Dr. Who Helped Get Bin Laden Gets 33 Years [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Dr. Who Helped Get Bin Laden Gets 33 Years


Paul7
05-24-2012, 18:35
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57439825/pakistan-officials-doctor-who-helped-u.s-in-bin-laden-raid-gets-33-years/

Why, I thought it was a few isolated nutballs that admired Bin Laden, rarer than hen's teeth.

/sarcasm off

I say we stage a covert op to free him.

juggy4711
05-24-2012, 19:42
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57439825/pakistan-officials-doctor-who-helped-u.s-in-bin-laden-raid-gets-33-years/

Why, I thought it was a few isolated nutballs that admired Bin Laden, rarer than hen's teeth.

/sarcasm off

I say we stage a covert op to free him.

Sucks to be him, but he isn't worth the time, the money and most importantly the life it might cost.

Paul7
05-24-2012, 21:21
Akil will be along soon to explain the justice of this.

juggy4711
05-24-2012, 21:32
Akil will be along soon to explain the justice of this.

It may have been for all the right reasons but to the Pakis he is a traitor. Just proof that Pakistan is not an ally except for the part were we give them billions. His circumstance is part of the price to the paid to keep that charade going. It sucks but I wouldn't expend one American life for his.

randrew379
05-24-2012, 21:35
Darn! I thought this was about Dr. Who.

juggy4711
05-24-2012, 21:47
Darn! I thought this was about Dr. Who.

:rofl: So did I the first time I read the thread title.

Paul7
05-25-2012, 08:57
It may have been for all the right reasons but to the Pakis he is a traitor. Just proof that Pakistan is not an ally except for the part were we give them billions.

Exactly. Amazing that to an entire Muslim nation someone who turns in the criminal Bin Laden is a traitor. I sure don't see any protests in Pakistan about this. This is similar to what I heard from someone in Egypt, that when it was announced Bin Laden was killed, they didn't see any Muslims who were happy about it. Some were apathetic, but most were sad.

void *
05-25-2012, 09:53
For a moment I read the title as "Dr. Who helped bin Laden get 33 years" and I started looking around for a TARDIS. :supergrin:

Woofie
05-25-2012, 12:47
Exactly. Amazing that to an entire Muslim nation someone who turns in the criminal Bin Laden is a traitor. I sure don't see any protests in Pakistan about this. This is similar to what I heard from someone in Egypt, that when it was announced Bin Laden was killed, they didn't see any Muslims who were happy about it. Some were apathetic, but most were sad.

That's as accurate as saying the entire US supports Obama and is rooting for his reelection.

Paul7
05-25-2012, 13:48
That's as accurate as saying the entire US supports Obama and is rooting for his reelection.

So where are the protesters to this act? The entire Pakistani government is behind this move, not just a few crazies.

Syclone538
05-25-2012, 14:11
What do you think people would think about an American getting 33 years in prison for helping Pakistan run a covert op in the U.S.? I'd be indifferent. Yeah that's about right.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have done it, but I am saying they have every right to be pretty effin mad that we did.

csoglock17
05-25-2012, 14:31
The way I heard it from the media :whistling:,Obama personally stocked, planned the raid, and was there and put the shot between his eyes with a Gock :faint:. Do you think they will have to give Obama the same sentence?:headscratch:

Woofie
05-25-2012, 14:57
So where are the protesters to this act? The entire Pakistani government is behind this move, not just a few crazies.

Do the actions of our government represent the beliefs of all Americans?

Paul7
05-25-2012, 16:37
Do the actions of our government represent the beliefs of all Americans?

If they don't there are usually protests. I don't see any in Pakistan, do you? Funny, they protest about cartoons they don't like.

Paul7
05-25-2012, 16:38
What do you think people would think about an American getting 33 years in prison for helping Pakistan run a covert op in the U.S.? I'd be indifferent. Yeah that's about right.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have done it, but I am saying they have every right to be pretty effin mad that we did.

If they really approve of Bin Laden and his activities, yes.

juggy4711
05-25-2012, 18:30
If they don't there are usually protests. I don't see any in Pakistan, do you? Funny, they protest about cartoons they don't like.

Dude it's Pakistan. I'm certain the authorities in Pakistan wouldn't allow those that were happy that Bin Laden was whacked to protest the same as we can here.

The comparison is stupid. Muslims in Pakistan have to risk imprisonment and their lives to do what the Occupoopers have been doing here. But as I have posted before they're likely and unfortunately going to have to fight and die to reform Islam and their nations governments so that they can protest like we can here.

AlexHassin
05-25-2012, 19:04
i dont think Dr. Who will stand for that

http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w480/dphillips9/internets/greatanger.jpg

Animal Mother
05-25-2012, 21:36
What do you think people would think about an American getting 33 years in prison for helping Pakistan run a covert op in the U.S.? I'd be indifferent. Yeah that's about right. Jonathan Pollard spied for Israel inside the US, he was sentenced to life in prison.

void *
05-25-2012, 22:45
Jonathan Pollard spied for Israel inside the US, he was sentenced to life in prison.

By Paul7 logic, this means America supported Palestinian terrorists.

(yes, i am exaggerating a bit. But there's a kernel of truth there)

G26S239
05-25-2012, 22:55
That sucks. Too bad he wasn't whisked out of Pakistan in time to avoid this crap. The Lashkar e Taiba mass murderers of Mumbai outfit is supported by Pakistan's intelligence Service. That scumbag Karzai wants the US out of Afghanistan, it's time to go, cut off aid and let Karzai and Afghanistan sink or swim. Getting that done would limit the amount of interaction with Pakistan.

Syclone538
05-25-2012, 22:56
If they really approve of Bin Laden and his activities, yes.

I think you quoted the wrong post.







Jonathan Pollard spied for Israel inside the US, he was sentenced to life in prison.

Yeah, I'm fine with that too.

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 05:44
That sucks. Too bad he wasn't whisked out of Pakistan in time to avoid this crap. The Lashkar e Taiba mass murderers of Mumbai outfit is supported by Pakistan's intelligence Service. That scumbag Karzai wants the US out of Afghanistan, it's time to go, cut off aid and let Karzai and Afghanistan sink or swim. Getting that done would limit the amount of interaction with Pakistan.

I suspect that this type of abadonment of an asset that is found out publically would hurt and hinder the intelligence community world wide. I am sure there are some pretty annoyed operatives out there right now.

Paul7
05-26-2012, 06:31
Dude it's Pakistan. I'm certain the authorities in Pakistan wouldn't allow those that were happy that Bin Laden was whacked to protest the same as we can here.

The comparison is stupid. Muslims in Pakistan have to risk imprisonment and their lives to do what the Occupoopers have been doing here. But as I have posted before they're likely and unfortunately going to have to fight and die to reform Islam and their nations governments so that they can protest like we can here.

And if it rained in the Sahara you could grow tomatoes there. The only fighting and dying going on today I see is Muslims trying to make things more repressive.

Paul7
05-26-2012, 06:33
By Paul7 logic, this means America supported Palestinian terrorists.

(yes, i am exaggerating a bit. But there's a kernel of truth there)

Who was the Pakistani doctor spying on? He was merely doing what Pakistan claims to want, helping with the war on terror by letting us know the whereabouts of a major terror leader.

G26S239
05-26-2012, 06:37
I suspect that this type of abadonment of an asset that is found out publically would hurt and hinder the intelligence community world wide. I am sure there are some pretty annoyed operatives out there right now.
I agree. Letting potential friends know that they will be looked after for putting it on the line is practical as well as the right thing to do.

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 06:41
I suspect that this type of abadonment of an asset that is found out publically would hurt and hinder the intelligence community world wide. I am sure there are some pretty annoyed operatives out there right now.It also demonstrates the danger of reporting about classified operations and highlights the possible problems of actions like Wikileaks and the information releases by hacker groups.

Paul7
05-26-2012, 06:52
This situation is if as in WWII a US ally jailed one of it's citizen for turning in a German soldier.

G26S239
05-26-2012, 07:07
It also demonstrates the danger of reporting about classified operations and highlights the possible problems of actions like Wikileaks and the information releases by hacker groups.
Yeah Wikileaks is scum. I hope Manning gets a very long sentence.

Syclone538
05-26-2012, 08:14
So you guys would be ok with Pakistan running covert ops in the U.S.?

void *
05-26-2012, 08:54
Who was the Pakistani doctor spying on? He was merely doing what Pakistan claims to want, helping with the war on terror by letting us know the whereabouts of a major terror leader.

Pollard was merely doing what the U.S. claims to want, too, right? I mean, Israel took out the PLO headquarters, and used some of his intel doing it, didn't they? And we (the U.S.) arrested and convicted Pollard, so we must love the PLO, right?

You see how that logic works?

He helped a foreign power in the execution of an operation on their soil without asking or notifying them. That foreign power happens to be us, and I happen to not have any problem at all with us running that op without asking them (given that it looked a whole heck of a lot like *someone* was helping bin Laden be where he was at, and we couldn't necessarily get any kind of permission without him being tipped off). That doesn't mean we shouldn't expect Pakistan to not be pissed off because we did it, and it doesn't automatically mean that the entire Pakistan government is somehow "bin Laden lovers".

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 11:32
Yeah Wikileaks is scum. I hope Manning gets a very long sentence.

Honestly, I am still baffled how he hasn't gotten the "Putin treatment".

Akil8290
05-26-2012, 17:51
Akil will be along soon to explain the justice of this.

Where is the justice in it? I don't see it.

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 18:23
And if it rained in the Sahara you could grow tomatoes there. The only fighting and dying going on today I see is Muslims trying to make things more repressive.

Way to be obtuse. I didn't post they were. I posted that they probably would have to do so.

Paul7
05-26-2012, 20:48
Way to be obtuse. I didn't post they were. I posted that they probably would have to do so.

Me too, but I'm afraid it's wishful thinking. The trend in Islam is towards more repression, not less.

Paul7
05-26-2012, 20:49
Where is the justice in it? I don't see it.

So how is it that a Muslim 'ally' can do this, and without any protest from it's citizens? You know, the same bunch who riot when they see a cartoon they don't like or a Koran is accidently burned.

If I didn't know any better I would think most Pakistanis supported Bin Laden.

Paul7
05-26-2012, 20:56
Pollard was merely doing what the U.S. claims to want, too, right? I mean, Israel took out the PLO headquarters, and used some of his intel doing it, didn't they? And we (the U.S.) arrested and convicted Pollard, so we must love the PLO, right?

You see how that logic works?

Not really. When was it US policy to take out PLO headquarters? We could do it anytime we want.

He helped a foreign power in the execution of an operation on their soil without asking or notifying them. That foreign power happens to be us, and I happen to not have any problem at all with us running that op without asking them (given that it looked a whole heck of a lot like *someone* was helping bin Laden be where he was at, and we couldn't necessarily get any kind of permission without him being tipped off). That doesn't mean we shouldn't expect Pakistan to not be pissed off because we did it, and it doesn't automatically mean that the entire Pakistan government is somehow "bin Laden lovers".

Apparently the ones that count are. You honestly think Bin Laden was there without the knowledge of the Pakistani government? You know, the same people who help the Taliban behind our backs.

void *
05-26-2012, 21:59
Not really. When was it US policy to take out PLO headquarters? We could do it anytime we want.

it's never been U.S. Policy to go after organizations with terrorist ties?


Apparently the ones that count are. You honestly think Bin Laden was there without the knowledge of the Pakistani government? You know, the same people who help the Taliban behind our backs.

you're really good at that selective reading thing, aren't you?

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 22:07
Me too, but I'm afraid it's wishful thinking. The trend in Islam is towards more repression, not less.

So Islam today is more oppressive than it was a hundred years ago?

Paul7
05-27-2012, 08:20
it's never been U.S. Policy to go after organizations with terrorist ties?

Arafat used to go to the White House.

you're really good at that selective reading thing, aren't you?

No, but you're still great at denial when it comes to Islam.

Paul7
05-27-2012, 08:22
So Islam today is more oppressive than it was a hundred years ago?

The colonial powers seemed to keep a lid on the craziness. We weren't having 9/11s 100 years ago, were we?

Islam has been at war with the rest it's whole existance other than the now-ended few hundred year interval. As late at 1683 they were threatening Vienna.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 08:34
Why can't we get a deal for this guy like the Lockerbie bomber?

Pakistan is not a friend, although many pakistanis are friendly.

Akil8290
05-27-2012, 09:01
So how is it that a Muslim 'ally' can do this, and without any protest from it's citizens? You know, the same bunch who riot when they see a cartoon they don't like or a Koran is accidently burned.

If I didn't know any better I would think most Pakistanis supported Bin Laden.

You seemed so sure that I would come along and support the 'justice' of this doctor being prosecuted by the Pakistani government and sentenced to 33 years for helping our government find a terrorist who attacked us. Not going to happen.

Although, I do believe you are incorrect in your assertion that a majority of Pakastanis support Bin Laden. The whole reason he was prosecuted was for assisting a foreign government that was conducting an operation in his country; I don't believe its right, but it is what it is.

void *
05-27-2012, 14:33
No, but you're still great at denial when it comes to Islam.

The point about selective reading is that you need to go back and read what I wrote until you actually understand it, the question you asked (as well as this comment here) indicates you haven't comprehended what I wrote.

When you have comprehended what actually wrote, and can do something more constructive than asking questions that imply I'm holding a position I don't, come back and we can talk.

Unless, of course, you're intentionally ignoring what I wrote - in that case I'll just add it as more evidence to the 'Paul7 intellectual dishonesty' pile. I guess your actions will let me know which it is.

Paul7
05-27-2012, 20:21
The point about selective reading is that you need to go back and read what I wrote until you actually understand it, the question you asked (as well as this comment here) indicates you haven't comprehended what I wrote.


Understood, and rejected. That's pretty vain to imagine all who understand you will agree with you. I guess to you, everyone who doesn't buy into your bogus analogies (Pollard) is 'intellectually dishonest', huh?

Pot, meet kettle.

Paul7
05-27-2012, 20:26
You seemed so sure that I would come along and support the 'justice' of this doctor being prosecuted by the Pakistani government and sentenced to 33 years for helping our government find a terrorist who attacked us. Not going to happen.

That was a rhetorical question, and BTW I know you support this criminal's killing. I only wish more of your fellow Muslims did.

Although, I do believe you are incorrect in your assertion that a majority of Pakastanis support Bin Laden.

You are wrong. According to this poll, 55% of Pakistanis thought his killing was a bad thing, only 14% approved of it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-06-21-pakistan-bin-laden-poll_n.htm

Again, what if a US ally in WWII had 55% opposition to the killing of a major Nazi leader, and that government sentenced the man who tipped us off to 30 years in prison, and that that 'ally' had credible reports of militarily aiding the German military, as Pakistan does the Taliban. Would you not wonder whose side they were on?

Akil8290
05-27-2012, 21:06
That was a rhetorical question, and BTW I know you support this criminal's killing. I only wish more of your fellow Muslims did.

A rhetorical question? So you post that I would come along to explain the justice in a doctor being sentenced to 33 years by the Pakastani government who helped us track down Bin Laden and you didn't expect me to answer to that? That was a cheap shot at me, Paul; plain and simple. Now that I've thrown it back in your face, you're backpedaling.



You are wrong. According to this poll, 55% of Pakistanis thought his killing was a bad thing, only 14% approved of it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-06-21-pakistan-bin-laden-poll_n.htm

Again, what if a US ally in WWII had 55% opposition to the killing of a major Nazi leader, and that government sentenced the man who tipped us off to 30 years in prison, and that that 'ally' had credible reports of militarily aiding the German military, as Pakistan does the Taliban. Would you not wonder whose side they were on?

Of course I would and I stated I thought what happened to this doctor was wrong.

juggy4711
05-27-2012, 22:00
The colonial powers seemed to keep a lid on the craziness. We weren't having 9/11s 100 years ago, were we?...

Temporal relativism. The circumstances and time frames are not comparable.

void *
05-28-2012, 00:11
Understood, and rejected. That's pretty vain to imagine all who understand you will agree with you.

Let's take a look at what you're either disagreeing with, or failed to read, or intentionally ignored, specifically the portions that you are ignoring when you asked me your question:

That foreign power happens to be us, and I happen to not have any problem at all with us running that op without asking them (given that it looked a whole heck of a lot like *someone* was helping bin Laden be where he was at, and we couldn't necessarily get any kind of permission without him being tipped off)

You quoted and responded to the paragraph containing that with this question:

You honestly think Bin Laden was there without the knowledge of the Pakistani government?

To which, I noted you were reading selectively.

Now you are claiming that you 'Understood', 'rejected', and 'disagree'.

So either you did in fact read selectively, and in fact still have not read and understood what I said, and thus did not detect that I at the very least think that there are certainly people that the U.S. cannot trust within the Pakistani government - or are intentionally ignoring it - or you, as you just posted, disagree with my statement which indicates there was good reason we did not ask permission.

So which is it, Paul? I think we both know that the idea that it's the last of those options is ridiculous, and thus, it must be one of the other two.

You had a chance to actually go back and read what I said, to try to determine what I was really getting at. I was getting at the fact that your question didn't make sense in the context of what you quoted - in other words, it was already answered.

Instead, you went for 'pot kettle black'. Do you really wonder why people think you're not honest in your interactions with others?

Paul7
05-30-2012, 10:39
Let's take a look at what you're either disagreeing with, or failed to read, or intentionally ignored, specifically the portions that you are ignoring when you asked me your question:



You quoted and responded to the paragraph containing that with this question:



To which, I noted you were reading selectively.

Now you are claiming that you 'Understood', 'rejected', and 'disagree'.

So either you did in fact read selectively, and in fact still have not read and understood what I said, and thus did not detect that I at the very least think that there are certainly people that the U.S. cannot trust within the Pakistani government - or are intentionally ignoring it - or you, as you just posted, disagree with my statement which indicates there was good reason we did not ask permission.

So which is it, Paul? I think we both know that the idea that it's the last of those options is ridiculous, and thus, it must be one of the other two.

What I rejected was your ridiculous comparison of this instance with Jonathan Pollard. You are right, you did previously say the Pakistani government was complicit. We've been arguing two different things.

Do you really wonder why people think you're not honest in your interactions with others?

You're describing a misunderstanding above, not dishonesty. I consider that dishonesty charge to be name-calling and a personal attack. By 'people' you mean you?

Paul7
05-30-2012, 10:45
Of course I would and I stated I thought what happened to this doctor was wrong.

Good, but do you also agree with me that the majority of Pakistanis seem to support Bin Laden? I've posted a poll showing the people do and by their actions, the government does. Were you aware that when Bin Laden was killed, the Pakistan National Assembly offered religious prayers for him, and civilian protests across the country condemned the killing? I don't see any civilian protests when this brave doctor was sentenced to jail.

Not only did Pakistan shelter Bin Laden (while receiving $18 billion from the US to dismantle Al-Qaida), but they are probably doing the same for Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, head of Lashkar-e-Taiba and mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including 5 Americans. The US has a $10 million bounty on him, yet Pakistan rejects the charges against him and continues to grant him liberty to appear on TV and propagate hate speech at public rallies.

Woofie
05-30-2012, 11:30
How much can you realistically expect the subjects of an oppressive state to openly protest?

void *
05-30-2012, 11:47
What I rejected was your ridiculous comparison of this instance with Jonathan Pollard. You are right, you did previously say the Pakistani government was complicit. We've been arguing two different things.



You're describing a misunderstanding above, not dishonesty. I consider that dishonesty charge to be name-calling and a personal attack. By 'people' you mean you?

You asked me a question. I noted the question seemed to imply you were selectively reading. Was your response to that to go back and actually read what I wrote, given the specific question you asked? Especially when asked to do so?

No, it was not. Your response was to claim that you understood and disagreed.

What's the intellectually honest thing to do when someone indicates that you appear to be selectively reading? Perhaps rereading to see if you missed something they said would be appropriate, no? Did you do that?

No, you did not. You gave a response that was not even relevant to the question you had asked. If it's a "misunderstanding", that misunderstanding is entirely due to the fact that you didn't actually bother to read what I wrote, even when asked to do so.

If it's an honest mistake, then start showing that, by making an active effort to stop doing it.

Paul7
05-30-2012, 12:36
How much can you realistically expect the subjects of an oppressive state to openly protest?

They do when they see a cartoon they don't like or when we kill Bin Laden.

The question is, why are so many Muslim nations oppressive?

Paul7
05-30-2012, 12:40
You asked me a question. I noted the question seemed to imply you were selectively reading. Was your response to that to go back and actually read what I wrote, given the specific question you asked? Especially when asked to do so?

No, it was not. Your response was to claim that you understood and disagreed.

What's the intellectually honest thing to do when someone indicates that you appear to be selectively reading? Perhaps rereading to see if you missed something they said would be appropriate, no? Did you do that?

No, you did not. You gave a response that was not even relevant to the question you had asked. If it's a "misunderstanding", that misunderstanding is entirely due to the fact that you didn't actually bother to read what I wrote, even when asked to do so.

If it's an honest mistake, then start showing that, by making an active effort to stop doing it.

I often don't have time to go into these threads in as much detail as I would like. I'm traveling two months a year, yesterday for instance I got in at 4AM from an overnight in Chicago. At such times GTRI is waaay down my priority list. If you feel I am ignoring something, PM me. If you don't like how I operate, perhaps don't initiate interactions with me. To repeat, calling people dishonest for misunderstandings is a personal attack, and when you think about it, illogical. Unless you can mind read someone else.

void *
05-30-2012, 15:32
To repeat, calling people dishonest for misunderstandings is a personal attack, and when you think about it, illogical. Unless you can mind read someone else.

I knew I couldn't mind read you - which is why I gave you a chance to go back and reread. You didn't take it.

I know what it's like to be busy. However, historically, you do that a lot (miss part of what is said). I expect everyone does it, now and then. It's your reaction that shows what your character is, or at least appears to be.

Like I said - if it really was a misunderstanding - and I'm willing to call it that - you now have the chance to show it, in the future, by your actions. If you want to think that my pointing out something you actually did is a 'personal attack', well, so be it.

Paul7
05-30-2012, 15:38
I knew I couldn't mind read you - which is why I gave you a chance to go back and reread. You didn't take it.

I know what it's like to be busy. However, historically, you do that a lot (miss part of what is said). I expect everyone does it, now and then. It's your reaction that shows what your character is, or at least appears to be.

Like I said - if it really was a misunderstanding - and I'm willing to call it that - you now have the chance to show it, in the future, by your actions. If you want to think that my pointing out something you actually did is a 'personal attack', well, so be it.

Again, in the future I would suggest you PM me in these cases rather than name-call, as you just did again. Is it not possible for someone to reread something and still have a misunderstanding, or is it always due to dishonesty or character, etc.? I could play that game too and say when someone constantly calls people names, it says a lot about them.

void *
05-30-2012, 15:56
Again, in the future I would suggest you PM me in these cases rather than name-call, as you just did again. Is it not possible for someone to reread something and still have a misunderstanding, or is it always due to dishonesty or character, etc.? I could play that game too and say when someone constantly calls people names, it says a lot about them.

I'm not calling you names (unless you're claiming you didn't actually miss the portion of my post that answered your question), and it's not personal. If it were, things would be different. I'll shoot you a PM.

Cavalry Doc
05-30-2012, 19:26
How much can you realistically expect the subjects of an oppressive state to openly protest?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/paki-o26.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17523041

Google knows everything.

Woofie
05-31-2012, 10:26
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/paki-o26.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17523041

Google knows everything.

Interesting.