Okay then.
Given that they captured him, how were they to escape, carrying him out, alive, amidst the Pakistani armed forces, minus a helicopter?
Do tell.
im not even going to start.
Because Pakistan was there immediately right. They only said that they got there once the American’s where long gone. After all what could be hard with dragging a man, that needs dialysis, into a helicopter.
You already have.
Man up.
hahaa
woww
after that breathless rant of yours, did I just convince you that it was, in fact, possible that he could have been captured?
was it that easy?
and so you shift the argument an increment up
hahaa
That pedoviejo dude is the same moron who said the people who died on 9/11 deserved to, so fuck anything he tries to argue.
As for hubcapsignstop, trying to respond to anything he says is like having your OS ask “Delete C:\ and mass-rape orphans? Y / Y?”.
Are you really this stupid?
Do you not understand the concept of foregoing addressing a bullshit claim in order to focus on the even more rancid fecal matter lying underneath said claim?
Yeah… uDumb.
So true.
confusing.
so now youre saying that it is impossible for them to capture him, becuase if they captured him they wouldnt have been able to transport him out.
is this your ‘logic’ or no?
Troll meter is broken and im not planning on fixing it for use in a broken meduim like the internet. But I will humor you simply because you asked nicely
@acrebic
Im going to assume you dont know its an idiom and you arent a troll thats on the same lv as a yahoo regular. Learn that the internet has multiple uses because quality porn isnt the only thing the internet offers you know?
It broke?
What?
You sat on it or something?
Too bad it wasn’t fire… your kind is rather susceptible to it.
^^^^^
Your post is like reading speech-to-text of Teri Shiavo mouth-breathing into her respirator.
Because the american people equates the individual. GTFO with that shit, in a supposed democracy (we are a republic mind you) the masses equal the governing body, institution, fed, etc. keep crying and deluding yourself about how rightous we are in killing people because they disagree with us. We are no better than them.
@ clu2
Fire also befits your kind even better. But keep ignoring the question though. You make a great politician.
You are both idiots.
And I risk insulting idiots every bit as much as you two beg science to create a fourth rung down on the ladder of retardation.
His question was based off of his own misapprehension, because he was too fucking stupid to understand what was written.
Kind of like you.
To spell it out for both of you, I never agreed with him.
Most sentient readers of English would comprehend that when I wrote “Given that they captured him…” I was suspending the point, taking it out of the equation, in order to address the fundamental flaws in his argument beyond said point.
I reiterate: uRetarded.
Yeah, calling you a retard totally applied that stigma to the entire US population.
You’re gonna complain about us being righteous in killing people, when you said in this thread that Al-Queda was right in killing innocents in the 9/11 attacks? Laugh my fucking ass off. I’m spelling LMFAO in full because of how much I’m nearly reaching fatal levels of oxygen deprivation laughing at any idiot that thinks the way you do.
Still waiting on how economics is trivial you can start with explaining that one away, then start on the rest. Because economics is the driving force behind everything that goes on.
So please, let’s here it. How is economics trivial?
hahaa
so the fundamental flaw in my point was that if I am right, you argue that some hypothetical step afterwards would be impossible (whether or not it is impossible is irrelevent to my inability to follow your logic)? However, this hypothetical step that follows is not able to preclude the previous step whatsoever. So in your little thought experiment you have created a paradox where something that occurs only after an event which is not possible is the very reason for that event being impossible.
hahaa; What you have prosbably done (likely without realizing it), as I said before, is shift the argument incrementally; whereas before you were talking about whether or not the SEAL team *could *do something (it was impossible) now you are arguing whether or not they *should *do something (if they do this then, it will create future problems). And in fact, inherent in this shift in the argument is an implicit admission that the capture itself is possible, and that it simply should not be carried out for what would transpire afterwards.
so maybe explain yourself, if that is possible.
Im sorry that you cannot even follow your own train of logic. But keep up with the name calling, it looks good on oyou.
hahaa everybody ganging up on me. I think its the sspelling/grammar. (SOrry ima busy guy. gottta type with one hand.)
anyway, I never said that. so you be waiting a long time
Short answer is yes. Surrender is the ONLY reason bin Laden was entitled to have been kept alive. This was a raid, but it was also a battlefield situation against an enemy who had declared war against the United States.
THIS IS A WAR.
This is not the cops busting into someone’s house and shooting them because they were playing music too loud. This was an ambush by soldiers against a target, and in a way is no different than dropping a bomb on someone (very hard to surrender to bombs, btw).
This is retarded for a half-dozen reasons off of the top of my head. First of all, you realize bin Laden had been releasing videos to the media for like 10 years, right? So if he had something to say, he had every avenue to say it.
Secondly, as one might expect, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Bin Laden would have been the first to downplay American influence in the Afghan/Soviet war, because it takes credit from the mujahadeen. If you believe bin Laden, America had even less to do with it than the government and any legitimate reporting would tell you.
Thirdly, you completely pulled that out of your ass. What “shenanigans” was bin Laden privy to? You don’t know, because you made it up.
You don’t understand. Haven’t you ever played chess? We should have put him in check, see what he did, and THEN put him in checkmate, probably, somewhere down the line. Because that makes more sense.
…
This. There is no standing to say that bin Laden’s killing was illegal, there have only been people saying that they didn’t like it.
What is your argument against that rationale? The mission started by flying a helicopter which was not confirmed to exist, do you really have trouble believing that there might be classified information on the video?
- No, they will not.
- No, they will not, and the claim is more or less irrelevant because his killing was already justified.
- Only if the video clearly shows bin Laden’s killing. If it’s too blurry or there’s too much movement, people will still use it as an excuse to be unsatisfied. People have been complaining about the Zapruder tape and the video of Lee Harvey Oswald’s killing for nearly 50 years.
In this case, it does. And no wartime conventions, international or otherwise, were thrown out the window.
Bin Laden’s wife was the only other adult in the room, and I’m not hearing her say it. Where did you get this information?
Says who?
I don’t think you understand what “political” means. Secondly, if there were more value to be gained in keeping him alive, then you retard your own argument.
I’m not sure habeus corpus is really what we’re talking about, since that would have been more of an issue if bin Laden had been taken alive. While I understand your concern in the general sense, I think the devil really is in the details here.
Sup, hindsight bias. Yes, AFTER THE OPERATION they could be sure that no one else had showed up. DURING THE OPERATION they didn’t know, and were in and out in 40 minutes.
:wtf:
[media=youtube]15VUbP16XpI[/media]
Wow, this is the dumbest thing you’ve posted, yet. Congratulations.
See also:
Osama bin Laden death: How family scene in compound turned to carnage | World news | The Guardian
Even if this is not accurate, bin Laden’s killing was still legal.
News Desk: Bin Laden: The Rules of Engagement : The New Yorker
they said a young daughter of his. It was on multiple news sites (all?).
latest interview with Panetta seemed to cover this pretty well (no visuals/no real time monitoring of whole raid as it happened). Other interviews have backtracked this.
agreed, many unknown details. But you have alredy made up your mind. But i completely understand giving them/us the benefit of a doubt
(Yeah habeus corpus was not appropriate term, but i didnt know what to call)
TS, why do you try so hard? A lesser man such as myself has given up on such trifles.
Sometimes it feels like every SRK discussion is like Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, the light is so painful, so bright.
Because I’m not a good sleeper.
Found it. Seems to come from a Pakistani official, courtesy of Al Arabia. It is is certainly a conflicting report, in several ways-
-Two bodies are claimed to have been taken, instead of only bin Laden’s;
-The woman who was killed is said to have been shielding bin Laden, which the White House contradicted after the reports quoting Brennan;
-The wife says they’ve been in the house for 5 months, but that was [media=youtube]eGuzItMOsps"[/media];
-The daughter saying that he was captured and [then] killed;
-That bin Laden was on the ground floor, instead of having retreated to the third floor
-No one fired on the Americans at all; indeed that there were no arms or explosives in the compound
It’ll be interesting to see how this all turns out, but I’m not sure why people would be in a hurry to think that Pakistan would be more reliable than The White House.
It’s not that I’ve made up my mind, it’s that pretty much all of the other arguments in this thread (bin Laden isn’t really dead, he had secret info on America that they wanted to silence him for, etc) are retarded.
edit:
There was still a feed, it just has a giant hole in it (assuming for a moment Panetta isn’t just covering his ass because the footage is supposed to be classified). And what was/wasn’t shown isn’t known.
Given the number of people involved (ie. everyone in the now-famous photo who was watching the live feed), I’m disinclined to believe that bin Laden was executed while in custody. Almost no American would blame him, nor would it make the administration look particularly bad. The best incentive would be to make America look better abroad and particularly in that part of the Muslim world. But given the actions of the White House as of late (ie. clarifications which downplayed the grandeur and propaganda value of the mission), I’m unclear as to why they wouldn’t report this also, much less engage if a massive cover-up. Especially given that there’s a photo of the exact people who would know the truth.
edit: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/leon-panetta.html
Between the debriefings of the soldiers and the fact that the mission was being followed live (even if not by video) would be enough to contrast with the version of events that Pakistan has released, just because the accounts are so wildly different.
We know.
Or, for the mentally hypothetical in the thread i.e. you:
“For what profit a SEAL team if they capture a man, but get shot the fuck up deadified before they can escape with him?”
Teri Shiavo could form a more cogent argument than you, and she’s dead.