SEAL Book Raises Questions About Bin Laden's Death

hedonist

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

the distinction?

if he is killed by an american bullet it is an american victory

if he kills himself he is a martyr to his supporters.

Makes sense.

Martyrdom is overrated...dramatic.

(this comes from the daughter of a typical and yet not-so-typical Jewish mother )

Who Princess

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

the distinction?

if he is killed by an american bullet it is an american victory

if he kills himself he is a martyr to his supporters.

:? :eh:
Yeah, it's an American victory but he's still a martyr, as far as his followers are concerned.
Suicide to prevent being captured ain't acceptable to those guys. He'd be remembered as a coward.

Smellyman

To the swift boats......!

catefrances

DS1119 wrote:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120829/DA0URU6G1.html

By KIMBERLY DOZIER

(AP) This book cover image released by Dutton shows "No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission...
Full Image



WASHINGTON (AP) - A firsthand account of the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden contradicts previous accounts by administration officials, raising questions as to whether the terror mastermind presented a clear threat when SEALs first fired upon him....

did anyone ever think he presented a clear threat when the SEALs came upon him???? i just figured being bin laden was enough to get a bullet in the head.. rightly or wrongly.

DS1119

Still just wonder why the conflicting accounts? Why the huge administration sell of how it went one way, but a SEAL's account of how it went another way. Again, I will say I'll take a SEAL's word over ANY politician out there regardless of party.

catefrances

DS1119 wrote:

Still just wonder why the conflicting accounts? Why the huge administration sell of how it went one way, but a SEAL's account of how it went another way. Again, I will say I'll take a SEAL's word over ANY politician out there regardless of party.

politicians lie... all the fucking time. hence conflicting accounts on a lot of shit, not only this.

PJ_Soul

I'm surprised anyone would give a shit what the circumstances were. They should probably just be glad he's dead.

Or what? Are people suddenly bothered by the idea that the government could be hiding something about a secret military assassination mission? :roll: Do folks honestly want or expect complete disclosure from the US government about military missions so that their wartime enemies can know the real deal? I dunno... seems like a pretty unrealistic expectation to me. Probably the best story in that situation is the one that gets the enemies least riled up.

Plus, why believe the SEAL over anyone else? He may not be a politician, but that doesn't automatically make him honest or void of bullshit. Not saying he's not telling the truth of course... it's just... who cares? He seems to be the one doing a disservice to his country either way.

Prince Of Dorkness

can't be arsed to read any posts in this thread.

That Mark Owen guy is a bitter, whiney little douche.

I would have figured that a Navy SEAL wouldn't be bursting into tears that he didn't become famous or act so... well, like a crybaby asshole.

I used to respect those guys.

dimitrispearljam

catefrances wrote:

politicians lie... all the fucking time.

Cate cover all..

even flow - question mark

Whichever way he was killed at least he is finally off of the CIA payroll.

peacefrompaul

I can't wait to read it

DS1119

I still just wonder why Obama and his administration lied? Really no reason to. "Yeah we walked into the house and shot him in the head". "Yeah we walked into the house and he shot himself in the head like a coward". "Yeah we walked into the house and shot him in cold murder like he deserved". No one would care how it was done. Just wonder why the big elaborate story here of how he was using a woman as a human shield? Just blows my mind. :?


Just fucking tell shit like it is man. :fp:

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

I still just wonder why Obama and his administration lied? Really no reason to. "Yeah we walked into the house and shot him in the head". "Yeah we walked into the house and he shot himself in the head like a coward". "Yeah we walked into the house and shot him in cold murder like he deserved". No one would care how it was done. Just wonder why the big elaborate story here of how he was using a woman as a human shield? Just blows my mind. :?


Just fucking tell shit like it is man. :fp:

There could be a very good reason for them not to have said what actually happened, likely having to do with reaction from the Middle East, but who knows - there could be any number of reasons, possibly security related, possibly to protect people, possibly for diplomatic reasons, or whatevr. Or this other guy could be full of shit. Obviously, they had SOME reason to say what they said. Given that, I think it's pretty fucking shitty for this guy to come out with another story, true or not. Doesn't seem to be in the best interests of his country at all, under these circumstances.

DS1119

Honesty is the best policy.

riotgrl

Cliffy6745 wrote:

My one big questions are the differences in this story really all that big? It seems like the difference is the guys position and whether he was holding a gun. This was an assiniation mission from the start. Why does it matter?

Also as someone who has read many seal books from lutrell to Somalia, this book is clearly for a lot of money and is not going to go over well in the military community, especially with the seals. This guy must have gotten a lot of money to lose all respect of anyone he has worked with.

If this is the biggest issue then it's a non issue. I also think its pretty funny that he gave him credit for going forward with the raid since he knew nothing of the intelligence they. "I give the guy credit for doing something I know nothing about"

NPR ran a good story about this today. They interviewed Peter Bergen about the incident and he basically said that the differences in reports were not that huge. Certainly, eyewitness reports can differ which may account for some of the discrepancies.

He also made mention of the fact that it was not illegal for Owen to write the book as the Navy does not make their guys sign non-disclosure statements unlike other special ops groups. Good listen if you have time to check it out.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/30/160322677/manhunt-author-reviews-navy-seals-no-easy-day

peacefrompaul

riotgrl wrote:

He also made mention of the fact that it was not illegal for Owen to write the book as the Navy does not make their guys sign non-disclosure statements unlike other special ops groups.

Really? I wonder why that is

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

Honesty is the best policy.

Except when it comes to Republicans, right? I missed the thread you started this morning on the factual errors in Paul Ryan's speech last night. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction?

Cliffy6745

riotgrl wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

My one big questions are the differences in this story really all that big? It seems like the difference is the guys position and whether he was holding a gun. This was an assiniation mission from the start. Why does it matter?

Also as someone who has read many seal books from lutrell to Somalia, this book is clearly for a lot of money and is not going to go over well in the military community, especially with the seals. This guy must have gotten a lot of money to lose all respect of anyone he has worked with.

If this is the biggest issue then it's a non issue. I also think its pretty funny that he gave him credit for going forward with the raid since he knew nothing of the intelligence they. "I give the guy credit for doing something I know nothing about"

NPR ran a good story about this today. They interviewed Peter Bergen about the incident and he basically said that the differences in reports were not that huge. Certainly, eyewitness reports can differ which may account for some of the discrepancies.

He also made mention of the fact that it was not illegal for Owen to write the book as the Navy does not make their guys sign non-disclosure statements unlike other special ops groups. Good listen if you have time to check it out.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/30/160322677/manhunt-author-reviews-navy-seals-no-easy-day

Good stuff. I read his article on CNN this morning. Was very good. I'll check this out.

riotgrl

peacefrompaul wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

He also made mention of the fact that it was not illegal for Owen to write the book as the Navy does not make their guys sign non-disclosure statements unlike other special ops groups.

Really? I wonder why that is

Not sure - it might have been more because Bergen felt the book did not disclose anything that would be harmful to national security and would not be subject to any agreements. My statement of non-disclosure is probably incorrect - I can't recall what terminology he used exactly but I do remember that the Navy has different agreements than other special forces units in other branches.

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Honesty is the best policy.

Except when it comes to Republicans, right? I missed the thread you started this morning on the factual errors in Paul Ryan's speech last night. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction?

I didn't hear any factual errors.