Starting to think that? It was clear as glass as soon as Panetta said it was a “kill mission” a day or two ago. Keep in mind that the other option was to blow him to smitherenes with bombs from a predator drone. There is no difference between doing that and shooting him “in cold blood”.
It was assassination.
Not necessarily. I would have expected him to resist violently, and go down in a “blaze of glory”, so I found reports of him putting up some level of fight credible at first.
As Marley stated above, the most current story is he had an AK and sidearm in the room.
But the theme of the OP’s question is fair. If I was OBL I would be taking an AK to the shitter with me, and would certainly be armed and ready during an obvious raid.
The helicopters are a big mystery, I wonder if I should open a thread in General Questions about them…
He has been living in plain sight for years. He expected if a raid was coming the Pakistani military would have warned him before it happened. That is why we dealt them out. That is why it worked.
Now the Pakistani leaders are shocked, just shocked that Osama was living a couple miles from a military academy in a garrisoned city. Seems like Casablanca.
Go with your second thought:
Bin Laden ‘firefight’: Only one man was armed
Most of the original embellishment is quickly falling by the wayside. Whether one agrees with the use of hit squads or not is a different debate.
Some commentary on the changes in reporting about bin Laden. He attributes the changes to assumptions made by journalists, not what the government has said in particular.
Just a quickie on that point. Anyone know the range of these choppers? 'cause Abbottabad is a long way from the ocean and I haven’t read any reports of any other means of transport to get his body there.
They were supposedly modified Blackhawks, which means their range is about 800 miles. Even if they were stripped of everything but extra fuel tanks, there’s no way they could have deployed directly from a ship.
So he wasn;t armed? So what? In the US at least, if an unarmed suspect makes a move to attack a police officer, the officer is well in the right to shoot.
How is that relevant?
Thank you. But again, doesn’t that mean that disposing of OBL’s body at sea was beyond their range?
I thought I read that they were launched from just across the border in Afghanistan.
I wouldn’t believe anything the government tells us about the details of this raid. It would not surprise me one bit if he did put up a fight, and we just don’t want his followers to think he died fighting.
Wherever they took off from, they returned to a ship at some point, and OBL’s body was tossed off the ship, not out of one of the choppers.
Not necessarily. I believe, but am not certain, that it is possible to extend their range via aerial refueling.
Some Blackhawk variants have refueling probes, but it would have been rather tricky to send a USAF tanker into Pakistani airspace.
The mission was launched from Afghanistan, not that far from Abottabad. They could have flown him back to that same base, and then flown him by jet to a carrier in the Arabian Sea. I don’t see why everyone thinks the Blackhawks started and finished on the ocean.
And you having to correct people on this is a perfect example why the story keeps changing.
There seem to be four areas where the description of events can change. The first is coming from the military. As they go through after-action reports and learn more, they are going to report differences in what they think happened versus what was initially reported. Being human rather than supermen that do no wrong, they may also withhold or edit information to spin the facts in a way that shows their mission in the best possible light.
Then the White House relays some of that information to the press, sometimes changing previous reports. Also being human, there is spin and decisions to withhold information for both legitimate operational reasons and public relations reasons.
Then press reports what they were told, sometimes correctly and sometimes not. Although most reporters will try to report factually, they are once again humans that may get facts wrong, make incorrect assumptions, or read things into the official reports that weren’t actually there.
Finally, a bunch of people that have read various news stories make assumptions instead of going back to actually check what was reportedly. All the reports I read said very clearly that the mission was launched from Afghanistan, unless they made no mention of it at all. This is one of the “facts” that I have not seen change, yet people are still getting it wrong. It’s very easy to see why the story keeps changing. In some cases, it is actually changing, and in other cases people just think it’s changing because of incorrect interpretations or assumptions.
Because in the other thread lots of people are alleging that the mission was launched from the USS Carl Vinson.
ETA: that was in response to JM’s post.