• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House rejects Seymour Hersh 'baseless assertions' on bin Laden raid

Along with ethics, and legitimacy, and your the biggest apologist for it, all the while condemning other countries. That's very self defeating if one really does wish for other countries to honor IL. That's it for me Jack, you may have the last word. As usual, I've grown bored with you.

As you wish. I'd think you'd be bored with being wrong all the time.
 
Given the Pakistan military's history with the Taliban I can understand why the WH wouldn't tell them about the mission. Bin Laden's compound was just a few blocks from a Pakistan military base. How did he manage to live there for so long (5 years?) under the Pakistan military's nose unless they were allowing him to be there? They certainly had plenty of time to capture Bin Laden themselves.

It might be easier to believe Hersh's story if he gave the name of his source. He's not just calling the WH liars...but he's also calling the Seals liars, too.

This quote sums it up for me.....

"...citing CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen's comment that "what's true in this story isn't new, and what's new in the story isn't true."

If I was sending in a crew of SEALS to capture Bin Laden the last people I would want in on the mission is the Pakistans. Five minutes after you told the Pakistanis the plan Bin Laden would have gotten the news.
 
Hersh has done good work in the past but his story sounds less plausible than the official one and it relies on just one source.

But both stories end in OBL being dead so I'm good. :)
 
Some things are quite fishy about the OBL story, for example, there are stratfor emails in which people don't think he was buried at sea (HACKED STRATFOR EMAILS: Analysts Didn't Believe Bin Laden Was Buried At Sea - Business Insider) there are also Islamic scholars saying that burial at sea does not adhere to Islamic law (Sea burial of Osama bin Laden breaks sharia law, say Muslim scholars | World news | The Guardian). Add in the fact that many SEAL members who participated in the raid were later killed in a helicopter crash (House panel probing chopper crash that killed SEAL Team 6 members | Fox News).
 
Some things are quite fishy about the OBL story, for example, there are stratfor emails in which people don't think he was buried at sea (HACKED STRATFOR EMAILS: Analysts Didn't Believe Bin Laden Was Buried At Sea - Business Insider) there are also Islamic scholars saying that burial at sea does not adhere to Islamic law (Sea burial of Osama bin Laden breaks sharia law, say Muslim scholars | World news | The Guardian). Add in the fact that many SEAL members who participated in the raid were later killed in a helicopter crash (House panel probing chopper crash that killed SEAL Team 6 members | Fox News).

I'm thinking that they were from team 6, but not the same guys that participated in the OBL mission (assassination).
 
I'm thinking that they were from team 6, but not the same guys that participated in the OBL mission (assassination).

True. I misread that sentence in the article.
 
Back
Top Bottom