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'.

Shame on you.

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?

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 ...

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

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!

"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

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:

http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

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.

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.

http://webstorage.mediaon.it/media/2...229_medium.jpg

:upsidedow

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

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

How come they didnt shoot Saddam when they found him?

He got what he deserved.

end of story.

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.


so is donald trump , doesn't mean he doesn't cut deals anymore..

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..

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 :)

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.

Take your meds and go back to bed. Seriously.

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.

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??

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 ?

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..

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.

Because Saddam never been an CIA agent :2 cents:

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.

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?

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.

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..
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 ?

Bin Laden 'was unarmed when shot'

So are most pornstars :pimp

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.

Lost a helicopter there :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Listen. Navy Seal Team Six are not police. They kill.

Use of force does not apply to them.

They show up. They do their job. They terminate the target.

The end.

Roughly 3000 dead sounds like a mass of murdered people to me.

And before you start going on and on and on about Bush and Obama's "crimes", keep in mind that September 11, 2001 preceded (and precipitated) all of that.

Are you claiming otherwise?

I think what he was trying to imply is there's no proof or reason to believe Bin Laden did 9/11 other than the US saying so within minutes of the attacks.

• When the world asked for proof of this, Colin Powell went on big media TV and said a white paper would be released establishing their evidence shortly. It never came.
  
  
• When asked by the press if the government knew who did 9/11, the administration said the proof would be produced... eventually. It never did.
  
  
• When the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to US Justice, upon any evidence of bin Laden's implication, the US refused, preferring the path to war in Afghanistan over divulging any evidence they may have had of Osama's guilt.
  
  
• When the FBI was asked point-blank about why bin Laden's online "Wanted" notice didn't mention 9/11, they said there was no proof. Bin Laden's FBI status remained unchanged for 10 years. It was updated to "deceased" within hours of the the hit on him.
  
  
• When Bin Laden was asked multiple times, he denied involvement. This is what he said:
  
  "The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the U.S. system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive."

Bin Laden never took responsibility for 9/11, despite an obtuse reference four years later in a speech which the US government declared to be an admission. It wasn't.

Nobody has claimed responsibility.

The US doesn't like having moles and spies and assassinations within its borders, and declares allegiance to the rule of law, but doesn't hold itself up to the same standards it does other sovereign states.

If bin Laden was guilty or not, the US professes they don't have the proof. They just "know". The assassination could have been vindicated by revealing links and evidence establishing guilt, and it wasn't.

The mission seemed designed to dispose of an asset, employee or agent, who had become a liability or was no longer needed.

If "the terrorists" or "Al Qaeda" or whoever you believe is the overmind of "the enemy" comes out with a statement that bin Laden is indeed dead, it won't confirm that he was actually killed Sunday or alive at the time. It will just serve as an excuse not to release any photographic evidence, and confirm the government's morphing story.

Whatever the reality, the story is a good one if it leads to withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

.

Fuck, we got the wrong guy

glad that fucker is dead

"Bin Laden was shot unarmed!"

So fucking what.

Excellent summary!

What surprises me is the blind trust of some people regarding their government. Call it patriotism or blanking out discrepancies out of sheer ignorance.

One would think just noticing the dishonesty in basic business, that we all either take part in or get to witness, with relatively little at stake would tip some people off.

Why would anything be different all the way to the top of the power structure?

But what choice have we got?
Do not believe anything a government says?
Believe some of it?

Just believe the parts you think make sense to you?
Espouse your opinion as fact to carry out you're own version of events?

Whats to say nothing you read in the news is true, all news is false?

Rather than be paranoid about events that have no baring on you as a person it might be healthier to just simply take what ever news as irrelevant. As most of it does not pertain to you in anyway shape or form.

The result less stress, less arguments with others that have a different opinion or ultimatley may be even misguided. It's like sports even though you are not playing nor even betting for some reason you take a side and for some reason it has relevance to your life by some demented view in thinking the outcome has some baring on you as a person. Fact is... It has none.

So when someone says another guy is dead that you never knew...
Is it really your business at all?