It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why kill your #1 source of information?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I was reading another thread and was unexpectedly struck with a very puzzling question. Why would you kill the leader of a supposedly large and dangerous international terrorist network who undoubtedly has critical information as to it's personnel, capabilities, resources, connections, plans, etc.? Why not neutralize him in some fashion by using a chemical agent or some other device simply to place him into a state of unconsciousness so that vital information could be extracted at a later date? Surely, such a strategy was possible to successfully conduct? Were they afraid he knew things that they didn't want the rest of the world to know? What did he know about 9/11? What did he know about what might happen? So many questions, but I can't think of a reasonable answer as to why just kill him & then dispose of the body as fast as possible. Is it true, as some have said, that he actually died long ago, and this was just a political "gimmick"? Please help with your insights.




posted on May, 3 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ShakaDoodle
 


Hypothetically say when you go to apprehend him, he or someone in his entourage fire at you before you get the chance to to take him into custody. In that type of situation do you think the military would extract any live combatants after the firing ceased?

I'm not saying I'm right, but it is one scenario where intention would probably go out the window in lieu of protocol in my opinion.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by HawkMan11
 

Yes, I understand that. But remember when the Russians used some kind of 'sleeping gas' on terrorists inside a theater? Wouldn't something like that have been possible to utilize in this situation?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ShakaDoodle
 


That probably would have been the best plan. Then he could have a trial and people might have the chance at getting some real closure. Things could be put on record, fallacies might be easier to spot, etc.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
After ten years of tracking the guy down, I don't think anyone was willing to risk not shooting him in the head. Plus they allegedly found a ton of information in the compound on hard drives, files, etc.

But no one here believes he was killed May 1st anyway, so what does it matter



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
They killed him to destroy any evidence that Bin laden indeed had ties with the Bush family before and possibly after 9/11. It could have compromised both the Presidents position and also America's view from the whole world.
I bet even the government of Pakistan knew of Bin ladens location all this time but they got an interesting argument against that accusation as they have lost 1000s in the fight against terror.

The question is whether the world will buy the Pakistan "as a victim" card.

I reckon they will because what else can they do?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ShakaDoodle
 


They don't need Osama for info. And it wasn't even him. That was circuses for Us. The whole picture They build is BS. The "real" Osama is either dead years ago - or is enjoying life as We type somewhere away from it all courtesy of the CIA.




top topics



 
3

log in

join