Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Clearing up misconceptions regarding Anwar al-Awlaki [View all]Maedhros
(10,007 posts)33. You're right - that was phrased incorrectly.
I'll edit the OP to better reflect what likely happened: the objective of the raid was not to capture, but to kill Bin Laden.
There are conflicting reports about what happened during the raid, but it appears Bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed. This, IMO, was a big mistake - he should have been captured and brought to justice, so the American people could have had some closure for 9/11.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/osama-bin-laden-killing-media
Other reports deepen the confusion. The consensus became that bin Laden was unarmed when the SEALs shot him, but who else was in the room? An early May broadcast from NBC News matches neither CBS nor The New Yorker on that count. "As the SEALs stormed up the stairs two young girls ran from the room," NBC reported. "One SEAL scooped up the girls and carried them out of harm's way. The two other SEALs rushed the bedroom door." In this version only one of bin Laden's wives was in the third-floor room where he was killed. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported the prior day that one of bin Laden's sons was also there: "The son was shot dead in that room, too." (NBC and others reported the son was killed on the second floor.) According to the AP report, bin Laden acted aggressively when confronted: He had "appeared to be lunging for a weapon." According to a Fox News report, bin Laden had acted "scared" and "completely confused" and in a "cowardly manner."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-killing-us-story-change
Asked on Wednesday: "Is the fact of a firefight solid?", Carney said: "You heard the account that I read yesterday, and that is information that I provided. And I'm not I'm just simply saying I'm not going further than that."
He had said at a White House briefing on Tuesday that Bin Laden had not been armed. "On the first floor of Bin Laden's building two al-Qaida couriers were killed, along with a woman who was killed in crossfire," he said. "Bin Laden and his family were found on the second and third floor of the building. There was concern that Bin Laden would oppose the capture operation operation rather, and indeed he did resist. In the room with Bin Laden, a woman Bin Laden's a woman, rather, Bin Laden's wife, rushed the US assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed."
He had said at a White House briefing on Tuesday that Bin Laden had not been armed. "On the first floor of Bin Laden's building two al-Qaida couriers were killed, along with a woman who was killed in crossfire," he said. "Bin Laden and his family were found on the second and third floor of the building. There was concern that Bin Laden would oppose the capture operation operation rather, and indeed he did resist. In the room with Bin Laden, a woman Bin Laden's a woman, rather, Bin Laden's wife, rushed the US assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed."
The story changed so many times, it's hard to trust the "official" version.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
125 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I restrict my analysis to what was reported by military and intelligence officials.
Maedhros
Jan 2015
#56
I've written at least two OPs documenting this.....why would you think the Bush
msanthrope
Jan 2015
#85
wow. interesting. who invited him and to lecture about what? and then after being our
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#99
Interestingly, all these concerns were held with high regard when dumbya/cheney was in office..
2banon
Jan 2015
#13
The law does matter. Same reason that shooting soldiers on the battlefield is okay
geek tragedy
Jan 2015
#55
apparently, you haven't quite understood the point of this story.. better have another listen/read.
2banon
Jan 2015
#21
Where were charges filed against Awlaki, which court, what was the evidence presented?
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#113
And on what is tht 'concession' based? Where are the charges? Why is that such a difficult question
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#118
Yeah? Well just remember how many of us disagreed with the OP and those attempting to support them.
stevenleser
Jan 2015
#29
More worried about what the right wing thinks than making sure the facts are correct
JonLP24
Jan 2015
#36
Well, I wouldn't know if it would reasonably slip past him based on the available information is out
JonLP24
Jan 2015
#66
I've said in the past the real problem with al awlaki is that there is no limit on what
geek tragedy
Jan 2015
#70
Do you have any proof that the person posting this thread is actually liberal?
Renew Deal
Jan 2015
#46
There is no misconception no matter how many times you try to tell us that there is one.
stevenleser
Jan 2015
#26
standing up for the rule of law is a losing battle around here if you're perceived as sticking
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#101
Oh, I know - look at some of the posts elsewhere in this thread attacking my character
Maedhros
Jan 2015
#106
+10^10^100, this should be its own OP. Greenwald's bullshit needs more exposure. nt
stevenleser
Jan 2015
#72
You have it exactly correct....this is an embarrassment to GG. So Awlaki is being
msanthrope
Jan 2015
#75
Conspiracy theories lives in the hearts and minds of those prone to believing them.
Thinkingabout
Jan 2015
#76
Nothing ironic about it.....he also hosted 4 9/11 hijackers at his mosques. He was an operative,
msanthrope
Jan 2015
#78
I'm shocked and appalled at the number of people on this site - ostensibly Liberals -
Maedhros
Jan 2015
#81
I'm not defending al-Awlaki, I'm defending the rule of law, due process and habeus corpus.
Maedhros
Jan 2015
#93
How do you propose to protect people from various 'phobias' without a functioning rule of law?
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#103
I wonder at your American exceptionalism. Why does it make a difference if it is a citizen? nt
msanthrope
Jan 2015
#86
Why do you think Awlaki wasn't given due process? It's a common mistake of law and fact that
msanthrope
Jan 2015
#89
Mr. Awlaki not only posted hundreds of videos to YouTube telling his side of the story, he
msanthrope
Jan 2015
#119
Like I couldn't post a bunch of YouTube stuff and put ''msanthrope'' up as its author.
Octafish
Jan 2015
#120
He was in the videos, preaching hate. He had a magazine at his disposal. The ACLU
msanthrope
Jan 2015
#121
the geneva conventions? down the memory hole with them, along with everything that doesn't
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#104