This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)
Seymour Hersh, a great journalist with superb sources and the courage to challenge conventional wisdom, has presented a counter-narrative of the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden, but Hersh's story - compelling in many respects, even to the New York Times - has some elements that stretch credulity, says John Gardner.
Other inconsistencies and discrepancies are also plausible, lending an air of credence to Hersh's story.
More: Why would they possibly concoct, as Hersh says they and the U.S. government did, a cover story that Bin Ladin was killed by an American drone strike somewhere in Waziristan? Why not simply take him to Waziristan, leave his dead body, let Americans know the coordinates, and have the real smash-and-grab take place there? It's like The Kensington Stone: Neither the hoax nor the purported story adds up.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: Stone#1 story#2 Hersh#3 Pakistani#4 take#5
Post found in /r/conspiracy and /r/worldpolitics.