BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 03:31 PM

If they killed indiscriminately you would expect more deaths and a broader range of victims.
As I said, the non combatants had plenty of time to hide away.
I would be very suspicious of anyone standing to meet such an assault.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 02:15 PM

Silas, since when was that a "residential compound" and not a headquarters for Al Qaeda?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 01:03 PM

"And, not one of the children was even injured."

And they are to be congratulated for THAT?????


A bunch of well armed highly trained troops bursts into a residential compound who's residents are almost certainly unarmed, they seem to kill indiscriminatly, but its OK becaus etyhey missed killing the kids.

What a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 12:57 PM

The body count argues against tha Silas.
And, not one of the children was even injured.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 12:05 PM

Keith, it's not identifing 'non-combatents that is the problem, its identifying 'combatents'. However, it seems to me that they wern't too bothered anyway and we have to assume that if they were shot, they were combatents.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 11:47 AM

Identifying non combatants would not be as hard as you suggest Silas.
When the helicopters landed outside the compound and the shooting started, they would be the ones hiding under cover.

What would you be doing?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 11:15 AM

So Silas add up the bits and pieces so far and what do you get?

1: Suspect compound under close observation for nine months, the construction of the compound was unique, eight times the size of adjacent compounds but with no telephone or internet facilities -

"The bottom line of our collection and analysis was that we had high confidence that the compound held a high-value terrorist target. There was a strong probability that it was bin Laden.";

2: Pattern of behaviour and routine of life inside the compound mapped and logged, visitors identified and no doubt checked up on. Replica of the compound built to aid training of the attack team.

3: No positive, or definitive ID on bin Laden obtained by those watching from the house nearby does not mean that there was no positive ID period. IIRC Barack Obama said that he waited until he got positive ID before giving the operation the go-ahead, that positive ID could have come from other sources;

4: US Navy SEAL Team were relieved of any order to capture bin Laden alive, if he surrendered then all well and good, if not then kill him.

5: A man shot in the face (left eye) whilst fleeing towards the threat he was confronted with? DNA for bin Laden supplied by Saudi Authorities matched that of the body 100%, bin Laden's son was present ans was also killed, photgraphs taken were run through facial recognition programmes again 100% match, bin Laden's wife identified the remains as being those of Osama bin Laden.

6: Five people were killed Osama bin Laden, Hamza bin Laden, a male courier, couriers brother and one woman.

7: None of the helicopters used in the raid were meant to land inside the compound. There was no crash, the special Chinook suffered a mechanical problem it had to land, a reserve machine was called in and the damaged machine was deliberately destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 10:07 AM

I still fail to see what relavence this has, however, as you say, they had been spying since August and still had no positive ID. Quite remarkable then that they new who were the combatants even though they could not even identify the one person they were looking for...

This quote from the same article is interesting, isn't it?
"A senior Pakistani official said the dispute represented a clash between "Pakistani hyper-nationalism and American arrogance"."

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 09:46 AM

Psst Silas, looks as though a few more of my assumptions were in fact perfectly correct:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/15/pakistan-arrests-five-spying-cia

"The CIA hideout in Abbottabad was set up some time after last August, when the CIA began to suspect Bin Laden could be hiding in the area, less than a mile from a major Pakistani military facility.

Watching from behind mirrored glass, CIA officials used telephoto lenses and infra-red imaging equipment to establish a "pattern of life" inside the compound and eavesdropped on voices inside. But they never conclusively identified Bin Laden."

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 08:27 AM

"Known Fact"

Really?

The only known facts are that they went in, carlessly lost a helicopter, shot dead and injred a number of people, one of which was supposed to be Bin Laden, and came out again.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 08:19 AM

Well Silas, all things are relative including knowledge and "almost nothing" is a damn sight better than being completely and utterly clueless as you have more than adequately demonstrated that you are.

But as you have not been able to directly challenge one single "assumption" of mine (most of which are known fact) I do not think that I need respond to any more of your idiotic ramblings.

Most in the world, including myself, are absolutely delighted that this sorry piece of sh*t has been got rid off, he was undeniably a complete and utter waste of space and oxygen, the world is a far better place without him.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 05:05 AM

Yes matey, fantasy world. You know almost nothing but are very big on your assumptions.
Strikes me that the way that they differentiate between combatants and non-combatants are the ones that were shot were, the ones that were not wern't.

You will have to admit that the good old US do not have a very happy record in these matters and incidents of 'friendly fire'

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 12:48 AM

Don T, that would be the rescue attempt where her captors moved her at the last minute and she broke free and hid in a room in the compound that was presumed at the briefing to be empty, or if people were detected there (infra-red) they were to be presumed as enemy?

Of course errors and mistakes are made in the real world, yes things do go wrong, except for you of course who never fail and never make any mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 12:44 AM

Fantasy world Silas?

"bin Laden's" location identified to within 12 miles by Afghan Intelligence in 2004.

"bin Laden's" location identified to the city/town they actually found "him" in in 2007.

"bin Laden's" compound identified in August 2010

"bin Laden's" presence confirmed and compound attacked on 2nd May 2011.

Now what was my fanasty world version again? Oh yes it ran something like this:

"I think in this case the compound had been under observation for quite some time. The numbers of men, women and children in the compound were known.

The men would definitely be classified as combatants (armed or not)

The women would be classified as potential combatants depending on what the observation team reported

The children would be classified as non-combatants

THAT SILAS OLD SON IS HOW THE ELITE SOLDIERS WOULD KNOW"

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 07:44 PM

""Wonder what they would be like in a hostage situation.""

We know exactly. Remember the female aid worker in Afghanistan?

It wasn't long ago.

Seems they tossed a grenade into a building containing a hostage and, surprise surprise, it killed her.

At first they claimed the other side killed her, but American grenade fragments would have been hard to explain away, so they came clean.

Makes you think though! If they were going to blow her up, the whole business was a bit pointless.

Still, what the hell, they got the kidnappers so that's all right then.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 05:35 PM

I think you are living in a fantasy world mate.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 03:31 PM

Ehmm Silas I think in this case the compound had been under observation for quite some time. The numbers of men, women and children in the compound were known.

The men would definitely be classified as combatants (armed or not)

The women would be classified as potential combatants depending on what the observation team reported

The children would be classified as non-combatants

THAT SILAS OLD SON IS HOW THE ELITE SOLDIERS WOULD KNOW

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 10:59 AM

Sorry, just where did this qualification about 'all iside considered to be enemy combatants' come from - how would they know if the person they were shooting was considered to be an enemy combatent?

HOW WOULD YOUR ELITE SOLDIER KNOW?

Or is it a case of just shoot the buggers anyway, after all, they are just a bunch of ragheads?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 10:54 AM

"You get a bunch of elite troops, they force entry into a private residence inside another country and kill everyone in sight just in case they are armed? And thats OK is it?"

If all inside are considered to be enemy combatants YES most certainly, not one of them alive is worth one of ours dead.

As they obviously were not in the case of Osama bin Laden's pad in Abbotabad not everyone in the compound was killed.

"Wonder what they would be like in a hostage situation." - Guest Jon

Normally pretty good - it is a mission that they are trained for. One of the best has to be Operation Thunderbolt (Entebbe), one of the worst has to be Operation Eagle Claw (US Embassy Hostage rescue Tehran 1980) Recently the missions by both RAF/SAS/SBS to lift 150 civilians out of Libya went well. Given the choice between the uncertainty of getting my head sawn off for a video or the chance of me getting killed in an attempted rescue I'd yell come and get me boys every bloody time (Because at least in the latter scenario I'd be taking some of the bastards with me).

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 09:14 AM

Wonder what they would be like in a hostage situation.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 09:09 AM

OK. So the situation is this then, correct me if I am wrong.

You get a bunch of elite troops, they force entry into a private residence inside another country and kill everyone in sight just in case they are armed? And thats OK is it?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 09:06 AM

You find yourself confronted by an enemy, you have no idea whether he is armed or not, if you want to hang about and take the chance betting on the fact that he not then more fool you, we'll send flowers. If you do not not know whether he or she is armed or not and they are not definitely surrendering, then kill them - it cuts out oven doubt, whatever the case you have "disarmed" them - they can no longer use their arms.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 02:06 AM

"that being the most effective way of 'disarming' him."

Oh dear. Look, how can you disarm an unarmed person. Again - these are YOUR words.

Do try to keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 05:17 PM

Ah Silas, what's up, sulking because you cannot demonstrate in any way shape or form that I stated that every one who was killed was armed? Why not just admit that you were in error attempting to make a stupid and irrelevant point.

Guest Lively, as far as the death of Osama bin Laden goes I already know all I want to know - The SOB is dead - Good Riddance.

Terrorists all over the world might be worried about what precedent it sets - It doesn't worry me one jot.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 03:10 PM

"what has it got to do with anyone other than them?"

That is a question you should probably ask the UN human rights council, after all it was the UN which publicly posted the request for full disclosure from the US, up on their "news and events" web page in the first place.

If you are really interested to know more on the matter, you can contact them directly about it:

For more information and media requests, please contact: Ms. Pasipau Wadonda-Chirwa (Tel: [phone] / email: [e-mail]) or Mr. Nikolaus Schultz (Tel: [phone] / email: [e-mail]) or write to [e-mail] or [e-mail].

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 02:06 PM

Well Mr T, this proves the old adage, never get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Sorry matey, I thought you had more about you, I was wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 01:43 PM

"Therefore, either they were armed and consequently shot, or they were not armed and offered no threat and were not shot."

I rather liked this bit of the above:

"or they were not armed and offered no threat"

I will give you an example of the idiocy of that remark. You pull a gun on me for whatever reason if you let me approach you, or you approach me with that drawn gun and get closer to me than 3 metres. I can guanrantee this, your gun is now of greater danger to you than it is to me - because I will shoot you with it.

My guess is that the US Navy SEAL Team members are trained in much the same way as our Special Forces. If they are covering anybody with any firearm they will not be allowed within 5 metres if they attempt to close that distance you shoot them.

By the way how come Osama bin Laden was shot in the face if he was fleeing? Nobody ever came back to me on that, it suggests he was fleeing towards the threat - does that not seem odd to anybody?

"Without wishing to sound terribly naive, one would presume - not unreasonably I think - that as and when the US has responded to the UN's request and the desired inquiry has taken place, that an update to the UN's request will be publicly posted on the same UN web page that the UN's request has been publicly posted."

Why what has it got to do with anyone other than them? Particularly if they have been told the information and the details are considered "Secret" or "Confidential" - Perhaps Mr Assange knows.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:56 AM

"Psssst Guest lively how do you know that they haven't already given the UN all the information and that the UN aren't completely satisfied? Or do they have to run all this past you personally."

Without wishing to sound terribly naive, one would presume - not unreasonably I think - that as and when the US has responded to the UN's request and the desired inquiry has taken place, that an update to the UN's request will be publicly posted on the same UN web page that the UN's request has been publicly posted.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:30 AM

Well, let's look at your two sentences. First you say that they are capable of evaluating a threat and reacting accordingly. Second you say that to disarm a person you have to kill them.
Therefore, either they were armed and consequently shot, or they were not armed and offered no threat and were not shot.
I fail to see how you can draw any other conclusion from what you have written.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:26 AM

Psssst Guest lively how do you know that they haven't already given the UN all the information and that the UN aren't completely satisfied? Or do they have to run all this past you personally.

Silas

"What you are saying then is that every one they killed was armed and the mission was to kill Bin laden." - The words that you tried to put into my mouth - True

Example 1: (As offered by Silas)
"they are trained to be capable of instantly evaluating threats and reacting accordingly"

Example 2: (As offered by Silas)
"The types of operations these troops are used for depends on them killing their enemy - that being the most effective way of disarming him."

Please tell me where in either of the examples quoted the word "armed" appears? Please provide an example where I have stated that "every one they killed was armed"

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 08:53 AM

"As there is no outcry from the UN I would venture the opinion that they already know everything they want to know and need to know about the operation."

Correct so far as there has been no "outcry" from the UN, but a request for full disclosure from the UN human rights council, has been made:

    "In respect of the recent use of deadly force against Osama bin Laden, the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards."

http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10987&LangID=E

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 08:40 AM

Well

"they are trained to be capable of instantly evaluating threats and reacting accordingly"

And

"The types of operations these troops are used for depends on them killing their enemy - that being the most effective way of disarming him."

These are your words...

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 08:25 AM

As there is no outcry from the UN I would venture the opinion that they already know everything they want to know and need to know about the operation. The same goes for the Government of Pakistan. Recent revelations indicate that the US will be sharing less and less information with the Pakistani miltary and Intelligence Services, while the traffic going the other way will have to increase dramatically if Pakistan still wants US aid.

Calls for anti-Taliban strikes against North Waziristan can now no longer be shuffled aside and ignored by the Pakistani Government, if they do not take any action then the US most certainly will.

"What you are saying then is that every one they killed was armed and the mission was to kill Bin laden."

Why must everything be reduced to idiotic over simplification?

I am saying that everyone they killed was armed? Where have I said that everyone they killed was armed? Please show me? Or are these words that you yourself are putting in my mouth? I have got no idea whether or not everyone they killed was armed, the point is irrelevant, if they were not openly surrendering, they remained as enemy combatants and could legitimately be shot.

As to the orders for the mission again I have not got a clue what they were exactly. However it would not surprise me at all if the mission was to kill bin Laden, or kill whoever was posing as bin Laden. Much tidier doing it the way it was done - No protracted proceedings during the course of which thousands could have been put at risk, hostages taken and executed. Far, far better, "Bang", "Splash", "Done", no shrines, no place of memorial, no point of focus.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 07:42 AM

OK Mr T.

What you are saying then is that every one they killed was armed and the mission was to kill Bin laden.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 07:37 AM

"Guest lively So the UN get to see what they request and then tell who that was all well?
What kind of transparancy is that, and would the likes of Silas and Co believe what the UN tell them?"

If the US were to agree to the UN's request for transparency, what kind of transparency is that?

I guess it would be the kind of transparency which makes the United Nations privy to details about this operation, which thus far only the the Obama administration is privy to.

As for Silas, he'll have to speak for himself.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 07:22 AM

"As you rightly say, you train these guys intensively they are possibly the elite in their chosen profession. Guys who are supposed to know what exactly is a threat and what isn't, how to effectively disarm an enemy, how to kill efficiently. On that I think we would agree."

- they are definitely the elite and are extremely well trained.

- they are trained to be capable of instantly evaluating threats and reacting accordingly (That is a great deal different to your take on things, the situations they are put into are almost never "threat free" environments, even when they are purely acting as escorts and body-guards as in Libya earlier this year)

- they are trained "how to effectively disarm an enemy"? Where on earth did you get that from? The types of operations these troops are used for depends on them killing their enemy - that being the most effective way of disarming him.

"Tell me, why were they wearing helmet cameras? There can be only one reason – to record the events as they unfolded."

Absolutely, it also makes the debrief after the operation more efficient and effective. You actually see what went right and you see what went wrong. The footage however is "for their eyes only" not for public consumption, why on earth would you want to gift to your enemies the exact nature of such an attack - after all they might be better prepared the next time as a result of such idiotic exposure.

For those such as yourself, they would appear in a bad light irrespective of what the footage showed, as if it did show them in a good light you and such as you would dismiss the film as "disinformation" and something concocted by your Government to deceive you.

Guest lively So the UN get to see what they request and then tell who that was all well? What kind of transparancy is that, and would the likes of Silas and Co believe what the UN tell them?

Apparently you now have some US Treasure hunter looking for ObL's body, to "find out the truth". Obviously he has more money than sense. Bottom line is that Al-Qaeda was forced into admitting that Osama bin Laden had been killed (personally I believe that he died back in Tora Bora in 2001)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 06:30 AM

I don't think the US should be expected to publicly release images of the shooting of OBL, but I think it appropriate that they release such images and other pertinent information, to the UN (as has been requested). All supposing the Obama administration aren't telling porky pies about aspects of the operation, there should be no reason not to comply with such a request for transparency.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 04:08 AM

OK Mr T, Let's look at this shall we. As you rightly say, you train these guys intensively they are possibly the elite in their chosen profession. Guys who are supposed to know what exactly is a threat and what isn't, how to effectively disarm an enemy, how to kill efficiently. On that I think we would agree.

Tell me, why were they wearing helmet cameras? There can be only one reason – to record the events as they unfolded.

Now, you may think me slightly cynical, but I am of the opinion that if things went to plan, or if there was evidence that Bin Laden or his oppo's had been armed, or they were using women and children as human shields, then I think the footage would have been released to show that. It is my opinion, based on nothing but previous experiences of US misinformation, that this operation was a complete balls up from start to finish, and the reason that they will not release footage is because it would show them in a bad light.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 02:41 PM

Just so as to make clear:

1: You train up Forces to perform Special tasks and operations

2: You deploy those men on such an operation

3: You then wish to release for view by the general public video coverage of those operations?

Silas, a fairly obvious question that begs to be asked:

Are you bloody insane??

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 09:20 AM

OK, show us the film and pixilate the shooting bit.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 09:03 AM

"Plenty of footage of Iraqi and Afghanistani civilians being bombed."

The question you were asked Silas was:

"when do the military, or the Government ever put into the public domain live close-up footage of people being shot?

The only instance I can immediately recall was the shooting of the Reuters Team in Baghdad in 2007 and that footage was leaked it was not released into the public domain by the Government or the military.

The answer to my question Silas is never.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 06:25 AM

Plenty of footage of Iraqi and Afghanistani civilians being bombed.
However, we do not need to see the actual shooting, just the events leading up to it, just to see the truth of him usuing a woman as a shield, to see if he was actually armed, or indeed if anyone was. There is so much bollocks being talked about 'what if he had a....' we, dis he or did he not.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 06:21 AM

Very true MtheGM but:

"Himmler was arrested on 22 May by Major Sidney Excell and, in captivity, was soon recognized. Himmler was scheduled to stand trial with other German leaders as a war criminal at Nuremberg, but on 23 May[42] committed suicide in Lüneburg by means of a potassium cyanide capsule before interrogation could begin."

Had Himmler stood trial there would be no question of there being any possibility of his innocence, merely the extent of his guilt.

A combatant throws dow his weapon or stands before you perfectly still with his open hands raised - that man is undoubtedly in the act of surrendering Don T, and it would be a crime to shoot him.

A combatant who runs away from you remains a combatant and a danger to you - you shoot him.

I ask you again where and when was this Precedent you refer to set?

Silas when do the military, or the Government ever put into the public domain live close-up footage of people being shot?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 05:23 AM

As I understood it, these guys who assasinated Bin Laden were wearing helmet cameras - any reason why the footage has not yet been released?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 06:45 PM

""P.O.W's - Ehmm hate to point out the obvious difference Don T but they found themselves taken as POW's because they DID SURRENDER.""

In the world you seem to want, they would never have had the chance to surrender. Win at any cost. Use any means. No rules other than shoot first, let God sort 'em out.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,dan bromberg
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 05:00 PM

Hi Don,
I see from one of your previous postings that you knew Dick Rosmini (a much nicer and far more talented guy than Osama Bin Laden, I'm sure!). Any background info or sheet/tab music (especially from his "Adventures..." album - in particular, Little Brown Dog) would be greatly appreciated. After all, he was my hero!
Happy trails!,
Dan

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 03:36 PM

Teribus

Purely in interests of accuracy ["MtheGM, your pedantry is legendary," a dear friend posted on another forum] ~~~

Himmler was not a defendant at Nürnberg.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 02:36 PM

The Marquis of Queensbury rules do not apply with people like Osama bin Laden.

Had they found him naked in a bathtub with nothing more lethal than a washcloth, a bar of soap, and a loofah within arms' reach, they could have safely taken him into custody. But when he leaps up, grabs the woman he's with, and uses her for a shield, it's not untoward to assume that he is not going to come quietly. A man like bin Laden would more than likely be armed at all times, even if with nothing more than a knife or a small caliber pistol, such as this:   CLICKY.

About 4 1/2 inches long, weighs about 9 ounces (small and light enough to fit in a shirt or bathrobe pocket), and it has a capacity of nine puny, perhaps, but potentially quite lethal .25 caliber rounds.

Unless he was standing there with his hands in the air, I wouldn't take any chances. And even then. . . .

It's easy enough to be a Monday morning quarterback. After something like this, they come crawling out of the woodwork.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 10:10 AM

For those who maintain that the US should have informed and sought cooperation with Pakistani officials for the Bin Laden raid here's something for you to chew on with your morning coffee:

"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Twice in recent weeks, the United States provided Pakistan with the specific locations of insurgent bomb-making factories, only to see the militants learn their cover had been blown and vacate the sites before military action could be taken, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.

Overhead surveillance video and other information was given to Pakistani officials in mid-May, officials said, as part of a trust-building effort by the Obama administration after the killing of Osama bin Laden in a U.S. raid early last month. But Pakistani military units that arrived at the sites in the tribal areas of North and South Waziristan on June 4 found them abandoned.

U.S. officials say they do not know how the operation was compromised. But they are concerned that either the information was inadvertently leaked inside Pakistan or insurgents were warned directly by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or ISI.

The Washington Post

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 06:31 AM

Please show me where at Nurenburg or anywhere else this Precedent of yours was set?

It is considered unlawful and a crime to deliberately shot an enemy who is trying to surrender.

How do you KNOW that your enemy IS UNARMED until you have him in custody and have searched him?

I always find it rather quaint that people think that there are rules of war - once engaged, there are no rules save one which is the most important - WIN!!!!

"So according to you we shouldn't have taken P.O.W.s, or bothered with the Nuremberg trials, just shot the lot."

P.O.W's - Ehmm hate to point out the obvious difference Don T but they found themselves taken as POW's because they DID SURRENDER.

The Nurnberg Trials? Well for the principal guests (Himmler, Goering) it was just really a case of "Wheel the Guilty Bastards in, we're here to decide just how guilty they are." Their sentences were foregone conclusions, after all you cannot set the World alight, thereby causing the deaths of some 72 million people and expect to get away with a community service order.