112 replies to this topic

[Lucid]

Alias, on 2 May 2011, 13:37, said:

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.

Yes, I think they would have executed him, but then again, so would I. It's not like this is a murder suspect where they only think he could have done it, everyone in the world knows what he did, and the he's guilty. Even if they had captured him, the trial would just be a formality, since everyone knows that he would be convicted and thus executed anyway, so all they did was save us time and money.

Now, about the assassination thing, I'll just say this much. If you ask any American soldier what they would have done in that situation, either kill him with a headshot, or wound him, risking the chance that he could detonate an explosive vest, causing him to become a martyr, and I can bet that most, if not all would take the shot. I'm all for trying to capture him alive, but not if it caused the death of any of the SEAL on the raid, (which I seriously doubt that there were 40 of them). Anyway, even if we did capture him, it wouldn't help us at all. He would probably rot in a cell until his execution, with the CIA trying (and failing) to extract intelligence from him. So, if anything the SEAL's saved us money.

[Golan]

He resisted even when defeat was evident - I guess the operation definitely made him a martyr now. Seeing that he was pretty much forgotten and probably reduced to a mere figurehead even for his own men, he might be more dangerous dead than alive. I pray the lives saved this day won't have to be paid with more lives another day.

Edited by Golan, 02 May 2011 - 20:02.

[Hobbesy]

I'm honestly surprised by the amount of ignorance going around here. I expected a lot better from most of you.

[Libains]

Hobbesy, on 2 May 2011, 22:01, said:

I'm honestly surprised by the amount of ignorance going around here. I expected a lot better from most of you.

Care to expand on that particularly vague statement mate?

[Hobbesy]

Well, setting aside the logical fallacies that are pretty much in every argument I've seen presented, the fact that people are expecting a plan to be executed perfectly is absolutely silly and childish.

The simple fact is that no one really knows what exactly happened that night, and we likely won't know for a very long time. I understand, though, that the lack of evidence probably isn't going to stop anyone here from "debating" whether groups or countries are evil/Hitler/motivated by oil/really bad/fascist/racist/zealots, and that's why we have a Political Corner.

Edited by Hobbesy, 02 May 2011 - 21:36.

[Golan]

Perhaps the discussion should be moved or re-opened there, then? It certainly offers potential for controversy.

[Libains]

As it stands, to attempt to remove this news topic from political controversy would be plain and simple stupid, as its feasibly impossible. Might be worth someone creating a topic regards the political & fundament consequences of this news, though, and moving the bulk of political discussion there though. Would be nice to see someone do so other than me Then we can just stick to the 'ZOMG he's dead' or 'Damn USA, you took your time!' here.

[Raven]

I think the argument about kill or capture can be laid to rest with this cnn breaking news item I recieved

Quote

Operation targeting Osama bin Laden designed, executed to kill him rather than take him alive, U.S. official tells CNN.

[deltaepsilon]

Raven, on 3 May 2011, 4:14, said:

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

I actually read somewhere that the chopper went down to mechanical failure, and the US forces decided to blow it up afterwards.

[Major Fuckup]

deltaepsilon, on 3 May 2011, 13:19, said:

Raven, on 3 May 2011, 4:14, said:

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

I actually read somewhere that the chopper went down to mechanical failure, and the US forces decided to blow it up afterwards.

Probably cheaper to buy a new one then it is to go and fetch it

[Raven]

deltaepsilon, on 3 May 2011, 12:19, said:

Raven, on 3 May 2011, 4:14, said:

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

I actually read somewhere that the chopper went down to mechanical failure, and the US forces decided to blow it up afterwards.

Yep, that the official version. Fire was directed at the chopper, so its natural to think that it was shot down even if it is not the case. On the other hand its quite difficult to think that an aircraft can suffer a mechanical failure when on an important mission like this.

[Destiny]

Raven, on 3 May 2011, 15:46, said:

deltaepsilon, on 3 May 2011, 12:19, said:

Raven, on 3 May 2011, 4:14, said:

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

I actually read somewhere that the chopper went down to mechanical failure, and the US forces decided to blow it up afterwards.

Yep, that the official version. Fire was directed at the chopper, so its natural to think that it was shot down even if it is not the case. On the other hand its quite difficult to think that an aircraft can suffer a mechanical failure when on an important mission like this.

Operation Eagle Claw.



But no, anything is possible. The heli could've exploded suddenly. Or have it's tail rotor shot off. Hydraulics failure due to rusting pipes. All sorts of things are possible.

[CoLT]

It's possible that the stress on the airframe caused by the flight into the combat zone could have contributed to the mechanical failure or exacerbated an existing problem. Either way, it'd be hard to say what caused it if we don't know the actual failure. Anything said now is purely speculative.

Also, even if they stated the intent was to kill OBL, I believe that a small attempt was being made to take him alive. The US as we all know has the biggest stockpiles of heavy munitions in the world. If they purely wanted to erase him from the face of the Earth, what was wrong with sending in a drone armed with hellfires to blow his mansion to pieces? Or sending in a JDAM? Or Tomahawk?

If they really wanted to kill him off with no attempt to capture, I think they have far safer alternatives.
The fact that they sent in the SEALs should tell you that they were trying to bring him in alive, if possible.


I won't say where, but I have been trained in situations like this, being a soldier myself, and if an armed person demonstrates hostile intent we are allowed to use anything up to lethal force to prevent them from causing harm. If they demonstrate a hostile action, then we are trained to use nothing less than lethal force to stop them.
And all of this is for security operations only. In a combat zone, protecting yourself and friendlies around you is your main priority. If you are expected to capture someone then you would be equipped for the purpose. E.g. Tear Gas, Flash Bangs, or even Tranqs or Stun weapons. If not, and you have no means to do so, then simply put, you complete your mission any other way possible whilst protecting yourself and those around you.
If it means bringing every armed combatant in sight down, then so be it.

When you've been placed in a combat situation before or have been trained for it before, then I think you're qualified to talk about the whys and hows of combat. If you're not, you're basically talking about something you don't know and it leads to nasty confrontations to people on the forums if they're more in the know or even if they're speculating just as much as you are.

What I'm sharing with everyone here is mainly to keep everything civil. Let's not lock horns over this.


My views on this? I think it is an eyebrow raiser that they dumped his body into the sea so fast before any photos or confirmations for the general public could be made. All we know about this is what was said.
If I was asked to speculate, I'd say it could even be an extraction (remembering that OBL was trained by the CIA to raise Mujahideen fighters to combat the Soviets way back when). But I doubt I could ever prove any of this so I'd leave it at that.

Edited by CoLT, 03 May 2011 - 13:27.

[Raven]

I read somewhere that Obama wanted proof of the body rather than a pile of rubble. If it was an airstrike, and given the location, it would be difficult to verify it especially if US had doubts about Pakistan's corporation. So having your own men on the ground may have been a better option for them.

[Chyros]

Well, I just heard on the radio he was unarmed >.> . The firefight with the others apparently took 40 minutes.

[Pandut]

My bet is on a very late April Fools joke.

Either that, or we've created a Martyr.

[Alias]

Quote

High-profile Australian QC and human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson says the killing of Osama bin Laden is a perversion of justice that has effectively given the terrorist mastermind what he craved.

In the days since bin Laden's death, the US has been forced to backtrack and clarify details of the killing, with a picture now emerging of a targeted assassination.

This morning, White House spokesman Jay Carney confirmed bin Laden was unarmed when US commandos raided his compound in Pakistan and shot him above his left eye, reportedly blowing away a section of his skull.

Mr Robertson has told ABC News 24 bin Laden should have been brought to trial and his death has made him look like a martyr.

"The way to demystify this man is not to kill him and have the iconic picture of his body," he said.

"The way to demystify him, rather than to these soulful pictures of the tall man on the mountain, is to put him on trial, to see him as a hateful and hate-filled old man screaming from the dock or lying in the witness box.

"That way the true inhumanity of the man is exposed."

Mr Robertson says US president Barack Obama has been sloppy with his use of the word "justice" and questions need to be answered about whether there was an explicit order to kill bin Laden.

"It's not justice. It's a perversion of the term. Justice means taking someone to court, finding them guilty upon evidence and sentencing them," he said.

"This man has been subject to summary execution, and what is now appearing after a good deal of disinformation from the White House is it may well have been a cold-blooded assassination."

Mr Robertson says it is an irony that the US has given bin Laden what he craved.

"The last thing he wanted was to be put on trial, to be convicted and to end his life in a prison farm in upstate New York," he said.

"What he wanted was exactly what he got - to be shot in mid-jihad and get a fast track to paradise and the Americans have given him that.

"It's an irony that it's a win-win situation for both Osama and Obama. The latter gets re-elected as president and the former gets his fast track to paradise."

The US is still debating whether to release what it says are "gruesome" photos of bin Laden's corpse.

The White House also has pictures of bin Laden's burial at sea, which it says adhered to Muslim traditions.

But Mr Robertson says there will be consequences of releasing any of the photos.

"The method of disposing his body at night without an autopsy is also questionable," he said.

"They've got a photograph but they're not releasing that for fear that it'll become iconic, rather like the picture of Che Guevara on the slab.

"But if governments kill people, that's one of the consequences."

Mr Robertson says there now needs to be an inquiry into the death.

http://www.abc.net.a.../04/3207266.htm


There you go Joker. Bin Laden was completely unarmed when he was assassinated and he was most definitely shot in the head. If he wasn't shooting at them why exactly why they need to do the drill you mentioned? Surely one in the leg would stop him from running away and then they can focus on the folks who are actually shooting at them, right? It's also stated in this source that nobody in the room Osama was in was armed. Surely those 20+ SEALs would've been able to take down an unprotected, unarmed and unassisted bin Laden without blowing half his head off, right?

Sounds more and more like assassination, who'd have thought it.

Edited by Alias, 04 May 2011 - 01:55.

[Hobbesy]

I'm glad you found evidence to back up your point and all, but this isn't the topic for this. Believe it or not, though, we have an entire forum dedicated to the kinds of threads it should be in! Wow!

Edited by Hobbesy, 04 May 2011 - 03:14.

[deltaepsilon]

If it bothers you that much can't you move the thread?

[Alias]

Hobbesy, on 4 May 2011, 11:55, said:

I'm glad you found evidence to back up your point and all, but this isn't the topic for this. Believe it or not, though, we have an entire forum dedicated to the kinds of threads it should be in! Wow!

Which one of us is the admin? Split/move the thread if you deem it the correct thing to do. It's why you're in your position after all.

As AJ said though, you can't divide the politics out of this as it is a very political issue, so if you're going to be that fussy just move the damn thing into the political section.

Edited by Alias, 04 May 2011 - 04:12.

[SquigPie]

Alias, on 4 May 2011, 3:50, said:

Surely one in the leg would stop him from running away and then they can focus on the folks who are actually shooting at them, right?

Sorry to break it to you, but there's a few flaws with this:

1. Shooting someone in the legs with military grade weapons may kill them within minutes, both out of shock and out of bloodloss.

2. You're in a firefight with a whole bunch of guys. and you're supposed to hit someone in the legs while he's running away? Weapons experts will tell you why this is implausible.

[Alias]

SquigPie, on 4 May 2011, 16:13, said:

1. Shooting someone in the legs with military grade weapons may kill them within minutes, both out of shock and out of bloodloss.

Why shoot him at all then? He was not armed.

SquigPie, on 4 May 2011, 16:13, said:

2. You're in a firefight with a whole bunch of guys. and you're supposed to hit someone in the legs while he's running away? Weapons experts will tell you why this is implausible.

There was no 'firefight' in the room bin Laden was in. He was unarmed.

[SquigPie]

Alias, on 4 May 2011, 8:27, said:

SquigPie, on 4 May 2011, 16:13, said:

1. Shooting someone in the legs with military grade weapons may kill them within minutes, both out of shock and out of bloodloss.

Why shoot him at all then? He was not armed.

To prevent him from running away. Maybe?

[Alias]

SquigPie, on 4 May 2011, 17:52, said:

Alias, on 4 May 2011, 8:27, said:

SquigPie, on 4 May 2011, 16:13, said:

1. Shooting someone in the legs with military grade weapons may kill them within minutes, both out of shock and out of bloodloss.

Why shoot him at all then? He was not armed.

To prevent him from running away. Maybe?

Which is exactly what I said before you said the whole thing was flawed.

[Chyros]

SquigPie, on 4 May 2011, 9:52, said:

Alias, on 4 May 2011, 8:27, said:

SquigPie, on 4 May 2011, 16:13, said:

1. Shooting someone in the legs with military grade weapons may kill them within minutes, both out of shock and out of bloodloss.

Why shoot him at all then? He was not armed.

To prevent him from running away. Maybe?

The whole building was secured and he's an old man with a kidney defect. He uses a walking stick ffs. I guess forty SEALs can absolutely not prevent him from RUNNING AWAY, no .