The fact that Osama's death was an assassination is based on the established facts. They had opportunity to detain and arrest but killed him instead.

What are these facts ? please show me, how do you know 100 percent that there was opportunity in the middle of a firefight in close quaters to detain and arrest the worlds Number one terror target, without further injury to your team. The simple answer is you don't know you have made an assumption based on what little scraps of material (valid) are avalible, as have Matt and I.

The fact that a politician said something has no credibility when considered alongside the facts, which i repeat again, were that america could have detained and arrested Osama. In general, it is always better to look at what happened rather than what the politicians say happened.

I shall remeber your Politicians are not to be trusted next time you blather on about the Labour pin up Corbyn, which I assume is 100 percent trust worthy, and that you have facts to back that honesty claim up ? Please enlighten us all to the "facts" of the mission, this about the 3rd time I have asked you to show me facts that it was an assissination mission from the start, so far ....nothing as expected, just more personnel opinion doing a very bad impseranation of fact.

You claim it is reasonable to assume that Osama would have armed himself, yet there is no evidence of this and no reports that he did so. As such it seems that this is simply something that you have made up in your own mind.

There is no eveidence other than your opinion that he wasnt armed, and you accuse me of conspiracy theories ? I'm beginning to think your a little bit bonkers and not worth the effort.

Made up in my own mind hahahahah, even if I had, what makes what you are saying anything other than your own meaderings, and dont quote "facts" as you havent supplied a single one.

I think you have chosen to believe what you want to believe.

Of course America never had any intention of bringing him back for trial because it would never have been Bin Laden's intention to go on trial.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.[/quote

First, again there was no shoot-out, and Bin-Laden was unarmed when shot. Not any moral judgements just facts, you were wrong.

Second, whether bin laden wanted to go on trial or not is completely irrelevant. I'm sure plenty of criminals don't want to go on trial but funnily enough, once incarcerated they don't have a choice. America had the capacity to arrest and try him, but execution was what they set out to do.

It all depends upon which version of events you believe, isn't it?

The fonal paragraph is nonsense. What do you think would have happened in the event of a trial? Bin Laden would have refused to accept the court as legitimate, shut his mouth and there would have been terrorist attacks aplenty.

The fact is, killing Bin Laden then probably saved more lives than holding a trial would have cost. But the most important thing is leftie indignation at the U.S. Process, isn't it?

Edited by matt_himself (01 Sep 2015 12.40pm)

The US Dept. of Defense and Seal Team operations. They specifically stated they were planning to capture Osama Bin Laden if at all possible, but the failure of one of the heavily modified helicopters (which crashed) meant that was no longer a viable option, so it became a kill mission. Which seems more than fair.

But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals.

People like Bin Laden made a specific choice, and knew the consequences of their actions could only ever result in victory, or death. Doesn't make a difference if he was armed or not, or surrendered - The alternative would have been to either leave him alive or take him and leave valuable information.

And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior.

In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm)

The US Dept. of Defense and Seal Team operations. They specifically stated they were planning to capture Osama Bin Laden if at all possible, but the failure of one of the heavily modified helicopters (which crashed) meant that was no longer a viable option, so it became a kill mission. Which seems more than fair.

But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals.

People like Bin Laden made a specific choice, and knew the consequences of their actions could only ever result in victory, or death. Doesn't make a difference if he was armed or not, or surrendered - The alternative would have been to either leave him alive or take him and leave valuable information.

And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior.

In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm)

I have to disagree with regards to the objective of the mission. While the failure of the helicopter is well documented, indeed pakistan was particularly interested in the wreckage due to its stealth technology, this was replaced by a chinook for the evacuation so in reality it had no effect upon the intended objective of the mission.

In terms of the fight against terror, it would seem that more information could have been obtained from an incarcerated Osama, which does beg the question of why they felt it necessary to execute him.

The morality of targeted assassinations can be justified but that was not what was being argued here. But, for what it’s worth, i think the use of targeted assassinations is a very dangerous precedent to set that often has limited military value.

Not once did I say 100 percent he was armed, as it happens I know he wasn't that one of his wives was shot in the leg trying to defend him, he then resisted arrest and was quite rightly shot.

My point is that you were basing your whole argument as fact, when it was impossible for you to do so as you weren’t there. Nor did you back it up with any witness testimony.

The only source that says he wasn’t armed was the Whitehouse press rep. Who by your own assumptions about politicians lying, (when I qouted Obama saying he wanted him alive) can not be trusted to tell the truth.

So my point which seems to have evaded one who professes to have intelligence is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Will we ever now the exact truth, who knows? One thing I do know is that you don’t know it any more than Matt, me or anyone else who can type and owns a computer.

Once again you revert to type and start stating anyone whose opinions differ to yours are childish and Silly.

In reply I would say your posts are arrogant, condescending, dismissive bordering on narcissistic, and deliberately belittling as if you are always talking down to people who don’t follow your "facts". And seem to delight in others getting carded as you wound them up. What a lovely bloke you are.