What's new

Bin Laden is dead

gforum.cgi
 
Details emerging:

As three of the SEALs reached the top of the steps on the third floor, they saw bin Laden standing at the end of the hall. The Americans recognized him instantly, the officials said.

Bin Laden also saw them, dimly outlined in the dark house, and ducked into his room.

The three SEALs assumed he was going for a weapon, and one by one they rushed after him through the door, one official described.

Two women were in front of bin Laden, yelling and trying to protect him, two officials said. The first SEAL grabbed the two women and shoved them away, fearing they might be wearing suicide bomb vests, they said.

The SEAL behind him opened fire at bin Laden, putting one bullet in his chest, and one in his head.

It was over in a matter of seconds.

Back at the White House Situation Room, word was relayed that bin Laden had been found, signaled by the code word “Geronimo.” That was not bin Laden’s code name, but rather a representation of the letter “G.” Each step of the mission was labeled alphabetically, and “Geronimo” meant that the raiders had reached step “G,” the killing or capture of bin Laden, two officials said.

As the SEALs began photographing the body for identification, the raiders found an AK-47 rifle and a Russian-made Makarov pistol on a shelf by the door they’d just run through. Bin Laden hadn’t touched them.

They were among a handful of weapons that were removed to be inventoried.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/05/ap-raiders-knew-mission-a-one-shot-deal-051711/
 
So pretty much exactly how we thought it happened. If the scenario above is true, then I see no reason that he should not have been shot.
 
Based on the events as described above; I'd love to hear from the folks that would not have shot Bin Laden if they were in the place of the Navy Seals.
 
Based on the events as described above; I'd love to hear from the folks that would not have shot Bin Laden if they were in the place of the Navy Seals.

Who would those folks be? Surely you're not confusing such folks with people who wanted to make sure bin Laden was not executed after surrendering?
 
Who are you to say "good riddance"?

Oh Gregory, stop. I'm on your side, dawg. I'm glad he's dead. I'm glad it was done within the confines of the law. I just didn't like how the country reacted afterword. Agree to disagree, man.
 
Oh Gregory, stop. I'm on your side, dawg. I'm glad he's dead. I'm glad it was done within the confines of the law. I just didn't like how the country reacted afterword. Agree to disagree, man.

This.
 
Same people that flat out made up a scenario to argue about?

Same people that were somewhat suprised anyone would think it was a good thing to summarily execute people after they had surrendered, perhaps. I never expected that to turn into an argument.
 
Same people that were somewhat suprised anyone would think it was a good thing to summarily execute people after they had surrendered, perhaps. I never expected that to turn into an argument.

Please link me to where I said it was ok to kill a detained prisoner.

Also, nice job completely ignoring the fact that you were arguing a baseless scenario.
 
Please link me to where I said it was ok to kill a detained prisoner.

If you didn't think that, then you would not have objected to the position I (and others) took that we needed to make sure that didn't happen.

Also, nice job completely ignoring the fact that you were arguing a baseless scenario.

The only information we has at the time is that he was unarmed. The notions that he was resisting and he was not resisting were equally baseless. In democracies, we raise these questions because we hold our to a high standard.
 
Wow... so by taking the position that it was a good thing that OBL was killed in the raid, you automatically assume that I am OK with a detained prisoner being executed in front of his family? Really?

I don't mind questioning what happened. But there's a difference between waiting for a debrief of the situation and making **** up to argue about.
 
Wow... so by taking the position that it was a good thing that OBL was killed in the raid, you automatically assume that I am OK with a detained prisoner being executed in front of his family? Really?

Not at all. It was by your taking the position that I was wrong for saying we needed to make sure Osama was not executed after surrendering, that I assumed you were OK with a detained prisoner being executed in front of his family. Otherwise, why would think I was wrong for taking that positon?

Although, considering how badly you misread the previous post, I have no problem at all believing you misread the vast majority of the other posts in this thread.

I don't mind questioning what happened. But there's a difference between waiting for a debrief of the situation and making **** up to argue about.

As I said, I never expected it to be an argument.
 
Yeah, I guess both YB and I completely misread your idiotic post. Get real.

So far, you haven't given me a reason to think otherwise. In fact, you just agreed with the point that a few of us were trying to make, after arguing with us. Misreading posts happens frequently enough.
 
Please elucidate any unfounded presumption you think that sentence rested upon.

Okay...

TheDude said:
Please link me to where I said it was ok to kill a detained prisoner.

One Brow said:
If you didn't think that, then you would not have objected to the position I (and others) took that we needed to make sure that didn't happen.

So your "if-then" was not based upon a presumption of what TheDude thought? Interesting.
 
Back
Top