0

>> i said my opinion doesnt mean that its true :P

Where did you say this? So you're just posting to waste everyone's time? If you don't believe something, don't post it. If you do believe it, then post it, but leave this disqualifier off because it applies to everyone and is hence meaningless. If posting an opinion made it true, it wouldn't be an opinion. It would be a fact. Posting opinions is fine. Posting complete nonsense that you don't believe isn't cool. Adding a winking icon doesn't make it any cooler.


>> i saw 2 fake pictures of bin laden dead in net,you want link?

They're irrelevant if they weren't released by the US Government. If you have links to dead pictures of Osama released by the U.S. government, I'd love to see them.

0

first i believe what i say,my point was more than everyone can have different opinion,

second i dont know if its from US government but for me US government isn't trustworthy source :D the opposite :P

trust me the news you watch in the usa and the ones that we watch in europe are totally different,the big channels they filter a lot before they show you the news

1 fake picture is this one http://www.eutimes.net/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-finally-killed-by-us-forces-in-pakistan/

i would suggest you to watch the documentaries zeitgeist the 2nd part of the 1st documentary and the Fahrenheit 9/11

just for a different opinion...

1

so they said he is dead with fake pictures.

No, they haven't provided any photos, fake or otherwise.

second i dont know if its from US government

It's not even CLAIMED to be from the U.S. Government. They've specifically stated that they have not released any photos, fake or otherwise. You've only caught them in a lie if they release a photo that is proven to be a fake.

1 fake picture is this one http://www.eutimes.net/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-finally-killed-by-us-forces-in-pakistan/

Of course it's fake. It's also irrelevant because the link you posted makes no attempt to identify any sources of the photo, when it was taken, etc. I have a thirteen year old niece who's pretty good at Photoshop. She's probably already created one herself.

Regardless of whether you trust the U.S., you should get a different "newspaper" (this one's a blog, not a newspaper, and the authors' names aren't listed, only their "handles"). That's one of the sloppiest articles I've ever read. It has link after link of statements about what really happened to bin laden and when. Regardless of what one thinks of the U.S., the conspiracies aren't even consistent with each other. That's my problem. I don't mind suspending disbelief, but can we at least have conspiracy theories which, once you accept some of the premises, actually lead to a conclusion? I mean, if you want me to believe Osama died in 2002, fine. I'm down with that. 2004, sure, why not? George W. Bush had him hidden and was waiting for an October Surprise. Count me in. But no matter how nefarious we are, no one's ever figured out how to make someone die twice. He either died in 2002 or he died in 2004 or he died in one of the other years the article sites. If you want me to take Alex Jones' word for it with no evidence, I'm in. Trust the anonymous Iranian Government source? Sure. I'll take their word over Obama's. I mean when have they ever lied? What possible ulterior motive could they have? But please either link Jones or the Iranians or have them back each other up. I'll be as gullible as you want, just tell me who I'm supposed to believe.

Edited by VernonDozier: n/a

Votes + Comments
Testify, son, testify.
0

i would suggest you to watch the documentaries zeitgeist the 2nd part of the 1st documentary and the Fahrenheit 9/11

I'm not going to get into this whole comment battle it's interesting that you consider "Fahrenheit 9/11" a legit documentary. It was created (mostly fabricated) by Michael Moore, a liberal storyteller who is known for making stuff up to try and prove his point of view AND it is also known that he has become a multi-millionaire selling this BS. You think the U.S. media feeds us a load of BS, you happen to be right, but it's still news in some form. But ironically, Michael Moore is the epitome of "Hollywood" make-believers who are only in it for the money. The sad difference is he calls it a documentary.

0

Neither Documentaries nor Governments tell the strict truth, both distort reality to further their own agenda. Documentaries are in it for the money which you get through a controversial/compelling story not necessarily the truth (which is usually mundane and boring) -> eg. see Ancient Aliens. Governments/politicians are in it for their own reasons either personal ambition for re-election/money/power or for what their ideology thinks is "good for America". Individuals cannot be trusted either because the knowledge of any person is limited and everyone has their own inherent biases. As a result it is almost impossible to know the truth about anything so anyone who claims to know exactly what happened is either lying or deluded.

0

Recently i saw a poster here in daniweb have his username as Osama Bin Laden. I am not kidding. Go to community feedback and look for my thread. You will see

0

Recently i saw a poster here in daniweb have his username as Osama Bin Laden. I am not kidding. Go to community feedback and look for my thread. You will see

Maybe thats where he is now hiding

0

Murder is quite common, sometimes necessary. Sorry the world isn't perfect. Hooray! A terrorist is dead!

If only we could rid the ghettos of all the criminals as well we would live in a much better place :D

It could only get better if to rid the government of legalized criminals as well!

1

If only we could rid the ghettos of all the criminals as well we would live in a much better place :D

The best way to do that is by redistribution of wealth. Ghettos exist because of inequality not because of poverty (at least in first world nations). Raising taxes and providing services (like good well funded public education by well paid teachers) would help get rid of ghettos and criminals.

Edited by Agilemind: n/a

0

>>Raising taxes and providing services (like good well funded public education by well paid teachers) would help get rid of ghettos and criminals

If that were true than USA would have no ghettos or criminals. The fed government has been redistributing the wealth since 1960s (see LBJ's Great Society programs), which continue to this day, and not even one ghetto has been erased. It only proves that throwing money at the problem is not the solution. And as US President Reagan once said, "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem." .
And crime exists in every neighborhoow, and every class of people. Don't believe me? Just take a look at the problems that Charlie Sheen has had during his lifetime. And Micharl Douglas's son who is currently serving a prison sentence.

Edited by Ancient Dragon: n/a

1

If that were true than USA would have no ghettos or criminals.

And crime exists in every neighborhoow, and every class of people. Don't believe me? Just take a look at the problems that Charlie Sheen has had during his lifetime. And Micharl Douglas's son who is currently serving a prison sentence.

Oh, come on, you're smarter than that. The logical fallacies you've just committed are too elementary for you.

1) "help get rid of" does not imply "eliminate", but rather "mitigate". And there is certainly no reason to doubt that public education does tend to mitigate the effects of poverty on poor communities, by providing a plausible avenue to success that does not involve crime - or at least, one that involves more subtle crimes than sticking a gun in someone's face.

2) One can hardly call a system that bases education funding on local property taxes, as much of this country has done historically, "redistributive" on a large scale.

3) Claiming that the "Great Society" programs are a failure ignores the successes these programs have had. While these programs are not ideal by any means, and certainly can and should be improved, ignoring or criminalizing poverty has always been a failure. This suggests that the problem is not that the programs failed, but that we failed to commit enough resources to them, and that the anarchist republican brigade failed America by attempting to thwart our human impulses to help each other rather than to improve them.

4) If anecdote were like evidence, citing imprisoned celebrities would help your argument. However, I think you'll find if you look carefully that while crime may "exist" in all strata of society it is concentrated disproportionately in the strata most marked by poverty, particularly when we consider violent crime, theft, and such crimes as prostitution and drug-related offenses.

I don't know what any of this has to do with bin Laden, though...

1

:D

I've seen a lot of ghetto, when they get money they spend it on drugs. Not to say this is true of everyone in every ghetto, but I would say the likelihood of such a thing being widespread is quite a concern for someone feeling righteous. There is trash living in America the likes of which you may not believe.

Osama is dead, so can't we move on to other criminals?

-1

How about Jack the Ripper, the most wanted criminal and his identity has not been found out.

See my thread here

Edited by jingda: n/a

1

If that were true than USA would have no ghettos or criminals.

Actually the USA has an alarmingly high gap between the rich and poor, the recession has almost eliminated what remained of the middle class.

It is true that just throwing money at the poor isn't the best solution, but policies that help the rich become richer (ie: cutting taxes) or make the poor get poorer (cutting education funding, healthcare, IE etc...) actually widen the gap which research has shown makes everyone feel less safe, trust each other less, and less happy as a result.

If you want proof just look at the Scandinavian countries vs the USA, the USA has a much higher GDP than these countries and much lower taxes but much more crime, poorer health, and less happiness.

ETA: Also the USA public school system is AWFUL and the teachers are underpaid compared to similar nations. The US health care system promotes/increases the rich-poor divide as well.

Edited by Agilemind: n/a

1

I've seen a lot of ghetto, when they get money they spend it on drugs. Not to say this is true of everyone in every ghetto, but I would say the likelihood of such a thing being widespread is quite a concern for someone feeling righteous. There is trash living in America the likes of which you may not believe.

Yes that is a problem, that is why inequality is usually addressed with public (free) programs/services in these neighbourhoods rather than just handing them a cheque. Providing free afterschool programs and health care (both physical and mental) to ghettos is far more productive than repeatedly throwing them in prison.

Edited by Agilemind: n/a

0

The problem is the poor(including myself) don't have the will and drive of the rich, otherwise we'd have taken all they've got by now.

0

@Agilemind,

But when you provide something for free they have more money to spend on drugs. It seems almost inevitable unless it's a luxury that they don't really need. The school programs are probably the best idea.

0

So why do you suppose they're spending all of their money on drugs, where people who have more money to spend aren't?

0

So why do you suppose they're spending all of their money on drugs, where people who have more money to spend aren't?

Probably because they do not have the will power to dry out and get off drugs.

0

But when you provide something for free they have more money to spend on drugs

So why do you suppose they're spending all of their money on drugs, where people who have more money to spend aren't?

Probably because they do not have the will power to dry out and get off drugs

Who's this "they" everyone is talking about? There's a huge spectrum of ghetto dwellers and drug addicts. Their stories are both as varied and as similar as you want. I can find you a guy who has been given every single opportunity and advantage in the world and will blow it time and time again and I can find you a naive teenage runaway with dreams of Hollywood stardom who only needs and wants a helping hand to get off the smack and on with her life, as well as everyone in between. There is no "they". "They" are "we" except that instead of being hooked on cigarettes or booze, they're hooked on a drug that can get them sent to prison if they're caught. Most of us have been both fat and thin, rich and poor, and quite a few of us have been addicted to some substance or another and have gotten off and on the wagon several times. There are several factors, will power definitely among them, but it's certainly not the only one. Drug addicts, like everyone, vary in the amount of personal responsibility they're willing to take, but if you get one to tell you his life story, it's very often similar, often uncomfortably so, to our own, but for a bad break or two and a bad decision or two. There but for the grace of God go I...

0

Who's this "they" everyone is talking about?

Thank you, Vernon, for cutting straight to it. That's kind of where I was going with this.
We're talking about a class of people marked off by economic and sociological factors. There's nothing biological that makes the residents of a poor neighborhood more prone to addiction, or to gambling, or to violence - no more so today than there was a hundred years ago when we told the same lies about the Germans or the Irish.

AD, when you say "they don't have the will power" are you proposing that there's a sort of genetic trait shared by people in poor areas which makes them unable to resist the sultry charms of the needle? Or are you suggesting that there's a massive coincidence going on, where, completely by accident, we see a higher distribution of people devoid of willpower in the poorer neighborhoods of every city in the US and Europe and likely the rest of the world as well?
Both of those seem unlikely.

0

@Agilemind,

But when you provide something for free they have more money to spend on drugs. It seems almost inevitable unless it's a luxury that they don't really need. The school programs are probably the best idea.

That's unlikely since many of these people in America currently just go without health care, sex ed, education beyond early grade school, safe housing, healthy food etc... giving them these services for free are not going free up money for something else. Only the affluent consider the cost of drugs when considering buying them.

I can't recall the stats off the top of my head but a good portion of criminals/drug addicts have mental health issues aside from addiction (in Canada I think it is 80% of prisoners have some form of mental illness if you include illegal drug addiction), ranging from damage due to childhood sexual abuse to schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Many drug addicts are actually self-medicating for an undiagnosed mental illness. Free mental health services would be very effective in reducing crime and use of illegal drugs.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.