What really happened in Abottabad

[jonatha]

The only thing in the CNN story that isn't an appeal to authority is the reporter's eyewitness account of the state of the compound after the virtually gunfire-free (according to Hersh) assault.

The vox story has a much better argument IMHO.

 

[Bronzeage]

...

"Plausible" is the last word I would use to describe this story.

Would you care to elaborate?

Imagine this story is true. Now imagine all the other things which would have to be true, in order for the facts to be correct. Is it plausible that Saudi Arabia(a vague term) is paying Bin Laden's room and board? The raid was filmed and broadcast live to every person sitting in the White House situation room. So, at this point, we have all the people on the ground and all the people in Washington who agree on their story.

How does this work? Is it possible to have a script everyone knows and understands and keep it straight? Is it possible to keep every communication and every paper copy contained?

Always beware of scenarios which require perfect execution of things which are difficult to do in the best of circumstances. This story fails for the same reason all the JFK conspiracy theories fail. Too many people have to act contrary to human nature for it to work. Never bet against human nature.

 

[arkirk]

...



Would you care to elaborate?

Imagine this story is true. Now imagine all the other things which would have to be true, in order for the facts to be correct. Is it plausible that Saudi Arabia(a vague term) is paying Bin Laden's room and board? The raid was filmed and broadcast live to every person sitting in the White House situation room. So, at this point, we have all the people on the ground and all the people in Washington who agree on their story.

How does this work? Is it possible to have a script everyone knows and understands and keep it straight? Is it possible to keep every communication and every paper copy contained?

Always beware of scenarios which require perfect execution of things which are difficult to do in the best of circumstances. This story fails for the same reason all the JFK conspiracy theories fail. Too many people have to act contrary to human nature for it to work. Never bet against human nature.

I think Hersh was trying to give you a true story. I think he had genuine sources whom he trusted. Bin Laden's compound, was just a short distance from a Pakistani military base. Something that large and that protected would be noticed by them and it appears they must have let it be. Because of the human ability to lie about things, it is hard to imagine we can divine the truth and be sure of any facts in this matter except:


From the beginning, the U.S. has treated this part of the world in the same way. Our actions in these locations could be stabilizing if they were only humane and a genuine effort to help these people cope with their lives. Instead, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc. are all political footballs for any chauvanistic politician in our country, and while politicians may pretend to be peace doves, if you give them their head, they act like the creatures in the above photo.

 

[Bronzeage]

Imagine this story is true. Now imagine all the other things which would have to be true, in order for the facts to be correct. Is it plausible that Saudi Arabia(a vague term) is paying Bin Laden's room and board? The raid was filmed and broadcast live to every person sitting in the White House situation room. So, at this point, we have all the people on the ground and all the people in Washington who agree on their story.

How does this work? Is it possible to have a script everyone knows and understands and keep it straight? Is it possible to keep every communication and every paper copy contained?

Always beware of scenarios which require perfect execution of things which are difficult to do in the best of circumstances. This story fails for the same reason all the JFK conspiracy theories fail. Too many people have to act contrary to human nature for it to work. Never bet against human nature.

I think Hersh was trying to give you a true story. I think he had genuine sources whom he trusted. Bin Laden's compound, was just a short distance from a Pakistani military base. Something that large and that protected would be noticed by them and it appears they must have let it be. Because of the human ability to lie about things, it is hard to imagine we can divine the truth and be sure of any facts in this matter except:

From the beginning, the U.S. has treated this part of the world in the same way. Our actions in these locations could be stabilizing if they were only humane and a genuine effort to help these people cope with their lives. Instead, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc. are all political footballs for any chauvanistic politician in our country, and while politicians may pretend to be peace doves, if you give them their head, they act like the creatures in the above photo.

What Hersh is trying to do is irrelevant to the facts. Pierre Salinger thought a missile shot down TWA Flight 800. It didn't make it any more plausible.

I won't deny that humans lie and therein lies the problem. How do you get so many people to tell the same lie, and then stick to the story?

Bin Laden could be living in a condo in Fort Lauderdale. Why not? There are many possible scenarios which show this to be possible.

If this story is true, there will be a thousand details which will confirm it, things far beyond the control of the most powerful conspirators. Of course, Bin Laden may have been shot by a gunman on the grassy knoll.

 

[tupac chopra]

White House Denies It Fabricated bin Laden Killing, Says Hersh Report "Riddled With Inaccuracies And Falsehoods"

 

[untermensche]

The salient part of the story is the fact that if the Pakistanis were involved there was no reason to kill bin Laden. There was no huge rush.

He should have been captured and tried. This is true even if the Pakistanis were not involved.

But it was an assassination mission and had nothing to do with justice or an alleged "war" on terrorism.

He was shut up forever.

The only question people should be asking is why.

 

[Deepak]

From the beginning, the U.S. has treated this part of the world in the same way. Our actions in these locations could be stabilizing if they were only humane and a genuine effort to help these people cope with their lives. Instead, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc. are all political footballs for any chauvanistic politician in our country, and while politicians may pretend to be peace doves, if you give them their head, they act like the creatures in the above photo.

I like how, in a single breath, you refer to chauvinism and in the same breath appeal to the West's generativity with regards to these 'unstable' locations. Instability in Pakistan is due to to their own local leadership, and US-Pak relations have been much more beneficial for Pak then the US.

Hell - US support and arms are probably the only thing that kept them from being destabilized by Iran and Iraq.

I think Hersh was trying to give you a true story. I think he had genuine sources whom he trusted. Bin Laden's compound, was just a short distance from a Pakistani military base. Something that large and that protected would be noticed by them and it appears they must have let it be. Because of the human ability to lie about things, it is hard to imagine we can divine the truth and be sure of any facts in this matter except:

From the beginning, the U.S. has treated this part of the world in the same way. Our actions in these locations could be stabilizing if they were only humane and a genuine effort to help these people cope with their lives. Instead, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc. are all political footballs for any chauvanistic politician in our country, and while politicians may pretend to be peace doves, if you give them their head, they act like the creatures in the above photo.

What Hersh is trying to do is irrelevant to the facts. Pierre Salinger thought a missile shot down TWA Flight 800. It didn't make it any more plausible.

I won't deny that humans lie and therein lies the problem. How do you get so many people to tell the same lie, and then stick to the story?

Bin Laden could be living in a condo in Fort Lauderdale. Why not? There are many possible scenarios which show this to be possible.

If this story is true, there will be a thousand details which will confirm it, things far beyond the control of the most powerful conspirators. Of course, Bin Laden may have been shot by a gunman on the grassy knoll.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The salient part of the story is the fact that if the Pakistanis were involved there was no reason to kill bin Laden. There was no huge rush.

He should have been captured and tried. This is true even if the Pakistanis were not involved.

But it was an assassination mission and had nothing to do with justice or an alleged "war" on terrorism.

He was shut up forever.

The only question people should be asking is why.

You mean other than the logistical mess of where to put him, the security issues involved with heightened terror threats (legitimate ones) because we had him in custody, a trial that'd last a long while, the embarrassing shit he knows about some Americans. Other than that?

 

[untermensche]

The salient part of the story is the fact that if the Pakistanis were involved there was no reason to kill bin Laden. There was no huge rush.

He should have been captured and tried. This is true even if the Pakistanis were not involved.

But it was an assassination mission and had nothing to do with justice or an alleged "war" on terrorism.

He was shut up forever.

The only question people should be asking is why.

You mean other than the logistical mess of where to put him, the security issues involved with heightened terror threats (legitimate ones) because we had him in custody, a trial that'd last a long while, the embarrassing shit he knows about some Americans. Other than that?

Any trial is a mess. Perhaps we should do away with all of them.

It is the price you pay if you want to do more than pay lip service to justice and separate yourself someway from a terrorist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The salient part of the story is the fact that if the Pakistanis were involved there was no reason to kill bin Laden. There was no huge rush.

He should have been captured and tried. This is true even if the Pakistanis were not involved.

But it was an assassination mission and had nothing to do with justice or an alleged "war" on terrorism.

He was shut up forever.

The only question people should be asking is why.

Bringing him in would have gotten innocents killed in the wave of hostage-taking to try to get him freed.

Furthermore, assassination missions on enemy commanders in time of war are acceptable. There was no reason to bring him in and plenty of reasons not to.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You mean other than the logistical mess of where to put him, the security issues involved with heightened terror threats (legitimate ones) because we had him in custody, a trial that'd last a long while, the embarrassing shit he knows about some Americans. Other than that?

Any trial is a mess. Perhaps we should do away with all of them.

You asked "why", I answered "why".

It is the price you pay if you want to do more than pay lip service to justice and separate yourself someway from a terrorist.

Yes. I wasn't in the room when they made the decision. However, I think that they weighed the issues involving the arrest, trial, sentencing, and punishment for bin Laden and decided it'd be quicker if he resisted during detainment.

- - - Updated - - -

The salient part of the story is the fact that if the Pakistanis were involved there was no reason to kill bin Laden. There was no huge rush.

He should have been captured and tried. This is true even if the Pakistanis were not involved.

But it was an assassination mission and had nothing to do with justice or an alleged "war" on terrorism.

He was shut up forever.

The only question people should be asking is why.

Bringing him in would have gotten innocents killed in the wave of hostage-taking to try to get him freed.

Furthermore, assassination missions on enemy commanders in time of war are acceptable. There was no reason to bring him in and plenty of reasons not to.

He'd been the first major one we didn't arrest. Heck, we have KSM, a major mastermind.

 

[untermensche]

...Yes. I wasn't in the room when they made the decision. However, I think that they weighed the issues involving the arrest, trial, sentencing, and punishment for bin Laden and decided it'd be quicker if he resisted during detainment...

You do come across as someone who will just believe whatever they are told.

If those SEALs wanted to capture bin Laden it is absurd to think they couldn't have easily captured him.

But those were not their orders and they did what people in the military do. They followed orders.

 

[Deepak]

The salient part of the story is the fact that if the Pakistanis were involved there was no reason to kill bin Laden. There was no huge rush.

He should have been captured and tried. This is true even if the Pakistanis were not involved.

But it was an assassination mission and had nothing to do with justice or an alleged "war" on terrorism.

He was shut up forever.

The only question people should be asking is why.

Bringing him in would have gotten innocents killed in the wave of hostage-taking to try to get him freed.

Furthermore, assassination missions on enemy commanders in time of war are acceptable. There was no reason to bring him in and plenty of reasons not to.

And ultimately - to what end? What would a trial do other than shift where people see conspiracies?

One simply needs to look at the Ajmal Amir Qasab trial to see that it would have little to no effect. The true-believers still think it was a false flag operation, and Pakistan hasn't taken any real action to hold the folks who planned the attack to trial.

 

[untermensche]

And ultimately - to what end? What would a trial do other than shift where people see conspiracies?

Trials are where actually evidence is required.

Any free person should want the claims of governments tested in trials.

Slaves just bow as the master tells them what is the truth.

 

[arkirk]

The salient part of the story is the fact that if the Pakistanis were involved there was no reason to kill bin Laden. There was no huge rush.

He should have been captured and tried. This is true even if the Pakistanis were not involved.

But it was an assassination mission and had nothing to do with justice or an alleged "war" on terrorism.

He was shut up forever.

The only question people should be asking is why.

Bringing him in would have gotten innocents killed in the wave of hostage-taking to try to get him freed.

Furthermore, assassination missions on enemy commanders in time of war are acceptable. There was no reason to bring him in and plenty of reasons not to.

Hey fella. Have you ever heard of revenge killing? That's what most of it is, you know. Including the killing our forces did in Pakistan on that day. Being as assassinations in time of war seem acceptable to you, does the fact we are always at war mean assassinations would always be okay with you? This man was an international criminal, not a state actor. Regarding taking hostages....STOP GIVING YOUR ENEMIES IDEAS. No sir! this murder did not help the cause of justice one bit and threw a pall over the possibility of getting much closer to justice. You are convincing me that you have a very racist view of humanity in general and think about anything is acceptable outside your country and sometimes even your neighborhood.

There was plenty of reason to bring Bin Laden in. As it turned out our special forces killed a legend and created martyrdom for one who very likely wasn't worthy of that much Jihadist praise. There was nothing impressive about the murder of Bin Laden. It was not a great feat. The U.S. seems to want to deny Pakistanis participation to make it look like a great accomplishment. How can we be that stupid.? Perhaps Loren can tell us.

 

[Deepak]

And ultimately - to what end? What would a trial do other than shift where people see conspiracies?

Trials are where actually evidence is required.

Any free person should want the claims of governments tested in trials.

Slaves just bow as the master tells them what is the truth.

So lemme guess - you're one of those folks that thinks the Bin Laden tapes were faked, right? Jet fuel can't melt steel beams?

Reams of evidence were provided to Pakistan and they did nothing about the planners of the Mumbai attacks. Ajmal's own father admitted that he was indeed his son and of Pakistani origin, yet Pakistan denied this unless they had 'uncontrovertible evidence'.

There was enough photo and video evidence to put Ajmal to death immediately available.

All other evidence was effectively meaningless because it was thrown away. India threatening to mobilize their airforce was the only thing that got Pakistan to finally admit to his nationality.

The funniest line (not haha funny) from his interview is 'If you give me regular meals and money I will do the same that I did for them'. And all the while no-nothings cry crocodile tears about the Illuminati picking on poor old OBL and ISI upper-echelon.

 

[untermensche]

Trials are where actually evidence is required.

Any free person should want the claims of governments tested in trials.

Slaves just bow as the master tells them what is the truth.

So lemme guess - you're one of those folks that thinks the Bin Laden tapes were faked, right? Jet fuel can't melt steel beams?...

Is this supposed to pass as a response?

There are men who don't simply believe every word the government tells them.

And worms who do.

 

[Deepak]

So lemme guess - you're one of those folks that thinks the Bin Laden tapes were faked, right? Jet fuel can't melt steel beams?...

Is this supposed to pass as a response?

There are men who don't simply believe every word the government tells them.

And worms who do.

Well that certainly convinced anyone reading this thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...Yes. I wasn't in the room when they made the decision. However, I think that they weighed the issues involving the arrest, trial, sentencing, and punishment for bin Laden and decided it'd be quicker if he resisted during detainment...

You do come across as someone who will just believe whatever they are told.

How the flying fuck did you get to that conclusion?

If those SEALs wanted to capture bin Laden it is absurd to think they couldn't have easily captured him.

Yes and no. In and out as fast as possible. It isn't like they tried this five times before in a video game and now know where all the enemies are and where bin Laden is and where the secret loot is hidden. But yeah, if there was a directive to get him out alive, it could be a possibility that it could be done.

But those were not their orders and they did what people in the military do. They followed orders.

Yeah, I alluded to that in the statement you quoted, but then got this funky idea that I didn't understand what actually happened.

 

[tupac chopra]

Trials are where actually evidence is required.

Any free person should want the claims of governments tested in trials.

Slaves just bow as the master tells them what is the truth.

So lemme guess - you're one of those folks that thinks the Bin Laden tapes were faked, right? Jet fuel can't melt steel beams?

Are you saying you believe everything your government tells you, and that it should never be tested. Because it looks like that is what you are saying.