Bin Laden 'firefight': Only one man was armed

[Fuddnik]

Source: MSNBC.com

Bin Laden 'firefight': Only one man was armed
He was killed early on at guest house, and four others — including al-Qaida leader — never fired a shot


By Jim Miklaszewski Chief Pentagon correspondent
NBC News
updated 45 minutes ago


Four of the five people shot to death in the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, including the al-Qaida leader himself, were unarmed and never fired a shot, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday — an account that differs markedly from the Obama administration's original claims that the Navy SEALs came under heavy small-arms fire in a prolonged firefight.

According to the officials' account, as the first SEAL team moved into the compound, they took small-arms fire from the guest house in the compound. The SEALs returned fire, killing bin Laden's courier and the courier's wife, who died in the crossfire.

The second SEAL team entered the first floor of the main residence and could see a man standing in the dark with one hand behind his back. Fearing he was hiding a weapon, the SEALs shot and killed the lone man, who turned out to be unarmed.

As the U.S. commandos moved through the house, they found several stashes of weapons and barricades, as if the residents were prepared for a violent and lengthy standoff — which never materialized.

(snip)

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42906279/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[jezebel]

2. So? Only one side was armed on 9/11 too. And the article says there were plenty of weapons in the

house. Should the SEALS have let them get it in their hands for more of a fair fight?

[originalpckelly]

3. So we're supposed to stoop to their level?

We're OK with that?

[jezebel]

5. Yeah, in this instance after what was done on 9/11 I'm totally ok with that. They could have capped

them in their sleep. I'd still be ok with that.

[zigzagzed]

12. Agree!

Osama bin Laden was a legitimate target. He was a critical node in the al-Qaeda command and control network. As long as he was actively engaged in war against the US, he doesn't get a warning...only special operations forces appearing out of nowhere. The kill or capture order was justified.

[humbled_opinion]

18. Killing an unarmed combatant

is against the Geneva Convention... Remind me again which rules we are for and which ones we are against or are we only outraged when Republicans do it because Democrats drop humanitarian bombs? give me a break...

[Stuttgart77]

28. Do you realize how "far out" your opinion sounds?

All bets are off when it comes to a mass murderer like him. I'm losing no sleep over it.

[No Elephants]

34. Sad day when the rule of law is deemed "far out."

The Geneva Convention contemplates mass murderers.

"The singular term Geneva Convention refers to the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of World War II, updating the terms of the first three treaties and adding a fourth treaty."

I have no problem with arguing we obeyed the Geneva Convention, or that it did not apply. But taking the position that we are free to violate law whenever someone's gut says it's okay to violate law is, for me, beyond the pale.

[Trajan]

38. He was presumed to be armed ....

He promoted that image of himself .... His own organization promoted that image of him as a jihadist warrior ALWAYS ready to shoot down apostates westerners ....

It is absurd to conflate the attempted capture and ultimate death of Osama bin Laden, a presumed criminal who is presumably responsible for the deaths of thousands of TRULY innocent people, with the killing of unarmed civilians ....

Pure nonsense .... Some DUers have truly found a cliff to jump off of ....

I despise violence of ANY type ... But that doesn't mean I would allow a presumed mass killer to get away scott free because he may or may not get hurt or even killed in the process of arrest ...

[DonCoquixote]

46. how did we know he was unarmed

You cannot tell if he had a bomb under his shirt, or even a derringer.

[Township75]

52. Umm, you're saying bombing a army base during the night when soilders are sleeping is a violation?

Or do all soilders sleep in full battle gear and armed?

[gratuitous]

54. It's our national religion

And it clearly supersedes the Constitution, our treaty obligations, and all other standards. The High Church of Redemptive Violence rules our plans, our policies, our relations between our citizens, and our relations with other countries. If you're outraged, or if you insist on the rule of those inferior laws, you are committing heresy.

If you even use your imagination to envision a different strategy, you're also committing heresy. The only law is the law of the bullet, the missile and the bomb. For example, if you were to posit a solution wherein having established which house where bin Laden is holed up, you were to take a whole bunch of photos and publish them all over the world. You could have humiliated and shamed him by showing that you could take him out whenever you wanted to but you preferred to embarrass him, robbing him of his mystique and peeling away his support. The acolytes of the High Church would be out in force to summon up the djinn of the Fog of War, which shrouds all facts and reality, rendering everyone blind and re-asserting the One True Doctrine of Redemptive Violence as the only method for dealing with the world.

You see the same psychology playing out in certain groups from Topeka.

[Dark]

67. Normally, I'd agree with you.

But fuck Osama.

[zigzagzed]

68. Killing bin Laden was legal under Geneva Conventions

At the time of the raid, Osama bin Laden was not "hors de combat" (outside the fight) as defined by Article 41 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. For one to be outside the fight, one must 1) be in the power of an adversary; 2) clearly express an intention to surrender; or 3) be incapable of defending oneself due to being unconscious, wounded, sick, etc. In other words, a combatant is not hors de combat until he/she is unable (or unwilling) to continue the fight. Based on what we know, Osama bin Laden had not yet been detained, did not express an intention to surrender, and was not incapacitated. He was not outside the fight.

This is not a game played with warnings and second chances. Bin Laden and his entourage knew this was a possibility, and they secured themselves accordingly. There was no doubt that the SEALs were there for bin Laden. The terrorists fired on the Navy SEALs when they entered the compound (clearly expressing an intention not to surrender). Once the fight began, anyone who wanted to surrender should have dropped to the floor and assumed a non-threatening position. If they made any movement to resist, then they were still in the fight and the SEALs were justified in using deadly force. According to the New York Times today, the SEALs observed AK-47 assault rifles and Makarov pistols within arm's reach of Osama bin Laden. If bin Laden made the slightest move towards either those weapons or the SEALs, then the commandos were justified in shooting him dead.

Osama bin Laden choose not to surrender, and the Navy SEALs eliminated the threat in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

[RobinA]

71. Yep!

Normally I would agree with the OP, but in this case I gotta agree it was a fair hit. Osama started and continued this fight in big and spectacular ways with lots of casualties and held himself up as a continuing threat. The US is allowed to protect itself from proven enemies who remain enemies. If he were 90-years-old with dementia and lying on his deathbed I would cry foul, as I am not comfortable with something like this for pure vengence. However, the guy set himself up as an arch enemy and it would be irresponsible of this country's leaders not to neutralize him given the chance. Had we ended up with him alive I believe we would be subject to round after round of hostage-takings to try to ransom him back. We did the responsible thing with seemingly no innocent casualties.

[humbled_opinion]

16. Yeah but lets not let

Bush pour water up their noses... Get real..... This is exactly what the GOP use to show down the credibility of the left....

[IamK]

6. only if it feels good.....

[Plucketeer]

9. So what????

You're saying we should have knocked - and maybe brought a nice bottle of wine?

[humbled_opinion]

19. Whats your point?

Where are the anti-war demonstrations outside the White House... I swear its like some Democrats have been co-opted to the dark side..... What are you all some kind of Neo-Con Liberals now?.....

[Frank Ness]

32. GO ARMY

Seems like its OK to cheer for them every once in a while. But the game is over.
Now it is time to bring all the troops home from this fiasco created by false fear for the benefit of the pocket stuffing WAR MACHINE. If we do not see some action soon about the continuation of this neo-con behavior, then I am afraid something is seriously amiss.

Too many have grown complacent. I'm ready for a rouser.

[No Elephants]

35. Self delete

[Maraya1969]

13. There are still varing accounts coming in about what happened. Do you mind holding your disdain

for this administration until they all have a chance to float around for awhile?

[Union Scribe]

25. Did the SEALS murder a few thousand people for no fucking reason?

That's bin Laden's level. Actually, currently his level is -5,000 feet give or take.

[Trajan]

36. So we are NOT supposed to go after the person who is thought to have ....

... responsibility for the deaths of thousands on his hands ....

NOT proven in a court of law, but still with a preponderance of evidence that certainly warranted his arrest ...

He was a suspected criminal, and there was at least the possibility that he possessed weaponry .... he is regularly filmed carrying weapons, and the narrative provided by his own support organization promotes his character as a sort of religious Rambo ...

I see where the notion of a 'Wacky Left' comes from when I read about this stuff ....

I can assure you: FDR, Truman, JFK, RFK, Teddy Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, et al ... The entire pantheon of 'Liberal' stalwarts would have supported the action to capture or KILL Osama bin Laden ....

There is enough evidence to go after him, and enough evidence to show it was reasonable to take him out if he didn't comply .... There is no reason to presume he would comply, but that is no reason to NOT pursue him ...

[Stuttgart77]

73. So the SEALS should have taken their chances?

Who knows if bin Laden had the house wired to blow up just in case something like this happened? Their whole mode of operation is IED's.

It was a good and legal killing. Bin Laden suffered nothing compared to the thousands he helped engineer the killing of.



Do you really have ANY sympathy for this guy? There's no rationalizing your position.

[cliffordu]

74. Yep. I am.

I'd run over the fucker with my car.

[Arctic Dave]

4. Barricaded and had arms stashes? Like a prison?

Stranger and stranger.



Could this be another Jessica lynch story in the making?

[The abyss]

7. -Jessica lynch story in the making? excellent call!

I would add: accompanied with rather poor quality script writers

[hack89]

43. What was Obama thinking?

what do you think should happened to him when his deception is fully revealed?

[KoKo]

8. Who are these "US Officials" listed in report who conflict with Obama Admin's reports?

Quote from article which sounds very strange:

"Four of the five people shot to death in the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, including the al-Qaida leader himself, were unarmed and never fired a shot, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday — an account that differs markedly from the Obama administration's original claims that the Navy SEALs came under heavy small-arms fire in a prolonged firefight."


BRW: Jim Miklaszewski Chief Pentagon correspondent(listed as the reporter for this article) has always struck me as on the NeoCon Side like his predecessor Wolf Blitzer...UGH.

Methinks that there's just too much disagreement about what happened that there's some battle going on as to who is leaking speaking to reporters in this administration and wondering who is loyal to Obama who keeps countering it.

[humbled_opinion]

20. Well I think the truth is important...

Whatever the truth may reveal.... Next up every single person on this forum should be demanding that the US military withdraw from Afghanistan immediately, MISSION IS ACCOMPLISHED.... anything else becomes nation building and imperialist.... I would like Obama questioned directly on his intentions regarding the troops including his 30k surge forces in Afghanistan...

This I think is the single uniting thread ..... I bet 80 percent or more Americans left and right want our troops out of Afghanistan now... so we can actually make this happen and vindicate ourselves as the party of peace if we actually force this to happen...

Don't need Obama getting some big neo-con head now that he got Osama...

[provis99]

10. I'll wait six months to get the full and complete facts on the operation.

Rachel is right.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x580596

[godai]

11. How would anyone know that going in? Boobytraps etc.

The likelihood of bin Laden having a bomb nearby or attached to his body was very possible. I'm puzzled by the 'issues' being raised. He's gone. That's good. Case closed.

[Quixote1818]

23. I agree, even the best Navy Seals were probably on pins and needles going in there

It probably felt like going into the Devils house and not knowing when hell was going to come at them. I bet there hearts were beating BIG TIME!!!! If Osama didn't put his hands in the air they would HAVE to shoot for fear of a bomb or something he could do.

[Union Scribe]

27. Apparently they were supposed to wait for everyone to arm themselves

Maybe the naysayers would have preferred it be fought like the 18th century where everyone lines up and takes turns exchanging fire.

[Quixote1818]

30. I have seen video of police killing unarmed people many times

When the person does not comply and even looks to be reaching for something they are trained to shoot. It could be their fucking life for God sake! So many times the fellow who looked to be reaching for something actually had nothing on them but how were the police to know? In this case Navy Seals in one hell of a creepy situation.

[EFerrari]

37. No. The point is that the official story had bin Laden in a firefight

and then had to walk it back.

[ManiacJoe]

51. That is what happens when folks care more about

beating the news cycle instead of accuracy.

[boppers]

75. It was a 40 minute mission, between first shot and extraction.

The problem is the differences in understanding what a firefight is.... sometimes, there's only one side still shooting before all shooting, and room clearing, stops. Once the bullets start flying, it's a "firefight" until all possibility of adversarial shooting ends.

[pasto76]

14. I do no beleive they intended to capture him

consider that if they entered the room, before he could "lunge for a weapon" then there may have been time to bum rush him, or here's a shocker, use non lethal weapons on him! Shooting him in the chest with a shotgun bean bag from 12 feet away would have incapacitated him as well. So I dont believe that they were there to capture him.

it is also conceivable that JSOC/SEALS have their own Rules of Engagement, that differ from mine.

My platoon at least was re-trained when we were in Iraq to NOT shoot center mass (which is hammered into you from Day 1), and instead shoot for that crimson line of the face. Between the mouth and the eyebrows. Instant kill, blows out the brainstem. OBL was shot in the head/face for a reason.

Its not a conspiracy, just the way it is. The computers and whatnot they recovered are much more valuable than having him alive.

sgt p

[EFerrari]

17. What were they going to do with him, alive?

They can't even figure out what to do with the goat herders stuck at Gitmo.

The JSOC assassination program was McChrystal's baby.

[daleo]

15. Captured live, Bin Laden might have provided a lot of useful intelligence

Some good and some not so good.

Imagine if Hitler had been captured alive.

[Thor_MN]

33. Imagine what bin Laden would have been able to tell of St. Reagan's admin that created him...

Without Ronnie's guys funding and training, would the world even know the name bin Laden?

[Fuddnik]

21. We're a nation of flaws.

We just can't seem to get anything right.

[Quixote1818]

22. The fact that they kept children at the compound shows me they expected to be tipped off

by Pakistan if they were going to be attacked. Sounds like the huge military base in town clearly didn't detect the choppers were coming so they could tip off those in the house.

Thats my take any way.

[happyslug]

24. When you go in, you MUST assume everyone is armed and ready.

Now, once you determined that is NOT the case, then you have to hold your fire, but determining that may take several minutes. I once participated in an attack on one of the Gun Batteries. It was a "Night Attack" and we were Battalion Ammo Personnel (i.e. our regular job was to provide the ammo for the Gun Bunnies), since we were NOT firing that day, but just setting up as if we were doing night moves, thus we had no ammo to haul, so we ended up being the "Aggressors".

Since we were the ones attacking the gun line, thus we were "Charging" through the gun line. One of the aspects I learned from that maneuver is that when you are on the move, and firing (We were firing blanks) you end up firing at movement NOT people. This is unlike someone taking up a position and aiming his shots. The Seals are trained to do this, but the basic problem remain, you end up shooting at movement NOT people.

If you study the US Army attacks on Native American Villages in the 1800s, you see this same problem at work. The Army would attack, the men would stand and fight, but the women and children would run all over the place (Along with many of the men) and thus provide movement which the attacking soldiers would then shoot. For this reason, in such attacks, you tended to have higher losses among women and Children then old men and women (The old men and women would not move, to old, thus no movement by them to draw attention to them). This was all human nature (The same thing happen in those situations when Native Americans attack white settlements, through most such attacks were in the 1600s and 1700s).

Please note, at Wounded Knee the US Army did NOT charge the camp, instead the camp was surrounded and then the soldiers opened fire while standing still. That was NOT how most such attacks on native American Villages occurred. At wounded Knee the Soldiers had the time to pick and choose their targets, that is NOT the case when you "charge" something like ben Laden's house. The Seals probably had snipers set up to shot anyone with a weapon (i.e. providing Cover fire) but that was to provide such cover fire till the Seals charging into the house were in the house. Once the Seals were in the House, the Seals had to keep moving till everything was secure (i.e. anticipating that people are going to shoot at you, so you shoot first). Such people will shoot at any movement, including unarmed Women and Children. It is an indication of good training that no children were killed, and only one woman was killed (and some question if one woman was killed or just shot, I have read both in various reports).

On the other hand, I have read a story that bin Laden was taken alive and then shot. If that is the case that is Murder, but we will have to see what comes up in the post raid debriefing. People see different things during a raid, some of it based on what were there preconceived notion of what should happen. Thus the reports that bin Laden was captured and then killed may just be how some of the survivors THOUGHT it happened, because that is how they WANTED it to be. The same for the Seals, some will report bin Laden was carrying a weapon, even if none were found. The issue is NOT that bin Laden is dead, or that the Seals killed him, nor even if the Seals had orders to Kill bin Laden, but was bin Laden completely under the control of the Seals at the time of his death, OR was he still free enough to be able to do harm if he managers to get a weapon? As long as it can be shown that bin Laden was CAPABLE of shooting the Seals, the Seals were justify in shooting bin Laden First, but on the other hand, if he was Incapable of getting and using a weapon, AND THE SEALS KNEW THAT, then and only then was it murder.

Please note, I am going by US Law, NOT International law or Pakistan law. Under International law, the US had no right to go into another country and kill someone UNLESS national security was directly at risk. What International Law means by directly at risk, is bin Laden was seen planning an attack AND HE HAD THE MEANS TO DO SO IN THE HOUSE. A cache of weapons may be enough, if it can be show such weapons were NOT defensive in nature.

As to the laws of Pakistan, the issue is was this Murder under the laws of Pakistan? As a general rule I suspect it is so, bin Laden was living peacefully in Pakistan and as long as that is the case he had the right to expect NOT to be harmed, and if he was harmed to be protected by the Government of Pakistan in the from of its Police and Courts (Even Murderers sitting on Death Row, have the right to NOT be murdered by other prisoners, if such a prisoner is murdered, the murderer is tried for that crime, the same set of law applied to bin Laden, he has the right to expect protection from harm and if he is harm access to the courts to right that harm). The present Government of Pakistan may NOT want to force this issue, but it remains.

Remember, the Courts tend to give the benefit of the doubt to Law Enforcement officer, thus the evidence was be beyond a reasonable doubt that the Seals KNEW that bid Laden was no longer a threat when the Seals shot bin Laden, that is a tough hurtle to overcome in any trial, thus unless we have clear evidence that bin Laden was under the control of the Seals when he was shot, it will be almost impossible to prove the Seals murdered bin Laden. Thus, so far I have not read any evidence that indicate anything more then what would be expected in such a raid, but that may change once the after action reports and any film of the raid becomes available.

[Quixote1818]

26. Interesting stuff

I imagine if I was on the move and my life was on the line I would want to kill anything that might kill me as quickly as possible and not give it much thought.


I believe the story about him being captured and killed came from his daughter who was at the compound. Looking at all the blood in the room tells me that did not happen.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

29. US Law International Law & Pakistan Law

you made no mention of islamic law not that it is a factor to consider.
Indeed though interesting.

The president watched the events as it all went down in the situation room .And seal team was reporting every step of the way. OBL was a war criminal-a international war criminal .I would think in order to raise charges of wrong doing against the United States government,-those same charges would also be brought up against the president of the United States.And as you know that cannot and will not happen !

[Quixote1818]

31. Actually there was no live feed to the President

Leon Panetta said there was about 25 minutes where they did not know what was going on. I am sure there is video of what happened but it was not piped into the White House in real time.

[No Elephants]

39. Do you trust a CIA head (and former Nixon Republican) implicitly on this?

[hack89]

44. I trust the President

to know if he was being lied to.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

57. Photo Is up of the situation room live feed CNN

No mention of missing 25 minutes.

It seems the legal questions are centered around OBL's moves at the time of the shooting.

Reports about the location and capture of Saddam Hessian -located in a hole in the ground- clearly posing NO THREAT is a clear indication of the I want to live -likeness to the white surrender flag flying.Remember Hussein appealed to Bush to save his life in the end. The same as Hussein, OBL knew the nature of war . The engagement so it says took 40 minutes or so- in that time frame OBL had plenty of time to either prepare to die or surrender.

Hussein prepared himself for capture where-as OBL prepared himself to die. I have no doubt it comes down to that choice.

And since there was clearly no escape tunnel -you may further figure OBL picked his place to die.


Two things- he vowed many times he would never be taken alive. And he said on film more than once that he knew he would someday be located and killed.

The data captured should have a lot of information about those within OBL's network that were not loyal and betrayed OBL. Picture the scumbag OBL flipping a coin thinking-they will either bomb the compound reducing it to rubble- or storm it and capture the data. How many mistakes have been made in the past ten years ?

Will now- surprise surprise -we got the data and the right choice or decision was made.

Does John Kerry have any influence by the way ? Didn't he make it clear during his presidential run that we should utilize our special forces to carry out such missions ?

But for some reason or reasons the military advisor's wanted to do a air strike and reduce the compound to rubble.

If you were to suspect something fishy-that would be the place to point.Do you think a salvage team will have moved in after a air strike to do a search and seizure ? Maybe put their thumbs on the data ?

The compound was turned over to the authorities of Pakistan immediately after the raid- now than-what does that tell you ?

[Quixote1818]

65. Here you go

Osama bin Laden dead: Blackout during raid on bin Laden compound

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8493391/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Blackout-during-raid-on-bin-Laden-compound.html


There is probably video of what happened but they didn't see it at the White House.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

66. Plausible Deny ability

Diplomatic relations around the world may be the reason for the said black out. Under the heading of plausible deny-ability, nobody in the situation room could or would have seen what went down. There seems to be a bit of problem with our relations with Pakistan at current as a result of Bin Laden's location .

That way you see all in attendence in the situation room couldn't have seen a thing-even if they did.

I don't think media reporting at this point can be taken with much more than a grain of salt.But it isn't really all that much more than that all the time anyway.You really must already know something for media reporting to be usefull.

But that's just my opinion.

Thanks for the link .

Already the republicans are trying to make use of spin.

[No Elephants]

40. Treaties to which the U.S. is party are part of U.S. law.

[No Elephants]

41. None of us knows what happened inside that place and we probably never will.

A bad man is dead. Finis.

[slackmaster]

42. This sequence of claims and revisions reminds me of something from Get Smart

"At this very moment, the building is surrounded by 75 FBI agents and 50 Marines."

"Would you believe a troop of boy scouts?"

[Sky Masterson]

45. Good. That means our Seals were in less danger because of it.

And I am going to call this guilt by association. I'd be god-damned if I'd accept an Osama surrender if I had a barrel on him(And I hate guns). This is a case of the ends justifying the means. We went in,gathered intel,took out a human piece of shit and few couriers and a son of Bin Laden, Our troops got out with only the loss of one helicopter. I'm trying to find a down side in all of this but I can't.

[FLPanhandle]

47. Who cares?

I don't care if they were armed or not. Glad the SOB is dead.

[tolucano]

48. I do not understand the point of this.

If even one person was armed and firing at them when they broke in then everyone in the room was in in trouble. If the police break into a drug house and one person open fires on them then there's a chance everyone will get hit. Blame the person that fired on them, not us seal, they were doing their jobs. It's not the movies where they can break in and take out the one shooter where nobody else gets hit. If they go in like that most likely some of the seals would have died, I prefer bin laden died and I am not even in the usa.

[mcollins]

49. My brother is in the Army

and I told him this week that 'his people' (military) stormed a house and executed unarmed people.

He just laughed and said something about rules of engagement and I should take the matter up with the President.

Does anyone know what he is talking about? What are rules of engagement?

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. "What are rules of engagement?"

Oy vey.

:eyes:

[mcollins]

53. Let me clarify

What are the rules of engagement for this sort of operation? I have read just about everything I can find on this, and I still don't know what the real orders were. We have Pakistan saying we went in and killed unarmed civilians. In the UK Telegraph Leon Panetta says:

"He said: "The authority here was to kill bin Laden. And obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8493391/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Blackout-during-raid-on-bin-Laden-compound.html

"Mr Panetta also told the network that the US Navy Seals made the final decision to kill bin Laden rather than the president."

So, my question remains, what are the rules of engagement? Did the military go off script and kill an unarmed man?

[ItNerd4life]

64. No, they did not go off script. You see, in situations like this there aren't scripts.

It's not a movie.

[boppers]

76. You can shoot on anybody not surrendering, who is capable of surrendering.

They don't have to actually have a gun in their hand, firing at you... they can be running away, trying to *get* a gun.

Thinks about it this way: We could have just bombed the place, but chose not to.

[boppers]

77. See #68, which describes it better than I could. eom

[The Stranger]

55. How did they shoot down the helicopter?

Harsh language?

[Poll_Blind]

59. They didn't shoot it down. The helicopter lost altitude hovering in...

...the enclosed space and clipped a wall. It was believed that the helicopter was not all that damaged but they could not get it to take off again, for whatever reason, so they scuttled it instead.

PB

[Psephos]

56. How many were armed in the World Trade Center?

Al Qaeda under Bin Laden has attacked civilians en masse, with a goal of creating maximum fright and suffering.

No ending could or would be perfect, but I am satisfied that he is gone.

[Greybnk48]

58. I don't give a rat's ass if we tied their hands behind

their backs and shot them in the mouth. This is for everyone who perished on 9/11 and their families. Also for all of us who were traumatized for life from this event. I LIKE IT that they were defenseless. It's poetic justice.

[Nihil]

70. Spoken like a true hero.

> I don't give a rat's ass if we tied their hands behind
> their backs and shot them in the mouth.
> I LIKE IT that they were defenseless. It's poetic justice.

:patriot:


> This is for everyone who perished on 9/11 and their families.

Thank you John Wayne.

Remember that when celebrating the death of every single member of
the US forces who died for the lies that your president supported.

And each Afghan civilian, each Iraqi civilian, each Pakistani civilian
who has been killed *by* your armed forces since, for lies that your
presidents supported.

And each American civilian who will die in "revenge attacks".


> Also for all of us who were traumatized for life from this event.

OMG! Teh terrist leedr in Afh ahfg Pakistan DId it ALL!!11!
KILLKILLKILL!

[totodeinhere]

60. Now the second guessing starts. Poor President Obama is getting it from all sides.

People like Palin are accusing him of "pussy-footing around" for not releasing the photos. And some right wingers are saying that Islamic traditions should not have been honored and his body should have been brought back to this country and put on display. Meanwhile, some on the left are wringing their hands about tactics employed during the raid. And so it goes.

But I for one fully support President Obama and how this whole affair was handled. I think they did they best they could in a difficult situation.

[jpak]

61. On the morning September 11, 2001, how many people in the WTC were armed and shot back?

zero

Osama apologist fail

yup

[marions ghost]

62. Question...

Is this the first case of such a stealth execution openly carried out by our government? I'm not saying he didn't deserve the death penalty, but we do have to look at how it was done.

Osama was executed without trial for crimes against humanity, but what about the crimes perpetrated by Bush/Cheney? I have a problem with all this righteousness and "closure" re Osama in the face of that undeniable fact.

[LanternWaste]

63. I believe we also 'stealth-executed' Yamamato too.

I believe we also 'stealth-executed' Yamamato during WW2 also.

[Stand and Fight]

69. There was nothing stealth about it.

Learn your history. We knew where he would be and we shot down his plane. Stop the soft chicken-shit straw man arguments. Osama Bin Laden got what was coming to him -- if anything he had it far easier than many of the people who died as a result of his criminal and murderous schemes. He didn't end up jumping hundreds of feet to his death in panic. Once again, stop with all the soft chicken-shit crap.

[MadBadger]

72. so shots were fired

Fine

[ozone_man]

78. Doesn't sound very sporting.

I can understand why they didn't release the story this way right away.

I'd have preferred that he be captured and tried in world court, especially if unarmed.

Of course, there could have been embarrassing information about CIA involvements to protect. He was one of ours, yes?