When a terrorist dies, is it OK to gloat?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's idiotic to think releasing the photos of a dead man is a "security" issue, Ian. Unless......the Americans shot bin Laden in the back of the head at point blank range, which is very likely.

And the tinfoil-hat brigade weighs in...
If the SEALs summarily killed him even though he surrendered (which you think is very likely, whothefuckknowswhy), do you think they'd need to shoot him in the back of the head? Two dozen elite SEALs couldn't manage to shoot a captive in the face?

What the fuck does a "tinfoil hat" have to do with anything said above? Cheap, useless hyperbole.

You wouldn't know, would you?

[sandinista]

[maiforpeace]

It's idiotic to think releasing the photos of a dead man is a "security" issue, Ian. Unless......the Americans shot bin Laden in the back of the head at point blank range, which is very likely.

And the tinfoil-hat brigade weighs in...
If the SEALs summarily killed him even though he surrendered (which you think is very likely, whothefuckknowswhy), do you think they'd need to shoot him in the back of the head? Two dozen elite SEALs couldn't manage to shoot a captive in the face?

And no response to what I think of your idiotic "security" diversions.

I went over that in talking to Coito. You really need the obvious spoon-fed to you, huh? Like why SEALs don't need to shoot a prisoner in the back of the head? I don't suppose you have a clear answer to that, because you probably didn't even think about it. In your mind, whatever sounds like the most sinister scenario = the most likely, as long as it involves Americans or Jews. Even if it makes no sense at all. I hereby invoke Occam's Razor.

Six SEALS would have all six guns trained on his forehead...all they needed to do was decide who were going to deliver the shots.

I haven't read much about the helicoptor that took the dump at the beginning of the operation...what happened there?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's idiotic to think releasing the photos of a dead man is a "security" issue, Ian. Unless......the Americans shot bin Laden in the back of the head at point blank range, which is very likely.

And the tinfoil-hat brigade weighs in...
If the SEALs summarily killed him even though he surrendered (which you think is very likely, whothefuckknowswhy), do you think they'd need to shoot him in the back of the head? Two dozen elite SEALs couldn't manage to shoot a captive in the face?

And no response to what I think of your idiotic "security" diversions.

I went over that in talking to Coito. You really need the obvious spoon-fed to you, huh? Like why SEALs don't need to shoot a prisoner in the back of the head? I don't suppose you have a clear answer to that, because you probably didn't even think about it. In your mind, whatever sounds like the most sinister scenario = the most likely, as long as it involves Americans or Jews. Even if it makes no sense at all. I hereby invoke Occam's Razor.

Six SEALS would have all six guns trained on his forehead...all they needed to do was decide who were going to deliver the shots.

I haven't read much about the helicoptor that took the dump at the beginning of the operation...what happened there?

That's all speculation. We don't know. Who is to say 6 SEALs had lines of sight and shots? From what I gather based on the ever-changing story of how it happened, he was in a small room.

Frankly, if this kind of information was coming out under the last administration, you all know darn well that you wouldn't be making the favorable assumptions you're making now.

[maiforpeace]

My favorable assumption is based on personally having known a SEAL and having learned about the way they work, how they work with each other, and their code, it has nothing to do with Bush or Obama.

They are the super elite of the military for a reason.

[Coito ergo sum]

My favorable assumption is based on personally having known a SEAL and having learned about the way they work, how they work with each other, and their code, it has nothing to do with Bush or Obama. They are the super elite of the military for a reason.

Yes, but being super-elite doesn't mean that all six people can fit through a door at the same time.

We don't know how it happened, and nobody is telling us, although presumably the administration knows how it happened. They pretended at first to have had the "dream team" watching it as it happened. They would have reports from the team leader detailing everything that happened, and they would have footage of the area with cameras on the SEAL team as it happened live. They know if Osama was armed.

And, with all due respect to your "knowing a former SEAL" - I am sure there would be instances where not every member of a SEAL time has a kill shot lined up on the same guy at the same time. The suggestion that in a firefight that happens to the point of something that can be "assumed" is borderline ludicrous.

[Ayaan]

There is another reason for not releasing the photos - there are still plenty of supporters of OBL out there. The photos would just become icons to them, much as any place he was buried on land would have.

It would not surprise me if the photos eventually got out via a leak of some sort. Nothing is totally secure forever.

[maiforpeace]

My favorable assumption is based on personally having known a SEAL and having learned about the way they work, how they work with each other, and their code, it has nothing to do with Bush or Obama. They are the super elite of the military for a reason.

Yes, but being super-elite doesn't mean that all six people can fit through a door at the same time.

We don't know how it happened, and nobody is telling us, although presumably the administration knows how it happened. They pretended at first to have had the "dream team" watching it as it happened. They would have reports from the team leader detailing everything that happened, and they would have footage of the area with cameras on the SEAL team as it happened live. They know if Osama was armed.

And, with all due respect to your "knowing a former SEAL" - I am sure there would be instances where not every member of a SEAL time has a kill shot lined up on the same guy at the same time. The suggestion that in a firefight that happens to the point of something that can be "assumed" is borderline ludicrous.

You are making more out of my comment than was there, CES, but then, there wouldn't be anything left for you to pick apart, would there?

On the other hand, I might suggest that your suspicion over the "whole story" including the photos might have to do with your personal views of Obama and his administration.

[Ian]

My favorable assumption is based on personally having known a SEAL and having learned about the way they work, how they work with each other, and their code, it has nothing to do with Bush or Obama. They are the super elite of the military for a reason.

Yes, but being super-elite doesn't mean that all six people can fit through a door at the same time.

We don't know how it happened, and nobody is telling us, although presumably the administration knows how it happened. They pretended at first to have had the "dream team" watching it as it happened. They would have reports from the team leader detailing everything that happened, and they would have footage of the area with cameras on the SEAL team as it happened live. They know if Osama was armed.

And, with all due respect to your "knowing a former SEAL" - I am sure there would be instances where not every member of a SEAL time has a kill shot lined up on the same guy at the same time. The suggestion that in a firefight that happens to the point of something that can be "assumed" is borderline ludicrous.

I know many SEALs and work with them from time to time. And I trust them far, far more than I trust any politician, be it Bush or Obama.

And does it really matter how many could fit into Osama's bedroom at the time he was killed? If they had him captured, they could do with him whatever and whenever they liked. If it was just one or two guys, then that sounds a lot more like a situation in which it happened quickly - perhaps if they thought he was a threat. And with shots already fired during the raid, two guns next to him, speculation of an explosive vest and a history of declaring he'd never be taken alive, is it so hard to put oneself in the place of a SEAL seeing him and assuming he was a threat on sight? I really doubt they caught him kneeling down with his hands in the air. Even then, they sight of him would still be threatening. To protect the lives of SEALs, a "when in doubt, shoot" policy sounds fine to me.

[maiforpeace]

This doesn't really have anything to do with whether it's OK to gloat when a terrorist dies, does it CES.

When Obama gets the terrorist and Bush didn't, is it OK to gloat?



Bush feels Obama ignoring ex-president's role in Osama Bin Laden strike for 'victory lap'

[charlou]

My favorable assumption is based on personally having known a SEAL and having learned about the way they work, how they work with each other, and their code, it has nothing to do with Bush or Obama.

They are the super elite of the military for a reason.

This sounds like Hollywood stuff.

[maiforpeace]

My favorable assumption is based on personally having known a SEAL and having learned about the way they work, how they work with each other, and their code, it has nothing to do with Bush or Obama.

They are the super elite of the military for a reason.

This sounds like Hollywood stuff.

My name is Arnold.

[laklak]

It's idiotic to think releasing the photos of a dead man is a "security" issue, Ian. Unless......the Americans shot bin Laden in the back of the head at point blank range, which is very likely.

More likely though the eye, so the son of a whore could see it coming.

[charlou]

It's idiotic to think releasing the photos of a dead man is a "security" issue, Ian. Unless......the Americans shot bin Laden in the back of the head at point blank range, which is very likely.

More likely though the eye, so the son of a whore could see it coming.

Nothing wrong with whores ... In fact:

[maiforpeace]