, please, how each of you would rephrase what Byrnzie said so as to make it more palatable without changing his point. Because it seems like we are agreeing that critical thinking is important & valuable, but y'all just don't like the way it comes across.
Some people just have an ability to discuss hot topics in a manner that informs without attacking, and some don't. I'm not surprised by many of the responses.
I've certainly learned a lot here...but it could be a lot less "painful" at times.
talking down my country is a sore spot with me.... one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).
I would like to know, please, how each of you would rephrase what Byrnzie said so as to make it more palatable without changing his point. Because it seems like we are agreeing that critical thinking is important & valuable, but y'all just don't like the way it comes across.
seems you're trying to take this farther than it need to go, there are no ill feelings towards Byrnzie.
I'm really curious why there were initially conflicting reports on bin ladens 'resistance' when the SEALS entered his room. I recently read that he resisted and there might have been firearms near him when the SEALS shot him. I wonder why they haven't clarified this. Has anyone heard more about his 'resistance'??
there is no way this happens without Pakistan goverment know about it..
i agree 1000% on this. i believe they had to come out and say what they said due to politics in their own country and not wanting to look like they knew that America was going to go in.
Some people just have an ability to discuss hot topics in a manner that informs without attacking, and some don't. I'm not surprised by many of the responses.
I've certainly learned a lot here...but it could be a lot less "painful" at times.
talking down my country is a sore spot with me.... one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).
I would like to know, please, how each of you would rephrase what Byrnzie said so as to make it more palatable without changing his point. Because it seems like we are agreeing that critical thinking is important & valuable, but y'all just don't like the way it comes across.
Where did I refer to Byrnzie?
I thought his comment is what started this line of discussion.
Some people just have an ability to discuss hot topics in a manner that informs without attacking, and some don't. I'm not surprised by many of the responses.
I've certainly learned a lot here...but it could be a lot less "painful" at times.
talking down my country is a sore spot with me.... one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).
I would like to know, please, how each of you would rephrase what Byrnzie said so as to make it more palatable without changing his point. Because it seems like we are agreeing that critical thinking is important & valuable, but y'all just don't like the way it comes across.
seems you're trying to take this farther than it need to go, there are no ill feelings towards Byrnzie.
Godfather.
I'm not trying to take it far or suggest that there are any ill feelings toward anyone. I'm just trying to understand how people can communicate critical observations in a way that is acceptable to you.
Can't you see under my avatar where I am from?.....
I've seen it now
and you are from china and spend a lot of your time on the train ragging on America,do you plan on ever living here.?
Godfather.
I'm not from China, I'm English. But I've been living in China for the past three years. And I don't rag on America - I rag on the U.S leadership. Big difference.
From what I read, he didn't surrender and made a movment that they deemed could be threatening but they didn't specify what it was. They did say that they recovered an AK-47 and a Russian semi-automatic handgun from his room, so it could be that he either reached for one of those or they just had to assume that any action other than surrendering was potentially hostile considering their target.
The other part of the story that had been cloudy was the use of a woman as a shield. first, it was a human shield, then it was a charging woman. Apparently, both were true in a sense. The clarification for that was that he shoved one of his wives towards the SEALs and she ran at them, so they shot her in the leg.
The White House has released conflicting details about the 40-minute raid. On Monday, the White House said bin Laden was armed when he was shot dead, but Carney corrected that statement one day later, saying the Al Qaeda chief was unarmed before being gunned down. Fox News learned Thursday that bin Laden was within reach of two weapons during the attack – an AK-47 and a Makarov handgun.
The changing story has raised doubts over assurances that the team of U.S. Navy SEALs was prepared to take bin Laden alive.
"If he had surrendered, I think -- attempted to surrender -- I think we should, obviously, have accepted that," Holder told the Senate committee.
"But there was no indication that he wanted to do that. And, therefore, his killing was appropriate," Holder added.
I'm really curious why there were initially conflicting reports on bin ladens 'resistance' when the SEALS entered his room. I recently read that he resisted and there might have been firearms near him when the SEALS shot him. I wonder why they haven't clarified this. Has anyone heard more about his 'resistance'??
From what I read, he didn't surrender and made a movment that they deemed could be threatening but they didn't specify what it was. They did say that they recovered an AK-47 and a Russian semi-automatic handgun from his room, so it could be that he either reached for one of those or they just had to assume that any action other than surrendering was potentially hostile considering their target.
The other part of the story that had been cloudy was the use of a woman as a shield. first, it was a human shield, then it was a charging woman. Apparently, both were true in a sense. The clarification for that was that he shoved one of his wives towards the SEALs and she ran at them, so they shot her in the leg.
The White House has released conflicting details about the 40-minute raid. On Monday, the White House said bin Laden was armed when he was shot dead, but Carney corrected that statement one day later, saying the Al Qaeda chief was unarmed before being gunned down. Fox News learned Thursday that bin Laden was within reach of two weapons during the attack – an AK-47 and a Makarov handgun.
The changing story has raised doubts over assurances that the team of U.S. Navy SEALs was prepared to take bin Laden alive.
"If he had surrendered, I think -- attempted to surrender -- I think we should, obviously, have accepted that," Holder told the Senate committee.
"But there was no indication that he wanted to do that. And, therefore, his killing was appropriate," Holder added.
I'm really curious why there were initially conflicting reports on bin ladens 'resistance' when the SEALS entered his room. I recently read that he resisted and there might have been firearms near him when the SEALS shot him. I wonder why they haven't clarified this. Has anyone heard more about his 'resistance'??
Cool, thanks Monster Rain. That was pretty detailed.
US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the raid on Osama Bin Laden's hideout, in which the al-Qaeda leader was killed, was "not an assassination".
Mr Holder told the BBC the operation was a "kill or capture mission" and that Bin Laden's surrender would have been accepted if offered.
The protection of the Navy Seals who carried out the raid was "uppermost in our minds", he added.
Bin Laden was shot dead on 2 May in the complex in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Mr Holder said the special forces had acted "in an appropriate way" in the absence of any clear indication Bin Laden had been going to surrender.
"If the possibility had existed, if there was the possibility of a feasible surrender, that would have occurred," he said.
"But their protection, that is the protection of the force that went into that compound, was I think uppermost in our minds."
The attorney general reiterated that the operation was legal, saying that international law allows the targeting of enemy commanders.
"I actually think that the dotting of the i's and the crossing of the t's is what separates the United States, the United Kingdom, our allies, from those who we are fighting," he said.
"We do respect the rule of law, there are appropriate ways in which we conduct ourselves and expect our people to conduct themselves, and I think those Navy Seals conducted themselves in a way that's consistent with American, [and] British values."
The interview with Mr Holder comes a day after a statement by Bin Laden's family questioning why he was not captured alive.
His sons criticised the US for carrying out his "arbitrary killing".
Members of US Congress are being shown photos of Bin Laden just after his death, which the US government has so far refused to publish.
Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who saw them on Tuesday, described them as "pretty gruesome".
Meanwhile, documents seized during the raid suggested Bin Laden had a hand in every recent major al-Qaeda threat, US officials have said.
In the latest of a series of media briefings, unnamed US security and and intelligence officials said the documents showed that Bin Laden had calculated how many Americans would have to die before the US withdrew from the Middle East.
He also encouraged his followers to attack cities such as Los Angeles, as well as New York.
Intelligence agents are continuing to analyse the documents - said to be stored on around 100 flash drives and five computers.
One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?
Do you know where he was in the bedroom, do you know where the door was, do you know where the weapons were? I don't, but if you are able to make the assertion they should have been able to subdue him, you must have some pretty good understanding of the situation.
I suppose as soon as we are in on a raid like this we can tell how simple it would be to do that without putting yourself in mortal danger. they found an AK and a russian pistol in the room he "ducked" back into (if you read the other stories)...seems like they didn't have much choice...When you make sudden movements against armed men there are going to be consequences...should they have waited for him to pick up the gun and get some shots off? If he lays down with his hands up he comes out alive....
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?
Do you know where he was in the bedroom, do you know where the door was, do you know where the weapons were? I don't, but if you are able to make the assertion they should have been able to subdue him, you must have some pretty good understanding of the situation.
What "assertion" did I make, exactly? I believe I asked a question. And the point of asking that question is precicely that I don't know. But if the government is as interested in the transparency of this whole situation as they claim to be, then they should be answering those questions so we do know why they couldn't capture an unarmed man. I'm just asking for answers, a little clarity, a little consistency.
No need to get uppity.
By the way, for having claimed not to know yourself, you rattle off a fairly descriptive account yourself...
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Here's the simple answer: they didn't know if he had any sort of bomb or other type of weapon under his clothes. If he didn't have his hands in the air and empty, then how can they be sure he's not going to grab a weapon or a device to detonate a bomb under his clothes? Unless he was naked when they walked in the room, they had to consider their own safety in that situation. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he would have decided to kill himself and take them all out with him rather than let them capture or kill him. Also, if he was reaching for a weapon, who's to say that they'd be able to subdue him before he gets to fire a round or 2 at them? That was not the time for them to give someone the benefit of the doubt.
One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?
One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?
Here's the simple answer: they didn't know if he had any sort of bomb or other type of weapon under his clothes. If he didn't have his hands in the air and empty, then how can they be sure he's not going to grab a weapon or a device to detonate a bomb under his clothes? Unless he was naked when they walked in the room, they had to consider their own safety in that situation. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he would have decided to kill himself and take them all out with him rather than let them capture or kill him. Also, if he was reaching for a weapon, who's to say that they'd be able to subdue him before he gets to fire a round or 2 at them? That was not the time for them to give someone the benefit of the doubt.
That could be a possibilty. Two things would make me doubt it, though.
First, why would he be be wearing a hidden bomb when it was a surprise raid? I know there are some wild assumptions about turrurists out there, but I doubt anyone believes that their underwear of choice is a suicide vest!
Second, if it was the case, surely they would have used it as a justification by now. Why not say, "He appeared to be unarmed, but there was reason to believe he was wearing a suicide vest."
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?
Do you know where he was in the bedroom, do you know where the door was, do you know where the weapons were? I don't, but if you are able to make the assertion they should have been able to subdue him, you must have some pretty good understanding of the situation.
What "assertion" did I make, exactly? I believe I asked a question. And the point of asking that question is precicely that I don't know. But if the government is as interested in the transparency of this whole situation as they claim to be, then they should be answering those questions so we do know why they couldn't capture an unarmed man. I'm just asking for answers, a little clarity, a little consistency.
No need to get uppity.
By the way, for having claimed not to know yourself, you rattle off a fairly descriptive account yourself...
fair enough, I may have jumped to the conclusion you were trying to make a commentary about whether or not the killing was justified...if that wasn't your assertion than I apologize
I did get a little detailed I suppose, just guessing though...either that or I was there I am quite the bad ass
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Some people just have an ability to discuss hot topics in a manner that informs without attacking, and some don't. I'm not surprised by many of the responses.
I've certainly learned a lot here...but it could be a lot less "painful" at times.
"and i think everyone else would if they were not so sensitive to criticism of their country or their country's policies."........whoooo meeee ?
it's a learning process you'll have to give me a little more time.
my way of thinking has changed a bit sense I have been on the train, there are some good people with great ideas and views,ones A lot different than I grew up with for sure so I learn a little from people on the train..a little at a time but it dosn't matter what I have learned or come to understand,talking down my country is a sore spot with me.
as I have said before our country is very new compared to most other countrys yet in the few years this country has been around we have become a world power that also helps countrys less fortunate (money food medical supplys etc.) and all things concidered we have it pretty damn good here so as intelligent as Byrnzie is or as right as he may be one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).
Godfather.
only Mexico and just for 6+ months, why do you ask ?
Godfather.
Just wondering what you had to compare to as you are stating the US is one of the best countries to live in. Wondering if it was from personal experiences or just from what you see on TV/read. Nothing more.
Sure criticism is good, but you have to look at where and who its coming from. I enjoy hearing other people's perspective on things, not their agenda. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
i know that you hate "usa bashing", but i do not view it as bashing, i expect my country to be what it claims to be, a beacon for the rest of the world but it makes it very hard to view it as such in light of everything that we have done and continue to do policywise. i have greater expectations of america. a lot of times i am let down by her, but sometimes she surprises me
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Well, the mission was still risky. Had Pakistan seen the helicopters on their radar, they probably would have shot them down.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
The only thing I would question was the tough talk from the President and State Department the last couple of days. I guess there's no indication that the same deal was used for the new administration.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I would like to know, please, how each of you would rephrase what Byrnzie said so as to make it more palatable without changing his point. Because it seems like we are agreeing that critical thinking is important & valuable, but y'all just don't like the way it comes across.
Where did I refer to Byrnzie?
seems you're trying to take this farther than it need to go, there are no ill feelings towards Byrnzie.
Godfather.
i agree 1000% on this. i believe they had to come out and say what they said due to politics in their own country and not wanting to look like they knew that America was going to go in.
I thought his comment is what started this line of discussion.
I'm not trying to take it far or suggest that there are any ill feelings toward anyone. I'm just trying to understand how people can communicate critical observations in a way that is acceptable to you.
I'm not from China, I'm English. But I've been living in China for the past three years. And I don't rag on America - I rag on the U.S leadership. Big difference.
Guess I wasn't clear, I was speaking to the AMT in general.
The other part of the story that had been cloudy was the use of a woman as a shield. first, it was a human shield, then it was a charging woman. Apparently, both were true in a sense. The clarification for that was that he shoved one of his wives towards the SEALs and she ran at them, so they shot her in the leg.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-die.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/05 ... y-killing/
Cool, thanks Monster Rain. That was pretty detailed.
The operation against Bin Laden was lawful, the US attorney general maintains
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13370919
US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the raid on Osama Bin Laden's hideout, in which the al-Qaeda leader was killed, was "not an assassination".
Mr Holder told the BBC the operation was a "kill or capture mission" and that Bin Laden's surrender would have been accepted if offered.
The protection of the Navy Seals who carried out the raid was "uppermost in our minds", he added.
Bin Laden was shot dead on 2 May in the complex in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Mr Holder said the special forces had acted "in an appropriate way" in the absence of any clear indication Bin Laden had been going to surrender.
"If the possibility had existed, if there was the possibility of a feasible surrender, that would have occurred," he said.
"But their protection, that is the protection of the force that went into that compound, was I think uppermost in our minds."
The attorney general reiterated that the operation was legal, saying that international law allows the targeting of enemy commanders.
"I actually think that the dotting of the i's and the crossing of the t's is what separates the United States, the United Kingdom, our allies, from those who we are fighting," he said.
"We do respect the rule of law, there are appropriate ways in which we conduct ourselves and expect our people to conduct themselves, and I think those Navy Seals conducted themselves in a way that's consistent with American, [and] British values."
The interview with Mr Holder comes a day after a statement by Bin Laden's family questioning why he was not captured alive.
His sons criticised the US for carrying out his "arbitrary killing".
Members of US Congress are being shown photos of Bin Laden just after his death, which the US government has so far refused to publish.
Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who saw them on Tuesday, described them as "pretty gruesome".
Meanwhile, documents seized during the raid suggested Bin Laden had a hand in every recent major al-Qaeda threat, US officials have said.
In the latest of a series of media briefings, unnamed US security and and intelligence officials said the documents showed that Bin Laden had calculated how many Americans would have to die before the US withdrew from the Middle East.
He also encouraged his followers to attack cities such as Los Angeles, as well as New York.
Intelligence agents are continuing to analyse the documents - said to be stored on around 100 flash drives and five computers.
One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Do you know where he was in the bedroom, do you know where the door was, do you know where the weapons were? I don't, but if you are able to make the assertion they should have been able to subdue him, you must have some pretty good understanding of the situation.
I suppose as soon as we are in on a raid like this we can tell how simple it would be to do that without putting yourself in mortal danger. they found an AK and a russian pistol in the room he "ducked" back into (if you read the other stories)...seems like they didn't have much choice...When you make sudden movements against armed men there are going to be consequences...should they have waited for him to pick up the gun and get some shots off? If he lays down with his hands up he comes out alive....
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
What "assertion" did I make, exactly? I believe I asked a question. And the point of asking that question is precicely that I don't know. But if the government is as interested in the transparency of this whole situation as they claim to be, then they should be answering those questions so we do know why they couldn't capture an unarmed man. I'm just asking for answers, a little clarity, a little consistency.
No need to get uppity.
By the way, for having claimed not to know yourself, you rattle off a fairly descriptive account yourself...
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
First, why would he be be wearing a hidden bomb when it was a surprise raid? I know there are some wild assumptions about turrurists out there, but I doubt anyone believes that their underwear of choice is a suicide vest!
Second, if it was the case, surely they would have used it as a justification by now. Why not say, "He appeared to be unarmed, but there was reason to believe he was wearing a suicide vest."
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
fair enough, I may have jumped to the conclusion you were trying to make a commentary about whether or not the killing was justified...if that wasn't your assertion than I apologize
I did get a little detailed I suppose, just guessing though...either that or I was there
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan