GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 3 of 5 < 12 3 45 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Bin Laden 'was unarmed when shot' (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1021004)

SmokeyTheBear 05-04-2011 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by livexxx (Post 18107163)
I don't know what kind of parent he was, but I wouldn't exactly take my kids to a terrorist camp.
he was in a house, much like we have all across america ..

TisMe 05-04-2011 08:24 AM
"Bin Laden 'was unarmed when shot' "

So were most of the people he caused to be killed over the years.

SmokeyTheBear 05-04-2011 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TisMe (Post 18107751)
"Bin Laden 'was unarmed when shot' "

So were most of the people he caused to be killed over the years.
so were most of the people bush and obama ordered killed :2 cents:

Supz 05-04-2011 09:21 AM
who cares?

Supz 05-04-2011 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 18107898)
so were most of the people bush and obama ordered killed :2 cents:
What about the people bin laden killed that started the war? Ignorance is bliss, isnt it.

alessergod 05-04-2011 09:33 AM
:BangBang: :BangBang: who's next?

SmokeyTheBear 05-04-2011 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supz (Post 18107926)
What about the people bin laden killed that started the war? Ignorance is bliss, isnt it.
what about the people usa killed before bin laden killed anyone. ?

ignorance is bliss u say ? u must be very blissful :)

perhaps you should do some historical research before you make yourself look sillier :)

bin laden used to be on our team, your tax dollars paid his salary and bought his weapons.

Paul Markham 05-04-2011 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 18108070)
what about the people usa killed before bin laden killed anyone. ?

ignorance is bliss u say ? u must be very blissful :)

perhaps you should do some historical research before you make yourself look sillier :)

bin laden used to be on our team, your tax dollars paid his salary and bought his weapons.
What about that Cain killing his brother Abel?

This is part of a war that's been going on for millennium. Going back 10, 20, 30 years. Is like comparing a second to the whole day.

Agent 488 05-04-2011 10:26 AM
rip dude.

TisMe 05-04-2011 10:50 AM
Smokey, you are indeed a master of arguing on message boards.

Create "facts" out of thin air, declare yourself the winner.

Congrats to you.

merina0803 05-04-2011 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVTimes (Post 18105725)
Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed by US troops on Sunday after resisting capture, the White House has said.

Meanwhile, the CIA has said it did not tell Pakistan about the operation for fear the Pakistanis would leak information and jeopardise the mission.

Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, says it is embarrassed by its failures on Bin Laden.

The Pakistani government denies any prior knowledge of the raid.

Bin Laden, aged 54, was the founder and leader of al-Qaeda. He is believed to have ordered the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, as well as a number of other deadly bombings.

Al-Qaeda clues

Mr Carney said Bin Laden's wife "rushed" the first US assaulter who entered the room where they were, and was shot in the leg but not killed. On Monday, White House officials said the woman was killed in the firefight after Bin Laden used her as a human shield.

"We expected a great deal of resistance and were met with a great deal of resistance. There were many other people who were armed in the compound," Mr Carney said.

Bin Laden himself then resisted the troops and was shot dead, but was not armed, he added.

The CIA is already examining material seized in the raid, including computer hard drives, DVDs and other documents.

No decision had yet been taken on whether to release a photograph of Bin Laden's body, Mr Carney said, conceding that the image was "pretty gruesome" and could inflame some sensitivities.

A Time magazine article, billed as Mr Panetta's first interview since Bin Laden was killed, reports that "the CIA ruled out participating with its nominal South Asian ally early on".

It quotes Mr Panetta as saying "it was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardise the mission. They might alert the targets".

Pakistan received $1.3bn (£786m) in US military and humanitarian aid last year, and provides logistical support for the Nato mission in Afghanistan. However, relations between Islamabad and Washington have been strained by US suspicions that the ISI is covertly backing militants in Afghanistan, and by anger over US drone strikes in Pakistani tribal areas.

Pakistan's foreign ministry has defended the ISI and issued ia lengthy statement in which it expressed "deep concerns and reservations" about the unilateral US action.

Insisting that unilateral action should not become the norm, the ministry stressed that Pakistani intelligence had been sharing information with the US in recent years.

"As far as the target compound is concerned, ISI had been sharing information with CIA and other friendly intelligence agencies since 2009."

Earlier, an ISI official told the BBC's Owen Bennett-Jones in Islamabad that the agency raided the compound in Abbottabad, just 100km (62 miles) from the capital, when it was under construction. It was believed an al-Qaeda operative, Abu Faraj al-Libi, was there.

But since then, "the compound was not on our radar, it is an embarrassment for the ISI", the official said. "We're good, but we're not God."

The compound is just a few hundred metres from the Pakistan Military Academy - the country's equivalent of Sandhurst or West Point.

The US has not commented on anyone it captured or had planned to capture, other than saying it had taken Bin Laden's body.

However, the Pakistani foreign ministry statement said that the rest of Bin Laden's family are now "in safe hands and being looked after in accordance with the law".

Earlier, in ian opinion piece in the Washington Post, President Asif Ali Zardari admitted Bin Laden "was not anywhere we had anticipated he would be".

But he denied the killing suggested Pakistan was failing in its efforts to tackle terrorism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13274176
pretty sure passengers on those downed planes were unarmed too

Ice-nine 05-04-2011 12:25 PM
What a fucking shame.
lol

DWB 05-04-2011 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 18108070)
what about the people usa killed before bin laden killed anyone. ?

ignorance is bliss u say ? u must be very blissful :)

perhaps you should do some historical research before you make yourself look sillier :)

bin laden used to be on our team, your tax dollars paid his salary and bought his weapons.
The USA has murdered many more than Osama could in 1000 lifetimes. But you'll never get a US president to go down on war crimes. I'd personally like to see both Bush and Obama imprisoned for war crimes, but it will never happen.

And yes, Osama was trained and funded by the USA at one time.

Funny how all that works.

Supz 05-04-2011 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 18108070)
what about the people usa killed before bin laden killed anyone. ?

ignorance is bliss u say ? u must be very blissful :)

perhaps you should do some historical research before you make yourself look sillier :)

bin laden used to be on our team, your tax dollars paid his salary and bought his weapons.
America gave weapons to afghanistan to protect them from people attacking there country. But as far as paid salary, you are the one that needs to do research, osama bin ladens family as well as him are very wealthy from construction. His muslim views got him large road building jobs in africa, which made him wealthy, which has funded al queda.

If you are just a hippy tree hugger that thinks no matter what people do, you should not go to war. I can see where your line of thinking comes from, but this is war.

MediaGuy 05-04-2011 12:57 PM
And the story begins to morph into it's final official version... which may take any shape that suits them now they've announced no images will be released...

Supposedly a lot of people were watching the raid, live, as it happened... but a lot of the initial details and even broad strokes originally reported are being changed, when they're not being challenged by non-official witnesses.

What's next? Pulling out of the mid-east, and peace, or another 9/11 and more war?

:D

just a punk 05-04-2011 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWB (Post 18108582)
The USA has murdered many more than Osama could in 1000 lifetimes. But you'll never get a US president to go down on war crimes. I'd personally like to see both Bush and Obama imprisoned for war crimes, but it will never happen.
I concur :2 cents:

just a punk 05-04-2011 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supz (Post 18108606)
America gave weapons to afghanistan to protect them from people attacking there country.
But the USA stopped giving it when attacked Afghanistan (FYI: the country names should be written with a capital letter) themselves. Ah these old good double standards :1orglaugh

epagos 05-04-2011 01:06 PM
The people in the WTC buildings were also unarmed. fuck ben laden.

just a punk 05-04-2011 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by epagos (Post 18108661)
The people in the WTC buildings were also unarmed. fuck ben laden.
So who gave the weapon to Taliban? Perhaps this video will give you some clue...



Questions?

Sagi 05-04-2011 01:22 PM
I think he was shot because if he was ever brought to trial either military tribunal or even worse civil a lot of our dirty secrets will come out. We created him and funded him to fight the Russians. He knows too much and there is no way we would have wanted to deal with the ramifications of any trial.

helterskelter808 05-04-2011 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by epagos (Post 18108661)
The people in the WTC buildings were also unarmed
You're right; they were defenseless. Maybe you should ask why. The USA has the most well funded and most sophisticated air defense system in the world; one that kept the USSR at bay for 50 years. Yet somehow on that day was unable to take out a single 'hijacked plane'.

Vick! 05-04-2011 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ (Post 18107305)
Rape her first, to really teach the cunt a lesson. She needs to learn.
Shame on you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supz (Post 18108606)
America gave weapons to afghanistan to protect them from people attacking there country.
How about Russians giving weapons to Afghans to defend their country from people them attacking their country, i.e. USA? How about Iran giving weapons to Iraqis to protect them?

Do you have an idea what a fucking perspective is?

directfiesta 05-04-2011 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supz (Post 18107926)
What about the people bin laden killed that started the war? Ignorance is bliss, isnt it.
Problem here is that you take 9/11 as the start of the war ..

Americans do that because they did not witness the mayhem they caused in the muslim countries ...

The 'war' started way before .... just like it did not end with ' mission accomplished ' ....

Way more deads have resulted from the invasion of the latest 2 ( maybe 3 ) countries by US troops then the Twin Towers ... though this does not justify that act ...

directfiesta 05-04-2011 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supz (Post 18108606)
America gave weapons to afghanistan to protect them from people attacking there country. .
What !!!!!!

Who attacked their country ... ???? Soviet Union ?????
FYI, they were invited by the Afghan government to help repel ' insurgents ' ....

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

And in your thinking, as the USA was NEVER invited, what exactly are you doing in Afghanistan ... Shopping for poppy ??? :1orglaugh

just a punk 05-04-2011 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 18109087)
What !!!!!!

Who attacked their country ... ???? Soviet Union ?????
FYI, they were invited by the Afghan government to help repel ' insurgents ' ....
Absolutely correct! Furthermore, during the "invasion" the Soviet Union has built there about 150 construction projects including schools, hospitals, factories and plants, water supply system, roads (Kushka- Gerat- Khandagar, Termez - Mazar-e Sharif - Kabul - Jalalabad) etc. Hundreds of thousands of Afghan children got a possibility to have an education instead of learning "the science of holy war" under control of the US advisers (watch video in my previous post).

Now is there anybody here who can tell me what the USA did for Afghanistan besides of making thousands of widows, waifs and dads who lose their children due to the "democratic bombing"? Do you really think they will not try to avenge? C'mon guys, don't be so stupid!

just a punk 05-04-2011 03:45 PM
"Imagine our forefathers' reaction if in the Middle Ages Martians had landed in Europe and told everyone they must be democratic, observe human rights, liberate the serfs, give everyone the vote and end women being subservient to men, otherwise they would bomb the hell out of them."

(c) Gulf Daily News

MediaGuy 05-04-2011 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supz (Post 18108606)
America gave weapons to afghanistan to protect them from people attacking there country.
And those insurgents were financed and created by the Carter adminstration not to help Afghanis protect themselves from the Russians, but to provoke the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan. From the horse's mouth:

Quote:
Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

MediaGuy 05-04-2011 04:26 PM
It's getting weird and the official story about Bin Laden's assassination keeps morphing...

And.... again...

First, he died blasting away in the firefight, using his wife as a shield until she got killed.

No, they said after, he died un-armed. The woman was just running to shield him, and got shot in the leg...

At first, Obama and key staff watched the operation live, the White House even releasing a photo and press release describing the moment they saw Osama shot. http://articles.economictimes.indiat...t-barack-obama

Now, no - supposedly there was a 25-minute blackout during the actual operation. He did not see the actual operation... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-compound.html

At first, senators who were involved and authorized to view the supposed pictures of Osama post-mortem confirmed that it was indeed bin Laden and he had been shot in gory confrontation.

Then, the senators changed their stories and either said the photos weren't "authentic" or "official" - and that, despite being privy to the source - either the fact that they're on the Armed Services Committee or Council, or CIA director Panetta - they weren't in a position to determine if they were legitimate photos...
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...n-laden-photos

So now nobody saw the photos. And video supposedly shot on the scene via combat helmets will either contain a 25 minute blackout sequence or just a jump-cut...

Somebody's lying about something.

helterskelter808 05-04-2011 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18109300)
At first, senators who were involved and authorized to view the supposed pictures of Osama post-mortem confirmed that it was indeed bin Laden and he had been shot in gory confrontation.

Then, the senators changed their stories and either said the photos weren't "authentic" or "official" - and that, despite being privy to the source - either the fact that they're on the Armed Services Committee or Council, or CIA director Panetta - they weren't in a position to determine if they were legitimate photos...
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...n-laden-photos
They were probably showing each other on their iPhones the fake that's been posted everywhere, including here, and said 'yeah we've seen the pics and it was Bin Laden'. Then someone pointed out to them that they were looking at a fake pic, not the official one, so they had to correct themselves.

Which if nothing else proves they're not competent to decide for everyone else whether a pic is genuine or not. And despite not being competent, and not having seen the real images (if any exist) themselves, some still believe they should not be released.

ColBigBalls 05-04-2011 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 18107712)
he was in a house, much like we have all across america ..
http://webstorage.mediaon.it/media/2...229_medium.jpg

:upsidedow

MediaGuy 05-04-2011 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by helterskelter808 (Post 18109346)
They were probably showing each other on their iPhones the fake that's been posted everywhere, including here, and said 'yeah we've seen the pics and it was Bin Laden'. Then someone pointed out to them that they were looking at a fake pic, not the official one, so they had to correct themselves.

Which if nothing else proves they're not competent to decide for everyone else whether a pic is genuine or not. And despite not being competent, and not having seen the real images (if any exist) themselves, some still believe they should not be released.
No, only one said she saw a photo on an electronic device, that's specifically mentioned.

I doubt even she was looking at the known, old photoshop image.

It was only after a few of the senators and other members of the Armed services Committee as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee mentioned having seen the images - and then Obama announcing he won't release them - that it was announced no photos were shown at the debriefing.

The story will keep changing until all the angles are covered. We need The Donald now to "force Obama's hand" and make him put up or shut up lol.

:D

beerptrol 05-04-2011 07:52 PM
Just because he was unarmed doesn't mean he didn't have access to any weapons in his bedroom or negate the fact he may have been trying to get to them

SpicyM 05-04-2011 08:02 PM
How come they didnt shoot Saddam when they found him?

CDSmith 05-04-2011 09:57 PM
He got what he deserved.

end of story.

SmokeyTheBear 05-04-2011 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supz (Post 18108606)
America gave weapons to afghanistan to protect them from people attacking there country.
weapons and hundreds of millions of dollars and shitloads of promises to be a thorn in russias side. Then they left the afghans to be slaughtered by the russians and broke all the promises they made.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Supz (Post 18108606)
osama bin ladens family as well as him are very wealthy from construction.
so is donald trump , doesn't mean he doesn't cut deals anymore..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supz (Post 18108606)
If you are just a hippy tree hugger that thinks no matter what people do, you should not go to war. I can see where your line of thinking comes from, but this is war.
way to generalize lol hippy, treehugger and anti-war.

war doesn't solve much, and costs alot.. wars are for primitive people. murder even more primitive people..

SmokeyTheBear 05-04-2011 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicyM (Post 18109635)
How come they didnt shoot Saddam when they found him?
maybe the soldiers felt a little odd shooting a dirty old unarmed man hiding in a hole. They must have replaced those guys with guys with no morales :)

SmokeyTheBear 05-04-2011 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by epagos (Post 18108661)
The people in the WTC buildings were also unarmed. fuck ben laden.
so the solution to bad guys doing evil things is to do worse bad and evil things ?

imagine if we taught things in life this way .. you shit the bed so your dad shits a bigger shit in your bed. you drink and drive and kill someones kid so they have the judge get drunk and run over all your kids with a bulldozer.:Oh crap

GregE 05-04-2011 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 18109760)
so the solution to bad guys doing evil things is to do worse bad and evil things ?

imagine if we taught things in life this way .. you shit the bed so your dad shits a bigger shit in your bed. you drink and drive and kill someones kid so they have the judge get drunk and run over all your kids with a bulldozer.:Oh crap
So you're saying that the the USA response to 9-11 should have been what exactly?

Nothing?

Or maybe the United States government should have apologized to Bin Laden for making him angry?

You sure have a strange way of looking at things.

GregE 05-04-2011 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ (Post 18107305)
Rape her first, to really teach the cunt a lesson. She needs to learn.
Take your meds and go back to bed. Seriously.

Captain Kawaii 05-04-2011 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberxxx (Post 18108647)
I concur :2 cents:
I concur thrice...

Biggest war criminals going are the last 6-8 US Presidents and their flunkies.
Not only have they committed war crimes but they have allowed, paid, armed, and worked with so many dictator/criminals half of Washington DC cant leave the fucking country for fear of being arrested.

mrmikeman 05-04-2011 11:18 PM
It dont matter, when a piece of shit is that big a piece of shit, whether he actually did 9/11 or not, it justifies being shot not only unarmed, but while he's on the can.. who gives a fuck.. .that sandhead p.o.s would kill any and all unarmed without second though.. they should have raped him too and filmed it, made a website from it.. binbutten.com, shown it to the world, had an affiliate program and made me rich from referrals.. LOL what time is it??

SmokeyTheBear 05-04-2011 11:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregE (Post 18109804)
So you're saying that the the USA response to 9-11 should have been what exactly?
well for starters attacking a country where at least one of the 9/11 terrorists lived might have helped..

if the guy next door shot your dog, would it make sense for you to fly to a church in a different city and murder everyone inside ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregE (Post 18109804)
Or maybe the United States government should have apologized to Bin Laden for making him angry?
You sure have a strange way of looking at things.
doesn't it feel strange to make up a fantasy of what someone else thinks to win an argument ? you are basically arguing with yourself at that point ?

maybe bush shouldn't have marginalized him and instead should have spent some time on him..

GregE 05-05-2011 12:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 18109851)
well for starters attacking a country where at least one of the 9/11 terrorists lived might have helped..
Well, that would certainly include Afghanistan now wouldn't it?

Attacking Egypt or Saudi Arabia would have been inappropriate and/or politically unwise.

Attacking Iraq, I agree, was both wrong and ill-advised.

Taking out the individuals who planned and/or ordered the 9-11 attacks was clearly not only appropriate, but essential.

just a punk 05-05-2011 06:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicyM (Post 18109635)
How come they didnt shoot Saddam when they found him?
Because Saddam never been an CIA agent :2 cents:

SmokeyTheBear 05-05-2011 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregE (Post 18109921)
Taking out the individuals who planned and/or ordered the 9-11 attacks was clearly not only appropriate, but essential.
and what about the tens of thousand of other people they killed ?

using your logic there are now tens of thousands of people who have the right to "take out" americans who planned and/or ordered the attacks in iraq

it is a vicious circle

What has made america strong in the past is showing others we are better than that not that we will stoop to the same level.

GregE 05-05-2011 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 18110533)
What has made america strong in the past is showing others we are better than that not that we will stoop to the same level.
Back in the good old days, the America of the past, you speak of, dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the undefended city of Dresden, well after the outcome of the then war was decided and a scant three months before it ended. Fifty thousand women, children and old men went up in flames.

And the world saw that as a good thing.

Earlier this week a commando team, engaging in a new war, took out one solitary mass murderer and folks like you cry like something truly horrible occurred.

What's wrong with this picture?

buzzard 05-05-2011 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicyM (Post 18109635)
How come they didnt shoot Saddam when they found him?
He was alive and they could capture him.

On the other hand, Bin Laden, the most wanted terrorist of all time, claimed with a wealth of terrorist information that we so desperately need... him being alive is a conjured up story.

SmokeyTheBear 05-05-2011 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregE (Post 18112810)
and folks like you cry like something truly horrible occurred.

What's wrong with this picture?
well i can tell you making shit up out of thin air only makes yourself feel happy. I am certainly not crying over bin laden being dead . I personally think it is crass to celebrate the death of anything, you can do whatever you want and i will comment if i see fit.:thumbsup

america has never been perfect, you trying to tell me what i support and what i don't support isn't reality buddy.. if you are curious, try asking..
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregE (Post 18112810)
Earlier this week a commando team, engaging in a new war, took out one solitary mass murderer
there are so many things wrong with this i don't know where to start.

"commando team engaging in a new war" ? they were in pakistan , we are not at war with pakistan, since when do commando teams declare war.. let's call it what we all know it as , a hit squad..

when you say "took out" you mean completely ignore the geneva convention and all international law ?

when you say "mass murderer" what exactly do you mean and how do you come to that conclusion. ?

if i say george bush is a mass murderer , does that make him a murderer ? has he ordered more killings than bin laden ?

is there perhaps some process humans use to decide these things ? like courts ? laws ? judicial system ? evidence ?

marlboroack 05-05-2011 10:55 PM
Bin Laden 'was unarmed when shot'

So are most pornstars :pimp

Seth Manson 05-05-2011 11:04 PM
Another episode of GFY Keyboard Generals. :1orglaugh

Here is a thought for you brilliant military strategists:
Had we not lost a helicopter there, we may have never been told anything about this at all.

But now nobody can say that it was all made up just to make President Obama look good and that it didnt really happen.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:20 AM.
Page 3 of 5 < 12 3 45 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123