Archive

Osama Bin Laden Dead *OFFICIAL*

  • dwccrew
    jhay78;759499 wrote:Statement 1:



    Statement 2:



    Sounds consistent to me ;)?

    I actually don't see the contradiction either (can't believe I am agreeing with Gibby). I don't think the death of Bin Laden has made us any safer, however I do see it as a major accomplishment. Those 2 sentiments can co-exist together. I think some people just can't stand Pelosi (me being one of them) so much that they will make something out of nothing.
    Ty Webb;759609 wrote:Or sparkie...

    Maybe they didn't release them because they put the Kennedy and Hussien pictures to shame in terms of gore and nastiness(quote from a WH source)

    I think that's bullshit. I think the real reason is they are afraid of blowback and to that I say fuck it. These people hate us anyway and have no problem beheading people on video, we can release the pictures and give them a collaborative fuck you!
  • Bigred1995
    Writerbuckeye;759691 wrote:Got a quote where I defended him? Of course you don't. ...
    Writerbuckeye;759513 wrote:I don't watch O'Reilly and don't care about him, but he was talking about going into Pakistan with military force (the term "invasion" was used) not a single operation where you go into one household to extract someone.

    Not sure why anyone cares whether O'Reilly is right or wrong, anyway. Or Beck...or Limbaugh. They're entertainers, not officials.
    Sounds like a defense to me!

    Writerbuckeye;759691 wrote:I just got done saying he's irrelevant. So why are you obsessing about what he says and whether he recants or not?

    Obsessing? I make ONE post asking if the joke of a News Commentator (entertainer or otherwise) remembered this exchange and if he will admit to being wrong and you consider that an obsession? As I stated in my first reply to you, I posted it for my entertainment, and I'd like to see what opinion others had on the topic; is that okay, or should I pass all my posts by you first to make sure they aren't obsessive?
  • Fab1b
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/photos-show...194758961.html

    Reuters releases photos from raid that shows dead, but not Osama
  • jhay78
    dwccrew;759712 wrote:I actually don't see the contradiction either (can't believe I am agreeing with Gibby). I don't think the death of Bin Laden has made us any safer, however I do see it as a major accomplishment. Those 2 sentiments can co-exist together. I think some people just can't stand Pelosi (me being one of them) so much that they will make something out of nothing.

    I agree about the "not being any safer" part, but in 2011 it's a major, historic, landmark accomplishment, whereas in 2006 it would've meant nothing.

    Maybe it's semantics, but it isn't something out of nothing. Nancy Pelosi is one of the single most intellectually dishonest politicians the world has ever known.
  • gut
    jhay78;759744 wrote: Nancy Pelosi is one of the single most intellectually dishonest politicians the world has ever known.

    You can't be intellectually dishonest when you start out stupid.
  • Ty Webb
    It looks like the pictures that Reuters posted have already been pulled.
  • Ty Webb
    http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound
  • bigkahuna
    bases_loaded;759621 wrote:We watched as our countrymen jumped to their deaths on live TV...saw the Hussein boys...watched Saddam hang...saw a guy have his head cut off...we can handle this fucking shit.

    This administration is a joke...so quick to pat themselves on the back they forgot to get their facts straight...now they are back peddling and making fools of themselves and our country. Show the damn picture and save some face.

    Anything that you mentioned, did OUR Government release these or was it the media or leaked by someone's personal equipment?

    I truly think that the government believes it has the entire country's best interest when they decided NOT to release these photos. Like someone else said, if radicals are going to go bat shit crazy over a CARTOON, how COULD they react if these came out?

    I want to see these photos as much as anyone else, but you have to trust and respect the government in a decision like this.
  • Writerbuckeye
    Bigred1995;759718 wrote:Sounds like a defense to me!




    Obsessing? I make ONE post asking if the joke of a News Commentator (entertainer or otherwise) remembered this exchange and if he will admit to being wrong and you consider that an obsession? As I stated in my first reply to you, I posted it for my entertainment, and I'd like to see what opinion others had on the topic; is that okay, or should I pass all my posts by you first to make sure they aren't obsessive?

    Correcting what I saw as an error is not a defense and it seems strange that you went back in time to find that particular interview just so you could try to post (assuming here) some kind of "gotcha" that doesn't even involve someone who is an official. The whole thing struck me as kind of weird...so I posted on it.
  • bigkahuna

    I will add this however. If they can show these photos, why not the other ones? Isn't a life of a radical the same as another, or is Bin Laden put on that much of a pedestal?
  • majorspark
    bigkahuna;759897 wrote:I will add this however. If they can show these photos, why not the other ones? Isn't a life of a radical the same as another, or is Bin Laden put on that much of a pedestal?

    No these are ok because they were sold by a Pakistani security official (a fellow muslim) to the infidel press for money.
  • bigkahuna
    majorspark;759899 wrote:No these are ok because they were sold by a Pakistani security official (a fellow muslim) to the infidel press for money.

    So, you're saying that the SEALs just left these guys laying around and Pakistani police came in and took pictures themselves? I'm just looking for clarification.

    With that logic, let's just find a Muslim in the Federal Government and let them release them.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    BGFalcons82;759222 wrote:Ptown - I agree our intelligence network was crucial to pulling this off. No doubt about it.

    Let me ask the follow-up question: Do you think the myriad of agencies - and you listed 4 of them (CIA, NSA, DIA and NGA), along with all of our military, gitmo personnel, and the FBI - caused this to take more time or less? I've read where OBL was holed up in that place for 5 years. Then I heard they were tracking his courier, the one that led us to OBL, since August - 8 months ago. Seems to me the communication between these groups gave OBL a few extra years on his life instead of taking him out much sooner. What say ye?

    That is impossible to say without looking at the evidence. I will say it was not for lack of trying. We knew he had a close communications guy and we knew the guys nickname. It took years to figure out who that nickname belonged to, and that takes countless hours of phone conversations. From that we had to link the guy to the location, and then provide actionable intelligence that not only was this guy the communications guy, but stayed where OBL was. Because, hitting the target and then finding out OBL was down the block is not good.

    Given this, and from my discussions from friends and colleagues in the IC (Intel Community) who weren't involved, given the complexities of the operation, I'd say the agencies did not slow down, but did a great job of getting the intelligence.
  • Bigred1995
    Writerbuckeye;759896 wrote:Correcting what I saw as an error is not a defense and it seems strange that you went back in time to find that particular interview just so you could try to post (assuming here) some kind of "gotcha" that doesn't even involve someone who is an official. The whole thing struck me as kind of weird...so I posted on it.
    Your correction was based solely on what you thought he meant by "invasion" and "boots on the ground"! You have no way of knowing what he meant when he said what he said, you correction was very subjective, hence a defense! If you take the entire portion of the interview into context, it's easier to get the idea he meant, not even enter Pakistan at all to go after Bin Laden, and that's why I posted on it. I merely wanted to see what others thought!

    And I did not go "back in time to find that particular interview", I did it in the comfort of the present time! Who the hell do you think I am, Dr. Who? :D And it's pretty easy searching for something when you know for what you're looking! YouTube has this nifty feature called a "Search Bar" and you simply type in that bar for which you're looking and presto, a whole host of videos appear matching your query, or pretty close!
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Manhattan Buckeye;759160 wrote:"I'm sure the orders were if you can take him alive great, but if he moves or acts like he has a weapon, kill his ass. "

    You sure? We'll have to disagree. There was no way they were taking him alive. Again I AGREE with it but we can stop with the high and mighty talk about acting different than the previous administration. Obama acted EXACTLY how W would have, that's why his support from this has peaked.

    Yeah, given the moment though, I'd be hard pressed to find anyone on the planet that would have an itchy trigger finger. Alive would have been awesome, but the assumptions in place were that any movements would mean he would either kill himself or find a get away.

    I completely agree on your last point, and have said it numerous times. I liked W from 2007 onwards, once he got pragmatic and reflective. I also knew Obama would be the same way, which is why I voted for him and why I say he does a good job in foreign policy.
  • Writerbuckeye
    This really was all about making a kill. Why the administration didn't just say that up front is a bit puzzling. I think the waffling back and forth about the "details" all stem from that one point.
  • BGFalcons82
    ptown_trojans_1;759917 wrote:That is impossible to say without looking at the evidence. I will say it was not for lack of trying. We knew he had a close communications guy and we knew the guys nickname. It took years to figure out who that nickname belonged to, and that takes countless hours of phone conversations. From that we had to link the guy to the location, and then provide actionable intelligence that not only was this guy the communications guy, but stayed where OBL was. Because, hitting the target and then finding out OBL was down the block is not good.

    Given this, and from my discussions from friends and colleagues in the IC (Intel Community) who weren't involved, given the complexities of the operation, I'd say the agencies did not slow down, but did a great job of getting the intelligence.

    Thanks for your perspective ptown. My common sense tells me there are wayyy too many chefs in the kitchen and when this scenario typically happens, it causes riffs, red tape, non-communication, one-upsmanship, petty differences, in-fighting, big dick contests, and overall poor morale. Good to hear that wasn't the case here, but 5 years...in plain sight...with a $25,000,000 bounty....just makes me question how things get done.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    BGFalcons82;760003 wrote:Thanks for your perspective ptown. My common sense tells me there are wayyy too many chefs in the kitchen and when this scenario typically happens, it causes riffs, red tape, non-communication, one-upsmanship, petty differences, in-fighting, big dick contests, and overall poor morale. Good to hear that wasn't the case here, but 5 years...in plain sight...with a $25,000,000 bounty....just makes me question how things get done.
    No prob and not a bad thing to think really. But, this was one of the finest moments of the intel community.
    Writerbuckeye;760002 wrote:This really was all about making a kill. Why the administration didn't just say that up front is a bit puzzling. I think the waffling back and forth about the "details" all stem from that one point.

    I'd agree to that. I think killing was first, and capturing was second. Given the unknowns, and the fact that this was so deep inside Pakistan, the military plans were very cautious and thinking.
    I'd also say that the SEALS were trigger happy, which is not a surprise given the emotional high of the event.
  • I Wear Pants
    dwccrew;759712 wrote:I actually don't see the contradiction either (can't believe I am agreeing with Gibby). I don't think the death of Bin Laden has made us any safer, however I do see it as a major accomplishment. Those 2 sentiments can co-exist together. I think some people just can't stand Pelosi (me being one of them) so much that they will make something out of nothing.



    I think that's bullshit. I think the real reason is they are afraid of blowback and to that I say fuck it. These people hate us anyway and have no problem beheading people on video, we can release the pictures and give them a collaborative fuck you!
    If not releasing the photos can prevent even one injury or death of a United States or coalition soldier then I say don't release them. All of us going "ooh sweet, Osama's brains is not worth getting another one of our soldiers killed in a retaliatory attack because we showed pictures.
  • majorspark
    bigkahuna;759905 wrote:So, you're saying that the SEALs just left these guys laying around and Pakistani police came in and took pictures themselves? I'm just looking for clarification.

    Yes that is exactly what I am saying. They had no time to clean up their mess. The SEALs did not have a long to accomplish their mission. A stalled chopper at the on set of the assault only complicated the mission. The SEALs were there for forty minutes.

    These guys in the photos as well as Bin Laden were likely dead within the first five to ten minutes from when the SEALs boots hit the ground. After that it was grab any possible source of intelligence you could find (hard drives, computers, etc.) before they would be tangling with Pakistan's armed forces. We only needed one body. We had to scuttle the stalled chopper so space to get out was limited.

    Pakistani security forces arrived on the scene shortly after we left. Of course they took pictures. That is part of their job. Pakistan is a poor country. Any smart person in the Pakistani security forces knows they got the money shots. And now they have cashed in.
    bigkahuna;759905 wrote:With that logic, let's just find a Muslim in the Federal Government and let them release them.
    Nope. Not if you have sold out to the infidels and now work for them. A true muslim a servant of the the great satan? No way.

    Also you need to understand what group of people I am speaking about. I am talking about the radical islamic nutbags that would go ape shit over this. Everyone claims they are a small minority of muslims (which I agree) but if that is the case why in the hell do we fret over this small group going ape shit.
  • I Wear Pants
    Because we aren't worried about their feelings. We're worried that they are going to be so enraged by this that they'll commit extra attacts that they hadn't already been planing or use it to recruit new members. It's not about being nice, it's about controlling one tiny little facet of risk that we can in regards to our soldiers.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;760058 wrote:If not releasing the photos can prevent even one injury or death of a United States or coalition soldier then I say don't release them. All of us going "ooh sweet, Osama's brains is not worth getting another one of our soldiers killed in a retaliatory attack because we showed pictures.

    As long as US or coalitions soldiers boots are on the ground in their nations and we continue our support for Israel these people will be killing our soldiers. Whether we show Bin Laden with his brains blown out or not it will not change their minds.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;760083 wrote:Because we aren't worried about their feelings. We're worried that they are going to be so enraged by this that they'll commit extra attacts that they hadn't already been planing or use it to recruit new members. Because we aren't worried about their feelings It's not about being nice
    I will repeat it again. We have boots on the ground in their lands and support Israel. The have all they need to recruit new members. We can be as nice as we want.
    I Wear Pants;760083 wrote:it's about controlling one tiny little facet of risk that we can in regards to our soldiers.
    Controlling a little tiny facet of risk? Just substitute soldiers for people. Isn't that what the Patriot Act is all about?
  • dwccrew
    I Wear Pants;760058 wrote:If not releasing the photos can prevent even one injury or death of a United States or coalition soldier then I say don't release them. All of us going "ooh sweet, Osama's brains is not worth getting another one of our soldiers killed in a retaliatory attack because we showed pictures.

    My point is, not releasing the photo isn't going to prevent anything. These people hate us and will attempt anything regardless if the photo is released or not. I served in Iraq and I would want the photos released whether or not it would put me in more danger (which I don't think it it would just because they want to kill us regardless) or not.
  • I Wear Pants
    dwccrew;760127 wrote:My point is, not releasing the photo isn't going to prevent anything. These people hate us and will attempt anything regardless if the photo is released or not. I served in Iraq and I would want the photos released whether or not it would put me in more danger (which I don't think it it would just because they want to kill us regardless) or not.
    These type of people want to kill our soldiers sure, but you saw the violence after the Koran burning thing. It wouldn't be right but releasing pictures would inflame passions in the region and probably cause an outbreak of violence that otherwise wouldn't have happened. It's not like keeping the pictures under covers is going to halt all violence or anything but it could certainly prevent some.