Monday, August 01, 2011

Getting bin Laden

This will probably be ignored by the Truthers, but an excellent article in the New Yorker on how the raid went down. NSDQ!


Shortly after eleven o’clock on the night of May 1st, two MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters lifted off from Jalalabad Air Field, in eastern Afghanistan, and embarked on a covert mission into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. Inside the aircraft were twenty-three Navy SEALs from Team Six, which is officially known as the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DEVGRU. A Pakistani-American translator, whom I will call Ahmed, and a dog named Cairo—a Belgian Malinois—were also aboard. It was a moonless evening, and the helicopters’ pilots, wearing night-vision goggles, flew without lights over mountains that straddle the border with Pakistan. Radio communications were kept to a minimum, and an eerie calm settled inside the aircraft.

Labels:

118 Comments:

At 01 August, 2011 23:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Did they explain why all the video cameras went out, and why early reports said there was a firefight when apparently there was not?

 
At 02 August, 2011 00:33, Blogger paul w said...

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOURSELF.
READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOURSELF.
READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOURSELF.
READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOURSELF.
READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOURSELF.
READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOURSELF.

Brian, I cannot make it any clearer, you lazy truther fucktard.

 
At 02 August, 2011 00:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

OK, I'll suppose they didn't.

 
At 02 August, 2011 01:08, Blogger paul w said...

Did we expect anything else?

Nope.

Let's ignore this loser.

Please.

 
At 02 August, 2011 06:09, Blogger Ian said...

Did they explain why all the video cameras went out, and why early reports said there was a firefight when apparently there was not?

Poor Brian, he's so bitter that men like the SEALs accomplished what they did at Abbottabad while he can't even mop floors competently.

It also must infuriate Brian that Obama has actually stepped up counter-terrorism efforts in Pakistan above what the Bush administration was doing.

 
At 02 August, 2011 06:10, Blogger Ian said...

OK, I'll suppose they didn't.

Nobody cares. These men are heroes. You're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear, is too terrified to debate Willie Rodriguez, and was thrown out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet.

 
At 02 August, 2011 06:10, Blogger Ian said...

And onto the ACTUAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, I read that article last night. It was fantastic.

 
At 02 August, 2011 07:15, Blogger Steve Horgan said...

One of the characteristics of conspiracy-mongers is that they seize on inconsistencies between first news reports and then the more accurate reports that follow later. The simplest explanation, that information about an event simply improved with the passage of time and that rumour was replaced by fact never seems to occur to them. In this case, however, the detail almost doesn't matter as the facts are very clear in that a brilliantly planned an executed special forces operation killed the world's most wanted terrorist and possibly the most evil man of our times.

 
At 02 August, 2011 07:39, Blogger J Rebori said...

Bravo Zulu DEVGRU

 
At 02 August, 2011 08:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian's just jealous that the Seal team didn't come to his house for tea and crumpets.

 
At 02 August, 2011 10:08, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Shit, even the dog that went with them did more in his life than Brian.

There was a fire fight, but we did most of the firing and all of the killing.

 
At 02 August, 2011 10:12, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

The only hitch in the plan as far as I can tell was the fact the compound walls screwed up Helo 1 hovering maneuver so the pilot had to make a hard landing.

 
At 02 August, 2011 10:14, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Brian's just jealous that the Seal team didn't come to his house for tea and crumpets."

But, He would have to ask his mom first.

 
At 02 August, 2011 10:15, Blogger J Rebori said...

And like the professionals they are, when the plan started to go awry, they had the experience, skills, and back-ups to work around the problems and continue.

As a wiser man than I said, "No plan survives contact with the enemy."

 
At 02 August, 2011 10:33, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Notice how idiots like Brain always want things "explained" to them? As if they can't figurer something out without being told how to do it. As if the rest of the thinking class has an obligation to lead the moron class around by the hand and dumb down every idea to their level of understanding. AND! if you don't take the time to do this, it's a big conspiracy of silence.

You see this argument from ignorance all the time from conspiracy theorist. Creationist ask, if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? JFK plotters ask why did his head move backward? Moon landing conspiracy theorist ask why are the shadows like that?

It's a tactic of attrition, try and wear your opponent down with lots of very stupid questions. and declare victory when they don't bother to take the time to answer. The only thing to do is pat them on their empty little heads and say, run along little boy, the adults are talking.

 
At 02 August, 2011 11:32, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Did they explain why all the video cameras went out, and why early reports said there was a firefight when apparently there was not?"

Because the people who said there was a fire-fight were making shit up. Nobody who watched the raid on the video feed talked to the press. The people who talked to the press had no direct knowledge of the actual events of the raid.

The mission debrief took at least a week, so even the White House and SOCOM didn't have the full story for two weeks or so, in that time all kinds of bullshit filled the media for Dung Beetles like Brian to pick through and rollaway.

 
At 02 August, 2011 12:33, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Come now guys, everyone knows that the recipe for "truth" is:

1 part speculation
2 parts assumption
4 parts youtube
Shake violently into a frothy slurry

 
At 02 August, 2011 13:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Did they explain why all the video cameras went out, and why early reports said there was a firefight when apparently there was not?

No.

 
At 02 August, 2011 14:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for answering the question.

 
At 02 August, 2011 14:46, Blogger J Rebori said...

No one needed the question answered who understood three basic rules.

1) Initial reports out of a combat mission are wrong, except just often enough to make it necessary to read them.

2) No one who was not actually on a special ops mission who tells you what happened or didn't happen on it knows what they are talking about.

3) News reporters do not understand the above two rules and will report idiocy simply because someone they trust told them it.

And that is why there is no reason to explain why myths didn't happen.

 
At 02 August, 2011 14:54, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The Seals went in, did their job, got valuable intel and came back safe and sound.

It was flawless!

 
At 02 August, 2011 15:26, Blogger J Rebori said...

"The Seals went in, did their job, got valuable intel and came back safe and sound.

It was flawless!"


Roger that. As I said "Bravo Zulu"

 
At 02 August, 2011 17:41, Blogger Ian said...

Thanks for answering the question.

Speaking of which, did a certain quartet of women from New Jersey get questions answered today?

 
At 02 August, 2011 18:30, Blogger James B. said...

OK, I give. What the hell is Bravo Zulu?

 
At 02 August, 2011 20:33, Blogger 911truthinator said...

This is what goat boy wants to see videos of - "inside job" evidence.
i admit its irrefutable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYFxuYAr5R0

 
At 03 August, 2011 02:16, Blogger Pat said...

C'mon guys, you can't really expect Brian to read that boring story. It's 8500 words and there are no YouTube videos with brilliant and witty guys like Richard Gage to spice things up!

 
At 03 August, 2011 07:29, Blogger J Rebori said...

Sorry, "Bravo Zulu" are the signal flags (the "B" and the "Z") flown from a ship to signal "Well Done" to another.

It's Navy and Marine Corps shorthand to say it for the same reason.

Being an ex-salt myself, I forget others don't know the meaning, but I know a SEAL reading it would know it came from another tar.

 
At 03 August, 2011 07:56, Blogger James B. said...

Ok, well I was Army. We don't get flags.

 
At 03 August, 2011 10:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, so it was the SEALs' job to shut bin Laden up so he couldn't talk? You call that flawless? I call it botched, unless his murder was deliberate. Why did they have to shoot an unarmed man?

 
At 03 August, 2011 11:08, Blogger Mads said...

Because he deserved it.

 
At 03 August, 2011 11:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Being deserving of execution and deserving of murder are two different things. It's very poor form to allow the military to murder persons of enormous intelligence value. It makes it look like someone's trying to cover stuff up.

 
At 03 August, 2011 12:06, Blogger Mads said...

No matter what had happened people like you would claim "stuff was being covered up". It's part of your mental condition that everything, no matter what, is seen as confirming your delusions.

Go on crying over an evil man with thousands of lives on his conscience.

 
At 03 August, 2011 12:06, Blogger James B. said...

Wow, now all of a sudden he is an expert on military intelligence. What a renaissance man.

 
At 03 August, 2011 13:19, Blogger J Rebori said...

Hell, had he been taken alive, Brian would have claimed that every disclosure about 9/11 from him was the product of torture and not to be believed.

 
At 03 August, 2011 14:15, Blogger Mads said...

Or that the real Bin Laden would never let himself be taken alive.

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

James B, I'm not an expert on military intelligence. Perhaps you with your military expertise can explain why it's a smart thing to murder people who could answer very important questions.

JR, it is known that KSM was waterboarded 183 times. Yes, any reasonable person would think that his testimony would be somewhat suspect.

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:43, Blogger James B. said...

Probably because it its extremely unlikely he would actually answer any of those questions, especially with the Obama administration's stand on harsh techniques it would put them in an awkward spot.

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:46, Blogger James B. said...

And ksm was not waterboarded that many times, that is how many pours were made in much fewer sessions. As far as 9/11 goes he freely admitted his role in that both before and after. The waterboarding was used for intel, we didn't need a confession.

 
At 03 August, 2011 16:40, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"WAQo, so it was the SEALs' job to shut bin Laden up so he couldn't talk? You call that flawless? I call it botched, unless his murder was deliberate. Why did they have to shoot an unarmed man?"

Sure you'd call it botched, you were rooting for the pig-fucking freak. Face it, Brain, 9/11 was the happiest day in your life. Corperate America and their robotic enablers were struck in their very heart at the WTC the symbol of Americna greed and power. The attacks also allowed sycophants susch as yourself to go crazy with new conspiracy theories because the old ones had all been played out.

I realize that the SEALs ruined your fun because now you can't say that he got away, and that somehow the CIA was protecting him. I also realize that SEAls intimidate you because their existance puts you way way down on the real man scale next to child moleters and politicians.

They didn't shoot an unarmed man, the flushed the toilet on a worthless piece of shit - nothing more.

"Being deserving of execution and deserving of murder are two different things."

Not in bin Laden's case. There isn't a jury in the US that would convict the SEALs of murder and you know it.

" It's very poor form to allow the military to murder persons of enormous intelligence value."

Based on what? Your extensive experience from being a part of an elite commando unit? Your ten-twenty years in Special Operations crafting successful missions? It's actually an American SOP when dealing with HVTs. Ask Yamamoto.

"It makes it look like someone's trying to cover stuff up."

Only to the delusionally paranoid.

"James B, I'm not an expert on military intelligence. "

Understatement.

"Perhaps you with your military expertise can explain why it's a smart thing to murder people who could answer very important questions."

We didn't murder anybody. We shot bin Laden. Also what makes you think he would answer questions, and if he he would have lied. This assumes that we can't get those answers elsewhere.

Bottom line is whatever he might know wasn't worth the media circus and legal bullshit the country would have been force to go through.

 
At 03 August, 2011 16:56, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, it is known that KSM was waterboarded 183 times. Yes, any reasonable person would think that his testimony would be somewhat suspect."

Thank you for proving my very point.

 
At 03 August, 2011 20:41, Blogger Ian said...

Wow, now all of a sudden he is an expert on military intelligence. What a renaissance man.

I've said before that Brian is a sort of anti-renaissance man: he knows absolutely nothing about a whole host of different subjects.

Anyway, Brian, once again, let me remind you that you're a failed janitor and liar who wears women's underwear and was expelled from the truth movement for being a sex stalker. Nobody cares what you think.

 
At 03 August, 2011 23:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

So James, 183 times is not 183 times if some of them are in the same session?

By that logic, Pat's complaint in the 'About "They Hate Our Freedoms"' post about somebody getting 74 lashes for sodomy should be discounted because all 74 lashes are delivered in one session.

MGF, you are very confused. 9/11 didn't strike a blow at anything except the rights of innocent Iraqis and Afghans and at the rights of the American people. It was an enabling act for the war-mongers, who made billions. Lockheed Martin has $40 billion in military contracts a year.

So now you believe that murder is not murder if it's approved of by American citizens? Why did you specify an American court? How about a Pakistani court? How do you think the verdict would go there?

Taking Yamamoto alive was not on option, idiot. Why don't you draw on your vast chickenhawk experience and tell us why killing someone who knows a lot is a good idea.

To shoot an unarmed man is murder. You spineless wussies are so freaking cowardly that you have let 9/11 turn you into Nazis.

Ian, one of the most dangerous things about lies is that after a while the liar begins to believe them.

 
At 04 August, 2011 07:54, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, so it was the SEALs' job to shut bin Laden up so he couldn't talk? You call that flawless? I call it botched, unless his murder was deliberate. Why did they have to shoot an unarmed man?

You call Bin Laden "Unarmed" when he had an AK-47 nearby and a hand gun? Your colors are showing of who you really support, and it's not the U.S.A.

 
At 04 August, 2011 08:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

To shoot an unarmed man is murder.

To kill nearly 3,000 unarmed people isn't murder by your standards?

Well we all know who you root for, and it's notthe good ol' U.S.A.

 
At 04 August, 2011 10:41, Blogger J Rebori said...

The SEALs had already encountered several men in the compound who were armed and moved to fight the SEALs. The SEALs entering the room and finding bin Laden had fractions of a second to decide if he was or wasn't armed and whether he was or was not a threat. It wasn't a police action, it was a military strike at a legitimate military target, the leadership of a declared enemy. The appropriate action was not to hold fire as a cop should, but to eliminate the threat as is appropriate and acceptable on any battlefield.

Use of the word "murder" is propaganda intended to make the action seem illegal or inappropriate when it was clearly not.

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:05, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

WAQo, so it was the SEALs' job to shut bin Laden up so he couldn't talk?

I guess I'm not seeing why Mihdhar and Hamzi should have been arrested for possibly having friends in al Qaeda, while bin Laden should have been left alive after ordering thousands of deaths over 15 years. You're kind of in bizarro-world on this one.

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, AFAIK bin Laden was unarmed. If you have information to the contrary, please provide it.

Your theory that it's ok to murder an accused murderer would be very poor legal precedent. The police could clean up all their cold cases in very short order if they could just go around killing people they don't like, and then pinning unsolved murders on them.

JR, if it was a military strike it was subject to the laws of war which prohibit the murder of prisoners.

Your belief that the SEALS are incompetent to distinguish an armed man from an unarmed one is silly. If they can't capture a sick old man without killing him, then perhaps they should consider being physicians instead of soldiers.

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, al Mihdhar was known to have attended the Malaysia al Qaeda summit. He had lived in the al Qaeda communications hub in Sana'a for a year or so and was there at the time of the USS Cole attack. He was telephoning back to the Sana'a hub from inside the USA. And the Sana'a hub was monitored electronically by both the NSA and the CIA, and had audio bugs installed inside as well.

He had visa violations. He could have been picked up for questioning. There's no contradiction between a) thinking that it's reasonable to expect that a known terrorist should be picked up for questioning when "the system was blinking red" and the security guys were "running around with their hair on fire" and b) objecting to the illegal murder of an unindicted suspect who could have, once he recognized that he was going to spend the rest of his life as a guest of the USA, been induced to trade information for privileges.

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, one of the most dangerous things about lies is that after a while the liar begins to believe them.

Obviously. That's why you constantly repeat lies about the NIST report and Dr. Sunder and about Willie Rodriguez. You've repeated them so many times that you believe them. It's why you should seek professional psychiatric help.

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, AFAIK bin Laden was unarmed. If you have information to the contrary, please provide it.

Sorry, but the intelligence report is not declassified yet. Can you wait a few yrs. for it ot become public? No?! Ok, you're loss!

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:37, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Your theory that it's ok to murder an accused murderer would be very poor legal precedent.

If someone came and killed our mother, wouldn't you want a revenge killing to justify it? Answer: Yes you would.

FYI: I have no "theories", only facts you cumstain.

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:38, Blogger Ian said...

Your theory that it's ok to murder an accused murderer would be very poor legal precedent. The police could clean up all their cold cases in very short order if they could just go around killing people they don't like, and then pinning unsolved murders on them.

They shot him dead, Brian. Squealing about it won't change that. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

JR, if it was a military strike it was subject to the laws of war which prohibit the murder of prisoners.

They shot him dead, Brian. Squealing about it won't change that. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Your belief that the SEALS are incompetent to distinguish an armed man from an unarmed one is silly. If they can't capture a sick old man without killing him, then perhaps they should consider being physicians instead of soldiers.

They shot him dead, Brian. Squealing about it won't change that. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

And let's not forget the important thing: the SEALs are heroes, and you're a bitter resentful old man with no job, no friends, no sex life, and nothing to do all day but howl on the internet about your failed life. It's very amusing.

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:40, Blogger Ian said...

BTW, Brian's illiterate ranting reads like the kind of stuff one gets from a white supremacist about how Lincoln's actions during the Civil War were "illegal".

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:44, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

American law permits the assassination of an enemy commander in wartime. That the commander may be unarmed and unindicted at the time is irrelevant.

And a lawful killing isn't legally murder. Just so you know.

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:59, Blogger Ian said...

American law permits the assassination of an enemy commander in wartime. That the commander may be unarmed and unindicted at the time is irrelevant.

Hmm, that makes me think of something:

Brian, do you think the Air Corps pilots who shot down the Japanese plane carrying Admiral Yamamoto should have checked to see if he was armed first?

I'll give you time to consult Davd Ray Griffin's latest conspiracy tome on the Pacific War before you respond.

 
At 04 August, 2011 12:17, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"To shoot an unarmed man is murder. You spineless wussies are so freaking cowardly that you have let 9/11 turn you into Nazis."

Which means you will defend us now.

 
At 04 August, 2011 12:20, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"How about a Pakistani court? How do you think the verdict would go there?"

Fuck Pakistan.

 
At 04 August, 2011 12:20, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

American law permits the assassination of an enemy commander in wartime. That the commander may be unarmed and unindicted at the time is irrelevant.

And a lawful killing isn't legally murder. Just so you know.


Right, but you know Brian will say:

"It's still murder because he was unarmed."

When in reality he wasn't and there's nothing Brian can do because he wasn't there to witness everything.

 
At 04 August, 2011 12:27, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

" It was an enabling act for the war-mongers, who made billions. Lockheed Martin has $40 billion in military contracts a year."

As opposed to the billions why were making BEFORE 2001?

Your dried out 1960s hippie bullshit doesn't fly any more.

"Why don't you draw on your vast chickenhawk experience and tell us why killing someone who knows a lot is a good idea. "

Killing bin Laden was a good idea because he's dead now. One less dangerous asshole in the world is a good thing. Bin Laden launched the first successful attack on the continental US since 1812, every day he was breathing was a bad day. The message is clear, fuck with the US and we will hunt you down and kill you not matter how long it takes.

 
At 04 August, 2011 13:00, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You spineless wussies are so freaking cowardly that you have let 9/11 turn you into Nazis.

Uh-oh.

 
At 04 August, 2011 13:18, Blogger J Rebori said...

"
JR, if it was a military strike it was subject to the laws of war which prohibit the murder of prisoners. "


Then isn't it a good thing he wasn't a prisoner yet, so that rule is irrelevant?


"Your belief that the SEALS are incompetent to distinguish an armed man from an unarmed one is silly. If they can't capture a sick old man without killing him, then perhaps they should consider being physicians instead of soldiers."

SEALs (thats the correct spelling, by the way, not SEALS) are not supermen, just a close approximation, especially when compared to folks like you. Al Queda past practices of using explosives and suiciding would mkae it less likely they would take the chance of being killed and shoot first.

Oh, and Osama was hiding behind 2 of his wives making it even harder to see if he was armed. But I guess you think those SEALs have x-ray vision also?

At least we know you didn't read the article you want to comment on, some things never change.

 
At 05 August, 2011 09:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't lie. Credibility is important in the truth movement. If I am shown wrong (and it happens--rarely, because I am careful with my facts) I acknowledge it and stop making the claim. Anybody can easily check what Dr. Sunder said and see that I tell the truth and that you lie.

WAQo, AFAIK bin Laden was unarmed. That's what all available reports say.

You are not my brother, thank god. No, I would not want a revenge killing. And I would not want some poor schmuck shot by the police before there was a chance to establish his guilt.

Ian, the SEALs are military professionals, not heroes. Heroes are for movies. Heroes get their colleagues killed.

RGT, we never declared war on al Qaeda or on Pakistan. If we were in a state of war, then the laws of war apply. Either way, shooting an unarmed prisoner is murder. Under Article VI of the US Constitution "treaties entered into" are the "supreme law of the land". The Nuremberg principles and the UN Charter are treaties entered into.

Yamamoto was a legitimate military target. A sick old man in his bathrobe was not.

WAQo, what happened to the video cameras? Why did they all go off?

MGF, Bush claimed back in 2002 that bin Laden wasn't dangerous any more. He had been captured, unarmed. He was no longer dangerous. You're afraid of a sick old man in a bathrobe half way across the world. What a wussie you are.

JR, all indications are that yes, he was a prisoner. There is no claim that he put up any resistance.

If SEALs are so afraid of dying that they can not adhere to the law, then they should become physicians instead of soldiers. Cops all over the world deal with people who may want to kill them. That doesn't give them a license to kill people because they're scared.

 
At 05 August, 2011 09:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Ian, I don't lie. Credibility is important in the truth movement. If I am shown wrong (and it happens--rarely, because I am careful with my facts) I acknowledge it and stop making the claim."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 
At 05 August, 2011 10:06, Blogger Arcterus said...

^

 
At 05 August, 2011 10:47, Blogger J Rebori said...

"WAQo, what happened to the video cameras? Why did they all go off?"

There were no video cameras involved in the attack, except for one in a "unarmed RQ 170 drone flying more than fifteen thousand feet above Abbottabad"

"The SEALs were not wearing helmet cams, contrary to a widely cited report by CBS."

Those last two quotes are direct from the article this thread is about, so no video cameras failed during the action since there were none to begin with.

"JR, all indications are that yes, he was a prisoner. There is no claim that he put up any resistance.:

A member of the leadership of a group that has declared war is a valid target until he has surrendered no matter how healthy he is or isn't. He didn't have to be combat healthy to run AQ, he doesn't have to be to be shot during an attack.He was standing, mobile, and hiding his hands behind his wives. That doesn't sound like he surrendered to me. SEALs aren't police, they aren't required to wait till they are fired upon or in extremis to take action with lethal force.

 
At 05 August, 2011 11:38, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, what happened to the video cameras? Why did they all go off?

Who said anything about videos during the raid? How do you know there were cameras? Where you present when they killed Bin Laden?

Answer the questions Cpt. Oblivious.

 
At 05 August, 2011 11:40, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Ian, I don't lie.

Understatement of the yr.

WAQo, AFAIK bin Laden was unarmed. That's what all available reports say.

I have a hard time believeing he was "unarmed" when he was near an Ak-47 assault rifle and a hand gun and could easily shot anyone who came into that room.

 
At 05 August, 2011 11:44, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

-- I am -- wrong (and it happens--, because I am care--less with my facts) I acknowledge it and stop making the claim. Anybody can easily check what Dr. Sunder said and see that I tell -- lies and that you tell the truth.


FTFY! LMAO!

 
At 05 August, 2011 11:44, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 August, 2011 13:14, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Yamamoto was a legitimate military target. A sick old man in his bathrobe was not.

bin Laden was 54. You're 57. Do you feel old?

And calling his shirt a "bathrobe" is about like calling his turban a "rag". It's not nice to make fun of Muslims. Knock it off.

 
At 05 August, 2011 14:42, Blogger J Rebori said...

And Yamamoto was 59 when he was killed.

 
At 05 August, 2011 14:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

We never declared war on al Qaeda.

 
At 05 August, 2011 15:06, Blogger Arcterus said...

Epic fail.

 
At 05 August, 2011 15:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Capturing Yamamoto was not an option. Osama was a prisoner. A Japanese military transport plane was a legitimate military target. An unarmed old man in a bathrobe who's been taken prisoner is not.

 
At 05 August, 2011 15:28, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

We never declared war on al Qaeda.

A declaration of war isn't necessary for a lawful military action. And I'm not aware of any treaties to which al Qaeda is a party.

 
At 05 August, 2011 15:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

If al Qaeda is not subject to treaties, then it is not subject to lawful military action.

The laws of war prohibit the summary execution of unarmed prisoners.

 
At 05 August, 2011 15:56, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

If al Qaeda is not subject to treaties, then it is not subject to lawful military action.

If al Qaeda is not subject to treaties, then it not subject to due process.

 
At 05 August, 2011 16:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

You can't have a lawful military action against a non-military group.

We weren't talking about due process. We were talking about the laws of war. Now you're shifting the goal posts. The counterproductive action of murdering someone who has valuable intelligence information, and the right not to be murdered have nothing to do with due process.

 
At 05 August, 2011 16:26, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You can't have a lawful military action against a non-military group.

Sure you can.

We weren't talking about due process. We were talking about the laws of war. Now you're shifting the goal posts.

Hardly. The right to not be killed by the government is very much a due process issue. So is forfeiture of that right.

The counterproductive action of murdering someone who has valuable intelligence information, and the right not to be murdered have nothing to do with due process.

I agree, two SEAL teams against a house full of religious fanatics isn't a fair fight. You're simply confusing "fair" with "legal", and you're grossly misinformed on the law.

 
At 05 August, 2011 22:21, Blogger J Rebori said...

"An unarmed old man in a bathrobe who's been taken prisoner is not."

Too bad for that theory that Osama was not old, and since he was hiding behind his wives could not be accertained to be unarmed, and therefore had obviously not yet been taken prisoner.

 
At 05 August, 2011 22:22, Blogger J Rebori said...

"We never declared war on al Qaeda."

No need to, they declared war on us. Just like Germany in WW2.

 
At 05 August, 2011 22:23, Blogger J Rebori said...

"If al Qaeda is not subject to treaties, then it is not subject to lawful military action."

That is utter gibberish.

"The laws of war prohibit the summary execution of unarmed prisoners."

But since we have already proven that he was not a prisoner, that rule is irrleevant.

 
At 05 August, 2011 22:25, Blogger J Rebori said...

"You can't have a lawful military action against a non-military group."

By that logic the world's navies can not attack and stop the actions of the Somali pirates. It's a pure bullshit position.

 
At 06 August, 2011 10:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 August, 2011 10:33, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The laws of war prohibit the summary execution of unarmed prisoners.

Laws of War dictate:

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

Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope.

So killing Bin Laden was legal by all means, even if they are armed or unarmed during combat.

Now Brian, would you care to protest that what is on that link isn't the truth? Or are you going to cry like a kid in a candy store because mommy and daddy said : "No sweets for you."?

 
At 06 August, 2011 10:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

We never declared war on al Qaeda.

But yet they managed to fly Flight 77 into the Pentagon and declare war on us and you say that we don't have the right to retaliate?

Go to fucking hell you terrorist supporter.

 
At 07 August, 2011 09:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the right to execute is not a right to murder. If bin Laden's murder was ordered by a military tribunal I'd certainly like to know who gave the order, why, who put on a defense for him, and why he was convicted in absentia.

 
At 07 August, 2011 19:53, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Ian, the SEALs are military professionals, not heroes. Heroes are for movies. Heroes get their colleagues killed."

So you must be a hero then.

How many people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq because of the truth movement? See, you and your butt-licking friends and your delusional 9/11 theories were key to the undermining of the anti-war movement. People who wished to protest the war found themselves marching down the street in front of some asswwipe with a "9/11 Was AAn Inside Job!" poster. They found themselves having to defend Bush to retards like you.

The troofers made Iraq possible because they floated the idea that Al Qaeda could never have pulled off 9/11. Since most people aren't inbread, child molesting, anti-Semites they assumed that Saddam was some how behind the attacks. This made the war an easy sell because of the unspoken undercurrent of doubt about the attacks of 9/11nnot being the work of Al Qaeda.

So you need to accept the fact that your work and the work of the troofers has made both war possible, and kept them in motion longer than they needed to be.

You're a murderer, Brian, a war criminal of the first order. You and you're buddy made the war a continuing option. You've made the anti-war movement a joke. If you idiots had been around in 1968 we'd have been in Vietnam through the 1980s.

Suck on that, murderer.

 
At 08 August, 2011 16:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

You are very confused. But that's pretty typical for those who make up their facts.

 
At 09 August, 2011 20:25, Blogger Ian said...

Yamamoto was a legitimate military target. A sick old man in his bathrobe was not.

Who is this sick old man? Whitey Bulger? Ratko Mladic? Well, you can rest easy that both were taken alive.

 
At 09 August, 2011 20:27, Blogger Ian said...

We never declared war on al Qaeda.

Uh, they did declare war on us.

Anyway, Brian, we shot bin Laden and there's nothing you can do about it except squeal and squeal. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

 
At 09 August, 2011 20:28, Blogger Ian said...

You can't have a lawful military action against a non-military group.

I'm guessing you think it was the right decision to end reconstruction and leave the south to the Ku Klux Klan. After all, they're a non-military group.

 
At 09 August, 2011 20:29, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, the right to execute is not a right to murder. If bin Laden's murder was ordered by a military tribunal I'd certainly like to know who gave the order, why, who put on a defense for him, and why he was convicted in absentia.

Nobody cares what you'd like. You're a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves and you can't even mop a floor correctly.

 
At 09 August, 2011 20:30, Blogger Ian said...

You are very confused. But that's pretty typical for those who make up their facts.

Yup. For example, there's this guy who keeps claiming that Dr. Sunder said the towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. He's obviously very confused.

 
At 09 August, 2011 20:32, Blogger Ian said...

You can't have a lawful military action against a non-military group.

Eisenhower was wrong to send the army in to escort black students to Little Rock Central High, right Brian? You can't have lawful military action against a non-military group.

 
At 09 August, 2011 21:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I'm not aware that a military campaign was every mounted against the KKK.

Dr. Sunder said the towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. Anybody who bothers to check the NOVA interview can see that you've been lying persistently about that for months.

The context in which we were discussing lawful military action was that of assassination. Eisenhower didn't assassinate anybody in Little Rock.
Eisenhower'a Little Rock order was to preserve order and protect US citizens' rights.

 
At 09 August, 2011 22:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

So what was that crashed helicopter in the bin Laden compound? Did everybody get away all right from that? They were all picked up by a second helicopter?

 
At 10 August, 2011 04:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I'm not aware that a military campaign was every mounted against the KKK.

Right. And this is a good thing, according to you.

Dr. Sunder said the towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. Anybody who bothers to check the NOVA interview can see that you've been lying persistently about that for months.

See what I mean?

The context in which we were discussing lawful military action was that of assassination. Eisenhower didn't assassinate anybody in Little Rock.

Brian, you said "You can't have a lawful military action against a non-military group." Now you're claiming that you can do exactly that. You're very confused, but that's OK. You're a failed janitor who babbles about modified attack baboons all day and will never have any effect on US policy, so you can be safely ignored.

 
At 10 August, 2011 04:35, Blogger Ian said...

So what was that crashed helicopter in the bin Laden compound? Did everybody get away all right from that? They were all picked up by a second helicopter?

Brian, you could look all this information up yourself. I'm not sure why you're asking ridiculous questions in an obscure blog, except that you desperately crave attention, and us mocking you is the only attention you get. It's sad, really.

 
At 10 August, 2011 08:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, one of the key characteristics of a tyranny is the use of the military against its own citizens.

There's this thing called Posse Comitatus, and yes, I think it's a good thing.

Ian, we were talking about assassinations--not the preservation of order and the protection of people's civil rights.

One reason I ask questions is because I want to know if ya'all know anything about what you're talking about. Clearly you don't.

 
At 10 August, 2011 10:59, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, the right to execute is not a right to murder.

Executing people who clearly have an agenda of killing innocent unarmed people while in combat isn't "murder".

Now, go fuck yourself goat fuck!

 
At 10 August, 2011 11:01, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dr. Sunder said the towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. Anybody who bothers to check the NOVA interview can see that you've been lying persistently about that for months.

Goat fucker is calling Dr. Sunder a liar again.

 
At 10 August, 2011 11:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, by your standard, killing Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, and Gen. Petreaus would not be murder.

Killing "the usual suspects" in order to close the books on a case makes a joke of justice.

Dr. Sunder is a liar. He told NOVA that the reason NIST could not analyze the steel was because it had been scattered in search and rescue efforts. Actually search and rescue efforts ended after one week.

 
At 10 August, 2011 11:48, Blogger J Rebori said...

"WAQo, by your standard, killing Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, and Gen. Petreaus would not be murder."

When they were holding their respective government positions, thier killings, while probably not desirable for the USA, would have been legitimate actions by an enemy during the conduct of war.

The attack on the Pentagon, while upsetting and painful was not a criminal act except for the choice of weapon, the attacks on the WTC however were criminal under the laws of war.

The death of Osama rates the same legality as the deaths of Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice.

 
At 10 August, 2011 11:55, Blogger J Rebori said...

"The context in which we were discussing lawful military action was that of assassination."

Bullshit, in your usual fashion, having realized your claim was absolute crap you are trying to redefine what you said.

To quote you:

"You can't have a lawful military action against a non-military group."

Assassination is NOT the only lawful military action, nor is it required that the target of a military action be a military group. This is simply a case of you saying what ever bullshit comes to mind to defend an indefensible position.

 
At 10 August, 2011 16:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

The death of Osama rates the same legality as the deaths of Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice.

Not when he was unarmed and had effectively been taken prisoner. And legality is only part of the issue. His murder was an offense against truth. History will not judge this kindly.

You're just taking what I said out of context because you think that making me bad can make you look good.

 
At 10 August, 2011 17:08, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Not when he was unarmed and had effectively been taken prisoner. And legality is only part of the issue. His murder was an offense against truth. History will not judge this kindly."

If you had the intellectual honesty to bother reading the article you are commenting on you would know he was hiding behind two of his wives, so he had not surrendered, nor were the SEALs able to tell if he was or was not armed. Therefore he most definitly was NOT a prisoner and the SEAL had every right to shoot him.

But actual facts have no place in your fantasy world.

"You're just taking what I said out of context because you think that making me bad can make you look good."

1) I didn't take you out of context, you want to claim that to try to hide the fact your statement was full of shit.

2) Even in your make-believe context, your statement was bullshit.

3) I don't look better or worse because you look like an imbecile. Your own statements paint you that way, not me.

 
At 10 August, 2011 20:24, Blogger Ian said...

Not when he was unarmed and had effectively been taken prisoner. And legality is only part of the issue. His murder was an offense against truth. History will not judge this kindly.

Poor Brian, he's STILL squealing about the fact that we nailed bin Laden.

Brian, the real offense against truth is your claims about what happened on 9/11.

 
At 10 August, 2011 20:33, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, you still haven't explained how the actions of Eisenhower in sending the 101st Airborne into Little Rock is legal by your definition.

I mean, nobody expects an unemployed janitor and sex stalker to understand the law, but this should be pretty simple even for you.

 
At 10 August, 2011 20:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't know if it was legal for Eisenhower to send troops to Little Rock, and I'm not going to spend any time investigating.

I was not commenting on the article, JR, but on the inability of the posters here to proviee any intelligent commentary on it.

So as usual you take my statements from a week ago out of context.

 
At 10 August, 2011 21:16, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I don't know if it was legal for Eisenhower to send troops to Little Rock, and I'm not going to spend any time investigating.

Of course not. You don't know anything, but that doesn't stop you from babbling your hilariously deranged opinions and then squealing and calling people "girls" when we laugh at you.

 
At 10 August, 2011 23:10, Blogger J Rebori said...

"I was not commenting on the article, JR, but on the inability of the posters here to proviee any intelligent commentary on it."

There was extensive intelligent commentary on it, you would be aware of that had you bothered to read the article.

"So as usual you take my statements from a week ago out of context."

Which statement did I take out of context?

Your absurd claim that "You can't have a lawful military action against a non-military group." A prima facia case of complete idiocy.

Or your moronic argument that a man hiding behind two women has surrendered?

 
At 11 August, 2011 00:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, when the commentators can not answer my very simple questions, I don't see how you can entertain the quaint notion that their commentation is intelligent.

As for your proclamations on international law, would you mind citing some authority on that?

 
At 11 August, 2011 05:05, Blogger Ian said...

JR, when the commentators can not answer my very simple questions, I don't see how you can entertain the quaint notion that their commentation is intelligent.

Brian, you don't have any questions. You just babble about whatever will get you the attention you so desperately crave, as well as throwing nonsense terms like "commentation" in there in a desperate attempt to sound intelligent.

Don't worry, Brian. Nobody thinks you're intelligent. You're a profoundly stupid man with serious mental health issues, which is why you spend all your time posting dumbspam on the internet.

 
At 11 August, 2011 06:26, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, when the commentators can not answer my very simple questions, I don't see how you can entertain the quaint notion that their commentation is intelligent."

Your refusal to read the article pretty much renders your opinion on whether or not any of the commentary on the article is intelligent meaningless. Had you read teh article you would be embarassed to be making some of the claims you are making. I grant you there has been a huge amount of unintelligent commentary on the article, however overwhelmingly that commentary has originated with you.

"As for your proclamations on international law, would you mind citing some authority on that?"

I've made no proclamations of international law, simply pointed out that your citations are irrelevant or your interpretations are absurd on the face of them. Perhaps you can point out where in that article, the first one with some semblence of authority as to what happened, is the precise point when Osama surrendered?

Your absurd belief a man who is hiding and who can not be seen to be unarmed has surrendered is one of your many unintelligent portions of the discussion.

 
At 11 August, 2011 10:07, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, by your standard, killing Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, and Gen. Petreaus would not be murder.

Is that YOUR list of people that YOU want to MURDER?

 
At 11 August, 2011 10:10, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dr. Sunder is a liar. He told NOVA....

See, I told ya you were calling him a liar.

Who really gives a flying fuck what he told NOVA? Noone! He was talking about "explosives" possibly bringing the buildings down.

It's about what he told people in hte NIST report about those exterior panels.

 
At 17 August, 2011 09:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the NIST report does not talk about falling panels.

So first you make a big deal about whether Dr. Sunder lied or not, and then when I point out that he lied to NOVA, suddenly it doesn't matter what he said.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home