Insanity



  • I didn't read the news over the weekend, but this is insane:

    So this journalist gave an alternative view of events over the Obama Bin Laden assassination.

    In his alternative view, the US actually consulted and made-aware Pakistani officials before beginning the operation.

    Obama's administration is denying his view because they want to make it clear that the US unilaterally performed the mission and didn't inform Pakistani officials until afterward.

    ... what!?

    Performing a military operation in a foreign country without even informing that country of your actions is unconscionable. If this report says that's what happened, why not let it stand? Because honestly that makes the US sound a lot better than the "official" version of the events.

    But no. Obama has to deny it because PATRIOTISM!

    (That all said, Hersh sounds like a huge hack more interested in getting people talking about him than reporting actual news. And he's also reporting that he marines responsible for transporting his body literally hacked it up and threw limbs out of the helicopter door? That's just insane.)



  • Weird. I guess the official version plays up the "gutsy call" angle, though the secrecy always made sense because there seems to be a lot of Al Qaeda sympathy in Pakistan's intelligence community.

    I hesitate to propose that Obama is standing up for Truth qua Truth, but their MO is often to stick with obviously stupid stories because that's what they said. I'm having difficulty caring too much about this, though, TBH.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Weird. I guess the official version plays up the "gutsy call" angle, though the secrecy always made sense because there seems to be a lot of Al Qaeda sympathy in Pakistan's intelligence community.

    That's their excuse, I'm not sure I buy it. If Obama had his hand on the trigger, he could have red-phone-d Pakistan's Prime Minister directly, and I guarantee that guy wouldn't have called-up the Bin Laden complex.

    @boomzilla said:

    I hesitate to propose that Obama is standing up for Truth qua Truth, but their MO is often to stick with obviously stupid stories because that's what they said. I'm having difficulty caring too much about this, though, TBH.

    After reading another article on the subject, it sounds more like: "once famous report makes up badly-sourced article in pathetic attempt to get his face in the news once more". I agree with the Obama administration, the article's almost certainly complete trash.

    That said, the part about informing Pakistan? They don't need to counter that point in particular. Because it makes the US sound good. Talk about the bit with the Marines chopping limbs off a corpse and tossing them out of a helicopter, because that's obviously bullshit and hurts the US' reputation.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    That's their excuse, I'm not sure I buy it. If Obama had his hand on the trigger, he could have red-phone-d Pakistan's Prime Minister directly, and I guarantee that guy wouldn't have called-up the Bin Laden complex.

    Yes, he could have, but he might not have wanted to say anything in case of failure.

    @blakeyrat said:

    After reading another article on the subject, it sounds more like: "once famous report makes up badly-sourced article in pathetic attempt to get his face in the news once more". I agree with the Obama administration, the article's almost certainly complete trash.

    Yeah, I don't trust Sy Hersh's anonymous sources.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Talk about the bit with the Marines chopping limbs off a corpse and tossing them out of a helicopter, because that's obviously bullshit and hurts the US' reputation.

    Maybe they thought a categorical denial was better. Either way, haters gonna hate, and debating about what's going to make people more angry or whatever isn't a winning game.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Yes, he could have, but he might not have wanted to say anything in case of failure.

    Hah imagine the face-saving he'd have to do if we went in with zero notice or permission and failed at the mission.

    Informing the government ahead of time would have actually made that significantly easier.



  • Yeah, what if bin Laden wasn't there? They would have invaded another country, killed some of it's totally innocent civilians and flown back out. No terrorist leader. No threat to the free world neutralized.

    The only reason the Pakis couldn't be angry is the fact that UBL was such a feared and hated man.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Hah imagine the face-saving he'd have to do if we went in with zero notice or permission and failed at the mission.

    True, but they could have claimed the mission was something else in that case and saved some face.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Performing a military operation in a foreign country without even informing that country of your actions is unconscionable.

    Not if you're powerful enough. What good would informing do? That they try to shoot down your helicopters? Nah.

    Anyway, a good, solid denial is the best confirmation a conspiracy theorist can hope for.



  • @Hanzo said:

    Not if you're powerful enough.

    Irrelevant.

    @Hanzo said:

    What good would informing do?

    Preserve our national dignity, which is significantly more important than how many helicopters we have.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Preserve our national dignity, which is significantly more important than how many helicopters we have.

    In the long term, it's better to be respected than feared. If you're feared, others are just waiting for a moment of weakness to take you out.

    @Hanzo said:

    Anyway, a good, solid denial is the best confirmation a conspiracy theorist can hope for.

    Yeah, a total lack of evidence is just more proof that it's a cover up.



  • @Bort said:

    In the long term, it's better to be respected than feared.

    The two things are not mutually-exclusive.

    And it's bad to be respected only because you're feared.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Bort said:
    In the long term, it's better to be respected than feared.

    The two things are not mutually-exclusive.

    And it's bad to be respected only because you're feared.


    You want the current Pakistani leaders to respect the USA? That seems ... curious, or in standard blakeyrant: God, what a fucking waste of time. Just hit them over the head with a clue bat. I'm sick of bowing to dumb tyrants.



  • @Hanzo said:

    You want the current Pakistani leaders to respect the USA?

    There are other countries in the world.

    They observe actions and form opinions about the actor based on those actions.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    But no. Obama has to deny it because PATRIOTISM!

    No, I think he's denying it because they're trying to delete his political win. He directed the capture of bin Laden, something that Bush obviously couldn't do, but brushed off, saying, "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

    Capturing bin Laden was a coup for Obama. And that's just unacceptable and so it must be turned into a coup for Pakistan: "Oh, Obama was just riding Pakistan's coattails."


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    Obama has to deny it because PATRIOTISM!

    No, it's that he can't be contradicted. Now, I'm not making any statements about which version, if either, is true, just that Obama doesn't back down from what he says.



  • or maybe the US denies any help from the pakis because it would mean lots and lots of people blowing up to heaven on their streets.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.