Bin Laden kill mission on RTE

Wompa1 · 29-08-2012 01:21AM

wicklowwonder wrote: »

One part I didn't get was the Yabks arrived crashed their helicopter and caused a racket for 7 minutes trying to get into the compound. What was Bin Laden doing for those 7 minutes? Surely his minders could have blown up the one stairs in the compound or at least been easy to shoot anyone coming up the stairs. Did any Americans die in that mission? It's went down do easy you would expect a better fight from the world's mist wanted man and his team. Surely they were trained and knew the compound better and had 7 minutes to prepare of the yanks arrival they would be able to hold them off for more than 20 minutes.

Also rumours floating about twitter that the bloke who popped Bin Laden died last week in battle. Not sure if they confirmed or anything.

I'm sure the US had intelligence telling them what time was best to launch the operation. They wouldn't give all the details, that could compromise future intelligence gathering efforts. Also wasn't it pretty close to a Pakistani military base? Wouldn't there be noise from that place from time to time anyway. Give a few minutes for them to realize what was happening, then they only had a few minutes to get their **** together and try to defend themselves and then you'd have to imagine they knew the floor plan and where he was likely to be. The way they handled the Somali Pirates, I would think they are very highly skilled and a lot more capable of getting in there and getting **** done

minidazzler · 29-08-2012 01:24AM

Sappa wrote: »

A bit like the ****e they spout about the necessity to drop the nukes on Hiroshima,the Japs were finished well before that and the President was against a nuke but military command wanted to test it out.

Choice #1: Do a mainland invasion of Japan and have a hundred thousand of your own men killed in the process because Japanese custom does not allow them to give up. Kill a few hundred thousand soldiers on the other side at the same time.

Choice #2: Drop 2 nukes and kill 250,000 total ending it in 2 strokes of the biggest sword you have and scaring the world into never fcuking with your sh1t in such a way again?

I know which choice I'd make.

RE: Osama not really being Killed on this mission.

If he had not really been taken/killed here he'd have made an appearance by now.

If he had been killed/taken earlier, someone in Al Qaeda would have said something by now.

wicklowwonder · 29-08-2012 01:31AM

Wompa1 wrote: »

wicklowwonder wrote: »

One part I didn't get was the Yabks arrived crashed their helicopter and caused a racket for 7 minutes trying to get into the compound. What was Bin Laden doing for those 7 minutes? Surely his minders could have blown up the one stairs in the compound or at least been easy to shoot anyone coming up the stairs. Did any Americans die in that mission? It's went down do easy you would expect a better fight from the world's mist wanted man and his team. Surely they were trained and knew the compound better and had 7 minutes to prepare of the yanks arrival they would be able to hold them off for more than 20 minutes.

Also rumours floating about twitter that the bloke who popped Bin Laden died last week in battle. Not sure if they confirmed or anything.

I'm sure the US had intelligence telling them what time was best to launch the operation. They wouldn't give all the details, that could compromise future intelligence gathering efforts. Also wasn't it pretty close to a Pakistani military base? Wouldn't there be noise from that place from time to time anyway. Give a few minutes for them to realize what was happening, then they only had a few minutes to get their **** together and try to defend themselves and then you'd have to imagine they knew the floor plan and where he was likely to be. The way they handled the Somali Pirates, I would think they are very highly skilled and a lot more capable of getting in there and getting **** done

The guy tweeting said it was very rare for helicopters to be heard.... Maybe I am been a little suspicious I just can't imagine it went down as easy as the show told it. If a helicopter went down in your back yard you would hear it and if three people got peppered with machine gun fire you would hear it too especially if your job was to protect a man. It just didn't make sense that they would just walk in take him a leave, the biggest issue was their own incompetence in relation to the flight of the chopper.

Tigerandahalf · 29-08-2012 01:49AM

Good article here gives more background info
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#section_3

LETHAL LADY · 29-08-2012 01:51AM

minidazzler wrote: »

Choice #1: Do a mainland invasion of Japan and have a hundred thousand of your own men killed in the process because Japanese custom does not allow them to give up. Kill a few hundred thousand soldiers on the other side at the same time.

Choice #2: Drop 2 nukes and kill 250,000 total ending it in 2 strokes of the biggest sword you have and scaring the world into never fcuking with your sh1t in such a way again?

I know which choice I'd make.

RE: Osama not really being Killed on this mission.

If he had not really been taken/killed here he'd have made an appearance by now.

If he had been killed/taken earlier, someone in Al Qaeda would have said something by now.

Jaysus thats a detached view from the humanity of it all.

ITS_A_BADGER · 29-08-2012 01:58AM

Pretty much sums up the purpose of the production of this programme and why some of the facts may have been exaggerated:

Guill · 29-08-2012 02:14AM

I thought it was a great show but I wonder how much is propeganda?

minidazzler · 29-08-2012 02:21AM

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Jaysus thats a detached view from the humanity of it all.

I'm not saying I wouldn't feel bad if it had been my call to make, but having your own country men die on foreign soil because that country wouldn't say Uncle after starting the game is stupid when you can do it in a way that doesn't kill more of your own men.

Nulty · 29-08-2012 02:28AM

minidazzler wrote: »

I'm not saying I wouldn't feel bad if it had been my call to make, but having your own country men die on foreign soil because that country wouldn't say Uncle after starting the game is stupid when you can do it in a way that doesn't kill more of your own men.

I tried to reason with someone just recently about how the atomic bomb was as reasonable as killing just as many people and causing just as much destruction with lots of smaller bombs or guns. They eventually came round.

Corkfeen · 29-08-2012 02:28AM

minidazzler wrote: »

Choice #1: Do a mainland invasion of Japan and have a hundred thousand of your own men killed in the process because Japanese custom does not allow them to give up. Kill a few hundred thousand soldiers on the other side at the same time.

Choice #2: Drop 2 nukes and kill 250,000 total ending it in 2 strokes of the biggest sword you have and scaring the world into never fcuking with your sh1t in such a way again?

I know which choice I'd make.

RE: Osama not really being Killed on this mission.

If he had not really been taken/killed here he'd have made an appearance by now.

If he had been killed/taken earlier, someone in Al Qaeda would have said something by now.

While I pretty much support the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were other options besides sending troops in. The existing naval blockade that America had already put in place was proving to be effective and resources for Japan, fuel in particular would quickly deplete as a result. Ground troops would potentially have been unnecessary because it would be simply be a matter of breaking their will and strength through their resources draining.

But even to consider the bombing themselves, the delay between the bombing was too short. It was an exercise in displaying their strength by dropping 2 nuclear bombs.

The killing of Bin Laden acts as a fantastic PR exercise for the White House. Megalomaniacs are in power across the world but the one evil bastard that everyone on the planet knows the face of was Bin Laden. There isn't any evidence that it wasn't the seal team that took him out and intelligence groups such as Stratfor did indicate that his body was being moved that night after the killing so it does seem that it was the seal team that took him out(although the conspiracy minded may prefer to follow alternate stance). The ocean burial was an idiotic move all round though...

Nulty · 29-08-2012 02:32AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

While I pretty much support the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were other options besides sending troops in. The existing naval blockade that America had already put in place was proving to be effective and resources for Japan, fuel in particular would quickly deplete as a result. Ground troops would potentially have been unnecessary because it would be simply be a matter of breaking their will and strength through their resources draining.

But even to consider the bombing themselves, the delay between the bombing was too short. It was an exercise in displaying their strength by dropping 2 nuclear bombs.

The killing of Bin Laden acts as a fantastic PR exercise for the White House. Megalomaniacs are in power across the world but the one evil bastard that everyone on the planet knows the face of was Bin Laden. There isn't any evidence that it wasn't the seal team that took him out and intelligence groups such as Stratfor did indicate that his body was being moved that night after the killing so it does seem that it was the seal team that took him out(although the conspiracy minded may prefer to follow alternate stance). The ocean burial was an idiotic move all round though...

How come? Excuse my ignorance.

minidazzler · 29-08-2012 02:33AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

While I pretty much support the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were other options besides sending troops in. The existing naval blockade that America had already put in place was proving to be effective and resources for Japan, fuel in particular would quickly deplete as a result. Ground troops would potentially have been unnecessary because it would be simply be a matter of breaking their will and strength through their resources draining.

But even to consider the bombing themselves, the delay between the bombing was too short. It was an exercise in displaying their strength by dropping 2 nuclear bombs.

The killing of Bin Laden acts as a fantastic PR exercise for the White House. Megalomaniacs are in power across the world but the one evil bastard that everyone on the planet knows the face of was Bin Laden. There isn't any evidence that it wasn't the seal team that took him out and intelligence groups such as Stratfor did indicate that his body was being moved that night after the killing so it does seem that it was the seal team that took him out. The ocean burial was an idiotic move all round though...

I agree the second bombing was overkill. But if you drop one bomb they might think you only have one...

I don't agree it would take away the Japanese Will. They were a warrior people extremely proud of their heritage, they would not give up a ground fight or because of a blockade without utter destruction.

I agree on all points relating to Bin Laden. Evidence should have been shown.

LETHAL LADY · 29-08-2012 02:33AM

Jaysus Christ are you all really that cold?

minidazzler · 29-08-2012 02:35AM

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Jaysus Christ are you all really that cold?

1 death is a tragedy, 100,000 is a statistic.

It's a choice someone had to make remember, they WERE at war. The simple choice is that you don't want your own people dying if they don't need to. So a fast hard strike was the best move at the time.

Corkfeen · 29-08-2012 02:35AM

Nulty wrote: »

How come? Excuse my ignorance.

The conspiracy nuts adopt such events as proof of some elaborate scheme by US Government. :pac: Really, to spare me the annoyance of coming across such views online..... :P Plus thirty years down the line , it will be like people denying the moon landing happened.

B.A._Baracus · 29-08-2012 02:39AM

Just finished watching this documentary. (Thanks for creating the thread op!

)

Ehhhhh, just a bit skepital about the true events. Its the Americans after all. I can't help but feel some bullshit being told. Truths here and there, half truths & then blatant lies. Such as:

- The American government not informing the Pakistan government. Risking an international incident? I call BS. Pakistan gave clearance. You dont invade anothers airspace without at least something under the table disclosed. Be it even moments before the assualt.

- The intelligence of how they learned his location. You can't expect the Americans to 'show their hand' in how they truly get information. So I feel what was said was watered down or totally fabricated.

- The Black Hawk Down. Never heard of that until now. My guess would be it was shot down tho. I just wouldn't put it past the Americans to say they had a "lift" problem while in reality it was another force at play. But I, or no one else who isn't in the know, can be certain. So who knows about that one

- The whole "40% to 60%" deal. Not to mention announcing his death before DNA results. I call major BS on that. They knew he was there, because of intelligence.

But all in all. I enjoyed the documentary

Worth a watch people!!

LETHAL LADY · 29-08-2012 02:40AM

minidazzler wrote: »

1 death is a tragedy, 100,000 is a statistic.

It's a choice someone had to make remember, they WERE at war. The simple choice is that you don't want your own people dying if they don't need to. So a fast hard strike was the best move at the time.

The murder of innocents is never ok regardless of the situation. I doubt you belonged to either side. Dont try to use shock value on me.

minidazzler · 29-08-2012 02:47AM

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

The murder of innocents is never ok regardless of the situation. I doubt you belonged to either side. Dont try to use shock value on me.

I'm not trying to use shock value.

Remember, the boots on the ground are innocent too, on both sides, it's high command that aren't but given they are nice and hidden you have to do something drastic to get their attention.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whether you want to believe it or not, saved 3 times as many lives as they killed, if not more. a Full scale invasion of Japan would be sentencing so many more people to death.

You can argue it's horrible to look at it like this all you want. But my arguement back is that it HAPPENED and to judge actions without looking at the consequences of any other action that could have been taken is weak.

I am neither Japanese nor American, but I can see the reasoning behind using Atomic Weapons. They saved American lives and demonstrated to the world that they are capable of destruction that had never before been seen.

RobbingBandit · 29-08-2012 02:47AM

Ony thing I don't get is America is like Ancient Rome, if Bin Laden really was killed why didn't they hold a triumph and parade his corpse up and down the streets outside ground zero alowing people to hurl rotten fruit at it. It is all too hush hush for me the talk of his body being dropped into the ocean had to be bull****e.

minidazzler · 29-08-2012 02:50AM

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Ony thing I don't get is America is like Ancient Rome, if Bin Laden really was killed why didn't they hold a triumph and parade his corpse up and down the streets outside ground zero alowing people to hurl rotten fruit at it. It is all too hush hush for me the talk of his body being dropped into the ocean had to be bull****e.

Because America are not like Ancient Rome. What you describe sounds more like Fallujah.

LETHAL LADY · 29-08-2012 02:50AM

minidazzler wrote: »

I'm not trying to use shock value.

Remember, the boots on the ground are innocent too, on both sides, it's high command that aren't but given they are nice and hidden you have to do something drastic to get their attention.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whether you want to believe it or not, saved 3 times as many lives as they killed, if not more. a Full scale invasion of Japan would be sentencing so many more people to death.

You can argue it's horrible to look at it like this all you want. But my arguement back is that it HAPPENED and to judge actions without looking at the consequences of any other action that could have been taken is weak.

I am neither Japanese nor American, but I can see the reasoning behind using Atomic Weapons. They saved American lives and demonstrated to the world that they are capable of destruction that had never before been seen.

You profess violence I would rather save good young men on both sides.

RobbingBandit · 29-08-2012 02:53AM

minidazzler wrote: »

Because America are not like Ancient Rome. What you describe sounds more like Fallujah.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

minidazzler · 29-08-2012 02:53AM

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

You profess violence I would rather save good young men on both sides.

I don't profess violence at all. But they were already at war, you can't just call a truce that easily in international conflicts, it's not a shake hands and walk away situation.

People were gonna die no matter what option was chosen. So Military Commanders in the US decided, their boys weren't gonna be the ones to die. It may not be fair, but it happened. Just because I approve of the decision doesn't mean I approve of violence. In fact, what happened stopped more violence.

minidazzler · 29-08-2012 02:55AM

RobbingBandit wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Remember they took a few Defense Contractors hostage, tortured them, hung them from bridges like trophies. I defy you to find America supporting behaviour like that. (The government, since that's what we are talking here, NOT individual soldiers)

B.A._Baracus · 29-08-2012 02:57AM

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Ony thing I don't get is America is like Ancient Rome, if Bin Laden really was killed why didn't they hold a triumph and parade his corpse up and down the streets outside ground zero alowing people to hurl rotten fruit at it. It is all too hush hush for me the talk of his body being dropped into the ocean had to be bull****e.

In the documentary they say, as given credit to other boards.ie members who said the same at the time, that they didnt want his final resting place to be a 'symbol' - for him to be a 'martyr'

But i know what you mean as well. The assualt, his death, confirmation it was him, buriel at sea & then official anouncement was pretty quick.

LETHAL LADY · 29-08-2012 02:58AM

minidazzler wrote: »

I don't profess violence at all. But they were already at war, you can't just call a truce that easily in international conflicts, it's not a shake hands and walk away situation.

People were gonna die no matter what option was chosen. So Military Commanders in the US decided, their boys weren't gonna be the ones to die. It may not be fair, but it happened. Just because I approve of the decision doesn't mean I approve of violence. In fact, what happened stopped more violence.

Come on now people were going to die that shows an total approval of strong armed tactics

minidazzler · 29-08-2012 03:01AM

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Come on now people were going to die that shows an total approval of strong armed tactics

Your not even arguing my points, just arguing that I hold terrible views. I disagree. Can you give detail of how I approve? Or at least argue one of the questions at hand.

What SHOULD The US have done in the Pacific Theater 1945?

RobbingBandit · 29-08-2012 03:09AM

minidazzler wrote: »

Remember they took a few Defense Contractors hostage, tortured them, hung them from bridges like trophies. I defy you to find America supporting behaviour like that. (The government, since that's what we are talking here, NOT individual soldiers)

This They seem to pop up now and then, who are They???

That is some serious fcuked up Sky/Fox News esque logic you are using there sir,I have no wish or need to battle with the brainwashed masses so I will leave you to your Conspiracy Theories.

minidazzler · 29-08-2012 03:09AM

RobbingBandit wrote: »

This They seem to pop up now and then, who are They???

That is some serious fcuked up Sky/Fox News esque logic you are using there sir,I have no wish or need to battle with the brainwashed masses so I will leave you to your CS theories.

No, I don't watch Sky or Fox. I don't have any conspiracy theories either. I'm looking at plain facts. You compared Ancient Rome to The US, I simply stated Fallujah was more likely do do what you said Ancient Rome did. (That said, the people of Dublin did the same in 1916...) The US generally don't parade people to get beaten and have stuff thrown at them. (Lee Harvey Oswald excluded).

They were the Militant inhabitants of Fallujah who took hostage a number of Defense contractors a few years back.

end of the road · 29-08-2012 04:43AM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

they didnt want his final resting place to be a 'symbol' - for him to be a 'martyr

well in fairness why would they care. and do they not realise that burying him at sea would be an even bigger symbol? his extremist friends will give him the name (the god of the sea) or something, remember according to his type he is all ready a martyr. to be honest the fact he was buried at sea makes me even more suspicious of the whole thing. it has been said that his authority was almost gone with in alkieda anyway.

Bin Laden kill mission on RTE

Comments