Surely "Zero Dark Thirty" is all you need to know about the Bin Laden story... it's like the perfect CIA-propoganda, i mean, blockbuster material.

jbalcorn:

The New Yorker and the New York Times have passed on his work before. It's worth noting that both publications are based in the States.

But finish the story.

Of everyone in the (mainstream liberal media) is passing on the story....

<rolls eyes>

"liberal" my ass. There is nothing "liberal" about the mainstream media.

Of course the government exaggerates. If you don't believe that, then you believe that Fox news is "fair and balanced."

In that case, PM me so I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

Read the article, Randomizer. We're dealing with a lot more than exaggeration. If you don't believe that, then you can't distinguish between fabrications and exaggerations.

In that case, PM me your routing number so I can deposit the funds.

This isn't exaggeration. Here's just SOME of what Hersch alleges:

- Bin Laden wasn't hiding out. He was imprisoned by Pakistan in that compound
- Pakistani military colluded on the raid. But they wanted it to be a drone strike.
- The deal was that we would announce that Bin Laden was killed in a drone strike months later, just like what was just done with the severe injury to the ISIS leader
- The helicopter crash changed the game, and that's why Obama announced it.

There's much, much more. As I said, the truth of it is difficult to know. And Hersch has written things that turned out to be completely untrue before. But it raises questions about the official story that should be addressed.

Pakistan, as a Islamic country, couldn't admit publicly to several points in the article if it was to maintain relations with other Islamic countries. So whether Pakistan knew or didn't you were going to see the same thing.

It's the same thing with relations between Israel and Arab countries. Public and private relations are two different things. Saudi Arabia and other countries would love if Israel bombed Iran's nuclear program, but saying that in public would result in their governments being over thrown. You didn't hear them overly complaining when Iraq's nuclear plant was bombed by Israel even though Arab countries' air space was violated.

@Randomizer the American public still doesn't get that Sunni and Shiite are as opposed to each other as Arab states and Israel. And the Arab states can't admit that they are more threatened by their Muslim neighbors than Israel.

Randomizer: Notice that no Pakistani government or government officials are even mentioned in the article. Simplifying things so that Pakistan becomes a homogenous entity makes for a very misleading analysis.

But it sounds like you're just talking for the hell of it; what does Iran have to do with anything?

jbalcorn: That would also be a massive oversimplification. As if Hammas and Hezbollah never cooperate. There are many different sects within Sunnism and among Shi'ites, some of which are so different that they are often considered seperate branches of Islam. Ideological interpretations of Islam within these sects (such as secularist, fundamentalist or royalist variations) fragment matters further. Ethnic divides much more clearly seperate communities. For example, the Kurds are overwhelmingly Sunni, after all, but they don't fit into your division of the Middle East. Furthermore, where does your analysis leave ethnic or religious minorities (such as Berbers and Maronites, respectively)?

Hamas

I don't understand what the controversy is here. We can basically all agree that the dude needed to be capped and that's precisely what happened. Where's the outrage?

Hell, that raid was the *one* thing that the Obama administration has done right in over 6 years of clusterfuckery.

@Gunfighter if you don't mind being lied to, then I guess it's fine. Yeah, I'm glad he's dead. And all in all, I think Obama has been more positive than negative. But he SURE as hell didn't live up to the expectations of creating a more transparent and accountable federal government.

We keep getting pulled into wars that benefit the rich and destroy our national economy AND credibility by leaders who think they can hide the truth. Terrorists don't hate our Freedom. They hate that we use our military to plunder their natural reserves for the benefit of a very small set of very rich people.

Unfortunately, while I thought Obama was going to be different, I know Hillary won't be. She'll talk a good game and then protect her Wall Street donors. But at least she'll have to work WITH the Warren/Sanders/Franken/Sherrod Brown wing to appease the left wing with SOME progressive policies. Then when she fucks up...

Warren/Sanders 2020! Or Sanders/Warren 2020! Either way is fine!

As much as I dislike the Obama administration, it's done a few more things right than just the raid on Osama Bin Laden.

To be honest, over the years, I've grown less "Republican" and more "neither". All politicians lie and do illegal/unethical crap and manipulate the American people in such a way as to get themselves re-elected 4 years later, or to elect someone else that is like them.

They promise the moon, screw around for 3 years doing neither what they promised nor what we wanted, screw stuff up and blame it on the previous administration, do what they want regardless of how screwed up an idea it is, and then as elections for year 4 are coming up, they lower gas prices, throw around a few nice things, clean house and act like they should have been since year 1 to raise their popularity and be able to say "See what good things I've done in 4 years? Pick me again".

@JECE yes, I agree. MASSIVE simplification. Islam in the 21st century is where Christianity was in the 13th century. Massive wars raging about really STUPID arguments over what is heresy and what isn't. Unfortunately, the 21st century allows those wars to have global impact. Sure would be nice if we could let them just fight it out. Hell, let's just try that!

#SandersForPresident

Gunfighter06: Have you read the essay?

its funny how single sourced articles pass for journalism nowadays, even "amazing reporting" to some.

Is some of it true? I bet. I always suspected that the Pakistani government claimed ignorance in order to escape retaliation, but the rest of it is single sourced bull shit.

this article is a disgrace

What, a disgrace to call it journalism??

Hersch is difficult. He's considered to be one of the 100 best sourced journalists in the world, based on some of his blockbuster reports. He's also had a few where an anonymous source and some misinterpreted interviews led him completely wrong - False Flag attacks in Syria, Chemical Weapons, a couple others. But if you had read the reporting on the Mai Lai massacre, or the Pentagon papers, and called bullshit - you'd have been wrong. So I do think it's important that his allegations be followed up. However, it appears that some of it is already coming apart.

I read his previous piece in the London Review of Books, which was a follow-up on his earlier work on the chemical weapons attacks in Syria. He insinuated quite convincingly that Erdoğan's government actively supplied and supported jihadist rebels, possibly with sarin. His allegations were of course much more specific, detailed and numerous, but I would say that others have supported that overall picture since he published that paper. Where did you hear that he retracted his claims?

since he published that paper a year ago.

@ jbalcorn

"if you don't mind being lied to, then I guess it's fine"

I don't mind a deceptive government if it's a national defense-related issue, which the Osama raid certainly was. There are real spooks on the ground that will really die if the government were to tell the whole story.

Non national-defense issues are a totally different story. I demand a completely transparent government except in very limited cases. The Osama raid is one of those very limited cases when I am willing to tolerate a more liberal definition of the word "honesty".

"Islam in the 21st century is where Christianity was in the 13th century."

Hear, hear! The question in my mind is should we (and if so, how do we) lift up/empower the moderate Muslim population in order to accelerate the "evolution" of Islam as a whole? Or is radical Islam simply a problem that needs to be "waited out," just like pre-Renaissance Christianity? In the case of the latter, the civilized world should simply do its best to "contain" the Middle East and prevent the disease of radicalism from spreading.

Here you can hear Seymour Hersh explain his piece in his own words:
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/12/seymour_hersh_details_explosive_story_on