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.
Reading from a script carefully crafted by the Defense Department, Carney clarified that bin Laden was not armed with a gun when he was killed, contrary to some reports that he fired back at U.S. military operatives. In addition, White House counterinsurgency adviser John Brennan was wrong when he suggested Monday that one of bin Laden’s wives was killed serving as a human shield for bin Laden during gunfire.
“In the room with bin Laden, a woman -- bin Laden’s wife -- rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed,” Carney said. Separately, another woman on the first floor was killed in crossfire, which may have led to Brennan's misstatement.
“We provided a great deal of information with great haste in order to inform you … about the operation,” Carney said during a briefing, in a concession that administration officials have erred in their details of the raid on bin Laden's compound outside of Islamabad, Pakistan. “Obviously some of the information came in piece by piece and is being reviewed and updated and elaborated on.”
Originally posted by jayjayjj50
reply to post by Danbones
In this case would should give them credit for the corrections. In the original story Osama had a weapon and use a human shield. That situation makes the United States look real good. The govt could have easily stuck with that story but instead opted to correct it and say he was unarmed and did not use a human shield. Its not like the story is being revised to make the United States look better. To be honest IDC how he got killed, he had it coming.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by jayjayjj50
reply to post by Danbones
In this case would should give them credit for the corrections. In the original story Osama had a weapon and use a human shield. That situation makes the United States look real good. The govt could have easily stuck with that story but instead opted to correct it and say he was unarmed and did not use a human shield. Its not like the story is being revised to make the United States look better. To be honest IDC how he got killed, he had it coming.
Isn't this rather normal and occurs most of the time - - when there is some kind of operation?
First details coming out - - are almost never accurate. They are corrected when accurate data is collected?
Isn't this rather normal and occurs most of the time - - when there is some kind of operation? First details coming out - - are almost never accurate. They are corrected when accurate data is collected?
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Annee
I don't understand how first details could be inaccurate.
1. Obama and his team were watching it streamed LIVE. There's a big visual difference to
- Obama shooting a AK47 at the seals they came in
- Obama holding a pistol and using his wife as a human shield
- Obama being unarmed and his wife lunging at the seals
So, why are there so many different versions from a room full of people watching the same thing?
2. Initially it was 1 shot to the side of the head
- This turned into a shot through the left eye
- This turned into a shot to the head, and a shot to the chest
Are they trying to get it straight for the middle eastern body they've taken from some back street and photographed as Osama?
Now, they killed him and took the body and waited how many HOURS to tell the public?
In these hours, what exactly where they doing? playing Chinese whispers? I'm pretty sure the leader of the seal team would have been communicating directly with Obama or someone in the Whitehouse walking him through exactly what happened step by step.
You dont have 10 different versions of whats going on being relayed to the president. 1 version, from 1 person period. Any changes in the story AFTERWARDS are deliberate changes.
This is all just BS and i pitty any man who falls for this.edit on 3-5-2011 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)edit on 3-5-2011 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Annee
I don't understand how first details could be inaccurate.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by jayjayjj50
Its a benefit because after they release details they realise its not going to quite fit, so they reneg and change it.
Originally posted by jackflap
reply to post by Annee
Isn't this rather normal and occurs most of the time - - when there is some kind of operation? First details coming out - - are almost never accurate. They are corrected when accurate data is collected?
Definitely not in this case Annee.
There is absolutely no benefit to the United States acknowledging/or fabricating a story that they shot an unarmed man(even if that man is a terrorist). I think they made the corrections because they know a tape will leak soon and they want the information to fit the tape.
That's only because you don't want it to be. Its more important to you to hang onto the conspiracy.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by jayjayjj50
Assumptions are the mother of all.....
There is absolutely no benefit to the United States acknowledging/or fabricating a story that they shot an unarmed man(even if that man is a terrorist). I think they made the corrections because they know a tape will leak soon and they want the information to fit the tape.
I agree, If indeed he was in this complex and was killed he probably didnt have a gun.
So then, my question is, why were initial reports for over 24hrs suggesting he
1. Had an AK47 and was shooting it
2. Had a pistol and was holding someone hostage (human shield)
When the same group of people were watching the live streamed footage together?
See what im saying?
If indeed he had no gun, this is what everyone would have seen as it happened.
So why were the above 2 points portrayed?
Its not like the information didnt get to Obama in time for his speach, or that he was guessing, this is real time stuff. What happened should have been delivered and quality ensured within an hour (at most).
I'm not saying I know what happened, but I sure as hell know what they are telling us happened is changing by the hour, when there should be one story from the beginning if indeed it happened in the fashion they say it did.
edit on 3-5-2011 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)