zlacker

>>hungle+(OP)
It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing.

The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story.

What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning".

>>mmastr+fu1
It's not unsourced, the source is being kept private. That may not seem like a meaningful difference but there is a difference. And that difference is the reason Seymour Hersh's reputation is relevant.

>>LarryM+wy1
Well yeah, I think Seymour Hersh's reputation is relevant. He's pretty much a conspiracy theorist in this era.[1] Including his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Criticism_and_co...

>>beebma+hm2
> his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden

You give a link but it is nowhere in that link. I watched an interview where Hersh talked about how the US killed bin Laden. Hersh has always said this.

Hersh did do reporting that countered parts of the US government story about bin Laden. Namely the idea no high Pakistani army/intelligence/government official knew where bin Laden was in Pakistan. As well as some other things.

The conspiracy theory is believing bin Laden sat in a big compound in Abbottabad with no one important in the Pakistani government knowing this. I guess the US government feels it needs to state this for some diplomatic reason, but it is ludicrous.

>>GAN_Ga+7t2
Seymour Hersh regarding the Osama bin Laden raid, in which the terrorist leader was killed in 2011: "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true".

Later on in 2013, he changed his claim, such that he admitted some of the story is true, that is, that the terrorist leader was killed, after he encountered pushback.

Source: https://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/hersh-slams-us-media-clai...

>>beebma+iz2
That quote doesn't say that the US didn't kill Bin Laden. You're implying that by adding an unnecessary parenthetical "in which the terrorist leader was killed in 2011."

There's nothing simpler and better for your case than typing the quote where he said the thing you say he said. Otherwise, you're actively spreading misinformation on social media, and intentionally using rhetorical games to obscure the lack of evidence you're offering to support it. That's conscious spreading of misinformation.

>>pessim+4D2
Let me make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying that I'm spreading misinformation when I stated that: Seymour Hersh, with respect to an article about the Osama bin Laden raid, said that not a single word in it was true. He then later went on to admit that indeed, some of those words were true, that Osama bin Laden was indeed killed.

Would you be willing to explain how a strictly historical truth, that is, a direct quote from the individual in question, is misinformation?

>>beebma+2E2
You took a completely literal reading of a one sentence quote from an interview as his full opinion on the matter, and ignored that he immediately said that one sentence was not an accurate representation of his entire view. The Guardian even corrected the initial interview adding his further clarification. That seems like misinformation to me.

>>boombo+aN2
The Guardian did not issue a correction about Hersh's words. There was nothing to correct about them: the quote from Hersh is accurate. The Guardian issued a footnote/amendment (in their words), and here it is from the Guardian that you're referring to, as context:

> This article was amended on 1 October 2013. The original text stated that Hersh sold a story about the My Lai massacre to the New York Times for $5,000 when in fact it was the Times of London. Hersh has pointed out that he was in no way suggesting that Osama bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan, as reported, upon the president's authority: he was saying that it was in the aftermath that the lying began. Finally, the interview took place in the month of July, 2013.

Note that from this footnote that Seymour Hersh does not admit that he misspoke. He claims that he never suggested that Osama bin Laden was not killed. This is plainly a straight lie, given his claim that the White House's statement did not contain one word that was true.

If he wants to state that he misspoke in this interview: fine, then he should do it. But to state that he didn't make this claim is itself misinformation.

Edit: You're accusing me of bad faith. Can you please explain how my argument is deceptive or a lie? If anything, Seymour Hersh has acted in bad faith in this ordeal, lying about his own statements. And people should be suspect of him for that.

>>beebma+hQ2
Saying an amendment isn't a correction seems silly.

When your entire argument is "this one sentence when taken literally with no context can be considered crazy," I don't think you're arguing in good faith.