Bin Laden Hideout Recreated In Counter-Strike 502
dotarray writes "Osama bin Laden's final hiding spot in Abbottabad, Pakistan, has been made into a playable map for Counter-Strike: Source. Honestly, we're a little surprised that it took this long."
Re:Floor plans... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm interested to know where the floor plans came from. Real or made up?
They look similar to the wikipedia entry for the same [wikipedia.org] - at least the stuff shown in those screen shots.
Re:Been here a while... (Score:5, Informative)
Osama would be dead if he was put on trial in any country on earth.
Where any country on earth = Belarus; China; Ecuador; Egypt; India; Iran; Iraq; Israel; Japan; Malaysia; Mongolia; North Korea; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; South Korea; Taiwan; Tonga; United States.
Here in Australia as well as most of the world he would not be put to death.
Re:Floor plans... (Score:5, Informative)
The Floor Plans
Re:Been here a while... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, they're not at all like the left wingers attacking Sarah Palin and her children, who are the epitome of class and independent thinking...
Re:Floor plans... (Score:5, Informative)
in military slang, "used his wife as a human shield" no doubt actually means "the wife was closest to the door when we kicked it open, so we shot her first".
The wife rushed the SEALs while OBL was standing there, and they shot her in the leg. They shot OBL in the left side of the head, twice. If they wanted to kill his wife, they would have, especially since she charged them. They didn't kill her though, they left her there with a wounded leg. At any rate, the "human shield" woman, regardless of whether or not she was being used involuntarily, was not the wife in his bedroom and wasn't covering OBL, she was covering one of the other men who died (possibly the courier who fired on the SEALs when they landed, or OBL's son).
Re:Floor plans... (Score:5, Informative)
Let's drop you from a helicopter in a terrorist compound, and see if you meekly ask the leader there if he'll kindly surrender and go back with you to a trial, or if you'd rather have a gun and shoot anybody who doesn't beg to be arrested the instant your boots hit the ground.
This was a military operation, not a police operation. There were time concerns, there were threat concerns, and the list of situational unknowns is a mile long. Rather than quoting bumper stickers, try to imagine yourself in the position those SEALs were in, or imagine being the one to order those SEALs into harm's way. Are you really going to throw your life or their lives away taking unnecessary risks for some philosophical argument about separation of powers?
None of that matters, of course, because guess what? The founding fathers made the President the Commander in Chief of the US military. That's how they doled out the powers. And guess what? The military's job is to kill people, and protect the lives of Americans (themselves included). If such a concept is uncomfortable to you, perhaps you should surrender your citizenship and go live someplace that doesn't have a military, and doesn't care about protecting its citizens.
If the president ordered the FBI to kill somebody on American soil, then you could argue about separation of powers. But arguing about a military operation, especially one as risky as this one? Seriously?
Re:Floor plans... (Score:5, Informative)
There is a thing called the separation of powers. Executive power should not act as if it were judiciary power.
They weren't. Bin Laden declared war on the United States in the 1990s. After treating the problem of Al Qaeda essentially as a police problem until the 9/11 attacks, the US Congress issued the Authorization for Use of Military Force which is functionally equivalent to a declaration of war on Al Qaeda. This is now a military problem. Bin Laden was killed as the head of Al Qaeda in a military operation in a war zone. No need for judicial involvement, which is very limited on the battlefield anyway. Admiral Yamamoto suffered a similar fate in WW2.
In case you think there could be peace, read Bin Laden's Letter to America [guardian.co.uk] to see his demands. The short version: everyone convert to Islam, then abolish your Constitution and govern the country under Sharia law... in every detail. (Beheading, stoning, crucifixion, whipping, ban alcohol, .... the works.)
Re:Floor plans... (Score:2, Informative)
Innocent? We could argue about those civilians being trained to fight invading soldiers to the death of the last man, woman, and child (essentially becoming soldiers themselves in the war), but that's far off topic, and really beside the point.
Dropping atomic bombs ended a war that would have killed as many as 10 times that many soldiers had it continued to a conventional conclusion. Throughout this, there would have been plenty of additional civilian casualties as well, possibly quite a few more than 100,000. Harry Truman had to weigh two very terrible outcomes, and chose the one that saved the most lives.
Your arguments are getting increasingly ridiculous. When countered by reason, you change to another argument, and then another. Just come out and say what you want to say. You think killing anybody is bad, even in war. Just leave it at that and we can all just nod and smile.