The Real Reason For Not Releasing Osama’s Death Photo.

[jojo]

I don't believe for one minute that operators would waste time dumping precious mags of ammo into a lifeless corpse especially while they were in/near the equivalent to the Pakistani West Point with a downed aircraft in the front yard they had to rush to demo. I give our guys far more credit than that.

[tank_monkey]

Tell me then, why did the US Military go after Saddam if Osama supposedly was behind this?

(Try to be nice).

Wow, Just wow Krupski. You've outdone yourself.

1) You try to hijack my post about UBL (or OBL depending on the spelling) to why we attacked Iraq. Did I say anything about Iraq? How do you justify talking about Iraq?

2) You show the same amount of 'knowledge' as many of the 'low information voters'. At no time did anyone say there was definitive proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Bush never said Saddam was behind 9/11. Only the Libtards like Michael Moore pushed that lie. If you bothered even READING Bush's address from 2002 he states that Hussein has been trying to get WMDs for some time. Bush never said that he did, but since Hussien KICKED OUT all of the international arms inspectors in 1998, we had NO EYES inside Iraq to see what was going on. Bush did say that this was an unacceptable situation. Iraq could let the inspectors BACK IN, or we would assume the worst, that he did or would soon possess WMDs. Either way, Bush said specifically that "we could not risk assuming that he did not" considering what had then recently happened on 9/11.

So look at it from the perspective of America's leaders in 2002. Hussein MIGHT have WMDs. Hussein DID have an active relationship with Al Qaeda at one time. Put 2 and 2 together and the possibility requires SOME sort of action. We did two. We first demanded that Iraq open it's doors to weapons inspectors OR suffer the consequences. (folks don't remember that when we rolled into Iraq, LIBYA under Khadaffi unilaterally opened up HIS country to weapons inspectors. It was hilarious)


What pisses me off is that CLINTON himself warned then incoming president Bush that Saddam had WMDs. So why does no one slam Clinton for lying to Bush? Also Al Qaeda DID have a training Facility at Salman Pak near Baghdad until 1998, the year that our arms inspectors were kicked out of the country. We didn't know that Al Qaeda no longer had a presence in Iraq, BUT THEY DID AS RECENTLY AS 1998. Any reasonable man (and I don't mean YOU Krupski) would at least have given Bush some slack for being mistaken about the WMDs. CIA intercepts showed Saddam Bragging about his WMDs (which were about as real as Hitler's imaginary super weapons in the last months in the bunker in 1945).

3) Again, why did you bring up Iraq? UBL was behind 9/11, launched with the help and logistics of the Taliban, who, at the time, ruled Afghanistan with an iron fist. Those are facts.

4) I say it again, why did you try to divert the thread again? Because everyone is pointing out how foolish your points are? Is that it?

[Krupski]

1) You try to hijack my post about UBL (or OBL depending on the spelling) to why we attacked Iraq. Did I say anything about Iraq? How do you justify talking about Iraq?

First of all, who died and made you the god of thread content?

Secondly, please tell me what did the 9/11 event precipitate? Clue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_...nk_allegations

You are the one who posted the off-topic photo of the people jumping from the WTC buildings. I simply stayed on your topic.

At no time did anyone say there was definitive proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Bush never said Saddam was behind 9/11.

Oh???

From the same link above:

Allegations of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were made by U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).[1] In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States,[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others.

Yeah, yeah I know it's Wikipedia. Poo-poo any source that disputes what you say.

I think a US President putting American boots on the ground is "proof" enough. Or do you dispute that too?

[Krupski]

1. We needed a place convenient to kill jihads. The USA was not a good option...
2. Iran has too big a population.
3. Saudi makes oil that our friends need.
4. Saddam gave us reason and UN sanction.
5, We had a good jumping off place(s).
6. Even his neighbors didn't like him or his government so we had the oaky doky there...
7. Libya hadn't done anything lately and next to Saudi was better anyway.

Haven't played global domination lately?

THANK YOU for a decent and polite answer (unlike the drivel written by the monkey in a tank)

[tank_monkey]

THANK YOU for a decent and polite answer (unlike the drivel written by the monkey in a tank)

You are such a fool, Krup. And your response was pathetic, primarily because you did NOT counter what I wrote. What was written still did not contradict what I wrote. But I'm not going to pile on. You seem to revel in butting heads with lots of different posters. Either that's indicative of a sick sense of humor or a mentally disturbed person Not gonna guess which. LOL!

[Krupski]

You are such a fool, Krup. And your response was pathetic, primarily because you did NOT counter what I wrote. What was written still did not contradict what I wrote. But I'm not going to pile on. You seem to revel in butting heads with lots of different posters. Either that's indicative of a sick sense of humor or a mentally disturbed person Not gonna guess which. LOL!

I certainly have a sick sense of humor, so I guess you're right.

(OMG!!! SO SORRY!!! NOT ON TOPIC!!!)

[NAPOTS]

Once the guy is dead, who cares how many more rounds they fire into him?

Krupski and tank_monkey, I understand your sentiment about not caring what happens to the guy because of what he did but to me the discipline to separate your personal feelings from the mission is what makes a professional. If the job was to put one bullet in his forehead than they should have executed it to the letter and put one bullet in his forehead. There is supposed to be a line between justice and vengeance. No amount of violence that could be visited on the man would compensate for what he and his followers allegedly did. Why sully your soul with an act of vengeance?