Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

[husker_99]

Yes some of it.

Do you agree that Bush vowed to get Bin Laden?

 

at first yes but after a while of getting so close he gave up like most would do. In the grand scheme Osama was just a part of it and he was trying to free a country of taliban rule.

OK! So you admit that Bush vowed to get Bin Laden . . . got close . . . and gave up.

 

But we're supposed to give Bush credit? No offense, but that is an extremely weak argument. Obama re-started the search that Bush ended, found Bin Laden, and ordered the strike that killed him.

 

If you want to give credit to Seal Team 6, Leon Panetta, etc. I'm with you. Those people absolutely deserve credit. Bush? Nope. He failed.

 

So you believe Obama used zero Bush intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama? then you are full of sh#t.

[husker_99]

Yes some of it. Do you think that he didn't keep his people still tracking Osama? How would you explain Obama killed Osama so quickly if Obama did it all by himself? He didn't. that's one of the reasons he kept the same general that Bush had. Bush started hunting down Osama and Obama finished him off.

 

No one, at any time, asserted this. This is what you would call a "straw man."

 

 

yes you did cause i stated it clearly earlier if you had bothered to read, which it seems you now didn't.

No one but YOU stated that. Then you tried to attribute that view to others. That is a straw man argument.

 

Now you know.

 

I just stated Obama didn't do it all by himself. then is what you two are asserting. I merely said Obama picked up where Bush left off. Not a strawman argument. Next time try to keep up.

[carlfense]

Where did I say that Obama deserves sole credit?

 

Bush deserves no credit. He tried. He failed. He gave up.

 

It's simple. Arguing otherwise is trying to rewrite history.

[knapplc]

Yes some of it. Do you think that he didn't keep his people still tracking Osama? How would you explain Obama killed Osama so quickly if Obama did it all by himself? He didn't. that's one of the reasons he kept the same general that Bush had. Bush started hunting down Osama and Obama finished him off.

 

No one, at any time, asserted this. This is what you would call a "straw man."

 

 

yes you did cause i stated it clearly earlier if you had bothered to read, which it seems you now didn't.

 

Show me where I stated that Obama was solely responsible for killing bin Laden. This thread is a grand total of four pages. It should take you all of 15 seconds to find my post stating that Obama "did it all by himself" or any variation of this.

[husker_99]

Where did I say that Obama deserves sole credit?

 

Bush deserves no credit. He tried. He failed. He gave up.

 

It's simple. Arguing otherwise is trying to rewrite history.

 

You didn't. But to sit there and say Bush did nothing is ridiculous.

[husker_99]

Yes some of it. Do you think that he didn't keep his people still tracking Osama? How would you explain Obama killed Osama so quickly if Obama did it all by himself? He didn't. that's one of the reasons he kept the same general that Bush had. Bush started hunting down Osama and Obama finished him off.

 

No one, at any time, asserted this. This is what you would call a "straw man."

 

 

yes you did cause i stated it clearly earlier if you had bothered to read, which it seems you now didn't.

 

Show me where I stated that Obama was solely responsible for killing bin Laden. This thread is a grand total of four pages. It should take you all of 15 seconds to find my post stating that Obama "did it all by himself" or any variation of this.

 

You and carlfense got intertwined and he started replying to something he had nothing to do with. I never said that you said that Obama was.

[knapplc]

Yes some of it. Do you think that he didn't keep his people still tracking Osama? How would you explain Obama killed Osama so quickly if Obama did it all by himself? He didn't. that's one of the reasons he kept the same general that Bush had. Bush started hunting down Osama and Obama finished him off.

 

No one, at any time, asserted this. This is what you would call a "straw man."

 

 

yes you did cause i stated it clearly earlier if you had bothered to read, which it seems you now didn't.

 

Show me where I stated that Obama was solely responsible for killing bin Laden. This thread is a grand total of four pages. It should take you all of 15 seconds to find my post stating that Obama "did it all by himself" or any variation of this.

 

You and carlfense got intertwined and he started replying to something he had nothing to do with. I never said that you said that Obama was.

OK then, show me where HE said that.

[carlfense]

You and carlfense got intertwined and he started replying to something he had nothing to do with. I never said that you said that Obama was.

OK then, show me where HE said that.

(I didn't.)

 

Frustrating, isn't it?

[husker_99]

You and carlfense got intertwined and he started replying to something he had nothing to do with. I never said that you said that Obama was.

OK then, show me where HE said that.

(I didn't.)

 

Frustrating, isn't it?

 

 

Yes you did.

 

Where did I say that Obama deserves sole credit?

 

Bush deserves no credit. He tried. He failed. He gave up.

 

It's simple. Arguing otherwise is trying to rewrite history.

 

 

that is what you said. If Bush receives no credit than Obama must receive sole credit then.

[carlfense]

husker_99 thinks that Bush and Obama are the only two people on earth.

 

So much awesome.

 

 

I'll help you out. Look at my 10:32 post. Glad we could clear that up.

[knapplc]

WHOA!!! There is no need for personal attacks. If you can't continue the conversation without calling someone a name, either take it to the Woodshed or walk away.

[husker_99]

WHOA!!! There is no need for personal attacks. If you can't continue the conversation without calling someone a name, either take it to the Woodshed or walk away.

 

Then you might want to tell carlfense to stop his trolling. Unless you support trolling on this board?

[knapplc]

WHOA!!! There is no need for personal attacks. If you can't continue the conversation without calling someone a name, either take it to the Woodshed or walk away.

 

Then you might want to tell carlfense to stop his trolling. Unless you support trolling on this board?

He isn't trolling, he's asking you some very simple questions. You are getting agitated, and you lashed out. Either continue the conversation or walk away. Acting like a child because you cannot get yourself out of the mess you've created doesn't give you an excuse to call people names.

 

No more warnings.

[husker_99]

WHOA!!! There is no need for personal attacks. If you can't continue the conversation without calling someone a name, either take it to the Woodshed or walk away.

 

Then you might want to tell carlfense to stop his trolling. Unless you support trolling on this board?

He isn't trolling, he's asking you some very simple questions. You are getting agitated, and you lashed out. Either continue the conversation or walk away. Acting like a child because you cannot get yourself out of the mess you've created doesn't give you an excuse to call people names.

 

No more warnings.

 

yes he is. He interjects information that no one else is talking about which then paints him in the light that he is always right. For example no one was even talking about the special forces that did the acutal work of killing Osama but he brought it up to use for later. I have no problem being wrong or even admitting to it like i have done earlier. Sometimes he does not stay within the scope of the thread. I have to constantly point out what i said so that he even gets it. He assumes what i said and puts words in my mouth. Ask yourself something why haven't i lashed out at you then? if you say i am acting like a child? If he wants to start another discussion within the thread that's fine but he came in here quoting other people and then went off topic and kept quoting you when you answered me back filling in for you.

[carlfense]

WHOA!!! There is no need for personal attacks. If you can't continue the conversation without calling someone a name, either take it to the Woodshed or walk away.

 

Then you might want to tell carlfense to stop his trolling. Unless you support trolling on this board?

He isn't trolling, he's asking you some very simple questions. You are getting agitated, and you lashed out. Either continue the conversation or walk away. Acting like a child because you cannot get yourself out of the mess you've created doesn't give you an excuse to call people names.

 

No more warnings.

 

yes he is. He interjects information that no one else is talking about which then paints him in the light that he is always right. For example no one was even talking about the special forces that did the acutal work of killing Osama but he brought it up to use for later. I have no problem being wrong or even admitting to it like i have done earlier. Sometimes he does not stay within the scope of the thread. I have to constantly point out what i said so that he even gets it. He assumes what i said and puts words in my mouth. Ask yourself something why haven't i lashed out at you then? if you say i am acting like a child? If he wants to start another discussion within the thread that's fine but he came in here quoting other people and then went off topic and kept quoting you when you answered me back filling in for you.

No I'm not.

 

You tried to say that knapplc and/or I were arguing that Obama deserves sole credit. That is not true. I never said that. knapp never said that. You invented that.

 

Later, you tried to say that if I didn't think that Obama deserves sole credit it must mean that Bush deserves the credit. That is not true. There are approximately 7 billion other people in the world that could share the credit. Again, you are not correct. You invented that.

 

Your argument is weak and you're doing little to improve your reasoning. What's particularly interesting, I think, is that you're trying to simultaneously argue that getting Bin Laden is not a big deal . . . and that Bush deserves the credit. Heads Bush wins, tails Obama loses, right?