Bin Laden

[Nixon's Head]

Pretty straight forward. Do you think he's alive or dead? Also, why?

[StEeLeRsGiRl1985]

I think that he is alive because if he had died there would have been some sort of notice from the Taliban, I know that they probably don't want us to know but I think that he keeps hoping the border between Afganistan and Pakistan...That is just my opinion though.

[Jiddy78]

Pretty straight forward. Do you think he's alive or dead? Also, why?


No way he's dead...We'd know in a heartbeat...At least I would down here...These rednecks would be shootin' any type of explosive/projectile they can find in the sky....and when they ran out of those, they'd probably spontaneously combust from their bodies not being to handle such a high....Look to the south with sunglasses on...It will be bright.

Until then, I know he lives.

[BoredWithNoSB]

Actually, would a situation similar to that of "Nixon's Head" be considered dead or alive?

To be honest I think he died long ago, but his bank account lives on and thats all people really needed him for.

[IBC]

You know, the truth is I don't spend that much time on him anymore. ;)

[Nixon's Head]

No way he's dead...We'd know in a heartbeat...At least I would down here...These rednecks would be shootin' any type of explosive/projectile they can find in the sky....and when they ran out of those, they'd probably spontaneously combust from their bodies not being to handle such a high....Look to the south with sunglasses on...It will be bright.

Until then, I know he lives.If so, then why haven't we seen any new videos from him? All you hear from him anymore is audio tapes and Zawahiri is the one who is putting out all of the videos.

[Jiddy78]

If so, then why haven't we seen any new videos from him? All you hear from him anymore is audio tapes and Zawahiri is the one who is putting out all of the videos.

Why would it be necessary to keep a secret if he was dead? He's not that old...so if he's dead, he was probably whacked by someone close to him...who would probably broadcast it over the 'net...

[Nixon's Head]

Why would it be necessary to keep a secret if he was dead? He's not that old...so if he's dead, he was probably whacked by someone close to him...who would probably broadcast it over the 'net...Who says they are keeping it a secret? I really can't imagine any way the US would know unless they killed him and drug him out like the Hussein brothers.

['Lifer]

Pretty straight forward. Do you think he's alive or dead? Also, why?

I've believed he's been dead for several years now. I simply can't buy into the idea that he doesn't want to make some threatening videos to be aired worldwide.

[swordfish]

If he is dead we won't know until right before the election you hosers.

[BambinoBear]

Who is this guy you speak of?

[IBC]

Who is this guy you speak of?
You know, the guy the president doesn't spend time on anymore. I mean, things changed after Iraq attacked us on 9/11. Saddam had to be taken out or the smoking gun could've been a mushroom cloud. Do you want that?

"And it's not a matter of whether the war is not real or if it is. Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact."

George Orwell in 1984

[Jiddy78]

You know, the guy the president doesn't spend time on anymore. I mean, things changed after Iraq attacked us on 9/11. Saddam had to be taken out or the smoking gun could've been a mushroom cloud. Do you want that?

"And it's not a matter of whether the war is not real or if it is. Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact."

George Orwell in 1984

I might have to read more Orwell....or "some" anyway.

[Tom Joad]

Osama Bin Forgotten

[residenceevil]

Interesting poll 1 year later (sorry, new to the Boards). Wonder what people's opinions are now....?

[Smoke681]

Why would it be necessary to keep a secret if he was dead? He's not that old...so if he's dead, he was probably whacked by someone close to him...who would probably broadcast it over the 'net...

He's not that old? Jiddy. He's 51, but that is not the same 51 that an American 51 would be. That's like 81. He's been living in caves, scarce medical care, we've been shelacking known wereabouts with bombs and such (none have proven to have killed him, but we've come close and there's no doubt those caves were quakin' a bit). All the shit he's had to endure on the run have certainly taken a toll on his medical status, and remember, medical care in caves isn't exactly what you're getting from Dr. Wong downtown.

Bin Laden is an old man. If he hasn't already died of natural causes, he will soon.

If I'm answering the title question, he is alive but he has little influence. He's not calling shots, and actually he has very degraded communication with the network he built.

That's why you've heard such "startling" remarks from Bush about him. Honestly, it doesn't fucking matter if we kill the guy. It doesn't mean shit. His money won't go away, so funding will remain. And he's so out of touch from Al Qaida and his influence is so diminished that killing him would, truthfully, accomplish nothing except to satisfy the bloodthirst of western civilization.

And for most of you, I'm shocked that that would even be an acceptable reason to kill him. What with all your attention on terrorists' rights and all.

[Smoke681]

Oops.

I just noticed the date of this thread.

Oh well. My points remain.

[Jiddy78]

He's not that old? Jiddy. He's 51, but that is not the same 51 that an American 51 would be. That's like 81. He's been living in caves, scarce medical care, we've been shelacking known wereabouts with bombs and such (none have proven to have killed him, but we've come close and there's no doubt those caves were quakin' a bit). All the shit he's had to endure on the run have certainly taken a toll on his medical status, and remember, medical care in caves isn't exactly what you're getting from Dr. Wong downtown.

Bin Laden is an old man. If he hasn't already died of natural causes, he will soon.

If I'm answering the title question, he is alive but he has little influence. He's not calling shots, and actually he has very degraded communication with the network he built.

That's why you've heard such "startling" remarks from Bush about him. Honestly, it doesn't fucking matter if we kill the guy. It doesn't mean shit. His money won't go away, so funding will remain. And he's so out of touch from Al Qaida and his influence is so diminished that killing him would, truthfully, accomplish nothing except to satisfy the bloodthirst of western civilization.

And for most of you, I'm shocked that that would even be an acceptable reason to kill him. What with all your attention on terrorists' rights and all.

I'm all for letting him live 'til he dies from natural causes in a prison then pissing on his grave.

[IBC]

He's not that old? Jiddy. He's 51, but that is not the same 51 that an American 51 would be. That's like 81. He's been living in caves, scarce medical care, we've been shelacking known wereabouts with bombs and such (none have proven to have killed him, but we've come close and there's no doubt those caves were quakin' a bit). All the shit he's had to endure on the run have certainly taken a toll on his medical status, and remember, medical care in caves isn't exactly what you're getting from Dr. Wong downtown.

Bin Laden is an old man. If he hasn't already died of natural causes, he will soon.

If I'm answering the title question, he is alive but he has little influence. He's not calling shots, and actually he has very degraded communication with the network he built.

That's why you've heard such "startling" remarks from Bush about him. Honestly, it doesn't fucking matter if we kill the guy. It doesn't mean shit. His money won't go away, so funding will remain. And he's so out of touch from Al Qaida and his influence is so diminished that killing him would, truthfully, accomplish nothing except to satisfy the bloodthirst of western civilization.

And for most of you, I'm shocked that that would even be an acceptable reason to kill him. What with all your attention on terrorists' rights and all.
Seriously man? If that is the case I think you truly do not understand what is being said by people here, or you ignore it and form your own views of others to jibe better with your own.

[Smoke681]

Seriously man? If that is the case I think you truly do not understand what is being said by people here, or you ignore it and form your own views of others to jibe better with your own.
Yesw, seriously.

Since some of you are soooo adamant about being nice to terrorist prisoners, i figured surely you'd be against outright killing a man who is currently completely unable to really do any damage to the united states or our interests.

Thou shalt not contradict thyselves.

[IBC]

Yesw, seriously.

Since some of you are soooo adamant about being nice to terrorist prisoners, i figured surely you'd be against outright killing a man who is currently completely unable to really do any damage to the united states or our interests.

Thou shalt not contradict thyselves.

Sweet! If they are all te3rrorists and we know it then can we have due process back?

[Smoke681]

Sweet! If they are all te3rrorists and we know it then can we have due process back?
Hell no. F* that noise.

[IBC]

Hell no. F* that noise.

Yeah! Fuck due process! It is unamerican!

[Smoke681]

Yeah! Fuck due process! It is unamerican!
So are they.

[LSU]

So are they.



Does the Bill of Rights and other comments made in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (all men created equal, etc) apply only to citizens of the US or do they apply to mankind?

[Smoke681]

Does the Bill of Rights and other comments made in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (all men created equal, etc) apply only to citizens of the US or do they apply to mankind?
Are you after my opinion or the fact of the matter?

[LSU]

Are you after my opinion or the fact of the matter?



Well, both if applicable. The reason I ask is because in other discussions, I've argued that "spreading" Democracy (by force) is not our right. The founders of this country established it for this country on the basis of unalienable rights, etc. So, does that translate to other countries even though they don't have our Constitution and other things? The argument against that is that all people have the same unalienable rights whether or not they're American or Babylonian.

So, if that's the case that all people have the same rights, shouldn't all people be protected against cruel and unusual punishment?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

I think it's more of an opinion thing in terms of translation, and I know you support let's say...unconventional...means (IBC would say torture). But also support the spread of our Democracy, values, etc.

So do those things contradict each other that you may be going against our protections in order to spread our protections?

[Smoke681]

Are you after my opinion or the fact of the matter?
Nevermind, they are one in the same.

U.S. Citizens indeed. Unless I missed something in my quick overview.

[LSU]

Well, both if applicable. The reason I ask is because in other discussions, I've argued that "spreading" Democracy (by force) is not our right. The founders of this country established it for this country on the basis of unalienable rights, etc. So, does that translate to other countries even though they don't have our Constitution and other things? The argument against that is that all people have the same unalienable rights whether or not they're American or Babylonian.

So, if that's the case that all people have the same rights, shouldn't all people be protected against cruel and unusual punishment?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

I think it's more of an opinion thing in terms of translation, and I know you support let's say...unconventional...means (IBC would say torture). But also support the spread of our Democracy, values, etc.

So do those things contradict each other that you may be going against our protections in order to spread our protections?



I'll add that I don't know if you agree or disagree with the assessment of Iraq being "spreading of Democracy", but when I saw the dialogue, this situation struck my mind, so figured it would be a good place to bring it up.

[Smoke681]

Well, both if applicable. The reason I ask is because in other discussions, I've argued that "spreading" Democracy (by force) is not our right. The founders of this country established it for this country on the basis of unalienable rights, etc. So, does that translate to other countries even though they don't have our Constitution and other things? The argument against that is that all people have the same unalienable rights whether or not they're American or Babylonian.

So, if that's the case that all people have the same rights, shouldn't all people be protected against cruel and unusual punishment?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

I think it's more of an opinion thing in terms of translation, and I know you support let's say...unconventional...means (IBC would say torture). But also support the spread of our Democracy, values, etc.

So do those things contradict each other that you may be going against our protections in order to spread our protections?
I agree that spreading democracy is not "our right". However, in the case of Iraq, regardless of whatever true or untrue reason that we invaded in the first place, the reality is that a peaceful government of some kind is critical in that part of the world. Not a brutal dictatorship like what was there. Relative peace (and let's emphasize relative, as even I have stated that absolute peace is unattainable in that region) is necessary in that entire region in order for this oil-hungry world (it ain't just us folks) to have access to the resources on which they stand. There needs to be peace enough for oil to go out of there and money to go in there.

What I believe is going on in Iraq right now is, we invaded them, destroyed their entire political architecture, and felt the responsibility to rebuild it. Well, we're fucking America, so if we're going to rebuild someone's government, or assist them in doing so, naturally we're going to marry it up with how we do ours, because our arrogant asses (collectively) think that our form of government is the best possible one out there.

To say that we went to Iraq to spread democracy is false, I believe.

Back to the main topic, does our Constitution/BoR/etc apply to only U.S. Persons or does it apply to all mankind: I believe that by definition it applies to U.S. Persons only. Note I'm saying U.S. Persons. Not necessarily citizens. There is a difference. A U.S. Person could be a person working for an American Company but not be a citizen. I do not believe that by definition "all of mankind" falls under the Constitution's umbrella.

That having been said, and my douchebaggery aside, I do believe that any POWs we take become, at least temporarily, U.S. Persons. Therefore I do believe they have entitlements to be charged, be aware of their charges, tried, and released if not convicted. I believe that if it takes us 4 years, then it takes us 4 years. We have a nation to protect, and a people to protect, and to possibly put someone back out there that could do our nation/people harm would be a tragic mistake.

In my opinion, if we're going to err, it best be on the side of OUR security, not THEIR precious rights.

It took me forever to post this because of work. So if it has flow issues, I'm sorry.

[LSU]

I agree that spreading democracy is not "our right". However, in the case of Iraq, regardless of whatever true or untrue reason that we invaded in the first place, the reality is that a peaceful government of some kind is critical in that part of the world. Not a brutal dictatorship like what was there. Relative peace (and let's emphasize relative, as even I have stated that absolute peace is unattainable in that region) is necessary in that entire region in order for this oil-hungry world (it ain't just us folks) to have access to the resources on which they stand. There needs to be peace enough for oil to go out of there and money to go in there.

What I believe is going on in Iraq right now is, we invaded them, destroyed their entire political architecture, and felt the responsibility to rebuild it. Well, we're fucking America, so if we're going to rebuild someone's government, or assist them in doing so, naturally we're going to marry it up with how we do ours, because our arrogant asses (collectively) think that our form of government is the best possible one out there.

To say that we went to Iraq to spread democracy is false, I believe.

Back to the main topic, does our Constitution/BoR/etc apply to only U.S. Persons or does it apply to all mankind: I believe that by definition it applies to U.S. Persons only. Note I'm saying U.S. Persons. Not necessarily citizens. There is a difference. A U.S. Person could be a person working for an American Company but not be a citizen. I do not believe that by definition "all of mankind" falls under the Constitution's umbrella.

That having been said, and my douchebaggery aside, I do believe that any POWs we take become, at least temporarily, U.S. Persons. Therefore I do believe they have entitlements to be charged, be aware of their charges, tried, and released if not convicted. I believe that if it takes us 4 years, then it takes us 4 years. We have a nation to protect, and a people to protect, and to possibly put someone back out there that could do our nation/people harm would be a tragic mistake.

In my opinion, if we're going to err, it best be on the side of OUR security, not THEIR precious rights.

It took me forever to post this because of work. So if it has flow issues, I'm sorry.



Makes perfect sense.

[LSU]

I agree that spreading democracy is not "our right". However, in the case of Iraq, regardless of whatever true or untrue reason that we invaded in the first place, the reality is that a peaceful government of some kind is critical in that part of the world. Not a brutal dictatorship like what was there. Relative peace (and let's emphasize relative, as even I have stated that absolute peace is unattainable in that region) is necessary in that entire region in order for this oil-hungry world (it ain't just us folks) to have access to the resources on which they stand. There needs to be peace enough for oil to go out of there and money to go in there.

What I believe is going on in Iraq right now is, we invaded them, destroyed their entire political architecture, and felt the responsibility to rebuild it. Well, we're fucking America, so if we're going to rebuild someone's government, or assist them in doing so, naturally we're going to marry it up with how we do ours, because our arrogant asses (collectively) think that our form of government is the best possible one out there.

To say that we went to Iraq to spread democracy is false, I believe.

Back to the main topic, does our Constitution/BoR/etc apply to only U.S. Persons or does it apply to all mankind: I believe that by definition it applies to U.S. Persons only. Note I'm saying U.S. Persons. Not necessarily citizens. There is a difference. A U.S. Person could be a person working for an American Company but not be a citizen. I do not believe that by definition "all of mankind" falls under the Constitution's umbrella.

That having been said, and my douchebaggery aside, I do believe that any POWs we take become, at least temporarily, U.S. Persons. Therefore I do believe they have entitlements to be charged, be aware of their charges, tried, and released if not convicted. I believe that if it takes us 4 years, then it takes us 4 years. We have a nation to protect, and a people to protect, and to possibly put someone back out there that could do our nation/people harm would be a tragic mistake.

In my opinion, if we're going to err, it best be on the side of OUR security, not THEIR precious rights.

It took me forever to post this because of work. So if it has flow issues, I'm sorry.


Oh, and I think I was a little short in my explanation. I guess it wasn't so much that we were trying to "spread Democracy" but it was that we felt it was our duty to free the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator because of the rights of men.

[Smoke681]

Oh, and I think I was a little short in my explanation. I guess it wasn't so much that we were trying to "spread Democracy" but it was that we felt it was our duty to free the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator because of the rights of men.
That was the propaganda put out there. I believe that further than that, we were really trying to overthrow a regime that was creating instability in the entire region.

I know, I know. Whatever instability was there before has tripled in the years since. Sometimes you have to make a mess to fix something.

[LSU]

That was the propaganda put out there. I believe that further than that, we were really trying to overthrow a regime that was creating instability in the entire region.

I know, I know. Whatever instability was there before has tripled in the years since. Sometimes you have to make a mess to fix something.



I'm not asking this to argue reasoning, just to hear the reasoning. Although, I expect this is more for supposed "later" discussion if more people choose to join in.

[Smoke681]

I'm not asking this to argue reasoning, just to hear the reasoning. Although, I expect this is more for supposed "later" discussion if more people choose to join in.
What I find odd is an absence of agreement/disagreement with my comments.

You usually have more to say.

And I'm not arguing anything. You asked, I tried to provide as best an answer as I know. And then at some point, I think I argued with myself maybe. But that's common.

[LSU]

What I find odd is an absence of agreement/disagreement with my comments.

You usually have more to say.

And I'm not arguing anything. You asked, I tried to provide as best an answer as I know. And then at some point, I think I argued with myself maybe. But that's common.


No, didn't mean it that way (that you were arguing).

What you responded to was basically an answer to your first point here. I didn't ask the question so that I could agree or disagree. I was just curious. If you want to know what I think, I'll surely answer, although, I don't think it'll be all that different from what you said.