Bin Laden's dead

[Slathar]

Originally Posted by HeallunRumblebelly [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Small aside on the topic here, but:

According to most news outlets, OBL was shot while resisting capture, unarmed. A few things:


* Pretty sure rules of engagement have something to say about things like this, but that's a secondary concern to...

**This man was a most wanted terrorist, a HVT and possibly the most knowing member of the al qaeda terrorist movement. Why wasn't he interrogated?

Because you're dealing with the United States who doesn't care about following international protocols or laws? The U.S.A. isn't accountable to the rest of the world. It also has one of the worst human-rights records in existence.

NATO has every reason to bomb Washington D.C. in order to stop a sovereign nation (the United States) from attacking other sovereign nations (Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans, Central America (Contras), Iraq, Panama) the list goes on and on.

This won't happen, because the U.S.A. is the centre of democracy and freedom, though. Right?

[HeallunRumblebelly]

Originally Posted by Slathar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because you're dealing with the United States who doesn't care about following international protocols or laws? The U.S.A. isn't accountable to the rest of the world. It also has one of the worst human-rights records in existence.

NATO has every reason to bomb Washington D.C. in order to stop a sovereign nation (the United States) from attacking other sovereign nations (Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans, Central America (Contras), Iraq, Panama) the list goes on and on.

This won't happen, because the U.S.A. is the centre of democracy and freedom, though. Right?

I'm speaking from self-interest. Assuming motives are to prevent further attacks, and assuming that we went after this guy because he claimed responsibility for the previous attack, it would make sense to interrogate.

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by Slathar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because you're dealing with the United States who doesn't care about following international protocols or laws? The U.S.A. isn't accountable to the rest of the world. It also has one of the worst human-rights records in existence.

NATO has every reason to bomb Washington D.C. in order to stop a sovereign nation (the United States) from attacking other sovereign nations (Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans, Central America (Contras), Iraq, Panama) the list goes on and on.

This won't happen, because the U.S.A. is the centre of democracy and freedom, though. Right?

Lol I love this kid

[Ennoia]

Originally Posted by Slathar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because you're dealing with the United States who doesn't care about following international protocols or laws? The U.S.A. isn't accountable to the rest of the world. It also has one of the worst human-rights records in existence.

NATO has every reason to bomb Washington D.C. in order to stop a sovereign nation (the United States) from attacking other sovereign nations (Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans, Central America (Contras), Iraq, Panama) the list goes on and on.

This won't happen, because the U.S.A. is the centre of democracy and freedom, though. Right?

Did someone say Contra????!!!!

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OFwGgFOEZb4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I've heard multiple stories on what happend, the one making the most sense is that there was a firefight, during which Bin Laden was actively firing on US troops, using a woman as a human shield, and had to be taken out.

In regards to being buried at sea, in Islam is it only acceptable to being buried at sea if there is a high risk of the grave being desecrated if they were to be interred on land. In this case, being buried on the moon under 2 miles of concrete wouldn't have kept his grave safe.

It's still pretty fishy (heh) though. When we got Saddam, there were all kinds of pictures and whatever else. Is there some FCC thing we're all missing where a dead body can't be shown on TV?

[Turtles]

Originally Posted by Slathar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Attending an Ivy League school has nothing to do with intelligence, but more to do with class and racial status. Your credentials aren't impressive and you sound like a pompous idiot.

Good luck with that law degree. The job market is great for naive 1L internships. Have fun chasing ambulances.

Lol, someone's jelly. Let me break it down to you like a child.

Firstly, the contention had nothing to do with intelligence. Rather, it was about education. But let me guess: an Ivy League school has nothing to do with education, either -- am I right? I know man, I know. You went to community college because the man wanted to keep you down. But books are just books, anyway. Ivy League doesn't mean anything. Besides, you can totally quad-kite. I get it dude. One day you're breaking out of that McDonald's. Just you wait, world. But in the mean time, do me a favor. Don't forget the ketchup.

And since you're so concerned with intelligence, let's move on to that.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/Frey.pdf

SAT scores are highly correlated with both IQ scores and general intelligence. Average SAT score among those admitted to Ivy League schools, undergrad: ~1450/1600. Average SAT score: 1016. And to address your adorable concerns about class-based advantages, the average SAT score for the highest income bracket -- households with annual income of over $200,000 -- was 1142. Meaning even your upper-class college applicants are ~ 300 points short of Ivy League averages. So yes: you need to be smart (read: very, very smart) to be accepted to an Ivy League university. This was obvious to everyone who, you know, reads -- but hey: literacy has got nothing to do with intelligence, either.

To recap: you took a thread that had nothing to do with intelligence and still managed to make yourself look like a dumbass. Keep going, pal. This is going to turn out really well for you. I can feel it.

[Slathar]

Originally Posted by Turtles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol, someone's jelly. Let me break it down to you like a child.

Firstly, the contention had nothing to do with intelligence. Rather, it was about education. But let me guess: an Ivy League school has nothing to do with education, either -- am I right? I know man, I know. You went to community college because the man wanted to keep you down. But books are just books, anyway. Ivy League doesn't mean anything. Besides, you can totally quad-kite. I get it dude. One day you're breaking out of that McDonald's. Just you wait, world. But in the mean time, do me a favor. Don't forget the ketchup.

And since you're so concerned with intelligence, let's move on to that.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/Frey.pdf

SAT scores are highly correlated with both IQ scores and general intelligence. Average SAT score among those admitted to Ivy League schools, undergrad: ~1450/1600. Average SAT score: 1016. And to address your adorable concerns about class-based advantages, the average SAT score for the highest income bracket -- households with annual income of over $200,000 -- was 1142. Meaning even your upper-class college applicants are ~ 300 points short of Ivy League averages. So yes: you need to be smart (read: very, very smart) to be accepted to an Ivy League university. This was obvious to everyone who, you know, reads -- but hey: literacy has got nothing to do with intelligence, either.

To recap: you took a thread that had nothing to do with intelligence and still managed to make yourself look like a dumbass. Keep going, pal. This is going to turn out really well for you. I can feel it.

tl;dr

[Ozudin]

Originally Posted by Turtles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol, someone's jelly. Let me break it down to you like a child.

Firstly, the contention had nothing to do with intelligence. Rather, it was about education. But let me guess: an Ivy League school has nothing to do with education, either -- am I right? I know man, I know. You went to community college because the man wanted to keep you down. But books are just books, anyway. Ivy League doesn't mean anything. Besides, you can totally quad-kite. I get it dude. One day you're breaking out of that McDonald's. Just you wait, world. But in the mean time, do me a favor. Don't forget the ketchup.

And since you're so concerned with intelligence, let's move on to that.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/Frey.pdf

SAT scores are highly correlated with both IQ scores and general intelligence. Average SAT score among those admitted to Ivy League schools, undergrad: ~1450/1600. Average SAT score: 1016. And to address your adorable concerns about class-based advantages, the average SAT score for the highest income bracket -- households with annual income of over $200,000 -- was 1142. Meaning even your upper-class college applicants are ~ 300 points short of Ivy League averages. So yes: you need to be smart (read: very, very smart) to be accepted to an Ivy League university. This was obvious to everyone who, you know, reads -- but hey: literacy has got nothing to do with intelligence, either.

To recap: you took a thread that had nothing to do with intelligence and still managed to make yourself look like a dumbass. Keep going, pal. This is going to turn out really well for you. I can feel it.

I don't have a college degree, and never will more than likely. I'm still smart enough to tell your a fucking prick though. I don't care if you end up making ten times more than I do, you are still obviously failing at life.

[Bruno]

I didn't celebrate because whether he's dead or not, we're still going to be in Iraq and Afghan for a very long time. When we are out of there, then I will start sippin' kool-aid.

[Extunarian]

ITT: young ivy league law student activates /defensive

[Turtles]

Didn't think so.