Gravitymaster 0 #26 August 17, 2012 QuoteYes I did, have you? Yes I watched it yesterday. Your comments didn't seem to be from someone who had actually seen it. Or perhaps someone who had seen it but simply did not understand what they had just seen or why the video was made. That's why I asked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #27 August 17, 2012 QuoteThere's a big dif between "leaked" and the president coming out and saying "yup that was us and we're gonna do more" with a big smirk on his face. Myself and many others in the controls community pretty much figured it was the work of the US all along, but when I read the news of Obama pretty much bragging about it my jaw hit the floor. And how do you know there was not a discussion among the advisors and Joint Chiefs of Staff and the decisions was for this to be released by the President? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #28 August 17, 2012 QuoteThese same people who supported those tactics (or at very least were silent about them) are now telling us... Sometimes it's important to draw attention to things people say under their breath and for some reason this is calling me. There are enough examples of actual inconsistency in politics and the news media, do we really need to invent our own by muttering, "or at very least were silent about them?" Getting hung-up on the circumstances over which the military decided to award someone medals is douchebaggery. So is touting decorations in the first place. In fact, there aren't enough hours in the day nor blood vessels in the forehead to express outrage over every instance and flavor of douchebaggery out there. If someone actively supports thing 'A' and previously or subsequently speaks out against 'A', fine, call them out. But let's all go easy on the calls for perpetual outrage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #29 August 17, 2012 Are 'Swift Boat' attacks on Obama bogus? Ex-SEALs slam Obama over leaks Is there any merit to these serious accusations? In fact, Obama and his national security team made every effort -- successfully -- to keep the intelligence about bin Laden a closely held secret for almost a year, from the time they first identified what they believed might be the al Qaeda leader's hideout in the city of Abbottabad, Pakistan, in August 2010 until May 1, 2011, when the raid was launched to kill him. The raid itself was conducted as a covert operation under the overall direction of then-CIA Director Leon Panetta. … What precipitated the operation going public was not Obama's announcement of the raid but the crash of one of the Black Hawk choppers used in the raid, which turned what had hitherto been a covert operation into a very public event. … Soon after the SEALs had raided the Abbottabad command, Pakistani officials on the ground were interrogating bin Laden's wives and children at the compound who told them that bin Laden had just been killed. None of this was going to stay secret for long. Indeed, it was Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's top military officer, who sped up the Obama administration's announcement of the raid. A few hours after the raid, Kayani told his American counterpart, Adm. Mike Mullen, "Our people need to understand what happened here. We're not going to be able to manage the Pakistani media without you confirming this. You can explain it to them. They need to understand that this was bin Laden and not just some ordinary U.S. operation." Mullen then told Obama and his national security team, "Kayani has asked for us to go public," which swayed Obama to announce the raid sooner than was planned. (Obama wanted to wait for 100% DNA confirmation that it was bin Laden. At the time of the president's announcement about the raid the confirmation was at 95%.) During his speech to the nation and world, Obama did not divulge the name of SEAL Team Six, saying only that a "small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability." … It is just plain wrong that anyone in the U.S. government leaked the name of the CIA asset in Pakistan, Dr Shakil Afridi, who was recruited by the agency in its quest to find bin Laden. This information first surfaced in a story in the Guardian newspaper in July 2011 after Afridi was arrested by the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI. It is obvious that this information was leaked not by the Americans but the Pakistanis who have done their own investigation of the bin Laden raid, which embarrassed them considerably. As to the notion that Obama has taken too much credit for the bin Laden raid, well he is commander-in-chief, and it was entirely his decision to launch the risky raid on Abbottabad based on the only fragmentary intelligence that bin Laden might be there. As Adm. William McRaven, who was the military commander of the bin Laden raid, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer last month, "at the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions, that was instrumental in the planning process, because I pitched every plan to him." The raid decision was opposed by Vice President Joe Biden, who had run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency against Obama. If Biden had won the White House in 2008, Osama bin Laden might still be alive. And the decision to do the raid was also opposed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who had served every president going back to Richard Nixon. Gates was concerned about some kind of replay of the 1980 Iran hostage rescue debacle, which helped to turn President Jimmy Carter into a one-term president. The notion that the decision to greenlight the risky raid was made by anyone other than Obama is just plain silly, and it was a decision he made against the advice of both his vice president and his secretary of defense.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,620 #30 August 17, 2012 Don't expect facts to influence the folks here with ODS.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #31 August 18, 2012 Quote Quote Don't mind me. Just being a little nit-picky. Quote I'm old enough, and in reality the Joint Chiefs owned that boondoggle in the desert. Joint Chiefs of Staff are not in any operational responsibility or control of military action. They are military expierience/advisors to the Office of the Presidency and provide logistical support (not orders) to the Theater Commanders like General Petraeus, Navy Fifth Fleet and others. Theater commanders' COC is the President via Sec Def. Quote After the 1986 reorganization of the military undertaken by the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not have operational command of U.S. military forces. Responsibility for conducting military operations goes from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands and thus bypasses the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely. Might be the way it is now...I don't think it was in 1980. Oh. Got it. Thanks!!_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #32 August 23, 2012 so what about this guy cashing in? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/author-bin-laden-raid-insider-account-idd-could-face-legal-trouble/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #33 August 23, 2012 QuoteA spokesman at Dutton, a division of Penguin Group, said proceeds from the book will be donated to charitable causes that benefit the families of fallen Navy SEALs. I'm going to assume that in your zeal to slam him, you didn't read the entire article. I think this guy was wrong to write this book and publish it without being vetted by the Military and other intelligence services. I hope they prosecute him and anyone else caught divulging secrets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #34 August 24, 2012 QuoteI'm going to assume that in your zeal to slam him, you didn't read the entire article. No I read that. I just figured most people understood there is a difference between proceeds and all proceeds. In the extreme example, if you donate 1 cent out of every 1 million dollars, you are still donating proceeds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #35 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteI'm going to assume that in your zeal to slam him, you didn't read the entire article. No I read that. I just figured most people understood there is a difference between proceeds and all proceeds. In the extreme example, if you donate 1 cent out of every 1 million dollars, you are still donating proceeds. So you have no idea how much of the "proceeds" are going to the familys but you still felt OK about accusing him of "cashing in"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #36 August 24, 2012 QuoteSo you have no idea how much of the "proceeds" are going to the familys but you still felt OK about accusing him of "cashing in"? I am convinced the Author is going to make money off the book, which is what I called "cashing in". If I find out the author is not making any money off the book, I'll happily retract my statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #37 August 24, 2012 Quote Quote So you have no idea how much of the "proceeds" are going to the familys but you still felt OK about accusing him of "cashing in"? I am convinced the Author is going to make money off the book, which is what I called "cashing in". If I find out the author is not making any money off the book, I'll happily retract my statement. So you are OK with making unsubstanciated, wild accussations and smearing someone without ANY evidence and then your response is someone has to prove YOU wrong? Nice standards you have there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #38 August 24, 2012 QuoteSo you are OK with making unsubstanciated, wild accussations and smearing someone without ANY evidence and then your response is someone has to prove YOU wrong? Nice standards you have there. LMAO. Yes, it is clearly a wild accusation that an author of a book is going to make money from it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #39 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo you are OK with making unsubstanciated, wild accussations and smearing someone without ANY evidence and then your response is someone has to prove YOU wrong? Nice standards you have there. LMAO. Yes, it is clearly a wild accusation that an author of a book is going to make money from it. Yes it is considering you have no facts to back up your statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #40 August 24, 2012 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you are OK with making unsubstanciated, wild accussations and smearing someone without ANY evidence and then your response is someone has to prove YOU wrong? Nice standards you have there. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LMAO. Yes, it is clearly a wild accusation that an author of a book is going to make money from it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes it is considering you have no facts to back up your statement. I just wanted to copy this, so you can't come back and edit some of this. Priceless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #41 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you are OK with making unsubstanciated, wild accussations and smearing someone without ANY evidence and then your response is someone has to prove YOU wrong? Nice standards you have there. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LMAO. Yes, it is clearly a wild accusation that an author of a book is going to make money from it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes it is considering you have no facts to back up your statement. I just wanted to copy this, so you can't come back and edit some of this. Priceless. Great then copy this: "I Skydekker, love to make wild accusations with absolutely no facts to back them up. I prefer to rely on anecdotal information when slandering someone I disagree with. It's up to anyone who disagrees with my unsubstanciated accusation to prove I am wrong". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #42 August 24, 2012 Sure, right after you explain how an author making money off a book he or she writes is slanderous and a wild accusation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #43 August 24, 2012 QuoteSure, right after you explain how an author making money off a book he or she writes is slanderous and a wild accusation. I will once you prove the author is making money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #44 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteSure, right after you explain how an author making money off a book he or she writes is slanderous and a wild accusation. I will once you prove the author is making money. I'm curious, are you just arguing the debating principle that one shouldn't make a statement without specific proof even when the overwhelming balance of probability is in one's favour, or do you actually think that in this case the author* is not being paid for the book? * Or whatever you call a guy who gives info to a ghost writer.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #45 August 24, 2012 >or do you actually think that in this case the author* is not being paid for the book? He sort of painted himself into a corner here, so he will now redefine the words "pay" "author" and "book." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #46 August 24, 2012 Quote>or do you actually think that in this case the author* is not being paid for the book? He sort of painted himself into a corner here, so he will now redefine the words "pay" "author" and "book." No corner. The claim was that the author was donating the "proceeds" to the families. Skydekker contends he is not doing so. i simply asked for proof. It's not up to me to prove the author isn't doing something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #47 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuote>or do you actually think that in this case the author* is not being paid for the book? He sort of painted himself into a corner here, so he will now redefine the words "pay" "author" and "book." No corner. The claim was that the author was donating the "proceeds" to the families. Skydekker contends he is not doing so. i simply asked for proof. It's not up to me to prove the author isn't doing something. That is not what Skydekker contends. But what about you - do you think the author is financially benefiting from the book?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #48 August 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>or do you actually think that in this case the author* is not being paid for the book? He sort of painted himself into a corner here, so he will now redefine the words "pay" "author" and "book." No corner. The claim was that the author was donating the "proceeds" to the families. Skydekker contends he is not doing so. i simply asked for proof. It's not up to me to prove the author isn't doing something. That is not what Skydekker contends. But what about you - do you think the author is financially benefiting from the book? Sure it is. QuoteSkydekker: I am convinced the Author is going to make money off the book, which is what I called "cashing in". Don't know what's so hard for you to understand about that> I haven't made a claim one way or the other. I've simply asked him to prove the above statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #49 August 24, 2012 As I said in my post, the correct terminology for an author not making money off the book he wrote would be: all proceeds are being donated. Like I stated after that, if that is what was meant, I will happily retract my statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #50 August 24, 2012 QuoteAs I said in my post, the correct terminology for an author not making money off the book he wrote would be: all proceeds are being donated. Like I stated after that, if that is what was meant, I will happily retract my statement. Oh, now you are going to redefine "proceeds"? Proceeds means profits by most people's standards. You ever watch the Jerry Lewis telethons? Did you think all those people answering the phones, the TV airtime, the camerapeople, producers etc. all worked for free? Proceed means profits, which is what's left over after expenses. I think this guy deserves credit for donating the proceeds to the families affected instead of being torn down on DZ.com by a Canadian. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
