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."

Comments

The truth

[redemtionboy]

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

Re:The truth

[M. Baranczak]

Talk Abbottabad place to hide.

Missing option

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Floor plans...

[Frosty Piss]

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

Re:Floor plans...

[damn_registrars]

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.

Re:Floor plans...

[Mistlefoot]

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

The Floor Plans

Re:Floor plans...

[Dr Max]

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.

Re:Floor plans...

[amicusNYCL]

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).

Re:Floor plans...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:Floor plans...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:Floor plans...

[mrxak]

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.

Re:Floor plans...

[symbolset]

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.

Re:Floor plans...

[mrxak]

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.

Re:Floor plans...

[Dr Max]

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.

Re:Floor plans...

[mrxak]

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?

Re:Floor plans...

[jd]

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.)

Re:Floor plans...

[mrxak]

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?

Re:Floor plans...

[cold fjord]

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.)

Re:Floor plans...

[novium]

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."

Re:Floor plans...

[metacell]

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.

Re:Floor plans...

[drolli]

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.

Re:Floor plans...

[Stiletto]

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...

Re:Floor plans...

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

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 ?

Re:Floor plans...

[jmac_the_man]

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."

Re:Floor plans...

[delinear]

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?

Boom Headshot!

[cosm]

[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

Well, it is an fy_ map

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Been here a while...

[philljcool]

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.

Fark totally killed this one.

[symbolset]

Bin Laden's mansion only worth 25 percent of what he paid for it, meaning he'll be underwater for a long time.

Once in a while Fark.com is a beautiful thing.

Re:WHENNNN

[sqrt(2)]

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.