Damn, I was hoping no one picked up on these gags yet.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/osa...20293/?slide=1

I was expecting more, but okay.

So it turned out that Obama was not armed and did not resist but apparently that's okay because the soldiers had "authority" to shoot him on site. Whose authority? Obama's of course. American imperialism at its fucking best. Illegally enter a country, kill an unarmed person (against Pakistani law) and then tell everyone that it was allowed because they had the presidents permission. Whatever the White House may think the whole world does not belong to the USA.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot; Gaddafi is pissed because the USA have killed his citizens (including his innocent grandchildren) so he sends a hitman to kill Obama. Afterwards he tells everyone that it's legal because the hitman was on his orders. I doubt the world would accept this.

Sorry if I'm being irrational I'm just pissed off by these warmongering imperialistic dickheads who are celebrating Osama's death.

How do you know he's not armed and didn't resist? Last I heard he was using his women as a shield, so where did this new info come from?

From what I understand there were several Navy SEAL teams in on that operation, including SEAL team 6, which is considered the elite of the elite. These guys are trained soldiers that always, under every circumstance, follow orders and the rules of engagement. If they thought there was a reasonable threat to their own lives, they were justified in shooting him. Even if, in hindsight, it turns out there wasn't.

They killed Obama too? Shit.

Yesterday the White House changed their story about what happened. They withdrew their claim that Osama died whilst shooting a firearm and the whole woman-sheild thing also turned out to be false. Last night Jay Carney (Obama's Press Secretary) refused to state whether or not there had been a gun fight at all.

Osama's 12 year old daughter, who's under Pakistani custody, says that her father was actually buried alive before being executed through being shot in the head.

-Rexy

And that's how i've been referring to it from the start. It was a murder. No matter how you doll it up or try to convince yourself it's okay because he was a bad man, it was a murder. And I highly highly doubt that they tried to take him alive, especially if he wasn't armed and was cowering. They shot 2 bullets into that fuckers head and killed him stone cold. That's the plain and simple truth guys!

Fox news have reported that only one person in Osama's compound had a firearm.

I think I agree with the Dalai Lama: "Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures."

But I do think that if it was the case that Osama was unarmed, as were the majority of the people in the compound (13 of whom were children), I think that the American forces have misconstrued the meaning of justice with revenge. And that these actions, whilst bringing joy and closure to many countries around the world, can also damage relations and cause anger and hatred towards America in others.

"Whatever actions may have been attributed to bin Laden, the assassination of an unarmed human being surrounded by his family constitutes an abhorrent act. Assassinating him and sending him to the depths of the sea shows fear and insecurity, (and) turns him into a much more dangerous figure" - Fidel Castro

- Rexy

So let's see the updates from America, they knew Osama was in his house for a while, the skirmish lasted less than 45 minutes, Osama was found in his bedroom, his wife in the corner, they shot him first...THEN they shot his wife in the legs. The American's insist that Pakistan doesn't mind just being entered by a military force...America is such a fucked up nation, at least in the government, nothing wrong with the average Joe in my position.

Oh and Obama never even stated whether to take Bin Baby alive or not!

Apparantly he did:

Michael Scheuer led the CIA's hunt for Bin Lader prior to 9/11 and told the BBC that "absolutely the right decision" to attack Bin Laden without informing Pakistan, as well as it not being a mission concentrating on bring back Osama alive. John Brennan (US counter terrorism advisor) also said that although the SEALs were able and prepared to bring Osama back alive, there were no circumstances where this could be possible.

One of the main reasons, I think, that they killed him on sight was because if they took Osama hostage, there would be a backlash of terrorism (through direct attacks and American hostages being taken and tortured) in order to get Osama back. But there's most likely going to be a backlash of terrorism anyway.

But I did read somewhere that the SEALs involved were told to assume that Osama was wearing a suicide belt/vest and should assasinate him on sight. And that the only way that they could let him surrender was if he was naked (so that they know there wasn't any explosives about). They were also told to assume that the compound was riddled with explosives.

I think it was probably such a quick decision by the SEALs to shoot him (if they did actually shoot him on sight as the US are claiming) that it would've been difficult to determine whether or not he was resisting.

And a woman who was detained by Pakistani police after the raid said that Osama only moved to the compound 5-6 months ago, which makes me the evidence that the US government have about having an informant in August a little shakey.

- Rexy

I don't get why Osama was so important though. Im sure his group will live on without him. On the other hand, I have no idea about this stuff X_x

so they're calling the dump site 'The Sea of Martyrs' now

They never claimed they knew where he was in August. All they knew then was the location of the guy whose house he was living in, whom they knew was a close associate. They put him under surveillance and only later realised that Bin Laden was living there too.


Latest reports suggest that while he was unarmed, there were two guns within close reach.

Ah right. ^_^;; Although regardless of me getting that wrong, there have been so many changes to the American's story that I do find some parts hard to believe.

First he used his wife a shield, then he didn't. Now the reports say that he pushed his wife towards the SEALs.

I don't understand why there wasn't a uniform story that they've stuck to. I understand that it was obviously a stressful and delicate 'mission' but surely they would know what happened pretty soon afterwards? Especially by the time there were any press releases.

Now, apparantly, they (Osama and co) were planning a 10 year anniversary attack on 9/11?

- Rexy

Sure, that makes sense, because Obama and Osama are in totally comparable positions. Both are willing to murder others to bend toward their beliefs. both have murdered thousands before, and both will continue to do so under the belief they are correct.

Oh wait.

Shut the fuck up.

Way to completely miss the point (Although I didn't even make a comparison of the two). My argument was that the USA does not have permission to wander into whatever country they like and assassinate someone.

My argument was that Osama deserved that bullet in the brain, whether you agree with it or not. If you could stop someone from killing 10 people by killing them, would you not do it?

There's no evidence to prove that Osama was directly planning anything at the moment, or even that taking him out would stop any future terrorist attacks.

You may well say that he deserved it because of what he's done in the past, but that sort of decision should not be left to individuals (whether yourself, the soldiers or the President). We have a judiciary system specifically in order to maintain fairness on such decisions.

When you put it like that, killing him was probably the wisest thing to do. Didn't even think about it like that.

Why do you continuously fail to comprehend what I'm saying? Of course Osama deserves death but that doesn't give the USA permission to invade Pakistan and kill him. And don't give me that "we're saving lives by killing him bullshit" (an annoyingly common and stupid argument also used by supporters of capital punishment) because as Nate said there's absolutely no proof he was planning an attack; more potentially lethal is his supporters striking back.

Of course Obama's top priority would be another term in power (and who could blame him) and so would be all too happy to use Osama's life as a pawn in his campaign.

Apparently it's bumming around that Osama and his guys were basically recluses for years in there.

Hah.

Osama was an internationally wanted terrorist. If the US had evidence of him being right there and the Pakistani government denied them access to retrieve him, I'd blame Pakistan first for obstructing the capture of a worldwide wanted terrorist.

Even then, it had to be done one way or the other. Killing Osama is no doubt a major morale blow for those following him and a major morale boost for a lot of Americans (justified or not). And it sends a strong message that if you mess with the US they will not stop until they either capture or kill you. I dunno if that's particularly useful against people who are willing to die for their cause, though.

I hope that somebody else remembers this, because I can't remember the details, but there was once a criminal who was wanted by the Cuban Government. He was over in America, and America denied Cuba the criminal and continued to harbour him.
Is that supposed to make America sound good? I don't think it does.

I think that America were stupid in their decision, and I think that one of the few people who I've heard talk sense about this situation is Fidel Castro, who Rex Tirano quoted in an earlier post.

Remember this guys, this isn't even close to a solution for an end to terrorism, he was just a man but his ideas will live on for centuries.

He had original ideas?

I didn't say that, I'm saying that America seems to think that killing him = game over at the moment.

If you kill Ronald McDonald, McDonalds will still be making burgers in the morning.

True fact.

- Rexy

There's a difference between harboring a random criminal and harboring a terrorist who's wanted worldwide, had a 25 million dollar bounty on his head and was supposedly responsible for the deaths of 3000 people.

If you know someone like that is hiding in your country and you block any kind of attempt to retrieve him, that tells the rest of the world that you support what that person did.

Still, it could just as well have been an op the Pakistani's weren't even aware of because the US didn't want to risk tipping off Osama. I'm sure there's plenty of people in the Pakistani government that were at least somewhat loyal to Osama.

It makes them sound defensively aggressive, which is the way the US has defended itself since the first nuke on Hiroshima. That's why there's still a sub floating around that has 24 nukes on board. It sucks that such a strategy is needed but it's pretty damn effective.

Where can I find him?

Don't act too brash there Ridg3, if you kill him the burger burgler or whatever his name is will pinch all the fucking food! On second thought...