On OBL, USA and Murder

[dazzerfong]

One thing: does anyone think it's strange how when they claimed that they cannot release the images because it showed OBL's frontal eye socket blown out, doesn't that mean he was shot from behind?

[Kendo 2]

One thing: does anyone think it's strange how when they claimed that they cannot release the images because it showed OBL's frontal eye socket blown out, doesn't that mean he was shot from behind?

 

Depends. If he was shot with standard issue NATO rounds the hydrostatic shock would pop his head like a grape. Most military ammo is jacketed and the shock is a side affect. Can't use lead slugs in combat. Is against the roolz.

[marharth]

One thing: does anyone think it's strange how when they claimed that they cannot release the images because it showed OBL's frontal eye socket blown out, doesn't that mean he was shot from behind?

There was a possibly of back lash if the photo was released.

 

It was to our better secruity interests to not release it.

 

It would have gone like this anyways...

 

Gov releases photo - Its clearly Photoshopped!

 

Gov releases video - It is video edited, you can see a frame skip in half a second by slowing it down. ITS JUST ADVANCED CGI TECH!!

 

Gov releases all records - It is clearly fraud.

 

And so on...

 

It wouldn't of helped anything, and it had a chance of making things worse.

 

And honestly it doesn't matter which way he was shot from, the mission was highly likely to be a assassination mission anyways.

[Sync182]

One thing I've always found amusing (and I use the word loosely) in these types of scenarios is this:

 

That the Right To Life / Human Rights / Bleeding Hearts section of our society are very quiet when the Terrorist organisations blow up schoolkids and civilians who are nowhere near an active combat zone, but hear them scream when Western forces accidentally kill just one civilian.

 

My solution: put the Bleeding Hearts in the next bus the terrorists blow up, so that the more level-headed of us can get about dealing with the atrocities in the only way the terrorists understand.

 

Remember the quote from Sean Connery's character in the movie The Untouchables:

"He draws a knife, you draw a gun. He puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue."

 

This thread serves no purpose.

[grannywils]

One thing I've always found amusing (and I use the word loosely) in these types of scenarios is this:

 

That the Right To Life / Human Rights / Bleeding Hearts section of our society are very quiet when the Terrorist organisations blow up schoolkids and civilians who are nowhere near an active combat zone, but hear them scream when Western forces accidentally kill just one civilian.

 

My solution: put the Bleeding Hearts in the next bus the terrorists blow up, so that the more level-headed of us can get about dealing with the atrocities in the only way the terrorists understand.

 

Remember the quote from Sean Connery's character in the movie The Untouchables:

"He draws a knife, you draw a gun. He puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue."

 

This thread serves no purpose.

 

Interesting post, Sync 182. But to what post are you referring in this particular thread? Have seen no posts such as you describe above here. It almost seems as though you are just inventing scenarios at which you can battle. No innocent civilian was killed in this particular mission, and thus far I don't think there have been any "bleeding hearts" objecting to the mission. Those who have objected have done so for other reasons. Although I admit to having been called a bleeding heart in my day, I have expressed no regret for this particular mission, and in fact have hailed it for it's success and it's lack of excessive casualties.

 

Your remark about putting the bleeding hearts in the next bus, etc. was in my opinion insensitive, rude and somewhat ridiculous. It certainly was not "level headed". However, I am assuming you were just venting, so will ignore it.

[Lisnpuppy]

One thing I've always found amusing (and I use the word loosely) in these types of scenarios is this:

 

That the Right To Life / Human Rights / Bleeding Hearts section of our society are very quiet when the Terrorist organisations blow up schoolkids and civilians who are nowhere near an active combat zone, but hear them scream when Western forces accidentally kill just one civilian.

 

My solution: put the Bleeding Hearts in the next bus the terrorists blow up, so that the more level-headed of us can get about dealing with the atrocities in the only way the terrorists understand.

 

Remember the quote from Sean Connery's character in the movie The Untouchables:

"He draws a knife, you draw a gun. He puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue."

 

This thread serves no purpose.

 

Then why, pray tell..did you bother to post in it?

[Kendo 2]

@grannywils

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay is demanding details on bin Laden's death. In an AP report Pillay stated that had bin Laden been captured he would likely have been charged with the most serious offenses, including crimes against humanity.

 

LIKELY have been charged. Sheesh. What does a terrorist have to do to get in trouble with the UN? And I've seen her name in print before. Pillay has stressed the importance of respecting international law during counter-terror operations. She's attempting to hamper, not help the war on terror. This is the same Human Rights council that coddles Iran. In March of this year China, Russia, Cuba, and Pakistan voted against a U.S. led resolution to censure Iran for human rights violations. And notice the UN isn't grilling Pakistan about haboring terrorists.

 

Easily verifiable facts, for those who care to look.

 

Also, Holder is not talking about the CIA operatives that extracted the key intel to get bin Laden, starting in 2003. These operatives are the same ones facing charges from THE UNITED STATES AG'S OFFICE for violating the 'rights' three terrorists. These three terrorist are the ones who gave the CIA the bin Laden intel during water boarding. And the Obama administration isn't addressing that issue either, since water boarding allowed us to get the info leading to bin Laden's death and OBAMA suspended the pratice AND is standing by while the people who extracted the intel TO SAVE LIVES face charges here in the U.S.

 

Just two examples of what Sync182 pointed out.

 

@Linspuppy

 

I THINK Sync182 was expressing frustration. He has a valid point though. Obama had no issue releasing the photos taken at Abu Ghraib of prisoners being 'mistreated' and he IGNORED the warnings of his own staff about potential threat of retaliation against Americans. But NOW he isn't going to release photos of a dead bin Laden because it WILL increase the threat of retaliation against Americans. WHY is it okay to release the Abu Ghraib photos and not bin Laden with a head wound? I think Abu Ghraib didn't happpen on his watch and releasing the photos played to his liberal fan base. His excuses about the potential harm to Americans NOW are just that, excuses. *in my opinion, of course*

[Lisnpuppy]

@grannywils

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay is demanding details on bin Laden's death. In an AP report Pillay stated that had bin Laden been captured he would likely have been charged with the most serious offenses, including crimes against humanity.

 

LIKELY have been charged. Sheesh. What does a terrorist have to do to get in trouble with the UN? And I've seen her name in print before. Pillay has stressed the importance of respecting international law during counter-terror operations. She's attempting to hamper, not help the war on terror. And notice the UN isn't grilling Pakistan about haboring terrorists.

 

Also, Holder is not talking about the CIA operatives that got the key intel to get bin Laden, starting in 2003. These operatives are the same ones facing charges from THE UNITED STATES AG'S OFFICE for violating the 'rights' three terrorists. These three terrorist are the ones who gave the CIA the bin Laden intel during water boarding. And the Obama administration isn't addressing that issue either, since water boarding allowed us to get the info leading to bin Laden's death and OBAMA suspended the pratice AND is standing by while the people who extracted the intel face charges here in the U.S.

 

Just two examples of what Sync182 pointed out.

 

@Linspuppy

 

I THINK Sync182 was expressing frustration. He has a valid point though. Obama had no issue releasing the photos taken at Abu Ghraib of prisoners being 'mistreated' and he IGNORED the warnings of his own staff about potential threat of retaliation against Americans. But NOW he isn't going to release photos of a dead bin Laden because it WILL increase the threat of retaliation against Americans. WHY is it okay to release the Abu Ghraib photos and not bin Laden with a head wound? I think Abu Ghraib didn't happpen on his watch and releasing the photos played to his liberal fan base. His excuses about the potential harm to Americans NOW are just that, excuses.

 

If I felt something was that frustrating I would not demean it by calling the thread pointless. That did nothing but make his/her own statement appear irrelevant to all. My question is valid.

 

Edit: Honestly, Kendo...I am not sure what the rest of your post to me had to do with anything. I didn't comment on any of that. :P

[grannywils]

Kendo, as usual I must give you credit for backing up your remarks with facts. However you misunderstood my post to Sync. I was simply asking him to whom he was responding in his post. It seemed to almost be a rant addressing nothing that had been previously posted in this particular thread. I have some questions about what you have said vis.a.vis waterboarding leading to this capture, but will have to do some research before I can respond.

 

In addition, the photos from Abu Ghraib were released during the Bush Administration. I believe Mr. Obama did release some additional photos in order to complete the story. But the photos had been released long prior to that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

[JimboUK]

One thing: does anyone think it's strange how when they claimed that they cannot release the images because it showed OBL's frontal eye socket blown out, doesn't that mean he was shot from behind?

There was a possibly of back lash if the photo was released.

 

It was to our better secruity interests to not release it.

 

It would have gone like this anyways...

 

Gov releases photo - Its clearly Photoshopped!

 

Gov releases video - It is video edited, you can see a frame skip in half a second by slowing it down. ITS JUST ADVANCED CGI TECH!!

 

Gov releases all records - It is clearly fraud.

 

And so on...

 

It wouldn't of helped anything, and it had a chance of making things worse.

 

And honestly it doesn't matter which way he was shot from, the mission was highly likely to be a assassination mission anyways.

 

Bin Ladens terrorist pals have confimed his death anyway so that should be enough to put any doubts to rest.