bin Laden is DEAD!

aristide1 · **Posted:** Sun May 01, 2011 7:36 pm

One can only hope they included the horse he rode on as well. And that his 72 virgins all look like Roseann Barr.

Reachable · **Posted:** Mon May 02, 2011 7:43 am

If someone engages in criminal activity you apprehend them, then you give them a fair trial, and then to prevent them from inflicting more damage you incarcerate them. Killing a criminal perpetuates the idea that murder is a way to solve problems and thus it perpetuates murder. This act of barbarism can logically be expected to lead to retaliation, and thus the cycle goes on. If you live in the U.S. and you aren't nervous now, you should be.

Bright spots: Maybe this will lead to a quicker end to the war in Afghanistan (would have happened with a capture, too). Also, and greatly fortunate, it happened during a Democratic administration.

djkest · **Posted:** Mon May 02, 2011 7:52 am

I heard they attempted to capture him and that he resisted, and was killed. According to the BBC article I read, anyway. This is good news I think. I do agree that a fair trial would be the ideal situation. He has confessed in numerous statements his guilt with involvement with the 9/11 terrorist attacks however.

New Yorkers (understandably) took 9/11 very personally. I heard that one of the New York newspapers (NY Post?) had a picture of Osama Bin Laden on the front page with the headline "Rot in Hell". I can't imagine how I would feel had I been more closely connected to those events.

NeilBlanchard · **Posted:** Mon May 02, 2011 8:24 am

The DNA of Osama bin Laden has been confirmed by comparing it to DNA of his sister, that was on record at a hospital in Boston, MA.

And yes, there was a brief fire fight, and bin Laden was shot in the head because he was fighting.

Reachable · **Posted:** Mon May 02, 2011 8:33 am

I heard that he was deliberately shot in the side of the head rather than the front so his face would not be disfigured. This would tend to indicate that there was the luxury of time and positioning. Also, no Americans were injured. We don't know what happened, hopefully details will emerge.

aristide1 · **Posted:** Mon May 02, 2011 8:57 am

Reachable wrote:

If someone engages in criminal activity you apprehend them, then you give them a fair trial, and then to prevent them from inflicting more damage you incarcerate them. Killing a criminal perpetuates the idea that murder is a way to solve problems and thus it perpetuates murder. This act of barbarism can logically be expected to lead to retaliation, and thus the cycle goes on. If you live in the U.S. and you aren't nervous now, you should be.

While valid there's nothing about his past behavior that would indicate he would allow himself to be captured, and every indication he would go down fighting.

Humanity in general seems to be returning to barbarism rather than shedding it. What society can say they are immune?

dhanson865 · **Posted:** Mon May 02, 2011 11:06 am

Reachable wrote:

I heard that he was deliberately shot in the side of the head rather than the front so his face would not be disfigured. This would tend to indicate that there was the luxury of time and positioning. Also, no Americans were injured. We don't know what happened, hopefully details will emerge.

I wouldn't call that a luxury, I'd call it a necessity.

If a fight is one on one there is a reasonably high probability that both sides will shoot and both shooters will be injured or killed.

If a fight is 3 on one. One person can be asking for surrender while behind cover and the other two can be working to each side or even be behind the target. Much easier for one of the flankers to safely take a shot without taking return fire. Besides if I open my mouth I've announced my position. Once I do that I don't want to be poking my head around a corner or raising it above cover.

I haven't heard that he was shot from the side so I don't know if that is accurate or not but if so it wouldn't signify too much in my books.

tim851 · **Posted:** Mon May 02, 2011 11:16 am

Thank goodness he was killed. I don't care if it was on purpose (execution) or in the heat of battle. The last thing we need is a months-long farce of a trial that just gives every nutjob on the planet opportunities to voice their stupid opinions on everything from Islam to Imperialism.

Also, now that he's dead, maybe one or two decisions concerning Afghanistan can be made in a more "objective" manner.

HFat · **Posted:** Mon May 02, 2011 1:37 pm

Reasonable people shouldn't be cheerleading a dismal failure.

This guy was supposedly heading an organisation capable of killing and terrorizing over and over, culminating in the deaths of thousands of people in a single day. Whether someone like that is shot or put on trial hardly matters. That's merely politics. What matters is that he is captured and interrogated. This guy is supposed to have trained dangerous terrorists who are still at large. Some of his closest associates are unaccounted for. Failing to capture such an individual would be a serious failure indeed.

Of course failing to capture an immature moneybag who does not have the contacts or the skills to plan serious operations or to train people for them wouldn't be a big deal. But if that describes Osama better than the media hype, you have another kind of serious failure on your hands...

aristide1 · **Posted:** Mon May 02, 2011 1:56 pm

Quote:

Thank goodness he was killed.

It would have been better to capture him alive, we'd prove we're more fair & just than they are. It would be more embarrassing and demoralizing to capture him. Also killing is too quick, there's something to be said for rotting away in a jail cell for life, and parading him around the same way they did with Saddam.

judge56988 · **Posted:** Mon May 02, 2011 9:28 pm

According to CNN he was using his youngest wife as a shield when he was shot. She got killed too. What a brave man.
I'm glad he was killed and I'm glad the Seals pulled it off successfully and without loss. Operations such as this have not gone too well for the Americans in the past; maybe they've been training with the SAS.
A trial would have been such a waste of money and would have been totally unneccessary as he has already admitted what he has done.
Well done the US.

tim851 · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2011 7:01 am

aristide1 wrote:

It would have been better to capture him alive, we'd prove we're more fair & just than they are.

If "fair & just" were ever concerns, than a trial should have happened BEFORE the war. You can't rampage a country for 10 years and kill tens of thousand of people to finally get to one guy and then put him to trial. What, if he was innocent? What if people find out: oh yeah, Bin Laden wasn't behind 9/11. Sorry about that war Afghanistan...

Was there ever a trial to find out if the Taliban were involved? No, it was one of those - we're sure, about 90%, 80 perhaps, that's good enough if Britain is joining the war effort - things.

These are situations that just outgrow our lovely attempts at civility. Same with Saddam Hussein. Those guys have probably not broken any actual laws. They're like Mafia kingpins, you'd have to get them on tax fraud or something. So you charge them with some "crimes against humanity"-bullsh*t. We are sure Saddam ordered attacks on his people. Or at least he's responsible. Bush or Obama are not responsible for Guantanamo or Abu Greib though, 'cause those are different, because a chaotic good wizard is allowed to be wreckless in D&D...

Until the International Court of Justice is acknowledged by all major powers - read: never - there is no way to bring legal justice to the Saddams and Bin Ladens of the world.

judge56988 · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2011 7:40 am

As far as I am aware, Bin Laden officially declared war on the US. If so he's no longer a criminal but an enemy 'soldier' not only that, he urged Moslems everywhere to attack America in any way they could. In my eyes that makes it perfectly acceptable to shoot him dead without a trial.
When the IRA was blowing up civilians in London, the British "allegedly" had a shoot to kill policy in N. Ireland and did in fact shoot a number of known bombers with no attempt at arrest.
A democratic governments principal function is to ensure the safety and security of it's people. If that means shooting self confessed terrorists so be it.

Reachable · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2011 8:24 am

If the Taliban hadn't been so recalcitrant about the oil pipeline running through their country, then the Sept. 11 attacks might have just provoked assurances of an international manhunt, and a begrudging one at that.

So now they got him, the figurehead. As much as destroying two office buildings 'destroyed' America, destroying bin Laden 'destroyed' anti-American terrorist sentiment. Symbolic acts, I guess, are second in line of what makes the world go 'round.

It's funny, though. This can be expected to deflate further the public's patience with the Afghanistan war. So now are we going to see a divergence between what the Democrats do and what the Republicans would have done? After all, there's still the pipeline, and now we know there are 3 trillion dollars worth of other minerals buried beneath Afhanistan.

aristide1 · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2011 8:56 am

Quote:

If "fair & just" were ever concerns, than a trial should have happened BEFORE the war.

I meant a little more so, I wasn't talking in absolutes. But yeah, point taken.

Quote:

I'm glad he was killed

Repercussions are a concern.

tim851 · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2011 10:33 am

aristide1 wrote:

Quote:

I'm glad he was killed

Repercussions are a concern.

Indeed. But can you imagine the sh!tstorm if Bin Laden was to be imprisoned in the United States. For decades, every lunatic terrorist would have an actual, somewhat accomplishable goal. I see bombs detonating in American embassies on a monthly basis, all with the "Free Bin Laden!" demand attached to them.

This way, there will be a few retaliatory attacks, I'm sure of that. But after that, we will be back to where we were three days ago. A non-specific hate on Western culture.

andymcca · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2011 11:00 am

We hanged Saddam. Why would Osama live for decades? Just let Karzai do it.

judge56988 wrote:

Moslems

Is that like how you say "aluminum" funny?

judge56988 wrote:

A democratic governments principal function is to ensure the safety and security of it's people. If that means shooting self confessed terrorists so be it.

Shoot first, DNA test later? And which part of killing him (and losing intelligence) saved lives (other than those in the room, which I do value).

aristide1 · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2011 12:00 pm

Quote:

For decades, every lunatic terrorist would have an actual,

After a trial by the World Court why would he last any longer then Saddam did?

ces · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2011 12:20 pm

Reachable wrote:

It's funny, though. This can be expected to deflate further the public's patience with the Afghanistan war. So now are we going to see a divergence between what the Democrats do and what the Republicans would have done?

Let's see....

Con: This donnybrook has cost us over two trillion dollars.... and we're still bleeding the money.

Pro: That President Obama's 8 month operation generated real results has likely cost the party of George Bush the 2012 election.

Is it worth it? Maybe.

dhanson865 · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2011 4:16 pm

dhanson865 wrote:

Reachable wrote:

I heard that he was deliberately shot in the side of the head rather than the front so his face would not be disfigured. This would tend to indicate that there was the luxury of time and positioning. Also, no Americans were injured. We don't know what happened, hopefully details will emerge.

I wouldn't call that a luxury, I'd call it a necessity.

If a fight is one on one there is a reasonably high probability that both sides will shoot and both shooters will be injured or killed.

If a fight is 3 on one. One person can be asking for surrender while behind cover and the other two can be working to each side or even be behind the target. Much easier for one of the flankers to safely take a shot without taking return fire. Besides if I open my mouth I've announced my position. Once I do that I don't want to be poking my head around a corner or raising it above cover.

I haven't heard that he was shot from the side so I don't know if that is accurate or not but if so it wouldn't signify too much in my books.

Quote:

On May 1, 2011, in Washington, D.C. (May 2, Pakistan Standard Time), U.S. President Barack Obama announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed by "a small team of Americans" acting under Obama's direct orders, in a covert operation dubbed Geranimo[154] in Abbottabad, Pakistan,[8][155] about 50 km (31 mi) north of Islamabad.[156] It had been believed that bin Laden was hiding near the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas,[157] but he was actually found 100 miles (160 km) away in a million-dollar three-story mansion in Abbottabad[157] at 34°10′9.67″N 73°14′33.60″E.[158] Bin Laden's mansion was located 0.75 miles (1.21 km) southwest of the Pakistan Military Academy (Pakistan's "West Point").[159][160][161][162] Google Earth maps show that the compound was not present in 2001, but was present on images taken in 2005.

U.S. officials reported that a team of 20–25 U.S. Navy SEALs from the Naval Special Warfare Development Group (SEAL Team Six),[163] under the command of the Joint Special Operations Command and working with the CIA, stormed bin Laden's compound in two helicopters. Bin Laden, three other men, and a woman were killed in a firefight in which U.S. forces did not experience any injuries or casualties.[164] In his broadcast announcement President Obama said that U.S. forces "took care to avoid civilian casualties."[165] According to one U.S. official the attack was carried out without the knowledge or consent of Pakistani authorities.[166] In contrast, agents of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) said it was a joint operation.[167]

Among those killed in the raid were one of bin Laden's sons, a man described as a courier, and the courier's brother. Four years of surveillance of the courier led to the intelligence which made the raid possible. It was reported that the courier was the owner of the compound where the assault took place.[105] The day after the raid John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief, said that the woman that was killed was one of bin Laden's four wives and was being used as a human shield at the time.[168][166] Two other women, who were also used as shields, were injured during the raid.[105] However, the next day White House spokesperson, Jay Carney, said that bin Laden's wife had rushed the invading commandos and was shot in the leg, but was not killed. He also said that the al Qaida leader put up resistance, but was unarmed. Bin Laden was shot twice. A shot above his left eye blew away a part of his skull. He was also hit in the chest.[169]

DNA from bin Laden's body, compared with DNA samples on record from his dead sister's brain[170] confirmed bin Laden's identity the following day according to assertions to ABC News by unnamed sources.[171] The 193 cm long body[172] was recovered by the U.S. military and was in its custody[155] until his body was buried in the North Arabian Sea from the USS Carl Vinson, within 24 hours of his death in accord with Islamic traditions.

So it appears he was shot in the head and torso. Doesn't necessarily say if the head shot cam from the front or the side but it does say it was above the eye. It's also not clear if it was two shots from one person or one shot each from two people.

judge56988 · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2011 8:50 pm

andymcca wrote:

judge56988 wrote:

Moslems

Is that like how you say "aluminum" funny?

Yeah, funny like UranIUM, LithIUM, RadIUM etc.etc. I'm just surprised you guys don't spell it Aloominum.

Moslem vs Muslem just reflects my age, these days Muslem seems to be more politically correct.

andymcca wrote:

judge56988 wrote:

A democratic governments principal function is to ensure the safety and security of it's people. If that means shooting self confessed terrorists so be it.

Shoot first, DNA test later? And which part of killing him (and losing intelligence) saved lives (other than those in the room, which I do value).

First, I doubt he would have given up much information unless tortured, which wouldn't really have bothered me too much although plenty of people don't agree with it.
Second, now he's dead he can't plan any more attacks and the loss of their inspirational leader might just weaken Al Qaeda.
Third, it shows other would be terrorists that there is nowhere to hide and might have a deterrent effect.

figment · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2011 5:26 am

dhanson865 wrote:

So it appears he was shot in the head and torso. Doesn't necessarily say if the head shot cam from the front or the side but it does say it was above the eye. It's also not clear if it was two shots from one person or one shot each from two people.

There was an interview with the founder of SEAL Team Six and he said that it sounded exactly like a routine "double-tap". With sub-machine guns, the first shot is normally fired at the center of mass (the chest), and the rise of the barrel often lines the second shot up with the head. The fact that the reports all say "chest" or "upper-chest" and not "shoulder" or "back" seems to be a strong indication that he was facing the shooter.

From my totally non-expert research: the double-tap is more likely to be used against a single target in a controlled but threatening situation. Compare against a single shot which you'd probably only see if the shooter was in no danger (an execution) or the normal three shot pattern used in aggressive assaults.

dhanson865 · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2011 5:56 am

figment wrote:

dhanson865 wrote:

So it appears he was shot in the head and torso. Doesn't necessarily say if the head shot cam from the front or the side but it does say it was above the eye. It's also not clear if it was two shots from one person or one shot each from two people.

There was an interview with the founder of SEAL Team Six and he said that it sounded exactly like a routine "double-tap". With sub-machine guns, the first shot is normally fired at the center of mass (the chest), and the rise of the barrel often lines the second shot up with the head. The fact that the reports all say "chest" or "upper-chest" and not "shoulder" or "back" seems to be a strong indication that he was facing the shooter.

From my totally non-expert research: the double-tap is more likely to be used against a single target in a controlled but threatening situation. Compare against a single shot which you'd probably only see if the shooter was in no danger (an execution) or the normal three shot pattern used in aggressive assaults.

Makes sense. No sense fighting the weapons natural tendency to rise, just aim slightly low and let it rise between the first shot and second shot.

Though I couldn't help of thinking of Rule #2 when you said "Double Tap".

djkest · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2011 7:21 am

I am shocked at the inconsistencies. I'm not trying to propagate any conspiracy theories, but there is a big difference between what was initially reported, to what president Obama said, to what was reported later, and later spoken by officials. Seems like the story keeps changing. I'm not sure who's to blame, but it's a little disconcerting. If we want the world to be on our side we had better convince them we are being open and honest about our actions.

I first heard a bomb killed him.
Then he was shot by Navy SEALs.

He was using a human shield
He was pointed out by a wife
He wasn't using a human shield
His wife was running away.

We didn't have Pakistan's permission
We did have their permission and cooperation

Today I heard that he had $500 euros and some phone numbers sewn into his clothing that he was killed in.

As far as the "double tap" goes, that implies something semi-automatic and not fully automatic. Submachine guns have a very high rate of fire and you are likely to get more than 2 shots for every trigger squeeze. It's definately possible to get only 2 with a quick trigger pull however.

The muzzle rise may explain this, or they could have done a quick "two to the chest, one to the head" as is commonly trained. It could have also been multiple shooters (you see this happen a lot in police officer shootings).

One thing is for sure- and if you didn't know this- the Navy SEALs are pretty much our most highly-trained, selective, elite special forces soldiers. They are indeed the "best of the best" as corny of a phrase as that is. I think out of ~150 people who are selected to go through BUD/S training (already highly qualified to be selected) only about 20 make it through. These operators were most likely very experienced veterans with dozens of missions already under their belts.

Edited: Fixed spelling of SEALs and BUD/S

andymcca · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2011 7:26 am

judge56988 wrote:

Yeah, funny like UranIUM, LithIUM, RadIUM etc.etc. I'm just surprised you guys don't spell it Aloominum.

Moslem vs Muslem just reflects my age, these days Muslem seems to be more politically correct.

I actually spell it Muslim. I never knew an 'e' was an option! Interesting. Also:
Molybdenum
Lanthanum
Platinum
.. All of the cool elements are doing it

. But I agree that -ium is more pervasive. Don't ask how I pronounce diacetyl.

(Actually, I had a British organic chemistry professor, but my friends and I frequently confuse ourselves with pronunciations of common structures)

As for Mr. Bin Laden, now it comes out that:
A) He was unarmed but resisting.
B) He was not using his wife as a human shield
C) His wife was non-fatally shot in the leg (and lives).

I agree with djkest that the information being released & revised is very... strange. I do understand underplaying Pakistani involvement, though (for political reasons in Pakistan).

Also: 1 in 3 make it through Seal training, and this was team six, which is something unto itself within the seals.

djkest · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2011 8:05 am

andymcca wrote:

Also: 1 in 3 make it through Seal training, and this was team six, which is something unto itself within the seals.

I don't know why you felt the need to state this, but:
"Classes typically lose around 70–80% of their trainees,"
And that is just BUD/S which is the first of many schools.

Source: Couch, Dick (October 2001). The Warrior Elite: The Forging of SEAL Class 228. Crown. pp. g 55. ISBN 0609607103
To be more accurate instead of saying "about 20" make it, it would be 25-30 in a class of 150.

If you are interested I highly recommend "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Luttrel, a former Navy SEAL. It's all caps since it's an acronym: SEa Air Land. It has nothing to do with the fin-footed mammals. Although- if you are left-leaning in your politics you will not appreciate his political tone.

andymcca · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2011 9:02 am

My comment was based on information by Ryan Zinkie, an ex member of team six. The comment was in an interview, and I guess he could have been mistaken.

Edit: and my primary reason for saying anything was to point out that it wasn't even "just" seals.

djkest · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2011 9:47 am

Hey no worries. Each class is different and I guess in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter- suffice it to say these are highly trained and selectively chosen military members.

Back on topic though-
Some conspiracy theorists are saying that perhaps he is not dead- just hiding and we faked the whole thing. I find this scenario highly implausible- it would be a huge blow to US credibility if we said we killed him but he was in fact alive. It would also scuttle President Obama's chances of being re-elected if people thought he decieved them. So for these reasons I really feel that the US government could not afford to make the mistake of proclaiming his death falsely.

I don't need to see the pictures, I don't care to. Maybe I am naive to accept what the federal goverment is telling me- so be it.

andymcca · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2011 10:26 am

I agree, Bin Laden could easily come out with a video saying he was still alive, and that alone would cause problems for the administration. It would make no sense to pretend he is dead (from the USA administration's perspective).

Here is a fun conspiracy: the administration thinks it is true, but they have been lied to.

And I put more faith in DNA testing than some photos, anyway. (and if it's somehow a lie, why would photos be any different?)

The only reason I can see to publish photos would be for the "rubber-neckers" of the world.

figment · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2011 10:32 am

djkest wrote:

I am shocked at the inconsistencies. I'm not trying to propagate any conspiracy theories, but there is a big difference between what was initially reported, to what president Obama said, to what was reported later, and later spoken by officials. Seems like the story keeps changing. I'm not sure who's to blame, but it's a little disconcerting.

Looking at some of the things that you're talking about here makes me think that you were dealing with some really low reliability sources. From where I am, the official sources have been surprisingly consistent.

djkest wrote:

I first heard a bomb killed him.
Then he was shot by Navy SEALs.

Wow. A bomb? Where did you hear that? I only ever heard he was shot. Of course, there were all sorts of journalists making up crap because "it sounds reasonable until we get actual confirmation". Many people were taking guesses because they thought (and probably still do) that its better to have complete information than completely correct information.

djkest wrote:

He was using a human shield
He was pointed out by a wife
He wasn't using a human shield
His wife was running away.

All I have heard (from official sources): Human shields were used. He was found with one of his wives. His wife was wounded but not killed in the encounter. I'm seriously dubious of the rest.

djkest wrote:

As far as the "double tap" goes, that implies something semi-automatic and not fully automatic. Submachine guns have a very high rate of fire and you are likely to get more than 2 shots for every trigger squeeze. It's definately possible to get only 2 with a quick trigger pull however.

Special forces --and in particular counter-terrorist teams-- (in the US, at least) generally never use the full-auto setting on their sub-machine guns. They will use either the 3-round or 1-round settings. There were multiple sources (both executive and military) that declared the team was sent in with orders to keep non-combatant casualties to an absolute minimum. Though I know it breaks the hearts of thousands of 12 year-old CoD fans out there, you just don't use the full-auto setting on sub-machine guns in that sort of setting.

djkest wrote:

The muzzle rise may explain this, or they could have done a quick "two to the chest, one to the head" as is commonly trained. It could have also been multiple shooters (you see this happen a lot in police officer shootings).

It was already confirmed that there were only two shots. It was also confirmed that it was a single shooter. And then we've got the founder of SEAL Team Six saying that they are trained to use two-shot bursts in this sort of situation. And that's not just a SEAL thing. I believe it was some SAS guys who first started training that way.

bin Laden is DEAD!

Who is online