Excellent info indeed.

From a humorous perspective, reminds me of this:

I don't care.  It could have been anyone on that team.  If Bin Laden had been in another room, another shooter would have been the one.  Hence, being the guy who actually put the first round in him doesn't make that guy superman, or any more heroic than the guy who was busy clearing another room, or standing out in the hallway.  Teams are supposed to function as a team.  The pointman doesn't succeed if the other guys don't do their job and vice versa, so who the pointman was or who actually shot him means absolutely nothing to me.  The only reason there are any such questions is because 2 members of the team tried to grab fame which is a violation of the code of silence, and it's directly fucking over your teammates.  Full stop.

But that's the thing.  I haven't seen anything about his teammates saying he is actually lying.  What I see is criticism that he's talking shop and profiting off it.

Taking credit because you're supposed to be a professional and keep things quiet is not the same thing as taking credit for what someone else did.

Right now, as far as I can tell, the killer of OBL had to be Oneill, Bissonnette or this mysterious pointman.  From Oneill's account, the pointman didn't claim he killed OBL, he just claimed he might have scored a hit IF it was OBL that was the dark figure that leaned out from behind the veil.

Granted, I am going from the excerpts and summaries from news articles, not the books themselves.

Pretty sure we know what kind of trigger they were pulling too.

Bears....hunting bears next month. @Ltlabner, considering I'm Fudd-like(in demeanor, not in the fuck your 2A rights way), kinda like shotguns, and kill 90% of my big game with a longbow.....if you can guess what I am taking on this hunt I will award you 3 internets and a bushel of Nurnberg apples...

I think I understand, at some point I basically was saying being on a website like this gives no one credibility because none of us can know the truth about the other.

For example, If 2 guys say they are pro door kickers, they may very well be but they have no way to prove it and that goes for me as well, thats why I try to stay away from saying what i've done (and thats nothing by the way) because I'm not willing to prove it to faceless people on the internet.

I see that may frustrate you guys that hold yourselves in high regard but it isn't a personal attack on YOU it's what the internet is.

"We kept our heads down and did our mission as a team" doesn't sell many books or get much in speaking fees.

No going to read but you're saying people talked?

Like O'Neill

I'm impressed. Not many bikes have that good of a reverse gear.

I'll stick to my Scorpion.

That's not at all what you were saying.

You're clown shoes.

Yes it is and it always has been what i've said.

So you choose to remain ignorant and not accept any new information, but want to make assumptions about it anyways?  You know that's how idiots behave, right?

Just read the article you link to and it is absolute shit. The daily mail is CNN level fake new in my opinion.

That's the closest they ever come to actually providing any evidence for the claim made in the headline. The usual fake news "anonymous/unnamed sources". And the article is from 2014 so if other people were going to come forward and call him a liar (as the article implies) it should have happened by now. This is the the same shitty "journalism" they have been using to smear President Trump. I think I recall posting in another thread some examples of the obviously made up stories they print about SAS exploits against IS, you know full of knife fights and sniper shots hitting more then one bad guy.

You can argue about whether or not he should have published a book. But if that article is what you are basing your opinion of the man on then I believe you have been misled. That article, the author and the paper that printed it are absolute garbage.

Edit found the thread where I posted some examples of DailyMail's "fine journalism" aka making shit up Thread

But that article doesn't clear it up at all.

It says that Bissonnette's account was determined to be wrong by some official who inquired with eyewitnesses.  But then it references an eyewitness whose account kinda lines up with Bissonnette's except that it further claims the pointman shot OBL when he peeked out and OBL was "gravely wounded" and that other SEALs then put rounds into OBL's chest when they entered a room shortly thereafter.

So what to believe?  An unnamed witness who says Bissonnette had it right?  Or unnamed witnesses who said Bissonnette had it wrong?

Most of the criticism of Oneill, if you actually read what they say, are saying he "could" be lying because he isn't supposed to talk about it at all.  I understand the code, but that's illogical bullshit.  The source of that quote either knows or doesn't know what happened, so to speak in riddles and claim that Oneill "might" be lying is clearly an insinuation that calls into question the veracity of that source.

And Bissonnette has been PNG'd, too.  So if Oneill can't be trusted, neither can Bissonnette, so who in the hell do we believe shot OBL?  The Easter Bunny?

It's a shame, but this whole thing really does start to look like a bunch of high school cat-fighting.  Even if you have to remain anonymous but still feel compelled to speak out about lies, then man up and call it what it is and give the full account.  But these partial-truths and insinuations make be think that no one can be trusted...neither Oneill or his detractors.

Soooooooo....shotgun or AR then?

OK OP, since we have soundly trounced the notion that shooting Zombie Bin Laden in the face does not equal God Mode HD Champ, why don't you look at the situation objectively.  Its one man's opinion.  
 Evaluate the pros and cons of AR vs Shotgun.  If you decide after a well thought out consideration that a Shotgun is the way to go, go for it.  If you have serious questions, ask.  As I said, I have met several of these IRL, some on multiple occasions and interact with them on less retarded social media than GD and consider all of them friends.  They are really awesome guys who I would be honored to have my back in any kind of situation.
  The argument is not whether a shotgun is harmless, we've all conceded that its far from harmless.  The issue is what is best.  I grew up shooting pumps.  I have massacred quail, squirrel, dove, duck, and geese with 870s and 37s.  My go to deer rifle is still a 760 30-06.  I can shuck a foreend pretty damn well but in the confines of the house, with the trend for multiple attackers, and the uncertainty of overpenetration, the choice is clear. YMMV.

Neither has a Shotgun vs AR thread.  This is new territory. A parallel universe even.

The thing about getting the full and accurate accounting is that we never will.  "If" O'neill is telling the truth there is going to be a ton of misdirection dumped out there to cloud the issue because O'neill should have kept his mouth shut.  He'd be a mast if he were anyone else.

Sorry, SOFREP and Daily mail are not legitimate sources. Not saying that O'Niell is telling the truth or not but I wouldn't rest on those two "sources".

IIRC, Bissonette was 3rd in the stack, O'Neill was 2nd. Either the pointman or O'Neill shot him in the face. Bissonette admits to putting a few into his chest while he was already on the ground because of 'Merica. Either way... zero fucks given on who landed the first shots.

He's white-washing something that a lot of people overlook.

Osama Bin Laden was 6'5" tall.  Especially in Pakistan, that sticks out.  Everyone knows who shot him first.  You have a situation where the other super majority of Red Squadron is trying to keep quiet, while 2 showboaters run their mouths and write books, make TV appearances, and cash in.  The actual guy seems to value his relationship with his unit more than seeking fame, so this leaves everyone with the problem of dealing with undisciplined former members who forgot everything about loyalty and started acting like civilians with no code of conduct relevant to OPSEC.  Crap, I know scores of civilians who worked for DoD or contractors who would never talk about what they did, because they weren't allowed to.

Where did this info come from?

I heard the same info. believe I heard it on MLB network.

Does GD hate the VEPR 12 as much as a pump scatter gun? I'd take a suppressed SBR all day long but VEPR 12's are impressive vs say a glock 19 holding 15 rds.

VEPRs absolutely demolish targets with a factory 10 Rd mag in there. Very reliable....RDS sitting on top.

If I had to choose which to be shot with it wouldn't be close.

4 dimensional trolling yo

SOFREP is far more legitimate than any of the presstitute media, especially when guys cover down on a subject from the units being discussed.

But in your own post you've used "shooter" and "main shooter".  Are they the same thing?  I don't think they are, but I'm inferring that because I assume you are intentionally drawing some kind of distinction.

So how do we know whether Oneill was just a shooter or the main shooter?  And by main shooter I assume you mean the one who scored the kill-shot...presumably even if OBL didn't drop and expire immediately?

See how this works?  Subtle inferences start making a big difference.

It seems like most everyone acknowledges that multiple people put rounds into OBL.  Which were the rounds that really counted is the question here.

Oneill claims that the pointman wasn't sure if he had even hit the figure who peeked out at them during the debriefing.  As I posted earlier, there is one account (maybe Oneill's) that calls into question who it even was who leaned out and got shot at by pointman.  Maybe that uncertainty was put out there in the hot wash.  And if the guy was uncertain, would Oneill need to stir up shit in the hot wash to make sure he got the credit?  Maybe not.  Would figuring out whether pointman's shot or two did the trick or whether Oneill's follow-ups ended OBL's brain activity really a critical detail in the debrief?  Maybe it took some time for him to decide that the credit could be important (and lucrative) and to discern that he was (probably) the one who dealt the kill shot.  It doesn't mean he's lying.  It just means he could have a motive to lie.  

Oneill says he doesn't think the pointman scored a hit, but it isn't like he would know for sure.  I doubt he conducted a thorough autopsy before the other guys showed up and put rounds into OBL.  So, sure, he could be wrong.  But wrong doesn't necessarily mean outright lying.

How does the anonymous source know that the pointman scored hits that "gravely wounded" OBL before Oneill puts rounds into OBL's skull?  Most accounts seem to indicate that it was pointman and #2 that went into the room alone at first and then other guys showed up.

This is all classic A tells B tells C nonsense.

So we're going to just take anonymous source's secondhand account as gospel and decide that Oneill must be lying?

Let me be clear, I'm not defending Oneill.  I'm suspicious as hell.  But I'm not going to jump to conclusions about his guilt either.

I want a gun of any type over a letter opener or a candle stick.

Here are the examples in this thread of me expressing "internet credibility" means nothing. Sure, it is not polite but neither were the posts I was responding to.



- Just getting on the team that gets sent to shoot OBL is pretty impressive, what have you done that I should take your opinion over O'Neill?


- "been said" lots of things have "been said"


- The opinion of a guy being selected to that team has to be worth more then the people here IMO.



- Did you shoot OBL? What have you done? Why do you suggest it was easy?


- To you, to some in GD? may as well say to no one.


- You've done it, your reverse psychology technique has unarmed me and I now feel compelled to justify what i've done in my life to this tiny laptop screen



- I can see how high speed you are by your posts on ar15.com

 Ok, let's just assume O'Neil shot Bin Laden.  OP's premise is that that makes HD God and has made final judgement on Shotgun vs ARs for HD once and for all.  Do you agree? Ok, he's got a great resume as do some of the posters in this thread but that doesn't mean his judgement is perfect.

There are multiple conflicting reports from O'Neill and Bissonette.

One says Osama was hiding behind his wife with an AK.  That turned out to be BS.

The one who shot him said he was at the top floor peering out from the doorway, came out on top, and was shot, then ran into the room.

He being the 1-man at the time rushed the room and burned him down.

O'Neill came in after, away from his assigned clearance space, in competition with Bissonette.  There were some personality issues leading up to this where the competition between Bissonette and O'Neill was in play, and known about by other members of the unit.

After Osama was gunned down in the room, O'Neill came in and stood around the body and canoed Osama's head.

Bissonette came in after and put in his token rounds.

Why are we hearing about all of this?  Because they've been running their mouths and writing books, complaining about healthcare, crazy unprofessional stuff you just shouldn't see even from a conventional unit.

I agree.  To me, the team gets credit, not the individual.  So in that sense I don't care.

But at the same time, people do care, obviously.  And I'm not talking about the public.  Members of the team care.  And that's what makes this interesting.  Do they care enough about the code to try and tear down the guy who is taking credit, and COULD be telling the truth about what happened, just because he's breaking the code?

If you look at how some of the criticism is carefully stated, that Oneill "could" be lying, it starts to feel a little like taking credit might be just the thing that would justify some dishonesty to try and keep him from profiting.  The proverbial second wrong trying to correct the first.

Both of them are telling half truths, I think they have now chosen to ignore each other and just take what publicity they can get.


Ultimately, it doesn't really matter who fired the killing shot. Any one of the assaulting guys could have had the chance. I am personally of the belief that the anonymous party fired shots that neutralized Bin Laden, and while he was securing the room (AKA doing his JOB), O'Neal and then Bissonnette rushed in (while ignoring their rehearsed positions) and also fired shots into Bin Laden. Once again, it really makes no difference who fired the shots. The problem is with the integrity of O'Neal and Bissonnette, it was the team that made the mission successful. One person didn't kill Bin Laden, they all did. But to those 2 it was everything because they wanted to bank on the glory and notoriety which they knew the American public would eat it up. So they got out (or were forced out?),wrote books, divulged classified information (but it's fine, cause SEALs and not a Clinton, amirite?), and did media gigs. That is (partially) why they are both on the rock at Dam Neck.

The SEALs have had a lot of notoriety in recent years which compounded with the American mindset of hero worshiping and an overall 'cowboy' status (especially in DEVGRU) is a recipe for this type of thing. Especially because  a person can go straight from civilian to SEAL  through their (admittedly long)  training pipeline.

ETA: I am not painting a blanket statement on all SEALs. I know there are great men in the teams. I personally would drown in BUD/S, my hat is tipped (m'lady) to those dudes on the team that don't make a mockery of their profession.

Ummm... the owner and creator of that website is Brandon Webb. Just sayin'

I agree.  I doubt we will.

But why the misdirection?  Why not just hammer him over speaking out?  What strategic advantage to anonymously muddying the waters?

I've read some of the past shotgun vs AR HD threads and it usually features the pro AR side pointing out that people who do CQB type stuff for a living almost uniformly choose some sort of short carbine (very valid point). If often ends up as "I'm a military combat vet and you aren't so I am right" aka an "appeal to authority" argument. OP is pointing out that if the cool kids doing it means it is the right thing to do then if the guy who killed OBL uses a shotgun that must settle the debate. It is not surprising that some jimmies have been rustled as that was clearly OP's intention when he started the thread.

Haven't read the entire thread but what I have seen has been predicable. Has it occurred to anyone that what the dude said about what guns he owns in a public interview might not be 100% honest? If I had select fire MK18 with a suppressor and all the bells and whistles to defend myself and someone asked me in public what I had I would also probably say a pistol and a shotgun. I'd rather not give away any information to a potential adversary (like that they better bring rifle plates).

Being a shotgun, and an AK, it belongs at the bottom of the trash can.

Yeah but you're talking about a guy that gave up his life to be publicly famous for killing OBL. Not exactly the low key poster boy.

That's what I was thinking. The publication is okay-ish but he is 

Perhaps he shouldn't have outed himself as the guy who smoked UBL, then. 

I'm not saying he is trying to be low key. He is clearly now trying to promote himself and make a living. But any info he gives about his current security plan may or may not be true. If he says in a public interview that he doesn't feel the need to carry a CCW that doesn't necessarily mean he walks out of the house unarmed. It would be smart to say you are less prepared to defend yourself then you actually are, that way if there is an attempt hopefully they are under prepared and you may have some element of surprise on your side. Misinformation and misdirection are good things to have on your side.