Skip to comments.AOL News: Osama Bin Laden Was Unarmed During Navy SEAL Raid, Says White House (Baaaaarf!)
Posted on 05/04/2011 2:40:36 AM PDT by Eleutheria5
click here to read article
The daughter has reportedly told her Pakistani investigators that the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members. "
Don’t hold your breath.
It’s beginning to sound to me like the Administration wanted to take UBL alive but the SEALS had other ideas. The Administration can’t get the story straight because it wasn’t their game plan.
I think he was under house arrest.@
“What about those CIA people blown up at a Birthday party?”
When did this happen? I don’t recall this.
When they questioned their source again they said they do not know why the WH is claiming he didn't, but he did have one.
“Its beginning to sound to me like the Administration wanted to take UBL alive but the SEALS had other ideas.”
I’ve been thinking along these lines since the news broke. I’d normally doubt that SEAL’s would take it upon themselves to put aside their orders, but this particular situation may have been different in their minds. It would have been in mine. To hell with Obozo and his courtroom sideshow.
I have a different take on all this.It seems to me it’s the WH staff along with the CIA and others that is throwing BHO under the bus. The unflattering photo in the Sit room, Rumors of preasure on the pres from HC and LP, but now it’s all Obama’s fault, it was his orders, etc.
I’m left with a question for the liberals in America: Why is it OK to authorize troops to kill OBL and not OK to use enhanced interrogation techniques on him in the event we captured him?
Liberals believe it’s better to kill them than “torture” or offend them, kinda like it’s better to kill Grandma than pay for her hip surgery. It’s part of their backward mentality and stunning hypocrisy.
Then why is Obambi going to ground zero tomorrow to gloat about it?
>”He had to have heard them coming and he had more than enough time to arm himself.”
Yes, if Bin Laden wasn’t armed that late in the attack, it was on purpose, and he had hopes of being captured alive. I’m glad he was killed anyway, and thereby deprived of the opportunity of using his trial for propaganda. In this instance “wanted dead or alive” — but preferably dead! — was justified.
Ideally he’d have been captured, waterboarded for information, then killed (executed after a non-public trial abroad), but this administration probably wouldn’t have had the gumption to do that. Also, as I understand it, while he was in hiding, he wouldn’t have known about many of the details of Al-Qaeda operations. So maybe the information lost by killing him without interrogating him wasn’t as important as we might think.
I hope a bunch of muzzies show up to protest him when the event occurs. I also hope that the MSM gets it on live TV.
> The guy was a rich coward who sat back and allowed others to do his dirty work (including suicide attacks) for him.
It’s possible that when it came time to face death, Bin Laden became a coward, but I doubt it. He was a rich person who could have led a relatively safe and self-indulgent life if he’d chosen not to become a terrorist. He knew he was putting his life on the line when he made that choice. I don’t doubt that evil fanatics are capable of being brave. (I think they’re typically more brave than the average person.) That doesn’t keep them from being contemptible, though.
My guess is that the reason he didn’t fight to the death (which would have enhanced his reputation as a heroic figure among those inclined to support him) is that he hoped to use his trial as a forum to spread his message. Killing him while he was unarmed — whether on purpose or because he really was thought to be resisting — isn’t going to hurt the U.S. much, though.
It’s hard for a terrorist of his notoriety to play the role of victim. Whatever victim value his being killed while being unarmed might have is more than counterbalanced by the detrimental effect of his not fighting to the death (when he had the opportunity to do so). Being killed while trying to surrender isn’t a heroic way to go.
“He had to have heard them coming and he had more than enough time to arm himself”
Reports are that there were a lot of children in his bedroom. I guess he was just being a good mass murdering father by not having weapons lay around. /s
I put nothing past Obama but that would be one very stupid move.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you were right. They must know this guy is a sick puppy, and they don’t want to go down with him.
Let's go to the video tape! Mel, are we looking at a case where a tie goes to the runner, here?
Close doesn't describe it, Jerry! Did OBL have his hands in the air before the team was able to squeeze off a couple of rounds? It appears his hands are coming forward and his palms aaaare juuuust beginning to show before we see the first muzzle flash (Ku-POW!) but gee, I dunno, Jerry, it's just too close to call!
Well, Mel, you do have to determine whether OBL is in fact, surrendering at that point. According to league rules, in order to surrender, an opponents hands do have to be above the chest and if we roll the tape again, I don't believe his hands have reached his nipples!
Well, Jer, I have seen close ones in my time, but this has got to rank up there with some of the all-time closest calls! That's it from the booth and back to Tony in the studio...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.