I think it was his youngest wife too or something.Tetsuro wrote:Indeed - and according to the news sources, he hid behind his women during the firefight.
A real ****ing hero right there.
What a gentleman.
They were sent in with the killing him as an option if capture did not look feasible.Warcry wrote:Did they? The impression I got from what I've been reading is that the SEALs were sent in with explicit orders to kill him.
Except, apparently, he didn't: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011 ... rative/?hpBlaster wrote:The moment he grabbed a gun and shot back it was no longer feasible but I don't think they really expected it to happen.
There's lots of contradictory information flying around still and I'm not sure we'll ever have a clear picture of what happened. But I have to admit I'm curious how an unarmed middle-aged dialysis patient who can't walk without a cane managed to resist so much that they had no choice but to shoot him.The New York Times wrote:“In the room with Bin Laden, a woman – Bin Laden’s wife – rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed,” the brief statement said. “Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed.”
...
Under questioning, Mr. Carney said that the White House stood by its claim on Monday that Bin Laden had resisted capture, but said that “resistance does not require a firearm.” Mr. Carney said that the new narrative was the result of “fresh” information.
I think the US had a lot of things to consider when releasing the story. Did he die with a weapon in his hand, fighting for his cause? Then he dies a martyr and will, atleast in the short term, draw more people to his cause. If he died unarmed, perhaps people think he was hoping to get captured, like Saddam, afraid to die.Warcry wrote:
There's lots of contradictory information flying around still and I'm not sure we'll ever have a clear picture of what happened. But I have to admit I'm curious how an unarmed middle-aged dialysis patient who can't walk without a cane managed to resist so much that they had no choice but to shoot him.
حياتيSummerhayes wrote:I like to imagine one soldier managed to get into his mansion after the rest of his team were killed and Bin Laden climbed into a big robotic suit and did battle, and the soldier managed to destroy the thing but only by a hair's breadth.
And since we'll never know the truth, I will continue to assume that happened.
Funding and supplying insurgents isn't exactly a new thing, so it's a bit late on that score.we can't become terrorists.
Militant agitators tend more often just to mock institutions that underwrite protest activities; once you've sufficiently defined the opposition as corrupt, it becomes permissible and even honourable to use resources against the source. Exhibit A: Scientology.it'll give his supporters hard time hating on an enemy who remains nice to you even after you try to kill them
But to defeat a monster, you have to become one. In other words, as long as we try to hold onto our values of honor or human decency, we can never win against an enemy who has none of those.Notabot wrote:There's some appeal to that, but that makes us no better than the evil that we're trying to fight. Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is so insidious because it tends to spiral out of control. It's hard to rise above it, and some would say there's no point in standing against it, but if we really want to end terrorism (idealistic, I know), we can't become terrorists.
Cloudstrifer or whatever?Sir Auros wrote:Keeping him alive would have probably been the worst option if only because of the legal nightmare it would pose and potential for increased attacks. Also pretty good that his body was dumped in the ocean to avoid giving his idiot sympathizers a spot to make a "holy" spot. It's only too bad we didn't use a gutted pig as his coffin.
Hey, remember that ****wit guy from Turkey who was going to marry his cousin and used to post about how he wanted to grow up and become a terrorist? He should come back now.
Assuming it's the same guy from this thread (who, if I recall correctly because I'm not reading that whole mess again, thought it was a-okay to blow up Dutch embassies because Mohammed cartoons were really offensive.), then yes.Blaster wrote:Cloudstrifer or whatever?
Wow, that's vintage Ban Hammer worthy material there!tahukanuva wrote:Assuming it's the same guy from this thread (who, if I recall correctly because I'm not reading that whole mess again, thought it was a-okay to blow up Dutch embassies because Mohammed cartoons were really offensive.), then yes.