Buftex Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 A story was told by US officials at press conferences, including Obama. Pieces of that story have been retracted or modified under logical and factual scrutiny. Do you really think it's coincidence that all the revisions have shown the operation in a less favorable light? No, I don't think it is a conincidence. But, unless something comes out later (and it might) that somebody was set to refute the original version of the story, I don't see why anyone would be so outraged. Mis-statements were made, and they were corrected, before anyone challanged them. Believe me, I am not trying to imply that we should trust everything we here. I think it is human nature to "fill in the blanks" to make sense of a story, when all the details aren't available. On top of that, given the nature of our delicate relationship with various countres Middle East, there is a reason to be careful about the details given. What seems righteous to us, may not be perceived so in other parts of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) No, I don't think it is a conincidence. But, unless something comes out later (and it might) that somebody was set to refute the original version of the story, I don't see why anyone would be so outraged. Mis-statements were made, and they were corrected, before anyone challanged them. Believe me, I am not trying to imply that we should trust everything we here. I think it is human nature to "fill in the blanks" to make sense of a story, when all the details aren't available. On top of that, given the nature of our delicate relationship with various countres Middle East, there is a reason to be careful about the details given. What seems righteous to us, may not be perceived so in other parts of the world. I've got to know why does everyone always need the details? Has the internet and 24/7 news got us so into other peoples business we just HAVE to know? Is it the paparazzi journalism we have today? Why are people not content with "we found Osama Bin Laden and killed him. End of story."? I think y ou people watch too many movies. Edited May 4, 2011 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I've got to know why does everyone always need the details? Has the internet and 24/7 news got us so into other peoples business we just HAVE to know? Is it the paparazzi journalism we have today? Why are people not content with "we found Osama Bin Laden and killed him. End of story."? That was enough for me, which is why I originally asked why the President would give a speech about one particular special ops mission in the middle of an ongoing war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 That was enough for me, which is why I originally asked why the President would give a speech about one particular special ops mission in the middle of an ongoing war. because he needed a "Hey look I did something right" moment. Let's see how long he can drag it out, I am assuming the details will be released slowly until around september 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 because he needed a "Hey look I did something right" moment. Let's see how long he can drag it out, I am assuming the details will be released slowly until around september 2012. When was the last time any president didn't need one of those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 When was the last time any president didn't need one of those? Bush II. Okay...he needed one, he just never had one. Semantics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I dont give a ****! He's dead and anyone that was around him had it coming to them anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 No, I don't think it is a conincidence. But, unless something comes out later (and it might) that somebody was set to refute the original version of the story, I don't see why anyone would be so outraged. Mis-statements were made, and they were corrected, before anyone challanged them. Believe me, I am not trying to imply that we should trust everything we here. I think it is human nature to "fill in the blanks" to make sense of a story, when all the details aren't available. On top of that, given the nature of our delicate relationship with various countres Middle East, there is a reason to be careful about the details given. What seems righteous to us, may not be perceived so in other parts of the world. OK Buf, I hear you, some of it was the result of a rush to get the story out, but methinks that doesn't explain the half of it. I could see the next shoe dropping on the fishy smelling discharge the story about the chopper crash. Official report is that it experienced mechanical error. I find that a little hard to believe given how much attention the condition of those choppers was paid prior to the mission. Id guess it went down due to pilot error (something they dont want to admit given the fool proof status they want the seals to be held in) or OBLs guards shot it down, another item they wouldnt want to concede. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 OK Buf, I hear you, some of it was the result of a rush to get the story out, but methinks that doesn't explain the half of it. I could see the next shoe dropping on the fishy smelling discharge the story about the chopper crash. Official report is that it experienced mechanical error. I find that a little hard to believe given how much attention the condition of those choppers was paid prior to the mission. Id guess it went down due to pilot error (something they dont want to admit given the fool proof status they want the seals to be held in) or OBLs guards shot it down, another item they wouldnt want to concede. I would be completely content with: "It went down because it could no longer go up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 OK Buf, I hear you, some of it was the result of a rush to get the story out, but methinks that doesn't explain the half of it. I could see the next shoe dropping on the fishy smelling discharge the story about the chopper crash. Official report is that it experienced mechanical error. I find that a little hard to believe given how much attention the condition of those choppers was paid prior to the mission. Id guess it went down due to pilot error (something they dont want to admit given the fool proof status they want the seals to be held in) or OBLs guards shot it down, another item they wouldnt want to concede. Even well-maintained equipment breaks. And I HIGHLY doubt they'd be resistant to admitting the guards shot it down - even the enemy does things right. That's why they had two backup choppers on the mission, you freakin' dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Even well-maintained equipment breaks. And I HIGHLY doubt they'd be resistant to admitting the guards shot it down - even the enemy does things right. That's why they had two backup choppers on the mission, you freakin' moron. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 OK Buf, I hear you, some of it was the result of a rush to get the story out, but methinks that doesn't explain the half of it. I could see the next shoe dropping on the fishy smelling discharge the story about the chopper crash. Official report is that it experienced mechanical error. I find that a little hard to believe given how much attention the condition of those choppers was paid prior to the mission. Id guess it went down due to pilot error (something they dont want to admit given the fool proof status they want the seals to be held in) or OBLs guards shot it down, another item they wouldnt want to concede. Perhaps the experienced helicopter pilots can chime in if landing two choppers in a tight high walled space at night is a routine exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Perhaps the experienced helicopter pilots can chime in if landing two choppers in a tight high walled space at night is a routine exercise. Or even the inexperience helicopter pilots. Or people who've talked to someone who once thought they saw a helicopter somewhere. Or simply people with half a brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Or even the inexperience helicopter pilots. Or people who've talked to someone who once thought they saw a helicopter somewhere. Or simply people with half a brain. Moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) Even well-maintained equipment breaks. And I HIGHLY doubt they'd be resistant to admitting the guards shot it down - even the enemy does things right. That's why they had two backup choppers on the mission, you freakin' dumbass. Think fast, what happens more often: Air Force 1 goes down, or the white house spins a load of BS? LOL ... what a maroon!! Edited May 4, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Think fast, what happens more often: Air Force 1 goes down, or the white house spins a load of BS? LOL ... what a maroon!! Only a Moron would compare Air Force One to a helicopter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Think fast, what happens more often: Air Force 1 goes down, or the white house spins a load of BS? LOL ... what a maroon!! What mechanical difficulties are you referring to? The story I read is that the helicopter got caught in the vortex created by the close proximity of the rotor & the walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 "Unnamed senior administration officials provided several details to reporters on the attack on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan, which led to bin Laden's death. Among the details: During the raid, we lost one helicopter due to mechanical failure." http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/05/details-on-helicopter-mechanical-failure-during-raid-on-bin-laden-begin-to-emerge.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Think fast, what happens more often: Air Force 1 goes down, or the white house spins a load of BS? LOL ... what a maroon!! I'll get back to you when they use both VC-25A's in a !@#$ing special forces raid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 "Unnamed senior administration officials provided several details to reporters on the attack on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan, which led to bin Laden's death. Among the details: During the raid, we lost one helicopter due to mechanical failure." http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/05/details-on-helicopter-mechanical-failure-during-raid-on-bin-laden-begin-to-emerge.html So, you've linked a site where people are speculating about things they don't know about as proof for your conclusion. Yet you're convinced that mechanical failure due to Seals' unpreparedeness brought it down. Has the word moron been applied yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts