Osama Bin Laden Dead

Off Topic
452

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:
WikiLeaks has some work to do.[/quote]

Wikileakwankers have a point to understand:

Releasing classified government secrets of an allied state to the general public in the midst of a worldwide war is NOT a good idea.[/quote]

Whynot? serious question.

It has all been stuff that makes Your Gov’s foreign policy look under handed and self serving…which it mostly is…so while it’s embarassing for governments to get caught with their pants down (not just yours) there was nothing in the leaks about tactical information or anything else that would compromise your troops’ actions or America’s sovereignty directly.
They basically have just exposed what a nasty buisness war and politics is.

*Edit. I have made a large assumption that you are American I apologise if you are not but the point still stands.
[/quote]

Your assumption is incorrect. I happen to be a citizen of Australia at the moment. Where Assange was charged and convicted of computer hacking.

To answer your question, Assange doesn’t edit or even read most of what he releases. Some of his ‘wikileaks’ contained the full names and details of scores of sources(people in Pakistan/Afghanistan etc who help us) and the Taliban announced it is using his leaks to ‘investigate collaborators’ in Afghanistan.

Also, if you are in favour of defeating AQ and the Taliban, ‘embarrassing’ America and undermining the war effort is not a good idea. In addition, sovereign nation states have the right to have privileged communications with other states. It’s part of what’s called ‘diplomacy’. They also have a right, nay duty, to withhold certain information from the general public.

Lastly, Assange’s leaks may contain anything(strategic/tactical plans, plans of military bases, troop numbers etc). He has admitted he just releases everything. He wouldn’t even have time to read most of his leaks, i.e. the 250,000+ Whitehouse communications for example.

I hope this clears things up for you neighbour(not neighbor).[/quote]

Good answer, I will do some more digging into to this.

Howvever, what passes for “diplomacy” is sometimes just “skullduggery” and the duty to withhold certain things gets abused as they withhold certain other things that should not be.

This is an extract from Assange’s interveiw with Germanny’s Das Speigel.

They were never unedited. It was first, supposedly, edited at the source, it was again supposed to be edited by WikiLeaks accoring to Assange:

SPIEGEL: The material contains military secrets and names of sources. By publishing it, aren’t you endangering the lives of international troops and their informants in Afghanistan?

Assange: The Kabul files contain no information related to current troop movements. The source went through their own harm-minimization process and instructed us to conduct our usual review to make sure there was not a significant chance of innocents being negatively affected. We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources.

SPIEGEL: So what, specifically, did you do to minimize any possible harm?

Assange: We identified cases where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent. Those records were identified and edited accordingly.

Maybe you could do some more digging too.

Cheers :slight_smile:

453

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Ty Carlson wrote:

[quote]optheta wrote:
Im honestly surprized at how the the HARDCORE conservative talking heads, can’t even give credit to Obama Administration for what it accomplished. They just for some reason keep wanting to talk about how Bush was a big part of this BLA BLA BLA. Not even a god dam notification of what a accomplishment this is for the President and USA.

Its disgusting, especially since Rush Limbaugh has over 10million people who tune into his shitty radio show.[/quote]

Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Mike Gallagher all thanked the Obama administration several times yesterday during their shows and said that it was a great accomplishment for President Obama…did you even listen to Rush Limbaugh or are you just spewing diarrhea of the mouth that the HARDCORE liberal talking heads told you?[/quote]

Oh please! Everything “positive” Rush said about Obama was said with COMPLETE sarcasm. He has never, and even under penalty of death, COULD NEVER say a positive word about Obama and actually mean it.
[/quote]

Exactly, nothing short of being a Republican could make Rush Limbaugh congratulate.

Here is the so called “thanking” of Obama. Seriously not even a minute into the program can Rush thank Obama without undermining him.

454

…am I the only one in the world who just found out a couple of hours ago?

damn I wish I had taken the shot.

455

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:
WikiLeaks has some work to do.[/quote]

Wikileakwankers have a point to understand:

Releasing classified government secrets of an allied state to the general public in the midst of a worldwide war is NOT a good idea.[/quote]

Whynot? serious question.

It has all been stuff that makes Your Gov’s foreign policy look under handed and self serving…which it mostly is…so while it’s embarassing for governments to get caught with their pants down (not just yours) there was nothing in the leaks about tactical information or anything else that would compromise your troops’ actions or America’s sovereignty directly.
They basically have just exposed what a nasty buisness war and politics is.

*Edit. I have made a large assumption that you are American I apologise if you are not but the point still stands.
[/quote]

Your assumption is incorrect. I happen to be a citizen of Australia at the moment. Where Assange was charged and convicted of computer hacking.

To answer your question, Assange doesn’t edit or even read most of what he releases. Some of his ‘wikileaks’ contained the full names and details of scores of sources(people in Pakistan/Afghanistan etc who help us) and the Taliban announced it is using his leaks to ‘investigate collaborators’ in Afghanistan.

Also, if you are in favour of defeating AQ and the Taliban, ‘embarrassing’ America and undermining the war effort is not a good idea. In addition, sovereign nation states have the right to have privileged communications with other states. It’s part of what’s called ‘diplomacy’. They also have a right, nay duty, to withhold certain information from the general public.

Lastly, Assange’s leaks may contain anything(strategic/tactical plans, plans of military bases, troop numbers etc). He has admitted he just releases everything. He wouldn’t even have time to read most of his leaks, i.e. the 250,000+ Whitehouse communications for example.

I hope this clears things up for you neighbour(not neighbor).[/quote]

Good answer, I will do some more digging into to this.

Howvever, what passes for “diplomacy” is sometimes just “skullduggery” and the duty to withhold certain things gets abused as they withhold certain other things that should not be.

This is an extract from Assange’s interveiw with Germanny’s Das Speigel.

They were never unedited. It was first, supposedly, edited at the source, it was again supposed to be edited by WikiLeaks accoring to Assange:

SPIEGEL: The material contains military secrets and names of sources. By publishing it, aren’t you endangering the lives of international troops and their informants in Afghanistan?

Assange: The Kabul files contain no information related to current troop movements. The source went through their own harm-minimization process and instructed us to conduct our usual review to make sure there was not a significant chance of innocents being negatively affected. We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources.

SPIEGEL: So what, specifically, did you do to minimize any possible harm?

Assange: We identified cases where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent. Those records were identified and edited accordingly.

Maybe you could do some more digging too.

Cheers :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Kudos on finding that quote. But he has also said the opposite. I will do my best to find where. In the meantime, here are some revealing quotes:

“Leaking is inherently an anti-authoritarian act. It is inherently an anarchist act”

  • So you’re an anarchist Jules?

“We specialise in getting the full material out to the public”

  • No shit. That’s the problem.

“These megaleaks… They’re an important phenomenon, and they’re only going to increase.”

  • So you had time to read the 400,000+ documents in the Iraq War diaries and the 250,000+ Whitehouse communications and edit them? Good thing we have a convicted computer hacker/anarchist to decide what’s safe to release and what’s not.

“True information does good.” - Always. If only we could’ve released the D-Day plans to the general public prior to June 1944.

“Intelligence agencies keep things secret because they often violate the rule of law or of good behaviour”

  • Exactly. But only the intelligence agencies of Western democracies. They’re the bad ones. It’s not like they want to protect sources/agents and act in the best interests of their own country or anything.

“We have a way of dealing with information that has sort of personal (pause) personally identifying information in it. But there are legitimate secrets - you know, your records with your doctor; that’s a legitimate secret”

  • Right, but the CIA/NSA don’t have ‘legitimate secrets’? And Sarah Palin’s email account contents comprise illegitimate secrets that the public needs to know about? What about the membership list of BNP party members in Britain? Illegitimate secrets right? No political bias involved here either. ‘Free and fair press’ right?

“WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical”

  • So you’re a quasi-Communist/Socialist now Jules?

  • One more thing Julie boy: Why did you entitle that video ‘Collateral Murder’ when it clearly shows a mistaken killing as opposed to ‘murder’? Are you unable to make the moral distinction between accidently killing people you think are armed terrorists and deliberately murdering innocent civilians?

Sorry for addressing my posts to Assange. I wanted to reserve my hatred and hostility for him not you.

456

Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.

Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.

457

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.

Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.[/quote]

Hurrah, another idiot who saw a plane collide with a building and wonders why it fell down.

458

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.

Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.[/quote]

Take your Seroquel and have a nice lie down, there’s a good chap. No one’s going to hurt you. We’ll take care of those nasty Zionists/Freemasons/Illuminati.

459

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.

Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.[/quote]

Hurrah, another idiot who saw a plane collide with a building and wonders why it fell down.[/quote]

Why does a building have to fall just because it is damaged? It was designed to withstand several planes hitting it. There is no scientific reason why the building would have collapsed solely due to the plane hitting it. Not to mention it collapsed at near free-fall speed, into its own footprint, with a large amount of it ending in a fine powder spread across the city.

Or should I ask about building 7?

460

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]QuadasarusFlex wrote:
They say he was hiding in a Mansion in Pakistan. What. the. Fuck. If the rumor is true that the Pakis were hiding him,what should be done about them?[/quote]

Turn the whole country into a bunch of Christmas ornaments.

Heh nice one DB.

Couple quick things people.

  1. Have you guys not seen the picture yet of Osamas head with three bullet holes in it ? Circulating far and wide here in Pakistan.

  2. Bin Laden was a Saudi.

  3. I believe something like 20 out of the 23 men responsible for 9/11 were Saudis? (Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

  4. Not a single bomb or drone or strike of any kind was carried out there and instead the US wound up in draining wars Iraq and Afghanistan ?

461

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
It was designed to withstand several planes hitting it. [/quote]

Dude

462

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
It was designed to withstand several planes hitting it. [/quote]

Dude[/quote]

No dude, you need to do some research and look at things with an open mind.

463

[quote]pro.nub wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
It was designed to withstand several planes hitting it. [/quote]

Dude[/quote]

No dude, you need to do some research and look at things with an open mind.[/quote]

get to reading

I have read up on this a lot over the last decade, and there is not one conspiracy myth of 9/11 that has not been explained to death.

I remember watching Loose Change as a kid, how gullible I was. I actually believed for a second that Bush was responsible for all of it (I was 16, eat my dick). This film has been refuted by journalists, independent/9-11 Truth researchers, and engineers/scientists.

464

[quote]Ty Carlson wrote:

Are you serious man? My God. Grow up. So she didn’t say President Obama, she said “our President”. What if she had said President Barack Hussein Obama? You would have been pissed of then, too.
[/quote]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

Our President. She couldn’t even bring herself to dignify him with his NAME.

Jackass.[/quote]

You’re really reaching here, aren’t you? It makes you look dumb.[/quote]

  1. It’s obvious neither of you hold any respect for President Obama… no matter what he does.

  2. I couldn’t give 2 shits what you idiots think of me.

465

[quote]pro.nub wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.

Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.[/quote]

Hurrah, another idiot who saw a plane collide with a building and wonders why it fell down.[/quote]

Why does a building have to fall just because it is damaged? It was designed to withstand several planes hitting it. There is no scientific reason why the building would have collapsed solely due to the plane hitting it. Not to mention it collapsed at near free-fall speed, into its own footprint, with a large amount of it ending in a fine powder spread across the city.

Or should I ask about building 7?[/quote]

No, you’re absolutely right, a building with several floors taken out, then having all floors above pancake the rest of the building, that defies physics.

Fucking twat. There IS a scientific reason for why they came down, don’t come in here with your idiotic conspiracies.

466

[quote]sjoconn wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
Well at the end of the day Osama now has his 72 virgins in Heaven… I’m sure he’s chuckling the last laugh away as we speak.[/quote]

Let him have his 72 virgins. I would rather have 4 whores that know what they are doing.[/quote]

Your a “slut man”!

Billy Connolly

467

[quote]azsdaha wrote:

…here in Pakistan.

[/quote]

Pakistan is in California now? Things are really moving fast!

Seriously son, if you’re one of the sane ones I feel sorry for you. Let me explain something to you:

  1. Your government has been funding the Taliban/AQ in Afghanistan and harbouring them in the NWFP for years.

  2. Your government has nuclear weapons.

  3. Your government is unstable and likely to be toppled by the ISI/Taliban/AQ faction.

468

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pro.nub wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.

Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.[/quote]

Hurrah, another idiot who saw a plane collide with a building and wonders why it fell down.[/quote]

Why does a building have to fall just because it is damaged? It was designed to withstand several planes hitting it. There is no scientific reason why the building would have collapsed solely due to the plane hitting it. Not to mention it collapsed at near free-fall speed, into its own footprint, with a large amount of it ending in a fine powder spread across the city.

Or should I ask about building 7?[/quote]

No, you’re absolutely right, a building with several floors taken out, then having all floors above pancake the rest of the building, that defies physics.

Fucking twat. There IS a scientific reason for why they came down, don’t come in here with your idiotic conspiracies.[/quote]

Haha, ‘pancake theory’ can be seen to be ridiculous by simple physics and common sense. Assuming that the top floors would start to fall, why did the completely undamaged lower floors offer no resistance and allow the building to collapse at near free fall speed?

Would you care to share this scientific reason to debunk my idiotic conspiracy?

469

[quote]pro.nub wrote:

Would you care to share this scientific reason to debunk my idiotic conspiracy?[/quote]

Did you know if you wrap aluminium foil around your head they can’t steal your thoughts?

470

[quote]pro.nub wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pro.nub wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.

Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.[/quote]

Hurrah, another idiot who saw a plane collide with a building and wonders why it fell down.[/quote]

Why does a building have to fall just because it is damaged? It was designed to withstand several planes hitting it. There is no scientific reason why the building would have collapsed solely due to the plane hitting it. Not to mention it collapsed at near free-fall speed, into its own footprint, with a large amount of it ending in a fine powder spread across the city.

Or should I ask about building 7?[/quote]

No, you’re absolutely right, a building with several floors taken out, then having all floors above pancake the rest of the building, that defies physics.

Fucking twat. There IS a scientific reason for why they came down, don’t come in here with your idiotic conspiracies.[/quote]

Haha, ‘pancake theory’ can be seen to be ridiculous by simple physics and common sense. Assuming that the top floors would start to fall, why did the completely undamaged lower floors offer no resistance and allow the building to collapse at near free fall speed?

Would you care to share this scientific reason to debunk my idiotic conspiracy?[/quote]

Taken from Wikipedia, and verified by, oh I don’t know… every law of physics.

The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called “the most infamous paradigm” of progressive collapse. In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building’s footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground.

A building can be designed to withstand a minor impact from a commercial jet, but NO BUILDING IS DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND THE KIND OF STRESS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER EXPERIENCED ON 9/11.

And before it comes up, a controlled demolition is possibly the stupidest thing I have EVER heard. Anyone here who has ever been involved in bringing down a multi story building will know exactly why.

471

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]azsdaha wrote:

…here in Pakistan.

[/quote]

Pakistan is in California now? Things are really moving fast!

Seriously son, if you’re one of the sane ones I feel sorry for you. Let me explain something to you:

  1. Your government has been funding the Taliban/AQ in Afghanistan and harbouring them in the NWFP for years.

  2. Your government has nuclear weapons.

  3. Your government is unstable and likely to be toppled by the ISI/Taliban/AQ faction.[/quote]

Sorry I registered on T-Nation when I was at college in Cali. Never got around to changing that, sorry for the confusion.

As for being sane. Lets not get carried away here. As for your points. I would like to offer you some other words with them not that I disagree with everything you said but you are a lil misinformed on some issues.

  1. Technically the US Government, the Saudis and the Pakistanis created the Taliban and have supplied them with cash and instructors over the last 30 odd years. Imagine their surprise when they were asked to " stop misbehaving and heel" .

  2. Yes but keep in mind we got the rockets from north korean and help on the reactors etc from China. I am a bit of a gambler and I am willing to bet if we launched everything we had, 80% wouldnt get off the ground, and the other ones would really fuck up the Pakistani landscape at best so dont panic.

  3. I dont know if you looked in to Pakistani History or not but since 1947 ( independence year ) the Pakistani Army has ruled the country for about 40 years.So they dont technically toppple a damned thing they just suit up go on air and declare marshal law. Lot less messy. Funny fact to go with it the US has managed to support each and every one of those dictators because it suited them in the great game vis a vis Afghanistan and the spread of commie Russia.

Anyhow enough boring facts where the nekkid women ?