Osama Bin Laden. Did the White House just give up?

[shuamort]

After a lot of searching, I came up with this. I thought I'd share what proof looks like too.

Bin Laden Hunt Continues 24/7, DoD Leaders Report

The manhunt for Osama bin Laden continues "every day, 24 hours a day," the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan told NBC News this week.

Army Lt. Gen. David W. Barno, commander of Combined Forces Command Afghanistan, said "a very, very dedicated, highly capable element" is committed to the effort and they're "looking at the intelligence and … ready to respond."

So, Skilmatic, take note. That's what proof looks like.

 

[SKILMATIC]

After a lot of searching, I came up with this. I thought I'd share what proof looks like too.

Bin Laden Hunt Continues 24/7, DoD Leaders Report



So, Skilmatic, take note. That's what proof looks like.

Ok...????? And that looks like the same proof I served you too. I guess you agree with me then. Thank you its really about time my friendly moderator. :2wave:

O btw, I loved how you tried to covertly turn the tables around and submit proof that agrees with my posts and try to say I dont know what real proof is considering someone else on the forum (namely oldreliable) submited proof that proved my posts as being true. Truly genius. Did you learn that at moderator school? Because those tactics are truly priceless. I cant wait till GUNNYgets a load of this. He will have a field day. :rofl

 

[cnredd]

Ok...????? And that looks like the same proof I served you too. I guess you agree with me then. Thank you its really about time my friendly moderator. :2wave:

O btw, I loved how you tried to covertly turn the tables around and submit proof that agrees with my posts and try to say I dont know what real proof is considering someone else on the forum (namely oldreliable) submited proof that proved my posts as being true. Truly genius. Did you learn that at moderator school? Because those tactics are truly priceless. I cant wait till GUNNYgets a load of this. He will have a field day. :rofl

Actually, shuey was right...The only proof you showed was Pakistan's objectives, not America's...It was YOU who was trying to connect the dots with this rather confusing comment...

So if the pakistanis are still looking for him you know damn well we are.

The fact that he first asked you to provide proof, and when you couldn't/didn't, he had to rely on himself, tells alot...:roll:

 

[SKILMATIC]

Actually, shuey was right...The only proof you showed was Pakistan's objectives, not America's...It was YOU who was trying to connect the dots with this rather confusing comment...

So if the pakistanis are still looking for him you know damn well we are.

The fact that he first asked you to provide proof, and when you couldn't/didn't, he had to rely on himself, tells alot...:roll:

Yes, but if you look earlier I had said that every intelligence agency is looking for him meaning the worlds and ours. I had alread submitted proof to him that we were. What does he need another crummy google link that he can look up for himself which he already did? Like I said this thread is useless. He knows it and we all know it. Why do you think he came up with his own proof that debacled his own argument? Hmm...????:doh Like I said its common sense. Its funny how the pakastani gov is looking for him but we arent? C'mon cnredd. You should know better. Common sense should already tell you that if the pakastani gov is looking for him than surely our own gov is still looking for him. Hence the reason why I posted that link to show the idiocy of the claim. That if a 3rd world country who hadnt ever been subjected to 9/11 is looking for him than surely the country that was subjected to 9/11 and started the whole war on terror is looking for him. Doesnt this make sense? Or is this all going over your heads?

 

[cnredd]

Yes, but if you look earlier I had said that every intelligence agency is looking for him meaning the worlds and ours. I had alread submitted proof to him that we were. What does he need another crummy google link that he can look up for himself which he already did? Like I said this thread is useless. He knows it and we all know it. Why do you think he came up with his own proof that debacled his own argument? Hmm...????:doh Like I said its common sense. Its funny how the pakastani gov is looking for him but we arent? C'mon cnredd. You should know better. Common sense should already tell you that if the pakastani gov is looking for him than surely our own gov is still looking for him. Hence the reason why I posted that link to show the idiocy of the claim. That if a 3rd world country who hadnt ever been subjected to 9/11 is looking for him than surely the country that was subjected to 9/11 and started the whole war on terror is looking for him. Doesnt this make sense? Or is this all going over your heads?

The aspect of the thread is not the issue...It's YOU bypassing his questions and request for proof...irrelevant of what the subject matter is...

Of course he could've looked it up...anyone can!...He probably knew the answer before he thought up the thread's title...That part is what's going over your head...

By asking that question, he is showing the underlining perception that the White House has been eerily silent in recent months when talking about OBL in terms that are not abstract. The media has been quite silent also...He wants to know "why?"...The answers will not be found in proof, but opinion...

My personal opinion is that the news media reporting the same thing day after day will not be sensational enough to provide ratings...

Monday - "Nothing major to report...Back to you in the studio.."
Tuesday - "Nothing major to report...Back to you in the studio.."
Wednesday - "Nothing major to report...Back to you in the studio.."
Thursday - "Nothing major to report...Back to you in the studio.."

After the first couple of months, the actual reporting became redundant...That's why no one talks about it...But it IS still happening...

 

[MSgt]

After a lot of searching, I came up with this. I thought I'd share what proof looks like too.

Bin Laden Hunt Continues 24/7, DoD Leaders Report



So, Skilmatic, take note. That's what proof looks like.

Dude, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said....

"It doesn't excuse the majority of people who very well know better, because they are more intelligent than they lead on, and they use "Bush and the government doesn't care about catching Bin Ladden" as just one more of the same rediculous claims used to usurp. Democratic representation is the most foul, because most of them are very well aware of the bigger issues involving terrorism and what our actions are doing regarding it and regarding the individuals being searched for across the globe."

You went out and found proof of what you already knew was going on, yet you will grandstand post after post and bash away. These politicians ask questions for what they know they can't get answers to, because they are very well aware of all of the issues behind terrorism. They are very well aware of the decay that runs throughout the Middle East and they know the President can't come on international TV and discuss these matters. Not, while we still have to receive a substantial amount of oil from this region for American interests and a certain amount of diplomacy must remain open. They know that a Saddamless Middle East is in our best interest in the end and they know that change in the Middle East is in our best interest regarding this "War on Terror." Yet, they will act stupid for the public and to their constituents and ask the same old stupid questions for which they already know the answers. What they do is use any mundane detail along the way to put a Republican President on the spot, because keeping this country safe isn't the agenda for them - their ultimate agenda is 2008.

 

[DivineComedy]

They know that a Saddamless Middle East is in our best interest in the end and they know that change in the Middle East is in our best interest regarding this "War on Terror." Yet, they will act stupid for the public and to their constituents and ask the same old stupid questions for which they already know the answers. What they do is use any mundane detail along the way to put a Republican President on the spot, because keeping this country safe isn't the agenda for them - their ultimate agenda is 2008.

That is what it looks like to me too.

Considering the text of H32 of UN resolution 687, and the text of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, and the text of the One Iraq Two Iraq Three Iraq February 23, 1998 fatwa of Osama, if they win in 2008 on Saddam’s support of terrorism among other things not being a good enough reason for a war, and go strutting down Pennsylvania Avenue like the third coming of Camelot with that as their mandate I will vomit to a dry heave.

“A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future.” (TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002)
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Yes, I will truly vomit. Seriously!

*****

GySgt when you were a little kid did you ever hunt for a Chipmunk with a sling shot?

 

[MSgt]

GySgt when you were a little kid did you ever hunt for a Chipmunk with a sling shot?

No. I used to read G.I. Joe Comics. There was something thrilling about an American elite fighting force battling an international terrorist organization called Cobra. Hey...wait a minute....

 

[DivineComedy]

No. I used to read G.I. Joe Comics. There was something thrilling about an American elite fighting force battling an international terrorist organization called Cobra. Hey...wait a minute....

Back in the early sixties my GI Joe was fighting for freedom from communist aggression, and then the “liberals“ of that age called him a baby killer reminiscent of Genghis Khan. And I have heard that the AK’s and RPG-7‘s became the weapons of choice in the Al Quacka manuals. Go figure! Now the “liberals” support GI Joe, by undermining his morale, by attacking the mission. I guess they want GI Joe to come home so he can marry Ken.

 

[Iriemon]

Old and Wise (though mostly just old) is one of the many out there that thinks like "Old Europe." Through President Bush, we have finally accepted that it is no longer enough to wait for enemies to attack first. We have accepted our unique responsibility to intervene abroad in the cause of global security and human rights, despite the fickle who have since, changed their mind. And we have dispensed with a corrupt sham sustained by our critics and the general American: the notion that a dictator, no matter how cruel and illegitimate, is untouchable behind his "sovereign" borders. The whole idea that brutality and threatening is protected because of the word "soveriegn" is rediculous.

What makes us different and better than "conquering" nations of the past, is that we will not and do not colonize.

"We have accepted our unique responsibility to intervene abroad in the cause of global security and human rights, despite the fickle who have since, changed their mind."

And therefor we have justification for ignoring international law and the consensus of other nations and our friends. So we therefore have justification for invading a country, even if we have to make up reasons to do it. Therefore we can invade and occupy whomever we want because it is our "unique responsibility to intervene for the cause of global security."

Disregard for international law and the consensus of other nations and our allies is not only being a bad internation citizen; it is just bad policy, as Iraq is showing. Invasions made without internation support rightly have their legitimacy questioned, turns world opinion against us even more than it already is, and it divides our own country because many Americans, myself included, will not support illetimate and unjustified military actions based on false pretext.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Dude, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said....

"It doesn't excuse the majority of people who very well know better, because they are more intelligent than they lead on, and they use "Bush and the government doesn't care about catching Bin Ladden" as just one more of the same rediculous claims used to usurp. Democratic representation is the most foul, because most of them are very well aware of the bigger issues involving terrorism and what our actions are doing regarding it and regarding the individuals being searched for across the globe."

You went out and found proof of what you already knew was going on, yet you will grandstand post after post and bash away. These politicians ask questions for what they know they can't get answers to, because they are very well aware of all of the issues behind terrorism. They are very well aware of the decay that runs throughout the Middle East and they know the President can't come on international TV and discuss these matters. Not, while we still have to receive a substantial amount of oil from this region for American interests and a certain amount of diplomacy must remain open. They know that a Saddamless Middle East is in our best interest in the end and they know that change in the Middle East is in our best interest regarding this "War on Terror." Yet, they will act stupid for the public and to their constituents and ask the same old stupid questions for which they already know the answers. What they do is use any mundane detail along the way to put a Republican President on the spot, because keeping this country safe isn't the agenda for them - their ultimate agenda is 2008.

HALELUJAH!!! Take note gentlemen.

 

[MSgt]

And therefor we have justification for ignoring international law and the consensus of other nations and our friends. So we therefore have justification for invading a country, even if we have to make up reasons to do it. Therefore we can invade and occupy whomever we want because it is our "unique responsibility to intervene for the cause of global security."

Disregard for international law and the consensus of other nations and our allies is not only being a bad internation citizen; it is just bad policy, as Iraq is showing. Invasions made without internation support rightly have their legitimacy questioned, turns world opinion against us even more than it already is, and it divides our own country because many Americans, myself included, will not support illetimate and unjustified military actions based on false pretext.

What does this tell you? It tells me that "International Law" needs to change. "International Law" is what keeps the UN impotent to do the right thing. "International Law" is what keeps the EU from doing what is right and instead allows Iran to do what ever it wants despite their stern warnings. "International Law" will permit situations like Sudan to happen all over the world. "International Law" is what permits situations like Kosovo and Bosnia to occur. "International Law" is what would have allowed Hitler to burn his Jews as long as he stayed within his borders. Funny, how Europe is all about American intervention when it comes to Europe (WWI, WWII, Kosovo, Bosnia, there will be more), but flaunt "International Law" for all the haters of America when comes to any other location.

In case you had your head up your ass...you will never get "international support" unless the support benefits them. Why was Europe so eager to save Kuwaitis from the tyranny of Saddam? Why were they eager to ignore the Iraqis need for help from the tyranny of Saddam? They hide under words like "sovereign" for their excuses of inadiquecy. It's easy...with Kuwait, their oil was in danger. With Iraq, they were receiving under the table. You obviously have no idea of what the International community is. If you think America is hypocritical, you've seen nothing of the super human levels that the International community has perfected.

If you care so much about the world's "opinion" of us so much, join them. Take off. As these super hypocrits snubb their noses at us and make you feel "unloved", they also receive all kinds of aid from us. Tell you what...the day their opinions matter, is the day they stop receiving aid from us and stop cowering behind words like "sovereign," "International Law," and "illegal war."

We'll see how much Europe cries "international Law" as their inevitable future draws nearer. These burnings in France were nothing. It's only a mater of time before they are defending against full blown Islamic terror attacks. Their cries of "but we didn't support America in Iraq" won't save them. If any one does, it will be us, so who gives a damn about their opinion.

 

[SKILMATIC]

What does this tell you? It tells me that "International Law" needs to change. "International Law" is what keeps the UN impotent to do the right thing. "International Law" is what keeps the EU from doing what is right and instead allows Iran to do what ever it wants despite their stern warnings. "International Law" will permit situations like Sudan to happen all over the world. "International Law" is what permits situations like Kosovo and Bosnia to occur. "International Law" is what would have allowed Hitler to burn his Jews as long as he stayed within his borders. Funny, how Europe is all about American intervention when it comes to Europe (WWI, WWII, Kosovo, Bosnia, there will be more), but flaunt "International Law" for all the haters of America when comes to any other location.

In case you had your head up your ass...you will never get "international support" unless the support benefits them. Why was Europe so eager to save Kuwaitis from the tyranny of Saddam? Why were they eager to ignore the Iraqis need for help from the tyranny of Saddam? They hide under words like "sovereign" for their excuses of inadiquecy. It's easy...with Kuwait, their oil was in danger. With Iraq, they were receiving under the table. You obviously have no idea of what the International community is. If you think America is hypocritical, you've seen nothing of the super human levels that the International community has perfected.

If you care so much about the world's "opinion" of us so much, join them. Take off. As these super hypocrits snubb their noses at us and make you feel "unloved", they also receive all kinds of aid from us. Tell you what...the day their opinions matter, is the day they stop receiving aid from us and stop cowering behind words like "sovereign," "International Law," and "illegal war."

We'll see how much Europe cries "international Law" as their inevitable future draws nearer. These burnings in France were nothing. It's only a mater of time before they are defending against full blown Islamic terror attacks. Their cries of "but we didn't support America in Iraq" won't save them. If any one does, it will be us, so who gives a damn about their opinion.

Once again people. Take note. Listen as gunny and I lay it out for you individuals who have been blinded by people by the money for the money.

 

[Iriemon]

What does this tell you? It tells me that "International Law" needs to change. "International Law" is what keeps the UN impotent to do the right thing. "International Law" is what keeps the EU from doing what is right and instead allows Iran to do what ever it wants despite their stern warnings. "International Law" will permit situations like Sudan to happen all over the world. "International Law" is what permits situations like Kosovo and Bosnia to occur. "International Law" is what would have allowed Hitler to burn his Jews as long as he stayed within his borders. Funny, how Europe is all about American intervention when it comes to Europe (WWI, WWII, Kosovo, Bosnia, there will be more), but flaunt "International Law" for all the haters of America when comes to any other location.

Then change it. My point is not that international law is perfect or to defend it. My point was when a country makes a unilateral preemptive invasion of a nation the rest of the world doesn't think is warranted, don't be surprised when the people you mean to rule have suspicions about your goals.

If you have a multinational consensus, it adds legitimacy to the operation.

That is a big reason, IMO, why Iraq is not working out as planned. We have not credibility, in part because our invasion was not justified. The was no consensus among the international or even regional communtiy that the action was justified or legitimate. The reasons our Govt gave turned out to be false. On top of all that, we mismanaged the occupation with things like abu Grave. And now you expect the Iraqis to beleive us when we tell them we are their for their best interest?

In case you had your head up your ass...you will never get "international support" unless the support benefits them. Why was Europe so eager to save Kuwaitis from the tyranny of Saddam? Why were they eager to ignore the Iraqis need for help from the tyranny of Saddam? They hide under words like "sovereign" for their excuses of inadiquecy. It's easy...with Kuwait, their oil was in danger. With Iraq, they were receiving under the table. You obviously have no idea of what the International community is. If you think America is hypocritical, you've seen nothing of the super human levels that the International community has perfected.

We had NATO support for Kosovo. We had regional and international consensus for the first Iraq war. If there is a legitimate reason for military action, the international community will support it.

If you care so much about the world's "opinion" of us so much, join them. Take off.

Last I checked, the US was in the world. Sorry to disappoint you.

As these super hypocrits snubb their noses at us and make you feel "unloved", they also receive all kinds of aid from us. Tell you what...the day their opinions matter, is the day they stop receiving aid from us and stop cowering behind words like "sovereign," "International Law," and "illegal war."

I'm sure the Nazis complained about the same thing. No one loved them when they invaded Poland.

We'll see how much Europe cries "international Law" as their inevitable future draws nearer. These burnings in France were nothing. It's only a mater of time before they are defending against full blown Islamic terror attacks. Their cries of "but we didn't support America in Iraq" won't save them. If any one does, it will be us, so who gives a damn about their opinion.

If so it is not because they are invading other countries on false pretenses and occupying them. It is because they let too many foreigners into their country too fast. You know. Kind of what Bush is doing in Mexico.

 

[MSgt]

Then change it. My point is not that international law is perfect or to defend it. My point was when a country makes a unilateral preemptive invasion of a nation the rest of the world doesn't think is warranted, don't be surprised when the people you mean to rule have suspicions about your goals.

Change it? Your point is moot. Until "old Europe" mentality is no more, nothing will change. We will always seek the approval of selfish and self-centered nations that will not lift a finger as long as we'll do it for them or unless something is in it for them. Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia, was a fad to them. The nobility of them quickly wore off. And who are we "ruling?"

If you have a multinational consensus, it adds legitimacy to the operation.

That is a big reason, IMO, why Iraq is not working out as planned. We have not credibility, in part because our invasion was not justified. The was no consensus among the international or even regional communtiy that the action was justified or legitimate. The reasons our Govt gave turned out to be false. On top of all that, we mismanaged the occupation with things like abu Grave. And now you expect the Iraqis to beleive us when we tell them we are their for their best interest?

Again...you will never see the International community get off of their asses for anybody. Want proof? Sudan, Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo. That's just four. All three have been listed by Human rights groups and the UN for needing help. Who actually did anything? Bosnia and Kosovo was half assed and we did most of the work. Neither are finished and in Europe's back yard. Sudan is in Africa and we all know how much people care about Africa. Somalia was another half assed attempt where everyone left and eventually even we tucked our tails and ran. These are the people you insist we needed approval for our credibility?

We had NATO support for Kosovo. We had regional and international consensus for the first Iraq war. If there is a legitimate reason for military action, the international community will support it.

Wrong. NATO had our support and once we left (before the job was done) so did they. We had international support for the Gulf War because of Europe's interests in oil. It's amazing how selective they are isn't it? The international community will support anything that is in their best interests. Don't have a lot of experience with this do you?

Last I checked, the US was in the world. Sorry to disappoint you.

Last I checked, the US has saved the world time and again and our forward bases has kept the world safe from would be invaders and conquerers. The ungrateful world owes us. Sorry to disappoint you.

If so it is not because they are invading other countries on false pretenses and occupying them. It is because they let too many foreigners into their country too fast. You know. Kind of what Bush is doing in Mexico.

Yes, illegal immigration was never a problem before Bush. It's all his fault. He tore all of the fences on the border that all the President before him built and maintained. Way to show your true colors. Aren't you the one that likes to call people righties? Seems to me that you are clearly the one enslaved to one political view.:roll: What a joke.

 

[Iriemon]

The ungrateful world owes us. Sorry to disappoint you.

...

And this attitude is why they despise us.

 

[MSgt]

And this attitude is why they despise us.

So? Doesn't change the facts does it? They have used us and we have bled for them time and again. **** their despises.

 

[SKILMATIC]

And this attitude is why they despise us.

And your point is? If it wasnt for our attitude they would never even exist. I think they should have some grace towards our attitude. Dont you think?

 

[MSgt]

And your point is? If it wasnt for our attitude they would never even exist. I think they should have some grace towards our attitude. Dont you think?

No. He wants to give the world a coke and sing in perfect harmony.

 

[SKILMATIC]

No. He wants to give the world a coke and sing in perfect harmony.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Like the commercial

 

[Iriemon]

So? Doesn't change the facts does it? They have used us and we have bled for them time and again. **** their despises.

Exactly. **** them. That's why we are in this quagmire almost by ourselves.

 

[Iriemon]

No. He wants to give the world a coke and sing in perfect harmony.

I want to give them a coke. You want to give them napalm. That is the difference between us.

 

[Iriemon]

And your point is? If it wasnt for our attitude they would never even exist. I think they should have some grace towards our attitude. Dont you think?

Who did we save? Poland in 1939? Denmark in 1940? Norway in 1940? Belguim or Holland in 1940? France in 1940? The SU in 1941?

But, in spite of the **** them atittude, most I have met are grateful.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Who did we save? Poland in 1939? Denmark in 1940? Norway in 1940? Belguim or Holland in 1940? France in 1940? The SU in 1941?

But, in spite of the **** them atittude, most I have met are grateful.

Your kidding me right? Most of the european continent has this feeling and most of them dont even know about WW1or 2. They (remember I said most not all) do not have the slightest clue what the wars were about or if they even existed. Germany doesnt even teach or mention adolf hitler in their school system it is against the law actually. You want to know how I know? I have been there. So dont tell me any of this crap about they all love us cause thats a bunch of mallarchy.

Also we saved africa, australia, all the pac islands, south america, china, all of europe incl GB, and the rest of asia. So basically the world.

 

[alphieb]

Why don't we take some troops if not all out of Iraq and put them on the hunt for bin laden?