The New Yorker has the most detailed account yet. It does contain a disclaimer, and other media sources are criticizing the article for being vague on the point that it is all second hand as to the actual raid. The controversy in particular is the implication that the Seals went in to kill Bin Laden and that he was not given the opportunity to surrender. Mind you, nobody contests the fact, only that the article makes it fairly certain, and differs from the official account - which is kind of vague itself. A fascinating read in any case.
Your willingness to talk about the one success of Obama in the midst of probably the worst thing he's done kind of reminds of Baghdad Bob claiming the iraqi's are winning while in the background a tank is running over a Saddam statue.
Originally posted by savage4731 Your willingness to talk about the one success of Obama in the midst of probably the worst thing he's done kind of reminds of Baghdad Bob claiming the iraqi's are winning while in the background a tank is running over a Saddam statue.
We are letting them enter further and further into our country so that we can destroy them more easily!
Originally posted by savage4731 Your willingness to talk about the one success of Obama in the midst of probably the worst thing he's done kind of reminds of Baghdad Bob claiming the iraqi's are winning while in the background a tank is running over a Saddam statue.
Um, actually I'm discussing an article which suggests that Obama may have broken the law. You're on autopilot dude.
Originally posted by Kunsoo Um, actually I'm discussing an article which suggests that Obama may have broken the law. You're on autopilot dude.
I don't care what the article says. Nobody's going to read it anyway. 99% of the people that see your thread will only see the title. I think you realize that. Yes, it may criticize Obama but hardly anybody is going to realize that and it gives the perfect fallback so you can say you're not doing exactly what it is you're doing.
Originally posted by savage4731 I don't care what the article says. Nobody's going to read it anyway. 99% of the people that see your thread will only see the title. I think you realize that. Yes, it may criticize Obama but hardly anybody is going to realize that and it gives the perfect fallback so you can say you're not doing exactly what it is you're doing.
General Custer to Little Big Man: "Still trying to outsmart me, aren't you, mule-skinner. You want me to think that you don't want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really *don't* want me to go down there!"
He's mad that the Obama administration killed Bin Laden because it's a unequivocal accomplishment. Therefore, no one should talk about it because to do so is to spout "liberal propaganda".
Originally posted by no1marauder He's mad that the Obama administration killed Bin Laden because it's a unequivocal accomplishment. Therefore, no one should talk about it because to do so is to spout "liberal propaganda".
You know, if he would actually read the article he would find some ammunition by which to attack the President. If the New Yorker account is accurate, it means Obama really did send the Seals in on a death mission, and that raises some huge legal questions which trump S&P's lame assessment of US solvency.
Originally posted by Kunsoo You know, if he would actually read the article he would find some ammunition by which to attack the President. If the New Yorker account is accurate, it means Obama really did send the Seals in on a death mission, and that raises some huge legal questions which trump S&P's lame assessment of US solvency.
(Shrug) I read the article and don't agree with your assessment. It cites an anonymous source as saying capture wasn't an option, but repeats the Administration position that if UBL had surrendered he would have been taken into custody. I find that eminently believable and it fail to see that there are any legitimate legal questions concerning the raid.
Originally posted by no1marauder (Shrug) I read the article and don't agree with your assessment. It cites an anonymous source as saying capture wasn't an option, but repeats the Administration position that if UBL had surrendered he would have been taken into custody. I find that eminently believable and it fail to see that there are any legitimate legal questions concerning the raid.
But the article also says that Bin Laden was unarmed, which we've heard elsewhere and initially someone in the Administration claimed he was armed, or was misquoted by the media.
If the description is accurate, it sounds like the soldier just took the shot once Bin Laden was in sight. Period.
And the last couple of sentences of the article is the clincher. If there weren't legal concerns, wouldn't the President want to give special recognition to that soldier? Wouldn't he at least ask?
It's not certain, I agree. But most of the media seems to be very hesitant to ask questions, and seem to be taking it personally when one reporter shows them up on a touchy issue.
Originally posted by Kunsoo But the article also says that Bin Laden was unarmed, which we've heard elsewhere and initially someone in the Administration claimed he was armed, or was misquoted by the media.
If the description is accurate, it sounds like the soldier just took the shot once Bin Laden was in sight. Period.
And the last couple of sentences of the article is the clinc ons, and seem to be taking it personally when one reporter shows them up on a touchy issue.
They encountered three other males in the compound; all were armed with AK-47s. Your description is inaccurate; soldiers entered Bin Laden's room and were immediately met by two of his wives blocking their way. They shot one in the leg and grabbed both of them while Bin Laden was awake in a dark room with weapons available. It was a split second decision in a combat situation and a reasonable one. IF UBL had raised his hands and shouted "I surrender", I do not think he would have been summarily executed. I don't think our troops generally do that.
I see no reason for Obama to inquire about which SEAL actually fired the shot that killed Bin Laden. He did no more or no less than any of his fellow SEALS would have done and doesn't really deserve or probably desire special praise.
Getting Bin Laden
08 Aug '11 18:44
Back to Top