Osama bin Laden is Dead.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

"Was that the right thing to do also?" -- the also is in the context of there being another right thing to do.
"Also, was that the right thing to do?" -- the also is to denote a new, separate question.

Yes the question is that is the first rule exclusive and couldn't possibly refer to a new separate question?

[James S Saint]

...i have no clue what you're trying to say. speak english man.

That's just what WW# says when he is trying to obfuscate and protect the false flaggers.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

...i have no clue what you're trying to say. speak english man.

That's just what WW# says when he is trying to obfuscate and protect the false flaggers.

Hmmm.. I put the word also in an ambiguous spot to protect false flaggers?

[Blurry]

"Was that the right thing to do also?" -- the also is in the context of there being another right thing to do.
"Also, was that the right thing to do?" -- the also is to denote a new, separate question.

Yes the question is that is the first rule exclusive and couldn't possibly refer to a new separate question?

Humpty is right.

[Wobbly]

the burial at sea is specifically against the Islamic religion lol
http://www.seaservices.com/Muslim.htm

It must be understood that while this information was furnished by reliable sources, there are many different opinions between those of Muslim faith, and any Muslim contemplating cremation or burial at sea should seek proper council .

623. * If a person dies on a ship and if there is no fear of the decay of the dead body and if there is no problem in retaining it for sometime on the ship, it should be kept on it and buried in the ground after reaching the land. Otherwise, after giving Ghusl, Hunut, Kafan and Namaz-e-Mayyit it should be lowered into the sea in a vessel of clay or with a weight tied to its feet. And as far as possible it should not be lowered at a point where it is eaten up immediately by the sea predators.

624. If it is feared that an enemy may dig up the grave and exhume the dead body and amputate its ears or nose or other limbs, it should be lowered into sea, if possible, as stated in the foregoing rule.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

"Was that the right thing to do also?" -- the also is in the context of there being another right thing to do.
"Also, was that the right thing to do?" -- the also is to denote a new, separate question.

Yes the question is that is the first rule exclusive and couldn't possibly refer to a new separate question?

Humpty is right.

Show me the rule of Grammar where it means it must explicitly be only referring to that there is another right thing to do!

[Blurry]

Grammar isn't my bag, talk to Tab about that, but it's shown clearly by the two sentences that Humpty is correct.

"Was that the right thing to do also?" -- The implication is that you've already found one "right thing to do", and you're wondering if a second thing could be a "right thing to do".

"Also, was that the right thing to do?" -- The implication is that you don't know if it's the right thing and you're looking for outside input.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Grammar isn't my bag, talk to Tab about that, but it's shown clearly by the two sentences that Humpty is correct.

"Was that the right thing to do also?" -- The implication is that you've already found one "right thing to do", and you're wondering if a second thing could be a "right thing to do".

"Also, was that the right thing to do?" -- The implication is that you don't know if it's the right thing and you're looking for outside input.

I agree that is the case, but since there was no discussion that a right thing to do was found it wouldn't logically follow that also was utilized to convey that there was. I don't think it is a Grammatical necessity that "was that the right thing to do also" that also must include strictly as to finding another right thing as opposed to asking another question. In my context which is why I didn't say "Also, was that the right thing to do" somewhat could refer to an indicator that we are moving beyond the original question of the ceremonial burial, but my goal was to revise the question to be inclusive of was the ceremonial burial the right thing to do as well as was dumping him at sea the right thing to do? I didn't wish to advance beyond it since the first question wasn't answered, thus no judgement of right or wrong made. Which is why I see the also following my last sentence to not be inclusive of making something seem to be rectified as "right" when we didn't comes to terms on the matter. I typically wouldn't use also in the beginning of a sentence either I think that is not really proper. But going back on it seems I missed a comma in it all which seems to be the error I made.. It should have been, "Was that the right thing to do, also"

[James S Saint]

Hmmm.. I put the word also in an ambiguous spot to protect false flaggers?

No, you drone on and on claiming lack of understanding so as to obfuscate ("but I don't see the evidence").

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Hmmm.. I put the word also in an ambiguous spot to protect false flaggers?

No, you drone on and on claiming lack of understanding so as to obfuscate ("but I don't see the evidence").

Uh huh, I'm just detail oriented. You jump to conclusions apparently.

[Wobbly]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfzE_TK-zmQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


The guy says(Sekulow) "they define pro-lifers as domestic terroirsts...now saying pro-lifers people that believe end-time prophies, people opposed to this administration position on immigration, those of us standing up for the sanctity of life and marriage....all of those are now potential - this is what they are saying - domestic terrorists."

This is the problem with conspiracy theories, or atleast a lot of them, they are forwarded and articulated by people who are oppressively right wing, and actively puruse an end that is arguably worse than the conspiracy. This fucking guy is on the board of an institute set up by Pat Robertson specifically to oppose the ACLU, and from what I can tell he has positioned himself to obtain financial gain by getting right-wing people to believe this shit. He runs right-wing issue non-profits and pays himself millions. No different than a televangelists.

Here's the document he's talking about: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

It doesn't mention "prophesy people" at all, and mentions abortion several times because of America's long history with right-wing abortion based terrorism - it mention immigration for the same reason. It concludes only that abortion and immigration may be an issue hateful people use as a rallying point for violence, and that right-wing violence has historically been amplified during economic downturns. Since this was released abortion providers have been killed, local "militia's" plans for violence have been thwarted, and ant-immigrant violence has increased around the world and in the U.S.


Here's the FEMA camps:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ws/4312850

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I know it's a bullshit moneymaker just like religion

[Trevor]

What's your (anyone here) response to people claiming that it was "wrong" to shoot ObL as an unarmed man and he should have been arrested for trial and whatnot?

[fuse]

Bin Laden's last facebook message:



Sorry, had to share that.

[Blurry]

What's your (anyone here) response to people claiming that it was "wrong" to shoot ObL as an unarmed man and he should have been arrested for trial and whatnot?

Hm. My response is, "Why should we do that?"

He's already taken the "credit" for horrible atrocities against the American public. Now whether he actually did do it or not is a somewhat controversial subject, I know, but the fact is he confessed, publicly. What else is there to accomplish from a trial, other than letting the American public see their enemy and his death? That probably would've been the smart thing to do given the doubt that has been sparked in the minds of so many people when the government failed to produce any clear proof of his death (his dead body, IOW), but I don't think it was wrong to shoot him despite him being unarmed. This man claims to have been the mastermind behind the murders of thousands of civilians. Fucking shoot the bastard, yes.

[turtle]

he was killed for other reasons than revenge.....
he knew a lot about what goes on in the middle east
that could be embarassing to us....

[James S Saint]

What's your (anyone here) response to people claiming that it was "wrong" to shoot ObL as an unarmed man and he should have been arrested for trial and whatnot?

Hm. My response is, "Why should we do that?"

He's already taken the "credit" for horrible atrocities against the American public. Now whether he actually did do it or not is a somewhat controversial subject, I know, but the fact is he confessed, publicly.

No, someone who only looked a little similar confessed. The original denied it immediately, which is the opposite of what EVERY Muslim terrorist does. Terrorism is pointless without the boast. He first didn't even know about it until he was asked if he had done it.

Later, a very poor substitute made a video and came on TV to argue against conspiracy theorists (like some famed Muslim terrorist could give a shit what some conspiracy theorist in the US claims).

What else is there to accomplish from a trial, other than letting the American public see their enemy and his death? That probably would've been the smart thing to do given the doubt that has been sparked in the minds of so many people when the government failed to produce any clear proof of his death (his dead body, IOW)

Yep. Yet another "take our word for it" issue, much like Obama's recently published birth cert (3 years later) that has already been proven a fake.

You guys really are suckers beyond belief. And because of it, you are ALWAYS being led to believe someone is guilty when at times, that person never even existed. "Hate who we say", "Love who we say", "KILL who we say". "We are the good guys"

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I have figured out the entire world! Follow me sheep, you're too stupid, you listen to everyone else but now listen to me, I am right, your world view is wrong! Sheep!

[Blurry]

James, if we're so ignorant why is anyone questioning whether he's dead or not? I would imagine that we're not so much different than other developed countries. Some people follow blindly, others question. That has less to do with our culture than with human nature.

I'd like some examples to back up your claims. I'm talking hard evidence, not a link to some conspiracy theorist's website. Prove that what you say is historically accurate. If you can't, and I suspect this will be the case, you're doing nothing more than spreading your opinion as if it were fact. STFU with that bullshit

There are people out there who will hate Americans no matter what we do. I gather you're one of those people. Myself, I'm not too fond of the way we do things here. I dream longingly of escape, only to realize that it doesn't really matter where I go (unless I lose myself in a jungle somewhere), there's no getting away from it. Politics are politics and bullshit is a worldwide epidemic (one you're obviously familiar with, given the bullshit you just spouted). The only reason you assholes are so obsessed with the faults of Americans is because we're the baddest bully in the schoolyard. If it wasn't us, it'd be someone else. I'm not saying I think it's right, but that's the way it is. If you really want to do something, go look in the fucking mirror. The world is not going to change until people change themselves, but one may as well cut that sentence off at "The world is not going to change", because people are too concerned with what's going on next door and not paying attention to what's going on in their own backyard. People would much rather blame someone else, whether it be the big, bad American government for fucking up the world even though that responsibility falls on ALL of humanity, or the person who budged in the coffee line for making you late to work even though you were running late already and shouldn't have even stopped for that coffee. It's a game of excuses -- any excuse to not have to face ourselves and our own faults and mistakes. It makes me sick.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

The moon landing was fake too.

[James S Saint]

James, if we're so ignorant why is anyone questioning whether he's dead or not? I would imagine that we're not so much different than other developed countries. Some people follow blindly, others question. That has less to do with our culture than with human nature.

I'd like some examples to back up your claims. I'm talking hard evidence, not a link to some conspiracy theorist's website. Prove that what you say is historically accurate. If you can't, and I suspect this will be the case, you're doing nothing more than spreading your opinion as if it were fact. STFU with that bullshit

Being "ignorant" is the entire point. Not knowing that you are ignorant of the facts is the problem.

EVERYTHING you get as "evidence" is through someone reporting it who is not under any constraint to never lie or distort. It is hearsay, prejudice, bias, invention, and nothing more. There is no such thing as "hard evidence" if you are not there yourself. You have to remove the liar between you and reality even if he wasn't lying, else you know nothing at all.

What that means is that when someone says, "Go kill that guy and throw the body in the Sea because he is a really BAD guy", every bit of evidence to substantiate him being a "bad guy" is irrelevant, yet you are asked to believe that not only is he a bad guy, but that YOU should go kill him "for US" - and emm.. hide the body and evidence in the Sea.


Much like the 9/11 scenario, the entire official story is highly untenable and some of it provably fake. The Obama birth cert issue was highly untenable and the newly released proof, is provably fake.

In the midst of liars, you only know one thing - that is that you know nothing from what you have heard. Yet you are asked to go kill for "US". Who is this "US", really?

[Blurry]

James, if we're so ignorant why is anyone questioning whether he's dead or not? I would imagine that we're not so much different than other developed countries. Some people follow blindly, others question. That has less to do with our culture than with human nature.

I'd like some examples to back up your claims. I'm talking hard evidence, not a link to some conspiracy theorist's website. Prove that what you say is historically accurate. If you can't, and I suspect this will be the case, you're doing nothing more than spreading your opinion as if it were fact. STFU with that bullshit

Being "ignorant" is the entire point. Not knowing that you are ignorant of the facts is the problem.

EVERYTHING you get as "evidence" is through someone reporting it who is not under any constraint to never lie or distort. It is hearsay, prejudice, bias, invention, and nothing more. There is no such thing as "hard evidence" if you are not there yourself. You have to remove the liar between you and reality even if he wasn't lying, else you know nothing at all.

What that means is that when someone says, "Go kill that guy and throw the body in the Sea because he is a really BAD guy", every bit of evidence to substantiate him being a "bad guy" is irrelevant, yet you are asked to believe that not only is he a bad guy, but that YOU should go kill him "for US" - and emm.. hide the body and evidence in the Sea.


Much like the 9/11 scenario, the entire official story is highly untenable and some of it provably fake. The Obama birth cert issue was highly untenable and the newly released proof, is provably fake.

In the midst of liars, you only know one thing - that is that you know nothing from what you have heard. Yet you are asked to go kill for "our" cause. Who is this "US", really?

I have nothing to say to you on this matter anymore. You have shown a pattern here of spouting off opinions and being unwilling to back them up with anything but more opinions. That's not discussion, that's preaching.

[James S Saint]

I have nothing to say to you on this matter anymore. You have shown a pattern here of spouting off opinions and being unwilling to back them up with anything but more opinions. That's not discussion, that's preaching.

My point was that in the midst of liars, you actually know nothing and thus killing is a bad idea.

Now are you going to argue against that?

"Al Quada" means "the database", a list of the spies, thieves, murderers, cons, and conspirators. "We must destroy Al Quada" = "we must destroy the database of information". 9/11 not only destroyed the data, but also obfuscated billions of dollars that went missing.

The world is a stage, don't go killing people to protect the playwright.

[Blurry]

I have nothing to say to you on this matter anymore. You have shown a pattern here of spouting off opinions and being unwilling to back them up with anything but more opinions. That's not discussion, that's preaching.

My point was that in the midst of liars, you actually know nothing and thus killing is a bad idea.

Now are you going to argue against that?

"Al Quada" means "the database", a list of the spies, thieves, murderers, cons, and conspirators. "We must destroy Al Quada" = "we must destroy the database of information". 9/11 not only destroyed the data, but also obfuscated billions of dollars that went missing.

The world is a stage, don't go killing people to protect the playwright.

James, you have sailed right past the point. I never said that I know bin Laden orchestrated the 9/11 attack. What I said was, even if there had been a trial the man would've been killed. We all know it. It doesn't matter whether he did it or not, he said he did, and your claim that it wasn't him is nothing more than a theory.

But let's imagine for a moment that your theory is correct, and it wasn't him in that video claiming credit. He'd STILL have been killed, because the popular opinion is that bin Laden is responsible for the attack, and the reason people believe he is responsible is because they saw a videotape. That's hard evidence in the eyes of a lot of people, and no hard evidence to the contrary can be found, but rather just people like you claiming you know the truth. There would be no impartial judge or jury in that trial. Osama bin Laden was going to die, and if we are being lied to and he wasn't killed, he'd better hope he continues to elude capture, because he will be killed if he's found. Again, I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.

[Blurry]

You're setting up your own argument here by believing that just because a person comments on why something happened, they believe popular opinion associated with the issue. I left my statements concerning whether he was involved in the 9/11 attack open, on purpose. Fucking learn how to read.