This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Jeremy Corbyn
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 dannyh  wherever I lay my hat....... 01 Sep 15 2.11pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Accept all of that, but I bet Ghost smeaogle will have an answer all of which is 100 percent legit and factual to counter argue common sense. How he has the front to accuse any one of living in a dream land is beyond belief.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| ghosteagle 01 Sep 15 2.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 2.11pm
Accept all of that, but I bet Ghost smeaogle will have an answer all of which is 100 percent legit and factual to counter argue common sense. How he has the front to accuse any one of living in a dream land is beyond belief. My accusations are based on your insistence that Osama was armed when confronted when there is no evidence for this. Thus, there being no evidence from either media reports or the people involved the only place that you could have plucked this silly and frankly childish version of events is from your own head.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 01 Sep 15 3.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 1.59pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 12.33pm
What are these facts ? please show me, how do you know 100 percent that there was opportunity in the middle of a firefight in close quaters to detain and arrest the worlds Number one terror target, without further injury to your team. The simple answer is you don't know you have made an assumption based on what little scraps of material (valid) are avalible, as have Matt and I. The US Dept. of Defense and Seal Team operations. They specifically stated they were planning to capture Osama Bin Laden if at all possible, but the failure of one of the heavily modified helicopters (which crashed) meant that was no longer a viable option, so it became a kill mission. Which seems more than fair. But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals. People like Bin Laden made a specific choice, and knew the consequences of their actions could only ever result in victory, or death. Doesn't make a difference if he was armed or not, or surrendered - The alternative would have been to either leave him alive or take him and leave valuable information. And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior. In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that. Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm) I have to disagree with regards to the objective of the mission. While the failure of the helicopter is well documented, indeed pakistan was particularly interested in the wreckage due to its stealth technology, this was replaced by a chinook for the evacuation so in reality it had no effect upon the intended objective of the mission. In terms of the fight against terror, it would seem that more information could have been obtained from an incarcerated Osama, which does beg the question of why they felt it necessary to execute him.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 01 Sep 15 3.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 2.54pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 2.11pm
Accept all of that, but I bet Ghost smeaogle will have an answer all of which is 100 percent legit and factual to counter argue common sense. How he has the front to accuse any one of living in a dream land is beyond belief. My accusations are based on your insistence that Osama was armed when confronted when there is no evidence for this. Thus, there being no evidence from either media reports or the people involved the only place that you could have plucked this silly and frankly childish version of events is from your own head.
My point is that you were basing your whole argument as fact, when it was impossible for you to do so as you weren’t there. Nor did you back it up with any witness testimony. The only source that says he wasn’t armed was the Whitehouse press rep. Who by your own assumptions about politicians lying, (when I qouted Obama saying he wanted him alive) can not be trusted to tell the truth. So my point which seems to have evaded one who professes to have intelligence is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Will we ever now the exact truth, who knows? One thing I do know is that you don’t know it any more than Matt, me or anyone else who can type and owns a computer. Once again you revert to type and start stating anyone whose opinions differ to yours are childish and Silly. In reply I would say your posts are arrogant, condescending, dismissive bordering on narcissistic, and deliberately belittling as if you are always talking down to people who don’t follow your "facts". And seem to delight in others getting carded as you wound them up. What a lovely bloke you are.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 01 Sep 15 3.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.06pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 1.59pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 12.33pm
What are these facts ? please show me, how do you know 100 percent that there was opportunity in the middle of a firefight in close quaters to detain and arrest the worlds Number one terror target, without further injury to your team. The simple answer is you don't know you have made an assumption based on what little scraps of material (valid) are avalible, as have Matt and I. The US Dept. of Defense and Seal Team operations. They specifically stated they were planning to capture Osama Bin Laden if at all possible, but the failure of one of the heavily modified helicopters (which crashed) meant that was no longer a viable option, so it became a kill mission. Which seems more than fair. But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals. People like Bin Laden made a specific choice, and knew the consequences of their actions could only ever result in victory, or death. Doesn't make a difference if he was armed or not, or surrendered - The alternative would have been to either leave him alive or take him and leave valuable information. And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior. In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that. Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm) I have to disagree with regards to the objective of the mission. While the failure of the helicopter is well documented, indeed pakistan was particularly interested in the wreckage due to its stealth technology, this was replaced by a chinook for the evacuation so in reality it had no effect upon the intended objective of the mission. In terms of the fight against terror, it would seem that more information could have been obtained from an incarcerated Osama, which does beg the question of why they felt it necessary to execute him.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 01 Sep 15 3.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.12pm
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 2.54pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 2.11pm
Accept all of that, but I bet Ghost smeaogle will have an answer all of which is 100 percent legit and factual to counter argue common sense. How he has the front to accuse any one of living in a dream land is beyond belief. My accusations are based on your insistence that Osama was armed when confronted when there is no evidence for this. Thus, there being no evidence from either media reports or the people involved the only place that you could have plucked this silly and frankly childish version of events is from your own head.
My point is that you were basing your whole argument as fact, when it was impossible for you to do so as you weren’t there. Nor did you back it up with any witness testimony. The only source that says he wasn’t armed was the Whitehouse press rep. Who by your own assumptions about politicians lying, (when I qouted Obama saying he wanted him alive) can not be trusted to tell the truth. So my point which seems to have evaded one who professes to have intelligence is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Will we ever now the exact truth, who knows? One thing I do know is that you don’t know it any more than Matt, me or anyone else who can type and owns a computer. Once again you revert to type and start stating anyone whose opinions differ to yours are childish and Silly. In reply I would say your posts are arrogant, condescending, dismissive bordering on narcissistic, and deliberately belittling as if you are always talking down to people who don’t follow your "facts". And seem to delight in others getting carded as you wound them up. What a lovely bloke you are. You are right, i am a lovely bloke. Apart from that this is a regurgitation of your previous posts. I don't know where you have been researching but i would urge you to try again. The only report that Osama was armed came out just after the incident and was quickly corrected, so you are wrong there. Your point, for what it is, is that no-one can ever be 100% sure of anything. True enough but in practice we base our opinions on the evidence available to us. All of which indicates that Osama was unarmed. I apologise for calling you silly, this was not warranted. I reiterate that you are childish as you refuse to admit your mistake concerning Osama being armed.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Sep 15 3.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.06pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 1.59pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 12.33pm
What are these facts ? please show me, how do you know 100 percent that there was opportunity in the middle of a firefight in close quaters to detain and arrest the worlds Number one terror target, without further injury to your team. The simple answer is you don't know you have made an assumption based on what little scraps of material (valid) are avalible, as have Matt and I. The US Dept. of Defense and Seal Team operations. They specifically stated they were planning to capture Osama Bin Laden if at all possible, but the failure of one of the heavily modified helicopters (which crashed) meant that was no longer a viable option, so it became a kill mission. Which seems more than fair. But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals. People like Bin Laden made a specific choice, and knew the consequences of their actions could only ever result in victory, or death. Doesn't make a difference if he was armed or not, or surrendered - The alternative would have been to either leave him alive or take him and leave valuable information. And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior. In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that. Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm) I have to disagree with regards to the objective of the mission. While the failure of the helicopter is well documented, indeed pakistan was particularly interested in the wreckage due to its stealth technology, this was replaced by a chinook for the evacuation so in reality it had no effect upon the intended objective of the mission. In terms of the fight against terror, it would seem that more information could have been obtained from an incarcerated Osama, which does beg the question of why they felt it necessary to execute him. The Black Hawks were used to ferry troops to and from the site, but the Chinooks weren't actually deployed 'on site', but at a staging location, which the black hawks would then operate from (The Black Hawks would have likely come from a different airbase, landed at the staging post first, taken on troops and fuel and headed out). I think its debatable how much actual information of ongoing value that Osama Bin Laden actually held, compared to say a hard drive on a computer, or documentation of financial transfers etc. Also incarcerated, they become a popular 'cause for liberation' resulting in terrorist attacks justified in the name of liberation. Dead, generally they're written off, as martyr to one side, and an enemy to the other. Personally I have much less of an issue with Al-Queda if it had just targeted the pentagon and white house, rather than flown planes full of civilians into the twin towers (full of civilians) and brought them down on the city of new York (more civilians) - or targeted the twin towers when they weren't packed full of people. The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, for me, is generally who they choose as targets.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 01 Sep 15 3.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.15pm
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.06pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 1.59pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 12.33pm
What are these facts ? please show me, how do you know 100 percent that there was opportunity in the middle of a firefight in close quaters to detain and arrest the worlds Number one terror target, without further injury to your team. The simple answer is you don't know you have made an assumption based on what little scraps of material (valid) are avalible, as have Matt and I. The US Dept. of Defense and Seal Team operations. They specifically stated they were planning to capture Osama Bin Laden if at all possible, but the failure of one of the heavily modified helicopters (which crashed) meant that was no longer a viable option, so it became a kill mission. Which seems more than fair. But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals. People like Bin Laden made a specific choice, and knew the consequences of their actions could only ever result in victory, or death. Doesn't make a difference if he was armed or not, or surrendered - The alternative would have been to either leave him alive or take him and leave valuable information. And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior. In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that. Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm) I have to disagree with regards to the objective of the mission. While the failure of the helicopter is well documented, indeed pakistan was particularly interested in the wreckage due to its stealth technology, this was replaced by a chinook for the evacuation so in reality it had no effect upon the intended objective of the mission. In terms of the fight against terror, it would seem that more information could have been obtained from an incarcerated Osama, which does beg the question of why they felt it necessary to execute him.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Sep 15 3.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.15pm
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.06pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 1.59pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 12.33pm
What are these facts ? please show me, how do you know 100 percent that there was opportunity in the middle of a firefight in close quaters to detain and arrest the worlds Number one terror target, without further injury to your team. The simple answer is you don't know you have made an assumption based on what little scraps of material (valid) are avalible, as have Matt and I. The US Dept. of Defense and Seal Team operations. They specifically stated they were planning to capture Osama Bin Laden if at all possible, but the failure of one of the heavily modified helicopters (which crashed) meant that was no longer a viable option, so it became a kill mission. Which seems more than fair. But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals. People like Bin Laden made a specific choice, and knew the consequences of their actions could only ever result in victory, or death. Doesn't make a difference if he was armed or not, or surrendered - The alternative would have been to either leave him alive or take him and leave valuable information. And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior. In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that. Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm) I have to disagree with regards to the objective of the mission. While the failure of the helicopter is well documented, indeed pakistan was particularly interested in the wreckage due to its stealth technology, this was replaced by a chinook for the evacuation so in reality it had no effect upon the intended objective of the mission. In terms of the fight against terror, it would seem that more information could have been obtained from an incarcerated Osama, which does beg the question of why they felt it necessary to execute him.
Strictly speaking, Osama Bin Laden isn't a military target anyhow, but a political or logistical one. His actual capacity to operate or command military actions was minimal, his role largely was to finance them and resource them. Much more a poster boy of the 'cause'. Assassination is most effective when used against specific high ranking targets. Much more so, than against targets of convenience / access.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Sep 15 3.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.34pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.15pm
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.06pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 1.59pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 12.33pm
What are these facts ? please show me, how do you know 100 percent that there was opportunity in the middle of a firefight in close quaters to detain and arrest the worlds Number one terror target, without further injury to your team. The simple answer is you don't know you have made an assumption based on what little scraps of material (valid) are avalible, as have Matt and I. The US Dept. of Defense and Seal Team operations. They specifically stated they were planning to capture Osama Bin Laden if at all possible, but the failure of one of the heavily modified helicopters (which crashed) meant that was no longer a viable option, so it became a kill mission. Which seems more than fair. But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals. People like Bin Laden made a specific choice, and knew the consequences of their actions could only ever result in victory, or death. Doesn't make a difference if he was armed or not, or surrendered - The alternative would have been to either leave him alive or take him and leave valuable information. And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior. In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that. Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm) I have to disagree with regards to the objective of the mission. While the failure of the helicopter is well documented, indeed pakistan was particularly interested in the wreckage due to its stealth technology, this was replaced by a chinook for the evacuation so in reality it had no effect upon the intended objective of the mission. In terms of the fight against terror, it would seem that more information could have been obtained from an incarcerated Osama, which does beg the question of why they felt it necessary to execute him.
Al-Queda's military capacity is 'non-existant', at its core, its served as a means of putting different groups in contact with each other, providing finance, support and infrastructure. Even during the time of the war against the Soviet, Al-Queda was more involved in providing support, finance, training and equipment to the Mujahaden and foreign jyhadists, than launching operations. A misnomer of the 9/11 attacks is that they were masterminded and planned by Al-Queda, when in reality they were planned by an affiliate group, financed by Al-Queda, who also gave them contacts necessary to recruit Jyhadists and so on. Usually where people were referred to as Al-Queda fighters, they were those who trained in camps sponsored or supported by the group. It was much more of a brand thing, than an organization.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 01 Sep 15 3.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.29pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.12pm
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 2.54pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 2.11pm
Accept all of that, but I bet Ghost smeaogle will have an answer all of which is 100 percent legit and factual to counter argue common sense. How he has the front to accuse any one of living in a dream land is beyond belief. My accusations are based on your insistence that Osama was armed when confronted when there is no evidence for this. Thus, there being no evidence from either media reports or the people involved the only place that you could have plucked this silly and frankly childish version of events is from your own head.
My point is that you were basing your whole argument as fact, when it was impossible for you to do so as you weren’t there. Nor did you back it up with any witness testimony. The only source that says he wasn’t armed was the Whitehouse press rep. Who by your own assumptions about politicians lying, (when I qouted Obama saying he wanted him alive) can not be trusted to tell the truth. So my point which seems to have evaded one who professes to have intelligence is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Will we ever now the exact truth, who knows? One thing I do know is that you don’t know it any more than Matt, me or anyone else who can type and owns a computer. Once again you revert to type and start stating anyone whose opinions differ to yours are childish and Silly. In reply I would say your posts are arrogant, condescending, dismissive bordering on narcissistic, and deliberately belittling as if you are always talking down to people who don’t follow your "facts". And seem to delight in others getting carded as you wound them up. What a lovely bloke you are. You are right, i am a lovely bloke. Apart from that this is a regurgitation of your previous posts. I don't know where you have been researching but i would urge you to try again. The only report that Osama was armed came out just after the incident and was quickly corrected, so you are wrong there. You arrogant so and so, did you read my post, or are so far up your own arse hole you vision is a bit wonky, I've highlighted the bits you need to read before making yourself to be a total ass. Your point, for what it is, is that no-one can ever be 100% sure of anything. True enough but in practice we base our opinions on the evidence available to us. All of which indicates that Osama was unarmed. Are like arseholes everyone has one but most of them stink including yours. I apologise for calling you silly, this was not warranted. I reiterate that you are childish as you refuse to admit your mistake concerning Osama being armed.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 01 Sep 15 3.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 3.40pm
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.34pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.15pm
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.06pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 1.59pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 12.33pm
What are these facts ? please show me, how do you know 100 percent that there was opportunity in the middle of a firefight in close quaters to detain and arrest the worlds Number one terror target, without further injury to your team. The simple answer is you don't know you have made an assumption based on what little scraps of material (valid) are avalible, as have Matt and I. The US Dept. of Defense and Seal Team operations. They specifically stated they were planning to capture Osama Bin Laden if at all possible, but the failure of one of the heavily modified helicopters (which crashed) meant that was no longer a viable option, so it became a kill mission. Which seems more than fair. But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals. People like Bin Laden made a specific choice, and knew the consequences of their actions could only ever result in victory, or death. Doesn't make a difference if he was armed or not, or surrendered - The alternative would have been to either leave him alive or take him and leave valuable information. And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior. In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that. Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm) I have to disagree with regards to the objective of the mission. While the failure of the helicopter is well documented, indeed pakistan was particularly interested in the wreckage due to its stealth technology, this was replaced by a chinook for the evacuation so in reality it had no effect upon the intended objective of the mission. In terms of the fight against terror, it would seem that more information could have been obtained from an incarcerated Osama, which does beg the question of why they felt it necessary to execute him.
Al-Queda's military capacity is 'non-existant', at its core, its served as a means of putting different groups in contact with each other, providing finance, support and infrastructure. Even during the time of the war against the Soviet, Al-Queda was more involved in providing support, finance, training and equipment to the Mujahaden and foreign jyhadists, than launching operations. A misnomer of the 9/11 attacks is that they were masterminded and planned by Al-Queda, when in reality they were planned by an affiliate group, financed by Al-Queda, who also gave them contacts necessary to recruit Jyhadists and so on. Usually where people were referred to as Al-Queda fighters, they were those who trained in camps sponsored or supported by the group. It was much more of a brand thing, than an organization. Agreed, but you take out the head of the brand and the business of that brand suffers. Just look at the kerfuffle over appointing a labour leader ? party tearing itself apart, with an utter looney winning the poles for next leader, and the effect it had on thousands of families who lost loved ones was unmeasureable.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.