Maybe he’s a sound sleeper and was groggy as shit/disoriented being woken up in the middle of the night.
You know, you asked me a question. You made me take the time to read and fact check at least the first several claims in that steaming pile of crap. I invested some time in it. The least you could do would be to reply and either put some effort into defending the position you took up or acknowledge that your evidence was bullshit.
Sure, but we don’t actually know that he did. We have strong evidence that he did, but we generally give accused criminals the benefit of the doubt. “Innocent until proven guilty”, or something like that.
I think I remember seeing a video of him claiming responsibility. Of course, I’m assuming that every arabic to english interpreter in the world wasn’t lying to me. I could be wrong.
No, you’re not. There have been several such videos. The point is that you couldn’t convict somebody in a US court on the basis of such a video. It’s not admissible evidence.
I’ll admit that I haven’t taken an Evidence class, but if I’m on trial for killing my wife, a video tape of me claiming responsibility for the crime and vowing to kill the rest of her family is not enough to convict me?
Neither have I, but I’m almost certain the answer is no. How would you authenticate it? Assuming, arguendo, that the video was mailed to a news agency by an unknown source.
I mean, if you were on trial, and you were presented with the video and said, yes, that’s me, and I said all that stuff, then that might be different.
The point is, if you were ON TRIAL, you would have a lawyer arguing that the tape was fake, or that it was obtained illegally, or that it was edited to distort what was actually said, or that you were just blustering about something while you were drunk. You’re not allowed to shoot your neighbor because you hear him say he wants to kill his wife.
Note that I am discussing the law, not my personal wishes in the matter.
This. I’m quite satisfied that bin Laden is dead (I would say pleased, but that doesn’t seem to be quite the right word). I am more than sufficiently convinced of his guilt.
I am questioning his guilt only in response to posts like this one, which accept it as a foregone conclusion:
My only point is that there have been so many inconsistencies in what has been reported that I am uncertain as to what I should believe. I took up no position, and I never suggested that it was ‘my’ evidence. The same ‘steaming piles of crap’ have been reported by many others - albeit in a much less emotional way.
Obama doesn’t give any details of the operation - apart from saying ‘They took care to avoid civilian casualties’ which I believe is incorrect: weren’t Obama’s wife and daughter injured?
As I said, I just don’t know what to believe.
So many? A few minor items changed, but nothing fundamental.
Two minor civilian casaulties only in taking down a mass-murderer who has historically surrounded himself with ruthless killers? In a night-time operation where the commandos had every reason to expect booby-traps and sudden attacks? Yes, I would say they took good bloody care to avoid civilian casualties. One woman apparently shot in a cross fire with the guard / courrier - whose bullet, who knows, but regardless not unexpected, it’s not bloody gardening after all.
I was not making value judgements. I was asked if there was anything later amended from Obama’s speech. The only detail he gave was later amended. I’m being factual.
I wasn’t asked about moralities, justice or my, or others’, emotional responses.
Quibbles.
The number cited 79 versus tw dozen may be counting different people (is it 79 in the whole action team, of which two dozen were the SEALS, quite possibly). Armed or not, hard to say, perhaps in the dark he looked as if he had a weapon, and then proved not. Or perhaps he had one nearby, lunged for it - strictly speaking not armed but clearly a threat. Or maybe shot dead…
Women as shield, I put that down to early bravado and exaggeration. The essentials all read the same. One of your own links provides ample explanation: “Officials soon dropped the contention that bin Laden tried to hide behind women. They said what really happened is that bin Laden’s wife rushed the SEALs when they entered the room. They injured her with a shot in her calf.”
It is very easy to see how this could have become garbled in initial telling, perhaps from one member to another.
Plus, the administration didn’t say that there were *no *civilian casualties, or that there were orders to halt the mission if there were any. They just said that there was care to avoid it. Big difference.
Best wishes,
hh
Believe me, I am not making judgements. I am sure that there are many good reasons why there have been amendments or retractions. My point is that if we, the public, make opinions of what happened based on what has been reported, those opinions may change as the facts change.
It was originally reported, for example, that bin Laden held his wife in front of him as a human shield. This was later retracted. Does it matter in the scheme of things? No. But if we are to discuss the detail of what happened, then, yes, changing the story will affect those discussions.
In answer to the the OP, I believe that bin Laden did have an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol nearby. So it depends on your definition of ‘armed’. I’d say that he was.
Bullshit. You took the following position: “My concern about this OP is that so far almost everything we have been told about what happened during that raid has been changed.”
When questioned on that, you provided a link to an article, asking if I dispute it. That’s at the very least a tacit endorsement of the content of the article. Evidence presented and endorsed by you is most certainly your evidence.
Sasha or Malia? Regardless, they both escaped the incident uninjured, along with Michelle Obama.
Apart from that, you’ve identified no inconsistencies. Taking care to avoid something does not mean ultimately having successfully avoided something. Now in fact, relative to a more indiscriminate raid or dropping a bomb on the compound, they certainly did avoid civilian casualties. Additionally, I’d argue that there’s a difference between civilians (those living around the compound) and other people living inside the compound.
Finally, I don’t care if Obama gave any details or not. You, having foisted that article upon us, tacitly endorsed the position that every line of Obama’s speech has been retracted. Whether Obama gave any details or not, the claim is still a complete falsehood.
You do seem to continue to believe that the administration has engaged in major revisions.
You could argue that comment was misleading, but he chose his words very precisely there: he said they took care to avoid civilian casualties. He didn’t say there were no civilian casualties. Bin Laden’s wife was shot in the leg, reportedly after she ran at the seals. Another woman was killed earlier in the raid during the crossfire. Bin Laden’s daughter was not injured.