[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Common sense I would’ve thought. Bombing (drone attack - air-to-ground missile) on compound in the middle of largest military academy in Pakistan = bin Laden might survive and escape and intercontinental balistic missiles with nuclear warheads armed Pakistani military ‘not happy’ and ‘tensions increased’.[/quote]
More importantly - it’d be hard to confirm OBL’s death and you wipe out potential intelligence at the compound.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Aside from the possibility of him having useful information, I’m not sure what your basis is for saying he “deserved no trial”.
inb4 idiocy, yes I know he was a bad guy and he did bad things. He was a criminal and would have been found guilty, and put to death.[/quote]
Well, he deserved no civil trial because he had no colorable right to a trial. Certainly not a constitutional one.
And, he wasn’t simply a “criminal” - he was more than that, he was an enemy in a war.
If you’re convinced he’d be found guilty for sure, then there’d be no need for a trial in any event. Trials are supposed to present an opportunity for either side to win - if the result is a foregone conclusion, then what’s the point? It’s sham trial, a kangaroo court. It doesn’t accomplish what a trial is supposed to accomplish - it merely be a platform to speechify.
I would have been fine with a military tribunal. But most importantly, capture or kill, Obama should have not tod anyone for weeks.
Were Obama not so desperate to score political points by announcing OBL’s death so quickly, he would have been wise to take OBL alive, not tell anyone, and bleed him for intelligence. Once OBL had served his purpose, run him through a military tribunal and execute him. In the event of a kill (as it happened here), we could have stayed quiet, gathered intel and acted on it before al-Qaeda knew OBL has been compromised.
But Obama couldn’t wait to get on national television and announce OBL’s death - and while a good thing on its face, which I applaud (and Obama’s decision not to bomb the area was very smart), such a hasty announcement let other al-Qaeda get a head-start on changing their phone numbers and email addresses and skipping town before we had a chance to act on any useful intelligence from OBL’s capture/kill.
Politics, not military decisions, created that missed opportunity.[/quote]
Good post. Well said.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Common sense I would’ve thought. Bombing (drone attack - air-to-ground missile) on compound in the middle of largest military academy in Pakistan = bin Laden might survive and escape and intercontinental balistic missiles with nuclear warheads armed Pakistani military ‘not happy’ and ‘tensions increased’.[/quote]
More importantly - it’d be hard to confirm OBL’s death and you wipe out potential intelligence at the compound.
[/quote]
Also those drone attacks have gone ‘off target’ before. Can you imagine what would’ve happened had they hit any of the military buildings instead of OBL’s compound?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Common sense I would’ve thought. Bombing (drone attack - air-to-ground missile) on compound in the middle of largest military academy in Pakistan = bin Laden might survive and escape and intercontinental balistic missiles with nuclear warheads armed Pakistani military ‘not happy’ and ‘tensions increased’.[/quote]
More importantly - it’d be hard to confirm OBL’s death and you wipe out potential intelligence at the compound.
[/quote]
Also those drone attacks have gone ‘off target’ before. Can you imagine what would’ve happened had they hit any of the military buildings instead of OBL’s compound?[/quote]
True, we wouldn’t want to harm any of the Pakastani military who have been hiding Bin Laden all these years. Would we? No, no that would create quite the incident.
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
That in itself may be what gets him re-elected. People will look back on this and say “this motherfucker did his job and didn’t brag about it”.[/quote]
You didn’t see his speech then. I did these, I did that…[/quote]
I wish you could be banned for making up such blatant lies, suck on Limbaughs dick much?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201105060008
“Actually, it wasnÃ??Ã?¢??t that hard to keep count. During ObamaÃ??Ã?¢??s entire 1,400-word address, he used Ã??Ã?¢??I,Ã??Ã?¢?? Ã??Ã?¢??me,Ã??Ã?¢?? and Ã??Ã?¢??myÃ??Ã?¢?? approximately one dozen times. By contrast, ObamaÃ??Ã?¢??s address used Ã??Ã?¢??we,Ã??Ã?¢?? Ã??Ã?¢??us,Ã??Ã?¢?? and Ã??Ã?¢??ourÃ??Ã?¢?? nearly seven dozen times Sunday night.”
Go fuck yourself and anybody else who criticizes the president on such a lame and bullshit claim.
Just because you felt like he said it alot doesn’t make it fact.[/quote]
Fuck yourself. He didn’t need to say it once. Taking credit one dozen times in a short speech is way over the top.
And go fuck yourself again.[/quote]
LOL there is no point in arguing with you, and its pretty delusional for you to think that if a person is actively involved in a operation that he isn’t allowed to say “I”. How messed up is it in your head? [/quote]
He wasn’t actively involved. He sat on his ass and watched it. All he had to do was make a go/no go decision.
You are the delusional one here.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
All he had to do was make a go/no go decision.[/quote]
Which was apparently a hard task for Bush.
Let’s give Obama credit for pulling the trigger. It was his call and it was a risky move with no guarantees. Why is it hard to say that he did something that was good? There are plenty of other issues that he’s mishandled this was not one of them
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Let’s give Obama credit for pulling the trigger. It was his call and it was a risky move with no guarantees. Why is it hard to say that he did something that was good? There are plenty of other issues that he’s mishandled this was not one of them[/quote]
This. I don’t understand how some people refuse to give credit where it is due.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
why would you be suspicious if the White House officials story of the raid changed a bunch of times? It would be suspicious if everything the WH put out was 100% accurate. All they really knew prior to the raid was where Osama was, the lay-out of the compound, and that the courier was probably there, that’s it. After the raid, they gave out information as accurately and quickly as they could to the media/public. As they get more information from the raid, obviously the story will change a bit as they interview the Seals, and look over all of the data and reports.
think of that picture that showed Sec of State Clinton all worried, the Air Force general or whoever that was on the laptop, and Obama watching the raid intently in the Situation Room. you think they are just going to fabricate that picture? You think someone is directing that picture? “OK, general, you will be on the laptop, Sec Clinton, can you look a little sadder? OK now you people, get in the background and act like your busy or something.” Come the fuck on.[/quote]
Yes I do think that the picture of the Situation Room was intentionally faked. Why else would the White House officials story of the raid change a bunch of times? If they saw it live… how could they ever change the story?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Aside from the possibility of him having useful information, I’m not sure what your basis is for saying he “deserved no trial”.
inb4 idiocy, yes I know he was a bad guy and he did bad things. He was a criminal and would have been found guilty, and put to death.[/quote]
Well, he deserved no civil trial because he had no colorable right to a trial. Certainly not a constitutional one.
And, he wasn’t simply a “criminal” - he was more than that, he was an enemy in a war.
If you’re convinced he’d be found guilty for sure, then there’d be no need for a trial in any event. Trials are supposed to present an opportunity for either side to win - if the result is a foregone conclusion, then what’s the point? It’s sham trial, a kangaroo court. It doesn’t accomplish what a trial is supposed to accomplish - it merely be a platform to speechify.
I would have been fine with a military tribunal. But most importantly, capture or kill, Obama should have not tod anyone for weeks.
Were Obama not so desperate to score political points by announcing OBL’s death so quickly, he would have been wise to take OBL alive, not tell anyone, and bleed him for intelligence. Once OBL had served his purpose, run him through a military tribunal and execute him. In the event of a kill (as it happened here), we could have stayed quiet, gathered intel and acted on it before al-Qaeda knew OBL has been compromised.
But Obama couldn’t wait to get on national television and announce OBL’s death - and while a good thing on its face, which I applaud (and Obama’s decision not to bomb the area was very smart), such a hasty announcement let other al-Qaeda get a head-start on changing their phone numbers and email addresses and skipping town before we had a chance to act on any useful intelligence from OBL’s capture/kill.
Politics, not military decisions, created that missed opportunity.[/quote]
Corret, again, tb:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/bitter-seals-tell-of-killing-bert-laden/story-fn8ljzlv-1226186934623
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Aside from the possibility of him having useful information, I’m not sure what your basis is for saying he “deserved no trial”.
inb4 idiocy, yes I know he was a bad guy and he did bad things. He was a criminal and would have been found guilty, and put to death.[/quote]
Well, he deserved no civil trial because he had no colorable right to a trial. Certainly not a constitutional one.
And, he wasn’t simply a “criminal” - he was more than that, he was an enemy in a war.
If you’re convinced he’d be found guilty for sure, then there’d be no need for a trial in any event. Trials are supposed to present an opportunity for either side to win - if the result is a foregone conclusion, then what’s the point? It’s sham trial, a kangaroo court. It doesn’t accomplish what a trial is supposed to accomplish - it merely be a platform to speechify.
I would have been fine with a military tribunal. But most importantly, capture or kill, Obama should have not tod anyone for weeks.
Were Obama not so desperate to score political points by announcing OBL’s death so quickly, he would have been wise to take OBL alive, not tell anyone, and bleed him for intelligence. Once OBL had served his purpose, run him through a military tribunal and execute him. In the event of a kill (as it happened here), we could have stayed quiet, gathered intel and acted on it before al-Qaeda knew OBL has been compromised.
But Obama couldn’t wait to get on national television and announce OBL’s death - and while a good thing on its face, which I applaud (and Obama’s decision not to bomb the area was very smart), such a hasty announcement let other al-Qaeda get a head-start on changing their phone numbers and email addresses and skipping town before we had a chance to act on any useful intelligence from OBL’s capture/kill.
Politics, not military decisions, created that missed opportunity.[/quote]
Corret, again, tb:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/bitter-seals-tell-of-killing-bert-laden/story-fn8ljzlv-1226186934623[/quote]
First, could you post the link, I don’t care to sign up.
Secondly,
?
What makes you think al-Qaeda wasn’t instantly notified by–among others–(parts of) the ISI? The whole thing was “tweeted,” by some kid, wasn’t it? Sorry if this was addressed in the article.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
What makes you think al-Qaeda wasn’t instantly notified by–among others–(parts of) the ISI? The whole thing was “tweeted,” by some kid, wasn’t it? Sorry if this was addressed in the article.[/quote]
Really?
Even if this was true, why squander the chance that it might not be?
You think the President somehow was justified by suggesting he thought “aw hell, some kid has probably already tweeted that OBL is dead…no reason we can’t go ahead and announce it in a press conference.”…?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
What makes you think al-Qaeda wasn’t instantly notified by–among others–(parts of) the ISI? The whole thing was “tweeted,” by some kid, wasn’t it? Sorry if this was addressed in the article.[/quote]
Really?
Even if this was true, why squander the chance that it might not be?
You think the President somehow was justified by suggesting he thought “aw hell, some kid has probably already tweeted that OBL is dead…no reason we can’t go ahead and announce it in a press conference.”…?[/quote]
I honestly don’t understand this logic at all. AQ and the ISI are both extremely sophisticated. Even if they were not, the event was extremely obvious to anyone who cared to look.
Please explain how you think this could have been “kept secret.”
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
What makes you think al-Qaeda wasn’t instantly notified by–among others–(parts of) the ISI? The whole thing was “tweeted,” by some kid, wasn’t it? Sorry if this was addressed in the article.[/quote]
Really?
Even if this was true, why squander the chance that it might not be?
You think the President somehow was justified by suggesting he thought “aw hell, some kid has probably already tweeted that OBL is dead…no reason we can’t go ahead and announce it in a press conference.”…?[/quote]
I honestly don’t understand this logic at all. AQ and the ISI are both extremely sophisticated. Even if they were not, the event was extremely obvious to anyone who cared to look.
Please explain how you think this could have been “kept secret.”
[/quote]
Well, they might have chosen to pretend they had him alive. They would’ve had the other occupants dead or in custody, no? From there, all sorts of James Bondish stuff might’ve taken place. Maybe if they had thought him alive, they would’ve panicked and began moving assets. And with movement comes a chance to detect and/or track.
Wow, that was pretty good, if I may say so myself. I have no idea why Obama hasn’t contacted me for advice.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I honestly don’t understand this logic at all. AQ and the ISI are both extremely sophisticated. Even if they were not, the event was extremely obvious to anyone who cared to look.
Please explain how you think this could have been “kept secret.” [/quote]
I don’t necessarily think it could have been “kept secret” for an extended period of time - but there was simply no strategic reason to let the cat out of the bag prematurely. Maybe AQ gets instant notice of OBL’s death and the compromise of his computer, data, etc. Maybe AQ doesn’t. The difference in hours, even minutes can screw up valuable intelligence opportunities - so don’t hand them a gimme.
In other words, don’t do AQ’s work of getting up to date information for them. It’s strategic idiocy.
Let the information (and the misinformation) play itself out. Gather what you can in the meantime.
Instead, the president wanted to spike the football in hopes of a poll bump.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wow, that was pretty good, if I may say so myself. I have no idea why Obama hasn’t contacted me for advice.
[/quote]
I guess, for me, this is the crux of the reason I think this argument is absurd and I’m glad you have a good sense of humor about it. Obama was sitting in a room with many of the principals present. The argument that he “done wrong” rests on the assumptions that:
I apologize for being blunt, but to me, both of these assumptions are absurd, even for PWI.
If the article or anyone has evidence to the contrary, not assumptions based on their hatred of the democrats, I’m willing to look at it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
there was simply no strategic reason to let the cat out of the bag prematurely.
It’s strategic idiocy.[/quote]
Other than your hatred for the man, do you have any evidence of this whatsoever?
I didn’t talk to the head of the CIA or Defense as this was going down. I don’t know the strategic advantages or disadvantages of his act. How do you?
I assume they are doing their jobs. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wow, that was pretty good, if I may say so myself. I have no idea why Obama hasn’t contacted me for advice.
[/quote]
I guess, for me, this is the crux of the reason I think this argument is absurd and I’m glad you have a good sense of humor about it. Obama was sitting in a room with many of the principals present. The argument that he “done wrong” rests on the assumptions that:
I apologize for being blunt, but to me, both of these assumptions are absurd, even for PWI.
If the article or anyone has evidence to the contrary, not assumptions based on their hatred of the democrats, I’m willing to look at it. [/quote]
He may or may not have done it wrong with respects to this specific issue. It’s not something I’m serious about, either way. If it was wrong, well, he was wrong. It’s ultimately small potatoes compared to what else we’ve managed to get wrong during all of this. We not only knew Saddam had WMD, but where we would find them, after all.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Other than your hatred for the man, do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? [/quote]
I don’t hate him, but I don’t mince words when I think such an immature mistake was made for such political reasons.
Tell me, what strategic advantage was there in declaring OBL dead when Obama did? Other than political points, what was a good reason?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Aside from the possibility of him having useful information, I’m not sure what your basis is for saying he “deserved no trial”.
inb4 idiocy, yes I know he was a bad guy and he did bad things. He was a criminal and would have been found guilty, and put to death.[/quote]
Well, he deserved no civil trial because he had no colorable right to a trial. Certainly not a constitutional one.
And, he wasn’t simply a “criminal” - he was more than that, he was an enemy in a war.
If you’re convinced he’d be found guilty for sure, then there’d be no need for a trial in any event. Trials are supposed to present an opportunity for either side to win - if the result is a foregone conclusion, then what’s the point? It’s sham trial, a kangaroo court. It doesn’t accomplish what a trial is supposed to accomplish - it merely be a platform to speechify.
I would have been fine with a military tribunal. But most importantly, capture or kill, Obama should have not tod anyone for weeks.
Were Obama not so desperate to score political points by announcing OBL’s death so quickly, he would have been wise to take OBL alive, not tell anyone, and bleed him for intelligence. Once OBL had served his purpose, run him through a military tribunal and execute him. In the event of a kill (as it happened here), we could have stayed quiet, gathered intel and acted on it before al-Qaeda knew OBL has been compromised.
But Obama couldn’t wait to get on national television and announce OBL’s death - and while a good thing on its face, which I applaud (and Obama’s decision not to bomb the area was very smart), such a hasty announcement let other al-Qaeda get a head-start on changing their phone numbers and email addresses and skipping town before we had a chance to act on any useful intelligence from OBL’s capture/kill.
Politics, not military decisions, created that missed opportunity.[/quote]
Corret, again, tb:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/bitter-seals-tell-of-killing-bert-laden/story-fn8ljzlv-1226186934623[/quote]
First, could you post the link, I don’t care to sign up.
Secondly,
?
What makes you think al-Qaeda wasn’t instantly notified by–among others–(parts of) the ISI? The whole thing was “tweeted,” by some kid, wasn’t it? Sorry if this was addressed in the article.
[/quote]
Bitter Seals tell of killing ‘Bert’ Laden
by: Christina Lamb
From: The Sunday Times
November 06, 2011 2:44PM
Barack Obama
US President Barack Obama and members of the executive and his national security team watch live footage of the raid on al-Qa’ida terror leader Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. Picture: The White House Source: Supplied
OSAMA BIN LADEN was killed within 90 seconds of the US Navy Seals landing in his compound and not after a protracted gun battle, according to the first account by the men who carried out the raid. The operation was so clinical that only 12 bullets were fired.
The Seals have spoken out because they were angered at the version given by politicians, which they see as portraying them as cold-blooded murderers on a â??kill missionâ??. They were also shocked that President Barack Obama announced bin Laden’s death on television the same evening, rendering useless much of the intelligence they had seized.
Chuck Pfarrer, a former commander of Seal Team 6, which conducted the operation, has interviewed many of those who took part for a book, Seal Target Geronimo, to be published in the US this week.
The Seals’ own accounts differ from the White House version, which gave the impression that bin Laden was killed at the end of the operation rather than in its opening seconds. Pfarrer insists bin Laden would have been captured had he surrendered.
Free trial
â??There isn’t a politician in the world who could resist trying to take credit for getting bin Laden but it devalued the ‘intel’ and gave time for every other al-Qa’ida leader to scurry to another bolthole,â?? said Pfarrer. â??The men who did this and their valorous act deserve better. It’s a pretty shabby way to treat these guys.â??
The first hint of the mission came in January last year when the team’s commanding officer was called to a meeting at the headquarters of joint special operations command. The meeting was held in a soundproof bunker three storeys below ground with his boss, Admiral William McRaven, and a CIA officer.
They told him a walled compound in Pakistan had been under surveillance for a couple of weeks. They were certain a high-value individual was inside and needed a plan to present to the president.
It had to be someone important. â??So is this Bert or Ernie?â?? he asked. The Seals’ nicknames for bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri are a reference to two Muppets in Sesame Street, one tall and thin and the other short and fat. â??We have a voice print,â?? said the CIA officer, â??and we’re 60 per cent or 70 per cent certain it’s our guy.â?? McRaven added that a reconnaissance satellite had measured the target’s shadow. â??Over 6ft tall.â??
When McRaven added they would use Ghost Hawk helicopters, the team leader had no doubt. â??These are the most classified, sophisticated stealth helicopters ever developed,â?? said Pfarrer. â??They are kept in locked hangars and fly so quiet we call it ‘whisper mode’.â??
Over the next couple of months a plan was hatched. A mock-up of the compound was built at Tall Pines, an army facility in a national forest somewhere in the eastern US.
Four reconnaissance satellites were placed in orbit over the compound, sending back video and communications intercepts. A tall figure seen walking up and down was named â??the Pacerâ??.
Mr Obama gave the go-ahead and Seal Team 6, known as the Jedi, was deployed to Afghanistan. The White House cancelled plans to provide air cover using jet fighters, fearing this might endanger relations with Pakistan.
Sending in the Ghost Hawks without air cover was considered too risky so the Seals had to use older Stealth Hawks. A Prowler electronic warfare aircraft from the carrier USS Carl Vinson was used to jam Pakistan’s radar and create decoy targets.
Operation Neptune’s Spear was initially planned for April 30 but bad weather delayed it until May 1, a moonless night. The commandos flew on two Stealth Hawks, codenamed Razor 1 and 2, followed by two Chinooks five minutes behind, known as â??Command Birdâ?? and the â??gun platformâ??.
On board, each Seal was clad in body armour and nightvision goggles and equipped with laser targets, radios and sawn-off M4 rifles. They were expecting up to 30 people in the main house, including Bin Laden and three of his wives, two sons, Khalid and Hamza, his courier, Abu Ahmed al- Kuwaiti, four bodyguards and a number of children. At 56 minutes past midnight the compound came into sight and the code â??Palm Beachâ?? signalled three minutes to landing.
Razor 1 hovered above the main house, a three-storey building where bin Laden lived on the top floor. Twelve Seals abseiled the two metres down onto the roof and then jumped to a third-floor patio, where they kicked in the windows and entered.
The first person the Seals encountered was a terrified woman, bin Laden’s third wife, Khaira, who ran into the hall. Blinded by a searing white strobe light they shone at her, she stumbled back. A Seal grabbed her by the arm and threw her to the floor.
Bin Laden’s bedroom was along a short hall. The door opened; he popped out and then slammed the door shut. â??Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo,â?? radioed one Seal, meaning â??eyes on targetâ??.
At the same time lights came on from the floor below and bin Laden’s son Khalid came running up the stairs towards the Seals. He was shot dead.
Two Seals kicked in bin Laden’s door. The room, they later recalled, â??smelt like old clothing, like a guest bedroom in a grandmother’s houseâ??. Inside was the al-Qa’ida leader and his youngest wife, Amal, who was screaming as he pushed her in front of him.
â??No, no, don’t do this!â?? she shouted as her husband reached across the king-size bed for his AK-47 assault rifle. The Seals reacted instantly, firing in the same second. One round thudded into the mattress. The other, aimed at bin Laden’s head, grazed Amal in the calf. As his hand reached for the gun, they each fired again: one shot hit his breastbone, the other his skull, killing him instantly and blowing out the back of his head.
Meanwhile Razor 2 was heading for the guesthouse, a low, shoebox-like building, where bin Laden’s courier, Kuwaiti, and his brother lived.
As the helicopter neared, a door opened and two figures appeared, one waving an AK-47. This was Kuwaiti. In the moonless night he could see nothing and lifted his rifle, spraying bullets wildly.
He did not see the Stealth Hawk. On board someone shouted, â??Bust him!â??, and a sniper fired two shots. Kuwaiti was killed, as was the person behind him, who turned out to be his wife. Also on board were a CIA agent, a Pakistani- American who would act as interpreter, and a sniffer dog called Karo, wearing dog body armour and goggles.
Within two minutes the Seals from Razor 2 had cleared the guesthouse and removed the women and children.
They then ran to the main house and entered from the ground floor, checking the rooms. One of bin Laden’s bodyguards was waiting with his AK-47. The Seals shot him twice and he toppled over.
Five minutes into the operation the command Chinook landed outside the compound, disgorging the commanding officer and more men. They blasted through the compound wall and rushed in.
The commander made his way to the third floor, where bin Laden’s body lay on the floor face up. Photographs were taken, and the commander called on his satellite phone to headquarters with the words: â??Geronimo Echo KIAâ?? - bin Laden enemy killed in action.
â??This was the first time the White House knew he was dead and it was probably 20 minutes into the raid,â?? said Pfarrer.
A sample of bin Laden’s DNA was taken and the body was bagged. They kept his rifle. It is now mounted on the wall of their team room at their headquarters in Virginia Beach, Virginia, alongside photographs of a dozen colleagues killed in action in the past 20 years.
At this point things started to go wrong. Razor 1 took off but the top secret â??green unitâ?? that controls the electronics failed. The aircraft went into a spin and crashed tail-first into the compound.
The Seals were alarmed, thinking it had been shot down, and several rushed to the wreckage. The crew climbed out, shaken but unharmed.
The commanding officer ordered them to destroy Razor 2, to remove the green unit, and to smash the avionics. They then laid explosive charges.
They loaded bin Laden’s body onto the Chinook along with the cache of intelligence in plastic bin bags and headed toward the USS Carl Vinson. As they flew off they blew up Razor 2. The whole operation had taken 38 minutes.
The following morning White House officials announced that the helicopter had crashed as it arrived, forcing the Seals to abandon plans to enter from the roof. A photograph of the situation room showed a shocked Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, with her hand to her mouth.
Why did they get it so wrong?
What they were watching was live video but it was shot from 20,000ft by a drone circling overhead and relayed in real time to the White House and Leon Panetta, the CIA director, in Langley. The Seals were not wearing helmet cameras, and those watching in Washington had no idea what was happening inside the buildings.
â??They don’t understand our terminology, so when someone said the ‘insertion helicopter’ has crashed, they assumed it meant on entry,â?? said Pfarrer.
What infuriated the Seals, according to Pfarrer, was the description of the raid as a kill mission. â??I’ve been a Seal for 30 years and I never heard the words ‘kill mission’,â?? he said. â??It’s a Beltway (Washington insider’s) fantasy word. If it was a kill mission you don’t need Seal Team 6; you need a box of hand grenades.â??
The Sunday Times