• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Correcting the ‘fairy tale’: A SEAL’s account of how Osama bin Laden really died

presluc said:
Maybe they know maybe they didn't, no one can be sure of that.

If they know keeping infromation from them is still a plus.
If they didn't know keeping information from them is a plus plus.
In short one thing I learned when I was in the military on military tactics you never make it easy for the enemy you are at war with.

This much I know informing the enemy that their information is obsolete is not helping America's cause.:peace
Click to expand...

The information on the operation already went public, before the White House reported Bin Laden's death. The raid took place in a highly populated area where it was very difficult to hide 70 Navy Seals. Elements in the Pakistani military almost assuredly knew what had happened very quickly. Some of these elements would have would have told their contacts in Al Qaeda. At the very best, they would have a few hours.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
The information on the operation already went public, before the White House reported Bin Laden's death. The raid took place in a highly populated area where it was very difficult to hide 70 Navy Seals. Elements in the Pakistani military almost assuredly knew what had happened very quickly. Some of these elements would have would have told their contacts in Al Qaeda. At the very best, they would have a few hours.
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't buy that either, nothing is definite you have posted a lot but accuarcy is not a strong point here.
Example if in fact these elements were contacts of Al Quaeda would not they too be subject to arrest after all aiding and comfort to the enemy.

Then there's the crack about Hoover asking how would he cover up the information from Al Jazeer a media station.

The point here is not to cover up anything , but not to give anything either.
Judgeing from this article of the OP and the post on this thread the damage if there ever was any has been done.

Might as well send a cable to Al Quaeda saying change your tactics we know you already have but just in case, BAH!!!:doh
 
presluc said:
Sorry I don't buy that either, nothing is definite you have posted a lot but accuarcy is not a strong point here.
Example if in fact these elements were contacts of Al Quaeda would not they too be subject to arrest after all aiding and comfort to the enemy.
Click to expand...

Elements within the Pakistani military and intelligence services most definitely have contacts with Al Qaeda. How else could Bin Laden hide a quarter mile from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point?

The Reads You Need: The relationship between the U.S., Pakistan – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs
presluc said:
Then there's the crack about Hoover asking how would he cover up the information from Al Jazeer a media station.
Click to expand...

Hoover was notorious for covering up information in order to increase his own power and prestige.

presluc said:
The point here is not to cover up anything , but not to give anything either.
Judgeing from this article of the OP and the post on this thread the damage if there ever was any has been done.
Click to expand...

That's the point. A coverup would be impossible. The raid took place in such a densely populated area on a very well-connected target

presluc said:
Might as well send a cable to Al Quaeda saying change your tactics we know you already have but just in case, BAH!!!:doh
Click to expand...

In effect, that was done when the raid was launched.
 
Last edited:
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Elements within the Pakistani military and intelligence services most definitely have contacts with Al Qaeda. How else could Bin Laden hide a quarter mile from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point?

The Reads You Need: The relationship between the U.S., Pakistan – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs


Hoover was notorious for covering up information in order to increase his own power and prestige.



That's the point. A coverup would be impossible. The raid took place in such a densely populated area on a very well-connected target



In effect, that was done when the raid was launched.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all I never trusted Pakistan Bush did that was his error one of many.

Second of all what power and prestige can be gained by keeping your mouth shut?

Third of all you keep saying cover- up, what cover-up, if you attempt a cover-up and it doesn't work you don't give more information to what you have lost you leave the enemy at least thinking about the possibility of what they don't know


Last of all what looks good on paper in preparations of a raid does not always turn out that way.

It is the end of any military raid that must be considered , not the begining that's what all that paperwork is for.:peace
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
OK, J. Edgar Hoover, how would you cover it up when Al Jazeera was already reporting on Bin Laden's death before you were?
Click to expand...
The one term Marxist president Obama's neophyte mistake began when he felt the need to say anything. If he had to say something he should have said the bare minimum. He could have said something like, "The US undertook an operation to kill Osama bin Laden. The operation was a success."

Notice that the one term Marxist would still have take credit for the kill, something I am sure he believed was essential to his approval ratings, without giving up anything not already known. Instead he put Al Qaeda on notice that we seized a great deal of materiel we would be exploiting as fast as we could. This is the failure of a very shallow man.
 
Misterveritis said:
The one term Marxist president Obama's neophyte mistake began when he felt the need to say anything. If he had to say something he should have said the bare minimum. He could have said something like, "The US undertook an operation to kill Osama bin Laden. The operation was a success."

Notice that the one term Marxist would still have take credit for the kill, something I am sure he believed was essential to his approval ratings, without giving up anything not already known. Instead he put Al Qaeda on notice that we seized a great deal of materiel we would be exploiting as fast as we could. This is the failure of a very shallow man.
Click to expand...

Where did he take credit? I've seen a lot of praise dumped on him by the media, but when has he been smug about it? You are OK with him saying that Bin Laden was killed. What do you think would go through his head subordinates? Bin Laden was killed, and Al Jazeera is reporting on some kind of special forces raid that killed a high profile leader who was almost certainly Bin Laden. What do you think their next course of action would be?
 
presluc said:
Well, first of all I never trusted Pakistan Bush did that was his error one of many.
Click to expand...

What does Bush have to do with this?

presluc said:
Second of all what power and prestige can be gained by keeping your mouth shut?
Click to expand...

You prevent embarrassing information from getting out and you control the information that is presented in order to look good. Really, this is irrelevant.

presluc said:
Third of all you keep saying cover- up, what cover-up, if you attempt a cover-up and it doesn't work you don't give more information to what you have lost you leave the enemy at least thinking about the possibility of what they don't know
Click to expand...

Except you look like an ass. Usually, this is a dangerous reason for politicians to do anything, but the jig was already up by the time the information came out.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Where did he take credit? I've seen a lot of praise dumped on him by the media, but when has he been smug about it? You are OK with him saying that Bin Laden was killed. What do you think would go through his head subordinates? Bin Laden was killed, and Al Jazeera is reporting on some kind of special forces raid that killed a high profile leader who was almost certainly Bin Laden. What do you think their next course of action would be?
Click to expand...
I cannot get through to you. Saying that bin Laden was killed does not tell anyone something they didn't already know. Saying that you got bags and bags of his toys (thumb drives, computer hard drives, documents...) is foolish.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Where did he take credit? I've seen a lot of praise dumped on him by the media, but when has he been smug about it? You are OK with him saying that Bin Laden was killed. What do you think would go through his head subordinates? Bin Laden was killed, and Al Jazeera is reporting on some kind of special forces raid that killed a high profile leader who was almost certainly Bin Laden. What do you think their next course of action would be?
Click to expand...

Let Al Jazeera report what they want. doesn't mean the leaders of America have to conform it.
I say to Hell with subordinates , this ain't a popularity contest this is WAR.:peace
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
What does Bush have to do with this?



You prevent embarrassing information from getting out and you control the information that is presented in order to look good. Really, this is irrelevant.



Except you look like an ass. Usually, this is a dangerous reason for politicians to do anything, but the jig was already up by the time the information came out.
Click to expand...

It was you that memtioned Pakistan not I, Bush made a decision to befreind Pakistan a bad decision IMO.

Who the Hell cares if some ass sitting politician looks like in D.C. when you can save American lives in the war zone.

BOTTOM LINE. "NO INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE ENEMY IS GOOD INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE ENEMY."

All he had to say was a Military force of the United States has killed Osama Bin Laden no more.:peace
 
presluc said:
Apples and oranges.

Do you actualy think that the British after capturing the Enigma machine that broke the German code, that they would actualy broadcast over the BBC that they had captured an Enigma machine?:peace
Click to expand...

It's not 'apples and oranges' to the Brits, who were furious about the bogus movie made by Hollywood, where the U.S. captures the Enigma machine. It would be like a British movie taking credit for the Brits for the Doolittle raid.
I wasn't arguing with your conclusion, but rather with the information on which you based it.
 
Misterveritis said:
The one term Marxist president Obama's neophyte mistake began when he felt the need to say anything. If he had to say something he should have said the bare minimum. He could have said something like, "The US undertook an operation to kill Osama bin Laden. The operation was a success."

Notice that the one term Marxist would still have take credit for the kill, something I am sure he believed was essential to his approval ratings, without giving up anything not already known. Instead he put Al Qaeda on notice that we seized a great deal of materiel we would be exploiting as fast as we could. This is the failure of a very shallow man.
Click to expand...

You know, you may be an intelligent guy and your opinions may be worth something, but your childish use of the phrase 'one term Marxist' makes anything you have to say irrelevant. First of all, it has yet to proven whether or not Obama is a one term president. Given the dwarves currently running against him, my money would be on a second term. And he certainly isn't a Marxist, by any definition of the word. You don't belittle him by such childish language, you belittle yourself.
 
Wiggen said:
You know, you may be an intelligent guy and your opinions may be worth something, but your childish use of the phrase 'one term Marxist' makes anything you have to say irrelevant. First of all, it has yet to proven whether or not Obama is a one term president. Given the dwarves currently running against him, my money would be on a second term. And he certainly isn't a Marxist, by any definition of the word. You don't belittle him by such childish language, you belittle yourself.
Click to expand...
In fact I just happen to be an intelligent guy.
He will be a one term president. I predict it.
His core beliefs are clearly Marxist. He wants to redistribute income. He wants to wreck the capitalist economic system. He is a menace.
 
Wiggen said:
It's not 'apples and oranges' to the Brits, who were furious about the bogus movie made by Hollywood, where the U.S. captures the Enigma machine. It would be like a British movie taking credit for the Brits for the Doolittle raid.
I wasn't arguing with your conclusion, but rather with the information on which you based it.
Click to expand...

I can not speak for the British grunts, but When I was a grunt in Nam' I could give a **** about who took credit for helping to end the War , just as long as the war ended faster.

As far as the movies a movie called "THE LONGEST DAY" pretty much says it all.
If that doesn't do it for ya, like it or not if Russia had not faught so well in WW2 to form an eastern frong against the Germans what then?
You see many movies about the Russian resistence of WW2?:peace
 
Misterveritis said:
Saying that you got bags and bags of his toys (thumb drives, computer hard drives, documents...) is foolish.
Click to expand...

That's not saying anything that wasn't already known, either, though. It would be foolish to not assume that the raid did not yeild a ****-ton of intelligence. No self-respecting conspirator would assume anything other than "Every damned thing that bin Laden had must no wbe in the hands of American Intelligence".

Think of it this way: Let's say you have a very important secret that only you and one other person knows about... a secret so important that many people will stop at almost nothing to gain that information. Now let's imagine that the other person is captured or killed by the same people who will stop at almost nothing to gain that information.

Wouldn't your very first assumption be that the secret is now compromised?

I think only a complete idiot would not immediately assume that to be the case. Say what you will about Al Qaeda, they are usually not complete idiots. Complete lunatics, sure, but not idiots.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's not saying anything that wasn't already known, either, though. It would be foolish to not assume that the raid did not yeild a ****-ton of intelligence. No self-respecting conspirator would assume anything other than "Every damned thing that bin Laden had must no wbe in the hands of American Intelligence".

Think of it this way: Let's say you have a very important secret that only you and one other person knows about... a secret so important that many people will stop at almost nothing to gain that information. Now let's imagine that the other person is captured or killed by the same people who will stop at almost nothing to gain that information.

Wouldn't your very first assumption be that the secret is now compromised?

I think only a complete idiot would not immediately assume that to be the case. Say what you will about Al Qaeda, they are usually not complete idiots. Complete lunatics, sure, but not idiots.
Click to expand...

First of I would ask a question, Tucker
Are conspirators always right?

Second of all for your scenario about the secret.

True my first assumption would be that the secret is indeed comprimised.

However would I confirm that the secret information had been compromized by broadcasting the secret information, NO.

My philosophy as been used, tried and true.
"TAKE NOTHING FOR GRANTED; EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED".:peace
 
presluc said:
First of I would ask a question, Tucker
Are conspirators always right?
Click to expand...

Of course not.


Second of all for your scenario about the secret.

True my first assumption would be that the secret is indeed comprimised.
Click to expand...

And, if you were acting intelligently, you make your decisions based on that assumption.

However would I confirm that the secret information had been compromized by broadcasting the secret information, NO.
Click to expand...

The information is worthless the moment it is in your possession under those circumstances because Al Qaeda won't follow through on any potentially compromised plans unless they are incredibly stupid, which they aren't.

What people haven't considered here is that the information was only partially retrieved. In that case, broadcasting that you have barrels and barrels of intel cold hypothetically serves the purpose of causing al Qaeda to abandon plans that you did not have the intel for. What if Osama managed to wipe the computers before he was killed? Then making the claim that you have intel that you don't means that they have to start from square one on basically everything.
 
Tucker Case said:
Of course not.




And, if you were acting intelligently, you make your decisions based on that assumption.



The information is worthless the moment it is in your possession under those circumstances because Al Qaeda won't follow through on any potentially compromised plans unless they are incredibly stupid, which they aren't.

What people haven't considered here is that the information was only partially retrieved. In that case, broadcasting that you have barrels and barrels of intel cold hypothetically serves the purpose of causing al Qaeda to abandon plans that you did not have the intel for. What if Osama managed to wipe the computers before he was killed? Then making the claim that you have intel that you don't means that they have to start from square one on basically everything.
Click to expand...

You're right, of course not.

There's an old saying that's been around for a long time, "WHY DO THEY CALL IT MILTARY "INTELLIGENCE"?

Saying mistakes aren't made in a war is like saying the sun don't shine.

I'm not saying America should take anything for granted especialy the intelligence they have, all the intelligence they have.
However, is America to discuss all the information we have as the OP discussed this information???

I think not, if not what makes this information differant from any other information America has pretaining to Al Queada??:peace
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
I cannot get through to you. Saying that bin Laden was killed does not tell anyone something they didn't already know.

I know that we agree on this.

Saying that you got bags and bags of his toys (thumb drives, computer hard drives, documents...) is foolish.
Click to expand...

Tell me, if you were one of Bin Laden's lieutenants what would be the first thing going through your head when you learn that the leader of your organization was killed in his home by a raid? Tell me, how difficult would it be to believe that the military somehow in some way got access to files in this home? Would you think these lieutenants didn't think that the leader of their organization probably had access to a great deal of information on the organization that he is running and the plots that he is helping to organize? Seriously, how else could they think at all differently?
 
Tucker Case said:
That's not saying anything that wasn't already known, either, though. It would be foolish to not assume that the raid did not yeild a ****-ton of intelligence. No self-respecting conspirator would assume anything other than "Every damned thing that bin Laden had must no wbe in the hands of American Intelligence".

Think of it this way: Let's say you have a very important secret that only you and one other person knows about... a secret so important that many people will stop at almost nothing to gain that information. Now let's imagine that the other person is captured or killed by the same people who will stop at almost nothing to gain that information.

Wouldn't your very first assumption be that the secret is now compromised?

I think only a complete idiot would not immediately assume that to be the case. Say what you will about Al Qaeda, they are usually not complete idiots. Complete lunatics, sure, but not idiots.
Click to expand...

I sure hope you are never in charge of any operation requiring secrecy. Human nature is to disbelieve one's secrets have been compromised. History holds many examples. Amateurs feel compelled to tell all they know. I sure wish you and the one term Marxist president Obama were on the enemy side. Well, perhaps he is.
 
Misterveritis said:
I sure hope you are never in charge of any operation requiring secrecy. Human nature is to disbelieve one's secrets have been compromised. History holds many examples. Amateurs feel compelled to tell all they know. I sure wish you and the one term Marxist president Obama were on the enemy side. Well, perhaps he is.
Click to expand...

What utter nonsense. The very nature of involving one's self in secret conspiracies is to be suspicious and prudent about the fact that your information is compromised. Your life depends on it.

And let's look at the group we are talking about. The one that managed to hide Osama from US intelligence for a decade after he became the most wanted person in history.

Are you really naive enough to think that they have not been prudent all of these years? They've more than likely abandoned plans multiple times by incorrectly assuming that the information about that plan was compromised.
 
I finished reading the book 2 weeks ago. It is a hell of a read. Great book, well written. I highly recommend it.
 
soccerboy22 said:
We apparently aren't understanding the same thing then. The SEAL said bin Laden could have been captured, but he dove for a gun. Does he really think that none of the other SEALs would have shot bin Laden when he was diving for a gun, but rather let him get it and then try and capture him?
Click to expand...

They could have shot him in the legs or feet which would have made him grope for them instead of a weapon. It was intended he would die that night is what he meant.
 
coolwalker said:
They could have shot him in the legs or feet which would have made him grope for them instead of a weapon.
Click to expand...

No military in the world would ever do something like that. If you shoot, shoot to kill. That cowboy **** only exists in movies. Once he went toward the weapon, the SEALs were going to shoot with the intent to kill the threat.
 
Tucker Case said:
What utter nonsense. The very nature of involving one's self in secret conspiracies is to be suspicious and prudent about the fact that your information is compromised. Your life depends on it.

And let's look at the group we are talking about. The one that managed to hide Osama from US intelligence for a decade after he became the most wanted person in history.

Are you really naive enough to think that they have not been prudent all of these years? They've more than likely abandoned plans multiple times by incorrectly assuming that the information about that plan was compromised.
Click to expand...

Would you tend to believe that the Wehrmacht was prudent? They had numerous indications that their encipherment system was compromised. Yet each time they convinced themselves that everything was okay. The Japanese in WWII had the same experiences. They also convinced themselves that their systems were secure.

But an amateur tells all. We need to defeat him and send him on the rounds of liberal colleges making millions for his speeches. Just don't leave him in charge of anything important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom