BIN LADEN IS DEAD

dimitrispearljam · May 2011

there is no way this happens without Pakistan goverment know about it..

ledvedderman · May 2011

dimitrispearljam wrote:

there is no way this happens without Pakistan goverment know about it..

The only thing I would question was the tough talk from the President and State Department the last couple of days. I guess there's no indication that the same deal was used for the new administration.

_ · May 2011

cincybearcat wrote:

Some people just have an ability to discuss hot topics in a manner that informs without attacking, and some don't. I'm not surprised by many of the responses.

I've certainly learned a lot here...but it could be a lot less "painful" at times.

Godfather. wrote:

talking down my country is a sore spot with me.... one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).

I would like to know, please, how each of you would rephrase what Byrnzie said so as to make it more palatable without changing his point. Because it seems like we are agreeing that critical thinking is important & valuable, but y'all just don't like the way it comes across.

cincybearcat · May 2011

_ wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Some people just have an ability to discuss hot topics in a manner that informs without attacking, and some don't. I'm not surprised by many of the responses.

I've certainly learned a lot here...but it could be a lot less "painful" at times.

Godfather. wrote:

talking down my country is a sore spot with me.... one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).

I would like to know, please, how each of you would rephrase what Byrnzie said so as to make it more palatable without changing his point. Because it seems like we are agreeing that critical thinking is important & valuable, but y'all just don't like the way it comes across.

Where did I refer to Byrnzie?

Godfather. · May 2011

_ wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Some people just have an ability to discuss hot topics in a manner that informs without attacking, and some don't. I'm not surprised by many of the responses.

I've certainly learned a lot here...but it could be a lot less "painful" at times.

Godfather. wrote:

talking down my country is a sore spot with me.... one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).

I would like to know, please, how each of you would rephrase what Byrnzie said so as to make it more palatable without changing his point. Because it seems like we are agreeing that critical thinking is important & valuable, but y'all just don't like the way it comes across.

seems you're trying to take this farther than it need to go, there are no ill feelings towards Byrnzie.

Godfather.

JonnyPistachio · May 2011

I'm really curious why there were initially conflicting reports on bin ladens 'resistance' when the SEALS entered his room. I recently read that he resisted and there might have been firearms near him when the SEALS shot him. I wonder why they haven't clarified this. Has anyone heard more about his 'resistance'??

fife · May 2011

dimitrispearljam wrote:

there is no way this happens without Pakistan goverment know about it..

i agree 1000% on this. i believe they had to come out and say what they said due to politics in their own country and not wanting to look like they knew that America was going to go in.

_ · May 2011

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Some people just have an ability to discuss hot topics in a manner that informs without attacking, and some don't. I'm not surprised by many of the responses.

I've certainly learned a lot here...but it could be a lot less "painful" at times.

Godfather. wrote:

talking down my country is a sore spot with me.... one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).

I would like to know, please, how each of you would rephrase what Byrnzie said so as to make it more palatable without changing his point. Because it seems like we are agreeing that critical thinking is important & valuable, but y'all just don't like the way it comes across.

Where did I refer to Byrnzie?

I thought his comment is what started this line of discussion.

_ · May 2011

Godfather. wrote:

_ wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Some people just have an ability to discuss hot topics in a manner that informs without attacking, and some don't. I'm not surprised by many of the responses.

I've certainly learned a lot here...but it could be a lot less "painful" at times.

Godfather. wrote:

talking down my country is a sore spot with me.... one of the last things I wan't to hear is somebody from another country bashing the USA (don't get me wrong Byrnzie I respect your knoledge I just don't like USA bashing).

I would like to know, please, how each of you would rephrase what Byrnzie said so as to make it more palatable without changing his point. Because it seems like we are agreeing that critical thinking is important & valuable, but y'all just don't like the way it comes across.

seems you're trying to take this farther than it need to go, there are no ill feelings towards Byrnzie.

Godfather.

I'm not trying to take it far or suggest that there are any ill feelings toward anyone. I'm just trying to understand how people can communicate critical observations in a way that is acceptable to you.

Byrnzie · May 2011

Godfather. wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

Can't you see under my avatar where I am from?.....

I've seen it now

and you are from china and spend a lot of your time on the train ragging on America,do you plan on ever living here.?

Godfather.

I'm not from China, I'm English. But I've been living in China for the past three years. And I don't rag on America - I rag on the U.S leadership. Big difference.

cincybearcat · May 2011

_ wrote:

I thought his comment is what started this line of discussion.

Guess I wasn't clear, I was speaking to the AMT in general.

Monster Rain · May 2011

From what I read, he didn't surrender and made a movment that they deemed could be threatening but they didn't specify what it was. They did say that they recovered an AK-47 and a Russian semi-automatic handgun from his room, so it could be that he either reached for one of those or they just had to assume that any action other than surrendering was potentially hostile considering their target.

The other part of the story that had been cloudy was the use of a woman as a shield. first, it was a human shield, then it was a charging woman. Apparently, both were true in a sense. The clarification for that was that he shoved one of his wives towards the SEALs and she ran at them, so they shot her in the leg.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-die.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/05 ... y-killing/

The White House has released conflicting details about the 40-minute raid. On Monday, the White House said bin Laden was armed when he was shot dead, but Carney corrected that statement one day later, saying the Al Qaeda chief was unarmed before being gunned down. Fox News learned Thursday that bin Laden was within reach of two weapons during the attack – an AK-47 and a Makarov handgun.

The changing story has raised doubts over assurances that the team of U.S. Navy SEALs was prepared to take bin Laden alive.

"If he had surrendered, I think -- attempted to surrender -- I think we should, obviously, have accepted that," Holder told the Senate committee.

"But there was no indication that he wanted to do that. And, therefore, his killing was appropriate," Holder added.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I'm really curious why there were initially conflicting reports on bin ladens 'resistance' when the SEALS entered his room. I recently read that he resisted and there might have been firearms near him when the SEALS shot him. I wonder why they haven't clarified this. Has anyone heard more about his 'resistance'??

JonnyPistachio · May 2011

Monster Rain wrote:

From what I read, he didn't surrender and made a movment that they deemed could be threatening but they didn't specify what it was. They did say that they recovered an AK-47 and a Russian semi-automatic handgun from his room, so it could be that he either reached for one of those or they just had to assume that any action other than surrendering was potentially hostile considering their target.

The other part of the story that had been cloudy was the use of a woman as a shield. first, it was a human shield, then it was a charging woman. Apparently, both were true in a sense. The clarification for that was that he shoved one of his wives towards the SEALs and she ran at them, so they shot her in the leg.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-die.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/05 ... y-killing/

The White House has released conflicting details about the 40-minute raid. On Monday, the White House said bin Laden was armed when he was shot dead, but Carney corrected that statement one day later, saying the Al Qaeda chief was unarmed before being gunned down. Fox News learned Thursday that bin Laden was within reach of two weapons during the attack – an AK-47 and a Makarov handgun.

The changing story has raised doubts over assurances that the team of U.S. Navy SEALs was prepared to take bin Laden alive.

"If he had surrendered, I think -- attempted to surrender -- I think we should, obviously, have accepted that," Holder told the Senate committee.

"But there was no indication that he wanted to do that. And, therefore, his killing was appropriate," Holder added.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I'm really curious why there were initially conflicting reports on bin ladens 'resistance' when the SEALS entered his room. I recently read that he resisted and there might have been firearms near him when the SEALS shot him. I wonder why they haven't clarified this. Has anyone heard more about his 'resistance'??

Cool, thanks Monster Rain. That was pretty detailed.

wolfamongwolves · May 2011

Bin Laden death 'not an assassination' - Eric Holder
The operation against Bin Laden was lawful, the US attorney general maintains
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13370919

US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the raid on Osama Bin Laden's hideout, in which the al-Qaeda leader was killed, was "not an assassination".

Mr Holder told the BBC the operation was a "kill or capture mission" and that Bin Laden's surrender would have been accepted if offered.

The protection of the Navy Seals who carried out the raid was "uppermost in our minds", he added.

Bin Laden was shot dead on 2 May in the complex in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Mr Holder said the special forces had acted "in an appropriate way" in the absence of any clear indication Bin Laden had been going to surrender.

"If the possibility had existed, if there was the possibility of a feasible surrender, that would have occurred," he said.

"But their protection, that is the protection of the force that went into that compound, was I think uppermost in our minds."

The attorney general reiterated that the operation was legal, saying that international law allows the targeting of enemy commanders.

"I actually think that the dotting of the i's and the crossing of the t's is what separates the United States, the United Kingdom, our allies, from those who we are fighting," he said.

"We do respect the rule of law, there are appropriate ways in which we conduct ourselves and expect our people to conduct themselves, and I think those Navy Seals conducted themselves in a way that's consistent with American, [and] British values."

The interview with Mr Holder comes a day after a statement by Bin Laden's family questioning why he was not captured alive.

His sons criticised the US for carrying out his "arbitrary killing".

Members of US Congress are being shown photos of Bin Laden just after his death, which the US government has so far refused to publish.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who saw them on Tuesday, described them as "pretty gruesome".

Meanwhile, documents seized during the raid suggested Bin Laden had a hand in every recent major al-Qaeda threat, US officials have said.

In the latest of a series of media briefings, unnamed US security and and intelligence officials said the documents showed that Bin Laden had calculated how many Americans would have to die before the US withdrew from the Middle East.

He also encouraged his followers to attack cities such as Los Angeles, as well as New York.

Intelligence agents are continuing to analyse the documents - said to be stored on around 100 flash drives and five computers.

One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?

mikepegg44 · May 2011

wolfamongwolves wrote:

One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?

Do you know where he was in the bedroom, do you know where the door was, do you know where the weapons were? I don't, but if you are able to make the assertion they should have been able to subdue him, you must have some pretty good understanding of the situation.
I suppose as soon as we are in on a raid like this we can tell how simple it would be to do that without putting yourself in mortal danger. they found an AK and a russian pistol in the room he "ducked" back into (if you read the other stories)...seems like they didn't have much choice...When you make sudden movements against armed men there are going to be consequences...should they have waited for him to pick up the gun and get some shots off? If he lays down with his hands up he comes out alive....

gimmesometruth27 · May 2011

everybody knows that they could have taken him alive if they really wanted to... shoot him in the leg for fuck's sakes....

wolfamongwolves · May 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?

Do you know where he was in the bedroom, do you know where the door was, do you know where the weapons were? I don't, but if you are able to make the assertion they should have been able to subdue him, you must have some pretty good understanding of the situation.

What "assertion" did I make, exactly? I believe I asked a question. And the point of asking that question is precicely that I don't know. But if the government is as interested in the transparency of this whole situation as they claim to be, then they should be answering those questions so we do know why they couldn't capture an unarmed man. I'm just asking for answers, a little clarity, a little consistency.
No need to get uppity.

By the way, for having claimed not to know yourself, you rattle off a fairly descriptive account yourself...

Monster Rain · May 2011

Here's the simple answer: they didn't know if he had any sort of bomb or other type of weapon under his clothes. If he didn't have his hands in the air and empty, then how can they be sure he's not going to grab a weapon or a device to detonate a bomb under his clothes? Unless he was naked when they walked in the room, they had to consider their own safety in that situation. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he would have decided to kill himself and take them all out with him rather than let them capture or kill him. Also, if he was reaching for a weapon, who's to say that they'd be able to subdue him before he gets to fire a round or 2 at them? That was not the time for them to give someone the benefit of the doubt.

wolfamongwolves wrote:

One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?

wolfamongwolves · May 2011

Monster Rain wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?

Here's the simple answer: they didn't know if he had any sort of bomb or other type of weapon under his clothes. If he didn't have his hands in the air and empty, then how can they be sure he's not going to grab a weapon or a device to detonate a bomb under his clothes? Unless he was naked when they walked in the room, they had to consider their own safety in that situation. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he would have decided to kill himself and take them all out with him rather than let them capture or kill him. Also, if he was reaching for a weapon, who's to say that they'd be able to subdue him before he gets to fire a round or 2 at them? That was not the time for them to give someone the benefit of the doubt.

That could be a possibilty. Two things would make me doubt it, though.

First, why would he be be wearing a hidden bomb when it was a surprise raid? I know there are some wild assumptions about turrurists out there, but I doubt anyone believes that their underwear of choice is a suicide vest!

Second, if it was the case, surely they would have used it as a justification by now. Why not say, "He appeared to be unarmed, but there was reason to believe he was wearing a suicide vest."

mikepegg44 · May 2011

wolfamongwolves wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

One thing that stands out for me from this is that he seems to be saying that surrender or killing were the only possibilities. He doesn't even look at the elephant in the room - even if he didn't surrender, why were a whole troop of Navy SEALs incapable of overpowering and capturing a single unarmed man?

Do you know where he was in the bedroom, do you know where the door was, do you know where the weapons were? I don't, but if you are able to make the assertion they should have been able to subdue him, you must have some pretty good understanding of the situation.

What "assertion" did I make, exactly? I believe I asked a question. And the point of asking that question is precicely that I don't know. But if the government is as interested in the transparency of this whole situation as they claim to be, then they should be answering those questions so we do know why they couldn't capture an unarmed man. I'm just asking for answers, a little clarity, a little consistency.
No need to get uppity.

By the way, for having claimed not to know yourself, you rattle off a fairly descriptive account yourself...

fair enough, I may have jumped to the conclusion you were trying to make a commentary about whether or not the killing was justified...if that wasn't your assertion than I apologize
I did get a little detailed I suppose, just guessing though...either that or I was there

I am quite the bad ass

BIN LADEN IS DEAD

Comments

Categories