The Optics of A Lie: Esquire Magazine and Osama bin Laden's
It is late April of 2011. You're in a top-secret meeting discussing the infiltration of Osama bin Laden's (OBL's) compound. In a few short days, the
administration's ignorant cult will hail the calls made in the this meeting as gutsy. In order to conjure this circle-jerk, an operation which will
result in OBL's capture or death must be planned. After logistics and timing have been decided, the matter of personnel must be settled. You overhear
the following exchange:
ARMY GENERAL: We'll need the finest operators we have. Experience, stealth, accuracy. Guts...living, breathing gutsiness. Ones that know what
they're doing and what the hell they're talking about. Elite.
ADMIRAL: My finest team will lead. They're max-elite. We need another member, equally as elite. Rudimentary knowledge of firearms a plus.
MARINE GENERAL: I've got a spare for you, Admiral; a danger to mankind. He knows something of firearm accessories.
You surmise that the most elite force in the world has been assembled. Then they surmise that you know too much and plot to discredit you.
Because according to a report from Esquire, the 'Shooter' who killed OBL either doesn't know how to properly express his interaction with guns, is
lying to Esquire, or is a fictional character made up by someone at Esquire who doesn't know anything about guns. Which would be consistent with
Esquire already either lying about Shooter's
or dutifully reporting
Shooter's ignorance of his own damn future, which does not bode well for anyone's credibility as we look at this bizarre statement (h/t @alimhaider,
as reported by @BillGertz):
"In that second, I shot him, two times in the forehead. Bap! Bap! The second time as he's going down. He crumpled onto the floor in front of
his bed and I hit him again, Bap! same place. That time I used my EOTech red-dot holo sight. He was dead. Not moving. His tongue was out. I
watched him take his last breaths, just a reflex breath."
Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Emphasis mine, but what precedes it is just as important. An "EOTech red-dot holo sight" sits on top of a rifle or pistol and is what you aim through.
It's also a generic phrase; there are many different models for different uses, all of which are EOTech red-dot holo sights. 'Holo' is short for
holographic. It has a very cool 'floating' reticle and it's an easy way to acquire your target while maintaining situational awareness (you can keep
both eyes open). These sights are readily available for purchase and are widely used by our troops. Put another way, they are professional-grade
optics of death that you can buy.
"That time I used my EOTech red-dot holo sight."
If Shooter was talking to other SEALs he would probably just call his sight his 'sight'. He's allegedly speaking to journalists so he may be dropping
some knowledge on them; that makes a shred of sense. More than anything, it just seems frivolous and wreaks of sponsorship. It's just so weird.
But once you put "EOTech red-dot holo sight" in context, it's more important how it was used than that it was used. The sight was used 'that time'.
That Bap. Not for those first two Baps, those were 'those times' and they were in OBL's forehead. The third Bap, That Bap, was fired into a heap of
scum on the floor. This is Shooter's version of events:
In a dark room, with an alert target using a hostage as a shield, Shooter manages two bullets into OBL's forehead.
With OBL on the floor like the stain he is, Shooter uses his state of the art precision aiming device for the first time.
You know how we humanize celebs and say 'they # like the rest of us'? Well, Navy SEALs aim like the rest of us. You don't use your "EOTech red-dot
holo sight" for the first time on your third shot, especially when those first two were headshots.
So, if Shooter is pimping for a brand, what's their slogan?
When your target already has brain vents...trust us.
It doesn't make any sense. Not to mention this misstatement is part of a report which Esquire already corrected after they admittedly
' Shooter's health
benefits. Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.
With all of this in mind, here are some possibilities:
#1) Shooter is real, he shot OBL, and he cheated on his aptitude battery because he is a moron. He's also probably why the stealth chopper crashed.
#2) Shooter is a real person and either duped Esquire by himself or is part of a government conspiracy (maybe with Esquire) to deepen intrigue
surrounding the raid.
#3) Shooter is fake, created entirely by Esquire (maybe even with government help).
Theory #3 explains these misstatements as the flaws of a lie. Esquire would be doing this for the power that goes along with the perception of having
access to OBL's shooter. It would be hard for them to do this very long without official rebuttals so political involvement would be helpful.
Flattering facts of the raid could be 'corroborated' by Shooter. They can shame Veterans Affairs in the public eye by misstating benefits. They can
use generic phrases like "EOTech red-dot holo sight" to raise awareness while their political allies seek to criminalize such things. They can
probably pull a few moves we haven't seen yet. What Theory #3 predicts we will see, though, is a politician citing OBL's shooter as having used an
EOTech and that such advanced technology does not belong on our streets.
(Editor's note: I am not suggesting that OBL is still alive or that his death was a hoax. I question Shooter's reliability as a source and, given
Esquire's health benefit hairsplitting, even Shooter's existence. I am also not suggesting that Esquire or Shooter may have created this character
specifically to target EOTech sights; it's a perk.)
edit on 15-3-2013 by obamuh because: nested the same quote within itself