Osama is Dead
Chyros 02 May 2011
Destiny, on 2 May 2011, 15:44, said:
If humanity as a whole as capable of 'moving on', none of us, and I mean, none of, would be here, typing this very moment.
I hope you won't ask me to explain, because I simply have no idea what I said.
Sgt. Nuker, on 2 May 2011, 15:53, said:
n5p29, on 2 May 2011, 8:29, said:
There are reasons beyond this that attribute themselves to that fact, though this could very well be one of the minor reasons.
I doubt this whole event. I would more likely believe he died of kidney failure than being gunned down, defending himself. Osama's death doesn't solve anything, and to a larger extent, it probably will make things worse. How convenient that his body was buried at sea, and within a 24 hour block of time. There are too many aspects about this event that can be fabricated that cause me to seriously doubt it all.
If Osama's dead, where does this end? What's going to happen next?
I'm guessing because now that Osama's "dead", the US had just placed a target on its forehead. I say this, because this morning, a city in my state has shut down its entire lower section because of a bomb threat. Streets and businesses in the area have been closed until the threat has been investigated.
Alias 02 May 2011
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 0:11, said:
Alias, on 2 May 2011, 8:47, said:
The US acts on its moral high horse when it really isn't terribly far from the bottom of the heap.
Well, according to everything I've read, they attempted to take him alive. He died in a firefight with DevGru operators- that's not an assassination. I'd rather you get off your high horse, and stop taking every opportunity you have to bash America, maybe do a little research instead.
Quote
Bin Laden was reportedly identified by the assault force and shot in the head.
http://www.abc.net.a.../02/3205331.htm
Sounds a hell of a lot like an assassination to me.
I don't take every opportunity to "bash America", I merely believe that the value of life is higher than anything else. The one nation (not individual or group, nation) to cause the largest loss of life in recent years just happens to be America. I have never killed anyone in my life so I think I'm partially justified in being on a high horse. The US, however, claims to be all these pro-freedom, pro-peace and pro-law things however its actions speak quite a different story, so it projecting this apparent image of itself to the world isn't just being on a high horse, it's being deceitful.
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 0:11, said:
Edited by Alias, 02 May 2011 - 15:32.
Jok3r 02 May 2011
Quote
EDIT: And I'll add that I still hold that he's better dead than alive. The man was a terrorist responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. That's not someone who can live in a modern society and coexist with the rest of the world. It would be great to hold him to trial, but I have no ethical problem with the death of this man.
Edited by Jok3r, 02 May 2011 - 15:44.
Chyros 02 May 2011
Jok3r said:
Edited by Chyros, 02 May 2011 - 15:52.
Alias 02 May 2011
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 1:40, said:
Quote
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 1:40, said:
Also one thing to note was that Osama was apparently living in a luxury villa. It's quite likely that since around 2007 or sp his Al Qaeda personality lived on in name only. I doubt he was involved in much high level planning with Al Qaeda in these recent few years.
Jok3r 02 May 2011
Chyros, on 2 May 2011, 11:48, said:
Alias, on 2 May 2011, 17:26, said:
Your quotes borked, I said that. And I'm perfectly aware of that, it doesn't make it just. America has become a punching bag for a lot of European and Commonwealth countries to blame for just about everything, often when the blame should really be spread around. Don't get me wrong, we've certainly done wrong, particularly in recent years, but there's still a lot of blame that gets dropped on us perhaps not entirely rightly so.
Ghostrider 02 May 2011
Imagine the evidence of a captured Osama Bin Laden on television to America? Much stronger than hearsay about the death of him with a bullet through his head.
Jok3r 02 May 2011
Alias, on 2 May 2011, 11:50, said:
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 1:40, said:
Quote
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 1:40, said:
Also one thing to note was that Osama was apparently living in a luxury villa. It's quite likely that since around 2007 or sp his Al Qaeda personality lived on in name only. I doubt he was involved in much high level planning with Al Qaeda in these recent few years.
To the first- you're flat out wrong. When someone is shooting at you, you neutralize the threat. To DevGru, that's a Mozambique Drill- two rounds in the chest and one in the head. You don't stop to take "non vital" or "wounding" shots to capture someone, because guess what happens when you do- you get killed. If he was shooting back, it's their SOP to drop him, and with good reason.
To the second, that's more or less irrelevant- whether he was involved in high level planning or not (and I do believe he was, I'm not sure where you're getting your information) he was the literal and spiritual leader of one of the largest and most dangerous terror networks in the world.
Chyros 02 May 2011
Jok3r, on 2 May 2011, 17:50, said:
Chyros, on 2 May 2011, 11:48, said:
Alias, on 2 May 2011, 17:26, said:
Your quotes borked, I said that. And I'm perfectly aware of that, it doesn't make it just. America has become a punching bag for a lot of European and Commonwealth countries to blame for just about everything, often when the blame should really be spread around. Don't get me wrong, we've certainly done wrong, particularly in recent years, but there's still a lot of blame that gets dropped on us perhaps not entirely rightly so.
Also I'm very aware of the involvement of many other nations, including my own, in what I can only call disgusting, obsequious crack-licking. We should never have been involved in Afghanistan or Iraq, a fact I'm still ashamed of to this day.
Ghostrider, on 2 May 2011, 17:50, said:
Imagine the evidence of a captured Osama Bin Laden on television to America? Much stronger than hearsay about the death of him with a bullet through his head.
Alias 02 May 2011
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 1:54, said:
To the second, that's more or less irrelevant- whether he was involved in high level planning or not (and I do believe he was, I'm not sure where you're getting your information) he was the literal and spiritual leader of one of the largest and most dangerous terror networks in the world.
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 1:54, said:
Also note your CNN article states his compound had neither internet nor a phone line. I think it would be fairly hard for Osama to be anything more than a figurehead without essential communication equipment.
Edited by Alias, 02 May 2011 - 16:11.
Jok3r 02 May 2011
Chyros, on 2 May 2011, 12:04, said:
Jok3r, on 2 May 2011, 17:50, said:
Chyros, on 2 May 2011, 11:48, said:
Alias, on 2 May 2011, 17:26, said:
Your quotes borked, I said that. And I'm perfectly aware of that, it doesn't make it just. America has become a punching bag for a lot of European and Commonwealth countries to blame for just about everything, often when the blame should really be spread around. Don't get me wrong, we've certainly done wrong, particularly in recent years, but there's still a lot of blame that gets dropped on us perhaps not entirely rightly so.
Also I'm very aware of the involvement of many other nations, including my own, in what I can only call disgusting, obsequious crack-licking. We should never have been involved in Afghanistan or Iraq, a fact I'm still ashamed of to this day.
Ghostrider, on 2 May 2011, 17:50, said:
Imagine the evidence of a captured Osama Bin Laden on television to America? Much stronger than hearsay about the death of him with a bullet through his head.
Afghanistan I'll give you, our involvement there has been dubious from the start, but I don't think it's necessarily *all* bad. Continued presence in Iraq was wrong, but invading because we suspected WMD's... I'd say wasn't. And no, it's not some stupid police force, it's a group of the best fighting men in the world- and their job is to protect themselves first. Under stress, making a consistent shot on, say, someones arm as it seems you're suggesting they should've done is incredibly difficult. A miss, and one of the SEALs could have been killed. When the targets are shooting back, priority one is to stop that to protect your guys. If it comes in the form of A-Box shots, that's how it happens. It would be one thing if this was anything like a hostage situation, with targets in the open where maybe a sniper could take a shot like that. In a raid, it's just not practical (that is to say, it's downright incredibly dangerous) to subdue an armed enemy combatant, especially when there are multiple combatants.
EDIT: How I love flood control...
Anyway- their mission was to remove him from the equation dead or alive. Alive would be preferable, but as I've outlined, taking an armed resistor alive is incredibly dangerous. And the article says he had neither internet or a phone line, but couriers going in and out of the compound frequently (one of whom is how the compound was found). That means he was still involved. And I'll reiterate- it's not a violation of precedent- they tried to bring him in, but he shot back. The fact that he got killed resisting doesn't mean he wouldn't have had trial if he came in peacefully. Would you rather he was alive now and the DEVGRU team that went in were dead, so that maybe he could see trial later?
Edited by Jok3r, 02 May 2011 - 16:14.
Raven 02 May 2011
-------------
On the point of this man hunt, my only concern his how many innocents were killed in the name of taking revenge for 9/11, USS cole and Nairobi bombings. I think the man hunt cost far more innocent lives. I can understand the US jubilation, I my self think OBL should have had it but the way in which it was achieved may have created so much more OBLs for the future. Its just a matter of not seeing the other side of the coin IMO.
Edited by Raven, 02 May 2011 - 16:17.
Ghostrider 02 May 2011
Chyros, on 2 May 2011, 12:04, said:
Ghostrider, on 2 May 2011, 17:50, said:
Imagine the evidence of a captured Osama Bin Laden on television to America? Much stronger than hearsay about the death of him with a bullet through his head.
I'm not so sure, Chyros. We don't know what went down when they found Osama, and the SEALS may have been forced to shoot to kill. I'm also thinking on the personal level, given the chance to shoot Osama-Satan-Bin Laden, I bet most US soldiers would take the shot. In the head.
Alias 02 May 2011
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:11, said:
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:11, said:
Ghostrider, on 3 May 2011, 2:18, said:
Edited by Alias, 02 May 2011 - 16:29.
Chyros 02 May 2011
Jok3r, on 2 May 2011, 18:11, said:
Quote
Quote
Jok3r 02 May 2011
Alias, on 2 May 2011, 12:24, said:
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:11, said:
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:11, said:
To the first, again, it's a different situation. When police forces subdue a hostage taker, it's because of two situations. Either the hostage taker is outside or within line of sight of a window, so a long range marksman can take those ridiculous shots (which they don't typically) or, more likely, because the hostage taker would rather live and be captured than die. Osama made it clear he'd rather die than be captured, it's a different situation. And I wouldn't call it any more of an assination than any police raid where suspects are killed resisting the police. If their only goal was to kill him, that would be different- and in this case I'd say it was still justified, but that's not the matter at hand.
Alias 02 May 2011
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:27, said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-13256676
Usually suspects killed by the police in a lethal raid are unintentional deaths. The police are aiming to capture the criminals in order to prosecute them. Considering Osama had a bullet through his brain I think you can rule out unintentional death. The BBC video also states he had two bullets through his head, so you can hardly say that is the three-point thing you mentioned if there's two in the head.
Edited by Alias, 02 May 2011 - 16:37.
Sgt. Nuker 02 May 2011
Chyros, on 2 May 2011, 10:18, said:
Sgt. Nuker, on 2 May 2011, 15:53, said:
I doubt this whole event. I would more likely believe he died of kidney failure than being gunned down, defending himself. Osama's death doesn't solve anything, and to a larger extent, it probably will make things worse. How convenient that his body was buried at sea, and within a 24 hour block of time. There are too many aspects about this event that can be fabricated that cause me to seriously doubt it all.
If Osama's dead, where does this end? What's going to happen next?
I'm guessing because now that Osama's "dead", the US had just placed a target on its forehead. I say this, because this morning, a city in my state has shut down its entire lower section because of a bomb threat. Streets and businesses in the area have been closed until the threat has been investigated.
Never said that I didn't think that. However, it does lend yet another reason for their attacks. Heck, it lends another reason for terrorists to get themselves into a Jihad tantrum and carry out attacks on anyone that even mentions the United States of America.
Chyros 02 May 2011
Sgt. Nuker, on 2 May 2011, 18:46, said:
Chyros, on 2 May 2011, 10:18, said:
Sgt. Nuker, on 2 May 2011, 15:53, said:
I doubt this whole event. I would more likely believe he died of kidney failure than being gunned down, defending himself. Osama's death doesn't solve anything, and to a larger extent, it probably will make things worse. How convenient that his body was buried at sea, and within a 24 hour block of time. There are too many aspects about this event that can be fabricated that cause me to seriously doubt it all.
If Osama's dead, where does this end? What's going to happen next?
I'm guessing because now that Osama's "dead", the US had just placed a target on its forehead. I say this, because this morning, a city in my state has shut down its entire lower section because of a bomb threat. Streets and businesses in the area have been closed until the threat has been investigated.
Never said that I didn't think that. However, it does lend yet another reason for their attacks. Heck, it lends another reason for terrorists to get themselves into a Jihad tantrum and carry out attacks on anyone that even mentions the United States of America.
Jok3r 02 May 2011
Alias, on 2 May 2011, 12:35, said:
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:27, said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-13256676
Usually suspects killed by the police in a lethal raid are unintentional deaths. The police are aiming to capture the criminals in order to prosecute them. Considering Osama had a bullet through his brain I think you can rule out unintentional death. The BBC video also states he had two bullets through his head, so you can hardly say that is the three-point thing you mentioned if there's two in the head.
At least half of those forty would be handling perimeter security, probably more. Even with a large number breaching, safely taking someone down with anything less than an A-Box shot is dangerous. And if you're questioning two in the head, you seem to be forgetting there were more than two shooters involved.
Ghostrider 02 May 2011
My question is, will it affect our presence abroad?
Chyros 02 May 2011
Ghostrider, on 2 May 2011, 19:16, said:
Quote
Alias 02 May 2011
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 3:16, said:
Alias, on 2 May 2011, 12:35, said:
Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:27, said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-13256676
Usually suspects killed by the police in a lethal raid are unintentional deaths. The police are aiming to capture the criminals in order to prosecute them. Considering Osama had a bullet through his brain I think you can rule out unintentional death. The BBC video also states he had two bullets through his head, so you can hardly say that is the three-point thing you mentioned if there's two in the head.
At least half of those forty would be handling perimeter security, probably more. Even with a large number breaching, safely taking someone down with anything less than an A-Box shot is dangerous. And if you're questioning two in the head, you seem to be forgetting there were more than two shooters involved.