Oh my goodness. I really don’t want a back and forth with you that may egender acrimony much as our co-participation on the Birth certificate thread. I’m just saying that people say things, make assumptions, and reach conclusions that turn out later to be not supported by the facts in the heat of the moment. This does not necessarily mean they were intentionally trying to mislead. It means that they are human and prone to error. God bless you my brother.So why did they say they saw him with a gun and use his wife for a shield? You seem to agree that they didn’t tell the truth about what they saw.
Are you accusing the US of faking the test or lying about it? How do you know that the Vinson did not have special equipment to conduct the test? For that matter, have they said the testing was done on ship, maybe it was done elsewhere.There’s not a single aircraft carrier in the US fleet that has a DNA lab on board. Three days is amount of time I’ve found once a sample selected for testing it does not include backlog. Backlog can be months if not years.
What law? Out of curiosity, I would like to read the statute myself. Could you please cite it?Perhaps the initial report that they went in to kill and not capture was correct.
And that would be a violation of the law.
No one said they saw him with a gun or using a woman with a shield and is now retracting that statement. Anyone that has had any involvement with combat or crisis reporting knows that the initial reports are always shaky and often misinterpreted. In the best of situations it takes time to sort out exactly what happened. That is all that is going on here.So why did they say they saw him with a gun and use his wife for a shield? You seem to agree that they didn’t tell the truth about what they saw.
If we can fly into a foreign country without being detected, close to a major military installation only 35 miles from the capital…There’s not a single aircraft carrier in the US fleet that has a DNA lab on board. Three days is amount of time I’ve found once a sample selected for testing it does not include backlog. Backlog can be months if not years.
This is all I’ve been trying to say. I would appreciate it if people would extend to me the benefit of the doubt when I speak something that later turns out to be not true. As long as I am not intentionally trying to mislead or knowingly representing something as being true whem I full well know it isn’t, then I’m not lying. Since I would like that charity extended to me, I am extending it to others.Anyone that has had any involvement with combat or crisis reporting knows that the initial reports are always shaky and often misinterpreted. In the best of situations it takes time to sort out exactly what happened. That is all that is going on here.
My understanding is that they were working on a mission for at least a couple of months. I would think it reasonable that they would have made sure they could conduct a test ASAP. Reports are that they built a replica in AFghanistan and conducted trial runs there for a month or so. Of course, that could turn out to be wrong, we’ll see. So, if they had the time and forethought to build a replica in AF then surely they had time and forethought to fly a kit on to the Vinson, but I could be wrong.If we can fly into a foreign country without being detected, close to a major military installation only 35 miles from the capital…
Well, I think in a mission that took months of planning there just may have been a DNA lab set up on the aircraft carrier for this express purpose.
Unless you are in high levels of command, you really don’t know. Neither do I. But I’m willing to bet that our govt. made some way of testing the DNA happen.
… eight months or so …My understanding is that they were working on a mission for at least a couple of months. I would think it reasonable that they would have made sure they could conduct a test ASAP. Reports are that they built a replica in AFghanistan and conducted trial runs there for a month or so. Of course, that could turn out to be wrong, we’ll see. So, if they had the time and forethought to build a replica in AF then surely they had time and forethought to fly a kit on to the Vinson, but I could be wrong.
It’s also the (only?) branch of the military that does not allow women in due to the grueling physical prowess required of them. Fascinating. Gone are the days of marching tanks in European cities in warfare. Elite, small, task forces are far more effective these days…I was just taking a look at this article, and didn’t realize how small and elite of a group Navy Seals are. And the mental training they go through sounds grueling. Not only are they physically fit, but must be highly intelligent along with being mentally strong.
“Navy SEALs Exhibit the Ultimate Mental Toughness”
foxnews.com/health/2011/05/03/navy-seals-exhibit-ultimate-mental-toughness/
Amen BrothersGood will always triumph over evil…
Amen to that!
I’m not postulating anything, but if you think those SEALs were blubbering emotional wrecks over what they did (accomplished), you don’t know any SEALs. I know 2 and 1 Ranger, they don’t blubber that much over enemy deaths.Have you ever been in a position where you had to take the life of someone? Its not as gleeful a moment that you are postulating here.
“The word is that when they heard that bin Laden was their target, there was a huge cheer that went up,”I’m not postulating anything, but if you think those SEALs were blubbering emotional wrecks over what they did (accomplished), you don’t know any SEALs. I know 2 and 1 Ranger, they don’t blubber that much over enemy deaths.
I didn’t see the interview and it may not have been the same priest. But there is a young priest (or at least appears young to me) who I have seen numerous times on FOX as a contributor and if it was him, he is no liberal.I was watching Bill O Reilly tonight and he had an interview with a Catholic priest over the rejoicing that took place. The priest was trying to explain to him the Christian view on this topic while O Reilly basically berated him. He even told this priest that there was basically something wrong with him if he couldn’t judge bin Laden as evil. O Reilly also made the point that he himslf could make that judgment. Now, of course O Reilly has his own schtick, and I agree at times and disagree at other times, but I was appalled in this instance.
About 20 or so pages ago on this thread, I wrote about my own personal issues on this topic. I will not rehash them here, but will say that I have been reflecting on this issue. With that said, I was sick seeing the way O Reilly handles this interveiw. The priest was trying to give him the Christian/Catholic viewpoint and O Reilly would have none of it. What infuriated me was Bernard Goldberg, who was interviewed next. Goldberg stated that the interview with the priest showed how liberalism can even be found in the clergy. He then went on to state (paraphrasing a bit) “That’s not a Catholic viewpoint, that’s a liberal viewpoint”. I’m sorry, but who does he think he is? It IS a Catholic viewpoint to say love your enemies. I am not saying I can find it in my heart to forgive or pray for bin Laden (yet), but I understand the Catholic Church’s teachings. Isn’t it hate the sin, love the sinner? I would think that the statement from the Vatican (a conservative institution, if I’m not mistaken) says it all. Is Bernard Goldberg a Catholic? Does he know the teachings of the Church? If not, he has no business lumping all forgiving Christians under the liberalism blanket. I am pretty conservative, but I understand WHY we shouldn’t rejoice. Can Goldberg or O Reilly (a Catholic, by the way) say the same?
Please keep in mind too, that I am in no way saying that this priest wasn’t a liberal. For all I know, he could be pro-choice or something, but nothing he said regarding THIS topic led me to believe that he is liberal.
Sorry for the rant…