So....what is the truth about OBL's death?

OFFICIAL VERSION BY THE BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13257330


ANOTHER VERSION BY THE BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33152315


Let's face it, the whole story just made no sense and was laughable, even the poor old BBC who loves telling porkies, wasn't orepared to stand by the shit that Obama put out!

PMSL

Is that it where the media are as much in the dark also of top secret missions.

Then of course, you have to wonder if he was killed at all, then or ever?

But for now, we will stick to the BBC "stories" because then, they won't be called "conspiracies"

Cuchulain wrote:PMSL

Is that it where the media are as much in the dark also of top secret missions.

Hahahahahahahaha

Your response was pants. Try again.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:PMSL

Is that it where the media are as much in the dark also of top secret missions.

Hahahahahahahaha

Your response was pants. Try again.

What a lovely example of hoist by your own petard!

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:PMSL

Is that it where the media are as much in the dark also of top secret missions.

Hahahahahahahaha

Your response was pants. Try again.

My response was perfect becuase you are that gullible is comical.
Why not speak top the people in Pakistan who knew he was there?
The troops that carried out the attack?
Let me know how you get on

Oh. Have tou spoken to them then?
Tell me how you got on?

Anyhow it was your beloved BBC who made both reports?

eddie wrote:Oh. Have tou spoken to them then?
Tell me how you got on?

Anyhow it was your beloved BBC who made both reports?

Copout, I asled you Eddie
Beloved BBC? Ha ha ha

Now you are desperate love ha ha ha ha

Media are for ever making conflicting reports.
If that is your angle its utterly daft, can you understand why?

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:Oh. Have tou spoken to them then?
Tell me how you got on?

Anyhow it was your beloved BBC who made both reports?

Copout, I asled you Eddie
Beloved BBC? Ha ha ha

Now you are desperate love ha ha ha ha

Media are for ever making conflicting reports.
If that is your angle its utterly daft, can you understand why?

Yes I can understand why and now I have got you to say that the media make conflicting reports didge.
You know this means you can never, ever, say again, with clarity and confidence, that what you read is EVER the truth?

So next time you think something is a "conspiracy" I shall remind you that:


"Media are for ever making conflicting reports"


So who, or what, to believe...? Hmmmmmmmmmm???

Well two different articles by two different writers which are 3 years apart of which neither disclaim Bin laden was killed, they both claim he was.
Where they differ is on the latest with how much was know by the Pakistani authorities.
So it was obvious to me why they differ, but they did not differ that he was killed.
You can believe what you want Eddie, which from what I see is based on other peoples views formed on the web and not any real research yourself

Couple of things:

* The media, especially when news breaks, depends on official sources in reporting. It should always be remembered that journalists, especially just after something happens, are rarely reporting "facts" so much as "what officials claim to be facts." Every news article either quotes sources or attributes information to anonymous sources, and when someone gets anonymous attribution, the journalist and usually several editors (supervisors) know the anonymous source's identity. So the reporting is not "this is what happened" but "this is what people we generally trust not to lie say happened."

* Every event generates an infinite number of details, and the reporter's job is to relate the most important ones, concisely. If the U.S. and Pakistan conspired to assassinate OBL, there's no reason that would be immediately obvious to reporters trying to get the news to air or print.

* Finally, Hersh has done some good work in his career but increasingly sees a conspiracy around every corner. I would always look for other reporting to compare to what he claims to uncover these days.

I was merely trying to show didge that you can't Lways beleieve what you read....even from the Holy Gospel BBC lol

And I think I proved my point.

eddie wrote:I was merely trying to show didge that you can't Lways beleieve what you read....even from the Holy Gospel BBC lol

And I think I proved my point.

Bullshit alert

I research many things so you did not prove anything other than you re one gullible idiot lol

Oh and that even journalists IN THE KNOW don't agree on his death.

So on one really knows any of these big news stories for sure.
There is no "beyond reasonable doubt"

Like I've always said;
Keep your mind open always. To everything.

Ha ha ha

So funny what a deluded poor girl.

I research Eddie, not just read two artciels as you have and are convinced

Wow. You do a lot of research about alot of things.
You must have a lot of spare time!

eddie wrote:Wow. You do a lot of research about alot of things.
You must have a lot of spare time!

Its called reading Eddie, you should try it sometime

I'm too busy.
I'd rather read a little bit about a lot and then put some lippy on.

eddie wrote:I'm too busy.
I'd rather read a little bit about a lot and then put some lippy on.

I know I am on the receiving end of your lip all the time.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:I'm too busy.
I'd rather read a little bit about a lot and then put some lippy on.

I know I am on the receiving end of your lip all the time.

Lippy is lipstick.
That comment made no sense.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



I know I am on the receiving end of your lip all the time.

Lippy is lipstick.
That comment made no sense.

You have no sense of humour:

give lip
To lip off, contradict, or argue with someone.

I guess the joke was lost on you Fake Eddie lol

Well I did do some fake laughter if that helps?

eddie wrote:I was merely trying to show didge that you can't Lways beleieve what you read....even from the Holy Gospel BBC lol

And I think I proved my point.

I'm just trying to say that even if new information has come to light -- which is NOT a point I'm conceding in this case, just speaking in general -- the BBC and every other outlet merely reported what officials were saying. In this story, there is surely not a single person alive who knows all the details, probably not even Obama (he doesn't know everything Pakistan was or was not doing).

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I was merely trying to show didge that you can't Lways beleieve what you read....even from the Holy Gospel BBC lol

And I think I proved my point.

I'm just trying to say that even if new information has come to light -- which is NOT a point I'm conceding in this case, just speaking in general -- the BBC and every other outlet merely reported what officials were saying. In this story, there is surely not a single person alive who knows all the details, probably not even Obama (he doesn't know everything Pakistan was or was not doing).

In most stories there's probably not a single person alive who really knows much about anything apart fro what they're told or told to say.

That's my point. .

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I'm just trying to say that even if new information has come to light -- which is NOT a point I'm conceding in this case, just speaking in general -- the BBC and every other outlet merely reported what officials were saying. In this story, there is surely not a single person alive who knows all the details, probably not even Obama (he doesn't know everything Pakistan was or was not doing).

In most stories there's probably not a single person alive who really knows much about anything apart fro what they're told or told to say.

That's my point. .

Eddie

You do seem to have an obsession to want everything to not be as seen.
The question is why?
What benefit does it have for you not to believe here that he was killled by Navy Seals?
I mean we have not seen Al-Qaeda claim otherwise he is still alive or that he died earlier which would be in their benefit to do so as if to show up the US. Why is it you do not question vital points like this?
I mean seriously would it not be better for Al Qaeda to embarres Obama trying to claim he did die earlier or that he is sill alive?