Another OBL thread

[OPBN]

What's to discuss? I don't beleive there was any conspiracy. I beleive he is dead and was killed as declared. You can't really argue with conspiracy theorists, they always find some tiny inconsistency that they feel is the one thing that is blowing the official story apart. It's pretty pointless actually. People are going to beleive what they beleive. Kind of like religion.

If you are referring to me, I am in no way insulting or attacking Hill. I don't agree with his worldview and have stated it before, but I don't think any less of him. If he finds it insulting or an attack, I apologize. However, I would still predict that he is in fact a "birther".

[SCpoloRicker]

These people can't seem to discuss ANY points in the matter and only fill the thread with dribble and snide remarks that offer nothing to the discussion and are a DIRECT attack on a person.

I'm pretty sure this is a translation of a Pakistani news outlet. I know what you mean, but remember that not everyone speaks Queen's.

This is, however, not a high quality source. I still think we should have taken him alive if possible, and we definitely should make forensic evidence public.

/Incidentally, where are all the "show the birth certificate!" truth warriors? Just sayin'.

Er, the only "attack" in there is pointing out that some folks politics color every issue. Beyond that, I'm at a loss.

>itsthenewslashie

[Tropical Life]

I will let the report speak for itself.

Have fun

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/19-Aug-2011/Stratfor-disputes-OBL-killing-in-Abbottabad

Lets just ask SEAL team 6 what really happened.

Yeah you can scratch asking Seal team 6

Afghanistan
Helicopter Crash in Afghanistan Reportedly Kills Members of SEAL Team 6

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08...#ixzz1VywcWLP3

[cockerpunk]

I find it funny that the comments take on the attack of a person posting a news article and take it to a personal level and all of this is done by people who constantly seem to think that they are the end all be all of all that is right in the world and seem to know everything.

These people can't seem to discuss ANY points in the matter and only fill the thread with dribble and snide remarks that offer nothing to the discussion and are a DIRECT attack on a person.

ALL of which is "against the rules" as stated.

And you still think that you are better than everyone else...

DM

mostly its just frizzle fry trying to best me, like he tries in every thread, unsucessfully. what does he know about my knowledge level of history? just because i disagree with him i must not know any history? thats just beyond a little silly.

[cockerpunk]

Yeah you can scratch asking Seal team 6

Afghanistan
Helicopter Crash in Afghanistan Reportedly Kills Members of SEAL Team 6

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08...#ixzz1VywcWLP3

if you acutally read your link -


"We don't believe that any of the special operators who were killed were involved in the bin Laden operation," a senior U.S. military official told Fox News.

[Tropical Life]

if you acutally read your link -


"We don't believe that any of the special operators who were killed were involved in the bin Laden operation," a senior U.S. military official told Fox News.

"One current and one former U.S. official said that the dead included 25 Navy SEALs from SEAL Team Six, the unit that carried out the raid in Pakistan in May that killed bin Laden."

The article is a bit contradicting but anyways, rest in peace to those who passed and god bless them.

[Frizzle Fry]

mostly its just frizzle fry trying to best me, like he tries in every thread, unsucessfully. what does he know about my knowledge level of history? just because i disagree with him i must not know any history? thats just beyond a little silly.

First of all, you popped up and called me out here.

You made two inaccurate statements, which clearly illustrated your lack of knowledge on the subject. The first statement was that the region in question was "able to take care of itself until the west got involved" which is patently untrue based on both the internal and externally recorded history of religious persecution/genocide/expansionism. The second was that what happened in the middle east in the era I was speaking about "didn't effect the west" which is also clearly untrue, as much of the warfare and colonization spilled into Europe - you as much as acknowledged that you were wrong yourself when you made your statements about records of European advances in science being preserved only by Islamic conquerors. Those aren't objective statements; they're facts. I cited historical record (culled from the recorded and spoken histories of literally dozens of empires/civilizations, "winners" and "losers" alike) and you responded with ignorant rhetoric and absolutely nothing to back it up.

I'm not saying that any part of the world is innocent when it comes to internal conflict, religious or otherwise. Quite the opposite, every major civilization has been guilty of these things; European, Asian, African, American - nobody has clean hands when it comes to matters of violence and persecution. What frustrates me is the pervasive statement of the last 10 years that "everything was hunky-dory" in the Middle East until the "greedy western evil empires" went and screwed it all up... It's just not true; we have been a 'global culture' to one extent or another since the first formation of the Silk Routes, even earlier, and this region has been particularly unstable essentially for the same reason dating back almost 1,500 years. What other events or cultural influences have effected that instability since the beginning of the internal religious turmoil, so be it, the same could be said of any other culture or civilization over the years. The fact is most others haven't been caught up quite so violently in their religious beliefs on one simple subject - at least not as actively or aggressively for such a long time.

I actually agree with you completely about the Arabic records (Islamic and otherwise) of Mediterranean science and culture - I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to find any historian or history buff who disagrees with you on that. There's no denying that the influence of the church set back European cultural development (on many levels) almost immeasurably, and that the resulting 500 odd years of extreme scientific ignorance have left pockets of utter stupidity in the modern cultures that have grown out of that period... That said, the aforementioned centuries were also responsible for the growth by which most modern European societies were born - educated men didn't till fields or tend pastures, and farmers needed children to harvest the land. European states outgrew much of the religious influence and were on some level better for having had it when they did.

The interesting thing is, around the time that Europe left the "Dark Ages", the Ottoman Empire (an empire truly native to the 'middle east') conquered most of the Islamic world and essentially forced the region into it's own "Dark Ages", which lasted about 500 years as well. The Sunni Sultans taxed non-muslims, massacred Shi'ites, shunned scientific development, and wrote complex and unforgiving religious law. The Ottoman Empire began to crumble in the 18th century, as its European holdings slipped away following the European Industrial Revolution. The Ottomans had inserted themselves into Europe through brute force during the conflict period of the European Early Modern Era, and the stagnation of their cultural development became apparent with scientific growth in Europe and a period of relative peace. The empire was broke and losing it's hold on European soil when a radical internal political party known as the Young Turks tried to ditch a good amount of the government-integrated religious zealotry and revitalize the empire by adopting the tactics and methods of the newly developed European powers who were successfully bucking Ottoman influence. That ended with the Ottomans being torn by internal conflict, being pushed out of occupied Europe by the Balkan League (now Greece and Serbia), fighting back against Italy in Libya, and eventually allying with Germany in WWI and getting crushed.

"The West" hasn't stuck its nose into the business of the Middle East (that is, the Arabian Peninsula) any more than the Middle East has stuck its nose into the West; if anything the Middle East started pushing into Europe before Europe pushed back. I don't see what there is to misunderstand here; you've made it clear that you just aren't familiar with the history of the region, and your statements so far have been untrue on a very basic level. If you want to be preachy and arrogant, feel free, but you don't know everything about everything and it this situation it would seem you know literally nothing.

Lastly, I'm fairly sure DM wasn't referring to my comments in the statement you've quoted...

[DevilMan]

Lastly, I'm fairly sure DM wasn't referring to my comments in the statement you've quoted...

^^^^^
Truth

[cockerpunk]

First of all, you popped up and called me out here.

You made two inaccurate statements, which clearly illustrated your lack of knowledge on the subject. The first statement was that the region in question was "able to take care of itself until the west got involved" which is patently untrue based on both the internal and externally recorded history of religious persecution/genocide/expansionism. The second was that what happened in the middle east in the era I was speaking about "didn't effect the west" which is also clearly untrue, as much of the warfare and colonization spilled into Europe - you as much as acknowledged that you were wrong yourself when you made your statements about records of European advances in science being preserved only by Islamic conquerors. Those aren't objective statements; they're facts. I cited historical record (culled from the recorded and spoken histories of literally dozens of empires/civilizations, "winners" and "losers" alike) and you responded with ignorant rhetoric and absolutely nothing to back it up.

im just going to deal with this part, becuase the rest is more drivel intended to insight more arguments.

1. my statement they are "able to take care of themselves" can't be facturally wrong - its an opinion. again, because i disagree with you, does not mean we disagree on the facts. it only means we take different conclusions from those facts. by and large, the nations of islam have not been any problem for us (esp in the modern era) unless we stuck our nose in them and got them all hot and bothered. internal conflict ... don't care, not in the scope of the argument anyway.

2. didn't effect the west is also true, part of the above point that interal conflict isn't in the scope of this argument. i dont care if mulsims kill each other at record rates, as long as my country isn't effected, funding, or fighting them either. internal fights, i don't care about, and in fact could easily be said to be a part of "looking after themselves" if they keep the fights between themselves .... i couldn't care less. me and my brother growing up fought all the time when my parents weren't around, but we "looked after ourselves" all day every day.

so you have one opinion, and one of out of scope point ... well done

[AO Moderation Team]

These people can't seem to discuss ANY points in the matter and only fill the thread with dribble and snide remarks that offer nothing to the discussion and are a DIRECT attack on a person.

ALL of which is "against the rules" as stated.

DM

Agreed. Off topic and Troll posts removed. If you can't stay on topic, contribute and not troll please don't post. Consider yourselves warned. This thread is being watched and we will take other actions if needed.

Cockerpunk.......QUIT swearing. You have been warned before. Post 12 edit.

[Frizzle Fry]

im just going to deal with this part, becuase the rest is more drivel intended to insight more arguments.

1. my statement they are "able to take care of themselves" can't be facturally wrong - its an opinion. again, because i disagree with you, does not mean we disagree on the facts. it only means we take different conclusions from those facts. by and large, the nations of islam have not been any problem for us (esp in the modern era) unless we stuck our nose in them and got them all hot and bothered. internal conflict ... don't care, not in the scope of the argument anyway.

2. didn't effect the west is also true, part of the above point that interal conflict isn't in the scope of this argument. i dont care if mulsims kill each other at record rates, as long as my country isn't effected, funding, or fighting them either. internal fights, i don't care about, and in fact could easily be said to be a part of "looking after themselves" if they keep the fights between themselves .... i couldn't care less. me and my brother growing up fought all the time when my parents weren't around, but we "looked after ourselves" all day every day.

so you have one opinion, and one of out of scope point ... well done

Ok, so maybe in my opinion state-enforced genocide isn't "taking care of ones self" and in your opinion it is... It doesn't sound like there is a whole lot of room for opinion or interpretation there, but I'll give you that one if you're going to be a pain about it, though I have a feeling you'd be a little less forgiving in your definitions if we were talking about a European culture ordering the mass slaying of a group based on religion or ethnicity.

As far as your second point goes, you're still completely and 100% wrong. "Internal Conflict" and the killing of Muslims by other Muslims has always been an issue, but thousands of warriors marching into Europe and conquering European cultures a few hundred years before the Crusades can not in any way be interpreted as "not effecting the west". Again, you just don't seem to know the history of the region!

In the early 700s, Umayyad armies marched into what is now modern-day Spain and parts of France, and carved out a mini-empire from that of the Christian Visigoths. The Caliphates of Cordoba established trade with some European cultures with heavy taxes levied against non-muslims to use as trade fodder, but used their resources to invade Corsica in early 800s (a full 300 years before the crusades) - an island which had been given to the Papacy as territory by the King of Franks. Some fifty odd Christians (many were pacifist; monks and nuns) were publicly executed in cruel and unusual manners for various "crimes against Allah" as a public means of inspiring fear and obedience from non-muslims - these people would later be known in the church as the "Martyrs of Cordoba". In the early 900s the Shi'a Fatimid Caliph was using conquered armies to invade Sicily, and gained control of the island by the middle of the century. Native Christians were heavily taxed, forced to wear Arab garb in public, and were not able to speak of their religion - most churches were destroyed or literally converted to Mosques.

With the armies of Islam surrounding the Italian peninsula from the mid 700s forward, destroying churches, killing Christian clerics by dousing them in vats of molten metals or lopping off their heads, taxing non-Muslims at insane rates and forcing dress code and curfews, and setting loose armies of adopted soldiers who when not at war could at the very best be described as anarchic, is it any wonder that the church would want to push back invading Islamic forces? With Seljuks to the east, Fatimids to the south (literally miles off shore) and Umayyads to the west, all violently expanding into and drawing ever closer to Rome, it's no wonder that there would be a pushback. These are the events that LEAD to the Crusades.

Those are simply facts. Now, as far as "opinion" goes, here's mine:

Maybe you're not concerned by politically unstable countries with growing weapons programs, a tolerance and sometimes even supportive programs for radical groups, a hatred of non-muslim cultures dating back thousands of years, and leaders who fill the role of prophet and president on paper and in the minds of the people. We don't live in a world where conflicts are settled with swords and spears anymore; now shots are fired and buttons are pushed and conflict spreads through neighboring countries and non-neighboring countries alike. Almost every modern culture has separated church from state to the extent that the constitution or charter of the state disallows religious law - granted, citizens will always vote with their religious beliefs should they have strong ones, but it's not as though religious law and the laws of the state are one and the same and generally diversity of religion can weed out the extremist views. This is not true in much of the Middle East and South East Asia, where the predominate forms of government are "2-Bit Dictator", "Impoverished Attempted Republic" or "Extremist Theocratic Regime". Since 1989, this region has been well armed with Soviet surplus, and with a lack of religious diversity (and I good bit of extremism and zealotry) even the countries who attempt Democracy end up with harsh religious laws in place, and both the Sunni and Shi'a doctrines are inherently intolerant and expansionist, and have been since their formation. I'm not advocating war, by any means, just acknowledging a scary situation.

[cockerpunk]

Ok, so maybe in my opinion state-enforced genocide isn't "taking care of ones self" and in your opinion it is... It doesn't sound like there is a whole lot of room for opinion or interpretation there, but I'll give you that one if you're going to be a pain about it, though I have a feeling you'd be a little less forgiving in your definitions if we were talking about a European culture ordering the mass slaying of a group based on religion or ethnicity.

As far as your second point goes, you're still completely and 100% wrong. "Internal Conflict" and the killing of Muslims by other Muslims has always been an issue, but thousands of warriors marching into Europe and conquering European cultures a few hundred years before the Crusades can not in any way be interpreted as "not effecting the west". Again, you just don't seem to know the history of the region!

In the early 700s, Umayyad armies marched into what is now modern-day Spain and parts of France, and carved out a mini-empire from that of the Christian Visigoths. The Caliphates of Cordoba established trade with some European cultures with heavy taxes levied against non-muslims to use as trade fodder, but used their resources to invade Corsica in early 800s (a full 300 years before the crusades) - an island which had been given to the Papacy as territory by the King of Franks. Some fifty odd Christians (many were pacifist; monks and nuns) were publicly executed in cruel and unusual manners for various "crimes against Allah" as a public means of inspiring fear and obedience from non-muslims - these people would later be known in the church as the "Martyrs of Cordoba". In the early 900s the Shi'a Fatimid Caliph was using conquered armies to invade Sicily, and gained control of the island by the middle of the century. Native Christians were heavily taxed, forced to wear Arab garb in public, and were not able to speak of their religion - most churches were destroyed or literally converted to Mosques.

With the armies of Islam surrounding the Italian peninsula from the mid 700s forward, destroying churches, killing Christian clerics by dousing them in vats of molten metals or lopping off their heads, taxing non-Muslims at insane rates and forcing dress code and curfews, and setting loose armies of adopted soldiers who when not at war could at the very best be described as anarchic, is it any wonder that the church would want to push back invading Islamic forces? With Seljuks to the east, Fatimids to the south (literally miles off shore) and Umayyads to the west, all violently expanding into and drawing ever closer to Rome, it's no wonder that there would be a pushback. These are the events that LEAD to the Crusades.

Those are simply facts. Now, as far as "opinion" goes, here's mine:

Maybe you're not concerned by politically unstable countries with growing weapons programs, a tolerance and sometimes even supportive programs for radical groups, a hatred of non-muslim cultures dating back thousands of years, and leaders who fill the role of prophet and president on paper and in the minds of the people. We don't live in a world where conflicts are settled with swords and spears anymore; now shots are fired and buttons are pushed and conflict spreads through neighboring countries and non-neighboring countries alike. Almost every modern culture has separated church from state to the extent that the constitution or charter of the state disallows religious law - granted, citizens will always vote with their religious beliefs should they have strong ones, but it's not as though religious law and the laws of the state are one and the same and generally diversity of religion can weed out the extremist views. This is not true in much of the Middle East and South East Asia, where the predominate forms of government are "2-Bit Dictator", "Impoverished Attempted Republic" or "Extremist Theocratic Regime". Since 1989, this region has been well armed with Soviet surplus, and with a lack of religious diversity (and I good bit of extremism and zealotry) even the countries who attempt Democracy end up with harsh religious laws in place, and both the Sunni and Shi'a doctrines are inherently intolerant and expansionist, and have been since their formation. I'm not advocating war, by any means, just acknowledging a scary situation.

here is the issue.

what they do to each other, i dont care about. you keep bringing this up, but to me it is largly unimportant. we already talked at great length about the cursades and islamic expansion into the ex-roman lands, and how ultimatly, for the "western" world, this was a good thing. as ultimatly, our academic bloodline to the greeks was presevered through that.

so besides more boring drivel you keep spewing ... i don't think we have anything new to talk about. you disagree with my assesment of history .... ok? so what? nothing you have told me is new, its all well known history. history i base my assements on, as do you.

[dahoeb]

"One current and one former U.S. official said that the dead included 25 Navy SEALs from SEAL Team Six, the unit that carried out the raid in Pakistan in May that killed bin Laden."

The article is a bit contradicting but anyways, rest in peace to those who passed and god bless them.

SEAL team 6 is larger than just the ones who carried out the Bin Laden raid, the group that killed Bin Laden may have been in another area of operations.

[Frizzle Fry]

nothing you have told me is new, its all well known history. history i base my assements on, as do you.

If you knew it already, you wouldn't have said this:

did any of this effect europe or the other western cultures?

nope.

when did it effect us?

when we stuck our noses in it. alla the crusades and colonialism.

Sorry, you made a statement in response to my own, and were incorrect on several very basic levels. You have your beliefs about the current situation, I have mine, but you've insisted (and so have many) that events (internal conflict, especially) in the Middle East prior to the Crusades did not effect Europe and the western world. Anyone with a knowledge of the history of that region would know that to be untrue on a very basic level, regardless of their opinions about the current situation and the role. Clearly you didn't have any knowledge the massive Islamic incursions into Europe in the years leading up to the Crusades or the internal conflict that spurred expansion and violent colonization of European regions. If you had, you wouldn't have said what you did.

I'm sure we disagree quite a bit about the state of things now, what should have been done in the past and what should be done from here forward - chances are that we're both completely wrong. The beauty here is it doesn't really matter what you or I think, only what we do, and that really doesn't matter either since I doubt either of us is an activist or soldier. So maybe we vote differently or donate to different campaigns, but in the long run it doesn't really matter since we don't agree and our respective opinions really have almost no effect on what will happen.

In the meantime I'll just sit here and laugh at the fact that you're being so arrogant as to sit here and claim you knew the history of the region as you contradict yourself. A simple "Gee, I didn't know that, but you're still an idiot with stupid opinions and bad ideas Frizzle Fry" would have sufficed. I'm used to that, at least

[Ando]

Really???