DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on May 03, 2011, 08:17:56 PM
-
Although I'm on record as saying the bastard, OBL, is dead, courtesy of some 9MM and/or 5.56 rounds, by U.S. Special Forces, how are these for competing theories, in trying to explain the hasty "burial at sea" and length of time to release any death photos?:
1) He was unarmed, and shot in the back. Now Hollywood is being employed to create a really cool Terminator-like killed death of an OBL manikin, for the appropriate photos to be taken of, so as not to offend the Muslim world
2) He's alive, and in perfect health, in the bowels of some CIA "interrogation" room, while Hollywood continues on the creation of the above noted Terminator-killed OBL lookalike, for photographic purposes
What do ya think?
-
Although I'm on record as saying the bastard, OBL, is dead, courtesy of some 9MM and/or 5.56 rounds, by U.S. Special Forces, how are these for competing theories, in trying to explain the hasty "burial at sea" and length of time to release any death photos?:
1) He was unarmed, and shot in the back. Now Hollywood is being employed to create a really cool Terminator-like killed death of an OBL manikin, for the appropriate photos to be taken of, so as not to offend the Muslim world
2) He's alive, and in perfect health, in the bowels of some CIA "interrogation" room, while Hollywood continues on the creation of the above noted Terminator-killed OBL lookalike, for photographic purposes
What do ya think?
Either way that makes Obama a liar!
-
1) not so much, as he still died, at the hands of the SEALs. And the Administration is now on record as referencing he was unarmed, merely "resisting". (boy, isn't that going to open up a whole other can of worms, with the now on record reference that you don't have to be armed to resist arrest and have your head shot off)
2) definitely, but quite an interesting concept of Obama having given clearance for some "enhanced interrogation" techniques. And I doubt water-boarding would be on that menu
-
That could put his Nobel Peace Prize in jeopardy.
-
Definitely
-
Definitely
Although I find the LEFT to be much more tolerant of their own when it come to manslaughter (Kennedy), Rape (Kennedy & Clinton), Lying (Kerry & Edwards), Racism (Robert Byrd), War, torture, the economy, jobs & national security (Obama).
-
Definitely
Although I find the LEFT
....and the MSM....
to be much more tolerant of their own when it come to manslaughter (Kennedy), Rape (Kennedy & Clinton), Lying (Kerry & Edwards), Racism (Robert Byrd), War, torture, the economy, jobs & national security (Obama).
-
White House fumbles getting its Osama bin Laden story straight
DEBKAfile Special Report
May 4, 2011, 3:20 PM (GMT+02:00)
The Abbottabad villa does not support US account of a fortress with few windowsTwo days after the US President Barack Obama's triumphal announcement that Osama bin Laden was dead, the White House was grappling with a serious credibility problem: Questions and contradictions are mounting about the how and why US elite SEALs killed the most wanted man in the world at his mansion in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2. New information proving the first stories wrong comes not just from a defensive Pakistan government but also from US officials.
Dismissing the conflicting disclosures as "artificial stories" and "conspiracy theories" won't wash ? not just in the US but in Arab and Muslim countries after Washington was forced to retract data the president's adviser on terrorism John Brennan put before the media on Tuesday. It was admitted tardily that bin Laden was not armed when he was killed, there was no firefight in the Abbottabad villa and his wife was not used as a human shield.
Pakistani sources challenged other parts of the original narrative and Wednesday, May 4, the dead terrorist's daughter told Al Arabiya TV most damagingly that her father was captured alive and then shot by US forces.
Even before that, amid rising demands for evidence that Osama bin Laden was dead, White House spokesman Jay Carney confessed Tuesday night: "Even I'm getting confused."
And no wonder. Monday, in his first statement on the operation, Obama stated: "And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice." Was he talking about a targeted assassination? Brennan later said that in the firefight in the terrorist's bedroom he had been asked to surrender and was shot dead when he did not answer. Another US spokesman said the SEALs were ready to take him alive.
Other US sources described the shooting as happening quickly - "in the blink of an eye," said one. The Republican leader Mitt Romney remarked: "Osama bin Laden took one in the eye."
His daughter's evidence contradicted this jumble of American versions. Even though she must have had a Pakistani green light for the Al Arabiya interview, her testimony cannot be lightly dismissed because she was present and shot in the leg before being taken into Pakistani custody. Her version makes it look as though US troops executed her father in cold blood.
The backlash from her testimony will not do much good to the delicate relations between the Obama administration and Muslim rulers like Saudi King Abdullah which are already tested to the limit over US involvement in the Egyptian uprising and Libyan war.
Pakistani leaders are caught awkwardly between an effort to clear their intelligence service ISI of American accusations of collusion in concealing the al Qaeda leader's presence in its midst, and domestic opinion, which is outraged by their government's suspected connivance with Washington to betray a Muslim figure and permit American forces to violate sovereign territory.
Reporters in Islamabad heard from the Pakistani foreign secretary Salman Bashir Wednesday, May 4: "We had indicated this complex (in Abbottabad) as far back as 2009 as a possible place," after sighting suspected terrorist movements on the property. It was not known at the time that bin Laden was hiding there and there were millions of other suspect locations, he said.
Bashir also hit out at former CIA Director Leon Panetta's comments that informing Islamabad in advance about the raid had been ruled out as "worrying."
These comments are just the start of the war of words building up between the Zardari-Ghilani government and the Obama administration. Islamabad has one major advantage: The inmates of the Abbottabad villa and the injured persons present when bin Laden was killed are in Pakistani custody, some in military hospitals. They can be produced whenever necessary to rebut Arab and Muslim criticism of Pakistan's conduct and fend off any attempts to undermine its ties with the Taliban, which has already vowed to avenge Osama bin Laden's death in Pakistan and Afghanistan and outside those countries.
This verbal war will make further inroads on the Obama White House's credibility.
-
White House fumbles getting its Osama bin Laden story straight
DEBKAfile Special Report
May 4, 2011, 3:20 PM (GMT+02:00)
The Abbottabad villa does not support US account of a fortress with few windowsTwo days after the US President Barack Obama's triumphal announcement that Osama bin Laden was dead, the White House was grappling with a serious credibility problem: Questions and contradictions are mounting about the how and why US elite SEALs killed the most wanted man in the world at his mansion in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2. New information proving the first stories wrong comes not just from a defensive Pakistan government but also from US officials.
Dismissing the conflicting disclosures as "artificial stories" and "conspiracy theories" won't wash ? not just in the US but in Arab and Muslim countries after Washington was forced to retract data the president's adviser on terrorism John Brennan put before the media on Tuesday. It was admitted tardily that bin Laden was not armed when he was killed, there was no firefight in the Abbottabad villa and his wife was not used as a human shield.
Pakistani sources challenged other parts of the original narrative and Wednesday, May 4, the dead terrorist's daughter told Al Arabiya TV most damagingly that her father was captured alive and then shot by US forces.
Even before that, amid rising demands for evidence that Osama bin Laden was dead, White House spokesman Jay Carney confessed Tuesday night: "Even I'm getting confused."
And no wonder. Monday, in his first statement on the operation, Obama stated: "And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice." Was he talking about a targeted assassination? Brennan later said that in the firefight in the terrorist's bedroom he had been asked to surrender and was shot dead when he did not answer. Another US spokesman said the SEALs were ready to take him alive.
Other US sources described the shooting as happening quickly - "in the blink of an eye," said one. The Republican leader Mitt Romney remarked: "Osama bin Laden took one in the eye."
His daughter's evidence contradicted this jumble of American versions. Even though she must have had a Pakistani green light for the Al Arabiya interview, her testimony cannot be lightly dismissed because she was present and shot in the leg before being taken into Pakistani custody. Her version makes it look as though US troops executed her father in cold blood.
The backlash from her testimony will not do much good to the delicate relations between the Obama administration and Muslim rulers like Saudi King Abdullah which are already tested to the limit over US involvement in the Egyptian uprising and Libyan war.
Pakistani leaders are caught awkwardly between an effort to clear their intelligence service ISI of American accusations of collusion in concealing the al Qaeda leader's presence in its midst, and domestic opinion, which is outraged by their government's suspected connivance with Washington to betray a Muslim figure and permit American forces to violate sovereign territory.
Reporters in Islamabad heard from the Pakistani foreign secretary Salman Bashir Wednesday, May 4: "We had indicated this complex (in Abbottabad) as far back as 2009 as a possible place," after sighting suspected terrorist movements on the property. It was not known at the time that bin Laden was hiding there and there were millions of other suspect locations, he said.
Bashir also hit out at former CIA Director Leon Panetta's comments that informing Islamabad in advance about the raid had been ruled out as "worrying."
These comments are just the start of the war of words building up between the Zardari-Ghilani government and the Obama administration. Islamabad has one major advantage: The inmates of the Abbottabad villa and the injured persons present when bin Laden was killed are in Pakistani custody, some in military hospitals. They can be produced whenever necessary to rebut Arab and Muslim criticism of Pakistan's conduct and fend off any attempts to undermine its ties with the Taliban, which has already vowed to avenge Osama bin Laden's death in Pakistan and Afghanistan and outside those countries.
This verbal war will make further inroads on the Obama White House's credibility.
The Seals did their job and pulled it off flawlessly!
AS USUAL Obama wasted another opportunity because everything he touches turns to shit!
-
THIS should put things to rest now (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2011/05/06/al_qaeda_confirms_bin_ladens_death), as it relates to any conspiracy theories regarding death or not.
-
I don't think you can say they pulled it off completely flawlessly.
I am pretty sure that crashing that helicopter was unplanned. I donlt think the Army insures against this sort of things, and stealthy helicopters are bound to be rather pricey. And no, President Obama was NOT the pilot, so you cannot blame him.
Still, it was effective and well done. Just not flawless.
-
It depends........IF the goal was to merelu capture or kill bin Laden and not lose any U.S lives in the process, that problably translates into a flawless operation
-
A successfgul operation achieves its stated goal and comes within budget.
XO's point about the lost helicopter is well made.
-
I never claimed otherwise. I merely referenced the notion of flawless frequently is connected with the achievement of the goals set. I realize this need to try and argue with me, try to catch me in something I never said or even implied. Best keep tabs on when that becomes your goal, vs debating issues
-
I never claimed otherwise. I merely referenced the notion of flawless frequently is connected with the achievement of the goals set. I realize this need to try and argue with me, try to catch me in something I never said or even implied. Best keep tabs on when that becomes your goal, vs debating issues
That post was not aimed at you. It was directed to the forum as a whole. It was a simple statement of fact. Get over yourself.
-
I never claimed otherwise. I merely referenced the notion of flawless frequently is connected with the achievement of the goals set. I realize this need to try and argue with me, try to catch me in something I never said or even implied. Best keep tabs on when that becomes your goal, vs debating issues
That post was not aimed at you. It was directed to the forum as a whole
Ohhhhkaaaay, if you say so
It was a simple statement of fact.
As was mine
Get over yourself.
Stop obsessing
-
Stop obsessing
You really should.
-
Flawless is not the same as successful. Flawless means "without flaw". Losing one of few multimillion dollar helicopters has to be at least a minor flaw.
-
Flawless is not the same as successful. Flawless means "without flaw". Losing one of few multimillion dollar helicopters has to be at least a minor flaw.
UNLESS the goals took that into consideration. Were you or Bt privvy to the goals layed out, in the bin Laden take down?? Please, do tell
-
I have been privy to military budgeting for operations.
How about you?
-
The issue is goals, not budget
-
The issue is goals, not budget
Goals include budgets, and I have been privy to them. You?
-
Not necessarily. If I have a goal of acing a person in tennis, with a slice serve in the deuce court, budget had, I'd argue, nothing to do with that goal.
So, do you have privy to the GOALS that were set in the bin Laden take down, that included a goal of coming under budget??
-
Not necessarily. If I have a goal of acing a person in tennis, with a slice serve in the deuce court, budget had, I'd argue, nothing to do with that goal.
So, do you have privy to the GOALS that were set in the bin Laden take down, that included a goal of coming under budget??
Judging by the story (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/cia-agents-lived-in-spy-house-near-bin-laden%27s-compound-for-months/) CU posted, not only was there a budget but they had to go back for further appropriations for another phase of the operation.
-
Apples & Oranges, Bt. The issue was about referencing flawless, not whether Seal Team 6 came in under budget. You can OPINE that budget was intergral in the goals, but again the issue was in using the term flawless. And in that manner of speaking, it depends on what the goals were
Simple as that
-
Apples & Oranges, Bt. The issue was about referencing flawless, not whether Seal Team 6 came in under budget. You can OPINE that budget was intergral in the goals, but again the issue was in using the term flawless. And in that manner of speaking, it depends on what the goals were
Simple as that
Glad to know that you get to set the terms of the debate and what is relevant as to rebuttal. Must be convenient, especially when info is provided that the operation did come with a budget.
-
Nice to know that the budget process is apparently integral in every goal you set. I myself tend to differentiate when budgets are necessary in the goal making process vs not. Nnot to mention that flawless does not mandate a need to address budgetary concerns. In fact, I need to go practice some serves, later today
-
Nice to know that the budget process is apparently integral in every goal you set. I myself tend to differentiate when budgets are necessary in the goal making process vs not. Nnot to mention that flawless does not mandate a need to address budgetary concerns. In fact, I need to go practice some serves, later today
what's the big deal when it comes to killing UBL? $1 million or $1 Billion we just want him dead.
-
Nice to know that the budget process is apparently integral in every goal you set. I myself tend to differentiate when budgets are necessary in the goal making process vs not. Nnot to mention that flawless does not mandate a need to address budgetary concerns. In fact, I need to go practice some serves, later today
Good thing we are talking about the US Government and not you. And I know you have criticized the government and their need for more stringent budgeting and cost controls.
Game, set, match, so to speak.
-
Actually we were talking about the term flawless. Not surprising in your defensive mode, to make this about something its not
Usually, this level of deflection is left to far grander issues, especially when the supposed response was "aimed at the group" and not me personally. To spend this much time on trying to justify a point I never disagreed with, merely referencing the age old point of "it depends", when trying to claim an act was flawless or not, is quite illuminating
-
Actually we were talking about the term flawless. Not surprising in your defensive mode, to make this about something its not
Usually, this level of deflection is left to far grander issues, especially when the supposed response was "aimed at the group" and not me personally. To spend this much time on trying to justify a point I never disagreed with, merely referencing the age old point of "it depends", when trying to claim an act was flawless or not, is quite illuminating
Actually we were talking about a flawless military operation.
Not a flawless tennis serve or pirouette.
Even absent the expense, i seriously doubt the planners intended to crash a high tech secret helicopter at the scene and leave advanced technology fragments available to the highest bidder. And if the crash was not planned, the operation was not flawless because all things did not go according to plan.
-
And in either case, budget is not a mandate to determing if the act was flawless or not
oy
-
Budget certainly is a component of that kind of analysis.
-
If you are planting vegitables it is wise to plant enough for yourself and for the rabbits.
A military operation going off without a hitch is kinda unusual.
Remember the hostage rescue attempt that failed during the Carter administration? Flaws that would not have failed the mission singly built up and built up untill there was not enough airlift left to have hope of success , the mission was called off and then in retreat another major acident occured .
Successfull mission planning includes haveing backup plans and reserve capacity enough that flaws and mishaps can be overcome and the mission continued in spite of problems , resistance and mishaps.
This time the execution of the plan was so well done that crashing one of the aircraft and finding a solid wall where a door was expected hardly slowed the accomplishment of main goals and secondary goals . That no American casualtys were suffered is an extra measure of success that is high above reasonable expectation.
Flawlessness is nice when it can be acheived , but it is unreasonable to expect it to happen frequently, and plans cannot be laid depending on haveing no problems , nor even less problems than usual.
Good planning takes some waste and mishap and resistance into account , budgeting a reasonable amount in to overcome and overwhelm problems.
It is better to have enough to stuff the rabbits than to depend on no rabits showing up.
-
Budget certainly is a component of that kind of analysis.
Sure, it CAN be, but not mandatory, when merely referencing if an act is flawless or not. Even a Government act. Even a Military act ::)
-
the operation was not flawless even without the unanticipated cost overruns.
-
Opinion duly noted based on the goals YOU have prescribed to the act.
-
Opinion duly noted based on the goals YOU have prescribed to the act.
are you claiming now that they planned to crash the helicopter?
-
If we want to include the goal of coming back with 2 functional helicopters, then it was not accomplished. If the goal was to capture/kill bin Laden and not lose any American soldiers in the process of the action, then the act was flawless
And we have come full circle
-
If we want to include the goal of coming back with 2 functional helicopters, then it was not accomplished. If the goal was to capture/kill bin Laden and not lose any American soldiers in the process of the action, then the act was flawless
And we have come full circle
One would think that they would want to return with both helicopters, else why send two.
-
They had 2 in reserve, so it would seem that they had planned for the potential of neither helicopter returning
But as I've said, we've come full circle. At this point your arguing with me just to argue, since I haven't yet disagreed with the issue of other components, such as budgets, going into analysis and planning
If the goal was to take out bin Laden, and not lose any American troops in the process, it was indeed a flawless mission
-
FLAWLESS means "without a flaw"
Losing a multimillion dollar helicopter is clearly a flaw.
The objective was accomplished admirably, but it was not flawless.
If your goal is to go to the supermarket and buy groceries, and you return with everything on the list, but rear end a squad car on the way home, you cannot claim that you have performed FLAWLESSLY.
-
At this point your arguing with me just to argue, since I haven't yet disagreed with the issue of other components, such as budgets, going into analysis and planning
Are you claiming immunity to challenge?
-
FLAWLESS means "without a flaw"
Losing a multimillion dollar helicopter is clearly a flaw.
The objective was accomplished admirably, but it was not flawless.
If your goal is to go to the supermarket and buy groceries, and you return with everything on the list, but rear end a squad car on the way home, you cannot claim that you have performed FLAWLESSLY.
I'll buy that. He needs to break down and admit you are correct. The question is, will he or not?
-
In sirs mind, sirs is being blessed with perfect reasoning skills. When logic is not on his side, he redefines words, phrases and entire sentences and calls any attempt to point this out as "deflection"
This time, he has chosen to redefine the word "flawless".
-
FLAWLESS means "without a flaw"
And if the goals were to take out bin Laden and return with no casualties, the mission was flawless ::) Frelling amazing the bandwidth and posts that have been used to try and counter this concept
At this point your arguing with me just to argue, since I haven't yet disagreed with the issue of other components, such as budgets, going into analysis and planning
Are you claiming immunity to challenge?
lol....I'm claiming this obsession you have in argueing with me is pretty transparent, since I'm not disagreeing with your other points
-
And there you have it: sirs redefines "flawless".
=========================
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."
===================================
sirs is what resulted from the flawless reconstruction of Humpty Dumpty by the all the King's horses and all the King's men. Humpty was reincarnated from an omelet by the Demiurge, it appears in a metephysical moment gone horribly wrong.
The King's men were impaired by their aversion to physical labor.
The King's horses were impaired by a lack of opposable thumbs.
Or so they say...
-
And there you have that I did no such thing. You taking lessons from Bt? How is performing an act, (goal of taking out Bin Laden and returning without any death to American soldiers), and accomplishing that act, with the goals stated, achieved, redefining flawless??
Please, educate us Professor
-
And there you have that I did no such thing. You taking lessons from Bt? How is performing an act, (goal of taking out Bin Laden and returning without any death to American soldiers), and accomplishing that act, with the goals stated, achieved, redefining flawless??
Please, educate us Professor
Sirs, I am a reasonable guy and fully understand your point. XO is being exact and for a guy that is in no way flawless is just splitting hairs. Stop following his lead and drop this. I agree that the Seals were flawless but the pilot did make a mistake in damaging the aircraft so the whole mission wasn't flawless. XO is messing with your head!
-
And there you have that I did no such thing. You taking lessons from Bt? How is performing an act, (goal of taking out Bin Laden and returning without any death to American soldiers), and accomplishing that act, with the goals stated, achieved, redefining flawless??
Please, educate us Professor
Sirs, I am a reasonable guy and fully understand your point.
I figued some rational folks understood. The problem I was having is when Bt and/or Xo are claiming things I never did, like "redefining flawless". But yea, you're right, time to stop this ridiculous tangent
-
For the mission to have been flawless, the pilot, who was clearly a member of the team carrying out the mission, would not have crashed the multimillion dollar secret stealth helicopter.
By saying that the mission was flawless despite this, you are redefining the word "flawless".
-
Based on YOUR goals. Again, IT DEPENDS on what the goals are, thus NO REDEFINING
So endeth
-
You claim that the definition of the mission defines the definition of a word, and that is untrue.
-
Sorry, we're not going to now try to define "depends"
-
For the mission to have been flawless, the pilot, who was clearly a member of the team carrying out the mission, would not have crashed the multimillion dollar secret stealth helicopter.
By saying that the mission was flawless despite this, you are redefining the word "flawless".
That wasn't necessary!
-
For the mission to have been flawless, the pilot, who was clearly a member of the team carrying out the mission, would not have crashed the multimillion dollar secret stealth helicopter.
By saying that the mission was flawless despite this, you are redefining the word "flawless".
That wasn't necessary!
But it most certainly is true.
The only way the mission could be construed as flawless is to redefine the parameters of the mission, omitting any part of it that had a snag.
-
The only way the mission could be construed as flawless is to...
...Have the goal of taking out bin Laden, and returning with no loss of any american soldiers. If you have different goals (referencing the it depends part), you may or may not have a flawless outcome. And at no time does that redefine any term
Why the hell is this so hard for you and Xo to understand or accept?? (much less spend all this bandwith on something so trivial)
-
The only way the mission could be construed as flawless is to...
...Have the goal of taking out bin Laden, and returning with no loss of any american soldiers. If you have different goals (referencing the it depends part), you may or may not have a flawless outcome. And at no time does that redefine any term
Why the hell is this so hard for you and Xo to understand or accept?? (much less spend all this bandwith on something so trivial)
Why the hell is it so hard for you to admit when you are wrong.
BTW it's my bandwidth, i'll do with it as i please.
-
Because I'm not......if the goal is getting bin Laden and returning with no loss of life, the mission was flawless. If you have different goals, you'll have a different conclusion on if the mission was flawless or not. meaning, NO ONE IS WRONG
So, I have to ask 1 last time...Why the hell is this so hard for you and Xo to understand or accept?? (much less spend all this bandwith on something so trivial)
-
The mission was not flawless. The post mission message control was just far worse.
You stated the goal was just to get Bin Ladxen and return with no loss of life?
This is based on what mission statement? Who set those goals? Who signed off on them?
Otherwise it is YOU who are inserting YOUR goals to match YOUR desired outcome of a flawless mission.
And that would be wrong.
-
The mission was not flawless.
based on YOUR goals, YOUR mission parameters, & YOUR signing off on them
We endeth here
-
The mission was not flawless.
based on YOUR goals, YOUR mission parameters, & YOUR signing off on them
We endeth here
Now you are just being ridiculous. I had no foreknowledge of the mission nor the parameters nor did i have the authority to sign off on them.
-
Ditto.....which brings us back full circle to IT DEPENDS on what the goals are. It's pretty disengenuous to be pushing goals of budget and aircraft recovery as prerequisates to a flawless or not mission, if you're not in any position to sign off on them, as such
ergo, they're YOUR goals in determing if the mission was flawless or not
ergo, NO ONE IS WRONG
-
Ditto.....which brings us back full circle to IT DEPENDS on what the goals are. It's pretty disengenuous to be pushing goals of budget and aircraft recovery as prerequisates to a flawless or not mission, if you're not in any position to sign off on them, as such
ergo, they're YOUR goals in determing if the mission was flawless or not
ergo, NO ONE IS WRONG
this speaks volumes.
-
Ditto.....which brings us back full circle to IT DEPENDS on what the goals are. It's pretty disengenuous to be pushing goals of budget and aircraft recovery as prerequisates to a flawless or not mission, if you're not in any position to sign off on them, as such
ergo, they're YOUR goals in determing if the mission was flawless or not
ergo, NO ONE IS WRONG
Actually it is not disingenuous. Think about what you have written about all week. How the military's part of the operation was flawless vs the Obama Admins part of the aftermath which which looks like they are following the script to a Marx Brothers comedy.
The military is comprised of grownups. They as grown ups would not have used a state of the art helicopter for a mission of this importance unless they planned for it to come back after the mission. That it did not come back means that something did not go according to plan. Something not going according to plan indicates a flaw in the execution of the plan. And the existence of a flaw makes claiming something flawless a non sequiter.
-
We're done......no one was wrong, but your obsession is duly noted
-
as is your flawed reasoning.
-
ooops, my apologies. I forgot about your apparent growing pathologic need for the last word & erroneous dig. By all means, the floor is yours
-
Thank you for the last word on this, though your diagnosis was flawed.
-
This reminds me strongly of President Bush and the "Mission Accomplished" banner that a Carrier greeted him with.
The Carrier was returning from a successfull sortie , which to everysailor on board ment "mission accomplished" but because it was photographed above President Bush, who had not yet acheived permanant world peace, it was criticised as being premature.
I think everyone in the Pentagon would have burned up a pack of new helicopters if the result was an end of Osama Bin Laden.
On the other hand if one of the pilots returned with an enemy inflicted hangnail that would be a flaw, if you are looking for a flaw.
I think that President Obama made a good decision here and has been getting more than the needed second guessing.
-
I'll go even further.....Obama made a very bold decision. He put feet on the ground, and supported the military's plan of redundant back-ups, both in personnel and in equipment, with 2 extra helicopters, in reserve. He and his administration have thoroughly screwed the post-act, punctuated by the PC decision of not releasing any photos, and losing what perception of strength he & this country had over Islamic terrorists like Al Qeada, but he gets full marks for supporting and authorizing the plan itself, and the "flawless aspects" to it
-
This isn't about second guessing Obama.
This is about calling an operation flawless when it clearly wasn't.
-
This isn't about second guessing Obama.
This is about calling an operation flawless when it clearly wasn't.
The quibbleing is about the meaning of "flawless".
Would you beleive ,...."Fully successful"?
-
This isn't about second guessing Obama.
This is about calling an operation flawless when it clearly wasn't.
The quibbleing is about the meaning of "flawless".
Would you beleive ,...."Fully successful"?
yeah but what about the copter crash?
-
This isn't about second guessing Obama.
This is about calling an operation flawless when it clearly wasn't.
The quibbleing is about the meaning of "flawless".
Would you beleive ,...."Fully successful"?
i would believe successful
-
This isn't about second guessing Obama.
This is about calling an operation flawless when it clearly wasn't.
As we've already concluded, your obsession, I mean opinion on that remedial tangent, based on your goals, has been duly noted
This thread is actually about the 2nd guessing, and post event tactics of Obama
-
This isn't about second guessing Obama.
This is about calling an operation flawless when it clearly wasn't.
The quibbleing is about the meaning of "flawless".
Would you beleive ,...."Fully successful"?
i would believe successful
FULLY?
-
This isn't about second guessing Obama.
This is about calling an operation flawless when it clearly wasn't.
The quibbleing is about the meaning of "flawless".
Would you beleive ,...."Fully successful"?
i would believe successful
FULLY?
no
-
This isn't about second guessing Obama.
This is about calling an operation flawless when it clearly wasn't.
The quibbleing is about the meaning of "flawless".
Would you beleive ,...."Fully successful"?
i would believe successful
FULLY?
no
in this you are consistent.
-
This isn't about second guessing Obama.
This is about calling an operation flawless when it clearly wasn't.
The quibbleing is about the meaning of "flawless".
Would you beleive ,...."Fully successful"?
yeah but what about the copter crash?
I am willing to call that a flaw, but there was enough forsight used to still have all the necessacery airlift for egress even with the loss of one of the aircraft.
Good planning made what was potentially a fatal flaw, into a glitch that could be coped with.