Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslim here, I knew the story was a big lie when they said he was buried at sea. Seriously?

Why?

Because it is very unlikely that they would care about his religion and go out of the I way to give him a burial in accordance with his religion.

Burial at sea?
https://youtu.be/6gGptMo8WeE

Do you believe Poland attacked Germany?

There are historically valid reasons to carefully examine journalism which questions the official narrative.

Thanks goes to OP for asking the question/raising the issue for debate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslim here, I knew the story was a big lie when they said he was buried at sea. Seriously?

Why?

Because it is very unlikely that they would care about his religion and go out of the I way to give him a burial in accordance with his religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what happened here.

But for me the astonishing part of this story is that the us press refused to run the Hersh story.... He had to go to Europe...If Hersh cannot get published here, who can? How "free" is our press?

I imagine any number of US outlets would have published the story, but he probably did not want to go to them. Fox would generally go with anything credible that suggests Obama has lied.

Not true.

Really? Can you think of anything where Fox gave Obama the benefit of the doubt?

Sure thing:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/bill-oreilly-defends-obama-sexism-charges-117942.html?cmpid=sf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what happened here.

But for me the astonishing part of this story is that the us press refused to run the Hersh story.... He had to go to Europe...If Hersh cannot get published here, who can? How "free" is our press?

I imagine any number of US outlets would have published the story, but he probably did not want to go to them. Fox would generally go with anything credible that suggests Obama has lied.

Not true.

Really? Can you think of anything where Fox gave Obama the benefit of the doubt?

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what happened here.

But for me the astonishing part of this story is that the us press refused to run the Hersh story.... He had to go to Europe...If Hersh cannot get published here, who can? How "free" is our press?

In this interview with Slate -- which is pretty hilarious and in which Hersh basically redefines the term "crotchety" -- Hersh seems to say that The New Yorker would have run the story but he chose to take it elsewhere. He is a bit unclear, but he implies that it would have been too much of a headache to jump through the expected hoops of the New Yorker. He suggests that the fact-checking and editorial standards an the LRB are just as high, but there is less political concern.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/05/seymour_hersh_interview_on_his_bin_laden_story_the_new_yorker_journalism.single.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what happened here.

But for me the astonishing part of this story is that the us press refused to run the Hersh story.... He had to go to Europe...If Hersh cannot get published here, who can? How "free" is our press?

I imagine any number of US outlets would have published the story, but he probably did not want to go to them. Fox would generally go with anything credible that suggests Obama has lied.

Not true.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what happened here.

But for me the astonishing part of this story is that the us press refused to run the Hersh story.... He had to go to Europe...If Hersh cannot get published here, who can? How "free" is our press?

I imagine any number of US outlets would have published the story, but he probably did not want to go to them. Fox would generally go with anything credible that suggests Obama has lied.

I don't know what happened here.

But for me the astonishing part of this story is that the us press refused to run the Hersh story.... He had to go to Europe...If Hersh cannot get published here, who can? How "free" is our press?

Anonymous wrote:Muslim here, I knew the story was a big lie when they said he was buried at sea. Seriously?

Why?

Muslim here, I knew the story was a big lie when they said he was buried at sea. Seriously?

I don't like Obama and didn't vote for him. But, I don't give a hoot about this. Is there a reason I should care? That's actually an honest question. My assumption is that there are all sorts of lies coming out of the white house, and that it's certainly not exclusive to Obama. Its pretty standard. So again, why is this a big deal - other than for just personal interest.

Anonymous wrote:That and lets not forget one determined as hell and smart CIA agent who never gave up.

Or, so you've been told. If instead of a determined CIA agent it was a Pakistani eager to exchange bin Laden for $25 million, then that determination was for naught.

Anonymous wrote:I will take a look at the article. But it would seem to me that if the Bush Administration got him, they would have sounded it to the high heavens. Or at least leaked it when Obama took credit for it.

I also find it odd that no one in Al Qaeda would have disclosed this after the raid. It is however plausible that Pakistan aided us in the extraction but don't want to take the heat for selling him out.

It seems to me the key facts he's working from were verified from a Pakistani who said "and what you’ve told me is essentially what I have heard from former colleagues who have been on a fact-finding mission since this episode."

So basically the story's confirmation rests of "I heard that too".

This would NEVER happen and here is why :

1) " counter terrorism dollars" paid to Pakistanis ( billions still unaccounted for ) made it in the Pakistani best interest to keep the Bin Laden threat alive ( no boogey man, no money, no money , no 10% cut and no corrupt official retirement plan

2) No Muslim country dictatorship with a sizable radicalized population would EVER allow itself to be implicated in killing the " leader" Helping the gentiles to kill a fellow muslim, never.

3) While it is quite plausible that the Saudis paid the Pakistanis to hide him in plain sight, the Pakistani's ( for reason #1 above ) are perfectly capable of this duplicity all on their own.

Bush people likely had little interest in going after Bin Laden because, for them, " boogey man" justified so many aspects of their war machine

Enter a US President who isn't primarily working for the MIC and , within a few years, we have the man's head .

That and lets not forget one determined as hell and smart CIA agent who never gave up.

Hard to say. I'd have to look into it closer before I'd even think of believing that account over Obama's account. For now I believe Obama (and I'm not a fan).

However, there is an unconfirmed (it will never be confirmed) account about the crashed stealth helicopter we used. Our so-called "friends" - the Pakistanis - immediately took our wreckage to a warehouse. They eventually returned it - but allegedly they first allowed Chinese intelligence agents to examine it and take samples of the materials - probably in exchange for military assistance or hardware.

There isn't much separating the ISI from the Haqqani network or the Taliban. Think about that.