On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, a post that starts with "why would they be lying?" and ends with
> "there
> is probably more into this story than
> the powers that be want to reveal"... I am thinking you may have answered
> your own question.
>
> Is it completely unfathomable that they could have captured Bin Laden but
> never intended to do so? The more I here the more clear it is getting the
> Bin Laden didn't die in a firefight and NPR reported that he had a weapon
> but never fired it... but somehow, for some reason, was still shot in the
> head... There's not a thing fishy about any of this to you? The
> instantaneous burial at sea? What in the world from Michaels questions led
> you to believe that he didn't believe OBL was dead? Do you really believe
> American voters didn't remember Bush's first pitch in Yankee Stadium after
> 9/11 in 2004? or his walking the rubble of the towers? There's a
> difference
> between iconic events and daily events in the public's mind, no?
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [WS:] Why would they by lying, especially at this time? It is not
> > even close to the election day, and given the 5 minute attention span
> > of the average voter, this would be a wasted opportunity. And what
> > else do they gain from the story? If it was so easy to manufacture
> > O's capture for political purposes, why did not Bush do it earlier?
> > Besides, they must be pretty sure that O is dead, for it would be a
> > major embarrassment if he turned up alive at some later time.
> >
> > Quite frankly, I find the story that the ISI bailed O out and turned a
> > blind eye on his whereabouts in Abbottabad quite believable. It would
> > not surprise me if one faction in the Paki military decided to
> > undercut another faction and tipped the US about O's whereabouts. Or
> > perhaps the US knew about it but did nothing for some time to avoid
> > pissing off the Pakis. That is perhaps why the details about the
> > operation are so sketchy - there is probably more into this story than
> > the powers that be want to reveal at this time.
> >
> > Wojtek
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:13 PM, michael perelman
> > <michael.perelman3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Does the coverage of his death make you long for the good old days of
> > > the Royal Wedding?
> > >
> > > How much credence can we give the story of his capture? Was Jessica
> > > Lynch really involved?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Perelman
> > > Economics Department
> > > California State University
> > > Chico, CA
> > > 95929
> > >
> > > 530 898 5321
> > > fax 530 898 5901
> > > http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *********************************************************
> Alan P. Rudy
> Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> Central Michigan University
> 124 Anspach Hall
> Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> 517-881-6319
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>