Osama bin Laden is dead

[Xno Kappa]

[edit] this was a reply to Hirokei

I don't think so. Whether or not bin Laden had a weapon and whether or not he was resisting when he was shot to death sounds like a pretty important detail to fuck up. To me it seems unacceptable to say "oh, well it's a covert operation, so it's okay to spread initial statements which vary wildly from what the truth actually is." As I see it, this is a pretty big communication problem for the administration, demonstrating what may be a serious lack of credibility.

People are bitching for accurate information, not just bitching to bitch (obviously the exceptions include people like Palin and Rush, etc.)

Sorry but are you dense? My point is that the administration probably hasn't even been debriefed by SEAL team 6. There is more then likely a mountain of info to sift through. Let alone figure out how to disseminate the information properly to the public without leaking any classified information. So again, stories are bound to change with something like this.

[NiggaFromHarlem]

My point was mainly that there were (and still are?) some pretty serious inconsistencies in the narrative given by the administration, which has the capacity to seriously hurt their credibility. Also, there is a growing tendency in politics to get one's agenda out in the press and disregard the facts, mainly because people hold on to the first thing they hear and just roll with it (one example that comes to mind is the whole planned parent hood 90% abortion "nonfactual statement"). At this point, I don't think it's clear whether or not the administration was intentionally misrepresenting what happened during the raid, or whether they just have that bad of a communication issue. Whatever the case, it seems like a problem to me...

[Tweek]

Doesn't really matter if he was armed, if he surrendered or if he was in custody. It was a black ops kill mission. Only reason they didn't drop X amount of bombs on the target was so they could properly identify the kill.

[NiggaFromHarlem]

Sorry but are you dense? My point is that the administration probably hasn't even been debriefed by SEAL team 6. There is more then likely a mountain of info to sift through. Let alone figure out how to disseminate the information properly to the public without leaking any classified information. So again, stories are bound to change with something like this.

The communication problem isn't about the particulars of what sort of information was found, and whether or not it should be issued to the public. I don't dispute that there is (probably) a mountain of info to sort through, I never did. That being said, I don't think the question of whether or not he was armed and resisting when shot to death is part of this "mountain of info." Are you actually suggesting that it is?

[Plow]

My point was mainly that there were (and still are?) some pretty serious inconsistencies in the narrative given by the administration, which has the capacity to seriously hurt their credibility. Also, there is a growing tendency in politics to get one's agenda out in the press and disregard the facts, mainly because people hold on to the first thing they hear and just roll with it (one example that comes to mind is the whole planned parent hood 90% abortion "nonfactual statement"). At this point, I don't think it's clear whether or not the administration was intentionally misrepresenting what happened during the raid, or whether they just have that bad of a communication issue. Whatever the case, it seems like a problem to me...

I just feel like you're making these inconsistencies up.

From the very start, this has been my basic impression of what happened:

They went in, I thought with very few, like 6 people. Sounds like it was more.
A firefight ensued, during which 3 men and 1 woman were killed, the woman having been used as a (failed) human shield. (or was it 4 men and 1 woman? I don't remember what first reports were)
They found Osama
His wife yelled his name so they were sure it was him
If he openly surrendered, i.e. hands in the air not doing shit, they were prepared to take him alive
He did something other than that, they shot him twice in the head.

Can you find me any official reports stating anything that directly contradicts that narrative?

I don't think you can, but I'm guessing you'll continue to draw your own conclusions based on the wording and claim it as inconsistent.

[Yugl]

Why does it matter if he was captured then killed? Obama looks even more badass if they caught him, then asked life or death, then he did the thumbs down. Fuck with the bull, you get the horns bro.

If he had done that, republicans spouting "OMG DICTATOR" would have had a nightmare. "Am I supporting terrorism by opposing his dictatorship? OMG!".

[NiggaFromHarlem]

I just feel like you're making these inconsistencies up.

From the very start, this has been my basic impression of what happened:

They went in, I thought with very few, like 6 people. Sounds like it was more.
A firefight ensued, during which 3 men and 1 woman were killed, the woman having been used as a (failed) human shield. (or was it 4 men and 1 woman? I don't remember what first reports were)
They found Osama
His wife yelled his name so they were sure it was him
If he openly surrendered, i.e. hands in the air not doing shit, they were prepared to take him alive
He did something other than that, they shot him twice in the head.

Can you find me any official reports stating anything that directly contradicts that narrative?

I don't think you can, but I'm guessing you'll continue to draw your own conclusions based on the wording and claim it as inconsistent.

Initially it was claimed that bin Laden was directly involved in a firefight (and, as you can see in the quote from Brennan above), it was implied that he had a gun ("I don't know if he got any rounds off...". By Tuesday they said he was unarmed. That's an inconsistency. As for him resisting, the White House has consistently said he resisted (and this fit with the initial report of him being involved directly in the firefight), but since it has come out that he has been unarmed, the White House has been unable to say (as far as I've seen) how in any way he resisted.

As for me drawing my own conclusions, I don't see how that's the case (maybe I'm biased!). But don't take my word for it, watch the press conferences. Carney openly admits that there were some misstatements (no one in the administration is really disputing there were misstatements, they're just excusing them); my only point is that there was a major communication problem.

Tweek says "Doesn't really matter if he was armed, if he surrendered or if he was in custody. It was a black ops kill mission." The White House is claiming that this was not a kill mission. Whether or not he was resisting does speak to whether or not the US forces had justification to kill.

[Tweek]

I think most black ops missions are kill missions and rescues. i.e. delta force, seal team 6 (DEVGRU), green beret, some of the marines force recon (even though I think they don't technically fall under special ops branch JSOC)

[Plow]

Initially it was claimed that bin Laden was directly involved in a firefight

Source?

(and, as you can see in the quote from Brennan above), it was implied that he had a gun ("I don't know if he got any rounds off...". By Tuesday they said he was unarmed. That's an inconsistency. As for him resisting, the White House has consistently said he resisted (and this fit with the initial report of him being involved directly in the firefight), but since it has come out that he has been unarmed, the White House has been unable to say (as far as I've seen) how in any way he resisted.

you took that to imply he had a gun

how is it inconsistent when they're saying the exact same thing, and just not providing more direct details?

As for me drawing my own conclusions, I don't see how that's the case (maybe I'm biased!). But don't take my word for it, watch the press conferences. Carney openly admits that there were some misstatements (no one in the administration is really disputing there were misstatements, they're just excusing them); my only point is that there was a major communication problem.

[Kurokikaze]

^ saw that the other day and its so true. Theres so much misinformation out there that trying to formulate a story while being out of the loop (not in the administration) is a waste of time.

But again with all the misinformation out there... one thing is certain; OBL is dead! So let's drop it? lol

[RKenshin]

On the release of the photo issue, I'm glad they decided not to as well. Really, what's the worst possible situation under each scenario here?

- If they don't release the photo: people don't have their 'curiosity' satisfied, conspiracy theorists get to have a ball with the 'faked Osama assassination', and... that's about it.

- If they do release the photo: extremists potentially use the picture as fuel for to rally more supporters/motivate an attack on more innocent civilians.

There is no doubt that there are people that will hate and want to attack America regardless of if we release the photo or not. But to act like releasing the photo would not enrage people further and gather more supporters to their cause is just plain ignorant. Imagine if a famous, accomplished and heroic American soldier was kidnapped from home and murdered by an 'evil country of infidels' (yes that is a direct and accurate comparison), that would make a lot of Americans pretty damn upset, right? Now imagine that soldier's bloody, gruesome face posted all over every media outlet in the 'evil country of infidels' as people celebrate and mock it. If you don't think one situation would infuriate and motivate more people than the other, and especially if our culture stressed respect for the dead and living your life for your religion (that says to destroy people like that), you're just plain kidding yourself.

Seeing a dead man's face is not worth the potential loss of even one more American life. Picture if it did, and it was someone you knew... worth it?

I'm curious, and I sure as hell would like to see it, but that really doesn't matter considering the potential ramifications.

[notorious bum]

That argument is pretty weak, considering terrorists already do exactly what you've described and the fact you can't exactly infuriate an already pissed off group of extremists. The pictures will get leaked eventually, the videos probably will too, who knows how long that will be, but I'm assuming it will be sooner rather than later thanks to Wikileaks.

[archibaldcrane]

That argument is pretty weak, considering terrorists already do exactly what you've described and the fact you can't exactly infuriate an already pissed off group of extremists.

When that Florida dickhead burned the koran on video, that particular act caused roots in Afghanistan that lead to dozens of deaths.

Are you going to argue that "pissed off extremists would have rooted and killed dozens" anyway?

Don't be an idiot. Your morbid curiosity is not more important than the safety of our troops.


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[NiggaFromHarlem]

Source?

you took that to imply he had a gun

In the Monday press briefing Brennan says clearly: "He was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house through his end"

Doesn't that necessarily imply that he had a gun? How does one engage in a firefight without a gun?

As for the Rachel Maddow video, I pretty much agree completely. I'm not using this inconsistency to support some sort of political ideology, I'm just saying that there is clearly an inconsistency (I don't know if it's intentional or not), and that it could come back to hurt the administration's credibility.

Also, on the photo: I don't think it matters too much as far as evidence for his death goes. To me it does seem like a bad political decision, but I think that al Qaeda will in some way confirm his death. Politically, it seems it would make sense to put some sort of evidence out there (and I think a recent poll says that most Americans want a picture).

[notorious bum]

The act of assassinating their leader has infuriated their base enough. Do you not believe retaliation is already in order?

[RKenshin]

That argument is pretty weak, considering terrorists already do exactly what you've described and the fact you can't exactly infuriate an already pissed off group of extremists. The pictures will get leaked eventually, the videos probably will too, who knows how long that will be, but I'm assuming it will be sooner rather than later thanks to Wikileaks.

Ok, what part about the acknowledgement in this:

There is no doubt that there are people that will hate and want to attack America regardless of if we release the photo or not.

But the fact that this still stands:

But to act like releasing the photo would not enrage people further and gather more supporters to their cause is just plain ignorant.

Is unclear?

You either think the picture could enrage/gather more people, or not. There's no middle ground here.

Do you think that it's impossible for anyone to be motivated further to act against America by the release of that picture? Do you not see a difference between the emotions garnered between these two situations?:

Imagine if a famous, accomplished and heroic American soldier was kidnapped from home and murdered by an 'evil country of infidels' (yes that is a direct and accurate comparison), that would make a lot of Americans pretty damn upset, right? Now imagine that soldier's bloody, gruesome face posted all over every media outlet in the 'evil country of infidels' as people celebrate and mock it.

Yes/no.

I have no doubt the picture won't eventually be leaked, but that's not the issue at hand here. There's a huge difference between a government publicly releasing a photo right after an incident and it finding its way leaked some months/years down the road. Though, honestly even if it was it will always be speculated on as I doubt the government would ever come out and acknowledge "oh shit, yeah, that's the real photo. Not fake, unlike the 2,000 other Photoshops claiming to be it released over the past year."



EDIT:

The act of assassinating their leader has infuriated their base enough. Do you not believe retaliation is already in order?

Do you not believe that seeing brutally murdered pictures of a man many of them praise, respect, and honor posted all over our media outlets would not garner more support for their cause?

You have to realize that a very small number of people in Afgah are or want to be part of Al Qaeda, but many still praised Osama and despise America. There are plenty of people that hate America but will never act on it, but could if given enough reason to.

It's not as simple as "they either hate America and will try to kill us anyway or they love America and wish no ill will on us!"

[Kurokikaze]

The act of assassinating their leader has infuriated their base enough. Do you not believe retaliation is already in order?

This notion that "they're extremist and hate America anyways" is stupid. Don't you think that it'll possibly anger people that aren't extremist and even make them join the others? Did this cross your mind at all?

[archibaldcrane]

Did Osama's "martyr tape" come out yet? I saw a couple days ago they were expecting its release imminently, but never heard that it actually came out.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[notorious bum]

Ok, what part about the acknowledgement in this:

But the fact that this still stands:

Is unclear?

You either think the picture could enrage/gather more people, or not. There's no middle ground here.

Do you think that it's impossible for anyone to be motivated further to act against America by the release of that picture? Do you not see a difference between the emotions garnered between these two situations?:

Yes/no.

I have no doubt the picture won't eventually be leaked, but that's not the issue at hand here. There's a huge difference between a government publicly releasing a photo right after an incident and it finding its way leaked some months/years down the road. Though, honestly even if it was it will always be speculated on as I doubt the government would ever come out and acknowledge "oh shit, yeah, that's the real photo. Not fake, unlike the 2,000 other Photoshops claiming to be it released over the past year."



EDIT:

Do you not believe that seeing brutally murdered pictures of a man many of them praise, respect, and honor posted all over our media outlets would not garner more support for their cause?

You have to realize that a very small number of people in Afgah are or want to be part of Al Qaeda, but many still praised Osama and despise America. There are plenty of people that hate America but will never act on it, but could if given enough reason to.

It's not as simple as "they either hate America and will try to kill us anyway or they love America and wish no ill will on us!"

The measure of increased anger from releasing photos is arbitrary and the comparison made to the soldier is NOT the same. One is a terrorist revered by FEW and the other is a soldier revered by many in our community. Muslims who support Bin Laden are not considered Muslims, they are extremists, no different than the KKK who believe they are doing God's Will by "purifying the human race, etc." They are in the minority, and chances are, they have already "joined" Al Qaeda a long time ago.

I don't think these guys were still in the "undecided about killing Americans" column after Osama was killed. Soldiers in the middle east are going to be at high risk for many months to come, the only way to alleviate this is for the CIA to continue this recent "combo-breaker" of the epic failure from the past 10 years and next catch the real head honcho: Ayman al Zawahiri. Or, how about this: find away to fight our most pressing, seemingly never-ending enemy, the Taliban, besides throwing bodies at them or co-operating with the Drug Lords.

That's another discussion altogether, my point is you can't speculate on how much more dangerous/intense things could get when the bar is set so high already. You can't get any higher than Code Red, International terrorist threat, etc.

[*Shinzon*]

The measure of increased anger from releasing photos is arbitrary and the comparison made to the soldier is NOT the same. One is a terrorist revered by FEW and the other is a soldier revered by many in our community. Muslims who support Bin Laden are not considered Muslims, they are extremists, no different than the KKK who believe they are doing God's Will by "purifying the human race, etc." They are in the minority, and chances are, they have already "joined" Al Qaeda a long time ago.

I don't think these guys were still in the "undecided about killing Americans" column after Osama was killed. Soldiers in the middle east are going to be at high risk for many months to come, the only way to alleviate this is for the CIA to continue this recent "combo-breaker" of the epic failure from the past 10 years and next catch the real head honcho: Ayman al Zawahiri. Or, how about this: find away to fight our most pressing, seemingly never-ending enemy, the Taliban, besides throwing bodies at them or co-operating with the Drug Lords.

That's another discussion altogether, my point is you can't speculate on how much more dangerous/intense things could get when the bar is set so high already. You can't get any higher than Code Red, International terrorist threat, etc.

So basically what you're saying is because our perception of danger is so high we can't actually induce additional danger? That's incredibly silly. Danger isn't tangible, it can always get more dangerous.