• 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

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,065
Reaction score
33,387
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

The Daily Caller – 8 hrs ago Yahoo News
Forget whatever you think you know about the night Osama bin Laden was killed. According to a former Navy SEAL who claims to have the inside track, the mangled tales told of that historic night have only now been corrected.

“It became obvious in the weeks evolving after the mission that the story that was getting put out there was not only untrue, but it was a really ugly farce of what did happen,” said Chuck Pfarrer, author of Seal Target Geronimo: The Inside Story of the Mission to Kill Osama Bin Laden.

In an extensive interview with The Daily Caller, Pfarrer gave a detailed account of why he believes the record needed to be corrected, and why he set out to share the personal stories of the warriors who penetrated bin Laden’s long-secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

“He [bin Laden] dived across the king-size bed to get at the AKSU rifle he kept by the headboard,” wrote Pfarrer in his book. It was at that moment, a mere 90 seconds after the SEALs first set foot on the roof, that two American bullets shattered bin Laden’s chest and head, killing a man who sought violence to the very end.

But Obama’s announcement, he said, “rendered moot all of the intelligence that was gathered from the nexus of al-Qaida. The computer drives, the hard drives, the videocasettes, the CDs, the thumb drives, everything. Before that could even be looked through, the political decision was made to take credit for the operation.”

“An order to go in and murder someone in their house is not a lawful order,” explained Pfarrer, who maintains that bin Laden would have been captured had he surrendered.

Pfarrer also suggests some of the emerging claims were simply self-aggrandizing “fairy tales.”

Chuck Pfarrer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No doubt this will be an interesting read. What looks great to the layman, sometimes has bad unintended consequences.
 
Link



Chuck Pfarrer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No doubt this will be an interesting read. What looks great to the layman, sometimes has bad unintended consequences.

I don't understand this. I'd always heard that Bin Laden went for a weapon. What's the big news here? Does this SEAL think that Obama shouldn't have announced the mission after it was successful? That's not a SEAL's decision to make. What am I not understanding here?
 
I don't understand this. I'd always heard that Bin Laden went for a weapon. What's the big news here? Does this SEAL think that Obama shouldn't have announced the mission after it was successful? That's not a SEAL's decision to make. What am I not understanding here?

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?
 
Link



Chuck Pfarrer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No doubt this will be an interesting read. What looks great to the layman, sometimes has bad unintended consequences.

I'm confused, what part of the public record if Mr. Pfarrer attempting to correct? What were the unintended consequences? And I don't entirely understand this stuff about taking credit for the operation vs. the intel we apparently found there. What exactly is he trying to argue?

edit: nevermind, got a better understanding after reading the story.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand this. I'd always heard that Bin Laden went for a weapon. What's the big news here? Does this SEAL think that Obama shouldn't have announced the mission after it was successful? That's not a SEAL's decision to make. What am I not understanding here?
If you ALWAYS heard, then you haven't heard all the versions. I also heard that they ran upstairs and caught bin Laden completely off guard, unarmed, and just shot him. The whole business about the crashed helicopter is being questioned. When did this Seal debate who had the authority to revealed the story. He was criticizing the timing and facts of the stories.
 
I'm confused, what part of the public record if Mr. Pfarrer attempting to correct? What were the unintended consequences? And I don't entirely understand this stuff about taking credit for the operation vs. the intel we apparently found there. What exactly is he trying to argue?

edit: nevermind, got a better understanding after reading the story.
While you may cheer the news, al Qaeda is quickly making the intelligence gathered during the mission useless.
 
While you may cheer the news, al Qaeda is quickly making the intelligence gathered during the mission useless.

One can almost see the smile of happiness on your face as you type those words.

Sad, very very sad that the far right needs to do things like this simply because they hate, loathe and despise the elected President of the USA.
 
While you may cheer the news, al Qaeda is quickly making the intelligence gathered during the mission useless.

In what sense? I mean AQ could be trying to make that intelligence useless, regardless.
 
In what sense? I mean AQ could be trying to make that intelligence useless, regardless.
In fact, they should have made most of if not all of the intelligence useless within days of Bin Laden's death.
 
In fact, they should have made most of if not all of the intelligence useless within days of Bin Laden's death.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a hard time understanding this argument about intelligence. Whether or not OBL had been killed or captured, one came probably assume that if AQ had their wits about them, they would have done everything in their power to make most of that intel useless once they found out about the raid anyway.
 
Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a hard time understanding this argument about intelligence. Whether or not OBL had been killed or captured, one came probably assume that if AQ had their wits about them, they would have done everything in their power to make most of that intel useless once they found out about the raid anyway.

Orr.....we could of killed Bin Laden and replaced him with a double.
 
So, Side B is making captured intelligence useless to Side A after Side A captures said intelligence.

Well, DUH!!! Who the hell wouldn't try to minimize a scenario like that as much as possible?!? Sounds like standard operating procedure for anybody and everybody.
 
Orr.....we could of killed Bin Laden and replaced him with a double.

Something tells me that Bin Laden's lieutenants would have caught on at some point.
 
Something tells me that Bin Laden's lieutenants would have caught on at some point.

Hell we should just post on the internet all the data we gathered from them, because, they would have caught on at some point..
 
Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a hard time understanding this argument about intelligence. Whether or not OBL had been killed or captured, one came probably assume that if AQ had their wits about them, they would have done everything in their power to make most of that intel useless once they found out about the raid anyway.
When you don't quite know what has been exploited it is much harder than it looks. Having the president tell you what we got makes the problem neat and tidy.

But I don't buy it just quite yet. I assumed the whole point of all of the early talk was to conceal that we captured bin Laden and he gave up the details necessary to kill the next half dozen top al Qaeda leaders. That makes more sense to me. But I have an open mind.
 
Hell we should just post on the internet all the data we gathered from them, because, they would have caught on at some point..

Do you really think they could have infiltrated the compound, killed everyone inside, eliminate Bin Laden, replace him with a double, and none of the people who ad known Bin Laden for years would notice the double or all of his dead followers? The trick would work for a few days at best.
 
While you may cheer the news, al Qaeda is quickly making the intelligence gathered during the mission useless.

Which they likely would have rendered useless anyways because bin Laden was killed, and I'm sure that a downed military helicopter would have clued Al Qaeda that the U.S. or an ally was the reason for it.
 
Do you really think they could have infiltrated the compound, killed everyone inside, eliminate Bin Laden, replace him with a double, and none of the people who ad known Bin Laden for years would notice the double or all of his dead followers? The trick would work for a few days at best.

Hell, I'd be shocked if the plan worked for 15 minutes.
 
double post
 
In what sense? I mean AQ could be trying to make that intelligence useless, regardless.
The point that the author is making is that had they withheld the news of bin Laden's death for a while, it was have delayed the loss of usefulness of the intel.
 
Which they likely would have rendered useless anyways because bin Laden was killed, and I'm sure that a downed military helicopter would have clued Al Qaeda that the U.S. or an ally was the reason for it.
It's an article man, not the whole book. You'd have to read that to know what he has to say about that helicopter. Of course it would have been rendered useless eventually, but any delay is good.
 
Any delay would have been minimal, and the intelligence rendered useless within hours of the attack, long before any of it could be made of use.
 
Any delay would have been minimal, and the intelligence rendered useless within hours of the attack, long before any of it could be made of use.
Maybe I don't understand your post. But I am inclined to think that it is just simply wrong.
 
I don't really believe any of the stories, and I don't believe the general public will ever know the true story anyway. We never really knew Osama Bin Laden. We knew him through what our government told us about him - the tapes, the historical record, his family's prestige, etc. And now because he was killed, we won't get to go through the proceeding where the public gets to meet the so-called monster.

For all we know this guy was just an actor, a boogey man, to fuel a campaign. Please keep in mind, I don't actually believe that either, I'm just saying... this war is very important to some people and the way Bin Laden died and the story came out, it was all so neat and tidy.

We will never know what really happened.
 
Back
Top Bottom