Bin Laden 'firefight': Only one man was armed

[Zero Sum 305]

Interesting posts. Not very different from yesterday. And a few predictably steeped in the obvious psychotic paranoia we see circling the karaoke of knowitallisms or should I say... Knowitallitis?

[Little_My 464]

Yes. Especially when you provide ZERO evidence of what you are saying.

It's not uncommon for this government to lie to push an agenda or to sway public opinion/attitude. They done it for a very very long time under several administrations.

If you honestly really have this little faith in your government - and have not had any trust in them during several past administrations - all I can wonder is why on earth would you then choose to live in this country? If all they do is lie, cheat, manipulate and push their own personal agendas with no regards to the general well-being or opinions of the voters, why would you stay here? And this is not me trying to bait you to an argument, it is a legitimate question out of curiosity. If I thought that way about this country and it's government, there is no way I would continue living here. Why would I, if all my government did was cheat and lie, republicans and democrats alike.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's their own money and now big government is saying they are going to take it. How are you ok with this?

My understanding of how both US medical insurance and tax works is admittedly shaky, but what I understood was that any single or family policy that provided for abortion as part of the policy would be excluded from tax deductions. The result of that would inevitably be that a lot of women and families would choose a policy that excluded abortion (on the theory that it would be highly unlikely that they would need one - which is pretty normal because most women do not ever need one) so that those women who then end up with insurance policies for everything except an abortion due to these new rules would end up either having to have the baby despite whatever medical risks would be incurred that determined they needed the abortion or have one and pay out of pocket. That's a terrible thing to do to women but I am not surprised that Man Paul thinks this is no problem.

[Zero Sum 305]

Welcome to Cousin Paulie. Massively distrusting the big bad government yet on his knees to the buyers of government policy.

[slim 1,525]

2. A forensic expert can certainly determine possibility of an execution style wound.

3. Perhaps, they did take him alive? The 1st shot was to the chest. Could have wounded him (like they did his wife) and took him into captivity.

Execution style? Are you still on the whole, "they popped him in the chest and then stood over him and fired one into his head?" Even if they did do that (which is highly unlikely) why is that any worse than popping him twice while he's standing up?

Keep in mind, this team entered a private residence in a sovereign country and terminated several individuals. Legality, shmegality at that point.

Wasn't his wife shot in the leg? (That's the story of today, right?) And that was AFTER they'd already smoked his (also unarmed) son on the steps. (Why isn't anyone making a stink over that?) Most likely bin Laden was hit in the chest (since ALL military members are taught to shoot center mass) and then popped in the head as well (precision double tap - one to the chest, one to the head, just like the SOCOM 3!) and was deader than Obama's reelection before he even hit the ground.

SEALs are about as surgical and precise as you can get. There was no accident. There was no confusion. The story out today explains it most-closely to how we could've expected it to happen. They raided the house, eliminated anyone deemed a threat, and then spent the next 38 minutes surfing the web. Mission success!

[natty bumppo 297]

SEALs are about as surgical and precise as you can get. There was no accident. There was no confusion. The story out today explains it most-closely to how we could've expected it to happen. They raided the house, eliminated anyone deemed a threat, and then spent the next 38 minutes surfing the web. Mission success!

meaning ... sailors arrived in port and were looking for some action?

[Vi-Jay 218]

Execution style? Are you still on the whole, "they popped him in the chest and then stood over him and fired one into his head?" Even if they did do that (which is highly unlikely) why is that any worse than popping him twice while he's standing up?

Keep in mind, this team entered a private residence in a sovereign country and terminated several individuals. Legality, shmegality at that point.

Wasn't his wife shot in the leg? (That's the story of today, right?) And that was AFTER they'd already smoked his (also unarmed) son on the steps. (Why isn't anyone making a stink over that?) Most likely bin Laden was hit in the chest (since ALL military members are taught to shoot center mass) and then popped in the head as well (precision double tap - one to the chest, one to the head, just like the SOCOM 3!) and was deader than Obama's reelection before he even hit the ground.

SEALs are about as surgical and precise as you can get. There was no accident. There was no confusion. The story out today explains it most-closely to how we could've expected it to happen. They raided the house, eliminated anyone deemed a threat, and then spent the next 38 minutes surfing the web. Mission success!

Simply a hypothetical.

Let a forensic scientist prove their surgery.?

Edited May 5, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If you honestly really have this little faith in your government - and have not had any trust in them during several past administrations - all I can wonder is why on earth would you then choose to live in this country? If all they do is lie, cheat, manipulate and push their own personal agendas with no regards to the general well-being or opinions of the voters, why would you stay here? And this is not me trying to bait you to an argument, it is a legitimate question out of curiosity. If I thought that way about this country and it's government, there is no way I would continue living here. Why would I, if all my government did was cheat and lie, republicans and democrats alike.

because i've been lucky enough to live where I live within the country and haven't had to suffer some of the hardships that have been the cause of a horrid federal government.

The question is, what alternatives are there at the end of the day as well? The Police State you seen in London? Ethnocentric Asian countries? Australia and New Zealand aren't too bad I guess, but there again the whole reverse seasons thing would be odd.

Eventhough our government has done enough to screw people over in the course of the last century, it's still not unbearable where I am. Time and time again though the government fails.

When a part of government does something that screws something up, what's their answer? More Government. Which breeds more government, etc..

We are in debt oblivion right now, we haven't been out of debt for over 70 years and we want to 'trust' this government?

[Zero Sum 305]

If you want forensic analysis, feel free to call CSI and Robert Ballard... But quickly!

[Peikko 1,575]

Execution style? Are you still on the whole, "they popped him in the chest and then stood over him and fired one into his head?" Even if they did do that (which is highly unlikely) why is that any worse than popping him twice while he's standing up?

Keep in mind, this team entered a private residence in a sovereign country and terminated several individuals. Legality, shmegality at that point.

Wasn't his wife shot in the leg? (That's the story of today, right?) And that was AFTER they'd already smoked his (also unarmed) son on the steps. (Why isn't anyone making a stink over that?) Most likely bin Laden was hit in the chest (since ALL military members are taught to shoot center mass) and then popped in the head as well (precision double tap - one to the chest, one to the head, just like the SOCOM 3!) and was deader than Obama's reelection before he even hit the ground.

SEALs are about as surgical and precise as you can get. There was no accident. There was no confusion. The story out today explains it most-closely to how we could've expected it to happen. They raided the house, eliminated anyone deemed a threat, and then spent the next 38 minutes surfing the web. Mission success!

I have to agree, I think that sounds about right. I don't think one should discount the possibility that they needed to do this as quickly as possible, they didn't trust the Pakistani government enough to take them into their confidence prior to taking the action, they must have deduced their was the possibility that the Pakistani military/police once alerted might have taken a dim view of the goings on and taken some form of action against them and I am quite sure that none of those killed put their hands up or tried to surrender.

[Little_My 464]

1. Of course an autopsy was performed. Carney refused to answer q's 'bout it yesterday.

2. A forensic expert can certainly determine possibility of an execution style wound.

3. Perhaps, they did take him alive? The 1st shot was to the chest. Could have wounded him (like they did his wife) and took him into captivity.

4. To protect all of us the govt., issues disinformation. States he is dead and already buried. Puts the A$$hole in a black hole and begins advanced interrogation methods. Kudos to Obama if they are doing that!

5. Yes! This administration is like the Keystone cops, sometimes. Look at their track record!

6. Give the pictures to a forensic scientist's and let them decide if there is a leaning conclusion!?

Determine possibility? As in, determine that there "possibly was an execution style gun shot wound to his head"? And that would be convincing enough?

"Execution style gun shot wound" doesn't tell you anything about what he was doing or how he was behaving at the time of the shooting - which is what this debate is all about. How did the SEALs determine he was "acting in a threatening manner? Was he coming towards them? Was he threatening in some way (besides by the obvious way of being.. well, Osama Bin Laden). and, again - I seriously, seriously doubt any forensic expert could make any statement that would put all this speculation to rest.

Sure. Maybe they did not kill him. Maybe it was all a big hoax. Maybe he was actually Obama's biological brother, and the government had to do whatever it took to hide that, especially with all this talk abut his birth certificate. That is a theory too.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

because i've been lucky enough to live where I live within the country and haven't had to suffer some of the hardships that have been the cause of a horrid federal government.

The question is, what alternatives are there at the end of the day as well? The Police State you seen in London? Ethnocentric Asian countries? Australia and New Zealand aren't too bad I guess, but there again the whole reverse seasons thing would be odd.

Eventhough our government has done enough to screw people over in the course of the last century, it's still not unbearable where I am. Time and time again though the government fails.

When a part of government does something that screws something up, what's their answer? More Government. Which breeds more government, etc..

We are in debt oblivion right now, we haven't been out of debt for over 70 years and we want to 'trust' this government?

Here's a quick read on the history of the National debt, I have no idea how accurate it is. The gov has been in debt for most of it's existence, but you can see where it has spiraled out of control in recent years.

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

[HeatDeath 430]

I'm going to try to render this as uncontroversially as possible:

Point 1: On September 11, 2001, a bunch of guys made a bunch of airplanes crash. They were ordered to do so by somebody.

Point 2: Shortly thereafter, Osama Bin Laden, former mujahadeen fighter with a grudge against America, denied responsibility.

Point 3: In 2004, a guy who looked a whole lot like OBL, who claimed to be that same OBL, released a video in which he claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks. This guy was not apparently under any duress to create this video. Further, this guy was lucid, rational, and did not display any symptoms of exculpating insanity or mental illness.

Point 4: Claiming responsibility for a capital crime, when not under duress, or clinically insane, is a capital crime in and of itself, and renders one worthy of summary execution. Admitting guilt, and subsequently making no effort to defend one's self, when one has the means and opportunity, constitutes a complete forfeiture of one's right to due process.

Conclusion 1: The guy who released the video in 2004 was therefore guilty of a capital crime, regardless of whether or not he was the same guy who denied being responsible in 2001, and regardless of whether or not he actually ordered the attacks. The only way he could credibly regain his right to the presumption of innocence would be to subsequently release a video in which he claimed duress, insanity, or outright fraud, and denied being responsible for the attacks. This would, at the very least, muddy the waters to the point where his guilt could no longer be assumed and a trial would be mandated.

Point 5: Between 2004 and 2011, no videos were released by anyone in which a guy who looks and sounds like the guy from the 2004 video says the 2004 video was a fake and he didn't really order the September 11 attacks.

Point 6: The guy who released the videos in 2004 had half a decade to defend himself, and the media resources of the entire Muslim world with which to do so. He chose not to do so.

Conclusion 2: As of 2011, the guy who released the videos in 2004 continues to remain apparently guilty of a capital crime, and continues to be worthy of summary execution, having forfeited his right to a trial by having made no effort to declare his own innocence.

Point 7: In 2011, the CIA, acting on behalf of the rest of the US government, under the orders of the President, claim to have killed the guy who made the 2004 video, who may or may not be the guy who made the 2001 denial, who is probably the former Afghani mujahadeen, who may or may not have ordered the attacks.

Conclusion 3: Assuming the CIA actually killed anyone in Pakistan in 2011, as long as it's the same guy who made the 2004 video, and that guy wasn't insane or under duress when he made the videos, this is a reasonably ok outcome, by Conclusion 2. When you claim responsibility for a crime, you invite the consequences of that crime. If he had publically plead not guilty, even once, after publically pleading guilty, he would be entitled to a trial. He had the means and opportunity to do so. He chose not to, and that makes him fair game.

Note that I am carefully avoiding stating whether or not the CIA actually killed anybody in April/May 2011. I am also carefully avoiding saying whether the "OBL" allegedly killed in April/May 2011 had any continuity with the "OBL" from the 2004 video, or whether the "OBL" from the 2004 video had any continuity with the OBL who denied responsibility in 2001. I am CERTAINLY not saying that the OBL from Afghanistan in the 80s is the guy who ordered the September 11 attacks. None of those statements is relevant to my conclusion, and all of them are too controversial to merit placement in a structured logical argument.

All I am doing is, pursuant to the original topic of this thread, evaluating the morality of the version of events that we were presented by the US government. And I conclude that the death by summary execution of the guy who made the 2004 videos was justified, in as much and exactly to the extent that any capital punishment is.

Note that this is a serious attempt at a structured logical argument. If you're going to post a disagreement, please refer to the specific point you disagree with, and offer an alternative. Let's try to keep this rational, huh?

Edited May 5, 2011 by HeatDeath

[Peikko 1,575]

because i've been lucky enough to live where I live within the country and haven't had to suffer some of the hardships that have been the cause of a horrid federal government.

The question is, what alternatives are there at the end of the day as well? The Police State you seen in London? Ethnocentric Asian countries? Australia and New Zealand aren't too bad I guess, but there again the whole reverse seasons thing would be odd.

Eventhough our government has done enough to screw people over in the course of the last century, it's still not unbearable where I am. Time and time again though the government fails.

When a part of government does something that screws something up, what's their answer? More Government. Which breeds more government, etc..

We are in debt oblivion right now, we haven't been out of debt for over 70 years and we want to 'trust' this government?

Paul, no one 'trusts' any government to take every individual's needs and wants into account that is just crazy. You seem to want to move back in time to a colonial style of life. Most American people would not like your version of paradise. Most people do not want the government to interfere in their day to day lives and for the most part, no Western government does, your crazy analysis of the rest of the world and how it operates not withstanding.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm going to try to render this as uncontroversially as possible:

Point 1: On September 11, 2001, a bunch of guys made a bunch of airplanes crash. They were ordered to do so by somebody.

Point 2: Shortly thereafter, Osama Bin Laden, former mujahadeen fighter with a grudge against America, denied responsibility.

Point 3: In 2004, a guy who looked a whole lot like OBL, who claimed to be that same OBL, released a video in which he claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks. This guy was not apparently under any duress to create this video. Further, this guy was lucid, rational, and did not display any symptoms of exculpating insanity or mental illness.

Point 4: Claiming responsibility for a capital crime, when not under duress, or clinically insane, is a capital crime in and of itself, and renders one worthy of summary execution. Admitting guilt, and subsequently making no effort to defend one's self, when one has the means and opportunity, constitutes a complete forfeiture of one's right to due process.

Conclusion 1: The guy who released the video in 2004 was therefore guilty of a capital crime, regardless of whether or not he was the same guy who denied being responsible in 2001, and regardless of whether or not he actually ordered the attacks. The only way he could credibly regain his right to the presumption of innocence would be to subsequently release a video in which he claimed duress, insanity, or outright fraud, and denied being responsible for the attacks. This would, at the very least, muddy the waters to the point where his guilt could no longer be assumed and a trial would be mandated.

Point 5: Between 2004 and 2011, no videos were released by anyone in which a guy who looks and sounds like the guy from the 2004 video says the 2004 video was a fake and he didn't really order the September 11 attacks.

Point 6: The guy who released the videos in 2004 had half a decade to defend himself, and the media resources of the entire Muslim world with which to do so. He chose not to do so.

Conclusion 2: As of 2011, the guy who released the videos in 2004 continues to remain apparently guilty of a capital crime, and continues to be worthy of summary execution, having forfeited his right to a trial by having made no effort to declare his own innocence.

Point 7: In 2011, the CIA, acting on behalf of the rest of the US government, under the orders of the President, claim to have killed the guy who made the 2004 video, who may or may not be the guy who made the 2001 denial, who is probably the former Afghani mujahadeen, who may or may not have ordered the attacks.

Conclusion 3: Assuming the CIA actually killed anyone in Pakistan in 2011, as long as it's the same guy who made the 2004 video, and that guy wasn't insane or under duress when he made the videos, this is a reasonably ok outcome, by Conclusion 2. When you claim responsibility for a crime, you invite the consequences of that crime. If he had publically plead not guilty, even once, after publically pleading guilty, he would be entitled to a trial. He had the means and opportunity to do so. He chose not to, and that makes him fair game.

Note that I am carefully avoiding stating whether or not the CIA actually killed anybody in April/May 2011. I am also carefully avoiding saying whether the "OBL" allegedly killed in April/May 2011 had any continuity with the "OBL" from the 2004 video, or whether the "OBL" from the 2004 video had any continuity with the OBL who denied responsibility in 2001. I am CERTAINLY not saying that the OBL from Afghanistan in the 80s is the guy who ordered the September 11 attacks. None of those statements is relevant to my conclusion, and all of them are too controversial to merit placement in a structured logical argument.

All I am doing is, pursuant to the original topic of this thread, evaluating the morality of the version of events that we were presented by the US government. And I conclude that the death by summary execution of the guy who made the 2004 videos was justified, in as much as any capital punishment is.

Note that this is a serious attempt at a structured logical argument. If you're going to post a disagreement, please refer to the specific point you disagree with, and offer an alternative. Let's try to keep this rational, huh?

It's not just about 9/11 Paul, not by a long shot. Why do you even think it is as you are such a free thinking individual?

Edited May 5, 2011 by The Truth™