I want to let you know that I've reported your post. I sincerely hope they chastise you in some way, be it suspension or banning or revoking your posting privileges in the D&D. ATW has an obsession with Muslims, but I can see no where that he has advocated violence against them let alone called for genocide. Falling short of those two things, putting him on par with Nazis is ridiculous and offensive.
Really? This describes you and you're goofy posting characteristics right here. here's some ammo for your next post: "He's such a Nazi and spews hate derp derp DER DERP now I'm going to go completely overboard with an insane amount of hatred that makes me look absolutely worse in the end. My high horse is r****ded YALL!"
Greenwald via twitter on the "revisions"... "2nd day truth never erases 1st day unchallenged government propaganda." 1) Torture was necessary to get information. Nope. 2) Bin Laden died a coward hiding behind his wife. Nope. 3) Bin Laden had a gun. Nope. I find it annoying that these embellishments were made. None of them were necessary or even really improved upon the mission's intensity or value.
I don't think 2 or 1 were ever indicated from official sources. Especially 2 - it's the case of commentators confusing the one civilian female casualty and the human shield account and bin Laden's death. 3 was implied when they said he was resisting.
Don't really care either way. Those are just facts. OBL does not hold any of those positions and in Islam, God doesn't allow people to declare others Muslims or non-Muslims. That means you can have a Muslim who is sinning constantly, and a non-Muslim who never sins except for denying Islam. The true test according to those beliefs is when God decides who is and isn't Muslim. Just thought it was important side info for some of the discussions you guys are having.
not everything that Mathloom said may be 100% accurate and correct but what he said isn't crazy like the Obama haters and OBL deathers/buryers in here..
Rambling tacit defense? I hate the guy with all my guts. I'm just saying we need to know what happened to avoid a repeat scenario.
Yeah, in the mad rush once word got out what the presidential address was going to be regarding, seems like every news agency hit up some low level source in the Pentagon and got all sorts of crazy stories.
That's a fair complaint (reference the politico article as confirmation) but you'd think folks at such a level would hold their mouths shut when all they're operating on is hearsay and innuendo. Why give media folks this ammunition?
It also though ramps up anti-American feeling in Pakistan ahead of any action which has a shaky leadership to begin with. Things like this happen all the time in international diplomacy. Consider that the US doesn't officially recognize Taiwan and Presidents have supported a one China policy but that doesn't stop the US from selling arms to Taiwan. Also consider that we have undertaken drone and other strikes in Yemen yet we didn't make an issue of that in the election. Pakistan knows that the US will go after high level Al Qaeda and Taliban figures in Pakistan. They didn't need Obama to tell them that when drone strikes were already happening. This was a matter of international diplomacy. The point for not publicly saying this is to give the Pakistani leadership some plausible deniability. This is about letting an ally to save some face. What bothers me though about comments like your post below: Is that it gives the impression that McCain wouldn't have gone after OBL. Do you think McCain or Hillary Clinton wouldn't have done exactly that if given the same intel? I voted for Obama and think overall he has done a good job but this just seems like McCain bashing. I don't think he would've acted differently except maybe using an air strike instead of a special forces mission. He was making an argument about diplomacy which in my opinion was the right thing to say where as Obama was making himself look tough on the campaign trail.
I've never heard that myself. Is there somewhere you're getting that from? Would be very interested. I'd be surprised honestly. Tons of Muslims are bitter about the crusades, but if OBL perceived China to be the controller of KSA, I personally believe he would go after China and probably not even care about the US unless they were useful in his quest. Let's not forget the amount of terrorist activity that he undertook IN Saudi. I guess perhaps the whole history of the crusades exacerbated his hatred, but IMO was never a core matter. Maybe, as you said, he just used that as a marketing tool.
Just so we're clear... There were several threads during the Bush years about torture and KSM. Several articles came out then that suggested the torture did not accomplish much, but later, skilled interrogators were able to get valuable info out of him. An AP story on the hunt for OBL...
I'm going to have to go back and reread the reports but truth 3 doesn't make sense. If OBL didn't have a gun how did he participate in the firefight? All reports I am seeing say that he was killed because he was fighting back in the firefight and was shot in the process.
I really don't want to tangent this thread more, but this is ridiculous. So, I could "declare" myself a Muslim, but follow every tenant of Judaism, and clerics would be willing to protest if my funeral was not in accordance with Islamic custom simply because they cannot judge if I was or was not Muslim? Could I selectively disagree with vast portions of the Koran and still be welcomed into a Mosque as long as I maintained a deceleration of being a Muslim? (Are these customs or actual commands in the Koran?) Furthermore, where the heck does any of the jihad or other infidel-type language come from, if no one but god knows who is or is not a muslim? If what you say is true, there would appear to be a large segment of folks unaware of it or in denial regarding it's nonsensical operation. None of this is meant to be insulting, I'm just totally flummoxed.
They absolutely would have - which is what makes the campaign criticism so ridiculous. In the campaign, Mccain said he wouldn't have: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/02/20/4438617-mccain-paints-obama-as-too-hawkish And McCain saw no distinction, while speaking with reporters, today. "That's still bombing Pakistan," he said when pressed on the topic. McCain stated very clearly on multiple times in the campaign and debates that his problem with Obama was doing anything in Pakistan without their permission, period. He also mentioned the "don't say it aloud" part several times, but that wasn't the core of his problem. He repeatedly said you had to work with the Pakistan government for anything you did there.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6103973&postcount=227 Just beautiful. Just beautiful. There is no need to chastise Mathloom for his posts in this thread. He is getting inside the mind of a terrorist and as a muslim no one knows better. It might seem "weird" to a sheltered American who has never left Houston his entire life, but globally it is well accepted that there is a logic, however twisted it is, that fundamentalists follow and use to fuel their hate. And understanding is the best form of prevention. So kudos Mathloom.
