9/11 and Biden - Biden was against the raid that killed Bin Laden

[StalkRavenMad]

You mean like Obama? You freaking hypocrite.

It's called leadership, and judgement.

I have thought Joe Biden was an idiot since 1988. Anyone who has seen him in action as an adult knows he is and always has be-en a clownish buffoon. He's probably the reason I am not a Democrat as my family are die-hard Democrats and seeing him in 88 and especially in 91 made quite an impression on me. The weird facial expressions and general the goofiness and grandstanding.... he's an idiot... that an knowing in my gut Bill Clinton was a scumbag and he and Hillary were lying power mad scumbags. I did not vote in 84 or 88...when I saw Bill and Hillary on that 60 minutes post game interview I was like, these people are lying and full of shit.... I have been proven right. And I'm right about Biden. The fact you are defending him makes me respect you even less than I already do. You are captain contrary.

How am I a hypocrit? Eveything that you h0ave said is well within your right. My only point was that he didnt say don't do it. He simply ask for more intel. I dont see anything wrong with needing more intel.

[BustOfPallas]

How am I a hypocrit? Eveything that you h0ave said is well within your right. My only point was that he didnt say don't do it. He simply ask for more intel. I dont see anything wrong with needing more intel.

He said don't do it until more intel. You are so full of shit. You think Obama had the luxery of a webcam from Abottobad of Bin Laden spanking himself to 1000 virgin porn or "Backin in, Peshawhar style...?

Obama listened and made a hard decision that could have, ALMOST DID, turn him in to Jimmy Carter part II. Thank God, he did not trust clowney mcfondlefuck to make the decision for him. His son is a crack addicted loser and deadbeat baby daddy. He has thrown millions to his brothers through influence....

Joe is a scumbag and and idiot.... on the taxpayer dime.. and so are you for defending him.

[StalkRavenMad]

He said don't do it until more intel. You are so full of shit. You think Obama had the luxery of a webcam from Abottobad of Bin Laden spanking himself to 1000 virgin porn or "Backin in, Peshawhar style...?

Obama listened and made a hard decision that could have, ALMOST DID, turn him in to Jimmy Carter part II. Thank God, he did not trust clowney mcfondlefuck to make the decision for him. His son is a crack addicted loser and deadbeat baby daddy. He has thrown millions to his brothers through influence....

Joe is a scumbag and and idiot.... on the taxpayer dime.. and so are you for defending him.

If you say so sir. People may actually listen to you of you stop calling people names because they have an opinion.

[pickles]

You are a moral relativist because you tell me that it is somehow rightful for the government to take a man's life based on accusations of a crime, when you would very obviously object to that standard if it were applied to you.



Curiously... you have challenged my assertions, and been shown to be wrong with facts (to the degree that we can trust facts as represented by the news media). You have not taken responsibility for your mistaken assertions, nor have you attempted to substantiate any of your mistaken assertions... simply slid the goalposts each time... And frankly, I find that a little disappointing. While I agree with many if not most of your positions, I find your style of argumentation needlessly emotional and angry.

I'm right here in the room with you... no need to get excited... Show me I'm wrong, and I'll concede. Wish I could say the same for you.



The Navy Seals used the words "shoot on sight"

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/navy-...ry?id=17200191



There was no gun, nor was one reached for... according the the Seals, and to the White House (and contrary to yourr wrongful assertion otherwise)

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama...ry?id=13520152



YOU stated that the helicopter took fire. I corrected your mistaken assertion. The Seals testified that the helicopter that was lost during the raid was lost due to a hard landing, and not fire.



Given that the White House statement was that he was hiding behind his wife, and not reaching for a gun... and that that the Seals testified as to why they "shot on sight"... and that the White House had video footage of events as they unfolded and did not release them... and that they subsequently classified the event, and forbade all Seals from speaking after they contradicted the official story, I guess there's really no way of knowing if that's true.



Yes... you have been quite liberal in your speculation, and been refuted each time. Not once have you presented evidence of any kind to substantiate your claims... in fact, anyone following the conversation can clearly see that you simply ignore each introduction of evidence that disproves your claims... and then ultimately.. attempted (in this post) to obfuscate.

I had expected better.



I don't know that that's true in word... but I don't find it important enough to dispute... And certainly he declared war in his deeds.



Yes... I think I've made it abundantly clear that I think Bin Laden was a war criminal. And that he deserved to die... repeating it over and over doesn't really serve any purpose other than emotional masturbation.

We don't disagree over whether he deserved death.

We disagree over whether we as a nation consider it morally justifiable that someone be shot on sight while attempting to apprehend them, if they do not resist our attempts to apprehend them.

I submit that you would object to this standard if it were applied to you.

And that this makes you a rather transparent moral relativist.

I be to differ, sir.

When I declare war against a country, form a terrorist group, mastermind and fund operations across decades which kill its citizens, and that country kills me, I PROMISE I won't go looking for a Human Rights lawyer. I will feel as if I have been served my just desserts. So you're definitely wrong about that.

Now to the rest of your post I will make a few points.

1) I concede I hadn't read or thought about Bin Laden's killing in quite a while and was not as informed as I should have been. It was largely initially reported upon his killing that he was reaching for an AK and that the downed copter was a result of evasive maneuvers engaged due to receiving fire. Neither of that appears to be true.

However, what isn't in dispute that upon entering the compound the Seal Team encountered "obstacles", meaning booby traps, and received fire. Indisputable. Likewise, Bin Laden, while perhaps not actively reaching for a weapon, had several weapons in the room where he was killed. Indisputable.

So, while I concede you were more informed about in certain inconsequential matters regarding the raid, ultimately, my point remains:
Bin Laden was not surrendering. Soldiers were being fired upon and he was armed. Being shot under such circumstances is perfectly legal.

2) Now, I'm going to make a point that I hope your mind isn't too fine to grasp.
Your obsession with calling me a "moral relativist" and holding yourself up as a standard of MORAL CERTITUDE under all weathers is obnoxious, at the minimum.
For instance, I don't think police should shoot fleeing criminals in the back.

However, there is a difference between some guy who takes off from a jaywalking stop, and some guy who is wanted for felony rape and spousal abuse, who fights off two cops, who powers through being tased twice, and tries to get in his car, either reaching for a weapon or planning to drive off with three small children in the back, putting at risk their lives and everyone else unlucky enough to be in the way of that car.

And that isn't moral relativism. That's called existing in the real fucking world.

So I am quite sympathetic to the idea that a terrorist, responsible for the deaths of 1000s of non-combatants, who was hiding in compound that was booby trapped, and fired upon the troops breaching it, and currently in a room with multiple military grade firearms, who founded an organization that was notorious for suicide attacks and using IEDs, needed to be neutralized AS SOON AS FUCKING POSSIBLE.

So I remain unswayed by your frankly, incorrect arguments.

And that doesn't make me your moral inferior.

[owknows]

However, there is a difference between some guy who takes off from a jaywalking stop, and some guy who is wanted for felony rape and spousal abuse, who fights off two cops, who powers through being tased twice, and tries to get in his car, either reaching for a weapon or planning to drive off with three small children in the back, putting at risk their lives and everyone else unlucky enough to be in the way of that car.

I'll take your repeated inability to stick to the subject, and your need to deflect to tangents that have nothing to to with the subject under discussion... as an indication that you concede.

Not sure why you'd think that I didn't support the police in the above case... but I did. Why you've chosen to inexplicably deflect by inserting this case into our discussion is a mystery... I have addressed the specifics of the case above and defended the actions of the police and necessary and justifiable.


How this would compare to Bin Laden who the Seals on site said was: "unarmed, had "no intention" of fighting." is also a mystery...

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/navy-...ry?id=17200191


Sometimes its just easier to say that your understanding of the facts was flawed, and that you formed your opinion on faulty information.

But instead you pound the table... wave your hands, misdirect, obfuscate... and behave obnoxiously.

You backed yourself into the rhetorical corner you chose to occupy... You did so by with smarmy bravado on a subject about which you knew next to nothing. Then chose to be incensed when you were schooled.

Maybe you'll learn from it.

[jonboy79]

I’ll go on record, first post in this thread, after seeing the best information we have on the subject:

War is war. I’m ok with Killing Bin Laden how we did. I’m not even sure I have a preference to put a guy like that on trial. I almost even prefer the quick death. S a matter of fact, no, he didn’t need or deserve a trial. There was no reason to prove guilt, the man was proud of the heinous acts against our country and repeatedly took credit for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[owknows]

I’ll go on record, first post in this thread, after seeing the best information we have on the subject:

War is war. I’m ok with Killing Bin Laden how we did. I’m not even sure I have a preference to put a guy like that on trial. I almost even prefer the quick death. S a matter of fact, no, he didn’t need or deserve a title. There was no reason to prove guilt, the man was proud of the heinous acts against our country and repeatedly took credit for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When is it OK? and when is it not Ok?

And by what criteria do you make that determination?

[jonboy79]

When is it OK? and when is it not Ok?

And by what criteria do you make that determination?

So a cold blooded assassination, not an active combat situation.
1. Currently at war
2. No necessity to prove guilt.
3. Hitler, Bin Laden, etc you know it when you see it. Global level threat.

Kim Jong Un would be a possible future candidate. If we are engaged in full military activity and he’s in someone’s crosshairs, pull the trigger. This obviously assumes KJU does something worthy of causing a war.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[owknows]

So a cold blooded assassination, not an active combat situation.
1. Currently at war
2. No necessity to prove guilt.
3. Hitler, Bin Laden, etc you know it when you see it. Global level threat.

Kim Jong Un would be a possible future candidate. If we are engaged in full military activity and he’s in someone’s crosshairs, pull the trigger. This obviously assumes KJU does something worthy of causing a war.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was really less interested in when you would feel justified. (and more interested specifically in whether there was anything other than an arbitrary "boogerman" factor defining when you would no longer feel justified.)

If you walk into a room to arrest ___________ and he cooperated with your efforts...

Hitler... shoot or not shoot?
Bin Laden... shoot or not shoot?
Lee Harvey Oswald... shoot or not shoot?
Accused Rapist X... shoot or not shoot?


Who are we allowed to shoot, and who are we not... by what specific rules?

Not asking to be coy... want to understand if you've thought this out, and have a system by which to decide

[jonboy79]

I was really less interested in when you would feel justified. (and more interested specifically in whether there was anything other than an arbitrary "boogerman" factor defining when you would no longer feel justified.)

If you walk into a room to arrest ___________ and he cooperated with your efforts...

Hitler... shoot or not shoot?
Bin Laden... shoot or not shoot?
Lee Harvey Oswald... shoot or not shoot?
Accused Rapist X... shoot or not shoot?


Who are we allowed to shoot, and who are we not... by what specific rules?

Not asking to be coy... want to understand if you've thought this out, and have a system by which to decide

No, it’s not particularly well thought out and I specifically even used the words “you know it when you see it”. Sure, it’s a blurry line, but it’s public enemy number one on planet Earth level blurry.
And to draw the line a bit clearer, Saddam didn’t need to be shot on sight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[owknows]

No, it’s not particularly well thought out and I specifically even used the words “you know it when you see it”. Sure, it’s a blurry line, but it’s public enemy number one on planet Earth level blurry.
And to draw the line a bit clearer, Saddam didn’t need to be shot on sight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll leave the subject gently by saying... if you're willing to put enough faith in men and institutions to decide whether men live or die by the criteria of "i'll know it when I see it"... you may one day be in for a rude awakening.

[blah3]

Yes... I think I've made it abundantly clear that I think Bin Laden was a war criminal. And that he deserved to die... repeating it over and over doesn't really serve any purpose other than emotional masturbation.

We don't disagree over whether he deserved death.

We disagree over whether we as a nation consider it morally justifiable that someone be shot on sight while attempting to apprehend them, if they do not resist our attempts to apprehend them.

I submit that you would object to this standard if it were applied to you.

And that this makes you a rather transparent moral relativist.

This is horsehit. You agree that bin laden deserved to die and yet say somehow the US was morally wrong in carrying out this mission. THAT is moral relativism.
Tell you what, why don’t you call for those seals to be brought up on war crimes??? Take a real moral stand and stop with the moral philosophizing masturbation.