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
This is a frustratingly common technique that I've seen from those who have strong political affiliations.

It's much easier to make a strong claim, and to repeat it, than it is to read through articles and debunk those claims. Frequently, as soon as you've done it, there are several more of these strong claims made, and the discussion becomes impossible.

I think it's rooted in the desire to "win".

I know I get a little excited when I see a comment I've made get upvoted.

I think about it when I'm writing and I've found it affects what I write and my phrasing.

I think this is an unintended consequence of self-moderated discussions - it seems to devolve into a zero-sum game.