7 ms·

the US military invades Bin Laden's compound, calmly shoots him, searches the place, takes his body, disposes it at sea, whilst america's top brass follows... a

the US military invades Bin Laden's compound, calmly shoots him, searches the place, takes his body, disposes it at sea, whilst america's top brass follows... and the only recording of any of this is two DNA shots and a video taken from a drone 5km above it all - not even one photo of the face? He's not even recognisable to the soldiers sent in on the mission, so one has to lie down next to him as a human ruler (yep - about 4 inches bigger than your are, Joe!) Bollocks. Pics or it didn't happen. Also: this article is gloating, snuff pornography that betrays a total lack of journalistic instinct. When a journalist explicitly makes excuses for discrepancies in the story he is reporting, rather than examining them, you know that an article was not worth your time and attention.

joejohnson 15y ago
I don't know why you're getting down votes. This story seems well written, but for the majority of the story (all of the important parts), it relies only on information released by the government. Why should we believe this story? It seems to be a perfect tale that can't be corroborated now.
- showerst 15y ago
  The downed helicopter is certainly evidence that _something_ happened involving a US operation in Pakistan. There was a statement mourning his death that has been accepted as originating with Al Qaeda (by the US Govt, organizations that monitor militant activity, as well as parties like Al-Jazeera). By the situation's very nature there are only a handful of people with the facts, and they're all going to work for either the US or Pakistani governments. At some point one applies Occam's razor, but you're never going to convince everyone, especially those who don't _want_ to believe (See the 9-11 truthers.) I'd say that the evidence is conclusive, but I suppose one could work up a conspiracy involving dozens (hundreds?) of people in the administration from the president down to rank & file soldiers. As for the photos, There was supposedly a heated debate within the administration about releasing the pictures, but it was decided that the harm they would do to the US' image was worse than the value of a photo as a piece of evidence. The piece's author not questioning the discrepancies can be put down to believing in a "Fog of war" in the exact recollections and communications, plus the fact that not a single difference was really material to the story. I think it's interesting that they mentioned them at all.
  - joejohnson 15y ago
    >>At some point one applies Occam's razor, but you're never going to convince everyone, especially those who don't _want_ to believe (See the 9-11 truthers.) I would argue that those who you say "don't want to believe" are as idignant as you are. From your comment, it seems that you accept the official story. What would it take for you to believe anything different about these matters? You are actively ignoring evidence that might not support what you already take to be true. This is bad science. The public is dogmatic in their Most of the US is happy with this position though. It's easier to just accept the official story and not to question any of it, even when the evidence contradicting these events begins to pile up (liquid metal at the WTC, WTC7, the assasination of Bhutto after she claims Osama bin Laden is dead, etc. there are many, many more suspicious facts that seem to contradict the official story). And then to invoke Occam's razor? What is simpler: to accept what is being fed to you from one source? Or the notion that there is much more going on in all of these events, and that the government is trying to prevent the public from realizing certain details for whatever reason? Does that really seem too crazy to be true?
    - nate_meurer 15y ago
      I think the parent is invoking occam's razor against the idea that our government is capable of organizing a conspiracy of this complexity. For my part, it's not so much that I trust what the government says; it is rather that I trust their inability to keep secrets of this magnitude.
    - joezydeco 15y ago
      nate has a point. Why do we all believe thousands of military and civilians can keep a secret like this for decades when an oral sex act in the White House can be made public within a year?
      - joejohnson 15y ago
        I don't know. But it would be wrong to assume that it is impossible, and thus to ignore any evidence that might say otherwise. How many other sex scandals do you think have occured in high offices, and were never discovered by the public? I'm sure there are some that weren't discovered until much later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scand... And additionally, there have been examples of the US military keeping large secrets for decades. One example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident So why does it seem impossible that there is more to the story about 9/11 and Osama bin Laden than is being reported by the US gov? (especially when there is evidence which raises unanswered questions or pokes holes in the official stories)
jamesteow 15y ago
Al Qaeda confirmed his death.
- dennisgorelik 15y ago
  Al Qaeda could confirm Bin Laden's death in order to protect Bin Laden from future assassination attempts. Whether Bin Laden is killed or not - is not clear. But what is clear is that US government has muddy operation on their hands. They clearly hiding something about that story. They intentionally killed main witness (Osama) even though it wouldn't be any harder to capture him alive. The reason of why there are no photos is also not clear.
nate_meurer 15y ago
> "Bollocks. Pics or it didn't happen." The Obama administration doesn't care whether you or anybody else believes them. They are clearly not milking this for PR. They said it very simply: we killed him, we dumped his body in the ocean, no you may not see pictures. Go ahead and forget about the whole thing. Edit: grammar
- mcantelon 15y ago
  >The Obama administration doesn't care whether you or anybody else believes them. True, they behaved like an unaccountable empire given that 1) Americans have paid a lot of money to exact revenge on Bin Laden and 2) the hit squad operation was illegal under international law.
- flipbrad 15y ago
  I'm sorry, I stand by my statement: this is puff piece journalism. It's advanced, well-written churnalism.

joejohnson 15y ago

I don't know why you're getting down votes. This story seems well written, but for the majority of the story (all of the important parts), it relies only on information released by the government. Why should we believe this story? It seems to be a perfect tale that can't be corroborated now.

showerst 15y ago
The downed helicopter is certainly evidence that _something_ happened involving a US operation in Pakistan. There was a statement mourning his death that has been accepted as originating with Al Qaeda (by the US Govt, organizations that monitor militant activity, as well as parties like Al-Jazeera). By the situation's very nature there are only a handful of people with the facts, and they're all going to work for either the US or Pakistani governments. At some point one applies Occam's razor, but you're never going to convince everyone, especially those who don't _want_ to believe (See the 9-11 truthers.) I'd say that the evidence is conclusive, but I suppose one could work up a conspiracy involving dozens (hundreds?) of people in the administration from the president down to rank & file soldiers. As for the photos, There was supposedly a heated debate within the administration about releasing the pictures, but it was decided that the harm they would do to the US' image was worse than the value of a photo as a piece of evidence. The piece's author not questioning the discrepancies can be put down to believing in a "Fog of war" in the exact recollections and communications, plus the fact that not a single difference was really material to the story. I think it's interesting that they mentioned them at all.
- joejohnson 15y ago
  >>At some point one applies Occam's razor, but you're never going to convince everyone, especially those who don't _want_ to believe (See the 9-11 truthers.) I would argue that those who you say "don't want to believe" are as idignant as you are. From your comment, it seems that you accept the official story. What would it take for you to believe anything different about these matters? You are actively ignoring evidence that might not support what you already take to be true. This is bad science. The public is dogmatic in their Most of the US is happy with this position though. It's easier to just accept the official story and not to question any of it, even when the evidence contradicting these events begins to pile up (liquid metal at the WTC, WTC7, the assasination of Bhutto after she claims Osama bin Laden is dead, etc. there are many, many more suspicious facts that seem to contradict the official story). And then to invoke Occam's razor? What is simpler: to accept what is being fed to you from one source? Or the notion that there is much more going on in all of these events, and that the government is trying to prevent the public from realizing certain details for whatever reason? Does that really seem too crazy to be true?
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    I think the parent is invoking occam's razor against the idea that our government is capable of organizing a conspiracy of this complexity. For my part, it's not so much that I trust what the government says; it is rather that I trust their inability to keep secrets of this magnitude.
  - joezydeco 15y ago
    nate has a point. Why do we all believe thousands of military and civilians can keep a secret like this for decades when an oral sex act in the White House can be made public within a year?
    - joejohnson 15y ago
      I don't know. But it would be wrong to assume that it is impossible, and thus to ignore any evidence that might say otherwise. How many other sex scandals do you think have occured in high offices, and were never discovered by the public? I'm sure there are some that weren't discovered until much later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scand... And additionally, there have been examples of the US military keeping large secrets for decades. One example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident So why does it seem impossible that there is more to the story about 9/11 and Osama bin Laden than is being reported by the US gov? (especially when there is evidence which raises unanswered questions or pokes holes in the official stories)

jamesteow 15y ago

Al Qaeda confirmed his death.

dennisgorelik 15y ago
Al Qaeda could confirm Bin Laden's death in order to protect Bin Laden from future assassination attempts. Whether Bin Laden is killed or not - is not clear. But what is clear is that US government has muddy operation on their hands. They clearly hiding something about that story. They intentionally killed main witness (Osama) even though it wouldn't be any harder to capture him alive. The reason of why there are no photos is also not clear.

nate_meurer 15y ago

> "Bollocks. Pics or it didn't happen." The Obama administration doesn't care whether you or anybody else believes them. They are clearly not milking this for PR. They said it very simply: we killed him, we dumped his body in the ocean, no you may not see pictures. Go ahead and forget about the whole thing. Edit: grammar

mcantelon 15y ago
>The Obama administration doesn't care whether you or anybody else believes them. True, they behaved like an unaccountable empire given that 1) Americans have paid a lot of money to exact revenge on Bin Laden and 2) the hit squad operation was illegal under international law.
flipbrad 15y ago
I'm sorry, I stand by my statement: this is puff piece journalism. It's advanced, well-written churnalism.