Everything we know about the death of Osama Bin Laden is wrong

[Chef Ramsay]

Everything you know about Osama bin Laden’s killing is wrong.
That’s the short version of a very long Seymour Hersh story, just published in the London Review of Books, which offers an alternative narrative of the killing of Bin Laden in 2011.

The slightly longer version is that two key Pakistani officials, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, chief of the army staff, and General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, director general of the Pakistan’s intelligence service, were in on the operation to kill Bin Laden and ensured U.S. helicopters could travel safely across the border from Afghanistan into airspace over key Pakistani security facilities. They did so, Hersh’s story goes, in exchange for both personal bribes and a resumption of US military funding to Pakistan.

a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer actually approached the CIA station chief in Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, to offer up Bin Laden in exchange for part of the $25 million reward the U.S. offered. That source told the CIA that Bin Laden had been held captive by Pakistan’s intelligence service since 2006 as a kind of insurance policy against the Taliban. After that source went to the CIA, they did a series of checks, including obtaining DNA from a Pakistani doctor who was caring for the aging Bin Laden. It checked out. The U.S. decided to pursue Bin Laden, which is when they started bribing the Pakistanis to make it possible.

The plan called for a stealth raid of the Abottabad compound, conducted with the assistance of Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, which would assure that the Pakistani military did not interfere with the two Black Hawk helicopters after they crossed the border from Afghanistan. The raid would be conducted in secret, and remain a secret; the official story would be that Bin Laden was killed in a drone strike in tribal lands. However, on the night of the raid, things started to go haywire when the Navy SEALs crashed their helicopter, making it impossible to later tell the pre-arranged cover story. Rather than keeping the operation secret for some time until telling that cover story, the Obama administration immediately began spinning the raid to its political benefit. Subsequently, according to Hersh, the government had to come up with one story after another to cover holes in the previous ones. The foregrounding of torture in the pursuit in Bin Laden, according to this version of events, came when CIA old-timers were brought in to help craft yet more cover stories — and they decided to give it a spin that would help CIA avoid accountability for its torture program.

In short, as Hersh tells it, we’ve been told cover story after cover story after cover story.

More...http://www.salon.com/2015/05/11/everything_we_know_about_the_death_of_osama_bin_laden_is_wrong/

[fcuk]

I don't get it. Why would they need to fake a raid on the compound if they were going to say he was taken out in a drone strike? I don't buy this version of events but I don't buy the official story either. Never releasing his corpse or autopsy pictures was always a red flag for me too.

[arbitrage001]

Which version of the story carry more truth?

[jaysabi]

I don't get it. Why would they need to fake a raid on the compound if they were going to say he was taken out in a drone strike? I don't buy this version of events but I don't buy the official story either. Never releasing his corpse or autopsy pictures was always a red flag for me too.

They weren't faking a raid on the compound. The raid on the compound was real with the intent to kill him, they were just going to report he was killed in a drone strike to get around the sticky mess of what actually happened at the compound.

[protokol]

One of the most overused way to keep a group of people harmless is to send them in a thousand directions. The purpose of releasing conflicting narratives is to get the public divided into groups and subgroups on various issues.

Each news issue that might create a firestorm is released with several narratives so that before any group of people gets around to challenging the 'government' on it they exhaust themselves bickering over who really knows the truth.

Governments have been playing that game for hundreds of years but still there are people who stumble around like drunks confused, wondering why all these conflicting versions appear.

The best recent example, beyond hilarious, was the FBI encounter with the friend of the Boston marathon bomber.

Here are some of the early versions
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10074389/Boston-bomber-friend-shot-dead-by-FBI.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-kills-friend-of-boston-bomb-suspects-during-questioning-in-florida-8627464.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333101/Friend-Boston-Marathon-bomber-UNARMED-killed-FBI-agent-confess-triple-murder.html

First version / a group of FBI agents approach to ask questions and he attacks them with a sword / broom / stick / bat / unknown weapon, and they are forced to kill him.
Second version / a single FBI agent goes in alone to interrogate the mixed martial artist, who happens to be a suspect in a homicide, and after a struggle is forced to kill him.
Third version / ...

etc etc funny but most Americans are missing the bigger picture.

I partly agree with you here, this definitely does happen as a technique for governments to obfuscate the details of certain events.

However, I believe most of the time it's simply really bad journalism, together with newspapers putting their own spin on stories, for monetary gain. Also,because of online competition, papers these days will often publish a story very quickly, before they verify many actual facts.

Of the three sources you posted, the only one I would trust is the Telegraph (it is a Tory aligned paper, but it generally doesn't lie too much).

The Independent is OK (has become quite trashy though in the last year or two). The Daily Mail is literally the worst paper - it is crazy sensationalist and puts a super conservative spin on every story, because it knows that shit sells papers.

[toddtervy]

One of the most overused way to keep a group of people harmless is to send them in a thousand directions. The purpose of releasing conflicting narratives is to get the public divided into groups and subgroups on various issues.

Agreed, it happens right on here.  There's a thread about CIA media tactics or some such in here somewhere.  It's a type of 'Divide and Conquer' against the citizens so it's harder them to revolt, or question tyranny.  Too busy at each others throats.  

Each news issue that might create a firestorm is released with several narratives so that before any group of people gets around to challenging the 'government' on it they exhaust themselves bickering over who really knows the truth.

Governments have been playing that game for hundreds of years but still there are people who stumble around like drunks confused, wondering why all these conflicting versions appear.

And you'll find they get exhausted much faster on a steady diet of SUGAR.  
See my thread here:  http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1056903.0      
    
How to confuse retarded masses: get them addicted to sugar

[Spendulus]

Everything you know about Osama bin Laden’s killing is wrong.
That’s the short version of a very long Seymour Hersh story, just published in the London Review of Books, which offers an alternative narrative of the killing of Bin Laden in 2011.

The slightly longer version is that two key Pakistani officials, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, chief of the army staff, and General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, director general of the Pakistan’s intelligence service, were in on the operation to kill Bin Laden and ensured U.S. helicopters could travel safely across the border from Afghanistan into airspace over key Pakistani security facilities. They did so, Hersh’s story goes, in exchange for both personal bribes and a resumption of US military funding to Pakistan.

a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer actually approached the CIA station chief in Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, to offer up Bin Laden in exchange for part of the $25 million reward the U.S. offered. That source told the CIA that Bin Laden had been held captive by Pakistan’s intelligence service since 2006 as a kind of insurance policy against the Taliban. After that source went to the CIA, they did a series of checks, including obtaining DNA from a Pakistani doctor who was caring for the aging Bin Laden. It checked out. The U.S. decided to pursue Bin Laden, which is when they started bribing the Pakistanis to make it possible.

The plan called for a stealth raid of the Abottabad compound, conducted with the assistance of Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, which would assure that the Pakistani military did not interfere with the two Black Hawk helicopters after they crossed the border from Afghanistan. The raid would be conducted in secret, and remain a secret; the official story would be that Bin Laden was killed in a drone strike in tribal lands. However, on the night of the raid, things started to go haywire when the Navy SEALs crashed their helicopter, making it impossible to later tell the pre-arranged cover story. Rather than keeping the operation secret for some time until telling that cover story, the Obama administration immediately began spinning the raid to its political benefit. Subsequently, according to Hersh, the government had to come up with one story after another to cover holes in the previous ones. The foregrounding of torture in the pursuit in Bin Laden, according to this version of events, came when CIA old-timers were brought in to help craft yet more cover stories — and they decided to give it a spin that would help CIA avoid accountability for its torture program.

In short, as Hersh tells it, we’ve been told cover story after cover story after cover story.

More...http://www.salon.com/2015/05/11/everything_we_know_about_the_death_of_osama_bin_laden_is_wrong/

I am just dense?  This except for the bolded part all looked transparently obvious.