The criticisms leveled here against this article are a bit more conservative than the ones you seemed to be hinting at and which were made in comments you supported in the other thread.
The author having more details than seems plausible is one thing. The idea that fundamental parts of the story are wrong is quite another and would of course be a charge made against the official story disseminated at every news outlet thus far. Since the "official" (if we are taking this to be the official story now) is already fairly damning if you are an Osama sympathizer (it was a kill only mission, he was shot unarmed, body was dumped in the ocean), I don't see any reason for it to be appreciably false and I certainly wouldn't spend any thought on it unless extraordinary evidence came to light. The simplest explanation is almost always right and conspiracy theories are almost always wrong.
What I was trying to say in the original discussion (and what I'll try to reiterate here) is that the story is relying on a single source: government press releases. This makes me hesitant to believe that I am being presented with the entire story. Have we learned nothing from the past year? It is clearly not farfetched to believe the military would release false information or propagate misinformation. (See anything WikiLeaks has released re:US Military).
As for "The simplest explanation is almost always right", I would tend to agree with you on matters of science. But in the tense and complex political landscape of US foreign policy in the Middle East, the true story is almost certainly going to be far more complex then what will be presented in the news. If your final judge of accuracy is simplicity, then I can fool you easily by telling you a simpler lie then the one you are currently believing.
I don't think anyone here would disagree with you that we shouldn't solely trust one source, but that's nothing to build an intelligent discussion around.
"I don't believe the story this reporter wrote because I don't trust the source(s)" is a totally valid opinion, but anything further than that is just a "What-if" fest unless someone wants to put forth a specific alternate hypothesis, or question specific facts from the article.
"You shouldn't believe in this story because I don't trust the source(s)" adds a little info (especially with a "here's why"), but in the case of something as complicated as a government is probably just going to cause a flame war, _even if you're right_.
The author having more details than seems plausible is one thing. The idea that fundamental parts of the story are wrong is quite another and would of course be a charge made against the official story disseminated at every news outlet thus far. Since the "official" (if we are taking this to be the official story now) is already fairly damning if you are an Osama sympathizer (it was a kill only mission, he was shot unarmed, body was dumped in the ocean), I don't see any reason for it to be appreciably false and I certainly wouldn't spend any thought on it unless extraordinary evidence came to light. The simplest explanation is almost always right and conspiracy theories are almost always wrong.