19 ms·

except that there would be lots of people, not the least bin laden himself, who would love to prove his non-death?

rbanffy 15y ago
Unless he is alive and being interrogated. Now, seriously, I always doubted he would be captured alive. Just imagine how embarrassing would it be all the information about the CIA operations during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan becoming public on a trial. Of course he resisted capture.
- thematt 15y ago
  Occam's razor, him being dead is probably true. However, I thought about that scenario too. Make his followers think he's dead so he loses his figurehead status, then spend the subsequent years interrogating him. As for embarrassment, who said he'd ever be put on trial if we had him? If we can hold his followers indefinitely, certainly we could hold him.
  - flipbrad 15y ago
    It seems so improbable that they shot him if he was unarmed. If people knew he had been captured, securing his release by threatening future terrorist atrocities would become aim #1 for Al Qaeda, would it not?
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      > If people knew he had been captured, securing his release by threatening future terrorist atrocities would become aim #1 for Al Qaeda Indeed. Even if he is alive, he's dead. At least until Al Qaeda is effectively neutralized.
    - showerst 15y ago
      I don't really get why people think that this is so improbable. If you were in a dark room and burst in on a trained soldier in a baggy robe, would you wait to see if he had a gun/knife/grenade within range? If he did anything other than lay straight down on the floor with his hands up, it could be perceived as threatening. I'm not trying to comment on whether that response is ethical, but it seems totally plausible to me.
      - hugh3 15y ago
        Exactly. People who think this way are applying the rules of police action to war. If you're a criminal and the police burst into your house then the police can't (or at least, aren't allowed to) shoot you unless they have damn good reason to believe that their lives are in danger. In a war, though, if you're an enemy combatant then you're fair game unless you're actively surrendering. There's some gray area between the two, somewhere, but as a general rule if you want to steer clear of the latter category then don't make a video in which you "declare war on the United States" and then start killing people.
    - lucasjung 15y ago
      We have no idea what rules of engagement (ROE) they were operating under. If the ROE for the mission said, "every adult in the compound is to be considered hostile," then the operators wouldn't wait to confirm if someone was armed or not before shooting.
- panacea 15y ago
  "how embarrassing would it be all the information about the CIA operations during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan becoming public on a trial" He could have released such information without facing a trial. What you suspect makes entirely no sense.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    What would he gain from releasing such information before capture? BTW, isn't the timing of his capture attempt a bit odd? If we are to believe the US intelligence community was unable to track him down for years while he was hiding in a Pakistani suburb next to a military training facility, wouldn't they look singularly incompetent? I mean, did they really trust the Pakistani on that?
  - nakkiel 15y ago
    Not to mention that there were not much information in his possession that isn't in someone else's. If there really were anything that hadn't be told yet about all those "CIA operations", I don't see how his death would prevent their release. Whether anybody has been listening (yet) is another matter.

Unless he is alive and being interrogated. Now, seriously, I always doubted he would be captured alive. Just imagine how embarrassing would it be all the information about the CIA operations during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan becoming public on a trial. Of course he resisted capture.

thematt 15y ago
Occam's razor, him being dead is probably true. However, I thought about that scenario too. Make his followers think he's dead so he loses his figurehead status, then spend the subsequent years interrogating him. As for embarrassment, who said he'd ever be put on trial if we had him? If we can hold his followers indefinitely, certainly we could hold him.
- flipbrad 15y ago
  It seems so improbable that they shot him if he was unarmed. If people knew he had been captured, securing his release by threatening future terrorist atrocities would become aim #1 for Al Qaeda, would it not?
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > If people knew he had been captured, securing his release by threatening future terrorist atrocities would become aim #1 for Al Qaeda Indeed. Even if he is alive, he's dead. At least until Al Qaeda is effectively neutralized.
  - showerst 15y ago
    I don't really get why people think that this is so improbable. If you were in a dark room and burst in on a trained soldier in a baggy robe, would you wait to see if he had a gun/knife/grenade within range? If he did anything other than lay straight down on the floor with his hands up, it could be perceived as threatening. I'm not trying to comment on whether that response is ethical, but it seems totally plausible to me.
    - hugh3 15y ago
      Exactly. People who think this way are applying the rules of police action to war. If you're a criminal and the police burst into your house then the police can't (or at least, aren't allowed to) shoot you unless they have damn good reason to believe that their lives are in danger. In a war, though, if you're an enemy combatant then you're fair game unless you're actively surrendering. There's some gray area between the two, somewhere, but as a general rule if you want to steer clear of the latter category then don't make a video in which you "declare war on the United States" and then start killing people.
  - lucasjung 15y ago
    We have no idea what rules of engagement (ROE) they were operating under. If the ROE for the mission said, "every adult in the compound is to be considered hostile," then the operators wouldn't wait to confirm if someone was armed or not before shooting.
panacea 15y ago
"how embarrassing would it be all the information about the CIA operations during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan becoming public on a trial" He could have released such information without facing a trial. What you suspect makes entirely no sense.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  What would he gain from releasing such information before capture? BTW, isn't the timing of his capture attempt a bit odd? If we are to believe the US intelligence community was unable to track him down for years while he was hiding in a Pakistani suburb next to a military training facility, wouldn't they look singularly incompetent? I mean, did they really trust the Pakistani on that?
- nakkiel 15y ago
  Not to mention that there were not much information in his possession that isn't in someone else's. If there really were anything that hadn't be told yet about all those "CIA operations", I don't see how his death would prevent their release. Whether anybody has been listening (yet) is another matter.