Bin Laden is DEAD!!!

Frost

Active Member
Good news!
I heard part of the presidents speech.
In the part I heard he pretty much took full credit for it.
 

Midnight Raver

Active Member
While this is very good news, I fear that much like Saddam's capture and execution this will not change things greatly over there. However, hopefully the troops get to come home sooner from Afghanistan.
 

Red Hat

New Member
Navy SEALS got him! Since he was a mountain/desert man they buried him at sea this morning at 2am eastern.
 

C_Carson

New Member
I am happy they got him, and I hope they terminated with extreme prejudice. The things that piss me off are :

1. I heard one of the excuses they had not to release photos of his body was because it was against the Islamic religion. Since when do they run the &*@#$!% world?!

2. People keep saying we should not rejoice in the death of our enemies. I personally don't get this. This was an evil man that orchestrated the death of thousands of American citizens. He was a coward that hid for ten years, and boasted of his handiwork, then used his wife as a human shield. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think anyone cried when Hitler died, and I can't believe we are bothering with whether or not this rabid dog was armed or not, shot in the back or the face, or any other moralistic details like that. Perhaps I'm just young and idealistic, but since when do we become the better person by hamstringing ourselves with our own code of honor?
 

Dave29461

Active Member
That is why it is Honor. We prove that our way of life and belief system is superior by living and dying by the rules put in place by God. We can fudge on the man made ones and usually get away with it. Am I glad he is dead? Hell yeah!! I sorrow for the necessity of having to mourn the death and destruction he wrought. I don't want to have to pay for evil with my Son's life or any other military, police or emergency worker. I accept the fact that justice had to be served, but I don't rejoice in its service. Just a thought, Dave
 

Frost

Active Member
I think the question we should be asking is simply this;
Is he really dead or is Obama lying?
As I recall he is not particularly known for telling the truth.
 

Midnight Raver

Active Member
Pretty sure they got him, it's just that Obama wants all of the credit. He wants more creds on his resume for the next election, that's all. :roll:
 

fordnut

Active Member
Just had an email from CNN headline news..They say that someone intercepted an email from the Al-Quide network. They are telling all their cels that Bin Lauden has been killed...

Steve
 

C_Carson

New Member
Dave29461 said:
That is why it is Honor. We prove that our way of life and belief system is superior by living and dying by the rules put in place by God. We can fudge on the man made ones and usually get away with it. Am I glad he is dead? Hell yeah!! I sorrow for the necessity of having to mourn the death and destruction he wrought. I don't want to have to pay for evil with my Son's life or any other military, police or emergency worker. I accept the fact that justice had to be served, but I don't rejoice in its service. Just a thought, Dave

I think I see what you're saying, Dave, and I've been thinking about it, but, respectfully, I just don't see it the same way I guess. I understand not rejoicing in needless death, and the death of just anyone, but when we have the opportunity to remove a threat and smite evil that has harmed us and plots further harm to innocents, I can't understand the mentality of not being glad. I also don't understand what you mean about paying for evil with the life of your son or our servicemen/women. You mean the risk to them by going after dangerous people like Bin Laden? There is a risk inherent in preserving our freedom and safety; but it wasn't and isn't a needless risk.
Thanks to our SEALS, if Bin Laden really is dead, I'll feel a bit safer bringing my son into the world in a few weeks, and I pray every day that God guides and protects all our brave men and women in service to their country. Their sacrifice is enormous and without them, we would not be the nation we are today.

Frost; I agree. I've wondered if Obama is just saying we got him to improve his poll ratings, and I for one, definitely want proof.
 

Dave29461

Active Member
C-Carson,
I understand and agree that this is something that must be done. I know the tree of freedom must be watered with blood from time to time. I can and will defend my country and family with any means at my disposal. However, it doesn't mean I have to be happy for the opportunity to do so. My son is in the service and we most lost him in the Persian Gulf when his sub (USS Hartford) was rammed by a American warship. The sonar monkeys were playing games and "lost track" of the USS New Orleans. I'd rather give my own life than have him killed, no matter how noble the cause.
I don't rejoice in any death, needful or needless. I do not think we must lose our collective or individual souls to win this war. Otherwise, I'd say nuke the bastards and let God sort them out. I know God can seem heartless, as well. Just ask the Philistines.
I'm a lot older than you so my frame of reference is different. I respect your opinions and conclusions. We just draw from different life experiences. I know you will raise your children in a much different world than the one I grew up in. Hopefully, they will grow up with the moral strength and resolve you seem to exhibit. Teach them mercy, understanding and tolerance, as well.
Dave
 

C_Carson

New Member
Tell your son I said thank you for his service!!! Both my father and my father-in-law were in the military, and now my younger brother is a Marine over in Japan, and I agree whole heartedly with you; I don't want them to die, no matter what. Every soldier is a son or daughter, and that they risk their lives for their country and for us every day is amazing and wonderful. I could get into a long, expressive rant about how our society glamorizes pop stars and sports athletes, when the people we REALLY ought to be honoring are our every day heroes, but I'm sure no one here needs me to explain that ;)

One thing I sincerely love about this forum is the maturity and respect we all seem to have that allows us to openly discuss different points of view without any negativity or attitude like other forums I've been on. It is truly and honestly wonderful and I love it!

I've been thinking about what you've been saying Dave, and I can only conclude that in my youth and passion, I am more in the mind set of "Nuke the bastards!" instead of being merciful. I was raised to believe in compassion and mercy; I guess I just haven't yet found a way to incorporate that into a situation like this, where it is probably strongly needed. I expect in the coming years with more experience I will round out my views a little bit more and be more balanced. I always look forward to learning and debating reasonable view points, and having the chance to expand my mindset, even if my current temperament is more "fire" than reason :D I really appreciate your views and your willingness to discuss them with me.

I do wish we could raise our son and our future children in a world more like the one you grew up in rather than the one we have now, and we want to instill in them in the same morals, ethics and beliefs that existed prior to our current society. We're setting ourselves up for a harder road than most our age nowadays, as we plan to be fully 100% responsible and involved in their health, education and general growth.
 

Frost

Active Member
On Wed, 5/4/11, an inside source wrote:


I can believe it. The below sounds really like it might have happened, but what really is convincing me that it did is that photo in the situation room watching and listening to the minute by minute take down and seeing POTUS sitting to one side. He looked like he just delivered a sack of big macs and decided to watch what was happening. Plus nobody told him to leave. Look at it and you'll see what I mean. That's nobody in charge of anything, believe me.


Note: This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?



A: I was told ? inn these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an 'absentee' president.

Read more in Issues


I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?



A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion ? he "continued tto avoid having one". Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act ? 'sort of'. Panetta wwas receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated ? this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated ? he wass that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.





What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “?significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go ? including the specific teamm support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority ? namely hee was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order ? it didd not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.







This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the data yourself to confirm. Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan. She was furious, repeating the acronym “CoC” and saying it was not being followed. This is where Bill Daley intervened directly. The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission. What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates’ office, a representative from Leon Panetta’s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper’s office. I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound. I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military ? both entiities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.





At the conclusion of the mission, after it had been repeatedly confirmed a success, President Obama was once again briefed behind closed doors. The only ones who went in that room besides the president were Bill Daley. John Brennan, and a third individual whose identity remains unknown to me. When leaving this briefing, the president came out of it “?much more confident. Much more certain of himself.” He was also carrying papers in his hand that quite possibly was the address to the nation given later that evening on the Bin Laden mission. The president did not have those papers with him prior to that briefing. The president then returned to the war room, where by this time, Leon Panetta had personally arrived and was receiving congratulations from all who were present.





In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military officials. I stand by that term. These figures worked around the uncertainty of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett. If they had not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority of the president’s office. The president cannot afford to admit such a fact. What will be most interesting from here is to now see what becomes of Valerie Jarrett. One source indicated she is threatening resignation. I find that unlikely given my strong belief she needs the protection afforded her by the Oval Office and its immense powers to delay and eventually terminate investigations back in Chicago, but we shall see.





Read more: http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house ... z1LLRp2GTh

http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-polit ... bin-laden/
 
Top