Osama assassination vs Mogadishu raid... Hmmm something isn't right...

Ok... Here it goes...

So in 1993, the US sent in a large force of Delta, navy seals, rangers, and other special forces to capture the leader of the Somalian rebels Mohamed Farrah Aidid... The raid was severely unsuccessful due to resistance encountered. Choppers lost, soldiers killed, and mission FAILED. The city of Mogadishu was partially controlled by Aidid but most of it was friendly. They were slaughtered....

In 2011, the small team of seal team 6 go into a hostile country, Pakistan, to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. They are in a military city. They supposedly encounter little or no resistance, suffer no casualties except a downed chopper due to some kind of failure in a place which hate for the US is at its max. They are near the Afghan border where many Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other rebels are situated....

Does anyone else see a problem here? Does anyone else see any discrepancies? Is it just me or does this not make any sense?

Sound off!

About as much sense as the official Story.. Err.. Stories

None of it makes sense, or what they have been telling us that changes daily

reply to post by Magnum007


A lot of things don't seem right.....but what are you specifically referring to? The fact that this raid supposedly had no U.S. casualties and the other resulted in numerous casualties?

Pakistan isn't hostile, it's a US ally.

reply to post by NightGypsy


The things I don't find make sense are the following:

- How can they get out without a scratch in a country whos population hates the US to the core, is armed, in an area that is a cesspool of extremists who are just WAITING to kill americans or their soldiers...

- How could they succeed such a mission with a small team of seal team 6 when they failed the mission in mogadishu with delta, rangers and other seals using much more weaponry (blackhawks, hum-v's, etc...)?

It just doesn't make sense!

reply to post by Manouche


Politically it's an ally, but the people do not agree with that position.

I was kind of thinking the same thing except I used Iran as my example. I believe it was 1979 when Jimmy Carter was president. The U.S. tired to rescue the hostages that Iran was holding and they failed. It seems to me that the hostages in Iran should have been rescued easily. Our military and technology in 79 vs what Iran had in 79 should have been a slam dunk rescue.

Originally posted by Magnum007
reply to post by NightGypsy

 

The things I don't find make sense are the following:

- How can they get out without a scratch in a country whos population hates the US to the core, is armed, in an area that is a cesspool of extremists who are just WAITING to kill americans or their soldiers...

- How could they succeed such a mission with a small team of seal team 6 when they failed the mission in mogadishu with delta, rangers and other seals using much more weaponry (blackhawks, hum-v's, etc...)?

It just doesn't make sense!

The Mogadishu mission took place in daylight. Our forces were based and took off from Mogadishu airport. They heard and saw us coming. Mogadishu wasn't "friendly" by any stretch of the imagination. It was filled with Aideed's militia and the militia's of various other factions.

The Osama mission took place at approx 1:15am in the morning. under the cover of darkness, using stealth technology, and in an area that was relatively quiet and away from the militant border area. Abbottabad is actually a popular vacation and tourist area and is closer to the capitol of Islamabad than it is to the militant border region.

reply to post by Magnum007


Even so, what can they do ? I don't know if the whole population hate the US as you stated but if marines storm a neighborhood, there is little a civilian can do.
The Pakistani government probably let the operation be conducted despite their official protest. I don't see any problem with that specific point myself.

Originally posted by Manouche
Pakistan isn't hostile, it's a US ally.

yes, tell that to the two paki soldiers we shot up...

Originally posted by chefc14
I was kind of thinking the same thing except I used Iran as my example. I believe it was 1979 when Jimmy Carter was president. The U.S. tired to rescue the hostages that Iran was holding and they failed. It seems to me that the hostages in Iran should have been rescued easily. Our military and technology in 79 vs what Iran had in 79 should have been a slam dunk rescue.

Have you read anything about the rescue attempt? It sure doesn't sound like it.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by yourmaker


I was just pointing out it's different from the Somalian raid against an unquestionably hostile militia force.

Actually, the Somali raid was successful. They got Aidid.

A mission can still be successful even if casualties and extraction for all troops get screwed up.

Might be semantics, but the operators involved in the Somali raid still accomplished the mission even though the extraction got FUBAR'ed.

reply to post by bg_socalif

No I never did, I was just going by memory. It sounded like a good plan but just fell apart. Of course I still think they SHOULD have been able to pull it off. I remember them every day on the news counting the number of days the hostages were held and I remember the day the mission failed. I felt so bad that it didn't work out.

Originally posted by chefc14
reply to post by bg_socalif

 

No I never did, I was just going by memory. It sounded like a good plan but just fell apart. Of course I still think they SHOULD have been able to pull it off. I remember them every day on the news counting the number of days the hostages were held and I remember the day the mission failed. I felt so bad that it didn't work out.

I agree with you on that, i felt the same way at the time.

Originally posted by XKrossX
Actually, the Somali raid was successful. They got Aidid.

A mission can still be successful even if casualties and extraction for all troops get screwed up.

Might be semantics, but the operators involved in the Somali raid still accomplished the mission even though the extraction got FUBAR'ed.

They actually never got Aideed. They did get some high ranking members of his militia though, which was the original plan. So in actuality they did accomplish their mission as you stated. They were hoping Aideed just happened to be there. Aideed died in 1996 after being shot in a militia battle.

His son took over for him. Ironically his son is a naturalized US citizen and was in the Marines and in Somalia in 1993.

reply to post by bg_socalif


Yes sir, you are exactly correct on the mission targets and the hope of him being there.

Good memory and/or fact checking. A rare commodity nowadays.