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.

 

U.S. Braced for Fights With Pakistanis in Bin Laden Raid

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

U.S. Braced for Fights With Pakistanis in Bin Laden Raid


www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — President Obama insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops, senior administration and military officials said Monday.

In revealing additional details about planning for the mission, senior officials also said that two teams of specialists were on standby: One to bury Bin Laden if he was killed, and a second composed of lawyers, interrogators and translators in case he was captured alive. That team was set to meet aboard a Navy ship, most like
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
The decision to put 'boots on the ground' by the Obama administration gets more interesting as each day passes.

Obama's decision to increase the numbers of SEAL operators by sending in two additional helicopters than what was initially planned shows that he was anticipating a confrontation with either the Pakistani police, Pakistani armed forces or both.

The outcome of the mission was successful. Should the SEALs had to engage in an exchange of fire with Pakistani forces, this would've had major implications and repurcussions within the Obama administration.

While I am not a fan of Obama, I can understand his decision to do this. More than political gain, I feel like that he felt that it was his duty to follow up on the mission his predecessor started.

We can only thank God that fate was on our side.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
With all the drama surrounding Obama, birth certificates, Osama Bin Laden etc.. I'm surprised at how calm he is. I'm in England and if we were to go into Pakistan Cameron would be kissing their ass giving them donations. Obama quite the cool dude.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Mr. Obama’s decision to increase the size of the force sent into Pakistan shows that he was willing to risk a military confrontation with a close ally in order to capture or kill the leader of Al Qaeda.


The above paragraph is the third in the article. I wanted to post it in the OP but didn;t have enough space. In this paragraph, you'll see that Obama was willing to risk a "military confrontation" in order to "capture or kill" Osama bin Laden.

With this being said, I say that Obama really made a gutsy and presidential-like decision.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


I'm in the same boat; I did not vote for Obama, and I do not consider myself an overall supporter of his administration. However, I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. Obama took a calculated risk, weighed all options, and made sure our men were prepared for everything. This is further evidence of that fact.

Great post



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


Either someone behind the scene told him how to play the confrontation or he actually became a REAL president and not a puppet. Star for this mate.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


I've got to say the president possibly getting us into yet another war by being willing to initiate conflict with an 'ally' - a nuclear-armed country - to get one guy is honestly a stupid thing.

In my humble opinion..
edit on 5/9/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


wouldn't be long before Los Angeles, Seattle, and Washington would be vaporized by Pakistanis



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


Well, I guess its time to tuck our wallet back in. And by the way, we will still be in control of your nukes,
and our drones will still be in control of your skies. Hey its a win - win for us, we can play it anyway you can
deal it. So, you want to bring China into the game? Good Luck..India is ready to step up to the table.

Hey Freddie, Call the house manager will you, we need a new dealer. Pakistan is clearly not up to the job.
Hey Waitress! Drinks all around for the new players. Put it on my tab. That is, my 10 Billion Dollar Tab is
still good at this table isn't it? By the way, Tell Paki that his Kabobs don't taste quite as good as they used to.




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarsisreal
 


You're kidding, right? The Pakistani government may be inept, but it would be ridiculous to assume they are that unintelligent. The release of even one nuclear weapon on an American city would lead to total annihilation of Pakistan. They pose literally no immediate threat to our security, and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply ignorant of international relations.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
If Pakistan even came to the though of using nukes, there whole country would be a giant piece of glass



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


I've got to say the president possibly getting us into yet another war by being willing to initiate conflict with an 'ally' - a nuclear-armed country - to get one guy is honestly a stupid thing.

In my humble opinion..
edit on 5/9/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)


I beg to differ. Do you really think that the Pakistan would retaliate with nukes and risk the total annihilation of their precious capital Islamabad? They may possess nukes but they're smarter than what you're trying to make them out to be.

They're bitter enemies with India and both nations have possessed them for years now. If Pakistan were going to use nukes, they would've used them by now.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
If he was 'Prepared' why didn't they Capture him then? he was unarmed and wasn't 'Attacking'


More Lies



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Laxpla
 


And if some Americans were as literate as they are violent, their country wouldn't be such a giant piece of ass!

On topic: It seems apparent from other related threads, that the Pakistanis are playing a game of duplicity with their own people, attempting to offside the more militant nationalists. Reports that Pakistani air force were on their way to take on the Seals have not been verified, but sound good as a soundbite to the locals.

Thank fate that god was looking the other way, or it could have been messy.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by earthbell
 


To put it simply Paks lied we know it we proved it by killing him,who's next ?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by 7thcavtrooper
reply to post by earthbell
 


To put it simply Paks lied we know it we proved it by killing him,who's next ?


have you seen factual proof we actually "Killed" Him in this raid?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


The nuclear reference is meant to emphasize the additional stupidity of such an antagonistic move, especially if those in other nations were ever to over-react to the degree which we do - how would the US respond if some sent a helicopter mission of special forces into the US?

My main gripe here is claiming that allegedly getting one guy, with 55/45% odds of being correct, is worth willingly antagonizing and engaging yet another nation in hostilities when we're already caught up in...what, at least 2 others - especially when this nation is one of our recognized 'allies'.

It smacks of shortsightedness, big heads, severe misprioritization, and nationalistic tomfoolery.

I am neither amused nor impressed, and I do not feel this does anything to redeem Obama's presidency on any level - speaking only for myself, of course.

DISCLAIMER - I had the same sort of gripes with Bush v. 1.0 and 2.0, in addition to the others. I don't play favorites or party politics.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarsisreal
 


I have to agree with the other poster who responded to me, I doubt they would lash out as such, but that does nothing to decrease the stupidity of drum-beating and willingness to engage an ally to get one man.

In fact, as is popular for some to acknowledge, it may actually be better to have the devil that you know instead of the devil you don't. Osama was partially an american creation, but if we can believe this story, who might rise up in his stead, and how much less restrained might they be? The whole thing was originally sold as "We won't be safe until we get him, blah blah blah blather bloviate whatever", but now we're suddenly more at risk of retaliation. It's an example of blowback at its most obvious, and we're fools for playing into the whole thing or overreacting as long as we have.

Simple fact, based on non-disputed communications from bin Laden after 9/11, we've done everything he could want. Even if dead, he won.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join