If I was on the third floor of a building, and I heard what I could only assume were enemy helicopters approach (and in the case of one of them, crash), and then people shooting their way up the first two floors, I sure as hell would have a gun in my hand.
Why didn’t Osama? He’s a fanatic, so he would want to die fighting. He’s not a moron, so he would know he would probably not be taken alive, and would most likely be tortured if he was.
Makes no sense.
I just watched Nightline, which reported that the Seals used stealth helicopters, which the neighbors said they didn’t hear until they were almost directly overhead. So that cuts the time Osama had to grab a gun from maybe 3-5 minutes to more like two minutes. Still seems like plenty of time.
Is there any evidence that Osama ever held a gun in his life?
I don’t understand why the OP thinks that he would have been armed?
You’ve got X number of the world’s biggest badasses coming at you with guns. If you get into a gun fight with them, you are going to die. It’s much better to throw any weapons that you could possibly use far away from yourself, hold up your arms over your head, and hope.
Your idea that he’s a fanatic goes against basically all profiles of cult-type leaders. In the US we have any number of nationalist, neo-nazi, and other groups that officially seek to overthrow the government. Yet, none of them ever do anything. The only instance, the Oklahoma City bombing, wasn’t because the guy wanted to start the revolution at last, it’s because he was mocked in front of a jury by a judge, which rankled his machismo, and so he went back and bombed the building. Revolutionaries and cultists who actually want what they say they’re going for are a rare breed, let alone ones who are actually skilled at it.
There were children in the compound. Maybe they slept near Osama and he didn’t think it was safe to keep a gun in the room with them.
From what i’ve read, Osama’s killing was near the end of the 40-minute siege. He was certainly aware that the SEALs were clearing the compound room-by-room by the time they made it up to the third floor where he was. Perhaps he had decided at that point that he was going to die one way or another?
There is a video of him shooting an AK47 during what seems like target practice.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
He was involved in training Mujahideen during the invasion of Afghanistan (the first one, by the Soviets). This implies he was at the very least book-smart in weapon handling, battlefield tactics and such. He may not have been a down-in-the-mud soldier, but he probably was officer material.
I know, I know, not a compliment 
If you got close enough to Osama to send videos of him, why the hell didn’t you tell anybody where he was? (Not right then, especially considering that he had an AK47, but later?)
My concern about this OP is that so far almost everything we have been told about what happened during that raid has been changed. At this stage, I’m not confident enough to be sure whether he was armed or not. Come on, Obama - get your story straight.
Almost everything? Really? I don’t think so.
May I refer you to this article? The author may be being a bit vitriolic, but you dispute what he says?
The latest reports say that he had an AK-47 and a pistol “within reach.” Since the details have changed several times since Sunday night, I don’t blame anybody who wants to wait and see. But the administration yesterday said he was not armed but “resisted,” which could be seen as implying he went for the guns. Why he wasn’t holding them is an open question; we do know his wife was in the same room and he probably wasn’t going to shoot her.
That being said, you can also believe he was unarmed, maybe had guns in the room, and was going to be shot whether or not he made a move to pick them up. I don’t think we’re ever going to have a clearer picture than this of what happened in his final moments.
The vitriol is exactly why I can’t trust that source. It’s so extremely biased that it’s ridiculous. And it doesn’t make sense. The first three things he mentioned aren’t lies. And I can’t even figure out what he’s trying to get at with the last one. And it’s all used as proof that Obama is crap.
It’s an opinion piece, and, while it uses some sources, it doesn’t connect them to anything but the author’s own biases. I’m currently looking for any other source to know what the heck he’s talking about.
But, seeing the conspiracy theorists in the comments, I’m not hopeful. CTs don’t just show up at a website. These people must have a record of reporting this type of stuff.
I don’t expect the government to tell us what really happened. Maybe they don’t want to give the Islamists any reason to think he “died fighting”.
We’re also told that no Americans were injured. I don’t believe that either. We will never know one way or another.
Just based on a quick web search: the video was taken in 1998 by bin Laden’s people. So it was filmed for propaganda purposes by people who would never turn him over. He did meet in person with journalists a few times before September 11th, but just because they met him does not mean they knew where they were when they met him.
I’m starting to think that we shot him in cold blood. And I’m ok with that. When you corner a rattlesnake, you shoot it in the head.
I absolutely dispute what he says. That piece looks like bullshit from start to finish, although I admittedly stopped after finding out that most of the initial allegations are either bullshit or purely fantastical speculation.
First, there’s this claim:
Here’s a link to the transcript of what Obama said:
You tell me which, if any single one, of those sentences has been retracted. Cockburn certainly does not take the time to provide such information.
Then there’s this charge:
What’s the evidence that it was a phony? All I can tell is that Panetta said that 20 to 25 minutes of the video were not available real-time. If the reports of a 40 minute duration were accurate, that means that 10 to 15 minutes were available. Perhaps they are reacting to the hard landing of one of the helicopters. Perhaps they are watching the approach. If any claim was made that the photo was of the specific time when bin Laden was killed, I haven’t yet heard that.
How does Cockburn know that bin Laden was high? Or is it okay for him to pull wild shit out of his ass while calling others to task for a lack of specifically accurate information?
Who ever said that the US intelligence services first learned of the compound last August?
Here’s what Obama said:
Here’s what Brennan said:
Cockburn is making up false allegations in order to build a case. The volcano of lies in that piece is his own.
Why do you believe what Cockburn wrote?
Cite?
Not saying it’s not true, but I’ve never heard this, and always assumed that McVeigh’s main motivation was that he was pissed about Waco.
They’re Navy SEALs. They’re not bulletproof.