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

The Daily Caller ^ | 11/07/2011 | Vince Coglianese

[maine-iac7]

I expect he would have been riddled with bullets, not just 2 in the head.

Our Navy Seals are not local Swat Teams who panic and spray hundreds of bullets hoping to take down one person.

They HIT what they aim for - no need for waste of lead.

_{note to self: expect more from FREEPERS than to cast - like lib-tards - uninformed dispersions. The damn lies came from DC. Yet FREEPERS are questioning the SEALS! - FR ain't what it used to be.}

[Stosh]

Geez, read the bloody post, for crying out loud:

It starts off “NOT DISPUTING THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE . . .”

My comment was not meant to “second guess” the Seals, nor do I think it DID second guess the Seals - it asked what *I think* was a legitimate question about the *description* of the event.

So maybe there’s more detail that’s available - that would be neat to know.

Or maybe the guy who wrote the piece didn’t describe it as carefully as he might - whatever.

Just because someone asks a question about the *description* of a scene doesn’t mean that person is casting aspersions on the subjects of that scenario.

I have nothing but the utmost admiration for the Seals who put their butts on the line everyday - if somebody did a poor job describing their work, or left out consequential details that their critics could use against them, I don’t think it’s unfair in the least to ask - that’s just *ask* - about it.

[Hacklehead]

“note to self: expect more from FREEPERS than to cast - like lib-tards - uninformed dispersions. The damn lies came from DC. Yet FREEPERS are questioning the SEALS! - FR ain’t what it used to be.”

Only a moron thinks that pointing out apparent inconsistencies in someone’s account is “casting dispersions”. Anyone who thinks that all Seals are beyond question is also a moron. I reserve the right to question ANYONE’s account of events when aspects don’t make sense to me. Those who dont like it can FREAK-OFF. If you don’t like FR anymore perhaps you should leave. You might want to join RAT underground where people blindly believe anything people tell them even if it makes no sense.

[jackibutterfly]

"Typically people dive across a bed chest down - ..."

Yeah, but after grabbing the gun, one usually rolls over so they can shoot, thus they are chest up. The seal probably didn't say, "he rolled over after grabbing the gun" cuz it was probably understood. The seal's version sounds perfectly fine to me.

[SoldierDad]

Like question no. 1:"How did the tallies know where they would be?" - and maybe question no.2: "Why were he Seals in a chooper that was not militarily equipped like the ones they traditionally fly in?

Question no 3: Why did they have so many special forces troops in one helo? Question no 4: Why were none of the Rangers the SEALS were sent in to "rescue" killed by the enemy?

I've not read enough of the comments yet (I started at the bottom and am working my way up) to know what it is people on this thread are all up-in-arms about. Thus, I will wait til I've read more before commenting on anything further.

[jaydee770]

All legalities aside and without caveat or qualification, it would not hurt my feelings at all if the SEALs were strictly following orders and shot the dirt-bag on sight — and anyone stupid enough to stand in the way or try to stop them — without meeting deadly force to justify it.

Why? Because dropping a couple of 500lb bombs would have been perfectly acceptable — even with collateral damage.

We definitely dropped some ordinance tonnage, it was just in 200lbs (+/-) two legged packages. So anyone who thinks the SEALs were out of control gun-slingers (I’m talking to any offended lib-tards; no-one here on FR yet), your morals are royally screwed-up, possibly beyond all repair.

Beyond all that, I want our SOC operators to be universally feared in the sense that, if you wage war against us in *any* sense of the phrase, our warriors may be unleashed to do what we have trained them to do in the deadliest fashion possible and with absolutely zero mercy for those who refuse to instantly, fully and completely surrender.

My view is that, once someone declares war against us (which Al-Q, Talis, most all militant islamic haji’s have done over & over in both spoken & written word), then they agree to have war waged against them — which means we get to do our level-best to *kill* them and anyone helping them whenever we have the opportunity until they say “we surrender” and convince us they *mean* it.

I’m rambling... I realize all the above sentiments aren’t very politically correct Guess that makes me a meanie. So be it.

[Revolting cat!]

[gandalftb]

“There was a choice that night,” Pfarrer told TheDC. “There was a choice to keep the mission secret.” America, Pfarrer explained, could have left things alone for “weeks or months"

Well, for all of his "inside" information, Pfarrer is obviously wrong here. The crash and subsequent explosive degrading of “Razor 2″ less than a mile from Pakistan's "West Point" blew the mission cover.

Here's my personal experience:

I saw the first FR post on the raid that claimed a former Rumsfeld had gone to the media claiming UBL had been killed a week earlier, nothing about a helo crash. I immediately went to my email to ask a PakMil contact what they knew. But there in my inbox was an email from that contact asking what I knew about a helo crash and degrade and he gave me the coordinates and event time.

Seeing that the event time was only about six hours earlier, I emailed another PakMil contact to see why there was a Pak helo scramble when Pak helos rarely ever fly at night (thinking the Pak's were on a raid). They told me there was no scramble, no jets, no helos, no raid, nothing from the Pak's.

That's when I realized it had to be a SEAL raid, no other operators could pull that off. I then started a new FR post citing a Pak media post about the helo crash and degrade and linking it to a supposed UBL raid by us not in Abbotabad, but in the mountains to the east, that was our military's original cover story. I stated that the original FR post was right and wrong, UBL was targeted, but not a week earlier, only six hours earlier. I posted the location of the crash in Abbotabad and Abotabad media links.

The FR mods pulled my post claiming that it was a duplicate and thus blew FR's shot at the biggest news scoop ever. The only thing I could do was start throwing comments into the original story, which I did.

Eventually other FR posters put up articles substantiating my pulled post. This is all in FR's database and in my user posting archives.

Regarding the rest of Pfarrer's story:

“An order to go in and murder someone in their house is not a lawful order,” explained Pfarrer.

Excuse me Mr. Pfarrer killing the enemy is most certainly a lawful order, armed or not.

Pfarrer bills the story as “absolutely factual.” He told TheDC that in order to protect American interests, his book is “full of names that are made up, and it is full of bases that are not quite where they really should be.” “But the timeline of my events,” he cautions, “and the manner in which it happened is 100 percent accurate. And they’ll know that.”

Pfarrer is correct in that there was a roof top assault but flat wrong on "Razor 2" tactical tasks. It always was intended to land in the courtyard and conduct a ground assault. It did crash and a backup helo was brought in joining Razor 1 in extracting the operators, including CIA that were in the mission. Contrary to what Pfarrer is saying.

That is common sense, that you would have CIA along as actionable intel ages within minutes and CIA operators and analysts are a critical link to potentially finding targets for drone strikes within hours of the raid.

[little jeremiah]

Placemark.

[jaydee770]

>>...Careful with that axe, you meanie...<<

Heh! So when the coroner shows up, I’ll ask him to “keep it light” and rule the cause of death as a “splitting-headache”. Keeps the paperwork to a minimum.