7 ms·

> his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden You give a link but it is nowhere in that link. I watched an interview where Hersh talked about how the U

> his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden You give a link but it is nowhere in that link. I watched an interview where Hersh talked about how the US killed bin Laden. Hersh has always said this. Hersh did do reporting that countered parts of the US government story about bin Laden. Namely the idea no high Pakistani army/intelligence/government official knew where bin Laden was in Pakistan. As well as some other things. The conspiracy theory is believing bin Laden sat in a big compound in Abbottabad with no one important in the Pakistani government knowing this. I guess the US government feels it needs to state this for some diplomatic reason, but it is ludicrous.

beebmam 4y ago
Seymour Hersh regarding the Osama bin Laden raid, in which the terrorist leader was killed in 2011: "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true". Later on in 2013, he changed his claim, such that he admitted some of the story is true, that is, that the terrorist leader was killed, after he encountered pushback. Source: https://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/hersh-slams-us-media-claims-bin-laden-narrative-is-not-true/ https://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/hersh-slams-us-media-clai...
- pessimizer 4y ago
  That quote doesn't say that the US didn't kill Bin Laden. You're implying that by adding an unnecessary parenthetical "in which the terrorist leader was killed in 2011." There's nothing simpler and better for your case than typing the quote where he said the thing you say he said. Otherwise, you're actively spreading misinformation on social media, and intentionally using rhetorical games to obscure the lack of evidence you're offering to support it. That's conscious spreading of misinformation.
  - beebmam 4y ago
    Let me make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying that I'm spreading misinformation when I stated that: Seymour Hersh, with respect to an article about the Osama bin Laden raid, said that not a single word in it was true. He then later went on to admit that indeed, some of those words were true, that Osama bin Laden was indeed killed. Would you be willing to explain how a strictly historical truth, that is, a direct quote from the individual in question, is misinformation?
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      You took a completely literal reading of a one sentence quote from an interview as his full opinion on the matter, and ignored that he immediately said that one sentence was not an accurate representation of his entire view. The Guardian even corrected the initial interview adding his further clarification. That seems like misinformation to me.
      - beebmam 4y ago
        The Guardian did not issue a correction about Hersh's words. There was nothing to correct about them: the quote from Hersh is accurate. The Guardian issued a footnote/amendment (in their words), and here it is from the Guardian that you're referring to, as context: > This article was amended on 1 October 2013. The original text stated that Hersh sold a story about the My Lai massacre to the New York Times for $5,000 when in fact it was the Times of London. Hersh has pointed out that he was in no way suggesting that Osama bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan, as reported, upon the president's authority: he was saying that it was in the aftermath that the lying began. Finally, the interview took place in the month of July, 2013. Note that from this footnote that Seymour Hersh does not admit that he misspoke. He claims that he never suggested that Osama bin Laden was not killed. This is plainly a straight lie, given his claim that the White House's statement did not contain one word that was true. If he wants to state that he misspoke in this interview: fine, then he should do it. But to state that he didn't make this claim is itself misinformation. Edit: You're accusing me of bad faith. Can you please explain how my argument is deceptive or a lie? If anything, Seymour Hersh has acted in bad faith in this ordeal, lying about his own statements. And people should be suspect of him for that.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        Saying an amendment isn't a correction seems silly. When your entire argument is "this one sentence when taken literally with no context can be considered crazy," I don't think you're arguing in good faith.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
- GAN_Game 4y ago
  In an interview with the Guardian he said, as you quote "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true". You take this statement he made and translate it to "his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden". The original quote you print is much clearer. I certainly don't translate his quote to what you translated it to. Speaking of changed claims, both the White House and New York Times walked back claims they made in 2011 about bin Laden. So Hersh's claim of "a lie" and "not true", if you want to call it that, is true by their own admissions. Incidentally the disputed issues are did anyone high up in the Pakistani government know bin Laden was there, how did the US learn he was there (connected to the first point), was the firefight killing bin Laden a kind of John Wayne/Audie Murphy production or was it more pedestrian etc. If it's not pedantic that Hersh telling the interviewer "not one word of it is true" was hyperbole, when at least one word of the White House story was true, then you have a point on that statement. But it still does not automatically translate as you said. The original statement is more clearly what he said.
  - beebmam 4y ago
    I don't have a problem with people who change their claims, and willingly admit that their claims have changed. This is what I'd expect from decent humans and respectable journalists. I do have a problem with people who change their claims and then deny that they changed their claims, like Seymour Hersh did, with respect to Osama bin Laden and stating that not a single word from the White House was true. That's disingenuous and it makes his credibility questionable, especially if he's going to rely on anonymous sources for his claims. To address your claim that perhaps he was being hyperbolic in his statement: fine, but at least admit to that. He hasn't. He denied that he said it in the first place, which is a lie.
- pasquinelli 4y ago
  now you mention it, it is odd they never produced a body.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    Someone was killed, but he may not have been ObL. This seems far-fetched, until one realizes that the entire war against Afghanistan was justified on the idea of capturing ObL, who is documented to have left Afghanistan less than a month into the war, which lasted another twenty years. Nothing makes sense, about any of this.
claytongulick 4y ago
This is a frustratingly common technique that I've seen from those who have strong political affiliations. It's much easier to make a strong claim, and to repeat it, than it is to read through articles and debunk those claims. Frequently, as soon as you've done it, there are several more of these strong claims made, and the discussion becomes impossible. I think it's rooted in the desire to "win". I know I get a little excited when I see a comment I've made get upvoted. I think about it when I'm writing and I've found it affects what I write and my phrasing. I think this is an unintended consequence of self-moderated discussions - it seems to devolve into a zero-sum game.

beebmam 4y ago

Seymour Hersh regarding the Osama bin Laden raid, in which the terrorist leader was killed in 2011: "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true". Later on in 2013, he changed his claim, such that he admitted some of the story is true, that is, that the terrorist leader was killed, after he encountered pushback. Source: https://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/hersh-slams-us-media-claims-bin-laden-narrative-is-not-true/ https://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/hersh-slams-us-media-clai...

pessimizer 4y ago
That quote doesn't say that the US didn't kill Bin Laden. You're implying that by adding an unnecessary parenthetical "in which the terrorist leader was killed in 2011." There's nothing simpler and better for your case than typing the quote where he said the thing you say he said. Otherwise, you're actively spreading misinformation on social media, and intentionally using rhetorical games to obscure the lack of evidence you're offering to support it. That's conscious spreading of misinformation.
- beebmam 4y ago
  Let me make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying that I'm spreading misinformation when I stated that: Seymour Hersh, with respect to an article about the Osama bin Laden raid, said that not a single word in it was true. He then later went on to admit that indeed, some of those words were true, that Osama bin Laden was indeed killed. Would you be willing to explain how a strictly historical truth, that is, a direct quote from the individual in question, is misinformation?
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    You took a completely literal reading of a one sentence quote from an interview as his full opinion on the matter, and ignored that he immediately said that one sentence was not an accurate representation of his entire view. The Guardian even corrected the initial interview adding his further clarification. That seems like misinformation to me.
    - beebmam 4y ago
      The Guardian did not issue a correction about Hersh's words. There was nothing to correct about them: the quote from Hersh is accurate. The Guardian issued a footnote/amendment (in their words), and here it is from the Guardian that you're referring to, as context: > This article was amended on 1 October 2013. The original text stated that Hersh sold a story about the My Lai massacre to the New York Times for $5,000 when in fact it was the Times of London. Hersh has pointed out that he was in no way suggesting that Osama bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan, as reported, upon the president's authority: he was saying that it was in the aftermath that the lying began. Finally, the interview took place in the month of July, 2013. Note that from this footnote that Seymour Hersh does not admit that he misspoke. He claims that he never suggested that Osama bin Laden was not killed. This is plainly a straight lie, given his claim that the White House's statement did not contain one word that was true. If he wants to state that he misspoke in this interview: fine, then he should do it. But to state that he didn't make this claim is itself misinformation. Edit: You're accusing me of bad faith. Can you please explain how my argument is deceptive or a lie? If anything, Seymour Hersh has acted in bad faith in this ordeal, lying about his own statements. And people should be suspect of him for that.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        Saying an amendment isn't a correction seems silly. When your entire argument is "this one sentence when taken literally with no context can be considered crazy," I don't think you're arguing in good faith.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
GAN_Game 4y ago
In an interview with the Guardian he said, as you quote "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true". You take this statement he made and translate it to "his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden". The original quote you print is much clearer. I certainly don't translate his quote to what you translated it to. Speaking of changed claims, both the White House and New York Times walked back claims they made in 2011 about bin Laden. So Hersh's claim of "a lie" and "not true", if you want to call it that, is true by their own admissions. Incidentally the disputed issues are did anyone high up in the Pakistani government know bin Laden was there, how did the US learn he was there (connected to the first point), was the firefight killing bin Laden a kind of John Wayne/Audie Murphy production or was it more pedestrian etc. If it's not pedantic that Hersh telling the interviewer "not one word of it is true" was hyperbole, when at least one word of the White House story was true, then you have a point on that statement. But it still does not automatically translate as you said. The original statement is more clearly what he said.
- beebmam 4y ago
  I don't have a problem with people who change their claims, and willingly admit that their claims have changed. This is what I'd expect from decent humans and respectable journalists. I do have a problem with people who change their claims and then deny that they changed their claims, like Seymour Hersh did, with respect to Osama bin Laden and stating that not a single word from the White House was true. That's disingenuous and it makes his credibility questionable, especially if he's going to rely on anonymous sources for his claims. To address your claim that perhaps he was being hyperbolic in his statement: fine, but at least admit to that. He hasn't. He denied that he said it in the first place, which is a lie.
pasquinelli 4y ago
now you mention it, it is odd they never produced a body.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Someone was killed, but he may not have been ObL. This seems far-fetched, until one realizes that the entire war against Afghanistan was justified on the idea of capturing ObL, who is documented to have left Afghanistan less than a month into the war, which lasted another twenty years. Nothing makes sense, about any of this.

claytongulick 4y ago

This is a frustratingly common technique that I've seen from those who have strong political affiliations. It's much easier to make a strong claim, and to repeat it, than it is to read through articles and debunk those claims. Frequently, as soon as you've done it, there are several more of these strong claims made, and the discussion becomes impossible. I think it's rooted in the desire to "win". I know I get a little excited when I see a comment I've made get upvoted. I think about it when I'm writing and I've found it affects what I write and my phrasing. I think this is an unintended consequence of self-moderated discussions - it seems to devolve into a zero-sum game.