[rogerhoward]

1. The implication that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had him under their control since 2006 is important. We were still neck-deep in two wars that were sold to the public in large part based on Afghanistan's unwillingness to hand him over. If true, it also provides more explicit verification that SA and Pakistan are terrible allies at best.

2. Setting aside the morality of assassination, it suggests that the reason we killed him wasn't out of necessity or even expedience - but rather to prevent him from talking about these so-called allies.

3. Rather than implicating Pakistan and its corrupt ISI services, we implicated a humanitarian medical mission and its lead doctor. I fail to see that as the lesser of evils.

There are a lot of reasons to be disturbed by this story if it turns out to be factual.

[_bfhp]

I think we are lucky that the top comment even mentions Saudi Arabia, towards the end, in passing. The degree to which the mainstream works at misdirection away from the reality of Saudi Arabia becomes more and more profound by the year.

[tsotha]

>If true, it also provides more explicit verification that SA and Pakistan are terrible allies at best.

This was already the world's worst kept secret. Anybody with more than a passing involvement in A-stan knows the Pakistanis, in particular, were working both sides of the street.