conspiracy alert!!

 

What if Bin Laden isn't dead? What if they captured him instead to gain more intel? Eh? Eh?

 

Edit: I write this because of the flip in "we'll show you the pics, we won't show you the pics" from the WH

 

Waterboard him, just for the fun of it.

 

They could easily photoshop something if they were trying to pretend he's dead. As the days go by and it becomes clear he wasn't armed, I wonder why a bigger effort wasn't made to bring him in alive. My best answer is the government executed him to avoid giving him a huge stage.

 

 

Personally, I have nothing against advanced techniques in interviewing that can lead to critical information. I love when Jack Bauer shoots terrorists in the leg.

 

But seriously, if it's vital information that is needed, tough words aren't going to make a f***ing difference.

It's not "tough words." That is not how interrogation works at all. It's 100% about control and manipulation, and keeping the detainee off-balance (waterboarding is one of those ways, but there are others). Jack Bauer is a fictional character, fun to watch but can't be applied to real-life scenarios.

Waterboard him, just for the fun of it.

 

They could easily photoshop something if they were trying to pretend he's dead. As the days go by and it becomes clear he wasn't armed, I wonder why a bigger effort wasn't made to bring him in alive. My best answer is the government executed him to avoid giving him a huge stage.

 

I'm giving it about a week before we get an op-ed that complains that we went about this the wrong way, that he he should have been kept alive, that we had no right under international law to kill him, etc etc. You know it's coming.

I'm giving it about a week before we get an op-ed that complains that we went about this the wrong way, that he he should have been kept alive, that we had no right under international law to kill him, etc etc. You know it's coming.

 

And there is a valid question in there. But it is all speculation because what exactly happened in the compound, and the options they may have had, will never be conclusively known. We can guess what the twenty or so people who were arrested may say, but "our side" will never testify.

There is no single authority somewhere that dictates whether "torture" (however you might choose to define it) is "effective" or "not effective." It's a f***ing pointless argument and as of right now its only use is for partisan hackery.

 

Hilariously, the bin Laden killing proved EVERYBODY right. If you want to continue heavy troop presence in Afghanistan then this proved you right. If you want to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan you were proved right. If you supported the invasion of Iraq you were right. If you supported waterboarding you were right. If you thought waterboarding was torture and torture should never be used you were right. If you wanted to invade whatever country you were right. Confirmation bias is a motherf***er.

 

I still say, as I've always said, this is an intelligence and special forces issue though and not a military one. Navy SEALs and other elite commando-type units are much more equipped to deal with counterterrorism... could you picture PFC Snuffy from the 10th Mountain, with all of 18 months in the Army kicking down doors and taking on high-value targets like UBL? Yeah... no. There's a pretty wide gap in training between the two and it should be pretty obvious.

They could've dragged Osama out onto Freedom Plaza, and gave President Obama a handgun so he can personally execute him in public live on TV and probably a good 80% of the electorate wouldn't have a huge problem with it.

 

That's what's kind of tripping me out about people asking whether it was illegal. Even if it wasn't totally above board, what are you going to actually PROSECUTE someone? Who's going to do it?

Edited May 4, 201114 yr by lostfan

It's not "tough words." That is not how interrogation works at all. It's 100% about control and manipulation, and keeping the detainee off-balance (waterboarding is one of those ways, but there are others). Jack Bauer is a fictional character, fun to watch but can't be applied to real-life scenarios.

Waterboarding is torture, though.

 

And thanks, I hadn't figured out the Jack Bauer part.

Waterboarding is torture, though.

 

And thanks, I hadn't figured out the Jack Bauer part.

It was a rhetorical statement not really intended for you (I pretty regularly come across people who talk about Jack Bauer the stuff he does is stuff we should really be doing)

Sara Palin is a f***ing idiot.

Sara Palin is a f***ing idiot.

*Sarah, and yes.

Sara Palin is a f***ing idiot.

 

Yeah, so you and the rest of the Tea Party/Right can cry photoshop and conspiracy.

 

 

Yeah, so you and the rest of the Tea Party/Right can cry photoshop and conspiracy.

 

This is part of why not releasing photos/video is the right call. A released photo would lead to claims of photoshopping or the man being a bin Laden look alike. Releasing the video of the at sea burial would lead to claims it was fake and staged. There were people who thought Obama's short form birth certificate was a fake, I bet there are people who think his LONG form birth certificate is a fake and he wasn't born in the United States. Despite it being on video, there are people that think the moon landing was fake and 9/11 was a government hoax and/or demolition. Conspiracy theorists (usually, not always, but usually) are just complete idiots with absolutely no case. I understand distrust with government, but nobody is dumb enough to fake the capture and killing of bin Laden.

Edited May 4, 201114 yr by whitesoxfan101

That's what's kind of tripping me out about people asking whether it was illegal. Even if it wasn't totally above board, what are you going to actually PROSECUTE someone? Who's going to do it?

If all the other stuff we've done based on the 2001 AUMF is legal, then this is absolutely legal. It's a targeted strike against the actual head of the organization that we kinda sorta declared war against. The only thing that would make it iffy is the executive order...and of course, executives can sorta rewrite those.

Faking the thing requires too many moving parts... the government really isn't as good at that kind of thing as some people assume or daydream about.

Sara Palin is a f***ing idiot.

 

The best part of that tweet is her saying it's a warning. Yeah, because I'm sure all of those terrorists willing to suicide bomb and die for their cause of killing others will really be scared off by death.

Faking the thing requires too many moving parts... the government really isn't as good at that kind of thing as some people assume or daydream about.

If we'd faked it, it's way too easy to prove otherwise. "Here's a picture of Mr. Bin Laden holding the newspaper announcing his death."

Faking the thing requires too many moving parts... the government really isn't as good at that kind of thing as some people assume or daydream about.

 

That's the whole reason government consipracies don't hold water, especially in the world of 2011. The government couldn't keep a secret like that for particularly long. I'm amazed the bin Laden stuff didn't leak out before we got him to be honest, probably because only a very select few knew about it. Plus, like Balta said, it'd be rather easy to prove bin Laden is still alive if he were.

Edited May 4, 201114 yr by whitesoxfan101

The best part of that tweet is her saying it's a warning. Yeah, because I'm sure all of those terrorists willing to suicide bomb and die for their cause of killing others will really be scared off by death.

terrorists are funny like that, because they want to be killed and they're ready for it, but they still get p**** hurt and talk about revenge when we kill them. Hey whatever gets you off I guess.

terrorists are funny like that, because they want to be killed and they're ready for it, but they still get p**** hurt and talk about revenge when we kill them. Hey whatever gets you off I guess.

 

I doubt they're p**** hurt and want revenge. They are just using it as some sort of (in their mind) justification to do what they do and as proof they're right. I doubt a single terrorist would look at that photo and see it as a warning they should stop.

I doubt they're p**** hurt and want revenge. They are just using it as some sort of (in their mind) justification to do what they do and as proof they're right. I doubt a single terrorist would look at that photo and see it as a warning they should stop.

Similarly someone about to strap a bomb on won't suddenly get angrier becauSe they release the photo

FYI - some graphic photos in here of the aftermath

 

http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound

When I looked at those pictures, my first instinct was "Ive never seen a helicopter that looked anything like that before", there is already a Yahoo article about it. They really needed to destroy that thing more.

Edited May 5, 201114 yr by Soxbadger

FYI - some graphic photos in here of the aftermath

 

http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound

 

god damn those guys are good.. looks like all headshots.. i could never hit like that while on the move. POW right in the kisser!

They could've dragged Osama out onto Freedom Plaza, and gave President Obama a handgun so he can personally execute him in public live on TV and probably a good 80% of the electorate wouldn't have a huge problem with it.

 

That's what's kind of tripping me out about people asking whether it was illegal. Even if it wasn't totally above board, what are you going to actually PROSECUTE someone? Who's going to do it?

 

UN?

When I looked at those pictures, my first instinct was "Ive never seen a helicopter that looked anything like that before", there is already a Yahoo article about it. They really needed to destroy that thing more.

 

Ahh the kind of stuff that we (probably) actually have at Area 51: technology that nobody knows about. I agree that I've never seen a helicopter like that before, but I'm guessing they destroyed it enough so that nobody could take anything out of it other than how it looks.