- Thread starter Mo_Zam_Beek
- Start date
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
Some of the comments are hilariously naïve.
Some of the comments are hilariously naïve.
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
Yeah, well I am still choking the part of the story where they say he was shot dead on site.
Ah, to be a mushroom.
Good luck
Yeah, well I am still choking the part of the story where they say he was shot dead on site.
Ah, to be a mushroom.
Good luck
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
Ummm, does no one else see a major problem with this?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In fact, the SEAL team encountered only a single burst of inaccurate fire, evidently from Ibrahim Ahmed Saeed, the courier who inadvertently led the United States to bin Laden, when they first approached the compound. The team returned fire and immediately killed Saeed. <span style="font-weight: bold">The only other shots fired during the assault were fired by SEALs as they methodically cleared the house room by room, killing Saeed's brother and his wife, bin Laden's son</span>, and the al Qaeda chief himself. This process took more than 15 minutes.
It should be noted that having encountered that initial fire, the <span style="font-weight: bold">team members had to assume that the other occupants of the house were armed and likely to shoot at them, <span style="text-decoration: underline">even though this did not happen</span></span>. </div></div>
Did Mark Bowden just seriously write that the team murdered people?
He provides no caveat of them being armed when shot, though having not fired upon their demise.
Ummm, does no one else see a major problem with this?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In fact, the SEAL team encountered only a single burst of inaccurate fire, evidently from Ibrahim Ahmed Saeed, the courier who inadvertently led the United States to bin Laden, when they first approached the compound. The team returned fire and immediately killed Saeed. <span style="font-weight: bold">The only other shots fired during the assault were fired by SEALs as they methodically cleared the house room by room, killing Saeed's brother and his wife, bin Laden's son</span>, and the al Qaeda chief himself. This process took more than 15 minutes.
It should be noted that having encountered that initial fire, the <span style="font-weight: bold">team members had to assume that the other occupants of the house were armed and likely to shoot at them, <span style="text-decoration: underline">even though this did not happen</span></span>. </div></div>
Did Mark Bowden just seriously write that the team murdered people?
He provides no caveat of them being armed when shot, though having not fired upon their demise.
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
Saw that too Cav. Looks like Bowden has some fast talking to do now that his ass kissing supplication has needlessly, and ignorantly, insulted people who were actually there!
Of course, reporters are the bravest people ever, practically SEALs when you get right down to it: all those verbs, adjectives and gerunds can be terrifying!
Saw that too Cav. Looks like Bowden has some fast talking to do now that his ass kissing supplication has needlessly, and ignorantly, insulted people who were actually there!
Of course, reporters are the bravest people ever, practically SEALs when you get right down to it: all those verbs, adjectives and gerunds can be terrifying!
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
Do they have to be armed to be legitimate targets? I don't want to derail this thread with what the op may consider a tangential discussion, but it seems to me it is irrelevant whether they were armed, because I don't believe that is the standard for shooting someone on the battlefield.
Combatants can be shot and threats can be shot, period. Your status on the field of battle is NOT established only by holding a weapon. Our job is to take the fight to the enemy...that fight by no means needs to be fair.
I always thought that the tragedy that followed the SEAL team described in "Lone Survivor" was obviously unfortunate but also unnecessary. They were revealed by some goatherders who in my opinion were threats if not combatants. I would not see anything wrong with engaging that threat. I am not criticizing their decision necessarily, as I believe each man ought to do what he thinks he can live with, I am only saying that in a military sense sometimes non-combatant threats are legitimate targets.
Do they have to be armed to be legitimate targets? I don't want to derail this thread with what the op may consider a tangential discussion, but it seems to me it is irrelevant whether they were armed, because I don't believe that is the standard for shooting someone on the battlefield.
Combatants can be shot and threats can be shot, period. Your status on the field of battle is NOT established only by holding a weapon. Our job is to take the fight to the enemy...that fight by no means needs to be fair.
I always thought that the tragedy that followed the SEAL team described in "Lone Survivor" was obviously unfortunate but also unnecessary. They were revealed by some goatherders who in my opinion were threats if not combatants. I would not see anything wrong with engaging that threat. I am not criticizing their decision necessarily, as I believe each man ought to do what he thinks he can live with, I am only saying that in a military sense sometimes non-combatant threats are legitimate targets.
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CS1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did Mark Bowden just seriously write that the team murdered people?
He provides no caveat of them being armed when shot, though having not fired upon their demise. </div></div>
No, he did not make that claim, and he indeed provided the required caveat right in the passage that you quoted in your post:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It should be noted that having encountered that initial fire, <span style="font-weight: bold">the team members had to assume that the other occupants of the house were armed and likely to shoot at them</span>, even though this did not happen. </div></div>
The only second-guessing that Bowden is engaging in here happens to be in favor of the assault team.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CS1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did Mark Bowden just seriously write that the team murdered people?
He provides no caveat of them being armed when shot, though having not fired upon their demise. </div></div>
No, he did not make that claim, and he indeed provided the required caveat right in the passage that you quoted in your post:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It should be noted that having encountered that initial fire, <span style="font-weight: bold">the team members had to assume that the other occupants of the house were armed and likely to shoot at them</span>, even though this did not happen. </div></div>
The only second-guessing that Bowden is engaging in here happens to be in favor of the assault team.
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
If occupants are known enemies then there is no need for a direct threat to engage that target. Just like if someone were to fire an ak at us forces then drop it and run away that person is still a legitimate target even though he does not present an immediate threat.
If occupants are known enemies then there is no need for a direct threat to engage that target. Just like if someone were to fire an ak at us forces then drop it and run away that person is still a legitimate target even though he does not present an immediate threat.
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
While Bowden does great work - does anyone REALLY believe this is the gospel?
With respect to what he wrote, and as a non pro - in my mind prudence would dictate that when assaulting a location deep behind where you ain't, if the first sentry lights you up; it's a reasonable thought that everyone heard the exchange, has armed themselves, and will give you a similar welcome - and thus one should comport themselves appropriately should they wish to survive the event. I see no issue with what Bowden has written, nor action taken in the verbatim.
Good luck
While Bowden does great work - does anyone REALLY believe this is the gospel?
With respect to what he wrote, and as a non pro - in my mind prudence would dictate that when assaulting a location deep behind where you ain't, if the first sentry lights you up; it's a reasonable thought that everyone heard the exchange, has armed themselves, and will give you a similar welcome - and thus one should comport themselves appropriately should they wish to survive the event. I see no issue with what Bowden has written, nor action taken in the verbatim.
Good luck
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do they have to be armed to be legitimate targets? I don't want to derail this thread with what the op may consider a tangential discussion, but it seems to me it is irrelevant whether they were armed, because I don't believe that is the standard for shooting someone on the battlefield.
Combatants can be shot and threats can be shot, period. Your status on the field of battle is NOT established only by holding a weapon. Our job is to take the fight to the enemy...that fight by no means needs to be fair.
I always thought that the tragedy that followed the SEAL team described in "Lone Survivor" was obviously unfortunate but also unnecessary. They were revealed by some goatherders who in my opinion were threats if not combatants. I would not see anything wrong with engaging that threat. I am not criticizing their decision necessarily, as I believe each man ought to do what he thinks he can live with, I am only saying that in a military sense sometimes non-combatant threats are legitimate targets. </div></div>
I don't disagree with you on the opinion of non-combatants being threats, but... the Geneva Convention prohibits it I believe. I thought I had the right Article but I was wrong...
Add: I think it's Article 3 which protects " Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms..." and it also states "Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war".
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do they have to be armed to be legitimate targets? I don't want to derail this thread with what the op may consider a tangential discussion, but it seems to me it is irrelevant whether they were armed, because I don't believe that is the standard for shooting someone on the battlefield.
Combatants can be shot and threats can be shot, period. Your status on the field of battle is NOT established only by holding a weapon. Our job is to take the fight to the enemy...that fight by no means needs to be fair.
I always thought that the tragedy that followed the SEAL team described in "Lone Survivor" was obviously unfortunate but also unnecessary. They were revealed by some goatherders who in my opinion were threats if not combatants. I would not see anything wrong with engaging that threat. I am not criticizing their decision necessarily, as I believe each man ought to do what he thinks he can live with, I am only saying that in a military sense sometimes non-combatant threats are legitimate targets. </div></div>
I don't disagree with you on the opinion of non-combatants being threats, but... the Geneva Convention prohibits it I believe. I thought I had the right Article but I was wrong...
Add: I think it's Article 3 which protects " Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms..." and it also states "Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war".
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
It really boils down to reasonable threat a reasonable threat does not have to mean immenant danger. I suspect that if your past the pac mil border and you have already been fired on and your at the #1 target in the world's house there is more than a reasonable threat to the team which would justify the force used.
Thats just the way it can be justified by current ROE, however I'm sure they were under way different orders directly from the top.
It really boils down to reasonable threat a reasonable threat does not have to mean immenant danger. I suspect that if your past the pac mil border and you have already been fired on and your at the #1 target in the world's house there is more than a reasonable threat to the team which would justify the force used.
Thats just the way it can be justified by current ROE, however I'm sure they were under way different orders directly from the top.
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
The Geneva Convention would be an issue only if the President was a republican.
The Geneva Convention would be an issue only if the President was a republican.
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CS1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did Mark Bowden just seriously write that the team murdered people?
He provides no caveat of them being armed when shot, though having not fired upon their demise. </div></div>
No, he did not make that claim, and he indeed provided the required caveat right in the passage that you quoted in your post:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It should be noted that having encountered that initial fire, <span style="font-weight: bold">the team members had to assume that the other occupants of the house were armed and likely to shoot at them</span>, even though this did not happen. </div></div>
The only second-guessing that Bowden is engaging in here happens to be in favor of the assault team.
</div></div>
Dude, I've worked with the lower end of the technological spectrum these men used in clearing... and done it myself. You can ascertain quickly, clear as daylight, if someone is armed or not. Assume my ass. I'd expect this assumption from dumb-shit privates, not men trained to that caliber.
Either they were armed, and legit targets, or not. Assuming? No way. They weren't shadows, they would have been visible plainly and clearly. The only possible recourse to deadly force is if, though unarmed, they made moves to slow down the optempo via hand-to-hand or other moves aimed at the assault team.
Mark Bowden essentially accused the assault team of murder. Plain and simple.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do they have to be armed to be legitimate targets? I don't want to derail this thread with what the op may consider a tangential discussion, but it seems to me it is irrelevant whether they were armed, because I don't believe that is the standard for shooting someone on the battlefield.
Combatants can be shot and threats can be shot, period. Your status on the field of battle is NOT established only by holding a weapon. Our job is to take the fight to the enemy...that fight by no means needs to be fair.
I always thought that the tragedy that followed the SEAL team described in "Lone Survivor" was obviously unfortunate but also unnecessary. They were revealed by some goatherders who in my opinion were threats if not combatants. I would not see anything wrong with engaging that threat. I am not criticizing their decision necessarily, as I believe each man ought to do what he thinks he can live with, I am only saying that in a military sense sometimes non-combatant threats are legitimate targets.</div></div>
This story draws parallels: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-3811634.html
Either it's murder or not. Where does the line get drawn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CS1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did Mark Bowden just seriously write that the team murdered people?
He provides no caveat of them being armed when shot, though having not fired upon their demise. </div></div>
No, he did not make that claim, and he indeed provided the required caveat right in the passage that you quoted in your post:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It should be noted that having encountered that initial fire, <span style="font-weight: bold">the team members had to assume that the other occupants of the house were armed and likely to shoot at them</span>, even though this did not happen. </div></div>
The only second-guessing that Bowden is engaging in here happens to be in favor of the assault team.
</div></div>
Dude, I've worked with the lower end of the technological spectrum these men used in clearing... and done it myself. You can ascertain quickly, clear as daylight, if someone is armed or not. Assume my ass. I'd expect this assumption from dumb-shit privates, not men trained to that caliber.
Either they were armed, and legit targets, or not. Assuming? No way. They weren't shadows, they would have been visible plainly and clearly. The only possible recourse to deadly force is if, though unarmed, they made moves to slow down the optempo via hand-to-hand or other moves aimed at the assault team.
Mark Bowden essentially accused the assault team of murder. Plain and simple.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do they have to be armed to be legitimate targets? I don't want to derail this thread with what the op may consider a tangential discussion, but it seems to me it is irrelevant whether they were armed, because I don't believe that is the standard for shooting someone on the battlefield.
Combatants can be shot and threats can be shot, period. Your status on the field of battle is NOT established only by holding a weapon. Our job is to take the fight to the enemy...that fight by no means needs to be fair.
I always thought that the tragedy that followed the SEAL team described in "Lone Survivor" was obviously unfortunate but also unnecessary. They were revealed by some goatherders who in my opinion were threats if not combatants. I would not see anything wrong with engaging that threat. I am not criticizing their decision necessarily, as I believe each man ought to do what he thinks he can live with, I am only saying that in a military sense sometimes non-combatant threats are legitimate targets.</div></div>
This story draws parallels: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-3811634.html
Either it's murder or not. Where does the line get drawn?
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
This is simple!
"Kill all the azzholes and let God sort it out!"
This is simple!
"Kill all the azzholes and let God sort it out!"
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
Mark Bowden has a long history of accurate sources within DoJ and DoD.
From "Blackhawk Down" to "Killing Pablo", and when he wrote for his newspaper, I think he has been credible.
Mark Bowden has a long history of accurate sources within DoJ and DoD.
From "Blackhawk Down" to "Killing Pablo", and when he wrote for his newspaper, I think he has been credible.
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
Armed shmarmed' I could care less. Would you give someone on death row a weapon to protect themselves from lethal injection just to make it fair? Did we give the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki time to leave their cities? Some things in war just need to happen and not be explained to the nth' degree.
Armed shmarmed' I could care less. Would you give someone on death row a weapon to protect themselves from lethal injection just to make it fair? Did we give the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki time to leave their cities? Some things in war just need to happen and not be explained to the nth' degree.
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Armed shmarmed' I could care less. Would you give someone on death row a weapon to protect themselves from lethal injection just to make it fair? Did we give the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki time to leave their cities? Some things in war just need to happen and not be explained to the nth' degree. </div></div>
The asininity of this post makes me cringe. The logic is on the level of retarded.
Death row inmates have been tried and convicted in a court of law, having been proven to have been guilty of a crime worth of the death penalty. By your comparison of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you forget that this was not a bombing or drone strike--and I understand when no team can take a target, civilians/non-combatants can get killed in a strike from a drone--and this was, in fact, a surgical raid. Otherwise, strike and bomb away. No, Bowden wrote that the assault team murdered people. A drone releasing an area weapon is not a highly trained man shooting someone bearing no arms and not fighting an entry team: point vs area; shoot vs don't shoot.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Armed shmarmed' I could care less. Would you give someone on death row a weapon to protect themselves from lethal injection just to make it fair? Did we give the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki time to leave their cities? Some things in war just need to happen and not be explained to the nth' degree. </div></div>
The asininity of this post makes me cringe. The logic is on the level of retarded.
Death row inmates have been tried and convicted in a court of law, having been proven to have been guilty of a crime worth of the death penalty. By your comparison of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you forget that this was not a bombing or drone strike--and I understand when no team can take a target, civilians/non-combatants can get killed in a strike from a drone--and this was, in fact, a surgical raid. Otherwise, strike and bomb away. No, Bowden wrote that the assault team murdered people. A drone releasing an area weapon is not a highly trained man shooting someone bearing no arms and not fighting an entry team: point vs area; shoot vs don't shoot.
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CS1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Armed shmarmed' I could care less. Would you give someone on death row a weapon to protect themselves from lethal injection just to make it fair? Did we give the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki time to leave their cities? Some things in war just need to happen and not be explained to the nth' degree. </div></div>
The asininity of this post makes me cringe. The logic is on the level of retarded.
Death row inmates have been tried and convicted in a court of law, having been proven to have been guilty of a crime worth of the death penalty. By your comparison of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you forget that this was not a bombing or drone strike--and I understand when no team can take a target, civilians/non-combatants can get killed in a strike from a drone--and this was, in fact, a surgical raid. Otherwise, strike and bomb away. No, Bowden wrote that the assault team murdered people. A drone releasing an area weapon is not a highly trained man shooting someone bearing no arms and not fighting an entry team: point vs area; shoot vs don't shoot.
</div></div>
Glad I could help straighten that out for you.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CS1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Armed shmarmed' I could care less. Would you give someone on death row a weapon to protect themselves from lethal injection just to make it fair? Did we give the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki time to leave their cities? Some things in war just need to happen and not be explained to the nth' degree. </div></div>
The asininity of this post makes me cringe. The logic is on the level of retarded.
Death row inmates have been tried and convicted in a court of law, having been proven to have been guilty of a crime worth of the death penalty. By your comparison of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you forget that this was not a bombing or drone strike--and I understand when no team can take a target, civilians/non-combatants can get killed in a strike from a drone--and this was, in fact, a surgical raid. Otherwise, strike and bomb away. No, Bowden wrote that the assault team murdered people. A drone releasing an area weapon is not a highly trained man shooting someone bearing no arms and not fighting an entry team: point vs area; shoot vs don't shoot.
</div></div>
Glad I could help straighten that out for you.
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is simple!
"Kill all the azzholes and let God sort it out!"</div></div>
Good that they have psychological tests for missile/nuke operations personnel. Simple extension of your logic is lets all press the red one, blow this planet away and god will sort out everything...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is simple!
"Kill all the azzholes and let God sort it out!"</div></div>
Good that they have psychological tests for missile/nuke operations personnel. Simple extension of your logic is lets all press the red one, blow this planet away and god will sort out everything...
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do they have to be armed to be legitimate targets? I don't want to derail this thread with what the op may consider a tangential discussion, but it seems to me it is irrelevant whether they were armed, because I don't believe that is the standard for shooting someone on the battlefield.
Combatants can be shot and threats can be shot, period. Your status on the field of battle is NOT established only by holding a weapon. Our job is to take the fight to the enemy...that fight by no means needs to be fair.
I always thought that the tragedy that followed the SEAL team described in "Lone Survivor" was obviously unfortunate but also unnecessary. <span style="color: #FF0000"> They were revealed by some goatherders who in my opinion were threats if not combatants. I would not see anything wrong with engaging that threat. </span> I am not criticizing their decision necessarily, as I believe each man ought to do what he thinks he can live with, I am only saying that in a military sense sometimes non-combatant threats are legitimate targets. </div></div>
So its OK to murder a bunch of guys, who were just tending their goats, and reported some strange activity, in their own country. Excuse me, but thats murder, anyway you cut it. NO justifications work in that scenario. You, and your logic make me want to vomit. That kind of logic makes you lower than the trash your hunting. Just because you volunteered to go into harms way does not make you above the law, either as a legal system, or in an ethical sense. Fortunately, most of us arent that way.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do they have to be armed to be legitimate targets? I don't want to derail this thread with what the op may consider a tangential discussion, but it seems to me it is irrelevant whether they were armed, because I don't believe that is the standard for shooting someone on the battlefield.
Combatants can be shot and threats can be shot, period. Your status on the field of battle is NOT established only by holding a weapon. Our job is to take the fight to the enemy...that fight by no means needs to be fair.
I always thought that the tragedy that followed the SEAL team described in "Lone Survivor" was obviously unfortunate but also unnecessary. <span style="color: #FF0000"> They were revealed by some goatherders who in my opinion were threats if not combatants. I would not see anything wrong with engaging that threat. </span> I am not criticizing their decision necessarily, as I believe each man ought to do what he thinks he can live with, I am only saying that in a military sense sometimes non-combatant threats are legitimate targets. </div></div>
So its OK to murder a bunch of guys, who were just tending their goats, and reported some strange activity, in their own country. Excuse me, but thats murder, anyway you cut it. NO justifications work in that scenario. You, and your logic make me want to vomit. That kind of logic makes you lower than the trash your hunting. Just because you volunteered to go into harms way does not make you above the law, either as a legal system, or in an ethical sense. Fortunately, most of us arent that way.
Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
I think his information is as accurate as anyone else who was publishing information - because NONE of us were there, we now have disinformation out there.
I like Mark Bowden but wasn't sure what to make of it.
Leaving the politicians OUT, these guys have VERY valid points about what's going on, and Mark Bowden is just as guilty as he's probalby talked to people.
It's like a conspiracy theory so skip through it.
Except it's Navy Seals (Supposedly) doing the talking)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=X-Xfti7qtT0
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X-Xfti7qtT0"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X-Xfti7qtT0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
I think his information is as accurate as anyone else who was publishing information - because NONE of us were there, we now have disinformation out there.
I like Mark Bowden but wasn't sure what to make of it.
Leaving the politicians OUT, these guys have VERY valid points about what's going on, and Mark Bowden is just as guilty as he's probalby talked to people.
It's like a conspiracy theory so skip through it.
Except it's Navy Seals (Supposedly) doing the talking)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=X-Xfti7qtT0
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X-Xfti7qtT0"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X-Xfti7qtT0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
Similar threads
