What's new

Who Really Killed Osama Bin Laden?

His account is false and debunked. A journalist is not infallible irrespective of his reputation.
Please do provide sources to the 'debunking'. I never said he was infallible - I said his claims were worth considering.
About time we (all) acknowledge the realities.
I'm not denying any realities. I'm all for introspection and criticism of our own agencies and establishment - you can get a daily dose of it on Dawn or ET - but the crimes and lies of the Western establishment are equally, if not more important, to expose and debunk.
 
. . .
showing members of the press corps would put conspiracy theories to rest

That does not matter more than keeping tabs on those who wish to seek their leader, not believing he is dead. Sometimes it is useful to let the conspiracy theories live.
 
.
That does not matter more than keeping tabs on those who wish to seek their leader, not believing he is dead. Sometimes it is useful to let the conspiracy theories live.
Even hardened Al Qaeda supporters believe the death of Bin laden
 
. .
Please do provide sources to the 'debunking'. I never said he was infallible - I said his claims were worth considering.
Seymour Hersh accuses Pakistani military establishment for complicity in hosting Osama Bin Laden in that compound. Do you think this is true? Think about the repercussions of such an ill-advised move. It is a well-documented fact that Obama administration was not on good terms with Pakistan, so hosting the most wanted terrorist in the world would be like giving ammunition to an hostile administration for taking action against Pakistan.

Secondly, Hersh claimed that a retired (and disgruntled) Pakistani intelligence officer (ISI operative?) contacted CIA in 2010 and decided to spill the beans to them. When pressed to disclose the identity of that officer, Hersh refused to comment.

So a journalist supposedly knows everything about a classified military operation but the identity of that retired ISI operative remains a mystery to this day and no action have been taken against him for his betrayal? Give me a break.

If Hersh's account is correct, then why Dr Shakhil Ahmed is in jail for his culpability in the raid? Why is that retired ISI operative still at large?

Think about it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/...y-know-about-osama-bin-ladens-death.html?_r=0
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/10/mark-bowden-bin-laden-capture-conspiracy
https://www.wsj.com/articles/separating-fact-from-seymour-hershs-fiction-about-bin-laden-1431714139

Hersh was originally interested in documenting this raid and requested relevant officials to grant him access to classified data but he did not took the 'refusal' well and decided to concoct his own account for publicity, believing that people will take him seriously for his works in the past.

I'm not denying any realities. I'm all for introspection and criticism of our own agencies and establishment - you can get a daily dose of it on Dawn or ET - but the crimes and lies of the Western establishment are equally, if not more important, to expose and debunk.
They are not lying most of the time. If their is a lie, you will get a confession from an individual - actually involved - in the relevant operation at some point.

Now, I recommend following sources:

1. Abbottabad Commission Report
2. No Easy Day (an autobiographic account of the raid of a Navy seal actually involved in the operation)
3. http://www.thomasweibel.ch/artikel/110808_new_yorker_getting_bin_laden.pdf
4. http://widenerlawreview.org/files/2014/09/3-Hodgin.pdf
5. http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/csas/PDF/V_26_No_2_8Dr. Hussain Shoherwardi.pdf
 
Last edited:
.
Seymour Hersh accuses Pakistani military establishment for complicity in hosting Osama Bin Laden in that compound. Do you think this is true?
Again, I'm not saying everything about his account is correct. It isn't inconceivable that he was being held there as a prisoner - someone like OBL could produce a lot of intelligence that would be extremely useful for ISI and counterterror ops. The whole story about Saudis wanting to keep him alive is less likely, but still possible. He was from a rich, influential Saudi family, after all.
It is a well-documented fact that Obama administration was not on good terms with Pakistan, so hosting the most wanted terrorist in the world would be like giving ammunition to an hostile administration for taking action against Pakistan.
This just shows you haven't actually read Hersh's account or the transcript of the interview I linked to.
According to him, Pakistan (or atleast Kayani) was willing to hand him over to the Americans:
But we actually—we were never supposed to announce the killing in Pakistan. They were supposed to take the body out, take it to the Hindu Kush mountains, and a day—a week or so later, announce that we killed him in a drone raid. And what the president did that night, because of political pressure, because of the worries about waiting a week—maybe somebody else would tell the story—he jumped ahead. It was re-election night. I guess any president would do that.
There was supposedly an agreement between Kayani and the US:
And the agreement was we wouldn’t let it be known that he was there, that the ISI was protecting him. They didn’t want their public to know it. And so, we were going to have it—as I said on air, he was going to have it done—we were going to announce it happened in the Hindu Kush and pretend that we did a strike with a drone,
Now, if this is true, it would make sense - as a way to improve relations during that period, or to prevent relations from getting worse. Besides, the US had already proven that it doesn't need any 'ammunition' to take hostile action. Remember Raymond Davis? Salala checkpost attack?
Secondly, Hersh claimed that a retired (and disgruntled) Pakistani intelligence officer (ISI operative?) contacted CIA in 2010 and decided to spill the beans to them. When pressed to disclose the identity of that officer, Hersh refused to comment.

So a journalist supposedly knows everything about a classified military operation but the identity of that retired ISI operative remains a mystery to this day and no action have been taken against him for his betrayal? Give me a break.
Again, Hersh explained that in his interview. He didn't 'refuse to comment':
What I know, as in "know," is there was a walk-in, that in August of 2010, a Pakistani—I can say right now, he was a colonel in the regular army, not in the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service, which is a very tough bunch, a separate group...
And you have to know, in the business of the CIA, protecting a walk-in is the most important thing. And so, a walk-in... You know, they don’t always tell the truth to their people that work for them, when it comes to protecting a source, somebody who walks in.
Again, it would make sense that the CIA would take steps to protect the identity of an informant.
If Hersh's account is correct, then why Dr Shakhil Ahmed is in jail for his culpability in the raid?
Shakil Afridi is not in jail for culpability in the raid. He is in jail for aiding a foreign intelligence agency. What he did is illegal regardless of whether or not he actually succeeded at locating Bin Laden.
and decided to concoct his own account for publicity
The guy has a Pulitzer Prize. He doesn't really need any more publicity.
They are not lying most of the time.
That is an objectively false claim. They lie about as often as they tell the truth, if not more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0f5a78-c53d-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
http://mashable.com/2014/12/09/5-times-the-cia-lied/#PAeI8vCdpkql
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p305_marchetti.html
http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/9/7361295/biggest-lies-the-cia-told-about-the-torture-program
http://www.globalresearch.ca/1975-v...am-media-to-distribute-disinformation/5424860
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/

If their is a lie, you will get a confession from an individual - actually involved - in the relevant operation at some point.
That point is usually several decades after the actual event. Right now there are already inconsistencies and conflicts between accounts from individuals actually involved in the operation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-binladen-seals-idUSKBN0IQ2RC20141107

There's actually six different versions of what happened in within the few minutes of the raid:
Account #1
Helmet cameras: Yes
OBL shot by: Multiple SEALs
Witnessed by: A wife and daughters

In May 2011, two weeks after the raid, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reported that the entire 40-minute sequence at bin Laden's compound was "recorded by tiny helmet cameras worn by each of the 25 SEALs."

The SEALs first saw bin Laden when he came out on the third floor landing. They fired, but missed. He retreated to his bedroom, and the first SEAL through the door grabbed bin Laden's daughters and pulled them aside. When the second SEAL entered, bin Laden's wife rushed forward at him—or perhaps was pushed by bin Laden. The SEAL shoved her aside and shot bin Laden in the chest. A third seal shot him in the head.

Account #2
Helmet cameras: No
OBL shot by: One SEAL, with two shots
Witnessed by: Two wives

If only some real-time footage were available, it would be easy enough to clear things up. However: "The SEALs were not wearing helmet cams, contrary to a widely cited report by CBS," Schmidle wrote in The New Yorker in August 2011. According to his description of the killing:

The Americans hurried toward the bedroom door. The first SEAL pushed it open. Two of bin Laden's wives had placed themselves in front of him. Amal al-Fatah, bin Laden's fifth wife, was screaming in Arabic. She motioned as if she were going to charge; the SEAL lowered his sights and shot her once, in the calf. Fearing that one or both women were wearing suicide jackets, he stepped forward, wrapped them in a bear hug, and drove them aside…

A second SEAL stepped into the room and trained the infrared laser of his M4 on bin Laden's chest. The Al Qaeda chief, who was wearing a tan shalwar kameez and a prayer cap on his head, froze; he was unarmed…The first round, a 5.56-mm. bullet, struck bin Laden in the chest. As he fell backward, the SEAL fired a second round into his head, just above his left eye.

Account #3
OBL shot by: Unspecified
Witnessed by: One wife

In his May 2012 book Manhunt, Peter Bergen gave an account similar to Schmidle's, but his only had one of the wives present and he didn't specify who put the bullets into bin Laden:

Hearing the sounds of strange men rushing into their room, Amal screamed something in Arabic and threw herself in front of her husband. The first SEAL who charged into the room shoved her aside, concerned she might be wearing a suicide bomb vest. Amal was then shot in the calf by another of the SEALs and collapsed unconscious onto the simple double mattress she shared with bin Laden. Bin Laden was offering no resistance when he was dispatched with a "double tap" of shots to the chest and his left eye. It was a grisly scene: his brains spattered on the ceiling above him and poured out of his eye socket. The floor near the bed was smeared with bin Laden's blood.

Account #4
OBL shot by: Three SEALs, with two shots outside the bedroom, then multiple shots inside the bedroom
Witnessed by: Two women

According to the September 2012 book No Easy Day by "Mark Owen"—later identified as SEAL Team 6 member Matt Bissonnette—three different SEALs shot bin Laden, who was already in his death throes when they entered the bedroom and pumped additional rounds into his body:

We were less than five steps from getting to the top when I heard suppressed shots. BOP. BOP. The point man had seen a man peeking out of the door on the right side of the hallway about ten feet in front of him. I couldn't tell from my position if the rounds hit the target or not. The man disappeared into the dark room.…

We didn't rush. Instead, we waited at the threshold and peered inside. We could see two women standing over a man lying at the foot of a bed…The women were hysterically crying and wailing in Arabic. The younger one looked up and saw us at the door. She yelled out in Arabic and rushed the point man. We were less than five feet apart. Swinging his gun to the side, the point man grabbed both women and drove them toward the corner of the room…

With the women out of the way, I entered the room with a third SEAL. We saw the man lying on the floor at the foot of his bed. He was wearing a white sleeveless T-shirt, loose tan pants, and a tan tunic. The point man's shots had entered the right side of his head. Blood and brains spilled out of the side of his skull. In his death throes, he was still twitching and convulsing. Another assaulter and I trained our lasers on his chest and fired several rounds. The bullets tore into him, slamming his body into the floor until he was motionless.

Account #5
OBL shot by: One SEAL, with one shot each in the chest and left eye
Witnessed by: One wife

With the first edition of his book, The Finish, published in October 2012, journalist Mark Bowden was compelled to include an insert explaining discrepancies between his account and Bissonnette's, which had been published the prior month. "I assume [his] account is accurate though the account here was reviewed at the highest level of Special Forces Command and confirmed as accurate before the book went to press," Bowden wrote. From his book:

Three SEALs came up those stairs, scanning different angles, searching while protecting each other. The first man up spotted a tall, bearded, swarthy man in a prayer cap wearing traditional flowing Pakistani clothes, the knee-length skirt worn over pajama-like bottoms. The man retreated quickly and the SEAL followed, with the other two close behind. As the first entered the bedroom he saw bin Laden, but first had to contend with Amal, who shouted and moved in front of her husband. The SEAL knocked her aside as his teammate shot bin Laden in the chest. The Sheik fell over backward, faceup. The SEAL who had shot bin Laden was over him instantly and shot him once more through the left eye.

Account #6
OBL shot by: One SEAL, with three shots to the forehead

Journalist Phil Bronstein's much-discussed story, recently published by Esquire and the Center for Investigative Reporting, relied on a series of interviews with a source identified only as "the Shooter." It was billed as "the most definitive account of those crucial few seconds when bin Laden was killed." Bronstein noted: "Not in dispute is the fact that others have claimed that they shot bin Laden when he was already dead, and a number of team members apparently did just that." The story offered yet another version of the kill shots, in the Shooter's own words:

I'm just looking at him from right here [he moves his hand out from his face about ten inches]. He's got a gun on a shelf right there, the short AK he's famous for. And he's moving forward. I don't know if she's got a vest and she's being pushed to martyr them both. He's got a gun within reach. He's a threat. I need to get a head shot so he won't have a chance to clack himself off [blow himself up].

In that second, I shot him, two times in the forehead. Bap! Bap! The second time as he's going down. He crumpled onto the floor in front of his bed and I hit him again, Bap! same place. That time I used my EOTech red-dot holo sight. He was dead. Not moving. His tongue was out. I watched him take his last breaths, just a reflex breath…

His forehead was gruesome. It was split open in the shape of a V. I could see his brains spilling out over his face. The American public doesn't want to know what that looks like.

Unsurprisingly, Zero Dark Thirty uses its own amalgamation of similar details for bin Laden's final moments, and then some. (Look for the SEAL trying to soothe a child terrified by the carnage with a glow stick.) But the filmmakers apparently agreed with the Shooter's sentiment: They never give viewers a direct look at bin Laden's dead visage. (The Obama White House also refused to provide one to the public.) As the credits rolled at the screening I attended in San Francisco, an audience member behind me commented, "I wonder how much of it was true." With a laugh, his friend replied: "Well, they say the whole thing is."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/zero-dark-thirty-osama-bin-laden-seals

2. No Easy Day (an autobiographic account of the raid of a Navy seal actually involved in the operation)
It's interesting that you consider this a reliable source when it has been disputed by other Navy Seals and was almost certainly given some 'masala' to make it suitable for the general public and some redaction to make sure it aligns with the Official narrative.

And how would a Navy Seal know how the CIA got the intel? Compartmentalisation is usually an important part of such operations. And the CIA has been known to go further than that. If he did know the truth, he wouldn't openly state it in his book. He's already had to forfeit a lot of the money he made off it because he didn't get it approved properly by the Pentagon:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/bin-laden-book-seal-team-6.html
Think about it.
I've thought about it enough. It's your turn.

My scepticism isn't based solely on what Hersh says - the US official account is simply full of holes.

How did the advanced 'stealth helicopter' manage to crash during the raid? There are two mainstream accounts, one saying it was caused by a 'vortex ring state' https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...by-air-vortex-not-mechanics-in-bin-laden-raid
and the other saying that the back rotor hit a building. Both are doubtful - most helicopter pilots are taught to deal with the vortex situation, and you'd expect an elite US military pilot flying an advanced stealth Blackhawk would know how to avoid smashing his rotor against a wall.

Why did they dispose of his body? They say it's a 'Muslim ritual' to bury people at sea - first of all, why would they care so much about following Muslim traditions for someone like Bin Laden? Secondly, it's not really a Muslim ritual; they could have buried him anywhere, and that would be more Islamic than dumping him in the ocean. I've also read the argument that it was to avoid making his grave a 'shrine for extremists' - but simply burying him in an unmarked grave and not announcing where it is would've had the same effect.

Why haven't they released any pictures of him?

History has shown that such official narratives should never be taken at face value.
 
.
Again, I'm not saying everything about his account is correct. It isn't inconceivable that he was being held there as a prisoner - someone like OBL could produce a lot of intelligence that would be extremely useful for ISI and counterterror ops. The whole story about Saudis wanting to keep him alive is less likely, but still possible. He was from a rich, influential Saudi family, after all.

This just shows you haven't actually read Hersh's account or the transcript of the interview I linked to.
According to him, Pakistan (or atleast Kayani) was willing to hand him over to the Americans:

There was supposedly an agreement between Kayani and the US:

Now, if this is true, it would make sense - as a way to improve relations during that period, or to prevent relations from getting worse. Besides, the US had already proven that it doesn't need any 'ammunition' to take hostile action. Remember Raymond Davis? Salala checkpost attack?

Again, Hersh explained that in his interview. He didn't 'refuse to comment':

Again, it would make sense that the CIA would take steps to protect the identity of an informant.

Shakil Afridi is not in jail for culpability in the raid. He is in jail for aiding a foreign intelligence agency. What he did is illegal regardless of whether or not he actually succeeded at locating Bin Laden.

The guy has a Pulitzer Prize. He doesn't really need any more publicity.

That is an objectively false claim. They lie about as often as they tell the truth, if not more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0f5a78-c53d-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
http://mashable.com/2014/12/09/5-times-the-cia-lied/#PAeI8vCdpkql
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p305_marchetti.html
http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/9/7361295/biggest-lies-the-cia-told-about-the-torture-program
http://www.globalresearch.ca/1975-v...am-media-to-distribute-disinformation/5424860
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/


That point is usually several decades after the actual event. Right now there are already inconsistencies and conflicts between accounts from individuals actually involved in the operation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-binladen-seals-idUSKBN0IQ2RC20141107

There's actually six different versions of what happened in within the few minutes of the raid:



It's interesting that you consider this a reliable source when it has been disputed by other Navy Seals and was almost certainly given some 'masala' to make it suitable for the general public and some redaction to make sure it aligns with the Official narrative.

And how would a Navy Seal know how the CIA got the intel? Compartmentalisation is usually an important part of such operations. And the CIA has been known to go further than that. If he did know the truth, he wouldn't openly state it in his book. He's already had to forfeit a lot of the money he made off it because he didn't get it approved properly by the Pentagon:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/bin-laden-book-seal-team-6.html

I've thought about it enough. It's your turn.

My scepticism isn't based solely on what Hersh says - the US official account is simply full of holes.

How did the advanced 'stealth helicopter' manage to crash during the raid? There are two mainstream accounts, one saying it was caused by a 'vortex ring state' https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...by-air-vortex-not-mechanics-in-bin-laden-raid
and the other saying that the back rotor hit a building. Both are doubtful - most helicopter pilots are taught to deal with the vortex situation, and you'd expect an elite US military pilot flying an advanced stealth Blackhawk would know how to avoid smashing his rotor against a wall.

Why did they dispose of his body? They say it's a 'Muslim ritual' to bury people at sea - first of all, why would they care so much about following Muslim traditions for someone like Bin Laden? Secondly, it's not really a Muslim ritual; they could have buried him anywhere, and that would be more Islamic than dumping him in the ocean. I've also read the argument that it was to avoid making his grave a 'shrine for extremists' - but simply burying him in an unmarked grave and not announcing where it is would've had the same effect.

Why haven't they released any pictures of him?

History has shown that such official narratives should never be taken at face value.

Even with the best pilots, they can still crash. Heck even crashed while during training. How about in Iran when pilots crashed in attempt to rescue hostages?

What about Osama's family that Pakistan found at that same building where Osama was claimed to have been killed? Didn't they said Americans killed him?
 
.
Even with the best pilots, they can still crash. Heck even crashed while during training. How about in Iran when pilots crashed in attempt to rescue hostages?
Sure, it's possible. But why are there conflicting accounts on it?
What about Osama's family that Pakistan found at that same building where Osama was claimed to have been killed? Didn't they said Americans killed him?
I'm not denying Americans killed him. Read the story by Hersh that me and LeGenD are discussing.
 
.
Even with the best pilots, they can still crash. Heck even crashed while during training. How about in Iran when pilots crashed in attempt to rescue hostages?

What about Osama's family that Pakistan found at that same building where Osama was claimed to have been killed? Didn't they said Americans killed him?

The cause of the helicopter crash in Abbottabad was that the practice mockup building had a wire-mesh fence that allowed rotor wash to bleed away, but the solid brick wall in the real raid reduced the blade lift.

Another lesson learned for the future, that is all.
 
. .
Sure, it's possible. But why are there conflicting accounts on it?

Beats me. I hear counts of being shot down by Osama's men. By Pakistani Air Force, by accident. Everybody but the Pentagon is talking about the stealth helo and why it crashed.
 
.
Sure, it's possible. But why are there conflicting accounts on it?
There are conflicting accounts of a recent blast in DHA. Which account will you consider as most likely? Do you think that a cylinder blast could cause that much destruction?

I will respond to your post tomorrow. In the meantime, read this article to understand why Raymond Davis episode occurred and why CIA and ISI were not getting along during the tenure of Leon Panetta: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/magazine/raymond-davis-pakistan.html
 
.
Again, I'm not saying everything about his account is correct. It isn't inconceivable that he was being held there as a prisoner - someone like OBL could produce a lot of intelligence that would be extremely useful for ISI and counterterror ops. The whole story about Saudis wanting to keep him alive is less likely, but still possible. He was from a rich, influential Saudi family, after all.
So OBL was being held as a prisoner in that compound for 5 straight years? And his family was allowed to live with him for that long on top of that? Very generous of Pakistani military establishment for granting such leniency and VIP treatment to the most wanted TERRORIST of the world in captivity. :rolleyes:

I suppose Ibrahim and Abrar - confirmed facilitators of OBL and his family in Abbottabad - were ISI agents then. So ISI agents are disposable in a facilitated raid? Americans are allowed to murder them? Because according to Hersh, that compound was under the control of ISI since 2006.

And it is really convenient to bring Saudi Arabia into this matter. They stripped him of Saudi nationality in 1994 and the overarching Bin Laden family disowned him soon after. Why would they want Pakistan to keep him alive? They are abettors of terrorism then?

Seriously, bro? That assessment makes ZERO sense in the light of available information.

This just shows you haven't actually read Hersh's account or the transcript of the interview I linked to.
According to him, Pakistan (or atleast Kayani) was willing to hand him over to the Americans:

There was supposedly an agreement between Kayani and the US:

Now, if this is true, it would make sense - as a way to improve relations during that period, or to prevent relations from getting worse. Besides, the US had already proven that it doesn't need any 'ammunition' to take hostile action. Remember Raymond Davis? Salala checkpost attack?
Of-course, [then] COAS of Pakistan would be willing to hand over OBL to the Americans but you don't think that it is absolutely out-of-character for any COAS to allow Americans to conduct a unilateral operation in Abbottabad for any individual? That too after Raymond Davis episode?

If Ashfaq Kayani and Shuja Pasha were facilitators of that operation, they must have informed the army and ISI to stand down during the night of May 2, 2011. That, in turn, implies that the entire military establishment is complicit in this act. Then why Shuja Pasha offered to resign in the parliament next day? Awaam ko bewaqoof samjha hai kiya?

1. I also wonder which idiot thought of using stealthy units in a facilitated raid.
2. I suppose that the crash of a stealthy chopper was also pre-planned during the raid so that some Chinese agents would be allowed to inspect its parts afterwards.
3. I suppose that Abbottabad Commission Report is a FARCE.
4. The courier - Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti - is irrelevant in this entire episode.

Yes, I remember the episodes of Raymond Davis and Salala. They were staged events too! Trust me on this. :rolleyes:

Now, why Hersh's account should be taken with a grain of salt? Some examples below:

In October, Obama was briefed on the intelligence. His response was cautious, the retired official said. ‘It just made no sense that bin Laden was living in Abbottabad. It was just too crazy. The president’s position was emphatic: “Don’t talk to me about this any more unless you have proof that it really is bin Laden.”’ The immediate goal of the CIA leadership and the Joint Special Operations Command was to get Obama’s support. They believed they would get this if they got DNA evidence, and if they could assure him that a night assault of the compound would carry no risk. The only way to accomplish both things, the retired official said, ‘was to get the Pakistanis on board’.

Really Hersh?

Nobody in that meeting reacted like that. In-fact, CIA was fully aware of the fact that scores of Al-Qaeda militants had infiltrated Abbottabad and other cities in Pakistan and POTUS was being informed of progress in their hunt from time-to-time.

Another;

‘The compound was not an armed enclave – no machine guns around, because it was under ISI control.’

Refer to my point above: Ibrahim and Abrar were ISI agents then?

Another;

The walk-in had told the US that bin Laden had lived undetected from 2001 to 2006 with some of his wives and children in the Hindu Kush mountains, and that ‘the ISI got to him by paying some of the local tribal people to betray him.’

Really Hersh?

Wife of Ibrahim - one of the confirmed facilitators of OBL in Pakistan - disclosed that they were in Karachi initially, then moved to Peshawar, then to Swat, then to Haripur and then to Abbottabad.

Again, Hersh explained that in his interview. He didn't 'refuse to comment':

Again, it would make sense that the CIA would take steps to protect the identity of an informant.
Sure! So what went wrong in the case of Shakil Afridi?

Shakil Afridi is not in jail for culpability in the raid. He is in jail for aiding a foreign intelligence agency. What he did is illegal regardless of whether or not he actually succeeded at locating Bin Laden.
You didn't address my question properly.

According to Hersh, the 'other' informant became disgruntled and disclosed the presence of OBL in Abbottabad to CIA station chief in Islamabad on his own accord. This informant (and his family) were somehow smuggled out of Pakistan and relocated in the Washington area after that. He is now a consultant for the CIA. Isn't he a traitor much like Afridi then? Why have Pakistani leadership demanded his extradition to Pakistan? Why punish Afridi only?

The guy has a Pulitzer Prize. He doesn't really need any more publicity.
You serious? It is all about staying relevant. Pulitzer price changes nothing.

Those are examples of cover-ups of certain methods of investigation and deliberate propaganda campaigns for political ends. However, I believe that no security agency would like to disclose its methods of investigation to the public because its competence would be in jeopardy after that.

I am (not) asserting that American establishment (political and military) does not conducts propaganda or keep the public in dark about matters deemed too sensitive for sharing. My point is that Americans are unlikely to lie about developments that can be disclosed to be public without compromise on national security. For example, their is no harm in telling the public that a unilateral operation was carried out to kill a high-profile terrorist in a distant location. However, a technical report of that operation may not be disclosed to the public due to obvious reasons.

That point is usually several decades after the actual event. Right now there are already inconsistencies and conflicts between accounts from individuals actually involved in the operation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-binladen-seals-idUSKBN0IQ2RC20141107

There's actually six different versions of what happened in within the few minutes of the raid:
Aaap nei yeh qahawat tu sunni ho gi: jitne muh utni baatein

Some valid points in this article: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/06/two-stories-osama-bin-laden-navy-seals

It's interesting that you consider this a reliable source when it has been disputed by other Navy Seals and was almost certainly given some 'masala' to make it suitable for the general public and some redaction to make sure it aligns with the Official narrative.

And how would a Navy Seal know how the CIA got the intel? Compartmentalisation is usually an important part of such operations. And the CIA has been known to go further than that. If he did know the truth, he wouldn't openly state it in his book. He's already had to forfeit a lot of the money he made off it because he didn't get it approved properly by the Pentagon:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/bin-laden-book-seal-team-6.html

I've thought about it enough. It's your turn.
Did you read the book?

FIRST:

Although I am writing this book in an effort to accurately describe real-world events as they occurred, it is important to me that no classified information is released. With the assistance of my publisher, I hired a former Special Operations attorney to review the manuscript to ensure that it was free from mention of forbidden topics and that it cannot be used by sophisticated enemies as a source of sensitive information to compromise or harm the United States. I am confident that the team that has worked with me on this book has both maintained and promoted the security interests of the United States.

SECOND:

CIA was involved in the planning and execution of operations in-connection-with search for OBL in relevant regions since 9/11 and Navy Seals were a common choice for them; so the author of the book knowing a thing or two about CIA is not news. Operation Neptune Spear was also a strictly CIA-led operation. And of-course, when you are writing a book, you are poised to elaborate the bigger picture to the audience.

My scepticism isn't based solely on what Hersh says - the US official account is simply full of holes.
Is it?

Problem is that we don't wait for a coherent picture of an event to come out and deliberately look for contradictions in the accounts of people to dismiss an official narrative. We fail to realize that contradictions in the accounts of people are a norm for every major development. People like to spread the word about an important development ASAP due to excitement factor on immediate basis - they seldom wait for truthfulness to rear its head in time. Additionally, story mein agar 'masala' na ho to sunnei ka maza nahi aata.

This is the most accurate and well-researched assessment of developments in-connection-with hunt for OBL: http://www.jpolrisk.com/the-decisio...r-presidential-leadership-and-political-risk/

I don't see any holes in that.

How did the advanced 'stealth helicopter' manage to crash during the raid? There are two mainstream accounts, one saying it was caused by a 'vortex ring state' https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...by-air-vortex-not-mechanics-in-bin-laden-raid
and the other saying that the back rotor hit a building. Both are doubtful - most helicopter pilots are taught to deal with the vortex situation, and you'd expect an elite US military pilot flying an advanced stealth Blackhawk would know how to avoid smashing his rotor against a wall.
Correct explanation here: https://tacairnet.com/2016/05/02/neptune-spear-and-the-crash-of-prince-51/

Why did they dispose of his body? They say it's a 'Muslim ritual' to bury people at sea - first of all, why would they care so much about following Muslim traditions for someone like Bin Laden? Secondly, it's not really a Muslim ritual; they could have buried him anywhere, and that would be more Islamic than dumping him in the ocean. I've also read the argument that it was to avoid making his grave a 'shrine for extremists' - but simply burying him in an unmarked grave and not announcing where it is would've had the same effect.
Where do you think they should have buried him?

Why haven't they released any pictures of him?

History has shown that such official narratives should never be taken at face value.
They are not under obligation to do that. However, they might be declassified one day.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom