Osama Bin Laden is Dead

nirakar said:
Where is the wounded wife?

If she was a verifiably real person and if she would tell the media what happened then the conspiracy theory aspect of this event would be over.
Click to expand...

Where is everyone?
The last count of the compound's residents was 23, unless it has increased.

Possibly this whole thing is legit, but the US Government has spent so much time lying, fabricating and spinning events that they have forgotten the power of just telling the truth.
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
They didn't want his grave to become a shrine which makes complete sense.
Click to expand...

hummm say if he did get buried i wonder how many people would have gone to this "shrine"

Perhaps a plan would have been to set up some CCTV or whatever near the grave so you can monitor who comes to pay the dead bin lid a visit!!

the influence and power of the bunlid and Alqueda was all but destroyed at the start of the year in tunisia but anyway...
 
nirakar said:
I probably should learn to use the computer for TV. I moved and no longer get Democracy now on radio. Comcast had Democracy now. I don't think Uverse does even if I go up to 400 channels. I think I can get Al Jazeera if I buy their international package.

I thought I would use the Internet and not use the TV but when I am overworked and tired TV seems easier.
Click to expand...

What? News only comes from the computer? BBC worldwide service is from the radio:rolleyes:

There was news you know before there was the internet. My point is if you are not looking for deeper insight and a reasoned digestion of information, or even if you don't know how to sift through and decipher information then you will still be at a loss.

Or is it that you are so smart and everyone else just too stupid?
 
Zakariya04 said:
hummm say if he did get buried i wonder how many people would have gone to this "shrine"

Perhaps a plan would have been to set up some CCTV or whatever near the grave so you can monitor who comes to pay the dead bin lid a visit!!

the influence and power of the bunlid and Alqueda was all but destroyed at the start of the year in tunisia but anyway...
Click to expand...

You don't have to visit even, its the spiritual inspiration they wanted to kill. Discarding of the body like a bunch of bad bones into the deep deep sea is a great way of doing that...and still seem respectful;)

It was the US way of saying FUCK YOU!
 
Giambattista said:
Ms. Lucy Liu, semi-famous actress:

Those channels you mention aren't exactly standard packages for every television viewer.
.
Click to expand...

And what informs you Giambattista? Where do you get your information? What is it you believe outside of your own experience that you did not get from elsewhere? In order for you to be sure, you have to be 'in the know', so how are you 'in the know'? And if you are in the know isn't it because you actively sort out information? I am not interested in the apathetic, the apathetic cannot be moved into interest and so I leave them alone. And I'm not saying you are apathetic, I'm saying those who claim they have absolutely no access to information outside of N. Korea are 'apathetic'. Lazy. I don't dismiss information, I try and sift through it all just as you and Sam and Niraka and other's are doing. Sam and I as well as others can be at odd at times but she's no dummy. If she presents information I take a look at it, if its wild I just think she's having a laugh but still I have to take a look at it.
 
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
What? News only comes from the computer? BBC worldwide service is from the radio:rolleyes:

There was news you know before there was the internet. My point is if you are not looking for deeper insight and a reasoned digestion of information, or even if you don't know how to sift through and decipher information then you will still be at a loss.

Or is it that you are so smart and everyone else just too stupid?
Click to expand...

BBC on Public Radio is in the fluff category for me. The BBC radio was as guilty of cheerleading for war and spreading disinformation as the rest of the media was. The less fluffy side of the BBC is to often misinformed or dishonest and the BBC radio in the USA mixes that with fluffy stories. I have no use for the BBC radio in the USA.

Even CSPAN false mostly into the the useless category for me because while not fluffy the speeches that congress folks give to their viewers while pretending to be talking to each other have almost no informational value. Some of the hearings on CSPAN have informational value and Book TV also can be informational but over all CSPAN is not intellectual material.


60 minutes will provide a little depth once and a while. Current TV's Vanguard show occasionally sheds light on something. I am disappointed that there is not more like Democracy Now or better yet more analytical and more in depth than Democracy now. I would like the political right to have something of the same quality of Democracy now. I would like more science on radio or tv at about the intellectual level that Democracy Now does politics and policy. Science could easily get to advanced and lose me but I don't have to worry about that on TV or radio.

Boomberg and CNBC are both far more devoid of real in depth information than I would have expected from financial networks. Bob Brinker on radio is better but I want something still yet better. I would like an economics show at about the level of Democracy now or better yet a few steps deeper than Democracy Now.

The history channel is retarded and biased.

The Dog Whisperer is brilliant but I wanted something else.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
The plot thickens (I apologize if this has already been posted):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8493391/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Blackout-during-raid-on-bin-Laden-compound.html

"Mr Panetta also told the network that the US Navy Seals made the final decision to kill bin Laden rather than the president."
Click to expand...

"He said: "The authority here was to kill bin Laden. And obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him."

Ain't that the truth!
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
You don't have to visit even, its the spiritual inspiration they wanted to kill. Discarding of the body like a bunch of bad bones into the deep deep sea is a great way of doing that...and still seem respectful;)

It was the US way of saying FUCK YOU!
Click to expand...

hello lucy

either i missed your point or you missed mine
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
"He said: "The authority here was to kill bin Laden. And obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him."

Ain't that the truth!
Click to expand...

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with just capping Bin Laden even if he was unarmed. But certain people would be having a hissy fit if our military conducted a unilateral "black ops" mission in a sovereign nation and killed an unarmed, cooperating target. Or, they would if Bush was president, anyway.
 
nirakar said:
BBC on Public Radio is in the fluff category for me. The BBC radio was as guilty of cheerleading for war and spreading disinformation as the rest of the media was. The less fluffy side of the BBC to often misinformed or dishonest and the BBC radio n the USA mixes that with fluffy stories. I have no use for the BBC radio in the USA.

Even CSPAN false mostly into the the useless category for me because while not fluffy the speeches that congress folks give to their viewers while pretending to be talking to each other have almost no informational value. Some of the hearings on CSPAN have informational value and Book TV also can be informational but over all CSPAN is not intellectual material.


60 minutes will provide a little depth once and a while. Current TV's Vanguard show occasionally sheds light on something. I am disappointed that there is not more like Democracy Now or better yet more analytical and more in depth than Democracy now. I would like the political right to have something of the same quality of Democracy now. I would like more science on radio or tv at about the intellectual level that Democracy Now does politics and policy. Science could easily get to advanced and lose me but I don't have to worry about that on TV or radio.

Boomberg and CNBC are both far more devoid of real in depth information than I would have expected from financial networks. Bob Brinker on radio is better but I want something still yet better. I would like an economics show at about the level of Democracy now or better yet a few steps deeper than Democracy Now.

The Dog Whisperer is brilliant but I wanted something else.
Click to expand...

Really? So where does your information come from? What informs you? What makes you so sure that your 'sources' are the actual arbiters of 'truth'?
 
CptBork said:
So Americans shouldn't be thrilled? Seemed plenty of their alleged victims were quite happily cheering when Bin Laden was still alive and on the run. Please elaborate on the barbarism of these celebrations. Was it barbaric to celebrate the end of WW2 as well, perhaps?
Click to expand...
How is celebrating murder not barbaric? :m:
 
nirakar said:
I am disappointed that there is not more like Democracy Now or better yet more analytical and more in depth than Democracy now. I would like the political right to have something of the same quality of Democracy now
Click to expand...

I read only off and on at American Thinker, but the quality of analysis - though from the right - seems superior to what I have read in other American right wing news sources

http://www.americanthinker.com/

I would like an economics show at about the level of Democracy Now
Click to expand...

For the conservative POV: http://www.economist.com/

For a more expansive world view and analysis: http://www.ft.com/home/uk

For sensible financial information : http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ :)
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
Really? So where does your information come from? What informs you? What makes you so sure that your 'sources' are the actual arbiters of 'truth'?
Click to expand...

My sources are often the same sources that I complain about. I do turn to the internet to find more depth. I have had less time for the internet recently which makes me wish TV and Radio had more depth than they do as I sometimes have them on in the background when I don't have time for surfing the web.

I believe I am correct for the same sort of reasons others believe they are correct which leads into psychology except that I probably am more arrogant than most and don't worry much about being out of the mainstream because I don't see the mainstream as knowing what they are talking about which makes me an arrogant possibly delusional elitist. I see even people who are probably smarter than me parroting other people as if parroting had equal value to logic and understanding concepts. I think Parroting authority figures is very valuable for getting ahead in school and in careers but is not particularly useful in trying to find the truth.

We all chose what and who to believe and that process even for smart scientific adults is largely unconscious and is influenced by instinctual/emotional reflexes we had as children in response to our social environment. I think I know better but I can't prove that except perhaps by making more accurate predictions.

Even after making predictions whether or not the prediction came true is subjective as we all have our own interpretations of what the truth is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top