Uhh...
"or the gov just won't release how it really went down and that's that."
I believe those were my words.
Never said he wasn't killed in the raid. Just saying he could have been killed sooner than what was said, or they just don't wana say how the raid went down. L2read.
Was bin laden really the person to kill for the 9/11?
I don't think so, i'd blame ur goverment for everything that happend that day.
Who cares, the fucker's dead. If he wasn't Al Quaeda would never have admitted he was.
Also guys most elite fighting force in the world is the French foreign legion, followed by the SAS. Silly yanks.
You sure you didn't mean to say:
Because you're comparing the IRA (which has something like 10k members) to the Taliban/al Qaeda (which has something in the neighborhood of 100k members), and the SAS to the SEALs. Without any real figures on their budgets, one Naval air craft carrier has more funding support than the entire combined military force of England. You do the math on who has the better financial support.
Yep that's my thought too. Theres enough blood on the floor of the bedroom to suggest the Seal account is accurate. Plus his wives all survived and they've confirmed he was killed. The bit that confirmed it for me was the satellite photo of the exact copy of the Pakistan compound they built in the US to do the training for the raid. They wouldn't have gone to such lengths if the entire thing was staged.
How about we all agree that many western states have forces that can fuck your shit up.
Wiping is Fun! ™
Exposure - as a SF soldier is the last thing they want.
Experience - it has been reported that during CRW training each (SAS*) soldier expends as many as 100,000 pistol rounds. (and they re-train every 16 months)
in all reality there is no way to say which is the better SF operator. However when was the last SAS mission you heard of either good or Bad ?
Anyway, it would be more accurate to compare SEALS against SBS.
I used the word exposure to convey the idea of actually engaging in conflict, not just training, as it relates to experience. There is no standard that says "This guy is better than that guy" in this argument. The facts remain: the SEALs have more funding (most likely) and more experience. Whether or not that makes them "better" is personal opinion, nothing more.
I think it would be most accurate to say that none of us knows the SF groups well enough to say which is best. And those that do know which is best are probably laughing at the discussion but cant say anything because you arent supposed to talk about the goings on of SF's.