“Osama = dead = tequila shots. Greek Town crazy!”

In book stores Sept 11, but what makes the author any less dangerous to national security than the jailed Bradley Manning?

That was the text that woke me on the eve of Sunday the 1st of May 2011. I was a journalism student at the University of Missouri in the town of Columbia. Like any aspiring journalist, I rose immediately, grabbed my camera, and headed to the neighbourhood called Greektown.

Crazy was an understatement. I was astounded to see a mass crowd of American college students partying in the streets to the news of Osama bin Laden’s death. Streets were completely blocked. Police were helpless. Cars were trampled.

Pictures of Bin Laden were being burnt while onlookers cheered. Patriotism was contagious and everyone held or wore an American flag. Continuous ‘U-S-A’ chants were deafening.

Curious as to the general consensus, I asked people their opinions. “He should be hung as a warning”, people said. “Merica!”, others shouted. “I would give anything to be the man who shot that fucker!”

No one cared about the details. Admittedly, people were in the moment. College kids looking for an excuse to party. (It turns out the reaction of my humble mid-western college town was ranked inside America’s top ten celebrations to Bin Ladens death, just behind reactions at the ground zero memorial.) But it took days for the important questions to arise.

How long had this been going on for? What happened to everyone else in the compound? What was with the hasty sea burial? Was it a kill mission from the get-go?

President Obama’s 2011 statement on Bin Laden’s death failed to answer these questions. Instead, Obama went into a highly emotive account of September 11, and its worst images of “the empty seat at the dinner table”, or “parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace”, being unseen to the world.

But Obama assured the American people that “the death of Bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat Al Qaeda.”

Many believe the death of Bin Laden marks the most significant achievement in Obama’s almost four year reign. Fitting then, that the release of No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama bin Laden, is scheduled for September 11. Not only is this more than a year from the actual event, but also just before the November election.

The book is a first person account of the Bin Laden mission in Abbottabad, Pakistan, written by Navy SEAL team 6 leader under the pseudonym Mark Owen. Owen was identified as Matt Bissonnette in a series of leaks to FOX news.

Owen writes in the book, “it is time to set the record straight about one of the most important missions in U.S. military history.”

According to the book publisher Penguin Group, Owen gives a “blow-by-blow narrative of the assault, beginning with the helicopter crash that could have ended Owen’s life straight through to the radio call confirming Bin Laden’s death.”

In relation to the book, Governor Romney has accused President Obama’s foreign policy as a “national security crisis” at a speech to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Reno, Nevada.

“It betrays our national interest”, said Romney, “it compromises our men and women in the field. And it demands a full and prompt investigation by a special council, with explanation and consequence…the time for stonewalling is over.”

The Pentagon, CIA or White House Officials say they have not yet reviewed the content of the book, nor was it submitted to U.S. government officials - a publishing protocol for any publications divulging highly classified information.

Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello, a Navy spokesman, stated “any service member who discloses classified or sensitive information could be subject to prosecution.”

Such was the case for Bradley Manning in May 2010, who was accused of releasing thousands of US military documents, including Collateral Damage, to Wikileaks while employed under a top secret SCI clearance. Manning has spent over 800 days being held by the US military, facing 22 espionage charges and life in prison.

So how is Manning in jail, and Owens about to become a best-selling author? Both expose top secret government information. One simply favours President Obama, while the other does not.

One broke the law to expose a truth that was heroic, righteous and noble. While the other broke the law to expose a truth that was blasphemous, harsh and disloyal.

Although proceeds from the book will be donated to charities that benefit families of fallen Navy SEALs, this is hypocrisy at its finest. The historic event during the War on Terror needed transparency when it was timely, not a year later.

Let’s not let it take a few days like it did in Greektown to raise the real questions. It’s unacceptable for it to take an entire year for the facts of “the most significant achievement to date in [America’s] effort to defeat Al Qaeda”, according to president Obama, to be revealed.

Selective secret-sharing and/or silencing is not OK.

Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEST

Most commented

58 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      06:15am | 27/08/12

      Point one: The United States Armed Services is supposed to be an apolitical institution. An active servicemember doesn’t criticize the Commander In Chief. Ever.
      Point two: some disclosure of past operations is permitted, as long as the person doesn’t go into classified information such as organizational structures, specialized weapons and tactics etc.- anything that might be useful to a potential enemy. (even though there are a gazillion books upon Special Operations out there) The problem with this book was, I believe, that it wasn’t vetted by the Pentagon. (who would have nixed the idea)

    • L. says:

      07:14am | 27/08/12

      Liana asks..

      “So how is Manning in jail, and Owens about to become a best-selling author? “

      Because Bradly manning released, among other things, the full names of Afghans working for the allies in Afghanistan..? But I guess their safety doesn’t count in your reasoning, does it Liana..?

      How’s that for starters..??

    • Rickster says:

      03:50pm | 27/08/12

      Ok so it’s ok to kill 1 million Iraqies and Afgans but to put at risk a few of those working on “our side” is a no no, all in responce to 9/11. Why didn’t they just kill the f@rker in the months after 9/11?

    • the duke says:

      07:30am | 27/08/12

      I thought Seal team Six were all killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan a few months after the Bin Laden takedown ???

    • Michael says:

      08:13am | 27/08/12

      All Black Ops now. Ghosts! shhhhhh wink

    • L. says:

      08:53am | 27/08/12

      “I thought Seal team Six were all killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan a few months after the Bin Laden takedown ??? “

      I think you’ll find that there are more members of DevGru (Team 6’s real name) than can fit in a single helo.

    • the duke says:

      10:01am | 27/08/12

      @ L & Fiddler—I only heard a fleeting reference to it and thought it rather strange at the time— thanks for clearing that up

    • marley says:

      07:33am | 27/08/12

      The author argues that the two men have committed the same offence but are being treated differently.  Personally, I think there is rather a large difference between a serving member of the Armed Forces handing over classified military information to outside parties, and an ex-military type writing his memoirs. 

      We know that Manning disclosed classified material, because we have seen it.  The author is claiming that “Mark Owen” also discloses classified material, but on what basis does she make that assertion, given that the book has yet to be published?

      There is evidence that one man released information, and on that basis he has been arrested.  Until his book is published, however, or the military vets it, there can be only suspicion that the other man might possibly have released classified information.  Is the author really suggesting that Owen should be treated the same way as Manning when there is no evidence he’s committed an offence?

    • AdamC says:

      09:15am | 27/08/12

      They are my thoughts too, marley. The author seems to be making up facts to suit her argument, rather than basing her argument on facts. Personally, I doubt this fellow would include secret information that could prejudice the interests of the USA or its allies. But we will have to wait and see.

    • PeterM says:

      11:45am | 27/08/12

      Marley, you are talking sense man.  That’ll be enough of that.  We simply cannot allow reasoned argument you know.

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      07:48am | 27/08/12

      Hi Liana,

      I personally would like to think that the two cases were very different!  One was about Osama Bin Laden, a much wanted terrorist being killed which made a lot of people very happy as it was something to celebrate around the world, right?  And in the world’s eyes was there any record or evidence of any wrong doing towards the unarmed and wounded civilian population in Iraq, on the US Army’s side?  I have watched Rules of Engagement very similar to Collateral Damage.

      However, I am guessing that what Bradley Manning did, happened to be unforgivable in the world’s eyes!  Because this particular time, there was evidence of wrong doing and hints of actual abuse of powers on the US Army’s side, most unfortunately.  I can understand being in a war zone during a combat situation face to face with the enemy. 

      And then again who was the actual enemy, in this particular case?  Defenceless and wounded civilians lying on the ground and the US Army soldiers going back in to make sure that they are dead.  And end up killing more unarmed civilians trying to help the wounded. 

      For me personally, it was a stomach churner,very upsetting and an eye opener indeed!  And for all those who are fascinated with the very idea of going to war for any reason, anyway!  I just wanted to add that it is so much more easier for those who are not directly affected by the aftermath and atrocities of war, to be carried away with the thoughts of being high and mighty.  Of course there is so much we don’t know already and may be we will never know for certain and “what was the whole point of the exercise” ?    Kind regards to your editors.

    • mark says:

      09:57am | 27/08/12

      we need those who are not directly affected by the atrocities of war to make the calm, logical, rational decisions. it is the basis for the western worlds justice system.
      By your reasoning, we should hand murderers over to the lynch mobs….you cannot espouse our ideals on the world, then recant when it suits, which is what i think the Author is trying to convey here.

      Free speech is only free if you says things people want to hear.

    • M says:

      08:14am | 27/08/12

      Weren’t some of the contents of this book released via wikileaks?

    • Muggles says:

      08:21am | 27/08/12

      “Cars were trampled.”

      Really?

      Most of the footage I’ve seen, including that archived on YouTube, shows a rather more sedate response to the news.

      Yes, some people were very excited, and yes there were Hoo Rahs all ‘round. And then there were quiet groups of people trying to work out what it meant, and whether it was a sad reminder or something to even be happy about.

      What did you expect?

      It was hardly the dancing-in-the-streets that we saw from West Bank Palestinians on Sep 11, now was it?


      “Selective secret-sharing and/or silencing is not OK.”

      Why?  Because you say so?

      Secrets are selectively shared all the time, for all manner of reasons. Some dumb, some smart. You have your own secrets Liana, that you keep and share as you see fit.  (What’s your credit card number, and your social security number?  How’s the love life?  Have you ever shoplifted, or liberated stationery from work?)

    • L. says:

      01:06pm | 27/08/12

      “L - I have a better question.  From where would the sideways force to make it topple come from? “

      I would image the ‘topple’ could come from the motion caused by supports on one side or the other giving away at any rate other than the exact same instant.

      Think of a house of cards. Pull a structural card, and I suspect that if you watched it in slow motion, the ‘house’ would fall towards the side where teh supporting card was removed…makes sense, yeah? It would probably fall close to it’s own footprint (an issue of scale?) but it most definately wouldn’t fall ‘flat’.. which I suspect is master’s argument??

    • John says:

      08:45am | 27/08/12

      Osama Bin Laden is a meaningless character, he didn’t do 9/11. His killing or his faked killing is irrelevant.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:15am | 27/08/12

      Lemme guess…

      You think 9/11 was an inside job by banksters, zionists, reverse-vampires, the saucer people, the RAND corporation all in a plot to eliminate the meal of dinner-time and get us to buy mortgages from banksters in a free economy of freedom and free expression just to overthrow it in favour of communist mercantilismfor the benefit of the Rothschilds?

    • colin says:

      09:50am | 27/08/12

      @Tubesteak 09:15am | 27/08/12

      LOL..!

      +! Internets for you grin

    • M says:

      10:23am | 27/08/12

      What evidence do you have to say that it wasn’t, tubesteak?

    • master says:

      10:35am | 27/08/12

      @ Tubesteak

      Lemme guess:

      You think a building not hit by a commercial jet can collapse into it’s own footprint at freefall speed due only to fire damage?

      I don’t know what to believe, but dismissing and belittling someone because they have a different opinion to you when there’s no way you can be sure what happened is childish.

      There are plenty of events in history where it has been proven governments have lied to go to war.

    • iansand says:

      10:41am | 27/08/12

      Tubesteak - You left out Halliburton.

    • colin says:

      10:55am | 27/08/12

      @master 10:35am | 27/08/12

      “You think a building not hit by a commercial jet can collapse into it’s own footprint at freefall speed due only to fire damage?”

      Tell me, “master”; do you scan the skies for “Chemtrails” while the Magic-Magnet water filter in your kitchen filters out the Fluoride and the mind-altering government-supplied reality-altering drugs while you watch your own specially-magnified tape of the Kennedy Assassination and monitor your bug-scanner for any covert listening devices an ASIO/CIA joint operation has planted in your house because they suspect that you Know Too Damned Much..?

    • M says:

      11:11am | 27/08/12

      At Master, are you aware of the differing thermal properties of steel and concrete? Are you also aware that the World trade center was entirely constructed of a steel exoskeleton rather than a concrete core as with most traditional methods of building sky scrapers? Im guessing not, so I’ll help you out.

      Q: What happens when metal is heated?
      A: It Bends, softens, and looses strength.

      Q: What happens when a body is set in motion? Especially a body weighing several hundreds if not thousands of tonnes?
      A: It stays in motion until acted upon by an external force.

      Q: What happens when steel is compressed?
      A: it bends.

      So, we have jet fuel on fire, heating up the steel. As the steel bends and loses tension because of the rising temperature, it starts to sag and give way. Remembering that there is several hundreds of tonnes of steel bearing down on these bending members and it is now in motion, what happens to the steel further down the structure that hasn’t been heated but is being subjected to several thousand tonnes more weight than it was designed to hold up in a static situation?

      A: Building collapse.

      No government plots, no bombs wired up and down the structure, just Newton’s law of motion, thermodynamics and gravity all combining into on big messy incident.

    • L. says:

      11:20am | 27/08/12

      “A: Building collapse.”

      Masters point is that the building fell, perfectly flat and free fall speed.

      To put that into context.. Building 7 had 25 major steel supports (just Googled it). I’m guessing for the roof to fall flat in the time that it did, all 25 steel girders would have had to of given way at exactly the same instant., otherwise it would have ‘toppled’, not pancaked??

      25 supports giving away at the same time due to random, kaotic fires?

      Master.. is that you point?

    • master says:

      11:27am | 27/08/12

      @Colin, do you dismiss every question you can’t answer instead of addressing it? Let me guess because I don’t like the cool kids music I’m gay as well. Keep up the primary school yard debate style friend.

    • M says:

      11:36am | 27/08/12

      L, once that amount of weight started moving it was only ever going to go down. Those steel supports may as well have been toothpicks once it started moving.

    • L. says:

      11:47am | 27/08/12

      “L, once that amount of weight started moving it was only ever going to go down. Those steel supports may as well have been toothpicks once it started moving.”

      Yes.. down sure.. But I think if that were the case, it would have ‘toppled’, not pancaked and definately not at the same rate as dropping a tennis ball from the same height, which I think is Master’s central premis?

      It may have, but the all or nothing theory of the central supports giving way just doesn’t seem logical to me.

    • colin says:

      11:47am | 27/08/12

      @master 11:27am | 27/08/12

      “@Colin, do you dismiss every question you can’t answer instead of addressing it?”

      i didn’t dismiss anything; I actually asked you some questions that seemed relevant to your point of view. But you didn’t answer them…

    • M says:

      11:59am | 27/08/12

      @L That’s the thing though, there were no central supports. The entire building stood on the integrity of it’s steel exoskeleton. The floors were hung from the outside of the building and spanned inwards, rather than being hung from a central lift shaft core making up the spine of the building as in most skyscrapers and spanning outwards.

    • colin says:

      12:01pm | 27/08/12

      @L. 11:47am | 27/08/12
      @master 11:27am | 27/08/12

      Really, guys, there are a myriad consistent explanations of the mechanics and physics behind this collapse, you just have to look for them and ignore the conspiracy sites. Take this, for example:

      http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

      But, the fact is, if you want to see conspiracy and subterfuge in everything, you just WILL.

    • iansand says:

      12:20pm | 27/08/12

      L - I have a better question.  From where would the sideways force to make it topple come from?  Gravity has one inescapable feature - it sucks downward.

    • L. says:

      12:20pm | 27/08/12

      Collin..

      Forgive me if I’m wrong, be we are discussing Build 7, not the WTCs proper. Different are they not?

      “@L That’s the thing though, there were no central supports. The entire building stood on the integrity of it’s steel exoskeleton.

      Of course it did…So how do you suppose the evelator shafts for this 47 story building were supported, or are you saying they were free floating?

    • iMitchy says:

      12:30pm | 27/08/12

      To address the original post,

      Bin Laden as America’s “most wanted man” didn’t actually top the FBI’s most wanted list. He sat in the list where he’d been for years and the allegations of the crimes attributed to him on the FBI’s website, the reasons he was wanted, never included any charges or references to 9/11.
      Whilst I disagree with the post itself, this fact does speak volumes. There is a lot more, and simultaneously a lot less, going on here. As time passes and more is said on the issue, existing complexities in the truth become evermore complex.

      IMHO I don’t see the relevence of whether or not explosives had been planted in the buildings. It was a terrorist attack. Whether designed to actually cause the buildings to collapse or not, and whether via the added use of explosives or not the towers fell. The goal was to kill as many people as possible. The bastards succeeded. Aren’t we more concerned with who and why than how? There’s been way too much attention given to the subject given that answers to the questions are inconsequential.

    • M says:

      12:40pm | 27/08/12

      There were 3 different sets of elevators, and to get from top to bottom or vice versa you had to get out of one set of elevators and enter another. There were no elevators that ran straight to the top. And I imagine they would have been hung off the exoskeleton like the floor was.

      Duh.

    • master says:

      12:56pm | 27/08/12

      Colin, a consistent message from respected physicists can also be presented for the other side too. So if I have physicist A presenting one conclusion and physicist B another who do I believe?

      The point I had was that you make people who believe alternate points of views out to be crazy people. Were people crazy to question the events surrounding the Lucitania? The Gulf of Tonkin? Prescott Bush’s Bank funding the Nazis?

      @iMitchy I think the large discussion are they how and why is to establish whether those who were blamed were responsible.

    • Mikeymike says:

      12:56pm | 27/08/12

      @ John:  And you would know this because…?

    • Tubesteak says:

      01:03pm | 27/08/12

      master
      I dismiss and belittle people who doggedly refuse to believe any evidence that proves them wrong in order for them to cling to their wild conspiracy theory.

      There is a lot of evidence written by professionals about the collapse of the Twin Towers. These people have actually studied the remains and the nature of the collapse.

      Posing rhetorical questions after the fact and then using that as justification for your conclusion of a conspiracy is definitely grounds to belittle and dismiss you.

    • L. says:

      01:12pm | 27/08/12

      “Duh. “

      I’monly playing devils advocate mate.. but whatever.

      Elevator shafts are vertical, steel reinforced, concrete shafts. The shaft from the ground floor (or basement) is a central support to which a lot of strength is built. One would assume you wouldn’t want a 1 tonne ‘pendulum’ swinging freely from 16 stories.

    • M says:

      01:33pm | 27/08/12

      What part of steel exoskeleton do you not understand?

    • Master says:

      01:53pm | 27/08/12

      @ Tubesteak

      There is a lot of evidence written by professionals about the collapse of the Twin Towers that have actually studied the remains and the nature of the collapse concluding an alternate point of view.

      Do you dismiss and doggedly refuse this?

      I didn’t conclude anything with my post only provided questions point there were alternate points of view emphasised by my comment “I don’t know what to believe”

    • colin says:

      02:11pm | 27/08/12

      @L. 12:20pm | 27/08/12
      @master 12:56pm | 27/08/12

      Oh dear.

      I refer you both to the caveat on my last post; “But, the fact is, if you want to see conspiracy and subterfuge in everything, you just WILL.”

      Happy tinfoil hat wearing, guys; I can’t be bothered wasting time trying to counter the crazy beliefs of the paranoid-delusional.

    • Andrew Mackinnon says:

      02:50pm | 27/08/12

      9/11 was a set-up.  In total, 267 storeys collapsed in less than 52 seconds.  (Buildings WTC 1 and WTC 2 were both 110 storeys in height.  Building WTC 7 was 47 storeys in height and collapsed on the same day at 5:20pm.  No plane hit building WTC 7.)  This is a total rate of collapse of a minimum of 5.1 storeys per second.  Without the use of controlled demolition involving explosives, this is physically impossible.

      http://www.stop-global-government.org/911-was-a-set-up.htm

      Only the ignorant, dull or dishonest still maintain that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

    • M says:

      03:13pm | 27/08/12

      I reckon the goblins did it. Space goblins, probably from Uranus.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      03:15pm | 27/08/12

      common sense suggests Bin Laden was, in fact, responsible for directing the planes to fly into the WTC. Why common sense? Because he had the motive and capability. But viewpoints espousing a ‘conspiracy’, to wit, the US Government destroyed the buildings and thousands of people by means of an elaborate and covert operation, are equally valid, very valid indeed. And I am ashamed that Anthony, in his article on the astronaut, failed to mention the naggingly credible theory that Armstrong, in fact, never left the surface of the earth…

    • Rickster says:

      04:09pm | 27/08/12

      OH Scotch-fingerer…... you never disapoint me. Always good for a laugh Ha Ha.this is why some people think Abbott would make a good PM.

    • TC says:

      05:52pm | 27/08/12

      I agree. There is no evidence OBl organised/financed or even inspired the events of 9/11 (and the obviously faked video found just after 9/11 doesn’t count) the FBI does not list Bin Laden as wanted for the 9/11 Terror attacks. Why not? Well, the FBI said “they didn’t have any evidence.” Check out the hilarious video of a rugged up ‘Bin Laden’ watching himself on TV in his compound. Can’t see his face of course, and the real OBL was left handed but this OBL uses his right hand to use the remote. So obviously staged - apparently this was the only video worthy of release. Thank God others can see through this charade.

    • TC says:

      06:15pm | 27/08/12

      At Master, are you aware of the differing thermal properties of steel and concrete? Are you also aware that the World trade center was entirely constructed of a steel exoskeleton rather than a concrete core as with most traditional methods of building sky scrapers? Im guessing not, so I’ll help you out.
      This is not true, the WTC had an internal core like other similar buildings. It was designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet. WTC 7 was a steel structured building that wasn’t even hit by a plane and that fell straight down into its own footprint, which is odd. the main agency took 7 years to come up with an explanation for WTC 7, in the end all they managed was “office fires” caused the building to collapse. Holy moly doesn that mean other highrises might so the same?
      Q: What happens when metal is heated?
      A: It Bends, softens, and looses strength.
      Heated at REALLY high temperature. Ever put a steel kettle on a gas (kerosene) stove? Wonder why it doesn’t melt? You could leave it on for days and the kettle still wouldn’t melt. Melting steel is an unusual phenonomon - it shouldn’t happen after one hour of normal office fires (and the jet fuel is merely kerosene mixed with antifreeze and it mostly got burned up in the initial fireball)

      Q: What happens when a body is set in motion? Especially a body weighing several hundreds if not thousands of tonnes?
      A: It stays in motion until acted upon by an external force.
      Not sure what you are geeting at but basically what happened on 9/11 was a small piece of the tower (the section above where the plane hit) that should have fallen off to the side instead drove down like a piledriver through thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete) What force caused this to happen? And please don’t say gravity because if gravity was that strong we would be squashed bits of nothing)

      Q: What happens when steel is compressed?
      A: it bends.

      Not sufe what caused the steel to compress as you say, see comment above.
      So, we have jet fuel on fire, heating up the steel. As the steel bends and loses tension because of the rising temperature, it starts to sag and give way. Remembering that there is several hundreds of tonnes of steel bearing down on these bending members and it is now in motion, what happens to the steel further down the structure that hasn’t been heated but is being subjected to several thousand tonnes more weight than it was designed to hold up in a static situation?
      Can we expect other buildings to behave this way? Should we anticipate buildings catching on fire melting the steel and then the top bit crashing through the rest of the building? have other steel structure highrises ever behaved this way, either in modelling or in real life? What ramifications does the behaviour of the towers on 9/11 have for public safety? Why is no-one concerned that these buildings behaved in ways we had never before anticipated?

      A: Building collapse.

      No government plots, no bombs wired up and down the structure, just Newton’s law of motion, thermodynamics and gravity all combining into on big messy incident

      yep steel structured, over engineered building collapses are that easy.

    • chuck says:

      08:55am | 27/08/12

      I wonder if Owen aka bassinet will apply for Ecuadorian sanctuary?

    • M says:

      01:38pm | 27/08/12

      The US doesn’t want to execute him, I reckon he’s safe.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:54am | 27/08/12

      Actually, I strongly doubt “Owen” will ever be charged with a thing.

      Why? Because the SEALS love publicity.  It’s why the operation to kill Bin Laden was named “Neptune Spear”—as in, named for the trident that’s gripped by the eagle’s claws on the SEALS insignia.  The hypocrisy here is amazing.

      If you don’t think so, go and watch the movie ‘Act of Valor’, a film which uses (apparently) actual SEALS and only manages to establish that they shouldn’t give up their day jobs to pursue an acting career.

      And if you think the publicity isn’t endorsed by the higher-ups, take a look at this quote from the Pentagon’s own statement on the ‘Owens’ book.  It was authored by Vice Admiral William McRaven, i.e. the commander of SOCOM and the guy who basically gave the highest-prestige mission in recent warfare history to his own branch of the military, the US Navy.  (You can find the full text of the statement here: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/u-s-special-operations-commander-cautions-against-exploiting-celebrity-status/ )

      “Movies that portray the heroics of service members are also well worth watching and often provide the public insights into life in special operations or the service that can’t be garnered anywhere else.”  He goes on to cite the example of John Wayne in ‘The Green Berets’ as his inspiration to join special operations.

      Anyone who thinks that a film represents the reality or grants any relevant insights into life in special operations that can’t be gained anywhere else needs his head read.  That’s because he says “film”, not “documentary”, mostly because there’s precious few on special operations groups due to ‘operational secrecy’.  Poor old Mark Toohey’s own article on the Hunch requesting a bit more transparency in special forces got roasted by the ex-ADF and current ADF crowd here, which again was an amusing exercise in hypocrisy given the fuss over this.

    • Stephen says:

      12:13pm | 27/08/12

      Of course the higher ups authorized this book.  He told the official story line. 

      “We grabbed him shot his face off so he was unrecognisable in photos, we flew him to the aircraft carrier, took some DNA and dumped him overboard before the DNA results came in.”

      No need for DNA samples to be checked, they probably knew it was him because the CIA was most likely guarding him there waiting till the war had run its course long enough for the Military to achieve its objectives.  You don’t want Osama popping up dead in 2003, it makes it A LOT harder to keep a war going for a decade.  But if the boogie man hasn’t been caught yet, boy its easy as to keep it going. 

      For those believe everything your government says just read this :
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

      And wake up please, “there is a war on for your mind” and most of you are losing that war.

    • Mikeymike says:

      01:27pm | 27/08/12

      @ Stephen:

      Of course I don’t believe everything the government says.  Seriously, who does this?

      That means I also don’t believe everything a random person on the internet says either.

      Linking to a 1962 incident is hardly evidence of a conspiracy regarding Osama Bin Laden.  It in fact weakens your argument as this incident is freely available on wikipedia, whereas the best you have is “most likely.”

    • Stephen says:

      02:44pm | 27/08/12

      True my ‘most likely’ scenario above was a total guess, who knows what really happened.  Its all guessing games as the powers at be don’t want the real truth to be known.  Unless of course they really did shoot him in the face & dump him overboard, entirely possible too I have to admit.

      The link to the 1962 Joint chief’s of staff document was just to show that the USA is fully capable of planning a false flag operation against its own citizens for the benefit of its empire and strategic dominance of the planet. 

      For the greater good, and you know it probably is for the greater good.  Do we really want China/Russia to control the middle east?  I’d rather the USA does especially since we are best pals with them.  The devil you know rather than the devil you don’t.

    • Stephen says:

      02:44pm | 27/08/12

      True my ‘most likely’ scenario above was a total guess, who knows what really happened.  Its all guessing games as the powers at be don’t want the real truth to be known.  Unless of course they really did shoot him in the face & dump him overboard, entirely possible too I have to admit.

      The link to the 1962 Joint chief’s of staff document was just to show that the USA is fully capable of planning a false flag operation against its own citizens for the benefit of its empire and strategic dominance of the planet. 

      For the greater good, and you know it probably is for the greater good.  Do we really want China/Russia to control the middle east?  I’d rather the USA does especially since we are best pals with them.  The devil you know rather than the devil you don’t.

    • Rickster says:

      04:21pm | 27/08/12

      Why should you believe anything they say ? After the WMD’s in Iraq the hidden underground bunkers ect.Thats why they’re after Julian, he aired some of their dirty linen. Anyway their not top dog anymore, better start learning Mandarin comrades.

    • Grey says:

      04:44pm | 27/08/12

      Who knows: it may be a novel disguised as a memoir - then it wouldn’t be the leak of classified information.
      As far as I know it is not illegal to pretend to have killed Osama bin Laden, anymore it is illegal to say you are the reincarnation of Napoleon.

    • TC says:

      05:43pm | 27/08/12

      If the pentagon didn’t want this story released, they would buy all the copies of the book, as has been done in the past. The book is pure propaganda, promoting a story that doesn’t/shouldn’t add up. Osama Bin Laden died in December 2001 but he was kept ‘alive’ to feed to the masses the story of the invasion of Afghanistan and to simply/focus on the bad bogeyman who must be defeated. There is no credible evidence OBL had anything to do with 91/11 either.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter