Twenty long years.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Ruski wrote:It has actually been recently reported by Time Health that he had Kidney Stones, not Kidney failure as previously believed, which are easily treatable without machinery. He also had low blood pressure and an enlarged heart.

Kidney stones don't cause one to look deathly ill like he did in the December 27 video, nor be unable to move one's arm. Nor do people with kidney stones need dialysis machines.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/02/6570172-clarifying-osama-bin-laden-myths

Ruski wrote:Actually, we have semi-actively pursuing him since that closing, and up to the Obama Administration. We tracked him down to Tora Bora in 2007, two years after that specialized unit in the CIA was reportedly closing down.

We raided Tora Bora in 2007 because we knew that important al Qaeda leaders would be there. We did not track bin Laden to there, and when we did raid the caves, we did not find bin Laden.

We also went to Tora Bora because it was believed he could be there among the top leaders which insinuates that we still had reason to believe he was alive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21000298/

Ruski wrote:Not to mention General McCrystal recommended that Osama Bin Laden needed to be located and killed back in 2009. It is entirely possible for him to have reactivated a specialized unit in locating him

Last I checked, General McChrystal is not and never was in charge of the CIA or any other intelligence gathering agency. He may have run some special forces units in his time, but that hardly qualifies him as an expert on whether or not bin Laden was still alive. Yet, back in 2002, FBI Counterterrorism Chief Dale Watson expressed his belief that bin Laden was probably dead.

That was a fault on my part. I meant to say McChrystal for the Special forces unit that you brought up and the CIA on a different note with Obama. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Ruski wrote:or even for a large scale effort by the CIA. It has been reported that the CIA had planned the operation.

It was also reported that a predator drone was used in the operation. ;)

Okay, I found this coming off as an asshole because of the wink face. But, I know you probably did not mean it that way and it was highly just my interpretation. In regards to the point though, it is was a joint effort between Navy SEALs and the CIA according the the following ABC news article after the fact clarification has been made about the assault on the compound.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed-navy-seals-firefight/story?id=13505792

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/27739824/detail.html DNA taken from the body of bin Laden and checked against one of his deceased relatives points out that it is indeed a match.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13268517 Additional eyewitnesses saw the attack and death of bin Laden.

that second one concerning Tora Bora, is clearly another case of 'Saying Bin Laden means more than random name'.

and comparing a sisters DNA to identify him is kind of.....extremely shitty, unless genetically they were close, which isn't known. 2 siblings could not share a single gene.

KristallNacht wrote:that second one concerning Tora Bora, is clearly another case of 'Saying Bin Laden means more than random name'.

and comparing a sisters DNA to identify him is kind of.....extremely shitty, unless genetically they were close, which isn't known. 2 siblings could not share a single gene.

It's also possible to share half your genes with someone not related to you at all. Does that make them your parent?

Rotaretilbo wrote:Unless he was already dead, something that many people in the intelligence community expressed to be their belief. I doubt we completely stopped looking for him, but it would be a passive sort of thing that would only work if he made a gigantic mistake, which I doubt he would do, were he still alive. There are hundreds upon hundreds of caves in the Afghan-Pakistan region, and he chooses to live in a million dollar, three-story, armed compound in Pakistan?

Here's a question? How did we miss this giant compound for at least six years?

Well besides the whole we're not allowed in Pakistan thing... it's pretty much the last place we'd expect him to be.

KristallNacht wrote:it was in pakistan. Last I checked, US Forces are still not allowed to conduct military operations in Pakistan, to even include this raid, as is why the pakistani government wasn't even given the slightest heads up. (Yes there is evidence an operation happened in pakistan, but still nothing other than anecdotal evidence of osama being there)

I'm not talking about military operations. I'm talking about how the intelligence community overlooked a gigantic million dollar armed compound that screamed of safe house, owned by no important dignitaries, government officials, or other rich fucks, in the country we all thought bin Laden to be hiding in, for at least six fucking years.

Ruski wrote:http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/02/6570172-clarifying-osama-bin-laden-myths

Because if they say so, it must be true. They say he had kidney stones, Pervez Musharraf, tenth president of Pakistan, says he needed dialysis machines. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon, in an interview concerning the December 27, 2001 tape, commented that bin Laden never moved his left arm, which suggested he had suffered from a recent stroke, likely a symptom of kidney failure. But don't worry, a blog on MSNBC says he had kidney stones. Glad that was cleared up.[/sarcasm]

Ruski wrote:We also went to Tora Bora because it was believed he could be there among the top leaders which insinuates that we still had reason to believe he was alive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21000298/

There was no real evidence to suggest he would be there, other than that the top leaders of al Qaeda would be there, and if he were alive, he would count as a top leader of al Qaeda. And, low and behold, he wasn't there.

Ruski wrote:That was a fault on my part. I meant to say McChrystal for the Special forces unit that you brought up and the CIA on a different note with Obama. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Point stands. The comment of a special forces commander two years ago has little relevance to the truth of the matter.

Ruski wrote:Okay, I found this coming off as an asshole because of the wink face. But, I know you probably did not mean it that way and it was highly just my interpretation. In regards to the point though, it is was a joint effort between Navy SEALs and the CIA according the the following ABC news article after the fact clarification has been made about the assault on the compound.

My point was that, just because the news said it, doesn't mean it was true. FOX reported he was killed by a predator drone missile. CBS reported that he was killed in an operation in Afghanistan. CNN reported that he was killed by a CIA task force.

Ruski wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed-navy-seals-firefight/story?id=13505792

Interesting note. In a video attached to this article, the reporter mentions that the mansion was massive, much bigger than any house in the area. May I again ask how we missed such a gigantic, obvious armed compound?

Ruski wrote:http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/27739824/detail.html DNA taken from the body of bin Laden and checked against one of his deceased relatives points out that it is indeed a match.

And where did The Boston Channel get this information? Who performed these DNA tests? Oh, the government? I expressed doubt about the government's claims that they had killed Osama bin Laden, but if the government says that they tested his DNA, then it must be true.

Ruski wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13268517 Additional eyewitnesses saw the attack and death of bin Laden.

Who, exactly? The other people in the compound, that the military has prisoner and who can't make a public appearance to state their own testimony? How does ISI know anything about what specifically happened during the operation anyway? They claim to have had no knowledge or involvement in the operation, yet they know specific details of the operation? Rather quaint, really.

Baconsen wrote:Well besides the whole we're not allowed in Pakistan thing... it's pretty much the last place we'd expect him to be.

What are you talking about? We've suspected he was in Pakistan for a long time now. Maybe not that specific part of Pakistan, but if the CIA wasn't paying attention to places a few score miles from where they expected, then they really ought to be taken out back and shot.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:it was in pakistan. Last I checked, US Forces are still not allowed to conduct military operations in Pakistan, to even include this raid, as is why the pakistani government wasn't even given the slightest heads up. (Yes there is evidence an operation happened in pakistan, but still nothing other than anecdotal evidence of osama being there)

I'm not talking about military operations. I'm talking about how the intelligence community overlooked a gigantic million dollar armed compound that screamed of safe house, owned by no important dignitaries, government officials, or other rich fucks, in the country we all thought bin Laden to be hiding in, for at least six fucking years.

Mkay, will return to this thread tomorrow, when chem and philoso...
A'right, make that day after tomorrow.

In the meantime, Rot, as a friend who respects you and looks up to you and doesn't want to lose another childhood hero, lay off the language. I'm on the fence about this myself, but we shall get to the bottom of this using the Socratic Method and careful analysis, such that we don't fall into the pit with the other conspiracy whackos.

tiny tim wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:that second one concerning Tora Bora, is clearly another case of 'Saying Bin Laden means more than random name'.

and comparing a sisters DNA to identify him is kind of.....extremely shitty, unless genetically they were close, which isn't known. 2 siblings could not share a single gene.

It's also possible to share half your genes with someone not related to you at all. Does that make them your parent?

exactly my point, though its relatively unlikely that the match (if even done) would be false, but where exactly is the line drawn about 'oh this is where siblings share dna' and 'those two can't possibly be related'. The only thing that could reasonably confirm it is if they have a rare genetic trait, but thats unlikely, and in an area like the middle east where a mass majority have many of the same physical traits, the average percentage match on DNA would be relatively high, as compared to somewhere like America where all genetic traits can be found in a fairly small sample.

and fyi, this isn't an argument that their 'matching dna' doesn't match, but more that its unlikely the type of dna evidence they say they have, could possibly be conclusive. But saying 'dna matches' is an easy way to cover the answer of 'you sure its him?'

not that many people even asked that much.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:it was in pakistan. Last I checked, US Forces are still not allowed to conduct military operations in Pakistan, to even include this raid, as is why the pakistani government wasn't even given the slightest heads up. (Yes there is evidence an operation happened in pakistan, but still nothing other than anecdotal evidence of osama being there)

I'm not talking about military operations. I'm talking about how the intelligence community overlooked a gigantic million dollar armed compound that screamed of safe house, owned by no important dignitaries, government officials, or other rich fucks, in the country we all thought bin Laden to be hiding in, for at least six fucking years.

Ruski wrote:http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/02/6570172-clarifying-osama-bin-laden-myths

Because if they say so, it must be true. They say he had kidney stones, Pervez Musharraf, tenth president of Pakistan, says he needed dialysis machines. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon, in an interview concerning the December 27, 2001 tape, commented that bin Laden never moved his left arm, which suggested he had suffered from a recent stroke, likely a symptom of kidney failure. But don't worry, a blog on MSNBC says he had kidney stones. Glad that was cleared up.[/sarcasm]

Ruski wrote:We also went to Tora Bora because it was believed he could be there among the top leaders which insinuates that we still had reason to believe he was alive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21000298/

There was no real evidence to suggest he would be there, other than that the top leaders of al Qaeda would be there, and if he were alive, he would count as a top leader of al Qaeda. And, low and behold, he wasn't there.

Ruski wrote:That was a fault on my part. I meant to say McChrystal for the Special forces unit that you brought up and the CIA on a different note with Obama. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Point stands. The comment of a special forces commander two years ago has little relevance to the truth of the matter.

Ruski wrote:Okay, I found this coming off as an asshole because of the wink face. But, I know you probably did not mean it that way and it was highly just my interpretation. In regards to the point though, it is was a joint effort between Navy SEALs and the CIA according the the following ABC news article after the fact clarification has been made about the assault on the compound.

My point was that, just because the news said it, doesn't mean it was true. FOX reported he was killed by a predator drone missile. CBS reported that he was killed in an operation in Afghanistan. CNN reported that he was killed by a CIA task force.

Ruski wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed-navy-seals-firefight/story?id=13505792

Interesting note. In a video attached to this article, the reporter mentions that the mansion was massive, much bigger than any house in the area. May I again ask how we missed such a gigantic, obvious armed compound?

Ruski wrote:http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/27739824/detail.html DNA taken from the body of bin Laden and checked against one of his deceased relatives points out that it is indeed a match.

And where did The Boston Channel get this information? Who performed these DNA tests? Oh, the government? I expressed doubt about the government's claims that they had killed Osama bin Laden, but if the government says that they tested his DNA, then it must be true.

Ruski wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13268517 Additional eyewitnesses saw the attack and death of bin Laden.

Who, exactly? The other people in the compound, that the military has prisoner and who can't make a public appearance to state their own testimony? How does ISI know anything about what specifically happened during the operation anyway? They claim to have had no knowledge or involvement in the operation, yet they know specific details of the operation? Rather quaint, really.

Baconsen wrote:Well besides the whole we're not allowed in Pakistan thing... it's pretty much the last place we'd expect him to be.

What are you talking about? We've suspected he was in Pakistan for a long time now. Maybe not that specific part of Pakistan, but if the CIA wasn't paying attention to places a few score miles from where they expected, then they really ought to be taken out back and shot.

Because you say so and all your sources say so, you must be true. The same thing can be said about you as well. Overall, I really don't like how you've repeatedly came off as a complete asshole to me. So in that matter, I'm done arguing with you.

wow, i didn't know vaginas were in season

Ruski wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:it was in pakistan. Last I checked, US Forces are still not allowed to conduct military operations in Pakistan, to even include this raid, as is why the pakistani government wasn't even given the slightest heads up. (Yes there is evidence an operation happened in pakistan, but still nothing other than anecdotal evidence of osama being there)

I'm not talking about military operations. I'm talking about how the intelligence community overlooked a gigantic million dollar armed compound that screamed of safe house, owned by no important dignitaries, government officials, or other rich fucks, in the country we all thought bin Laden to be hiding in, for at least six fucking years.

Ruski wrote:http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/02/6570172-clarifying-osama-bin-laden-myths

Because if they say so, it must be true. They say he had kidney stones, Pervez Musharraf, tenth president of Pakistan, says he needed dialysis machines. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon, in an interview concerning the December 27, 2001 tape, commented that bin Laden never moved his left arm, which suggested he had suffered from a recent stroke, likely a symptom of kidney failure. But don't worry, a blog on MSNBC says he had kidney stones. Glad that was cleared up.[/sarcasm]

Ruski wrote:We also went to Tora Bora because it was believed he could be there among the top leaders which insinuates that we still had reason to believe he was alive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21000298/

There was no real evidence to suggest he would be there, other than that the top leaders of al Qaeda would be there, and if he were alive, he would count as a top leader of al Qaeda. And, low and behold, he wasn't there.

Ruski wrote:That was a fault on my part. I meant to say McChrystal for the Special forces unit that you brought up and the CIA on a different note with Obama. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Point stands. The comment of a special forces commander two years ago has little relevance to the truth of the matter.

Ruski wrote:Okay, I found this coming off as an asshole because of the wink face. But, I know you probably did not mean it that way and it was highly just my interpretation. In regards to the point though, it is was a joint effort between Navy SEALs and the CIA according the the following ABC news article after the fact clarification has been made about the assault on the compound.

My point was that, just because the news said it, doesn't mean it was true. FOX reported he was killed by a predator drone missile. CBS reported that he was killed in an operation in Afghanistan. CNN reported that he was killed by a CIA task force.

Ruski wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed-navy-seals-firefight/story?id=13505792

Interesting note. In a video attached to this article, the reporter mentions that the mansion was massive, much bigger than any house in the area. May I again ask how we missed such a gigantic, obvious armed compound?

Ruski wrote:http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/27739824/detail.html DNA taken from the body of bin Laden and checked against one of his deceased relatives points out that it is indeed a match.

And where did The Boston Channel get this information? Who performed these DNA tests? Oh, the government? I expressed doubt about the government's claims that they had killed Osama bin Laden, but if the government says that they tested his DNA, then it must be true.

Ruski wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13268517 Additional eyewitnesses saw the attack and death of bin Laden.

Who, exactly? The other people in the compound, that the military has prisoner and who can't make a public appearance to state their own testimony? How does ISI know anything about what specifically happened during the operation anyway? They claim to have had no knowledge or involvement in the operation, yet they know specific details of the operation? Rather quaint, really.

Baconsen wrote:Well besides the whole we're not allowed in Pakistan thing... it's pretty much the last place we'd expect him to be.

What are you talking about? We've suspected he was in Pakistan for a long time now. Maybe not that specific part of Pakistan, but if the CIA wasn't paying attention to places a few score miles from where they expected, then they really ought to be taken out back and shot.

Because you say so and all your sources say so, you must be true. The same thing can be said about you as well. Overall, I really don't like how you've repeatedly came off as a complete asshole to me. So in that matter, I'm done arguing with you.

Didn't realise he meant that media sources were varying and not entirely trustworthy, did you?

Ruski wrote:Because you say so and all your sources say so, you must be true. The same thing can be said about you as well. Overall, I really don't like how you've repeatedly came off as a complete asshole to me. So in that matter, I'm done arguing with you.

Except that my sources aren't anonymous news outlet sources, they are prominent people who would have an expert opinion on the matter. I can't help but come off as an asshole when I say "I'm not sure I trust the government's word that they killed Osama bin Laden" and you respond with "but the government said they got a DNA match." It would be like if I argued that I didn't trust the word of the Bible, and you quoted 2nd Timothy 3:16 to prove that the Bible is true.

I mean, how does the blogger on MSNBC World know that Osama bin Laden had kidney stones? I noted the reasons the neurosurgeon I cited believed Osama bin Laden's kidneys were failing, and why the Pakistani president believed likewise. Likely, MSNBC was told that the government did an autopsy after shooting him and discerned that he just had kidney stones. And that just comes back to the same problem. The source of the evidence itself relies on your already believing the government. It's circular reasoning.

My argument here is very simple. This whole setup is extremely quaint and convenient. A lot of things don't add up.

How did the CIA miss a giant, million dollar mansion complete with armed guards, privacy walls, windows that only let you see out, but that was not owned by any important person, whom all the locals didn't know who was living there, that clearly stuck out like a sore thumb as an obvious safe house, in the country that it was presumed bin Laden would be hiding in? And not just like once. He's allegedly been there for fucking six years!

And on that note, why was Osama bin Laden so damned stupid to take up residence in aforementioned obvious safe house in the middle of Pakistan a fucking stone's throw from their military academy in a mansion that is thrice as large as any other house in the area? This man is supposed to be a tactical genius, and yet he's supposed to have herped the derp as hardcore as one can?

How did SEAL Team 6 fail to capture a sixty-year-old man with failing health alive? If they were on orders to take him alive, why is there no evidence that there was even an attempt to capture him. A single shot to the head and a single shot to the chest, both likely lethal. No shots to the arms or legs, the shoulders or belly. No use of tear gas. No use of nonlethal weapons like pepperspray paintballs (which are rather effective, especially against an old man), no use of beanbag shotguns, no use of tazers, nothing. It sounds like they just blasted their way in, slaughtered everyone who showed the slightest resistance, and then walked out. SEAL Team 6 is supposed to be the best of the best, so elite that the US government doesn't even acknowledge that it exists, and they can't even accomplish what a half-decent SWAT team probably could have?

Why is it that the government handled the whole thing in house, disposed of the body, waited a week, and then came forward about it? There were no pictures released, no body presented, no public firm running DNA tests, nothing. They just threw the body in the ocean. You realize that, given the travel speed of most commercial jets, they probably could have had him here within ten hours of his death, leaving fourteen hours for them to show him off, have a public organization confirm his identity, and then sling him into the Atlantic/Pacific? Nope. Got rid of that body right away. Now, all evidence that he was killed has to come from the government. No third party can confirm their claims.

And why wait a week? I mean, if they really did kill Osama bin Laden, why didn't Obama interrupt the news then and there. "We just killed Osama bin Laden. We're waiting on DNA to confirm his identity." I mean, what did they do for a whole week? Sit on their asses?

It just doesn't add up.

But can I cite new species as evidence for macroevolution?

Actually, if it means so much, you should organize a search for his body, if it hasn't been torn up by sharks.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they always assume a level of competency our government does not have.

They aren't releasing pictures of Osama's body. Security reasons, and to not even allow his followers to see what happened. Before you say "OMG PROOF", ask yourself, if they wanted to convince the world that they just killed, don't you think they would just create an image?

Unless they are playing the double reverse psychology gambit in order to boost Obama's numbers for a few weeks a full year before elections are even going down, in which case, i know of some pretty sick deals on tin foil hats. Extra protection against cognitive radiation!!!

I'm siding with Rot here. I myself hate conspiracy theories and this isnt really a theory.

But there's definitely something shady about this whole operation.

Especially with the two lethal shots to the head and chest on an unarmed target.

And especially when you think about how much information about Al-Queda we could have gained had we taken him in custody.

And then we immediately came to the conclusion that we should drop him into the ocean, which I have never seen before in my religion.

And then a week later finally announcing that you killed him.

It smells fishy and the odor is coming directly by how this operation went about.

I agree with rots point about the compound and all. They're claiming the pictures are too "gruesome" to release.

The problem, TNine, is that our government has lied to us in the past, likely on many occasions. This isn't really so much a stretch. I mean, If they are indeed lying about killing Osama bin Laden, it isn't like they are hurting anyone with this lie. It's a harmless lie, one that would offend me, but that does not spell the doom of the government, were it true. I'm not claiming that they killed thousands of Americans to start a war that they basically did not benefit from at all. I'm claiming that Osama bin Laden has been dead for some time, and Obama is just showboating to get some popularity.

How you deem harmless lying is a level of contempt not found in our government is beyond me.

Rotaretilbo wrote:How you deem harmless lying is a level of contempt not found in our government is beyond me.

I think he said "competency", Rot. Not Contempt.

Rot, if Obama can go so long in office without releasing a birth certificate, he can pull off a fake assassination without a problem.

Still, if it was a conspiracy, why wouldn't Al Queda just call the U.S. out?

I personally imagine that we took out some important al Qaeda member in our raid, just not bin Laden (who is already dead). Likely, al Qaeda will claim bin Laden is still alive sooner or later, just to fuck with us. Calls for revenge are likely more in response to our raid on the safe house.

to clarify the ocean thing, its reported that in islamic culture, burial within 24 hours of death is customary. The 'at sea' part is reportedly due to no country wanting him.


and for those saying 'this won't get him reelected', this same time in 2003, Bush 'caught' saddam.

and everyone seems to think Obama is totally the reason Osama got caught. And not that the military is mostly going to do its own thing regardless.

Obama had nothing to do with the catch other than being told what he should let them do and then saying

"Yeah, go ahead and do that"

Rotaretilbo wrote:The problem, TNine, is that our government has lied to us in the past, likely on many occasions. This isn't really so much a stretch. I mean, If they are indeed lying about killing Osama bin Laden, it isn't like they are hurting anyone with this lie. It's a harmless lie, one that would offend me, but that does not spell the doom of the government, were it true. I'm not claiming that they killed thousands of Americans to start a war that they basically did not benefit from at all. I'm claiming that Osama bin Laden has been dead for some time, and Obama is just showboating to get some popularity.

How you deem harmless lying is a level of contempt not found in our government is beyond me.

They aren't just lying though. They aren't covering up something that is confidential, or enhancing the truth to look better publically.

They are MAKING SHIT UP.

BTW, it doesn't hurt us, but if ANYONE involved in the lie leaks it, or even if papers get out, EVERYONE involved in the operation is out permantely. It just isn't worth the risk.

Edits:
And, as Rasq had pointed out, it was "competency" not "contempt". I have no illusions of the effectivity of the governemtn or its moral standing.

Additionally, the reason will killed Osama was because that was the mission. It was an action done in war. There were never any pretenses that this was a mission to capture Osama, so it didn't matter if he was unarmed (think of it this way, if you ambush a camp, is killing all the soldiers who don't have time to get to their weapons unlawful?).

CNN.com wrote:Bin Laden, considered a combatant by virtue of his position as head of al Qaeda, needed to immediately make clear a desire to surrender, if that was his decision, in order to avoid being shot. That apparently didn't happen, Groves said.

You know, Locke never mentioned in his theories that although the government exists for the people's sake, that the government has to tell the people how its protecting them.

No buildings being blown up, Check
No random gas attacks?, Check
no anthrax attacks?, Check
Yea government is doing its job, asking questions about how is just information whoring

dragoon9105 wrote:You know, Locke never mentioned in his theories that although the government exists for the people's sake, that the government has to tell the people how its protecting them.

No buildings being blown up, Check
No random gas attacks?, Check
no anthrax attacks?, Check
Yea government is doing its job, asking questions about how is just information whoring

Asking Questions is what stops those things from happening....

I don't think this is a cover up but if substantial proof isn't put forward then I will began to think so.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

My argument here is very simple. This whole setup is extremely quaint and convenient. A lot of things don't add up.

Here we go...

Rot wrote:
How did the CIA miss a giant, million dollar mansion complete with armed guards, privacy walls, windows that only let you see out, but that was not owned by any important person, whom all the locals didn't know who was living there, that clearly stuck out like a sore thumb as an obvious safe house, in the country that it was presumed bin Laden would be hiding in? And not just like once. He's allegedly been there for fucking six years!

And on that note, why was Osama bin Laden so damned stupid to take up residence in aforementioned obvious safe house in the middle of Pakistan a fucking stone's throw from their military academy in a mansion that is thrice as large as any other house in the area? This man is supposed to be a tactical genius, and yet he's supposed to have herped the derp as hardcore as one can?

I was going to address this when you responded to my post, but i'll do it here.

Alright simply put, BEFOREHAND where did we think Osama was hiding? We thought he was sitting in some cave either in Afgan or Paki, in the middle of a desert. Not some mansion a short walk from a military academy. That is one of the last places we would think Osama would be, besides maybe underwater or on the moon...

Its not an obvious safe house. There are a lot of rich people in the middle east that would make a house just like that. It was more likely that the house belonged to a man or family that owned oil reserves compared to Osama living there.

Like i said, we weren't even thinking he'd be there.

Rot wrote:
How did SEAL Team 6 fail to capture a sixty-year-old man with failing health alive? If they were on orders to take him alive, why is there no evidence that there was even an attempt to capture him. A single shot to the head and a single shot to the chest, both likely lethal. No shots to the arms or legs, the shoulders or belly. No use of tear gas. No use of nonlethal weapons like pepperspray paintballs (which are rather effective, especially against an old man), no use of beanbag shotguns, no use of tazers, nothing. It sounds like they just blasted their way in, slaughtered everyone who showed the slightest resistance, and then walked out. SEAL Team 6 is supposed to be the best of the best, so elite that the US government doesn't even acknowledge that it exists, and they can't even accomplish what a half-decent SWAT team probably could have?

We don't know the whole story Rot. If anything he could have been hit by a stray bullet. Or was threatening to kill a hostage. There are many possibilities. There may have been some circumstance they had to prepare for that required them to go lethal. We don't know, we don't have the official report.

Rot wrote:
Why is it that the government handled the whole thing in house, disposed of the body, waited a week, and then came forward about it? There were no pictures released, no body presented, no public firm running DNA tests, nothing. They just threw the body in the ocean. You realize that, given the travel speed of most commercial jets, they probably could have had him here within ten hours of his death, leaving fourteen hours for them to show him off, have a public organization confirm his identity, and then sling him into the Atlantic/Pacific? Nope. Got rid of that body right away. Now, all evidence that he was killed has to come from the government. No third party can confirm their claims.

Seriously? Like honestly? Did you ever think about the repercussions if that would happen? Being in a third party will increase the chances of things being leaked. The image of Osama being dead would turn into a recruiting tool for those damn terrorists and so forth. To put it another way, THEY'D BE PISSED OFF EVEN MORE. Why the hell should we get them even more angry so they (god forbid) try something even more drastic than before? Do you honestly think that is worth it just saying oh I see nao he's dead?

Rot wrote:
And why wait a week? I mean, if they really did kill Osama bin Laden, why didn't Obama interrupt the news then and there. "We just killed Osama bin Laden. We're waiting on DNA to confirm his identity." I mean, what did they do for a whole week? Sit on their asses?

Maybe they were waiting for a confirmation of his identity? I mean saying "Oh yeah we killed him, we just got to make sure he's the right guy." Seems like a waste of time.

Rot wrote:
It just doesn't add up.

Alright, honestly Rot, i'm surprised this is coming from you. I'd expected this crap to come from someone else. All conspiracy theories like this just make the supporter of them look like an ass. Whether he's dead (which i'm sure he is) or not, it finally gives those families whose lost someone in 9/11 after 10 years have some fucking closure. Trying to disprove this just makes you look like a dick to those families.

Plus the whole argument of Obama releasing it now just the help him get reelected is stupid. Geroge Bush Senior was president when we won the Gulf War, yet he lost to Clinton...