White House Revises Account Of Bin Laden's Final Moments

Well, when will we get the truth...?
Why is every thing that come out of the US government a "miss statement"?
What will happen to the liers?
What happens to all those who defended the lies?

What happens to those who care about truth?

Reading from a script carefully crafted by the Defense Department, Carney clarified that bin Laden was not armed with a gun when he was killed, contrary to some reports that he fired back at U.S. military operatives. In addition, White House counterinsurgency adviser John Brennan was wrong when he suggested Monday that one of bin Laden’s wives was killed serving as a human shield for bin Laden during gunfire.

“In the room with bin Laden, a woman -- bin Laden’s wife -- rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed,” Carney said. Separately, another woman on the first floor was killed in crossfire, which may have led to Brennan's misstatement.

www.huffingtonpost.com... 3

reply to post by Danbones


I from the start really disputed this part of the story. I highly doubted that a man like Osama who fought for his muslim "brother's and sisters" against the west would have thrown his own wife or daughter in front of him to use as a human shield. Once again, absolute propaganda, however the ministry of truth has now ensured that everyone one will remember Osama in his last moments as a "coward". In actual fact he was unarmed, shot in the leg and then executed. Seeing as he was unarmed, he should have been sedated captured and then tried in a court of law. Unbelievable. You are correct, once the lie has been told it can't be removed, it's out there now and the truth is distorted.

By the way, last night the story ran in Australia as OSAMA THE COWARD on several news networks.

Osama was no angel, but when he could have been put on trial for the world to judge but was instead executed, it really makes my blood boil.

reply to post by Danbones

“We provided a great deal of information with great haste in order to inform you … about the operation,” Carney said during a briefing, in a concession that administration officials have erred in their details of the raid on bin Laden's compound outside of Islamabad, Pakistan. “Obviously some of the information came in piece by piece and is being reviewed and updated and elaborated on.”

The above text is from the link you provided in your opening post. Just look at what is being said here and think about how long we waited for the President to actually address the public. How long were the celebrations going on outside of the White House before we heard officially from the President that this event took place?

The information is being reviewed and updated and elaborated on. Which means they are spinning it any way they need to in order to keep up the charade. How long was it before the event took place and the public was notified about it? They are telling us that the President initiated this operation and that he was never let in on all of the details surrounding it. He's actually still getting bits and pieces though.

I sure hope that more people can see through this nonsense and acknowledge to themselves that damn, we are being screwed. Good thread here and S+F.

reply to post by Danbones


In this case would should give them credit for the corrections. In the original story Osama had a weapon and use a human shield. That situation makes the United States look real good. The govt could have easily stuck with that story but instead opted to correct it and say he was unarmed and did not use a human shield. Its not like the story is being revised to make the United States look better. To be honest IDC how he got killed, he had it coming.

Originally posted by jayjayjj50
reply to post by Danbones

 

In this case would should give them credit for the corrections. In the original story Osama had a weapon and use a human shield. That situation makes the United States look real good. The govt could have easily stuck with that story but instead opted to correct it and say he was unarmed and did not use a human shield. Its not like the story is being revised to make the United States look better. To be honest IDC how he got killed, he had it coming.

Isn't this rather normal and occurs most of the time - - when there is some kind of operation?

First details coming out - - are almost never accurate. They are corrected when accurate data is collected?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by jayjayjj50
reply to post by Danbones

 

In this case would should give them credit for the corrections. In the original story Osama had a weapon and use a human shield. That situation makes the United States look real good. The govt could have easily stuck with that story but instead opted to correct it and say he was unarmed and did not use a human shield. Its not like the story is being revised to make the United States look better. To be honest IDC how he got killed, he had it coming.

Isn't this rather normal and occurs most of the time - - when there is some kind of operation?

First details coming out - - are almost never accurate. They are corrected when accurate data is collected?

It does, in this case the official cited the "fog of war" for the misinformation. Again I would question this alot more if the changes to story were to the benefit to the United States. All the changes could do is piss off Osama supporters even more. How do you think they feel now that they know Osama was shot unarmed? They might be more determined to counter attack now, thus putting the US in greater danger.

reply to post by Annee

Isn't this rather normal and occurs most of the time - - when there is some kind of operation? First details coming out - - are almost never accurate. They are corrected when accurate data is collected?

Definitely not in this case Annee. I believe we were told that this compound was brought to the President's attention a year or more ago. In this time a detailed layout of the place would have been produced. Not only would the layout have been produced, it would have been digitized and made available to the troops who were going to do the assault.

They would have practiced this assault in virtual reality and with real world mock ups of the place for months until every move of every individual involved was as precise and perfected as the facets of a diamond. When the assualt took place there are real time cameras coupled to the equipment of the soldiers and the assault can be watched as if your watching a video game.

Not only would this kind of operation involve all of this but you would have instant playback capability from every perspective that was significant during the event.

reply to post by Annee


I don't understand how first details could be inaccurate.

1. Obama and his team were watching it streamed LIVE. There's a big visual difference to

- Obama shooting a AK47 at the seals they came in
- Obama holding a pistol and using his wife as a human shield
- Obama being unarmed and his wife lunging at the seals

So, why are there so many different versions from a room full of people watching the same thing?

2. Initially it was 1 shot to the side of the head

- This turned into a shot through the left eye
- This turned into a shot to the head, and a shot to the chest

Are they trying to get it straight for the middle eastern body they've taken from some back street and photographed as Osama?

Now, they killed him and took the body and waited how many HOURS to tell the public?
In these hours, what exactly where they doing? playing Chinese whispers? I'm pretty sure the leader of the seal team would have been communicating directly with Obama or someone in the Whitehouse walking him through exactly what happened step by step.

You dont have 10 different versions of whats going on being relayed to the president. 1 version, from 1 person period. Any changes in the story AFTERWARDS are deliberate changes.

This is all just BS and i pitty any man who falls for this.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Annee

 

I don't understand how first details could be inaccurate.

1. Obama and his team were watching it streamed LIVE. There's a big visual difference to

- Obama shooting a AK47 at the seals they came in
- Obama holding a pistol and using his wife as a human shield
- Obama being unarmed and his wife lunging at the seals

So, why are there so many different versions from a room full of people watching the same thing?

2. Initially it was 1 shot to the side of the head

- This turned into a shot through the left eye
- This turned into a shot to the head, and a shot to the chest

Are they trying to get it straight for the middle eastern body they've taken from some back street and photographed as Osama?

Now, they killed him and took the body and waited how many HOURS to tell the public?
In these hours, what exactly where they doing? playing Chinese whispers? I'm pretty sure the leader of the seal team would have been communicating directly with Obama or someone in the Whitehouse walking him through exactly what happened step by step.

You dont have 10 different versions of whats going on being relayed to the president. 1 version, from 1 person period. Any changes in the story AFTERWARDS are deliberate changes.

This is all just BS and i pitty any man who falls for this.

edit on 3-5-2011 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-5-2011 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)

What benefit is it to the United States by making these "deliberate" changes. These changes would just piss off al qaeda supporters even more. What point are you trying to make with the first part of your post. You made 2 edits but didnt change Obama to Osama.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Annee

 

I don't understand how first details could be inaccurate.

Probably because you choose not to.

Personally - - I find it rare that most "first response" reports aren't corrected later.

reply to post by jayjayjj50


Its a benefit because after they release details they realise its not going to quite fit, so they reneg and change it.

First reports are never accurate true.
If its a common patrol, there's an attack the troops all see different things.

But these were highly trained Seals.
They had video camera's on their helmets, and it was being streamed live to Obama and his cohorts.

They all see the same thing. There's no reports being written and edited, there's no coversations being changed. They see what happened, there's no room for such wide differences.

like I said,

initially it had Osama shooting an ak47 wildly refusing to be captured being shot once in the side of the head.
now, he's unarmed with a women lunging at the seals before they double tap him.

How can such different stories come out from a live stream?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by jayjayjj50

 

Its a benefit because after they release details they realise its not going to quite fit, so they reneg and change it.

According to who. Some would say the fact that Osama did not have a gun does not fit. In fact posters on here find it weird that Osama went down "without a fight". There is absolutely no benefit to the United States acknowledging/or fabricating a story that they shot an unarmed man(even if that man is a terrorist). I think they made the corrections because they know a tape will leak soon and they want the information to fit the tape. One might reply that the tape was fake or stage. My reply to that would be, if the tape is going to be stage why not make it so that Osama is in possession of a gun

Originally posted by jackflap
reply to post by Annee

 

Isn't this rather normal and occurs most of the time - - when there is some kind of operation? First details coming out - - are almost never accurate. They are corrected when accurate data is collected?

Definitely not in this case Annee.

That's only because you don't want it to be.

Its more important to you to hang onto the conspiracy.

reply to post by jayjayjj50


Assumptions are the mother of all.....

There is absolutely no benefit to the United States acknowledging/or fabricating a story that they shot an unarmed man(even if that man is a terrorist). I think they made the corrections because they know a tape will leak soon and they want the information to fit the tape.

I agree, If indeed he was in this complex and was killed he probably didnt have a gun.
So then, my question is, why were initial reports for over 24hrs suggesting he

1. Had an AK47 and was shooting it
2. Had a pistol and was holding someone hostage (human shield)

When the same group of people were watching the live streamed footage together?

See what im saying?

If indeed he had no gun, this is what everyone would have seen as it happened.
So why were the above 2 points portrayed?

Its not like the information didnt get to Obama in time for his speach, or that he was guessing, this is real time stuff. What happened should have been delivered and quality ensured within an hour (at most).

I'm not saying I know what happened, but I sure as hell know what they are telling us happened is changing by the hour, when there should be one story from the beginning if indeed it happened in the fashion they say it did.

reply to post by Annee

That's only because you don't want it to be. Its more important to you to hang onto the conspiracy.

Now this is an intriguing conclusion you have come to in reply to my post. I didn't realize that you actually knew the answer to your previous post so I tried to offer my perspective which you obviously are able to discern quite readily. Thanks for all the information you so tirelessly put into your reply to me. I understand now.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by jayjayjj50

 

Assumptions are the mother of all.....

There is absolutely no benefit to the United States acknowledging/or fabricating a story that they shot an unarmed man(even if that man is a terrorist). I think they made the corrections because they know a tape will leak soon and they want the information to fit the tape.

I agree, If indeed he was in this complex and was killed he probably didnt have a gun.
So then, my question is, why were initial reports for over 24hrs suggesting he

1. Had an AK47 and was shooting it
2. Had a pistol and was holding someone hostage (human shield)

When the same group of people were watching the live streamed footage together?

See what im saying?

If indeed he had no gun, this is what everyone would have seen as it happened.
So why were the above 2 points portrayed?

Its not like the information didnt get to Obama in time for his speach, or that he was guessing, this is real time stuff. What happened should have been delivered and quality ensured within an hour (at most).

I'm not saying I know what happened, but I sure as hell know what they are telling us happened is changing by the hour, when there should be one story from the beginning if indeed it happened in the fashion they say it did.

edit on 3-5-2011 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)

Yeah, I see what your saying. TBH i dont got a good answer. Maybe the US just wanted to look good and said that they shot an armed man who was taking a woman hostage but then realize a leak tape would contradict that story. Maybe they saw what they wanted to see on the tape. Maybe it was just an honest error in judgement. To make a bigger point, its clear we have different expectations of our govt. To expect information within the hour is asking for a lot in my opinion. They had to conduct facial analysis, DNA analysis, and most likely other test, notify party leaders, and write the speech. I assume the speech alone had to take a couple hours. While you are expecting this to be done in an hour, am shocked they did it in less than 24

The Soviets used to use the "disagree with the state is insanity" arguement..
There is the creation of confusion here

In my experience there is a difference between confusion and created confusion
created confusion is a cloaking device

Right off the hop shooting an unarmed man who never had a trial is murder...
lying on top of that is acceptable?
is that the end you want want for your sons daughters husbands and wives?
cause thats what the precident this is setting
SWAT teams for MILK crimes

So by changing the story in a way that doesn't look good on the US is saying
we can say what ever we want about you and kill you
and to bad buddy
we shot your wife daghter and children too
we are the mob and don't forget tha....
government I ment government

to me
NO TRIAL says it all
THATS FREEDOM BABY!!!!