quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's an odd choice from her. Arguably, his death will end the war faster.
There are certainly a lot of people who are hoping so. I think the only impact it'll have on the war is a political one. It doesn't change much of the truth on the ground. Al-Qaida stopped being a significant force in the war some time ago, dwindling to as few as several dozen fighters; it's really the Taliban we've been fighting for the last two to five years, not al-Qaida.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying I don't believe the news, but I will say that it is a little strange to dump a body into the ocean, thereby destroying all the evidence. Surely the folks in DC had the mental capacity to be able to predict that a ton of people would perceive this as some kind of nutty conspiracy (and they do). I mean geez, it didn't even take a day for it to start. People are already spouting their theories about "what really happened".
I will admit, it is very suspicious, especially since we have no history of disposing of the body of a major criminal or terrorist so quickly. We always keep them, or at least release photos (which may still happen).
I think it is fantastic that this idiot is dead, but the way in which the aftermath of his death has been handled was pathetic. Most reasonable people are also skeptical of most things, so I wasn't really surprised by the conspiracy theories that cropped up when the news didn't show a single photograph of proof.
But regardless, it's not like it matters. The world will turn and tomorrow will come and terrorists will still be trying to kill people for no good reason. Bin Laden dying isn't going to change that, nor would the death of any other human being. It takes more than one person to run an empire built on blood and hate. I think we can all agree on that, at least.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not saying I don't believe the news, but I will say that it is a little strange to dump a body into the ocean, thereby destroying all the evidence.
What's funny about this is that for 99.999% of the population, keeping the body provides only symbolic evidence, since it was respectfully not going to be provided for, like, public viewing or something.
I think we really wanted to take the 24 hour burial rule as a justification for burial at sea. No place of burial, no shrine to a martyr, etc.
I'm pretty happy to see a new, likely to become excruciatingly more and more untenable conspiracy theory pop up, because I think we've just about capped Birtherism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do agree that putting out so much false information in the first few hours will have encouraged more people to believe the conspiracy theories floating around.
So far we've had: - he was armed and firing a gun when he was shot. - he used his wife as a human shield. - his wife was killed. - the house was a million $ mansion.
And I'm sure there are others. It's very annoying, especially since the whole thing was apparently videoed, so you'd think they could just have checked the tape before mouthing off to the media.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I once heard officials saying that he used his wife as a human shield. I think the official report was that SOMEONE was using a woman as a human shield. I dunno though.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I have it as my impression right now that he was sitting there on the floor praying, calmly stood up to face the navy seal and then did a symbolic gesture of defiance just so he'ld be shot instead of captured.
I've been severely disappointed with rugged revolutionaries not going down in a blaze of glory (though Che made up for it when he was shot), that I'll take some romanticism from any source at this point.
IP: Logged |
quote:Brennan said on Monday: "There was family at that compound and there was a female who was in fact in the line of fire that reportedly was used as a shield to shield Bin Laden from the incoming fire."
He added: "I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years."
A journalist asked if the woman was his wife. Brennan replied: "That's my understanding. It was one of them … She served as a shield … when there was the opportunity to get to Bin Laden she was positioned in a way that indicated that she was being used as a shield – whether or not Bin Laden or the son, or whatever, put her there, or she put herself there."
...
How the story changed
The president's spokesman on Tuesday corrected Brennan, saying: "In the room with Bin Laden, a woman – Bin Laden's – a woman, rather, Bin Laden's wife, rushed the US assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed."
posted
The bigger problem, I think, is the media which overhyped the initial claims without being skeptical enough. Whether the government (or population for that matter) has helped cultivate that non-critical attitude is a related, but maybe off-topic issue. Did they intend on benefitting from that initial impression, knowing that the correction wouldn't nearly travel as far? We may not know until the next big leak Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, something else floating around now that I'm checking
quote:Amid some inconsistencies in early Administration and media accounts of Osama bin Laden's death, a reader points out that President Obama himself was always -- if very subtly -- clear that the terrorist was not killed in a shootout. ... Obama said "... After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."
In less formal remarks last night, Obama offered a similar sequence, describing "an operation that resulted in the capture and death of Osama bin Laden.
quote:OSAMA bin Laden was unarmed and with members of his family - including his 12-year-old daughter - when he was shot dead by US special forces on Monday, according to new details that emerged yesterday. The daughter has claimed that she watched as her father was captured alive and shot before being dragged to a US military helicopter, Arabic news network al-Arabiya quoted Pakistani officials as saying.
quote:I think it is fantastic that this idiot is dead, but the way in which the aftermath of his death has been handled was pathetic. Most reasonable people are also skeptical of most things, so I wasn't really surprised by the conspiracy theories that cropped up when the news didn't show a single photograph of proof.
You could put OBL on display Lenin style and it still wouldn't stop conspiracy theories. "The body on display is a fake!!!" Haters are gonna hate.
May as well quickly "bury" him in accordance with Muslim practices. That hopefully at least buys some good will with moderate Muslims.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The photo of OBL shot in both eyes is clearly fake, but I understand that there are photos which have not been released because of concern of them being too graphic and causing harm in some way or another.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is fantastic that this idiot is dead, but the way in which the aftermath of his death has been handled was pathetic. Most reasonable people are also skeptical of most things, so I wasn't really surprised by the conspiracy theories that cropped up when the news didn't show a single photograph of proof.
You could put OBL on display Lenin style and it still wouldn't stop conspiracy theories. "The body on display is a fake!!!" Haters are gonna hate.
And just imagine the security nightmare that would be.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, your prediction is off to the races:
This morning, Glen Beck was saying how he was disgusted that Obama took credit for the kill in his speech without even acknowledging the armed forces (at the time, no one was acknowledging it was DevGru), how grotesque it is that Obama's going to be going to Ground Zero soon to "celebrate" the death, and how "classy" Bush was to decline an invitation to join him.
And the Washington Times wrote a bizarre article named "Amercica's Muslim President" OOPS i mean "America's Muslim Precedent" you wouldn't want to get the two confused right~
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmm, something else floating around now that I'm checking
quote:Amid some inconsistencies in early Administration and media accounts of Osama bin Laden's death, a reader points out that President Obama himself was always -- if very subtly -- clear that the terrorist was not killed in a shootout. ... Obama said "... After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."
In less formal remarks last night, Obama offered a similar sequence, describing "an operation that resulted in the capture and death of Osama bin Laden.
quote:OSAMA bin Laden was unarmed and with members of his family - including his 12-year-old daughter - when he was shot dead by US special forces on Monday, according to new details that emerged yesterday. The daughter has claimed that she watched as her father was captured alive and shot before being dragged to a US military helicopter, Arabic news network al-Arabiya quoted Pakistani officials as saying.
posted
Realistically, it probably won't go anywhere. Treatment of prisoners of war immediately after capture has always been a grey area. Between the US stance that prisoners aren't PoW, but are enemy combatants, and that Osama bin Laden doesn't exactly have a lot of sympathy, well, anywhere. Meh.
I'm just reminded of the old reports that if you were a Nazi soldier in WWII, you really wanted to be captured by the Americans rather than the Soviets. If the Soviets captured you, you'd probably be tortured and killed whereas the Americans would actually treat you decently*. And if you were an American soldier, you really really didn't want to be captured by the Japanese because they would shoot you, they didn't respect life like we do. Either that or they would waterboard you. Oh well.
* or give some proper war crimes trials before the death penalty in the worst case
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well what would you have done? Of course the only reasonable option is to kill the guy. He's too high risk to keep alive, especially when he's the head of a terrorist organization. If he was sent to prison to await execution, I would imagine at least a few of his followers would protest by bombing stuff or at the very least threaten to do it if we didn't release him. Killing him took away the threat and the drama that would have come with his trial.
Then again, that threat could still arise, but in another form.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Lyrhawn, your prediction is off to the races:
...Glen Beck...the Washington Times...
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I can't wait to see the GOP spin telling us how Obama should get no credit for this, and he's actually terrible on national security.
Glenn Beck and Washington Times &ne the GOP. Also, criticisms of process &ne no credit and terrible on national security. Agreed, though, that both the critiques are fatuous.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Well what would you have done? Of course the only reasonable option is to kill the guy. He's too high risk to keep alive, especially when he's the head of a terrorist organization. If he was sent to prison to await execution, I would imagine at least a few of his followers would protest by bombing stuff or at the very least threaten to do it if we didn't release him. Killing him took away the threat and the drama that would have come with his trial.
Then again, that threat could still arise, but in another form.
If he could have been captured alive he SHOULD have been and then tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: ... I would imagine at least a few of his followers would protest by bombing stuff or at the very least threaten to do it if we didn't release him.
I basically answered that earlier on page 3.
In short, if there are terrorists that already have the ability to conditionally strike based on whether release bin Laden, then we already have terrorists that have the ability to strike in revenge for his death. A terrorist operation that pauses and stops to ask if we'll negociate is actually easier to stop than one that goes off with no warning as a form of revenge.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Colbert's commentary on the classified identities of Seal Team 6 sounds like the best idea for fanfiction ever.
"...I can only speculate it was composed of Rambo, John McClain, Master Chief, The Batman, Vin Diesel, and Kungfu panda..."
Also, Holder, Panetta, and many others have denied claims that bin Laden was killed after being taken into captivity. According to Holder, "If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that. But there was no indication that he wanted to do that." It's unclear from Holder's statement whether bin Laden was given the chance or not; Panetta's statement and the fact that bin Laden was unarmed gives a similar impression that there was never any real thought of taking him alive. Personally I think that choice is strategically questionable, but I also imagine that there are smart people who planned the operation that way for good reasons.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm certain Bin Laden is well aware of how we've been treating his comrades, and were I him, *I* would not want to be captured.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yes but if he was captured but they shot him anyways, this is a missed oppurtunity. My assumption is that he would have/should have shot himself to prevent capture; as theres always the danger if he DOES resist they'll shoot to wound (relatively easy to do) to incapacitate him and then capture him.
IP: Logged |
posted
IRL (as opposed to television or video games) it is NOT easy to shoot someone in a way that incapacitates with low risk of killing them. Regardless of how good a shot you are.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And there were likely other people shooting at them at the time. Just because bin Laden wasn't armed does not mean he was unprotected.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What rivka said is exactly right...if you shoot with bullets.
If you shoot with sticky foam, rubber bullets, a taser, bean bag rounds or a ballistic net you can incapacitate rather easily.
Just to be clear, my initial point was exactly what rivka said, and then it came to me about non-lethal weapons.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Yes but if he was captured but they shot him anyways, this is a missed oppurtunity. My assumption is that he would have/should have shot himself to prevent capture; as theres always the danger if he DOES resist they'll shoot to wound (relatively easy to do) to incapacitate him and then capture him.
rivka is right Blayne, it's extremely hard to shoot so as to wound but not kill. Even on stationary targets there is a spread, how much more then when your target is flailing, running, shaking, etc? Not only that, no matter where you are shot there is a significant risk of bleeding to death. It's why somebody can get shot several times in the torso and still survive, but you take one shot to the leg in the wrong place and you're dead.
It's possible the SEALs made an attempt to shoot without killing him, there's so much information about the actual encounter we don't have, so I wouldn't put much stock in it either way.
I remember there being an X-Files episode where Mulder is about to kill Krycek despite Scully's protests, so Scully turns her gun at point blank range on Mulder and shoots him so as to drop him to the ground so Krycek can get away. They make a point of mentioning she shot him in the shoulder so the bullet could pass clean through, and that only a very good shot could do that even at that range. I still rolled my eyes a little because trying to pull that off would most likely fail a majority of the time.
Even if we granted that a Seal was clever enough to pull that off, it does not guarantee the person is going to just sit there so you can apprehend them, more likely if they did have a gun somewhere, they are going to pull it out and try and fire back.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is nearly impossible to intentionally incapacitate without causing death with the use of bullets. What I was taught, and then taught others when I was instructing at shooting ranges is that you shoot to incapacitate, if the person lives or not is not your concern, it is a question of do they stop doing what it is you need them to stop doing.
Standard training is to shoot for center body mass, as it is the easiest target to hit. You are likely to hit lungs, or heart, and if you miss a bit, you get guts, shoulder, throat, arms, etc.
If shooting for center body mass does not work, you try for a head shot.
Advanced training dictates you shoot two shots to the body, one to the head. Again, this is not about killing, but rather stopping the person.
Bullets have a limited ability beyond making holes in people, which they are very good at.
Any serious attempt to capture an armed target requires non-lethal weapons, which are very effective at both not killing and at incapacitating.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It is nearly impossible to intentionally incapacitate without causing death with the use of bullets.
Of course, it should be noted that even in the "current" official story, that is what seems to have happened. The official story being that they entered the room where Osama bin Laden was, his unarmed wife rushed them first (rather than being used as a human shield in the initial reports) and was shot in the leg but not killed. Then Osama was killed after resisting (in some manner not specified) but was not armed. This is the official story.
Unless the wife was doing some kind of kung-fu kick while rushing them, it sounds like they did intentionally incapacitate her by shooting her in the leg.
Whether Osama was captured or not is harder to determine. But with the agreement between Obama's two statements that capture preceded his death and the daughter's statement, I'm leaning toward capture. Then he was killed since *these days*, it would virtually be impossible that he would ever be put on trial by the US. However, as BlackBlade said, I'm not particularly upset since Osama more than likely wanted to be killed rather than captured.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: as theres always the danger if he DOES resist they'll shoot to wound (relatively easy to do) to incapacitate him and then capture him.
Yet another clueless statement by someone with no real experience, tell us how it SHOULD have been or COULD have been done.
You are even more wrong about this than usual, Blayne. Shooting to wound is NOT easy is NOT recommended even for SEAL's, and is a great way to get killed.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is nearly impossible to intentionally incapacitate without causing death with the use of bullets.
I should add...It is nearly impossible to intentionally incapacitate (an armed assailant, intent on using their weapon) without causing death with the use of bullets.
You can incapacitate someone trying to run away, or have a pleasant day by the pool or reading a book rather easily with use of a gun.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, if the person is alone and no one else is shooting at you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: as theres always the danger if he DOES resist they'll shoot to wound (relatively easy to do) to incapacitate him and then capture him.
Yet another clueless statement by someone with no real experience, tell us how it SHOULD have been or COULD have been done.
You are even more wrong about this than usual, Blayne. Shooting to wound is NOT easy is NOT recommended even for SEAL's, and is a great way to get killed.
Somehow they could shoot to wound a women actively attacking and charging them with no risk of injury but somehow one unarmed arab is just too much for them? Please.
Also that I say that it should be relatively easy to shoot to wound doesn't automatically mean or imply that I think a non lethal bullet wound won't become lethal without immediate medical attention, stop automatically assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, stop jumping over yourselves to act like idiots whenever I post something and actually argue the facts.
You tone and attitude I think is completely uncalled for, if you think I'm wrong, then argue the goddamn facts. That you decide your first recourse is to call me clueless I think says more about you than my argument jackass.
IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, Blayne. Next time we will send you to show them how it should be done. If, of course, you are not too busy being an MP.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay, Blayne. Next time we will send you to show them how it should be done. If, of course, you are not too busy being and MP.
posted
I think it is meant to read "... being an MP."
In another thread Blayne regretted not running for Parliament, since evidently anyone could be elected MP, as proven by the fact that numerous conservatives were recently elected.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: I remember there being an X-Files episode where Mulder is about to kill Krycek despite Scully's protests, so Scully turns her gun at point blank range on Mulder and shoots him so as to drop him to the ground so Krycek can get away. They make a point of mentioning she shot him in the shoulder so the bullet could pass clean through, and that only a very good shot could do that even at that range. I still rolled my eyes a little because trying to pull that off would most likely fail a majority of the time.
Completely off topic, but I remember that too. I think the only reason it didn't annoy me as much as it should have was that Scully was also an MD as well as a crack shot, so if anyone knew how and where to shoot to wound, it would be her.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
And Navy seals are held to less of a standard to skill and professionalism than federal agents? Good to know.
Sure, I could expect any random batch of marines to fail at capturing Bin Laden alive but if anything a navy seal team should have been able to, this leads me to conclude they were given the orders to kill him rather than capture.
The situation is considerably messier than it could have been, especially in absence of OBL giving substantiated resistance.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: In another thread Blayne regretted not running for Parliament, since evidently anyone could be elected MP, as proven by the fact that numerous conservatives were recently elected.
No its because numerous NDP candidates were elected in quebec despite some of them not even being able to speak the simplest french and in one case wasn't even actively campaigning.
All you had to do was be in the ballet and you could win this election in some ridings, its baffling.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And Navy seals are held to less of a standard to skill and professionalism than federal agents? Good to know.
You're not comparing Seals to the guys in X-Files, are you? 'Cause X-Files wasn't real.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assault rifle on semi to full auto, you and your men have already been in two fire fights. Most wanted man on Earth does something other than put his hands on head, I think it would be difficult to not shoot.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And Navy seals are held to less of a standard to skill and professionalism than federal agents? Good to know.
The fictional ones are held to very high standards. They can shoot someone exactly as required under any conditions whatsoever if the script says so. It's like magic.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Assault rifle on semi to full auto, you and your men have already been in two fire fights. Most wanted man on Earth does something other than put his hands on head, I think it would be difficult to not shoot.
I do not believe the standard assigned assault weapon on US forces supports a full auto mode, only semi or 3 round burst. Assuming their using the M16A4.
I believe the evidence currently available points towards shoot on sight instead of capture unless harm to personnel is likely.
Which is why I feel the current situation is much messier then it could have been, thus far it seems to be the case they had physically managed to apprehend Binlanden moved him a bit, shot him execution style and then loaded his corpse on the helicopter.
Thus, messy.
Also what I said was that "if a fictional federal agent is believeable to pull off that shot, being a federal agents and a crack shot", somehow I'm supposed to believe that real life navy seals whose training is probably the best in the world somehow is less believeable?
Its preposterous.
edit to add: fire discipline is basically the first and most consistent thing they drill into you in the military, you're never supposed to foolishly go full auto in a fire fight unless its for suppressing fire even if your assigned a weapon with full auto capability. Seems SEALs have the M16A3 which has full auto, but they can use whatever gun they feel like, however they still wouldn't be using full auto in confined spaces.
edit2: Also if they're anything like Delta Force its possible their guns won't even have fullauto on a fully automatic weapon because when they dissemble their guns they leave out everything except the minimum needed.
IP: Logged |
posted
Your edit is correct, special forces pick their own weapons.
quote:I believe the evidence currently available points towards shoot on sight instead of capture unless harm to personnel is likely.
Backwards perhaps?
quote:...it seems to be the case they had physically managed to apprehend Binlanden moved him a bit, shot him execution style and then loaded his corpse on the helicopter.
Based on what?
quote:Also what I said was that "if a fictional federal agent is believable to pull off that shot,...
That is what people are telling you...it isn't believable.
quote:Its preposterous.
We will never know for sure in all likelihood exactly how it went down.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should also note that "full auto" for a special ops team most likely means "burst fire" instead of spraying out a whole mag. By burst fire I mean, aim, fire fire fire fire, re-aim, fire fire fire fire, reassess, aim, fire fire fire, etc.
The more you hold down the trigger, the more weapons tend to drift off target, and people as highly trained as Navy SEALS are likely to be very very good at what they do.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
