Bin Laden Dead Truthers Mourn

[little grey rabbit]

How can you be sure that someone rolling out of bed in their PJs is Osama bin Laden anyway?

 

[leftysergeant]

How can you be sure that someone rolling out of bed in their PJs is Osama bin Laden anyway?

His face is pretty well-know and instantly recognizeable world-wide.

He was also considerably taller than most folk.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Tempesta and Cicorp/Truthmakespeace, do you understand Osama Bin Laden was a MILITARY TARGET in a combat zone?

Do you understand that the military objective was to make sure to neutralize the target? Not just to neutralize it but to make sure that it was (as in bring back proof)?

Do you understand that the team leader was likely given orders that if he felt there was enough danger that the target might escape neutralization (possibly due to counter-attack by Al-Qeada or Pakistani military allied with Al-Qeada) that he was to kill the target?

 

[little grey rabbit]

His face is pretty well-know and instantly recognizeable world-wide.

He was also considerably taller than most folk.

What if he had just had a shave? Khalid Sheik Mohammed is now unrecognisable from his capture photos.

You might of got Craig Reucassel by mistake.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Soldier here again.

I stand by what I said earlier this week in this thread, unfortunately it would seem actual events do not.

Let me firstly say that I do not doubt OBL is dead; I am not a Truther; I certainly do not mourn OBL, but I am becoming less comfortable with these events as time goes on and details are revealed.

I understand the concept of ‘fog of war’ or Battlefield confusion/chaos as much as any soldier these days does, but despite this I am uncomfortable to the extent at which the account of the events has changed in four days. This was supposedly a precision military operation that was watched via live (?) feed by the President of the USA himself, and it has gone from being portrayed as an intense and chaotic firefight between OBL and his ‘entourage’ (with a human shield thrown in) against a team of Navy SEALs who urged him to give himself up repeatedly, to only one man opening fire (with a woman being killed in the ‘crossfire’) and OBL being shot because ‘it looked like he might have been reaching for a weapon’. That’s big difference which makes me uneasy, and smacks of revisionism.

Speaking as a British soldier with over 3 years of operational experience in Northern Ireland, we are trained not to shoot people who ‘look like they might be going for a weapon’, but as a last resort to prevent loss of life (which can be a broad definition). OBL was clearly going for a weapon, or he wasn’t; ‘looked like he might have been’, just wouldn’t cut it in that situation, as far as I am personally concerned.

Simply going by the latest information released, you can’t even argue that these soldiers would have been justified in opening fire because of the heightened state they would have been in after a prolonged firefight. When I joined the Army, even recruit Musicians underwent what we call ‘Battlefield Inoculation’, whereby live rounds are fired extremely close overhead as you crawl through a barbed-wire course with explosives going off close by; in this instance we’re talking about trained, professional, experienced ‘Special Forces’ personnel; not nervous, trigger-happy recruits.

I very much doubt OBL wanted to be taken alive, and I’d suggest doing so would not be worth the possible gains to the ‘War on Terror’, but the point remains (in my opinion) that it is looking more and more likely that he COULD have been taken alive.

 

[triforcharity]

I don't see anyone defending bin laden. I do hear people questioning what our SEALs were ordered to do and why.

That is because you have your head in your posterior.

 

[000063]

We're lucky you are not in Law Enforcement. That is the kind of lying, sneaky thinking and criminal behavior that creates terrorists and endangers innocent Americans. True Americans never stoop so low.

Neither does any True Scotsman, for that matter.

We obey the laws while enforcing the laws. The U.S. Marshals always find a way to get their man. The Texas Rangers get their man. And they bring them in alive. They may have to think a little harder, be quicker, and be better trained. But they do it the right way.

Law enforcement != counter-terrorist actions. And the Rangers do kill on occasion.

There are SO many ways Bin Laden could have been taken alive. Tear gas.

Does not prevent people firing a gun, potential for gas masks.

Noise technology.

Bulky, cumbersome, requires specific conditions.

Knock-out gas.

Takes some time to work, unreliable, potential for gas masks, may well kill the people you're trying to capture.

Just waiting him out.

Stealth operation in a country that would be dispatching fighters to check it out.

There was zero reason to shoot an unarmed man in the head,

It's a war, he was a threat.

and an unarmed woman in the legs. AN UNARMED WOMAN!

The same woman who rushed the commandos, and was also a threat.

It only makes America look bad to the world.

Speaking as someone who's not an American; boo-freaking-hoo.

We are better than that. As leaders, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard of behavior, to show what is truly justice, both at home and abroad.

Somewhere, and eagle is crying.

Obama said "justice has been done" - and he's a Harvard Law School graduate. He should know better. Justice is not lynching, execution without a trial.

Shot in combat for being a threat != lynching.

Justice is bringing in fugitives alive, to face trial before a judge and jury.

As has been pointed out, he could have been a threat. It is possible for people to arm themselves without being noticeable.

So why didn't the SEALS do that when they could? Even an armed troop of Boy Scouts using knock out gas

Which type of gas, exactly? This is the second time you've cited this magical substance, yet you seem to have a greatly exaggerated idea of it's effectiveness.

could have simply waited him out, and brought him in alive.

And then gotten captured by Pakistan.

The answer seems to be that the White House gave orders to kill, and did not WANT him to ever testify, because he would plead not guilty to 9/11. Then the DoJ would have to provide evidence he had anything to do with planning 9/11.

He had over nine years to protest his innocence, and the free run of just about any paper or tv station in the Middle East. The only time he claimed innocence was shortly after the attacks, just like he did with the 1998 embassy bombings, which he later claimed and was charged with. If he was innocent, he could've surrendered to a neutral country long ago and proved it.

 

[twinstead]

This is one of the worst examples of Monday morning quarterbacking I've ever seen.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

It's a war, he was a threat.

One question: how could an unarmed, old man, surrounded by Navy SEALs pose 'a threat'? Events suggest that he did not die riddled with bullets, leaping across the room for a weapon, but was shot once, in the head at close range while unarmed. Does that sound like a heated, snap firefight, or an execution?

I'm not bothered he's dead at all, but why all the revisionism? Why all the pretense that this WASN'T an assassination, when it's looking more and more like it was?

 

[000063]

One question: how could an unarmed, old man, surrounded by Navy SEALs pose 'a threat'?

Where is it written he was "surrounded"? And just because a middle-aged man looks unarmed doesn't mean he is. It's a reasonable suspicion, under the circumstances.

Events suggest that he did not die riddled with bullets, leaping across the room for a weapon, but was shot once, in the head at close range while unarmed. Does that sound like a heated, snap firefight, or an execution?

False binary. If they though he might've been reaching for a weapon, or trying to trigger a suicide vest, they would've shot him. Apparently they did.

I'm not bothered he's dead at all, but why all the revisionism? Why all the pretense that this WASN'T an assassination, when it's looking more and more like it was?

Subjective, and there's a lot of debate over this going on right now. IMO, if they wanted to just execute him, they would've just dropped a bomb.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Where is it written he was "surrounded"? And just because a middle-aged man looks unarmed doesn't mean he is. It's a reasonable suspicion, under the circumstances.

Bad choice of words; sustitute 'outnumbered' or 'outgunned' as you wish. He had no weapons on him according to recent events, so what was he threatening them with?

False binary. If they though he might've been reaching for a weapon, or trying to trigger a suicide vest, they would've shot him. Apparently they did.

Agreed. But it would appear in that split second, that only ONE man felt threatened enough to squeeze off a single aimed shot to the head. Call it an argument from incredulity, but that doesn't sit right in that situation with me.

Subjective, and there's a lot of debate over this going on right now. IMO, if they wanted to just execute him, they would've just dropped a bomb.

Dropped a bomb? On a building in a closely built-up area an allied country? Really?

 

[000063]

Bad choice of words; sustitute 'outnumbered' or 'outgunned' as you wish. He had no weapons on him according to recent events, so what was he threatening them with?

He wasn't standing still and letting them strip-search. You'd be surprised at how many weapons an apparently unarmed person can have on them.

Agreed. But it would appear in that split second, that only ONE man felt threatened enough to squeeze off a single aimed shot to the head. Call it an argument from incredulity, but that doesn't sit right in that situation with me.

How many men were in the room, exactly, and how many of them were dealing with the wife? What "split-second"? And if the target appears to be "neutralized", any more fire would be redundant.

Dropped a bomb? On a building in a closely built-up area an allied country? Really?

I said "if". If they wanted to at least try and capture him and intel, they would've put actual boots on the ground.

Which they did.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

He wasn't standing still and letting them strip-search. You'd be surprised at how many weapons an apparently unarmed person can have on them.

No, I wouldn't. However, it's a moot question - he had no weapons on him, and going by various reports 'it was thought' he was attempting to pick up an AK47 which was 'found in the room'. Not very clear, other than the fact he had no weapons on his person, and allegedly did not act as though he did.

How many men were in the room, exactly, and how many of them were dealing with the wife? What "split-second"? And if the target appears to be "neutralized", any more fire would be redundant.

I don't know. How many men are in a SEAL Team? Anywhere around 4 - 8 depending on the circumstances if British SF SOPs are similar. I'll be generous and suggest we can remove two highly trained Navy SEALS to 'deal with' a wounded woman. That leaves two Navy SEALS; in the split-second (short amount of time) it took for OBL to make a perceived move towards a weapon 'in the room'; only one of them decided this was a threat, but still had enough time and presence of mind to line up a headshot on a moving target. That goes against everything I have been taught, and have seen taught.

This is all redundant anyway if the 'double-tap' reports are true - if they are then it was an assassination.

I said "if". If they wanted to at least try and capture him and intel, they would've put actual boots on the ground.

Which they did.

Or if they wanted to cleanly assassinate him with minimum collateral damage. Which they did.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Bad choice of words; sustitute 'outnumbered' or 'outgunned' as you wish. He had no weapons on him according to recent events, so what was he threatening them with?



Agreed. But it would appear in that split second, that only ONE man felt threatened enough to squeeze off a single aimed shot to the head. Call it an argument from incredulity, but that doesn't sit right in that situation with me.



Dropped a bomb? On a building in a closely built-up area an allied country? Really?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/01/world/la-fg-libya-strike-20110501

NATO strike kills Kadafi son, Libyan official says
Killed were Seif al Arab Kadafi, 29, and three of Moammar Kadafi's grandchildren,

bin Laden certainly pushed that and gasoline prices off the front page.

 

[000063]

bin Laden certainly pushed that and gasoline prices off the front page.

What are you implying?

 

[aggle-rithm]

That’s big difference which makes me uneasy, and smacks of revisionism.

Revisionism is when you replace the real story with one that you want people to believe.

This is a case of releasing the story you want people to believe first, then making a correction after things die down, knowing that most people won't remember the corrections.

 

[aggle-rithm]

bin Laden certainly pushed that and gasoline prices off the front page.

If they faked it all as a distraction, they wasted a golden opportunity. It would have been much better to save a faked bin Laden take-down for early November next year, just before the presidential elections. Obama would be a shoe-in.

Oh, I know. They're simultaneously evil geniuses and too stupid to take the obvious path.

 

[twinstead]

bin Laden certainly pushed that and gasoline prices off the front page.

Well there can only be ONE main headline, but the news that I read has had gas prices on the front page along with Bin laden the entire time. People can pay attention to more than one thing at a time you know.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Bin Laden, killed before he could testify, like Lee H. Oswald

Intelligence analysts had ASSUMED for a long time (based on reports and historical behavior) that Osama was always in reach of a suicide vest or other explosives.

No, there was never any evidence that Bin Laden was suicidal, or would blow up his nearby wife and kids with such a vest. None was reported, and would have been by now. He had been at the "mansion" for years, with no reason to think he would be attacked that night.

Apparently some authority in Pakistan was secretly harboring him, probably someone who believed he was a patsy for 9/11 and was not temped by the $25 million reward. Only under such protection could Bin Laden let his guard down somewhat.

Bin Laden was in his sleeping garment, and such a vest would have been visible. A trained Navy SEAL, with fast reflexes, with body armor, and backed up by his team, had no reason to fear an unarmed man, much less an unarmed woman, his wife, who was shot in the leg.

Bin Laden was evidently "silenced" for some reason, as Lee Harvey Oswald was, before he could testify. He would want to live and plead innocent to planning 9/11, as all verified (not manufactured) announcements have. Cheney looks pretty relieved in a recent interview, and distorts the word "justice". It was a lynching - being killed by a group without a trial.

However, I do agree that he was a strong suspect for other crimes, and should have gone to jail for life, just for organizing such a terrorist group.

An honest assessment of his records, without manipulation, would prove that Bin Laden did not plan 9/11. Nothing reported so far proves he did.

Predictably, an obviously Obama-serving report claims he was "in the planning stages" or had vague "aspirations" to derail trains on 9/11/2011 and we "caught him in the nick of time" I'd like to see that in his own hand writing. He was reported as not wanting to use computers or the internet. So we should be skeptical of anything he allegedly typed.

 

[Clayton Moore]

This is all redundant anyway if the 'double-tap' reports are true - if they are then it was an assassination.



Or if they wanted to cleanly assassinate him with minimum collateral damage. Which they did.

Never heard of 'double-tap.' So I googled it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-the-double-tap/2011/05/03/AFQeJxhF_blog.html

Navy SEALs Team 6: Super-secret, drinkers of snake venom, known for the ‘double tap’
By Elizabeth Flock

Team 6, technically named the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, consists of the nation’s quietest, most delicate killers, called SEALS because of their discreet work by Sea, Air or Land.

Some Navy SEALs have bragged that they drink snake venom, according to MSNBC. They sometimes punctuate their kills with a kiss on the cheek. They crash through doors and “double tap” their enemy’s face, as they did to Osama bin Laden, to ensure he was dead.

The men of Team 6 undergo agonizing training, with two years of a combination of brain and brutal brawn work. The training is concluded by five days of “Hell Week,” in which they face simulated battle stress through bullets, bombs, and extreme endurance tests. The men can ring a bell to quit at any moment, and many do. (There’s only a 31 percent success rate, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.)

Lizzy Flocked up cause she didn't understand what she was writing about.