Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Vato26

It's good that the bastard is finally dead.

It's also good that this President had people that were competent enough to get the job done.  Unlike the prior President.

 What a cheap petty shot to take.  The truth for this entire event is that credit is deserved all around.  First and foremost to our US military, particularly the Seal team that took him out.  Persident Obama deserves credit for pursuing Bin Laden and giving to go ahead to take him out.  But he also deserves credit for CONTINUING the policy that was put in place by George W. Bush to capture or kill Bin Laden.  The military network had also been deployed under Bush making this victory possible.  It's possible Obama could have deployed the units to hunt down Bid Laden had they not been in place, however it's unlikely.  But he does deserve credit for not withdrawing them.

Now, the whole story is still unfolding, but from what I am hearing is that some of the vital intelligence that was gathered which made this whole thing possible came from...wait for it...Guantanamo!!  That's right, the place that Obama wanted to shut down when he first became president.  Boy, just imagine what will happen if we learn that some of the information was given up by inmates who where waterboarded.

Oh, you mean the same policy that had the US take our eyes off Afghanistan to invade Iraq on faulty intelligence _{(yeah right)}?  You mean the same policy that we could've been done with Afghanistan and probably have already killed bin Laden if we hadn't invaded Iraq?  That same policy?

 Nope!  I'm talking about the policy to capture or kill Bin Laden, not your attempt to deflect the subject.

Let's not get revisionist, Bush was plenty an idiot. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm

Let's recall he rejected offers in October 2001 to have Osama surrendered by the Taliban. Bush wanted regime change. Obama's Af/Pak policy has been solely about al Qaeda.

It wasn't two years ago that it was controversial of the Obama administration to claim Osama was in Pakistan, that drones there should be quadrupled in number, and that the Pakistani government, particularly the ISI, shouldn't have a chance to hear about every mission there such as this one prior to them occuring. 

That said, Obama didn't land on the ground and toss a grenade in any windows, so neither Bush nor Obama deserve complete credit for anything, but lets not do the false equivalency thing where Bush didn't make some very fucked up mistakes and deserves just as much credit as Obama. Actually, feel free to believe Bush deserves more, just please do acknowledge his mistakes and note that his strategy was entirely different.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by ArcheAge

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Are there any Persians today?

Ummm Iranians are Persians; particularly the farsi speakers. Either term is right, but saying there's no "Persians" is ridiculous. 

I think he should give up,it's embarrassing to say the least. I know he is use to unintelligent people actually believing the rubbish he spouts but up against intelligent people he falls apart and is exposed for the hate monger he really is.

Oops, didn't notice your post count until now. You're new.

Basically what Imho does is

1. Wake up and read the headlines of his favorite news sites, ignoring everything except negative news in the Middle East.
2. Typically ignore the shit out of the "Read more" links once an article is found.
3. Come here and more or less post just the subject line and comment on that. On a good day maybe 3-4 sentences into the article.
4. Learn nothing, and accomplish nothing except grow more scared and manic.
5. Repeat the next day.

You don't get to 12,000 posts of some very, very basic misunderstandings Islam and the Middle East on an MMO board without some unchecked mental issues. There's no point in trying to reason with it. Many have tried, but its best to just ignore it. He'll be doing the same crap a year from now, or two, and still be no smarter. 

 

Prove that I am scared of anything that I post about.

What does disliking Totalitarian regimes, like Communism and Theocracy, including radical Islam, have to do with being scared?

you are correct though, another 12K posts from now I still won't agree with you that appeasement is the correct way to deal with radical Islam, or that all the Israeli jews should be destroyed.

You don't "learn" either, because a year or two from now, you'll still advocate for appeasement, and still want to destroy all the Israeli Jews.

It's an observation. You already prove it.

Why move in the direction if discrediting as many people as possible? May as well only credit the guy that fired the gun. The truth is everyone deserves credit that contributed directly or indirectly. Thank every troop that fought the last 10 years, Bush and Obama, everyone's who's shipped care packages overseas, etc. etc.

Of course this isn't all a pristine and glorious event; a lot of collateral damage of human lives unnecessarily occured due to not one man's action, but one man plus the response of our nation and the rest of the world. It's bitter sweet and by and large mostly bitter, but its a hugely symbolic chapter closed and that means a lot. Can't learn from the past until its infact, the past. 

Anyway, Bush was a fool in a lot of different ways in his handling of the Osama hunt and Afghanistan, and Obama may've been the same in ways we don't know and maybe will never know. Both meant well however and things worked out for Obama while he was commander-in-chief, and inarguably he deserves credit for supporting and approving an Af/Pak strategy that shifted a whole lot of focus to both sides of the border. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiDyrkU0WAQ

Damn they work fast.

I'd say don't pull it, of course Google can do what they want. 

Anytime there's censorship though we're failing to deal with real problems, which is why the hell anyone would enjoy that anyway. 

I wouldn't equate that game with Grand Theft Auto. Even though "Dog Wars" is as straight to the point as "Grand Theft Auto" in the primary activity in the game, I highly doubt there's a storyline or side activities or anything to do other than make dogs fight. In that way, its not a game its a fetish. It'd be as if there was a football game where every play resulted in an injury and that was basically all there is to it. 

Game lovers shouldn't call that a "game". It's a fetish app. 

Originally posted by spizz

The translation is Aryan.

There is no "translation". "Iran" is just a derived word from Aryan, but Iran is the name of the country, obviously. Persia works too, but Iran is official...again, obviously. 

Originally posted by spizz

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Are there any Persians today?

Ummm Iranians are Persians; particularly the farsi speakers. Either term is right, but saying there's no "Persians" is ridiculous. 

 

It's archaic.

The only people I've ever met that call themselves "Persian" are Iranians that dont' want to be tied to that crazy regime.

I can't blame them, but you might as well just say, I'm Iranian.

I'm not going to hold it against you that your country of origin is ruled by crazy people, if you yourself are not crazy.

EVERYONE has a nationality.

Persia is not a nationality, becaues there is no current country of Persia.

 

 

Guy..."Iran" is the Persian word for the country we used to call "Persia". "Persia" still exists, we just obliged the Iranians, or Persians, by calling the country Iran. 

kobie had a very simple grade school point that obviously befuddled you to the point you had to bring up Rome and the Persian Empire and all that crap.

Stop the hoop jumping and just take him for his word if you never picked that bit of information up somehow. 

Iran means Aryan and not Persia, the Iranians did choose the word due to their Aryan ethnics.

Like I said, word for the country "WE" used to call "Persia", and still do if the synonym is needed when explaining Persian farsi speakers.

Originally posted by ArcheAge

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Are there any Persians today?

Ummm Iranians are Persians; particularly the farsi speakers. Either term is right, but saying there's no "Persians" is ridiculous. 

I think he should give up,it's embarrassing to say the least. I know he is use to unintelligent people actually believing the rubbish he spouts but up against intelligent people he falls apart and is exposed for the hate monger he really is.

Oops, didn't notice your post count until now. You're new.

Basically what Imho does is

1. Wake up and read the headlines of his favorite news sites, ignoring everything except negative news in the Middle East.
2. Typically ignore the shit out of the "Read more" links once an article is found.
3. Come here and more or less post just the subject line and comment on that. On a good day maybe 3-4 sentences into the article.
4. Learn nothing, and accomplish nothing except grow more scared and manic.
5. Repeat the next day.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Are there any Persians today?

Ummm Iranians are Persians; particularly the farsi speakers. Either term is right, but saying there's no "Persians" is ridiculous. 

 

It's archaic.

The only people I've ever met that call themselves "Persian" are Iranians that dont' want to be tied to that crazy regime.

I can't blame them, but you might as well just say, I'm Iranian.

I'm not going to hold it against you that your country of origin is ruled by crazy people, if you yourself are not crazy.

EVERYONE has a nationality.

Persia is not a nationality, becaues there is no current country of Persia.

 

 

Guy..."Iran" is the Persian word for the country we used to call "Persia". "Persia" still exists, we just obliged the Iranians, or Persians, by calling the country Iran. 

kobie had a very simple grade school point that obviously befuddled you to the point you had to bring up Rome and the Persian Empire and all that crap.

Stop the hoop jumping and just take him for his word if you never picked that bit of information up somehow. 

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Are there any Persians today?

Ummm Iranians are Persians; particularly the farsi speakers. Either term is right, but saying there's no "Persians" is ridiculous. 

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by outfctrl

What gripes me is that we have been giving Pakistan loads of money to find this guy and he was there the whole time.

Hang on though. The part of Pakistan he was in is not exactly under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani government. I don't trust the Pakistani government as far as I can throw it, but it's not like they can just waltz into those tribal areas and grab OBL without taking significant losses.

I'm sure in the days ahead we'll know more, and with greater accuracy, but for now I read this pretty great descriptor of the area: 

Abbottabad is essentially a military cantonment city in Pakistan, in the hills to the north of the capital of Islamabad, in an area where much of the land is controlled or owned by the Pakistan Army and retired army officers. Although the city is technically in what used to be called the Northwest Frontier Province, it lies to the far eastern side of the province and is as close to Pakistani-held Kashmir as it is to the border city of Peshawar. The city is most notable for housing the Pakistan Military Academy, the Pakistan Army’s premier training college, equivalent to West Point. Looking at maps and satellite photos on the Web last night, I saw the wide expanse of the Academy not far from where the million-dollar, heavily secured mansion where bin Laden lived was constructed in 2005. The maps I looked at had sections of land nearby marked off as “restricted area,” indicating that it was under military control. It stretches credulity to think that a mansion of that scale could have been built and occupied by bin Laden for six years without it coming to the attention of anyone in Pakistan’s Army.

The guy goes on to make some good points: 

The initial circumstantial evidence suggests the opposite is more likely—that bin Laden was effectively being housed under Pakistani state control. Pakistan will deny this, it seems safe to predict, and perhaps no convincing evidence will ever surface to prove the case. If I were a prosecutor at the United States Department of Justice, however, I would be tempted to call a grand jury. Who owned the land on which the house was constructed? How was the land acquired, and from whom? Who designed the house, which seems to have been purpose-built to secure bin Laden? Who was the general contractor? Who installed the security systems? Who worked there? Are there witnesses who will now testify as to who visited the house, how often, and for what purpose? These questions are not relevant only to the full realization of justice for the victims of September 11th. They are also relevant to the victims of terrorist attacks conducted or inspired by bin Laden while he lived in the house, and these include many Pakistanis as well as Afghans, Indians, Jordanians, and Britons. They are rightly subjects of American criminal law.

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/05/notes-on-the-death-of-osama-bin-laden.html

There seems to be no way, no reason to just chock this up as "Oh well, no one could've knew." We've given Pakistan billions of dollars of welfare, have treaties with them, and at the very least we deserve answers.

Looks like some in Washington are already starting to hint there will be expectations of investigation. Everything we don't can't be military, so hopefully some litigation will result. 

Considering there's a portion of the world that believes Hitler survived, there's unfortunately going to be nothing unusual about conspiracy theorists believing Osama is still alive. Not surprising seeing a couple emerge in this thread. 

Not to overshadow all the soldiers that've fought for the past ten years anyway.

Originally posted by Xirik

I am glad that he is finally gone

I just find it hard to Celebrate any humans death.. just seems wrong to me.

But that just me so you guys all let out whatever you feel about this as this is the day to let it all out.

 

So Americans how does it feel? a weight lifted off your shoulders that you didn't even know was there? emptyness?

 

for me it just feels odd, something that was so entrentched in our minds suddenly just disapears leaving me feeling empty and going what now?

"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.” - Mark Twain

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by sepher

Can't wait until its revealed who the operatives/soldiers were involved in the firefight. I wonder if we will actually know in the days ahead. 

 Hopefully so, but if they are special ops, we may not find out for quite some time. LOL

Yep..difficult to tell right now, seems doubtful we'll have a Return of the Jedi medal ceremony though, seems like it was carried out by one of those JSOC TFs

Can't wait until its revealed who the operatives/soldiers were involved in the firefight. I wonder if we will actually know in the days ahead. 

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by sepher

They're legally 100% the same document because both are "Certificates of Live Birth" a.k.a BIRTH CERTIFICATES. 

The difference is short-form vs. long-form. Don't be retarded, he DID release his birth certificate in 2008. For the love of Christ.

Congratulations you've been handed a birth certificate twice except in long form now you know the parents' address and whether or not that address is a farm or plantation.

 That's interesting because there are some jobs, even in the state of Hawaii, where a certification of live birth does not qualify as proof of citizenship.  I applied for one in my county back in Ohio when I was in college.  I was required to produce proof of citizenship and I showed them my short form and they rejected it as insufficient.  Therefore, I had to take in an actual copy of my birth certificate before they accepted me as a US citizen.  You use the term "legally", which may be the case, but the truth is that the birth certificate is filled out at the hospital (or the registrar's office) at the time of birth and the short form is filled out some time later and is based on information taken from the birth certificate.  So legally or not, they are the same document.

Then your "short form" wasn't your birth certificate.

Hawaii only issues ONE kind of birth certificate, and that's what Obama showed in 2008. The long form released now only came after a special waiver. So you're wrong in saying "some jobs, even in Hawaii". Every Hawaii-born proves their identity with their short-form certificate of live birth because its their BIRTH CERTIFICATE. 

Whatever you have that was rejected as insufficient != what Hawaii and many other states issue as a birth certificate, because what Hawaii issues to all of its born residents and what Obama showed in 2008 IS their "actual copy". 

Get over the myths.

 Well then Hawaii law is stupid in my opinion.  Anybody should be able to get a copy of their own birth certificate.  My parents have copies of my two brothers and my BC kept in a photo album.  So what Hawaii issues then is not the actual birth certificate, but a document based on the actual birth certificate.  Therefore part of the problem in this whole controversy resulted from the way the State of Hawaii does things.  That's government for you.

No...that's uh, inability to comprehend for you. Everyone gets a birth certificate in Hawaii. It's just that someone in 2008 told you that certificate of live birth != birth certificate and you bought it. By all means, no need to believe the long form is a birth certificate either. Let's keep this shit up. 

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by sepher

They're legally 100% the same document because both are "Certificates of Live Birth" a.k.a BIRTH CERTIFICATES. 

The difference is short-form vs. long-form. Don't be retarded, he DID release his birth certificate in 2008. For the love of Christ.

Congratulations you've been handed a birth certificate twice except in long form now you know the parents' address and whether or not that address is a farm or plantation.

 That's interesting because there are some jobs, even in the state of Hawaii, where a certification of live birth does not qualify as proof of citizenship.  I applied for one in my county back in Ohio when I was in college.  I was required to produce proof of citizenship and I showed them my short form and they rejected it as insufficient.  Therefore, I had to take in an actual copy of my birth certificate before they accepted me as a US citizen.  You use the term "legally", which may be the case, but the truth is that the birth certificate is filled out at the hospital (or the registrar's office) at the time of birth and the short form is filled out some time later and is based on information taken from the birth certificate.  So legally or not, they are the same document.

Then your "short form" wasn't your birth certificate.

Hawaii only issues ONE kind of birth certificate, and that's what Obama showed in 2008. The long form released now only came after a special waiver. So you're wrong in saying "some jobs, even in Hawaii". Every Hawaii-born proves their identity with their short-form certificate of live birth because its their BIRTH CERTIFICATE. 

Whatever you have that was rejected as insufficient != what Hawaii and many other states issue as a birth certificate, because what Hawaii issues to all of its born residents and what Obama showed in 2008 IS their "actual copy". 

Get over the myths.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

 

Originally posted by melmoth1

As many have said, the birth certificate he realeased back in 2008 was a valid and original birth certificate.

Obama waited this long because he credited too many of his fellow citizens with common sense and critical intelligence and rightly took the position that if he responded to every conspiracy-mong on every second day of the week then he wouldn't have time to deal with the important job of being President in difficult economic and political times. That and the fact that the state of Hawaii doesn't ordinarily release the long-form form of the Birth Certificate; Obama had to request a special waiver of that state to get this released under these circumstances.

I am sad that so many Americans believed the birthers. I am pretty much appalled and revolted by Donald Trump for throwing his lot in with the birthers and becoming their default spokesperson, and then doubly disgusted with him trying to claim the release of the long-form certificate as a victory for him and the birthers! WTF! 

Now that the long-form certificate is released, the birthers - as we all predicted - still continue with their shit.

 

Regards

 

Melmoth

 You give Obama too much credit.  If he had simply released it when the issue first reared its head, he could have put the controversy to bed years ago.  He finally had no choice because Trump was transforming the subject from a fringe issue into a mainstream one.  I'm no Trump supporter because he's too much of a self-promoter imo, but at least he played a part in ending this ridiculous story.  The sad thing is that it's probably never going to completely end.  There will be conspiracy theorists who will be convinced that it's a forgery.  Again, Obama could have prevented it from going that far by simply releasing it two years ago.

Oh and btw, he did not release his official birth certificate back in 2008.  He released this:

 

Not this:

They're legally 100% the same document because both are "Certificates of Live Birth" a.k.a BIRTH CERTIFICATES. 

The difference is short-form vs. long-form. Don't be retarded, he DID release his birth certificate in 2008. For the love of Christ.

Congratulations you've been handed a birth certificate twice except in long form now you know the parents' address and whether or not that address is a farm or plantation.

When lawyer Evan Stone worked as an in-house counsel for anime distributor FUNimation, the company tried all sorts of techniques to stop piracy. It sent takedown notices and DMCA complaints to anyone who would listen, like ISPs (which sometimes took action) and torrent sites (which rarely did). It hired outside firms to flood torrent sites with bogus files. It put more than 90 series online for free streaming.

Stone finally came to believe that suing file-sharers was the only approach left. "I didn't know what other options we had," he told me earlier this year. "We were at our wit's end."

But making money in anime isn't hopeless; it turns out that anime lovers will pay for content even in an age of widely available free versions. "In almost all cases, piracy is not an issue of legality," says Kun Gao, CEO of the anime streaming site Crunchyroll. It's often a market issue—and Crunchyroll turns a profit by offering anime lovers what they want: legal access to anime shows right after new episodes have aired in Japan.

Pirates can't compete with this kind of availability, since even the most dedicated fansub groups need time to do their own translations. Crunchyroll gets its content a week before first air date, giving it time to do a proper subtitling job. Piracy may never go away, but Crunchyroll is out to prove that "competing with free" is possible by treating piracy like a business problem.

The rest: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/competing-with-free-anime-site-treats-piracy-as-a-market-failure.ars

You know its the same for music. Piracy's entire charm isn't "free", its also convenience. I don't know a person who minds the $4.99 or $9.99 a month for Rdio.com considering they can listen to new albums every tuesday and their old favorites whenever. 

It's somewhat similar for movies, I don't know anyone that minds the $7.99 a month for Netflix. It's probably slowed piracy for subscribing persons prone to downloading movies online. But if they have to buy a DVD, Blu-ray, Pay-Per-View to get what isn't on Netflix's Watch Instantly, they might pirate instead. 

Games are somewhat the worst since they're tied to brick and mortar stores still largely. If all new games were released by download over Live (Xbox and Windows), PSN, Steam and whatever else, I imagine piracy might drop due to the extra convenience.

That said, company's could figure out how to teleport games into hands and price would still matter too. Free is always going to be most appealing, but that "free" often comes with a price; no online play for games, inferior quality for movie rips/cams, music pieced together based on leaks missing any bonus tracks/content. 

But, at the 7.99 Netflix does with movies, 4.99 for Rdio if you listen just on your PC, 6.99 for Crunchyroll as mentioned in the article above...I don't imagine how pirates could prefer "free" with the pain points involved with it to quality full-featured convenience. 

Of course, Netflix isn't completely there yet, unlike Rdio it doesn't get the latest and greatest every Tuesday. I think movie studios need to accept the fact people want convenience, and cheaply. We're used to it. It's a usability issue at this point, and having to buy something in a plastic case for 20-30 dollars that we aren't sure is good or bad is less and less likely to happen. 

Maybe one day piracy used to be about "free", and thus greed on the part of pirates, and maybe for a majority amount of pirates that's still what its about, but you have to think that if in 5 years Pay-Per-View still gets new movies before Netflix and the music and game industry are still pressing CDs, the case for piracy is then wholly one of convenience. 

Anyone who's chatted with me on these boards about piracy knows I could give a crap about 'em. I work in software and company's I've written software for have been pirated to all hell. I have personal incentive to think the worst of pirates, but its clear to even me that company's have to compete on convenience. The recipe seems simple: online immediately, accessible through subscription, regardless of what it is.