• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Osama bin Laden killed (was: They got him.)

deadalnix

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
560
WCA
2008SECH01
You claimed that a man responsible for the deaths of thousands, many of them trained soldiers, was not a dangerous man. This is an idiotic claim. Just saying it like it is.
Ok, you just didn't got what I wrote. He is a dangerous man. By his power over others.

He his also a man that suffer from disease, and was unarmed. He wasn't dangerous right here and now, especially for a trained guy. Maybe ciconstances didn't allow soldier to judge that, maybe they made a mistake, maybe they intended to kill him, but they definitively could have caught him without choosing the armed comando flash strike method.
 

RyanO

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
266
Location
Ames, Iowa
WCA
2008OLSO01
Ok, you just didn't got what I wrote. He is a dangerous man. By his power over others.

He his also a man that suffer from disease, and was unarmed. He wasn't dangerous right here and now, especially for a trained guy. Maybe ciconstances didn't allow soldier to judge that, maybe they made a mistake, maybe they intended to kill him, but they definitively could have caught him without choosing the armed comando flash strike method.
He was unarmed, but the troops had been in a firefight throughout the operation and bin Laden did violently resist capture. If you're such a tactical genius please elaborate on these other ways we could of caught him. I'm sure the ask nicely strategy would work wonders.
 
Last edited:

FatBoyXPC

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,795
WCA
2010LACH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Ok, you just didn't got what I wrote. He is a dangerous man. By his power over others.

He his also a man that suffer from disease, and was unarmed. He wasn't dangerous right here and now, especially for a trained guy. Maybe ciconstances didn't allow soldier to judge that, maybe they made a mistake, maybe they intended to kill him, but they definitively could have caught him without choosing the armed comando flash strike method.
You keep saying unarmed as if he was a sick old man, sitting in his living room in a recliner chair, watching TV while eating some cereal (I might have messed up the punctuation there, but the sentence felt a bit long). Please see my post about how he also had security protecting him (who knew that they would probably at one point have their life on the line for him).
 

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,830
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Feel free to correct this, deadalnix, but here is what it sounds like you are expecting a moral, non-"terroist" country to do:
- make sure someone is armed and not sick before attacking them, thus putting more emphasis on the safety of the enemy than on the safety of the country's own troops;
- never gather false intelligence, and never make decisions based on it;
- never go to war, even when the opposing group has explicitly stated they will do anything in their power to hurt the country;
- carefully check each person for terrorist beliefs/affiliations before killing them, even by accident.
 

deadalnix

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
560
WCA
2008SECH01
Feel free to correct this, deadalnix, but here is what it sounds like you are expecting a moral, non-"terroist" country to do:
- make sure someone is armed and not sick before attacking them, thus putting more emphasis on the safety of the enemy than on the safety of the country's own troops;
- never gather false intelligence, and never make decisions based on it;
- never go to war, even when the opposing group has explicitly stated they will do anything in their power to hurt the country;
- carefully check each person for terrorist beliefs/affiliations before killing them, even by accident.
I had a argumented response to that, but messed up when posting an losted it. So I'll make it short.

I strongly disagree With most of this. This is an ugly distortion of what I say. However, I think this distortion comes from the fact that we didn't have the sames story fo Ben Laden's death.

This is because of the really messed up communication of the US governement. The last official statement was tlaking about Ben Laden unarmed, and only one guy has tried to shot soldiers (why were 79), at the begining of the assault an was quickly killed. I don't think this is a situation that require to kill Ben Laden, soldiers looked in control of the situation according to this official communication.

This is why I disagree with statement like « - make sure someone is armed and not sick before attacking them, thus putting more emphasis on the safety of the enemy than on the safety of the country's own troops; ». The safety of the troop, or the soldiers, is the limit. According the what is said by US governement, this is very unclear that the limit was reached.

However, soldiers has to take really fast decision based on partial information. So they could have killed him for justified reasons. This is, regarding the facts as explained, unlikely. So Us has to explain itself.

Let me write an undistorded version of your points :
- Try, within the limits required for the safety of troop/policemens, to catch people and put them in front of a court instead of killing them.
- Try to verify information with means in adequation with the importance of the decision based on that information. When talking about war, the means have to be really high because the decision will cost lots of humans lifes.
- Do not accuse people based on what they believe - even terrorists. Try to judge those who are affiliate and not kill them, within the limits explained in point 1.

I would add that point 3 make no sens at all. Al Quaeda isn't Afghanistan neither it is Irak. Face the consequences of what you do, even by accident.
 

Want to hide this ad and support the community?
Top