Hello all,
Assume makes an ass out of u and me.
“It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.” Donald Rumsfeld, noted war criminal as well as Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/...erboarding-osamabinladen/2011/05/02/id/394820
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/do...bin-laden-was-not-obtained-via-waterboarding/
http://www.alan.com/2011/05/02/rums...-leading-to-courier-timeline-doesnt-match-up/
“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”
When did Rumsfeld say this and what instance is he referring to in this statement. Do you have the source of this statement?
It's too bad people react to information from those on opposite political sides with simple dismissals of anything they say because of ideological competitiveness. Daydreamer, if you had copied and Googled the quote Rumples used you would have found the video of Rumsfeld with the quote at issue in about 1.5 seconds as I did. It's included in multiple links above. At 2:06 in the video you will find Rumsfeld speaking the quote. It's extremely inclusive and conclusive.
However, there has been some reports of waterboarding and other torture being performed by American military in other countries, or farmed out to Arab allies under U.S. supervision. Rumsfeld does not, maybe purposely, address these points.
My point was that the U.S. has been looking for him no matter who the President was. Your making assumptions about how he would have been killed.
However, Obama should be commended ... even though he took all the credit for OSB's capture in his speech last Sunday. But, as we all know his approval rating was very low at the time and re-elections are soon upon us. Why give a previous President any mention when you can hog the spotlight for yourself?
Talk about "spiking the football"! :lol:
No StefanoUS, Rumples is referring to factual records. Bush has a record of methods, and now so does President Obama. Bush went into nation building, general operations against Al Qaeda, and quick reaction bombings based on short term intelligence to get Bin laden; Obama increased and focused military intelligence on the more specific terrorist targets, instead of trying to defeat Al Qaeda generally, and developed long term reliable intelligence then sent in special forces teams for face to face identification efficiency. Sure the intelligence was years in the making. But it's the decisive application method that makes the difference. This article sums up the difference in approaches and distributes credit more properly.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn...and-of-counterterrorism-over-nation-building/
It would be too generous to say that Osama bin Laden’s death directly has to do with Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. Some of this is just serendipitous. Some of this is the result of years of hard work.
But you can credit Obama with this: He focused much more relentlessly on the counterterrorism part of his strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He drastically increased the number of drone attacks, for example. That’s just one metric. There has also been a massive expansion of other counterterrorism efforts, including intelligence gathering and live operations. The killing of Osama bin Laden is the fruit of that much larger investment in counterterrorism.
Nation building by contrast is the strategy that President Bush employed. It is much larger, more expensive and inherently much more difficult for an outside force to succeed at because you get tied up in questions of nationalism and imperialism. It becomes difficult as an outside player to be seen as anything other than a force seeking domination. It is easy to excite nationalist opposition.
Has Pakistan been playing a double game with the West by supporting both sides in the "war against terrorism"? Most likely, because it receives billions in aid from the U.S., but has a Muslim population sympathetic to Al Qaeda and deeply resentful against the U.S. and the West.
Pakistan's army warns US not to stage more raids
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42920714
ISLAMABAD — Pakistan's army has broken its silence over the U.S. commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden, acknowledging its own "shortcomings" in efforts to find the al-Qaida leader but threatening to review cooperation with Washington if there is another similar violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
The tough-sounding statement, which came on Thursday, was a sign of the anger in the army. It also appeared aimed at appeasing politicians, the public and the media in the country over what's viewed by many here as a national humiliation delivered by a deeply unpopular America.
While international concerns are centered on suspicions that elements of the security forces sheltered bin Laden, most Pakistanis seem more upset that uninvited American soldiers flew into the country, landed on the ground and launched an attack on a house — and that the army was unaware and unable to stop them. That it happened in an army town, next door to a military academy and close to the capital has added to the embarrassment.
Ties between the two countries were already strained before the raid because of American allegations that Islamabad was failing to crack down on Afghan Taliban factions sheltering on Pakistani soil. Pakistan was angered over stepped-up U.S. drone strikes and the case of Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor who killed two Pakistanis in January.
continued...
The tone of the army statement was in sharp contrast to the initial response to the raid by the country's civilian leaders. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had hailed the operation as a "great victory" and made no mention of any concerns over sovereignty.
continued...
If the Pakistanis are embarrassed, humiliated, angry that the U.S. did this alone, leaving their government out of the loop, and their army looking like fools, I say...FUCK EM!
If the Pankistanis feel their country was violated in order for the U.S. to achieve it's aim of getting Bin Laden, I say...FUCK EM!
And if anyone in their government or military was complicit, I say...WATCH YOUR ASS! You can't take our money and expect the U.S. to lay down for your double-dealing too.
yes, I believe he is dead. I do not think that we have been told the true story.
Anyone who doubts this couldn't believe it if Bin Laden's corpse fell on him.
Al-Qaida vows revenge for bin Laden's death
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/05/201156125729467729.html
Al-Qaeda has confirmed the death of its leader, Osama bin Laden, and said in an online posting that it will continue to launch attacks on the West.
The group said it would not deviate from the path of armed struggle and that bin Laden's blood "is more precious to us and to every Muslim than to be wasted in vain".
The statement was released on forums sympathetic to al-Qaeda and translated by the SITE monitoring service on Friday.
"It [bin Laden's blood] will remain, with permission from Allah the Almighty, a curse that chases the Americans and their agents, and goes after them inside and outside their countries," al-Qaeda said.
continued...
Agreed. We don't even know the full story behind President Kennedy's assassination. Unless you accept everything in the Warren Commission. Let's not get into that though.
What's next? Jimmy Hoffa? Amelia Earhart? Julius Caesar? Give me a break. Osama's dead...BRAVO! :thumb:
Hmmn, let's see. They're both murderers of innocent people?
There is no similarity to some self-pitiable asshole who committed a single incident rage murder over losing his white trophy wife, and a career political-religious mass murdering psychopath who could never have inflicted enough mayhem and death to be satisfied.
Cheers,
Merlot
