[gaijin]

Im usually a shoot from the hip guy, but I cant believe the numbers of freepers who are getting FOOLED by this deceptive article.

DOES NOOOOOOT SAY AN AC-130 WAS OVERHEAD.

[Enterprise]

Thanks. I wanted to be sure that the information in the article confirmed the headline because it would be a meltdown moment in the cover up. One of the reasons given for not letting aircraft in was that there was a fear of a Mogadishu type incident or ambush. So, if there actually was a gunship on scene and it was told not to fire, all holy hell would break loose!

[Blood6]

You are correct. We have not seen info that an AC-130 was overhead. However, it begs the question, why were the operatives on the ground painting the target if a gunship was not overhead?

[American Constitutionalist]

" DOES NOOOOOOT SAY AN AC-130 WAS OVERHEAD. "

No, directly speaking, it does not state or say that a AC-130 was overhead.

However ?

The security officer must have been in contact with someone, or some air support or at least had initial contact but was denied air support or the radio or communications was cut off.

He was not there just pointing his laser to just show off how cool his laser looked.

If he was pointing a laser on a target most likely he knew that there was some type of air support from above but was denied.

Proof ?

Proof that he had a target acquired, target acquisition, and was asking for and waiting for minute by minute support.
That air support was denied.