Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

EX500rider

(12,357 posts)
57. BBC's take on it:
Mon May 11, 2015, 03:06 PM
May 2015
• Unreliable sources. Much of Hersh's article is based on the claims of unnamed intelligence officials in the US and Pakistan, none of whom were directly involved in the operation. The only named source, Asad Durrani, served in the Pakistani military intelligence more than two decades ago and says only that "former colleagues" of his back up Hersh's claims. Durrani was later contacted by CNN's Bergen, and he would only say that Hersh's account was "plausible".

• Contradictory claims. Hersh disregards the fact that two of the Navy Seals involved in the attack on Bin Laden's compound have come out with details of the raid that directly contradict his account. Bergen, who visited the compound after the operation, writes that there was clear evidence of a protracted fire fight, as the location was "littered almost everywhere with broken glass and several areas of it were sprayed with bullet holes".

• Unrealistic conclusions. Why would the Saudis support a man who wanted to overthrow the Saudi monarchy? Why, if US support for Pakistan was part of the bargain, did US-Pakistani relations deteriorate in the years after the raid? If the US and Pakistan were co-operating, was a staged raid really the simplest possible way to ensure that Bin Laden was killed?


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32698016

As is often the case with conspiracy theories, perhaps the sharpest criticism of Mr Hersh's narrative is that it relies on a large cast of characters operating effectively while maintaining universal secrecy. Vox's Fischer accuses Hersh - who won a Pulitzer in 1970 for exposing the My Lai massacre of Vietnamese civilians at the hands of US soldiers - of producing a growing number of difficult-to-believe exposes based on tenuous evidence.
In the last three years, for example, he has penned pieces alleging the George W Bush administration trained Iranian militants in Nevada and that Turkey was behind chemical weapons attacks in Syria.
"Maybe there really is a vast shadow world of complex and diabolical conspiracies, executed brilliantly by international networks of government masterminds," Fischer writes. "And maybe Hersh and his handful of anonymous former senior officials really are alone in glimpsing this world and its terrifying secrets. Or maybe there's a simpler explanation."

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

More worry about why we seem to think that killing people.... daleanime May 2015 #1
Well, killing Ben Laden stopped Ben Laden NotoriousRBG May 2015 #3
And that didn't serve as inspiration for any one else? daleanime May 2015 #16
Not as inspirational as, say, invading Iraq over a lie Bucky May 2015 #60
Agreed, but you would think that we would stop stoking the flames..... daleanime May 2015 #61
Bingo. Fearless May 2015 #39
Hersh's version is riddled with inconsistencies. JaneyVee May 2015 #2
What is the condensed version of his theory? NoJusticeNoPeace May 2015 #26
I believe Osama Bin Laden's version. LuvLoogie May 2015 #4
Other: A ruthless person got what they deserved. I am not sweating the details stevenleser May 2015 #5
Neither really. No way of knowing, both have holes. morningfog May 2015 #6
I will say something about Sy Hersh's tinfoil story MohRokTah May 2015 #7
Well, no, he claims they are all liars. Everyone on the planet is a liar except for Hersh's geek tragedy May 2015 #10
Hersh's version has fewer holes Bigmack May 2015 #8
then you are easily CONVINCED by shoddy, unsourced gossip geek tragedy May 2015 #9
Yeh, well I'm not alone: Bigmack May 2015 #12
firedoglake is an online looney bin where hatred of Obama is almost a requirement geek tragedy May 2015 #13
If your company is FDL that's usually a cause to reconsider Recursion May 2015 #20
You have really shown what politicians are up against.... NCTraveler May 2015 #22
FDL is like WSWS Godhumor May 2015 #41
Not even close. onenote May 2015 #36
I really don't give a shit. n/t winter is coming May 2015 #11
Your lack of concern is duly noted.n/t DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #14
Perhaps you can convince us why we should care. What is so important about it? nt stevenleser May 2015 #18
Your ambivalence is duly noted./nt DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #28
So there is no reason to be concerned that you can come up with? That's "Duly Noted". nt stevenleser May 2015 #30
I like to keep my name out there in DU land, that's all...nt DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #31
Duly note me too, cause I don't give a shit either. n/t Lil Missy May 2015 #51
No problem.n/t DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #52
I'm just glad it was successful and the Objectives were met. yeoman6987 May 2015 #19
I don't give a shit either, he's dead. Greybnk48 May 2015 #37
I believe the White House version. Terra Alta May 2015 #15
Since our government lies us into war (with impunity, I'll add), closeupready May 2015 #17
Which White House version? It changed substantially several times. whatchamacallit May 2015 #21
Aren't there three sides to every story? Yours, mine, and the truth? cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #23
This poll will yield a skewed result whatchamacallit May 2015 #24
At this point, neither. Iggo May 2015 #25
Without evidence, I have no reason to believe either. arcane1 May 2015 #27
We know for a fact that the Pentagon lies to us about nearly everything. Maedhros May 2015 #29
Bush lies! scscholar May 2015 #32
how can anyone believe hersh's version? samsingh May 2015 #33
Apparently Bobbie Jo May 2015 #35
Who is naive enough to think we would ever really know the truth abut anything the government does? djean111 May 2015 #34
If White House version is accurate, how come we don't see the video? Octafish May 2015 #38
"Wouldn't it make sense to put him on trial and show the world what a mass murderer gets?" zappaman May 2015 #44
Murdering a murderer is not justice. Octafish May 2015 #47
Shooting an enemy isn't murder Bucky May 2015 #59
I honestly don't give a fuck one way or the other. giftedgirl77 May 2015 #40
you need an I don't care option cali May 2015 #42
Just checked my Shit That Matters list. 99Forever May 2015 #43
The version that says he's dead. zappaman May 2015 #45
Bill O'Reilly's. KamaAina May 2015 #46
You can joke about BillO, but you'll falafel about it later pinboy3niner May 2015 #53
Hersh has been slipping for some time Gothmog May 2015 #48
I think there are far more important things to worry about. n/t malthaussen May 2015 #49
Until a lot of shit is declassified in 50 years nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #50
Hersh has been predicting a US attack against Iran for over a decade. Cali_Democrat May 2015 #54
He said the Bush administration was planning an attack on Iran. That doesn't seem terribly crazy. Chathamization May 2015 #55
He said the same under the Obama admin as well Cali_Democrat May 2015 #56
Where did Hersh say Obama would attack Iran? N/T Chathamization May 2015 #58
BBC's take on it: EX500rider May 2015 #57
Thanks for that. It really clears things up. Too much doesn't fit with Hersh's story. nt okaawhatever May 2015 #63
Well I certainly don't believe the White House version CrawlingChaos May 2015 #62
I'm quite sure the White House version is closer to the truth than Hersh's conspiracy-mongering. Unvanguard May 2015 #64
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Whose version of the kill...»Reply #57