Merged Osama bin Laden dead,

[JihadJane]

But Ginger just posted your text from post #797. That post contains nothing but Ken's comment about the moon, and your response to it. There's nothing else there. Why would you quote that if your response has nothing to do with the quoted section?

I don't have a problem with you or anyone else involving themselves in a conversation. However, you appear to be jumping in, changing the subject in an extremely subtle manner, and then acting surprised when people fail to understand your point. You're responding to X, but your comment has nothing to do with X. I'm confused.

It is confusing because Skeptic Ginger cuts off the conversation arbitrarily, missing out JJM 77's source comment, the premise of which thaiboxerken equates with theories that the moon landings were hoaxed.

Thaiboxerken's Moon Landing comment addresses JJM 777's comment, but JJM 777's comment is omitted from in Skeptic Ginger's summary of the conversation.

Skeptic Ginger appears to misinterpret my comment as referring to skepticism about the moon landing (a sub-topic and red herring introduced by thaiboxerken) bit it isn't. My comment refers to skepticism about the yarns that the US military spins about its operations, as expressed in JJM 777's comment, the one that thaiboxerken and I Am The Scum are ridiculing (in the accustomed manner ).



Thaiboxerken's moon landing comment was a response to I Am The Scum's comment:

If you're willing to believe that the government is willing and able to stage this raid all for the sake of faking a report on Bin Laden's death, then you're also willing to believe that they would fake any other evidence they might have offered. Photos? Photoshopped. DNA? Falsified report. Video? Staged. "Bin Laden's" body? Surgically altered burkah salesman.

which was a response to JJM 777's comment:

We have only anecdotal evidence that it was Osama Bin Laden who was killed and thrown to the sea quicker than the WTC crime scene evidence was recycled. There is not more _evidence_ that it was him than there is evidence of miraculous healings at a Benny Hinn service. Anecdotes are no evidence, everyone here should know that better than well.

JJM 777 comment is perfectly reasonable. We do only have anecdotal evidence that bin Laden was killed and thrown in to the sea. We are entirely dependent on the US military for this information. The US military has lied before about "heroic" operations (e.g. Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman), for propaganda purposes.

Thaiboxerken's comment:

By his logic, the moon landing was a hoax as well.

pretends that reasonable distrust of the word of the US military can be equated with Moon Landing Hoax theories. Thaiboxerken comment is just a cheap rhetorical trick, one step up from accusing JJM 77 of wearing a tinfoil hat. I therefore ignore its content and address its attempt to paint JJM 777's comment as ridiculous.

My comment in response:

Is there a reason why you choose the default position of believing a governing structure that has repeatedly lied to you?

refers back to JJM 77 comment (the one that thaiboxerken is applying the Moon Landing Hoax smear to). It asks what is logical about believing, without any skepticism, anecdotal evidence about an operation with huge propaganda weight, provided by an organization that has lied, for propaganda purposes, in the past, about operations with major PR implications.

You'd have to be a bit credulous not to experience some skepticsm in this situation, in my opinion.

 

[JihadJane]

Have you and Jane been hanging out?

No!!!

 

[Polaris]

You "never claimed that his statement indicated a kill directive," you just decided to post it coincidentally during a debate about whether there was 'evidence' of a directive not to take Bin Laden alive. I see.

As for the quote, I never doubted the guy said it. He was selling a book and a radio persona.

I posted it when I read the post I responded to.

But please, allow me a moment to deeply ponder how little I care whether you believe me or not.

 

[JihadJane]

Do you know how many innocents the the US government has killed in Pakistan alone, Puppycow?

.

.
Do you know how many innocents have been killed by Al Qaeda around the world?
And by Taliban, in Paki and Afghani...?

Between five and ten thousand? Probably nearer five.

http://crowdleaks.org/the-logic-of-power-al-qaeda-versus-wikileaks/

I don't think anyone's argued that Al Qaeda hasn't killed a lot of civilians so I'm not sure why you're asking.

And by Taliban, in Paki and Afghani...?

Attempting to bump up the figures by throwing in the Taliban would be somewhat dishonest.

Do you know how many innocents the the US government has killed in Pakistan alone

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is confusing because Skeptic Ginger cuts off the conversation arbitrarily, missing out JJM 77's source comment, the premise of which thaiboxerken equates with theories that the moon landings were hoaxed.

Thaiboxerken's Moon Landing comment addresses JJM 777's comment, but JJM 777's comment is omitted from in Skeptic Ginger's summary of the conversation.

Skeptic Ginger appears to misinterpret my comment as referring to skepticism about the moon landing (a sub-topic and red herring introduced by thaiboxerken) bit it isn't. My comment refers to skepticism about the yarns that the US military spins about its operations, as expressed in JJM 777's comment, the one that thaiboxerken and I Am The Scum are ridiculing (in the accustomed manner ).

It would help if you put the exchange in order.

JJM: We have only anecdotal evidence that it was Osama Bin Laden who was killed and thrown to the sea quicker than the WTC crime scene evidence was recycled. There is not more _evidence_ that it was him than there is evidence of miraculous healings at a Benny Hinn service. Anecdotes are no evidence, everyone here should know that better than well.

Thai: Right....the only evidence that counts is evidence you've personally observed.

IATS: If you're willing to believe that the government is willing and able to stage this raid all for the sake of faking a report on Bin Laden's death, then you're also willing to believe that they would fake any other evidence they might have offered. Photos? Photoshopped. DNA? Falsified report. Video? Staged. "Bin Laden's" body? Surgically altered burkah salesman.

Thai: By his logic, the moon landing was a hoax as well.

Jane: Is there a reason why you choose the default position of believing a governing structure that has repeatedly lied to you?

SG: I'm not aware NASA has been exposed lying to the American public. They may have been ordered to stop talking about global warming and the Big Bang, but they never resorted to lying when that happened.
You really need to find a palate with narrower brushes. If our government were that cohesive we be in big trouble.

Jane: What's NASA got to do with killing bin Laden?....

Regardless of how far back you want to take the exchange, you knew full well (or you should have) why I replied about NASA not having a record of lying to the public. You knew what Thai had posted.

But, now that you've pointed the essence of your complaint is,

Thaiboxerken's comment ... pretends that reasonable distrust of the word of the US military can be equated with Moon Landing Hoax theories.

But your comment I replied to said

Is there a reason why you choose the default position of believing a governing structure that has repeatedly lied to you?

"A governing structure" whether you meant only, the US military, appears for all intents and purposes there to be a broader brush covering the US government.

You could have saved yourself this tedious discussion if you had just said you were only referring to the military's history of deceit in this case.

I am guessing your annoyance at other people in the discussion is affecting you more than necessary.

 

[portlandatheist]

deanialism: no proof OBL is dead
tu quoque: American's kill innocents too
Blame the victim: The republican's created OBL

It must really suck to be a terrorist apologist

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I posted it when I read the post I responded to.

But please, allow me a moment to deeply ponder how little I care whether you believe me or not.

No need to bother pondering. I believed you the first time you clarified yourself. I was merely pointing out your post was inadvertently misleading.

 

[EventHorizon]

Pointing out the fact that evidence is insufficient is skepticism.

Trying to pass off an opinion as a fact is not skepticism.

 

[Polaris]

No need to bother pondering. I believed you the first time you clarified yourself. I was merely pointing out your post was inadvertently misleading.

In that case, I apologize for being a prick just now.

 

[BenBurch]

deanialism: no proof OBL is dead
tu quoque: American's kill innocents too
Blame the victim: The republican's created OBL

It must really suck to be a terrorist apologist

Republicans MAY have made him, but it was not a foreseeable consequence of funding him against the Soviets.

 

[JihadJane]

Bin Laden’s Daughter Confirms
Father Captured Alive Then Killed By US Special Forces

EXTRACT:

The official said a 12-year-old daughter of bin Laden was among the six children rescued from the three-storey compound.

The daughter has reportedly told her Pakistani investigators that the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members.

According to sources, Bin Laden was staying on the ground floor of the house and was dragged on the floor to the helicopter after being shot dead by US commandos.

There were conflicting reports about the second person the US forces took along with them. Some Pakistani officials say it was one of Bin Laden’s sons injured by the US commandos and thrown onto a separate military chopper; others say he was killed in the operation and it was only his dead body that they took along.

The officials say not all children rescued from the house belonged to the al-Qaeda leader. All were being kept at a safe place. The US has not been given access to the detained women and children, the officials claimed. About the second woman, many officials feel she could be a close relative of Osama or his servant.

Similarly, according to information Pakistani officials collected from detained persons, Osama was neither armed nor did inmates at the compound fire at the US choppers or commandos.

“Not a single bullet was fired from the compound at the US forces and their choppers. Their chopper developed some technical fault and crashed and the wreckage was left on the spot,” a well-informed official explained.


/EXTRACT.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/05/04/147782.html

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Pakistani intelligence never lies, do they?

 

[Resume]

Bin Laden’s Daughter Confirms
Father Captured Alive Then Killed By US Special Forces

EXTRACT:

The official said a 12-year-old daughter of bin Laden was among the six children rescued from the three-storey compound.

The daughter has reportedly told her Pakistani investigators that the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members.

According to sources, Bin Laden was staying on the ground floor of the house and was dragged on the floor to the helicopter after being shot dead by US commandos.

There were conflicting reports about the second person the US forces took along with them. Some Pakistani officials say it was one of Bin Laden’s sons injured by the US commandos and thrown onto a separate military chopper; others say he was killed in the operation and it was only his dead body that they took along.

The officials say not all children rescued from the house belonged to the al-Qaeda leader. All were being kept at a safe place. The US has not been given access to the detained women and children, the officials claimed. About the second woman, many officials feel she could be a close relative of Osama or his servant.

Similarly, according to information Pakistani officials collected from detained persons, Osama was neither armed nor did inmates at the compound fire at the US choppers or commandos.

“Not a single bullet was fired from the compound at the US forces and their choppers. Their chopper developed some technical fault and crashed and the wreckage was left on the spot,” a well-informed official explained.


/EXTRACT.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/05/04/147782.html

Do you believe the highlighted?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do you know what Operation Vengeance was, JihadJane?

Yes.

So you know then that the killing of Bin Laden is legal and supported by historic precedent.

Why are you complaining then?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Follow up to Checkmite:

 

[Tricky]

Reports with no evidence, and no body, and now that we have evidence and a body, you refuse to accept it.

Odd ain't it?

Sylvia Browne said he was dead years ago. What more proof do you need?

 

[JihadJane]

It would help if you put the exchange in order.

I agree.

Unfortunately I'm going to be very busy for the next few days and must stop posting now. I need an early night. I've got a lot to do. Perhaps you could do it for me. It would make everything much clearer!

Regardless of how far back you want to take the exchange, you knew full well (or you should have) why I replied about NASA not having a record of lying to the public. You knew what Thai had posted.

One only needs to go back as far as JJM 777's comment to understand the context of my rebuttal of taiboxerken's assertion.

My question to you was rhetorical.

I was somewhat surprised that you'd assume I'd think the moon landings were hoaxed or that I could be so easily distracted into discussing the Moon on a bin Laden thread.

But, now that you've pointed the essence of your complaint is, But your comment I replied to said"A governing structure" whether you meant only, the US military, appears for all intents and purposes there to be a broader brush covering the US government.

I know it's ridiculous, but it was thaiboxerken who equated the US government landing on the moon with a US government military assassination operation in Pakistan, not me.

Thaiboxerken comment was using the Moon Landing "example" to to talk about JJM 777's comment. My comment was also talking about JJM 777's comment. JJM 777's comment was about the Assassinate bin Laden and Throw him in the Sea operation.

That was the conversation.

You could have saved yourself this tedious discussion if you had just said you were only referring to the military's history of deceit in this case.

JJM 777's comment was about the possibility of military deceit.

The context of the discussion was very clearly about the Let's-Kill-Bin-Laden operation

I'm sorry you find the discussion tedious. I don't find it tedious at all. It gives me pleasure. I write because I enjoy it.

I am guessing your annoyance at other people in the discussion is affecting you more than necessary.

What did I write to make you guess that?

 

[Virus]

Bin Laden’s Daughter Confirms
Father Captured Alive Then Killed By US Special Forces
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/05/04/147782.html

While Al-Arabiya is a bit better than most Arab press, it's still the Arab press.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The daughter has reportedly told her Pakistani investigators that the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members.

If this is true (again, consider the source), how is this an issue? If you're OBLs family and you live in the same house with him and the navy SEALS come to kill him, where else are they going to do it?

We have a couple dozen SEALS on the ground deep behind enemy lines. The team commander has to worry about a uncooperative terrorist, his unfriendly family and possible imminent counter-attack by Al-Qeada and/or pakistani military under the control of AQ sympathizers.

If the team commander doesn't feel he has enough resources to manage the situation, the he has no choice but to pop daddy Bin Laden right there and bug out.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Jane, you little silly, the orders (as I understand it) were "kill or capture."

That leaves a choice for either. Kill was a good choice. The order wasn't "capture, but if he won't come quietly, kill."

I got to work for a while on a whole bunch of missions where orders were, very explicitly, kill or capture. I was on the "kill" side as we were mostly providing ordnance carrying aircraft. The guys on the ground had to deal in the capture bit, if it arose as an option. It did sometimes, other times it was "kill" as the option available.

Kill frequently worked out very nicely, thanks all the same. Whole lotta virgins got a whole lotta company, so I guess it was a win win situation all around, as they stopped shooting at our soldiers, allies, and any of the local civilian population.

You really don't get it, I think.

Really
Don't
Get
It