Osama Bin Laden reported dead

[dazzerfong]

One thing: how do you think those 'terrorists' would respond to a shot-up picture of bin Laden? They're angry enough as it is.

[LHammonds]

One thing: how do you think those 'terrorists' would respond to a shot-up picture of bin Laden? They're angry enough as it is.

We are already at war with them...who cares what they think?

[JimboUK]

One thing: how do you think those 'terrorists' would respond to a shot-up picture of bin Laden? They're angry enough as it is.

We are already at war with them...who cares what they think?

 

Indeed, however what you don't want to do is help with their recruiting.

[dazzerfong]

@ LHammonds:

 

You can never predict the predictability of a human mind, now, can you?

[pwnedbyscope]

IT was the NAVY SEALS Team 6, the NAVYS top of the, a team specifically built for anti terrorism combat

just my two cents

Edited May 4, 2011 by pwnedbyscope

[dazzerfong]

IT was the NAVY SEALS Team 6, the NAVYS top of the, a team specifically built for anti terrorism combat

just my two cents

 

@ pwnedbyscope:

 

We know. It was highly publicized.

[LHammonds]

Here is something to think about:

 

Article: It Takes a Monster To Control a Monster

 

The interesting part is at the end where he summarizes our efforts and compares what is going on now with what we had to do to win against Germans and Japanese in WWII. It is a bitter ugly truth and one that has to be understood.

 

obl pulled us into a war not easily disengaged. Their miserable conflict has been going on for a long time and now we are dragged into it. The major problem is that we are fighting a guerrilla warfare, not a country so-to-speak.

 

Do we do what it takes to "win" or do we withdraw and say stay away from us? And do you think the latter would work?

[dazzerfong]

Although I see your point, that article is completely hypocritical and invalid.

 

1. They claim Islam is the enemy. What is an enemy without its opposition? Nothing (or anything but an enemy). Right now, although most states are 'secular', it is pretty much a Christianity vs. Islam right now.

 

2. Who started the Crusades? Technically, the Christians since they were sitting on territory that belonged to the Byzantine (by now integrated into the Islamic) empire.

 

3. Trust me, if USA was attacked beyond Pearl Harbor, the war would not go well for the allies.

 

4.

The Nazis and Imperial Japanese were defeated by just two things: superior firepower and superior ruthlessness. The British firebombed civilian cities like Dresden, burning them to the ground.

 

Unit 731 was much more ruthless than anything Britain and/or America did to anyone in the war. Well, unless you count vivisection, poison testing and hypothermia testing humane.

[Aurielius]

2. Who started the Crusades? Technically, the Christians since they were sitting on territory that belonged to the Byzantine (by now integrated into the Islamic) empire.

Though I agree that the Crusades were started by the Christians (1096 called for by Pope Urban II). But Byzantium was Christian and had been so since 330 AD and had yet to be incorporated into the Islamic world until it's fall in 1453. Nobody reads history anymore, :wallbash:

[RZ1029]

Although I see your point, that article is completely hypocritical and invalid.

 

1. They claim Islam is the enemy. What is an enemy without its opposition? Nothing (or anything but an enemy). Right now, although most states are 'secular', it is pretty much a Christianity vs. Islam right now.

Eh... what? It's an invalid article because they claim Islam is the enemy... but it's a Christianity vs Islam thing?

Just no, it's not an Islam vs Christianity thing, at all. If that's what you think it is, you're sadly mistaken. This isn't about a war of religious ideologies, this isn't a war for oil or whatever else, it is justice being delivered to those responsible for many, many thousands of deaths, both of their own people and those they marked as enemies.

2. Who started the Crusades? Technically, the Christians since they were sitting on territory that belonged to the Byzantine (by now integrated into the Islamic) empire.

*cough* Yeah... Aurelius covered it good.

 

3. Trust me, if USA was attacked beyond Pearl Harbor, the war would not go well for the allies.

The Japanese Admiral Yamamoto stated, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and filled him [it] with a terrible resolve." Guess he knew what he was talking about, look who dropped the bomb on who. Besides, Japan lacked the resources to fight much beyond Pearl Harbor. They could hold a defense well enough, but they couldn't mobilize an army for any sort of prolonged war.

 

4.

The Nazis and Imperial Japanese were defeated by just two things: superior firepower and superior ruthlessness. The British firebombed civilian cities like Dresden, burning them to the ground.

 

Unit 731 was much more ruthless than anything Britain and/or America did to anyone in the war. Well, unless you count vivisection, poison testing and hypothermia testing humane.

Hmm... I think we're agreeing on this one, that we're the lesser of two evils in almost every case. Not to mention all the attrocities commited by Todesengel Josef Mengele and his cohorts on behalf of the Nazis.

Edited May 5, 2011 by RZ1029