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.

 

Commandos told to kill Osama bin Laden because of fears he was wearing suicide vest

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I am going to assume that everyone I meet today is wearing a suicide vest. If they are naked, I bet they have an anal bomb.




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


And read my point.

They are changing the 'facts' as they go along.

1). He was armed! Oops. This made him out to be a hero martyr.
2). Story changes to he was unarmed. Oops! This made him out to be a victim by shooting an unarmed man.
3). Story changes to he may have been wearing a suicide vest and they double tapped him in the head. Oops! But earlier reports from government officials claim a head shot and chest shot.

See?


The 'facts' keep changing to suit their whims. You cannot trust what they are claiming. That is what my point is.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


And read my point.

They are changing the 'facts' as they go along.


Are they? I have yet to see an official step to the podium and recount the events of the entire raid. All is hear about are "officials" releasing what may or may not be accurate information.



1). He was armed! Oops. This made him out to be a hero martyr.
2). Story changes to he was unarmed. Oops! This made him out to be a victim by shooting an unarmed man.
3). Story changes to he may have been wearing a suicide vest and they double tapped him in the head. Oops! But earlier reports from government officials claim a head shot and chest shot.

See?


The 'facts' keep changing to suit their whims. You cannot trust what they are claiming. That is what my point is.


For me, there could be several reason for the change of the story over the last few days.

1) Have you ever played that game where someone whispers something to you and then you whisper what you thought they said...and so on around the room. By the time it goes full circle, the message is never anything like the original.

2) There were what, 24 members of the Navy Seal team? Each had to be debriefed. How long does that take? Each one saw the events slightly different, as they saw it through their eyes from their perspective. Sometimes being in different rooms all together.

3) How official are some of these "officials" that are releasing information? Were they even privy to the classified information, or are they practicing #1 above by repeating hearsay? Possibly confusing details, possibly misheard the details, possibly completely made them up to seem important.

4) Intentional disinformation to create confusion. Confusion is intended to be directed at Al Qaeda, but confusion on the part of the general public is an unavoidable consequence. Why would they do this? Perhaps to "buy time" while they scour the confiscated hard drives, thumb drives, etc. for any information on imminent attacks.

5) How many of the Seals were wired with cameras? Lets assume they all were. Which one of the 24 cameras does the situation room watch at any moment? Most likely just one...at least full attention can only be given to one at a time by any one individual. So, in a snap judgement, making announcements directly after the fact, leaves lots of room for not having the entire story accurate. Only after reviewing all the material can one accurately provide all details.

I'm certain that once the dust settles that we will have a clear, concise and accurate account of events; however, to expect it so early on is simply asking too much. In my opinion they should have waited until they could give us the accurate account before they even made the announcement. However, the news would have leaked from outside sources, thus leaving us questioning why our government kept us in the dark on the news....leading to a completely different conspiracy.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Not according to what I read an heard ... Comandos shot OBL because he was said to have made a wrong move .. that OBl may have looked like he was going to reach for a gun or pull one out .. but that dosnt make sense because they said he was unarmed .. well as soon as that hit the media .. shortly after that this came out

Source: Only 1 killed in bin Laden raid was armed

news.yahoo.com...

lol that OBL did have guns in that room .. yikes .. what to belive ?? I dont know have to wait and see maybe that will all change again to another story .. next scene please .. heading to the microwave to put some popcorn in the shows about to start.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


24 highly trained very intelligent seals. "Highly Trained"

Do you really think that these seals could differ on each of their stories?? NO. They are trained for these missions. How much money do you think this mission cost? Wasting money on different facts???

No the fact is, the people arent buying these stories so they are changing the story to make it seem more believable.

How can you be so obtuse?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


No......


The 'facts' keep changing to suit their whims.


No....it is a well-known phenomenon called "fog of war". Any very fast-moving, multi-layered event will have the initial reports chock full of inaccuracies.....many of those who, in this case, discussed it early on did so under a variety of assumptions immediately afterwards.

The actual team involved ("Seal 6") had not yet been completely debriefed, to hear their EXACT, eyes-on experiences. NOW that they have had time to thoroughly understand the proper chain of events, from the "horses' mouths", so to speak, they are filling in and correcting the official record.

In fact....it is somewhat embarrassing, don't you think, to have to report that OBL was unarmed?? This is contrary to initial assumptions that he may have had a weapon in hand....makes it look worse for the forces, depending on your personal view....but, they are NOT lying and saying he had a machine gun in each hand, to justify the fatal head-shot.....


en.wikipedia.org...



The term is ascribed to the Prussian military analyst Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote:
"The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently — like the effect of a fog or moonshine — gives to things exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance."



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Because obviously people walk around with suicide bombs on them 24/7.

Only the most moronic , Xenophobic American would believe this.

Those SEALS effectively murdered Bin laden. Not that I had any respect for him, but I think killing Bin Laden has just lowered the respect of Americans a few notches down the ladder.

Incapable of even capturing him alive, instead choosing to execute and unarmed man.

Sorry America, but this is not how it's done. You are NOT the world police. Instead you are bullies and killers - you SHOULD have captured him alive.


Yep, doesn't take long on ATS, does it.

Are you going to lead the way to have OBl declared a hero and the mascot of ATS?

Yep, the SEAL team "murdered" OBL and everyone on ATS is having a weep-fest for the loser.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Here is a fact.
If the Seal team had been tasked with bringing Mr. Osama bin Laden back to the United States alive, that is exactly what would have happened. I have zero doubts about that.

I believe the alive portion of 'Dead or Alive' was not an option for the Obama administration. Hence a very dead although unarmed OBL.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 




Osama bin Laden was shot in the head and chest

New details about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden continue to emerge.


Google+Osama shot in head and chest


He was shot in the head and chest by US Navy seals in a firefight in the compound, which had been monitored by the CIA for months.


www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I thought the very same thing and explained it in my post here:


...Conflicting accounts of events? I'm sure when you have many 'officials' chiming in everywhere, details can get confused. OK. I will go along with this...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I certainly agree that with massive stories like this and so many officials coming forward, there will be errors. No harm no foul.

BUT... with the ocean dump story and now a refusal to release any images or footage, they shot any benefit of the doubt I was willing to give and I will scrutinize their discrepancies with a fine tooth comb.

I saw it the same way as you and Aggie at first. But it's too over the top to afford them any more concessions. They need to work with us if they expect us to work with them. But they're not even throwing us a bone except for what they say.

Also, the story changes are coming at very convienent times with convenient twists. It's not a matter of 'Oh, actually *THIS* happened.' and that is all. It's a case of 'We need to say X now because Y is blowing up in our faces.'

That is what is so suspicious about it all.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Apparently people don't believe a suicide bomber organization would suicide bomb someone?


I agree, that's a major flaw in logic.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I'm wondering, too, if John Brennan is just itching to get fired....seems he is speaking out of turn, possibly.

Like a case of "I know a secret" and wanting to be the 'first' to jump up and tell everyone!! Ego....

(Sort of a similar thing seen here, when some threads are started just for that reason.....ego-driven need to let everyone know that you knew something that they didn't....)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Reply to post by Miraj
 


Here is a flaw for you…

The SEALS had a bomb sniffing dog with them.

The dog would have alerted on OBL if he had explosives on


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


Would you suicide bomb your own family?? No you wouldn't... Thank you



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoachSlamYou
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


24 highly trained very intelligent seals. "Highly Trained"

Do you really think that these seals could differ on each of their stories?? NO. They are trained for these missions. How much money do you think this mission cost? Wasting money on different facts???


Yet, they did debrief all 24 of the highly trained seals. But according to you, debriefing just one of them should have been sufficient, no?


How can you be so obtuse?


back at you



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Miraj
 


Here is a flaw for you…

The SEALS had a bomb sniffing dog with them.

The dog would have alerted on OBL if he had explosives on


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Got a source that says the dog was in the room with the seals when they confronted Bin Laden? I heard a dog was part of the mission; however, I have heard nothing about the dog being in the kill room.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Get a source that says the dog wasn't.

If they were worried about explosives, logic would dictate that they would take the dog where they thought explosives would be.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Ok so your boss tells you to shoot the guy strapped with bombs as you raid a guys house. Well maybe we should snipe him from far away, or drob bombs we got plenty of those. Military intelligence


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Get a source that says the dog wasn't.

If they were worried about explosives, logic would dictate that they would take the dog where they thought explosives would be.


In that case, logic would dictate that each seal would have his own dog...or at least each of the four 6-man teams. These seals didn't all follow in a 24-man single file line. Each was assigned different quadrants of the compound. Which team had the dog?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Who said they had a dog? The special forces guys I have known hate dogs on missions.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join