blatham wrote:I suspect that whoever was in the choppers, or in tanks, or on the ground probably didn't know the sons were in the house simply because there was no reason for them to know.
It's also possible that the tip was not that specific. That it mentioned big fish but did not name them.
blatham wrote:
But unless attacks utilizing that amount of firepower on a single house are commonplace (which seems doubtful, as I can't recall reading of another such incident), the soldiers would have properly assumed someone important was there.
I think attacks in which 3 solders are wounded draw that kind of firepower routinely.
blatham wrote:
I have no reason at all to trust a Pentagon spokesperson's claim they didn't know who was there. And once again, the opposite seems far more likely to be the case.
Other than a knee-jerk distrust do you have anything to support this? Even a possible motive? Because it makes precious little sense. I can understand someone thinking they lied about being fired upon but these knee-jerk reactions to the effect that every time the Pentagon says something it's false are making the anti-war camp look daft.
blatham wrote:
Thus, I also think it most likely that the mission was assassination. The motive(s) for such a mission are not clear.
Then at least come up with a good conspiracy theory. You call the unimportant tid-bits lies and neglect the more important facets of the story, where the real lies would occur.
The US has made no secret of it's desire to capture or kill these guys, why lie about it? Your automatic distrust of everything from the Pentagon undermines the times when you are justifiably suspicious.
