Questions regarding the killing of Osama bin Laden
The questions regarding the raid to kill Osama bin Laden are mounting even faster than the ever-increasing number of “official” versions of what exactly happened in the raid.
Was UBL shot from behind?
Today Brennan once again changed the story. In what is no doubt a feeble attempt to respond to the many questions raised by bloggers and commentators – we were among the first to raise this question in a Facebook update - Brennan dropped the latest bombshell that the operation was planned assuming that Osama bin Laden would be wearing a suicide vest. Let’s recap the evolution of the official story.
Killing Osama bin Laden is something that will be analyzed for generations to come
1) Initially the White House told us that Osama bin Laden offered armed resistance and therefore was shot in the head.
2) We were also told that he used one of his wives as a human shield.
The first revision gave us the following:
3) Osama bin Laden was unarmed but resisted apprehension.
4) His wife attacked the Navy seal operator and was shot and killed – later that was amended to “shot in the leg”.
Did Obama botch the mission to kill Osama bin Laden
The questions rose up like wildfire and we were among the first raise them.
Question 1) If Osama bin Laden was unarmed why was he shot in the head instead of being apprehended?
After all if the SEAL operator (or better yet operators because we all know that Navy SEALs operate in teams of two – in fact one of their mottos is “two is one, one is none”) had time to shoot the wife in the leg and if Osama was unarmed, then why can’t two Navy SEAL operators, especially those in the super elite DEVGRU, capture a man in his late 50′s reportedly suffering from kidney disease.
To address these latest questions Obama’s White House through their mouthpiece Brennan came up with yet another version!
5) We are now told that the operators suspected that Osama bin Laden would be wearing a suicide vest.
It’s obvious that this is a desperate attempt on Obama’s part to try to doctor the story to fit in their previous versions of what occurred. The thing is that even this makes no sense. The operators who were in that room would have been able to immediately realize that, had Osama been wearing a suicide vest then, while the operators or operator was busy with the wife, Osama would have had enough time to blow himself up. As some of the best trained operators in the world this would’ve been something they trained for and they would instantly recognize that there was no suicide vest. Further, the fact that he or they had time to actually decide to shoot the wife in the leg instead of instinctively shooting her in the head shows that there might have been a very small amount of time in which to realize that Osama bin Laden was not about to send himself to the land of the 72 virgins. To an operator with finely honed skills that would have been enough time. In fact, if as the White House says there was only one operator in that room, then obviously the entire sequence would have taken more time and the operator would realize that there was no suicide vest.
Update we are now told that the assaulters also had one or more bomb sniffing dogs with them. This too would seem to contradict the explanation that the operator shot Osama bin Laden because he thought the latter might be wearing an explosive vest.
Question2) Osama’s exit wounds.
Those who claim to have seen postmortem pictures of Osama bin Laden are all telling us how graphic they are. Almost everyone seems to describe how his left eye is gone and that brain matter is actually visible from the front.
If these reports are accurate this would indicate that Osama bin Laden was shot in the back. The cranial damage that is described is consistent with exit wounds. If the exit wound is in the back, the frontal pictures would just show a small hole. The back of the head is where the damage would be evident. If you’re shot from behind, then obviously the damage would be in the front. It’s very possible that those who saw the pictures misinterpreted them, but that’s all the more reason to show us the pictures.
Question 3) Where was the police?
Let’s change the subject now and take a look at the raid itself. Landing two helicopters in the middle of what by Pakistan standards is a posh, quiet residential neighborhood would certainly have brought out the police. Just as residents and neighbors were able to tweet, actually live tweet the raid because their attention was drawn to the landing helicopters, so would the police notice two helicopters landing.
Question 4) Where were the cadets?
Furthermore, we keep hearing about how close to the Pakistani Military Academy Osama bin Laden’s compound really was – many of the imbeciles on television are actually comparing it to West Point. Now understand that at any military Academy on this planet you have cadets pulling guard duty. At a big school like that there would be quite a few cadets on guard duty patrolling the grounds both inside and outside the barracks etc. Guard guard duty is the most basic part of military training. None of the cadets heard the helicopters landing?
Question 5) Where were the Iraqi soldiers? We are told that in the same town there is a military base housing two regiments of the Iraqi army. It stands to reason that on that base as on every military base on this planet there are soldiers walking guard duty at all times. How could they not have heard the landing helicopters?
That some civilian neighbors were awakened by the noise and noticed the helicopters while a whole bunch of young cadets pulling guard duty and the soldiers on guard at the base noticed nothing is something that requires suspension of disbelief.
Question 6) Where was the blocking force?
On many of the so-called reenactments that we see on news programs we are shown that the helicopters landed inside the compound. However, when we see footage of the burning helicopter we see that it seems to be outside the walls of the compound. Footage taken later on during the day shows the remains of the helicopter surrounded by some sort of fence, pressumably put there by the Iraqi police, and it too looks to be on the outside of the compound. It is difficult to believe that the military would land a helicopter in the open like that without a blocking force to provide perimeter security. We are told nothing of this force. That in itself is not a bad thing. Operational security dictates that not all details should be shared with the public. Nonetheless, it is a question that has to be asked.
Question 7) What happened to the helicopter?
It is very telling that the helicopter that experienced “malfunctions” is the one that was outside the compound, and this ties in with our questioning of the existence of the blocking force. Could this mission have actually been carried out without such a security force? If so, did the Pakistani forces respond? If not the forces, then at least one or two policemen? And put a hole in the helicopter?
To some of these questions, especially the ones regarding tactics, we probably don’t need to know the answers. The other ones however deserve to be asked.
Was everything possible done to apprehend Osama bin Laden or was this a kill mission? To be quite frank, if it was a kill mission so be it. If Obama wants to tell us that Osama bin Laden had no practical value to us, well that’s fine. Let him come out and say it. However we have to ask, then why brag so loudly and so quickly after the mission about all the information we got from his computer? If all that information we found on the hard drive on his desktop is so valuable, then why were we in such a hurry to put two bullets in the hard drive between his ears?
And the fifth and final question is this – why is it okay for Navy SEALs to go out and kill someone when Obama says so, but they get court-martialed for bitch slapping one of these scumbags in the field in the heat of battle?
Thank you for reading “Questions regarding the killing of Osama bin Laden”.