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



## ZamHalen (May 2, 2011)

It has been confirmed that Osama Bin Laden has been killed.

What do you think?

And
How do you think it will affect the world?


----------



## satellitedanny (May 2, 2011)

It won't affect the world that much


----------



## Anthony (May 2, 2011)

I don't think his death will have any effect besides being symbolic. Still, a morale boost couldn't hurt.


----------



## RyanReese09 (May 2, 2011)

This.


Anthony said:


> I don't think his death will have any effect besides being symbolic. Still, a morale boost couldn't hurt.


----------



## Nestor (May 2, 2011)

Affect the world? Short answer: very little.

/edit ninjaed


----------



## ZamHalen (May 2, 2011)

I find the issue may be the guy who is next in line. We don't know who he is?


----------



## uberCuber (May 2, 2011)

It will affect the hopes and dreams of various people in various ways. As far as physical change, not so much in the way you would think as you will see in the coming weeks/months.

Enjoy interpreting this post..


----------



## EdgeRebirth (May 2, 2011)

I really want to know how he died.


----------



## Daniel Wu (May 2, 2011)

Waiting for the statement from the White House...


----------



## Kian (May 2, 2011)

While not substantial in many ways, it is historically and symbolically important to many people (especially Americans), notably the many that were personally involved in 9/11 or his other terrorist attacks. As a then high school sophomore who lived 30 miles from NYC I remember the tears and the lost family members of my friends and classmates. This day brings back a whole host of emotions that will never go away for me. I'm not big on championing death, and I'm not filled with joy in his passing. I'm just very happy he will never hurt anyone else. There is quite a lot of value in that.

I wish I had something thoroughly intellectual to say about it, but I don't. It was a necessary end to a nation's struggle for justice, even though there can be no justice for what that man has done. This doesn't change what happened, and I don't know what sort of an impact this will have on Al Qaeda, but some part of me is very content that this chapter is over. My nation needed this.


----------



## satellitedanny (May 2, 2011)

Well, the biggest change could be the feelings of the family members of the people who died in the 1998 US Embassy truck bombing in Nairobi; they can finally feel relieved that he's dead.


----------



## IamWEB (May 2, 2011)

.

There was no build up, no news alert, no epic battle, no final boss, I just hear that he's dead.

...

He's dead now. Wow.

.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 2, 2011)

Kian said:


> I'm not big on championing death, and I'm not filled with joy in his passing. I'm just very happy he will never hurt anyone else. There is quite a lot of value in that.


 
These are the words I was trying to find. I definitely feel more of a sorrowful relief than any kind of celebration.


----------



## EdgeRebirth (May 2, 2011)

Wait...I just thought about it more. What if Al Qaeda reacts and tries to get back at the US for killing him?


----------



## ZamHalen (May 2, 2011)

EdgeRebirth said:


> Wait...I just thought about it more. What if Al Qaeda reacts and tries to get back at the US for killing him?


My point exactly.


----------



## OMGitsSolved (May 2, 2011)

EdgeRebirth said:


> Wait...I just thought about it more. What if Al*-Qaida* reacts and tries to get back at the US for killing him?


 
That's no news. Until we totally take out the whole entire Al-Qaida there is going to be someone to take his spot.


----------



## Hodari (May 2, 2011)

EdgeRebirth said:


> Wait...I just thought about it more. What if Al Qaeda reacts and tries to get back at the US for killing him?



Like they aren't already trying to do whatever they can to us already anyway?


----------



## Kian (May 2, 2011)

EdgeRebirth said:


> Wait...I just thought about it more. What if Al Qaeda reacts and tries to get back at the US for killing him?


 
Military bases and potential targets are now on high alert in case this comes to fruition.


----------



## Andreaillest (May 2, 2011)

I really hope this brings resolve to those who were personally affected by 911. 
Team Justice.


----------



## masteranders1 (May 2, 2011)

EdgeRebirth said:


> I really want to know how he died.


 
Wikipedia has everything, dude. Well, at least some of the most info as of right now on how he died. 

As for Osama Bin Laden's death, I think that it's good that he died, and might be helpful to hear for lots of people around the world (as Kian said, especially Americans). It's also nice that he's not reserved on the FBI's most wanted or out killing more people. I'd agree with most people in the statement that it's about time pretty much.


----------



## TiLiMayor (May 2, 2011)

Developing nations like mine have their own terrorists to take care about.


----------



## Tortin (May 2, 2011)

I just want to take a moment and appreciate the poetic justice of this announcement happening 8 years to the day of the mission accomplished announcement. 

Also: “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”
— 

Mark Twain


----------



## cmhardw (May 2, 2011)

I wholeheartedly agree with what Kian said. I also remember the emotions of 9/11/01, I was a high school senior at the time. Classes were cancelled and they called us all into the auditorium to watch the news footage live and to come together as a school to discuss the emotions and issues surrounding the whole thing.

I am relieved, as Kian said, that bin Laden will no longer be able to plan any attacks against the US and other countries. Of course there will be others to fill the vacuum left by his absence, but this was a morale victory that many US citizens needed to begin the process of closing this chapter out of our lives.



EdgeRebirth said:


> I really want to know how he died.


 
I watched the presidential address on live stream on cnn.com, and Obama mentioned that a strike team entered the compound where bin Laden was known to be and that "shots were fired" and bin Laden was killed. They also recovered his body.


----------



## NaeosPsy (May 2, 2011)

I don't care that much really, but i am glad that they got him down. I think it was really important for US people tho.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (May 2, 2011)

YAY


----------



## AustinReed (May 2, 2011)

I'm happy and all, but why do I not have a good feeling about this?


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (May 2, 2011)

AustinReed said:


> I'm happy and all, but why do I not have a good feeling about this?


 
Reading your post made me not have a good feeling. Thanks...


----------



## IamWEB (May 2, 2011)

AustinReed said:


> I'm happy and all, but why do I not have a good feeling about this?


 
It's potentially the start of World War III.


----------



## AustinReed (May 2, 2011)

Joy.


----------



## uberCuber (May 2, 2011)

AustinReed said:


> I'm happy and all, but why do I not have a good feeling about this?


 
Because it will likely lead to even more military activity in the region.


----------



## ZamHalen (May 2, 2011)

Though this man caused great harm and posed a great threat against the world, I can't say that I am at all happy about his death. I must say that we have just made a symbolic victory at best, but the war is not won. In reality the US may now be facing a bigger threat which may want to strike back at the force which killed its leader.WEB's post may be over-exaggerated but not far from reality. In all honesty I have to say that terrified is more appropriate in describing how I feel as the circumstances are now more unpredictable than ever. They are now an army fighting without a leader which led them since their founding something which is new to them.
I'll edit this or type more later it's too late right now.


----------



## Carrot (May 2, 2011)

ohhh :'( he lost the "hide and seek"-game :'(


----------



## irontwig (May 2, 2011)

This will just piass off more bad people.


----------



## Dene (May 2, 2011)

Meh, it's hardly important news any more.


----------



## onionhoney (May 2, 2011)

I wouldn't have remembered this person if he weren't killed. 
This is definitely a good news, and i hope it won't trigger revenge from Al Qaeda.


----------



## stoic (May 2, 2011)

I for one am glad that he is gone


----------



## rowehessler (May 2, 2011)

Dene said:


> Meh, it's hardly important news any more.


you didn't have 3,000 people of your country die because of him, so to us, its pretty freakin important news


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2011)

rowehessler said:


> you didn't have 3,000 people of your country die because of him, so to us, its pretty freakin important news


 
What does it matter which country he is from?


----------



## RyanReese09 (May 2, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> What does it matter which country he is from?


 
He wasn't as personally effected by what Osama did.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> He wasn't as personally effected by what Osama did.


 
I don't understand. Take the average american and take Dene, neither of them knew any of the 3000 people that died.


----------



## Olivér Perge (May 2, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I don't understand. *Take the average american and take Dene*


 
Since Rowe lives in New York I totally understand why this news is important for him. Also the USA has a higher risk for another terrorist attack then New Zealand, so I think it is not the same for them.



Kirjava said:


> neither of them knew any of the 3000 people that died.



You don't have to know the people in person who died near you to have emotional effects.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (May 2, 2011)

I really don't know if I should get into this or not, but I'll throw in my two cents I suppose.

Kirjava: Maybe the average american doesn't know any of those 3,000 people, but this attack did happen on our land, our home. This feels personal whether or not we live in NY, DC, or PA. And Rowe is actually a great example, he lives in NY. There's a fair chance he might have known one of those 3,000 people. Edit: ninja'd on the Rowe living in NY bit.

Chris Hardwick: I thought you were 5-10 years older than me, haha. I was a freshman in HS when the whole thing happened. I was talking from one classroom to another, it was during the ISTEP testing (standardized state tests). Pretty sure they cancelled the rest of the tests that day (but I'm not sure). I just remember being in my study hall room and watching it on TV, then in another class room after lunch watching it on TV.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2011)

Olivér Perge said:


> You don't have to know the people in person who died near you to have emotional effects.


 
You also don't have to live in the same country as them.


----------



## IamWEB (May 2, 2011)

Rowe was there, but he survived and it only made him stronger.

Seriously though, he might have known someone, or maybe he has a strong sense of nationalism here. But it's better to just let Rowe respond-.


----------



## Stefan (May 2, 2011)

IamWEB said:


> or maybe he has a strong sense of nationalism here



It doesn't need *your* nationalism if *the attackers* attacked your country as such.


----------



## Attila (May 2, 2011)

I think, G.W. Bush also reserves a headshot.


----------



## Attila (May 2, 2011)

Attila said:


> I think, G.W. Bush also reserves a headshot.


 
deserves. sorry


----------



## Shortey (May 2, 2011)

Even if you don't care (Dene) at least have respect for those who do.

EDIT: sorry kir. :3 misunderstood one of your posts.


----------



## Kirjava (May 2, 2011)

Shortey said:


> Even if you don't care (Kirjava and Dene) at least have respect for those who do.


 
Excuse me, when did I say that I did not care?


----------



## Julian (May 2, 2011)

I'd just like to say, I don't think I would be any more affected if I was an American. It shouldn't make any difference what country the people who died on 9/11 were from. 
I understand that Rowe is from New York, so it's likely he knows, or knew, someone who was personally affected. However, I don't think that the average American should feel more affected than anybody else, just because they're from the same country as the people who died.


----------



## deadalnix (May 2, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with what Kian said. I also remember the emotions of 9/11/01, I was a high school senior at the time. Classes were cancelled and they called us all into the auditorium to watch the news footage live and to come together as a school to discuss the emotions and issues surrounding the whole thing.
> 
> I am relieved, as Kian said, that bin Laden will no longer be able to plan any attacks against the US and other countries. Of course there will be others to fill the vacuum left by his absence, but this was a morale victory that many US citizens needed to begin the process of closing this chapter out of our lives.


 
Killing him without a fair judgement make us as bad as he is. Justice isn't revenge.


----------



## Stefan (May 2, 2011)

Julian said:


> I don't think that the average American should feel more affected than anybody else, *just because they're from the same country as the people who died.*



Are you blind, or do you disagree that *they're from the country that got attacked*?


----------



## qqwref (May 2, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> Killing him without a fair judgement make us as bad as he is. Justice isn't revenge.


You don't think there's enough enough evidence of his direct involvement with (and taking responsibility for) terrorist acts to merit something like this? It is pretty obvious to me that the guy deserved a very hefty sentence for his crimes - at the very least, a life sentence with no parole. I'd prefer that he could be brought to trial, but given that I've heard he was killed in a firefight, I doubt there was a lot of choice in the matter. There aren't any consistent ways to shoot someone and incapacitate them without killing them.


----------



## Julian (May 2, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Are you blind, or do you disagree that *they're from the country that got attacked*?


I'm not sure that I *completely* understand what you are saying, but nevertheless...
I guess I understand that Americans are personally affected because it is their country that was targeted by the attack, but I don't think that they should be concerned about American lives more than other peoples' lives. Likewise, I think that non-Americans can be just as affected by the deaths as Americans. I don't think that life of someone from your country is any more important than the life of anybody else.


----------



## deadalnix (May 2, 2011)

qqwref said:


> You don't think there's enough enough evidence of his direct involvement with (and taking responsibility for) terrorist acts to merit something like this? It is pretty obvious to me that the guy deserved a very hefty sentence for his crimes - at the very least, a life sentence with no parole. I'd prefer that he could be brought to trial, but given that I've heard he was killed in a firefight, I doubt there was a lot of choice in the matter. There aren't any consistent ways to shoot someone and incapacitate them without killing them.



So why not giving him a fait judgement ? If it is obvious, the judgment would be easy and he would be condamn.

I'm pretty sure Ben Laden would have - if he were still alive - a similar oppinion about world trade center's victims. USA just acted as stupidly as Ben Laden did, and that really sad.


----------



## qqwref (May 2, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> So why not giving him a fait judgement ? If it is obvious, the judgment would be easy and he would be condamn.


The judgment was already made by the government many years ago. Keep in mind that the US has essentially been at war with al Qaida, so Osama's viewed not as an international criminal but as a highly important enemy combatant. Besides, as I said, there was literally no opportunity to give him a trial, since he died in his first physical engagement with US troops. I don't think we could have possibly captured him alive without wasting lots of time and people in the process.



deadalnix said:


> I'm pretty sure Ben Laden would have - if he were still alive - a similar oppinion about world trade center's victims.


I'm pretty sure he wanted to kill random people just to show his hatred and harm the US - the WTC attack was not a personal attack on the victims, but a large one on the country itself. It doesn't make any sense to think that he might have individually and specifically condemned the victims to death for past crimes. There is a big difference between a random and unprompted attack on civilians, and between a wartime raid on a dangerous enemy.


----------



## Bryan (May 2, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> I'm pretty sure Ben Laden would have - if he were still alive


 
I don't think anyone can know what was going through Bin Laden's mind, except for


Spoiler



a bullet


----------



## DavidWoner (May 2, 2011)

He was killed *in a shootout.* It's not like the soldiers put him on his knees and executed him Boondock Saints-style. Also, he has had a bounty on his head since the attacks on US embassies in 1998.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (May 2, 2011)

qq: There are ways to shoot somebody without killing them, but in this situation it definitely wouldn't be easy. 'm not sure if this was disclosed or not, but I didn't catch how large the size of the group was that engaged in this fire fight. If it was a small special ops team, there's no chance even with expert marskmen that this could have turned out much differently. Honestly: I'd be surprised if they even wanted to bring him in alive. Keeping him alive only gives him more time to escape by some means (time frame unspecified).


----------



## qqwref (May 2, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> qq: There are ways to shoot somebody without killing them


Yeah, but all the effective ones are luck based, especially in a stressful situation (like a shootout). If someone isn't wearing proper body armor, any possibly incapacitating shot would only be a few inches (or less) away from a lethal one, so you can't guarantee anything.



fatboyxpc said:


> If it was a small special ops team, there's no chance even with expert marskmen that this could have turned out much differently.


I think it was a small team. I've heard that Obama specifically asked for a very targeted attack to avoid the carnage/damage associated with typical military activities.


----------



## Bryan (May 2, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> qq: There are ways to shoot somebody without killing them ..... Keeping him alive only gives him more time to escape by some means (time frame unspecified).


 
You watch too many movies/TV.


----------



## uberCuber (May 2, 2011)

Bryan said:


> I don't think anyone can know what was going through Bin Laden's mind, except for
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


 
I lol'd so hard, thank you for that


----------



## FatBoyXPC (May 2, 2011)

Bryan: People getting out of jail isn't unheard of. A high priority like him, I could see people organizing something, if nothing else, some sort of shady deal involving dirty guards or something. Most people are easily bought. And shooting somebody in the knee is a pretty easy way to (probably) get them to stop shooting back at you. You could also shoot somebody in the arm, etc. Granted, a lot of these depends on what bullet you are using (for instance a .223 will cause a lot of damage no matter what, that's what it was designed for).

qq: I completely agree with the bit about this sort of stressful situation. I'm just saying it's possible  Likelihood is a different ball game


----------



## ianography (May 2, 2011)

I really like the quote at the end.


----------



## professoralpha7 (May 2, 2011)

I think that all christians should mourn the fact that he died without knowing christ, and rather rejoice justice.


----------



## deadalnix (May 2, 2011)

qqwref said:


> The judgment was already made by the government many years ago. Keep in mind that the US has essentially been at war with al Qaida, so Osama's viewed not as an international criminal but as a highly important enemy combatant.


 
The governement does not judge people. The justice does. This is Separation of powers. This is - with some other stuff - what makes the difference between a free contry and a dictatorship.



qqwref said:


> Besides, as I said, there was literally no opportunity to give him a trial, since he died in his first physical engagement with US troops. I don't think we could have possibly captured him alive without wasting lots of time and people in the process.



Right, I understand that. However, I'm pretty sure that if you make the final count, USA has killed more innocent people than Al Quaeda in the process. I'm not sayng that Ben Laden was a good guy. I'm just saying that the fact that he was a bad guy was used to justify the fact that USA act as bad guys too. And I think this is unnacceptable from a free country.


----------



## RaresB (May 2, 2011)

(unrelated to current discussion) My two cents/ opinion. I was watching the news and they said that the us armed forces is highly considering pulling out all troops. I think this is a stupid idea. I don't really see killing Bin Laden like such a huge victory. There is going to be another guy that will come along, take his place and it will all continue. Furthermore it is evident Al Quaida is close to extermination (at least i believe so), so why should we just leave believing we have won when this just gives them time to rebuild and come together. /done


----------



## IamWEB (May 2, 2011)

pwnAge said:


> (unrelated to current discussion) My two cents/ opinion. I was watching the news and they said that the us armed forces is highly considering pulling out all troops. I think this is a stupid idea. I don't really see killing Bin Laden like such a huge victory. There is going to be another guy that will come along, take his place and it will all continue. Furthermore it is evident Al Quaida is close to extermination (at least i believe so), so why should we just leave believing we have won when this just gives them time to rebuild and come together. /done



Was the reason for possibly pulling out troops specifically (or mostly) because of this event? I don't think anyone in power is assuming we have won the battle or anything close to that just from killing Osama.


----------



## Cubenovice (May 2, 2011)

My opinions in a nutshell: 

- Good to see that he was finally found, this looked lke a ghost hunt for way too long. (Rememeber the search for WMD in Iraq?)
- Having the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan pisses a lot of people off and thus makes it easier for the bad guys to recruite "soldiers"


----------



## qqwref (May 2, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> The governement does not judge people. The justice does. This is Separation of powers.


The justice department is part of the government, but you're right, normally the military isn't in charge of sentencing. (Keep in mind Obama was acting as Commander-in-chief of the armed forces - this was a military decision, not one made by the executive branch of the government.) But, in a situation of war or national security, it's pretty standard for the military to decide that certain people can or even should be killed. There would be no way to have war at all without this power. Can you imagine trying to hold a trial for each enemy soldier in a typical battle or skirmish?



deadalnix said:


> However, I'm pretty sure that if you make the final count, USA has killed more innocent people than Al Quaeda in the process. I'm not sayng that Ben Laden was a good guy. I'm just saying that the fact that he was a bad guy was used to justify the fact that USA act as bad guys too. And I think this is unnacceptable from a free country.


I don't think killing innocent people is right either (and I don't categorically approve of all actions the USA takes either), but the solution is not to complain about the USA acting as bad guys. That doesn't help anything. The solution is to call for the legal prosecution of the individual people who allowed or ordered it to happen.


----------



## GearGuy57 (May 2, 2011)

I think that people shouldn't be celebrating his death because now the US's target has just grown because he is dead.


----------



## deadalnix (May 3, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I don't think killing innocent people is right either (and I don't categorically approve of all actions the USA takes either), but the solution is not to complain about the USA acting as bad guys. That doesn't help anything. The solution is to call for the legal prosecution of the individual people who allowed or ordered it to happen.


 
That's what I do in my contry (I'm french, we have the same type of issue right here). And that what I expect USA's citizens to do in their own.


----------



## CubingCockney (May 3, 2011)

The terrorists are gonna get pissed and start bombing everything. Say hello to World War Three. 

P.S. RIP Osama


----------



## deadalnix (May 3, 2011)

CubingCockney said:


> The terrorists are gonna get pissed and start bombing everything. Say hello to World War Three.


 
Al Quaeda is almost destroyed for years. This is just a zombie organisation. So WW3 isn't a serious issue here.

BTW, the way this was handled will undoubtedly be helpfull for islamist organisations, terrorists or not.


----------



## CubingCockney (May 3, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> Al Quaeda is almost destroyed for years. This is just a zombie organisation. So WW3 isn't a serious issue here.
> 
> BTW, the way this was handled will undoubtedly be helpfull for islamist organisations, terrorists or not.


 
I love how the Americans reacted to osama's death. Can't **** off some islamic extremists more than standing outside the whitehouse at 2AM chanting "USA!, USA!" 

Gotta love the Americans


----------



## uberCuber (May 3, 2011)

CubingCockney said:


> The terrorists are gonna get pissed and start bombing everything. Say hello to World War Three.
> 
> P.S. RIP Osama


 
We might as well just nuke the entire region.



Spoiler



No.


----------



## cookieyo145 (May 3, 2011)

I think it is hard to believe it's actually him, dying a careless death.


----------



## uberCuber (May 3, 2011)

^No it's not actually him. The DNA testing was obviously wrong.


----------



## IamWEB (May 4, 2011)

He said prior to that event that he would not be taken in alive (correct me if I'm wrong).

Must be kind of odd though to go so many years of all of the craziness going on, and then one day they just bust in. You refuse to surrender, and... boom, headshot. Sudden death. You lost the game etc. etc. It's just odd.


----------



## maggotcuber (May 4, 2011)

It would be pretty funny if in a couple of weeks the government announces that they killed the wrong guy :3


----------



## AnthonyH (May 4, 2011)

no pics=bs


----------



## Tim Major (May 4, 2011)

Listening to radio, it said he was killed, unarmed, and people were complaining. I don't understand what is wrong with this. Are they saying they should've risked taking him into custody?


----------



## JasonK (May 4, 2011)

AnthonyH said:


> no pics=bs


 
How 'bout this?


----------



## Meep (May 4, 2011)

WTF2L? said:


> How 'bout this?


 

No (NSFW)


----------



## deadalnix (May 4, 2011)

WTF2L? said:


> How 'bout this?


 
http://www.arretsurimages.net/vite.php?id=10986

In french, but images talk for themslves. Anyway, this picture wasn't released by US governement, so please don't overreact to some journalist ********.


----------



## deadalnix (May 4, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> Listening to radio, it said he was killed, unarmed, and people were complaining. I don't understand what is wrong with this. Are they saying they should've risked taking him into custody?



That's what makes the difference between terrorist's behaviour and respect of human rights.


----------



## Tim Major (May 4, 2011)

Why does Osama bin Laden deserve respect? Did he respect the people in the 9/11 attack? They weren't armed. They hadn't done anything wrong.


----------



## JasonK (May 4, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> http://www.arretsurimages.net/vite.php?id=10986
> 
> In french, but images talk for themslves. Anyway, this picture wasn't released by US governement, so please don't overreact to some journalist ********.


 
I stand corrected :fp Note to self: don't post pics without finding out whether they're real or not...


----------



## deadalnix (May 4, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> Why does Osama bin Laden deserve respect? Did he respect the people in the 9/11 attack? They weren't armed. They hadn't done anything wrong.



He does respect people. We do. At least I do. And those who don't are just bunch of *******s like he is. At another scale, for sure, but still.

We have no right to judge him as a bad guy if we do the same. This is mostly what makes the difference between justice and revenge.

Or more simple :
* He doesn't respect people and kill them -> he is a terrorist.
* You doesn't respect people and kill them -> you are a terrorist.


----------



## Zbox95 (May 4, 2011)

It was only for the sake of revenge that US soldiers killed him, it will effect the world, but I don't know.


----------



## qqwref (May 4, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> You does respect people and kill them -> you are a terrorist.


I think you mean "don't respect" or "disrespect", but anyway, your definition of terrorist goes against how most people would define it. Terrorism isn't about whether you give someone a trial of not. Just by looking at the name, you can see that it's about doing violent acts intended to create fear/terror in a group of people (to intimidate them). Defining all wartime deaths as terrorism is absolutely ridiculous. It's such a charged term that, when you use it like this, I feel like I am talking to a bigot who will freely condemn anyone he doesn't like.

And if you're wondering, the US team who was sent to Osama's compound did actually take pains to give the guy a proper Muslim burial. I think the intent was to show that, even though we needed to take Osama out, we were not trying to attack the Muslim community, but rather trying to help it. I'd say that paying attention to burial ceremony does actually imply some respect; giving an enemy the opportunity to attack you or escape does not (what it DOES imply is ignorance of the dangers of combat).


----------



## Hershey (May 4, 2011)

Sometimes people say the CIA funded al qaeda.

(This is off-topic.)


----------



## yamahammer08 (May 5, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Sometimes people say the CIA funded al qaeda.
> 
> (This is off-topic.)


 
Sometimes, people say a lot of things that are ridiculous and mindless sheep buy into it...


----------



## gundamslicer (May 5, 2011)

yamahammer08 said:


> Sometimes, people say a lot of things that are ridiculous and mindless sheep buy into it...


 
Sometimes there is a hippopotamus In my pocket


----------



## FatBoyXPC (May 5, 2011)

gundamslicer said:


> Sometimes there is a hippopotamus In my pocket


 
What is its name?


----------



## Systemdertoten (May 5, 2011)

I love how Hondurans ignore all the problems that are ****ing up our country and instead are more interested on reading any news about Osama.


----------



## ZamHalen (May 5, 2011)

This will be my last post on this subject (and hopefully the last post in this thread for everyone). I just realized that I have contradicted an important idea (one which I firmly believe to be true). This idea being that we are now giving Osama what he wanted all along, and that is attention. In death, he has more than likely had his infamous deeds more widely known to the public than they have been in years. Which is what he obviously wanted when plotting his attacks. It is here that you must decide for yourself whether or not you want to give him what he wanted. 
I would ask to have this thread closed but I obviously don't have that authority. And as I said, it is up to you to choose whether or not you will post on this topic. Make the decision you find to be the best.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 5, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Sometimes people say the CIA funded al qaeda.


 
That's not true. However, there is some debate over whether or not the CIA trained a group called the Afghan Arabs, of which Osama bin Laden was part, back in 1979. Remember this is during the Cold War, and the Soviet Union was invading Afghanistan, so it was to our advantage to train the natives to fight against the Soviets. There is no debate that training and funding was given to the Afghan mujahideen to fight the soviets, but they deny training the Afghan Arabs. The project was scrapped and funding ceased shortly afterwards, LONG before the formation of Al Qaeda. The only arguable instance of the CIA training bin Laden refers to what happened in 1979.


----------



## RyanO (May 5, 2011)

@ZamHalen: Everyone had totally forgotten about Osama bin Laden. I'm sure exactly what he wanted was for you to make a thread about his death on speedsolving. You've gone and given him everything he ever wanted. You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## goatseforever (May 5, 2011)

AnthonyH said:


> no pics=bs


 
There ARE pictures, they're just not releasing them out of common sense you fcking prick. Should I call you out and assume you're a hermaphrodite because I've never seen pictures of your dick?


----------



## deadalnix (May 5, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I think you mean "don't respect" or "disrespect", but anyway, your definition of terrorist goes against how most people would define it. Terrorism isn't about whether you give someone a trial of not. Just by looking at the name, you can see that it's about doing violent acts intended to create fear/terror in a group of people (to intimidate them). Defining all wartime deaths as terrorism is absolutely ridiculous. It's such a charged term that, when you use it like this, I feel like I am talking to a bigot who will freely condemn anyone he doesn't like.



Ok, Let's not call this terrorist. Anyway, both behaviours are really similars and that what is really sick.

I don't really understand you when you say « I feel like I am talking to a bigot who will freely condemn anyone he doesn't like. ». Let's put aside the fact that it's a personnal attack, I don't care and I prefer discuss without making it personnal. But I really don't how you can come up with that conclusion. This is axactly the comportement I condamn. This is the comportement Ben Laden had when he organized 9/11. This the comportement USA had when they decided to kill Ben Laden without a trial, when they go to war in Irak (or maybe it is because of mass destruction weapons ?) and so on. This is exactly what I condemn.

Seriously, I know that this is a really emotionnal topic in USA, but when you look at the past ten years, it really looks like « OK, terrorist did attack us, so we are allowed to do whatever including what those guys did to us ». That's madness.


----------



## Hershey (May 5, 2011)

goatseforever said:


> There ARE pictures, they're just not releasing them out of common sense you fcking prick. Should I call you out and assume you're a hermaphrodite because I've never seen pictures of your dick?


 
Those are fake pics. And anyway, stop using such inappropriate language.


----------



## ianography (May 5, 2011)

goatseforever said:


> There ARE pictures, they're just not releasing them out of common sense you fcking prick. Should I call you out and assume you're a hermaphrodite because I've never seen pictures of your dick?


 
God, you're such a jerk... Just go away.


----------



## Kirjava (May 5, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Those are fake pics. And anyway, stop using such inappropriate language.


 
How do you know they are fake? No one has seen them.

There is a fake picture floating about, but this was not released by the US government and was mocked up by some randomer.


----------



## RyanO (May 5, 2011)

Deadalnix, your argument is incredibly utopian and naive. You can't compare Osama's fate to the fate of the innocent people killed in the attacks he organized. Osama was not a civilian. He gave that up when he murdered thousands of people and publicly took credit for their deaths. Also the U.S. didn't "decide to kill bin Laden without a trial." We would have preferred to take him alive but that wasn't possible because our soldiers had to defend themselves. You seem to imply that our soldiers' primary focus should be on Osama bin Laden's safety rather than their own.


----------



## RTh (May 5, 2011)

One think to say, Noam Chomsky. Create a problem and then find solutions.


----------



## RyanO (May 5, 2011)

Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.


----------



## Hershey (May 5, 2011)

RyanO said:


> Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.


 
How about the masonic seal on the dollar bill? It can't completely be explained as just http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_ordo_seclorum.


----------



## RyanO (May 6, 2011)

Hershey said:


> How about the masonic seal on the dollar bill? It can't completely be explained as just http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_ordo_seclorum.


 
I find that explanation fairly adequate, but I guess crazy conspiracy theories are just way more fun. Suit yourself.


----------



## deadalnix (May 6, 2011)

RyanO said:


> Deadalnix, your argument is incredibly utopian and naive. You can't compare Osama's fate to the fate of the innocent people killed in the attacks he organized. Osama was not a civilian. He gave that up when he murdered thousands of people and publicly took credit for their deaths.



How and what about the people USA's army killed in irak ? Where are those mass destruction weapons ? USA killed bunch of innocent people too, and lots of them. And took public credit for theire death. That's just the same. People from irak coul call you terrorists you know, and they would be right.

But yeah, God bless America !

Those poor guy that were so endoctrined that they decide to sacrifice themselve in a tower were utopian and naive. You are utopian and naive, believing that « We would have preferred to take him alive ». Seriously dude, Ben Laden is presumed planner of 9/11, not even judged guilty, and that's really hard to prove, plus he have money, so can hire a good layer. Plus killing him is an excellent publicity for US army and theire good job and for Obama himself to be reelected.

Ben Laden was sick for years (kidney issues, needed medical assitance at least 1 day on 2) and unarmed. Definitively not a dangerous guy for trained people like any soldier should be.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (May 6, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> And took public credit for theire death.



I feel like there is no "winning" this complaint of yours. Had we not "taken public credit," I can see a response of something to the nature "We aren't taking accountability for our actions" or something along those lines.



deadalnix said:


> Ben Laden was sick for years (kidney issues, needed medical assitance at least 1 day on 2) and unarmed. Definitively not a dangerous guy for trained people like any soldier should be.


 
It's like Bin Laden was by himself all day every day. He had people protecting him, those people who knew that there would probably be a time that comes where they have to put their life on the line to save his. If you would have kept up w/this story, Bin Laden died in a fire fight. If he was unarmed, somebody in his presence, and on his side, must have been shooting back at the soldiers.


----------



## cubeflip (May 6, 2011)

EdgeRebirth said:


> I really want to know how he died.


 
headshot. pulled his wife in front of him and she died too.


----------



## Bapao (May 6, 2011)

cubeflip said:


> headshot. pulled his wife in front of him and she died too.


 
Seriously? :tu

Edit:
Just read that it was only one of his wives that he used as a human shield. He used the rest as battering rams to open doors and dig through walls and such.


----------



## hatter (May 6, 2011)

No, the white house made a mistake. They think she was actually trying to protect him. She got shot in the leg and is recovering. The white house released the statement a couple of days ago correcting it.

edit:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-ladens-wife-wounded-raid/story?id=13521534

The beginning of this video shows the press release and more about the wife.


----------



## RyanO (May 6, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> USA killed bunch of innocent people too, and lots of them. And took public credit for theire death. That's just the same.



There's a HUGE difference here. The USA did everything they could to minimize civilian casualties while Osama bin Laden did everything he could to maximize civilian casualties. The USA targeted enemy combatants while the terrorists targeted civilians.



deadalnix said:


> Those poor guy that were so endoctrined that they decide to sacrifice themselve in a tower were utopian and naive.



Yep. (assuming you're talking about the terrorists here)



deadalnix said:


> You are utopian and naive, believing that « We would have preferred to take him alive ». Seriously dude, Ben Laden is presumed planner of 9/11, not even judged guilty, and that's really hard to prove, plus he have money, so can hire a good layer. Plus killing him is an excellent publicity for US army and theire good job and for Obama himself to be reelected.



Not that it would be super fair, but even with the best lawyer Osama would be really screwed when judged by a jury of his "peers." There's even a video confession. He would never ever ever get aquitted. Also it would be equally good press for the US and Obama if we captured him alive and tried him for his crimes.



deadalnix said:


> Definitively *not a dangerous guy* for trained people like any soldier should be.


 
I can't construct a civil response to this so I'll just stick with: You're an idiot.


----------



## waffle=ijm (May 6, 2011)




----------



## deadalnix (May 6, 2011)

RyanO said:


> I can't construct a civil response to this so I'll just stick with: You're an idiot.



Whenever you can't contruct a civil response to something, and comes up with insults, that means that you are actually writting under emotional stress, that affect your judgement. Thus, you shouldn't be writting at all. But this isn't the topic.


----------



## Bryan (May 6, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> Ben Laden was sick for years (kidney issues, needed medical assitance at least 1 day on 2) and unarmed. Definitively not a dangerous guy for trained people like any soldier should be.


 
Why do you say unarmed? I've heard some reports say he was reaching for a gun when he got shot. Just because you have kidney issues doesn't mean you can't use a gun. Sure, in hand-to-hand combat, he would've lost to a Navy Seal. But if he'd had gotten hold of a gun, he could have killed people. It's not like he was super frail and didn't have the strength to lift a weapon.


----------



## RyanO (May 6, 2011)

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.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (May 6, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> Whenever you can't contruct a civil response to something, and comes up with insults, that means that you are actually writting under emotional stress, that affect your judgement. Thus, you shouldn't be writting at all. But this isn't the topic.


 
I'm sorry that you happen to be insulted by the truth. Just because you don't like something somebody said, doesn't make it not true.

Whoops, I just joined the argument. I'm outta here.


----------



## deadalnix (May 6, 2011)

RyanO said:


> 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 (May 6, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> 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.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (May 6, 2011)

deadalnix said:


> 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 (May 6, 2011)

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 (May 8, 2011)

qqwref said:


> 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.


----------

