News Osama Bin Laden killed by US in Pakistan

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mech_Engineer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bin
AI Thread Summary
Osama bin Laden has been confirmed dead, reportedly killed by a U.S. bomb during a military operation in Pakistan, with President Obama set to address the nation. The operation marks a significant moment nearly a decade after the September 11 attacks, which initiated the hunt for the Al Qaeda leader. While some believe his death may weaken terrorist operations in the region, others argue it is primarily a political victory for Obama with limited long-term impact. Concerns have been raised about the quick burial at sea, with calls for transparency regarding the identity confirmation process. Overall, bin Laden's death is seen as a major milestone, but the implications for global terrorism remain uncertain.
  • #251
drankin said:
I don't believe all Muslims support Bin Laden, particularly in the US, but it's not hard to believe that many if not most Muslims outside of our country like the fact that he was responsible for hurting the big bad USA. This is evident to me by the lack of outrage and the celebratory response after 9/11 in the ME.

I loved the Historian View in this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13259869

Although Bin Laden prided himself on his strategic genius, and did undoubtedly succeed in inspiring many angry young Muslims to heed him, in reality the US deposition of the Afghan Taliban government was a disaster for him and his organisation, forcing them to rely on affiliated actors whose priorities were often more local than al-Qaeda's.

More important is the question whether in a few years Bin Laden sinks into relative obscurity among young Muslims around the world - apparently his visage disappeared from T-shirts in Pakistan and Palestine long ago.

I have always believed that youth and illiteracy are a poison to this world.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #252
jreelawg said:
It was really stupid to dispose of the body the way they did. A lot of people are going to be skeptical it really happened. All we have left now to prove we got him, is the prospect of a photograph being released. And in my opinion they really ought to release the photography.

So far I have heard- That they wanted to dump the body in the Sea to give Osama a dignified muslim burial while preventing a shrine from forming. Are you serious?!
Why not? Anyone who thinks we faked killing him wouldn't be swayed by a claim that we still have his dead body, anyway. Were we supposed to embalm it and display it for inspection?

What possible reason would we have to violate muslim burial tradition by keeping the body?
 
  • #253
Al68 said:
Why not? Anyone who thinks we faked killing him wouldn't be swayed by a claim that we still have his dead body, anyway. Were we supposed to embalm it and display it for inspection?

What possible reason would we have to violate muslim burial tradition by keeping the body?

Since when do we give terrorists and mass murderers proper traditional burials. I just think that they should have held onto the body at least until after they announced he was dead.

I mean come on, were celebrating his death in the streets. It just sounds like BS that we would be concerned about giving a mass murderer a dignified and proper burial. What does he need one for anyways? What do we want to make sure he can go to muslim heaven?

I don't know it just seams ridiculous. On the other hand, maybe there is some kind of classiness in doing it like this? To me it's like throwing flowers on hitlers grave.
 
  • #254
jreelawg said:
Since when do we give terrorists and mass murderers proper traditional burials. I just think that they should have held onto the body at least until after they announced he was dead.

I mean come on, were celebrating his death in the streets. It just sounds like BS that we would be concerned about giving a mass murderer a dignified and proper burial. What does he need one for anyways? What do we want to make sure he can go to muslim heaven?

I don't know it just seams ridiculous. On the other hand, maybe there is some kind of classiness in doing it like this? To me it's like throwing flowers on hitlers grave.

Obama doesn't want to piss off those of Islamic faith. It was a strictly political decision I'm sure.
 
  • #255
jreelawg said:
Since when do we give terrorists and mass murderers proper traditional burials. I just think that they should have held onto the body at least until after they announced he was dead.

I mean come on, were celebrating his death in the streets. It just sounds like BS that we would be concerned about giving a mass murderer a dignified and proper burial. What does he need one for anyways? What do we want to make sure he can go to muslim heaven?

I don't know it just seams ridiculous. On the other hand, maybe there is some kind of classiness in doing it like this? To me it's like throwing flowers on hitlers grave.

Some jackhole burnt a Koran and seven UN contractors (along with however many Afghan civilians) ended up dead in the ensuing riots. Why make a mountain out of a molehill, or a martyr out of a corpse?

I don't believe the US has ever desecrated the remains / graves of its enemies or criminals (even the ones it executes--e.g. Timothy McVeigh). Why start now? What matters is that he's dead--why give him power beyond the grave?
 
  • #256
5680724572_d4696d593d.jpg


President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Seated, from left, are: Brigadier General Marshall B. “Brad” Webb, Assistant Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command; Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Standing, from left, are: Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; National Security Advisor Tom Donilon; Chief of Staff Bill Daley; Tony Binken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President; Audrey Tomason Director for Counterterrorism; John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Please note: a classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

To have been in that room...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/sizes/o/in/set-72157626507626189/

Who's the cutie in the back? :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #257
Pengwuino said:
Who's the cutie in the back? :biggrin:

Things you can think about after the fact? :rolleyes::wink: Apparently, you're not the only one asking:
http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/audrey-tomason-situation-room-mystery-woman-1687402.story
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #258
MATLABdude said:
Things you can think about after the fact? :rolleyes::wink: Apparently, you're not the only one asking:
http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/audrey-tomason-situation-room-mystery-woman-1687402.story

Yah I've been looking around and she's like a ghost!

If I were part of the White House, I would have all the pics photoshopped and have her removed and be like "Audrey who? What woman? We don't know what you're talking about. Stop asking questions or you're next".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #259
MATLABdude said:
Some jackhole burnt a Koran and seven UN contractors (along with however many Afghan civilians) ended up dead in the ensuing riots. Why make a mountain out of a molehill, or a martyr out of a corpse?

I don't believe the US has ever desecrated the remains / graves of its enemies or criminals (even the ones it executes--e.g. Timothy McVeigh). Why start now? What matters is that he's dead--why give him power beyond the grave?

IMO - there's no reason to release any additional details. The most wanted man in the world resisted and was shot. He died and was buried at sea - NEXT!

Every additional statement will fuel speculation - IMO.
 
  • #260
DaveC426913 said:
Wait, did I miss this?

According to today's papers, the White House has confirmed he was unarmed.

His wife rushed a soldier and got shot in the leg.

He didn't use anyone as a shield.
 
  • #261
Does anyone know what the operation code name was? A lot of places are reporting that it was Geronimo but, the evening news last night stated a different name for the operation and that Geronimo only referred to bin Laden. I can't remember what it was or find anything other than Geronimo.
 
  • #262
JaredJames said:
According to today's papers, the White House has confirmed he was unarmed.

His wife rushed a soldier and got shot in the leg.

He didn't use anyone as a shield.

How do you know he didn't run into the bedroom to hide? How do you know he didn't train his "wife" to act in this manner? Again, any additional statements from the White House will result in speculation.
 
  • #263
From the Chive:

[PLAIN]http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/2696/savethese1.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #264
WhoWee said:
How do you know he didn't run into the bedroom to hide? How do you know he didn't train his "wife" to act in this manner? Again, any additional statements from the White House will result in speculation.

If you start with the assumption that everyone is lying, you get nowhere fast.

Why go halfway? Why not assume the soldiers chased down and shot his puppy too?
 
  • #265
DaveC426913 said:
If you start with the assumption that everyone is lying, you get nowhere fast.

Why go halfway? Why not assume the soldiers chased down and shot his puppy too?

Let's clarify - please!

I first posted this: (my words in bold)
"WhoWee Re: Osama Bin Laden killed by US in Pakistan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by MATLABdude
Some jackhole burnt a Koran and seven UN contractors (along with however many Afghan civilians) ended up dead in the ensuing riots. Why make a mountain out of a molehill, or a martyr out of a corpse?

I don't believe the US has ever desecrated the remains / graves of its enemies or criminals (even the ones it executes--e.g. Timothy McVeigh). Why start now? What matters is that he's dead--why give him power beyond the grave?

IMO - there's no reason to release any additional details. The most wanted man in the world resisted and was shot. He died and was buried at sea - NEXT!

Every additional statement will fuel speculation - IMO. "

Then I posted this: (my words in bold)
"WhoWee Re: Osama Bin Laden killed by US in Pakistan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by JaredJames
According to today's papers, the White House has confirmed he was unarmed.

His wife rushed a soldier and got shot in the leg.

He didn't use anyone as a shield.

How do you know he didn't run into the bedroom to hide? How do you know he didn't train his "wife" to act in this manner? Again, any additional statements from the White House will result in speculation. "

We need to stop second-guessing the original story and move on. I'm not questioning the President or the military. The bad guy is dead - no explanation required (IMO) - NEXT!
 
  • #266
An al-Qaida member on the Saudi most-wanted list has turned himself in.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_saudi_al_qaida;_ylt=AqiphA_m5wy31riNk0ap.FSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNjMWYwOGpwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNTA0L3VzX2Jpbl9sYWRlbgRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzcEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3NhdWRpcG9saWNlYQ--
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #267
WhoWee said:
How do you know he didn't run into the bedroom to hide? How do you know he didn't train his "wife" to act in this manner? Again, any additional statements from the White House will result in speculation.

I was only answering DaveC regarding his question as to where the new info came from. Dave asked where, I answered there. That's all. No need for debate, none required.

In fact, the only one coming close to "second-guessing the original story" is you in your response to my answer. If you don't want it, why bring it up in this manner? No one else was.
 
  • #268
JaredJames said:
I was only answering DaveC regarding his question as to where the new info came from. Dave asked where, I answered there. That's all. No need for debate, none required.

In fact, the only one coming close to "second-guessing the original story" is you in your response to my answer. If you don't want it, why bring it up in this manner? No one else was.

Yet you found it necessary to comment that "He didn't use anyone as a shield"?

BTW - you forgot to support your comment with a link to the story you cited? I agree - no debate required.
 
  • #269
WhoWee said:
Yet you found it necessary to comment that "He didn't use anyone as a shield"?

I'm writing what's in the newspaper in front of me. "Reports the alqaeda chief used a human shield were dismissed by the whitehouse".

That's all I commented on, the new info coming out and where it came from in response to the question.
BTW - you forgot to support your comment with a link to the story you cited?

Yes, here's the link: www.jareds-lap.com/dailymirror/"hewasunarmedduringshootout"

For those of you wondering, "he was unarmed during shootout" is the name of the story.

I'm sure you can find it on their website or any other news agency. If you really insist, I'll take a picture of it and post it here.

Ridiculous isn't it? Well, like I said, just answering the question of what and where, not putting it in for debate or to stand up to any scrutiny, nor was it meant to stand up here as some form of citation.
 
  • #270
JaredJames said:
I'm writing what's in the newspaper in front of me. "Reports the alqaeda chief used a human shield were dismissed by the whitehouse".

That's all I commented on, the new info coming out and where it came from in response to the question.


Yes, here's the link: www.jareds-lap.com/dailymirror/"hewasunarmedduringshootout"

For those of you wondering, "he was unarmed during shootout" is the name of the story.

I'm sure you can find it on their website or any other news agency. If you really insist, I'll take a picture of it and post it here.

Ridiculous isn't it? Well, like I said, just answering the question of what and where, not putting it in for debate or to stand up to any scrutiny, nor was it meant to stand up here as some form of citation.

I heard about the "human shield" initially as well. I wonder where that really came from. I doubt anyone was grabbing nearby women and using them as shields. You only see that in crappy movies.

Personally, I don't care if he was armed or not. They may have just told him to get down and he refused. Reason enough to end it right there to me. You don't send a SEAL team into arrest people. They either extract or kill their targets.
 
  • #271
Whether or not he was physically armed in his apprehension, I am satisfied that he has proven himself to be extremely dangerous and the lives of the soliders who took him were likely in extreme danger the longer the apprehension lasted. Deadman switches are not beyond his tactics.

For me, this justifies his immobilization even at the cost of killing him (similar to - though not the same as - sharpshooters in a hostage situation).
 
  • #272
DaveC426913 said:
Whether or not he was physically armed in his apprehension, I am satisfied that he has proven himself to be extremely dangerous and the lives of the soliders who took him were likely in extreme danger the longer the apprehension lasted. Deadman switches are not beyond his tactics.
He certainly could have had the place booby-trapped, to avoid being taken alive. Shooting him and getting back out of there was a good course of action in the face of that possibility. Those SEALS didn't know if they were going to encounter heavy armed resistance, explosives, etc when they went in. We may never know what contingencies they had planned for (why educate our enemies on their tactics?), so perhaps we should trust that they acted on orders and did what they were told.
 
  • #273
DaveC426913 said:
Whether or not he was physically armed in his apprehension, I am satisfied that he has proven himself to be extremely dangerous and the lives of the soliders who took him were likely in extreme danger the longer the apprehension lasted. Deadman switches are not beyond his tactics.

For me, this justifies his immobilization even at the cost of killing him (similar to - though not the same as - sharpshooters in a hostage situation).

I could not agree more. The President chose the method least likely to injure innocent women or children - if the most wanted man in the world chose to surround himself with women and children (ultimately put them in harms way) that speaks to his character - not the President or the SEALs. He's dead, the body is buried - case closed!
 
  • #274
WhoWee said:
IMO - there's no reason to release any additional details. The most wanted man in the world resisted and was shot. He died and was buried at sea - NEXT!

Every additional statement will fuel speculation - IMO.

According to the latest news, he didn't resist, he was unarmed. It was first reported there was a firefight, and also that females at the location were used as human shields, but yesterday the official details changed, and it is now known that Bin Laden was unarmed and that the women weren't used as human shields, although it is suggested that one of the females charged the seal team.

Bottom line, should have had him alive, but hey, dead is better than nothing right. If the seal team could only be expected to have killed the targets even at the apparent best scenario for capturing alive, then maybe the seal team was the wrong move. The most desirable outcome would have been to capture all the residents alive for interrogation. I don't think fear of resistance is a great excuse. If they had survivors, information may have been obtained which may have ended up saving lives. They did pull it off without blowing up the building (computers etc.) and that was smart, but the ultimate outcome was not achieved. I understand the seal team are heros and deserve praise, but it's never healthy to judge a situation with bias eyes. Next time they better have learned something and have a better plan for capture if we are going to maximize the efficiency of our National Security efforts.

Additional statements will only help clear things up and end the speculation IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • #275
jreelawg said:
According to the latest news, he didn't resist, he was unarmed. It was first reported there was a firefight, and also that females at the location were used as human shields, but yesterday the official details changed, and it is now known that Bin Laden was unarmed and that the women weren't used as human shields, although it is suggested that one of the females charged the seal team.

Bottom line, should have had him alive, but hey, dead is better than nothing right. If the seal team could only be expected to have killed the targets even at the apparent best scenario for capturing alive, then maybe the seal team was the wrong move. The most desirable outcome would have been to capture all the residents alive for interrogation. I don't think fear of resistance is a great excuse.

Interrogation? "OK guys, you got me but I'm not saying anything. Where's my lawyer?"

Killing him spares us a media fiasco, riots, general craziness around the world. Do you really think we would get any useful info from Bin Laden himself? He is more useful as a dead leader of a terrorist organization. SEAL team was the best move.
 
  • #276
drankin said:
Interrogation? "OK guys, you got me but I'm not saying anything. Where's my lawyer?"

Killing him spares us a media fiasco, riots, general craziness around the world. Do you really think we would get any useful info from Bin Laden himself? He is more useful as a dead leader of a terrorist organization. SEAL team was the best move.

Paul Wolfawits said on CNN yesterday that the most valuable information they get comes from inside the heads of their captives, and that it was interrogation techniques at Guantanamo which helped lead to the information of Bin Ladens location. It would be an oxymoron to also assume that no information could have been obtained from residents of this location. It would be unwise to pass up on the opportunity to possibly extract useful information especially from such a high level source.
 
Last edited:
  • #277
drankin said:
Killing him spares us a media fiasco, riots, general craziness around the world. Do you really think we would get any useful info from Bin Laden himself? He is more useful as a dead leader of a terrorist organization. SEAL team was the best move.

Well, I'm not so cynical or cold-blooded that I think they should kill him because he's more useful. I do think that, if he were alive, he'd be a lightning rod for terrorist rescue activity, and I can see the US giving that consideration, but personally I don't agree that 'it's better that he's dead'.
 
  • #278
jreelawg said:
Paul Wolfawits said on CNN yesterday that the most valuable information they get comes from inside the heads of their captives, and that it was interrogation techniques at Guantanamo which helped lead to the information of Bin Ladens location. It would be an oxymoron to also assume that no information could have been obtained from residents of this location. It would be unwise to pass up on the opportunity to possibly extract useful information especially from such a high level source.

It's a trade off. Destroying the leader of the organization which also destroys the morale of the followers or keep him alive for the remote possibility he is going to give us some useful info. Alive he would be treated with kid gloves and would have no incentive to reveal anything. Ultimately, eliminating him as an icon of the organization is worth far more IMO.

I have to say, though I don't agree with Obama's politics, he isn't afraid to pull the trigger when it counts. He succeeded where Clinton failed on OBL in my book.
 
  • #279
drankin said:
I have to say, though I don't agree with Obama's politics, he isn't afraid to pull the trigger when it counts. He succeeded where Clinton failed on OBL in my book.
Let's not turn this into a left-right argument please. It seems you have conveniently left out an intervening President who wanted Bin Laden "dead or alive" one year, and claimed that his capture was not a priority the next year.

By their fruits shall ye know them.

All our Presidents operate within frameworks of international diplomacy, domestic pressures, problems with evaluating intelligence products, and trying to come up with some risk/reward ratios for military actions, etc. Add into the mix the personal relationships of our leaders with other leaders, and things get messy fast. Do you remember that highly-placed Saudis including members of the Bin Laden family were flown away to their homes immediately after 9-11 while US citizens were all grounded? That was a huge potential loss to the intelligence community, IMO, because al-Qaida hadn't yet gone to ground as firmly as they are today.
 
  • #280
No photos will be released. Wrong move I believe.
 
  • #281
Museigen said:
No photos will be released. Wrong move I believe.
I think it's a good move, there's no reason to see gore and it would only inflame those inclined to hate the US.
 
  • #282
Museigen said:
No photos will be released. Wrong move I believe.

Why do you think so? In a sense it's tasteful not to show photos. Let people use their imagination if they are so inclined.
 
  • #283
Right move for all the reasons mentioned and that will be mentioned.
 
  • #284
Evo said:
I think it's a good move, there's no reason to see gore and it would only inflame those inclined to hate the US.
I tend to agree. I would advocate limited release of such photos to the heads of allied governments, but with the Internet, all it would take is ONE leaked photo to incite retaliatory activities, especially with the conspiracy-theory mind-sets that such a limited release would foster. Let sleeping dogs lie.
 
  • #285
I can see what you guys are saying. I guess I'm coming from the position of just wanting some kind of proof.
 
  • #286
turbo-1 said:
An al-Qaida member on the Saudi most-wanted list has turned himself in.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_saudi_al_qaida;_ylt=AqiphA_m5wy31riNk0ap.FSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNjMWYwOGpwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNTA0L3VzX2Jpbl9sYWRlbgRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzcEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3NhdWRpcG9saWNlYQ--

That sounds like good news, as a deterrent effect may kick in now these people realize they are not untouchable.

On the operation itself. I don't see how it could have gone any other way. Taking OBL alive would have been so much more difficult, and anyway, he has reaped the consequences of his actions, and deservedly so. I also agree with other posters, bury him at sea, no photos, no nothing, smother the flames before they start.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #287
Museigen said:
I can see what you guys are saying. I guess I'm coming from the position of just wanting some kind of proof.

Even if we didn't even really kill him, which I'm sure we did, the perception that he has been killed is where the damage is. Regardless of whether he is dead or alive he has been found and we won't be seeing him again. You can bet the reputation of the POTUS on that.
 
  • #288
Evo said:
I think it's a good move, there's no reason to see gore and it would only inflame those inclined to hate the US.

I agree, I don't see any good coming from releasing the pix. I only wish they had made the decision earlier.
 
  • #289
I am still finding his death hard to believe. I mean, now that he's gone, I don't think I can name a current, living Middle Eastern terrorist.
 
  • #290
they need to release the photos. because the way they've handled things after the operation makes it look like they are hiding something. they disposed of the body quickly when there was no real need. they could have brought in witnesses from various press to view the body without taking photos, but they did not. they first said they were willing to take him alive, but said he resisted, but he either did not or the resistance was minimal. there was no armed resistance encountered at all. without evidence of a body, people may just assume he is alive and being subject to interrogation in guantanamo. perhaps the idea of a bin laden being waterboarded or worse is more damaging than the image of a bin laden with a gaping head wound.
 
  • #291
Proton Soup said:
they need to release the photos. because the way they've handled things after the operation makes it look like they are hiding something. they disposed of the body quickly when there was no real need. they could have brought in witnesses from various press to view the body without taking photos, but they did not. they first said they were willing to take him alive, but said he resisted, but he either did not or the resistance was minimal. there was no armed resistance encountered at all. without evidence of a body, people may just assume he is alive and being subject to interrogation in guantanamo. perhaps the idea of a bin laden being waterboarded or worse is more damaging than the image of a bin laden with a gaping head wound.

Some of the people living with Osama who witnessed all of this are currently in the hands of Pakistan government.
 
  • #292
Borg said:
Does anyone know what the operation code name was? A lot of places are reporting that it was Geronimo but, the evening news last night stated a different name for the operation and that Geronimo only referred to bin Laden. I can't remember what it was or find anything other than Geronimo.
Finally found it - Neptune Spear.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-dead-navy-seal-raid-13522148
 
  • #293
WhoWee said:
I could not agree more. The President chose the method least likely to injure innocent women or children - if the most wanted man in the world chose to surround himself with women and children (ultimately put them in harms way) that speaks to his character - not the President or the SEALs. He's dead, the body is buried - case closed!

Anybody remember that ridiculous line of oneupsmanship last election cycle about using atomic weapons on terrorists? Obama said he wouldn't, and got lambasted for it. I think he demonstrated quite effectively why.

"Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" is probably quite acceptable to some people. Thankfully, this doesn't include the current leadership (and no, I'm not trying to imply anything about previous ones). Strength has to go hand-in-hand with how and when to use it.

Incidentally, I found this over at Fark--I think the only thing missing is an Old Testament beard (image is from the previously-posted Situation Room picture):
obama_pwns_binladen.jpg


EDIT: And possibly a discussion on the world-wide naming trends of items at fast food franchises.
 
  • #294
After contemplating it a bit more, it was the correct decision not to release photos.
Muslims all over the world are mourning his death. To publicize a disfigurement of a man believed to be protected by God and the resulting slander by the idiots rampant on the internet would cause millions of the 1.5 billion Muslims to be offended. It would be rather stupid on the US government's part.
 
  • #295
Museigen said:
After contemplating it a bit more, it was the correct decision not to release photos.
Muslims all over the world are mourning his death. To publicize a disfigurement of a man believed to be protected by God and the resulting slander by the idiots rampant on the internet would cause millions of the 1.5 billion Muslims to be offended. It would be rather stupid on the US government's part.

Hey! I don't want to get into a big cat fight here, but "Muslims" all over the world"... and would cause "millions of the 1.5 billion Muslims to be offended."
This is just wrong to say.
 
  • #296
Personally, I agree with Lacy here.
 
  • #297
Char. Limit said:
Personally, I agree with Lacy here.

I don't, partially because it's true that Muslims around the world are mourning his death, and probably true that millions of Muslims support bin Laden. Remember that "millions out of 1.5 billion" is a very tiny minority, yet powerful enough that you wouldn't want to incite their wrath.
 
  • #298
Lacy33 said:
Hey! I don't want to get into a big cat fight here, but "Muslims" all over the world"... and would cause "millions of the 1.5 billion Muslims to be offended."
This is just wrong to say.

It's not wrong when it's true.
 
  • #299
On the lighter & geekier side,

chmod -x /bin/laden
 
  • #300
Lol..
 

Similar threads

News US Kills Osama so in Response, the Taliban Attacks
Replies
15
Views
4K
News Bin Laden, the truth about his death?
Replies
21
Views
7K
News Watchdog seeks bin Laden photo, says White House 'not above the law'
Replies
33
Views
6K
Has Morgan Spurlock Found Osama Bin Laden?
Replies
16
Views
5K
News Pakistan raid possibly devastating to Al Qaeda?
Replies
24
Views
4K
News Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive
Replies
36
Views
6K
News Is Ayman al-Zawahiri Dead?
2
Replies
52
Views
6K
News OBL Found: US Special Forces Surrounding in NW Pakistan/Afghan Border
Replies
15
Views
4K
News Any proof that it WAS Osama bin Laden
Replies
6
Views
3K
News Vote for us or you're gonna DIE DIE DIE
Replies
2
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top