"The owner of the house, who we reached for comment, had been residing in the UK, and was not aware of current events, and was distraught to discover the state of the home on his return. 'Between the crashed helicopter, burned animal stalls, and bullet marks everywhere, I can safely say I will not be utilizing AirBnB again - the place is completely trashed', Haddad told us"
- the article is almost coy about how OBL's safehouse was so close to a military academy and the contacts with another group tightly linked to ISI; this says to me the sources did not want to discuss anything more than was already public. (And do keep in mind that this sort of article is usually a tissue of deliberate leaks, so what is not said is almost as interesting as what is said. If one were particularly cynical, one might read this into the general downplaying of the downed chopper, the one major flaw of the operation.)
- the Pakistani retaliation with the newspapers was very interesting indeed
- the dumping-the-body-at-sea thing had precedent! I had not known that. The Saudi refusal to take the body was also interesting, but in line with the general public/private dichotomy of their behavior.
- the bombing suggestion would have been... interesting. All things considered, the SEAL team does seem like a better idea.
I'm also impressed by the lack of trust in the Pakistanis.
By far my favorite MSM reporting on the raid is the WSJ article by Siobhan Gorman and Julian Barnes, "Spy, Military Ties Aided bin Laden Raid". Google for the title and you can read the full version from Google's cache.
If the article is to be believed, Barack Obama's role in the planning is quite impressive. He choose the riskiest of the options offered to him; the military consensus was leaning toward heavy bombing that would have guaranteed civilian casualties, but would minimize exposure to U.S. personnel. Apparently, Somalia still looms large in the memories of military leadership.
Obama took the bombing option off the table completely, and told them to do it the Hard Way -- sending commandos 128 miles into Pakistan's interior. But the best part is that Obama explicitly equipped the SEALs to blast their way out if the raid went bad and Pakistanis showed up shooting. That as opposed to throwing up their hands and surrendering, and then letting the diplomats try to arrange their release in the ensuing months (or maybe years; it took us months to get back one single CIA contractor arrested earlier this year). From the article:
"Mr. Obama directed Adm. McRaven to develop a stronger U.S. escape plan. The team would be equipped to fight its way out and would have two helicopters on stand-by in case of an emergency."
Now that, my friends, is risky. The ways in which this thing could have gone bad are almost too ugly to contemplate. How could Obama & co. possibly not have crapped their pants watching the raid live from the white house?
Just to take one of your points farther, I think the beefiness of the escape plan illustrates how little Obama values the Pakistani relationship. And how much he wanted OBL, and how much he trusted DEVGRU.
Even so, having the backup option didn't negate the political option; while, not having the backup
(in hindsight) would have guaranteed a political
showdown.
This article says saudis weren't offered the body, mind you - john brennan phoned "a former counterpart in Saudi intelligence" to ask if it was a good idea.
| The Saudi refusal to take the body was also interesting, but in line with the general public/private dichotomy of their behavior.
Dichotomy? What dichotomy?
While the Saudi rulers have a good relationship with the Bin Laden family, they despised Osama Bin Laden. They thought that Osama was a threat to their leadership. Osama criticized them and wanted their overthrow. And Osama thought that the Saudis were American puppets.
And Re: Pakistan. It's a hard-to-tread situation. The most powerful in the Pakistani government are dispersed into groups of "Love the Taliban/Al Qaeda"/"Love the Americans ('s money)/"We just want to be left alone. And nobody from one group wants to piss off someone in another group, so it's this cloak and dagger situation.
"All along, the SEALs had planned to dump bin Laden’s corpse into the sea—a blunt way of ending the bin Laden myth."
Yeah right. The only reason his body was dumped into the sea is because if they had paraded it around, everyone would be able to see that OBL isn't the same as the guy in the video who claimed credit for 9/11.
"Man, these guys went to a lot of effort to get a fake body, then."
You're missing what I'm saying. Assuming the body the recovered was actually OBL, then any high-res photographs and videos released could have potentially proven that the evidence used as a pretext for the large-scale invasion of Afghanistan was fake.
Before that video, there were less than 1,000 Americans in Afghanistan. Today there are 90,000. Is it really that difficult to see why this matters?
I'm saying that if you watch the actual video I linked to that was the pretext for the large-scale invasion of Afghanistan, it's extremely clear that the man in that video looks nothing like every other photo/video of OBL from both before and after.
The U.S. government told us in 2001 that they found a video of OBL claiming credit for 9/11. Given the evidence, is it really that unreasonable to ask whether or not that video is actually authentic? Is it really that unreasonable to expect the government not to make unavailable critical evidence in the matter?
How come HN gets pissed off at the sort of people who say that evolution is fake without looking at the evidence, but when I ask for evidence that this video is actually authentic I get downmodded over 40 points?
We know their "evidence" for Iraq was multiple kinds of shit. They didn't even go out of their way to conceal that once they got into there. Why should they worry about protecting the lies of a disgraced ex-president this time?
And I believe the reason that you are being down-voted is 1) you sound like a wingnut, 2) your claims are unclear. It is quite hard to work out what exactly you are trying to suggest.
And comparing rolling eyes at 9-11 conspiracy theories with denying evolution probably isn't helping you either...
Do you seriously think the only evidence linking UBL to 911 is a single video?
The US captured hundreds of enemy combatants and interrogated them all. A lot of them mention and talk about UBL and the role he played pre and post-911.
"Do you seriously think the only evidence linking UBL to 911 is a single video?"
Can you link me to where on the web it is that the U.S. government has outlined the main evidence that OBL was behind 9/11? Because the official FBI page does not even list him as a suspect in the attacks:
> Is it really that difficult to see why this matters?
Yes, it is. Even the craziest wingnut can plausibly say that the US was after Iraqi oil, but a conspiracy theory to blast into Afghanistan and stay there for a decade seems like it would have little benefit for the US.
I'm not suggesting there's any merit to any particular conspiracy theories, but Afghanistan is a key region in the oil industry, specifically for pipeline routes. If the Afghani government won't play ball with Western interests with a stake in moving oil from Central Asia to Asian markets, the story goes, then the US will presumably do what it takes to replace that government.
The photos are highly classified, and they've stated why they don't want to release them. If Osama was shot with a high caliber bullet in the face, you probably can't even recognize him anyway.
Did any of the news outlets ever confirm the photo released was actually from the government? I haven't seen any of them say "we obtained this photo from the government," I have only seen one station run the single photo, and they explicitly said it was unconfirmed.
"I'm surprised you're making such accusations, and without knowing the facts."
The reason why I'm asking for the facts is because I don't know the facts. That's the whole point. If I already knew the facts then I wouldn't be asking for them.
What are you suggesting? Are you saying it's because he would be an old frail man? Or that the name actually belongs to an entirely different body but for unexplained reasons this is being covered up?
If the government had released actual high res photos and videos of the body it would be clear that the 'fat osama' in the video above wasn't really him, and therefore that the only evidence that OBL was behind 9/11 was completely fabricated.
What makes you think they shot some fat guy, and not some skinny guy?
bonus tip: linking to youtube videos called "9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE BIN LADEN TAPE IS A FAKE!" marginalizes yourself, no matter the content.
Edit: seriously now. I'm not getting this. The public thinks that osama is tall and thin, regardless of whatever video bush was pointing at or whatnot. If they shot a tall thin guy, nobody would think anything of it (except perhaps the people that are predisposed to making "CONSPIRACY" videos on youtube...) If they shot some fat guy (which wouldn't even make sense to do, since the public doesn't recognize him as the guy...), then that should just match up with this apparent evidence video.... which is no big deal?
Explain this to me, if you are going to downvote me.
So why have they been publishing pictures of the skinny guy on a semi-regular basis for nearly a decade now, with no apparent shame? This whole thing makes no sense.
Bin Laden stopped publicly denying responsibility at least as early as 2004. You're free to disbelieve that but don't ignore it in your haste to convince others. You might find that it has the opposite effect from the one you intend.
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
I do believe the 2004 video is real. However, there are two problems here. First, a video from 2004 inherently cannot be used as a reason for why we should have invaded Afghanistan in 2001. Second, if the December 2001 video was fake, that makes any further statements from OBL very suspect even if they are authentic. That is, any later statements made be OBL should be given much less weight as evidence against him. (In fact, in any trial that was actually fair the charges would be dropped if it was in fact determined that the U.S. had falsified evidence against him.)
Amid all this collective celebration, I would like to point out one excerpt (that nobody seems to have mentioned here) that leaves me disgusted:
"The C.I.A. intensified its intelligence-collection efforts, and, according to a recent report in the Guardian, a physician working for the agency conducted an immunization drive in Abbottabad, in the hope of acquiring DNA samples from bin Laden’s children. (No one in the compound ultimately received any immunizations.)"
From a global health policy perspective, doctors and campaigners in third world countries already face huge uphill battles in education and decreasing fears about vaccinations. It probably isn't amiss to say that in helping fuel the FUD about vaccinations being a CIA plot, more people have been killed due to these fears than in acts of terrorism in the last decade.
There's a huge difference between vaccinations themselves being a CIA plot, and a vaccination drive being a CIA plot. I have no problem with the latter.
Slightly more important (which isn't saying much) is the difference between the vaccination drive being a CIA plot and the CIA exploiting its existence.
Great article and well written, the thing that struck me the most was the references to god, he was killed for "god and country", well Osama thought he was doing his gods work, whose god is right?
From my knowledge of history, the winners god's is always right, just as history is written by the victor. That latter part includes the former, and goes far beyond what we usually acknowledge. It's not only that the victor's reasons for a war are considered just over the loser's. The values of the victor, his cultural framework, are used to judge the loser's and the rest of the world's. And history is written from his viewpoint. It's a meta victory.
That's an overgeneralization. The Old Testament is littered with examples of the Israelites failing in battle because God was not with them at that particular time. But He was still their Jehovah.
Beowulf was defeated by the dragon, but that doesn't mean that actually ever happened...
Anyway, Judaism still strongly exists today, despite any hiccups it had, as opposed to other things like Baalism or whatever. They are therefore the "victor".
You should clarify this. It might sound like you are saying that "some of the people who say they do Gods work are not", instead of the correct "some people believe they are doing god's work. they are not."
Only some people in this world think they are doing that, but they are of course all incorrect.
well, both sides claim to protect their own land and people from invasive other. I don't think there is any religion/ideology that discourage things like "defending property and people".
And Quakers, as well as some historical sect that no longer exist, as well as a number of non-christian eastern religions. But I think that the grandparent's point is fair: most religious and non-religious worldviews allow at least for violence in self and national defense.
Well, I don't know about the rest, but question 1 is a direct consequence of unarmed combatants choosing to not wear uniforms. You know, the reason that we use uniforms is so that combatants are easily identified, which indirectly protects civilians, by clearly indicating that they aren't targets. If you're going to hang out with someone that has made a habit of launching attacks against a country whilst running around in civilian clothing, then yeah, you're at risk of becoming collateral damage. Don't do that.
I think you mean armed combatant. An unarmed man being by definition a non-combatant.
The reason western militaries use uniforms is very different from the one you give. The fact that it differentiates conventional combatants from civilians is a consequence of wearing uniforms, not the reason. The original reason going back some centuries was to provide adequate, uniform, protection to poor peasants that lacked good clothing, distinguish own's troops from the enemy and instill "esprit de corps". The whole uniformed troops clearly marked as combatants is today a very Western value. We obviously would like everyone to fight like this, especially because Western armies are very good at this kind of fighting and would win quickly. Instead, they fight like guerillas, hiding among civilians, which multiplies their force and we can go on to complain how it's illegal according to Western customs.
And the whole "protecting civilians" argument doesn't hold water anyway, the ratio of civilian-military casualties keeps going up in the modern era.
Hmmm, it was more 'combatant' armed or not. The definition of what is and is not a combatant is rather blurry though, and ultimately comes down to the judgment of the individual soldier. Obviously a group of schoolgirls doesn't qualify, and a squad of advancing infantry does qualify, but in-between there are many shades of grey, and only the most flagrant targeting of civilians is prosecutable. As always, proportionality applies.
You're wrong about the reasons we wear uniforms today, although there is some validity to your remarks with respect to history. But these days, in the era of ubiquitous camouflage, the reason we wear a uniform is because the Geneva Convention requires it of combatants wishing to be protected under the Convention's provisions - from the International Committee of the Red Cross's website (http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/conduct-hostilities/meth...) :
"IHL includes a number of corollaries to the principle of distinction in order to secure the protection of civilian persons and objects. For example, it stipulates that combatants in an international armed conflict are required to distinguish themselves from the civilian population (normally by wearing a uniform) while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. In addition, IHL prohibits indiscriminate attacks and provides for the principle of proportionality, which dictates that the so called "incidental loss" of civilian life and/or property should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. In order to implement the restrictions and prohibitions on targeting, specific precautions must also be observed by all Parties to an armed conflict."
For more information, you can try googling "Principle of Distinction"
So of course irregular combatants make the choice to not be protected under the Geneva Convention, by not wearing uniforms. This way, they can be shot if captured, even if they surrender. But must they ? The Geneva Convention says you cannot execute lawful combatants that surrender. It doesn't say that you must shoot unlawful combatants.
Anyway, my point was that it was all rules made by Western powers to govern combat between great powers, and they have an obvious role of excluding smaller powers and non-state organizations from playing with the big boys. So when a non-state organization takes action against a state, this makes it legal for the state to treat them however they want.
You are correct that, while unlawful combatants are not guaranteed the same rights under the Geneva Conventions as lawful combatants, there is no requirement to actively deny those rights. However, there are some very good reasons for going out of your way to not treat unlawful combatants as well as lawful combatants. As you mentioned, not everybody is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. However, a lot of countries/groups that aren't signatories, have made varying levels of effort to abide by them anyway in past conflicts. This is generally a good thing. There are two main incentives for non-signatories to try to abide by the Geneva Conventions: first, if they lose, they are less likely to be subjected to war-crimes trials at the end of the conflict; second, if they are captured during the conflict, they will enjoy the status of lawful combatants. If they know that captured unlawful combatants are given the same treatment as captured lawful combatants, they will have much less incentive to abide by the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, it is a good idea for Geneva Conventions signatories to not apply the full rights of lawful combatants to captured unlawful combatants.
Incidentally, the Geneva Conventions do provide some protections for unlawful combatants, just not the full set of protections guaranteed to lawful combatants. You can't just shoot them out of hand. However, you can put them on trial, sentence them to death, and execute them. The Geneva Conventions don't really spell out due process requirements for such situations, so the distinction between "shot out of hand" and "executed after trial" could potentially be trivial.
>So when a non-state organization takes action against a state, this makes it legal for the state to treat them however they want.
This is not true. If the non-state organization abides by the Geneva Conventions, and if the state they are fighting against is a signatory, then the state must treat the non-state actors as lawful combatants (depending on its scope and scale, a civil war could be an exception because the rebels could be considered traitors and tried as such). Even if the non-state actors don't play by the rules, they still get some protections, as I explain in my previous paragraph. The rules are actually quite easy to comply with, so smaller powers and non-state organizations are not "excluded" by an inability to follow the rules, only by a conscious choice to break them. For example, something as simple as color-coded armbands will satisfy the requirement to wear identifying insignia.
ovi's reasoning (he does not cite anything though) predates the Geneva Convention by several hundred years, at least. So while the reason today could be the GC, that is not at odds with ovi's claim (but that does not make his claim correct).
"An unarmed man being by definition a non-combatant."
So an unarmed enemy messenger carrying orders or a scout acting as a lookout is off limits? A radio operator calling in mortar strikes? You can be a combatant without holding a gun.
You imply classism in that we only buy uniforms so our peasants will fight. I'm curious what the annual salary of a E-1 is versus a suicide bomber? Is there a Jihadist GI bill I'm unaware of? The biggest rich/poor divide I see isn't on our end.
You also imply that we want opposing forces to wear uniforms only because it gives us an advantage. That protecting civilians is just a cover story. If that's the case why send soldiers to Afghanistan at all? If civilians don't matter to us then a single trident sub could handle the whole war for us.
"The whole protecting civilians argument doesn't hold water anyway, the ratio of civilian-military casualties keeps going up in the modern era."
"They fight like guerillas, hiding among civilians, which multiplies their force and we go on to complain how it's illegal according to Western customs"
So the side that wants to fight with uniforms are complainers that kill civilians, and the side that hides behind civilians are just fighting fairly according to their customs? What?
> And the whole "protecting civilians" argument doesn't hold water anyway, the ratio of civilian-military casualties keeps going up in the modern era.
This is horridly disingenuous. WWII saw firebombings of major cities, nukes, etc. The ratio of civilian-military casualties is going up because troops are becoming damned near invulnerable to a lot of things they used to die from. The number of civilian casualties has dropped hugely from past conflicts.
>1) when did it suddenly become ok for the military to shoot unarmed combatants?
It has always been OK to shoot enemy combatants who are not actively communicating their intent to surrender; just because someone is not obviously armed, does not mean that he is definitely not a threat. The more important question is, "How do you know if someone is an enemy combatant?" This becomes especially difficult if the enemy does not wear proper identifying clothing or insignia. In the most unambiguous cases, the inherent right to self defense kicks in: if someone has a gun and is acting in a threatening manner, you get to shoot. Beyond that, rules of engagement will define criteria for determining if an individual or unit should be considered hostile ("hostile" has specific meaning, including, "OK to shoot at."). UBL was unambiguously an enemy combatant, so the ROE in this scenario apparently defined him as hostile.
>2) if "no one wanted detainees" why weren't the women with usama killed?
I don't think that phrase was meant to be as general as you are taking it to be. I think what was really meant was, "No one wanted to try to bring detainees out of Pakistan on the helicopters." The choice in re. UBL and his sons was to either kill them on the spot, turn them over to the Pakistanis, or fly them out on the helicopters. Turning them over to the Pakistanis has so many problems that I'm not even going to try to get into it. Trying to fly them out is risky because something could go wrong (e.g. helicopter shot down or crashed), resulting in escape, or capture by the Pakistanis. The highest priority here seems to have been closure, to get UBL out of the picture for sure, and flying him across a mountain range in a helicopter puts that objective at risk.
The same three choices (kill, turn over to Pakistan, or extract) applied to the women, but the need for closure didn't apply, so turning them over to the Pakistanis actually made the most sense.
>3) Is freezing no longer considered a form of surrender (seems especially relevant when no commands/orders were given to him?
Freezing alone has never been considered a form of surrender. Just freezing can indicate indicision, panic, or calculated caution just as easily as it can indicate a desire to surrender. Surrender requires a deliberate indication of an intent to surrender, such as putting your hands in the air or laying down on the ground. The fact that he used his wives as human shields indicated an intent to continue resisting, and he did nothing to adequately indicate that he had changed his mind and wanted instead to surrender. You can switch from fighting to surrendering at any point, right up to the moment before you are killed, but the other side has no obligation to pause at that moment to evaluate if you have changed your mind.
The first known officially sanctioned assassination by the United States of an enemy leader was when Roosevelt authorized[1] the Navy to intercept the airplane carrying IJN Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto[2] on an inspection tour of installations in the Solomon Islands. This was in April of 1943.
[1] Operation Vengenace
[2] The planner of the attack on Pearl Harbor, as well as the driving force behind the modern, carrier-centric Japanese Navy
These seem like loaded questions. It's appropriate in certain scenarios where the combatant is perceived to be a threat (that someone is unarmed cannot be known until they are killed/apprehended).
In this case Bin Laden used his wives as human shields and only froze after that plan was foiled. Note that the first SEAL used non-deadly force on one of the women and even risked his life in bear-hugging them to protect his teammates.
They said that capture would have been possible had he surrendered immediately; he didn't do this, he used his wives as human shields.
That's some awfully selective quoting. The Vice President made the comment about Mass as the troops were getting out of Pakistan safely. Regardless of whether you agree with the mission, seem's like a pretty reasonable thing to be thankful for. Religious ceremonies are one way that billions of people express such feelings of thanks.
I don't understand. Honest question. Why am I modden down? I'm not an American nor am I a Christian. Is it just because I understand their point of view even though I don't agree?
FWIW, I am a Muslim, born by a Protestant.
Funnily enough, according to wikipedia, Geronimo was a prominent Native American leader of the Chiricahua Apache who fought against Mexico and the United States for their expansion into Apache tribal lands for several decades.
I don't think his assassins had that in mind though.
Don't get me wrong BTW, I'm firmly one the 900 million muslims who are against the killing of innocents.
It's hard to assign meaning to those kinds of code words. After all, they're specifically chosen not to betray their meaning.
I know that the Apache were upset by the implications, and there is some historical irony lurking in it, but I wouldn't take that too far, esp. for a code word. If I'm not mistaken, "Geronimo" is probably best known as a battle cry that Americans learned from the movies. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that most Americans don't know anything about the man, Geronimo.
EDIT: Also, on Biden's comment about attending mass: that's just Biden being a good Catholic. Fortunately, Joe Biden isn't the type to actually demand that others practice his religion.
The religious aspect of this story didn't bother me, because these guys, like all Americans, have the right to express their religious beliefs as long as they don't force everyone to follow them. The policy of killing bin Laden is supported by many people who don't belong to a religion. Bin Laden's attacks killed all sorts of different people. It's hard to argue that the Obama administration was carrying out a religious vendetta with this operation.
I read this article in my office a stone's throw from Ground Zero. I found the details about the policy-making and military operation fascinating. I'm glad I didn't wake up that morning to read that we leveled a suburb in Pakistan with 32 2000lb guided bombs (and we think we might have gotten Bin Laden)!
I wouldn't be shocked to learn that most Americans don't know anything about the man, Geronimo.
Soldiers generally know more history than you expect. If they used Geronimo it's likely a top o' the hat to the warrior, not a call back to a hokey movie.
Especially because real soldiers never cry 'Geronimo' when they fall out of airplanes - they're counting the seconds until the chute deploys.
Also - the army especially has taken the Indian warrior thing to heart: helicopters are named after tribes, call signs and etc.
> Also, on Biden's comment about attending mass: that's just Biden being a good Catholic.
Yes, and that he is religious and leads a country is the issue. He gets his orders from the same place as Osama Bin Laden and George W Bush.
> The religious aspect of this story didn't bother me, because these guys, like all Americans, have the right to express their religious beliefs as long as they don't force everyone to follow them
They have a right to paint themselves purple and dance to the moon. But when they choose to do something literally delusional it does reflect badly.
> The policy of killing bin Laden is supported by many people who don't belong to a religion.
Yes, the vengeful idiots. It was never proven that he did it or that they got the right guy. In fact, our track record in Iraq/Afghanistan so far is killing one hundred people for every one in the 9/11 attacks, mostly civilians, so odds are this guy was another miss too.
No trial, no killing. The rule of law applies both ways.
> It's hard to argue that the Obama administration was carrying out a religious vendetta with this operation.
It's not the only goal, but it is one of them. "For god and country!"
> I'm glad I didn't wake up that morning to read that we leveled a suburb in Pakistan with 32 2000lb guided bombs (and we think we might have gotten Bin Laden)!
But you did, just not this one time. For every one he killed, you've killed a hundred...
When your life and/or livelihood regularly depends on factors that you don't control, it's not uncommon to engage in dealmaking with a higher power in order to develop a sense of control over the unknown.
Technically it's a diaeresis, not an umlaut. It indicates the syllable break in the word "cooperate". It's not a common thing in written English, but the New Yorker has a certain writing style that calls for that sort of thing.
You're not joking, here's an extract from the Wikipedia entry [1]:
"Nowadays in English, the diaeresis is normally left out (cooperate), except by The New Yorker, or a hyphen is used (co-operate). It is, however, still common in loanwords such as naïve and Noël."
I was a little surprised that they used wire-link fence in the simulated compound. Regardless of whether it caused the first helicopter to crash it seems to me a real wall would have made the training more effective.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that defense contractors have already come up with quickly deployable simulated walls.
I think the article's a bit wrong on that part. DEVGRU, Special Operations outfits, and even conventional US forces have access to walls and don't use chain-link simulations.
It's not. And modular walls are quicker than chain-link. Army SF commonly uses framed plywood walls with locking, thick metal drop hinges on each side, roughly how a ranch gate works.
They're modular so that they can be quickly re-arranged, not to hide from satellites.
I'm disappointed in the discussion here. Any comment that remotely alludes to any information that might contradict the US gov official story is being downvoted. Why are people resistant to entertain opposing viewpoints on this story? It seems unscientific (and bad journalistic practice) to rely only on one source.
I've been watching this post and the karma on it is up and down like mad. Peaking at 5, and a low of 1.
It's surprising how many people think that what they are told is the full picture.
Having worked for a couple of nefarious defence-related organisations over the years, I've observed that it's quite simply true that propaganda is just as easy to get into people's minds as facts.
I am surprised there aren't more comments like the parent comment. Are people really going to swallow this whole thing without any corroboration by another source? I guess I can understand that; it's easier to believe what you read. However, when people (in the comments here) raise objections or have opposing views than the picture being painted in this article, they are being harshly downvoted. I would have hoped for more skepticism on HN. :(
From the article:
"They observed that residents of the compound burned their trash, instead of putting it out for collection, and concluded that the compound lacked a phone or an Internet connection."
How do you go from burning trash to lack of phone or internet?
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
>>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?
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.
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?
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)
Not impossible, I'll grant you that. It's also possible that the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center was the work of aliens. There is some evidence that aliens have infiltrated the U.S. government, and this would go a long way toward explaining why the NIST report on the WTC collapse -- clearly manipulated -- doesn't even mention the possibility of controlled demolition, let alone the involvement of extra-terrestrials.
I personally haven't, and I don't think anyone has because there isn't evidence that points to extra-terrestrials. There is evidence that points toward controlled demolition.
The real problem with discussions like this is that minority views are quickly dismissed on the basis of "conspiracy theories". It is impossible to have a real debate about these topics. But it is still frustrating to see so many people actively ignoring facts that are contrary to their pre-concieved views.
Y'know the problem with conspiracy theories in general? They never make any fucking sense on a psychological level.
The average conspiracy theorist starts from what they want to believe (generally that the US Government/The Bavarian Illuminati/the Jeeeeewwwws/Citibank/Oprah Winfrey is responsible for all the evil in the world) and work backwards from that.
What they never do is stop to consider "If I were so and so, and I wanted to achieve aim such and such", how would I go about it?
For instance, suppose I'm George W Bush, it's early 2001, and for some reason I've decided that I want to invade Afghanistan. (Possibly so we can build that oil pipeline which last I heard still hasn't been built.) What do I do?
Well, the most obvious thing to do is to invade Afghanistan. Circa 2001 there were already some pretty decent reasons for wanting to go to war in Afghanistan in order to take out those objectively-dickish Al Qaeda (who had already attacked the US on a number of occasions) and the Taliban (who were just plain assholes). The US public could probably have been convinced to go along with this, even in the absence of another terrorist attack. We went along with Obama to Libya, and with Clinton to Haiti and Iraq (Desert Fox, remember) and the Balkans.
But let's suppose they decided that this wasn't enough, and that it was totally worth killing thousands of US civilians for no particularly good reason, in a conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of other ostensibly-patriotic US government employees, despite the fact that if anyone ever found out about this then they'd all be executed for treason and the fact that everyone involved in this conspiracy has every incentive, before the attack happens, to blow the conspiracy open, save thousands of lives, and become a hero.
At this point I'm gonna skip several paragraphs from my originally planned response, because I'm getting tired thinking this hard about this much stupid. I'll ignore the "wouldn't it make more sense to pick another target" bit and the "surely a smaller scale attack would have worked just as well" bit... and even the "if you're already crashing an airliner into a building WHY THE FUCK would you also need to go to the ridiculous expense and difficulty of doing a controlled demolition AS WELL? Like the war couldn't have happened if we'd ONLY seen the crashing planes and the buildings HADN'T collapsed?
Instead I'll skip straight to my conclusion. The minimum bar which a conspiracy theory has to pass, in order for me to take it seriously, is that it has to make some fucking sense from the point of view of the people who are supposedly the conspirators.
You're right. Any of those scenarios are incredibly far fetched and don't make a lot of sense.
However, that doesn't mean we should just ignore evidence that doesn't fit the official story. If we discover evidence contradicting our current hypothesis, we can't simply ignore it because we don't like it. That's bad science.
All I am saying is that there are holes in the official account. Why are people so afraid to look deeper into these matters?
You are trying to use a straw man to attack any views other than belief in the official account. I have made no speculations about why the government has supressed certain facts. Certainly it's possible there is a more realistic and less flippant answer than "The Bavarian Illuminati/the Jeeeeewwwws/Citibank/Oprah Winfrey", but you are trying to lump curious scepticisim in with lunacy.
That's not fair. It is foolish to assume that either the US Government is not lying, or there is a massive conspiracy. It is also possible that there is a more boring and simple reason why the government has withheld information. But regardless, any questioning of even a minor detail and suddenly you are label a conspiracy theorist.
You are purposefully shutting yourself out to anything contrary to your views; I don't feel that is what I am doing.
Ok, now I know what you're up to. You can't fool me by pretending to be "objective". Listen up, you and the rest of Stanley Jones' cabal can't suppress the truth forever. Read this open letter to your fearless leader, and you'll see that your "secrets" are already out:
And where exactly do you think the U.S got the advanced directed-energy weapons that you would like us to believe don't exist? That's right. It all starts at Roswell, '57.
You are trying to strawman my argument. Aliens are ridiculous; that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. There are rational questions posed by people you are labeling as conspiracy theorists. You are trying to discredit them by exaggerating these claims. Again, there is some evidence of a cover up; there is no evidence of alien involvement. Your arguments are puerile and a distraction from what we are talking about.
Did you not even read the damn letter I posted? Don't talk to me until you've read that letter. And then go do some research, and tell me how the hell the WTC could have been brought down without the assistance of the high-powered directed-energy weapons that WE ALREADY KNOW EXIST IN LOW_EARTH ORBIT. I'd love to hear your theories, since you say you're so "open-minded". And don't give me any of that bullshit about "high-energetic thermitic devices". You and I both know that's a crap theory. And don't bother telling me that I'm "ridiculous", since I've already heard it a hundred times from the other Jones cohorts who only want their version of the "truth" to be told. READ THE DAMN LETTER!
Then again, if you really are one of "Doctor" Stanley's crew, don't bother even responding to me.
I read the letter you linked to. I'm very confused what you are trying to say to me.
Who is Stanley? I can't fully discern what you are saying about this letter; it sounds like there is some in-fighting between the leaders of a website that was publishing articles about 911 demolition theories. What does this have to do with our debate?
I don't know if you are serious about this directed-energy weapon. I think there is more credibility to the thermate theory, but I don't really know the details of space-based weapons. It sounds like science fiction.
Maybe I am just wasting my time responding to this. In this discussion I was merely trying to say that there are valid questions that have been raised about the official 9/11 story. Why are people so inclined to dismiss any such qeustioning as ludicrous?
No sir, YOU are the one dismissing the views of others as ludicrous. Just like the rest of the Jones cabal, you expect everyone to accept an overwrought orchestration of crashing planes and sulfurized aluminothermic incendiaries. First of all, everyone already knows that THERE WERE NO AIR PLANES! The video footage was obviously doctored:
Secondly, no amount of "debate" can explain away the deficiencies of even the most energetic barium-nitrate-enhanced nano-engineered thermitic demolition incendiaries, whose detonation velocities are not even CLOSE to the DV needed to incise concrete and steel structural members. It's obvious to anyone who understands exothermic chemistry that some fancy little thermite fireworks did NOT bring down TWO 500,000 ton state-of-the-art skyscrapers.
No, we both know there are only two things that could bring down those buildings in a convincing manner: 1. Low-yield, high-efficiency nuclear weapons, and 2.) high-powered, tightly focused directed energy weapons.
Are you seriously going to suggest that you KNOW FOR SURE that both these weapons were ENTIRELY developed by humans? Seriously?! Is it just a coincidence that both of them were developed in the massive off-limits-to-the-public military facilities at Groom lake, Tonopah, and the NTS, where there have been MANY proven UFO sightings over the past 50 years? Now who's being ludicrous. Open your eyes man -- don't be a conspiracy snob.
I could have gone long-winded, gotten into Clausewitz, made a side trip into Westphalia with a detour around the Tower of London.
But life is short.
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
What day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad. . . .
