Ossama Bin Laden was not armed.

[xj0hnx]

Explain how the SEALs are immune

Immune may be the wrong word ...insulated is a better word for them. This country would have serious problems carrying out mission like this is the operators knew they could be individually tried for "war crimes".

 

[ShawnD1]

Next up will be a favorite prius-driving commenter in his sig on how to handle neutralizing terrorist suspects

You just need to learn proper grappling techniques!

 

[OCGuy]

Explain how the SEALs are immune

I'll entertain this because I am bored.


For one the US is not a participant in the ICC.

Second, our country has so much influence that nobody is going to caputure a SEAL abroad and try to bring him to Geneva.

Third, there was no "war crime." There was an assasination, that we do quite often.

Let me know when the Predator pilots are arrested and put on trial. Haha.

 

[xj0hnx]

No trolling, we all know the US soldier is almost
worthless without heavy air forces strikes..

Basically, the US soldier s role is to give the position
of the enemy to air forces..

You do realize that you are nothing but a troll right, and that no one here gives a shit about you, or your lies? You do understand that don't you?

 

[Craig234]

Craig, were you in that room and properly able to judge the threat level posed by OBL, unarmed or not?

Do you consider yourself qualified to criticize the judgment of one of the most destructive forces in nature (a US Navy SEAL)?

Does the fact of him being unarmed at the time completely remove the possibility of his being a threat to our SEAL team?

You're completely misrepresenting my comments and their topic.

Reminder: they are about the question, is there any difference between a bombing operation that kills enemy targets, and shooting an unarmed, surrendering enemy?

This question has nothing to do with the situation that actually happened with bin Laden, why he might have been or not been a risk, etc.

If this isn't clear, I'll give you an example of the mistake you're making.

Remember that story about the guy who was shot by the cop on BART?

Now, let's say someone posted and said, 'that guy was clearly a street thug, and if the cop DID shoot him to make the world a better place, good'.

Then say I reply with how that's wrong. Then the poster says, 'well if the guy had a gun and aimed at police, they could shoot him, there's no difference'.

Then I post saying there's a big difference between those situations.

Then you post asking, 'was I there? Have I been in BART police class? Can I sai exactly what happened?'

Can you see now how your response is quite off-topic from my post?

To repeat, I'm disagreeing with the statement that 'shooting an unarmed, surrendering person is no different than a bombing operation'.

Which your response has nothing to do with.

 

[zinfamous]

Then why the fuck would they even release these statements that he was unarmed? What's so hard about keeping your god damn mouth shut?

I can certainly see how it looks stupid, but I really do think this only the case with the average citizenry.

When it comes to military engagements, "unarmed" is an incredibly vague description of account.

Again, who gives a fuck what the average citizenry--especially outside the US, thinks about this?

 

[airdata]

In more recent news, he wasn't even killed at the compound.

He was however buried at sea as originally reported.

Buried alive.

 

[zinfamous]

This is why I have been saying that the entire release of this action has been mishandled. They shouldn't have even released the story until they ...know the story, at least until the assault team had been debriefed.

agreed. also, take into account that just about everyone at any level of an administration, or gov't office (including CIA) is "a source" to some reporter, somewhere. leaks always happen. Some of it can and is controlled to a certain degree, some allowed to leak for various strategic reasons at certain points, or simply unwanted leaks will happen.

It's important to remember that what you call conflicting stories, is mostly based off of reporting gathered from these sources prior to the official announcement.

Though I do think the "human shield" incident is a different matter. I do remember, however, that it was never reported that the so-called human shield was in fact a wife, just "a woman."

 

[OCGuy]

Whoever is outraged, please lookup what happened to the Chechens who took over a Russian theatre a few years back.

They (Russian Commandos) pumped in gas to make them fall asleep, then walked up to each one and put a bullet in their head.

Dont be a terrorist, end of story.

 

[Abwx]

You do realize that you are nothing but a troll right, and that no one here gives a shit about you, or your lies? You do understand that don't you?

What i understand is that you know nothing of US
military "strategy" that is to rely on heavy bombings
killing indiscriminately eventual fighters and more
often innocent civilians...

Only when not a single stone remain at its place
the troups dare to show their nose....

 

[ShawnD1]

And what we're saying is that the fact that OBL was unarmed is completely irrelevant to the argument UNLESS he was standing there with his arms in the air or waving a white flag. If you're a SEAL and you bust open the door to his room, the first thing you see is a woman rushing you and OBL in the background making a move towards something. Unless there was a white flag on his nightstand (this isn't France, remember), I'm going to assume that he is going for a weapon and I'd shoot him too.

That's a pretty fair assumption. OBL would know by now that he should never allow himself to be taken alive. That's like a German surrendering to the Russian army.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

What i understand is that I know nothing of US
military "strategy"

Fixed.

 

[SAWYER]

Dont be a terrorist, end of story.

lol yeah pretty much

 

[OCGuy]

What i understand is that you know nothing of US
military "strategy" that is to rely on heavy bombings
killing indiscriminately eventual fighters and more
often innocent civilians...

Only when not a single stone remain at its place
the troups dare to show their nose....

Sounds good.

Moral of the story: Dont take up arms against the US.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

That's a pretty fair assumption. OBL would know by now that he should never allow himself to be taken alive. That's like a German surrendering to the Russian army.

And IIRC, didn't one of his captured former bodyguards tell interrogators that OBL had told him he was to shoot him (OBL) if he was about to be captured?

 

[xj0hnx]

What i understand is that you know nothing of US
military "strategy" that is to rely on heavy bombings
killing indiscriminately eventual fighters and more
often innocent civilians...

Only when not a single stone remain at its place
the troups dare to show their nose....

Your knowledge of the US military, and it's strategies is about the same level as those that think someone that joins the SEALs disappears to the cloak and dagger shadows, an what you "understand" about what I know is even less. You are clearly uneducated in such areas and seems to be proud of that ignorance.

 

[zinfamous]

To repeat, I'm disagreeing with the statement that 'shooting an unarmed, surrendering person is no different than a bombing operation'.

i do agree with that (with you, that is). I'm just not sure why you're wandering so far off the topic, because there is exactly zero suggestion that bin Laden was surrendering.

fine if you're trying to argue something else, but an unarmed, surrendering person has nothing to do with what happened here.



and, lol. I did mention Mezerly/Grant in an earlier response. I don't see how you can compare the two--that shooting happened at a BART station, in full view of many witnesses. So, my arguing that "I wasn't there, I can't properly judge" is completely irrelevant.

would you concede that?

 

[OCGuy]

*snip*

Stop trying to equate law enforcement with war.


Tell me, what immediate threat were these 75 people to the snipers? Were they all armed pointing weapons?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8376808/Dead-Men-Risen-The-snipers-story.html


"Within 40 days, the two marksmen from 4 Rifles, part of the Welsh Guards Battle group, had achieved 75 confirmed kills with 31 attributed to Potter and 44 to Osmond. Each kill was chalked up as a little stick man on the beam above the firing position in their camouflaged sangar beside the base gate – a stick man with no head denoting a target eliminated with a shot to the skull."

 

[Abwx]

Your knowledge of the US military, and it's strategies is about the same level as those that think someone that joins the SEALs disappears to the cloak and dagger shadows, an what you "understand" about what I know is even less. You are clearly uneducated in such areas and seems to be proud of that ignorance.

I wont insist on OT, but here an insight :

15000 marines with tanks bataillons and airforce heavy support
took more than ONE MONTH to defeat 3000 (at most) amateur-ish
insurgents (armed civilians) whose only weapons were machine guns,
RPGs and mortars....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah

 

[M0RPH]

agreed. also, take into account that just about everyone at any level of an administration, or gov't office (including CIA) is "a source" to some reporter, somewhere. leaks always happen. Some of it can and is controlled to a certain degree, some allowed to leak for various strategic reasons at certain points, or simply unwanted leaks will happen.

It's important to remember that what you call conflicting stories, is mostly based off of reporting gathered from these sources prior to the official announcement.

All of the info that was later shown to be inaccurate (prolongued firefight, Bin Laden killed in part of that firefight, Bin Laden using woman as shield)... all of that came directly from the mouths of white house staff in official briefings. Let's face it, the white house wanted to put the best story out, the one that made our guys seem the most heroic and made Bin Laden seem dastardly and cowardly.

They wanted the story to get out on a Sunday night when the american tv viewing audience is at its largest. Even though their initial story was mostly false, they got it out to the american public and most americans will have heard that story... not the revised version that came later.

 

[monovillage]

I saw this article from the U.K. Daily Mail online.
"'Cheese-eating surrender monkeys': Anger grows at 'arrogant' Europeans' muted reaction to Bin Laden killing"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-Europeans-muted-reaction.html#ixzz1LVxPukvB

In case you were wondering where the quote "cheese eating surrender monkeys" comes from, here's a link to the wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkeys

 

[OCGuy]

I saw this article from the U.K. Daily Mail online.
"'Cheese-eating surrender monkeys': Anger grows at 'arrogant' Europeans' muted reaction to Bin Laden killing"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-Europeans-muted-reaction.html#ixzz1LVxPukvB

In case you were wondering where the quote "cheese eating surrender monkeys" comes from, here's a link to the wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkeys

So now what random bloggers say is somehow news?

Next there will be articles about forum posts.

From what the UK posters here say, the "Daily Mail" is a tabloid.

 

[Abwx]

I saw this article from the U.K. Daily Mail online.
"'Cheese-eating surrender monkeys': Anger grows at 'arrogant' Europeans' muted reaction to Bin Laden killing"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-Europeans-muted-reaction.html#ixzz1LVxPukvB

In case you were wondering where the quote "cheese eating surrender monkeys" comes from, here's a link to the wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkeys

To understand such reactions, one has to live in a country
that had a very long history, contrary to the US...

Indeed, this cultural difference would deserve a thread
of its own...

 

[M0RPH]

I saw this article from the U.K. Daily Mail online.
"'Cheese-eating surrender monkeys': Anger grows at 'arrogant' Europeans' muted reaction to Bin Laden killing"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-Europeans-muted-reaction.html#ixzz1LVxPukvB

In case you were wondering where the quote "cheese eating surrender monkeys" comes from, here's a link to the wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkeys

From that article:

It was impossible to tell whether those Americans feeling uneasy with Sunday's scenes of celebration were in the majority or minority, but for three women who lost husbands on September 11, the jubilant scenes were disturbing. Kristen Breitweiser said they brought back images of Bin Laden supporters celebrating in the streets on that infamous day in 2001.

'Forgive me, but I don't want to watch uncorked champagne spill onto hallowed ground where thousands were murdered in cold blood,' she wrote on The Huffington Post blog site.

'And it breaks my heart to witness young Americans cheer any death - even the death of a horrible, evil, murderous person - like it is some raucous tailgate party on a college campus. Why are we not somber?'

I agree with this and I also thought all the celebration was in poor taste. When I saw our people celebrating in the streets the first thing I thought of was the celebration by arabs in the streets after 9/11.

 

[xj0hnx]

I wont insist on OT, but here an insight :

15000 marines with tanks bataillons and airforce heavy support
took more than ONE MONTH to defeat 3000 (at most) amateur-ish
insurgents (armed civilians) whose only weapons were machine guns,
RPGs and mortars....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah

LOL. You really are ignorant. The second battle of Fallujah was all but over in about a week, I can tell you definitively that we went from one side of town to the other in three days. The insurgents didn't "hold off" hte US military, they hide like cowards. The rest of the time was spent clearing out the remaining insurgents hiding around town, destroying weapons caches, and securing the city for the population to return.

Maybe before trying to post something that you ignorantly thinks backs your twisted view, you should read the whole thing first ...

• November 7, 2004: U.S. Marines stage just north of Fallujah. In the city, now under complete insurgent control with no American presence since April, there are a large numbers of booby traps and IEDs constructed and set in place.[16][19] Additionally, elevated sniper positions have been created along with heavily fortified defensive positions throughout the city, in preparation for a major offensive. American UAVs observed insurgents conducting live-fire exercises in the city in preparation for the coming attack.

• November 8, 2004: Operation Phantom Fury begins.
  

• November 16, 2004: American spokesmen describe fighting in the city as mopping up isolated pockets of resistance.

• December 23, 2004: Last pockets of resistance are neutralized. Three Marines are killed in the last skirmish, along with 24 insurgents.[20] Operation Phantom Fury is the bloodiest battle of the Iraq War.

Oh, and make sure that the person you are trying to convince by using an article about the battle ...wasn't at the battle