Osama Bin Laden is dead.

[Solid Lifters]

I'm honestly more worried about North Korea or Iran doing it first as both have shown that they at least have planned to build them at one point(North Korea even tested them supposedly although it was never confirmed).

I'm more worried over Pakistan than North Korea or Iran.

 

[Havok_]

In relation to not releasing the photos of OBL, i aggree.. Personally i don't need any more proof of the death of the man responsible for taking the lives of countless people. The DNA test is enough for me and although i am not affected in the least by seeing fatal gunshot wounds, i am well aware of the damage an MK18 CQC combat rifle with 5.56 rounds can do to someone's head..It won't be pretty and shouldn't for all intensive purposes be shown with the government's permission. Showing large gaping holes in someone's forehead won't go well with some people, regardless of the maggot to whom it belongs to.

For sure though they will eventually leak out into the public.

 

[Pierced Lead]

I'm more worried over Pakistan than North Korea or Iran.

For us or because of us?

 

[Solid Lifters]

For us or because of us?

Both.

 

[Blitz187]

DNA tests are never 100%, regardless who they are testing.



Remember a few years back when there were riots over a drawing of Muhammad?



This relates to point 1.

Terrorists will use everything at their disposal, I'm guessing us touting a pic of their leader with a hole in his head would help them recruit for their next attack.

Yeah and they can use this as well (see link)... they shouldve just released the photos in my opinion.... Theres far worse stuff floating around the interwebz anyway...

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local..._yorkers_sell_osama_tshirts_baby_clothes.html

^ This can also be used by terrorists as a reason to retaliate.

 

[Mic_Col]

If I remember correctly, Al-Qaeda has uranium and said that they will unleash a "nuclear hellstorm" if bin Laden was killed.

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, they may be huge threats. The problem for them - they have to reach us first.

From the story I've heard it was from one of Al-Qaeda's top men in being held in Git-mo. He told them that Al-Qaeda has a Nuclear weapon that they've hidden in a major European city. And that if Bin Laden is killed or captured then it will be set off as an act of revenge.

And this was said 5 or 6 years ago.

Total bluff of course!! I hope they just laughed in the guy's face, if Al-Qaeda were to get their hands on a Nuclear weapon, they would use it within days. Not hide it somewhere to use perhaps years later "Only if you mess with our main guy"

Yeah right!

 

[FoolKiller]

That argument is not going to die easily I'm afraid, why didn't they get the story straight before speaking? Too excited to get the news out, what was the hurry?

I actually wonder if it was a confusion of facts, or if it were a case of propaganda. When Jefferson Davis was captured after the Civil War the first report that went out said that he was wearing his wife's dress in an attempt to hide. It left this vision of the south's leader as a coward willing to degrade himself and use his wife as cover to escape capture. Turns out he was sitting in his office and went quietly, head held high. But being that it was the 1800's news spread slow. His being captured dressed as a woman went out as fast as it could for that time. The correction and second story with the actual details held little interest to anyone. The myth that he was captured wearing his wife's dress still exists today.

That wasn't confusion, that was Union propaganda. Make him look scared and weak. Now, take the initial claims of Bin Laden being armed and hiding behind his wife vs the wife nowhere near him and him being unarmed. One makes him sound much more cowardly, and degrades him in front of his own people. Whether both version went out due to miscommunication about which story to tell, or Obama seeing the initial report after it was released and saying he didn't approve of it. There were helmet cams worn and the President's staff watched it as it happened. No one in that room could possibly have accidentally gotten that many details incorrect.

Not too surprised, but I think we've been given some misleading info from our Gov. Nearly certain they reported that MH-60's were used for transport, however the tail section in those photos is no where close to this:

There was talk about an unknown new helicopter being used for this. If this were stealth it would explain Pakistan's reports that they were using known radar blind spots to get in undetected. If your radar defense screen has that many holes and you are in a nuclear standoff, like they are with India, you have troubles. But saying the US used fancy new helicopters they can't see would be embarrassing.

If I remember correctly, Al-Qaeda has uranium and said that they will unleash a "nuclear hellstorm" if bin Laden was killed.

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, they may be huge threats. The problem for them - they have to reach us first.

Quickly think of all the threats Al-quaeda has made openly. Now, think of all the attacks you know they pulled off successfully. Do any of them actually match up? If they talked about it, it won't actually happen. It's the ones they don't talk about that you shoudl worry about.

You need more than just Uranium to make a nuclear bomb, judging by the images/videos I've seen of Al-Qaeda, they don't have the facilities either.

Dirty bomb, which is arguably worse.

Terrorists will use everything at their disposal, I'm guessing us touting a pic of their leader with a hole in his head would help them recruit for their next attack.

While I understand the reasoning behind this, part of me also thinks that they were trying to kill us and others for nothing more than our lifestyle long before now. I don't know how much more of an issue we can be creating here.

It won't be pretty and shouldn't for all intensive purposes be shown with the government's permission. Showing large gaping holes in someone's forehead won't go well with some people, regardless of the maggot to whom it belongs to.

To paraphrase Jon Stewart: Have you met us? After 8PM we have shows that start with the camera showing scientific level details of the internal damage from a bullet and then zoom out from a gunshot wound above the left eye to show a raped and murdered pregnant woman with her unborn baby cut from her abdomen. We call it prime time.

Show us the pic and we are likely to be able to tell you what exact model of gun was used, because we learned it on Bones.



I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate there, as I am fine with the situation and the reasoning shows a degree of respect and good manners, but at the same time, they sound like they come from someone who hasn't turned on a TV to something other than news in the last decade

 

[Blitz187]

I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate there, as I am fine with the situation and the reasoning shows a degree of respect good manners, but at the same time, they sound like they come from someone who hasn't turned on a TV to something other than news in the last decade

QFT! 👍

 

[JediRage]

I am astounded at how this thread has turned into an Obama vs Republicans match up.

In any case, I remember watching the Presidential debates between Obama and John McCain and that repeatedly, McCain and Fox News would ridicule Obama for thinking of carrying out military operations inside Pakistan (their 'staunch' supposed ally).

Now ask yourself this. Would this event have occurred if McCain was President?

 

[FoolKiller]

Now ask yourself this. Would this event have occurred if McCain was President?

Do you think McCain would have ignored intelligence on Osama's whereabouts?

I think any president not too busy golfing would have taken this opportunity.

 

[Danoff]

Now ask yourself this. Would this event have occurred if McCain was President?

This would have happened if my grandmother were president. None of it has to do with the president. I know many people like to think of the president as a superhero who is directing and controlling everything in the government, but this is a military operation that spans 3 administrations and was likely not significantly affected by the changing of the guard figurehead.

I'm overstating my case a bit for simplicity. The president can and does have an affect on the domestic policy and on military operations. But people pretend that the president is much more involved than he/she actually is, and some presidents seem to enjoy cultivating that.

 

[Highlandor]

Google "Al-Qaeda nuclear" and you'll know what I mean.

They hired rogue scientists and are developing WMDs which they plan to detonate in the Western World.

Considering how much money went missing when the UK and American first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and the subsequent animosity felt by so many (in that region of the world) towards the UK and America since then, personally, I wouldn't rule this out 100%.

Highly unlikely, but not totally impossible, especially when there's been proof of other countries (or at lest one) secretly helping the Taliban and Al Qaida.

 

[icelt]

They used the rumored 'cloaking chopers' from a year-and-a-half ago. They're a secret version of that choper if you followed my link.

Clearly I followed the link or I would not have commented that the photos it contained did not jive with one of the initial statements that the operation used MH-60's.

There was talk about an unknown new helicopter being used for this. If this were stealth it would explain Pakistan's reports that they were using known radar blind spots to get in undetected. If your radar defense screen has that many holes and you are in a nuclear standoff, like they are with India, you have troubles. But saying the US used fancy new helicopters they can't see would be embarrassing.

Yeah I think I just missed out on those reports. I recall the MH-60 reference from the very first government statements and then I saw that pic and thought, "hmm, does not compute."

Right, either explanation is an embarrassment for Pakistan's air defense detection capabilities. Also I'm sure the US Military would prefer it not be common knowledge when and where we utilize our stealth technology in the field, although those in the know surely can make pretty accurate conclusions. Alas in this case not all of the physical evidence could be completely destroyed. So now everyone knows.

Do you think McCain would have ignored intelligence on Osama's whereabouts?

I think any president not too busy golfing would have taken this opportunity.

This Slate article makes a fairly compelling case that the Op was in no way a sure fire guaranteed success. So no doubt McCain would have received the same information, however would he have reached the same "risk/reward" conclusion? Would he have kept Pakistan completely in the dark regarding the leads we were tracking? Also would have he authorized an incursion into an allied country's air space without their prior knowledge or consent? He may or may not have, the point being we just don't know.

If nothing else, this article helps underscore the fact that the operation was very risky and even the smallest miscalculation would have ended in great embarrassment, if not worse, for the US and the acting President who authorized the action.

The Debacle That Didn't Happen

So many things could have gone wrong in the raid on Bin Laden's compound.
By Daniel Byman and Phillip PadillaPosted Wednesday, May 4, 2011, at 1:33 PM ET
www.slate.com

Things went sour from the start. As the helicopters launched from the U.S. base in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and crossed the border into Pakistan, one helicopter and the Navy SEAL team members it carried had to abort their mission and return to base after mechanical difficulties. The remaining helicopters had to carry on by themselves. As they neared the target in the city of Abbottabad, Pakistani air defenses spotted the chopper and began firing. The strike team avoided the fire and kept going but encountered stiff resistance when it landed,

The helicopters' propellers blew an intense heat onto the SEALs as they landed near the compound and sprinted to their assigned breach points. Like a finely tuned orchestra, the SEALs set and simultaneously detonated several breach charges around the compound's courtyard and flooded inside. The tipped-off inhabitants stood ready, wounding several of the SEALs with a withering fire as they poured in. But the SEALs' specially designed weapons and their reflexive sharp-shooting skills developed from hundreds of missions proved too much for the waiting guards. The SEALs eliminated the threats in the courtyard and prepared to enter the target building.

Like clockwork, the SEALs "stacked" at the main house's doors prepared to enter the building to find their ultimate target. But they had miscalculated the strength of the building's reinforced doors, costing them precious time, presenting the enemy hiding inside with an opportunity. Grenades flew through the house's windows, peppering much of the strike team with shrapnel.

After seconds that seemed like hours, the door-breachers broke through. The lead team members burst into the building but quickly realized that the house had been rigged with explosives. Tell-tale signs of a house-borne IED were everywhere: copper wires hugged the walls, leading to several plastic jugs filled with explosives. Before the strike team could pull out, the home exploded, burying several people under its rubble.

In a situation where seconds were critical, it would take hours to dig the operators out of the rubble. Worse yet, their intended target was not among the debris. The gunmen were not the most senior leaders of al-Qaida, but, rather, members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, an anti-Indian terrorist group that works closely with the Pakistani government (though some of its members have links to al-Qaida). Even worse, the botched raid had inadvertently led to the deaths of several children living in the compound. As the SEALs salvaged what they could, Pakistani forces from nearby military bases responded quickly, arriving on the scene and demanding their surrender, leading to a standoff covered live on satellite television.

The debacle was a disaster for the president. The nightmares of special operations past all resurfaced: the failed hostage-rescue attempt in Iran in 1980 and the capture of Somali militants in Mogadishu in 1993 that led to the Blackhawk Down fiasco—operations in which eight and 18 American soldiers died, respectively—both resurfaced to haunt the intelligence and special-operations community. Republicans derided the president for his ineffective and weak leadership, while members of his own party privately expressed their doubts about the strategic prowess of their professor-turned-commander-in-chief. In its subsequent propaganda, al-Qaida derided the United States for its "deliberate killing of Muslim children" and boasted of its skilled preparations to foil the U.S. military (even though it let another group fight on its behalf).

But none of that came to pass. Instead of criticizing the president, we are celebrating the death of Public Enemy No. 1. While the administration takes its victory lap and basks in the glow of success, it is worth thinking through the many things that could have gone wrong and how we think about high-risk military operations when they fail.

Let's begin with the intelligence. Information on terrorists is often wrong, fragmentary, or incomplete. Before 9/11, the United States repeatedly tried to find Osama Bin Laden and launch strikes to kill him, but it never had confidence in the intelligence it gathered. At times, terrorists are where the intelligence places them, but civilians are there, too. When Israel killed Hamas mastermind Salah Shehadeh in 2002, it also killed nine children, because Israeli intelligence did not know they were within the radius of the bomb blast. One cannot use intelligence beforehand to predict whether a mission will be a dazzling success or one that results in congressional investigations due to failure.

Too many times to count, U.S. special operations forces have acted on pinpoint intelligence, hoping to kill or capture high-level terrorists, only to find empty buildings, the wrong guy, or traps set for the team. Prior to Sunday's raid, there was no guarantee that the compound's defenders had not prepared al-Qaida's favorite defensive tactics of mutual suicide: house-borne IEDs or suicide vests.

Even when the intelligence is good, it is often exceptionally difficult to act upon. Many top terrorists know to hide in countries in which U.S. special operations are not allowed to operate. U.S. forces had to cross undetected deep into Pakistan. The secrecy of the operation suggests that U.S. officials believed that any request for help from Pakistan would backfire, with Pakistani officials tipping off Bin Laden. But Pakistan's military is competent and often fearful of an Indian military strike. It might have shot down an unknown intruder or at least discovered it and forced the disruption of the mission.

Technology, of course, is fallible. One helicopter did malfunction when the SEAL team tried to leave the compound; as a result they had to blow it up before departing. If the helicopter had gone down anywhere but in the compound, the team would have risked being left exposed for the world to see. Flying at night provided a protective cloak, but the SEALs were working against the clock in order to avoid the eventual response of Pakistani security forces. And no amount of technology is able to answer critical questions before such raids, like "Will the inhabitants of the compound fight back?" or "How many people are inside the house, and how well-armed are they?"

Relations with Pakistan, already at a low point over government contractor Raymond Davis' killing of two Pakistanis he said tried to rob him, could have plunged even further. If Pakistani soldiers or noncombatants had died in the raid, the Pakistani government would have faced tremendous domestic pressure to further distance itself from Washington. American drone strikes that accidentally kill noncombatants in remote parts of the country are headache enough for the government: Lethal mistakes next to the heart of Pakistan could have been far worse politically. American supply routes throughout Pakistan that support ongoing efforts in Afghanistan remain critical Pakistani bargaining chips.

An airstrike would have avoided much of this messiness, but it offered fewer advantages. A drone strike would launch a small bomb, which might not kill Bin Laden. Bombs from a larger, manned aircraft could cause so much damage it would destroy nearby buildings and kill children or other noncombatants in the compound. Before the raid, U.S. officials estimated it would take more than 30 2,000-pound bombs to destroy the complex. Proving that Bin Laden was dead would be harder if the United States did not have the body in its possession. Also, Bin Laden's headquarters presumably was also an intelligence goldmine, and a raid could capture documents, hard drives, and people, while an airstrike buries them in the rubble.

The president, of course, did not have the luxury of knowing he would be right when he made the decision to go with the riskier option: the raid. Fortunately, the decision paid off in spades. The mission's success shows the incredible confidence and skills that U.S. counterterrorism professionals must have in order to mitigate the risks associated with dangerous operations. But these factors can only offset so much risk. In any given operation, mistakes and plain bad luck can undo the sturdiest combination of special operator skills and planning. As we praise the intelligence and special-operations communities today, we should recognize that considerable skill and planning often go into failed raids and that fortune does not only favor the bold. So if we want raids like those that killed Osama Bin Laden, we must countenance those that miss their targets and at times end in disaster—and be supportive of the operators who carry them out and the politicians who order them into action. President Barack Obama should be commended not only for the mission's success (where the real credit spans administrations and special operations and intelligence officers that triumphed over each of the mission's potential setbacks), but for deciding to go forward even when so many things could go wrong. Who dares, wins—but only if the dare pays off.

 

[arora]

I actually wonder if it was a confusion of facts, or if it were a case of propaganda.

There were helmet cams worn and the President's staff watched it as it happened. No one in that room could possibly have accidentally gotten that many details incorrect.

I can buy the propaganda theory.

The last interview I saw with the director of the cia he claimed that no one monitoring the operation could see inside the compound. He was specifically asked "did the President see Osama being shot" he said no.

I'm not sure what to believe about that, in the picture of the 'control' room or whatever they call it, it sure looked like they were seeing more but maybe the despair and anticipation on their faces was when the copter went down. It might be that knowing they saw it all would not sit well with some people so they lied.


ALSO, I too don't understand why this thread has dem/rep written all over it, isn't there an election thread?

 

[TT3AZ]

Seriously Osama was a terrorist, that kind of people dont deserve to live. What does Osamas death mean? Well nothing because al-qaida will manage well any ways. But, maybe there will be some revenge, who knows?

 

[Ardius]

Seriously Osama was a terrorist, that kind of people dont deserve to live.

Its funny how we can easily decide such people lose their right to live yet let the bog-standard murderer live albeit in jail.
People would be horrified if we brought back hanging or any kind of death sentence in the UK, yet everyone is fine with assassinations. Bizarre.

 

[Grand Prix]

Its funny how we can easily decide such people lose their right to live yet let the bog-standard murderer live albeit in jail.
People would be horrified if we brought back hanging or any kind of death sentence in the UK, yet everyone is fine with assassinations. Bizarre.

"You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go 'according to plan.' Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all 'part of the plan.'" - Joker



It is crazy isn't it.

 

[Dan_]

Seriously Osama was a terrorist, that kind of people dont deserve to live.

No one is in position to judge that.

What does Osamas death mean? Well nothing because al-qaida will manage well any ways. But, maybe there will be some revenge, who knows?

The shocking security measures in airports and outdoor public events will be tightened to the maximum, that's a certainity. And it's bad, if I'm honest.

 

[Blitz187]

Its funny how we can easily decide such people lose their right to live yet let the bog-standard murderer live albeit in jail.
People would be horrified if we brought back hanging or any kind of death sentence in the UK, yet everyone is fine with assassinations. Bizarre.

I agree with this.... even Saddam got a trial and he killed far more people than Osama. I dont see why Bin Laden shouldnt have got a trial, but instead they execute him on the spot...

 

[TheCracker]

I agree with this.... even Saddam got a trial and he killed far more people than Osama. I dont see why Bin Laden shouldnt have got a trial, but instead they execute him on the spot...

A lengthy trial would have just martyred him far more than the quick death he rightly received will do. As a countries leader Saddam deserved a trial. Bin Laden may have been the founder and figurehead of al-Qaeda but it would be next to impossible to link him to any of the atrocities al-Qaeda are said to have committed in a court of law.

 

[FoolKiller]

Its funny how we can easily decide such people lose their right to live yet let the bog-standard murderer live albeit in jail.
People would be horrified if we brought back hanging or any kind of death sentence in the UK, yet everyone is fine with assassinations. Bizarre.

Not to say two wrongs make a right (but three lefts do), but:

He started it!

No one is in position to judge that.

President Obama was, apparently.

The shocking security measures in airports and outdoor public events will be tightened to the maximum, that's a certainity. And it's bad, if I'm honest.

I am actually a bit surprised, because we have The Kentucky Derby here this weekend, which draws celebrities and politicians, but nothing is being handled any differently than previous years. The head of Churchill Downs security was even being interviewed this morning and said that they have worked with state and federal security agents as usual, but there has been no elevated risk of threats.

I should also add that this race would be well known among Middle Eastern terrorists, as we have princes from the region who own some of the horse and it is not uncommon to see cargo planes converted for livestock with Arabic writing sitting at the Lexington airport.

I agree with this.... even Saddam got a trial and he killed far more people than Osama. I dont see why Bin Laden shouldnt have got a trial, but instead they execute him on the spot...

They executed him on the spot? When did this get reported? Did they change their story since yesterday, again?

 

[Blitz187]

They executed him on the spot? When did this get reported? Did they change their story since yesterday, again?

Sorry, My fault... not reported anywhere.. My interpretation of it. But they did shoot him without him being armed if I'm not mistaken... So you could see that as an execution.

A lengthy trial would have just martyred him far more than the quick death he rightly received will do. As a countries leader Saddam deserved a trial. Bin Laden may have been the founder and figurehead of al-Qaeda but it would be next to impossible to link him to any of the atrocities al-Qaeda are said to have committed in a court of law.

If thats the case then how can they really say he was the mastermind behind 9/11? If they can't even prove it in a court, how come it is linked to him? Just by saying so?

-Edit: Not saying he ISN'T the mastermind, just questioning the statements here.

 

[TheCracker]

If thats the case then how can they really say he was the mastermind behind 9/11? If they can't prove it in a court, how come it is linked to him? Just by saying so?

al-Qaeda is more of an idealism than it is an organization, at least it is now. Bin Laden encouraged his followers to strike western targets. Without a paper trail it would be incredibly difficult to prove in court.

 

[Blitz187]

al-Qaeda is more of an idealism than it is an organization, at least it is now. Bin Laden encouraged his followers to strike western targets. Without a paper trail it would be incredibly difficult to prove in court.

Thanks for the clarification this makes more sense. 👍

 

[Brett]

I am actually a bit surprised, because we have The Kentucky Derby here this weekend, which draws celebrities and politicians, but nothing is being handled any differently than previous years. The head of Churchill Downs security was even being interviewed this morning and said that they have worked with state and federal security agents as usual, but there has been no elevated risk of threats.

I should also add that this race would be well known among Middle Eastern terrorists, as we have princes from the region who own some of the horse and it is not uncommon to see cargo planes converted for livestock with Arabic writing sitting at the Lexington airport.

I think going about business as usual is a better approach rather than making it seem as though we are fearful of an attack that may or may not come. Though it should be stated that the business as usual approach comes with the caveat of properly prepared and trained personnel.

Aside: Adam Carolla has a big rant about this with regards to airport security. I brought this up since you have mentioned the Aceman a few times.

 

[Danoff]

Apparently some of the material in Bin Laden's hideout indicates that the next target might have been a train. They had a plan to mess with the rails. A lot of good the airport rectal exams would do.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sorry, My fault... not reported anywhere.. My interpretation of it. But they did shoot him without him being armed if I'm not mistaken... So you could see that as an execution.

Without details of what actually happened what actions he took are unknown. I could see an unarmed man thinking he understood the rules of engagement making an attack without a weapon, not expecting to be met head-on with a bullet.

If thats the case then how can they really say he was the mastermind behind 9/11? If they can't even prove it in a court, how come it is linked to him? Just by saying so?

I know you are responding to The Cracker's comments, but the guy publicly admitted to it on video. I'm sure a jury wouldn't need to see more.

I think going about business as usual is a better approach rather than making it seem as though we are fearful of an attack that may or may not come. Though it should be stated that the business as usual approach comes with the caveat of properly prepared and trained personnel.

Oh, they've been much more careful since 9/11. But nothing has led to a suspicion at this year's event.

Aside: Adam Carolla has a big rant about this with regards to airport security. I brought this up since you have mentioned the Aceman a few times.

I find myself agreeing with him a lot.

 

[GT5Pro]

Yeah plus those 100-something top ranking al-quaeda members that just pulled off a 4-hour tunnel trip jail break. God knows this is just icing on the cake for the hardned and pissed mentality.

When I posted this, I didn't realize it was actually 400 something people that escaped, while roughly only 100 of them were top ranking al-quaeda members.

 

[Brett]

Oh, they've been much more careful since 9/11. But nothing has led to a suspicion at this year's event.

Maybe that carefulness should have already been in place before 9/11. There were some changes that needed to be made pre-9/11 for sake of better security and I do not think any one would argue that, but the extent is up for question.

I find myself agreeing with him a lot.

A lot of what the Aceman says makes sense. How he expresses some of it does not come across just right, but the good intentions are obviously there. If you have not picked his book up yet and enjoy his podcast, then I would suggest buying In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks: . . . And Other Complaints from an Angry Middle-Aged White Guy. As expected, the book is a light read and many of the rants in the book are a rehash from the podcast, but the book is still quite amusing.

 

[FoolKiller]

Maybe that carefulness should have already been in place before 9/11. There were some changes that needed to be made pre-9/11 for sake of better security and I do not think any one would argue that, but the extent is up for question.

I disagree, but then I am a freedom before security kind of guy. Even my wife disagrees with me on that one, but she is so afraid of flying I think she would submit to a body cavity search of every passenger if it guaranteed her a safe flight.

A lot of what the Aceman says makes sense. How he expresses some of it does not come across just right, but the good intentions are obviously there. If you have not picked his book up yet and enjoy his podcast, then I would suggest buying In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks: . . . And Other Complaints from an Angry Middle-Aged White Guy. As expected, the book is a light read and many of the rants in the book are a rehash from the podcast, but the book is still quite amusing.

Got it from Audible two days ago.

To point out why this is on topic for those not listening to his podcast: Adam Carolla firmly believes that people like this should die, and was happy Bin Laden was able to see an American soldier fire at him instead of getting an unseen missile strike or sniper shot. He goes so far as to say that if he could snap his fingers and cause everyone who would commit murder to just die now he would be a hero to the world.