SEAL Team Six Helicopter Crash: Let’s Debunk a Myth….

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
what is the original source material being used for the "debunking"

news reports ?

lol




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Well all the media reports are of the consensus that the guys on the helicopter that crashed that August did not have any of the members of DEVGRU who took part in Operation Neptune Spear.

If you read over all of my thread it is very clear that the 15 members of DEVGRU who were killed on that helicopter where not the same guys on the operation to assassinate Bin Laden.

If you can prove otherwise then please feel free to do so, if not please don’t come at me with these “all but the media would say that” nonsense.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


All media reports had a consensus that there was WMD's in Iraq....

Even tho it directly contradicted the reports of the head weapons inspector....

Just goes to show you how easily one's trust can be utilized to profit those in power.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 007Polytoks
 


Actually no they didn’t, that’s why a whole bunch of people went on a march to protest against the war.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002, Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002, Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002, Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002, Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002, Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002, Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

All these, and many more were "sure" that Saddam had WMD's.


New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, etc....

The BBC was one of the only major news outlets that actually seemed to have any skepticism about the validity of these reports. Your insinuation that people protesting against the war was somehow proof that the media didn't rally behind the WMD lie, is purely fallacious. Some media outlets apologized, and changed their story when they found that their credibility was on the line, but in the beginning most were willing accomplices.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 007Polytoks
 


Unless you can actually disprove my OP then something that some in the media said 10 years ago doesn’t really matter. There was way more than BBC who were highly sceptical of the justification for the war in Iraq, but that is not what this thread is about.

Can you in anyway prove that the guys on that helicopter where the same guys on the Bin Laden raid.

No, it’s been debunked as far as it possibly can be using online sources and logic, the only way it could be further debunked is if you personally took part in the raid.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I don't have to disprove your OP, all I did was clearly show that your use of media reports as accurate sources, is fallacious. I don't care if the people you claim were in the chopper or not, my point was simply to show the clear flaws in your assumption of authoritative truth. "Some one wrote so in a book", "The media says so", that is what your entire argument is based on, and your claims are just as unprovable as the counter argument.

Lets see this evidence that there was "was way more then the BBC" who questioned the WMD lie.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by 007Polytoks
 


I may be misinterpreting your argument here but to me it sounds like you are saying that because I can’t trust the media I can’t ever prove that my OP is accurate.

There is a problem with that argument, firstly I do trust my sources, I have not found nor has anyone presented any evidence to contract my OP and as such I am confident that it is accurate.

The other problem with your argument is that essentially you are saying that unless I have my own first-hand account of what really happened, unless I was actually on the helicopter, I can never know for sure what happened. Such arguments are just ridiculous; I only have the media and books to tell me the world is round, does that mean by your logic that it is actually flat and they are all wrong

Unless you can contribute something to actually question my OP other than “you can’t trust the media” then don’t bother responding. You have zero proof that in this situation there is any media lies. So please stop derailing my thread talking about something that happened 10 years ago, when even at that there were many in the media who were very much against the war.


this thread is not about Iraq



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Osama book by ex-SEAL is NOT accurate says Pentagon after interviewing Team Six members as military comrades turn on himAdmiral William McRaven, the head of U.S. special operations has personally re-examined the claims made by ex-SEAL Matt Bissonnette regarding Osama bin Laden's final moments

After interviewing Bissonnette's former Navy SEAL colleagues the admiral concluded that the author of 'No Easy Day' was incorrect in his account of bin Laden's death

It has been reported that those former colleagues are furious with Bissonnette and have cast him out of their tightly knit circle


www.dailymail.co.uk...

so much for "no easy day"



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


The Book “no easy day” is a personal account form one member of DEVGRU who took part in the operation, if you actually read that book he does state as much essentially saying that the account in the book is how he perceived events and that it is possible that there could be some discrepancies.

I have read many books about the exploits of Special Forces and they are only reliable in so much as a personal perception of what the individual solider on the ground saw and done. A perfect example is the story of Bravo Two Zero I have read 3 different books by the surviving members of that patrol and 2 by other authors all accounts are slightly different. The thing to remember is that they all broadly agree on the fundamental story. The same is true with this book.

The contradiction is not that big if you have read it you would notice this. In his book he claims that Bin Laden peeked his head of his room and was shot then fell back into his room and was shot again by Seals who followed him through and shot him again. In the “official” version the claim is that the Seals saw Bin laden peek out and then followed him into the room and then shot him. His book agrees with almost every other detail of the official version even in what happened in the room such as shooting one of his wife’s. In his book he also claims that when he entered the room he found Osama’s body convulsing and so he and other Seals shot him in the chest until he stopped, this is depicted in the movie “Zero Dark Thirty”. That is what really seems to have annoyed the Pentagon, that he claims Bin Laden was shot in the chest repeatedly

Another book called “the Finish” went to publish after Owen published his book however there is a footnote that discusses his account suggesting that it may be more accurate although this is not discussed in depth.

It is also true that his former colleges where against the publication of the book and rightly so in my view, although yes I have read it. Again however not unusual of course they are furious, it’s the most famous mission in history and he got his book out before them. So you can bet that in a year or two there will be another book out by another member of the Team who will probably contradict “No Easy Day”.

Again however, this thread is about the helicopter crash, it is clear that none of the members who took part in Operation Neptune Spear where on that helicopterI don’t see how the contradictions in this book in anyway refute that fact.
edit on 23-1-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Im just debunking a myth
that particular source is now officially questionable

we can move on in the debate
I would suggest with more credible sources



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


There has not actually been any poster who has posted anything other than “what if’s” so far on this thread that has disproven anything I have written in the OP.

The book is not “debunked” it just shouldn’t be read in isolation, for example it does not give a very good account of how the CIA came to locate Bin Laden. Even if it were debunked it would have not real bearing on this thread.

Now the only reason “no easy day” is referenced is because in the book the author does mention at some point that one member of the team that took part in the raid did not come from Red Squadron. It is not a source that is in anyway “vital” to my thread I only included it to provide a little bit more information. I could quite easily have left out that reference and my OP would be just as robust.

The idea that the SEALs who took part in Neptune Spear were killed off in a helicopter crash a few months later is just a myth.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


The argument is that your trust of these sources are unfounded. You're confident that it is accurate, because it supports your world view, nothing else. The media is well known to be an errand boy for the government, and all you have thus proven in this thread, is that you are willing to accept what is told to you by authority figures.

You have zero proof that the media speculation is the truth, and yet you are presenting it as if it is irrefutable.

Both sides are without a factual basis to their argument....



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by 007Polytoks
 


The whole counter argument you have towards my thread is that the media cannot be trusted, you are saying that the media is lying and that is why my thread fails because I cannot verify the validity of what the media has reported.

I would point out to you that this is what the consensus of the media points to, I have yet to see any sources that counters any of the factual information I have presented in My OP.

Furthermore if this helicopter crash was part of some kind of cover up for SEALs killed because they were involved in Neptune Spear then why only kill 15 of them, why not kill all 24. That is another problem with the conspiracy that those SEALs where killed because of their involvement with Neptune Spear, the numbers don’t add up. 24 DEVGRU guys on the ground in Neptune Spear, 15 killed on the helicopter.

So even if they media did lie about what squadron done what then the conspiracy still would not make any sense because the numbers don’t work.

I would also like to say that this has nothing to do with my “world view”, my world view is actually really quiet flexible. I truly do try to deny ignorance by only looking at the facts, I have not seen a single fact or logical argument that points to my OP being incorrect, if you have any information then again feel free to post it.

This argument you have that “all the media lie” is just flawed, for example I could point to them not lying about their reporting of MP’s expenses or reporting on natural disasters. So yes you might say the media lie, but then i can say that in other cases they do not. As such if you want to try to say my OP has failed in debunking this particular myth the only way you can actually do that is by presenting your own evidence that my sources are in fact wrong.
edit on 26-1-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


You would point out that this "is what the consensus of the media points to", just as I have pointed out that the consensus of the media pointed to there being WMD's in Iraq. How do you not see how this clearly ties into your claims? What makes it a fact, because the media said so? Because some one who was sworn to secrecy says so?

Maybe all of them weren't threatening to speak, or showing signs of dissent; anyways, taking some out is a sure-fire way to make the rest of them "feel the heat" so to speak, and not think about speaking themselves. You don't want to eliminate good soldiers if you don't have to, but sometimes a sacrifice is required to make everyone look better. Just look at the way the Army has lied about friendly fire incidents, painting them as "valiant deaths in the heat of battle with the enemy".

My argument has never once claimed that "all the media lie", simply that media is not always a good source for factual information. Some independent cross checking is required, which the media often fails to do. Your claims that the information you provided is a "fact", is completely baseless, and thus your OP that you "have debunked this theory", is totally fallacious.

One last time to clarify, as I have stated before, I do not have a stake in either of these theory's, I am simply proving that your claim of having "factual information", and having "debunked" this theory, is totally false. Since you are using sources that you can neither verify yourself, and that have been proven multiple times as having contrived to mislead the people by not providing factual information when it was presented to them.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by 007Polytoks
 


You keep repeating that in the run up to the Iraq war the media was of the consensus that there were WMD’s in Iraq. This is historically inaccurate the governments of the day claimed their where WMD’s however the media where very sceptical even more so with the Death of David Kelly and in the immediate run up to the war and after the invasion. Based on media reporting at the time people took to the streets to protest against the war, to argue the opposite is inaccurate and not the subject of this thread.

If for the purposes of this thread you are arguing that I cannot 100% validate what the consensus of the media is reporting the yes I would agree with you, there is always the small possibility that they are wrong.

That said however if we take the media reporting out of it then it still does not add up, why wait three months to kill them off, why have no members of DEVGRU came out and exposed this conspiracy and why would the Department of Defence say 15 members of DEVGRU died with 24 took part in Neptune spear. Even if we assume that yes they were killed to cover up something regarding Neptune Spear then why only kill the DEVGRU guys, what about the CIA people or the planners or the Quick Reaction force, and all the pilots involved.

You see even without media reporting it still does not make any sense logically and this combined with the consensus of the media debunks this conspiracy as far as possible without having first hand knowledge. Furthermore no one has yet disproven a single word of what has been written in my OP and this only further compounds my assertion that it is historically factual.

So unless you can actually provide a source that suggests that the guys who were on the helicopter did take part in the Operation to assassinate Bin Laden you cannot claim that my OP is in anyway incorrect.

It is a historical fact, the guys who were on that helicopter did not take part in operation Neptune spear.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Where is this proof of your claim that the media was skeptical?

The New York Times, one of the most reputable "American" news outlets, seemed to be pretty sure that these claims of WMD's were the truth... There is very few media outlets that were reporting this as anything but "fact".

Not everyone saw the body, and undoubtedly its not like they paraded Osama's corpse around for everyone to see afterwards. I personally find it unlikely that Osama Bin Laden was still alive in 2010, and this entire operation, including the deaths of these operatives; seems like little more then a distraction to make us forget about the clear evidence that Bin Laden was working with the CIA for most of his career. They waited till the perfect timing to "kill him off"; even tho the evidence shows they had plenty of chances.

Once again you are claiming its a "historical fact"; when in fact it is nothing of the kind. If you can't 100% validate that what the media is saying is true, then how can you say its a fact? Its claimed by the media, and an operative; both of whom are sworn to keep matters such as these secret under national security laws; that this happened. How that is a "historical fact" is beyond me...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 007Polytoks
 


Dude, the whole Iraq thing is just a silly argument you keep bringing up I have explained my position on this, I am not going to go through a bunch of new archives to find the evidence, I remember the run up the before the start of the war very well.

I agree I cannot be 100% certain, but all the evidence points to my OP being correct, there is not counter argument to it other than the remote possibility that somehow all of the words media, the government and DEVGRU are all lying about this. As such I can say with 95% certainty that my OP constitutes a fact, the only possible way to get rid of that other 5% doubt would to have actually been there and have first-hand knowledge of events. Yet even at that if I were to write on ATS that I did have fist hand knowledge people would rightly doubt my credentials. Also the media are not sworn to any kind of secrecy in regards to this helicopter crash.

Again there is no actually counterargument to my OP other than a “well the media could be lying” something that is just not true.

Also I don’t want to get drawn in to the debate about the assassination of Bin Laden to much because it is not the main topic of this thread, this is about the helicopter crash that occurred months before.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


So you concede that you are promoting hearsay instead of fact?

All the worlds media? Two sources; one of which is "navy news", and that is "all the worlds media"?

So if I found two sources which state that Bin Laden died in 2006 from kidney failure; one of which is from a former CIA operative, does that make it fact? Oh yes the media is sworn to secrecy whenever the government feels the need to play the "national security" card; its been done lots of times before.

There is no actual argument to begin with; since the media is an unreliable source unless independent sources can be used to cross check. The assassination of Bin Laden has everything to do with this tho, especially since there is lots of "evidence" to suggest he wasn't even still alive when this operation went down.

So really the debate here should be: did this helicopter crash even happen, and what purpose would it serve to promote such a thing. When you are dealing with entity's which are proven liars (government/CIA), one has to ultimately deduct that their story is very unlikely to be the full truth. Trusting them is like trusting a kleptomaniac to watch your house while you are on vacation.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 007Polytoks
 


Your fundamental argument is that you disagree with everything the media has to say.

You and I are at odds on this point, we are metaphorically speaking two immovable objects trying to occupy the same space, we are simply never going to agree or change our views because you have such a extreme distrust of the media and I am prepared to place my trust in what the consensus of the media and logic dictates.

I see no point in us continuing this discussion, I can respect your opinion however I believe it is wrong.

It is a historical fact that the none of 15 members of DEVGRU killed on that helicopter where involved in the Bin Laden raid, that is fundamentally what this thread comes down to and something you are unwilling to accept for whatever reason you may have.





new topics
 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join