Osama take down

NIMAN

You will never please CT'ers.

If they released a photo of Osama tomorrow they'd say it was a fake anyway.

Torakx

NIMAN wrote: »

You will never please CT'ers.

If they released a photo of Osama tomorrow they'd say it was a fake anyway.

Probably! lol
We are quite skeptical around here :P

I till think that oversight(with the helicopter) is not a small one at all.
I am a layman regarding the topic of helicopters and I could have told the pilot if I was sitting beside him." erm, dont you think there will be a lashback of airflow if you drop below the line of those high walls?"
"Fook that! let me out before you do this, you crazy mofo!"
lol well something lke that anyway.
It seems to be so obvious, maybe comparable to a race car driver forgetting all about traction when cornering and going 100mph too fast.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes Jonny there will be contradictions if you can't escape the simplistic good vs evil paradigm and are incapable of considering the possible wheels within wheels in motion such as controlled opposition, limited hangout and false flag attacks.

No there are flat out contradictions.

Al Qaeda can't be USA controlled and a Fundamentalist Religious Organisation dedicated to bringing the world under Sharia law.

Sixtus

Torakx wrote: »

Probably! lol
We are quite skeptical around here :P

There were numerous conspiracy theories that the Saddam execution was a imposter or a look alike. You will not satisfy some people period. And in attempting to please these people you risk antagonising others.

I till think that oversight(with the helicopter) is not a small one at all.
I am a layman regarding the topic of helicopters and I could have told the pilot if I was sitting beside him." erm, dont you think there will be a lashback of airflow if you drop below the line of those high walls?"
"Fook that! let me out before you do this, you crazy mofo!"
lol well something lke that anyway.
It seems to be so obvious, maybe comparable to a race car driver forgetting all about traction when cornering and going 100mph too fast.

I think a experience special forces helicopter pilot would know there would be a airflow issue when landing behind a high wall. But landing behind the wall was their job. They trained for it, they knew it was risky, but evalued the risk as worth it.

Torakx

Instead of dropping some special forces down from a rope?
And maybe blowing out the courtyard wall as they leave to enter the helicopter?
I could plan alot of ways to do it im sure without risking the whole team and mission.
The real question for me is what would the motive be to sabotage the helicopter.
If I cant fnd any it will just be put down to suspicious and I dont know what that was all about.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Instead of dropping some special forces down from a rope?
And maybe blowing out the courtyard wall as they leave to enter the helicopter?
I could plan alot of ways to do it im sure without risking the whole team and mission.

No, no you couldn't

Andy-Pandy

Arpa wrote: »

The last major gaffe I know of is the SAS and the Iranian embassy...

Care to elaborate on this?

I dont think you know what you are talking about

Sixtus

Torakx wrote: »

Instead of dropping some special forces down from a rope?
And maybe blowing out the courtyard wall as they leave to enter the helicopter?
I could plan alot of ways to do it im sure without risking the whole team and mission.
The real question for me is what would the motive be to sabotage the helicopter.
If I cant fnd any it will just be put down to suspicious and I dont know what that was all about.

Well what wonderful back seat quarterbacking. Did you get your Captain's Bars in a cereal box or have you just played alot of call of duty and that's what makes you qualified to decide what was the best course of action.

What inane train of thought is fueling this logic. The pilot planed to crash the helicopter because...... The story wont be plausible.

The absolute asinine theories are just unhinged. Why would they do this?

Torakx

Sixtus wrote: »

Well what wonderful back seat quarterbacking. Did you get your Captain's Bars in a cereal box or have you just played alot of call of duty and that's what makes you qualified to decide what was the best course of action.

What inane train of thought is fueling this logic. The pilot planed to crash the helicopter because...... The story wont be plausible.

The absolute asinine theories are just unhinged. Why would they do this?

Not sure yet
I havent honestly looked into it in ages.
Im just saying this fail landing should have easily been forseen, especially by the pilot.
Maybe they have some serious issues with their structure if a pilot is not part of the planning and/or was trained to obey orders to the T even though he senses it going to go badly.
Is it the case that army recruits and trainees are thought not to think for themselves but to obey orders?
That seems too easy a cop out and a fallacy.

Im open to suggestions from others as to why this would be done purposefully.
I like to have reasons for things, and stupidity seems too easy a cop out for such an advanced and tactical unit and nation.

Stainless_Steel

Torakx wrote: »

Not sure yet
I havent honestly looked into it in ages.
Im just saying this fail landing should have easily been forseen, especially by the pilot.
Maybe they have some serious issues with their structure if a pilot is not part of the planning and/or was trained to obey orders to the T even though he senses it going to go badly.
Is it the case that army recruits and trainees are thought not to think for themselves but to obey orders?
That seems too easy a cop out and a fallacy.

Im open to suggestions from others as to why this would be done purposefully.
I like to have reasons for things, and stupidity seems too easy a cop out for such an advanced and tactical unit and nation.

You're over simplifying the chopper thing. First unforeseen was the air temp difference and the result that has on air pressure.

Secondly are you aware that the chopper was a modified stealth prototype? It had special rotor and body designs. So there is always a risk. But the mission objective meant that they took the risk.

Re your earlier comment that it is suspicious to blow the chopper up....the US did not want this tech to get into anybody's hands.

Arpa

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Care to elaborate on this?

I dont think you know what you are talking about

Yep...major gaffe. Watch the video yourself. It was a terribly executed operation. Terrorists disguised themselves as hostages....one soldier got entangled in his abseil rope. It was a mess. Yes every mission has it's variables but I just think the Osama mission wen't down worse than any in history and given it's importance it should have been the best executed plan ever.

Not the case. When you are about to storm the building of the most wanted man in the world you shouldn't make mistakes and those mistakes only rouse my suspicions. They are one of the most expertly trained units in the world and on their big day they screw it up. Doesn't add up for me. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but this doesn't make sense. What hapenned that day? I have a feeling we are not getting the full story...and I'm not surprised..it's the US Government, we couldn't believe anything they say.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Im just saying this fail landing should have easily been forseen, especially by the pilot.

The mission was risky. The easy option would have been to just fire a missile at the compound. However, they wanted concrete evidence it was Osama.

The fact that they were prepared for one or more of the choppers to have an incident should speak volumes to you. They had chinooks on stand-by. They had explosives ready to blow the downed chopper.

Hell, the pilot had the skill and foresight to nose down and roll the chopper, saving everyone on board, then to smash the equipment in the front.

All the Seals escaped alive, in a 40 minute mission, 1 mile from the Pakistani officers academy, without Pakistani knowledge or greenlight for such a mission.

Stainless_Steel

Jonny7 wrote: »

The mission was risky. The easy option would have been to just fire a missile at the compound. However, they wanted concrete evidence it was Osama.

The fact that they were prepared for one or more of the choppers to have an incident should speak volumes to you. They had chinooks on stand-by. They had explosives ready to blow the downed chopper.

Hell, the pilot had the skill and foresight to nose down and roll the chopper, saving everyone on board, then to smash the equipment in the front.

All the Seals escaped alive, in a 40 minute mission, 1 mile from the Pakistani officers academy, without Pakistani knowledge or greenlight for such a mission.

+1 on this. It was a hugely risky but very successful mission. They left with no team casualties and Osama in a body bag.

I also think its important to point out that they completed it without injuring any of the many children present.

Sixtus

Torakx wrote: »

Not sure yet
I havent honestly looked into it in ages.
Im just saying this fail landing should have easily been forseen, especially by the pilot.
Maybe they have some serious issues with their structure if a pilot is not part of the planning and/or was trained to obey orders to the T even though he senses it going to go badly.

Or just a guess here, that they were aware of the risk and the pilot thought the risk was acceptable.

It's a special forces mission to kill the leader of a terrorist network everyone took risks.

Is it the case that army recruits and trainees are thought not to think for themselves but to obey orders?
That seems too easy a cop out and a fallacy.

I'm not even sure where to start.

Im open to suggestions from others as to why this would be done purposefully.

No you're the one suggesting it wasn't an accident. YOU propose why it does done on purpose.

I like to have reasons for things, and stupidity seems too easy a cop out for such an advanced and tactical unit and nation.

Bangs head on keyboard. ITS NOT STUPIDITY STUPID. The Pilot assessed the risk, knew it was dangerous and thought there was a good enough chance to execute the operation.

Honestly....

Torakx

The others explained it better lol
Mind your head!

Sixtus

Torakx wrote: »

The others explained it better lol
Mind your head!

No they didn't. Landing a stealth helicopter (something many of us didn't realise existed until the Osama assassination) at night in the middle of a urban area is something that could only even be attempted by a expert pilot.

It was a dramatic attack, the fact that everyone walked away (including the dog) without injury, and with the loss of only a helicopter makes this a success. Your theories are idiotic.

Torakx

yes they did...

Torakx

Jonny7 wrote: »

The mission was risky. The easy option would have been to just fire a missile at the compound. However, they wanted concrete evidence it was Osama.

The fact that they were prepared for one or more of the choppers to have an incident should speak volumes to you. They had chinooks on stand-by. They had explosives ready to blow the downed chopper.

Hell, the pilot had the skill and foresight to nose down and roll the chopper, saving everyone on board, then to smash the equipment in the front.

All the Seals escaped alive, in a 40 minute mission, 1 mile from the Pakistani officers academy, without Pakistani knowledge or greenlight for such a mission.

Theres an example
I was rusty on the incident and that cleared some things up.
You may notice I thanked the post and it was for thatreason.

Fattes

Ok a few things; the heli’s are flown by pilots from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment known as the Knight Stalkers. They would probably be very aware and accustomed to the new helis they were flying that night but would also have known things can go wrong.

There is a reason they had Choppers sitting on a river bed near bye for backup and F22 on patrol at the border if required.

Osama is dead, the Seal team that executed the raid did an incredible job and there is nothing more to it.

Sixtus

Fattes wrote: »

Ok a few things; the heli’s are flown by pilots from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment known as the Knight Stalkers. They would probably be very aware and accustomed to the new helis they were flying that night but would also have known things can go wrong.

There is a reason they had Choppers sitting on a river bed near bye for backup and F22 on patrol at the border if required.

Osama is dead, the Seal team that executed the raid did an incredible job and there is nothing more to it.

Quoted for truth.

Torakx

Lets get back to the conspiracy theory anyway.
Showing Osama dead apparently would do what again?
Ok so they buried him at sea and there was images of him.
Im takig this from jonny's comment

The Bin Laden death photos according to those who've seen them are quite gruesome, large chunk of skull missing and brain exposed. Obama thought it could pose an incitement to further violence, the Bush admin would have probably released.

So will these be released and what is the reason why?
I mean for those who really want to know, not your average person who doesnt.
The Ct is im thinking, that Osama is not dead at all right?
And this is all a big manouvre t mkae it look like they took large steps just to get to him and take him out without any doubts of the result.
Its annoying the "result" has no evidence for the general public and the rest of the "result" was lost at sea.

A very convenient thing for a good CT.

Brown Bomber

Fattes wrote: »

Ok a few things; the heli’s are flown by pilots from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment known as the Knight Stalkers. They would probably be very aware and accustomed to the new helis they were flying that night but would also have known things can go wrong.

There is a reason they had Choppers sitting on a river bed near bye for backup and F22 on patrol at the border if required.

Osama is dead, the Seal team that executed the raid did an incredible job and there is nothing more to it.

Zero Dark Thirty isn't evidence.

The helicopter crashing is a red herring. It could have crashed whether they killed him or not,

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

No there are flat out contradictions.

Al Qaeda can't be USA controlled and a Fundamentalist Religious Organisation dedicated to bringing the world under Sharia law.

The Soviet-Afghan War proves you wrong - as does the USA's support of jihadi suicide bombers, organ-stealers and throat slitters in the Balkans, Syria and Libya.

Can you really not understand why an "Al Qaeda" is so valuable to US foreign policy?

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

So will these be released and what is the reason why?

Who is left to convince? Republicans have accepted it, Pakistan, Al Qaeda, Russia, even Iran.

Some press outlets are trying to apply for freedom of information to access the photo's but it's generally a bit lackluster.

The photo's might come out at some stage, but they won't assay conspriracy theorists. There's plenty of photos and footage of 911 and the moon landings when you think about it.

Stainless_Steel

Why release the photos? What would be a good reason? It would not stop CTers from doubting...as jonny points out there are photos/videos about the moon landing but that is still doubted.

And why, if they were faking the entire thing could they not just fake the photos and the video?

Brown Bomber

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Why release the photos? What would be a good reason? It would not stop CTers from doubting...as jonny points out there are photos/videos about the moon landing but that is still doubted.

It has nothing to do with "CTers". It's called scepticism. No hard evidence at all has been presented from President Change and transparency about the supposed killing of the most wanted man in the world.

Obama told the world that the CIA guy who murdered two Pakistanis in Pakistan was a diplomat. He wasn't.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It has nothing to do with "CTers". It's called scepticism. No hard evidence at all has been presented from President Change and transparency about the supposed killing of the most wanted man in the world.

Uh huh.

Which is why you are so skeptical about conspiracy theories that have little evidence what-so-ever, let alone "hard" evidence.

Selective skepticism I call it

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Uh huh.

Which is why you are so skeptical about conspiracy theories that have little evidence what-so-ever, let alone "hard" evidence.

Selective skepticism I call it

I couldn't care less what you call it. You don't know me so please don't pretend that you do.

Fattes

Zero Dark Thirty isn't evidence.

You are right it is hollywood, I take my facts from what USSOC have released, form the book no easy day and from a nice contact I have in the US Special forces.

I guess Osama is just shy and does not want to be seen on film anymore as he is so camera shy