Slashdot Mirror


Bin Laden Hideout Recreated In Counter-Strike

dotarray writes "Osama bin Laden's final hiding spot in Abbottabad, Pakistan, has been made into a playable map for Counter-Strike: Source. Honestly, we're a little surprised that it took this long."

502 comments

  1. The truth by redemtionboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    The real criminal here is that Pakistani realtor who sold that house for $1,000,000.

    1. Re:The truth by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      A lot of facts have been "clarified" since the original story broke. Considering it was a mouldy un-air conditioned home, was it really that price?

    2. Re:The truth by SpankR · · Score: 2

      No kidding - 1,000,000 rupees, maybe...

    3. Re:The truth by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 5, Funny

      Talk Abbottabad place to hide.

    4. Re:The truth by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      Not hard to come by that figure, really. $50,000 for the house + land, $950,000 to STFU.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    5. Re:The truth by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 1

      Turns out that the $1million figure given was not true. It's worth about $250,000 today, and the land was purchased for $48,000.

    6. Re:The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should have tried the next town over, Nottabad place to hide.

    7. Re:The truth by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      It was a secure semi-fortress made for the Pakistani intelligence agency and still owned by them. It was designed to be hard to penetrate, not to be comfortable.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    8. Re:The truth by somersault · · Score: 2

      That's what she said :(

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:The truth by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Actually no. I know theres a lot of people trying to pin this on the Pakistani intelligence, but nobody makes the claim that they owned the building. (Think about it, if the Pakistani intelligence actually wanted to hide him, they would have put him in an extremely remote area, not a city and especially not near any of their installations).

      Do you have a citation?

    10. Re:The truth by jon3k · · Score: 1

      1) hide in plain sight 2) the closer he is the easier they can protect him

      not that I believe the pakistanis had anything to do with hiding him, but who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory?

    11. Re:The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real criminal here is that Pakistani realtor who sold that house for $1,000,000.

      hells yeah. agreed

    12. Re:The truth by flowwolf · · Score: 1

      He needed regular dialysis. These kind of things are hard to obtain in remote locations.

    13. Re:The truth by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Aside from the claim in 2001, has anyone ever corroborated that? There's been no mention or picture of a dialysis machine in the compound. It looks like the dialysis thing was just a myth.

  2. Missing option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think there is a missing option in Counterstrike: the "shoot the fuck out of the house and sort through the rubble later" -playmode

    1. Re:Missing option by hitmark · · Score: 1

      I think perhaps the game engine is lacking a bit for that to be possible.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    2. Re:Missing option by Zarhan · · Score: 1

      VIP mode would be probably best, although I think it's usually the CT's who have the VIP..

      Bomb would work too (for the helicopter that went down due to mechanical failure), although usually it's the terrorists doing that :)

      Role reversal indeed.

    3. Re:Missing option by Lectoid · · Score: 1

      Or maybe an option to fly a plane in to the house and sort through the rubble. I mean that as payback, not as a slight against the 9/11 victims.

      --
      Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
    4. Re:Missing option by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Someone already released this for another game, actually, but I can't find the link anymore.

      Osama is the VIP, operated by AI. Terrorists have to defend the VIP, and CTs have to kill him.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  3. Been here a while... by hoytak · · Score: 1

    "Honestly, we're a little surprised that it took this long."

    Eh, it just took that long for military intelligence to get it declassified.

    --
    Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
    1. Re:Been here a while... by cosm · · Score: 0

      The administration is having a field day shining their current trophy. I found this the other day though, so not so sure how much it was the president (as much as the media wants to believe).
      Obama Hesitated, or so this insider claims, and that the whole job was a pseudo-coup where the president was left outside the loop because he was so hesitant on running the op, with the mil-staffers bringing him in on it last minute. Anybody care to refute or know otherwise? Got any Washington insiders round these parts (Like they'd post here, lulz)?

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    2. Re:Been here a while... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      How about the military doesn't care one bit about what the Director of the CIA cares and the rest of that is just anti-Obama derp.

      It's only missing "...he was overruled because he is Black and everyone else who decided is White."

    3. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh I know an old intelligence analyst he was amused that Obama was only involved in a few meetings on this.
      Apparently normally a high ranking official who is actively involved in this kind of thing will have dozens of meetings.
      Hearsay and not someone directly involved so take it for what it's worth, but I thought it was amusing.

    4. Re:Been here a while... by cosm · · Score: 1

      I don't know that the racist card applies here, but nice try though. What's your point?

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    5. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So he knew it's a mostly symbolic assassination on foreign soil, with potential for nasty and prolonged backlash?

    6. Re:Been here a while... by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      In other words...gossip.

    7. Re:Been here a while... by cosm · · Score: 1

      My thoughts as well, unless there's corroborating reports. But the reality is it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. The deed is done and us peons have been told how it went down, and that is how it went down.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    8. Re:Been here a while... by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      You can't refute an insider who doesn't exist. The same "journalist" (Ulsterman) claiming to have an insider is also a birther--though curiously, his insider didn't warn him that the long form birth certificate was going to be released.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    9. Re:Been here a while... by artor3 · · Score: 0

      Hurr, gee, looks legit! After all, as a Kenyan Marxist Muslim dithering white-people-hating tribesman-mentality terrorist-pal, Obama would never order the killing of a terrorist! By the way, have you heard that Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster?

    10. Re:Been here a while... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1
    11. Re:Been here a while... by artor3 · · Score: 1

      High ranking officials have lots of meetings. The big boss only has enough to understand the risks (seals killed/held hostage, major backlash from an important "ally", the effective end of his presidency, a major morale boost for Al Qaeda and the Taliban) and rewards and the odds of success before making the call.

      That's how pretty much every organization in the world works. You really think CEOs sit in on every design meeting? They, like Obama, have more important things to do than listen to the mucky details that fall outside their realm of expertise.

    12. Re:Been here a while... by 1u3hr · · Score: 2

      the president was left outside the loop because he was so hesitant

      And he was born in Kenya. Yeah, whatever. It's not like the Tea Party/Birthers are going to give Obama credit for anything he does.

    13. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He managed to accomplish something bush and cheney couldn't - that's got to count for something.....

    14. Re:Been here a while... by artor3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not to the teabaggers. Remember, they attacked his wife for promoting children's fitness. They claimed that his speech encouraging elementary schoolers to stay in school was Marxist brainwashing. They claimed that letting old people draft a living will was equivalent to setting up death panels to cull the elderly.

      These people have no minds of their own. They believe what they are told, when they are told. And if they're told the opposite next week, they'll believe that too.

    15. Re:Been here a while... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It wasn't an assassination. Technically speaking Osama could have surrendered, it's just that he'd have to do it immediately without any hesitation to be accepted. But he could have surrendered. I don't think that anybody seriously believed that he could be taken alive.

    16. Re:Been here a while... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Does anybody actually take the tea party seriously? Granted it's hard to define a movement with no membership requirements, but there's plenty of nutters in there to make the rest seem a bit dodgy. The best think the GOP could do at this point is distance themselves from it.

    17. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Osama would be dead if he was put on trial in any country on earth.
      What would be the point of capturing him? Or do you think we should've left osama alone, to continue plotting ways to kill innocent people around the world?

    18. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the military doesn't care one bit about what the Director of the CIA cares and the rest of that is just anti-Obama derp.

      It's only missing "...he was overruled because he is Black and everyone else who decided is White."

      How is it that he is called "black" when his mother was "white"?
      Isn't he "grey"?

    19. Re:Been here a while... by philljcool · · Score: 5, Informative

      Osama would be dead if he was put on trial in any country on earth.

      Where any country on earth = Belarus; China; Ecuador; Egypt; India; Iran; Iraq; Israel; Japan; Malaysia; Mongolia; North Korea; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; South Korea; Taiwan; Tonga; United States.
      Here in Australia as well as most of the world he would not be put to death.

    20. Re:Been here a while... by CrankyFool · · Score: 1

      Actually, while Israel has a long and storied tradition of killing enemy leaders, when it comes to TRIALS there's only ever been one death sentence imposed in Israel -- Adolf Eichmann. Israel does not have the death penalty.

    21. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the military doesn't care one bit about what the Director of the CIA cares and the rest of that is just anti-Obama derp.

      It's only missing "...he was overruled because he is Black and everyone else who decided is White."

      How is it that he is called "black" when his mother was "white"?
      Isn't he "grey"?

      to black people he's a nigga. to white people he's a nigger. this answer question?

    22. Re:Been here a while... by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      Given the general bias of that site I doubt that report is accurate.

    23. Re:Been here a while... by downhole · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, they're not at all like the left wingers attacking Sarah Palin and her children, who are the epitome of class and independent thinking...

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
    24. Re:Been here a while... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      exactly - nobody likes a micro-manager.

      the public service should be trusted enough to do their jobs without interference, and competent enough to do so without fucking anything up.

      if a boss can't trust their staff, you either need new staff or a new boss..

    25. Re:Been here a while... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      i think you'll find most countries have different rules in war time.

      it's a war on an abstract concept, but a war nonetheless.

    26. Re:Been here a while... by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Fuck off with that false equivalency bullshit. The left wingers you describe are a tiny and insignificant fringe. The insane teabaggers have seized control of the GOP to the point of pushing out moderate candidates, passing "birther" laws at the state level, and setting up their own caucus. There is no comparison.

    27. Re:Been here a while... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      but haven't we always been at war with Eastasia?

    28. Re:Been here a while... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      the president was left outside the loop because he was so hesitant

      And he was born in Kenya. Yeah, whatever. It's not like the Tea Party/Birthers are going to give Obama credit for anything he does.

      I and they (though I'm not of their ranks) will give Obama credit for leaving when his term is over.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    29. Re:Been here a while... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Granted it's hard to define a movement with no membership requirements, but there's plenty of nutters in there to make the rest seem a bit dodgy. .

      It's pretty easy to identify the majority of the "dodgy" part of the Tea Party movement.

      Dems who created fake Tea Party candidates arraigned in Michigan
      Who’s Behind the ‘Crash the Tea Party’ Website?
      Democrats Embarrassed by Campaign Tricks
      Liberal Orgs, Unions Funneling Money to Anti-Tea Party Group

      Does anybody actually take the tea party seriously?

      It looks like it, yes.

      The National Review Institute has obliged Representative Waters, commissioning McLaughlin & Associates to take a detailed look at tea partiers: both the 6 percent of the 1,000 likely voters polled in mid-January who told McLaughlin that they had participated in tea-party rallies and the additional 47 percent who said they “have not participated in a tea party protest but . . . generally agree with the reasons for those protests.” The results dispel a number of myths.

      The first is that the tea partiers are driven by racial animus against the president. Actually, a third of the people who participated in tea-party rallies say that they approve of Obama’s performance in office and a fifth say that they voted for him in 2008. Five percent of them are black, 11 percent Hispanic. Of those who agree with the protests, 29 percent approve of Obama’s performance. Waters and Krugman can rest easy.

      The second myth is that the tea partiers are unpopular. Krugman wrote last April that the tea parties “have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so,” and Brooks speculated that “the tea-party tendency” might “be the ruin of the Republican party, pulling it in an angry direction that suburban voters will not tolerate.” Some Republican officials worry that media criticism and Democrats’ attacks on the activists have made it politically risky to associate themselves with the tea-party movement.

      The polls do not bear out this fear. Most voters don’t consider themselves well-informed about the tea parties, but have a favorable view. As noted already, 53 percent of the electorate look sympathetically on the tea parties. McLaughlin also asked likely voters which characterization of the tea parties they leaned toward: an “anti-government, fringe organization that is driven by anger” or a group of “citizens concerned about the country’s economic future.” A majority of 57 percent chose the benign characterization while only 19 percent disagreed. Even a plurality of self-identified liberals went with “concern” rather than “anger.” -- The Coming Tea-Party Election

      Party Smartly

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    30. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was that, the PR stunt about killing someone long dead from an organization that is run by CIA? Come on.

    31. Re:Been here a while... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      I and they (though I'm not of their ranks) will give Obama credit for leaving when his term is over.

      You don't have to love everything he's done. He's disappointed many of his supporters. Those who make up crap like this because they just hate a black man in the White House are the nuts I'm talking about.

    32. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Russia...they would have had the decency to use poison gas on the targets first (and everybody else in the vicinity).

    33. Re:Been here a while... by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure those mean old Democrats forced practically ever single Republican pundit, senator, congressman, and governor to back the Death Panels lie. I'm sure the Democrats forced the Republican state governments to push through "Birther Bills." And after 18 months of teabaggers screaming that "Obamacare will gut Medicare", it was those mean old liberals who forced the GOP to vote for a budget to end Medicare once and for all.

      Your party is filled with liars and thieves and scum of the worst sort. Stop rationalizing it, and leave them. If you don't, you're either a moron or vermin. No intelligent and decent person can associate with them.

    34. Re:Been here a while... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I don't know....I think California might let him off.

    35. Re:Been here a while... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Capturing somebody is what gives you the chance to deny them a 'heroic' death on the battlefield and subject them to the humiliating banalities of being treated like a common criminal by an opponent so much more powerful than you that they can, in fullness of power, afford to give you your day in court. In addition to being good social policy, subjecting a a malefactor to trial accords them a much lower status than does treating them as a dangerous military enemy who has to be stopped in the field...

    36. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They claimed that letting old people draft a living will was equivalent to setting up death panels to cull the elderly.

      It's about time someone did.

      Have you SEEN what most Baby Boomers are like? They are the most selfish, short-sighted, oblivious fucks who ever lived. And they think they're so respectable and wise. Truly the "me" generation. I'd call them the "me first" generation but the word "first" might mislead someone into thinking they realize anyone else exists.
      They have no minds of their own either. They vote for whatever Social Security increase AARP tells them is a good idea. They don't give a god damn how hard this will make life for their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

      Why again are we spending the majority of health care expenses on the last 6 months of life? When health care is more than a quarter of GDP? Yeah painfully prolonging the inevitable is real compassionate of you.

    37. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should hope he hesitated. There are so many factors involved in this, the least of which is the decision about not only the death of another human being, even if he is a socio-path, but the possible death of American soldiers. Only another socio-path or a teenager who has played too many video games wouldn't hesitate to consider the possible outcome or outcomes of a decision would be. That kind of thinking of "We know where he is, How come you have killed him yet? " is only a step away from the same kind of thinking (Or Non-thinking) which has resulted in the last words of so many young men being "Here, Hold my beer while I show you something funny" Obama is the commander is chief, that means it is his job to consider not only options but possible consequences. meditate on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence) before passing on gossip from the tea party wackos

    38. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a war on an abstract concept, but a war nonetheless.

      And you don't realize how ridiculous that is?

    39. Re:Been here a while... by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Why again are we spending the majority of health care expenses on the last 6 months of life?

      Because people receiving medical treatment tend to die.

    40. Re:Been here a while... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What makes the difference if he was a birther or not? I mean seriously, the question had been put out there and Obama pulled a Saddam and purposely obfuscated it to make it appear like something was wrong while saying it was legit all a long.

      You can't discredit someone when the information to negate their concerns has been withheld for 3 years. No matter how you look at it, you cannot deny that Obama wanted the conspiracy to be there and for it to last as long as it did, else he would have released the birth certificate a long time ago, before he was even elected president when Hillary's campaign brought it up. Birthers are nothing more then a creation of Obama's own unwillingness to clear up the question of his naturalization.

    41. Re:Been here a while... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, trying to take bin Laden alive could have gotten American soldiers killed right there in the compound, complicated the extraction, and perhaps come at the cost of some of the other intelligence we were able to recover on the site. To be clear, I'd have loved to take Osama bin Laden alive and lock him up for the rest of his life. But this wasn't a police operation to serve a warrant, this was a military operation to eliminate the command and control of a hostile terrorist organization.

      I believe they had a contingency plan just in case Osama bin Laden surrendered, but he didn't surrender so it's a moot point. In a battlefield, you don't always get the most beneficial outcome, politically and idealistically. On a battlefield, you just want all your soldiers to complete the objectives and get home safe. That's what matters. I trust the snap judgement of the highly trained soldiers in that situation, a situation with a great many unknown variables, faced with an enemy who specializes in suicide bombing and claims they'll never be taken alive.

      When those soldiers entered that room, and did not find Osama bin Laden face down on the ground with his hands up screaming "I surrender", he was still an enemy, still hostile, and they did what had to be done to protect themselves.

    42. Re:Been here a while... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Dude, are you sure you are not confusing the word Keynesian with Keynan? word is, that Obama is a Keynesian, but people have no clue what that means.

    43. Re:Been here a while... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What sort of brainwashing are you talking about? I have never seen any references to this you speak of until now. Can you provide any links or at least explain it a bit?

    44. Re:Been here a while... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      It makes a difference, because birthers are by definition irrational people, and irrational people aren't the most reliable sources of information. If somebody refuses to accept reasonable information provided to them time and time again, why should anybody trust them on any other matter?

      It did indeed serve Obama's purposes to not go to extraordinary lengths to prove something every rational person already knew, because it highlights their irrationality. It makes them look stupid. Releasing it now serves his purposes because it makes birthers look really stupid at a time when some birthers are trying to run for president against him.

    45. Re:Been here a while... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Osama would be dead if he was put on trial in any country on earth.

      Where any country on earth = Belarus; China; Ecuador; Egypt; India; Iran; Iraq; Israel; Japan; Malaysia; Mongolia; North Korea; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; South Korea; Taiwan; Tonga; United States.

      Here in Australia as well as most of the world he would not be put to death.

      It is my understanding that Australian SAS + Commandos, New Zealand SAS, British SAS + SBS + Royal Marine Commandos + Parachute Regiment + Ghurkas, and various other formations, various Canadian forces, Polish GROM, and a cast of many others, are doing a fine job in joining the US Navy SEALs, Army Delta Force, Rangers, Special Forces, Airborne, and various other combat arms elements in shooting dead Al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban guerillas on the battlefield and in the war zone. (Much like happened to Bin Laden.) My hat is off to them all.

       

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    46. Re:Been here a while... by kisak · · Score: 1

      The funny thing about the people who make up these stories is that they voted for a guy who sat for 7 minutes and read "My Pet Goat" after getting told that the US was attacked by bin Laden in the first place. Talk about hesitation.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    47. Re:Been here a while... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It makes a difference, because birthers are by definition irrational people, and irrational people aren't the most reliable sources of information. If somebody refuses to accept reasonable information provided to them time and time again, why should anybody trust them on any other matter?

      Where is the definition that declares them to be irrational? I mean seriously, they asked for a birth certificate, It was withheld for almost 4 years, someone crudely laid out a time line from books authored by or about Obama and it showed a possible conflict with the reported fact. By scientific terms, it would be inconclusive which sort of makes them more rational then the people who took him at his word for it. In fact, in real life right now, the exact opposite of what you said seems to be true with the conflicts between the religious age of the earth and the scientific view. Yet you seem to be taking the stand of the religious and simply saying because you were told to and somehow without the birth certificate, all non believers are irrational.

      Seriously think about that, let your dogma go and think about that before replying.

      It did indeed serve Obama's purposes to not go to extraordinary lengths to prove something every rational person already knew, because it highlights their irrationality.

      Yes, because it serves no purpose for religious nutters to prove what they already know- the earth is 6000 years old and people were created. I'm also not sure producing a birth certificate to ensure a person meets the qualifications of a job is what I would consider extraordinary. I needed to produce one to get a drivers license when I originally received one. I know they changed that in some states now. But I don't think it's extraordinary by any means. Hell, I just got a copy of mine and it cost a whopping $14. Are you sure you didn't take a class on using adjectives to make things seem ridiculous or something?

      It makes them look stupid. Releasing it now serves his purposes because it makes birthers look really stupid at a time when some birthers are trying to run for president against him.

      I'm sure it does to a true believer like you. However, for those of us grounded by facts and empirical evidence, it doesn't seem out of place to ask someone to provide proof of their claims. I definitely wouldn't call it making them look stupid. They may feel stupid after all these years thinking there might have been something wrong because the release of a simple document was being blocked in an attempt to goad them into furthering that skepticism. But I see it as no different then someone claiming theory water is wet and then waiting 5 years to produce any experiments or documentation backing it up only to do so then turn around and claim everyone else is an idiot for not taking their word for it.

      In other words, I think you have a lot more problems then the birthers do. And no, I'm not one of them. I did however point out that Obama thought he saw some sort of advantage to keeping the conspiracy alive which is why he didn't release the birth certificate in the first place.

    48. Re:Been here a while... by metacell · · Score: 2

      If we're talking about rules, a war on an abstract concept is not a real war. A war is an armed conflict between states. The rules of war become meaningless when you're fighting an abstract concept. Whom are you going to declare war against? How do you know when the war ends and you're obligated to send home the prisoners?

      The US government's talk about "war on terror", terrorists who are "enemy combatants", "war zones" in countries they are not at war with, and so on, are nonsense from the perspective of, for example, the Geneva convention. It's just rhetorics to make the armed conflict more palatable to the public.

      For example, the US government calls it "terrorism" when they want to justify holding people prisoners indfeinitely and torturing them, then "war" when they want to justify holding them without trial, invading other countries, and justify endangering innocent bystanders.

      Basically, the US does what it damn well pleases, because nobody else has the military to stand up to them.

    49. Re:Been here a while... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Here's how I define irrationality:
      Taking a belief (Obama isn't an American) based on no evidence whatsoever, and in fact contrary to the facts that his opponents never brought a lawsuit to strip his name from any ballots (something they'd certainly do if he wasn't an American, after all, it would guarantee a win if you run virtually unopposed), and he was inaugurated successfully (thus met the legal requirements to be President). Furthermore, the fact that his mother was a natural born citizen, thus any children she had were legally American citizens. Furthermore, the fact he was born in Hawaii, a territory of the United States, thus he was a natural born citizen. As I recall, he also had proper documentation of his birth, which he produced quite readily, very early. This evidence was of course, ignored by the birthers.

      Believing something that is contrary to all evidence is against logic, is irrational.

      Why is it extraordinary? Because no other presidential candidate has ever been asked to produce such evidence. People are either American citizens or not, and it's pretty easy to tell the difference. This is not a case of ambiguity, or missing evidence. The evidence has been there all along, it's 100% in favor of the fact that Obama is an American citizen, and continuing to insist otherwise so many years later is simply irrational. Okay, so he released further proof, after all these years. And you know what, irrational people are still spinning their wild conspiracy theories about it, like about how it took too long. Obama can't win with these people, they are simply incapable of rational thought about him, but luckily he doesn't have to.

      Frankly, you do sound like one of them. For somebody talking about being grounded in facts and empirical evidence, you apparently ignored all the prior facts and empirical evidence for the last five years yourself if you think the latest bit of evidence proves something new. Respected journalists and news networks showed off all the legal documents and evidence required back when he was running. That's how rational people came to understand he's an American citizen for all these years. No faith required.

    50. Re:Been here a while... by Amarantine · · Score: 1

      A war doesn't have to be between two states. It often is, but doesn't have to be. Can be between organisations as well.

    51. Re:Been here a while... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Obama is as black as most African-Americans.

    52. Re:Been here a while... by metacell · · Score: 1

      You mean like in civil war?

    53. Re:Been here a while... by umghhh · · Score: 1

      meeting with the secretaries to discuss things over a 'cigar' ???

    54. Re:Been here a while... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I assume that didn't turn down the chance to bring in an intelligence asset lightly, so I'm sure that the situation made taking him alive risky or untenable. Even in the case of basic boring warrant-serving, things sometimes end in violence.

      My point was just addressed at the "What would be the point of capturing him?" question. The value of capturing somebody is not absolute, and there are a number of circumstances under which it isn't worth it; but my contention is, under ideal circumstances, bringing somebody alive and as undamaged as possible to face a court is better than killing them. Clearly, some circumstances are not ideal; and that is to be understood; but it is to be understood that such outcomes are unfortunate deviations from the ideal, not ideal outcomes.

    55. Re:Been here a while... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The administration is having a field day shining their current trophy. I found this the other day though, so not so sure how much it was the president (as much as the media wants to believe). Obama Hesitated, or so this insider claims, and that the whole job was a pseudo-coup where the president was left outside the loop because he was so hesitant on running the op, with the mil-staffers bringing him in on it last minute. Anybody care to refute or know otherwise? Got any Washington insiders round these parts (Like they'd post here, lulz)?

      Yeah, hi, Mrs Obama here, I can confirm everything you say.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    56. Re:Been here a while... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm not an American, and I must say the whole "Obama is a Muslim/foreigner" thing just makes your country look like a hotbed of racism and idiocy.
      Lucky you had the whole bin Laden thing to show you in a better light!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    57. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice - your post was thoughtfully refuted... and you completely ignored it. Try having an intelligent debate, it just works better.

    58. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Mr. Bush realized that in seven minutes he could not do anything that was not already covered in the orders and plans that his chiefs of staff had in place for an attack on American soil, and he did not want to panic a group of elementary school children by leaving suddenly. He did the right thing by finishing what he was doing and then excusing himself.

    59. Re:Been here a while... by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

      I do not like to get my philosophy from t-shirts. However, I did see one that said "Beware of stupid people in large groups." If you want a little more fanciful take on it, watch a zombie movie. The paranoia is infectious. Hang out with one of them for 10 minutes and listen to them seriously. Take their (largely invisible to them) presuppositions as true. You will be scared.

      Of course I don't know enough tea-partiers to determine their average intelligence, but the ones I do know are loud, boorish, and ignorant of all the facts. They are just like the rest of humanity.

      --
      Dan
    60. Re:Been here a while... by CaseCrash · · Score: 1

      who are the epitome of class and independent thinking

      are you being sarcastic about left-wingers or Sarah Palin and her kids?

      --
      No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
    61. Re:Been here a while... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The entire foreigner thing, I don't care if he's a Muslim, stems froma constitutional requirement of the elected office. Think of it as something like a foreigner moves into your neighborhood, stays there long enough to become known, then runs for and becomes elected to the highest political office in your land.

      Going past the concept of requiring a natural born citizen being in the constitution to avoid presidents with loyalties to a mother country, the biggest problem is all the laws that will be signed into law if he turned out to not meet the constitutional requirements and the courts threw out his entire presidency. Can you imagine all the work that would need to be redone, all the laws that would need to be combed through, all the people who violate those laws claiming immunity from prosecution because they weren't constitutionally passed. There will be commitments and negotiations with foreign nations that would be negated and need to be redone else they would have an out from treaties and so on.

      So while this may appear like just a racist issue or a form of idiocy, that is only because you are judging a book by it's cover and nothing to do with the content. Being an outsider, I can understand you getting the cliff notes version from the loudest complainers. But we have citizens that simple refuse to look at the real issues here. This is something that simply needs to be taken seriously, he should have released the document years ago when Hillary Clinton's campaign brought it up.

    62. Re:Been here a while... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Here's how I define irrationality:
      Taking a belief (Obama isn't an American) based on no evidence whatsoever,

      Boy are you willfully ignorant. There was plenty of evidence to cause validity in the question. If he would have been born just 2-3 three years earlier in the same place his birth certificate says, he would not be a natural born citizen. People have constructed timelines from dates given in Obama's books and books about him that put his birth earlier then it was or even on a different continent. Obviously, these dates were wrong either in the interpretations or the mentioning in the books. But to say there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever at all is a little like closing your eyes and saying I don't exist.

      and in fact contrary to the facts that his opponents never brought a lawsuit to strip his name from any ballots (something they'd certainly do if he wasn't an American, after all, it would guarantee a win if you run virtually unopposed)

      While this might be evidence to you, it certainly isn't weighted evidence at all. His opponent who brought this up originally was Hillary Clinton who ended up seeing a drop in polling numbers after bringing it up, always did have a "for the party" over the "for the people" mentality. This was evident even when her husband was president. McCain not running with it from there is just another sign of why McCain lost the election. He's an idiot and chose to stay away from it so he wouldn't see the same drop in polling numbers Hillary did.

      he was inaugurated successfully (thus met the legal requirements to be President).

      This is completely meaningless. They do not check your qualifications to inagurate you. Someone has to challenge that and it needs to go through the courts. Someone did try to challenge that, and he was shot down for not having standing- not because anyone found Obama to be a natural born citizen.

      Furthermore, the fact that his mother was a natural born citizen, thus any children she had were legally American citizens.

      Wrong. The law at the time of Obama's birth stated a time limit you could be away from the US and required an intent to return to make you a naturally born citizen. Again, there was a record according to Obama's own books that seemed to suggest this might be a problem for him. But simply being a citizen isn't enough to be the US president. You have to be naturally born into citizenship. This is defined by law and it wasn't at all clear with the law at the time of his birth if he would have been considered natural born or not. No one was ever claiming he wasn't a citizen, the claim has always been that he didn't meet the constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen.

      Furthermore, the fact he was born in Hawaii, a territory of the United States, thus he was a natural born citizen.

      Not according to the laws at the time. Fuck dude, do you understand that the laws change and what is legally binding today might have been different 50 years ago? You should forget your ignorance and actually pay attention to the arguments that were put forth. So far, there is only one thing you have presented that is remotely accurate and that's open to interpretation on it's value.

      This evidence was of course, ignored by the birthersBelieving something that is contrary to all evidence is against logic, is irrational..

      Despite that evidence having about as much weight as it's true it's in the bible, it appears you are the pot calling the kettle black.

      How do your reconcile the fact that the birthers wanted to see the birth certificate from the start, after years of stonewalling, it was finally revealed. something that could have been done years ago and put this all to rest. It's like getting pulled over for speeding an

    63. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good news - no one in america cares what anyone else thinks. after billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man hours of support from the american government and human rights organizations i officially gave up on caring what anyone else thinks.

    64. Re:Been here a while... by jon3k · · Score: 1

      If you really believe that republicans are evil and democrats are good I honestly think you've got the intellectual capacity of a 13 year old who only understands cowboys vs indians.

    65. Re:Been here a while... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I and they (though I'm not of their ranks) will give Obama credit for leaving when his term is over.

      You don't have to love everything he's done. He's disappointed many of his supporters. Those who make up crap like this because they just hate a black man in the White House are the nuts I'm talking about.

      Don't give me that line of bullshit. Do your homework first. I AM a black man. I was supporting black presidential candidates when you were touching yourself to Bill Clinton videos.

      I don't have to like a God damned thing. I despise Obama. It has nothing to do with the fact that his father was black. My father and mother were black.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    66. Re:Been here a while... by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      However, for those of us grounded by facts and empirical evidence, it doesn't seem out of place to ask someone to provide proof of their claims.

      If you were really grounded by facts and empirical evidence, you would have been satisfied with the Certificate of Live Birth released in 2008. That's the paperwork Obama received when he approached the Hawaii Department of Health and said "give me my birth certificate"--as would anyone asking for their birth certificate in Hawaii. For those of us actually grounded by facts and empirical evidence, that was sufficient to prove he was born in Hawaii, especially in conjunction with the birth announcements placed in the newspapers by the hospital when he was born, and the (unusual) public statement by the person in charge of the department of health that he had personally verified that the original long form certificate existed and was in good order. That certificate of live birth is sufficient proof of citizenship that the State Department accepts it as proof and will issue a passport based on it.

      After that, anyone left still demanding to see the long form was demonstrably irrational or mendacious. Everyone who actually cared about the facts was satisfied--such as the Clinton campaign. Everyone else demanded to see the long form, and, surprise surprise, was not satisfied by it--they're now busily spinning conspiracy theories about how it was forged. Again, demonstrably irrational.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    67. Re:Been here a while... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If you were really grounded by facts and empirical evidence, you would have been satisfied with the Certificate of Live Birth released in 2008.

      I never said I wasn't satisfied with it. I have said in the past that Obama purposely chose to keep this alive for whatever purpose he had because he held within his power to derail it from the start and refused to do so for 4 years. Also, His long form birth certificate is the first document that has been released to the public that has not been obfuscated in some way Everything else has have serial numbers or seals blackened out making the fact checking on their validity impossible.

      That's the paperwork Obama received when he approached the Hawaii Department of Health and said "give me my birth certificate"--as would anyone asking for their birth certificate in Hawaii.

      He could have simply released that without removing the serial numbers then it could have been validated. IT would have been no biggie. But they way it was played out was like someone claiming what goes up, must come down, then having a guy throw a ball down off the roof of a house as proof. Sure the ball went down, but there was always the question of did gravity cause it or the guy throwing it.

      For those of us actually grounded by facts and empirical evidence, that was sufficient to prove he was born in Hawaii, especially in conjunction with the birth announcements placed in the newspapers by the hospital when he was born, and the (unusual) public statement by the person in charge of the department of health that he had personally verified that the original long form certificate existed and was in good order. That certificate of live birth is sufficient proof of citizenship that the State Department accepts it as proof and will issue a passport based on it.

      You mean just a couple years after the CBS fake Bush military discipline records, you think it's logical to trust a political entity or even a news agency reporting those facts when they only way you can verify it was removed from the record? Come on, are you sure you weren't filled with hope and change instead of facts?

      After that, anyone left still demanding to see the long form was demonstrably irrational or mendacious

      Nope. Probably a little overly skeptical but definitely not irrational. Something you either didn't pay attention to, or just didn't care about, is the problem with not being able to verify it because the document purposely had the only means to do so obscured.

      Everyone who actually cared about the facts was satisfied--such as the Clinton campaign.

      You mean the person who saw a drop in the polling numbers when they brought it up claiming to be satisfied is proof to you? And this is real evidence given that politicians quite often tell the people one thing then do another, especially when it's in support of their party? My, you must have some sort of disconnect with reality.

      Everyone else demanded to see the long form, and, surprise surprise, was not satisfied by it--they're now busily spinning conspiracy theories about how it was forged. Again, demonstrably irrational.

      Everyone, Really? You know this for certain or is this just in your head? I know people you would call birthers and they are satisfied now. I've spoken with some birthers online and while they don't like the answer, they are satisfied now.

      You know why they are satisfied that he's a natural born citizen? It's because this document, like the first one he released, had the serial numbers in tact and while his Birth records were sealed, you can look at others born around the same time and make the connection that the serial number should have been in use around the stated time frame.

      SO I don't know who you are claiming is saying

    68. Re:Been here a while... by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      So let's be clear: It's unsatisfactory for the head of the Department of Health to personally vouch for the validity of the Certificate of Live Birth and the underlying records because the serial number was blacked out, but on the long form the un-blacked out serial number is sufficient even though it's not directly verifiable, only inferentially valid because it seems to fall somewhere in the correct sequence? Since we have no actual access to the bank of long form certificates, how do you know that the serial number doesn't belong to someone else?

      Why don't you post a couple links to those spun conspiracies you are talking about.

      Here's the google results for "long form birth certificate forgery": http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=long+form+birth+certificate+forgery (967,000 results). Your google finger sucks.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    69. Re:Been here a while... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So let's be clear: It's unsatisfactory for the head of the Department of Health to personally vouch for the validity of the Certificate of Live Birth and the underlying records because the serial number was blacked out,

      Do you mean it's not unsatisfactory evidence for Dick Cheney to say Iraq had WMDs to support Bush's claim we need to go to war with them? I mean after all, we are talking about a political appointment/entity making a statement of validity about the claims of another political entity. But hey, if you think we should believe everything the government or people in the government says at face value and never question it, I guess you got a point.

      but on the long form the un-blacked out serial number is sufficient even though it's not directly verifiable, only inferentially valid because it seems to fall somewhere in the correct sequence?

      Well, lets look at this scientifically. If the number is completely out of whack, we know right off the bat that it's fake. If it's inline, then we can look at the serial numbers before and after or even wait for someone to say hey, that's the same number I got. But there is a code with the serial numbers that breaks down the year it was created so a mathematical formula could be applied to test the validity of the time and date in the least..

      Since we have no actual access to the bank of long form certificates, how do you know that the serial number doesn't belong to someone else?

      But we do have access to it. Birth records are publicly available in all states. It's one of the longest standing functions of government. Unfortunately in this case, the governor of Hawaii blocked inquiries to Obama's birth records to avoid a flood of requests that would have overwhelmed their services.

      Here's the google results for "long form birth certificate forgery": http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=long+form+birth+certificate+forgery (967,000 results). Your google finger sucks.

      Could be that it does suck. Anyways, I looked at a few pages and they all seem to link to a video that shows some interesting claims. are you saying those claims are wrong? And if so, what makes them wrong?

      And they all seems to be pointing to one person saying it's a forgery. I don't think that's much more then repeating a story just like it wasn't a mass media conspiracy when they repeated Bush's claims that Iraq had WMDs. Most of the pages I browsed through didn't have any comments and others seemed to have the same comments in different order as if it's a set up of some sort.

    70. Re:Been here a while... by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      But hey, if you think we should believe everything the government or people in the government says at face value and never question it, I guess you got a point.

      Do you find that this sort of sarcastic, straw man form of arguing works for you? Do you have people responding "well, I guess I have been pretty silly about this..."

      Do you mean it's not unsatisfactory evidence for Dick Cheney to say Iraq had WMDs to support Bush's claim we need to go to war with them?

      The obvious difference between Iraqi WMDs and Obama's birth on the date and at the place claimed is that the latter had a wide variety of independent supporting evidence. By itself, an appointee or official asserting something is insufficient; when it's in concert with a bunch of other evidence, I take it as another data point.

      are you saying those claims are wrong?

      No, because I didn't bother looking at the content beyond verifying that it was about people arguing that the long form birth certificate is a forgery. My point was that the release of the long form certificate hasn't settled it--there are still a wide variety of birthers claiming that it's undemonstrated that Obama is a natural born citizen. I also haven't gone digging for the original fuel requisition forms from NASA for the Apollo rockets to prove that they did, in fact, go to the moon. At a certain point, it's plainly irrational to doubt, because the justifications for doubting have gone far beyond the justifications for accepting as reasonably proven.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    71. Re:Been here a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you find that this sort of sarcastic, straw man form of arguing works for you? Do you have people responding "well, I guess I have been pretty silly about this..."

      Sarcastic, probably yes, straw man, it's not. You did list a government official giving information as a reason of proof. All I did was point to a government official giving information about something we know was wrong. The only difference is you supported one and likely didn't like or believe the other.

      And no, I have not had people jump to rational thought and recognize how silly they were being. I have however had people dig holes claiming it is different somehow and offering nothing but "they believed one and not the other" as the reasoning for it. I see you are traveling down that road too.

      The obvious difference between Iraqi WMDs and Obama's birth on the date and at the place claimed is that the latter had a wide variety of independent supporting evidence. By itself, an appointee or official asserting something is insufficient; when it's in concert with a bunch of other evidence, I take it as another data point.

      Your right. There was more evidence floating around confirming the WMDs in iraq then with Obama's birth certificate. Let's list them out a bit and compare them

      With Obama's birth certificate,

      • you had the statement of a few government officials- check. The same with WMDs
      • There are obscured documents- check, the same with WMDs
      • News papers and websites reported it as true - Check, the same with WMDs

      Did I miss something? Well, I'm sure you will find something. But I didn't bring up the fact that it had been going on 2-3 times as long with the WMDs. I dind't bring up the fact that foreight governments pushed the same concpet and ideas with the WMDs, they just believed a different approach should have been taken. I didn't bring up probably the most damning piece of evidence of all, the UN weapons inspection quarterly reports were saying it was likely that Iraq both still had WMDs and the capability to create them. You can find some of them here and some of them here. And yes, they contradict what the lead was saying just before the war in Iraq.

      No, because I didn't bother looking at the content beyond verifying that it was about people arguing that the long form birth certificate is a forgery. My point was that the release of the long form certificate hasn't settled it--there are still a wide variety of birthers claiming that it's undemonstrated that Obama is a natural born citizen. I also haven't gone digging for the original fuel requisition forms from NASA for the Apollo rockets to prove that they did, in fact, go to the moon. At a certain point, it's plainly irrational to doubt, because the justifications for doubting have gone far beyond the justifications for accepting as reasonably proven.

      Well, of course the entire point of demanding an un-obfuscated document was to be able to independently verify it. It's just another piece of paper until it's verified. That will take some time as you pointed out earlier. Please don't pretend like this is something that has had 40-50 years under it's belt. Hell, it hasn't even been a month.

      But more importantly, you are essentially saying here that no matter what their evidence is, you will continue to believe what you want to believe because you won't both looking at anything. Tell me again, who is irrational? I can understand if you looked at their arguments and evidence and said it's a crock from your own opinion over it. I can even understand if you thought it was real but meant something different then they are making it out to be. But you do not even know what that stuff is and are blindly making those conclusions based on your faith

    72. Re:Been here a while... by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      Sarcastic, probably yes, straw man, it's not.

      I cited a government official verifying that the certificate of live birth was real, was given by them, and accurately represented underlying paperwork. You said "you think we should believe everything the government or people in the government says at face value and never question it". I offered a data point; you claimed I made a categorical statement about the trustworthiness of government officials. That's a straw man.

      The only difference is you supported one and likely didn't like or believe the other.

      No, the difference is that one has multiple, independently verified pieces of evidence directly supporting it; the other had a lot of self-interested government officials saying "trust me".

      There are obscured documents- check, the same with WMDs

      The certificate of live birth was released generally in obscured form at one point, but members of the media were invited to see and photograph the document. Several did, including staffers from factcheck.org; Here's their photograph of it, unobscured, so go crazy verifying the serial number that was available back in 2008.

      News papers and websites reported it as true

      More than that, members of the media were able to visit the archives of the newspapers that published the birth announcement and view the archived newspapers with the birth announcement in them, proving pretty conclusively that the announcement (which was placed by the hospital as a matter of procedure) was made at the correct time, in the correct place, providing independent corroboration of the certificate of live birth.

      Did I miss something?

      That the serial number was available in 2008 from independent sources in the media, who found (i.e., saw and touched) corroborating evidence of his birth in the form of news announcements.

      In the case of Iraqi WMDs, the only people claiming to have direct proof were the government officials, and they weren't sharing that proof; the news media was simply reporting on what they were told, not claiming to have direct evidence themselves.

      the UN weapons inspection quarterly reports were saying it was likely that Iraq both still had WMDs and the capability to create them

      The key word there being "likely", meaning the inspectors had no direct evidence of WMDs. By comparison, the certificate of live birth and the newspaper announcements were directly accessible to the media, who took pictures of them.

      No, a conspiracy to hide the truth about Obama's birth isn't impossible at this stage (meaning prior to the release of the long form), but the reasonable belief is that Obama's status as a natural born citizen was demonstrated as well as could be expected in 2008.

      the entire point of demanding an un-obfuscated document was to be able to independently verify it. It's just another piece of paper until it's verified. That will take some time as you pointed out earlier. Hell, it hasn't even been a month.

      Actually, it's been three years that the serial number has been available--plenty of time to independently verify it.

      But you do not even know what that stuff is and are blindly making those conclusions based on your faith.

      Again with the straw man. I have heard the birther arguments, I have evaluated them and found them loony, and by comparison, Obama's certificate of live birth and the independent verification of it seems to demonstrate to me quite sufficiently that he was a natural born U.S. citizen. You, however, assume that I'm just an o-bot, when I've spent all this time without returning your sarcasm, presenting actual facts and verifiable evidence.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  4. Floor plans... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm interested to know where the floor plans came from. Real or made up?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Floor plans... by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm interested to know where the floor plans came from. Real or made up?

      They look similar to the wikipedia entry for the same - at least the stuff shown in those screen shots.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:Floor plans... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      Those are not floor plans. Those are exteriors.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1, Troll

      Will Osama get a gun in this game or are they going for the more realistic shoot him in cold blood no pow operation.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    4. Re:Floor plans... by jhoegl · · Score: 0, Troll

      I agree, I mean taking credit for 3,000+ deaths in one swoop who were also unarmed should give him the right to a fair trial

    5. Re:Floor plans... by Mistlefoot · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/05/06/the-actuals-plan-for-bin-ladens-pucca-house/

      The Floor Plans

    6. Re:Floor plans... by mug+funky · · Score: 1, Insightful

      dammit, my 15 modpoints disappeared before i could use any.

      you were so getting a troll mod.

      EVERYBODY deserves a fair trial, no matter what they've done.

      "fair trial" does not mean "let them go with a slap on the wrist". in OBL's case, a "fair trial" would no doubt be a death sentence. but the trial must happen regardless.

      at the very least the SEALs could have dropped their weapons, asked the women present to leave and duked it out like honourable scoundrels.

      in military slang, "used his wife as a human shield" no doubt actually means "the wife was closest to the door when we kicked it open, so we shot her first".

    7. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who's the toll, exactly?

    8. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 4, Insightful

      uhuh, So you won't mind when an enemy special ops force operates secretly inside the US and assassinates in cold blood your presidents because of the countless international deaths that they ordered.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    9. Re:Floor plans... by agendi · · Score: 1

      I think it is interesting that even academics and museum curators are interested in the cultural and architectural meanings in the compound eg. http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/blog/index.php/2011/05/osamaslair/

      I wonder if it will eventually become a tourist destination...

      --
      I just can't be bothered.
    10. Re:Floor plans... by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Dont slippery slope me... you wont win.

    11. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh. I thought it was the house from Arrested Development.

    12. Re:Floor plans... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      parse error

    13. Re:Floor plans... by artor3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No more than I would mind that same force taking our president captive, locking him up on foreign soil, trying and convicting him.

      Is your argument seriously that we should never kill any foreigners because their countrymen might not like it? Or are you one of those comic-book-logic people who thinks that the mere act of a trial is the difference between justice and vengeance? Because that is cargo cult justice - tripe intended to make the hero seem morally superior.

      The truth is that the only function of a trial is to ascertain guilt or innocence. The punishment is the part that brings about justice, and when there can be no doubt of guilt, there is no particular need for a trial. We have trials even in cases of "obvious" guilt because sometimes someone who is "obviously" guilty may in fact be innocent. But OBL was at the point where there could never be even a shadow of doubt of guilt.

    14. Re:Floor plans... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Informative

      in military slang, "used his wife as a human shield" no doubt actually means "the wife was closest to the door when we kicked it open, so we shot her first".

      The wife rushed the SEALs while OBL was standing there, and they shot her in the leg. They shot OBL in the left side of the head, twice. If they wanted to kill his wife, they would have, especially since she charged them. They didn't kill her though, they left her there with a wounded leg. At any rate, the "human shield" woman, regardless of whether or not she was being used involuntarily, was not the wife in his bedroom and wasn't covering OBL, she was covering one of the other men who died (possibly the courier who fired on the SEALs when they landed, or OBL's son).

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    15. Re:Floor plans... by amiga3D · · Score: 0

      In theory I agree with you, about the fair trial at least. Really though, if someone takes credit for murdering over 3 thousand people and brags about it numerous times on video and claims to hopefully slaughter many, many more in the future........can we not presume that he's guilty? How much doubt is there really? As for the rest of your invective I can't say if OBL had a weapon or not. Somehow I doubt that he didn't have one available. Regardless though, I don't really miss the son of a bitch one little bit. To have dragged his ass back to the US and put him on trial would have been such a huge mistake. I can just see him using the trial as a stage for more of his justifying why it's a good thing to kill innocent people for allah. I so agree with President Obama on this one.

    16. Re:Floor plans... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree, I mean taking credit for 3,000+ deaths in one swoop who were also unarmed should give him the right to a fair trial

      A few considerations:

      First, if in fact somebody is particularly, notoriously, heinous, surely they won't exactly be looking forward to a fair trial? All those cases where the 'obvious' guilt of the suspect offends the public should be cakewalks for the prosecution, given the value of rule of law, is the short procedural delay really a big deal?

      Second, there are situations(almost certainly not his; but that isn't the point) where the public/media are incorrect. That's sort of the reason that rule of law is considered superior to lynch mobs.

      The third is more pragmatic: Against certain classes of opponent(internationally notorious mediagenic terrorist figureheads definitely being among them) fair trials are among the most powerful things you can do to them, the more boring, the better. You don't want the last few pages of their upcoming hagiography to be something out of an action thriller: 'went down in hail of bullets during a shootout with sinister international assassin squad, a true martyr of the movement'. You want it to be as unbelievably dull as possible. 'Taken into custody, charged with X,Y,Z, went before FOO district court, convicted, sentenced, just like any common criminal.' Obviously, getting shot kind of ruins your day; but it buffs the hell out of your legacy. Only cool people get assassinated. They more shadowy and badass the assassins, the better. Getting tried and convicted like any common scumbag, though, especially if the authorities stubbornly treat you neither better nor worse than anybody else being processed through the system, is basically the most banal exit possible.

    17. Re:Floor plans... by ThePeices · · Score: 1

      If that president personally planned and ordered the cold-blooded murder of thousands of innocent civilians by flying airliners into skyscrapers, or similar methods, then nobody would mind at all. That motherfucker would deserve assassination.

      Bin Laden deserved far more than a quick death.

    18. Re:Floor plans... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honestly, I think that international relations would be a much nicer game if the bulk of the casualties were among the upper echelons of political and military power, on all sides, rather than concentrated among a mixture of civilians and common soldiers who are allocated the overwhelming majority of the killing and the dying.

    19. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, let's put you in the position of planning this operation. Are you really going to be the guy who says "take him alive at any cost" when he might be armed, might have a suicide bomb strapped to his chest, might be holding a detonator to blow up the whole compound, or any other number of very likely scenarios? This guy is a terrorist, after all, who said that he'd never be taken alive, and so on with the usual terrorist rhetoric.

      I'm sorry, but a US Navy SEAL's life is worth more than a mass murderer. Enough people have died because of bin Laden. Take no chances. If he doesn't immediately have his hands up and be face down on the floor spread-eagled and screaming "I surrender" when you burst into that room, yeah, you shoot him. You make that very clear to the men you send into harm's way to get him, and at the end of the day you trust their judgement on the battlefield when they kick down that door and have to make a split-second decision. We who are Monday morning quarterbacking are lucky that we didn't have to make that decision, but I think 99% of people would neutralize the threat when they see he's not prone with his hands up, and the other 1% probably doesn't live long enough to feel smug and superior about it.

      I am not for the death penalty, but in a military operation, you do what you have to do to come home safe. If Osama bin Laden wanted a fair trial, he could have turned himself in to the nearest US Embassy on 9/12. Let's stop with the silly idealist nonsense and recognize we're living in the real world, with real consequences to our men and women on the battlefield. I'll say it again, an American soldier's life is worth more than bin Laden's, and any operation to get bin Laden had to have recognized that basic truth.

    20. Re:Floor plans... by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He had two guns: a pistol and an AK. They were just out of reach in the room. The only good having the guns to hand would have done him is to die with the gun in his hand and maybe taking an American with him on the way out. He'd have died anyway. When they kicked in the door he was asleep and surprised - which is the freaking point of using a Navy SEAL team and top-secret stealth helicopters deep in foreign territory. He declared himself a combatant in war on the US, and acted on that. He was "under arms."

      You're offended they didn't fight fair. Well boo freaking hoo. The goal is not to fight fair. It's not to die for your country. The goal is to secure the objective. It's to make the other poor bastard die for his. How this went down was right and proper. The SEAL team doesn't have to let the bad guy pop some rounds off to make you feel better about this.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    21. Re:Floor plans... by Cochonou · · Score: 2

      There is a thing called the separation of powers. Executive power should not act as if it were judiciary power.

    22. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In theory I agree about a fair trial too. The best outcome possible, in my opinion, was have this guy rot in solitary for the rest of his life in a Federal prison, in the dark, never hearing a single human voice ever again. I wish just such a fate on every terrorist arrested by the police.

      This was not a police action, however. These were military soldiers going into an unknown situation, and I have no doubt in my mind they did what they had to to be safe, and come home alive and well afterwards. Osama bin Laden could have been wearing a suicide vest, his finger on the detonator behind his back. He could have rigged the whole compound to explode. He could have had a weapon in his hand, obscured by the woman rushing the SEALs. There are so many different scenarios, each more dangerous than the last, and while I'm against the death penalty, including summary executions, I recognize that in the battlefield, a soldier has to do what a soldier has to do to come home safe. Osama bin Laden was a terrorist, and the difference of a split second might mean death for you, and your whole team. By all means, if he's not spread-eagled, his hands up in the air, and his face on the ground screaming "I surrender" in perfect American English, don't risk it and pull the trigger. These are highly trained operators, and I would never question the split-second decisions they make in that situation.

      The fact of the matter is, Osama bin Laden chose to be a terrorist, chose not to turn himself in to the nearest US Embassy to be arrested and taken to trial, and chose not to surrender when we finally caught up to him. His death was entirely of his choosing, he just didn't get to pick the time and date.

    23. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Really? Let’s change president for you, would you prefer to be shot in cold blood right where you stand or taken alive. I agree it’s a kangaroo court system once your on foreign soil but its better than being in a body bag, and at least you get to have your say. You have many more chances of escape, not to mention how much harder it would be to kidnap a person than it would be to just shoot them. It’s no wonder the military wanted Osama dead with no trial, because if he did go to trial (sure he would be found guilty) he would of exposed decades of dodgy CIA practices and the reasons he hates America so much. We have the Geneva Convention for a reason not just so we can claim the Nazis were super evil.

      and yes i think america should stop killing people, especially in cold blood.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    24. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 0

      president obama (most of your presidents) brags about all the kills he has ordered.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    25. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will Osama get a gun in this game or are they going for the more realistic shoot him in cold blood no pow operation.

      And don't forget the (unarmed) injured wife and (unarmed) 12 year old daughter - if you don't shoot him in front of them, it just ain't the American way...

    26. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let's drop you from a helicopter in a terrorist compound, and see if you meekly ask the leader there if he'll kindly surrender and go back with you to a trial, or if you'd rather have a gun and shoot anybody who doesn't beg to be arrested the instant your boots hit the ground.

      This was a military operation, not a police operation. There were time concerns, there were threat concerns, and the list of situational unknowns is a mile long. Rather than quoting bumper stickers, try to imagine yourself in the position those SEALs were in, or imagine being the one to order those SEALs into harm's way. Are you really going to throw your life or their lives away taking unnecessary risks for some philosophical argument about separation of powers?

      None of that matters, of course, because guess what? The founding fathers made the President the Commander in Chief of the US military. That's how they doled out the powers. And guess what? The military's job is to kill people, and protect the lives of Americans (themselves included). If such a concept is uncomfortable to you, perhaps you should surrender your citizenship and go live someplace that doesn't have a military, and doesn't care about protecting its citizens.

      If the president ordered the FBI to kill somebody on American soil, then you could argue about separation of powers. But arguing about a military operation, especially one as risky as this one? Seriously?

    27. Re:Floor plans... by Anoraknid+the+Sartor · · Score: 1

      Will Osama get a gun in this game or are they going for the more realistic shoot him in cold blood no pow operation.

      And don't forget the (unarmed) injured wife and the (unarmed) 12 year old daughter. If you don't shoot him in front of them, it just ain't the American way...

      --
      Find Japanese addresses in English on Google Maps Japan: http://diddlefinger.com/
    28. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Osama bin Laden didn't want to be taken alive, or he would have turned himself in years ago.

    29. Re:Floor plans... by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ignoring the legalities of what you're saying (because that won't get anyone anywhere), what you are saying is that the President lied when he said there were no orders to kill Bin Laden. Orders can be implicit as well as explicit, but we'll go with your scenario that they were very explicit indeed. Since he couldn't have known in advance that the door was going to get kicked in, and since no general giving orders was likely to have taken chances on him not having a concealed detonation device, what you are saying is that the orders were indeed to kill him on sight and to not take him alive. There's simply no other way to read your post.

      I am not saying here whether I agree or disagree with that decision, tactically, legally, politically or by any other measure. What I am saying is that I find the idea of concealing any such order in order to avoid tactical, legal, political or other consequence, to be highly denigrating and insulting to both the office of the President and to the US itself. If the highest in the land is not willing to face up to their own actions and take full responsibility for them, publicly and honestly, what chance those who model themselves after the nation's selected role-model?

      If, on the other hand, NO such order was given, implicitly OR explicitly, by the President or any person of appropriate authority beneath him, I would want a full, honest, complete and realistic account of how the soldiers would have accepted a surrender or affected a capture of any kind.

      In other words, someone is not taking full responsibility. I don't care whom, I don't care why. These are adults, they should be expected to behave like adults. (Ok, they should behave like society asks adults to behave, as we all know that no adult ever actually does and that lying, cheating and swindling are indeed indicators of behaving like adults actually behave.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    30. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While the war against a concept is sort of a farce, there is a war against al Qaeda going on. And enemy commanders are a legitimate target in international law. It is a better practice to take them prisoner for information, but killing them is also legal. As far as the fair trial is concerned, if he would have been taken prisoner, then he would deserve a fair trial. But that doesn't mean that the military had to take any action whatsoever to keep him alive unless he surrendered (and not during a military action). A valid surrender where his life would have been guaranteed would have been if he initiated contact with the military on a surrender prior to the operation. He didn't.

      The case is closed. Everything was done in accordance with international law. If he would have been in the compound with only his supporters then bombing the crap out of the place would have also been in accordance with international law.

    31. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The procedural delay would have been a big deal to the soldiers in that compound, if their delay resulted in a notorious terrorist who had sent many on suicide bombings activating a suicide bomb of his own. Going into that room, they had to make a split second decision with a great many situational unknowns. Osama bin Laden was not immediately surrendering, as he most certainly could have, and thus any threat he might have posed to those soldiers was swiftly eliminated. A show trial (and that's all it would be, since everyone knows the outcome already) isn't more valuable than the lives of those soldiers.

      This wasn't a lynch mob, this was a military operation conducted by honorable soldiers well versed in the rules of war and military justice. Is there anybody who isn't a complete loon actually saying otherwise? Bottom line, on a battlefield, you are well within your rights to shoot the enemy if they enemy hasn't surrendered. You don't stand around waiting to see if they'll surrender if the enemy is before you. Rules of engagement to the contrary just gets good soldiers killed. The enemy is your enemy whether they're currently shooting at you or not.

      I agree with you on your third point, but for decidedly non-pragmatic reasons. Philosophically, Osama bin Laden living out the rest of his days in a jail cell would be so much better than him being dead. But pragmatically, to capture him alive would be an extreme risk to our soldiers in that compound, and a lightning rod for future violence. Yes, he's a martyr now, but there's no shortage of those anyway.

      Again, bottom line, he was a military target, not somebody we were serving a warrant to. Our soldiers did what they had to to come home safe in a very dangerous situation. The operation was a massive success, and a charismatic voice for terror has been silenced. This is such a huge win for everyone but an increasingly irrelevant group of murderers. Why is this in any way controversial?

    32. Re:Floor plans... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The best outcome possible, in my opinion, was have this guy rot in solitary for the rest of his life in a Federal prison...

      In solitary? Why let such a nice hot piece of Arabian ass go wasted in such a way?

    33. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 2

      I agree, I mean taking credit for 3,000+ deaths in one swoop who were also unarmed should give him the right to a fair trial

      Actually, Osama never took credit for those deaths, which is why he wasn't formally wanted by FBI for the 9/11 bombings (FBI most wanted). The video which was shown on television shortly after the bombings, where he allegedly took the blame, was badly translated.

      Personally, I'm not entirely sure if Osama had his hand in the 9/11 bombings, or if other people did it inspired by him

    34. Re:Floor plans... by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a thing called the separation of powers. Executive power should not act as if it were judiciary power.

      They weren't. Bin Laden declared war on the United States in the 1990s. After treating the problem of Al Qaeda essentially as a police problem until the 9/11 attacks, the US Congress issued the Authorization for Use of Military Force which is functionally equivalent to a declaration of war on Al Qaeda. This is now a military problem. Bin Laden was killed as the head of Al Qaeda in a military operation in a war zone. No need for judicial involvement, which is very limited on the battlefield anyway. Admiral Yamamoto suffered a similar fate in WW2.

      In case you think there could be peace, read Bin Laden's Letter to America to see his demands. The short version: everyone convert to Islam, then abolish your Constitution and govern the country under Sharia law... in every detail. (Beheading, stoning, crucifixion, whipping, ban alcohol, .... the works.)

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    35. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      geroge bush dosn't want to be taken alive otherwise he would of handed himself over to al qaeda. thus he wants to be assassinated.

    36. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 2

      I was not in any top secret meetings where the mission was planned and discussed, nor was I in the room when orders were given to the soldiers who carried out the mission. For what it's worth, the understanding I've gotten is that there was a contingency plan to capture him and extract him alive, however nobody really expected that plan would be needed. After all, he was a terrorist who claimed he'd never be taken alive, and had sent many others out into the world to blow themselves up. Still, somewhere, someone, figured out what to do if he surrendered, and the conclusion, I can't imagine, was to summarily execute him. Somebody in the government would at least want to ask him where his #2 is hiding. Even if he lies, or refuses to say anything about anybody, there's some analysis to be made. Getting Osama bin Laden, was after all, a triumph of intelligence analysis.

      I think it's safe to say, regardless, that on a battlefield, it's understood as a matter of course that soldiers should defend themselves from any threat to their own lives. It's also understood that in war you shoot at your enemies, and keep shooting them until they throw up the white flag. There was no indication that I've heard that Osama bin Laden made any attempt to surrender. Whether or not he was armed, whether or not he was wearing a suicide vest, whether or not he made any threatening move when those soldiers came into the room, is entirely irrelevant. He was an enemy on the field of battle, and his life was forfeit unless he explicitly tried to surrender. Running and trying to hide behind your wife is not the same thing as surrendering. It may be cowardly, it may even be non-hostile, but he was still an enemy on the field of battle, and shooting him is okay until he explicitly surrenders.

      My point though, is not about legalities, or who should take responsibility for any orders. Frankly, I think everyone's taken responsibility, rather proudly. My point is that you trust the snap decision a solider has to make on a battlefield to come home safe. You want your realistic account of what happened, that's it. Soldiers came in, Osama bin Laden didn't have his hands up, so they neutralized the threat before he could do any of them harm. Doesn't matter what their strategic orders are, in that split second they had to decide what to do when faced with an enemy. I'm going to do them the honor of not second-guessing that tactical decision. Since all of them came home safe, with valuable intelligence gathered at the site, I'd say they did the right thing all around.

    37. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What if that president and ex-presidents ordered the meddling in affairs, playing sides against each other and backstabbing entire countries all for the US government's greed of oil for decades? What if they trained and then shit on the very people whom they once called allies?

      What if they also ordered the cold-blooded murder of countless civilians with bullets and bombs? Why would the weapon used to kill make a fucking difference?

      Oh, it's because you're a one-sided, blindly "patriotic" tool who does and thinks exactly what he is told as long as he gets to drive around in his gas guzzling truck and eat his big mac.

    38. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Ignoring your horrible spelling and grammar for a second, I never said Osama bin Laden wanted to be assassinated. I'm sure he would have been quite happy hiding the rest of his life, watching himself on TV, and issuing threats to various countries and people.

      However, he had made it clear he did not want to be taken alive, which was the point I was making. Dr Max was offering a false argument, implying Osama bin Laden would have preferred to be arrested than the swift death he received on a battlefield.

    39. Re:Floor plans... by bronney · · Score: 1

      no but we can team flash + knife.

    40. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Well, that might still prop up his ego, and make himself feel important, even if it was humiliating and painful. Nope, better to let him simply be forgotten, let him wonder in the silent dark if anybody still cares about him. Let him spend his remaining days screaming with nobody to hear him.

      Also, you know, I'm against rape... even for bad people.

    41. Re:Floor plans... by novium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Roper: "So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?"

      More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?"

      Roper: "I'd cut down every law in England to do that."

      More: "Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake."

    42. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 1, Informative

      Innocent? We could argue about those civilians being trained to fight invading soldiers to the death of the last man, woman, and child (essentially becoming soldiers themselves in the war), but that's far off topic, and really beside the point.

      Dropping atomic bombs ended a war that would have killed as many as 10 times that many soldiers had it continued to a conventional conclusion. Throughout this, there would have been plenty of additional civilian casualties as well, possibly quite a few more than 100,000. Harry Truman had to weigh two very terrible outcomes, and chose the one that saved the most lives.

      Your arguments are getting increasingly ridiculous. When countered by reason, you change to another argument, and then another. Just come out and say what you want to say. You think killing anybody is bad, even in war. Just leave it at that and we can all just nod and smile.

    43. Re:Floor plans... by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      Well, that might still prop up his ego, and make himself feel important, even if it was humiliating and painful. Nope, better to let him simply be forgotten, let him wonder in the silent dark if anybody still cares about him

      Agreed. This stops him being martyred and becoming a holy symbol of Jihad, it also stops him going to his heaven and his 73.216 Abba fans, or virgins as some people like to call them.

    44. Re:Floor plans... by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      president obama (most of your presidents) brags about all the kills he has ordered.

      True but at least their current president doesn't tell them that God told him to do it like the last one did. If you kill one person and say God told you to do it you spend your life in loony jail, it seems if you kill hundreds of thousands and claim God told you to do it, you get re-elected for a second term.

    45. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Exactly. When we blow up a SAM site with a stealth plane, are people going to complain about that too because they didn't get a missile off?

    46. Re:Floor plans... by symbolset · · Score: 1

      OBL was double-tapped. Once center mass (heart) and once in the head. It was quite professional. The SEAL team doesn't play around with random hits.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    47. Re:Floor plans... by Vegemeister · · Score: 0

      So
      Harry
      Truman
      , having ordered | , after ordering
      innocent
      Japanese
      should have
      assassinated
      would have
      minded

      16/26: 62%
      See me after class.

    48. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1
      actually America plays the god card a fair bit.

      "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." (because he is on our side)

      "I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world." (thus we must invade other countries to enforce it)

      "America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness and for the unalienable right for life. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life." (we didn't kill osama god did)

      "Faith gives the assurance that our lives and our history have a moral design." (doesn't matter who we kill god wanted them dead)

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    49. Re:Floor plans... by SuperDre · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but you're wrong (I'm certainly no fan of americans (I do love the country itself)), terrorist frequently use woman and children as a human shield (and a lot of times the woman and children do it even willingly) so soldiers won't shoot at them, it's a common cowardly tactic used. Personally I wouldn't care if they accidently shoot those (the ones that do it willingly) woman and children. Also try and think of how YOU would react in a situation like the SEAL's are in, you propably would shit your pants, but those SEAL men and women even as good as they are trained are taking a big risk in entering an unknown situation, you really don't know (unless you have xray vision and can read minds) what those persons gonna do, it's them or you..

    50. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Osama bin Laden [...] chose not to turn himself in to the nearest US Embassy to be arrested and taken to trial

      Why would he do that?
      If you live in the USA and North Korea decides that you've done something to piss them off, are they justified in killing you on US soil if you don't turn yourself in to them?

      I'm not saying that they shouldn't have done something to stop him, but "it was OK because he didn't turn himself in to a foreign power because they told him to" is a pretty stupid argument.

    51. Re:Floor plans... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Actually, Osama never took credit for those deaths, which is why he wasn't formally wanted by FBI for the 9/11 bombings (FBI most wanted [fbi.gov]). The video which was shown on television shortly after the bombings, where he allegedly took the blame, was badly translated.

      Personally, I'm not entirely sure if Osama had his hand in the 9/11 bombings, or if other people did it inspired by him

      Actually, Bin Laden did take responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, on more than one occasion. Here is one:
      Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11

      Here are some videos of him with some of the 9/11 attackers:
      Video Shows Bin Laden, 9/11 Hijackers
      Bin Laden '9/11 video' broadcast

      And maybe you should try another page:

      Bin Laden was a suspect in a number of terrorist attacks around the world in addition to the 9/11 attacks.

      The link you provide is apparently based solely on the federal indictments - that is, a matter of criminal law. More details here.

      After the mass attacks of 9/11, Congress responded with the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and Al Qaeda became a military problem. I don't know that the FBI continually updates the crimes section on the most wanted list.

      Bin Laden's demands? Americans must convert to Islam, discard the Constitution, and govern with Sharia law, or Al Qaeda will keep attacking the US. Bin Laden's offier - convert or die. Some choice, eh?

      For those in need: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    52. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm one of those foreigners who're a little worried about what USA will do next in the name of "justice".

      Wikileaks has exposed corruption in my own government, is perfectly legal, and is basically doing the job our newspaper journalists should do, so I want to support them. But according to the logic of many Americans, anyone who indirectly helps their enemies is also an enemy. If I donate money to Wikileaks, will I also be put on the list for "supporting terrorists"? Will the US government try to seize my foreign assets and arrest me if I put my foot on US soil?

      The truth is that the only function of a trial is to ascertain guilt or innocence. The punishment is the part that brings about justice, and when there can be no doubt of guilt, there is no particular need for a trial.

      There are a number of reasons there should always be a trial:

      1. People are "certain" of someone's guilt and turn out to be wrong all the time.
      Osama Bin Laden is actually a good example of this. Everybody's assuming he's behind the 9/11 bombings, but there wasn't enough evidence for FBI to put out an arrest warrant. Until his death, Obama was formally only wanted for the bombings against the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. (FBI Most Wanted)
      The video released shortly after the 9/11 bombings, where he allegedly took the blame for the attacks, was badly translated. Osama certainly seemd to applaud the bombings after the fact, but it's not clear what part, if any, he took in actutally perpetrating them.
      The Guantanamo prisoners are another example. American politicians assured us they were "the worst of the worst", and now it turns out some of them weren't even held because they were suspected of terrorism; they were held only because the US military wanted information from them.

      2. Allowing assassinations without trial provides the people in power with a convenient way to do away with their political enemies, as long as they can whip up a public frenzy against them. This can and will be abused.

      3. A trial lets all the facts on the table.
      Perhaps Osama is guilty, but not of what he is accused of. Perhaps there are more guilty parties, but the people in power wants some of them to go free. Executing someone without trial is a convenient way to punish your guilty enemy, while letting your guilty friends get away.
      In this particular case, embarassing facts that may surface during a trial include
      a) Incompetence on the part of Homeland Security
      b) Facts regarding the close ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family
      c) The US government's previous support to the terrorists they are now fighting
      ... plus everything else which has been going on behind the scenes and we don't know about yet.

      4. Legality. If we start making exceptions to the law when someone is "obviously guilty", people will start abusing it for their own ends, or simply do it out of laziness, and point to the previous cases as justification. The only way to avoid this is to err on the side of caution and always follow the law, even when someone IS obviously guilty.

    53. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      I know Osama would of preferred to be taken captive. Do you really think if you could pause time and ask him just before he got shot "do you want death now or capture" he would say "i don't want a trial where i can explain all the things your country have done to me and why i hate the US so much, just shoot me now". He wasn't going to just give himself up but that is hardly saying "i want to be shot in cold blood".

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    54. Re:Floor plans... by drolli · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you should not compare the life of the soldier to the life of bin Laden but to the lives which could have been saved by interrogating him.

    55. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget the (unarmed) injured wife and (unarmed) 12 year old daughter - if you don't shoot him in front of them, it just ain't the American way...

      How many beheading videos do you think they watched together as a family? They seem very popular with "Jihadists".

    56. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Again, I'd like to have seen us interrogate him, put him on trial, and lock him up in solitary for the rest of a long, miserable life in the dark, forgotten.

      That's idealism speaking, though. The reality is, the odds of that happening were very small. The man himself said he would never be taken alive. He was a terrorist, the head of a terrorist group specializing in suicide bombings. Between shooting him quickly when he didn't immediately surrender, and waiting to see if he'd shoot some of our soldiers first, or blow himself up, shooting him is the safest outcome.

      As skilled as these SEALs were, I cannot imagine any possible scenario in which we took bin Laden alive if he didn't immediately surrender. The only difference hesitation would have made was some wounded or killed SEALs, with bin Laden still dead. That's not an acceptable alternative.

      Again, I believe if he had legitimately surrendered, we would have accepted that surrender. It just didn't happen though. It's very easy to look back with even a partial picture of the inside of that room, and say what should and shouldn't have happened, but until Osama bin Laden was lying dead on the floor, and all other threats were neutralized, the entire situation was filled with unknown variables. Maybe we could've gotten lucky, maybe it could have been a nightmare that served as a propaganda piece for our enemies and an embarrassment for the US around the world, with soldiers dead that are thankfully alive today.

    57. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 0

      that's a very informative post. Playing devils advocate when negotiating you always start high so you have something to work with.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    58. Re:Floor plans... by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      I know you, jd, generally don't like liberals, so are you just upset because Obama was the one who took Osama out? Are you just looking for something bad to say about Obama?

      Or can you just accept that a really bad man has died? He's dead. It's really a good thing. Stop splitting hairs to find negatives that just don't exist.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    59. Re:Floor plans... by Stiletto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When we waltz into someone's country and kill their people, we're no better than the people who waltzed onto our planes to kill ours.

      We've also set a terrible precedent: "It's A-OK to assassinate someone on foreign soil." But only when we do it, I guess...

    60. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will Osama get a gun in this game or are they going for the more realistic shoot him in cold blood no pow operation.

      God Forbid Osama Bin Laden's civil liberties get violated! IS THERE NO JUSTICE IN THIS WORLD!?

    61. Re:Floor plans... by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1, Troll

      The issue with unilaterally deciding that military action against a location deep within a peaceful country is legal and justified, you create a situation where terrorism would also by extension also be legal and justified.

      Basically what separates the attacks against WTC and the attack against the Abbottabad compound is one of scale.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    62. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, we're not sure yet if the special ops team had to shoot Bin Laden for their own safety, or if they were sent there to assassinate him in the first place. So far, the media reports have been contradictory.

    63. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 0
      Wouldn't you fight to the death if an invading force was coming to your home

      .

      Harry Truman saved a lot of American lives I'll give you that but i doubt millions would of died otherwise.

      My argument has never changed. No one would want to be or should be killed in cold blood without at least a trial, and America is the biggest terrorist out there. You should just say i believe all American propaganda and never think to question it, then we can all nod and smile while the army heads off to invade some where else i mean install a democracy.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    64. Re:Floor plans... by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt regarding the ultimate fate of OBL whether he would have got a trial or not. Bit I think the West lost a chance to gain moral high ground by giving him a trial. And I do not mean just in the eyes of the rest of the world, it's also in your own eyes because so much freedom has been lost over the last decade.

      And I find it hard to believe that arguably the best fighting men in the world really had to shoot him. Other factors were in play, most likely keeping OBL alive for years during the trial would have been a huge liability for the USA.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    65. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I had mod points for you.

    66. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      Nobody forced the US military to go in there in the first place. They could have worked through the Pakistan government, or accepted that Bin Laden was out of reach for now.

      It could have meant a slightly higher risk to US citizens, but that's how the world works. You don't always get to do what you feel is necessary.

    67. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically what separates the attacks against WTC and the attack against the Abbottabad compound is one of scale.

      When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal

    68. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WANTED: Dead or Alive.

      Dead or Alive.

      Dead or

      Dead

    69. Re:Floor plans... by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 2

      Osama had a body guard who was ordered to shoot him if he ever were to be captured. Hope that helps :)

    70. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these navy seal teams act fast i doubt there would of been time to surrender. who says his hands wern't up and kill squad 6 makes up the details latter.

    71. Re:Floor plans... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Within basic human decency or within the letter or spirit of the law, you would be right. But not in reality. You forgot that these guys are POLITICIANS -- a job that has lying in its very core.

      And this remark is not a conspiracy theory "these eeeevil guys are against us!!!!". It's a mere observation that a political candidate who does not lie won't be able to promise as much, and thus won't get the job. An elected (or appointed) politician who doesn't lie won't keep his job.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    72. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      By choosing to go to war, you're opting in to get killed violently. Osama bin Laden chose to go to war with the United States, and sure enough, he was killed violently.

      There's no rule that says everybody in war is given a minute or two to think about whether or not they want to surrender when the opposing side comes along. No, if you want to surrender, you be proactive and turn yourself in, or you take your chances.

    73. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact of the matter is, Osama bin Laden chose to be a terrorist, chose not to turn himself in to the nearest US Embassy to be arrested and taken to trial, and chose not to surrender when we finally caught up to him. His death was entirely of his choosing, he just didn't get to pick the time and date.

      president Obama chose to be president and chose to continue killing innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan, because he hasn't turned himself in to the nearest Iraqi embassy to be arrested and taken to trial then he is to be killed in cold blood after his wife is shot, and its his own fault.

    74. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn it. I wasted all my mod point to shot down troll that failed to understand the basic stuff you are talking about. If you don't get +5 by the time i get more, i will come back. You deserve it for you well written comment!

    75. Re:Floor plans... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2

      It's what I admire most about foreign governments, their outward secularism. They may be religious, just as much as an American politician, but the difference between Europe and Asia (Japan at least) is that it's not a liability to not talk about your faith when running for office. In America, if you came out as an atheist you'd never make it beyond local levels of elected offices, and only in very liberal areas. Religion should be a private matter between a man and his god, or man and whatever he believes, it's no one's business and has no place in civil society. But in America, we want our politicians to be "good Christians", which leads to many socially and economic regressive policies.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    76. Re:Floor plans... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't worry. Bin Laden has been given all the weapons he always used : women and children hide behind, and babies to throw at the soldiers. Oh and you have to walk through the local kindergarten, which is booby-trapped. I don't mean an empty kindergarten, of course. And, of course, at the end of the level you get blamed for every kid that died by all lefties worldwide, as it's so obviously your fault that Bin Laden likes to bomb toddlers.

      Sounds like fun ?

    77. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well said

    78. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Moral high ground? I think you ask just about any guy on the street, and he'll tell you we did the right thing. Okay, but if I concede going to trial is the moral high ground after all, who benefits from that? The terrorists don't recognize our courts, find our entire way of life to be an abomination. We're not going to show them anything by putting their leader on trial. Our allies probably don't care either way. I mean really. So we're left with basically making us feel good about our justice system, while at the same time dragging things out for his victims who want closure, giving him an opportunity to spout his hatred and anti-western propaganda, generally making a muck of things politically for everybody. Any self esteem we might have gotten from showcasing our trial system is probably not as strong as killing him is anyway, so it's basically all negatives.

      Now look, I like the idea of putting him on trial, locking him up, and all that jazz, but ultimately I trust our soldiers who were there to do what was necessary to protect themselves and the mission. It's easy looking back, with all the information we have about the compound, who was there, and so on, to come up with a better plan. You have to remember though, they weren't even sure Osama bin Laden was there. They had no idea what room he'd be in when they found him, they had no idea if he'd be armed, if he'd be wearing a bomb, if he had other surprises in store, or who else might be in the room with him. There were so many unknowns, and so many things that could have gone wrong. At the end of the day, you have to let the soldiers on the ground make tactical decisions to protect themselves and their mission. If there was even the slightest chance one of them could have been hurt, or the mission could have been compromised in some way, it was better to just shoot Osama bin Laden if he wasn't immediately and totally surrendering the instant they came in.

      Osama bin Laden was a bad guy. He was resisting capture, in some small way if not in some big way. He was on the run for years saying we'd never take him alive, and threatening all kinds of harm to those who tried. The situation was dangerous, and the soldiers sent to get him were pressed for time and taking tremendous personal risks just being there. He was an enemy combatant on the field of battle. They neutralized threats to themselves and to their country, and made off with valuable intelligence materials. The outcome of the operation should be in no way controversial.

    79. Re:Floor plans... by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 0

      Most appropriately it would be a Escort/Assasinate mode....but...then Osama&Co would have to be anti-terrorist faction...

      Hey I'm not insinuating anything!

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
    80. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, I'm bad at grammar as it is, and i wrote that comment in rush before leaving work. I'll work on it for you.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    81. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 0

      Pakistan has proven themselves to be an unreliable ally. Considering Osama bin Laden's location when we finally got him, either Pakistan was outright helping him, or incredibly incompetent. Working with them on such a high profile target would have been a brilliant way of losing him yet again.

      Accepting that he was out of reach for now is... unacceptable. We may have violated Pakistan's airspace and sovereignty, but the ends justify the means, particularly since Pakistan is so unreliable. We eliminated a strong and charismatic proponent of jihad, and gathered information about active plots. Overall, this will save lives, and not just American lives either. It'll save Pakistani lives too, since Al Qaeda loves blowing up other muslims who aren't as orthodox as they are. Pakistan will make a fuss over this, and more than a few in their government who already hated us and were working with Al Qaeda will keep doing so, but so be it. When your allies are working against you, why should we treat them any better than enemies?

      Before somebody twists my words, I'm not saying we should invade Pakistan or anything of the sort. We do need them for what they can do for us, and they need us too. It's a strange relationship, and one worth keeping relatively stable, but when we have actionable intelligence and can't trust Pakistan with it, we need to go it alone. As this operation proved, it can be well worthwhile.

      Actually, this is how the world works, with nations looking out for their own best interests. Being friendly and politically correct with everyone is not how the world works, and I'm glad nobody so deluded is in charge of the US government.

    82. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      If North Korea wants to come and get me, I'll fight them tooth and nail and go down fighting. Hopefully the US government does something to stop them too.

      I said that Osama bin Laden chose not to turn himself in, simply because other people are saying it's somehow not fair we didn't give him a chance to surrender. I say this because he did have a chance to surrender. He had many chances for years now, and he repeatedly chose not to. Why people expect he would have surrendered now, and then we somehow ignored that and summarily executed him, I can't imagine.

      This was a bad man, who was unwilling to surrender, and was killed on a battlefield in a war. It's as simple as that, not controversial, and people essentially saying we should have let him try to kill some more of us first are the ones making stupid arguments.

    83. Re:Floor plans... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Are you fucking kidding me?

      First we have a fairly precise attack on someone who is self acknowledged to be the leader of the most famous terrorist group in the world. He has claimed responsibility for thousands of deaths. A few civilians died, but when you're staying with one of the most notorious idiots in the world today, being hunted by the American army, you're knowingly gambling with your life.

      Next we have some civilian airliners being hijacked and flown into a civilian building full of thousands of people, they had not identified themselves as part of any military organisation, or directed any attack towards Osama and his organisation. How is that in any way the same?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    84. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      S H T nn Ja have d have ed?

      Or did you mean "o arry ruman , having ordered | , after ordering iocent nese should assassinate would mind"?

    85. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know what crazy media you're listening to, but what I've been hearing has been pretty consistent, from the start, and even as new details emerge. There was the ability in place to extract him alive if he surrendered. He didn't, and was killed. Nobody was shedding any tears about that, but hey, nobody really expected him to surrender anyway. Do you really think they planned a mission this dangerous and complex without accounting for every possible outcome?

      Something like this, we may never really know. I will always err on the side of the soldier's judgement in that situation, having to make that split second decision. I'm not going to second-guess the honor of one of our soldiers when I have no reason to do so. These soldiers have a duty to their mission, the solider next to them, and to themselves. If there's any doubt in that split second that he might cause harm to any of those things, it's better to pull the trigger, is it not? Regardless, Osama bin Laden was an enemy on the field of battle, and you kill the enemy on a field of battle. That's war-fighting 101, and it's what Osama bin Laden signed up for when he declared war on America.

      The important thing is, every one of those SEALs got to go home safe to their families. I'm not going to question any decision that led to that outcome. Perhaps some of those decisions were irrelevant to that outcome, and everything would have worked out okay anyway, but I wasn't there and I can't know. I'll err on the side of that soldier's judgement who pulled the trigger. The rest of the Monday morning quarterbacking and political nonsense, I don't think it's necessary.

    86. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      As I said, he made statements that he would never be taken alive prior to this.

      As I've also said, on a battlefield in a war, you don't get to pause time and decide whether or not you want to surrender, and everyone else has to sit around waiting for you to decide. If you're at war, you can be killed at any time by the opposing force. War isn't fair, but it is what Osama bin Laden cheerfully signed up for. Nobody should feel sorry for him, and nobody should be arguing that we shouldn't have killed him in this war.

      If you want to leave the war, you get proactive. Cover yourself in white flags, get rid of all your weapons, and find the nearest enemy to surrender to. If you want to keep fighting, you take the chance that you won't have time to surrender when the enemy comes. Osama bin Laden kept fighting, and we was killed. Simple as that. Was he actively fighting in the second or two before he was shot? Doesn't matter, because he wasn't actively surrendering.

    87. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      And maybe you should try another page:

      Bin Laden was a suspect in a number of terrorist attacks around the world in addition to the 9/11 attacks.

      The link you provide is apparently based solely on the federal indictments - that is, a matter of criminal law. More details here.

      Um, the second of these links only mentions the killing of two German nationals, illegal possession of firearms, and the bombings against the African embassies. The 9/11 attacks are conspicuously absent.

      The first link is a news recap which claims that "Intelligence agencies quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by bin Laden’s terrorist organization", but that's hardly conclusive proof, and it's not a formal arrest warrant.

      I'm not sure what your point is - do you mean that the FBI was not allowed to put out a warrant for the 9/11 attacks once it became a matter for the military?

      I'll check your other links later.

    88. Re:Floor plans... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      I'd try explaining to you that the United States has never invaded Saudi Arabia, and Osama bin Laden's worldview is totally screwed up, but you don't really care about that.

      I'd try explaining to you once again how this wasn't done in cold blood, it was done on a battlefield in a mutually declared war, but you don't really care about that.

      I'd try explaining the fallacy that people don't want to die, since suicide bombers do it all the time, but you don't really care about that.

      At last we have the truth from you. You're a simple anti-American troll, who believes the Americans are the terrorists, not al Qaeda. Now that you've made yourself clear, I don't see much point in debating with you. You're absolutely certain of your point of view, and nothing will change that. Kind of like al Qaeda's jihad, but you don't really care about that.

    89. Re:Floor plans... by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      It's not only found in america or europe. Thailand (Buddhist) and Malaysia (Muslim) are exactly the same and both are Asian countries. In fact most countries in asia are like this.

    90. Re:Floor plans... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Everybody's assuming he's behind the 9/11 bombings

      I don't recall there being any bombings on 9/11.

    91. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically what separates the attacks against WTC and the attack against the Abbottabad compound is one of scale and provocation. He killed thousands for no justifiable reason, and we killed three armed and dangerous terrorists.

      FTFY

    92. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm suprised they didnt try using some non-leathal methods before switching to head-shot.
      I guess they didnt want him to leak who else in the US that was involved in 9/11. eh?

      Anyway, i'm glad Obama at least used the right tools for the job. Bush would have
      carpet-bombed the whole city, women, children and all.

    93. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Osama bin Laden wanted a fair trial, he could have turned himself in to the nearest US Embassy on 9/12.

      How would that have gotten him a fair trial?

    94. Re:Floor plans... by dintech · · Score: 1

      I don't see that it makes any difference. Jihadists already have all the justification they need.

    95. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong answer, you are assuming that all terrorists (which apparently include alot of people in the eyes of americans) are always sleeping with their bombs on and do everything with them on just in case some american shows up...

      You also assume that terrorists are just looking for random excuses to blow themselves up, no, they are looking for targets and as such do not require their terrorist gear until they are getting close to said targets.

      Once again americans forget they are dealing with humans (yes despite what foxnews may have you think, terrorists are human too) and humans dont wear suicide bombs 24/7 or actually even THINK about suicide bombing americans 24/7.

      Your rampant paranoia has gotten the best of you America...

    96. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does make sense, yes, and there's little distinction. One party plays by universal human rights in Pakistan, the other is enforcing Shari'a in the USA by killing unbelievers. If you're one of the cultural relativists who consider the Shari'a to be of equal value, then yes, the two are equal. If you're anything close to sane, and recognize the Shari'a for what it is, then it is bloody obvious that killing civilians and killing terrorists is NOT equal.

    97. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair trial ? in a US embassy? that will be the day!

      Gitmo prisoners are still waiting for "fairness"

    98. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      :-)

    99. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1
      Except you haven't explained a bloody thing, except that you never really paid attention to propaganda that you are running around proclaiming.

      .

      it was done secretly in a country your at peace with to a person that was sleeping how is that a battle field.

      .

      I don't see you changing your point of view either dose that make you like Al Qadea.

      .

      I'm not completely anti America. I like your country and think its a better example of democracy than what we have here but that doesn't hide the atrocities being committed in the name of America (or in the name of Australia we are just smaller).

      .

      The only way your ever going to understand this is if America gets invaded and your hiding out scared for your life fighting for freedom.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    100. Re:Floor plans... by kiwix · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the US way of arresting a criminal is to shoot to kill, and then check the identity of the dead body? Even if we had all the proofs that Bin Laden is the worst criminal on earth (which we don't by the way), there was still the possibility that he was not in this particular compound...

      And what about the other guys who have been killed during the assault?

    101. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He had two guns: a pistol and an AK. They were just out of reach in the room."

      What kind of BS is this? With this reasoning the police should shoot dead anyone who happens to stand close to a gun when they break into his house. After all the only good having the guns to hand would have done him is to die with the gun in his hand and maybe taking a police officer with him on the way out.

    102. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick! Jump to defend the Seals. Or their feelings will get hurt.

    103. Re:Floor plans... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Stun guns, tazers and rubber bullets just became uninvented?

    104. Re:Floor plans... by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      The fact that he always sent other guys to do the suicide bombing should tell you, that he was not that keen to get the paradise express.
      He was a typical commander in that respect I guess...

    105. Re:Floor plans... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't mean to imply that taking the suspect alive is higher than all other considerations, and given the US' historical enthusiasm for capturing people believed to be of intelligence value, I assume that they left with just a body because that was the option they had.

      My response was to anyone who argues that just shooting him was the best outcome, rather than a second-best alternative to which we apparently had to resort, or that letting the legal process play out is somehow 'weaker' than just shooting whoever you think the perp is. It was not intended to suggest that all suspects must be taken alive, regardless of circumstance(as, indeed, many much less interesting ones aren't, when they pose sufficient danger).

    106. Re:Floor plans... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Will Osama get a gun in this game or are they going for the more realistic shoot him in cold blood no pow operation.

      Good troll is good.

    107. Re:Floor plans... by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      I'm one of those foreigners who're a little worried about what USA will do next in the name of "justice".

      Which makes you either an idiot or paranoid-delusional. Your wikileaks example seems to suggest that the former is true, but I'm also willing to consider the possibility that you fall into both categories. Your nonsense about the FBI lacking evidence certainly suggests you've been swallowing some Truther woo, so I wouldn't disqualify the paranoia outright.

    108. Re:Floor plans... by mangu · · Score: 1

      I would want a full, honest, complete and realistic account of how the soldiers would have accepted a surrender or affected a capture of any kind.

      Tie a white piece of cloth to a broomstick, wave it out of a door. Show both of your hands, then walk slowly out. Lie down in the floor.

      Coming from an acknowledged leader of a suicide squad, anything else should be considered armed resistance.

    109. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So if north Korea invaded and busted into your house in the morning and because you hadn't pre-surrendered you wouldn't mind them killing you in cold blood.

    110. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 2

      When your allies are working against you, why should we treat them any better than enemies?

      You define "working against us" as "not doing what we tell them". It's a quick and efficient way to make friends into enemies.

      Actually, this is how the world works, with nations looking out for their own best interests. Being friendly and politically correct with everyone is not how the world works, and I'm glad nobody so deluded is in charge of the US government.

      True, that's how it works - for the USA. Other nations have to be friendly and politically correct, or face the consequences. The USA is the only nation which can send their troops into foreign territory to apprehend someone and get away with it, because of its superior military force and large economic influence.

      It only works up to a point, though. I think the USA is heading for two big problems down the road:

      1. Accumulating enemies and bad-will across the world. The USA may be militarily stronger than any other nation on Earth, but they're not stronger than all the others combined.
      2. A large and growing national debt. The USA has the largest military budget in the world, several times larger than the closest contender, and sooner or later they'll reach a point where they can't afford it.

    111. Re:Floor plans... by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's put you in the position of planning this operation. Are you really going to be the guy who says "take him alive at any cost" when he might be armed, might have a suicide bomb strapped to his chest, might be holding a detonator to blow up the whole compound, or any other number of very likely scenarios?

      Yes definitely. A state does not indulge itself in revenge and vengeance. It tries to get hold on criminals. So the normal thing to do is: Get him, bring him before a judge and if considered guilty, send him to prison for his crimes.And I am not happy with the current outcome as it looks like vengeance.

        This guy is a terrorist, after all, who said that he'd never be taken alive, and so on with the usual terrorist rhetoric.

      He is still a human. And that means all human right apply to him as much as for any other human on this planet. And it is of now importance what that person did wrong. Even if he is the most dangerous, evil and brutal mass murder on the planet. If you cannot understand this concept, please feel free to read about those concepts and the principals of humans rights. Also try to understand the basics of the so called enlightenment.

      I'm sorry, but a US Navy SEAL's life is worth more than a mass murderer. Enough people have died because of bin Laden. Take no chances. If he doesn't immediately have his hands up and be face down on the floor spread-eagled and screaming "I surrender" when you burst into that room, yeah, you shoot him.

      a) All human life is equal.
      b) Of course he was not putting his face down as he wanted to die as a hero and a martyr. Now he did. And we have shown that we cannot life up to our own rules. Perfect.

      You make that very clear to the men you send into harm's way to get him, and at the end of the day you trust their judgement on the battlefield when they kick down that door and have to make a split-second decision. We who are Monday morning quarterbacking are lucky that we didn't have to make that decision, but I think 99% of people would neutralize the threat when they see he's not prone with his hands up, and the other 1% probably doesn't live long enough to feel smug and superior about it.

      This might be true for an average guy, but the SEALs should have been better in this. At least the outcome is suboptimal for the US and Western states.

      I am not for the death penalty, but in a military operation, you do what you have to do to come home safe. If Osama bin Laden wanted a fair trial, he could have turned himself in to the nearest US Embassy on 9/12.

      It is not important what Osama bin Laden wanted, it is important if we can life up to our own rules. And we failed. If he believed in something else than our rules, we should still not align our behavior to his rules, but always to our own. And that means, killing a suspect is not ok.

      Let's stop with the silly idealist nonsense and recognize we're living in the real world, with real consequences to our men and women on the battlefield. I'll say it again, an American soldier's life is worth more than bin Laden's, and any operation to get bin Laden had to have recognized that basic truth.

      And no: No men's life is more worth than any other. IF you believe in the enlightenment and human rights you should understand that. If you are a Christian you should still understand that concept as it is proposed in the Bible. Jews, Moslems and Buddhists have similar concepts so even then you should understand that the price tag on every human is infinite even the one for Osama bin Laden.

    112. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or the lives that would have been saved if Bush had taken up the Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over.

    113. Re:Floor plans... by horza · · Score: 2

      I don't think the USA did it in the name of justice, they did it in the name of security. They took 9/11 as an act of war, and then vowed to pursue Bin Laden and his group until the threat had been neutralised. Taking out their symbolic head was one of their objectives to achieve this.

      Admittedly the USA justice system is flawed, for example their pursuit of Assange and perverting the Swedish and English justice system via their influence or arresting Skylarov on behalf of Adobe. It shows they are not above petty vengeance. However in this case I think most people will agree that this particular terrorist group has enough of a track record to show they are a real threat.

      It's a shame he couldn't be brought to trial, but they had one helicopter that crashed and limited men on the ground. They only had one chance to get him, dead or alive. If he'd managed to slip out the back then it could be another 10 years before the Americans found him again, especially as he was being sheltered by the Pakistan government.

      Phillip.

    114. Re:Floor plans... by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Against certain classes of opponent(internationally notorious mediagenic terrorist figureheads definitely being among them) fair trials are among the most powerful things you can do to them, the more boring, the better.

      Yeah, like that one long-forgotten Jewish rabble-rouser the Romans tried, sentenced and executed alongside a couple of common thieves. They really put a quick end to that legend.

      Martyrs gonna mart, yo.

    115. Re:Floor plans... by horza · · Score: 1

      You think shooting Bin Laden sets a precedent of killing somebody on foreign soil??? It's not even a precedent for the USA, let alone the thousands of years we've been doing it here in Europe.

      Phillip.

    116. Re:Floor plans... by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      It is of no consequence what he said he is. If I say I am on war with the US and then attack an embassy, in my country they will catch me (if they can), trial me and send me to a prison. That's what modern states do with criminals. A person cannot declare war to a state or any other body. It is mostly a figure of speech, but it has no consequence on a legal basis and on how a state deals with it.

      We do not measure bin Laden by his own rules nor do we use his rules on us. We use our rules and laws. And they see him as an criminal or at least as a suspect. And according to these rules we have to judge him and us. Everything else is vengeance talk. And states do not do vengeance. If you do not understand that you are soooooo Middle Ages.

    117. Re:Floor plans... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 2

      Those two countries are irrelevant,their GDP too small to talk about. Taiwan you don't need to talk about your faith. Japan you don't need it. Singapore you don't need it. And of course, obviously, China.

    118. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      top-secret stealth helicopters?

      Ha haa haaa - they may be stealthy to radar but not audibly.Falling out of the sky is not very stealthy either. People where aware of their approach - some guy was twittering about them. Bin Laden was ill, he was probably close to death anyway. If would be really ironic if he got someone to turn him in for the $25 million dollar reward which gets passed on to AQ to fund further operations.

    119. Re:Floor plans... by Tuan121 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because I'm sure he would just tell us everything we want to know...

    120. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "or are they going for the more realistic shoot him in cold blood no pow operation." Poor UBL. Shot in cold blood. That man had rights! You don't have rights. The 9/11 victims don't have rights. But UBL? He should have all the rights in the world. Why? Because the US is always bad and anyone else is a victim. Were the people in the world trade center armed? Oh, that's right. It was a big conspiracy. Elvis and the inter dimensional zombie robot vampires from Uranus were behind it in an evil plot to overthrow the world. And it would have worked too if it weren't for you meddling kids!

    121. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Osama bin Laden wanted a fair trial, he could have turned himself in to the nearest US Embassy on 9/12.

      And the Japanese who did not surrender on December 8, 1941 deserved summary execution on the battlefield. TAKE NO PRISONERS!

    122. Re:Floor plans... by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 0

      I've heard hearsay that they pulled him out, took him to another floor, and shot him there along with his family. I'm not saying that's what happened, but if it is, I don't see how you could endorse that.

      I have no problem with killing someone who won't surrender- but capturing someone and then shooting them, that's inexcusable.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    123. Re:Floor plans... by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      Civilian and Military death estimates for a conventional war outcome with the Japanese were somewhere north of 1.5 million. He made the right call.

    124. Re:Floor plans... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      And of course, obviously, China.

      What? In China, your religion has to be state endorsed atheism if you want to get anywhere in government.

    125. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop trolling yourself :U

    126. Re:Floor plans... by drolli · · Score: 1

      Maybe. maybe not. But don't forget that such a situation would have potential for disinformation. The most elegant solution would have been to take everybody in the house as prisoner into some secret prison and not disclosing what has happened and wait for intelligence information. Nobody could have asked questions. A lot of time to confuse him and the others there a little and wait what happens.

      I don't judge the morality or ethics of all of this, but I suspect this was the plan. It could be the crash of the helicopter left no transport capacities or time.

    127. Re:Floor plans... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2
      Separation of powers? Like the fact that the Chief Executive is also the Commander in Chief of the military, and can therefore order military operations (yes, even ones that kill people) against an enemy that declared war on us in 1996? Especially one who Congress voted for an Authorization for the Use of Force against?

      I'm not a huge fan of the current President, but come on. The judiciary has no place in the process of making war. Two Presidents and six Congresses did this by the books.

    128. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm interested to know where the floor plans came from."

      Probably the army cadets, when they sponsored this insensitive crap.

    129. Re:Floor plans... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      He had two guns: a pistol and an AK.

      Says who, the American government which has changed its story about four hundred times in the last week?

    130. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEEEHAAAW! Send ol' Dixie up the flagpole! Break out the guns and moonshine! We's gonna have us a right hoedown!

      USA! USA! USA!

    131. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the casualties of WTC didn't have the blood of thousands on their hands and weren't the masterminds of a large terrorist organization, a fundamental difference.

      Are you complaining about the legality of our troops on Pakistani soil without notice? Because the Pakistani government and the UN seem to be okay with it, so what's your deal?

    132. Re:Floor plans... by jlar · · Score: 1

      "It's not to die for your country. The goal is to secure the objective. It's to make the other poor bastard die for his."

      The proper George S. Patton quote is:

      "No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country." ;-)

    133. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it's Counter-Strike, neither, unless one of the players decides to pretend to be Osama, in which case he'll have a gun.

    134. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 0

      *clap* *clap* *clap*

      Have you ever considered going into politics? Making it into an issue of the individual soldier's life against a terrorist's was good, and bringing in the soldier's family was even better. That allowed you to side-step the issue of what orders the soldier had from his superiors.

      As I see it, it's not the individual soldier who should be blamed, but the superiors and politicians who put that soldier in Pakistan in the first place. As (among others) Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have shown, the US military believes it has the right to lie to the public to get support for their operations. We simply don't know if the US special ops team was sent there with orders to apprehend Bin Laden if possible, or to kill him regardless.

      For example, The Telegraph claims:

      US officials said Osama resisted and was shot in the head during the raid that took less than 40 minutes. A US official said the strike team had orders to kill Osama and not capture him but added: “If he had waved a white flag, he would have been taken alive.”

    135. Re:Floor plans... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Will Osama get a gun in this game or are they going for the more realistic shoot him in cold blood no pow operation.

      Is there a September 11th mod for Flight Simulator, and do the towers have flak guns and SAMs?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    136. Re:Floor plans... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Good negotiation technique: Bid high, with a plan to lower your bid to something reasonable. Bad negotiation technique: Crash airplanes into buildings.

      Seriously. Where should we, as America, start compromising on Sharia law? Should we abolish the Constitution? Should we stone adulterers? Ban alcohol? Abolish religious freedom? (Or from a moral standpoint, Osama wasn't a US citizen. I am, and I don't get to demand any of that shit. Why should my government listen to this guy and not me?)

      I'm not a fan of Obama, but I agree with the counterproposal he used in the negotiation with bin Laden. You know, the proposal that was most likely 5.56 mm wide and delivered at about 3500 feet per second by a SEAL "negotiation team."

    137. Re:Floor plans... by RooftopActivity · · Score: 0

      Worth pointing out here, that this isn't the same as the Counter Strike Source map.

      The CS:S map has a large stairway at the back of the building which goes from left to right. Each floor has a large open plan room across the entire front of the building.

    138. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One nation under God?

      I'm not religious by any stretch of the imagination. But the citizens of the United States claim to be just that. Which means that any life, has unlimited value. Which also means that killing anybody is wrong. So no, based upon the principals that the US claims to hold dear. Killing even Bin Laden is wrong.

      Not that I agree, but you should.

    139. Re:Floor plans... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      if someone takes credit for murdering over 3 thousand people and brags about it numerous times on video and claims to hopefully slaughter many, many more in the future........can we not presume that he's guilty?

      I'm sure someone will quote the fifth amendment, and wrongly - by missing out the "shall be compelled" part.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    140. Re:Floor plans... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I think the problem was Pakistan. Since we couldn't be sure there wasn't a leak the size of the mississippi's current flooding in the pakistani government (or outright cooperation, even...), we couldn't inform them of the operation until it was too late for Bin Laden to escape.

      Unfortunately, that rules out the kind of siege operation we might have used to convince bin laden to surrender. Pakistan has a sufficient military that we couldn't just roll over the whole country to get what we want, and without asking for permission first, I don't see how we could have obtained it after beginning siege operations around the "mansion."

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    141. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      Or he could of just given them some oil that they were after.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    142. Re:Floor plans... by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

      This was a military operation, not a police raid. Put yourself in the position of the guy who shot him first.

      It would have been borderline mentally retarded to assume he wasn't armed in any way if he were resisting arrest. He was responsible for many deaths and bombings even if you don't including 9/11.

      If you had a gun aimed at him and he ran at you, you would have to be a complete idiot to wait until the guy who used suicide bombers repeatedly gets close to you and try to grab and arrest him rather than pull the trigger. Was he armed? No. Was there any way to tell that he didn't have a gun, knife, or bomb strapped to him? Also no. Would you have pulled the trigger? If you had any brains, yes you would.

      It's a complete fantasy that arresting him was possible once he resisted. Any known murderer who publicly promoted suicide bombing would have been shot if he charged the police even if they didn't see any weapons. Any cop from pretty much anywhere in the world would have pulled the trigger. This was a guy who didn't just publicly promote suicide bombing, he controlled an organization which repeatedly used it to kill civilians. Who in their right mind would try to tackle him?

      Arrest wasn't really a possible, or even sane, choice once he resisted.

      On another note: How the hell is anyone surprised in the least bit that they killed him? Have you been in a coma the last 10 years? How did you miss that that's what the US has been trying to do this whole time?

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    143. Re:Floor plans... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      This guy wasn't a "suspect" in a crime. He was a self-declared combatant in a war. We don't believe he did something, he told the whole world that he did it, then gathered together armed men to make war against the US in Afghanistan, then fled into Pakistan where they believed they could continue that war with less direct threat of intervention from the US.

      And I don't think you are going to convince anybody that the life of a mass murderer whose goal is to impose a morally devoid system like Sharia on the West and impose the Caliphate around the world, killing non-Muslims as he goes, is just as valuable as the life of your average human being.

    144. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 2

      You know what I mean...

    145. Re:Floor plans... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I agree, I mean taking credit for 3,000+ deaths in one swoop who were also unarmed should give him the right to a fair trial

      That makes as much sense as saying that a murderer of one innocent person doesn't deserve a fair trial either. You don't get to decide in advance who has a right to a fair trial, unless you want to get rid of that tiresome "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    146. Re:Floor plans... by olderchurch · · Score: 2

      From the link the parent provided:
      CAUTION
      Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

      So I would agree with the parent that the FBI didn't have enough evidence to tie him to 9/11. Otherwise the FBI would have certainly mentioned it.

      --
      Disclaimer: This opinion was created without the use of any facts
    147. Re:Floor plans... by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

      I've heard hearsay that they pulled him out, took him to another floor, dressed him as a clown, made a children's TV show with him as the host, then destroyed the video tape and shot him. I'm not saying that's what happened, but if it is, I don't see how you could endorse that.

      I have no problem with logical arguments based on some sort of reputable facts - but capturing a friend-of-a-friend-who-wasn't-there-either-but-thinks-he-heard story and then using it as some weird basis for your moral outrage, that's inexcusable.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    148. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he surrenders, arrest him. If he does anything that might endanger the assault team, shoot to kill. And for this guy, given his terrorist background and endorsement of suicide bombers, yeah, I wouldn't exactly go into the room shooting, but the moment he did anything other than put his hands up when the team entered the room with guns pointed at him, I'd shoot first and ask questions later. For all people knew, there could have been a ton of high explosives in the basement, just waiting for a button press.

      That's about as fair as I'd be in the situation, and that's what people have said about the orders: if he had surrendered, they would have arrested him.

      Look, nobody likes the idea of extra-judicial killings, but nobody is surprised if, for example, armed bank robbers are shot and killed in the midst of an assault to get them out of the bank after negotiations have failed, or if the police show up at their hideout after the heist. Nobody is surprised if enemy soldiers in a command center are killed in their bunker when soldiers on the other side assault the location. This guy was an accused criminal who, if guilty, was responsible for thousands of deaths of innocent people. He has publicly advocated doing more killing of innocent people and he has been identified by many, many witnesses as the person responsible. He's a self-declared unconventional soldier on an unconventional battlefield, hiding in a house behind a high wall with barbed wire and guns. While it's a shame he didn't get to stand for trial on war crimes so that we could learn all the details and formally determine his guilt or innocence, he had that option if he had surrendered. He didn't surrender, and like many armed but not-yet-tried accused criminals threatening innocent people he's dead when the police or soldiers on the opposite team show up to arrest them and the accused do anything but put their hands in the air when directed. Good riddance.

    149. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      What kind of proof do we have that he did write that letter, if i was the US i would of written something like that ages ago (another reason to kill him before he starts talking). Oh well if world peace is never going to work i just hope we always have the biggest guns (otherwise some one else will be deciding whose law to follow and we might not be on their good side). The government will only listen to who they have too.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    150. Re:Floor plans... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Who's the toll

      Ask not, 'tis thee.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    151. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 2

      If someone had told me ten years ago that the USA would set up detention camps where they brought in foreign nationals for questioning and torture without trial, I would have dismissed that as a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, reality has a way of catching up to you.

      In case you don't know, a number of non-US citizens have had their assets seized without trial because they were believed to finance terrorism, or have some other kind of connection to terrorism, but without being charged with any form of concrete accusations.

      Leading American politicians have seriously suggested that Assange should be assassinated because he (they believe) indirectly aided USA:s enemies by publishing classified information.

    152. Re:Floor plans... by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Fly to Osama's house in Pakistan with 40 Navy Seals, kill one person that attempts to shoot at you, and then kill a bunch of other guys that are unarmed including Osama bin Laden (unarmed).

      Yeah, sounds like a really thrilling mission.

    153. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scary part is that you don't even see how killing someone in cold blood without trial because of their beliefs makes the killers exactly the same as the target, regardless of how evil the target is. We don't put evil people on trial because its fun or easy, and we still put them on trial even when they have literally been caught in the act supposedly because we are better than them.

    154. Re:Floor plans... by imikem · · Score: 2

      Seriously?

      Which of the 3000 people in the World Trade Center towers had spent decades organizing and carrying out mass murder, and publicly declared war on, well anyone? I'll wait here while you never answer.

      OBL was a self-declared lawful combatant. He waived his right to due process. Period.

      As for the violation of Pakistani sovereignty, the fact this mass murderer was living in their country for years while their military, police and intelligence services were unable or unwilling to do basic investigative work on what should be a quite suspicious property, indicates that the rule of law in Pakistan falls considerably short of a level warranting full sovereign rights. Particularly when US taxpayers are funding a sizable fraction of their government apparatus.

      Your equation of these two events is so offensive and wrong that I can only assume you are mentally ill. Please seek psychiatric treatment.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    155. Re:Floor plans... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'll say it again, an American soldier's life is worth more than bin Laden's,

      So what? Even a brave senior policeman's life is worth more than a drug-addled child rapist's, that doesn't give the former the right to act outside the law and shoot the latter except in genuine self defence..

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    156. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are very naive. Do you really think that the US wanted Bin Laden alive? And then what? Unrest and threads from radical islam? Years of public relationship nightmare?
      They wanted to finish it as soon as possible and they did that. Thats probably not legal but I undernstand the decision.

    157. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I agree, I mean taking credit for 3,000+ deaths in one swoop who were also unarmed should give him the right to a fair trial" -- Bin Laden about George W. Bush on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

    158. Re:Floor plans... by delinear · · Score: 1

      Well he certainly wouldn't complain about it.

    159. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was probably an important symbolic victory for the Americans. I suspect Bin Laden was even more important as a symbol to the American people than he was to Al Qaeda, and that the American feeling of victory will have greater impact than Al Qaeda's loss. If the American people feels safer now, it may bring some good with it.

    160. Re:Floor plans... by Prosthetic_Lips · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that argument "any life has unlimited value" doesn't hold water. By NOT killing UBL, you are in effect leaving him to kill more people. Even in a jail (or jail-like compound), he has enough influence to order others to their death.

      So, killing UBL is like NOT killing hundreds (or thousands) of others. The math geek in me sees the beauty of that equation.

    161. Re:Floor plans... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The last I heard, you dealt with terrorists under the criminal justice system, not militarily. The soldiers are there to help out he police. In the UK up to the 'Nineties, we caught PIRA and Loyalist terrorists and put them on trial for their crimes. Yes, occasionally our soldiers shot terrorists, but only in exceptional circumstances.
      That's all.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    162. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama did the adult thing. I’m no more privy to what actually happened in that room, or what their orders actually were than you were, but I’ll make my own conjecture as to his reasoning and why I would have done the same thing:

      Point number zero – The orders will come out sometime. Perhaps not now, but sometime down the road, we’ll know exactly what the orders were.

      Point number one – Remember Guantanamo? Remember how difficult it is to actually close the thing, because there are some people where they have enough of a case to believe that they are hard core jihadis, but not enough of the kind of acceptable evidence to convict them in court. Then there are to low risk ones whose passport countries don’t want them back. Can you be certain that Bin Laden could be convicted and not get off? The US judicial system prevents trying someone for a crime a second time, after they have been acquitted. Now imagine if Bin laden was acquitted because the evidence did not pass muster in a courtroom. It is no accident that the people who would have been sent to Guantanamo a few years ago are just being blown up by predators now.

      Point number two – Remember the Breslan school siege? If bin laden were alive and behind bars, every jihadist on the planet would be motivated to take hostages to demand his release. If I were Obama, I’d sure not want the Breslan style situation where a school full of children was taken hostage and the hostage takers were demanding Bin Laden’s release. The risk of this is not 100%, but it is certainly not non-zero and Obama must have taken it into consideration.

      Point number three – Obama is a lawyer and a smart one. He’d know better than to say to the SEALs, “just kill him”.

      Point number four – no matter what you do, you’ll be second guessed by people who know everything better.

      Now what would YOU have done in his shoes?

    163. Re:Floor plans... by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

      When you have a government who has urged everyone, including civilians, to fight to the death rather than surrender, and you've seen this policy at work in several military operations beforehand and calculated that the loss of life would be much, much higher if an invasion is necessary, it's not so simple a decision.

      Precision bombing wasn't a reality back then. Night missions were basically just a best guess.

      More than 100,000 Japanese soldiers and tens of thousands (estimates range between 42,000 and 150,000) of civilians died in the invasion of Okinawa. Civilians were urged to commit suicide instead of surrendering to the "barbarians," many did. About 100,000 people died in the bombing (and subsequent fires) of Tokyo. An invasion of the mainland would have killed many times the amount of deaths from the atomic bombs.

      After the first atomic bomb was dropped, they wouldn't surrender. After the second one was dropped 3 days later, it still took them 6 days to surrender.

      The loss of life was tragic. But, like it or not, it was a far smaller loss of life than an invasion would have caused.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    164. Re:Floor plans... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Troll

      govern the country under Sharia law... in every detail. (Beheading, stoning, crucifixion, whipping, ban alcohol, .... the works.)

      Not such a big jump, you did nearly half of that list on your own.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    165. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Na, you're too liberal. Countries should have a right to execute war criminals and terrorists without judge or permission on foreign soil at any time. Think about Bush, Jr., Rumsfeld, Cheney--do you think the US would ever arrest them?

    166. Re:Floor plans... by Myopic · · Score: 2

      I'm just curious whether you merely used that example to make a rhetorical point, or whether you actually equate using highly trained military agents to do a precision operation designed to eliminate one well-known evil mastermind, to using several commercial airliners full of innocent civilians to destroy skyscrapers full of more innocent civilians, causing them to collapse onto even more innocent civilians, just because both the military operation and the terrorism operation both occurred over the political boundaries of the people who planned them? Are those really really equal in your mind? Really?

      To be clear, my opinion is that even though there are a small number of superficial similarities between the two events, that the rest of the vast majority of event characteristics hugely overwhelm the minor details in terms of making moral judgements. I don't even think they are close, not by a long shot.

    167. Re:Floor plans... by delinear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The case is closed. Everything was done in accordance with international law.

      I guess you missed the whole unsanctioned-military-operation-within-the-border-of-a-country-that's-technically-an-ally part, then?

    168. Re:Floor plans... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      This was not a police action, however. These were military soldiers going into an unknown situation

      And bin Laden was an enemy general.

      Of course you take the shot, whether it's in the head or in the back. He is an enemy combatant and you are in a warzone (Pakistan) regardless of their nominative status.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    169. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hang on, isn't that self-referential though?

      "They acted to eliminate a potential risk to themselves, having put themselves in the position where there was a potential risk to themselves."

      That argument could be used to justify anything.

    170. Re:Floor plans... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      No one would want to be or should be killed

      Okay, he said it, now let's all move on. Some people are ideological about stuff like this, so just let him have his childishly simplistic worldview. You can't argue with ideology.

    171. Re:Floor plans... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      I've heard hearsay

      Yeah, it tends to work like that

      they pulled him out, took him to another floor, and shot him there along with his family.

      The latest scuttlebutt is that Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked his head clean off. Apparently it flew through the air like a bloody shuttlecock.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    172. Re:Floor plans... by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      Except for that whole part where it's fucking irrelevant because this was a military operation in a theater of war (don't feed me the line about how it was in Pakistan, it's intentionally a poorly maintained border.) I'm so sick of this namby pamby bull about how and why we should be trying the leaders of our enemies when it's okay to kill scores of the men that they're ordering to death. Let's stop looking at this from the criminal aspect and more of the active enemy commander aspect, please. It's a bit more realistic. I'm not saying that it's right that we're at war, but we are - and to argue as if the Pentagon was just another precinct is stupid.

    173. Re:Floor plans... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      You think "he couldn't have known in advance that the door was going to get kicked in"? Really? Huh. I would have thought the sound of helicopters landing in the highly fortified compound would provide a clue that the gig was up. Do you think Osama was mentally retarded?

    174. Re:Floor plans... by delinear · · Score: 1

      Well, I wonder at his motives. So far as I can see he wasn't doing what he was doing for political power, with his background, education and influence he could have had all the conventional power he wanted. He certainly wasn't doing it for personal gain, same applies and he already came from a wealthy background. That either leaves true belief in what he was saying ("doing god's work"), or a mad power trip - neither of which goes hand in hand with "okay, give me half my demands and I'll call it quits".

    175. Re:Floor plans... by Comen · · Score: 1

      What were the targets in the WTC attack? except to harm innocent people as revenge maybe? Honestly the idea that us going in and killing the person that was listed as enemy number 1 on our list for 10 years upsets some people, upsets me. This man killed lots of U.S. citizens, and the goverment had to react, it shows others you can not drop planes on our cities and live, period!
      If that bothers you in any way you have some serious issues. I have no problem playing the other side of some issues, and I can see that Bin Laden might have in his mind been doing the right thing against us, by doing what he did, but then he also knew that by doing so he was going to hunted and killed one day, and no one said it had to be a fair fight. I just wish I could have seen what really happened that night. Do not get me wrong, I could never do what that Seal team did, and it is amazing we have men that can do this so well, you have to be thinking there is a good chance you are going to die yourself going in to something like this.

      One thing I was wondering the other day, has there ever been a situation like this before, where a single person shot someone so important like this but not get any real credit for it at all in teh press? Maybe he does not want to be known for this or would have to stop doing this for a living if he was anounced, but you would also be pretty famous, all this talk and someone out there that took that shot knows exactly what happened, what went down and can say I killed Bin Laden and just can not say anything about it I guess.

    176. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOT AT ALL TRUE. 9/11 was an act of mass murder. The attack against Abbottabad was about bringing that mass murderer to justice.

      What justice was being done on 9/11? What enemy of Al Queda was being targeted to be brought to justice?

      The intention was to capture Bin Laden alive. But like explained by the poster above, Bin Laden didn't surrender and you don't take chances with a man capable of murdering 3000+ people in a single act of terrorism. What if he had the place rigged to blow and the button was only feet away? He would've gone down as a martyr and taken the SEAL team with him. Is that what you'd rather have seen? Even cops will shoot a guy armed only with a knife if he makes a threatening move. Sure, he's ten feet away, but if he intends to harm you and makes no attempt to surrender then you take him down first.

      Bin Laden knew we were hunting him. He's known for ten years. He had every chance to surrender peacefully. Heck, he still had the chance when they busted his door down if he had laid face down on the floor. BUT HE DIDN'T.

      WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WAY PEOPLE THINK THESE DAYS?!

    177. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't they just surround the compound and starve him out. Oh that's right they were illegally carrying out operations in another country. Of course they killed him they wouldn't want the info he has about the US coming out.

    178. Re:Floor plans... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Will Osama get a gun in this game or are they going for the more realistic shoot him in cold blood no pow operation.

      God Forbid Osama Bin Laden's civil liberties get violated! IS THERE NO JUSTICE IN THIS WORLD!?

      *sigh* OK I'll come along and violate your civil liberties, motherfucker, after all everyone knows you're just an evil terrorist/pedophile/commie/fascist/whatever too.

      Do you not see how it works?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    179. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just out of reach?

      So you're in your "fort" in your bed room, gun fire going on all around and you don't have the time to get your gun that's "just out of reach", lets not forget that the battle was around 45min long.
      Ho do you sleep through 45min of gun fire?

    180. Re:Floor plans... by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      it was done secretly in a country your at peace with to a person that was sleeping how is that a battle field.

      Or it was done at his base of operations. A functioning base of operations where it is believe that he was in direct communication with combatants. Please don't let the fact that he was sleeping comfortably change the fact that he was an enemy commander.

    181. Re:Floor plans... by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      Sitting in prison he would actually be a target for rescue.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    182. Re:Floor plans... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So Harry Truman, who ordered the killing of 200 000 innocent Japanese by dropping atomic bombs on them should have been assassinated and no one would have minded?

      FTFY.

      Where were we? Oh yes. Given the suicidal defence encountered on Okinawa, an invasion might well have led to significantly more civilian casualties.

      Given that one (admittedly large) conventional raid on Tokyo caused more casualties than either A bomb, that would have been worse too.

      So. It's either blockade and mass starvation, or stand by and leave them to the the tender mercies of the Red Army.

      You have a better solution, Mister Next Century Quarterback?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    183. Re:Floor plans... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      [conspiracy theory mode]I thought the CIA had put bombs in the WTC in order to make it come down, according to my sources planes can't make buildings come down in such an organized fashion (the building waffled as if it was a planned demolition), the fuel doesn't burn/doesn't burn hot enough[/conspiracy theory mode]

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    184. Re:Floor plans... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Or he could of just given them some oil that they were after.

      I don't think it was wells they were drilling in Nanking.

      P.S. could have.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    185. Re:Floor plans... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They don't have to let him pop off any rounds anyway. They could have handled him without shooting him. They were, however, apparently ordered to kill every man in the compound, specifically including OBL. There was no attempt made to capture him, only to kill him.

      Whether you think that's appropriate or not, we can argue about all day, but it does pretty much preclude any moral high ground.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    186. Re:Floor plans... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This guy wasn't a "suspect" in a crime. He was a self-declared combatant in a war.

      Here in the USA that would still not prove commission of a crime, although you could be found guilty in a court of law.

      We don't believe he did something, he told the whole world that he did it,

      logic fail.

      And I don't think you are going to convince anybody that the life of a mass murderer whose goal is to impose a morally devoid system like Sharia on the West and impose the Caliphate around the world, killing non-Muslims as he goes, is just as valuable as the life of your average human being.

      It's not about his worth, it's about ours, and as long as we kill people for killing we are hypocrites.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    187. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 2

      That's a very convenient view of your enemy, takes all the hard work out of convincing people to kill them without question. But from my limited grasp on psychology these people are just like you and me if our country was being invaded or raped from afar and we would go to the same levels.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    188. Re:Floor plans... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      This was a military operation, not a police raid.

      That is called begging the question.
      Here's a hint: when British soldiers went to detain a terrorist suspect in Northern Ireland, they weren't allowed just to burst in to someone's house, shoot first and ask questions later. It's the rule of law, oddly enough criminals and terrorists don't adhere to it, but civilized law-abiding people do.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    189. Re:Floor plans... by delinear · · Score: 2

      When it's enemy soil during a war there are strict rules of engagement that are internationally recognised. When it's the soil of someone who is ostensibly your ally and you do it without their knowledge or permission, it sets a very dangerous precedent. It's easy to say he was a monster so it doesn't matter, but the point with creating exceptions to defined rules is that they might not always work in your favour. What if it had been Julian Assange - plenty of people in the US were calling him a terrorist or a traitor (despite him not being from the US) and saying Wikileaks could cost lives, how do you think a secret military incursion into the UK to gun him down would have played out?

    190. Re:Floor plans... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Let's drop you from a helicopter in a terrorist compound, and see if you meekly ask the leader there if he'll kindly surrender and go back with you to a trial, or if you'd rather have a gun and shoot anybody who doesn't beg to be arrested the instant your boots hit the ground.

      This is utterly and totally irrelevant because from all evidence the orders were to exterminate every man in the compound. Further, they knew right where he was and they had time to come up with another plan that might capture him alive. They didn't even try. This was an assassination mission. We can argue all day about whether that was just, but arguing about what it was seems stupid.

      None of that matters, of course, because guess what? The founding fathers made the President the Commander in Chief of the US military. That's how they doled out the powers. And guess what? The military's job is to kill people, and protect the lives of Americans (themselves included). If such a concept is uncomfortable to you, perhaps you should surrender your citizenship and go live someplace that doesn't have a military, and doesn't care about protecting its citizens.

      Wow, total logic fail. I reject the notion that the only way to protect the citizenry of the US was to kill OBL.

      If the president ordered the FBI to kill somebody on American soil, then you could argue about separation of powers. But arguing about a military operation, especially one as risky as this one? Seriously?

      Sometimes it's worth it to risk some lives for your principles, because otherwise, you don't have any. We claim to stand for certain things and then prove that false.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    191. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to see some evidence the president ever said this. Your premise is based on third hand knowledge. My understanding for the last ten years OBL was the best example of the "Dead or Alive" wanted level in the FBI. It was always a foregone conclusion he'd be killed outright if found.

    192. Re:Floor plans... by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      You forgot the part about killing a couple thousand of them first.

    193. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too easy to state "it saved lives and ended the war early" after the fact, what if the war did continue?
      Imagine you're in the east and you're now called a terrorist, it's a cold war that's heated up.

      From reading your comments it seems you perhaps cannot distinguish been bad/good and necessary/unnecessary .
      Killing anyone is a bed thing, simple.

      Does it need to be done for the greater good? That's the question.

    194. Re:Floor plans... by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      Tie a white piece of cloth to a broomstick, wave it out of a door. Show both of your hands, then walk slowly out. Lie down in the floor.

      ... and then detonate your vest when the soldiers move in.

    195. Re:Floor plans... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Terrorists often improvise, since they aren't part of a conventional military with a quartermaster to request bombs from.

      On 9/11 several large commercial airliners, specifically hijacked when they were fully fueled, were converted into bombs by terrorists.

    196. Re:Floor plans... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I've heard hearsay that they pulled him out, played a game of checkers with him, and only shot him after he lost the game of checkers.

      I guess that just goes to show how valid hearsay is.

    197. Re:Floor plans... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Actually, what Abu Ghraib showed was that members of the US Military are delivered with swift punishment for abuse of prisoners.

    198. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      But it should of changed the fact he was killed instead of taken prisoner. How much bloody money do you spend on the military that you can't catch one guy when he wasn't even armed.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    199. Re:Floor plans... by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      You'll note I didn't say that's what happened. I was merely using an anecdote to explain a situation where we should have captured Osama alive. I think it's much more likely that Osama did try to put up a fight and was killed because of it- but if he did surrender/was captured without a fight and was executed, I'd have a harder time getting excited about it.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    200. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the letter, Bin Laden supported the Kyoto Protocol and was disturbed by American's failure to join. I never really saw Bin Laden as an anti-global warming advocate.

    201. Re:Floor plans... by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that's what happened, but if it is

      I think it's much more likely that Osama did put a fight and was killed for it- but a slight change in scenario changes the result from justifiable to summary execution.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    202. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 0

      yeah yeah its all good when we are killing people in other countrys but i think you would be a little more moral if it was happening to you or your neighbor.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    203. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be interesting to see how the US react when someone like China replace them as the global military superpower and start running incursions into US soil to eliminate those who offend the Chinese government. Something tells me they won't be out in the streets chanting "PRC, PRC!"

    204. Re:Floor plans... by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

      Begging what question?

      Northern Ireland is part of the UK. What you described was a police raid that used soldiers. What happened in Pakistan was a strictly military operation. There are no real similarities between the two situations.

      If the known terrorist is famous for using suicide bombers, the police have to try to arrest him if he comes running at them? You know there's a reason they carry guns, right?

      Intelligent, civilized law-abiding people would shoot the guy before finding out if he had a bomb or weapon. Any trained police officer would have shot him first. This isn't a suspect wanted for questioning, this is a known murderer who has killed thousands and is in charge of a huge terrorist organization. There has been a nearly 10 year war with the intent to kill him. He declared war on the US. He died in that war. There's no real debate here, known suicidal violent sociopaths running at you don't get the benefit of the doubt.

      If someone has repeatedly said they're going to kill you regardless of the consequences, you don't try to wrestle them to the ground if you have a gun and they're coming at you.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    205. Re:Floor plans... by syockit · · Score: 1

      The short version: everyone convert to Islam, then abolish your Constitution and govern the country under Sharia law...

      Wow, you conveniently skipped the parts which IMHO are the most important reasons why they were after New York

      --
      Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
    206. Re:Floor plans... by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      That either leaves true belief in what he was saying ("doing god's work")

      One underappreciated thing about al-Qaeda. They don't lie. Really! They say all sorts of horrible/crazy/fanatic baloney but I don't remember them ever lying about any factual situation.

      You know, it's funny, there's some other guy who wrote a book---people were trying to figure out his angle, but there wasn't one, he really meant every evil word of it.

    207. Re:Floor plans... by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      Sir, I can't find the stun setting on my M4A1.

    208. Re:Floor plans... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      What kind of oil were they after? Was it snake oil?

    209. Re:Floor plans... by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You're only the third person to point that out, and the third to miss my point entirely.

      I used hearsay to give a situation where justified homicide (Dude's pointing a gun at you/another person, blast away) turns into execution without trial (Which the constitution kinda sorta frowns upon).

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    210. Re:Floor plans... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but I hope I would be equally moral. There are Americans I'd like to see dead, too. For instance, this was a 'neighbor' whose death I celebrated (literally, we raised a glass). He got that trial you like so much, but I would have been just as happy to have him shot twice in the head, preferably by one of his daughters.

    211. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that the text is in English and the dimensions are in feet & inches...

    212. Re:Floor plans... by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      Rule 29 of Military Engagement: No fair attacking when I'm sleeping.

    213. Re:Floor plans... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      No, I'll mind. But, then again, I'm pretty sure Al Quaida minded when when killed Bin Laden. That's the way war works, you know. You try to kill them, they try to stop you. They try to kill you, you try to stop them.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    214. Re:Floor plans... by mbkennel · · Score: 2

      If the suspect is a known-to-be-extremely-dangerous-mass-murderer that's pretty much what they do.

    215. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 0

      Not your perverted rapist neighbor the one that you look up to as a hero with enough courage to stand up to the invading army threatening your way of life.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    216. Re:Floor plans... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The right to kill soldiers in a war is an age-old right that goes back WAY before George Bush or Barak Obama. Even an unarmed soldier is a perfectly legitimate target. You think we call up them soldiers stationed in a military base before we bomb it, to check and make sure that they're all holding rifles? If Osama had been throwing his hands up in the air screaming "I surrender" you MIGHT have a Geneva Conventions case (and even that would be a BIG stretch, as Al-Quaida is not a Conventions signatory, nor have they themselves ever observed said Conventions). But the reports so far don't seem to suggest he was even doing that.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    217. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you should not compare the life of the soldier to the life of bin Laden but to the lives which could have been saved by interrogating him.

      How about the life of Assange to the life of the next of his fellow terrorist leaders he reveals the location of on wikileaks and forces a rushed assault to take him out before he moves - based on US INTELLIGENCE that was already being used to the ends you describe. No matter how you spin it - you hippies fucked up and you need to silence Assange since all he does is reveal intel that is useful to no one but enemies of the US.

    218. Re:Floor plans... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      So you create a fictional scenerio based on "hearsay" which you then declare you don't really believe and then you proceed to throw out your definition of inexcusable based on this situation. It's reasoning like this that helps to conceal the truth while at the same time highlighting your moral bankruptcy.

    219. Re:Floor plans... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Well, we're not sure yet if the special ops team had to shoot Bin Laden for their own safety

      Unless he was stark naked they had every right to shoot him for their own safety; did you forget that we are dealing with people that are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up if it means they get to take a few Westerners out with them?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    220. Re:Floor plans... by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      Not likely in Pakistan. The region, currently, is far too unstable for any Westerners to step foot there without advanced knowledge of language and weapons use or, perhaps, belonging to a certain religion. Perhaps, if they recreated it somewhere (Arizona, Texas, Kansas?), that re-creation would be the tourist spot.

    221. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and since no general giving orders was likely to have taken chances on him not having a concealed detonation device, what you are saying is that the orders were indeed to kill him on sight and to not take him alive.

      Are you proposing an alternate scenario where we manage to take him alive? Or are you suggesting it would have been better to let him go free?

      Sure, in a perfect world he'd have surrendered and we'd be able to put him on trial and pump him for intel. Of course, in a perfect world, he wouldn't be a mass murderer either.

    222. Re:Floor plans... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You know, the proposal that was most likely 5.56 mm wide and delivered at about 3500 feet per second by a SEAL "negotiation team."

      I heard it was a 7.62mm NATO; might explain why the photos were considered "too gruesome" to release.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    223. Re:Floor plans... by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      Let me simplifiy.

      IF Osama was putting up a fight and was shot, that's disappointing but excusable.
      As of this time, it seems that this is the most likely scenario. However, if Osama wasn't putting up a fight and was summarily executed, we lower ourselves to the level of our enemies and and violate the constitution.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    224. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was asleep? Can you cite?
       
      And I'm not questioning you as much as I'm questioning the concept of a blogger who blogged about heavy chopper activity and the fact that the destroyed chopper was landed close to the wall of the compound but bin Laden would still have been asleep? That's like sleeping through a fire in one's home with the fire truck sirens blasting just outside your home.

    225. Re:Floor plans... by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      *Disclaimer: Proud Canadian* You, Sir, deserve mod points. As someone whose brother-in-law is in the Canadian Forces I will attest the most important thing is the job is done and they all made it home.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    226. Re:Floor plans... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The USA is the only nation which can send their troops into foreign territory

      False. Other Great Powers do it as well; I presume you followed the events in Georgia a few years ago?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    227. Re:Floor plans... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And the Japanese who did not surrender on December 8, 1941 deserved summary execution on the battlefield. TAKE NO PRISONERS!

      The Japanese tended to get summary executions on the battlefield because they had a nasty habit of using white flags and other gestures of surrender to get close enough to our troops to kill them. I would not go out of my way to take prisoners either if I was fighting an enemy that regularly committed perfidy.

      Same as OBL's ilk now that you mention it. You do realize that they are also willing to die if it means they get to take a few Westerners out with them, right?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    228. Re:Floor plans... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Your moral equivilency reasoning is the biggest reason why terrorists have no compunction in killing civilians. Your statement is all a Jihadist needs to justify their actions to themselves. Terrorism is effective today because people are willing to make excuses for it and blame the victims instead of the perpetrators.

    229. Re:Floor plans... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So we should be barbarians as well, great. So then what is the fucking point?

      If we are not better we might as well not have bothered to even find him.

    230. Re:Floor plans... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If someone had told me sixtyyears ago that the USA would set up detention camps where they brought in USA citizens born in Japan for questioning and held without trial, I would have dismissed that as a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, reality has a way of catching up to you.

      In case you don't know, a number of US citizens have had their assets seized without trial because they were believed to be Japanese, or have some other kind of connection to Japan, but without being charged with any form of concrete accusations.

    231. Re:Floor plans... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yes indeed. To me that is an important dimension of making a moral decision, which you ignored when you stated that "no one" should be killed. It's fine for you to think that, I just happen to disagree. I think some people should be killed. We differ in our opinions. Just like it would be useless for me to try to change your opinion that every man absolutely always deserves a trial, it is useless for you to try to change my opinion that no, sometimes a guy just needs to get capped.

    232. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have obviously never had 3 helicopters hovering over your house. I guy a mile from the house tweeted about the noise from the choppers.

      The only way you could sleep through that is if you were deaf.

      I believe Bin Laden died mid 2000's, maybe from kidney failure or something else, common cold? Who cares. 2004 - 2005 some time, there was big news that he was dead anyway, just no way of proving it. That was until some really fake looking videos made it to the internet, said that he was still alive.

      Then there was doubt about him being dead, and a hunt to find a ghost ensued. We have been searching for a ghost for 5 years or more now, with no way to prove dead or alive.

      What better way to end the ghost than to make up some story about killing a ghost. Put the burden of proof back on the people carrying out the ghost story.

      What better time for the president to come up with a story about killing the most sought after ghost in the world than now when there have been so many stories in the news about the decline of his popularity.

      There have been far too many inconsistencies about the situation for me to believe any of it. No pictures at all... The most wanted man in history and there is absolutely no pictures or proof. Buried at sea?? so no shrine... BS... how about so there is no proof that they actually got the man.

      If there are three helicopters hovering over your home and shit storm of people trying to knock the door down are you going to fight them off with a pistol and a single AK??? Hell no. If there had been any shots fired from inside the compound, every Seal would have been firing at the man and they would have been carrying out pieces of a body in Ziploc bags. Two shots to the head is for someone unarmed or armed and never fired a shot.

      Police here fire more shots at criminals when they get fired on, when all the criminal has is a single pistol. Once again, as single AK, two shots to the head. Something doesn't make sense.

      I never heard any story of any shots being fired at the Seal team other than the courier that was sent to the building.

      If we go in to a foreign country and shoot people in the head, judge, jury, executioner style, we are no better than they are.

      Am I glad that he is dead, you betcha. But I believed he died long ago. Am I glad that the ghost story of him is now dead, again, you betcha. I'm saddened that I believe far too much coverup is occurring for me.

    233. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about his worth, it's about ours, and as long as we kill people for killing we are hypocrites.

      As you seem to like to say, logic fail, This time on your part. Killing people for killing is not hypocritical, and it's a simple-minded ethical philosophy that would think so.

    234. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double tapped.. damn Zombie option out of the window then.

    235. Re:Floor plans... by filthpickle · · Score: 1

      It's come out that they had more than enough transport capability to get him out. After the 2 modified "stealth" blackhawks landed they had 2 chinooks come in behind them. There were something like 79 people involved (I might have the number wrong).

      They were told before they left to kill him...maybe it was wink-wink-nudge-nudge, but that was a hit from the start. Doesn't really bother me either....what does bother me are the things I read (speculation ofc) that said the military thought they might have to fight the Pakistani military on the way out. That could have turned into an absolute nightmare.

    236. Re:Floor plans... by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point: Osama bin Laden was a living human being and therefor he is entitled to all human rights by our standards (see http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml). It does not matter if he declares something. I can declare myself ruler of the cosmos. This has no consequence. And when I decide to commit crimes, like terrorism, theft, murder etc. in the name of being ruler of the cosmos then I am still just a criminal which means I am a suspect. When I am proven guilty I am a criminal. And the I am most likely sent to a prison. In the US I might even be killed.

      What you definitely missed is: That we have to live up to our standards not to Osama's standards. When we are not able to play by our rules. Why should everyone else believe us. That is exactly what the Chinese did lately. We do not live by our rules because it is always easy, but because we think they are good. so sometimes it is hard to fulfill them. But either we are hypocrites or we live by them.

    237. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there can be no doubt of guilt, there is no particular need for a trial. We have trials even in cases of "obvious" guilt because sometimes someone who is "obviously" guilty may in fact be innocent. But OBL was at the point where there could never be even a shadow of doubt of guilt.

      In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

      Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

      http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

    238. Re:Floor plans... by dosilegecko · · Score: 0

      The thing about "enemy" special forces doing the same thing to the US... there isn't one that could achieve that goal on US soil. They would not stand a chance, the snowballs in hell would even be laughing.

    239. Re:Floor plans... by jd · · Score: 1

      That fact (or legitimate trials) plus negotiations in good faith produced Stormont. Not the ideal parliament, perhaps, but a magnificent testament to what can be achieved by taking the right risks.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    240. Re:Floor plans... by jd · · Score: 1

      Stealth helicopters might well have been modified to be quiet, and for all I know he was in the homemade studio and studios are soundproofed.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    241. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rendering justice to a guilty dirtbag is inexcusable?

      Personally, I wish they had captured him, wrapped him in bacon, and then shot him. And then, rather than a supposedly proper burial (or flushing?) in accordance with the sensitivities of the "religion of peace", they should have photographed him and then cremated the body. Later, the photos of the bacon-wrapped corpse should have been disseminated throughout the world as an example of what happens to militant Muslim assholes like him.

    242. Re:Floor plans... by dosilegecko · · Score: 0

      The US can stop when they stop, which has been made clear by them that it will only happen when they are all dead. You don't understand that on a fundamental level they will stop at nothing to kill Americans, innocent or not. It doesn't matter how many people on a forum say they think America should stop killing people, even if America DOES stop killing, at the end of the day these people hate our very existence. If they want to bark up that tree, they better be prepared to catch the bombs that fall.

    243. Re:Floor plans... by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Another way dropping atomic bombs on Japan has saved lives is that it demonstrated how devastating they are for everyone to see. Made everyone a bit more reluctant to ever use them. We managed to pass through the phase of just treating them as a big bomb quickly when only one side had them, and only a couple.

      Had they not been dropped on Japan in 1945, they almost certainly would have been used in a later conflict. But both sides would have had them, and more of them.

      So I'm reluctant to call bombing Japan the wrong thing to do. For the reasons you gave, or, if it was a mistake, we learned from that mistake and avoided an even bigger one.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    244. Re:Floor plans... by mangu · · Score: 1

      Tie a white piece of cloth to a broomstick, wave it out of a door. Show both of your hands, then walk slowly out. Lie down in the floor.

      ... and then detonate your vest when the soldiers move in.

      You should lie down spread eagled, it would be difficult to detonate a suicide vest that way.

      In Israel the procedure is to make the suspect keep a distance of several meters and raise his shirt.

    245. Re:Floor plans... by dosilegecko · · Score: 1

      A pizza place burned down near my house a couple years ago. This was a 2 story building and the fire only lasted a couple of hours or so before the building was essentially lost. I wish I took a picture of the steel, because it was sagging profusely for the 2nd story's roofing support. How can a fire at a pizza place melt steel enough to cause steel to sag but fire from jet fuel can't? http://www.flickr.com/photos/progman/2576958712/ Put tens more floors on top of that steel and see how long THAT structure lasts. This whole theory is complete bullshit, shame on anyone who believes it. I may be biased because my family lost someone in one of the planes, but like south park said "you're retarded if you think it was a conspiracy".

    246. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apart from the misogynistic and anti-gay bits, the whole thing is strikingly liberal. How many liberals despise Israel, consumerism and investment banks?

    247. Re:Floor plans... by modecx · · Score: 1

      No way he was asleep. Surprised? Yeah, that goes without saying.

      First off, even if they used whisper-quiet helicopters, one of them crash landed in his fucking back yard, apparently the rotor blades hit the 15-foot wall. Yeah, if you could sleep through that, you're already good as dead. Second, because of the crash, I believe the story is, the entry team had modify their plans, and had to breach not one but two walls (with explosives), and then they exchanged fire with several guards, and all of this stuff happened in under a minute.

      My guess is he was pulling his underoos on when the SEALS busted in.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    248. Re:Floor plans... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Oh, okay. You are totally right. The sound of helicopters landing in a courtyard thirty feet from Osama's bedroom, including one of those helicopters crashing, the cacophony of which was heard by a microblogger elsewhere in the town, most likely were not heard by Osama Bin Laden, because he was crouched in the world's most sound-proof room. I bet he was wearing high-end noise-canceling headphones too, and probably one of those blackout masks that rich housewives sleep in. Also, "for all I know" he shot himself twice in the head. Yes, that explains everything. Thanks for helping me understand.

      Really, though, that's a minor tangent to your general point, which was something about the Presidential order to capture or kill Osama. I don't know what the order was, obviously, so I don't have any problem with your post or your opinion in general. My opinion is, basically, fuck Osama Bin Laden, he was a cartoonishly evil supervillain, and I'm glad we shot him in the face.

    249. Re:Floor plans... by spleendamage · · Score: 1

      You're just trolling I imagine, but if you killed 3,000+ North Koreans and released some videos recruiting people to help kill more... I imagine you would be simply stunned that anyone from North Korea would come try to knock you off.

    250. Re:Floor plans... by coolmoose25 · · Score: 1

      Shame on all of you for staying on topic! Don't you know this is Slashdot?

      --
      Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
    251. Re:Floor plans... by spleendamage · · Score: 1

      This was such an enlightening post.

      Killing a hostile foreign national refugee who has been a declared military target for the past 10 years, who is in hiding in a cooperative country is the same thing as boarding multiple civilian planes and crashing them into civilian structures.

      And as far as precedent setting goes, not so much. I was also in complete approval, for example, of Golda Meir sending the Mossad to wax all the members of Black September wherever they were in the world after the killing of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich.

    252. Re:Floor plans... by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Ahh those anachronistic SEALs.. still in love with their M14s and 1911s.

      Can't say I disagree with them, the 5.56 and 9mm were both adopted in part because their low recoil was easier for weak, small-statured people to accommodate. And easier on those with little marksmanship training. The sort of things that some people would look at and scoff, and make a derogatory comment about the wussification of the military.

      There's nothing the .223 and 9mm can do that the .308 and .45 can't do better.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    253. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      Good point.

    254. Re:Floor plans... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was. Personally, I wasn't thinking of the Japanese, but how many other examples would you like? POW's captured in Europe? Chinese and Korean prisoners during the Korean conflict? Vietnam? If you honestly thought that the US had never before captured and interrogated prisoners without first putting them on trial, you're horribly uninformed.

      And no, it's not a uniquely American phenomenon, either. Here in Canada we interred Japanese people during WW2, same as the Yanks did. And we took POW's during the wars we were involved in. And we took prisoners in Afghanistan and handed them over to the local police/military. Gitmo might be some horrible exception on a peaceful and loving hippie planet; here on earth, it's status quo.

    255. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      Sure, I understand this is deadly serious. But every time the US decides to do an operation like this, they have to ask themselves if it's worth it.

      If you can't take Bin Laden without either sending your own men into their deaths or making another nation your enemy, maybe it's better to stay home and fight terrorism some other way.

    256. Re:Floor plans... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      From the link the parent provided:

      OMG, dat link sez dere still looking for him! The FBI nose hes not realy dead! OMG CONSPIRASIE!!!!11!1!1

    257. Re:Floor plans... by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      Any volunteers to be the guard?

    258. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the fuel doesn't burn/doesn't burn hot enough

      In case you didn't notice, the jet fuel was not the only thing burning. The entire building, and everything in it, was burning. That fire is more than hot enough to bring a building down (it's happened before, it'll happen again).

    259. Re:Floor plans... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Well; in fairness you can carry more 5.56mm with you than 7.62 for the same weight, so it's not completely without advantage. I don't think the adoption of the 9x19 was driven by recoil concerns either; many shooters (myself included) find the .45 easier to handle in this department than the 9x19. The nine has a much snappier recoil in my experience; probably has to do with the fact that it's a supersonic round and operates at higher pressures than the .45

      As far as I know the SEALs don't use 1911s as standard equipment. Delta Force does (or used to) and so does Marine Force Recon if I recall correctly. The SEALs use H&K USPs as their sidearm; not sure which caliber though.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    260. Re:Floor plans... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Well if they just wanted him dead it would probably have been a lot cheaper and achieved results faster to have posted a $100,000,000 bounty on his head and eliminated almost a decade of all the primary, secondary and tertiary effects and costs that came along with the hunt as it happened. If the popular media is to be believed the Russian mob would have done it for much less and been very quick to get results.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    261. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      It's not the same thing. Taking POW's is perfectly in line with the Geneva convention, as long as you release them at the end of the war.

      The camps for Japanese-Americans during WW II were clearly racist and in violation of human rights, but at least their purpose wasn't to abuse the prisoners.

      Guantanamo plays in a whole other league, since it's official purpose was to extract information with torture. It wasn't an accident or the work of over-zealous military personnel; it was approved all the way to the top.

      Torture was something that Western democracies had abandoned, both in word and deed, by the time of WW II. Even Nazi Germany, who willingly committed genocide on Jews, Poles and other peoples, treated their prisoners of war relatively well. Using torture to extract information is a step back (by roughly a century).

      WW II Japan may have been as bad or worse than today's USA, but a modern democrocy like the USA shouldn't be held to the lowest standards we can find.

    262. Re:Floor plans... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 2

      The truth is that the only function of a trial is to ascertain guilt or innocence.

      No, there are other functions of a trial. For example to demonstrate to "the people" that they live in a society of laws and due process. Just like free speech is protected by letting Neo-Nazis spew hate the benefits the law affords citizens is protected by observing due process even in cases when you "know he is guilty."

      And for example there is the right, in most western countries of which I am aware, of the accused to face their accuser in a court of law.

      The trial, the conviction (if any), the sentencing etc. are not just for the benefit of the accused they are for the benefit of us all. Modern history demonstrates quite clearly why we all need those protections.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    263. Re:Floor plans... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Guantanamo plays in a whole other league, since it's official purpose was to extract information with torture.

      If you honestly think that prisoners captured during WW2, Korea, and Vietnam weren't roughed up and mistreated in order to "extract information", I've got a nice bridge to sell you ...

    264. Re:Floor plans... by sabs · · Score: 1

      That's a complete StrawMan.

      Did this man bomb North Korean buildings, killing North Korean people? Has he been on TV ranting about Death to the Koreans?

    265. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      You cut off an important part of the sentence... I wrote, "The USA is the only nation which can send their troops into foreign territory *to apprehend someone* and get away with it".

      I'm not trying to say no other country wages war and does invasions. I'm saying no other country can send their military on a raid into another country without risking retaliation.

    266. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      China will probably be a much, much worse superpower than the USA. I'm only whinging at the USA because I expect more from a modern democracy than from a communist one-party state.

    267. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      Ok, I admit it. It's not a step back for Americans.

      But it's true that Europe had abandoned torture by the time of WW II.

    268. Re:Floor plans... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1
      Obviously you and I disagree on whether bin Laden declared a fatwa on the US in 1996: I'm not sure how; the fatwa was in the news at the time, even though it did take two years for him to actually carry out an attack against America.

      But I want to hear the other part of this argument. You said that we should have compromised with bin Laden. What the hell concessions would you make?

    269. Re:Floor plans... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I know Germans that were in POW camps in the USA. They ranked from the lowest level to NCOs and commissioned officers. They might have been used as farm labor, they were underfed, but not a one has ever mentioned torture.

    270. Re:Floor plans... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Even with your qualification your statement is still inaccurate. Israel regularly violates her neighbors to capture or kill her enemies.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    271. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      Ok, I've checked your other links, and they only contain circumstantial evidence, and vague quotes from Bin Laden like:

      The militant Islamic group decided "we should destroy towers in America" because "we are a free people... and we want to regain the freedom of our nation," said bin Laden

      In fact, there are news reports which clearly state that he denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks (CNN):

      Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

      In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

      "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

      If one article claims Bin Laden took responsibility for the attacks, and supports it with vague, fragmented quotes, and another article claims he didn't, supporting it with whole, clear sentences, I find the latter more believable.

      Here's an article clearly stating the lack of formal charges against Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks (Washington Post):

      The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

      I don't pretend to know what it is, but clearly something is wrong here.

      As far as I can tell, Bin Laden was rightly suspected for other terrorism attacks, and supported terrorism in words if not in actions, so I don't object to the USA chasing and trying to apprehend him. I am, however, concerned that the whole truth isn't getting out.

    272. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      But Israel hardly gets away without retaliation...

    273. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      What if he was sleeping as they entered the room? Did they have to shoot him then too?

      Did they really need to make a killing shot? There are other parts of the body which are easier to hit than the head.

    274. Re:Floor plans... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you define "retaliation"; I'd say that she does since she hasn't been involved in a conventional war since 1973. If you define "retaliation" as terrorist attacks/asymmetrical warfare then you might have a better argument; of course such a definition would have to include the 9/11 attacks, the USS Cole, the Saudi Arabia barracks bombing and other such incidents, thereby disproving your claim that the United States "gets away with it"

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    275. Re:Floor plans... by Paltin · · Score: 1

      I've heard this argued and it doesn't quite make sense to me... could you please clarify some things?

      It was my understanding that wars can only be declared against sovereign nations - which clearly isn't Al Qaeda. How can you have a war against an organization?

      The Geneva conventions explicitly protect anyone that is not currently engaged in hostilities. We have heard nothing from bin Laden for years, how can you argue that we knew he was engaged in hostilities?

      If we can declare war against organizations, could congress declare war against, say, Walmart and kill their CEO legally? I understand this is unlikely, but is this a loophole that allows the gov't to legally kill whoever they wish?

    276. Re:Floor plans... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Well, he hasn't 'risen' from the dead yet. Depending on the depth of the water and if they attached weights to the body I don't think bin laden's body will be rising anytime soon.

    277. Re:Floor plans... by Paltin · · Score: 2

      And he should still have had a trial.

      The problem is - who decides "beyond shadow of a doubt"?

      Do you trust the President to do that? Maybe our current president makes good decisions, but it sets a bad precedent. Maybe the next president decides that the entire liberal wing of the senate is guilty of treason, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Oops! The problem isn't that Osama was guilty. The trial wouldn't be for him. The problem is that, well, no one should have the power to unilaterally execute whoever they want to.

    278. Re:Floor plans... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Prior to 9/11, the problem with Bin Laden was treated as a police problem, hence the warrants. Warrants are essentially a passive measure - if this guy comes into your hands, send him to us, please. After 9/11, the Congress issued the Authorization for Use of Military Force against the perpetrators, and it became a military problem. Bin Laden was now actively sought. The US delivered an ultimatum (so much firmer than a warrant) to the Taliban:

      US tells Taliban to give up Bin Laden or face attack

      Afghanistan will be offered a final chance today to escape a devastating US military onslaught when a delegation from Pakistan delivers an ultimatum to the Taliban leadership to hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the New York and Washington attacks, within three days.
      With thousands of Afghans already fleeing their homes in anticipation of an assault, the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said: "They will have to make their choice - whether they want to get rid of this curse within their country or face the full wrath of the United States."

      The pressure on the US administration to exact revenge was underlined by a public opinion poll which showed that 84% of Americans supported military retaliation. Two-thirds of them would support it "even if it means many thousands of innocent civilians may be killed".

      As call-up plans for at least 35,000 reservists were finalised yesterday, the task of planning the US military response shifted to Tampa, Florida, the headquarters of the Pentagon's central command (Centcom), which is responsible for actions in the Middle East, south and central Asia.

      The Centcom commander, General Tommy Franks, has at his disposal a range of special forces and two navy battle groups equipped with 900 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

      Doesn't an ultimatum with a threat of war seem a little clearer then a warrant or wanted poster?

      But, it so happens, one of the links you provided also adds some clarity that I'm surprised you didn't note: Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?

      The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

      The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

      Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

      There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

      David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

      "It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it w

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    279. Re:Floor plans... by rcamans · · Score: 1

      You dumb-ass. If you are so for protecting the rights of terrorists, why don't you just move into his neighborhood? Oh wait. The locals would shoot you on sight. Oh, wait. isn't that what we did to him?

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    280. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a $25 million bounty on his head. Duh. That should've been enough.

    281. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the problem is that I don't have a firm opinion on the 9/11 attacks. As far as I know, Bin Laden could have been lying when he denied his involvement, but the attacks could also have been perpetrated by an independent group within the Al Qaeda network, and I think it frustrates you that you can't peg my opinions down.

      Am I close?

      Doesn't an ultimatum with a threat of war seem a little clearer then a warrant or wanted poster?

      The Afghan invasion was never about Bin Laden alone - it was about a number of terrorists the Taliban government protected. But even if it was, it would only prove that the US government really wanted to get their hands on Bin Laden. It doesn't tell us why. Isn't it likely the US government wanted him because of his leadership of Al Qaeda?

      And the Washington Post quotes...

      David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

      "It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

      ...confirms what I said all along: there were no formal charges for the 9/11 attacks.

      Or did you believe I said something else?

      I'll admit the video is pretty strong evidence of Bin Laden's involvement, though, provided the CBS article isn't misleading.

    282. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      No, the USA doesn't get away with it every time, but can you agree it gets away with a lot more than other nations?

    283. Re:Floor plans... by tehpuppet · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, if they recreated it somewhere (Arizona, Texas, Kansas?), that re-creation would be the tourist spot.

      Then it's only dangerous for Pakistanis.

    284. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1
      How bout "look Osama those demands are unreasonable and almost impossible to carry out, considering war would cost both our sides a considerable percentage of our wealth how bout America donates 1 billion dollars to bringing more first world education, medical and other resources to the people affected by previous conflicts and who are in need in the middle east".

      Maybe Osama would reply "death to all infidel" maybe it would of stopped the trade towers going down, i don't know.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    285. Re:Floor plans... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      The case is closed. Everything was done in accordance with international law.

      I guess you missed the whole unsanctioned-military-operation-within-the-border-of-a-country-that's-technically-an-ally part, then?

      Under international law, that gives Pakistan the right to declare war on the United States.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    286. Re:Floor plans... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      We put them on trial in the US because due process is guaranteed by the Constitution. During war though due process gets short changed in the name of necessity. Although generally if an enemy combatant throws down his weapon and clearly demonstrates he's surrendering he might not get shot depending on how hectic things are at that moment. This quasi war on terror opens up some gray areas due to the fact that the terrorists are generally a multinational force not "openly" supported by any one nation. Generally speaking though it's been open season for terrorists since 9/11. Shoot first, questions later. It's brutal and ugly and I wish it wasn't happening but when the towers fell the world, especially for the US, changed for the worse.

    287. Re:Floor plans... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1
      If the billion dollars for education in Afghanistan is from my tax money (and if we're "donating" it, it will be) than roughly half of it has to go towards educating women. Osama, on the other hand, would have wanted the money to go towards terrorist training camps. Are we going to compromise there too?

      And even if we get him to agree to one billion for western style education for poor people in Afghanistan, what's stopping him from holding LA hostage for 2 billion?

      Once you start paying these guys terroristgeld they have no incentive to ever go away.

    288. Re:Floor plans... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      that's what disturbs me.

      i'll restate that i have no doubt that Bin Laden deserved what he got.

      the principle i'm trying to defend against a tide of batshit crazy revenge-bent yanks is that justice must be seen to be done.

      i can guarantee that shooting an unarmed man in a country you didn't warn and had no authority to strike in will piss would-be trrrsts off a lot more than simply capturing him (even in the same way, but without killing him, if that's possible of course. i'm sure the SEALs were doing what they could) and putting him on trial.

      if your enemies are so volatile, there's even more reason to do things properly. to make sure there's no possible reason to doubt you. to serve justice as justly as humanly possible. because any tiny doubt or shortcut will be seized by your enemies and used against you.

      fighting the good fight is always going to be hard. the "bad guys" of the world have no qualms about committing evil themselves, but if they spot you doing anything slightly questionable, they'll use it against you, regardless of how much worse they behave. you have to be completely beyond reproach if you are to fight the good fight effectively. anything that's brought into question, you must have an adequate answer to.

    289. Re:Floor plans... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      living in OBL's neighborhood would be a fair bit safer than plenty of places in the States.

      i doubt he'd shit in his own nest.

      go comment on some youtube clips or something.

    290. Re:Floor plans... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      You could be right mate, i know my negotiation was cooked up in about 5 minutes and i know, i know only 1% of the story. Its possible the point of views contradict each too much for a compromise, but it would be pretty hard to crash a plane into a country that just donated billions of aid whether it was for better sanitation and irrigation or just medical operations we take for granted (we spend our tax money on killing people at the moment, would it be so bad to spend it on educating the men of a country). Don't think of it as paying them but as helping them.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    291. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the Milli seconds he was given to surrender. If you are in control and you can offer surrender you should maybe it was impossible but with a military expenditure the size of yours I'm sure it could be done.

    292. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They say the same thing about the the US "they will not hesitate to kill our women and children". they hate you because of the killing (and espionage).

    293. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      obl never actually took credit for 9/11. he just said good on them, kind of like you now.

    294. Re:Floor plans... by hardwarefreak · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fan of Obama, but I agree with the counterproposal he used in the negotiation with bin Laden. You know, the proposal that was most likely 5.56 mm wide and delivered at about 3500 feet per second by a SEAL "negotiation team."

      You might have the bullet diameter correct, but your velocity figure is way the fuck high, showing you're not a gun guy, and should thus leave responses such as this to gun guys such as myself. :)

      Many of these SEAL operators would have likely been carrying the M4A1 carbine. Muzzle velocity w/ M855/A1 ball, most likely what they loaded out with, is 2900 fps or less from the 14.5" barrel of this weapon, depending on altitude, temperature, humidity, etc. You're 600 fps high in this case.

      Given that SEAL Team 6 has been dedicated to counter-terrorism operations since the unit was formed, and is often engaged in Close Quarters Battle, such as the bin Laden raid, some operators were likely carrying the MP5N or MP5SD submachine gun instead of the M4A1 carbine. Muzzle velocity of these two MP5 variants is 1300 fps. If one of these meat eaters popped bin Laden the bullet diameter would have been 9mm, and your velocity would have been high by an whopping 2200 fps, just shy of triple the actual projectile velocity.

    295. Re:Floor plans... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      The last I heard, you dealt with terrorists under the criminal justice system, not militarily. The soldiers are there to help out he police. In the UK up to the 'Nineties, we caught PIRA and Loyalist terrorists and put them on trial for their crimes. Yes, occasionally our soldiers shot terrorists, but only in exceptional circumstances.

      That's all.

      No, it's really not all. Bin Laden formally declared war on the United States. As a non-citizen beyond the borders, leading an army of combatants sworn to war against the US, he was legally and practically an enemy combatant. A military operation was launched to deal with him. Military operations are, by default, not police operations.

      The US uses police domestically and military or cooperation with local police elsewhere. When the military is used in war, there is no expected requirement that you provide multiple opportunities to surrender... there are requirements that you take POWs when they try to surrender. UBL apparently did not attempt to surrender, and he was killed.

      If you have a problem with this, you should also have a problem with every other military operation in the history of the planet because these operations involved killing many uniformed soldiers without giving them sufficient opportunities to surrender. I think your country owes apologies to every Nazi soldier who was shot by a sniper in WWII.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    296. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing I was wondering the other day, has there ever been a situation like this before, where a single person shot someone so important like this but not get any real credit for it at all in teh press? Maybe he does not want to be known for this or would have to stop doing this for a living if he was anounced, but you would also be pretty famous, all this talk and someone out there that took that shot knows exactly what happened, what went down and can say I killed Bin Laden and just can not say anything about it I guess.

      As a former operator, let me just say "hell no!" right now. We take pride in our work and in being the AC ;). People who enjoy their work and take pride in it, as these guys most certainly are right now, would much rather be able to continue doing their jobs. Would you rather retire at 30 or 35, knowing you can never again do what you're good at, just so you can do talk show interviews and be harassed by armchair quarterback idiots who want to equate you with Nazis?

      They'll get the fame within their community, and if they want it in public later in life they can probably get that too. I'm sure the "I Shot Bin Laden" book will be released in ~40 years. In the mean time, they'll get their next promotions and they'll be able to keep doing what they love for a few more years before retiring to work at Home Depot.

    297. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      People like you are the reason terrorism has been increasing.

    298. Re:Floor plans... by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      I'm not equating anything. "Thing A is as bad as Thing B" does not mean "I think things A and B are identical in all ways."

    299. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      If it's a war, then the Al Qaeda are enemy combatants, not terrorists. They can be killed in combat, but if captured, should be treated humanely, and released at the end of the war. Those enemy combatants who have targeted civilians should be put on trial for war crimes, but those who have only attacked enemy combatants and military targets should go free without trial.

      On the other hand, if it's terrorism, then the terrorists should be treated as criminals. They should be captured alive if possible and put on trial for their crimes. All attacks, even those on military targets, should be treated as punishable offenses, and you don't need to release the criminals until they have served their sentences.

      Either it's war or it's terrorism - you don't get to pick and choose when to apply which rules.

      Well, if you're stronger than everyone else, you can do whatever the hell you like, but be prepared to have fewer and fewer friends left in the world.

    300. Re:Floor plans... by metacell · · Score: 1

      They weren't. Bin Laden declared war on the United States in the 1990s. After treating the problem of Al Qaeda essentially as a police problem until the 9/11 attacks, the US Congress issued the Authorization for Use of Military Force which is functionally equivalent to a declaration of war on Al Qaeda. This is now a military problem. Bin Laden was killed as the head of Al Qaeda in a military operation in a war zone. No need for judicial involvement, which is very limited on the battlefield anyway.

      Well then, if it's a war, the Al-Qaeda are combatants, not terrorists. If captured, you're required to treat them humanely, and release them when the war ends. Unless they're suspected of war crimes, they must be set free without trial. You're also required to allow regular Red Cross inspections to ensure the prisoners of war are treated well.

      Are you really sure you want to define this as a war? By doing this, I think you elevate the Al-Qaeda from the status of simple criminals to honourable warriors.

    301. Re:Floor plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      screw having a trial just send rainbow 6 in there to kill the entire liberal wing.

    302. Re:Floor plans... by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Not only him, but all extremist Muslims, Hindus and many Arabs and Indians, barbaric primitives who think of family and guests, and then believe all others are worthy of robbery, rape, and death, shit in their own nests. Completely unaware or uncaring of the consequences of their own actions, irresponsible and a simple socio-path.
      Where do you think the terrorist suicide bombers are operating? In their own back yard.
      It takes a more civilized, thoughtful, elevated person to realize that shitting in their own back yard might be stupid.
      And an even more civilized, thoughtful, elevated, and socially conscious person to realize that shitting in anyone's back yard might be a bad, immoral, unethical, and plain stupid act.
      And an even more civilized, thoughtful, elevated, and socially conscious person to realize that helping and aiding people clean up others back yards and lives, and assist them to elevate might be a smart move. A truly self-actualized person. A socio-lover. A responsible and Godly person. Not just unselfish and socio-conscious person, but caring and sensible as well as sensitive and empathic, sympathetic. Someone who believes all people are their neighbors.
      The primitives are revengeful, greedy, and blaming others for all troubles in their lives, and working on attacking as many others, outsiders, different peoples as they can. Instead of taking responsibility for their own lives as well as those around them, and being builders, not destroyers. Spending all their time attacking everything they define as evil, instead of strengthening all they define as good.
      Why do you think that their are almost no hospitals or doctors in those places? Because their beliefs and their religions talk nothing of taking responsibility or helping others, and instead focus on blaming others and hurting and punishing others. Extremely un-spiritual people, although some claim to be very spiritual.
      A pack of losers.
      What you have to do with the leaders who are sources of the terrorist plague is immunize the body of society, which means activating hunter-killer phages who eliminate the disease carriers. Delta force and the Seals, in this case. Then healing the plage-diseased is much less difficult.
      Simply isolating / imprisoning these extreme disease-carriers is very problematic in the current world society, which is filled with "poor baby, we need to feel your pain" whiners, extremist rightists, and priviligests.
      Like you.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    303. Re:Floor plans... by jd · · Score: 2

      Which boils down to what I was saying. Either the President lied about ordering his capture if possible or the army is lying in that all rules of engagement were followed. Can't have both.

      I am not judging one way or the other the action of the SEALs. They did the job they were sent to do and the results were the only ones possible given the metholdology they were ordered to use.

      My beef isn't with the outcome, at least not in this debate. In this debate, I'm focussed entirely on the issue that the collection of statements and evidence we have been given indicate that we aren't being told the parts of the story that matters: who made the decision to make surrender impossible? If it was from high-up, then I want the President to admit that NO order that permitted capture was given and to say why. If it was by the troops on the ground, I want an explanation as to why they believed it to be necessary, from them and no-one else.

      In the case of the troops, they'd faced one armed person (everyone else in the building was unarmed) and he had been killed the moment the SEALs fired. There was no firefight. I'll accept - for now - that this may have been claimed through the fog of war. I'll also accept that the SEALs may well have expected a firefight at any moment, giving them an itchy trigger finger. I'll accept that when they found Bin Laden's room, they expected some sort of suicide system or for him to be armed. He hadn't and he wasn't.

      But did the troops get a briefing that psyched them specifically to be so neurotic as to make any other results possible? Was the President's order phrased such that even if the SEALs were rational and calm, they had a Presidential command to kill this man? If they didn't get such a briefing and their orders WERE to try and capture Bin Laden, I want a full, workable explanation on how they would have carried it out.

      This is the important part of the equation that most discussions totally miss out on. The rights and wrongs are incidental at this point, they have to be because we don't know whose rights and whose wrongs created the outcome. This is like blaming an illness on a fever. Until we have better information, blame needs to be thrown out the window.

      Of course, half of what I'm insisting we should know is heavily classsified, the rest is even more heavily classified, mostly for operational reasons. That information won't be seen in 50 years, the US government has been heavily reluctant to declassify information over a hundred years old. (The CIA only just revealed that you could use lemon juice as a secret ink, and other World War I spy secrets.) It is possible won't ever be known.

      Without it, though, we're copying the Charge of the Light Brigade - charging the heavily-armed, heavily-fortified walls of military procedure and military secrecy with a means that is neither appropriate nor intelligent.

      A better solution would be a review board that is quasi-independent of not just the military but the government as well whose purvue would be to see such classified information and ensure that there's better accountability. The military are horribly reluctant (Tillman). Besides which, self-awareness is suicide on a battlefield. You don't have the time for that kind of analysis. Because of the way the system works, generals are under-trained on the nuances and long-term effects of their actions - again, a trait that is likely to ensure a soldier never lives to see that rank. A second pair of eyes that is sufficiently on the outside as to not be limited to a sole type of thinking (and also to not cause turf wars) and yet sufficiently on the inside to be able to reduce bogus public statements and possibly suugest bugfixes for mission plans... that could work.

      It wouldn't be acceptable to the military, as it stands, the right-wing would consider it larger not smaller government, the left who like war don't want to see cleaner communication if it could damage their chances in elections, and the left who don't like war don't want to see war that is more ethical and better communicated as that could damage their position.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    304. Re:Floor plans... by jd · · Score: 1

      First, I dislike killing of other people, period. War is inevitable, at least for now, but as Sun Tzu pointed out, the objective of war is to win. It is NOT to kill as many of your opponents as you can, NOR is it to destroy as much of their territory as you can. Sun Tzu was quite clear on that.

      I have no beef with liberals. Republicans I loath and destest, and nationalists are the cockroaches of society.

      Nor did I say anything bad about Obama. I said that whoever gave the order to kill OBL should be honest and upfront that they did so. I don't care who it is, I don't care what rank they are, I don't give a damn if the dog they took on that mission could talk and brainwashed them. I just want an HONEST account of what took place and an HONEST explanation of how OSL was expected to be able to surrender as per the Rules of Engagement. I'm not even saying that I would blame such a person. If the person came clean and explained the reasoning such that demonstrated that it was the only possible tactic given what was known in the circumstances, I would accept it 100%.

      Y'see, unlike those who WANT to blame, I hate blaming. I detest blaming. I detest blaming as much as I detest smoke and mirror games. All I'm asking is that the smoke and mirrors go away. That is it.

      No, it is NEVER a good thing that a person is killed. There are times when it is necessary, but only a fool confuses "necessary" for "good". In this case, OBL had become

      No, "bad men" generally don't exist either. Some will be insane and need treatment. Some will be misinformed and fed half-truths for the purpose of embittering them. They need imprisonment under conditions that eliminate the toxic influences, plus therapy to counter the toxins in place. If the toxins can't be removed, then it needs to be life in prison.

      Personal responsibility vs Collective responsibility? I reject both. Responsibility is bounded by your capacity to do something different and further bounded by your capacity to think of those things. Personal responsibility is almost never 100%, but then it's never 0% either. Neither of the quaint and rather trite terms used have any reality behind them. But in my way of thinking, there will be many, many others - more than a few on the American side - who have a significant percent of the guilt pie. But you're not dividing the pie, are you? You're way too scared of what that might mean.

      Me? Finding negatives? Where? C'mon, be a man and say how me asking honest, sincere questions about where the chain of command gave the order to kill on sight can be a negative thing? Did I say that the President would be a bad man if he gave the order? Noooooo. I said that I'd want him to come clean. Not one iota of judgement there.

      As far as Obama is concerned, I consider him an acceptable President, but I'd prefer him to be more socialist in principles. I'd also prefer him to stop negotiating with the mad hatters at the Tea Party. They don't want results, they want conflict. That doesn't make them bad people, merely sick.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    305. Re:Floor plans... by jd · · Score: 1

      Sadly you are correct. It is why I like the British system where one house is (in theory) a meritocracy. It means you've people who can question dangerous decisions without fear of retaliation. It needs improvement, but the underlying concept is fairly sound.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    306. Re:Floor plans... by jd · · Score: 1

      Although there are tactics in Israel I'm not keen on, that's a brilliant one for dealing with such cases. Was it an option in this case? I don't know. But if it was a possibility, it seems only fair to ask why it wasn't used. There may be an answer, a good precise answer. The question is whether such an answer will be given.

      I can't tell you whether it's a good answer or a bad answer, or somewhere in between, until I hear it. And since that is unlikely to ever happen, I'm stuck with saying that I cannot accept that the decision was inevitable OR who made the decision inevitable, only that it was (at some point) inevitable and that we're not getting told who, where or why.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    307. Re:Floor plans... by jd · · Score: 1

      Why? I'd say thwacking him over the conk, dragging him to a ship and finally putting him in an isolated prison in the manner Rudolph Hess was, would essentially take the guy out of every loop that existed. For starters, even if he found a way to communicate with the outside (unlikely), there's no way that anyone could trust that the communications were from him.

      Leave him in his fortress, but destroy all AV systems and turn it into a prison unto itself, nobody enters, nobody leaves. Pakistan remains oblivious to anything happening, aside from the support network OSL had which would then expose itself to the US.

      So theoretical alternatives existed. Were they practical options? The SEALs know better than I and aren't saying. Were they permitted options? The President knows better than I and I don't believe what he's saying.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    308. Re:Floor plans... by jd · · Score: 1

      Ok, have him tried in Britain, where the law governing no second trials was abolished for serious offences for which further information came to light.

      You may be 100% correct but there's still gaps in the chain of thinking and I abhor nothing more than incomplete reasoning being presented as truth. Remember, the very best way to lie is to tell carefully selected truths.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    309. Re:Floor plans... by jd · · Score: 1

      I'm proposing that either he should have been taken alive by whatever means - peppersprays, those nice shiny microwave pain inducers the army likes to flaunt, a plastic bullet - he was point-blank, or a good, old-fashioned wallop to the head or we should be given honest, clear information as to why this could not be done.

      I don't mind which. I don't care which. I do mind people people being "economical with the truth" (see: UK vs. Australia, Spycatcher saga) with the object of not permitting a fair and free discussion on what could be done.

      And that is just it. I don't give a damn if you think killing him was right, wrong or indifferent. I do give a damn that you don't have a choice in what you think. You have been given a few selected facts that change on a regular basis. That's not giving you a choice of anything.

      Is it so very wrong that I want you to be able to freely come to your own conclusions?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    310. Re:Floor plans... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      C'mon, be a man and say how me asking honest, sincere questions about where the chain of command gave the order to kill on sight can be a negative thing?

      Sure. Because it doesn't sound sincere, it sounds like you are looking for negatives. Much like (though in an exaggerated form) the people who ask if Glenn Beck raped a girl in 1990 are not being sincere. Or more precisely perhaps, those people who ask for Obama's birth certificate. They didn't care whether he is a good president, their primary goal was to find something wrong with Obama. Or maybe a better example (since you aren't insane), are those people who criticized Bush for his pronunciation of nuclear. Focusing on the regional dialectical pronunciation variation was clearly not their main goal, despite the fact that they may not have liked his pronunciation.

      I just want an ... HONEST explanation of how OSL was expected to be able to surrender as per the Rules of Engagement.

      Saddam did it. Here's the thing, have you even looked up the rules of engagement? It seems like it would be a fairly simple thing to figure out. Instead, here you are, a day or two later, still asking the same question. That's why it looks like you are looking for negatives, much like the 'sincere' birthers who really didn't know if Obama was born in the US, but they were too lazy to actually look. Why haven't you investigated this? (ellipse added because I agree with your other point, I'd like an honest explanation of how it went down, too. We'll get it of course, but it might take a while).

      No, "bad men" generally don't exist either.

      This is important. We are good/bad according to our choices. It is like the famous indian story of two wolves. (I don't know if it is really an indian story, but that's how it is presented). People have turned out to be good, even in the worst of circumstances (ie, Nazi guards helping Jews escape). Circumstances happen to us but it is up to us how we respond to them.

      But you're not dividing the pie, are you? You're way too scared of what that might mean.

      Scared of what? Certainly not afraid of taking responsibility for my piece of taking out Osama. He was a bad man.

      I'd also prefer him to stop negotiating with the mad hatters at the Tea Party. They don't want results, they want conflict.

      They very much want results; unfortunately the results are quite different from the results you want. Remember, it takes two to have a conflict.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    311. Re:Floor plans... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, when I say "equal" I mean "morally equal", and your answer is apparently yes. We can disagree on that, but I definitely think it shows a stunning lack of perspective on your part.

    312. Re:Floor plans... by jd · · Score: 1

      I've read the articles from the Hague, the Geneva Convention and the UN Charter of Human Rights. As you'd know, if you were a regular reader, as I used these extensively on the stories covering Manning.

      I've read the US Constitution, the British Constitution (which the US stole for theirs), the Magna Carta, the Doom Book of Alfred the Great, the surviving laws of Æthelberht of Kent (c. 602 AD), Ine of Wessex (c. 694 AD) and Offa of Mercia (c. 786 AD), the Napoleonic system on which French law is based, and assorted other systems.

      I don't sound honest? I don't sound like I want the answers? I hate to put it to you but only a moron would actually believe that. What's more, a moron who had never bothered to understand who he was replying to. If I ask a question, here, on K5, on the Grauniad website, or whatever, the question isn't rhetorical. It is because there is an unacceptable conflict and I want that conflict resolved.

      If we were to go with your theory (which, frankly, must sound utterly deluded to anyone who does know me by even a few posts), you run into a problem almost immediately. The birther nutjobs wanted to "prove" a point about a specific person and would not accept evidence. I've left it 100% clear (a) it could be anyone in a very very long chain that has responsibility, and (b) that said responsibility was the RIGHT decision. Something your paranoid delusions cannot comprehend.

      You seem to assume that someone wanting to have information is no different from someone wanting to abuse another. Well, the only one who could think that way is a person who is mentally sick beyond hope of recovery. I'll give you the opportunity to show you are not, but you only get the one. The right-wingers, the "blue dog" left, those "undecideds" who actually believed the birther nonsense, and anyone left over who believed Bush was being honest about an Iraq threat - they need to be placed in padded cells and left to rot. They ARE sick and there is no chance they could ever be treated.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    313. Re:Floor plans... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The birther nutjobs wanted to "prove" a point about a specific person and would not accept evidence. I've left it 100% clear (a) it could be anyone in a very very long chain that has responsibility, and (b) that said responsibility was the RIGHT decision.

      There are two types of birthers. The crazy ones, like Orly Taitz; and alternately the vast majority, who think maybe Obama isn't a citizen, but haven't ever even looked it up (and are actually fairly easily convinced of reality once they see it). I made fairly clear you are not in the first category.

      Do you have any reason to believe that the seals were given something that varied greatly from the use of force continuum? Looks like he was judged to have fallen under level 5: The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm. Do you think the navy seals didn't make an accurate assessment of that situation? Was it inaccurate to say he would have killed or injured someone if he was not stopped immediately and brought under control?

      The right-wingers, the "blue dog" left, those "undecideds" who actually believed the birther nonsense, and anyone left over who believed Bush was being honest about an Iraq threat - they need to be placed in padded cells and left to rot. They ARE sick and there is no chance they could ever be treated.

      lol why, because they disagree with you? Right-wingers, 'blue dog' left, and 'undecideds' is a huge chunk of the population.

      I've read the US Constitution, the British Constitution (which the US stole for theirs), the Magna Carta, the Doom Book of Alfred the Great, the surviving laws of Æthelberht of Kent (c. 602 AD), Ine of Wessex (c. 694 AD) and Offa of Mercia (c. 786 AD), the Napoleonic system on which French law is based, and assorted other systems.

      I don't care what you've read.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    314. Re:Floor plans... by jd · · Score: 1

      You are still ignoring my point (that what has been said is omitting details, and I want those details adequately explained, I don't CARE whose details, NOR do I care what the details show, only that they are there).

      You question what I know but don't want to know what I know... right...

      Ok, you're a troll. Debate closed.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    315. Re:Floor plans... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      that what has been said is omitting details, and I want those details adequately explained,

      Oh, duh. Of course. I already agreed with you on that point. Of course it should be adequately explained, and we should know the details about what happened.

      I don't CARE whose details, NOR do I care what the details show, only that they are there

      I just don't think that's all you care about. I really don't believe that you do not care what the details show. Why would you not care? That doesn't even make sense. If they show something bad, that would be important. Any sane person would care. Although there might be some disagreement about what is 'bad.'

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Has to be said.. by Pottsynz · · Score: 1

    "Protect the VIP team!"

  6. The surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The surprise here is that people still plays counter-strike.

    1. Re:The surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Goldeneye Source was released... oh wait.

  7. Osama Bin Zombie? by fragMasterFlash · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who was hoping for a Left For Dead 2 map with Osama zombies?

    1. Re:Osama Bin Zombie? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Well, there is the zombie mod for CS. You could make the original zombie look like OBL, and have all the spawned zombies look like standard terrorists (maybe even give them suicide belts!)

    2. Re:Osama Bin Zombie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an osama model for UT2004. Turn on Ballistic Weapons, Bloody Hell and pick DM-BlackhawkDown and letter rip.

  8. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, now I remember why I stopped playing counterstrike.

  9. Boom Headshot! by cosm · · Score: 5, Funny

    [SERVER] MOTD - WHAT UP INFIDELS
    [STS6] - Lock n' loaded
    [STS6] - dey r camping tspawn watch out for ak-nubs
    [UBL] - I hear something!
    [UBL] - hey who teamflashe------
    Boom Headshot!
    [STS6 -> UBL] [984 HP]
    [Announcer] - Counter Terrorist Win
    [UBL] - fcking awp nubs
    [STS6] - wanna join r clan? not!!!
    [SERVER] - User UBL teamkicked reason/trolling

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Boom Headshot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [SERVER] We just debited y'all another $30 for this months playing fees. Thanks for buying our line of crap, morons. P.s.: all of these messages are automated, don't reply. HAND.

  10. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well hung for an asian...

  11. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And also a magnitude or more larger than CmdrTaco.

  12. First CS, then.... by strredwolf · · Score: 1

    ...soon, Team Fortress 2. This will be the next RedFort.

    --

    --
    # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
    1. Re:First CS, then.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you mean the next 2fort.

    2. Re:First CS, then.... by Barny · · Score: 1

      2fort is the new 2fort, it has more of what made 2fort so 2fortish.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  13. Navy SEALs by Wolfling1 · · Score: 0

    I'll bet the US Navy SEALs had a very detailed counterstrike map of the area, and played it many times before the event.

    I'd like to see their version...

    1. Re:Navy SEALs by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Actually, word is that they built a full scale replica and trained in it until they knew the layout like their own home. Retired SEALs have been saying that that's the standard practice for missions like this, whenever there's sufficient time.

    2. Re:Navy SEALs by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I think that's a pretty good bet. You can't build a replica of the inside of the buildings, but you can at least make a mock up of the rest. I'm not sure why they'd use a computer simulation unless they really had to. OTOH, the secret service moved over eventually so who knows.

    3. Re:Navy SEALs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knocking together a replica of a house can be done in two days max. It's not like they need to put plumbing, gas, electricity and so on in it. In the 70s the Israelis made a replica of an entire airport terminal in less than a week when preparing to rescue hostages from a hijacking (Operation Entebbe). And nowadays the Chinese seem to be able to build real skyscrapers in less than a week (there's a time lapse video of it on youtube). So it's definitely standard practice and doesn't take much time but I wonder what they do with the interior - especially if it's not very well known. In the aforementioned hijacking, the Israelis got info from the contractors that had built the airport as well as released hostages but in this case such sources were not available. Maybe they were able to track down some blueprints considering that the compound was built about 5-6 years ago but it seems to me that the construction is so simple that there might not have been any and digging for them would've risked tipping UBL off. I really wonder what the best method to practice is when there's uncertainty about the layout since in this case they had several months to practice for this particular mission and must thus have done it hundreds of times but learning the wrong layout perfectly might backfire, after all. Anybody able to tell me?

    4. Re:Navy SEALs by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Its a shame they didn't understand the affect of the compound walls on the helicopter. They very nearly lost the mission at that point.

  14. satellite imagery and more by shuz · · Score: 2

    It is fairly amazing what someone can piece together using well known sources. 30 seconds on google maps gave me satellite imagery and many images from the ground including the downed US helicopter.
    http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=9294138184493326603&q=Abbott%C4%81bad,+Abbottabad,+Khyber+Pakhtunkhwa,+Pakistan+compound&hl=en&dtab=0&sll=34.169215,73.242433&sspn=0.049606,0.057297&ie=UTF8&ll=34.169848,73.240979&spn=0,0&t=h&z=19&lci=com.panoramio.all

    --
    There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
    1. Re:satellite imagery and more by hedwards · · Score: 1

      LOL, and Google says they aren't evil. They could've saved several years worth of work if they'd just pointed that out in bigger letters.

    2. Re:satellite imagery and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe no-one in DHS could bring themselves to type "Where is Osama hiding?" into Google maps?

    3. Re:satellite imagery and more by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Perhaps no one thought to upload and tag the photos until after the raid?

    4. Re:satellite imagery and more by darkrowan · · Score: 1

      And still, surprisingly, has a 3/5 star rating!

      --
      AccountKiller
  15. I've been dreaming of this by TigerTime · · Score: 1

    When I first saw that compound, my first thought was how long it was going to take someone to make that into a map. It seemed like the perfect setup for one.

  16. Well, it is an fy_ map by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The map in TFA uses the "fy_" prefix, which is a long-standing way of denoting community maps with no particular objective. The two letters were originally an initialism for "Fuck You" – often bowdlerized to "Frag Yard" or similar.

  17. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go suck your moms 3ft arabian cunthairs!

  18. Why stop there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should just model out all of Pakistan and be done with it.

  19. How is it 'playable'? by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

    Only one of the terrorists starts with a gun (which changes from day to day depending on who you listen to).

    1. Re:How is it 'playable'? by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Precisely. The US is making a big thing of the SEAL team that went in and took the place and killed OBL, but to be honest it was a one sided fight from the start and the other side stood no chance. Its a great victory for the US to have found him, but not much of a challenge in the execution.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  20. Meanwhile, in news that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Pakistani government has outed the CIA's station chief in Pakistan.

  21. I'ld like to see you try to build a house. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet it would cost you $1,000,000 to build one like that in your good-ol' USA, because of all the regulations and shitty experience you have.

    1. Re:I'ld like to see you try to build a house. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I doubt we could build a fancy hut like that in the USA and have it certified as residential or habitable. From the looks of it, it's a small crackerbox house, with apartments in the rear that we would typically call a storage shed,. ( I rent two storage spaces to store useless junk with sentimental value in that appear to be bigger then each room in the outbuilding.)

      Well, unless you mean costing that much to grease the hands of the building and code enforcement and zoning commission or something. Then possibly, yes, you could put a slum like that up somewhere where there is a population higher then 30.

  22. Realistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In keeping with realism, will only one side be armed?

  23. TBH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think Osama was an asshole, but I find the celebrations of his death rather distasteful. Maybe it's because I'm not American and I can't begin to understand how American nationalism works, but still, making Counterstrike maps to re-enact somebody's death is just... twisted and wrong.

    I think I'm also being realistic when I say the publicity surrounding his death could be turning him into a martyr/hero in some shadier circles, so it may have been a mistake to make it such a big deal. I sincerely hope this doesn't end in retaliation, because terrorism costs lives, and (in the long-term/bigger picture) terrorism funds the various "Patriot Acts" around the world.

    Just my 2c. If any morons haven't figured it out, I'm against terrorism in all shapes and forms.

    1. Re:TBH by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      i agree that celebrating someone's cold-blooded killing is a bit morbid, but i think the US has been quite subdued, all things considered.

      remember the "we got him" press conference with Saddam Hussein? talk about gloating. there wasn't even discussion about whether the muslim world would see their handling as being a bit distasteful. this time round there's more sensitivity than i've seen from any "winning side". credit where it's due... it's not perfect, but you can't say the handling of this wasn't thought about.

      also, consider how "the enemy" handles similar situations. they behead people and put in on youtube. they parade their own dead children through the streets, shouting and shooting AKs in the air. and it goes on and on.

      imagine what the headlines would have been if Al Qaeda had captured George W Bush?

    2. Re:TBH by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      making Counterstrike maps to re-enact somebody's death is just... twisted and wrong.

      Nothing is sacred on the internet. If you expect anything to be treated with respect, or will be offended if it isn't, just unplug your ethernet cable and turn away. Because it will be disrespected as much as possible. Osama himself would have been much less offended by a CS map than some of these pictures, like perhaps this (assuming he is as religious as he claimed to be).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:TBH by mrxak · · Score: 1

      There may be some celebrating, but I think mainly what you see is catharsis. Generally what people are celebrating, where they are celebrating, is not the death of a human being, but the major blow this is to a dangerous terrorist organization, the feeling of pride in actually doing something right as a nation in the wake of economic problems and long painful wars, and of course, relief and a sense of closure after a very long time of worry. It took nearly 10 years, but we got justice for what was done to us on 9/11. We're not incompetent, and wounded, we're accomplishing things and starting to heal.

      The map itself isn't an Osama's death simulator, it's a simulation of a compound where Osama happened to have died. People are naturally curious about the place, and want to see it for themselves in some form. They're not reenacting anything because Counterstrike doesn't have an Osama character.

      Osama bin Laden is already a martyr to his followers, and everybody already knew who he was. Media attention is going to have absolutely no effect on how the terrorists feel about this, it will only serve to educate an understandably curious public about the event.

      Likewise, terrorists were still going to keep trying to kill us had Osama bin Laden not been killed, or if he was captured. The only difference his death makes, as far as terrorism as a whole is concerned, is there is now one less vocal proponent of jihad out there. Yes, it will stir everybody up a bit, and they may dedicate attacks to his name now, but they'd still have done attacks one way or another. Terrorists try to kill people, that's simply what they do. That's kind of why we didn't like the guy so much.

  24. CS? by dasherjan · · Score: 1

    Holy cow Counterstrike is still around!!

    1. Re:CS? by filthpickle · · Score: 1

      I know...and still pretty damn popular. I always hated that game....but I played it for hours and hours just because all my friends that gamed online loved it.

      Full disclosure...I was downright awful at it.

  25. as-WashingtonDC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For our arab friends there is also another map ;)

  26. Fark totally killed this one. by symbolset · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Fark totally killed this one. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Oddly, the headline is from guardian.co.uk, and "underwater " is not a term I've ever heard used in the UK (we say "in negative equity").

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Fark totally killed this one. by eharvill · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a reference to his disposal at sea?

      --
      At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
  27. bin laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll give the SEAL team the benefit of the doubt about shooting unarmed combatants in the heat of battle (though there doesn't sound like there was much heat from what has been revealed).

    Don't they go several times through those mock up buildings featuring pop up posters with cartoonish artworks of hostages and badies prior to deployment anymore?

    1. Re:bin laden by mrxak · · Score: 1

      The fact that there wasn't much heat doesn't mean that there couldn't have been a lot of heat, had they hesitated at any point in the operation. I trust that they did what they had to do to get home safe, and complete their objectives. At the end of the day, that's the important part.

      Armed, unarmed, it doesn't matter. They were enemies in war, in a dangerous place with a great many unknowns. If the enemy doesn't immediately surrender when you show up, the enemy is fair game. That's the rules of war and the only thing that makes sense on the battlefield. These terrorists became terrorists to kill or be killed. They had weapons nearby if not in hand, and for all these SEALs knew, there were bombs everywhere. There is absolutely no question that they were hostile enemy combatants. It may make some people more comfortable with the outcome had Osama bin Laden gotten some shots off, but for the operation to be as big a success as it was, it's probably good he never had the chance to do our soldiers harm. He certainly would not have hesitated, let there be no mistake about it.

  28. Plants vs Zombies mod? by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

    There's a SEAL on your lawn!
    We don't want SEALs on our lawn!

  29. Cool! by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 1

    To be honest, I don't care so much about the map itself. It's just pleasing to me there are still FPS games out there with map editors that allow you to make such maps in the first place. So many games are missing level editors and mod tools that it's becoming novel for them to do so (and yes CS:S is getting a bit old, but it's still fun and still supported by Valve). If you're trying to make maps for something like one of the latest versions of Call of Duty, forget it.

    1. Re:Cool! by mrxak · · Score: 1

      I miss the glory days too. I remember the original UT had some really really creative and fun maps made by players, stuff that no professional level designer at Epic would have even thought of doing.

      I like to play games, certainly, but more than that, I like to make games. Some of my favorite games of all time have allowed me to tell my own stories, or create my own content, and many of them I still go back to time and time again, where games without such mod communities get covered in dust after a few months.

    2. Re:Cool! by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 1

      Funny you mention that. I think the original UT was one of the best multiplayer FPS games of all time, and it came out at the sweet-spot for PC gaming. Good mod tools, a good engine designed specifically for PCs, lots of player-created content, but we even had bonus packs straight from Epic, for free. The Epic of today is quite different to the Epic of years gone by. The closest thing we have to a developer is Valve, as far the amount of free content and mod support goes.

    3. Re:Cool! by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      How exactly could you make maps for COD? The controller doesn't have enough buttons to handle the multiple shortcut keys that a level editor would require.

    4. Re:Cool! by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      Generally any company that sells their engine offers up the dev tooks (i.e.SDK) for free - because it's good, free, time proven marketing. There are only a couple of high end game engines that are completely closed source.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  30. LOL VIP? by Grindalf · · Score: 0

    So is it VIP? Protect the VIP team! :0) Funny ... I will not ring the bell ...

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  31. It would likely be boring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, what's the point? Go in and shoot 4 unarmed people and one armed one? That's a challenge in an FPS?

  32. WHENNNN by mustPushCart · · Score: 2

    when is the world going to move on from counterstrike!?!!?

    1. Re:WHENNNN by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's still one of the best online FPS games for the PC, and has a large player base and active community. PC games have more longevity, the original Starcraft was only recently replaced with a sequel, and people still play the first one.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    2. Re:WHENNNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has never been the "best" game, ever. It's only been the most popular game. That's an important distinction.

    3. Re:WHENNNN by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      I LOL'd. Check out the Steam stats: http://store.steampowered.com/stats

      At the moment, Counter-Strike (not even Counter-Strike Source!) is the most-played game today. Fact is, it's just a better game than almost everything out there, so people play it even more than 10 years after its release.

      For the record, this is a CS:S map.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    4. Re:WHENNNN by doti · · Score: 1

      people still play quake1

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
  33. Cognitive dissonance was here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cognitive dissonance. It's not just for three times before breakfast anymore.

  34. Re:Who cares by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

    Hopefully not while OBL still has his teeth...

  35. The Real Surprise: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People still play Counter Strike.

  36. Already done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They nailed his hideout when they released Fallout New Vegas....it's a shithole in the desert right?

  37. Killing unarmed civilians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do we get to kill his unarmed wives and civilians protecting him in this, or have they been given weapons? Do we get to kill unarmed Bin Ladin?

  38. Where is old man Murray when you need him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start-to-crate ratio 0.

    Right In the first screenshot

    And no pallets

  39. I'll go with the official statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some guy in Texas was overjoyed with the leaked 'Osama shot dead' newsfeed that he fired his gun in the air, and all 236 rounds fell on Osama accidentally, interrupting an exercise being held onsite.

  40. Whats all this fuss about. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really don't understand all this fuss about bin laden was assassinated or murdered etc. the simple fact is he was a enemy agent. A enemy agent who had declared war on the US and the rest of the world. Being as the US had declared war back at the Terrorists he is simply a general too risky to capture and being as this is during a war time event and being as he is a leader of the enemy forces whether he is armed or unarmed ( possibly with explosives ) he is too much of a risk to leave alive for the marines there and the welfare of those back home.

    all i can say is Good Riddance

    Regarding the actual map, kinda makes me want to play it.

    1. Re:Whats all this fuss about. by ledow · · Score: 1

      "the simple fact is he was a enemy agent"

      Says who? Isn't that a fact that could only be established in a trial? Where's the evidence that he ordered any of this, rather than just claimed responsibility for it on a couple of videos, or even coerced into being the scapegoat while the true culprit gets clean away (every time I've ever seen a bombing, some nutter, somewhere has taken responsibility for it even if they didn't do it - it's a known factor in confessions, etc. - some people just claim responsibility for things). At which point did he receive a trial to determine the facts (and, come on, the US is one of the few countries left where you could fast-track him to execution if you so wanted after finding him guilty)?

      Was the US at war with HIM personally, or the country he resided in? Can a country be at war with a concept (terrorism, drug-abuse, etc.)? Can a country be at war with a single person, and thus see his killing as a simple "act of war"? Isn't that just an excuse for justifying assassination, which is actually NOT allowed under US law (and hence the UK has been doing that kind of dirty work for the US for a long time because we don't have a law against that)?

      If the US was at war with Pakistan at the time (nope, they're supposed to be allies at the moment!), then possibly you could see how his killing could be merely the casualty of war but how does that fit with him being specifically targeted and specifically assassinated?

      What if, say, Julian Assange does something the US disagree with? Can you "declare war" on him? Can you bomb any country he's in to kingdom come? Can you (legally) send out a team of SEAL's to a foreign country to put a bullet in his head? What about if he claimed to have some national-security information that you killed him for but actually never did - does that justify an assassination? What about if the local nutter claims responsibility for 9/11, can you shoot him too without trial?

      As to being "too risky" to capture - you had him. You had him, in a room, surrounded by your people with guns, and no actual resistance that was a threat. You extracted those same SEAL's, so you could have extracted him too. Hell, you extracted his body to a warship, apparently, for burial. If you can prove he reached for a gun, even the police would have shot him, let alone the army, but there's no evidence he did.

      If he had explosives on him - your SEAL's shot him dead and would have instantly triggered any dead-man's switch while standing in the same room as him. Or maybe even hit the explosives with bullets themselves. That would make them pillocks and make such a mission incredibly stupid if you even suspected that. I would like to think that they KNEW there wasn't anything explosive in the house that posed a threat beforehand.

      There's a simple way to prove to countries that you're superior to terrorism - and it doesn't involve trying to "terrorise" the terrorists, everyone associated with them, every country they go near, torturing innocents in foreign prisons with STILL no hope of trial/release yet, and bombing foreign countries for TEN YEARS. It involves capturing those you think are responsible and showing the world that you're BETTER than them - by giving them a humane trial (like we did with virtually EVERY captured dictator, Nazi, etc. that we believed may have committed war crimes of much vaster proportions than one bomb on one building - and at least their crimes were in the middle of a real fecking war!), giving them a chance to justify their actions and THEN acting (even if that decision involves execution).

      Tell me - why does Saddam Hussein get this treatment:
      "Captured on 13 December 2003, Saddam was brought to trial under the Iraqi interim government. On 5 November 2006, he was convicted of charges related to the 1982 killing of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites and was sentenced to death by hanging." whereas Osama Bin Laden got a bullet in the head and zero evidence?

      Expense of a trial? Do you have any idea how much t

  41. Osama Hideout by hotelogix · · Score: 1

    This is a great news about finding Osama Bin Laden house and then subsequently killing him.

  42. We're a little surprised that it took this long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    especially since the hideout was known in 2005.

  43. Lets make it morally equal by voss · · Score: 1

    If someone had planned the killing of 3000 innocent North Korean civlians, and also supported numerous terrorist acts around the globe and authorized the assassination of American politicians opposed to him and car bombing of americans and attacks on canadian schoolchildren and were hiding in the US and US government didnt do jack diddly about it for 5 years even though there was United Nations sanctions and an interpol warrant. If then the North Koreans came in and capped him without killing any Americans in the process, Id say that person got what they deserved.

  44. This could be amusing. by kiehlster · · Score: 1

    Just thinking, all the newbs that end up on the terrorist team will always lose because we've already pointed out all the weak points in the compound. The result: Lots more Youtube videos of pissed off newbs breaking their keyboards.

  45. Urban Terror map? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Okay, where's the Urban Terror map? I used to love that game. Played it all the time until I got bleary eyed and had trouble with depth perception and focusing. (The effects are temporary) The development of that game has become stagnant. I believe there is a strong probability of Duke Nukem Forever being released before Urban Terror makes any serious progress. Stuck at 4.1 and has been for years. Sad...sad sad.

    But maybe someone will make the map for Urban Terror to spark some interest in the project again.

  46. I wondered which would be first by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I wondered if it would be this, or one of those retarded lame-ass Asian videos where nobody looks like who they're supposed to be - not that you can see, with 97 different sets of subtitles all going on.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  47. Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it bizarre as to why people need to recreate this 'situation'. Typical internet warrior fantasy.

    Mark at www.idgconnect.com/blog

  48. Bad idea by pizzach · · Score: 1

    I think a lot of people fail to see the larger picture. We aren't all from Texas and the US isn't the wild west anymore. We are dealing with large groups of people and not a one-on-one gunfight.

    Longer term, jailing Osama and putting him on world trial, a terrorist who would only be proud dying for his cause, would have been the largest blow to the terrorist psyche. He would be paraded around as an example. Shooting him would have just created another martyr, incentivizing more people to hate the evil US of A.

    Longer term, shooting Osama would lead to more US deaths not less just to satisfy some sense of payback a lot of Americans want to satisfy but can't come to terms with.

    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
  49. Actually by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I'll leave to you to look it up; but I remember when the Clinton admin created Al-Qaeda after the WTC bombing in the 90s - the purpose was to use old laws used for organized crime which are not really fair but have existed for a long time. They created an organization so they then could apply these old laws to go after the leadership of the criminal organization.

    Bin Laden I believe had some sort of name for his tiny little funding organization but it was small (but the name was long) and not directly doing anything - it provided funding for groups and people doing things it liked. Much the same as the USA has done for generations (but is accepted, but largely unknown to the ignorant public.) In doing this, they were able to convict leaders of the organization indirectly and do so legally. At the same time, it gave him a great name, lots of attention and P.R. to grow more influential.

    Its been a long time but I do remember it. So, while it may be that he was convicted in the 90s and could have been again (especially when he finally took credit for the successful attack.) It still is the case that his death sentence was not carried out according to the "rule of law". (A meaningless phrase today.) I am not sure NY has the death sentence... Although he can die resisting arrest...

    Correction: Even if you are an American, if you are a terrorist you do not count as human and they can kill you without trial if you leave the country. Bush moved towards this but it was Obama who has done it.

    Correction: the USA hardly killed anybody looking for Osama; the vast majorities were killed for geopolitics and Osama was just the excuse for the ignorant masses. I read their plans in 1999 before Bush got in; I knew about the Afghanistan oil + pipeline plans before Bush was president - and so did anybody who followed Cheney's think tanks position papers. The idiot press didn't look behind the curtain - anybody with a brain realized Bush was really a front man and it would be his staff deciding most the policies (even if he wasn't a moron, the advisers have a big impact and most are not planning to run for high office so their opinions can easily be determined and by extension one can gain insight into the politician.) The trajectory of the Bush admin was quite predictable; we just have shallow reporters but no journalists.

    Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist by the USA decades back... But back then we didn't claim the right to just openly assassinate such people and so he lives today as a hero and we are completely ignorant just how evil "we" thought he was.

  50. Re:Lets make it morally equal by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Hell yeah. I'd hope they put a cap in that Bastard!

  51. Interesting by fajarini11 · · Score: 1

    I really want to know every details about this things, it very interesting to find out the result :)

  52. bin laden by malleshnayak · · Score: 1

    hi this is mallesh

  53. book marking by malleshnayak · · Score: 1

    hi this is mallesh book marking

  54. remember the 90s? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping someone would make a map of abbottabad.

    However, I'm still waiting on fy_waco.

  55. hdbfjkd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcom to ---- http://www.cn2bizz.com ----

    ---- in Daily Dose of Style

    In order to thank the support of new and old customers,
    we have launched promotional activities:
    Buy over 100 items to send beautiful plutonium
    Buy at least 200 to send beautiful T shirt
    Buy at least 300 to send exquisite handbags
    And so on, buy more more sent.
    Time :2011.

    ---- http://www.cn2bizz.com ----
    ---- http://www.cn2bizz.com ----
    ---- http://www.cn2bizz.com ----

  56. Speaking of fy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's fy_waco?