|
10346. concerned - 6/3/2012 5:52:15 AM Btw, if bin Laden was 'diving for his weapon', how high are the chances that he would have died from a single shot to the front of his head (he was shot above his left eye), which he was???? 10347. concerned - 6/3/2012 5:54:38 AM It was an assassination of bin Laden, pure and simple. Just no way around it. 10348. arkymalarky - 6/3/2012 2:13:16 PM Hahahahahaha! I just love you! You're so worth the price of admission. 10349. arkymalarky - 6/3/2012 2:15:31 PM And no, that was not the mission. Why don't you bother with getting the facts before you read the far right screeching interpretation of them? 10350. judithathome - 6/3/2012 4:44:30 PM You are just not temperamentally suited to an objective interpretation of law, Arky. You are obviously 100% non judgmental of who you like and totally dismissive of who you don't like.
...followed by this:
What is it with this 'cannibalfest'? We have at least 3 in the news now - all clearly Left leaning, btw
...almost made me spilt my stitches! Talk about unaware!!! 10351. Wombat - 6/3/2012 6:06:20 PM Concerned is seeking to provoke... 10352. judithathome - 6/3/2012 7:29:36 PM ...and succeeding! 10353. arkymalarky - 6/3/2012 9:22:28 PM That's what makes him so funny Wombat! 10354. concerned - 6/4/2012 9:32:17 PM And no, that was not the mission.
Yes it was. Leon Panetta admitted that the assault team had authority to kill bin Laden 'if he didn't throw his hands up', which made it tantamount to an assassination. 10355. concerned - 6/4/2012 9:39:46 PM Leon Panetta says he was told bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot in the head.
That settles it for me. Assassination. 10356. vonKreedon - 6/4/2012 9:55:29 PM Well, I'm very much in favor of such assassinations; I wish that we'd do much less killing of AQ leaders with missiles and bombs and a lot more by SpecOps guys on the ground. There's more control of the violence and who gets killed with guys on the ground, plus all the intel we get from being able to take things from the people/grounds.
I do not believe that you really oppose the killing of ObL, just that it was done on Obama's authority. 10357. concerned - 6/4/2012 10:29:51 PM I had no problem with Bush not having Saddam killed, and I happen to believe that if the US takes it upon itself to assassinate foreign nationals that this increases the likelihood of some of them repaying US officials in kind.
Then there is the matter of Gerals Ford's executive order prohibiting assassinations. What of that?
Plus capturing bin Laden alive and handing him over to the Afghani government in the way that things were handled with Iraq would tend to increase the authority of the Afghani government which could then try bin Laden according to its own laws.
Instead the 0bama administration acted in the way that you Lefties were so fond of accusing the Bush Administration of - like 'cowboys' and 'vigilantes'.
Perhaps this will make my position more clear to you. 10358. arkymalarky - 6/4/2012 10:56:09 PM You're still wrong about the mission cond 10359. Wombat - 6/4/2012 11:19:38 PM There is no f---ing way this country would have tolerated handing OBL over to the Afghans. One of the many differences between OBL and Saddam is that OBL was directly responsible for the deaths of American citizens on American soil. Furthermore, at very least, your Republican friends would have had an unholy, raving shitfit (and you along with them). Talk about Obama being weak, etc., yadda yadda.
There appears to be literally no depth that you are not capable of sinking to in your derangement about Obama. Beneath all your "crocodile tears," your only regret is that George Bush had more important priorities (such as invading Iraq) to bother with OBL, despite his "get him dead or alive" blustering.
I doubt that anyone on this site would have come out with the crap you've been posting, had OBL met his end during the Bush administration. I sure as hell wouldn't have. 10360. arkymalarky - 6/5/2012 2:37:53 AM Wombat, don't you remember how Con'd got so indignant about Bush's "dead or alive" remark, and all his posts calling for due process? I'm sure they're in the archives. 10361. Wombat - 6/5/2012 2:23:55 PM Arky. No I don't, and I spent way more time in the archives than was remotely productive. If chooses, he can produce it, and I will apologize for an instance of principle in a mass of partisan outrage snd intellectual dishonesty. 10362. arkymalarky - 6/5/2012 3:33:50 PM I was being sarcastic 10363. Wombat - 6/5/2012 4:37:51 PM Ah... 10364. judithathome - 6/5/2012 5:45:11 PM We all know exactly how Con'd would have celebrated had Bush followed through on his "dead" part of the hollow boast he made back in the day...we'd have had fifty plus celebratory posts, almost dripping with gleeful spittle. 10365. concerned - 6/5/2012 10:25:51 PM Re 10359 -
I would certainly have noted the inconsistency if Bush would have assassinated bin Laden and not Saddam.
I remember a couple of Lefties who would have gleefully savaged Bush for years on end if he had assassinated bin Laden the way 0bama did (like JadeSphincter and Clueless-Cliff). And Wombat and JAH wouldn't have made a peep of criticism about 'partisan outrage and intellectual dishonesty' if they had which pretty much neutralizes all Wombat's frothing in the here and now.
|
