Osama Bin Laden Killed

Originally posted by Bicnarok
This is good, even if it is from Alex Jones.

10 Facts That Prove The Bin Laden Fable Is a Contrived Hoax

http://www.infowars.com/10-facts-that-prove-the-bin-laden-fable-is-a-contrived-hoax/

Iranians say Bin laden dead before raid

All of his sources are from within the conspiracy theorist echo chamber. Even if we assume that those things aren't suspect they wouldn't prove that Osama wasn't dead, in fact some of them don't even *suggest* that it *might* have been fake.

YouTube video

Holy shit, are there really people idiotic enough to still think that Osama isn't dead? I don't know how much this can be repeated, but for ****s sake, do you really think Obama or anyone in the US is stupid enough to risk Osama being alive and making a single youtube video, putting a single picture up on the internet, or just showing up anywhere? Are there really people who's minds and thought process are so underdeveloped that they can not comprehend that logic?

Yeesh. My faith in humanity is weakened yet again. The Gov't would not be parading around, boasting about Osama being dead, unless h was definitely dead.

The only question is how long he's been dead. I think that it is possible that he's been dead for some time.

Originally posted by inimalist
are you inferring that the fact AQ might want to get revenge on us for attacking their leaders is a reason not to attack them?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13331913

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13320972

"Intense fighting has taken place in Afghanistan's second city of Kandahar amid co-ordinated militant attacks, including at least six suicide bombs."

Originally posted by Liberator
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13331913

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13320972

"Intense fighting has taken place in Afghanistan's second city of Kandahar amid co-ordinated militant attacks, including at least [B]six suicide bombs." [/B]

I wasn't questioning the facts

are you saying we shouldn't fight terrorism because terrorists will attack us?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
YouTube video

now THAT's a man I'd like to pass on the street.

Originally posted by inimalist
I wasn't questioning the facts

are you saying we shouldn't fight terrorism because terrorists will attack us?

Originally posted by inimalist
I wasn't questioning the facts

are you saying we shouldn't fight terrorism because terrorists will attack us?

I am saying it seems counter-productive to combat terrorism through violence, especially when you are dealing with a guerilla warfare situation.

You can't and won't win.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13343497

"President Barack Obama insisted that the team to hunt down Osama Bin Laden be large enough to fight its way out in case it met resistance from Pakistani forces, the New York Times reports."

The article brings up the case that two additional helicoptors were sent, one with additional troops and the other carrying lawyers, interrogators, etc. if Osama had been taken alive.

EDIT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/world/asia/10intel.html?_r=1&hp

And here is the Times article.

Originally posted by inimalist
what I mean are the details like, was he captured before they caught him? was there a gunfight? etc

like, I would disagree morally and pragmatically if they had killed him after capture, but they look so much worse as this comes out from lying about it than from saying it straight out, and they gain nothing...

its not like this was some villager whose home they did a random raid on and they are looking for some justification, OBL was a military target, if the military wanted to kill him, that seems logical and defensible... I don't see the need for the lie, even if some peace-nics like myself might not appreciate targeted assassinations

As this all unfolds you can see that Bin Ladens death has sparked all kinds of sentiment. Announcing that he was dead before others did was a priority due to how fast information travels. Giving every specific detail about a military operation that was probably technically illegal (as Osama was never identified before the Pakistan raid) isn't even a realistic option. Osama was being hunted and whoever got him was going to tell the world that it was them. They do gain something.. Appreciation from soldiers that know exactly why they're not describing the raid in a way that makes criminals out of them. They probably knowingly gunned an unarmed Bin Laden down. If you were in charge would you acknowledge that? He would have been executed by America even if we took him into custody, but there would have been hope amongst his followers at freeing him, and they would have aggressively targeted whatever country held him for activist movement and I don't mean peaceful protests. 😮‍💨

What bothers me is all these claims against Pakistan sheltering Osama...

Pakistan wouldn't have signed an open alliance with the United States to combat terrorism using force if they wanted to protect Al Qaeda interests, can somebody explain to me why the hell they are being targeted so heavily? The PM of Pakistan even admitted it was a very embarassing flaw in his security, and if the United States was so set on taking Osama out why was the Pakistani government not informed?

The U.S. just shows the egotistical war mongering nation it truly is once again.

Originally posted by Liberator
What bothers me is all these claims against Pakistan sheltering Osama...

Pakistan wouldn't have signed an open alliance with the United States to combat terrorism using force if they wanted to protect Al Qaeda interests, can somebody explain to me why the hell they are being targeted so heavily? The PM of Pakistan even admitted it was a very embarassing flaw in his security, and if the United States was so set on taking Osama out why was the Pakistani government not informed?

The U.S. just shows the egotistical war mongering nation it truly is once again.

I guess perhaps they were worried that certain people in the Pakistani government might be sympathetic to Osama's cause.

Though I do see a problem with staging military operations in sovereign countries. (except in Call of Duty, it's fine there)

Pakistan kept an alliance with the US because of the HUGE amounts of money the US funnels into the country that would be cut off if they did not (not to mention the wider issue of being seen as an enemy of the US).

This doesn't change the fact that large swathes of the administration are sympathetic to anti-American interests and it is blatantly obvious that Osama can only have been there with the connivance of certain parts of the authorities. Pakistan is a very divided country and it is impossible to ascribe a single agenda to it- it can indeed both be fighting for and against a group like Al-Qaeda.

There is no way in hell the US was going to risk their operation being leaked; they would have been idiotic to tell the Pakistanis. Pakistan in turn cannot now push the 'sovereign country' thing very hard because they've been caught out and the entire diplomatic strength of the world knows it. They'll make noises but no waves.

The Pakistanis are unreliable in this kind of thing and the US was sensible- that's what it comes down to.

Originally posted by Liberator
I am saying it seems counter-productive to combat terrorism through violence, especially when you are dealing with a guerilla warfare situation.

You can't and won't win.

...

really?

That's just obvious nonsense, inimalist- not worth commentary, really.

true, I'm really surprised to see the argument though

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Pakistan kept an alliance with the US because of the HUGE amounts of money the US funnels into the country that would be cut off if they did not (not to mention the wider issue of being seen as an enemy of the US).

This doesn't change the fact that large swathes of the administration are sympathetic to anti-American interests and it is blatantly obvious that Osama can only have been there with the connivance of certain parts of the authorities. Pakistan is a very divided country and it is impossible to ascribe a single agenda to it- it can indeed both be fighting for and against a group like Al-Qaeda.

There is no way in hell the US was going to risk their operation being leaked; they would have been idiotic to tell the Pakistanis. Pakistan in turn cannot now push the 'sovereign country' thing very hard because they've been caught out and the entire diplomatic strength of the world knows it. They'll make noises but no waves.

The Pakistanis are unreliable in this kind of thing and the US was sensible- that's what it comes down to.

^All correct.

Pakistan knew he was there. The US didn't "request permission" to perform the covert operation, because they knew they'd tip off bin Laden. A three story compound surrounded by a 15-foot high wall with razorwire should have raised a few eyebrows. Plus, it was down the street from a military academy. But they were probably in-league with Al Qaida, with the local garrison being ready to gaurd OBL at the drop of a hat.

Pakistant is not our friend; the only reason we even give them the time of day is because they have nukes. We need to stop giving them 3 billion a year, and it would be nice if one of Obama's Cabinet members grew some backbone and denounced that country on live tv for being the piece of shit that it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world/asia/11binladen.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/osama-bin-laden/4987623/Bin-Ladens-son-denounces-killing-sea-burial

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
^All correct.

Pakistan knew he was there. The US didn't "request permission" to perform the covert operation, because they knew they'd tip off bin Laden. A three story compound surrounded by a 15-foot high wall with razorwire should have raised a few eyebrows. Plus, it was down the street from a military academy. But they were probably in-league with Al Qaida, with the local garrison being ready to gaurd OBL at the drop of a hat.

Pakistant is not our friend; the only reason we even give them the time of day is because they have nukes. We need to stop giving them 3 billion a year, and it would be nice if one of Obama's Cabinet members grew some backbone and denounced that country on live tv for being the piece of shit that it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Pakistan have to deal with terrorism on a regular basis? And the neighbours didn't find anything suspicious of it, they assumed they were just a very religious family and that is why they never left the compound. Of course, they could very well all be lying.

The Pakistani's have brought MORE terrorism into their country by allying themselves with the United States. I just can't see the logic in that.

Originally posted by inimalist
...

really?

Then why did you ask?

Originally posted by Liberator
Then why did you ask?

because it seems unbelievable that you see it that way...