2 Questions regarding Ubl Situation

Question number 1- Since there was a $3 million dollars or so reward for the capture ... of UBL,if some rogue mercernaries claimed they took out Ubl,and only provided pictures of the event with no body,would they be entitled to the reward money?The answer is no,because the pictures could be photoshopped.This being the case ,if only pictures are provided to the citizens of the united states,what real proof do they hold that ubl has been eliminated..Question number 2-if you were going to risk more american lives to capture ubl,you would have to be 100 percent certain he was in that compound.If you were 100 percent certain he was in the compound,why would you risk more american lives?Wouldnt the answer be to bomb the compound.Everyone in the compound and surrounding area knew ubl was there.There were no innocent people in the area.

Originally posted by brindle
Question number 1- Since there was a $3 million dollars or so reward for the capture ... of UBL,if some rogue mercernaries claimed they took out Ubl,and only provided pictures of the event with no body,would they be entitled to the reward money?The answer is no,because the pictures could be photoshopped.This being the case ,if only pictures are provided to the citizens of the united states,what real proof do they hold that ubl has been eliminated..Question number 2-if you were going to risk more american lives to capture ubl,you would have to be 100 percent certain he was in that compound.If you were 100 percent certain he was in the compound,why would you risk more american lives?Wouldnt the answer be to bomb the compound.Everyone in the compound and surrounding area knew ubl was there.There were no innocent people in the area.

No, they did not know for sure he was in there. The CIA thought there was a 60% to 80% chance he was there. They did risk the American lives necessary to pull off the raid. And if we had just bombed the compound, everyone here would doubt his death just as much.

www.nydailynews.com...

As for question number 1...if a rogue group of scientists and engineers claimed to have landed on the moon and only had video to prove it we'd all call BS on that too. The point here being that the US gov't plays by different rules. And they too are doubted

I read a news article online (sometime since learning Osama was dead) that said American surveillance and facial recognition identified Osama exercising outside at the compound last *September* and that they knew he was there because of this. However, that doesn't explain why they waited so long to take him out.

www.nzherald.co.nz...

That's not the same story as the one I read before, but it has most of the same information.

The reward for OBL was actually $25 million and there were oddly no takers in 10 years. That's a lot of money in the Realm of the Pakistanis. Perhaps there were no takers due to the many accounts that suggest OBL actually died as early as 2001. Plenty of red herrings thrown into the mix over the years on the topic. Reports suggest that he has been there for 6 years and that we have known since August of 2010. Who knows? OBL may have just been a fabricated enigma.

I love how they describe is tenement of a compound as a "mansion". Mansion by local standards perhaps but not but what the majority of the west deems a mansion. Let's just call his lair a compound and leave it at that.

Then you have the constant backpedaling by the administration since Sunday on the actual facts of the event. This backpedaling raises even more questions

Take One: Bin Laden died in a bloody firefight.

On Sunday night, Obama dramatically told the world that "after a firefight," our brave men in uniform "killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."

Embellishing the story the next morning, White House deputy national security adviser John Brennan said at his briefing that bin Laden "was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in. ... And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don't know. ... It was a firefight. He, therefore, was killed in that firefight."

Take Two: Bin Laden did not engage in a firefight.

The day after Brennan disclosed such vivid details, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney walked them back Michael Jackson-style. Bin Laden, he said in version 2.0, "was not armed." Brennan had clearly implied that bin Laden "resisted" with arms. Carney amended the narrative by insisting that "resistance does not require a firearm." How exactly bin Laden resisted, Carney would not say.

It's been all downhill, uphill, K-turns and 180s ever since. Fasten your seatbelts:

Take Three: Bin Laden's wife died after her feckless husband used her as a human shield.

More:townhall.com...

on and on it goes....

No-one will get that reward money. Well, maybe obama will