The Guy who killed Bin Laden

[timmy]

Goodboy, I would have to disagree with you about this: "The only civilized way of dealing with him was to arrest him and put him on a free and fair trial."

I can't imagine having ordered our troops in WW2 to arrest every German and Japanese enemy to be held for trial.

Timmy, are you saying it was alright to shoot unarmed German and Japanese soldiers?

Not at all. How would these men, wandering about with night vision, go into bin Laden's dwelling and know what he was doing or reaching for? How would they know how many people are in the compound and who was armed, and if he was going to holler out?

Why didn't they arrest the gunmen in Mumbai or others when people were assassinated? (there are a number of cases that can be raised here.) The answer is clear: put into a place were there was extreme risk of unknown danger, actions were taken to end every and any threat. Simply put, The people who went in guaranteed their own safety first, and why not? In any war this is common practice, although the practice reported of Osama bin Laden attempting to shield himself with one of his wives is a less-common occurrence.

Perhaps the P38 Lightnings that intercepted Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the planner of the attack on Pearl Harbor, could have wiggled their wings and signaled Yamamoto's plane to land and surrender to arrest.

The admiral was not unarmed in any sense. He died after a dog fight.

A dog fight? This is not a credible response in any way. You need to read an account of the this battle or, if you have done so, completely refamiliarize yourself with it.

Yamamoto was flying as a passenger in a twin engined Betty bomber, which was accompanied by another Betty and a number of Zero fighters. When the intercepting P38s appeared, the Zeros dumped their drop tanks and moved to counter the P38s, while the Bettys headed for the forest canopy to skim the tops of the trees. Four of the sixteen Lightnings had been designated as the "killers," while the other twelve were assigned to take care of the escorting Zeros.

The "killer" P38s broke through the covering Zeros and downed the Bettys.

Yamamoto was not engaged in any dogfight. He was a passenger in a twin engined bomber that was fleeing for its life from attacking enemy aircraft.

Japan and the USA were at war at the time.

Yamamoto was a combatant. Whether he was armed or not wasn't even an issue. For all the good it would have done, he could have had a water pistol.

He was killed in action. Period.

After all, it was Osama himself who declared war, and he made a pretty convincing stab at running one until he died. Few here took his declaration seriously until he leveled lower Manhattan.

Yes this is also the assertion of American government. What about other views?

Well, yes, OK, What about other views?

Osama declared war on the USA in August of 1996. On 24 May, 2006, The Times of India reported that Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on an Al Jazeera aired audiotape. http://classic-web.archive.org/web/2008 ... 550477.cms

Here's a report on Osama bin Laden claiming responsibility on another occasion: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden- ... 1-1.513654

You may cite all of the conspiracy theories that you wish. It is a common thing for all sorts of these to come crawling out of the woodwork when an event like this occurs. But Osama bin Laden admitted his role in 9/11 himself. Someone else finished what he started, as far as he personally was concerned. And that was that.

[goodboy_mentor]

Not at all. How would these men, wandering about with night vision, go into bin Laden's dwelling and know what he was doing or reaching for? How would they know how many people are in the compound and who was armed, and if he was going to holler out?

Sure nobody is saying they would know the future in advance. But when they were in front of him, surely they were able to see him unarmed and trying to shield behind his wife etc. No combat is involved here. It shows that it was possible to arrest him but chose not to. It was just like killing some unarmed German or Japanese soldier who is living with his family.

Why didn't they arrest the gunmen in Mumbai or others when people were assassinated? (there are a number of cases that can be raised here.)

One of the gunman was indeed arrested and put on trial. Others died in combat.

A dog fight? This is not a credible response in any way. You need to read an account of the this battle or, if you have done so, completely refamiliarize yourself with it.

It was indeed a dog fight(been fought by his fighters). In this sense he was not unarmed. Of course it was combat.

You may cite all of the conspiracy theories that you wish. It is a common thing for all sorts of these to come crawling out of the woodwork when an event like this occurs. But Osama bin Laden admitted his role in 9/11 himself. Someone else finished what he started, as far as he personally was concerned. And that was that.

Not just theories or mere coincidences but some hard facts which are difficult to deny, provided you read the information carefully keeping your personal biases and prejudices aside. Intelligence agencies do not work in a manner that leave clear evidences and signs behind.

[timmy]

Not at all. How would these men, wandering about with night vision, go into bin Laden's dwelling and know what he was doing or reaching for? How would they know how many people are in the compound and who was armed, and if he was going to holler out?

Sure nobody is saying they would know the future in advance. But when they were in front of him, surely they were able to see him unarmed and trying to shield behind his wife etc. No combat is involved here. It shows that it was possible to arrest him but chose not to. It was just like killing some unarmed German or Japanese soldier who is living with his family.

Sure, sure: "surely they were able to see him unarmed and trying to shield behind his wife etc." You were there and you know all about what they faced, and your hindsight showing you that none of them were shot themselves, either by bi Laden's guards or members of other forces is a perfectly valid judgement of yours to try them. Sitting in your armchair and writing this judgment, you are able to exactly understand the situation.

Why didn't they arrest the gunmen in Mumbai or others when people were assassinated? (there are a number of cases that can be raised here.)

One of the gunman was indeed arrested and put on trial. Others died in combat.

Your argument is totally flawed on two points, and flawed so badly that you must resort to playing these word games.

1. So, because one of the ten was captured, that is sufficient logic for you? By your logic, all ten of them should have been arrested, not shot.

2. So, the one terrorist who was arrested, was arrested because authorities decided to do so? this flies in the face of facts, facts of the sort you brush away with the excuse of conspiracy theories because you do not want to face them:

... A shootout ensued and Ismail Khan was killed. Kasab lay motionless playing dead. Assistant sub-inspector Tukaram Omble, armed only with a lathi, charged the vehicle, being shot five times. Omble held onto Kasab's weapon, enabling Omble's colleagues to capture Kasab alive. Omble died from the bullet wounds. A mob gathered and attacked the two terrorists, which was captured on video.

Initially Kasab pretended to be dead and was being transported to the Nair Hospital when a police officer discovered Kasab was breathing. Seeing the mutilated body of another slain terrorist Kasab begged doctors to put him on saline, saying "I do not want to die". The doctors who treated Kasab said he had no bullet wounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmal_Kasab

Your argument, then, expects us to believe that, if Assistant sub-inspector Tukaram Omble would have had a firearm, he still would have charged with the lathi and given his life so that Kasab could be arrested.

The facts are, everyone thought Kasab was dead and he was scooped up under that assumption -- not that there was any conscious attempt to arrest him alive rather than to rub him out and sort out the issue afterwards.

As you say, "...some hard facts which are difficult to deny, provided you read the information carefully keeping your personal biases and prejudices aside." Our issue here has boiled down to just which one of the two of this is doing what you have said here.

A dog fight? This is not a credible response in any way. You need to read an account of the this battle or, if you have done so, completely refamiliarize yourself with it.

It was indeed a dog fight(been fought by his fighters). In this sense he was not unarmed. Of course it was combat.

So, in this sense, Yamamoto was not unarmed? He was a passenger in an aircraft and he had no command over the situation at all. If, as you say, he was armed because of the Zeros that accompanied his Betty, so he died in combat, it is just as obvious that there were arms and armed people in bin Laden's compound, and also he was protected in another way: can it be assumed that nobody in the nation he was located knew about his presence? (Your conspiracy theories seem strangely silent on this subject!)

In this sense that you yourself cite, just like Yamamoto, bin Laden was in combat, too. He had declared war on the USA, he had admitted on more than one occasion that he was responsible for 9/11 attacks (a point you neglected to respond to). And so, he fell in combat, trying to hide behind his wife. I confess, I don't think Yamamoto had his wife on the Betty in which he was a passenger.

You may cite all of the conspiracy theories that you wish. It is a common thing for all sorts of these to come crawling out of the woodwork when an event like this occurs. But Osama bin Laden admitted his role in 9/11 himself. Someone else finished what he started, as far as he personally was concerned. And that was that.

Not just theories or mere coincidences but some hard facts which are difficult to deny, provided you read the information carefully keeping your personal biases and prejudices aside. Intelligence agencies do not work in a manner that leave clear evidences and signs behind.

Yes, as you point out, evidence can be hard or soft, depending on your personal biases and prejudices. On this point, we can certainly agree.

[xl_target]

Gentlemen, This thread has run its course.

There is a reason why we try to shun politics on this board.
It wastes time and does nothing to promote the goals of this board.
In fact, it promotes disunity and disharmony.

One of the mods should lock it.