|
Socoder -> Off Topic -> BinLaden is (probably) Dead |
|
| Tue, 03 May 2011, 05:28 | |
steve_ancell
|
I would have been tempted to cut-off his beard and keep it as a trophy!
|
| Tue, 03 May 2011, 05:28 | |
|
Stealth |
He has been DNA verified now.
|
| Tue, 03 May 2011, 14:17 | |
Dabz
|
I heard he went to Magaluf for a long weekend away with the lads... Oh wait, that was me!  Dabz -=-=- Intel Core i5 6400 2.7GHz, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (8GB), 8Gig DDR4 RAM, 256GB SSD, 1TB HDD, Windows 10 64bit
|
| Tue, 03 May 2011, 15:13 | |
HoboBen
|
Turns out that he WASN'T armed or using a human shield as first reported. So they just killed an unarmed person without trial.
-=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Tue, 03 May 2011, 15:54 | |
Stealth
|
I wouldn't want to transport him ANYWHERE alive. We would likely be threatened to return him and face serious terrorism. Given the circumstances and taking in to account who he is, I don't feel too bad for him. There is no question of his innocents. But- Shame on the US government for lying initially. -=-=- Quit posting and try Google.
|
| Tue, 03 May 2011, 16:34 | |
|
steve_ancell
|
Even with him dead, the world still isn't safe. There will now be some other long-bearded bastard to succeed him and the Taliban will probably plant more bombs in order to avenge him, killing loads of innocent people in the process.
|
| Tue, 03 May 2011, 17:00 | |
JL235
|
HoboBen  Turns out that he WASN'T armed or using a human shield as first reported. So they just killed an unarmed person without trial. There were armed people in the compound, and his wife did go for the soldiers. Given the opportunity; I think the US government would have preferred to have been able to interrogate (torture) him about Al'Queda contacts/plots/links, put him on trial in front of the world's media and then lock him up permanently. It would have gotten them a lot more kudos then shooting him in the face. |
| Tue, 03 May 2011, 19:51 | |
|
dna |
I think the whole thing was a sham. He looks like 50 percent of the nation over there. One man here in LA said that he even looked like Vlade Divac the center for the Lakers. -=-=- DNA |
| Tue, 03 May 2011, 22:56 | |
Afr0
|
Turns out that he WASN'T armed or using a human shield as first reported. So they just killed an unarmed person without trial. Sigh. One thing I've always wondered - do they even have any solid evidence that he was 'responsible' for 9/11, other than the video where he brags about the success of the thing? It isn't like he was in one of the planes or anything... Edit: He probably had a lot of lives on his consciousness regardless, but one does wonder. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Wed, 04 May 2011, 00:11 | |
|
HoboBen
|
A correction for my earlier comment: For the 1998 United States embassy bombings, Bin Laden was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury so my claim that it was without trial was incorrect. However, they still killed someone who was unarmed. They were going to recover the body anyway; why not show commitment to justice and show him the same justice the court would show any mass-murderer, i.e. prison. Really Bin Laden has become so vilified and exaggerated as an excuse for the "war on terror" that it would have been too embarrassing. To answer Afr0's question, his 9/11 "confession" was a fake. It was poorly translated, didn't even look like him, and he was right handed instead of left handed. Even the FBI Most Wanted list only wanted him for the 1998 United States embassy bombings. -=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Wed, 04 May 2011, 11:41 | |
Spare
|
osama update: the US will not share osama pics!
|
| Wed, 04 May 2011, 13:01 | |
|
Stealth
|
Apparently Osama made threatening moves before he was shot. Afr0 It isn't like he was in one of the planes or anything...Just because he wasn't in the plane doesn't make him less responsible for the planning. You have to overlook a lot of information to question his innocence. -=-=- Quit posting and try Google.
|
| Wed, 04 May 2011, 14:37 | |
|
Afr0
|
You have to overlook a lot of information to question his innocence. I asked if there was any evidence besides the previously mentioned (false?) video. If there is, feel free to link to it. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Wed, 04 May 2011, 14:42 | |
|
JL235
|
Hoboben To answer Afr0's question, his 9/11 "confession" was a fake. It was poorly translated, didn't even look like him, and he was right handed instead of left handed. Even the FBI Most Wanted list only wanted him for the 1998 United States embassy bombings.The evidence proving the blackbeard video is a fake is just as speculative as the evidence proving it's real. Osama did however make an interview with CNN before the US embassy bomb, which was definitely real, where he effectively declared war on the US. He also made it clear that both civilians and military were equal targets. US, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Tanzania, Kenya, Jordan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Algeria, Albania and Serbia are just some of the countries where he has been linked to attacking or funding/aiding/organizing/running terrorist groups BEFORE 9/11. I'd have preferred he'd be put on trial, but his guilt is quite clear. |
| Thu, 05 May 2011, 00:03 | |
|
Afr0
|
I'd have preferred he'd be put on trial, but his guilt is quite clear. I don't doubt his involvement with the US embassy bomb, but it seems there is no evidence that neccessarily supports his involvement (directly or indirectly) in 9/11. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Thu, 05 May 2011, 04:40 | |
|
HoboBen
|
Something that troubles me is that the US just forced their way into Pakistan to do this (Pakistan was not informed of the raid ahead of time). Yes you could argue that Pakistan was either incompetent at best or colluding with Bin Laden at worst, but if another country had performed an assassination of an unarmed criminal in America, there would be a war over it. Even if you argue that forcing your way into another country to go after Bin Laden was right (I'm undecided), that is another reason why they should have taken him prisoner as he was unarmed. It sets a very dangerous precedent, both as a violation of the sovereignty of nations that could easily lead to a war (parallel: World War I and the assassination of Franz Ferdinand), but also because it is outside of the justice system. Really, killing unarmed people is what terrorists do. It shouldn't be what we do, otherwise we're no better. -=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Thu, 05 May 2011, 05:13 | |
|
JL235
|
Bin Laden was not the heir to the throne of an opposing nation. He was a terrorist leader hiding in a country that was publicly against him, which is also an ally of the US. It's not a parallel to the start of WW1. Although yes Pakistan did not know about this mission in advance, it actually wouldn't surprise me if Pakistan secretly supported the US incursions into their country. The various forces threaten the government and stability of Pakistan, and they lose far more soldiers every year fighting then Nato does combined in Afghanistan. Pakistan receives very large amounts of military aid, and it's quite possible that the US actually sends in troops quite regularly. For example every year there Navy Seals who 'die in training' in Afghanistan, which has been claimed is simply a cover story for having died on a mission over the border. It would be very difficult for the US to be regularly sending in forces to Pakistan without the government finding out. But I do have to agree. A trial would have been much better, and I am kinda surprised he wasn't captured. Drug lords regularly try to fight to the death against authorities rather then be arrested, and it's more then plausible that Osama felt similar. Even with him unarmed, it is plausible that they shot him because he did (or was about to be) posing a threat at the time. |
| Thu, 05 May 2011, 13:22 | |
|
Stealth
|
Afr0 I don't doubt his involvement with the US embassy bomb, but it seems there is no evidence that neccessarily supports his involvement (directly or indirectly) in 9/11. There is a lot of evidence supporting his involvement. I don't want to waste my time finding supporting facts. It's out there and you can find it on Google. HoboBen Something that troubles me is that the US just forced their way into Pakistan to do this (Pakistan was not informed of the raid ahead of time). Yes you could argue that Pakistan was either incompetent at best or colluding with Bin Laden at worst, but if another country had performed an assassination of an unarmed criminal in America, there would be a war over it.The US didn't work with Pakistan because they were worried that an inside man would tip Osama off. There is a reason it took so long to find him, he's really good at hiding. I don't think invading a country in any other situations other than this would be acceptable. This guy is #1 on our wanted list and we spent a long time tracking him down. We didn't want to blow the mission. He poses a very real threat to the US. HoboBen Really, killing unarmed people is what terrorists do.We gave him a chance to surrender and he instead decided to resist. If he wanted to live then he should have surrendered immediately. You would never dare run from a cop pointing a gun at you telling you to surrender. It's no different for him. You have to understand the perspective of the Navy SEALs. It's easy to criticize their actions from the safety of your home, but they were in huge danger the entire time. They had little time to think while they were storming rooms. We sent in our best guys and they did their job exactly as they were instructed. -=-=- Quit posting and try Google.
|
| Thu, 05 May 2011, 13:38 | |
|
Afr0
|
It's easy to criticize their actions from the safety of your home, but they were in huge danger the entire time. Not to start a flamewar, but it is just as easy to defend their actions from the safety of your home. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Thu, 05 May 2011, 13:51 | |
|
Stealth
|
Afr0 Not to start a flamewar, but it is just as easy to defend their actions from the safety of your home.I just wanted to point out that these people were being faced with very real death. If they were trigger happy, I wouldn't be shocked. I think most people would be terrified at the thought of invading Osama's compound. -=-=- Quit posting and try Google.
|
| Tue, 10 May 2011, 12:26 | |
|
HoboBen
|
Sorry for the five day bump, but this shows my concerns clearly: "President Obama insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops, senior administration and military officials said Monday." Source There could easily have been a war over this incident. -=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Tue, 10 May 2011, 13:22 | |
|
Stealth
|
I've read more about this and part of the reason the US government was so secretive about the operation was that they were worried Osama would find out and rig the building with explosives and kill our guys. I'm not saying your wrong Ben, you're very right with your concerns. There could have been some very serious repercussions, especially if this turned out to not be him. But I doubt Pakistan would have gone to war with us. For the same reasons the US wouldn't never start a war with Russia for instance (and vis-versa). These countries are all being run by intelligent people. They should be able to understand why we made the choices that we did. I would be a nice touch if Obama personally apologized to Pakistan for doing that. It was a very rude thing to do. Lots and lots of planning went in to this and we got our guy. We risked a lot but it paid off. The intelligence information alone was well worth the risk. -=-=- Quit posting and try Google.
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||