Talk:Abbottabad raid

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

I'd like to edit the opening paragraph so it reads as follows:

"The Abbattabad raid was conducted on the night May 1, 2011 by US Navy Seals upon the sovereign territory of Pakistan without the authorization or consent of the government of Pakistan. The purpose of the raid was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. The raid was successful; bin Laden was killed. The government of Pakistan was an ally of the United States in the War on terror at the time. Five Pakistani residents were killed in the raid. The government of Pakistan has since registered complaints of the violations of its territorial integrity with the international community and the United States."

I see that RobSmith is the original author and only editor, so I'll ask here. Any objections? Thanks in advance. Bwebster 22:16, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

  • The purpose of the raid was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.
Do you have any primary source cites for this statement. Please note, we have enough disputed, if not openly false information coming from the (a) the State Department, and (b) the White House that neither of those two sources would be acceptable at this time. The CIA likewise has been found to have given openly false and misleading information (see Raymond Davis Affair). Pentagon sources also have been impugned in this situation. I'm not sure what other sources could be left, other than barackobama.com or leftist and mainstream media sources. Rob Smith 10:19, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
From your response it sounds like you would not accept The New York Times or The Washington Post as sources for the purpose of the raid, so I withdraw my suggested edits. Still, the article doesn't make much sense as it stands. Perhaps you would consider something like "The claimed purpose of the raid...". Also, I forgot to mention that SEALs is typically written using all caps, but I don't have a source for this baseless assertion. Good luck with this article.-Bwebster 12:30, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
They would not be sources unless they had direct knowledge, i.e. were invovled in the planning process, is that not correct? Otherwise, they would only be using White House, State Department, Pentagon, CIA, or barackobama.com as their source, is that not correct? Correct me where I am wrong, please? Rob Smith 14:18, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
The correct way is SEALs for it is suppose to be SEa, Air, Land. [1]--Harrymd 13:49, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
Naval Special Warfare Group should actually be Naval Special Warfare Development Group (NSWDG). This can be found in multiple sources.

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools