"While the two sides fired verbal volleys at each other long distance, Pakistan's envoy to Washington, Hussain Haqqani and US interlocutors tried to calm things down by emphasizing cooperative aspects of the relationship. Several key US players, including Senator John McCain , urged the administration not to push Pakistan to the wall.
But the Obama administration's tact is being tested by stunning leaks from Pakistani investigators who took over the Abbottabad compound, including disclosures that that bin Laden was killed in cold blood, as witnessed by his 12-year old daughter, and that the raiding party encountered no resistance at all in terms of firing.
Pakistani officials also reportedly sold photographs of the carnage, showing unarmed men (excepting bin Laden, whose body was taken away by American forces) lying in pools of blood, to western news agencies. They said the three men had all been shot in cold blood by US forces."
Anybody seen these photos published yet? I gather this is why the story of armed resistance was revised. Was there an initial report of a "firefight"? Then a revision to one man being armed? Did he fire in resistance? Hard to believe no one there would be armed given the barbed wire and secrecy around the place. Still, none of our Seals were injured. Is there a question whether he could have been taken alive and whether, if so, he should have? Would Pakistani forces have taken him alive? If this is considered a wartime encounter, does there have to be an offer to the enemy to surrender? We are told the Seals asked bin Laden to surrender and he did not.
Since the White House was watching movies from the Seals' helmets of what was happening during the raid you'd think they had access to the facts, though it may have been confusing and the language used may have been Arabic.
The Economic Times - US, Pakistan threaten each other with military action
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
