Even if this article is completely true - so what? Even if he has found a 'smoking gun' to some double-switch operation by the CIA, and the public story isn't the whole truth, who cares? Job done.
The details simply don't hold any water though.
1) You don't destroy military hardened electronics systems with concussion grenades. All you'd do is scorch the paintwork.
2) The 'killed by a drone, confirmed by DNA evidence' supposed cover story is ludicrous. If he was killed by a drone high in the sky over the mountains, how on earth is the US supposed to have got a sample of his DNA?
3) The Saudi government would never fund Bin laden, as he was utterly opposed to the ruling family. Yes he was funded by Saudis, but not by the government. Outsiders frequently make this mistake, assuming that Saudi funding for Bin laden, and his family connections there, mean Saudi official support. That's a complete missunderstanding though and implies the author only has a pretty superficial grasp of the relationship.
4) The story that the SEALS were shooting in self defence is entirely necessary, otherwise they would be open to accusations of murder. They would know that and the idea that they would complain about it is ridiculous.
5) If only Bin Laden was killed, who did all the corpses locals found and photographed in the building belong to? Did the SEALs plant the AK-47s and Makarov pistol found at the compound? But if the SEALs were against the administration's re-packaging of the details of the raid and are as above-board as described in the article, why would they collude by planting fake evidence?
The details simply don't hold any water though.
1) You don't destroy military hardened electronics systems with concussion grenades. All you'd do is scorch the paintwork.
2) The 'killed by a drone, confirmed by DNA evidence' supposed cover story is ludicrous. If he was killed by a drone high in the sky over the mountains, how on earth is the US supposed to have got a sample of his DNA?
3) The Saudi government would never fund Bin laden, as he was utterly opposed to the ruling family. Yes he was funded by Saudis, but not by the government. Outsiders frequently make this mistake, assuming that Saudi funding for Bin laden, and his family connections there, mean Saudi official support. That's a complete missunderstanding though and implies the author only has a pretty superficial grasp of the relationship.
4) The story that the SEALS were shooting in self defence is entirely necessary, otherwise they would be open to accusations of murder. They would know that and the idea that they would complain about it is ridiculous.
5) If only Bin Laden was killed, who did all the corpses locals found and photographed in the building belong to? Did the SEALs plant the AK-47s and Makarov pistol found at the compound? But if the SEALs were against the administration's re-packaging of the details of the raid and are as above-board as described in the article, why would they collude by planting fake evidence?
The whole thing is completely incoherent.