Osama bin Laden Is Dead
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Until his legacy dies, he lives on, as strong as ever.
...
Can I at least bring a tube of toothpaste with me when I travel now?
I don't see that happening anytime soon unfortunately.
How challenging would it be to poison a reservoir, poison random groceries across the country, blow up the Alaska Pipeline, etc. Any motivated terrorist would attack us where we aren't so vigilant. I'm honestly pretty unsure about how many motivated terrorists there are out there-- if there were out there (and well-financed), couldn't they be crippling us with a dozen different types of attacks?
The TSA is like putting your hand on a screen door to keep out the wind. We've got better things to do with our time and money.
Someone who just tries to cause as much damage or kill as many people as possible, is not a terrorist. I think they are just known as criminals or militants.
The connection being that they're "in the Pacific" same as Japan and Fukushima, and that made her scared.
TV scare-mongering made a lady from Uruguay feel afraid from something that happened literally half a world away from where she's going... if someone poisoned an US city's water, she's never going to the US again for certain.
Terrorism is not about terror: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror
It's certainly true that terrorists will look for a soft target if they want to carry out an attack. Our air security procedures here in Australia aren't so draconian as the US and it hasn't caused us any problems. Though it has resulted in some other draconian policies such as banning photography in certain public places (such as public transport) in the name of terrorist. Because surely a potential terrorist would make themselves stand out by using a blatantly obvious SLR camera rather an an obscure camera hidden in a pocket or a bag. Not to mention they could just memorise what they see and sketch it later.
The rest of the DHS is what's scary, especially Customs. That is where the siezed domain names and the "Constitution-free zones" come from.
Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that people asking to photograph you naked so you can get on a plane is outrageous, though, because nobody else at the airport seemed to mind...
I don't think this child play is really meant to give any doubts about its intent even centuries ago
Second definition from American Heritage Dictionary:
2. A colleague.
I realized I was replying to a tangential remark, but it wasn't just language nitpicking. The implication that the US were in war against the people in the country that Bin Laden happened to be from, was serious enough not to let it go unchallenged.
(source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/02/world/20110502...)
a comment by Veridical Driver, 2011-04-01 at 5:01 pm, on http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/04/gri...
You can have a few small containers - up to 100mL in each. I was able to fly with toothpaste, deodorant, insect repellent and sunscreen in my carry-on luggage on a recent trip. Nail clippers are allowed too.
Funnily enough, there are no such restrictions on domestic flights.
Hopefully the emphasis on terror will be reduced, though. Bad driving, bad diet and many other causes have definitely killed more people each than 9/11 since it happened, but it's a lot easier to focus on an external enemy you can see, especially when it has a shark-attack-like amplification on our perception of danger.
Just two recent examples are the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland and Jewish terrorism in Palestine before the British withdrew. They are both examples of effective terrorism campaigns done by small groups.
Just because it happened in America for the first time doesn't mean it's not happened in the rest of the world many times.
PS: I watched it live on TV missed the first attack, but saw the other two get reported and personally I was never really that strongly impacted. More WTF? than run for the hills.
Fortunately, it seems that the number of motivated crazy people in the world is fairly low.
> personally I was never really that strongly impacted
I'm guessing you don't live in the New York area. Events can seem a bit unreal if you have no personal stake in them. It may seem trivial next to the loss of life, but looking at that hole in the Manhattan skyline where the towers used to be is still a bit tragic.
I could see a changed "Manhattan skyline" as a significant impact for many people. For a while I could see the section of the pentagon hit by the airplane outside my window, but there is little lasting visible impact on the structure. Internally, they did a fair amount of renovation for example added some glow strips on the floor pointing to the exits which seems like a good idea, and gas makes which seems less useful (and more creepy). You can even go on tours of the pentagon which seems risky, but I suspect the benefits outweighs the risks.
However, that's all fairly long term effects. As to being up close and personal, a coworker of mine was in a conference room when 1/2 the people at the table where taken yet he had no problem going back to work at the pentagon. Sure, it's a target, but numbers suggest being a truck driver to be a far more dangerous profession.
When it comes down to it terrorism is simply not that effective. Several paces have had sustained terrorist attacks for long periods of time and people don't react that much.
The key word in my statement was 'impact'. Look around you and tell me which of the events you've mentioned had a comparable impact on world events and the feeling of vulnerability of hundreds of millions of people.
Some other recent historical examples:
- Red Army Faction in Germany in the 70's and 80's
- Brigate Rosse in Italy in the 70's and 80's
- Numerous aircraft hijacking in the early and mid 70's. This introduced the first wave of improved airport security
- Chechnyan separatists in Russia in the 1990's and 2000's
All the major cities in Europe experienced hijackings, bombings, kidnappings and hostage drama. Most people today don't even know who Ilich Ramirez Sanchez is, or the PLFP, or as you mention the Red Army Faction
On that note, both the mini-series 'Carlos' and the German film 'Baader Meinhof Complex' are fantastic.
Not true. Counterexamples that spring to mind are Gavrilo Princip and John Brown.
Only toothpaste, what about your shaving gear? Maybe we shouldn't have any security at all, it's so inconvenient.
* In August '10 a lead was uncovered. Obama directed followup.
* Lead was strengthened over time until it was isolated that bin Laden was in a compound in Pakistan.
* Obama gave the order and an American commando team went in, had a firefight, and killed bin Laden. His body was brought out.
* No Americans were harmed, and civilians were attempted to be protected.
* The Pakistani government was notified (speech did not say if this was pre-event or post-event).
And, transcript! http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-de...
I hope to find a transcript and append a link to it. As of several minutes ago, the White House had not released a transcript.
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbottabad
Maps: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=safari&q=ab...
Google Earth (copy/paste): 34° 8'48.00"N 73°12'59.00"E
Next up, Zawahiri (edited.) Considering that Osama was in a mansion outside of Islamabad, I would expect Zawahiri (edited) to be in a beach house outside of Karachi.
Edit: Imagine being the guy who pulled the trigger. I will never cheer anyone's death, but Osama would likely not allowed himself to be taken alive. Buy a beer / coke / shot (whatever he prefers) for the shooter. These guys are military hackers, maybe they read this as well.
Edit: Whoops, got wrong name of #2. blush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama_bin_Laden_controversy
Dunno if I'd go as far as saying they were still pals in the last decade but I would warn you that jingoistic fervor is a terrible reason to suspend critical thought or curiosity. Boogeymen are enormously useful tools to those who have power. Skepticism is as valuable to apply to one's government as to conspiracy theorists. It's never "the time" to turn off your brain.
This is the same organism, mind you, that once called Iraq an imminent threat. Keep your salt handy.
Here's a great book by a former CIA field agent that explains just how complicated the reality of our middle east relations can get:
http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil-Washington-Saudi-Crude/...
Get through that book and even the most outlandish claims about our foreign policy or intelligence services will seem worth considering.
SO Pakistan ISA brokered US help by accepting US weapons and training and passing those weapons and training onto Afghan freedom fighters..
The source of the US help was the CIA..
So there was no direct knowledge in the sense that Osama did not know any CIA officers to contact, etc..but yes an indirect linkage of stuff yes..
BTW, why Pakistan? When Pakistan got the nuke bomb US policy makers reasoned that it might be helpful to support and help Pakistan to prevent use of the nuke bombs they had and those weapons falling into hands of someone else other than Pakistan..Pakistan's nuke bombs indirect result of China's political help to offset India ambitions.
I think you're misunderstanding me, I don't want it to be true (or false, frankly, don't give a crap either way), I am just sharing what is a widely held belief there, in contrast to what is believed here.
small area means that you are noticed right away by the locals, since they spend their days waiting for something out of the ordinary to happen. big cities you have surveillance and large media. you need mid sized
besides, in the case of bin laden, there was far too much heat in the tribal areas with daily drone attacks and military incursions etc. for him to be hiding there. the big cities are full of CIA agents, so it was always going to be somewhere in between.
update: here it is. add your review. http://bit.ly/kP0DCq
PMA Kakul (Pakistan Military Academy) is 200m South East of that, again matching the news reports.
* Surrounded with very high walls with a single entrance
* The compound was eight times larger than other houses in the area
* When it was built it was only accessible via a dirt road
* It has a field and grassy area to the side of it, which is what is shown in the Pakistan TV footage
* The compound had a clear view of anybody approaching by road, and escape routes out the back
It is amazing that they built this place only 5 years ago for the purpose of housing bin laden, and nobody in the area really asked any questions. It seems that the compound didn't have a cover story either - it had no phone or internet connection
It would have been a lot smarter to find a rich arab and his family to use as a cover. Say that it is his holiday home and get all the regular services hooked up. Having such a big building with high walls that doesn't have a phone or internet service must stand out so much that it only further leads me to believe that some in Pakistan knew what it was for and who was there.
Apparently there were ISI agents on the scene at the time of the gun battle, even though the USA didn't tip anybody off in pakistan about the compound or about the operation
I think the official US line of the pakistan government helping is just a way of placating skeptics. All the official statements from the government talk about a foreign operation and they seem to be distancing themselves from it
Just amazing - harbored by friends in the Pakistani military for years while they received billions in aid from the US.
Edit: From the BBC - "Syed Riaz Hussain in Abbottabad, writes: "Last night, at around 0100, there was heavy gunfire about 300 metres from our house, which was followed by a huge blast. There was little in terms of military activity during the day to suggest something even remotely close to what happened. The exact spot where this incident took place, is a stone's throw from the Pakistan Military Academy, Pakistan's equivalent of West Point."
This is completely normal, and it's long been the case for the Taliban too. The Taliban operate, and sometimes govern, fearlessly and openly in parts of Pakistan. This includes proper towns and city districts, not just remote regions in the mountains. The old guard of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence is largely pro-Taliban and provides political protection, funding, supplies, training, etc. Other parts of the Pakistani government help them too.
The relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban is also complicated, and I'm probably in the dark as much as you are. My understanding is that they've never seen eye-to-eye, but apparently bin Laden was responsible for bringing the groups closer together. Al Qaeda has often resided in Taliban territory, with the latter's permission and protection.
Taliban: group of people looking to form a government.
Both have the goals of some kind of extremist Wahhabi-law region.
The ISI overthrew the old government in Afghanistan by arming and training large groups of students from local pakistani madrasas. The student group after a few key wins in the south went on to be known as taleban (which is tajik for students)
These same factions within the ISI helped keep the Taleban in power, and assisted in aiding their escape back through Tora Bora and into Pakistan. I bet they tipped bin laden off to not staying in Wazrisistan and other tribal areas, since there was too much heat and the Pakistani military had some reach there.
I bet that the military in Pakistan knew a little (nothing about timing) but that the ISI were told nothing. The CIA have been in an active war with the ISI in Pakistan since 2001. There was the incident last year[1] where a CIA agent killed two ISI officers who were following him. I think that incident must be linked to bin laden tracking, since the agent - Raymond Davis, had been visiting the Pakistani countryside and taking photos of various compounds. When the ISI found out, they had him followed and intimidated him into leaving the country and minding their own business.
The CIA doesn't take shit and shot the other agents in their own country, then got Davies released by the Pakistani gov as part of a plea deal
I can't wait for the books and stories to come out about the last 2-3 years in Afghanistan and Pakistan - there is a real gap in public knowledge in terms of what has been happening there, and I bet some of the most interesting stories of the entire war on terrorism happen in that time.
The biggest problem always was that one of our key allies in the war had its own internal problems - and one side of our allie directly created and supported the very enemy we were fighting and continued to support them.
I don't doubt for a second that at least some elements of the ISI knew where bin laden was and protected him. The same thing happen in Serbia, with elements of the army and special police protecting Karadzic and Mladic, who is still at large.
[1] story on Raymond Davis, the CIA agent who shot two ISI agents in Pakistan last year: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/11/spy_games?p...
Just to add to your comment: allowing the Kunduz Airlift (shortly after the invasion in 2001) was another of Bush administration's big mistakes. It allowed the top Taliban leadership to be airlifted out of Afghanistan, just when the NA troops had them surrounded. The seeds of today's insurgency were sown on that day; the top leadership survived, regrouped and still fight on today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/02osama-bin-laden-ob...
It's a great read. I'm wondering how they pulled it off, though - did they have the copy for an obituary filed away, and pulled it out and edited when the news broke?
Yes, that's how they do it.
It used to be that hilarity would ensue when people found news orgs' internal web servers exposed on the net. Don't recall it happening in awhile though. Guess they learned their lesson.
See: Debate over Britney Spears' Obituary
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-01-22/news/17150316_1_hollyw...
If i'm not mistaken, I think it was in 2008 where Bloomberg accidentally published Steve Job's obituary which sparked a rumour that he died even though he was perfectly healthy.
But it can lead to some interesting firedrills when someone dies unexpectedly:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postmortem/2009/06/michael_...
And sometimes the obituaries are pre-written many years in advance. Which leads to incidents like NYT's obit for Elizabeth Taylor, whose author died several years ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/movies/elizabeth-taylor-ob...
OK, sorry to waste everyone's time.
This is people on HN downvoting you because you are failing to display a sufficient capacity for logical thought.
Bringing in more and more emotional scenery isn't helping. It's a predictable and transparent rhetorical tactic that we've all seen used in desperation many times before.
There are plenty of other sites where that kind of stuff is appreciated and even encouraged. Take it there and you'll get a better response.
One thing that was unclear to me is if Bin Laden died in the firefight or was killed afterwards. From the article: "After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."
Besides that, it's simply not like me to cheer for anyone's death, in principle, especially a figure the TV adamantly asserts we're supposed to hate. It's not that I doubt the veracity of the reasons given so much as I loathe demagoguery and spectacle.
Edit: In a way, bin Laden's death is probably a net loss for the American military and foreign policy establishment (does there even need to be an 'and' there?). So much propaganda mileage was squeezed from him that I am sure there is some ambivalence as to whether he's more valuable dead as some bullshit "vindication" vs. alive as a perpetual bogeyman.
In the Arab world, this image is ascribed to the Zionist-Right-Wing-American conspiracy. Some radical conspiracy theorists even claim that all current revolutions in the Arab world are plans by the Zionists to change Arab regimes without resorting to a full-scale military invasion.
If you don't think this is a credible position, feel free to let me know why the US military is on high alert nearby?
That's a bit much.
This decade long spectacle has been a giant gravity well for all sorts of other unrelated (and bad) stuff to orbit. Here's hoping this provides some ending to it.
This is an invalid equivocation. Their 'dancing in the streets' is after killing civilians, and being glad that bin Laden is dead is not even close to that.
When Arabs see Americans celebrating the invasion of Iraq, they see that as "Americans celebrating the destruction of an Arab country and death and humiliation of its people".
Such broad generalizations are not a good way of looking at the situation.
When people celebrate these kinds of things, they're not celebrating the "death" of civilians. They're celebrating a blow to the international imperial bully. Now I'm not saying this is OK, but it's not any less evil than Americans celebrating the successful invasion of Iraq.
EDIT:
To put it in a slightly more formal way:
Event X occurs, group A views it as Y (something undesirable), group B views it as Z (something desirable).
Group B celebrates (wrongly) the occurrence of "Z". Group A sees it as: Group B is celebrating the occurrence of "Y".
Group A then wrongly makes an assumption that Group B celebrated the occurrence of Y.
What I'm trying to say is, you see people hitting the metaphorical "like" button on something and you immediately assume there's only one explanation for this: these people are evil/rats. This is very wrong.
Actually, speaking of the split in Iraq, this is one of the reasons. Various groups had different outlook on the events taking place, and ended up viewing each other as evil scumbags. Next thing you know is people are killing each other.
It is not (I think) as demoralizing to this enemy to see Americans dancing and celebrating this event as it would be to see Americans shrug their shoulders in a "well it had to be done" kind of way and get back to business with nothing more than a blurb on page 3 in the newspaper the next day.
(1) In the same way I'm glad my pantry doesn't have rats because my traps worked, not the jubilant "I hate the bastard and everything he stood for" way we're going to see a lot of in the next few days.
(2) I fully accept that we made it one and think that we shouldn't have. Its all part of the same course of error.
And I sure hope this doesn't make the U.S. pull out of Afghanistan in the next 90 days like NBC just implied, because that would be bad for everyone in that country.
EDIT if OBL really was killed in a mansion in Islamabad, that changes a lot in relations between the US and Pakistan. If he was killed in the FATA, then it's pretty meaningless operationally, it's just a news deal that will inflame the jihadi world for a while.
Edit2 Abbottabad is in NWFP, so not exactly Islamabad and a different interesting. If Obama didn't get Pakistan's permission before going, that is interesting. Not going to change wars on the ground except for a inflammation in jihadi tensions.
Everyone in Pakistan already knows that the US has been killing people with drone strikes for years and years now. They're far more aware of it than Americans.
It's hard to see that there are many Pakistanis who are going to dislike America more for having actually gotten OBL. On the other hand, ending US missile strikes in Pakistan can only help.
That's certainly possible or even likely, but it's not like his name would have been on the utility bills either. Many of the homes in my town (not mine) have a finished basement...off the tax records.
It'd be easier to hide a famous person in a big walled compound than a smaller dwelling.
But if the news is true that the U.S. has known about this compound, that it was housing a major terrorist figure, and that the Pakistani Army (not ISI or rather, not just ISI) knew about it, then that's a major game-changer in U.S.-Pakistani governmental relations.
Your average American and your average Pakistani don't know anything about each other. (for very general values of anything, clearly.)
The official US statement went something like "we got a tip back in August".
Which means the important question is how long did each government know OBL was in there? Was Pakistan holding him for the right moment? At what level did they know they were holding him? When did the US learn about it with any confidence? My guess is that the US wouldn't be willing to wait on the info indefinitely given the risk that OBL would give them the slip again.
So you are correct, as the details come out, it could turn out to be just country level business. But if it's more like what I described, I think it's a bigger deal for U.S.-Pakistan relations than when Bush forced Musharraf into letting the U.S. hit Afghanistan after 9/11.
Also, I want the body checked for marks of being frozen for a long period of time.
A screen-grab from Express TV (a Pakistani news outlet) showing his body.
I offer no commentary as to its vintage and authenticity, however.
Specifically: "...justice has been done". American military and C.I.A. operatives had ...shot him to death.
Obama: "I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice."
Obama: "His demise should be welcome by all who believe in peace and human dignity."
Is that how we conduct justice now? I am not satisfied by this outcome. I would rather have had him in custody showing we hold the higher ground when it pertains to morality and justice. Its no surprise to me now that our morality and judgment is an illusion which I thought, ever since I was a kid, was what made America great. The fact that Obama plays off people's emotions in his speech to gain support for this outcome is purely disgusting.
And lastly, you believe this because the media and Obama says its so?
I'm confused as to what you're unhappy about and who you're blaming for this outcome. Some courageous soldiers attempted to get an elusive mass murderer and bring him to justice. During the attempt there was a firefight and he was killed in the exchange.
It is obvious that this outcome is upsetting for a lot of people, but not for the same reasons than yours. This man caused a lot of griefs to many families, not only in the U.S., but also throughout places in the world where Al Qaeda has stricken, (including Afghanistan). Some scars are still not completely healed.
Those words, "His demise should be welcome by all who believe in peace and human dignity", simply serve as solace for the fact that they were unable to take him alive.
Now, turning this into an Obama thing is your own prerogative. Was he taking credit/responsibility in the video? To some extent certainly, but I didn't perceived him trying to play with people's emotions.
This man caused a lot of griefs to many families
Your government did a lot more damage to the US by the corrosion of your constitutional rights, actions received with cheers and applauds ; because 2000 people or so died in the 9-11 attack.
But every 34 seconds a person dies from heart-disease in the US. Do the math.
Some scars are still not completely healed.
The world is rather a complex place. People die every day from various causes on the planet. It still doesn't justifies people like you stepping on a pedestal to ask them to be philosophical about someone who wronged them, just because people die from heart attacks every day.
The present issue is Osama Bin Laden, not heart diseases or any of the other issues you're trying to bring to the table. If you like to open Pandora's boxes, we might as well just close the discussion.
The fact remains that Osama Bin Laden and what he represented were wrong for the world and now he's dead. Many of us who were not particularly affected by his actions think that they are particularly laudable for dictating to others how they should react. I don't know you, so I will refrain from painting a portrait of what I perceive you to be, based on your speech. I will just ask you to please be a bit less sanctimonious.
Osama Bin Laden and what he represented were wrong
for the world and now he's dead
One way to crush the free will of people, taking away their rights, is to make them fear an invisible enemy. My parents saw it happen in my country; my grandparents saw it too.
So dance on the streets if you want, but tomorrow you'll realize nothing changed for your well-being, and in fact the "terror" continues, because people allowed it to happen.
Thirst for death only perpetuates further violence and hatred which will lead to more grieving families. I never implied to let the guy go but we should be maintaining the moral higher ground here.
“An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” -Gandi
Please, allow me to express the following opinion without reprise and then I am finished: He should have been taken alive at all costs. I think my kids would have been safer if we had.
So, the choices for you were take him alive or just let him go?
Frankly, I don't know if you realize how that sound. You completely dismiss the fact that some people actually risked their lives to do this. This is not the scenario of a bad war movie we just sat back in our living room to watch and are now reviewing on imdb. This is reality, actual soldiers, with real guns and live ammunitions, no director, no camera.
What if you were the guy facing an armed Bin Laden, would it be so easy to reflect the way you do at the moment?
Did you see that fortress? Where exactly was he going to go?
It was an old crippled man within some 18 feet high cement walls, surrounded by 40 Navy SEALs. It would have been impossible to NOT apprehend him, unless he had a cyanide pill.
Now Iraq maybe is another story.
Rejoicing in the assassination of anyone, even such a criminal, seems crass.
All the congratulatory uproar strikes me as a little bit surreal.
Given knowledge of his whereabouts, the prosecution of a terrorist mastermind and financier was the only option, though I suppose whether it would be better to try and execute him or kill him in combat is debatable.
They'll have an authentication problem.
Clearly untrue. Perhaps it is easier for you to view an enemy as a lunatic monster bent on senseless destruction, but nearly every mass murdering organization in the world, whether it's a terrorist group like Al Qaeda or a military power like the US, has very concrete motivations and objectives for its actions, and is well versed in the logic of power. Realpolitik is deeply rooted in a rational worldview. You may disagree with the premises or the reasoning (I certainly do), but calling Al Qaeda 'completely irrational' is way off.
But how will the bottom- and middle-tier guys they know they're taking orders from Bin Laden's designated successor and not agents of some country's (you name it) intelligence services?
It takes a nontrivial amount of planning, preparation, money, and coordination to pull off the kind of simultaneous suicide operation we saw in Sept 2001.
It goes:
People get pissed off > They band together and share their anger > They decide to do something about it > They do something about it.
After the fact WE brand them as part of a large effective organization, 01/09/11 did require funding and planning due to the requirement to fly planes and the synchronization of multiple TEAMS.
The Madrid and London rail bombings required almost none (find people, make explosives, pick time/place, synchronize watches).
The activities in Iraq require almost no planning and really demonstrate that there is no globe spanning plan, if there was all the Iraqi suicide bombers would travel somewhere US interests can be attacked more easily. But they don't, ergo 'AQ' is actually a loose collection of people with similar motivation and very limited ability to communicate or distribute funds globally.
Some of his followers might see it too.
Their grunts may be more normal, but the ones on top are quite committed. Plus, dying for the cause ensures that you are rewarded, so its a pretty hard system to beat.
If I'm too cynical or sarcastic for your taste, I apologize preemptively and profusely.
The response of any bureaucracy is to double down.
Back in my days as a Catholic seminarian (don't ask), I met a well-connected priest who told several of us that the Catholic Church in the United States is going bankrupt, not because of lawsuits stemming from pedophile scandals, not because of the cost of supporting priests or other religious, but in order to make payroll for laymen working in diocesan bureaucracies. He gave the example of the diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, saying that there were a thousand laymen working full-time in the chancery alone.
I still have trouble believing that number. What does it take to get a business with that many employees?
In any case, the principal way in which Catholic dioceses have been responding to the lack of funds is to shut down parishes rather than scale back the bureaucracies. So, yes, I'm afraid that you're right. The TSA will only get more intrusive.
That was Cyril Northcote Parkinson, whose writings on the issue are summed up as "Parkinson's Law,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law
"Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."
And I hate to say it, but the same is almost certain to happen with the "National Security" bureaucracy as the USA empire collapses.
1) Quickly find (or make up) another evil empire or shadow enemy to be afraid of. Suggestions: Wikileaks, music pirates, subversive citizens, militias, Arab dictators, nullification by jury educators ...
I'm gonna go on a wild guess and say that Ben Gurion airport is one of the most secure airports on Earth. I don't see any justification for all the above stuff.
From Andrew Sullivan on Daily Beast: "12.08 pm Can I say how deeply moving it is that a man named Barack Hussein Obama gave the order for the operation that killed Osama bin Laden?
The pre-eminent symbol of our the multicultural, multiracial society of the future defeated the pre-eminent symbol of the darkest, bleakest throwback to medieval religious fanaticism. Im not ashamed to use the following language: Good defeated evil. And hope rekindles again."
That's perhaps the most superficial thing I've ever heard.
It reads to me like he's taking a person's foreign sounding family-given name as a proxy for something which he claims is deeply meaningful. To me, that's the very definition of 'superficial'.
When it's done with skin color it's called 'racism'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers%27_Day#Ge...
Pretty major story of the past decade.
But likely it won't, like most articles about politics and highly charged subjects.
You don't get this kind of blah blah blah on stories about how Haskell and Erlang do garbage collection.
Personally, I think it probably went down more or less as reported. Namely that he was killed in the firefight. Probably not on purpose.
I know a little bit about close-in operations like this one must have been and, well, it's hard to keep a guy alive who is (1) shooting at you and (2) would rather die than be captured. Hell, it's hard enough extracting hostages alive and they want to live.
You can't be fucking serious.
But on the list of people the planet is better off without, OBL was close to the top.
All I can imagine is that wcchandler is so enamored of his relativism that he doesn't contemplate his ignorance.
This mentality is purely what makes man appear so primitive in his nature and is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.
Bin Laden: On the list of countries the planet is better off without, the US is close to the top.
Go ahead and enlighten me. But I've heard the one about the planet being better off without people, and the planet being better off without clothes, and the one where we all love and understand each other and nothing bad ever happens.
Tell me about this one in which the planet is not better off without the likes of OBL.
No. Welcome to the real world. Someone who has killed tens of thousands of people and who wanted to kill you, is dead. Be happy.
What saddens me most is that his legacy will live on, that many others are willing to kill and die to allow a worldwide theocratic police-state to be implemented. This is a very bad thing.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/obama-gives-...
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/live-video-of-pr...
From Los Angeles Times report:
"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, related the news to mourners at a memorial service for political consultant Kam Kuwata. Feinstein said Obama was announcing it on TV as she spoke. However, she announced the news well before Obama began to speak."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-pn-osama-b...
edit: burial at sea is in accordance with Islam, why is apparently why they did it.
Wonderful news!
Makes no sense.
As of 11:09 pm est, it is either over or hasn't started.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-s-chafetz/post_1988_b_854...
According to the article, Obama was concerned that the Taliban might gain political influence in Afghanistan after U.S. troops leave and if so, they may invite Osama back to the country. The believe is that killing Osama will help prevent the Taliban from regaining control.
Additionally huffington post should never be your primary source for anything except opinion.
It appears that @rawls on twitter was the first to call it http://goo.gl/6FMtV
[1] http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/how-the-osa...
@Obi_JohnKanObi #becauseoftwitterbeef we found osama bin laden
Twitter - 1 May 2011 18:12:31
Which almost makes sense.
That said, good riddance.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Flag please.
The paragraph right above that sentence: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
I find it interesting, and the story gratifies my intellectual curiosity beyond belief. Also remember that hackers are typically young and a large part of their psyche can be defined by that monumental event happened almost 10 years ago. Hey, if you look carefully you might find startup opportunities out of understanding of this significant development.
I'm curious: In what way does the story gratify your intellectual curiosity?
I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing, so I won't spend much time going back and forth. But I'm sure someone somewhere is thinking really hard about making an iPhone game that takes advantage of this development (e.g. "Angry CIA").
[no that's not what I was thinking about; one of mine is along the line of American psyche as defined by the event, the pivot (optimism), and the potential impact on customer behavior]
There are lots of things that fascinate me but are not the type of thing I would expect to see on HN. This is one of them. It seems pretty damn clear to me that this is off-topic here, but whatever, the people have spoken and they decided they want to discuss it anyway so who am I to say anything.
But I will say that your attempts at justifying it seem rather flimsy.
Thought experiment: Could your argument also be applied to just about any other clearly-off-topic news story? Say, the Grizzlies beating the Spurs in the NBA playoffs?
Interesting? yep.
Someone making an iPhone game out of it? probably already done
Satisfies some hacker's intellectual curiosity? Sure. I'm still trying to figure out how they've put their team together and are gelling at the right time.
Belongs on HN? Nope.
9/11 and the War on Terror have defined my generation. The death of one of the most focal figures of this conflict will likely have massive effects. There could be plenty of interesting discussion on what will happen as a result of this.
Unfortunately, as with most political topics, responses seem to be largely simple reaction, rather than in depth analysis. It's possible that this could lead to interesting discussion here, but it mostly didn't, in my opinion.
Now, does it belong on Hacker News? I don't know. My first thought was "politics/news, flag it", but I'm less sure now that I think about it. If we occasionally get topics like this that are massive news, but not necessarily directly HN, I think it's ok. But if we start getting them daily, something has gone wrong. Every once in a while for a world-changing event is fine, but it should only be for truly momentous news.
But I'm pretty sure that capturing him and putting him on trial (or even keeping his body) would be more inflammatory, since we might have seen kidnappings and ransoms to get him back.
The January 9th AZ shootings articles were all flagged and pulled from the site - I'm having trouble seeing the difference between that piece of news and this.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091001rawalp...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a070201renal#...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=amid1201Osama...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a011802Mushar...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a092306osamad...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=alate2007CIAO...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0309OsamaBin...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a012304Muelle...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a121301murkyv...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091601noinvo...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a092801osamad...
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a122601ninete...
Look at Iraq: alqaeda's influence in Iraq wasn't destroyed by the death of Zarqawi; it was destroyed when the locals stood up and took arms against them.
I don't rejoice over his, or anyone's, death.
This is a time where people need to unite and forget about what makes them different. I don't see this event helping this cause in any way. Rather it has the potential to do the opposite.
But I'm somewhat optimistic that hopefully it won't be anything severe.
But you have to give credit to Obama too. Bush had his eyes focused on Iraq, and let BinLaden escape a few times. I still vividly remember, at some press conference a couple of years after 9/11, Bush was asked: what about Bin Laden? He callously replied, "I don't worry about Bin Laden. I don't care about him." So, if Obama had continued Bush's policy, we would not have got Bin Laden. Obama changed the policy and made Bin Laden priority #1 again, and you have the results today.
And you know this because of a comment most likely made to avoid giving bin Laden more public attention or further elevating his importance?
Regardless of what one thinks of George W. I have a hard time believing he didn't want bin Laden dead or captured any less than anyone else in the USA, and these kinds of public statements are no way to divine what the CIA has been sent out to do.
GWB may have wanted bin Laden dead but never devoted sufficient resources to allow it to happen. The fact that this was an operation which was beginning to be planned 10 months ago is evidence enough of Obama's ownership.
According Rumsfeld's chief of staff, it was a team of SEALs that carried out the operation. I might try getting basic facts right before posting obviously motivated comments.
All we have to go by is GWB's actions and words. The actions at Tora Bora alone are a strong datapoint; but over the years, I remember reading several articles from people actively involved, claiming that insufficient resources were being tasked for hunting Bin Laden. This particular quote from his news conference fits very well with everything else that we saw was going on, hence it is very believable. There was also one Whitehouse Correspondents' Dinner, where GWB joked about looking under the sofa in the WH for Bin Laden. I myself remember asking myself (and in discussions) countless times, "why aren't we making Bin Laden priority #1, and not Saddam?". Do you remember how we hunted Saddam? Do you remember anything comparable for Bin Laden after the first couple of years?
If you would like to counter this statement of GWB, you are welcome to provide evidence (news articles, etc.) to buttress your claim. All I know is: I was frustrated with us not putting sufficient resources into tracking OBL, and when Obama forcefully said that we'd be making him enemy #1 again, I was delighted.
My point was that "news articles, etc.", as well as 3rd-hand accounts and hearsay, are likely insufficient to determine just what the CIA is up to.
But maybe Wikileaks has something.
Consider this: a retired military friend was telling old Army stories. A sergeant lost a full-auto weapon, which is a gross violation of Army policy. This led to his chain of command up to the Colonel being court-martialed, and the General was formally reprimanded. It was their responsibility to ensure that their subordinates performed correctly. The same applies to Obama.
Even if you disagree with what he did - upon his shoulders is the responsibility.
The buck stops with the President. Always.
Voters are fickle, and often vote for what they want in the future, not to reward past achievement. $6.00/gallon gas and high unemployment will likely have a bigger affect on Obama's chances.
I'm sure Qaddafi is freaked out right now. His son and grandkids, and now Osama. If they got Osama, Qaddafi doesn't have a chance.
Edit: I can't sleep! So optimistic now, I bet the stock market goes up a few hundred points tomorrow also.
I'm actually surprised anyone wants the job.
Not taking a side, just stating what I believe will happen.
Yeah right, the Patriot Act extension passed with little protest and republicans will never allow us to cut back on militarization. I would love what you're saying to be true, but people are just not that smart.
Now can we enjoy the day? Oh and thanks for your downvotes nhangen.
I've never known so many people that are either unemployed or underemployed, gas prices are higher than ever, and interest rates are going up. Inflation is out of control too.
The Dow is just a ruse, and really has nothing to do with the state of the average working class American.
Obvious partisanship? Pot meet kettle.
I can't downvote you on this comment, and I wouldn't save for the last remark. Perhaps you should re-consider your approach.
|I've never known so many people that are either unemployed or underemployed, gas prices are higher than ever, and interest rates are going up. Inflation is out of control too. The Dow is just a ruse, and really has nothing to do with the state of the average working class American.
How is this Obama's fault? He was handed a shit economy from Bush and has done as good of a job as can be expected having to deal with republicans who won't even vote to remove tax breaks for oil companies as they make record profits.
Reread my comment I said I think Obama will be reelected for those reasons not that I even believe them myself--Obama's economic advisors told him to ask for 3x the amount he asked for from Congress for the recovery package, and he only got 2/3 of what he asked for, so Obama isn't without fault, but he's done a good job cleaning house after Bush.
I plan on enjoying today and I think Obama deserves some due praise for this.
Also the fact that his recent 'yearly videos' do not contain any new footage of the man. Experts in the EU have declared the videos 'fake' so the CIA stopped sending them the videos for analysis.
P.S. I am listening to live coverage from the BBC just now (relayed by Minnesota Public Radio), and the most interesting thing about this evening's report is that apparently Bin Laden was found in a villa in Islamabad, the seat of government of Pakistan.