Merged Osama bin Laden dead,

[Furcifer]

That's how I understand it as well. I don't think they wanted him alive.

I disagree. There's a difference between wanting him dead and not caring.

They had intelligence and I'm sure they knew he was being guarded by armed men. In the off chance they would have surrendered I think he'd be alive today. When they decided to go in like they did someone must have given the go ahead knowing he was most likely not coming out alive.

 

[I Am The Scum]

EXTRACT:

Hours later, other administration officials were clarifying Brennan's account. Turns out the woman that was killed on the compound wasn't bin Laden's wife. Bin Laden may have not even been using a human shield. And he might not have even been holding a gun.

Politico's Josh Gerstein adds: "The White House backed away Monday evening from key details in its narrative about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, including claims by senior U.S. officials that the Al Qaeda leader had a weapon and may have fired it during a gun battle with U.S. forces." Gerstein added: "a senior White House official said bin Laden was not armed when he was killed."

/EXTRACT

'In bin Laden killing, media -- as usual -- regurgitates false Government claims'

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/03/propaganda_bin_laden

Are you even familiar with the discussion you're commenting on? Nobody is denying that some of the details surrounding the event are probably not 100% accurate, and I'm sure most would agree that there are many more details to come. But there's a world of difference between inaccuracies in the details, and the entirety of the story being a hoax.

You appear to be engaging in the false dichotomy very common among conspiracy theorists: You either believe that it's all a cover-up, a hoax, false flag, etc., or you believe everything the government tells you.

 

[PhreePhly]

My understanding, from friends who have served in special forces, that a "kill mission" is one where the killing is not questioned. There will be no hearings afterwards regarding "unjustified" or preventable, or any other worries for the operator. It is known by all players that people will die and that the SP operatives are to take out any and all threats. Any show of resistance will be met with deadly force.

If Osama were found on his knees, hands on his head, and saying very clearly in English that he is not resisting, he may have been captured and not killed, but even then, there is no guarantee.

Was there an element of revenge, possibly, but these operators are very well trained and suprising able to maintain a pretty even keel, particularly in these kinds of fire-fights. Chances are very good that Osama had no plans to go quietly and paid the price while resisting.

 

[Pardalis]

Are you even familiar with the discussion you're commenting on? Nobody is denying that some of the details surrounding the event are probably not 100% accurate, and I'm sure most would agree that there are many more details to come. But there's a world of difference between inaccuracies in the details, and the entirety of the story being a hoax.

You appear to be engaging in the false dichotomy very common among conspiracy theorists: You either believe that it's all a cover-up, a hoax, false flag, etc., or you believe everything the government tells you.

That's how conspiracy theorists work. You're spot-on.

They expect 100% accuracy right from the start. And years later, they go back to the earliest reports, show the inconsistencies therein (and ignore the later reports that correct the mistakes), and say: "you see? They LIED!", and use that as proof of a conspiracy.

They don't understand that news get more furnished and more detailed as time goes buy, the more we learn about an event the better the information becomes, holes are filled and errors are corrected. Early reports are not 100% reliable, but that's what CTers count on.

 

[Ziggurat]

I find it difficult to believe that Obama gave this order. Here's what really happened: Someone in the military headed the operation -- a Republican, most likely -- and when it was a fait accompli, Obama swept in and took the credit (as usual).

No. That's quite plainly NOT what happened. The fact that we've got official whitehouse photos of Obama and other senior staff watching the operation live pretty much negates that possibility.

And given that it was not actually guaranteed that Osama was even there, it's simply not credible that the military would approve a mission to invade another country without presidential authorization. Nobody in the command structure is going to want to take the blame for a decision like that if things went south, if Osama wasn't there and if they encountered resistance from Pakistani military. The military wouldn't tolerate it within their own ranks either, and for good reason: that would essentially destroy the very notion of civilian control of the military, and that is DEEPLY unAmerican.

I'm not a fan of Obama, but this is crazy conspiracy talk here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How many 40 minute gun fights have you been in? What makes you think a man like OBL would surrender?

Do you think that anyone in his position would just give up because some heavily armed men who were shooting everyone in sight said "Freeze!"?

Considering the mind set of terrorists, killing every thing they can, even themselves, why would they throw up their hands and ask for mercy?

This was a military operation, not a police raid seeking to serve an arrest warrant.

And despite the nearly ten years since 9/11, NO insiders have stepped forward to admit their collusion in the attacks yet truthers still exist?

Wow.

I suggest you read my post more carefully, Wow indeed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ummm.... Skeptic Ginger's not a truther. I apologize if that was not your claim, but it sure seemed to be what you were implying.

Clearly he read something else in my post than was actually in my post.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the intent was to go in and kill him. At least that's what I heard. I don't think they had any intention of taking him alive.

That's what you heard from whom? Surely no one in a position to know has said anything of the kind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's how I understand it as well. I don't think they wanted him alive.

It's reasonable to speculate, but it is odd that people are claiming they have "heard" or they "understand" as if the fact is out there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I find it difficult to believe that Obama gave this order. Here's what really happened: Someone in the military headed the operation -- a Republican, most likely -- and when it was a fait accompli, Obama swept in and took the credit (as usual).

Poe's Law? Or are you that partisan?

 

[Pardalis]

That's what you heard from whom? Surely no one in a position to know has said anything of the kind.

My mistake, it turns out the WH security adviser said the opposite, that if they had had the opportunity to take him alive, they would have.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/WhiteHouseDailyBriefing1642

 

[I Ratant]

That's how I understand it as well. I don't think they wanted him alive.

.
Keeping it alive would put everyone involved at a much greater risk.
Best off dead.

 

[Bob001]

Today's reports seem to indicate that Bin Laden "resisted" capture, but didn't actually have his hand on a weapon, although resisting could certainly mean that he was reaching for one. We will never know whether he might have been taken alive. I doubt that SEALs carry Tasers and pepper spray. Subject for discussion/speculation: If Bin Laden HAD been captured alive, what should have happened to him? Guantanamo forever? Military tribunal? Civilian court? Immediate execution? At least one commentator suggested that he should have been turned over to a country where his bombings caused countless Muslim victims, like Indonesia or Kenya, and where justice would likely have been swift and sure without any allegation that the U.S. was making him a martyr. Personally, I think a military tribunal after interrogation might have revealed some useful information, and pictures of him in an orange jumpsuit and chains would have been compelling.

 

[Olowkow]

That's not skepticism, it's denialism.

Yes. The result of too much Bush, Nixon, Agnew, Cheney, Libby, Palin, Bachman, Limbaugh, Beck, Gingrich, Trump ad infinitum...liars and crazies who have distorted beyond reason the accepted meaning of reality. I'd guess that given these dubious giddy twits as their heroes, they would not hesitate to suspect any politician or commentator of dishonesty. Obama is a different class of person however...a very intelligent guy, who values the truth and does not disrespect the average citizen, much as one cannot lump Eric Severeid or Walter Chronkite with the Limbaughs, O'Reilleys or Becks.

 

[Pardalis]

Namedropping is not an argument.

 

[Ausmerican]

No. That's quite plainly NOT what happened. The fact that we've got official whitehouse photos of Obama and other senior staff watching the operation live pretty much negates that possibility.

And given that it was not actually guaranteed that Osama was even there, it's simply not credible that the military would approve a mission to invade another country without presidential authorization. Nobody in the command structure is going to want to take the blame for a decision like that if things went south, if Osama wasn't there and if they encountered resistance from Pakistani military. The military wouldn't tolerate it within their own ranks either, and for good reason: that would essentially destroy the very notion of civilian control of the military, and that is DEEPLY unAmerican.

I'm not a fan of Obama, but this is crazy conspiracy talk here.

Zig, it's Cain. You should now by now that NONE of his posts are to be taken seriously. He is a typing satire machine.

 

[Ausmerican]

As far as taking him alive goes:

Officials described the reaction of the special operators when they were told a number of weeks ago that they had been chosen to train for the mission.

“They were told, ‘We think we found Osama bin Laden, and your job is to kill him,’” an official recalled.

The SEALs started to cheer.

Not that that is official of course.

From here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54151.html

 

[mortimer]

Here's a question for those more familiar with the U.S. Special Forces. Why the SEALs and not one of the other special forces units?

 

[BeAChooser]

Obama is a different class of person however...a very intelligent guy, who values the truth and does not disrespect the average citizen, much as one cannot lump Eric Severeid or Walter Chronkite with the Limbaughs, O'Reilleys or Becks.

LOL! That statement is so naive and so uninformed, on sooo many levels, that it says more about you than Obama or Limbaugh or O'Reilley or Beck.

 

[PhreePhly]

Here's a question for those more familiar with the U.S. Special Forces. Why the SEALs and not one of the other special forces units?

Well, according to my buddy (former SEAL), they're better Actually, his comment was that for this type of mission, SEAL (and Force Recon) are a better choice. If you have a hostage type situation, or you are looking to infiltrate and blend in, Delta Force and Rangers are the better choice. He also said that SEAL Team Six is exceptional at this kind of work. These are the guys that have stood out from the rest of the Teams.

Edit: Replaced Green Beret with Rangers. Green Berets are not usually used in counter-terrorism activities, that is more Rangers and, of course, Delta Force.