Osama Bin Laden Dead

[southsider2k5]

LOL. There are now people suggesting that The Rock (the wrestler) knew what happened hours before Obama made the announcement.

 

I don't know whether it is true or not, but I do know that the word was moving through military channels long before Barack went on TV to announce.

[southsider2k5]

I don't get what you're saying in the second part.

 

We offered like $25 million or something to get Osama and that didn't work. I doubt it was money that was keeping people's mouths shut in Pak, because there was a whole lot more of it out there to sing about Osama's new crib.

[bmags]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were people wanting to hit this compound months ago, based on what we've already heard. The reports are that the CIA "Red teamed" their intel early last week...took everything they had to a fresh set of eyes to get them to agree that independent analysts agreed UBL was on site, and that was the final straw.

 

I don't doubt there was a lot of pushing to move quicker on this. And it was a risky operation, so I don't doubt there was a lot of push back on that. But there should be.

[RockRaines]

Word is it wasnt a double tap to the head that killed OBL, it was in fact a Rock Bottom

[Controlled Chaos]

I don't know whether it is true or not, but I do know that the word was moving through military channels long before Barack went on TV to announce.

Well I guess he tweeted something around 9:00pm CST. I saw them announce it on FOX Chicago right around 9:50. I then flipped to FOX news and Geraldo was talking about it and details were coming in. I didn't stay up to see the pres speech, but the news was definitely out before he got on the air. You probably don't have to know someone that deep in the WH to have found out around 9:00pm. The misson was over at 3:15 cst.

[bmags]

Whoa, this is crazy

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/...unterterrorism/

[Soxbadger]

Just reading through this thread and seeing some of the garbage that you are posting is honestly jaw dropping. Its no coincidence that a few people didnt even know how to respond to some of your posts because they are literally that ridiculous.

 

A lot of your post say things like "I dont think" or "I dont feel" or "To me." Your opinion is your opinion, and nobody is trying to take that away from, but you need to get off your high horse when you disagree with other peoples.

 

How dare you try to belittle the effect 9/11 or anything else OBL had part in because you dont feel the death count was high enough to make it as significant as some other event in history? 9/11 had a DEVASTATING impact on my immediate family, something that we still havent recovered from and there are tens of thousands of people around the country that were impacted more then not being able to bring shampoo on airplanes. So dont try to tell me how to feel, or how to act or that I should be worried that getting some closure will offend people that dont know me or care whether I live or die across the world.

 

I dont doubt that there were handfuls of people who were just celebrating to celebrate last night, and thats their right. A right thats being protected for them by soldiers all over the world. As other people have pointed out, these were peaceful celebrations, they werent riots. It was one of the most refreshing things Ive seen in terms of national pride watching people all over the country cheering, singing and being proud of our nation.

 

Its been a long time since people have been able to put politics and hate aside and all celebrate as a whole around here, no matter what the reason. Im very grateful to the Obama administration, all of the soldiers that have risked their lives for our freedom and anyone else who had a role in bringing this closure to me and my family. I guess that makes me a bad guy.

 

(I have retracted the "lol" part of this post as it was being incorrectly characterized as a response to the impact on his immediate family, as opposed to the correct context, that his statement that my argument is ridiculous and at the same time saying I should get off my high horse, made me laugh. Sorry for any confusion)

 

How dare I.

 

Perhaps you should go back and read the context of my first statements. I only got involved because others *gasp* dared to attack certain people for questioning whether or not celebrating was necessary.

 

Here is the extremely offensive and "HOW DARE YOU" comment I made:

 

Im glad, but im not celebrating.

 

To many innocent people have died because of all of this.

 

damnit, that is pretty abrasive and out there.

 

I have no clue what people are even reading in this thread, because I countless times have said that I dont care if people celebrated, I just dont think its the most prudent choice. I then took the crazy position that World War II or the Berlin Wall were a bigger events than 9/11.

 

Youre right, these are all positions that are not understandable.

 

Lets just cut to the chase:

 

but you need to get off your high horse when you disagree with other peoples.

 

I couldnt agree more. I actually understand both sides of the argument, I have at least 1 time stated that I would have celebrated if I was there.

 

So who is on their high horse?

 

The person who admits that the other side has merit and that they would have done similar?

 

Or the person who says "HOW DARE YOU" have your own independent opinion that is not the same as me.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Steve9347]

lol

I would think one's first reaction when reading that someone else on this board had a personal loss on 9/11 would not be to LOL.

 

Dude, wtf.

[Soxbadger]

Because I wasnt responding to his personal loss. Obviously I feel horrible for that, I thought that went without saying.

[RockRaines]

Yeah, thats a pretty f***ed up response. Sometimes you have to put winning a message board argument on the back burner.

[Soxbadger]

Wow seriously?

 

Its a message board, I dont respond to every single sentence in every post. I clearly feel bad for his loss (go read the numerous posts in this thread about how the tragic loss is why I dont feel right about the celebrations), so I felt it was absolutely unnecessary to reference it.

 

I feel bad for everyone who has died, on both sides, there will never be anything that any of us can do to bring them back or to make their family or lives whole.

 

But if you are going to attack me and than put a sympathetic statement in it, I feel I have every right in the world to respond to that statement.

 

He called my arguments ridiculous and than said I needed to get off my high horse.

 

What else can I do but laugh?

 

As I said before, it goes without saying, but Im not simply going to let his claims go without a response, because he is sympathetic. Just as I would expect that none of you, would let me off the hook, just because something bad may have personally happened to my family.

 

Fair is fair, the rest of his comments stand alone, and I merely responded to only those comments.

 

You want to take it completely out of context, fine, but there is no evidence or suggestion that I was laughing at his sorrow. Not to mention, as soon as it was brought up, I entirely clarified my position. If you really think its so horrific, Ill gladly edit out the "lol" but that is just how preposterous it was that I was commenting on his loss. It is so beyond anything that I could imagine, I never even thought anyone would interpret it that way.

 

My mistake, and I clarified.

[RockRaines]

What else can I do but laugh?

You could have laughed to yourself without posting. At some point reiterating your position over and over has to get old to you. Someone else can have the "last word" and nobody would think less of you or your position. Thats just my opinion dude, obviously you can do whatever you want.

[Soxbadger]

Youre right.

[Leonard Zelig]

I didn't know that. Awesome.

Do you really think it is awesome that they killed children?

[Balta1701]

President Obama's press secretary Jay Carney Tuesday afternoon read a Pentagon-prepared statement to reporters describing the events that took place inside the compound Sunday night.

 

The new account dispelled any notion that bin Laden was armed or used his wife as a human shield when a U.S. assault team entered his room, killing him with two bullets, one to the body and one to the head. The new account revises what John Brennan, Obama's counterterrorism adviser, told reporters Monday: that he believed Osama had a gun, although he said he wasn't sure bin Laden shot any rounds, and that he was using a woman as a human shield, most likely his wife. The White House first revised Brennan's account in a background briefing with reporters Monday night.

 

At the time, Brennan offered caveats to his account, several times saying "it is my understanding" when pressed by reporters for more details and openly acknowledging that he did not see the events unfold himself.

 

According to the Pentagon's new narrative, as relayed by Carney, Osama was unarmed, and a woman, Osama's wife, in the room with him rushed the U.S. "assaulter" and was shot in the leg but not killed. Another woman was killed on a different floor when she was caught in "crossfire," Carney said.

 

Despite the lack of a gun, Carney said the Navy Seal team "met resistance throughout" the operation. When asked how bin Laden resisted when he was unarmed, Carney said: "Resistance does not require a firearm."

 

Carney did not say how bin Laden's courier and the courier's brother resisted before being shot and killed, although he continued to maintain there was a firefight.

 

"What is true is we provided a great deal of information with great haste in order to inform you about the operation," Carney told reporters, "and how it transpired and the events that took place there in Pakistan and obviously some of the information came in piece by piece and came in and was reviewed and elaborated on."

 

"As Mr. Brennan and others made clear, we expected a great deal of resistance and were met with a great deal of resistance," Carney added. "It was a highly volatile firefight -- I'll point you to [Department of Defense] for more details. The U.S. personnel on the ground handled themselves with the utmost professionalism, and [Osama] was killed in the operation because of the resistance."

 

Carney referred all follow-up questions about specific details of the firefight and killing to the Pentagon

Link

[Jenksismyhero]

When asked how bin Laden resisted when he was unarmed, Carney said: "Resistance does not require a firearm."

 

What the hell does that mean?

[Soxbadger]

I hate to say it, but I really dont think they were bringing Osama back alive. All a trial would have done was give him one last chance to have a world stage.

 

And basically he was resisting arrest,by not just letting the seals cuff him. But under US law, Im not sure that would authorize the use of deadly force.

[Brian]

I hate to say it, but I really dont think they were bringing Osama back alive. All a trial would have done was give him one last chance to have a world stage.

 

This.

 

I don't care if we killed an unarmed man. He didn't deserve a trial. He admitted to everything. I just hope the SEAL that shot him in the head had some sweet one liner before pulling the trigger.

[Balta1701]

The ISI official gave new details of the raid, saying Bin Laden's young daughter had said she saw her father shot.

 

He told the BBC's Owen Bennett-Jones in Islamabad that the compound in Abbottabad, just 100km (62 miles) from the capital, was raided when under construction in 2003.

 

It was believed an al-Qaeda operative, Abu Faraj al-Libi, was there.

 

But since then, "the compound was not on our radar, it is an embarrassment for the ISI", the official said. "We're good, but we're not God."

 

He added: "This one failure should not make us look totally incompetent. Look at our track record. For the last 10 years, we have captured Taliban and al-Qaeda in their hundreds - more than any other countries put together."

Beeb.

[Milkman delivers]

Word is it wasnt a double tap to the head that killed OBL, it was in fact a Rock Bottom

 

I read the first half of this thinking that it was serious, then I burst out with a nice, loud "HA!"

[Milkman delivers]

Do you really think it is awesome that they killed children?

 

Eh, being facetious.

[Texsox]

After reading and watching several reports, I am open to the Pakistanis not knowing he was there. In some ways, it was safer than out in the wilderness. The US had to factor in a military base that close by in the operation. No one really would have suspected he was hiding that close. Now it would be even more believable if it was in a different country than Pakistan.

 

At first I was surprised he wasn't surrounded by more fire power and in a compound with tunnels or some other mean of escaping. But again, that would have attracted more attention. Another thought, if high ranking Pakistan military and government knew, why not build him a compound inside one of their bases? A top secret building could have been arranged as a research facility.

 

I will agree the most likely scenario is some knew and were protecting him, but I am open to the idea that they did not.

[Texsox]

This.

 

I don't care if we killed an unarmed man. He didn't deserve a trial. He admitted to everything. I just hope the SEAL that shot him in the head had some sweet one liner before pulling the trigger.

 

You just rejected the entire US legal system and the US Constitution. But, if there ever was a case where we should throw it out, this would be the one.

[Jenksismyhero]

After reading and watching several reports, I am open to the Pakistanis not knowing he was there. In some ways, it was safer than out in the wilderness. The US had to factor in a military base that close by in the operation. No one really would have suspected he was hiding that close. Now it would be even more believable if it was in a different country than Pakistan.

 

At first I was surprised he wasn't surrounded by more fire power and in a compound with tunnels or some other mean of escaping. But again, that would have attracted more attention. Another thought, if high ranking Pakistan military and government knew, why not build him a compound inside one of their bases? A top secret building could have been arranged as a research facility.

 

I will agree the most likely scenario is some knew and were protecting him, but I am open to the idea that they did not.

 

This would make sense if not for the fact that they (Pak military) routinely checked the area for operatives, literally going door to door checking ID's. They should have known that this compound held a target of some level of importance. That's the extent of the US decision to check this place out - it looked way too big and secure for it to be a nobody.

[lostfan]

Where in the EO text does it say "Head of state"? Here's the Wiki version:

Does the word "Assassination" imply "head of state"? Isn't attempting to shoot a political figure an assassination (i.e. Rep. Giffords, for example).

Does it really matter? You could make a pretty convincing argument, pretty easily, that he's an enemy combatant I'd think.