I really don’t understand what point you are trying to make. Could it kill you to actually write a paragraph?
dont-get-cutesays
They really make it seem like we went on a “bloody raid” to “kill not capture” a gentle philosopher. “Downfall” implies, well, I don’t know, it’s an absurd word to use. It’s like he was their secret hero.
dcsohlsays
Sorry, dont-get-cute, that the HuffPo isn’t gloating enough for you.
That is your point, right? I can’t get anything else out of this bizarre post.
dont-get-cutesays
between gloating, which I think is disgusting and disturbing, and seeming to indict the US for a bloody raid that intended to kill – not capture – the sweet intellectual Osama Bin Laden. Whoever put that front page together has a soft spot for him, I am sure. I can tell because I get a soft spot for him too, when I see him in front of books and think of him killed in a bloody raid.
HR's Kevinsays
I think you are the only person who sees it that way.
It is sad that you decided to post this without bothering to read anything posted on HP’s site yesterday.
I also don’t see where you get the “seeming indictment” out of the statement that the mission was to kill Bin Laden rather than to capture him. That’s coming from you, not the text.
And if you get a “soft spot” for Bin Laden because he is shown in front of a bookshelf, then there is something deeply wrong with you.
lightirissays
regarding why you think this HuffPo thing is so egregious, I’ve no doubt it would be as incoherent as the comments you’ve offered above in response to others’ questions.
First your “gentle philosopher” comment belies much about you and nothing at all about the editorial decisions at Huffington Post. So books on a shelf mean someone is a philosopher? What if all of those books were about making bombs. Would that make the person standing in front of them a “philosopher”? A “gentle” soul? What if those books are all about so-called sharia law. Does that make him a “philosopher”?
And this:
Whoever put that front page together has a soft spot for him, I am sure. I can tell because I get a soft spot for him too, when I see him in front of books and think of him killed in a bloody raid.
is just silly. No rational human being could conclude what you have concluded about this photograph and the person who selected it. What are we to make of the messy piles on top of the bookcase? That the person who selected the photograph wants us to believe that Bin Laden was sentimental and never threw anything away? That he has a puppy and these are piles of papers for paper training? That the three-ring binders are scrapbooks of high points in his life?
Again, all of this reveals much more about you than it does anything else.
I really don’t understand what point you are trying to make. Could it kill you to actually write a paragraph?
They really make it seem like we went on a “bloody raid” to “kill not capture” a gentle philosopher. “Downfall” implies, well, I don’t know, it’s an absurd word to use. It’s like he was their secret hero.
Sorry, dont-get-cute, that the HuffPo isn’t gloating enough for you.
That is your point, right? I can’t get anything else out of this bizarre post.
between gloating, which I think is disgusting and disturbing, and seeming to indict the US for a bloody raid that intended to kill – not capture – the sweet intellectual Osama Bin Laden. Whoever put that front page together has a soft spot for him, I am sure. I can tell because I get a soft spot for him too, when I see him in front of books and think of him killed in a bloody raid.
I think you are the only person who sees it that way.
It is sad that you decided to post this without bothering to read anything posted on HP’s site yesterday.
I also don’t see where you get the “seeming indictment” out of the statement that the mission was to kill Bin Laden rather than to capture him. That’s coming from you, not the text.
And if you get a “soft spot” for Bin Laden because he is shown in front of a bookshelf, then there is something deeply wrong with you.
regarding why you think this HuffPo thing is so egregious, I’ve no doubt it would be as incoherent as the comments you’ve offered above in response to others’ questions.
First your “gentle philosopher” comment belies much about you and nothing at all about the editorial decisions at Huffington Post. So books on a shelf mean someone is a philosopher? What if all of those books were about making bombs. Would that make the person standing in front of them a “philosopher”? A “gentle” soul? What if those books are all about so-called sharia law. Does that make him a “philosopher”?
And this:
is just silly. No rational human being could conclude what you have concluded about this photograph and the person who selected it. What are we to make of the messy piles on top of the bookcase? That the person who selected the photograph wants us to believe that Bin Laden was sentimental and never threw anything away? That he has a puppy and these are piles of papers for paper training? That the three-ring binders are scrapbooks of high points in his life?
Again, all of this reveals much more about you than it does anything else.