The One Man who can End Barack Obama’s Presidency Tomorrow

I think it's too much of a coincidence. However, they weren't the right 'Seal 6' for elements/members. TPTB would sure have known the difference, making anything deliberate or even deliberately negligent, a moot point. It was just another mission for Seal 6 elements to be involved or attached to and I'm sure some were doing things regularly, all over by the sound of it.

It was a last minute quick reaction force deployment as I understand it though, so it would have caused some uproar on the support base that launched the flight, if I'm not mistaken in how I'd think these things tend to work. There seems to be a body count to support the contention that we're infiltrated as badly in this war as American forces were in Vietnam by people of mixed loyalties.

So, what are the odds an Afghani of the above nature, had NO earthly concept of the specifics of Seal 6 or how any of it really works and just heard they were launching in a quick reaction support to so and so name of a place? A quick call or whatever between places and they just know 'The Seal 6 team' is coming from such and such a direction and moving fast. That makes them the target out of ignorance as much as pure opportunity. Nothing Obamaish...but another reason to get our butts out of Afghanistan.

We seem to be getting Americans shot by Afghani 'allies' just often enough to make the counterintelligence issue something of a self evident one too.

Honestly when I read the title I though this was a thread about chuck norris...

Originally posted by muse7
Or maybe the helicopter might have been shot down by an RPG?

in a tragic accident that highlights the realities that our service men and women face every day?

A single RPGS shot down a high flying helo in transit? More unlikely than the conspiracy theory. A stinger on the other hand...now where did we hear recent about the possibility of stingers being given into the wrong hands?

reply to post by NavyDoc


A single RPG hit is all that is required.

How many were fired?

Originally posted by NavyDoc
A single RPGS shot down

How many were fired at it? A RPG can easily penetrate 10" of RHA, or 5' of sandbags so a helicopter would have no defence at all if hit.

a high flying helo in transit?

Exactly how high was it flying, and what was your source for that claim?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

A single RPG hit is all that is required.

How many were fired?

Bad form to quote myself, but it's justified I think:

"The Taliban knew which route the helicopter would take. That's the only route, so they took position on either side of the valley on mountains and as the helicopter approached, they attacked it with rockets and other modern weapons. It was brought down by multiple shots."[

- source

"The first RPG missed the helicopter, but the second RPG struck one of the blades on the aft rotor assembly and exploded," said the report.

- source

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

A single RPG hit is all that is required.

How many were fired?

This isn't COD 3. RPG isn't guided. It is a simple rocket. Very hard to hit a fast moving land vehicle with one, much less a helo. They shot hundreds of them at our helos in Somalia before catching on in a hover.

Therefore: it was a hell of a lucky shot or
They shot off a swarm of them which means they were tipped off in time to gather a large amount of guys with RPGs
Or they didn't get the kill with one.

As said above, most likely an example of how untrustworthy our allies are but you have to admit that there are a hell of a lot of coincidences coming together all at once.

Originally posted by redtic

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'm not endorsing this article .. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing.
I find that it could be an interesting discussion.

But you *want* it to be true, now don't you?? This is getting tiresome..

We all want it to be true so we can get back to some semblance of normalcy after the bums see they can be held accountable!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think it's too much of a coincidence. However, they weren't the right 'Seal 6' for elements/members. TPTB would sure have known the difference, making anything deliberate or even deliberately negligent, a moot point. It was just another mission for Seal 6 elements to be involved or attached to and I'm sure some were doing things regularly, all over by the sound of it.

It was a last minute quick reaction force deployment as I understand it though, so it would have caused some uproar on the support base that launched the flight, if I'm not mistaken in how I'd think these things tend to work. There seems to be a body count to support the contention that we're infiltrated as badly in this war as American forces were in Vietnam by people of mixed loyalties.

So, what are the odds an Afghani of the above nature, had NO earthly concept of the specifics of Seal 6 or how any of it really works and just heard they were launching in a quick reaction support to so and so name of a place? A quick call or whatever between places and they just know 'The Seal 6 team' is coming from such and such a direction and moving fast. That makes them the target out of ignorance as much as pure opportunity. Nothing Obamaish...but another reason to get our butts out of Afghanistan.

We seem to be getting Americans shot by Afghani 'allies' just often enough to make the counterintelligence issue something of a self evident one too.

edit on 23-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

How would these Taliban KNOW that it was seal team 6? if that is what you are implying.

And again i have to ask how you can be so sure that those were not the same members just because there was a press release from the military. Why would they disclose or deny who the members were that killed Osama? What business is it to the public the NAMES of the soldiers involved? Sure if they died i can see giving them a shout out.

It is possible that it WAS the same members that killed Obama and the US forces didn't want to give the Taliban a public WIN. It wouldn't be shocking to find out the White House and the people controlling these wars may not be playing on the same team. Im not implying but Im also not buying. I would take your opinion as word before i took an MSM news report or worse yet a White House press release.

reply to post by FlyersFan
I guess you never expected to be attacked like this. I hardly ever read through a thread but when I started to read the ridicule and the hate filled responses I wanted to see how bad it really was, Flyer you really pulled them out of the closets.

Anyway to stay on post I found some info on the Chinook hilo; self protection Suite combines RWR,LWR,IR-PAWS, RF Jammer, laser DIRCM, and Chaff/flares dispensing functions for effective responses to all types of threats. Doesn't seem like anything should touch this chopper unless it was "high tech"..............then where would Taliban get that kind of weapon?

Now you mix that with Biden's involvement and the fact the attackers knew when and where to attack the chopper and then the info and involvement of the Seal's dependents which almost never happens when Seal's are killed. Then to believe that Petraeus does not know anything is a little naïve...............but then again maybe Petraeus stood his post like Obama stands his.

reply to post by NavyDoc


They ambushed the helicopter and fired at it from above and het sides - they used at least 2 RPG's as well as other weapons, and it doesn't matter whether they were guided or not - as long as 1 RPG hit the chopper was in trouble - and maybe even if none hit.

Read the articles linked to in the post I made immediately before yours.

reply to post by FirstCasualty


Well, I really just recall the detailed reporting that happened right after the event. This is one of the early articles.

No member of the Bin Laden raid team was among the dead, said a Pentagon official briefed on the casualties who was not authorized to speak publicly while families still were being notified. But he said 22 of the 30 were Navy SEALs, and a significant number were members of SEAL Team 6, the unit that conducted the Bin Laden raid and is made up of just a few hundred of some of the best-trained fighters in the U.S. military.

The loss of so many represents a significant blow to a tightknit group that is involved in some of the most sensitive U.S. counter-terrorism operations around the world.

Source

That was the LA times back in 2011 and before it became a major issue. I also recall reading reports of another battle that had happened shortly before this one in another area and been strongly downplayed by the Pentagon for what had happened there. I can't find references for it at the moment, but it had helped form my opinion at the time.

How the Afghans would know is that they are sophisticated enough when they really focus on something....like getting heads up about the nature and direction of short notice helicopter deployments out of US bases out there. That's an assumption, but a safe one. Again, it's been inside US bases that our own Afghan allies have been known to shoot US troops without warning. Kinda rude, really....but radioing out the movements of a quick reaction force (Or by phone..cell, satellite..whatever) doesn't seem at all beyond their capability?

The article there suggests that wasn't the case...but that's where I don't necessarily believe the official story either.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Now how if the escorts were waived off on that flight did anyone witness any of that. Or is that just what the small team that was able to study the wreckage say...how convenient. I stand by the fact they had something a lil better than an RPG. However reading that official story line it sounds as if someone decently high up tipped them off or else they'd have been camping out for days waiting and even then how would they know it was unescorted...too much wrong for it to be right ya know.

reply to post by FlyersFan


What will come of all these scandals.......NOTHING. America and dare I say the world does not have people that will stand up and do the right thing anymore. Weakness and apathy are what rule our day to day lives. And oh ya I left out fear.



Will General Betrayus ever come forward. I believe in my heart he knows the truth but he is a pathetic coward.

Originally posted by Battleline
self protection Suite combines RWR,LWR,IR-PAWS, RF Jammer, laser DIRCM, and Chaff/flares dispensing functions for effective responses to all types of threats. Doesn't seem like anything should touch this chopper unless it was "high tech"

Just how would you expect those to stop a RPG?

reply to post by Battleline


All that tech is designed to defeat advanced MANPADS missiles, something like an FIM-92 or an Igla. The insurgent's weapon of choice, the RPG-7 is an unguided rocket that's not much different from something you'd see in WWII. The only way to avoid an unguided rocket is either to shoot it down (HELLADS-style) or physically dodge it.

And cut the garbage about an RPG not being able to hit a helicopter in flight. It's happened several times, especially when the helo in question is as ungainly and slow as a Chinook.

I thought there was something odd about him coming forward with a confession of an affair that would keep him from testifying...

so very Eyes Wide Shut

I would not hold my breath waiting for General Petreaus to say anything.He's already been shamed and anything he says will just seem like sour grapes to most of the public.All of this is just fun and games just to whip up the masses into a frenzy and yet none of you notice that the mid-term "elections" are coming up so Congress has to pretend that they are doing something.

reply to post by FlyersFan


@OP, looked at the article cited, but there wasn't much "there" there. All very speculative -- as you described it.

I forget the timeline of the more recent helicopter "accident" involving ST 6, but it did happen after Petraeus had gone to the CIA, correct? So he wouldn't necessarily know about or be involved in that incident (although it could be possible that he still did). There was, however, a previous such helicopter "accident" involving ST6 members a few months after OBL was supposedly gunned down in his home, and Petreaus was in charge of AFPAK then, wasn't he? He would know about and be ultimately responsible for that fiasco. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't more Seals die in that incident than Special Forces died in the Iranian desert in the attempted hostage rescue back in the early 80's?

I think Petraeus went down not because of his affair and love e-mails but because of the Benghazi mess. From the best I can tell, the Benghazi mission was a State Dept. cover for a CIA operation to collect-up weapons from the Libyan militants and then send to Syrian militants -- both groups having various subgroups of radical Islamic background (just for the record).

Hence it was more the CIA's job to protect that operation and not the State Dept.'s, and so it was actually the CIA that dropped the ball in protecting the "diplomatic" mission there, including Amb. Stevens, who may well have been CIA himself. That the Petreaus "sex" scandal happened relatively soon after this suggests strongly that the latter scandal was given as cover for his resignation. A sex scandal is bad enough, but a poorly run gun-running operation that went bad is a lot worse.

The fact that now with the CIA under John Brennan, the Obama administration's war on terror policy is changing and that the CIA is evidently getting out of the drone attack biz suggests that the policy under Petraeus also wasn't working out. I think is was a major mistake in the first place to place an Army general as head of the CIA. I'm not keen on military commanders becoming the head of the CIA -- and double that for Army commanders (Navy admirals strike me as being more up to the job; Navy heads of the JCoS also seem eminently more qualified and sensible than their colleagues in the other branches).

As head of the CIA, Petraeus was able to have his own private air force, something no US Army general has had since WWII or there abouts. I think this was a bad precedent and I am glad to see the CIA getting out of the killing business and getting back into the intelligence biz more . I think the four branches of the military are plenty of organizations enough to be in the killing biz.

In other words I think Petraeus has been the weak link in the chain. I know that he has been the darling of the Chicken Hawks and various other warmongering segments of the US political establishment, but I think he was just a hog made-up with lipstick. The much vaunted Surge in Iraq succeeded only in so much that they bought warlords and militants off. This never works in the long run, but can be a temporary salve, i.e. it gave a period of relative calm in which US forces could be drawn down in Iraq. Now the violence has ramped back up, albeit less than before, but only because the various ethnic and religious groups have been separated.

This same buying off the warlords and militants has also been tried in Afghanistan, with even less positive results. I think this buying-off/appeasement in Afghanistan was also Petraeus's brainchild.

I think people who feel Petraeus has fallen on his sword for others' deeds are mistaken, if not downright deluded. This is the guy who, as head of the CIA, got caught in a sex scandal through extremely naive use of the internet. He showed himself to be eminently unqualified for the position.

Buying off warlords with taxpayers' money is also no way to win conflicts. I've been singularly unimpressed by his career since the beginning of the Iraq War. His initial"successes", which gave him notoriety/exposure, were in Kurdish Iraq, where there wasn't much sectarian conflict. He looked good because he had relatively easy-street commands -- that and his army commander peers were incompetent for the most part.

So claiming Petraeus is the one person who could bring Obama down is looking through the telescope from the wrong end.

Why would you kill all these guys to cover up something that is presumed to never have actually happened?

Either the Bin Laden death story is true or false:
If True : No need to kill the Seals, because it's not a cover up.
If False: No need to kill the Seals here either, because they weren't even there in the first place to have any knowledge of something that didn't happen.

If Bin Laden really died as they claim, than the Seals died by coincidence.
If Bin Laden is a hoax, than the Seals were never there to begin with.

So actually this amounts to nothing no matter which way you boil it down.

Looks totally like a psy op is going on to me. Chase the tail around and around!