The Osama Bin Laden assassination orchestrated by the U.S Obama administration on May 1-2 2011.

Hi cocksucker, sorry for missing my turn. I was visiting my mother who had her birthday. I will first comment on your arguments, and present some new ones myself. I'll start with the 'doctor', mr Pieczenik. I did not know him so did a quick google search. He is a psychiatrist which does not make him an expert in kidney failure or Marfan syndrome in my book. He has some views that make it hard for me to take him or his statements and opinions seriously. While he said Osama was dead in 2001, he also said Khadaffi was alive after October 20, 2011. He claimed the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax. He was kicked out of the APA because of unsubstantiated (psychiatrical) claims about Bush sr. So all of this is at most speculation from someone (but not an expert) who has been known to have some very weird and questionable beliefs. https://en.wikipedia.org... I myself would be more vocal and just call it utter BS. Then there you have your Taliban leaders who said Obama was dead in december 2001. (A couple of weeks before (october 2001) they had claimed they could extradite him: http://www.theguardian.com...) The statement you mentioned was made just when he USA was conducting a massive manhunt for Bin Laden (the winter of 2001). Apparently they were hunting him near Tora Bora at that time. It would make sense for someone who wants to see him free and alive and happy, to claim he is no longer among the living. If he were to be believed, the search would stop. Not very elaborate, but it could work. Guess it didn't, in the end. There are a lot of signs of life from Bin Laden from after that date too, so they would all had to be fabricated if he were dead by then. Taliban leaders later also spoke of him in the present time, contradicting the statement you presented (and actually announced him dead again when the Americans did so too in 2011). You point to inconsistencies in the official version. I do not disagree, but fail to see how that supports your argument. I think the little story of Bin Laden firing back, or using a woman as a shield is bullshitpropaganda, just to make him look bad (/worse) / defend killing him in cold blood / defend shooting an unarmed woman. And it was so obvious they had to retract it. You do not even represent Brennans words correctly: in your own source Brennan says he doesn't know if Bin Laden fired any rounds. In 'the official version' 'the courier' was the only one to fight back with a gun and an unarmed female was supposedly shot when she approached the marines, right there when they first saw Osama). Apart from that, people will always have different accounts of events, even if they experienced them together. This is just basic human psychology. If there was this big lie going on, you would expect that there was extensive briefing on getting all the stories exactly the same. So in both scenarios the stories should allign. That they don't neither supports your argument, nor mine. How the debating of the property value of a house in the middle of nowhere would point to Osama not being killed there and then is beyond me. There are no moving images of the raid or the bodies. At least: they were never released. That makes perfect sense to me. They raided the place at night (and killed the electricity). So it was dark (but marines had night vision), there was a lot of noise (helicopters, maybe small explosions), screaming women and children and a few adult men, the sound of shooting. They came in with about twenty, and shot a couple of probably unarmed people, who may have begged for their lives. That's not a pretty picture, and I can perfectly see why the USA wouldn't want pictures or video of that in the public domain. It's just bad publicity and providing propaganda ammunition to your enemy. (Just like the president said). There obviously is a great difference between a clear short spoken message "Osama is dead, we killed him" and the footage of the raid, if you look at in terms of propaganda value. Also: providing pictures or DNA wouldn't make much of a difference in how different groups perceive this event: The average American would believe it, but doesn't really need it to believe it. The sceptic / conspiracy theorist would not necessarily believe the provided evidence. Who knows if a laboratory tells the truth, or a picture is not doctored? You yourself must dismiss a lot of photo/audio/video material of Bin Laden as rubbish, if you'll continue claiming he died in 2001. Apparently: there were pictures of a dead OBL, but they had to be destroyed: https://www.rt.com... There was also conducted a dna-test by the way, and there was a 'conclusive' match: http://www.theguardian.com... This one came from secret NSA files released by Snowden. If I imagine your theory (which it is not quite yet) were to be true, there also arise some obvious problems. Why wouldn't Bush jr have faked this operation a long time ago? OBL was apparently dead, so he could have gotten that trophy a long time ago. And there were times where he definitely needed a little publicity succes. And why do it in Abottobad and cause problems with the Pakistani's, instead of 400 miles west and have a picknick in Afghanistan, instead of your chopper in the ditches right next to Pakistani millitary bases? Ok, one more very strong suggestion OBL was killed in 2011. Wikileaks had a report about the son of Osama who wanted a death certificate of his father short after the raid. If his father had been dead for 10 years I don't think he would make such a request. This story would not have come out were it not for wikileaks, so it's not just for the show, just like the documents provided by Snowden on the DNA. https://www.rt.com... Another one: A Pakistani commission interviewed some 300 people over the matter and had an investigation. Family and other eye witnesses spoke in it of the attack. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Daughter telling about the place where the bullet hit her father, and how the blood ran over his forehead. Osama's daughter, we're talking about. I think that so many groups and people with so many different interests and views have all confirmed this one there is no question if it happened there and then. USA, Pakistan, Taliban, Israel, Hamas, Al Qaida on the Peninsula, Afghan warlords, Russia, Muslim Brotherhood, China, India, 'Assange', Bin Laden family, Seymour Hersh, 'Snowden', Al Zahwahri, a dude in Abottobad on twitter, US marines, DNA, to name just a few. Last of all: Obama had a reason to just make up this story, you claim. I would argue that while it would give him some little popularity boost, the risks of such a blatant lie would by far outweigh the possible benefits. Especially in a case that's so close to American hearts. The coverup would have to be massive, and a lot of people would be willing to tell the public for the love of money, truth or country. I don't see Obama willing to take that enormous risk, with so little possible reward. Say of him as you want, but he's no Bush jr. I do realize there's a lot of linking by me, but if I want to defend something DID actually happen, I must back that up with good sources, from all angles (in this case: Western, Westerncritic, Islamist, Oriental, eye witness/ stakeholder/ whistleblower), and did not even use all of that out of fear for fatigue. Just showing one or two little (explainable) inconsistencies doesn't lead to a dismissal of the entire case, the way I look at it. I think a different paradigm would have to be backed up by some substantial facts. PS: in this debate I never mentioned ISIS (mostly because the mtf's weren't around by then, or have anything to do with this matter). I ment