Intel shows bin Laden held firm control

reply to post by Liquesence


I don't have much argument and pretty much agree with your assessment here.

The one thing that's baffling me is where you say that I 'base the premise on your argument on "intel that was found."' What argument?

Also, just to be clearer about my take on the "official story," you cannot poke holes or discover contradictions or discrepancies in an "official story" unless you have a very clear picture and a firm grasp of what that official story is. It can't be done. You will either be spreading misinformation or be challenged at every turn. You can't argue it. And getting a grasp on it is a huge challenge, especially when it is, as you point out, so fluid. And is the fluidity itself by design? Possibly.

How many people here keep declaring "this story is full of holes, contradictions, it keeps changing, it's a set up" yet when asked can come up with maybe 1 or 2 examples. Part of this, of course is because it takes time to research and track down all this stuff (and there's a LOT). Part is coming from frustration because very few of us have the time to write down, research, and conclude what we think are many contradictions and lies.

If you're going to go up against the big guns in the government or even the media, you better have the stories straight...both theirs and yours.

What we're in right now is the gathering phase. Anything you see that's odd or seems off, save links, screenshots, whatever you can get a hold of and just stash it away if you don't have time. ATS in one week is chock full of vital information. Unfortunately, it's spread pretty wide, and no one person working part time is ever going to do a complete job in finding everything.

Each of us has a snapshot in our head as to what and where the story is depending on when we last refreshed our knowledge. Things you heard Monday may have changed Tuesday. There may have been a very valid reason for the change. But you may not know this, so you may be operating under a false premise. Not intentionally. Not maliciously. But you may be.

Example: A pretty large subset of the human population heard that OBL was killed the week before the president announced in in the very last minutes of Sunday, May 1, 2011. Is this kernel of information that they stored true or false? Will they repeat it and 1.) confuse those who may not have heard that, in turn causing these people to go through another research cycle (if they care enough to or have the time to) and 2.) propagate false information to others, who then in turn may pass it forward. And there are probably thousands of these examples with this story.

As for the communications links (satellite vs land lines and the stories we're getting), I've posted in other threads and may have forgotten to add it to this one, that I'm quite surprised that the CIA living next door didn't intercept any communications there may have been (scrambled or otherwise) with their highly sophisticated equipment. This may be one of the holes...if we can get a bead on who it was that said 1.) there were no internet or phone lines going to the compound and 2.) prove that the official story addressed this at all. If this was something that came from hearsay, interpretation, or faulty reporting or reading/hearing, we have nothing.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I suppose one of the main things that bothered me was this sentence:

This article is a pretty good synopsis about the materials recovered in the raid on the OBL compound. It alludes to the fact that there was actionable intel discovered but remains vague about the details.

because it did not include "supposed" or "alleged," but seems to echo the fact that, according to official sources, these things were *indeed* found, even if the details were vague. Perhaps argument was the wrong term on my part, as it should have read premise of the OP.

And no, you can't poke holes until you until you know what the official story is, with which i think i agreed, but my point in that the official "story" started out with holes so big that it automatically makes it suspect, as the officials try to fill in said holes and contradictions. That's kinda the point.

As for the rest of your particular post, i agree, and especially with the communications part (and have also posted in another thread or two). How could they be there for X amount of time and not identify him, even though they could see him, nor could they pick up ANY kinda of communication (even his voice from talking to people around the compound, which they could then use their so-accurate voice analysis), and basically got nothing, but somehow some courier's telephone call tipped the whole thing off which resulted in the seal assassination (and why, after the intel as supposed confirmed, did they need the team? It seems the "neighbors" could have moved back in, if they had left, and sniped him. Why such a large force? And the whole suicide vest thing is laughable, too, IMO. Does he sleep in one night after night, year after year? Was HE tipped that something might happen so he decided to wear it that night, that week, what)? How is it that if he had been living there no one in the town seemed to know, and to this day many of them still don't believe it?

Just too many things don't make sense. And as Judge Judy says....

IMO, it seems like the "officials" are, instead of putting together a true, accurate story, and using whatever intelligence/information they acquire to fit it into the holes in their story, so that they can back-peddle less, trying to maintain a semblance or illusion of accuracy with their initial, albeit contradictory, statements, and doesn't leave the story *as* open to severely questioning people, like us.

But that is the picture i have in my head, and everything new i personally see or hear seems to corroborate it. I too am only filling in the holes, accepting and rejecting information.

So yeah, we're on the same page, we just seem to be processing things a little differently.

There's just too much that reeks here. And yes, i am also gathering information daily, and it all seems to contribute to the reeking pile.

But that's just how i see it.

Well dangit. I didn't even realized I left out "official story." I've type that so many times this week, and typed so many disclaimers, that I guess I just forgot this time. Here's what my brain thought as opposed to what I typed. A case of you should know what I meant! I apologize for the faulty communication.

This article is a pretty good synopsis [of the "official story"] about the materials recovered in the raid on the OBL compound. It alludes to the fact that there was actionable intel discovered but remains vague about the details.

I agree about this "official story" starting out with big holes, and while some of that can possibly (and in the opinion of many here even probably and intentionally) be attributed to perfectly valid circumstances or reasons (all details not in, more details coming to the surface, corrections to misinterpreted statements), some can't.

This White House, in my opinion and as contrasted with say the Clinton White House or even the Bush White House, has too many "official spokespersons" or people speaking who others interpret as official spokespersons. This, whether by design or not, adds a huge layer of confusion to this entire communications process.

As far as them putting together the "official story" and sticking with it, the mess they've seemingly made of it would almost convince me that they didn't do this. Or if they did, they're purely incompetent. Or doing it for nefarious purposes. But here again, no matter how hard you attempt to orchestrate something and anticipate all the potential reactions and effects, you can't always cover and control everything. Things can and do spin out of control, and if it's due to an unanticipated, you wind up in react mode. There is probably a combination of all these things stated in this paragraph at work here. So here we have yet another level of discernment we have the responsibility to verify and make before we can definitively state that there is a hold, contradiction, or discrepancy...or even a flat out lie.

Keeping track of all this hasn't been easy.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I just want to add this to the discussion, since we are talking about official stories, versions, and supposed facts:

Obama: Bin Laden Raid was a 55/45 Situation

Official: Obama Acted on 50/50 Odds to get Bin Laden

See, it's little things like this that get me. Sure it could easily be miscommunication, a slip of the tongue, or whatever, and 5% is not that big of a deal, but, to me, it's the fact of the matter. And true, what's the real difference in 5%? Not much, but that's not the point. 50/50 to 55/45. If they can't get something right as simple as this, why believe anything coming out that is equally contradictory?

It's not that big of a deal, per se, but it's the principle, the fact of the matter. They can't even get the supposed "odds" straight, but maybe i am just nit-picking.

reply to post by Liquesence


Yep. Here's another from earlier today. I specifically remember hearin 60%-80% over and over on the cable news.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Just a followup on the "certainty factor"

President Obama told CBS' 60 Minutes he was no more than 55% certain that Osama bin Laden was even inside a Pakistan compound when he ordered the raid that led to the death of the al-Qaeda terrorist leader a week ago.

Source

This is even lower than the 60%-80%numbers I remember hearing as "official." Very interesting.