Billszone 2013 Prediction Contest winner!
The evidence is as follows:
There was a very high risk mission launched into a foreign country to do this. It involved a specially selected group of very experienced Seals who trained extensively in North Carolina. If you wanted to stage a ruse, it would have been much easier to do, with far less consequences. The results of the extraction included losing an up to then unknown piece of stealth technology, a helicopter, and very nearly an entire Seal team.
The mission risked a fair chance that the intruding strike force would have bee detected and killed.
Left behind at the scene was not only a significant of evidence, but a dead courier known to be Bin Laden's contact, two of his wives, one injured, and his children.
After very brief questioning by strike team members, these were in custody of the Pakistani government, who had a lot of motivation to claim it wasn't Bin Laden. Nothing has ever come out placing any doubt on the people turned over to that gov.
Further, the Pakistani gov has harassed individuals thought to have been a part of the US determining his whereabouts, and confirming the likelihood he was in that compound.
The CIA had months and months of direct observation of the individual they eventually concluded was Bin Laden. In fact, the chief caseworker claimed 100% certainty.
The handling of his remains was the best option. In spite of erroneous claims, officers in the Vinson task Force have authored items that claim what happened is what happened. There is no evidence of any prohibition of viewing the burial. There would simply be no reason to make it a ship "event." A great number of helicopters land on carriers at various times. Their contents are not known to most of the crew, or even viewed as interesting.
Groups sympathetic to Bin Laden have, in essence, confirmed his death, and did so in a very specific time frame.
Nobody who participated in the mission has had anything to say doubting the book you refer to. These guys are not hidden, and after this amount of time, if there was any significant disagreement, it would leak. If it was a gov publication, the excoriation of Biden would not have been included, which it was.
I'm not sure where the pictures are, but there are plenty, just as there is a bunch of dna material. The Pentagon is not the organization that would be in custody of this, the CIA would. This was a CIA mission, and the Pentagon is not the ultimate repository of evidence. That's not what it does.
Anyway, from notification of the mission, through training, through a very detailed description of the event, through the extraction and delivery of the body to the CIA, all of this is in the book you arbitrarily want to remove from consideration.
I'm only going to do this once, with maybe some follow up if you suggest something really unusual. In other words, I'm not going to watch you do something similar to what you have done regarding 9-11, which is a decade long treatise which states that you cannot understand the components of such a thing, and therefor conclude it is a scam. I'm way beyond having any interest in what you think.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.
The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.
In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.
Don't be ridiculous. The CIA found Bin Laden but I'm sure they don't tell the Navy how to do their jobs.
Just what you've been told, like I said.
Last edited by Spartacus; 11-30-2012 at 03:44 PM.
boisterous hubris, arrogance, self deception, conspiracy, mud slinging mixed with a heavy dose of self righteousness.
You know Sparty, long ago I lost interest in trying to discuss some of your views that I find particularly uninformed, so I'm not going to engage you in this thread. There are a few things that scream out for assistance though, and I would be neglecting my duty to not comment on them.
The most grossly ill informed view that you seem to have is that the Pakistanis knew this was coming.
You need to go back and reread the data from Clinton's response to the African Embassy attacks. They told the Pakistanis this was coming because of overflight considerations. The ISI, by all accounts a grossly unreliable intel partner, informed whomever would havebeen damaged, and a total waste of a lot of money ensued.
Now, and I really need you to be objective about this, do you think the US was ever going to inform the Pakistani government of a strike involving scores of US military personnel conducted in one of their cities?
We aren't talking cruise missiles or drone strikes here, which they don;t tell them anymore anyway, we are talking about risking scores of the best Special Services folks the US has.
You would have to be absolutely out of your mind to think they would ever tell them about this.
Regarding the surveillance of Bin Laden, the "Pacer," as he was called was indeed being watched for months, and there still was no surety of his identity until he was tits up with a hole in his head.
And you're trying to tell me that the CIA can watch a guy for months but it's only AFTER they shot his face off that they were sure it was OBL?
You DO realize Pakistan is a free country, don't you? Even Obama spent time wandering around there in the 80s with no problem.
So, even IF it was the real OBL and he was spotted in this house in Pakistan, it would take no more than 24 hours to confirm his identity and another 24 hours to snatch him.
At the most.
This months of surveillance and months of training to fly in and fly out is UTTERLY ABSURD, but if you want to pimp the absurd, it sure won't be the first time.
Face it pal, you're in over your head and no amount of bluster, insults and fist banging can save you.
My assertion still stands.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT OBL WAS THE GUY THEY KILLED AND TOSSED IN THE OCEAN, OTHER THAN THE WORD OF THE US GOV'T.
And I'm sure you can guess what I think that's worth.
E-Book Claims Navy SEAL Wrote OBL Book After Slight
By Josh Voorhees
Posted Monday, Sept. 3, 2012
No Easy Day, the Navy SEAL-authored account of the Osama Bin Laden raid, is set to go on sale tomorrow.
The book has already garnered large doses of media attention for a variety of reasons, including the Pentagon's threat of legal action against the author, the fact that its version of events reportedly differs from the Obama administration's official account, and because of Fox News' controversial decision to ID author Matt Bissonnette, the SEAL Team Six member who wrote the book under the pseudonym Mark Owen.
But, thanks to the new era of instant-publishing offered by the world of e-books, a group of other Special Ops veterans have managed to get out in front of the much-hyped released with their own account—of what they say is the "politics" behind the book—that claims that Bissonnette is breaking "the code of silence" honored by most commandos because of "bad blood" with his former unit.
You seem to be having a difficult time understanding what has occurred, and an even more difficult time using facts to make a valid point.
I have no doubt that the publication of this book irritated a lot of people. It did me.
"Breaking the code of silence," while really, really undesirable, in no way refutes what is in the book.
Heretofore undisputed facts are, so far anyway, undisputed, regardless of the lack of judgement indicated by publishing them.
I wish it wasn't published. I think it was a bad idea. I also know that there isn't much out there to refute it, anything I've seen, so I don't see how "irritated people," makes any point you may have.
You seem to miss the point that the US would never tell the Pakistani gov of a mission like this, with great risk, involving many US lives, and if things went bad, many, many more Pakistani lives.
By the way. Your most recent post in this thread, the one in response to me, indicates a gross ignorance in how something like this would be done, and beyond that, your claims are in conflict with the details.
I'll leave those errors for you to figure out, but you really are getting more and more pedestrian, actually juvenile, in your responses.
You are trending very badly, and I suspect that most are like me-it used to be interesting to post conflict with you.
It really isn't, anymore. It is like discussing things with a high schooler.
Last edited by gameboy; 12-02-2012 at 12:14 AM.
You clearly have not read the book, so your comments are completely dis interesting to me, and these "dissection," posts you habitually write about matters you don't seem to know anything about are also a waste of time.
I have completely lost interest in your views.