If you seriously think watching pornography is on the top of the list of things that make him a hypocrite, then ... I don't even know how to continue this, it's just a big :facepalm:

We all knew he was a hypocrite for proven reasons ... this story is just supposed to attract people through SCANDAL11!!!!111!!!!! and look, it worked.

 

I'm glad you are in this thread Imke :)

When I post on my own about these things my words only get twisted and people take the argument down routes that don't matter.

I really don't see why the big fuss is over all of this. He also had a bunch of wives (I think like 6) and children from multiple wives too.

I'm glad you are in this thread Imke :)

When I post on my own about these things my words only get twisted and people take the argument down routes that don't matter.

 

I should use that first sentence to copycat your sig-idea. :sneaky:

 

I really don't see why the big fuss is over all of this. He also had a bunch of wives (I think like 6) and children from multiple wives too.

 

... and the fact still remains that there were other men in that compound. I don't see how it would ever be possible to prove that it was his porn-stash.

 

Why would that matter anyway? Why would anyone feel the need to prove him a hypocrite by revealing his secret love for porn?

For fuck's sake, that man was a terrorist and abused and misinterpreted his religion to kill people ... he already is a proven hypocrite.

I should use that first sentence to copycat your sig-idea. :sneaky:

 

 

 

... and the fact still remains that there were other men in that compound. I don't see how it would ever be possible to prove that it was his porn-stash.

 

Why would that matter anyway? Why would anyone feel the need to prove him a hypocrite by revealing his secret love for porn?

For fuck's sake, that men was a terrorist and abused and misinterpreted his religion to kill people ... he already is a proven hypocrite.

 

exactly I agree.

 

The fact that he or his compound had a pornography collection should really be the least of our concerns, and as mentioned before even if we were to reveal that to his followers I strongly doubt they'd believe us.

I could make a RH reference but I won't

do it do it do it.

 

if it was me you know i wouldn't hold it back :lol:

FINE MIKE. JUST FINE.

 

Most people that I know think he was dead long time ago due to kidney failure.

FINE MIKE. JUST FINE.

 

 

i'm actually surprised... I thought that you were going to say that there were reports that the neighbors complained of Bin Ladens tapes from all The Amazing Sounds of Orgy :lol:

 

 

I also have the t-shirt btw

i'm actually surprised... I thought that you were going to say that there were reports that the neighbors complained of Bin Ladens tapes from all The Amazing Sounds of Orgy :lol:

:awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome:

 

you know me too well

 

 

I also have the t-shirt btw

schweeet

 

(looks like they still have some in the w.a.s.t.e. shop, might get one)

Most people that I know think he was dead long time ago due to kidney failure.

 

Which is exactly why Al Qaeda have agreed with America and said that he has just been killed. Do you not think they would revel in debunking this American conspiracy instead of agreeing with them?

 

It's now common knowledge he wanked himself blind, then wandered out of the compound giving the game away. Keep up.

I should use that first sentence to copycat your sig-idea. :sneaky:

 

I presume the only reason you haven't done so far is because you cannot match my egotism :wink3:

I presume the only reason you haven't done so far is because you cannot match my egotism :wink3:

 

Maybe I can. :wink3:

Oooooh, it's aaaawn!

The U.S did deals with Al Qaeda to announce that he was already dead and all this is a cover up? Jeez the conspiracy theorists are in full flow now.

These 'truths' stick though, and that is why they are printed[/color]. They plant those little ideas in your head and people forget about what is true and what isn't.

 

 

So very true. Couldn't agree more.

According to this thread page he's already now a 'complete porn addict'. And people have already forgotten that he did not use his wife to protect him. These 'truths' stick though, and that is why they are printed. They plant those little ideas in your head and people forget about what is true and what isn't.

 

That's the whole point. Nobody except for those who were actually there or involved in the operation actually knows the truth. Therefore it could be argued that all of it is just speculation. I'm not saying he isn't dead, of course, but it's still a case of everyone believing what has been fed to the media.:dozey:

 

and people take the argument down routes that don't matter.

 

In your opinion. ;)

 

The U.S did deals with Al Qaeda to announce that he was already dead and all this is a cover up? Jeez the conspiracy theorists are in full flow now.

 

True, but of course, as I mentioned above, how does anyone actually know what's true and what isn't?

Any story or information can be faked or exaggerated. Look what happened with the WMD "dodgy dossier".:rolleyes:

That's why you always get conspiracy theories. Some people will never believe anything they're told.;)

That's just as bad as believing everything you're told.:dozey:

Quit writhing around Mark.

 

You said that it could be argued that this was no different to the 'ifs' of the human rights debate. I said why it was different. Of course, they may both be lies or the may both be true, but if you can't see the difference after having it spelled out for you, then there is no hope.

 

You've already moved away from your original point, which is what we were talking about. You can't just bring something else up randomly to argue a point. Back up what you say instead of your constant twitching.

 

You made a point, some people disagreed and made some of their own points. You ignored them and simply adjusted the way you worded one tiny part of it, then acted as though that was sufficient a reply, instead of actually either backing up your point properly, or admitting what you said wasn't entirely true.

Quit writhing around Mark.

 

As I've already pointed out before, I'm not. Please refrain from suggesting this.

 

You said that it could be argued that this was no different to the 'ifs' of the human rights debate. I said why it was different. Of course, they may both be lies or the may both be true, but if you can't see the difference after having it spelled out for you, then there is no hope.

 

As I said, that is only your opinion, not fact.;)

 

You've already moved away from your original point, which is what we were talking about. You can't just bring something else up randomly to argue a point.

 

Anything connected to what happened during the "operation" is relevant, whether you like it or not.

Whether you wish to discuss it or not is up to you.

I'll refrain from suggesting it when you refrain from doing it.

It's not against board rules to point out when you do it, even if like you claim, you aren't doing it. Providing I believe you are I'm entitled to suggest it.

 

Do you have nothing to say to some of the posts on the last page?

 

And my point about moving was the difference between your post on 'ifs' and your post where you attempted to claim we were arguing the same point, almost. Given the posts made by others between those incredibly insightful posts of yours, other points had been raised which you conveniently ignored.

I guess I presumed that since you had entered the debate and made a point, you would follow it through and further back up your points that bin Laden looking at porn is what makes him a hypocrite and that the ifs in the human rights discussion and the porn discussion are the same, given what others have said since, but I guess you don't have to.

 

It just makes it pointless trying to have a proper debate with you if you aren't going to acknowledge the majority of what was said.

I'll refrain from suggesting it when you refrain from doing it.

It's not against board rules to point out when you do it, even if like you claim, you aren't doing it. Providing I believe you are I'm entitled to suggest it.

 

As I said, that's only a personal opinion, just like saying somebody "twists everything". If you go down that road, you just end up with slanging matches again, which doesn't get anyone anywhere.;)

 

Do you have nothing to say to some of the posts on the last page?

 

I responded to what I felt warranted responses. If people don't care about certain speculation, that's up to them.

I guess I presumed.

 

Then please don't.;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13424843

 

Bin Laden killing 'may set precedent' MPs are told

 

Osama Bin Laden's death may come to be seen as a precedent for "targeted killings" by states in the future, a report written for MPs has suggested.

 

The report, prepared by the House of Commons library, says the former al-Qaeda leader's killing has "significant implications" for how the US and other countries deal with terrorist suspects.

 

Such methods could be seen to be "accepted politically", it argues.

 

The US argues it was lawful but critics say he should have been taken alive.

 

Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband both said the demise of Osama Bin Laden during a raid on his Pakistani compound earlier this month, had made the world a safer place without him and it was a significant step in the fight against global terrorism.

 

But questions have been asked about the legality of the US special forces mission after it emerged, contrary to initial claims by the White House, that although its operatives came under sustained fire Bin Laden was not armed at the time he was shot.

 

An internal report for MPs written by parliamentary staff, analysing the legal arguments surrounding the action and its repercussions, has been published.

 

It says many of the outstanding legal questions are only likely to be resolved if the White House releases the instructions given to the US Navy Seals who carried out the operation and discloses what efforts were made to get Bin Laden to surrender and what threat he was believed to pose at the time.

 

But it says the killing could have a major impact on how states deal with al-Qaeda operatives and other terrorist suspects in future.

 

"The nature of Bin Laden's killing may be a sign the US is increasingly likely to kill rather than to capture al-Qaeda members," it states.

 

"A wider implication is that the killing may be seen as a precedent for targeted killings of individuals by any state, across international boundaries, at least where terrorism is involved..The more states act in this way, the more likely it is to become accepted, at least politically if not as a matter of international law."

 

The death of Bin Laden could also have implications for the coalition's military strategy in the Libya conflict, it adds, as "some of the arguments used to present Bin Laden's killing as lawful could also be applied if coalition forces kill Colonel Gaddafi".

 

The UK and its allies have repeatedly stressed the United Nations mandate they are working under does not authorise the targeting of the Libyan leader.

 

However, they say command and control facilities - including compounds used by the Gaddafi family and other senior regime members - are legitimate targets if they are being used to direct attacks against civilians.

 

The Obama administration has said Bin Laden was a "lawful military target" and the raid was justified as an action of "national self-defence".

 

It says Bin Laden was still actively leading al-Qaeda and that he had made "no attempt to surrender".

 

Among those who have expressed reservations about the killing include the Archbishop of Canterbury who said it was "uncomfortable" and "did not look as if justice" was "seen to be done".

I don't deserve a reply, because I don't think speculations about a porn-stash are important in the big picture of a mass-murderer. Logic is a wonderful thing.