112 replies to this topic

[Chyros]

Destiny, on 2 May 2011, 15:44, said:

I'm certain on one thing, Chyros.

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.

The bloody hell are you on about mate?

Sgt. Nuker, on 2 May 2011, 15:53, said:

n5p29, on 2 May 2011, 8:29, said:

maybe this explains the increasing terrorism attack in here lately.

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.

Do you think that terrorists would need his death as an excuse to target your country though?

[Kris]

-del-

Edited by Kris, 26 February 2017 - 14:50.

[Alias]

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 0:11, said:

Alias, on 2 May 2011, 8:47, said:

I'm sure the US has found some loophole to make sure his assassination was legal, but legality doesn't matter. What matters is what the correct thing to do is.

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

"A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."

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:

I don't know where it goes from here, but I do believe he was killed by American special operators, apparently acting on intelligence from Pakistani intelligence. It certainly does open us up from retribution, but would it be better that a man responsible for the deaths of thousands lives on plotting the deaths of even more? War is a horrible thing, but, as much bad as it may bring, I do believe that removing Osama from the equation is ultimately for the better of everyone.

Regardless, you don't need to kill someone to remove them. If Hitler didn't kill himself he would've been tried for war crimes/crimes against humanity, just like the rest of the high-level Nazis and of course Saddam Hussein. Why does Osama not get the same treatment? (I would also argue that war crimes should not be punishable by the death penalty, I'm sure you all know my position on that by now.) One final thing is that common law (i.e. British law, what the UK/US/Australia and most of the other ex-British colonies use) is meant to restore the status quo. It's not meant for retribution and never was (just to clarify, I'm talking about killing Osama for retribution for September 11, not potential future attacks in retribution for his death).

Edited by Alias, 02 May 2011 - 15:32.

[Jok3r]

Quote

Calling the U.S. operation a surgical raid, officials said it was conducted by a small team and designed to minimize collateral damage. Upon landing, the team encountered resistance from bin Laden and three other men that resulted in a firefight.

from CNN. He was killed while resisting, not executed. Yes, they ID'd him, but that doesn't mean it was an execution.

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]

Jok3r said:

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.

I think you'll find that at the moment the sad truth is that few non-Americans are willing to defend anything the US has done the last ten or so years . Internationally speaking, the US is politically not really popular right now.

Edited by Chyros, 02 May 2011 - 15:52.

[Alias]

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 1:40, said:

Quote

Calling the U.S. operation a surgical raid, officials said it was conducted by a small team and designed to minimize collateral damage. Upon landing, the team encountered resistance from bin Laden and three other men that resulted in a firefight.

from CNN. He was killed while resisting, not executed. Yes, they ID'd him, but that doesn't mean it was an execution.

As my source states, he was shot in the head after being identified. Normally if you were going to capture someone (even if they are resistant) you would not aim for the head if you wanted them to stay alive (which, if this was apparently a capture mission rather than an assassination, would've been the case).

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 1:40, said:

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.

Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths. He would've got a trial. How is this different? Is 'terrorism' even worse than genocide? Doubtably. I guess because the people who died to Osama were Americans rather than someone else means its justified?

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]

Chyros, on 2 May 2011, 11:48, said:

Alias, on 2 May 2011, 17:26, said:

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.

I think you'll find that at the moment the sad truth is that few non-Americans are willing to defend anything the US has done the last ten or so years . Internationally speaking, the US is politically not really popular right now.

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]

Yeah I think they would have captured him given the chance Alias. I have no idea what went on in that building where they found him, but I'm guessing there were guns blazing and the SEALS had to take down everyone.

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]

Alias, on 2 May 2011, 11:50, said:

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 1:40, said:

Quote

Calling the U.S. operation a surgical raid, officials said it was conducted by a small team and designed to minimize collateral damage. Upon landing, the team encountered resistance from bin Laden and three other men that resulted in a firefight.

from CNN. He was killed while resisting, not executed. Yes, they ID'd him, but that doesn't mean it was an execution.

As my source states, he was shot in the head after being identified. Normally if you were going to capture someone (even if they are resistant) you would not aim for the head if you wanted them to stay alive (which, if this was apparently a capture mission rather than an assassination, would've been the case).

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 1:40, said:

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.

Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths. He would've got a trial. How is this different? Is 'terrorism' even worse than genocide? Doubtably. I guess because the people who died to Osama were Americans rather than someone else means its justified?

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]

Jok3r, on 2 May 2011, 17:50, said:

Chyros, on 2 May 2011, 11:48, said:

Alias, on 2 May 2011, 17:26, said:

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.

I think you'll find that at the moment the sad truth is that few non-Americans are willing to defend anything the US has done the last ten or so years . Internationally speaking, the US is politically not really popular right now.

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.

You're right, I must've messed up the quote somehow. I fixed it.

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:

Yeah I think they would have captured him given the chance Alias. I have no idea what went on in that building where they found him, but I'm guessing there were guns blazing and the SEALS had to take down everyone.

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 don't buy that tbh. It's not some stupid police force dealing with their first hostage situation, we're talking some seriously trained commandos here. I'm sure that they'd be quite capable of not shooting him in the head if they wanted to not shoot him in the head, even in the middle of a firefight. The fact that they don't even show a picture of it (as far as I know at least) of it only strengthens the theory that it was either an assassination or that it didn't happen at all, both of which are especially likely considering what you said about impact factor as well.

[Alias]

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 1:54, said:

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.

I guess they've completely failed at their mission objectives, then, if this was a capture mission and not an assassination, right?

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.

How is a comparison to previous cases irrelevant? The US uses the common law system, which is completely founded on precedent. The precedent is that war criminals are supposed to get tried as has what happened in almost every past case. Why exactly is Osama any different?

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]

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:

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.

I think you'll find that at the moment the sad truth is that few non-Americans are willing to defend anything the US has done the last ten or so years . Internationally speaking, the US is politically not really popular right now.

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.

You're right, I must've messed up the quote somehow. I fixed it.

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:

Yeah I think they would have captured him given the chance Alias. I have no idea what went on in that building where they found him, but I'm guessing there were guns blazing and the SEALS had to take down everyone.

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 don't buy that tbh. It's not some stupid police force dealing with their first hostage situation, we're talking some seriously trained commandos here. I'm sure that they'd be quite capable of not shooting him in the head if they wanted to not shoot him in the head, even in the middle of a firefight. The fact that they don't even show a picture of it (as far as I know at least) of it only strengthens the theory that it was either an assassination or that it didn't happen at all, both of which are especially likely considering what you said about impact factor as well.

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]

I think the Americans actually tried to Capture or Kill him. Capture was the main objective and kill if he can't be captured. All this Fanatic terrorists are given the mind set of never to surrender. A captured Bin Laden paraded into Guantanamo or any other location would weaken the AQ more than killing him. OBL was just a figurehead at the time of death, he was not planning the operations any more. AQ would get over it soon enough since his death is only symbolic. On the other hand, if he were to be captured alive, it would hit the AQ followers beliefs. They would start to question the leadership.

-------------

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]

Chyros, on 2 May 2011, 12:04, said:

Ghostrider, on 2 May 2011, 17:50, said:

Yeah I think they would have captured him given the chance Alias. I have no idea what went on in that building where they found him, but I'm guessing there were guns blazing and the SEALS had to take down everyone.

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 don't buy that tbh. It's not some stupid police force dealing with their first hostage situation, we're talking some seriously trained commandos here. I'm sure that they'd be quite capable of not shooting him in the head if they wanted to not shoot him in the head, even in the middle of a firefight. The fact that they don't even show a picture of it (as far as I know at least) of it only strengthens the theory that it was either an assassination or that it didn't happen at all, both of which are especially likely considering what you said about impact factor as well.

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]

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:11, said:

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.

Police forces (as in, regular police, not SWAT or anything) can usually subdue armed targets without deaths, how come highly trained military commandos are unable to do the same? If they were accurate enough to be able to hit his head I'm pretty sure they can be accurate enough to incapacitate rather than kill. If you watch this video on the BBC it states there was 40 seals involved in the operation. I think that would be more than enough the be able to incapacitate any threat.

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:11, said:

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?

Well then, if his death was included in the mission parameters then it is technically an assassination, correct? How exactly is it not an assassination if that is an accepted conclusion to the operation?

Ghostrider, on 3 May 2011, 2:18, said:

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.

Even more reason this is an assassination.

Edited by Alias, 02 May 2011 - 16:29.

[Chyros]

Jok3r, on 2 May 2011, 18:11, said:

but invading because we suspected WMD's... I'd say wasn't.

I'd agree _some_ kind of action may have been warranted if there was any evidence of WMDs. As it happened, there was none of any kind and it's all but certain the whole thing was a set-up and just an excuse to invade.

Quote

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.

Yes, an arm of leg shot was what I was suggesting, or perhaps even a non-lethal approach such as beanbags, tear gas or something else. Indeed it may increase the danger factor, but just look what's very prominently printed on the front page of every single newspaper in the world right now. Besides, even if they accidentally kidnapped him, why isn't there any evidence of what happened in circulation? Not that I'm concluding a whole lot, I'm just approaching this, as I approach any news item, which scepsis.

Quote

Would you rather he was alive now and the DEVGRU team that went in were dead, so that maybe he could see trial later?

Well the SEALs went in knowing what it could cost them. If Osama was to truly have a fair trial if he would've been captured alive, would it be justified to not at least try to get him out alive?

[Jok3r]

Alias, on 2 May 2011, 12:24, said:

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:11, said:

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.

Police forces (as in, regular police, not SWAT or anything) can usually subdue armed targets without deaths, how come highly trained military commandos are unable to do the same? If they were accurate enough to be able to hit his head I'm pretty sure they can be accurate enough to incapacitate rather than kill.

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:11, said:

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?

Well then, if his death was included in the mission parameters then it is technically an assassination, correct? How exactly is it not an assassination if that is an accepted conclusion to the operation?

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]

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:27, 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.

Watch the video in this BBC article. It states that there was FORTY SEALs involved in the operation. I'm pretty sure by any measure of reason that would be far more than enough to incapacitate (i.e. surround the building and come in from all sides) any threat rather than simple just go in guns blazing. It's not like this was a group of three commandos or something and they had to be ultra careful because they're outnumbered 10 to 1 or anything.
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]

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.

Do you think that terrorists would need his death as an excuse to target your country though?

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]

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.

Do you think that terrorists would need his death as an excuse to target your country though?

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.

Tue, but I don't think the impact will be that great regardless. Terrorists don't need an excuse to attack anything, they make up their own reasons. Really at this point it wouldn't matter if the US cured all diseases everywhere, the terrorists would still make up some kind of excuse for an attack.

[Jok3r]

Alias, on 2 May 2011, 12:35, said:

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:27, 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.

Watch the video in this BBC article. It states that there was FORTY SEALs involved in the operation. I'm pretty sure by any measure of reason that would be far more than enough to incapacitate (i.e. surround the building and come in from all sides) any threat rather than simple just go in guns blazing. It's not like this was a group of three commandos or something and they had to be ultra careful because they're outnumbered 10 to 1 or anything.
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]

I agree Chyros, I think the biggest impact this has is putting a lot of US citizens' minds to rest, if only because the US has been pursuing Osama for so long.

My question is, will it affect our presence abroad?

[Chyros]

Ghostrider, on 2 May 2011, 19:16, said:

I agree Chyros, I think the biggest impact this has is putting a lot of US citizens' minds to rest, if only because the US has been pursuing Osama for so long.

Exactly. I'm sure many of those who blame Osama for their losses or who are afraid of terrorism will sleep a bit easier (whether there is reason for that or not).

Quote

My question is, will it affect our presence abroad?

There's not really any reason it should, is there?

[Alias]

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 3:16, said:

Alias, on 2 May 2011, 12:35, said:

Jok3r, on 3 May 2011, 2:27, 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.

Watch the video in this BBC article. It states that there was FORTY SEALs involved in the operation. I'm pretty sure by any measure of reason that would be far more than enough to incapacitate (i.e. surround the building and come in from all sides) any threat rather than simple just go in guns blazing. It's not like this was a group of three commandos or something and they had to be ultra careful because they're outnumbered 10 to 1 or anything.
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.

They landed on the roof. What kind of perimeter is that? If there was two shooters on Osama and under 5 other hostile casualties, I think it's fair to say the building was far less guarded than you think it was. With those kind of numbers you really would not need lethal force. Even if Osama didn't fight back it's fairly likely they would have executed him on the spot anyway given the general American's response to what has happenned.

[Raven]

The raid was tweeted live by a civilian who was living near by. According to his tweets, the chopper was shot down. BBC Link