The Killing of Osama bin Laden

Isn't it bizarre that enemy #1 is wanted dead or alive, but if he's killed they have to pfretend that it was all macho testosterone boys' own adventure stuff.

So what if he was sick - did they want him gone or did they want to be perceived as Chuck Norris types?

Was it about their image or was it about accomplishing a mission?

Why mythologise something like this if the common perception is that the ends, whatever they turned out to be, justified the means?

Vert\y tacky stuff.

So they shot Osama while he was a prisoner of Pakistan and Obama, the CIA and Navy SEALS made themselves look like hero's.  This story actually makes more sense than the story we were told when it all went down.  We'd never execute a military mission in Pakistan without their approval as it could be considered an act of war and destroy our "secret" alliance.

I wish I was shocked that almost everything Obama said in his initial statement and the news reported was a fabrication but it seems our government (regardless of party affiliation) continues to misrepresent their actions and motives to the people they work for.

I don't pretend to know what the truth is, but I came across this today.

We won't ever know the truth here just as we won't with Benghazi but if the best rebuttal to the Hersch report is what a CNN National Security Analyst saw after the mission took place and Navy Seals who were clearly using this mission to self promote then I'm leaning towards believing Hersh.

The first, most obvious, question I'd ask of the author would be:  Why in the world would they make all of that up instead of just telling the truth?  What are they gaining by telling us the "Zero Dark Thirty" story instead of just saying "Pakistan held him and handed him over to us and we killed him?"

The story we've been told, which has been generally corroborated by several different people involved, including at least two of the actual Seals

OR

This story, put together by one guy with only anonymous sources.

If those are my only choices, then I'm going with door number 1.  Not going to put much stock behind it, because like @dsc123 , I certainly don't know anything about this, but common sense has me leaning that way for now.

Because politics is about timing and story.  At the time, the economy wasn't great, Obama had a pretty low approval rating and the country needed a "pick me up".  The truth as Hersh reports wasn't very heroic or newsworthy compared to the "Zero Dark Thirty" story.  Don't you ever wonder why certain events or news reports occur when they do?  The government knows how to use the media to provide misdirection to get the headlines and mindsets focused someplace else.

I don't know how much of what Hersh said is correct but I don't believe for a second that we'd execute a mission like we did in Pakistan without their approval.

The news industry is as self-serving as the government. As cynical as this sounds, you're blind if you believe one or the other.

It never ceases to amaze me how devoted Americans are to their party of choice. It's almost embarrassing which side of a story they will choose to believe depending on whether it's their party or the other who are under fire.

Highly disagree with this because I remember what it felt like when I heard the news that we got bin laden. It wasn't "yay, he was killed in a heroic firefight that blah blah blah blah" ... It was "woohoo, bin laden is dead. Gone. Period. End of story." Nobody cares how.

I've read enough about the cover up of Shock and Awe from both the Bush and Obama administration to know that both sides lie.  I agree the media plays the role of the pawn and power broker depending on the situation, it's just a matter of what best serves their interests.

I 100% believe you reacted that way, but I think you were in the minority.  If it was just about Bin Laden being dead then there'd be no reason for all the detailed accounts and in fighting among the SEALS over who got the credit for the "kill".  It was a big military coup at the time.

Yep. The same feeling as when they executed Ted Bundy. Not as much of a sense of national pride or celebration, just a necessary end to a really sad story.

I think what's bothersome is that if Hersh's story is true, the government continues to feel like it's necessary to lie about this stuff - like the truth is never an option. And as @newtogolf pointed out, doesn't matter if it's Obama, Bush or the next administration - lying is just the natural thing to do. I don't think many people have a problem with putting bin Laden down whether he fought back or not. I know I don't care. So why go with an elaborate coverup (again, if its true)?

Speaking of conspiracy theories...the article is dated May 21, 2015. :blink:

Doesn't the fact that the story changed so many different times from the point that the news first came up until the last version came out from the government enough to persuade you that there is probably an alternate story that actually took place? The government doesn't care about the small percentage of free thinking Americans, but rather the masses that sill believe the first story told.. They can tell what ever story they want at fest and that's what is going to stay in people's mind.. Then they can retract as they wish later on because that will only reach a fraction of the people that heard the original headline story.. This is typical stuff here IMO..

Disagree.

The economy was a helluva lot better in 2012 than 2009... everything was on the uptick despite partisanship bickering. During the election, Bin Laden was not much of an issue ... basically it was an election about getting out the vote, and no one does that better than Obama in a Presidential year. When Dems get out the vote, they generally can win. When they don't, they don't. There are a helluva lot more Dems than Pubs, but Pubs vote, and Dems are fickle voters.

The story has always been that the US could not trust Pakistan to keep a secret, too many in Pakistan's Intelligence Agency hated us, and the reason most sources believe Pakistan was not told about the raid.

Just to play devils advocate for a moment (and potentially get the conspiracy theorists excited!) but what if Bin Laden isnt actually dead?

Think of it this way, there were no official pictures of him released, all the witnesses in the room were "collateral damage" and the body was buried/dumped at sea. Wouldnt it be more beneficial to the CIA etc. to have kept him alive as a secret prisoner?

Main thing is a Psycopathic madman was taken out of action, the only downside is it didnt end the "war". The Soviets couldnt beat the Taliban and i dont think anyone will.

In the Soviet - Afgan war the CIA supplied the Taliban with Stinger missiles to shoot russian helicopters down with. The UK gave them Blowpipe SAM systems for the reason of them being a load of rubbish and not working!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Disagree.

The economy was a helluva lot better in 2012 than 2009... everything was on the uptick despite partisanship bickering. During the election, Bin Laden was not much of an issue ... basically it was an election about getting out the vote, and no one does that better than Obama in a Presidential year. When Dems get out the vote, they generally can win. When they don't, they don't. There are a helluva lot more Dems than Pubs, but Pubs vote, and Dems are fickle voters.

The story has always been that the US could not trust Pakistan to keep a secret, too many in Pakistan's Intelligence Agency hated us, and the reason most sources believe Pakistan was not told about the raid.

You can disagree but it doesn't change the facts.  According to articles posted after the election the raid of the OBL compound was a major victory for Obama's approval rating.