According to the last infos, we know that they were 79 marines...
Seems that you re caught your pants down..😀
Who is a liar ??....
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Ossama Bin Laden was not armed.
Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
According to the last infos, we know that they were 79 marines...
Seems that you re caught your pants down..😀
Who is a liar ??....
dabuddha
Lifer
Just the kind of rhetoric I'd expect from someone who supports harboring murderers 🙂
But then, the US harbored and supported the algerian terrorists heads from 1992 to 2001 and used them as a tool to destabilize this country..
Google a little before writing non sensical sentences...
dabuddha
Lifer
Which Algerian terrorist heads?
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
Aw, someone is upset that Pakistan got caught with its pants down. Again.
Don't worry, TGB -- I'm sure the true cowards in all of this (your government and ISI) have more Al Qaeda and Taliban fugitives to hide, shield, and deny they even know where they are. As someone already said: "Pakistan was either complicit in hiding him or completely incompetent. Either one is really bad." If Pakistan's government or ISI could've been trusted further than I could pick up and throw Michael Moore, then we would've shared the information with them and let them participate.
Last edited:
MiniDoom
Diamond Member
Until you want donations for your countries earthquake victims. Then we are great, right?
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
I think the 80 number includes everyone involved in the entire operation, including support staff and the backup crews. In terms of the actual raid, I think 22 SEALs stormed the compound. There were probably more in the choppers waiting in the compound; I've heard the number 40 as well so 18 people may have been in the helicopters providing support (pilots, logistics, intelligence feeds, etc).
Last edited:
OK..
At this point we dont know much but we can expect more
infos in the comings weeks..
Btw, are you really a gun fan ???...
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
A gun fan? That's a question out of left field and I don't want to derail the thread any more, but I support the right of people to own guns and while I don't currently own one, I think they're fun for sport shooting and have considered purchasing one.
EDIT: OH, wait, I understand your confusion -- my screen name. IndyColtsFan = Indianapolis Colts Fan, meaning I am a fan of Indianapolis' National Football League team (called the Colts), not a fan of Colt firearms located in Indy. 🙂 My avatar is the quarterback of the team.
Last edited:
lolz...I made unvoluntary rethoric...!!🙂
I was projecting to visit Indianapolis some 10 years ago
since i had a very good musician friend originating from there,
but alas, the 9/11 events bringing harsh immigration laws
prevented me to do so..
OutHouse
Lifer
fuck you too
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
Fuck with the bull, get gored by the horn.
GreenBean, let's say that the forces did murder bin Laden in cold blood.
That's still killing someone who had killed many civilians, not to mention more expected to come - not as bad as bin Laden's killings.
HOWEVER, a fair question is:
How are Ariel Sharon, and the forces who did the following, any better?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
Note: there are any number of other examples of murder by different sides, but this one is particularly relevant, because Lebanon was cited by bin Laden as inspiring 9/11.
And also because we have responsibility for having supported that side.
Why isn't that event a '9/11' too, justifying an endless hunt for killing Ariel Sharon and anyone who took part, in any nation he's in - with our support?
Indeed, bin Laden could even argue his civilian casualties were 'collateral damage' from his institutional targets, as opposed to defenseless people in refugee camps.
That's still killing someone who had killed many civilians, not to mention more expected to come - not as bad as bin Laden's killings.
HOWEVER, a fair question is:
How are Ariel Sharon, and the forces who did the following, any better?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
Note: there are any number of other examples of murder by different sides, but this one is particularly relevant, because Lebanon was cited by bin Laden as inspiring 9/11.
And also because we have responsibility for having supported that side.
Why isn't that event a '9/11' too, justifying an endless hunt for killing Ariel Sharon and anyone who took part, in any nation he's in - with our support?
Indeed, bin Laden could even argue his civilian casualties were 'collateral damage' from his institutional targets, as opposed to defenseless people in refugee camps.
Last edited:
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
Ok, please allow me to say:
W.T.F.
I made a similar statement earlier in this thread when talking about the thought process OBL's followers had when they said basically the same thing TGB said, and you called me an "idiot." And now you're saying it?
Your response:
Craig234 said:
The content you were responding to:
IndyColtsFan said:
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
You should know by now, if Fail234 says it, it's an enlightened statement that shows his depth of understanding and ability to critically analyze a given situation, if someone he doesn't agree with says it they are an idiot, and trolling, I mean ...duh.
There is a common argument I'm criticizing. To define by example:
'Who cares if we tortured him? He (name his crime)'
'Who care if he's raped in prison? He (name his crime)'
'Who cares if he gets a fair trial? He (name his crime)'
'Who cares if he was shot in front of his family? He killed thousands of people!'
I find that argument wrong and evil, among other flaws.
The difference here is a variation of it that completely changes the issue.
If someone says "A guard beat up Charles Manson in jail. That's worse than what Manson did!"
No. It's wrong, and anyone who says 'who cares, he killed people', I disagree with. But I also disagree with the statement 'that's worse (or nearly as bad) as Manson'.
Greenbean started to go to the 'worse than bin Laden' line - and while I realized he probably was including the wars, sanctions and much else, I wanted to be clear that even if the troops did the things it's speculating they could have done, that while it's not justifying them, they're not 'as bad as bin Laden's actions'. If someone tries to EXCUSE them because bin Laden is worse, if they happened, I disagree.
IMO, your post was arguing 'who cares if he was drug in front of his family and shot' because 'his crimes were worse'.
Last edited:
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
Ok, fair enough, but again to reiterate -- I was not saying either was right, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy and irony in the thought process of OBL's followers.
Last edited:
If you'll agree it would be wrong, period, to do something like 'drag him in front of his family and shoot him' regardless of his killing thousands, then I agree with the remaining point you're making, if you're simply saying that the people who are offended by doing that to him should also appreciate his crimes that were worse.
It's the excusing (or minimizing) of wrong because of another wrong I'm criticizing.
Edit: why did you edit to remove the 'fair enough', that was so helpful towards reaching some agreement?🙂 Are you now defending that form of argument?
Edit 2: I think it's highly unlikely anything happened like that - this is just discussing the principle.
Last edited:
Macamus Prime
Diamond Member
Ossama Bin Laden was not armed.
And neither were the people in the towers on 9/11.
I am against gun voilence, but this asshole (armed or not) needed to die.
And neither were the people in the towers on 9/11.
I am against gun voilence, but this asshole (armed or not) needed to die.
This. And all the residents of the house were expendable. We could have bombed the place and killed woman and children alike. We didn't.
The surgical strike killed non-targets but they terrorist assholes anyway, so who cares? No woman or children were killed even though the kids will probably grow up to be human shit just like their father.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
I will say that I think he deserved to die. I do not agree, however, that any soldier should take it upon himself/herself to exact justice by executing someone. That has never been right and will never, ever be right.
I have no problem with them shooting OBL if he wasn't surrendering and was in a threatening posture. Whether he was armed or not is irrelevant in my mind because they had no way of determining that prior to having to make a split-second decision on whether to shoot or potentially be shot.
If he tried to surrender and they shot him, then yeah, that is a huge problem and should be punishable.
As an aside, I see both points of view regarding OBL's disposition (capture him at all costs or shoot him if he doesn't surrender) and I do agree both have their merits, but I am not going to second guess the SEALs on that point until/unless more concrete evidence is uncovered.
I'm sorry, I was in the process of editing the post and got distracted and clicked submit. I put it back because I forgot what else I intended to put in there.
Your country is a worthless terrorist harboring disaster.
zinfamous
No Lifer
see? this is far more worthwhile commentary, and more or less spot-on, than your previous clap-trap.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
