girk1

Closed Account
First of all, if GWB would have done in Dec '01 what Obama did on May 1, 2011, send OUR guys in to get him in Tora Bora OBL would have never made it to Pakistan to hide out for the next 10 years in the first place and he would have BEEN dead already.
^Now if this...

1. al Libi and KSM were captured years ago. KSM in 03 and al Libi prior to that.
^This..

2. According to interrogators KSM gave up the alias for OBL's courier under traditional interrogation.
^This..

3. al Libi did too to the FBI. The C.I.A. then took custody of al Libi and tortured him into saying Iraq was connected to 9/11 (basically made him say what Bush needed in order to invade Iraq). That claim was later debunked in the '06 Senate report on Iraq pre-war intel and recanted by al Libi before his death.
^This

4. In spite of torture, Bush still never captured or killed OBL.
^And this are true and you state what you state in your previous two posts with knowing these are true...then what else is that but gross ignorance on your part?


The only place in all this where I've seen clear and convincing evidence torture works is in the logic some are flailing around to detract from Obama and offer generously misplaced credit to Bush.

There are videos on youtube of Bush dismissively saying he had no idea where Bin Laden was and he really really didn't care. He may be hiding in some cave someplace.:dunno:

I think Bush realized they had over villainized Osama(which I agree) and was trying to lower expectations or make us understand the 'big picture' because he didn't know whether we would ever catch this one man.

Bush even shut down the special Bin Laden unit ,started by Clinton , around 2005 .

Obama reignited the search and told his CIA chief Leon Panetta that it was priority #1 to find Bin Laden.

Despite this Bush followers are ridiculously trying to take a lion's share of the credit for his final capture.:facepalm:

I give Bush about as much credit as Clinton as they did put the search into motion. The hunt didn't start from scratch with Obama and he will say that himself.
 
There are videos on youtube of Bush dismissively saying he had no idea where Bin Laden was and he really really didn't care. He may be hiding in some cave someplace.:dunno:

I think Bush realized they had over villainized Osama(which I agree) and was trying to lower expectations or make us understand the 'big picture' because he didn't know whether we would ever catch this one man.

I think it's pretty clear that was part of Bush's intentional effort to create the illusion of Iraq being the 'central front in the war on terror'.

I think his secondary motivations behind it were to diminished priority on getting him for 2 reasons; He'd resigned himself to the reality that OBL was too hard to get somewhere in Pakistan and/or if we did manage to get him, because of point one we'd probably have to blow him to bits and never be able to confirm the kill.

Either way if my assessment is true, he should be deservedly uncredited for the bringing of OBL down. I mean, he literally said he doesn't know where he is nor does he spend much time thinking about him. What right minded person credits that line of thinking when the guy they have admitted to not spending much time thinking about is brought down???:confused:
 

vodkazvictim

Why save the world, when you can rule it?
These are close minded people who REFUSE to believe that torture does not work despite all evidence it doesn't and testimony from interrogators (and former POW's like John McCain). Most of the information the torturing got was actually misinformation and that's why the Bush administration was fustrated and absolutely clueless about the whereabouts of Osama.:facepalm:

And to think some of these Far Right nuts who favor torture call the terrorists primitive.:facepalm:

Despite the Bush administrations torture techniques the USA could not capture, locate nor even confirm that Bin Laden was dead or alive. Now his supporters come along after 8 years of Bush futility and want to give him credit:1orglaugh

If they weren't so funny it would be sad.

It hurts these Repubs who always like to throw out the fearmongering 'whose gonna protect you from Terrorists' and "Dems are soft on Terror/Defemse" nonsense since Obama did what Bush failed miserably to do.
1: Thank you for helping state that torture is not a viable means of intelligence gathering.
2: Yeah, the far rights should really love Osama: a far right creationist, religious extremist with a love of firearms and strong "family values" (no abortion, for example).
Yeah, I thought it was bullshit that the Americans could go in, land next door to a Pakistani military base, stay there for 40 minutes, and those Pakistani F-16's that were scrambled couldn't get there in time.
The F16 is a good jet, but it does take time to scramble them. Hence UAVs have managed to penetrate Israeli territory before the Israeli air force (the best in the world, which has had the worlds top scoring jet ace) could respond. And the IAF have F16s.
Your obviously "trolling" just to personally attack me. You can't even hold a conversation without your hatred. Just because I or someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you have act like your in elementary school. When you start personally attacking someone as you have, interest is lost in what you have to say because your arguments are simply made up of hate to make your points.
Actually I can, I just like attacking you :)
Fact is, you're wrong and have presented no evidence to prove your right.
People, this is an emotional issue, but let's not make personal attacks or make general comments on members actions on the board.
Fuck you Dirk, you fucking fuckstick.
:iloveyou:
 

vodkazvictim

Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I will skull fuck you like a Navy Seal bullet going through your head.


(See how I kept it topical?)

:D
Well if we're going to keep it topical...

I love you like people in Karachi love Al Hijra, you make me hotter than a military helicopters exhaust, Do you wanna play army? You can be the guy who gets dirty crawling through the mud on a mission to penetrate deep into my rear and deposit an explosive load...
 
^OBAMA IS DEAD?!

Well it was a matter of time. He was near the capital I reckon.
 

Ace Boobtoucher

Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
Earlier in the thread there was a photo of OBL's son, Omar and his hag. Apparently that douche nozzle is complaining about the criminality of the action taken last week and wants to sue the U.S. and discover 'determine the true fate of our vanished father.'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Al-Qaeda-leaders-death-criminal-sue-US.html

Okay, fuckface. Here's your father's resting place.



Someone also speculated that the dogs used by Seal Team 6 have titanium dentures. More than likely they have titanium crowns.
 
Last edited:
Teeth especially the ones that stick out the most could be broken on bone and tearing through tough meat.

Good lookin out for the dogs safety imo.

As far as Bin Laden's family wanting to know. Sorry your family sucks; sorry you have to deal with a little bit of grief.

Go back to being wealthy and making tons of babies.
 



Stupid Americans, the BBC would never make an error like that

article-1382778-0BDFA72900000578-858_468x247.jpg

BBC said on their homepage that Obama rather than Osama had died

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...reporting-bin-Ladens-death.html#ixzz1M52T8fKg
 
I still want to know if he was armed and/or posing a threat when he was shot.
Or was he hit with a stray bullet or what?

In his PJs and shot for 'moving', apparently any motion other than him being naked and completely still would have got him shot, the others were also similarly executed. The general concensus is that Bin Laden was never going to be taken alive due to the threat of hostage takings by insurgents but I would like to have seen him taken alive and spend ages in courts facing the families of his victims in the custody of the US whom he hated so much, he has now died a martyr and will never be found guilty in a court of law for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, and we in the west are nations of law. The White House has also changed its account of the raid several times to the extent you can't trust what they say, I suspect OBL was coldly executed and that is playing on their minds as the days go by, NOT out of pity to him but a lowering of our own moral and ethical behaviour.

Why can't America get its facts straight?

By Sam Greenhill

The raid on Osama Bin Laden’s lair was filmed on two dozen ‘helmet cams’ worn by commandos, yet the White House has been unable to get its story straight.

Contradictory versions of events were blamed on the ‘great haste’ with which information about Operation Geronimo had been gathered. But the ever-changing story has forced the official spokesman Jay Carney to admit: ‘Even I’m getting confused.’

The changing picture of what happened during the raid has already spawned conspiracy theories that the ‘fog of war’ was a deliberate tactic by the US.

Here, Sam Greenhill examines the claims and discrepancies.

article-1383516-0BE44CD400000578-554_306x319.jpg

Not real: An illustration shows bin Laden firing at Navy Seals while a woman lies on the floor in front - both events did not happen


‘Wife was human shield’

The powerful image of bin Laden trying to cheat death by cowering behind his defenceless wife was painted by Obama’s counter-terrorism chief John Brennan.

He stated on Monday: ‘There was a female who was, in fact, in the line of fire. She was positioned in a way that she was being used as a human shield.

'She met her demise and my understanding is that she was one of bin Laden’s wives.’

An unnamed official later added the terror leader had been ‘firing behind’ his youngest wife, 27-year-old Amal Al Sadah.

On Tuesday, this version changed in two significant ways: firstly, the wife did not die, and secondly, he had not used her as a shield.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said: ‘In the room with bin Laden, a woman – bin Laden’s wife – rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed.’

An even more extraordinary version was put out by the infamous National Enquirer magazine, which claimed that when commandos found bin Laden he was ‘high on heroin’ and ‘blubbering like a baby, crying and c***ing his pants before he was shot’.

‘He was shooting an AK47’

The Al Qaeda kingpin went down in a blaze of bullets as he blasted away on an AK47 rifle as the U.S. commandos closed in, according to the first version of events put out by the White House.

Bin Laden picked up a gun and was ‘engaged in a firefight’, said John Brennan on Monday.

Another official said the terror leader ‘participated’ in a gun battle and was ‘armed with an AK47’, while another said bin Laden had been ‘firing behind’ his wife.

In a separate background briefing, another source claimed: ‘He did resist the assault force. And he was killed in a firefight.’

A massive U-turn was performed on Tuesday, with White House spokesman Jay Carney stating: ‘Bin Laden was not armed.’

However Mr Carney insisted the terror mastermind ‘did resist’. Asked how he had resisted if he was not carrying his AK47, he said: ‘Resistance does not require a firearm’, but refused to elaborate.

‘Commandos wanted to take him alive’

Bin Laden’s daughter’s claim that he was executed after being captured further muddies the already-murky waters.

On Monday, John Brennan insisted the commandos were under orders to capture bin Laden alive, saying: ‘If we had the opportunity to take bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that.’

Spokesman Jay Carney added on Tuesday: ‘We were prepared to capture him if that was possible.’ But the Navy Seals killed bin Laden ‘because of the resistance that they met’, said Mr Carney.

‘There was concern that bin Laden would oppose the capture operation and indeed he did resist. There were many other people who were armed in the compound. There was a firefight – it was a highly volatile firefight.’

However, given that bin Laden was not himself armed, no one has explained why the Navy Seals decided to shoot him.

On Tuesday night, CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an interview that bin Laden ‘made some threatening moves’ that ‘represented a clear threat to our guys’.

He added: ‘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.

‘To be frank, I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.’ Several US national security officials have privately said there was never any intention to capture bin Laden alive, with one saying: ‘This was a kill operation.’

Retired Navy Seals said if the plan had been to capture, a stealth ground operation would have been used rather than noisy helicopters.

The wrong wife

The death of Bin Laden’s wife was announced by John Brennan, but in fact she had suffered only a wounded leg after being shot in the calf.

Another woman did die, believed to be the wife of bin Laden’s courier Sheikh Abu Ahmed, who was also gunned down along with his brother.

She was ‘killed in crossfire’ on the ground floor as the troops stormed the compound, said the White House on Tuesday.

An official admitted: ‘A different guy’s wife was killed. Two women were shot here. It sounds like their fates were mixed up.’

The wrong son

A White House transcript said it was bin Laden’s youngest son Hamza, 20, who was killed in the raid, but this later changed to another son, Khalid.

The discrepancy could be put down to John Brennan accidentally mixing up the names, or it could be a genuine misidentification on the ground. The mistake has not been clarified.

The faulty helicopter

On the night of the raid, administration officials claimed in a telephone briefing for reporters: ‘We lost one helicopter due to mechanical failure.’ Later in the same call, another official contradicted that: ‘We didn’t say it was mechanical.’ Other reports claimed the Sea Hawk had been shot down, or its rear rotor blade had struck the wall of the compound.

Then yesterday it was claimed that the excessively hot night had caused the machine to suffer a ‘loss of lift’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fuse-hand-youngest-wife-US.html#ixzz1M5HakzIp

THE 'FOG OF COMBAT': How White House changed its story

There have been a number of discrepancies issued by the White House since Sunday's raid.

Press Secretary Jay Carney blamed the below differing stories on the 'fog of combat.'


THEN: Osama Bin Laden was armed with an AK-47 during the raid.

NOW: The Al Qaeda leader was actually unarmed but did resist before he was shot.


THEN: On Monday, the White House said Bin Laden was involved in a firefight, which is why the SEALs killed rather than captured him.

NOW: On Tuesday, however, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Bin Laden did not fire on the SEALs.


THEN: Counter-terrorism chief, John Brennan said a woman, thought to be one of bin Laden’s wives, was used as a human shield during the raid and was killed.

NOW: Amal Al-Sadah, 27, bin Laden’s youngest wife, is thought to have rushed at the Navy SEALS and was shot in the leg but not killed. The woman who died was said to be the wife of one of his aides, caught in the cross fire.


THEN: A White House transcript said it was bin Laden’s son Hamza who was killed in the raid.

NOW: They then corrected that to another son Khalid.


THEN: The night of the raid, administration officials held a telephone briefing for reporters. 'During the raid, we lost one helicopter due to mechanical failure,' one of the administration officials said.

NOW: Later in the same call, another official contradicted that: 'We didn't say it was mechanical.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-House-reveals-WASNT-armed.html#ixzz1M5IB0TOt
 
I still want to know if he was armed and/or posing a threat when he was shot.
Or was he hit with a stray bullet or what?

There is virtually no possibility the bullets that struck OBL were stray.

What constitutes posing a 'threat' when there is a chance the target could be rigged or booby trapped himself?

There was I imagine an almost non existent range for him to move considering who was encountering him and the threat he represented.

But here we are again meester in reap-what-you-sow ville. If these people didn't have a history of booby trapping themselves, roadsides, buildings and vehicles...operators who encounter them wouldn't have itchy trigger fingers. Especially when the ones who performed this raid. They are not even going to think even once about him making a move.
 

girk1

Closed Account
I still want to know if he was armed and/or posing a threat when he was shot.
Or was he hit with a stray bullet or what?

Only one person in the villa was armed and that was one of his couriers downstairs and somehow his wife perhaps(?) or some unidentified woman was allegedly caught in the crossfire(or shot purposely who really knows:dunno:).

But instead of telling us this there was a White House official at a press conference claimed the woman was used as a human shield by Osama.:facepalm:

I figured it would turn out to be Bush Administration type propaganda along the lines of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman.

Ulyssess31 gives a timeline of the changing story.

1)The human shield Bs and 2)the lie about a 40 minute firefight when the only person armed was killed the moment they entered the property.

There is virtually no possibility the bullets that struck OBL were stray.

What constitutes posing a 'threat' when there is a chance the target could be rigged or booby trapped himself?

There was I imagine an almost non existent range for him to move considering who was encountering him and the threat he represented.

But here we are again meester in reap-what-you-sow ville. If these people didn't have a history of booby trapping themselves, roadsides, buildings and vehicles...operators who encounter them wouldn't have itchy trigger fingers. Especially when the ones who performed this raid. They are not even going to think even once about him making a move.

I call bs.

They also have women and children suicide bombers and martyrs ,but none of the roughly 18 women and children in the compound were killed(except the one I mentioned above).

One of Osama Bin Ladins wives swore she would be a martyr with him and she actually attacked the seals(unarmed) ,but was only disabled. Why not disable Osama?

None of the other 2 females wives, friends and female servants were killed and I am certain they all swore allegiance to Osama. He gave EVERYONE of his wives(children) and adult children the option of leaving him because he says he was subject to 'death at any time' and some did leave for safety.

What about those children having bombs underneath their cute little pj's? Those precious little devils could have been a chip of the old block and blew the entire compound away, but none were shot?:dunno:

The wives were willing to give their lives for him so it's possible they could have had a bomb/weapon as well. Why not kill them?

ALL 4 adult males(3 unarmed) in that villa were executed and targeted for death from the get go. Armed or unarmed and I wish the government would stop with the propaganda.

Osama would have been far more humilated had he been captured paraded back to the U.S., see the World Trade Towers back up,live in a depressing solitary jail cell and then I presume executed. In a way he was let off the hook .
 
Osama would have been far more humilated had he been captured paraded back to the U.S., see the World Trade Towers back up,live in a depressing solitary jail cell and then I presume executed. In a way he was let off the hook .

You have good points but the last part I can't see happening. Someone who is rooted in their faith and in the ideology that America or Westerners or anyone who stands against Islam in any way is the enemy wouldn't abandon their ideals so carelessly.

If anything he would use the freedoms he would be alloted as a prisoner to try and reach out to his supporters and convert someone who is in a state of mind for conversion.

For instance and only playing devil's advocate here:

He'd be a living martyr to a mock criminal trial that would be a show of dominance and revenge more than justice. Using it as platform to shoe horn his own agenda into the spotlight and rally his own troops. Remember Saddam's trial and how productive it was listening to him?

I'm not saying he should have been killed. But someone who focuses their whole life into a leadership role, willing to go to great personal risks just for an ideology and given the behavior of other detainees that were of the same mindset. I just don't think you'd convince him of his wrong doings. He'd be the way he always was. Thinking he's actually accomplishing something and that everyone who isn't in agreement with him is the enemy of Islam.

Only to be finally executed after putting up a fight through the courts and make a show of it.

In a way he got screwed because he got blindsided like he did America on 9/11. He was sitting there, maybe sipping tea or eating some hummus. Then the next thing was a horrible startle, a sudden realization that this moment is it and there's no future left for him and then...finally, whatever's on the other side.

As the saying goes "Paybacks' a motherfucker".
 
As for the changing stories everyone needs to realize it's called the fog of war. Give it a rest the skidmark known as OBL is fish food.
 
Top