Bin Laden Dead Truthers Mourn

TruthMakesPeace said:
Nice try on a straw man argument. Do you always debate against arguments you make up?

I never said that shooting a gun out of someone's hand was always the objective of a sharp shooter. I said that that a good sharp shooter could shoot the gun from someone's hand, and provided examples.

Given the importance of the intel Bin Laden had, and his relatively weak threat to the JSOC sharp shooters (he was a sick man needing a cane and kidney dialysis machine who was a poor shot), and that he was completely surrounded, they could have, and should have taken him alive.
Click to expand...


Nobody cares about your Monday morning quarterbacking.

If for no other reason, they could get the $25 million reward. More importantly, it would show the world that "bringing him to justice" means bringing him to justice in a court of law, not a lynching.
Click to expand...

They weren't eligible for the reward, genius.
 
Last edited:
TruthMakesPeace said:
Nice try on a straw man argument. Do you always debate against arguments you make up?

I never said that shooting a gun out of someone's hand was always the objective of a sharp shooter. I said that that a good sharp shooter could shoot the gun from someone's hand, and provided examples.
Click to expand...
All of which were vastly different circumstances, which was pointed out several times over, and you keep ignoring it.

Given the importance of the intel Bin Laden had, and his relatively weak threat to the JSOC sharp shooters (he was a sick man needing a cane and kidney dialysis machine who was a poor shot), and that he was completely surrounded, they could have, and should have taken him alive.
Click to expand...
He was in an armed compound, had men with guns protecting him, and was shooting himself. How many men do you think the US forces should've lost before they decided it wasn't worth the trouble?

If for no other reason, they could get the $25 million reward. More importantly, it would show the world that "bringing him to justice" means bringing him to justice in a court of law, not a lynching.
Click to expand...
Active threat. Willing to kill. The policy is to shoot said threat.

Your current position is no more tenable than the one you accused of being a straw man.
 
lionking said:
QFT. I still see idiots here when there's been a police shooting (mercifully rare, but 2 today in Melbourne) argue that the coppers should have shot for the legs or shot at the weapon. When a gun is drawn by police and the military, there's only one place to aim. The body mass.
Click to expand...

I know I'm 4 pages back but the only time I remember sharpshooters going for a small area on a moving target was that bank robbery in Cali when those guys were armored head to toe. The sniper was trying to hit a small exposed area on the neck (for a kill shot) but the robber shot himself at the same exact moment. No one knew for sure which shot actually killed him.

As far as DNA testing. Seeing they were SEALs and he was buried at sea, has anything come out that the operation originated at sea rather than a base in Afghanistan? I would think a carrier or something would have a lot of specialized medical testing equipment on hand.
 
TruthMakesPeace said:
Given the importance of the intel Bin Laden had, and his relatively weak threat to the JSOC sharp shooters
Click to expand...

Poisoning the well logical fallacy.

The intel was gathered after the threat was neutralized.

TruthMakesPeace said:
(he was a sick man needing a cane and kidney dialysis machine who was a poor shot),
Click to expand...

My neighbor is an older man, about 80 or so, and him and I have gone shooting recently. He is still a damn good shot.

He is not hooked up to a dialysis machine 24/7. people with kidney problems go for treatment 2-3 times per week. Not 24/7.

Do you have proof that he was a poor shot? Or is that more of your "evidence free facts"?


TruthMakesPeace said:
and that he was completely surrounded, they could have, and should have taken him alive.
Click to expand...


Says the kid on the internet. If someone is shooting at a soldier, the first objective it to neutralize the threat. I would rather have a dead terrorist, than a dead American soldier.

TruthMakesPeace said:
If for no other reason, they could get the $25 million reward.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't be eligable. It wasn't their intel that captured him. They were acting under the orders of the President. Not on their own.


TruthMakesPeace said:
More importantly, it would show the world that "bringing him to justice" means bringing him to justice in a court of law, not a lynching.
Click to expand...

Seems that almost everyone that I have seen on the news is calling it "justice served".

Maybe your love for terrorists is clouding your judgement.
 
TruthMakesPeace said:
For sharp shooters it is not luck. It what they train to be able to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff4XuPtAOUk
http://www.flicklife.com/d3ebaabb04d6b5d09942/Sniper_shoots_gun_out_of_guys_hand.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv69hX4jlWQ

Why weren't they ordered to take him alive, and bring him to justice (a trial)?
He was surrounded, and will eventually run out of ammo, or need a kidney dialysis.
Click to expand...

What we have here is some-one who has no military training or actual real life experience!
The idea is to kill the enemy before they get a chance to kill you...
 
PGH said:
HA! And he collapsed right into his own footprints.

When in the history of the world has Osama Bin Laden ever been killed by bullets??
Click to expand...

At the time he was standing in his own footprints several feet behind a woman
 
Justin39640 said:
I know I'm 4 pages back but the only time I remember sharpshooters going for a small area on a moving target was that bank robbery in Cali when those guys were armored head to toe. The sniper was trying to hit a small exposed area on the neck (for a kill shot) but the robber shot himself at the same exact moment. No one knew for sure which shot actually killed him.

As far as DNA testing. Seeing they were SEALs and he was buried at sea, has anything come out that the operation originated at sea rather than a base in Afghanistan? I would think a carrier or something would have a lot of specialized medical testing equipment on hand.
Click to expand...

Hell, this had been planned for a while. They could have airlifted the necessary equipment to a US base in Afghanistan or a USN ship if they needed it. I mean this is a military that can move hundreds of thousands of troops and their equipment anywhere in the world. Some equipment/people to do DNA testing is nothing.
 
dtugg said:
Hell, this had been planned for a while. They could have airlifted the necessary equipment to a US base in Afghanistan or a USN ship if they needed it. I mean this is a military that can move hundreds of thousands of troops and their equipment anywhere in the world. Some equipment/people to do DNA testing is nothing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. DNA testing is done BTW. Confirmed 100% that it was the scum.
 
triforcharity said:
Yeah, that's our old pal cicorp, who aparently thought we wouldn't notice the name change.
Click to expand...

Just to be fair. I did see a post where he announced his name change and reasoning for it. I'd also figure by not changing his Avatar it wasn't intended to be a trick. (I feel a little sick defending him though, to be honest lol)
 
TruthMakesPeace said:
snip.. and that he was completely surrounded, they could have, and should have taken him alive.

If for no other reason, they could get the $25 million reward. More importantly, it would show the world that "bringing him to justice" means bringing him to justice in a court of law, not a lynching.
Click to expand...

First, how do you know they could have taken him alive? You seem to know more than the rest of the world when it comes to what and how it went down. From what I heard there was a gunfire exchange and they were using women as human shields. I don't think he went willingly.

Second, was the reward payable to military personnel? I thought it wasn't but I don't know much about it. I thought it was incentive for media or people who got close to him to whack him.

ETA:it wasn't payable to military personnel
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
I think is pretty much a guarentee that he was lying. Where the hell would those savages het a nuclear weapon. There is no way they could build one. And there is no way a country would be stupid/suicidal enough to give them one.
Click to expand...
So now they're savages?
 
3bodyproblem said:
First, how do you know they could have taken him alive? You seem to know more than the rest of the world when it comes to what and how it went down. From what I heard there was a gunfire exchange and they were using women as human shields. I don't think he went willingly.

Second, was the reward payable to military personnel? I thought it wasn't but I don't know much about it. I thought it was incentive for media or people who got close to him to whack him.

ETA:it wasn't payable to military personnel
Click to expand...
What happened to tear gas?
 
000063 said:
All of which were vastly different circumstances, which was pointed out several times over, and you keep ignoring it.
Click to expand...

He also ignores the fact that he was quoted saying "For sharp shooters it is not luck. It what they train to be able to do". Which was demonstrated with sources to be false. Which is what he's ignoring, again trying to make it as if he was arguing something completely different than what he originally said.

Again, QED: His statement about marksmanship training was refuted with sources. End of story. Again, I suggest that people put him on ignore; he argues dishonestly.
 
triforcharity said:
Poisoning the well logical fallacy.

The intel was gathered after the threat was neutralized.



My neighbor is an older man, about 80 or so, and him and I have gone shooting recently. He is still a damn good shot.

He is not hooked up to a dialysis machine 24/7. people with kidney problems go for treatment 2-3 times per week. Not 24/7.

Do you have proof that he was a poor shot? Or is that more of your "evidence free facts"?





Says the kid on the internet. If someone is shooting at a soldier, the first objective it to neutralize the threat. I would rather have a dead terrorist, than a dead American soldier.



They wouldn't be eligable. It wasn't their intel that captured him. They were acting under the orders of the President. Not on their own.




Seems that almost everyone that I have seen on the news is calling it "justice served".

Maybe your love for terrorists is clouding your judgement.
Click to expand...

So did OBL need dialysis machine treatments or not?
 
Clayton Moore, you should be ashamed of yourself...







...for not being the one to suggest that the Seals should've shot the gun out of Bin Laden's hand.

Hi-yo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom