Bin Laden Dead!

[viigduckman]

Which is why I would've preferred him to be taken alive. Incarcerate him in a high-security jail with lots of lonely, yet patriotic inmates.

But wishful thinking set aside, the fact is that the world is indeed a better place. I just hope that our boys acted with proper rules of engagement and that justice was rightfully done.

LOL!!!

I'm sure they did we have the best there is when it comes theses things, but I still hope he suffered BIG TIME!!! I guess the world should be relieved im no longer in the USMC or law enforcement. haha

[Sir_Cliff]

Yes, I'm glad he's dead. The world is a better place without him. But we cannot stoop to his level. We need to act above him and his kind.

Well, you're opening up a far wider debate here about how the US conducts its anti-terror operations abroad, including extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, water-boarding, drone attacks, the whole process of carrying out attacks in sovereign states like Pakistan, etc, etc. All of that definitely can and should be debated (and it has been) and I guess the treatment of Osama could be thrown into the mix. Focussing on this particular case seems like a bit of a red herring to me, though, given the extraordinary nature of the operation.

Personally, I doubt he was sitting there unguarded and I doubt he would have willingly gone into US custody. I would also think it's a situation where US troops would have a right to be particularly careful about their own security over that of their target.

[refurbmike]

Oh, don't get me wrong. If he was truly engaged in the firefight, then there's no question about it.

I guess Obama's wording is what got me. He said that bin Laden was killed "after" the firefight, which implies the shooting was over. I know I'm hanging on one sentence, but I would think that speech was carefully worded. Furthermore, as I've read articles recounting the story, it keeps changing to justify his death: At first, I read an article that he "gave resistance"; then I read that "he was in the firefight"; then I read that "he was shooting at American soldiers." All of these articles were released in that sequential order, a day after Obama's speech.

And my question is: Where are these news articles getting their information? If the SEAL team has been sworn to silence as is being reported, how is the story leaking and changing? Sounds like a lot of assumptions and filling in the blanks.

And again, not to right the conspiracy bell, but it's really convenient that they immediately dumped his body into the Arabian Sea, so no autopsy or investigation could happen.

This event is so contrary to Hussein's capture, I guess it just raises too many questions, especially when bin Laden was a greater terrorist icon than Hussein.

[Snoopy]

Furthermore, as I've read articles recounting the story, it keeps changing to justify his death: At first, I read an article that he "gave resistance"; then I read that "he was in the firefight"; then I read that "he was shooting at American soldiers." All of these articles were released in that sequential order, a day after Obama's speech.

And my question is: Where are these news articles getting their information? If the SEAL team has been sworn to silence as is being reported, how is the story leaking and changing? Sounds like a lot of assumptions and filling in the blanks.

Apparently this is the real story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenv...fting-accounts

[refurbmike]

White House is trying to argue this further:

White House: Bin Laden not armed during US raid - World news - Death of bin Laden - msnbc.com

White House press secretary Jay Carney acknowledged that bin Laden did not have a weapon even though administration officials have said that bin Laden resisted during the 40-minute raid. Bin Laden was shot in the head and in the chest during the encounter, Carney said.

There had been conflicting information about the circumstances under which the al-Qaida leader was killed. Some reports said that bin Laden was armed and that the woman was used as a human shield.

[cinder]

Personally, I don't care if he was armed or not. We'll never know the true story, we'll never know what unfolded. The only that is important (to most) is that he's dead. The nature in how that came about is irrelevant. I'm not sure that war time courtesies (or even common courtesies...as courteous as one can be about murder) apply to men who master mind the death and destruction of thousands.

[Sir_Cliff]

As much as in principle I'd say it would have been better to capture him, have due process, etc, I have to admit (and I'm not entirely proud of this opinion) that in practical terms I think it was better to just finish him off rather than bring him back alive to the US (or anywhere else). The target, both physical and symbolic, that a long Osama Bin Laden trial would have been for more terrorist attacks that would have potentially killed hundreds more people before (let's face it) he was found guilty and likely executed seem to me a pretty good justification to send people in with the unspoken instruction to kill him there and then.

It's not pretty, but then nor is the kind of war Bin Laden and his followers are trying to wage and in this instance I think a trial would have had the air of a very risky charade hanging over it in any case.

[refurbmike]

I hear a lot of people say, "We can do whatever we want to him, because he killed thousands of innocent people." And that scares me. Because how are we better than him, if we use his guilt as an excuse to discard what is right? Again, it just makes us into a big bully with a bigger stick. It's no longer about justice, but more about revenge and cruelty.

[cinder]

It's a slippery slope to go down, that's for sure. My mother made a comment about how sick it was that they (the terrorists) gathered around their TVs and watched as the towers came down, cheering all the way. But isn't that what we, in turn, are doing? It's a matter of perspective and the belief in what is right and wrong.

I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve what he got...but I most certainly will not rejoice or celebrate. On the contrary, it's caused a lot of reflection.

I do have to disagree on the cruelty comment. What is cruel is sadistically plotting out the death of thousands of people with meticulous detail and accuracy. We owed him no courtesies, and as Sir Cliff pointed out, there was no WAY we could have brought him back to US land without fear of retribution.

Hypocritical statements? Perhaps. But he most certainly got what I FEEL was justified and coming to him. His death was not cruel, in fact, he saw it coming, when he never gave other innocent family members that same opportunity. He's seen it coming since the day he launched the attacks.

[cinder]

Additionally, I have to applaud how the US handled the after effects. Honoring Muslim tradition of burying the body within 24 hours, and not releasing the photos. I do not need proof, I do not need to see the gruesome photos. The man is dead, and I am not a conspiracy theorist who needs the PROOF.