Bin Laden Dead Truthers Mourn

Let's see them. Also, explain why they are more credible than the reports that bin Laden was killed on Sunday.

They are more "credible" because they are wholly supported, endorsed, and written by the US government, which is the source that spoon feeds mainstream media.

If you think the US government is credible then you truly are a fool.
 
They are more "credible" because they are wholly supported, endorsed, and written by the US government, which is the source that spoon feeds mainstream media.

If you think the US government is credible then you truly are a fool.

Yet, not one of OBL's associates are calling foul? Even with all its America bashing, Al Jazeera thinks it's real.
 
Last edited:
They are more "credible" because they are wholly supported, endorsed, and written by the US government, which is the source that spoon feeds mainstream media.

If you think the US government is credible then you truly are a fool.



The gov't and media has their flaws no doubt, but I'd still say they are far more credible than some brainwashed CT cult member, that is ranting and reciting nonsense, which they got from within the cult in the form of mostly homemade websites and youtube videos with ironic names and slogans.

What's foolish is calling people "a fool" to try and manipulate them into your side. What kind of "fool" would even fall for such tricks?

It is far more foolish to trust people like you than the gov't or media... Why should I trust a word you or your cult says? Because you will call me names if i don't?
 
Last edited:
They are more "credible" because they are wholly supported, endorsed, and written by the US government, which is the source that spoon feeds mainstream media.

If you think the US government is credible then you truly are a fool.

...that doesn't make sense.

You believe bin Laden had kidney failure because the all-knowing government says so, and at the same time you think anyone who says the government is credible is a fool?
 
Do sailors tend to be more spiritual than other branches of the AF?

I can't honestly answer that seeing as I wasn't around the other services to make a comparison.

I can say that from a logical point of view that generally speaking navies are more exposed to the forces of nature so it stands to reason that they would have more of a sense of spirituality out on the water than some guy in a tent in a field (for example). Excluding combat situations a soldiers job is relatively safe while a sailor is always subject to the forces of nature, and the sea doesn't care who you are or what you're doing, it'll kill you dead if you do it wrong.

There has always been a sense of killing ships and not the men on them. For centuries the code of the sea has been no matter who it is or why they are there if someone is in distress at sea you go and help them no matter what (short of getting yourself killed in the process of course). You can settle the costs later on.

This caused a dilemma back in the early 20th century when submarines became viable platforms of war. They had no real means of rescuing the men after they sunk the ships from beneath them. Even calling for help by radio might reveal their position and place them at risk of getting killed. Many senior people in most navies were against even developing such a platform as "Sneaky and underhanded".

It's one of the reasons why Germany did so well in the North Atlantic at the start of both world wars. They had decided that developing and building submarines was fine by them while Britain's admiralty were stuck in the 19th century mind frame of ships duking it out with battleships and whatnot in a more classic surface naval battle.

There were even several treaties made after WWI that limited the size (in tons) and number of submarines a nation was allowed to have. Germany and Japan ignored those agreements which is why they started off so strong. You can't design and build a boat from scratch in a few months and even the US went almost a decade after WWI without building one new submarine. The only thing that saved them years worth of time was the fact that the engines designed for submarines (the items with the longest lead times) were also well suited for other applications so the naval shipyards maintained the tooling and skills needed to construct them.

If you're more interested in these subjects there is a good book on it called US Submarines through 1945 that goes into details on these and other relevant historical facts. Google books has some of it online here.
 
Why was he moved to a ship anyway? Anyone know?

For any number of reasons. Part of the secrecy of the mission. The ship could have been the Command & Control centre for mission. Securest place. Could have been the SEAL teams base. Could have been the helicopter/pilots base. Could have held the DNA lab. Medical facilities to treat the injured onboard helicopters (OBL's wife and daughter? SEALs?). Take your pick. It was probably anticipated that OBL would be dead and therefore would require the burial at sea within the 24hrs. A ship at sea would surely be the logical solution. Don't see what the hoo ha is all about. Deserved what he got. Good riddence and a huge pat on the back for the brave pilots and SEALs who did us all a great service.
 
Bin Laden was UNARMED. How they bring in fugitives: JSOC vs. U.S. Marshals

He was shooting back, and refused to surrender. Even cops will shoot to kill in those circumstances. That's not an assassination or a kill team.
According to the White House, Bin Laden was UNARMED.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-03/...fficial-cia-director-leon-panetta?_s=PM:WORLD

JSOC (Dept. of Offense) had Bin Laden surrounded. Why didn't they bring him in alive as the U.S. Marshals (Dept. of Justice) do? "Bringing him to justice" means just that, in a Court of Law. Not a mafia style hit squad. Bin Laden was never officially charged with 9/11 by the DoJ or FBI, only by the Press and Presidents. He was a suspect of other crimes, and should have been brought in alive to face charges, and serve a life sentence. In the 1980's the CIA funded BIn Laden against the Russians in Afghanistan. He walks with a cane. Anyone could catch him. White House confirms Bin Laden was UNARMED, so there was no excuse for killing him. What "threatening gestures" did unarmed Bin Laden make, flipping the bird? Why quickly hide the body to "sleep wid da fishes"? He could not be allowed to testify or plead not guilty to 9/11. Even Charles Manson got a trial. What example of American Justice does this give to the world?

 
Last edited:
Congratulations. You debunked my post from two days ago when the facts were still coming out and several sources had claimed he was armed and fighting back, now proven to be false. Bra-vo. :rolleyes:

SOC (Dept. of Offense) had Bin Laden surrounded.
Article does not say that, passive-aggressive little nickname.

Why didn't they bring him in alive as the U.S. Marshals (Dept. of Justice) do?
Because they're soldiers, not cops. They think he's a threat, he goes down. This was a counter-terrorist op, not a SWAT team storming a hostage situation.

"Bringing him to justice" means just that, in a Court of Law. Not a mafia style hit squad.
Emotive language.

Bin Laden was never officially charged with 9/11 by the DoJ or FBI, only by the Press and Presidents.
Due to the "proof" the FBI says they have being classified. You can't honestly convict a man on info you can't reveal in court. That's actually evidence against the conspiracy, since it would've been easy to cook up a little more evidence that they could declassify. Or just link the terrorists directly to Afghanistan and Iraq, then plant a WMD or two in Baghdad.

He was a suspect of other crimes, and should have been brought in alive to face charges, and serve a life sentence. In the 1980's the CIA funded BIn Laden against the Russians in Afghanistan.
Yes, and they also funded Saddam. Look how that went.

He walks with a cane. Anyone could catch him.
Unrelated correlation between the two points.

White House confirms Bin Laden was UNARMED, so there was no excuse for killing him. What "threatening gestures" did unarmed Bin Laden make, flipping the bird?
Good question. Maybe one of the soldiers made a little judgement call, I dunno. Wouldn't blame 'im for losing a certain amount of objectivity.

Why quickly hide the body to "sleep wid da fishes"?
His home country didn't want him, he's not going to be buried on American soil, and calling around to find a country that would take him would be a waste of time, and a sea burial is allowed in Islamic law when the body is at risk of being disturbed. It's called showing respect to the enemies of the US, something Truthers seem to have trouble comprehending. I suspect it's because their egos are often such that they lack the empathy to comprehend that people can justifiably have different opinions than them on things.

He could not be allowed to testify or plead not guilty to 9/11.
He's had nine+ years to plead his innocence, yet he stopped doing that a while ago, the same way he did with the 1998 Embassy bombing.
 
Last edited:
...that doesn't make sense.

You believe bin Laden had kidney failure because the all-knowing government says so, and at the same time you think anyone who says the government is credible is a fool?
Remember, only the parts of the official story that support Truthers are credible. Everything else is lies.
 
(snipped the terrorist apology spiel)

What example of American Justice does this give to the world?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154dc33e01470a8.jpg[/qimg]

Why does it revolve around 'American' justice? OBL didn't abide by American justice. Nor did he follow the codes of the Geneva convention.

He expected his fate......unlike those on 911, 7/7 etc etc etc etc.

Two bullets to the head was a waste of brass. He should have been waterboarded 184 times to within an inch of his life then skinned from head to toe and covered in salt and vinegar whilst being force fed pork. Then roasted over a spit nice and slowly then dropped about 100 floors.

Only then should he have been washed, placed in a blanket and dropped at sea. At least he got that. At least he was in one whole piece when he got that. Many of those he has blown or cruched to pieces didnt get the same.

He got all the American justice he deserved.
 
...that doesn't make sense.

You believe bin Laden had kidney failure because the all-knowing government says so, and at the same time you think anyone who says the government is credible is a fool?

I never said the government said this.
 
The U.S. official said bin Laden was shot when he made a threatening move.

LOL.

Yeah I'm sure this frail old man made a threatening move toward the Navy SEALs. Give me a ******* break.

Swearing must be completely masked in public sections of the forum.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Google searches on this guy are 95% CT sites, the other 5% is someone mentioning he helped create some books with Tom Clancy.

His website makes him sound bigger than life itself. I'm calling shenanigans.


You might be right.......
Some interesting, ongoing exchanges on Pieczenik's Wikipedia entry. His page has been tagged for deletion. See HERE for more enlightening discussion on this.

Compus
 
Last edited:
LOL.

Yeah I'm sure this frail old man made a threatening move toward the Navy SEALs. Give me a ******* break.

Swearing must be completely masked in public sections of the forum.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

When the "frail old man" is a self declared enemy combatant and wanted terrorist who is rightly assumed to be armed and very dangerous makes a threatening move, you put a bullet through his brain and one through his heart, just for good measure.

There are several ways a person can arm themselves without it being apparent, btw.
 

Back
Top Bottom