Quote :

"^^ I'd direct my hatred towards those responsible, which would be my own government. And I'd feel differently about my family being accidently killed vs. being targeted."

Dishonest

5/4/2011 5:12:08 PM

Worlds Greatest Terrorist Kills 3,000 Unarmed Civilians

5/4/2011 5:25:52 PM

5/4/2011 5:35:18 PM

Quote :

"Worlds Greatest Terrorist Kills 3,000 Unarmed Civilians"

I can't think of a way that would better demonstrate how much we as a people value rule of law than to capture the nation's #1 enemy and try him in a court of law. Not some dog and pony show military tribunal, but charge him with an actual crime in a real court. Doing that would not be "letting the terrorists win." Killing him point blank point blank while he's unarmed (and then enveloping the event in a shroud of mystery so that reality and myth are completely indistinguishable) is letting the terrorists win, though.

5/4/2011 5:40:59 PM

Quote :

"Clearly no difference between accidental and intentional civilian deaths."

Everyone knew civilians would be killed beforehand so if you spray poison on your lawn to kill the weeds you KNOW the grass will be killed as well. You are INTENTIONALLY killing the grass in order to kill the weeds as well.

5/4/2011 6:31:37 PM

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article1050673.ece/Osamas-daughter-watches-unarmed-farther-killed

Quote :

"Osama bin Laden's 12-year-old daughter, Safia, has reportedly told Pakistani investigators that her father was captured alive by US special forces before being shot dead in front of his family."

Another story that contradicts what the government has told us.

5/4/2011 10:27:57 PM

Quote :

"The military has the best nonlethal weapons in the world. They chose not to use them"

lol, obviously you've been on several raids, well maybe not, but i have and i'm not bringing a paintball gun into a known terrorists compound

and all of the "nonlethal" weapons we had were actually labeled "less lethal", they would still kill, so thats a moot point, but i'm still not bringing a paintball gun into osama's compound

5/5/2011 1:15:42 AM

Quote :

"Another story that contradicts what the government has told us."

because osama's family certainly has no interest painting americans in a bad light

5/5/2011 7:30:30 AM

^
Of course, just like the US has interest in the opposite. Who knows which side is telling the truth at this point?

5/5/2011 8:06:31 AM

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 8:49 AM. Reason : idiots]

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 12:16 PM. Reason : image bombing is a no-no -qfred]

5/5/2011 8:48:59 AM

^
really

5/5/2011 8:51:40 AM

Quote :

"Killing him point blank point blank while he's unarmed (and then enveloping the event in a shroud of mystery so that reality and myth are completely indistinguishable) is letting the terrorists win, though."

I agree that it wasn't 100% tactful, but you're not considering the rules of engagement here. This is Bin Laden, the poster-boy for suicide bombers. If I were commander of the mission, I wouldn't let any American within 20 feet of him unless he was naked and spread eagle on the ground.

On another point, killing him while resisting capture is highly preferable to holding him captive. Thats a massive can of worms, from both a practical and political standpoint.

Even so, all things considered, it's too early to assume the mission's intent was to kill him. The story is currently "he seemed to be reaching for a weapon", which is highly plausible given the circumstances.

5/5/2011 9:39:33 AM

So you would sacrifice your curiosity:

Quote :

"I'd be curious how much of his rhetoric he believed and how much was just bravado to maintain control. Same with Osama."

For this:

Quote :

"Why waste our tax payers dollars with a trial that will be assumed a sham, will find him guilty without any doubt, subject us to blackmail from people willing to do anything to get him out alive while he is on trial and risk more lives, to end up at the exact same spot."

Sounds like you're a selfish prick.

5/5/2011 9:47:41 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8493391/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Blackout-during-raid-on-bin-Laden-compound.html

How convenient.

5/5/2011 9:54:00 AM

^
Wow. What the fuck.

5/5/2011 9:56:25 AM

I think we can go ahead and lock this thread as well, now that the mods have dropped any pretense of fair and open discussion. Unsurprising, but discouraging nonetheless. Never question the mainstream narrative.

5/5/2011 11:52:04 AM

Or maybe the idea is that we don't need a new thread for every deluded rant about Osama bin Laden. I'm sure you're free to post your links to obscure Internet theories in this thread.

5/5/2011 11:56:35 AM

^^
Can you voice your support here:

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=612491

Quote :

"actually, theDuke866 does in fact have some right to decide what merits discussion. that's precisely what moderators are for you also have some right to appeal, as you have done. i personally think it's a stupid thread that will reveal no new information, will change nobody's mind on the issue, and will do nothing but incite more pointless arguing, eye rolling and name calling in the soap box and I have no problem with the thread having been locked. however, if 5-10 people will sign their name to this thread that they do in fact have an interest in discussing this conspiracy theory, i will consider unlocking it."

5/5/2011 12:00:40 PM

Dude. You have stated, on many occasions, that we have the right to overthrow any government for humanitarian reasons. You are completely oblivious to reality and you have consistently shown an unwillingness to examine these issues with intellectual honesty.

5/5/2011 12:01:29 PM

Quote :

"Wow. What the fuck"

Yes, what the fuck does it matter? Stop getting blown away by the revision of inconsequential details.

5/5/2011 12:11:02 PM

That is NOT inconsequential. The story from the beginning was that Obama and his guys watched the whole thing unfold. Now we're being told that they didn't see anything? What were they even looking at?

5/5/2011 12:12:03 PM

^^ That's inconsequential? Wow... what a good blind sheep.

5/5/2011 12:16:25 PM

media conjecture != official "story"

You probably are already thinking that picture was taken while Obama and Crew were watching a blank screen.

5/5/2011 12:20:47 PM

OBL declared war on the US over a decade ago. When you're at war you try to kill the leader of your opposition.

Who gives a shit if he was unarmed or not, the goal is to kill him.

Game over.

5/5/2011 12:26:07 PM

Quote :

"media conjecture != official "story" You probably are already thinking that picture was taken while Obama and Crew were watching a blank screen."

You're the one making assumptions here...not us.

5/5/2011 12:52:16 PM

Quote :

"media conjecture != official "story""

This. Don't get me wrong, Obama couldn't have given the conspiracy theorists a better set up than the way this whole thing went down, but as far as I know, neither Obama nor any of his staff every said they were watching a live video feed from inside the compound. If I had to guess if they were watching anything it was some sort of drone feed or other birds eye view, where of course there would be a period where they didn't know what was going on inside, because they can't see it.

5/5/2011 1:00:02 PM

^
It was actually claimed by John Brennan, the US counter-terrorism chief, in a White House briefing.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-02/tech/bin.laden.video_1_bin-terrorist-leader-cia-director-leon-panetta?_s=PM:TECH

Quote :

""We were able to monitor on a real-time basis the progress of the operation, from its commencement, to its time on target, to the extraction of the remains," Brennan said. "We were able to have regular updates to ensure that we had real-time visibility into the progress of the operation.""

He should know, since he was in the situation room. (back right, white shirt)



[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 1:03:33 PM

Quote :

"We were able to have regular updates"

that implies it wasn't a second by second live viewing throughout the entire operation

5/5/2011 1:06:11 PM

Quote :

"from its commencement, to its time on target, to the extraction of the remains"

Quote :

"real-time visibility"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8493391/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Blackout-during-raid-on-bin-Laden-compound.html

Quote :

"Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off."

5/5/2011 1:09:06 PM

if i am on my cell phone with my wife as i drive to work, from the minute i leave home, to the moment i arrive home in the evening, it is reasonable to characterize that as real-time communication. i may only be giving her regular updates throughout the day, and i may even experience momentary blackouts since my work building doesn't provide excellent reception

i don't think the additional details provided necessarily contradict the previous statements

5/5/2011 1:17:16 PM

^
I might accept that if they give us a reason why the feed cut out.

5/5/2011 1:25:14 PM

probably had AT&T

5/5/2011 1:56:11 PM

Quote :

"You're the one making assumptions here...not us."

Says the person who JUST POSTED THE PICTURE I WAS REFERENCING. Please show me where the administration says "OK here in this picture we are watching the live feed from the soldiers". For all we know they were watching my little pony while waiting for the Navy Seals facebook updates to push to their iphones.

Leon Panetta, from the very article you linked:

Quote :

"We did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound"

See? Here he specifically states that they were not directly monitoring the actual conduct. No where does he say the word "Blackout" He just states that for 25 minutes, there were no updates. He never said anything to indicate that wasn't unexpected. So far, this entire story is an EMBELLISHMENT.

5/5/2011 2:30:01 PM

Quote :

"Says the person who JUST POSTED THE PICTURE I WAS REFERENCING. Please show me where the administration says "OK here in this picture we are watching the live feed from the soldiers". For all we know they were watching my little pony while waiting for the Navy Seals facebook updates to push to their iphones."

I was just showing that he was present in the situation room during the operation. No one knows what they're looking at in the picture, but at some point they were looking at live video.

Quote :

"See? Here he specifically states that they were not directly monitoring the actual conduct. No where does he say the word "Blackout" He just states that for 25 minutes, there were no updates. He never said anything to indicate that wasn't unexpected. So far, this entire story is an EMBELLISHMENT."

A few posts up...

Quote :

"Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off."

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 2:45:52 PM

Am I feeding a troll? Someone please tell me.

5/5/2011 2:52:01 PM

Why do you think I'm trolling? Everything I've posted is a fact.

We don't know whether they accidentally or intentionally turned off the feed at this point, if that's what you're talking about.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 2:53:55 PM

Oh I just realized what you mean. You're right, he didn't actually say the word blackout. I misread. Regardless, at some point they lost the feed or cut the feed off and we don't know why.

5/5/2011 3:35:52 PM

We don't know quite a lot about how it actually went down...so rampant speculation is in order?

5/5/2011 3:46:45 PM

I get the impression from Leon's statement that they didn't have a live video feed at all. At least, not in the way that people are imagining it.

5/5/2011 3:49:34 PM

The media sure seemed to think so. If you had watched cable news Monday, you'd think Obama had streaming video and that the SEAL team asked him for permission to pull the trigger.

5/5/2011 3:55:19 PM

Quote :

"We don't know quite a lot about how it actually went down...so rampant speculation is in order?"

My biggest concern is not that we don't know a lot--that's to be expected. It's that the details are changing and there are differing accounts. First, Osama had a gun and was firing, now he didn't and wasn't (but was resisting). First, he hid behind his wife, now he didn't. First, they killed Osama's wife, now they only shot her in the leg. John Brennan said "“If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that.” but Osama's daughter said they executed him after capture.

Please don't assume I'm making unfounded assumptions (rampant speculation?). I'm just presenting the information available and scrutinizing it.

Quote :

"I get the impression from Leon's statement that they didn't have a live video feed at all. At least, not in the way that people are imagining it."

What kind of information do you think they had? The news article mentions "live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets", although not in a direct quote from Panetta.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 4:02:48 PM

You're falling into the classic conspiracy theorists hindsight trap: reports immediately following major events are contradictory and unreliable. Encountering contradictory reports is not evidence of a cover-up, it's evidence of unprofessional journalism.

Quote :

"but Osama's daughter said they executed him after capture."

I totally believe her, too.

Quote :

"I'm just presenting the information available and scrutinizing it."

I wish you were actually scrutinizing the data, because from here it looks like you have a conclusion ("something is fishy") and are now looking at the data in a way that supports this conclusion.

Not only that, the US Government and Armed forces aren't some gigantic monolith where every mouthpiece has the same story. People make mistakes, repeat crap they heard as "facts", and talk to journalists before having their actual facts straight.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 4:11:26 PM

9-11 Victim's Family Wants Proof of Bin Laden Death

Quote :

""I'm honored the President of the United States is coming to New York," he said. "[But] to me its just going to be a photo op." Jeannie Evans, of Elmont, who lost her baby brother firefighter Robert Evans on 9/11 will also not be there Thursday. She wasn't invited. "I guess I feel lucky and leftout," Evans said as she held a picture of her brother. "Its always a select few. Is it fair? No. We all have voices." Evans says she will probably watch Obama's visit on television but wishes she could ask him a few questions. "Why not show us proof, that Bin Laden was killed? I would like to see that," wondered Evans."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/wpix-family-unhappy-about-obama-visit,0,4037272.story

The line that we don't want to spike the football is ridiculous. We "spike the football" with every troop, tank, and base we have in what Muslims consider their holy land. The terrorists couldn't hate us more than they already do and are doing whatever they can to harm us.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

5/5/2011 4:17:15 PM

^^
Well something is obviously fishy. It could be unprofessional journalism. It could be simple mistakes. It could be a cover-up for something. I'm not jumping to any conclusions.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 4:18:04 PM

I agree that the whole story is incredibly suspicious, and the fact that it keeps changing doesn't help their case. Also all evidence (the photos, the video, the body) that could potentially be used to validate the official story continues to disappear. There are plenty of question marks surrounding this scenario to warrant suspicion. I have no idea if what we're being told is true or not, but for anyone to act like we should just blindly believe whatever the government feeds us, well that's just ignorant. If this were any organization but the US government, you wouldn't believe it. Most likely if it were Bush in office still instead of Obama, you wouldn't believe it, and he'd be getting blasted for incompetence at every turn.

As for contradictions, this article points out several: http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts304.html

5/5/2011 4:30:16 PM

The "firefight story" linked by that website links to a DOD press release from 2002! Nothing else is cited.

And I'm not saying "believe the official story outright". I'm saying "I'm not convinced we've even gotten the official story yet."

How much of what you've heard about this came from Obama's lips and how much have you heard came from a reporter repeating something "someone anonymous" said. One of these things is officially coming from the US government and the other is not.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 4:40 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 4:39:32 PM

Quote :

"The "firefight story" linked by that website links to a DOD press release from 2002! Nothing else is cited."

It was probably an article about Jay Carney's press release that was moved or deleted

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/latest-national/24010-white-house-press-briefing-by-jay-carney-may-3-2011.html

Quote :

"They were engaged in a firefight throughout the operation, and Osama bin Laden was killed by the assaulting force."

Quote :

"How much of what you've heard about this came from Obama's lips and how much have you heard came from a reporter repeating something "someone anonymous" said."

Everything I've mentioned has been stated by an administration official. No anonymous persons. I can give you sources on anything you'd like.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 4:49 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 4:49:12 PM

Ok, then source this:

Quote :

"Osama had a gun and was firing,"

5/5/2011 4:54:18 PM

Quote :

"The news article mentions "live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets", although not in a direct quote from Panetta."

"live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets" conflicts with a direct quote from Panetta. I'm likely to believe the direct quote before the indirect reporting.

5/5/2011 4:57:28 PM

^^
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54474159/Osama-Bin-Laden-Death-John-Brennan-Q-A-Assistant-to-the-President-for-Homeland-Security-and-Counterterrorism-5-2-2011-Full-Transcript

Quote :

"Q You said that Osama bin Laden was actually involved in the ?re?ght, and we had -- it hasbeen reported that he reached for a weapon. Did he get his hand on a gun and did he ?rehimself? MR. BRENNAN: He was engaged in a ?re?ght with those that entered the area of the house he was in. And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don’t know. "

So he doesn't know whether or not Osama fired, but he did say he was engaged in a firefight.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 5:06:03 PM