SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 33 of 51 « First 2329303132 33 3435363743 Last »
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Bin Laden is dead, official (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=183188)

Armistead 05-06-11 07:09 AM
We have over 20 stories about his death, just the way the government likes it.

I'm telling you Osama's somewhere with the CIA getting his nuts fried and making love to a pig.

Any video of him being dumped will be fake.

Skybird 05-06-11 08:56 AM
Al Quaeda has just admitted in its forums BL was killed on Monday.

That is the strongest hint we have so far. Still no evidence: they have lied and faked messages before.

AVGWarhawk 05-06-11 09:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tater (Post 1657772)
AVG, something can be a good idea, but still not be appropriate. Given the 1st amendment, and the FOIA, the onus is on the government (as it should be) to demonstrate why such otherwise public domain information should be held back. "Because they say so" isn't good enough.

I could be convinced that not publishing was the best thing, and still think that the government cannot hold the images back regardless.

What can they claim the reason is to NOT publish them? National security? That would basically require saying that we must censor any speech in the US that might offend muslims. That pretty much shuts up the entire society, because virtually everything offends muslims. So national security is off the table. Since they can redact any parts of an image that might contain, say, a classified weapon, or document next to the carcass, that won't cut it, either. There is basically no possible rationale for not publishing the images other than possibly "good sense." Good sense isn't enough, though, constitutionally.
Consitutionally? I'm not sure if that applies here. Why bother with the Constitution and just use the Freedom of Information Act? Then again, the information can be freed at the governments behest. Like most of the information that is freed, There is no good sense/reason in releasing the photos IMO.

Hell, just sit back...Joe Biden will post the pictures on the net. Hell, he has spilled the beans on everything else. :doh:

krashkart 05-06-11 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joegrundman (Post 1657135)
Haha! great response!
A friend of mine found this on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxVdU2eVYSg


Guess you were right after all... :haha:

AVGWarhawk 05-06-11 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by krashkart (Post 1658161)
A friend of mine found this on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxVdU2eVYSg


Guess you were right after all... :haha:
Good Lord...really? :doh::88)

les green01 05-06-11 10:32 AM
i can said wtfg and a bullit saves us money on a trial,and someone knew he was there in the pak gov and we keep giving them aid and basic they been double dealing that is bull---- pure and simple

AVGWarhawk 05-06-11 10:56 AM
Articles I've read say that the Navy Seals raided Bin Laden's lair with Belgian Malinois and German Shepherds specifically trained to located and "detain" combatants. The dogs were strapped to the sides of the Navy Seals as they were lowered from the helicopters to the ground.

Of note, the dogs HAVE CUSTOM FITTED TITANIUM INCISORS at $2,000.00 for each canine tooth, razor-sharpened to go through the toughest material...

Maybe the best man for the job was a dog....

tater 05-06-11 11:10 AM
One, they should have had the dogs rip bin laden apart. That would be awesome on so many levels.

Two, the bottom line is that the burden of proof is on the administration as to why they must withhold information that should be available under the FOIA.

AVGWarhawk 05-06-11 11:14 AM
Quote:
Two, the bottom line is that the burden of proof is on the administration as to why they must withhold information that should be available under the FOIA.
The freedom of the information is at the governments discretion. Like everything else! :shifty:

Jimbuna 05-06-11 11:14 AM
Well that's one less christmas card I'll be sending this year :O:

BTW, I killed Colonel Gaddafi the other night. I didn't take any pictures and threw his body into the sea. Just take my word for it; he's definitely dead.

tater 05-06-11 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1658250)
The freedom of the information is at the governments discretion. Like everything else! :shifty:
It's not, hence the government saying they want to hold info, then suits are brought and they are forced to release. Happens all the time.

AVGWarhawk 05-06-11 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tater (Post 1658256)
It's not, hence the government saying they want to hold info, then suits are brought and they are forced to release. Happens all the time.
In something that concerns national security? :hmmm: The FOIA is not as free as some like to think.

tater 05-06-11 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1658261)
In something that concerns national security? :hmmm: The FOIA is not as free as some like to think.
What is the national security issue? Offending Islamists? That alone is a reason TO publish them. IMHO, this is no different than not showing danish cartoons, or even South Park. The US should never not do something because it offends a particular religion. The Constitution comes in as the establishment clause in that case, since the only possible "national security" issue is "it will offend muslims." (singling out a religion not to be offended by the state is "establishment")

The unspoken bigotry (lol) is that offended muslims are dangerous, homicidal maniacs. (interesting that Obama doesn't realize, or doesn't care that this is what he is saying.)

If the cartoons, burned koran, etc are any indication, the attacks will likely not kill americans anyway, so again, no national security issue. Also, if this is offense, then should Seal teams be sent to shut up that redneck preacher in FL burning korans?

I just don't see the compelling interest.

AVGWarhawk 05-06-11 01:34 PM
When I stated 'national security' I was not referring to this particular case concerning a picture of a terrorist. There are many things vital to national security that do not and will not fall under FOIA. These pictures are not something that is a national security risk. However, these pictures could insight retaliation against the nation. IMO displaying these pictures is not necessary. I do not care if anyone is offended.

You make a compelling argument and are correct. If we fart the wrong way someone out there is utterly offended and brandishes AK47 while burning the flag. Plastering the pictures on Facebook would make very little difference.

Bakkels 05-06-11 01:46 PM
What I don't get is what would be offensive about those pictures.
I mean, burning the Quran for example, that's offensive. Or saying all Arabs are animals, that's offensive. And I think these things are wrong. But showing pictures of a dead guy, how is that offensive? It might be confronting, gruesome or whatever, but I can't see what is offensive about it. It's just news, it's factual. Well I guess it's just me...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:39 PM.
Page 33 of 51 « First 2329303132 33 3435363743 Last »
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.