Osama Bin Laden is dead

So the big brave barking seals shot an unarmed man.

Citing the Taliban operating toll roads and Hezbollah runningn schools and hospitals is a good argument, but incomplete in terms of human psychology when considering why people endorse these groups.

A reporter asked Carney "which of those women was being used a human shield, as Mr. Brennan suggested yesterday." Carney answered: "The woman I believe you're talking about might have been the one on the first floor who was caught in the crossfire. Whether or not she was being used as a shield or trying to use herself as a shield or simply caught in crossfire is unclear." What's clear is that Bin Laden, who was upstairs, couldn't have used her as a shield.
Carney blamed the misleading early reports on the "fog of war." But a fog of war creates confusion, not a consistent story like the one about the human shield. The reason U.S. officials bought and sold this story is that it fit their larger indictment of Bin Laden. It reinforced the shameful picture of him hiding in a mansion while sending others to fight and die. It made him look like a coward.
This is the narrative that's really at stake. A narrative isn't just a chronology. It's a tale woven with themes. For 20 years, Bin Laden peddled a tale of oppression and jihad. In elaborate video and audio messages, he depicted al-Qaida's trail of bombings as a Muslim struggle against Western persecution. He wasn't just a terrorist. He was a storyteller.
That's the story Brennan sought to undermine when he cited Bin Laden's use of a human shield to show "how false his narrative has been over the years." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also targeted Bin Laden's story. In a statement trumpeting his death, she argued that "people across the Middle East and North Africa are rejecting the extremist narratives and charting a path of peaceful progress." Carney, too, warned against false interpretations. "It would be a shame," he warned, if Bin Laden's killing "became a piece in a partisan narrative."
Carney is right. So are Brennan, Clinton, and Cameron. Bin Laden was a delusional mass murderer, and his narrative was false. But you can't debunk one false narrative with another. The firefight at Bin Laden's compound, it now appears, pitted two or three men against a dozen or more commandos. Bin Laden didn't engage in the firefight and used no human shield. He wasn't even armed. We shot him dead anyway. That's the truth. Deal with it.

Again we sink to Bin Ladens level.

Quote:

Again we sink to Bin Ladens level.

If there was a government thought out program to discredit our friend last minutes the government sure the hell did not put it into place smoothly!!!!

Quote:

So the big brave barking seals shot an unarmed man.

History is always written by the winers. Dont you think that the nuumber of attempts on Hitlers life were warrented?
Sometimes when we fumigate a room, we dont give the roaches weapons so to make it "fair". What kind of an idiot are you?
I know your sense of history is athwart, now Im suspecting your grasp of reality.

The lack of local police response also puts this assertion into question.

History is always written by the winers.

JTT wrote:

So the big brave barking seals shot an unarmed man.

History is always written by the winers. Dont you think that the nuumber of attempts on Hitlers life were warrented?
Sometimes when we fumigate a room, we dont give the roaches weapons so to make it "fair". What kind of an idiot are you?

She's basically attempting to ruin two threads on the subject simultaneously.

They would be trying to find out what the hell was going on and passing information along but no police department is going to barrel into such a situation.

JEFFREY BROWN: And to that point, are you hearing any anger expressed or frustration, or whatever word you pick, expressly about that, that it was a U.S. military operation in Pakistan?

SAIMA MOHSIN: Well, as news of his death is starting to sink in here in Pakistan, as it is right across the world, the questions are now starting to be asked: How is it that he was here in Abbottabad? How is it that U.S. forces themselves came on to Pakistani soil?

We've heard that turn of phrase so many times: Boots on the ground are unacceptable. Pakistan's sovereignty should not be breached.

And of course, officials will always perhaps come out and say, it's unacceptable, but as we have seen with the drone attacks, the Pakistani people feel that perhaps officials turn a blind eye to this. And local people are saying this to me today, that it couldn't be possible that they didn't know about it.

However, this is the sentiment here. There is anger that United States felt that it could come right directly on to Pakistani soil.

They did not even roll to the scene..what you say is possible but I find it to be unlikely.

Quote:

They did not even roll to the scene..what you say is possible but I find it to be unlikely.

So you think that police cars would roll up outside of a compound with military gunships overhead?

I think that is very unlikely even in the US and in Pakistan when the gunships having US markings it even more unlikely.

It is not the job of any police force to deal with an ongoing military situation.

This is a military town, the Americans were there for 40 minutes, and nobody rolls to find out what is going on...so see if their help is required?? I would believe that if it was known that this was the Americans, but team Obama says that they never made a call until the birds were in the air after the mission was completed.