Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday October 23 2015, @05:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can't-handle-the-truth dept.

American history is filled with war stories that subsequently unraveled. Consider the Bush administration's false claims about Saddam Hussein's supposed arsenal of weapons of mass destruction or the imagined attack on a U.S. vessel in the Gulf of Tonkin. Now Johnathan Mahler writes in the NY Times about the inconsistencies in the official US story about bin Laden's death. "Almost immediately, the administration had to correct some of the most significant details of the raid," writes Mahler. Bin Laden had not been ''engaged in a firefight,'' as the deputy national-security adviser, John Brennan, initially told reporters; he'd been unarmed. Nor had he used one of his wives as a human shield. The president and his senior advisers hadn't been watching a ''live feed'' of the raid in the Situation Room; the operation had not been captured on helmet-cams.

But according to Mahler there is the sheer improbability of the story itself, which asked us to believe that Obama sent 23 SEALs on a seemingly suicidal mission, invading Pakistani air space without air or ground cover, fast-roping into a compound that, if it even contained bin Laden, by all rights should have been heavily guarded. How likely was that? Abbottabad is basically a garrison town; the conspicuously large bin Laden compound — three stories, encircled by an 18-foot-high concrete wall topped with barbed wire — was less than two miles from Pakistan's equivalent of West Point. ''The story stunk from Day 1,'' says Seymour Hersh whose most consequential claim was about how bin Laden was found in the first place. According to Hersh, it was not years of painstaking intelligence-gathering, he wrote, that led the United States to the courier and, ultimately, to bin Laden. Instead, the location was revealed by a ''walk-in'' — a retired Pakistani intelligence officer who was after the $25 million reward that the United States had promised anyone who helped locate him. And according to Hersh, the daring raid wasn't especially daring. The Pakistanis allowed the U.S. helicopters into their airspace and cleared out the guards at the compound before the SEALs arrived. The most blatant lie was that Pakistan's two most senior military leaders – General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, chief of the army staff, and General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, director general of the ISI – were never informed of the US mission.

"It's not that the truth about bin Laden's death is unknowable," concludes Mahler. "it's that we don't know it. And we can't necessarily console ourselves with the hope that we will have more answers any time soon; to this day, the final volume of the C.I.A.'s official history of the Bay of Pigs remains classified. We don't know what happened more than a half-century ago, much less in 2011."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @07:26AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @07:26AM (#253524)

    The whole thing did stink, but the reasoning of the authors is flawed.

    This is OBAMA, right before an election year. Yeah, I kinda think he might decide to use the military to go after a man responsible for 9/11 for political points, principles, all of the above really. We are talking about Navy Seals being sent, not PFC Gomer Pyle. Seemingly suicidal mission? Yeah, I'm sure they're clenching their dresses with worry right before the missions. Perhaps I watched Chuck Norris too much in the 80's, but when you needed to do something as difficult and hardcore as the article implies.... you called Chuck Norris. If you wanted it quiet, you used the Seals. Absolutely, I completely believe they would still be sent under those conditions.

    It's so implausible to this guy that a retired intelligence officer went after the reward. Totally. Huge, lotto like, multi-million dollar bribes are not known to be successful right? If they really did know about it for awhile, the sympathizers could only keep a lid on it for so long anyways. That link about the general knowing what and when? He admits it was most likely known information, but that intelligence was keeping him as an asset for a rainy day. That doesn't support a conspiracy, and supports Osama being where they said he was for reasons that are entirely reasonable and familiar for an intelligence agency to do.

    The arguments are complete shit, but you nailed the single two greatest arguments about it being fake:

    1) The body was immediately buried out of a concern for reprisals if respects were not paid to a terrorist. The U.S doesn't negotiate with terrorists, period. Most countries do not, and there doesn't seem to be an overabundance of concern in the U.S about hurting Muslim feelings. Anywhere. So why all of the sudden the kowtowing to the Muslim world and signs of respect, when it was so short-lived anyways? After killing him, was that gesture really going to avoid another great attack? "We were going to nuke Miami, but just for that, New Jersey instead".

    2) Where da body? Proof? No country has ever acknowledged, IIRC, that the U.S ever provided any DNA evidence collected at the scene, or from the body. Amazingly, they didn't just preserve his dignity by observing the quick burial, but by also failing to store any DNA or samples whatsoever, for any country, or interested parties, at all. *Where* did the decide to bury it? Secret grave near Mecca or something nice sounding like that where we could pick him up later? Could of upped the ante on the kowtowing with a nice description of how his grave overlook's that place where the Prophet stood in that one place and did that thing. Nope, deepest part of the fucking ocean, off the deck of an U.S Air Craft carrier. Of which, out of all the places on the planet, is probably pretty secure from eavesdropping by anything but space, or damn near it. On the entire trip there, which had many opportunities for other country's to have a "viewing" session, nobody saw shit, took shit, sampled shit, literally sampled his literal shit even. Nothing. Only since JFK has the 72-hours following somebody's death been as filled with as much tom foolery and questions.

    That makes sense. I can piss off a traffic cop in the right places now, and they will sample my DNA, but not Bin Laden's?

    Yeah, its smelled like bullshit from here too for some time.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday October 23 2015, @08:13AM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday October 23 2015, @08:13AM (#253528) Journal

    Nobody believes they didn't take DNA.
    Nobody.

    Just because they haven't shown it to you doesn't mean they don't have it.

    Nobody believes they didn't take pictures of the body.
    Nobody.
    But they haven't shown you those either.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday October 23 2015, @08:43AM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday October 23 2015, @08:43AM (#253539) Homepage

      Our media said that samples were taken and verified, and if he is the most wanted man on the planet then somebody had to have a more persistent and accessible sample anyway.

      The funny thing is that I believe that. The official story surrounding the death itself, not so much.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday October 23 2015, @06:32PM

        by frojack (1554) on Friday October 23 2015, @06:32PM (#253696) Journal

        The US made special attempts to get sibling DNA through the Saudis.
        I think, (but don't know for sure) that they were successful.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by NickFortune on Friday October 23 2015, @02:34PM

      by NickFortune (3267) on Friday October 23 2015, @02:34PM (#253609)

      Nobody believes they didn't take DNA.
      Nobody.

      Just because they haven't shown it to you doesn't mean they don't have it.

      So ... the proof that these things exist is that we haven't any evidence? Cool!

      "Oh! Let us never, never doubt
        What nobody is sure about!"

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 23 2015, @04:05PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday October 23 2015, @04:05PM (#253633)

        The AC's argument was that lack of evidence that they do have it is evidence that they don't.

        We're talking about conspiracy theories and you disagree with the guy saying you're not being skeptical enough?

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by NickFortune on Friday October 23 2015, @06:15PM

          by NickFortune (3267) on Friday October 23 2015, @06:15PM (#253687)

          Well strictly speaking, the lack of evidence is evidence that we don't have any evidence. And nothing else.

          That much is true, no matter what side of the argument you're on.

          Do I think the lack of a body is suspicious? Yes. Do I think they took DNA samples? What difference would that make, either way? They could have DNA samples and he could be walking around alive and well. Or he could be dead as a doornail and the samples fell out of the plane and were lost.

          The lack of evidence is only evidence that we don't have any evidence.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @04:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @04:22PM (#253637)

        So ... the proof that these things exist is that we haven't any evidence? Cool!

        No, you blithering nitwit! No "proof" is being offered to you. We don't have time to engage conspiracy theory wingnuts like the lot of you commenting here. You can believe whatever the hell you want to believe. The rest of us are all just going to laugh at you while we watch you chase your tails. Is it crystal clear now?

        • (Score: 2) by NickFortune on Friday October 23 2015, @06:10PM

          by NickFortune (3267) on Friday October 23 2015, @06:10PM (#253685)

          You're supposed to say "fnord" after a paragraph like that one.

          Kids these days ... no respect for tradition.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by BasilBrush on Friday October 23 2015, @08:27AM

    by BasilBrush (3994) on Friday October 23 2015, @08:27AM (#253532)

    Your problem with the theory that it wasn't Bin Laden is: Why hasn't Bin Laden popped up somewhere else. Or at least why are the US government not concerned that he might? Why have Al Queda accepted the news that he's dead, right from the moment and to this day?

    So much for your conspiracy theory. Occam's razor is that Bin Laden was indeed killed that day.

    As for the "live feed" being busted from a lack of helmet cams... What kind of idiot ever imagined they were getting a first person shooter live feed to the Whitehouse. The politicians in that room don't want to see a multiple snuff movie live any more than any normal civvy. Clearly it was a feed to the military situation room.

    --
    Hurrah! Quoting works now!
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday October 23 2015, @09:21AM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday October 23 2015, @09:21AM (#253547) Homepage

      It was when Bin Laden was alive that Al-Qaeda was established as an ideology rather than an organization of people -- that was central to framing the war on terror as a perpetual undertaking rather than simply a battle to be won.

      Al-Qaeda, ISIS, You-SIS, We-SIS, whatever the terrorist bad-guys of the day call themselves, the struggle never ends. We've always been at war with Eurasia.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @09:27AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @09:27AM (#253549)

      Re not bin laden:
      1. No doubt AQ find the story - assassinated by the great satan - is a much better than, he died 5 years earlier in some pedestrian way like falling off a camel on amountain pass, or blowing up while making a bomb.
      2. Else simply retiring on a CIA pension seems just as plausible.

      Even so, I agree ... anything else - other than killed by raiders (near enough as claimed, allowed or not) - would seem less likely.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by curunir_wolf on Friday October 23 2015, @10:59AM

      by curunir_wolf (4772) on Friday October 23 2015, @10:59AM (#253560)

      Your problem with the theory that it wasn't Bin Laden is: Why hasn't Bin Laden popped up somewhere else. Or at least why are the US government not concerned that he might?

      Because he's been dead since December, 2001 [nytimes.com]. Duh. Subsequent videos were actually a look-alike, done to keep the legend going and the troops motivated.

      --
      I am a crackpot
    • (Score: 2) by NickFortune on Saturday October 24 2015, @06:45AM

      by NickFortune (3267) on Saturday October 24 2015, @06:45AM (#253930)

      Your problem with the theory that it wasn't Bin Laden is: Why hasn't Bin Laden popped up somewhere else

      Maybe he found another job. I mean he spent the best part of a decade playing Doctor Evil so that Tony Blair could pretend to be Austin Powers and GWB could be his comedy sidekick. (Probably not how Dubya thought it would play out, but that's show biz).

      Anyone can get tired of a role after a run like that.

      • (Score: 2) by NickFortune on Saturday October 24 2015, @06:50AM

        by NickFortune (3267) on Saturday October 24 2015, @06:50AM (#253931)

        Meh. Hit "post" instead of "preview". Oh well, you get the idea.