Bin Laden 'was unarmed when shot'

[DVTimes]

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

[brassmonkey]

shoot first ask questions later.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

shoot first ask questions later.

It does not sound as good.

Makes him a marter.

But as I said in another thread I suspect they thought it easer to shoot him, rather than have him in prioson and have huge security problems. Plus if found guilty if they excicute he becomes a marter or keep him alive the 'hang um high' americans will want death, while other countries such as UK may want him kept alive.

However shooting his wife may be an errer.

[Wizzo]

I just wonder if the guy yelled, "headshot motherfucker"....

[brassmonkey]

Who shot ya?

[L-Pink]

Well it WAS a surprise attack

[NaughtyRob]

Twin towers were unarmed too, fuck him.

[DamianJ]

Shot in the head in front of his 12 year old little girl and he was unarmed and willing to come quietly.

AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

[ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Who cares.
Probably better he was shot rather than glorified at gitmo.

[DVTimes]

[marketsmart]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Shot in the head in front of his 12 year old little girl and he was unarmed and willing to come quietly.

AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

the attacks on the US orphaned 1000's of children and effected 100's of thousands of lives..


you've become a real pussy lately Damian.. are you turning into your nemesis, Mr Paul Markham?






.

[bronco67]

The official order was "capture", but the real order was probably "kill on sight".

As already stated, a kill avoids all the subsequent legal BS. No trial necessary for the biggest bad guy in the world. Just pop him and be done with it. Plus, imagine the Islamic extremist fury and activity at seeing their beloved leader paraded around the United States as a prisoner. Many deaths would probably result from the demonstrations alone. A clean and simple kill would be way less likely to stir up that hornet's nest.

[Tam]

He wasn't unarmed, he threw his wife at them, real man he was to the very end, huh?

I don't like to hear of anyone dying, and I didn't and don't celebrate his death, but I think he was a coward. A coward sneaks in and takes it's victims when no one is looking, a real man stands in their faces and beats the hell out of them. He was a coward, because he didn't even do that, he sent others to do it for him.

[CDSmith]

Typical armchair quarterbacking after the fact. I love how all the usual critics of the USA jump on anything they do, "the soldiers should have done this"..."they shouldn't have shot him"..."he was unarmed" and so on.

I think the quote "Just shut up, you weren't there" applies here. I will say this though; I think it's safe to assume that in a huge raid and firefight like that one was you're raising your chances of getting shot if you resist in any way, period. If the agent/soldier in question were to admit to having him down on his knees and he executed him with a shot to the back of the head then there might be cause for concern. (major emphasis on the word "might")

Is the world better off without this scum in it? I say yes. Case closed.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by Tam

He wasn't unarmed, he threw his wife at them, real man he was to the very end, huh?

I don't like to hear of anyone dying, and I didn't and don't celebrate his death, but I think he was a coward. A coward sneaks in and takes it's victims when no one is looking, a real man stands in their faces and beats the hell out of them. He was a coward, because he didn't even do that, he sent others to do it for him.

i think that was early reports.

they are saying he did not use her as a defence.

But if I was the presedent, I would have done the sdame, and ordered his death.

A trial would have gone on years and made him look weak.

Moraly it was wrong. It was murder. But he had no option. A trial would cost millions, last years, lots of legal issues and made him a mator and made the presedent look weak, plus he would be in the news each day.

This was the simplist option. Its not right to kill him, but the presedent is a usa presedent. By this he is consentraiting on the USA and had hilory to concentrate on other countries. Unlike Nikson wqho was considered very respected by country leaders but not liked at home (usa).

I think in the UK our priminister has done the same. Consetrate on the home market (UK) but have somone William Heage deal with the foregn dipolotic situation.

I suspect this operation had been incredibly planed out. Clearly they knew were he was for a while and had the whole house scanned. Probably had a satalight just on the house for months. I bet there will be nothing so well planed out ever.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by DVTimes

i think that was early reports.

they are saying he did not use her as a defence.

But if I was the presedent, I would have done the sdame, and ordered his death.

A trial would have gone on years and made him look weak.

Moraly it was wrong. It was murder. But he had no option. A trial would cost millions, last years, lots of legal issues and made him a mator and made the presedent look weak, plus he would be in the news each day.

This was the simplist option. Its not right to kill him, but the presedent is a usa presedent. By this he is consentraiting on the USA and had hilory to concentrate on other countries. Unlike Nikson wqho was considered very respected by country leaders but not liked at home (usa).

I think in the UK our priminister has done the same. Consetrate on the home market (UK) but have somone William Heage deal with the foregn dipolotic situation.

I suspect this operation had been incredibly planed out. Clearly they knew were he was for a while and had the whole house scanned. Probably had a satalight just on the house for months. I bet there will be nothing so well planed out ever.

Exactly. The capture of Bin Laden would end up being a fiasco that dragged out for years, and even worse, he would still inspire Al Queda, even though he wouldn't be in contact with them.

When you want to kill a snake, you don't capture its head. You cut it the fuck off. Done.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Typical armchair quarterbacking after the fact. I love how all the usual critics of the USA jump on anything they do, "the soldiers should have done this"..."they shouldn't have shot him"..."he was unarmed" and so on.

I think the quote "Just shut up, you weren't there" applies here. I will say this though; I think it's safe to assume that in a huge raid and firefight like that one was you're raising your chances of getting shot if you resist in any way, period. If the agent/soldier in question were to admit to having him down on his knees and he executed him with a shot to the back of the head then there might be cause for concern. (major emphasis on the word "might")

Is the world better off without this scum in it? I say yes. Case closed.

Its not a critisism.

Its popotics. If I was the presedent of the USA I would have done the same thing.

Lets not pretend they could not have taken him alive as they could have. Thats not relivent. Its a bit silly to pretend they had to shoot him.

The fact is the people in america would not want a long drawn out trial. Security alone would have been a nightmare. Plus other countries would want to have him put on trial too as his organisation has killed people in the UK. So politicaly we (UK) may have insisted on putting him on tial.

In other words it would have been a huge problem keeping him alive.

You could imagine the problems for the UK and other countries when they would want him too.

Its saved a lot of grief.

The good thing was they did not just bomb the place as was considered. I think that is a huge step. The presedent took a risk but its clear he did not want the other members of family harmed.

So instead of pics of a bomed out building and pics of dead children and women, they have a much better image. In that respect its gone well.

[Vick!]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Shot in the head in front of his 12 year old little girl and he was unarmed and willing to come quietly.

AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

I doubt he was willing to come quietly. But shooting in front of a child?

[Vick!]

Originally Posted by DVTimes

So instead of pics of a bomed out building and pics of dead children and women, they have a much better image. In that respect its gone well.

I agree. Bombing would have killed many innocent neighbors too.

[fitzmulti]

Originally Posted by Vick!

I doubt he was willing to come quietly. But shooting in front of a child?

Should the Navy Seals have brought a babysitter, a DVD player, and some Disney DVD's, and said, "Oh, little 12 y/o girl...please sit over here, before we nab the fucker who has been hiding from us for years. We'll be right back."?

uhm...no!

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Exactly. The capture of Bin Laden would end up being a fiasco that dragged out for years, and even worse, he would still inspire Al Queda, even though he wouldn't be in contact with them.

When you want to kill a snake, you don't capture its head. You cut it the fuck off. Done.

Killing him will not affect Al Queda as from the sounds of it he was no longer running things. Thats rather illelivent.

But yes, a trial would be a pain.

One must remeber its not only the USA the attacts happened but many countries including the UK.

And I suspect if he had lived every country would insist on having him. Plus he is rich so could afford the best legal aid. And as time goes on he becomes a hero.

So as I say, the presedent did what he had to for politcal reasons. its not me having a go at the usa. I am a big suporter of the president.

it will be interesting what footage they release.

in truth i wonder why they did not say he had a gun in his hand. no one could have proved otherwise. it seems odd they admited he was unarmed.

but this operation will have been planed for months. they may have even bigged the place. those guys (i think it was the green barade) would have had it so perfect they could have operated blind folded.

[Vick!]

Originally Posted by Tam

A coward sneaks in and takes it's victims when no one is looking, a real man stands in their faces and beats the hell out of them. He was a coward, because he didn't even do that, he sent others to do it for him.

What kind of logic is this? lol .. Is US President a coward by the same logic? Or a typical general who sends his troops to a mission is coward?

[L-Pink]

Technically that house was the most dangerous spot in the world based on it's occupant. If it wasn't for trying to make a positive identification of the body we would have smart-bombed the entire block. Period.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by Vick!

I doubt he was willing to come quietly. But shooting in front of a child?

I suspect it was agreed to shoot him before the raid.

Which as I say you can understand.

To keep him alive would be such a pain.

Remeber the chap who was leader of Iraq. The trial became a faorce and his death a discrace. The last thing the USA wanted was that.

And in this case I suspect it would have been (the trial) in the USA. That alone would have coused problems as some would insist on him being trialed in other countries.

The killing of him was not moraly right. It was murder. But in truth if I was the Presedent, it the option he had to take. Solved more problems than it created.

You can imagine if he was on trial, all the tv coverage he would get.

[rogueteens]

I still do not believe that Pakistan had no knowledge of this, for america to act like this inside another soverign country without their knowledge is a REALLY, REALLY dangerous precident and will only serve to flame even more anti-american sentiments around the world.

[Vick!]

Originally Posted by fitzmulti

Should the Navy Seals have brought a babysitter, a DVD player, and some Disney DVD's, and said, "Oh, little 12 y/o girl...please sit over here, before we nab the fucker who has been hiding from us for years. We'll be right back."?

uhm...no!

Oh yeah, this is the only fucking way to remove the child from scenario. yeah?

They better had killed the child as well. She deserved that, because she was daughter of a terrorist. right?

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by Tam

He wasn't unarmed, he threw his wife at them, real man he was to the very end, huh?

They've already updated that lie.

A coward sneaks in and takes it's victims when no one is looking

Uh, isn't that exactly what the SEALs did?

a real man stands in their faces and beats the hell out of them.

Even the Whitehouse says he was unarmed and still resisted, no doubt in his 'pajamas', against heavily armed, highly trained, kevlar protected killers.

You can believe that or not, but if you believe it you can't then call him a coward.

He was a coward, because he didn't even do that, he sent others to do it for him.

Like the President?

When the USA has people willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believe in they're considered brave heroes. But when anyone else does it, even against a far stronger opponent, they're cowards?

Say what you like about Osama, and there are many reasons why he was asking to be killed, he was a millionaire (a dream of most people here) yet decided in his early 20s to give up his comfortable life to go to a stoneage foreign country to help fight a world superpower for a decade. That alone makes him anything but a coward.

[TeenCat]

oh no, he was shoot unarmed ... are you fucking shithead retards kidding me?

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by marketsmart

the attacks on the US orphaned 1000's of children and effected 100's of thousands of lives..
.

and the attacks we have carried out in iraq and afghanistan have killed much much more children , and nobody from iraq or afghanistan attacked us or killed even 1 single american child.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by fitzmulti

Should the Navy Seals have brought a babysitter, a DVD player, and some Disney DVD's, and said, "Oh, little 12 y/o girl...please sit over here, before we nab the fucker who has been hiding from us for years. We'll be right back."?

uhm...no!

two wrongs don't make a right

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by Tam

He wasn't unarmed, he threw his wife at them, real man he was to the very end, huh?

turns out they lied , i think you forgot to read the article in post #1

nobody threw anyone, she tried to escape , they shot her in the leg then shot bin laden who was unarmed

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Technically that house was the most dangerous spot in the world based on it's occupant. If it wasn't for trying to make a positive identification of the body we would have smart-bombed the entire block. Period.

No

While the people of the USA may think its jolly great to bomb everything, outside the USA its considered not. And its important to keep good contacts with other countries.

If the place had been bombed it would have created huge dipolatic problems. The UK would have no choice to condem and presure politicaly in the UK would be to move away from USA suport.

Pakistan would go nuts and condem huge deaths.

The site of women and children being brought out dead would fume those in the east. it would create suport for the terrists.

This presedent is clearly trying to change the view of usa that bombs anything and does not care to a usa that is using its troops in a clever way.

thats why he is a good man. and a clever man. bombing the place would be easy, but the results are unaceptable outide the usa. even in the usa its not fully suported.

this is very significant change in polocy.

its why so far there has been no condemnation (that i have seen) from other country leaders.

it was not thick bully boy usa but a smart usa.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

and the attacks we have carried out in iraq and afghanistan have killed much much more children , and nobody from iraq or afghanistan attacked us or killed even 1 single american child.

this is why the presedent was smart and used troops, rather than bombed the place.

we (in the uk) watched the iraq wars and affganistan wars were women and children were killed in these bomb attacts. it lead muslims to go out and become terrists.

it led to a lot of anty american hatred, that will take years to heal.

but this presedent is a good man. he clearly is trying to change things.

[nation-x]

What about the 3000 people he arranged to have killed on Sept 11... were they armed? Here is a big FUCK YOU to anyone that says it was wrong to shoot him because he was unarmed... fuck that dead motherfucker.

[SallyRand]

"Bin Laden 'was unarmed when shot."

So the fuck what?

The people in the WTC buildings were also unarmed when the dirty bastard's terrorist's thugs crashed the airplanes into the buildings and killed them.

You need to take some time out of your pathetic, meaningless life and watch this:



Take special note of the people who threw themselves from the building rather than burn to death and then come back and tell us all about how badly the murdering bastard Osama bin Laden was treated.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

turns out they lied , i think you forgot to read the article in post #1

nobody threw anyone, she tried to escape , they shot her in the leg then shot bin laden who was unarmed

It shows the difference.

I suspect the regular army would have panicked and shot everyone.

It was sensable using this elite troops. I bet they were calm all the way through.

Probably instructed to not kill the women are children, but at most shoot to desable.

I bet it had been rehersed in a full sized model every day for months.

[JosephFM]

Originally Posted by DVTimes

I suspect it was agreed to shoot him before the raid.

Which as I say you can understand.

To keep him alive would be such a pain.

Remeber the chap who was leader of Iraq. The trial became a faorce and his death a discrace. The last thing the USA wanted was that.

And in this case I suspect it would have been (the trial) in the USA. That alone would have coused problems as some would insist on him being trialed in other countries.

The killing of him was not moraly right. It was murder. But in truth if I was the Presedent, it the option he had to take. Solved more problems than it created.

You can imagine if he was on trial, all the tv coverage he would get.

Imagine the media and legal circus had he been caught alive and gone to trial.

F@ck that, one clean shot to the head and get it over with.

USA, USA!

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by DVTimes

Killing him will not affect Al Queda as from the sounds of it he was no longer running things. Thats rather illelivent.

Maybe Bin Laden was not "running things" from an operational standpoint, but he represents an intangible that's very important to Al Quaeda -- a spiritual leadership. He's an inspirational and motivational figure to the religious zealots that operate in Al Queda, or may be considering joining. He's irreplaceable in that respect.

there's also the money connection. That's sure as hell going to be missed. This is a big, big blow to Al Queda. Any organization needs leadership.

[Vick!]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

and the attacks we have carried out in iraq and afghanistan have killed much much more children , and nobody from iraq or afghanistan attacked us or killed even 1 single american child.

Exactly. And by doing this we are making neutral civilians of those countries dislike US and its policies more and more, and of course its not going to make world a safer place.

PS. Smokey, add a-drone-attacks-every-week on Pakistan in your list too.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by nation-x

What about the 3000 people he arranged to have killed on Sept 11... were they armed? Here is a big FUCK YOU to anyone that says it was wrong to shoot him because he was unarmed... fuck that dead motherfucker.

Its sad when you post this.

Sad becase what you post is so un-american.

Sad becase you fail to see why what you post is wrong.

Its sad as as an american you should see a trial as important. You should see the fact that even somone who has comited the worst crimes (or at least have conections with them) still has the right to a fair and honest trial.

Do you not see by what you say makes you no different to a terrist? If you do not belive in freedom, trials and fairness, and just belive that your always right and death to those you do not like, you are saying and acting the same as the terrists. Do you not see that your saying and doing the same as them.

[Vick!]

Originally Posted by DVTimes

Do you not see by what you say makes you no different to a terrist? If you do not belive in freedom, trials and fairness, and just belive that your always right and death to those you do not like, you are saying and acting the same as the terrists. Do you not see that your saying and doing the same as them.

No one is going to understand this point. This is exactly what terrorist mentality is, Osama and company had the same, some of these people have the same.

Its just perspective that makes difference between a terrorist and a patriot/hero.

[bronco67]

You can always count on Smokey the Bear to be the contrarian.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by JosephFM

Imagine the media and legal circus had he been caught alive and gone to trial.

F@ck that, one clean shot to the head and get it over with.

USA, USA!

yes

and thats why i say the presedent did not the right moral thing, but the right thing for an end to a lot of problems.

lets face it, its all a bit murky. the involvment the usa had in training him years ago and so on.

but while moraly i find it wong to kill him, it could mean many lives saved. by this it may help end the war in afganistan, which will saves lives on all sides. this (i hope) could lead to an earler end to the war.

[Tam]

Originally Posted by DVTimes

i think that was early reports.

they are saying he did not use her as a defence.

But if I was the presedent, I would have done the sdame, and ordered his death.

A trial would have gone on years and made him look weak.

Moraly it was wrong. It was murder. But he had no option. A trial would cost millions, last years, lots of legal issues and made him a mator and made the presedent look weak, plus he would be in the news each day.

This was the simplist option. Its not right to kill him, but the presedent is a usa presedent. By this he is consentraiting on the USA and had hilory to concentrate on other countries. Unlike Nikson wqho was considered very respected by country leaders but not liked at home (usa).

I think in the UK our priminister has done the same. Consetrate on the home market (UK) but have somone William Heage deal with the foregn dipolotic situation.

I suspect this operation had been incredibly planed out. Clearly they knew were he was for a while and had the whole house scanned. Probably had a satalight just on the house for months. I bet there will be nothing so well planed out ever.

Oh no, I was really just playing.... I bet I haven't watched 2 minutes of it since it was initially announced. Celebrating or watching about someone dying isn't really my bag.... I was just being a smartass here. That's all.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by Vick!

No one is going to understand this point. This is exactly what terrorist mentality is, Osama and company had the same, some of these people have the same.

Its just perspective that makes difference between a terrorist and a patriot/hero.

yes

its sad that people often fail to see what they think is right, is not.

My friend (in the uk) said that the muslims who burnt the poppies (we have a poppy day - not sure if you have the same tradition in the usa) should be put in prison.

I upset her by pointing out that she was in fact by saying that far worse than some mulim burning a poppy as she was saying that freedom of speach should be taken away.

Voltar (probably spelt the name wrong) said that i may not agree with what you say, but i will die defending your right to say it.

i am in the uk, but even so i still have pride for the usa. the usa should not go around trying toi change other countries to be like it (or invade for oil). but it should be the country people look up to. fairness, freedom at whatever cost for whoever.

i remeber the chap who did porn (the one in a wheelchair) saids that the law should apply the same to everyone, even a scumbag as him (or words to that affect).

I look towards the usa as a fair country. i realy get upset when i see it doing wrong or be seen to do wrong. I love amerca in that respect. I am not and will never be anty american. but i will critize it if i feel it needs to be critised. aqnd i get so angry when i hear morons in america think its clever to say bomb everyone.

this is why i have hope for this presedent.

[marketsmart]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

and the attacks we have carried out in iraq and afghanistan have killed much much more children , and nobody from iraq or afghanistan attacked us or killed even 1 single american child.

then maybe you should join al qaeda and declare jihad against your american enemies...

war is war... we went to iraq and afghanistan and our soldiers were killed and continue to be killed..

i will say that i disagree with the war in iraq because it was about oil and establishing a stronger military presence in the middle east to ultimately protect the US interests in foreign oil..

afghanistan has been harboring terrorists for a very long time and any collateral damage to me is justified..

i think you are losing track here in that the argument was made against one 12 y/o child vs a bigger picture..

if clinton would have not been afraid of collateral damage, bin laden would have been dead a long time ago and maybe 9/11 would have never taken place..

if you would like to do some flag burning this weekend i am available as i hate 90% of what the US govt does, but in this case i think the right thing was done..





.

[DVTimes]

the one thing thats a bit odd is why there is blood in more than one room.

i thought the only person shot dead was him and his wife shot in the leg, so i am not sure why there was so much blood in other rooms.

it also seemed so basic the living area.

[Failed]

Bunch of fucking pussies! Boohoo the wife got shot in the leg, boohoo the 12 year old girl witnessed the shooting. They could of killed the wife, the girl, and everyone in the fucking neighborhood and I would still be chanting "USA." We took out the largest symbol for terror in the entire world and you're bitching about emotional scars and a leg shot...fucking ungrateful scum.

[Jman]

roflmao, how about we all start chanting Kumbaya and pray for his family.... NOT!!!

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by marketsmart

then maybe you should join al qaeda and declare jihad against your american enemies...

war is war... we went to iraq and afghanistan and our soldiers were killed and continue to be killed..

i will say that i disagree with the war in iraq because it was about oil and establishing a stronger military presence in the middle east to ultimately protect the US interests in foreign oil..

afghanistan has been harboring terrorists for a very long time and any collateral damage to me is justified..

i think you are losing track here in that the argument was made against one 12 y/o child vs a bigger picture..

if clinton would have not been afraid of collateral damage, bin laden would have been dead a long time ago and maybe 9/11 would have never taken place..

if you would like to do some flag burning this weekend i am available as i hate 90% of what the US govt does, but in this case i think the right thing was done..





.

this realy anoys me whenb somone from the usa starts to rather respnd to a comment, turns to name calling and starts to sugest they are anti-amercan.

do you fail to see what your doing is saying 'he' has no right to say what he belives and as such no right of free speach.

its in fact a discrace what you said, becase by saying that your being distrispectfull to his right to freedom of speach.

it is not him being anty american but in fact it is you. you are saying only one view should be allowed. ask yourself what is the diffence between what you have said and those terrists.

its shamfull you could say that to another american. its disgusting in fact.

be a propud american, and be proud that he has said what he belives without feeing being arrested or being condemed.

you should respect what hew has said even if its not what you belive.

this is the glory of america, somthing that very few countries have.

do not ever forget this.

think before you post such a thing again.

be proud that you have such freedom to say things even if other dislike or disagree.