Bin Laden Dead!!!!!!

[SF-Dano]

No, Bush would have ordered the immediate full destruction of the entire compound and half the surrounding city.

This is going to come off real cold, but................ If they made sure they got Bin Laden and a lot of his team, I don't know that I would have had a problem with that. Sorry, but this is war, and wars should be fought to be won and won as quickly as possible.

[Behshad]

No, Bush would have ordered the immediate full destruction of the entire compound and half the surrounding city.

This is going to come off real cold, but................ If they made sure they got Bin Laden and a lot of his team, I don't know that I would have had a problem with that. Sorry, but this is war, and wars should be fought to be won and won as quickly as possible.

But the difference between you and them is that, they wanted to MAKE SURE that he is DEAD and WITNESS it,, not just drop a bomb , hoping he would be there at the time and hoping he would get killed

[S2M]

We dropped TWO nuclear bombs on Japan in the 40s...indescriminantly killing millions.....we didn't see a problem with that. I just find it hypocritical that we question what the muslims did on 9/11. i don't agree with it, and it was horrific, but I find it the same thing as Hiroshima and Nagasaki - only on a much smaller scale.....

I find it highly suspect that the mighty nation of the USA can hop around the world cherry-picking causes to butt into, while telling other people how to live....but if another(read: weaker) country does the same - that country is squashed like an irritating bug....

[StevePerryHair]

We dropped TWO nuclear bombs on Japan in the 40s...indescriminantly killing millions.....we didn't see a problem with that. I just find it hypocritical that we question what the muslims did on 9/11. i don't agree with it, and it was horrific, but I find it the same thing as Hiroshima and Nagasaki - only on a much smaller scale.....

I find it highly suspect that the mighty nation of the USA can hop around the world cherry-picking causes to butt into, while telling other people how to live....but if another(read: weaker) country does the same - that country is squashed like an irritating bug....

One was the means to end a war....the other a means to start a war. 9/11 can't be compared to that. Last I heard, extremist Muslims arent a country!

[bluejeangirl76]

No, Bush would have ordered the immediate full destruction of the entire compound and half the surrounding city.

This is going to come off real cold, but................ If they made sure they got Bin Laden and a lot of his team, I don't know that I would have had a problem with that. Sorry, but this is war, and wars should be fought to be won and won as quickly as possible.

But the difference between you and them is that, they wanted to MAKE SURE that he is DEAD and WITNESS it,, not just drop a bomb , hoping he would be there at the time and hoping he would get killed

As I heard it on the news the other day, that was the original plan and Obama said "you know what, that ain't gonna work..." and took the special ops route for that exact reason, to make damn ass sure that they got him.

[SF-Dano]

We dropped TWO nuclear bombs on Japan in the 40s...indescriminantly killing millions.....we didn't see a problem with that. I just find it hypocritical that we question what the muslims did on 9/11. i don't agree with it, and it was horrific, but I find it the same thing as Hiroshima and Nagasaki - only on a much smaller scale.....

I find it highly suspect that the mighty nation of the USA can hop around the world cherry-picking causes to butt into, while telling other people how to live....but if another(read: weaker) country does the same - that country is squashed like an irritating bug....

You don't find the facts that a)we were already in a decalered war and been fighting with Japan for years by the time we dropped the bombs, and b)the fact that they hit Pearl Harbor without a declaration of war first as being different than the situation of 9/11?

[Behshad]

We dropped TWO nuclear bombs on Japan in the 40s...indescriminantly killing millions.....we didn't see a problem with that. I just find it hypocritical that we question what the muslims did on 9/11. i don't agree with it, and it was horrific, but I find it the same thing as Hiroshima and Nagasaki - only on a much smaller scale.....

I find it highly suspect that the mighty nation of the USA can hop around the world cherry-picking causes to butt into, while telling other people how to live....but if another(read: weaker) country does the same - that country is squashed like an irritating bug....

We werent after ONE person though, were we. And no worries, we still bomb different places almost daily. Just in this case, they wanted to make sure they got the ONE guy they were after

If they dont release pictures as proof, for all we know, BinLaden maybe died 3 years ago from eating a McRib and we now take credits for it ?

[S2M]

We dropped TWO nuclear bombs on Japan in the 40s...indescriminantly killing millions.....we didn't see a problem with that. I just find it hypocritical that we question what the muslims did on 9/11. i don't agree with it, and it was horrific, but I find it the same thing as Hiroshima and Nagasaki - only on a much smaller scale.....

I find it highly suspect that the mighty nation of the USA can hop around the world cherry-picking causes to butt into, while telling other people how to live....but if another(read: weaker) country does the same - that country is squashed like an irritating bug....

You don't find the facts that a)we were already in a decalered war and been fighting with Japan for years by the time we dropped the bombs, and b)the fact that they hit Pearl Harbor without a declaration of war first as being different than the situation of 9/11?

We are in the middle east.....they look at that as the same thing. We need to bring home EVERY soldier from around the world and adopt Rand's Objectivist philosophies....Look out for #1....THE USA.

Secondly, I find dropping TWO mega-ton bombs on a country a bit extreme...it went over like a cop shooting a civilian for jaywalking. This country just likes to throw it's weight around the world. Excessive Force to the highest degree. I gurantee more civilians died in 1945 Japan than in Nazi Germany.....but one gets applauded, and the other gets the finger.

[mikemarrs]

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline. ... y_warnings


9/11 timeline,key events leading up to 9/11

[Saint John]

No, Bush would have ordered the immediate full destruction of the entire compound and half the surrounding city.

Considering they were harboring the planet's most evil person, I would have been ok with this, and the planet would have been a better place for it. Fuck Pakistan.

Personally, I would have adopted parts of both strategies. I would have wanted bin Laden's body intact (Obama) and I would have then destroyed the entire immediate radius for harboring him. They knew who was there.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

We are in the middle east.....they look at that as the same thing. We need to bring home EVERY soldier from around the world and adopt Rand's Objectivist philosophies....Look out for #1....THE USA.

.

Unlike alot of Libertarians who adopted alot of her views, Rand didn't necessarily advocate an isolationist foreign policy, in fact argued that the one justified role of US govt was to actively respond to legitimate external agression against it. By the way describing the Objectivist conception of acting out of self interest isn't exactly "look out for #1- as most people typically describe that term.. ..just sayin

[steveo777]

No, Bush would have ordered the immediate full destruction of the entire compound and half the surrounding city.

Considering they were harboring the planet's most evil person, I would have been ok with this, and the planet would have been a better place for it. Fuck Pakistan.

Personally, I would have adopted parts of both strategies. I would have wanted bin Laden's body intact (Obama) and I would have then destroyed the entire immediate radius for harboring him. They knew who was there.

What about the children.... kill them too?

[Saint John]

No, Bush would have ordered the immediate full destruction of the entire compound and half the surrounding city.

Considering they were harboring the planet's most evil person, I would have been ok with this, and the planet would have been a better place for it. Fuck Pakistan.

Personally, I would have adopted parts of both strategies. I would have wanted bin Laden's body intact (Obama) and I would have then destroyed the entire immediate radius for harboring him. They knew who was there.

What about the children.... kill them too?

Yes.

[S2M]

We are in the middle east.....they look at that as the same thing. We need to bring home EVERY soldier from around the world and adopt Rand's Objectivist philosophies....Look out for #1....THE USA.

.

Unlike alot of Libertarians who adopted alot of her views, Rand didn't necessarily advocate an isolationist foreign policy, in fact argued that the one justified role of US govt was to actively respond to legitimate external agression against it. By the way describing the Objectivist conception of acting out of self interest isn't exactly "look out for #1- as most people typically describe that term.. ..just sayin

Well, no offense....I'm sure you've read her...but I have read her extensively. I have half a thesis written about her. I've never finished it, mind you... But it is something...

Anyway, her position against altruism is quite evident. She doesn't subscribe to altruistic policies, in fact, she feels like it goes against reason. That a person's sole reason for existence is to serve others. That self-sacrifice is the highest moral value. She also didn't use 'altruism' as a blanket definition. She had nothing against kindness, good-will, or respecting other individuals. She just thought that if everyone looked after themselves - there wouldn't be a great need to look out for others....In other words, 'Proponents of altruism want you to believe that any action taken for the benifit of others is good, and any action taken for the benfit of oneself is evil'

[SF-Dano]

We are in the middle east.....they look at that as the same thing. We need to bring home EVERY soldier from around the world and adopt Rand's Objectivist philosophies....Look out for #1....THE USA.

Secondly, I find dropping TWO mega-ton bombs on a country a bit extreme...it went over like a cop shooting a civilian for jaywalking. This country just likes to throw it's weight around the world. Excessive Force to the highest degree. I gurantee more civilians died in 1945 Japan than in Nazi Germany.....but one gets applauded, and the other gets the finger.

I am not necessarily for the US getting involved militarily in situations such as Kossovo, Bosnia, Libya, Somalia. But when we are attacked or at war with someone, I want us to throw our weight at the enemy and utilize the full force of that "weight". If more dead of the enemy is going to create less dead of the US, then that is it. Like I said, if you are in a war, fight it hard with all you got and get it over with as soon as possible. Ever since the US has started fighting wars in a PC way (one hand tied) we have become a bunch of losers and laughing stocks. Which only emboldens our enemies to strike at us. Hit them hard and maybe, just maybe, the will think better before hitting us again.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Well, no offense....I'm sure you've read her...but I have read her extensively. I have half a thesis written about her. I've never finished it, mind you... But it is something...

Anyway, her position against altruism is quite evident. She doesn't subscribe to altruistic policies, in fact, she feels like it goes against reason. That a person's sole reason for existence is to serve others. That self-sacrifice is the highest moral value. She also didn't use 'altruism' as a blanket definition. She had nothing against kindness, good-will, or respecting other individuals. She just thought that if everyone looked after themselves - there wouldn't be a great need to look out for others....In other words, 'Proponents of altruism want you to believe that any action taken for the benifit of others is good, and any action taken for the benfit of oneself is evil'

hey get off this insane place and finish your thesis! What can this place teach you besides the fact that Perry aint ever coming back, and most people dont respect the hidden gems of melodic rock (and you already know that ) Wasnt trying to criticise your post. Yes Rand was against altruism and beleived that individuals do and should look after themselves first. Objectivist believe that we can use reason to understand right and wrong and leads us to act morally and out of respect for other individuals, taking away from no other man what is righfully his. People purposely miss out this part when they try to tear Rand down- totally missing the fact that her selfishness doesnt sanction "just doing what ever you want to people"[q[/quote]

[S2M]

Unlike alot of Libertarians who adopted alot of her views, Rand didn't necessarily advocate an isolationist foreign policy, in fact argued that the one justified role of US govt was to actively respond to legitimate external agression against it. By the way describing the Objectivist conception of acting out of self interest isn't exactly "look out for #1- as most people typically describe that term.. ..just sayin

Well, no offense....I'm sure you've read her...but I have read her extensively. I have half a thesis written about her. I've never finished it, mind you... But it is something...

Anyway, her position against altruism is quite evident. She doesn't subscribe to altruistic policies, in fact, she feels like it goes against reason. That a person's sole reason for existence is to serve others. That self-sacrifice is the highest moral value. She also didn't use 'altruism' as a blanket definition. She had nothing against kindness, good-will, or respecting other individuals. She just thought that if everyone looked after themselves - there wouldn't be a great need to look out for others....In other words, 'Proponents of altruism want you to believe that any action taken for the benifit of others is good, and any action taken for the benfit of oneself is evil'

hey get off this insane place and finish your thesis! What can this place teach you besides the fact that Perry aint ever coming back, and most people dont respect the hidden gems of melodic rock (and you already know that ) Wasnt trying to criticise your post. Yes Rand was against altruism and beleived that individuals do and should look after themselves first. Objectivist believe that we can use reason to understand right and wrong and leads us to act morally and out of respect for other individuals, taking away from no other man what is righfully his. People purposely miss out this part when they try to tear Rand down- totally missing the fact that her selfishness doesnt sanction "just doing what ever you want to people"[/quote]


I haven't touched that paper on Rand since 1998...once my son was born, troubles with his mother...and that was the end of that paper.

[brywool]

Wrong picture ,dude.
The pic above is from them watching the Royal Wedding last week

no with that one, their eyes are all closed

[Ehwmatt]

They are starting to lean towards not releasing the photos. Just when I was willing to give this administration a little credit for its part in this operation, they display this bumbling incompetency and cowardliness. First, you have them initially wavering about whether to release the pictures. Then, you have Panetta saying there was "no doubt" pics would be released. Now, you have them leaning towards no because they're afraid we might upset a few camel riders. I think the comments section to the link below speaks to the overwhelming consensus of releasing these pictures. This is a no-brainer decision, and even if it weren't, should have been decided months ago when planning was underway. Did they ever think that videos of such a death would NOT be gruesome?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... good-.html

As far as I'm concerned, pics should have been released shortly after Obama's speech Sunday night. Obama has pretty much squandered any political capital he gained from this incident thanks to the way that he and his buffoons have handled this whole thing since Sunday night.

[Jana]

Whatever is in the best interests of national security. I could care less what they do. He's dead and they have the DNA match to prove it. A gruesome photo with a gunshot to the face might really stir things up worse. I don't know. But they will weigh the pros and cons and decide. I'm fine either way.

[Behshad]

They are starting to lean towards not releasing the photos. Just when I was willing to give this administration a little credit for its part in this operation, they display this bumbling incompetency and cowardliness. First, you have them initially wavering about whether to release the pictures. Then, you have Panetta saying there was "no doubt" pics would be released. Now, you have them leaning towards no because they're afraid we might upset a few camel riders. I think the comments section to the link below speaks to the overwhelming consensus of releasing these pictures. This is a no-brainer decision, and even if it weren't, should have been decided months ago when planning was underway. Did they ever think that videos of such a death would NOT be gruesome?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... good-.html

As far as I'm concerned, pics should have been released shortly after Obama's speech Sunday night. Obama has pretty much squandered any political capital he gained from this incident thanks to the way that he and his buffoons have handled this whole thing since Sunday night.

You wanna talk about buffoons, those who comment on your link are the real buffoons.

Anyone that DOUBTS that Osama is dead , needs their head checked. I dont see the pics as proof that he was killed or not. The pic would prove that WE killed him, SUNDAY and that we didnt just find out about his death and tried to create a story. For all that we (the public) know, he couldve died months or years ago.
And a DNA test doesnt prove NOTHING at this point , to the public.

[Ehwmatt]

They are starting to lean towards not releasing the photos. Just when I was willing to give this administration a little credit for its part in this operation, they display this bumbling incompetency and cowardliness. First, you have them initially wavering about whether to release the pictures. Then, you have Panetta saying there was "no doubt" pics would be released. Now, you have them leaning towards no because they're afraid we might upset a few camel riders. I think the comments section to the link below speaks to the overwhelming consensus of releasing these pictures. This is a no-brainer decision, and even if it weren't, should have been decided months ago when planning was underway. Did they ever think that videos of such a death would NOT be gruesome?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... good-.html

As far as I'm concerned, pics should have been released shortly after Obama's speech Sunday night. Obama has pretty much squandered any political capital he gained from this incident thanks to the way that he and his buffoons have handled this whole thing since Sunday night.

You wanna talk about buffoons, those who comment on your link are the real buffoons.

Anyone that DOUBTS that Osama is dead , needs their head checked. I dont see the pics as proof that he was killed or not. The pic would prove that WE killed him, SUNDAY and that we didnt just find out about his death and tried to create a story. For all that we (the public) know, he couldve died months or years ago.
And a DNA test doesnt prove NOTHING at this point , to the public.

I don't doubt that he's dead. Not one bit. I do believe that shit went down Sunday too. The pics need to come out though... there is an outstanding demand for them and a large precedent for them.

At any rate, shouldn't this debate have been resolved in private as part of the top secret planning for the mission? Forget your stance on the pic coming out or not coming out. The mere failure to plan for this basic procedure/contingency (whether the answer is yes-release or no-don't release) before the killing happened is embarrassing. The public is now witness to hemming and hawing on the president's and his administration's various moving parts (Panetta vs Clinton/Gates etc) on a pretty basic issue. It's embarrassing.

Why does anyone think that these pictures are going to stir up extremist hatred and aggression towards us any more than they already hate us? As if they forgot about us since 9/11 and that hatred has just been lying dormant. That makes no sense at all. If anything, I'm all for them getting enraged and trying to rush things they might have tried to plan more thoroughly. Then, they'll just fuck up.

[Behshad]

They are starting to lean towards not releasing the photos. Just when I was willing to give this administration a little credit for its part in this operation, they display this bumbling incompetency and cowardliness. First, you have them initially wavering about whether to release the pictures. Then, you have Panetta saying there was "no doubt" pics would be released. Now, you have them leaning towards no because they're afraid we might upset a few camel riders. I think the comments section to the link below speaks to the overwhelming consensus of releasing these pictures. This is a no-brainer decision, and even if it weren't, should have been decided months ago when planning was underway. Did they ever think that videos of such a death would NOT be gruesome?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... good-.html

As far as I'm concerned, pics should have been released shortly after Obama's speech Sunday night. Obama has pretty much squandered any political capital he gained from this incident thanks to the way that he and his buffoons have handled this whole thing since Sunday night.

You wanna talk about buffoons, those who comment on your link are the real buffoons.

Anyone that DOUBTS that Osama is dead , needs their head checked. I dont see the pics as proof that he was killed or not. The pic would prove that WE killed him, SUNDAY and that we didnt just find out about his death and tried to create a story. For all that we (the public) know, he couldve died months or years ago.
And a DNA test doesnt prove NOTHING at this point , to the public.

I don't doubt that he's dead. Not one bit. I do believe that shit went down Sunday too. The pics need to come out though... there is an outstanding demand for them and a large precedent for them.

At any rate, shouldn't this debate have been resolved in private as part of the top secret planning for the mission? Forget your stance on the pic coming out or not coming out. The mere failure to plan for this basic procedure/contingency (whether the answer is yes-release or no-don't release) before the killing happened is embarrassing. The public is now witness to hemming and hawing on the president's and his administration's various moving parts (Panetta vs Clinton/Gates etc) on a pretty basic issue. It's embarrassing.

Why does anyone think that these pictures are going to stir up extremist hatred and aggression towards us any more than they already hate us? As if they forgot about us since 9/11 and that hatred has just been lying dormant. That makes no sense at all. If anything, I'm all for them getting enraged and trying to rush things they might have tried to plan more thoroughly. Then, they'll just fuck up.

As usualy youre blowing this way outta proportions. There is no hemming and hawing. At this point people want some kind of proof, but not to the extent to put down the president and see this as a weakness or something. People waited almost ten years for this to finally happen, surely they can wait 10 DAYS to see the proof, dont you think ?

As far as the terrorists, the release of pictures will not rush them into anything. They probably have planned something for years and regardless of the pics we will probably see them try to attack.

[Ehwmatt]

They are starting to lean towards not releasing the photos. Just when I was willing to give this administration a little credit for its part in this operation, they display this bumbling incompetency and cowardliness. First, you have them initially wavering about whether to release the pictures. Then, you have Panetta saying there was "no doubt" pics would be released. Now, you have them leaning towards no because they're afraid we might upset a few camel riders. I think the comments section to the link below speaks to the overwhelming consensus of releasing these pictures. This is a no-brainer decision, and even if it weren't, should have been decided months ago when planning was underway. Did they ever think that videos of such a death would NOT be gruesome?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... good-.html

As far as I'm concerned, pics should have been released shortly after Obama's speech Sunday night. Obama has pretty much squandered any political capital he gained from this incident thanks to the way that he and his buffoons have handled this whole thing since Sunday night.

You wanna talk about buffoons, those who comment on your link are the real buffoons.

Anyone that DOUBTS that Osama is dead , needs their head checked. I dont see the pics as proof that he was killed or not. The pic would prove that WE killed him, SUNDAY and that we didnt just find out about his death and tried to create a story. For all that we (the public) know, he couldve died months or years ago.
And a DNA test doesnt prove NOTHING at this point , to the public.

I don't doubt that he's dead. Not one bit. I do believe that shit went down Sunday too. The pics need to come out though... there is an outstanding demand for them and a large precedent for them.

At any rate, shouldn't this debate have been resolved in private as part of the top secret planning for the mission? Forget your stance on the pic coming out or not coming out. The mere failure to plan for this basic procedure/contingency (whether the answer is yes-release or no-don't release) before the killing happened is embarrassing. The public is now witness to hemming and hawing on the president's and his administration's various moving parts (Panetta vs Clinton/Gates etc) on a pretty basic issue. It's embarrassing.

Why does anyone think that these pictures are going to stir up extremist hatred and aggression towards us any more than they already hate us? As if they forgot about us since 9/11 and that hatred has just been lying dormant. That makes no sense at all. If anything, I'm all for them getting enraged and trying to rush things they might have tried to plan more thoroughly. Then, they'll just fuck up.

As usualy youre blowing this way outta proportions. There is no hemming and hawing. At this point people want some kind of proof, but not to the extent to put down the president and see this as a weakness or something. People waited almost ten years for this to finally happen, surely they can wait 10 DAYS to see the proof, dont you think ?

As far as the terrorists, the release of pictures will not rush them into anything. They probably have planned something for years and regardless of the pics we will probably see them try to attack.

As usual? What's that supposed to mean?

[Behshad]

They are starting to lean towards not releasing the photos. Just when I was willing to give this administration a little credit for its part in this operation, they display this bumbling incompetency and cowardliness. First, you have them initially wavering about whether to release the pictures. Then, you have Panetta saying there was "no doubt" pics would be released. Now, you have them leaning towards no because they're afraid we might upset a few camel riders. I think the comments section to the link below speaks to the overwhelming consensus of releasing these pictures. This is a no-brainer decision, and even if it weren't, should have been decided months ago when planning was underway. Did they ever think that videos of such a death would NOT be gruesome?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... good-.html

As far as I'm concerned, pics should have been released shortly after Obama's speech Sunday night. Obama has pretty much squandered any political capital he gained from this incident thanks to the way that he and his buffoons have handled this whole thing since Sunday night.

You wanna talk about buffoons, those who comment on your link are the real buffoons.

Anyone that DOUBTS that Osama is dead , needs their head checked. I dont see the pics as proof that he was killed or not. The pic would prove that WE killed him, SUNDAY and that we didnt just find out about his death and tried to create a story. For all that we (the public) know, he couldve died months or years ago.
And a DNA test doesnt prove NOTHING at this point , to the public.

I don't doubt that he's dead. Not one bit. I do believe that shit went down Sunday too. The pics need to come out though... there is an outstanding demand for them and a large precedent for them.

At any rate, shouldn't this debate have been resolved in private as part of the top secret planning for the mission? Forget your stance on the pic coming out or not coming out. The mere failure to plan for this basic procedure/contingency (whether the answer is yes-release or no-don't release) before the killing happened is embarrassing. The public is now witness to hemming and hawing on the president's and his administration's various moving parts (Panetta vs Clinton/Gates etc) on a pretty basic issue. It's embarrassing.

Why does anyone think that these pictures are going to stir up extremist hatred and aggression towards us any more than they already hate us? As if they forgot about us since 9/11 and that hatred has just been lying dormant. That makes no sense at all. If anything, I'm all for them getting enraged and trying to rush things they might have tried to plan more thoroughly. Then, they'll just fuck up.

As usualy youre blowing this way outta proportions. There is no hemming and hawing. At this point people want some kind of proof, but not to the extent to put down the president and see this as a weakness or something. People waited almost ten years for this to finally happen, surely they can wait 10 DAYS to see the proof, dont you think ?

As far as the terrorists, the release of pictures will not rush them into anything. They probably have planned something for years and regardless of the pics we will probably see them try to attack.

As usual? What's that supposed to mean?

It means I like to pick on you and you deal with it, fucker

[ebake02]

Releasing the photos wouldn't have mattered anyway. He could have put osama's body on display in Times Square and those conspiracy theorist nuts would have still bitched up a storm that it was a wax figure or some shit. They're just mad that he did what W couldn't do.

[Behshad]

Anyone else watching this fiasco ,,, I mean press conference ?!
What a joke.

Of course a photo is needed. They keep saying they know they got him and the DNA matched.
None of that is proof to the public.
The security of Americans at home or abroad will not be affected one bit by the release of photos.

This smells more fishy than Phyls crotch !{ I've heard }.

If they don't release the pics, together with the sea burial , it means BinLaden has been dead for a while , we found out about it and we staged a Kill Operation to take credits for it.

[steveo777]

Anyone else watching this fiasco ,,, I mean press conference ?!
What a joke.

Of course a photo is needed. They keep saying they know they got him and the DNA matched.
None of that is proof to the public.
The security of Americans at home or abroad will not be affected one bit by the release of photos.

This smells more fishy than Phyls crotch !{ I've heard }.

If they don't release the pics, together with the sea burial , it means BinLaden has been dead for a while , we found out about it and we staged a Kill Operation to take credits for it.

Public opinion is gonna steer this. Those photos will surface. My guess is before the end of the week.

[Behshad]

The moron answers half the questions half ass and the other half refers to secretary of defense. Pathetic.

[S2M]

The moron answers half the questions half ass and the other half refers to secretary of defense. Pathetic.

Most of the time I'm embarrassed for this country....Not condoning how other countries handle things, but I can see why they hate us.