DaVinci

Seemed real enough there.

Read the old testament, new testament, and the koran, along with several other books on various religions and movements. I read them all about 20 years ago... They all helped push me toward thinking there *might* be something, but that humans would be too stupid to understand it and too tempted to twist it for their own uses. It was the difference between the words in the new testament and the actions I saw daily in christians that pushed me away from any organized religion. I also surmised that if christianity had these problems of hypocrites, misunderstandings, and power grabbers in the name of god.... then other religions most likely did as well.

You said Bush would have bombed OBL.... But he didn't bomb Saddam. So yeah, you dodged the point I made. Huh??? "Is your brain as dead as Saddam's and Bin Laden's?" is not a PA, but a rhetorical question? No, I claimed they sent Delta in to get him. You ignored that since it does not fit into your "hatred of Bush" view. Following a UN resolution, and after a vote by the Senate (77-23) and the House (296-133). Obama just sent troops. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5045626&page=1 You have nothing but an irrational hatred of Bush that is coloring your perceptions of everything.

I can't find the quote now but: And the guy who tweeted the event Like I said, I can't find an official saying it, but I do remember reading it, and some data points in that direction. The helo could have gone down. 1. MX 2. Shot down 3. "Settling with Power" MX is always possible. RPG's will take a helo down. Settling with power is much less likely with a blackhawk and the caliber of pilots the SOCOM community uses. So yes, most of us know that info will change the further we get from the event. But the best thing they could do is quit talking till they have the "official" story.

And I am still waiting for him to answer my question about the SC. 1. He says the SC is THE word. 2. Yet he wants to ignore the SC?????

Not to his followers that do not have a TV, those that can't read, and do not watch CSI to know what DNA is.

Yeah some inconsistencies are popping up. 1. We took fire on the helo... (Later) It went down due to a MX issue. 2. He was armed when we confronted him... (Later) No, he was unarmed, but resisted. 3. He used his wife as a shield.... (Later) No, he didn't 4. His wife was killed... (Later) No, she was not killed. 5. We took measurements to prove it was him... (Later) We had a guy the same size as him lay down next to him to get measurements. The best thing they could do is quit talking.

Nope.. not me. Yet you have accused several others of that exact same thing.

Way to dodge the point... 1. We thought he was in a REGION. 2. We thought he was in a HOUSE. One is an "easy" op, the other damn difficult. 1. Personal attacks all you have? 2. The US CAPTURED SH... And when I say US, I mean Delta http://articles.cnn.com/2003-12-14/world/sprj.irq.saddam.operation_1_saddam-hussein-travel-in-large-entourages-operation-red-dawn?_s=PM:WORLD Your incorrect opinion was that Bush would have bombed OBL "like he did Saddam"... But the fact is that Bush sent Delta to get Saddam... Pretty much just like Obama sent DEVGRU to get OBL. The only real difference is Obama sent a US team into a sovereign country without permission and the SEALs killed an unarmed OBL. Now. I AGREE with what Obama did... The major difference is that you can't get past your hate of Bush long enough to be objective.

Yes, we *thought* OBL was in a mountainous REGION. Fact is only you really seem to KNOW he was there: "The New York Times, Gen. Tommy Franks wrote, “We don’t know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time…Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives … but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.” So the difference was a mountain region vs a single house. A place pretty much on the border of two County's, vs a single house. Really!!! you work for Bush back then? Bush didn't use bombs on Saddam, so your claims have zero data to back them up. You have admitted to using drugs.... So maybe you should stop smoking first.

He is only ignoring me on this topic... since he knows he is out of his element. But hey, you are free to not read ANYTHING I post. And you are free to not reply as well.

Still waiting for you to try and dodge out of the SC definitions..... And still waiting.

WITH permission of the Govt there. They didn't know about this mission (since there was a HIGH likely hood that OBL would have been tipped off).

I would have personally preferred him being captured. BUT that also opens up a gigantic can of worms (giving him a venue to spout his rhetoric, attacks in his name over and over again.. Etc). Still, I would have preferred him captured and interrogated. After a trial, he could have been executed.

BTW why no response on this yet? Still waiting on YOU to answer this one Still waiting... you keep saying that the SC is the final say here in the US. Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.

Oh geeze..... The fact is that it was 2005 or so that OBL was able to settle down and stay in one place. If you think for one second that Bush would have done nothing if he had intel of OBL's position... Well you are smoking something. Giving credit to Obama... He did very well. But please, cut your Bush bashing to something a bit more realistic. Why did Obama send in a team instead of blasting the compound? Simple, we were not SURE he was there AND it was in a 'friendly' country. Dropping a bomb on a compound in a friendly country without 100% proof of OBL being there would be an act of war.

I'd bet almost nothing. They will rattle a bit, but they will not get too upset since they would not want to look as if they were defending him in any way.

For the exact same reason it is OK to shoot a criminal in the middle of an arrest if he fights back, but it is not OK to hook a car battery up to his balls once back at the station.

She also said, "If I had to use deadly force, I would not be cheerful/celebrating after doing so..." So unless the DEVGRU has females, or she works in the WH.... The general application applies.

1. It will help squash the people who doubt it happened. 2. It will shake the confidence of some of his followers Yes, it will also: 1. Never serve as proof to everyone. 2. Incite a few people to more violence. But, lets face it... The die-hards on both sides will not change their actions... But maybe a few in the middle will. Maybe a few of the people who are leaning towards fighting will see the photos and think that now that the "leader" is dead that the cause is lost. This would not be the first time killing a leader has taken the steam out of an organization. And those that the picture could incite to violence... I fee that they are just looking for a reason, and will find one eventually. So I can see a possible net gain.

Better than you. That is a tactic out of YOUR playbook BTW.

Could have had BOTH. I personally wished he was captured. News reports now show he was unarmed when shot. Of course, I do not grieve for him being dead either.

Still waiting for you to back the claim YOU made FIRST. Just admit you were lying and we can move on... We all already know it to be true. No, just pointing out how you lie and then run when called on it.

Ah yes.... When the subtleties of the real word fail you... Break out a semantic argument. Funny, I am not "a specialist in Roman or modern civil law"... yet it is the first thing listed. I'd bet the people killed around OBL were not "specialists in Roman or modern civil law" either.... but I could be wrong.

Are you going to prove where you said I think looines should be allowed to have guns? Why should *I* be held to a standard YOU will not hold yourself to? Prove your "quote" first (Or admit that you lied) and then I'll follow suit.