Osama Bin Laden

[beltic caldy]

@Rob - you listed a bunch of people as the definitive authorities on who knew what happened on site? The report i refer to is from Bin Laden's daughter, after being questioned by Pakistani security forces - funny one about Chuck Norris tho....boom boom ; ) - oh, here's one link to the story I refer to, which i readily agree is as unconfirmable and, dare i say it, biased in it's own right as many of the other stories i've read thus far: http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f54/bin-l ... d-1659185/


@Coolhand? I don't consider myself particularly ignorant mate and have refrained, despite fairly heavy provocation in getting personal with any of the people expressing opinions here - it might be nice if you could manage the same thing? You didn't seem to consider me all that ignorant when we were discussing stuff on a thread from some time ago entitled 'the right to bear arms'? In case you've forgotten:

Hey, letting you know that I am doing a paper on this topic that you started, so if you have anything else you want to add, it would be greatly appreciated!

@Ched - keep your silly 'guarantees' please - i'm a man of science - all information/data is qualified by source or is opinion, and correctly expressed as such - you have no way of guaranteeing your opinion, just as i have no way of doing so with mine, one of the big differences between us being that you won't hear me struggling to convince with such facile 'guarantees'.



I'm 100% with Al on this - this was a straightforward hit - and perhaps the world will be a better place for all that, but for the administration to be throwing out one ridiculous justification/rationalisation after another is insulting. In am of the firm opinion that Bin Laden was NEVER coming back from that mission alive, under any circumstances.

Somehow, somewhere in all this a popular opinion seems to have emerged that it is somehow MORE insensitive to show a photograph than it is to have carried out a surgical execution? To rephrase in the interests of clarity - it's as though showing a picture has become worse than the act of the killing, I mean hello????????

[Rob ITST]

Well, no one in the Obama administration has said that there wasn't an order to kill.

Anyway, I was going to come here and ask for someone to give a reason why he would be killed instead of captured (other than putting the soldiers at risk, which doesn't seem to be a valid reason), and I heard a very good reason before I had the chance.

Suppose he was held in custody. What would happen? Very likely that there would be some Americans held hostage with demands of his release. Probably broadcast on Al Jareeza television, tortured, beheaded, etc. The same thing could happen if his dead body was held for even a short amount of time. So basically, you're putting the lives of innocent people at risk to save his..... Nah, I'll take the dead Bin Laden, thank you very much. With his body face down at the bottom of the ocean, there's nothing left to demand.

Like djarvik and Chedderer - I think I'll "leave it at that".

[coke4]

Reasons for him not surrendering?

Reasons for him surrendering?
He would have believed that he would be in for a pretty good time in the afterlife, and probably that it would be more honourable to go without surrendering.
He also would not have to go through months of torture and prison only to die anyway?

[djarvik]

Reasons for him not surrendering?

Reasons for him surrendering?
He would have believed that he would be in for a pretty good time in the afterlife, and probably that it would be more honourable to go without surrendering.
He also would not have to go through months of torture and prison only to die anyway?

Read Robs comment above, for reason to surrender.

[coke4]

Reasons for him not surrendering?

Reasons for him surrendering?
He would have believed that he would be in for a pretty good time in the afterlife, and probably that it would be more honourable to go without surrendering.
He also would not have to go through months of torture and prison only to die anyway?

Read Robs comment above, for reason to surrender.

I would think Osama would put himself first in this situation.
Besides, as a result of him being executed, is not there a possibility of a even bigger reaction than there would have been if he had been kidnapped?

[djarvik]

I dont think so. If he would be extracted rather then killed, we would see mass kidnapping in an attempt to bargain for his release. You and I know it would be futile, but the kidnappers (?) would believe otherwise.

I think this is why the administration is keeping it on "the fog of war" state. Problem is, that breeds countless conspiracy theories and with the help of internet, creates armies of followers.

So I am really not sure what choice would have been a "better" one. Proclaiming a "Hit", or the "fog of war".

In my opinion, there should have been a straight up response from administration, sying that the mission was not to extract, but to eliminate the target. Then deal with the consequences. But I am not a politician, and I could be very wrong about this.

[coke4]

I dont think so. If he would be extracted rather then killed, we would see mass kidnapping in an attempt to bargain for his release. You and I know it would be futile, but the kidnappers (?) would believe otherwise.

I think this is why the administration is keeping it on "the fog of war" state. Problem is, that breeds countless conspiracy theories and with the help of internet, creates armies of followers.

So I am really not sure what choice would have been a "better" one. Proclaiming a "Hit", or the "fog of war".

In my opinion, there should have been a straight up response from administration, sying that the mission was not to extract, but to eliminate the target. Then deal with the consequences. But I am not a politician, and I could be very wrong about this.

I am sure the kidnappers know it is futile as well, do you really believe that they would believe that the US would budge and give him up? They would do it for sure, but not be expecting any results. And I would not be surprised if there would be some kind of response attack due to this.

[djarvik]

No, I am not a mind reader if that's what you asking I do believe some, would expect results, some would not. But one thing for sure, there would be a whole lot of them. It is really irrelevant what demands and or results they would get/expect. What is relevant, is that more then a few innocent people would lose their heads, on tape.

[coke4]

No, I am not a mind reader if that's what you asking I do believe some, would expect results, some would not. But one thing for sure, there would be a whole lot of them. It is really irrelevant what demands and or results they would get/expect. What is relevant, is that more then a few innocent people would lose their heads, on tape.

But dont you think this is still a big possibility? or do you believe there will be no retaliation?

[djarvik]

oh no, I agree with you. There will be a retaliation. Bottom line, Osama had huge following. There are plenty of like-minded people that will take his place. I honestly see no end to the conflict, sadly.

[Chederer]

We really need to figure out what the conflict is and the objective as well.

[coke4]

oh no, I agree with you. There will be a retaliation. Bottom line, Osama had huge following. There are plenty of like-minded people that will take his place. I honestly see no end to the conflict, sadly.

So if you agree that they will retaliate regardless of him being killed or captured, then why would he surrender?

[djarvik]

oh no, I agree with you. There will be a retaliation. Bottom line, Osama had huge following. There are plenty of like-minded people that will take his place. I honestly see no end to the conflict, sadly.

So if you agree that they will retaliate regardless of him being killed or captured, then why would he surrender?

I am not sure why you phrase or link the question that way. One has nothing to do with the other.

He would surrender because he is a leader first, soldier later. Despite being who he is, he is an extremely sharp individual that lived under constant pressure and constant "extreme" situations and has played out thousand of scenarios of his capture in his mind. If he wanted to die, he would blow himself up long ago... It is my belief that dying, was not in his plans.

[coke4]

oh no, I agree with you. There will be a retaliation. Bottom line, Osama had huge following. There are plenty of like-minded people that will take his place. I honestly see no end to the conflict, sadly.

So if you agree that they will retaliate regardless of him being killed or captured, then why would he surrender?

I am not sure why you phrase or link the question that way. One has nothing to do with the other.

He would surrender because he is a leader first, soldier later. Despite being who he is, he is an extremely sharp individual that lived under constant pressure and constant "extreme" situations and has played out thousand of scenarios of his capture in his mind. If he wanted to die, he would blow himself up long ago... It is my belief that dying, was not in his plans.

Dying was not his wish, however it was basically more or less a certainty at that point. He knew that, and I am sure chose to die then, reasonably quickly, rather than live through months of torture and living in bad conditions only to die.

I phrased the question that way as you said robs comment was a reason to surrender. But if it is going to happen regardless then it is not really a reason.

And as you said he is a leader, and I would think Al Qaeda would rather have people be killed than surrender, and the best way to lead is by example.

[djarvik]

I guess we will have to disagree on that. If the best way to lead by example, he should have blown himself up long ago.

When I say "leader", I dont necessarily mean it in a positive way. Very few "such" leaders got there by means of ideology/prophet-ering alone.

If he wanted to die and not be captured, he would kill himself.

I just can't "file" it in my mind, that a war mastermind, at such times, would reach for a gun to somehow protect himself or "stop" the intruders. Which leads only to one answer....the ol-time movie cliche of reaching for the gun as a means for suicide. Possible, I wont deny it. But I am more inclined with him wanting being captured, especially so as it would attract a HUGE amount of interest, attention to the "cause". And if he believe the cause to be just, then he wants attention. Most terrorists act are made to draw attention.

Him dying, is not helping his cause. Especially at this juncture, there is more damage to be done if he would be alive and captured. It is also my believe that this is one of the reasons the mission was to kill.