Osama bin Laden dead (Official)

[Saxwsylvania]

Guys, Limbaugh was being sarcastic.  Some of you are really quite dense.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Hacks for what? They merely have a different opinion than you.

saying we have lost because we celebrate the death of and victory over enemies of freedom is a completely backward idea that belittles the harm done by these tyrants.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

see  i agree with that. but i dont agree with people only getting mad because he killed americans.

Excuse me, what? Bin Laden was a man responsible for death of people of very diffrent orgins, my countrymen and other Europeans (see London, Madrid for example) as well. Oh, not to mention Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis etc. etc.

I think she's saying that Americans are only getting mad because he killed Americans.

Well, considering Osama's deadliest attack happened at U.S. soil and American people were the target, it's not suprising Americans hate him to this degree.

Yes, I agree. But everyone should be upset. And my point is if it was in japan americans should still be equally pissed off. Here in sf, the talk is that they f-cked with the wrong country.  And if he attacked japan  that they wouldnt care. This is what i am hearing in sf today. So I am simply saying that when you get mad you should take out nationalism and patriotism. That is all. Until then I wouldnt agree with how people are thinking.

I think most Americans would care.  Now, if he had attacked only Japan, I'd personally care, but I wouldn't advocate us going into Pakistan to get him.

Well see, that is my point. You would care but no enough to do anything about it. But let it happen to america and you would be the first one to want to go get 'justice'.

Without being attacked first of having the threat of attack, the U.S. wouldn't be internationally justified to do anything about it, at least not without international backing.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Guys, Limbaugh was being sarcastic.  Some of you are really quite dense.

Considering the intelligence (or lack thereof) of his listeners we can then safely say that he chose the wrong way to denigrate Obama.

[memphis]

Guys, Limbaugh was being sarcastic.  Some of you are really quite dense.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[J. J.]

Guys, Limbaugh was being sarcastic.  Some of you are really quite dense.

He might have meant it as sarcasm, but it is still right.

[You kip if you want to...]

Obama, Hillary, Biden and Gates in the Situation Room.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/

[Cincinnatus]

While military experts wanted to bomb the Pakistani mansion where bin Laden was hiding, Limbaugh said, Obama may have “single-handedly [come] up with the technique” of attacking the target at the ground level. He credited the president with much more military prowess than Obama critics usually attribute to the president.

“President Obama, perhaps the only qualified member in the room to deal with this, insisted on the Special Forces,” he said. “No one else thought of that…. Not a single intelligence adviser, not a single national security adviser, not a single military adviser came up with the idea of using SEAL Team 6 or any Special Forces.”

Wow. Words to follow I have never said before, or likely ever will again:

"Ditto Rush".

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54122.html#ixzz1LDut7tN7

The articles are all misquoting him.  He was using sarcasm if you actually listened to it.  He gave the President credit for continuing the Bush policy, and said that the President was taking all of the credit over the military, because he's "the only qualified member.."

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Part of me hates the celebrations. It's akin to the photos we see from anti-Westerners in the Middle East celebrating violence in the West.

Come on. We're better than this.

[King]

Guys, Limbaugh was being sarcastic.  Some of you are really quite dense.

He might have meant it as sarcasm, but it is still right.

He did.  I listened to him this morning.  He was complaining about how Obama used the words "me" and "I" in his speech.

[Insula Dei]

Hacks for what? They merely have a different opinion than you.

saying we have lost because we celebrate the death of and victory over enemies of freedom is a completely backward idea that belittles the harm done by these tyrants.

Jmcfst, please stop referring to Osama as a 'dictator'. The guy was a terrorist, that's something different. Some cynical part of me is thinking you're conciously calling him a dictator to imply that he was in any way a leading figure in the Muslim community. We both know intellectual dishonesty is far from being a no-go for you.

[Cincinnatus]

Guys, Limbaugh was being sarcastic.  Some of you are really quite dense.

He might have meant it as sarcasm, but it is still right.

He did.  I listened to him this morning.  He was complaining about how Obama used the words "me" and "I" in his speech.

He cited directly the article in The Hill, and one in The Huffington Post that was submitted less than half an hour after his comments.  He was practically laughing and said to one caller, "Are you a journalist, because journalists don't understand sarcasm."  before the articles were posted.  Strangely enough, I think he was right about that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

An interesting account of a guy who unknowingly Tweeted about the raid on Bin Laden's compound: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/05/02/osama.twitter.reports/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+Most+Recent%29

I feel sorry for the guy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And Twitter has now released stats from last night.  During the President's speech, the average was 3,400 tweets per second with a peak of over 5,100 around 11:00 P.M. EDT.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/05/02/bin.laden.twitter.record/?hpt=Sbin

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I've only read the first three pages, but if you go back there, it's really interesting watching it unfold if you already know the answer. "It's Gadhaffi!" "Definitely Libya." "Okay it's not Libya." "Osama, I think." "FOX said he's dead." "Don't rush to conclusions." "Osama's dead." It's so cool to watch how it comes together. I must say, though, that I was expecting more cheers from the posters.

Now, for my celebration:
Hah! He's fuckin' dead! I can't believe it!

Yes, I know, very un-Christian, but when I heard about it today at school, I wanted to scream or something, just from the surprise. When I heard some kids talk about them shooting "him" down, I asked "Wait, you mean Gadaffi?" "No! Osama" "What? He's fuckin' dead?"

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

see  i agree with that. but i dont agree with people only getting mad because he killed americans.

Excuse me, what? Bin Laden was a man responsible for death of people of very diffrent orgins, my countrymen and other Europeans (see London, Madrid for example) as well. Oh, not to mention Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis etc. etc.

I think she's saying that Americans are only getting mad because he killed Americans.

Well, considering Osama's deadliest attack happened at U.S. soil and American people were the target, it's not suprising Americans hate him to this degree.

Yes, I agree. But everyone should be upset. And my point is if it was in japan americans should still be equally pissed off. Here in sf, the talk is that they f-cked with the wrong country.  And if he attacked japan  that they wouldnt care. This is what i am hearing in sf today. So I am simply saying that when you get mad you should take out nationalism and patriotism. That is all. Until then I wouldnt agree with how people are thinking.

I think most Americans would care.  Now, if he had attacked only Japan, I'd personally care, but I wouldn't advocate us going into Pakistan to get him.

Well see, that is my point. You would care but no enough to do anything about it. But let it happen to america and you would be the first one to want to go get 'justice'.

Without being attacked first of having the threat of attack, the U.S. wouldn't be internationally justified to do anything about it, at least not without international backing.

What is stopping us from getting it? we could at least try to get it. it is like, if you saw someone get mugged would you let them get mugged because it was not your place to help?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

see  i agree with that. but i dont agree with people only getting mad because he killed americans.

Excuse me, what? Bin Laden was a man responsible for death of people of very diffrent orgins, my countrymen and other Europeans (see London, Madrid for example) as well. Oh, not to mention Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis etc. etc.

I think she's saying that Americans are only getting mad because he killed Americans.

Well, considering Osama's deadliest attack happened at U.S. soil and American people were the target, it's not suprising Americans hate him to this degree.

Yes, I agree. But everyone should be upset. And my point is if it was in japan americans should still be equally pissed off. Here in sf, the talk is that they f-cked with the wrong country.  And if he attacked japan  that they wouldnt care. This is what i am hearing in sf today. So I am simply saying that when you get mad you should take out nationalism and patriotism. That is all. Until then I wouldnt agree with how people are thinking.

I think most Americans would care.  Now, if he had attacked only Japan, I'd personally care, but I wouldn't advocate us going into Pakistan to get him.

Well see, that is my point. You would care but no enough to do anything about it. But let it happen to america and you would be the first one to want to go get 'justice'.

Without being attacked first of having the threat of attack, the U.S. wouldn't be internationally justified to do anything about it, at least not without international backing.

What is stopping us from getting it? we could at least try to get it. it is like, if you saw someone get mugged would you let them get mugged because it was not your place to help?

I'm not saying that's how it should be.  I'm saying that's how it is.  We got rid of a bad man in Iraq and the world DID NOT like that.  If the U.S. wants to be Superman for the world, that's an option.  But not everybody around the world likes us going into the Lybias, Iraqs, and the Serbias of the world.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

see  i agree with that. but i dont agree with people only getting mad because he killed americans.

Excuse me, what? Bin Laden was a man responsible for death of people of very diffrent orgins, my countrymen and other Europeans (see London, Madrid for example) as well. Oh, not to mention Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis etc. etc.

I think she's saying that Americans are only getting mad because he killed Americans.

Well, considering Osama's deadliest attack happened at U.S. soil and American people were the target, it's not suprising Americans hate him to this degree.

Yes, I agree. But everyone should be upset. And my point is if it was in japan americans should still be equally pissed off. Here in sf, the talk is that they f-cked with the wrong country.  And if he attacked japan  that they wouldnt care. This is what i am hearing in sf today. So I am simply saying that when you get mad you should take out nationalism and patriotism. That is all. Until then I wouldnt agree with how people are thinking.

I think most Americans would care.  Now, if he had attacked only Japan, I'd personally care, but I wouldn't advocate us going into Pakistan to get him.

Well see, that is my point. You would care but no enough to do anything about it. But let it happen to america and you would be the first one to want to go get 'justice'.

Without being attacked first of having the threat of attack, the U.S. wouldn't be internationally justified to do anything about it, at least not without international backing.

What is stopping us from getting it? we could at least try to get it. it is like, if you saw someone get mugged would you let them get mugged because it was not your place to help?

I'm not saying that's how it should be.  I'm saying that's how it is.  We got rid of a bad man in Iraq and the world DID NOT like that.  If the U.S. wants to be Superman for the world, that's an option.  But not everybody around the world likes us going into the Lybias, Iraqs, and the Serbias of the world.

well of course not. But you also have to see who is getting mad and who is benefitting from the situation as well. If a country asked us to help them, then we should. However we are digressing from the topic.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, if the country is ruled by a dictator, the country itself isn't going to ask for help.  That's where the gray zone is... when do we have a duty to help?  And what do we do to help?  Not everybody wants American Democracy, and we shouldn't force that on people who don't want it.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

Well, if the country is ruled by a dictator, the country itself isn't going to ask for help.  That's where the gray zone is... when do we have a duty to help?  And what do we do to help?  Not everybody wants American Democracy, and we shouldn't force that on people who don't want it.

if they dont want it then they wont have a problem with how they are being ruled.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, if the country is ruled by a dictator, the country itself isn't going to ask for help.  That's where the gray zone is... when do we have a duty to help?  And what do we do to help?  Not everybody wants American Democracy, and we shouldn't force that on people who don't want it.

if they dont want it then they wont have a problem with how they are being ruled.

Don't want what?  American Democracy?  There's plenty of other styles of government besides how we do it here.

Dictatorships even work for some countries, but the problem with that is that you won't ALWAYS have a "good" dictator.

[Eraserhead]

lol wut

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/the-rock-osama-bin-laden-death_n_856381.html

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

Well, if the country is ruled by a dictator, the country itself isn't going to ask for help.  That's where the gray zone is... when do we have a duty to help?  And what do we do to help?  Not everybody wants American Democracy, and we shouldn't force that on people who don't want it.

if they dont want it then they wont have a problem with how they are being ruled.

Don't want what?  American Democracy?  There's plenty of other styles of government besides how we do it here.

Dictatorships even work for some countries, but the problem with that is that you won't ALWAYS have a "good" dictator.

What i am more are less unsecessfully getting at is that despite how they are being ruled they can always ask us to help for a different kind of gov besides ours. Ours isnt even that great. If they wanted a communist government and asked our help for it then we should help them. And who they elect is up to them. We shouldn't kick out their choice and put in our to suit us like we have done so many times.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Hacks for what? They merely have a different opinion than you.

saying we have lost because we celebrate the death of and victory over enemies of freedom is a completely backward idea that belittles the harm done by these tyrants.

Jmcfst, please stop referring to Osama as a 'dictator'. The guy was a terrorist, that's something different. Some cynical part of me is thinking you're conciously calling him a dictator to imply that he was in any way a leading figure in the Muslim community. We both know intellectual dishonesty is far from being a no-go for you.

you might be quoting the wrong post, if not the wrong person

[Tender Branson]

Major media fail, especially in Germany ...

Steffen Seibert, press speaker of German Chancellor Merkel:



"Obama, responsible for the death of thousands of innocents, has derided fundamental values of Islam and all Religions."

www.spiegel.de:



"US Military buries Obama at sea."