Slashdot Mirror


Osama Bin Laden Reported Dead, Body In US Hands

Reader Tom Hudson, and now several others, have submitted the news that Osama Bin Laden is reportedly dead, and that his body is in the hands of the US military. A statement from President Obama is expected shortly. Watch this space for more details. Update: 05/02 04:01 GMT by T : More coverage at ABC News, at CNN, and at Al Jazeera. The reports say that Bin Laden was actually killed about a week ago by a bomb in Pakistan, and the time taken to confirm his identity via DNA testing helped delay the news. In downtown Austin, Texas, in the time since the story broke I've heard what sound like numerous celebratory gunshots.

218 of 1,855 comments (clear)

  1. Mission Accomplished by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now let's bring 'em home.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Mission Accomplished by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you think that just by killing bin laden Al Queda will just magically vanish?

    2. Re:Mission Accomplished by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...and long after most Americans have forgotten why we went to war in the first place. I remember a few years ago, when everyone said we had to attack the Iraqis because they were terrorists. We had to attack the Afghanis because of terrorism, and of course we had to forget that most 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Most people seem to have lost track those reasons at this point, and you would think that fighting Iraqis and Afghanis was just a fact of life. Fighting terrorism now means having a TSA agent fondle you or getting photographed naked.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Mission Accomplished by SnarfQuest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a good start. When the next leader of Alqueda steps up, we just kill him too, lather rinse repeat.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    4. Re:Mission Accomplished by artor3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course, that's how boss battles work, isn't it?

      World War 2 ended when a prisoner escaping from some castle gunned down Cyborg-Hitler, after all.

    5. Re:Mission Accomplished by exentropy · · Score: 2

      Now Islamic extremists have a martyr.

    6. Re:Mission Accomplished by bunratty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, just like the war on drugs. Did you think that cocaine would become unavailable after leaders of the Medellín Cartel were killed, too?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    7. Re:Mission Accomplished by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They already had martyrs: all those guys who flew into US buildings on planes they hijacked.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    8. Re:Mission Accomplished by baegucb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe announce each time that they are being buried in an unmarked grave wrapped in bacon? That might cut down on the religious fanatics.

    9. Re:Mission Accomplished by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I remember a few years ago, when everyone said we had to attack the Iraqis because they were terrorists.

      Really. Everyone. I seem to remember some "man on the street" interviews that were used to mock the idea. That's as close to "everyone" as I ever saw. It's like claiming that everyone believes that Obama was born in Kenya.

      We had to attack the Afghanis because of terrorism, and of course we had to forget that most 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

      We attack the Taliban because they provided safe harbor and support for Al Qaeda. Whether that is a smart strategy / worthwhile is certainly up to debate. But if you're going to make a complaint about the overall lack of geopolitical knowledge of "most Americans", it might help not expressing ignorance in the process.

      Fighting terrorism now means having a TSA agent fondle you or getting photographed naked.

      Wouldn't it be nice if we could undo some of THAT damage with this event.

    10. Re:Mission Accomplished by bunratty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think being attacked would in fact make recruiting easier. It's quite easy to demonize people who are killing your friends and relatives and fellow countrymen all around you. Why wouldn't these people hate the U.S. and want to fight back?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    11. Re:Mission Accomplished by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      That was my first reaction. But if you listened to the speech, Obama made very clear that the work is not done yet. Whether a person agrees or not, the armed forces are going to be engaged in Afghanistan for a while yet.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Mission Accomplished by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mission Accomplished ---- Now let's bring 'em home.

      Actually no, it isn't. Although Bin Laden's death is going to be very helpful, all that happened is that the current enemy leader was killed. Someone, probably far less effective, will take his place. The Coalition Forces killed the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq multiple times, and he was always replaced. Al Qaeda will fight on despite this. We ignore this fact at our peril.

      The US & NATO need to remain in Afghanistan for at least several more years until their army are police are built up and trained, and their country is stabilized. Otherwise, we can expect another go around of this.

      Apparently this is your "Mission Accomplished" moment?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    13. Re:Mission Accomplished by sconeu · · Score: 2

      I thought it was a bunch of Jewish US partisans and a Jewish Frenchwoman who burned Hitler in a movie theatre?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    14. Re:Mission Accomplished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bacon is a dietary restriction; burying him wrapped in dogskin would be a greater insult to the body.

    15. Re:Mission Accomplished by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course, that's how boss battles work, isn't it?

      World War 2 ended when a prisoner escaping from some castle gunned down Cyborg-Hitler, after all.

      That's only VE day. You forget about VJ day when a giant monkey the Americans stole from some jungle island killed a giant lizard/dinosaur thing.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    16. Re:Mission Accomplished by Kjella · · Score: 2

      You're not old enough.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:Mission Accomplished by Draek · · Score: 2

      Do you think that just by destroying Al-Qaeda terrorism will just magically vanish?

      Then again, that's the beauty of it.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    18. Re:Mission Accomplished by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference is that drugs are big business. Wherever there's a fortune to be made, there will always be plenty of willing participants. But when you're looking at living in fear of drone strikes, with your leaders dying ever few months, recruiting gets harder.

      If the Israeli experience of the last few decades hasn't shown you how ass-backwards this kind of thinking is, I don't think there's anything that will get it through your skull ....

    19. Re:Mission Accomplished by powerlord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So can we now call the "War on Terror" "Won" and try to go back to Normal?

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    20. Re:Mission Accomplished by stumblingblock · · Score: 2

      No, actually in Islam, it is not allowed to even TOUCH pork, unlike Judaism, where it IS strictly dietary.

    21. Re:Mission Accomplished by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But why Iraq?

      ...

      The reality was that the president wanted personal revenge because he blamed Saddam for Daddy losing out on a second term. And Cheney/Rove (who actually ran the country) allowed it because they knew they would be able to funnel not just hundreds of billions, but multiple trillions to their friends and supporters. There was no other reason why the US should invent some coalition and make up reasons to invade. For that, Bush and Cheney should face one murder charge for every dead person. But no, the Republicans talk like they support responsibility, unless it was they who were responsible.

      Because Saddam was a viscously successful survivor. The US didn't roll in and oust Saddam during the Gulf War because they didn't want to get involved in the power vacuum that would follow. And they certainly didn't want to provide a wedge for Iran to get involved. So they parked with the intent that Iraq would take care of its own problem. The problem is that Saddam uncovered coups and plots, killing any attempts to do so. When the Shias rose up (likely thinking the US would help), the spectre of Iranian influence reared its ugly head and the US didn't act to protect the uprising - which was put down brutally. Meanwhile, Saddam used his Oil-for-food money to rebuild military and construct palaces. While Iraq suffered, Saddam certainly didn't. So if the US wanted regime change, it was going to have to force it. But by the time that realization came about, we couldn't even make a strike on Bin Laden without "wag the dog" theories. So the Administration took advantage of a bad time in history to bring about the New World Order.

      Now - was there WMDs? Its not far fetched to believe there were. The US had sold Iraq the basic chemicals needed to manufacture chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. There was a fledging nuclear program. And inspections were not done to the extent that they had been agreed to - certainly not to the extent that the US and former Soviets conducted against each other under various nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

      The problem with this is that these were not the talking points of the Administration. They told the public that they had definitive proof. And that proof turned out to be bunk. It doesn't take much cynicism to look at that as not simply mistakes or selective cognition but outright lies.

      Of course, this is largely my own take on the situation. I'm also not a Democrat. I'm not a republican. I also wish 3rd parties could be relevant. But none of this has anything to do with the belief the statement "everyone said we had to attack the Iraqis because they were terrorists" which I find to be selective memory with strong political spin.

    22. Re:Mission Accomplished by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No point - since they're a martyr, they go straight to paradise.

      I seriously doubt that the leaders are religious fanatics. They're certainly willing to prey on disturbed people's religious excesses, but they didn't get on the airplanes themselves.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    23. Re:Mission Accomplished by Draek · · Score: 2

      I did, did you? the obvious fact is that neither Bin Laden nor Al-Qaeda itself are definite 'end points' for the War on Terror and, as such, if your main reason to keep the US army "out there" is because the mission hasn't been "accomplished" yet and the world still isn't "safe", you'll keep them there for as long as you live so unless you like the sound of an endless war, you'll have to step up and bring them back while there's still *something* out there potentially dangerous for you and this point is as good as any.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    24. Re:Mission Accomplished by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      It's a good start. When the next leader of Alqueda steps up, we just kill him too, lather rinse repeat.

      And if we get one every 9-1/2 years, the war will only last... forever.

      I wonder how many recruits we've generated by killing innocents with our bombs and drones.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    25. Re:Mission Accomplished by Steve+Blake · · Score: 2

      Personally, I would like to see his head on a pike outside the Pentagon.

    26. Re:Mission Accomplished by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup lets suddenly abandon Afghanistan now that the immediate threat is gone, like we did last time.

      What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    27. Re:Mission Accomplished by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No they need Obama Skull fucking his dead corpse. That would send a message.

      Yeah, because if people in the USA saw some Al Qaida member skull fucking the corpse of someone in our military (or even a political leader), we'd get the message that they are bad-asses and concede the war and back down immediately.

    28. Re:Mission Accomplished by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the Taliban kill far more civilians than NATO. While you might not have noticed this fast the Afghans certainly have. Some of the tribes (aided by NATO) actively repel the Taliban. Doesn't make good sound bites so the Western News mostly ignores the fact that most of northern Afghanistan is actually ok (by its low standards).

      The big problem is not that we won't win the "War on Terror" (and it is important for "us" in the West to win it). The big problem is that we are losing the "War on Corruption", not just petty corruption but the subtle subjugation of the legislative process. This is what is causing revolutions in the Middle East (sick of corruption) and one of the original motivators of Osama Bin Laden. Unfortunately US internal interests (multi-national corps) undermine the laws of sovereign states (eg witness ACTA and the 3-strikes laws popping up etc) is what will create a new wave of disaffected terrorists far more than the bombs. I hope that the US gets its act together with its excessively meddlesome foreign policy (some is understandable - its a linked world after all) and reigns in the corps instead of being a puppet to their tune - but I fear this hope will never come to fruition.

    29. Re:Mission Accomplished by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 3

      Or maybe... try to gain and hold the moral high ground, what a novel concept.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    30. Re:Mission Accomplished by rainmouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shame they didn't get him alive and give him a trial. Ironically life imprisonment would have been a far harsher punishment for him, denying him martyrdom and potentially preventing his death from becoming a unifying cause that enlists more naive youngsters into team evil.

    31. Re:Mission Accomplished by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 2

      One of the news reports commented that the plan is to "dispose of" his body (their words). This will be done to prevent any sort of tomb or grave site from becoming a shrine to the "martyr." A very good and pragmatic plan.

      Now, about your lack of a sense of humor at what I thought was just a humorous plea not to waste some good bacon....

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    32. Re:Mission Accomplished by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2

      On reflection, spelling mistakes aside, I think I was really thinking "ruthless". :P

    33. Re:Mission Accomplished by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Shame they didn't get him alive and give him a trial.

      Perhaps, but it's no longer clear to me that the US feels itself capable of putting Al Quaeda leaders on trial. At least, most of Congress no longer has enough faith in our justice system to allow it.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    34. Re:Mission Accomplished by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you consider bin Laden a friend and countryman, you need to die, too.

      I think the parent poster was referring to the hundreds (thousands?) of Afghans killed by drone strikes over the last few years -- not to OBL.

      Btw, when did thoughtcrime become worthy of capital punishment?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    35. Re:Mission Accomplished by TimboJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we heard that a United States General had been captured, crucified, and fed to rats, would that soothe the average American or aggravate him? Would he be more or less likely to support violent retribution or volunteer to fight?

      Trumpeting a triumph in victory against our foes is all well and good, but purposeful desecration of the body? We're better than that. A slap in the face against deeply conditioned religious beliefs? I would hope we're smarter than that.

    36. Re:Mission Accomplished by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      Maybe announce each time that they are being buried in an unmarked grave wrapped in bacon? That might cut down on the religious fanatics.

      Desecrate their bodies? _You_ are the pig.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    37. Re:Mission Accomplished by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      buried in an unmarked grave wrapped in bacon?

      That's a gratuitous and unnecessary insult.

      What harm have pigs ever done to you?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    38. Re:Mission Accomplished by kaizokuace · · Score: 2

      if you actually read the Qur'an, where it mentions no pork, it just explains that you can't eat pork, nor the blood of an animal and that God's name must be recited in the slaughtering. Does not say no touching, that would just be an interpretation by a crazy fundamentalist.
      Most people that I have encountered who claim this or that religious doctrine says this or that most probably has not studied the material.

      --
      Balderdash!
    39. Re:Mission Accomplished by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now - was there WMDs? Its not far fetched to believe there were. The US had sold Iraq the basic chemicals needed to manufacture chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. There was a fledging nuclear program. And inspections were not done to the extent that they had been agreed to - certainly not to the extent that the US and former Soviets conducted against each other under various nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

      Saddam purposefully lied in order to make it look like he had a bigger program that he did. Of course, all investigations revealed that his statements were false. They were made to make him appear strong and help prevent an invasion or uprising. And, of course, he didn't give carte blanche to the investigators because if he did, his own followers would have thought him weak, opening up a chance for a coup. Again, his actions were predictable for a paranoid dictator (was he paranoid? Everyone was really out to get him...).

      All his WMD programs were aimed to keep up the appearance of strength, and nothing more. And they were all verified to the ability of the UN, CIA, MI6, FSB, etc. to be that and nothing more. There was no operational WMD in the country when we invaded, and all the WMDs he ever used were given by the US. And the worst part was that everyone knew (or suspected) that was the case. But those in the points of power in the US purposefully chose to believe the known lies and ignore the truths, as long as it supported their goals of invasion. The decision to invade was made before 9/11. They were just looking for excuses and "got lucky" with 9/11.

    40. Re:Mission Accomplished by DanielSmedegaardBuus · · Score: 2

      Interesting. My colleague just said, "Ha! They've probably been stalking him for years, and just decided that it was time now as they couldn't benefit any longer from him being alive."

      "You crazy conspiracy theorist," I said, and while going to the coffee maker I thought, "Even if that were true, why would they choose now to do this anyway?" And then I thought about how the US is bummed for money, and quite frankly cannot afford the current level of foreign military involvement, and having Osama taken out could be used to justify starting to pull troops out again.

      Then I thought, "Damn - this guy's NOT gonna make me believe his crazy theories! And even still, no way Americans would be fooled by this to convince them it's valid cause to start pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan!"

      And then I start checking my RSS feed, and this is comment #1:

      Now let's bring 'em home.

      Damn! :D

    41. Re:Mission Accomplished by jcr · · Score: 2

      the primary target for harassment and hate of the KKK was the Roman Catholic Church.

      No, the RC church was a fair bit down on the list. The first targets were the union occupation troops, then the freed slaves, then the "carpetbaggers". The KKK started out as the terrorist wing of the Democratic party in the southern states, like the Sinn Fein/IRA relationship in the early 20th century.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    42. Re:Mission Accomplished by mangu · · Score: 2

      Actually, the Taliban kill far more civilians than NATO

      Do you have sources for that (not trolling, really interested)? Documented direct killings of civilians by OEF troops are around 4000, according to wikipedia. Most probably more,

      You don't seem like someone who would believe anything good about NATO or anything bad about the Taliban, so why bother getting sources?

      Demanding absolute, incontrovertible, proof of innocence from NATO, and still not believing it because it's "probably a cover-up", while waving away the Taliban atrocities with a vague "couldn't find sources" assertion, do you think that's a balanced POV?

    43. Re:Mission Accomplished by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2

      And as for whether Saddam has WMD's, the answer is equally obvious

      Halabja

      And just for reference. If this is the sequence :
      idiot fires guns, people dies
      we attack idiot, find no guns

      How in the name of the almighty Atheismo do you get to the conclusion that there were no guns in the first place ? WTF ?

      (and this was not the only incident with these weapons)

    44. Re:Mission Accomplished by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to the following article and United Nations report (linked below) the Taliban were responsible for 76% of civilian deaths in Afghanistan in 2009. NATO were responsible for 12% (although the media likes to pump it up as if NATO are the bad dudes). That's a ratio of 13:2, plus the Taliban will kill indiscriminately, take hostages as human shields (they consider 'involuntary matyrdom' of civilians as acceptable), and seize villagers as 'wives'. NATO generally tries to avoid killing civilians, unless they are within a compound there are armed Taliban in (likely to be wives and children of Taliban members than can't be separated from the gunmen). Then there is the classic Afghan trick of claiming 'casualties' in a village when in fact a goat has been killed (they get financial compensation from NATO for villagers killed, but not for goats - apparently this is a scam that the Afghans are all to happy to use on foreigners).

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/taliban-responsible-76-deaths-afghanistan-un

      Thanks for asking with an open mind - wish more people were like that.

    45. Re:Mission Accomplished by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The most effective way to end a war (any war, no matter how it is fought) is to make the enemy civilian population want the war to end to the point of being willing to betray family and friends (or at least be unwilling to supply any support to family and friends who attempt to continue fighting) if that is what it takes. The Israeli experience is instructive here. When the Israelis have had enough and launch fullscale military assaults on the Arabs, attacks on Israelis diminish. When the Israelis ease up and start trying to negotiate peace again, attacks on Israelis increase.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    46. Re:Mission Accomplished by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      Do you think that just by destroying Al-Qaeda terrorism will just magically vanish?

      Then again, that's the beauty of it.

      What would you suggest? We can't search passengers before they enter an airliner. We can't build a border fence or do anything else to secure the borders. We can't create an ID to make non-terrorists easily identifiable nor may we even ask you to ID yourself. We can't place cameras in public. We can't listen in to calls made to Pakistan. We can't read emails to known terrorist. We cant interrogate prisoners. We can't take prisoners. We can't hold prisoners.

      Holy Shit! What would you suggest we do? You know, other than lay on our backs with our legs open.

      Oh, and don't say, "live in peace and harmony with the world". That doesn't necessarily work.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    47. Re:Mission Accomplished by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      I was just wondering about the level of desperation people needed to reach before they think blowing themselves up is a good idea.

      How is choosing 70 virgins in heaven over living in a wasteland an act of desperation? If you actually believe what the terrorists are selling, then it is a completely rational decision to make. And, when everybody you respect in life is telling you that the guy preaching that stuff knows what they're talking about, why would you believe differently?

      Groupthink is an extremely powerful influence. The solution for terrorism is probably the same as the solution for smoking, and I have no idea what that is...

    48. Re:Mission Accomplished by tburkhol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's his point. Terrorists and criminals desecrate bodies. Evil people desecrate bodies. If the US really wants to show itself to be on the side of Good and Right, then the US needs to hold itself to standards of decency. If the US goes around desecrating the enemy just because the enemy did it to us once, then the rest of the world will see no difference between the two.

      You tell the good guys from the bad guys because the good guys have principles. They're not willing to resort to any means necessary in pursuit of their ends. Symbolic desecration of vanquished or captured foes serves only to strengthen the resolve of remaining foes and to turn neutral parties in favor of the foes.

    49. Re:Mission Accomplished by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2

      I would think 10 years of war and shennanigans under a cease-fire agreement would have been a better indication than Bush's Texas heritage. We were over-due during Clinton's watch.

    50. Re:Mission Accomplished by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      OK, let's go through your list and see which of these things would have prevented 9/11.

      We can't search passengers before they enter an airliner.

      None of the hijackers had firearms and anyone can make a shiv out of a thousand different things that you can easily get past security.

      We can't build a border fence or do anything else to secure the borders. We can't create an ID to make non-terrorists easily identifiable nor may we even ask you to ID yourself. We can't place cameras in public.

      The hijackers had valid ID and didn't have to do anything suspicious in public until they were already on the plane.

      We can't listen in to calls made to Pakistan. We can't read emails to known terrorist.

      False. You just need a warrant.

      We cant interrogate prisoners.

      False. You can interrogate without waterboarding/torture.

      We can't take prisoners. We can't hold prisoners.

      False. You can take prisoners, you just have to give them a trial.

      Holy Shit! What would you suggest we do?

      There is a simple solution. We stop burning oil. Oil keeps the dictators in power who cause the oppression that leads to terrorism. Oil money funds terrorism. And on top of all that, we need to transition to something else anyway, because the oil is running out and because of global climate change. So if you want to stop terrorism, take the trillions of dollars we're spending on war and security theater and spend it on windmills and nuclear power.

    51. Re:Mission Accomplished by stewbacca · · Score: 2

      We had to attack the Afghanis because of terrorism, and of course we had to forget that most 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

      We attack the Taliban because they provided safe harbor and support for Al Qaeda. Whether that is a smart strategy / worthwhile is certainly up to debate.

      No the other guy is totally right! We should have invaded Saudi Arabia because a bunch of bad guys from their country that have no loyalty TO the Saudi government nor the support OF the Saudi government attacked the US and fled to third world terrorist breeding grounds.

      $4 per gallon gas would look great right about now if that had happened.

  2. Awesome by LearnToSpell · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will you stop grabbing my balls at the airport now?

    1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You just like getting your balls grabbed, don't you?

    2. Re:Awesome by ShakaUVM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fortunately, TSA agents are starting to get in trouble for their molestation of thousands of innocent passengers each day.

      Oh, sorry, not for the actual molestation, you know, but joking about it afterward.

      I wish I could have shot Osama myself for all the wasted hours I've spent in TSA lines because of his antics.

    3. Re:Awesome by tyrione · · Score: 4, Funny

      Try talking to them in a sexy voice to let them know you're getting aroused. I bet they'll back off then.

    4. Re:Awesome by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just grind into their hands a little bit. A little sexy dancing speaks volumes. Even better if you can manage to sport wood for them.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:Awesome by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Funny

      Will you stop grabbing my balls at the airport now?

      No. It's been my lifelong dream to fondle the sweaty nutsack of an overweight dungeons-and-dragons playing basement-dweller. You can't ask me to give up that right!

    6. Re:Awesome by oldhack · · Score: 2

      I was gonna write that we should have captured him alive, and have him rotate thru airports so that each of us can smack the backside of his head for each hour we wasted.

      But in reality, we should be smacking the backside of our own heads.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    7. Re:Awesome by sorak · · Score: 4, Funny

      Chances are that you would be prosecuted for sexual harassment if you did such a thing.

      Only in America could a sexual harassment complaint begin:

      so i was feeling his sack when he started making unwanted sexual advances. I told him, "hey buddy, let's keep it strictly professional. I don't know what kind of crazy stuff you're into, but I just want to stick my finger up your ass and go home. It's been a long day"

  3. Woohoo! War on Terror is over! by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 2

    Right? RIGHT?!

    Oh.

    Right.

    FML

    1. Re:Woohoo! War on Terror is over! by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right? RIGHT?!

      Oh.

      Right.

      FML

      Yes, it is over in exactly the same sense that the Cold War was over .... when Lenin died.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  4. where's the long form? by trybywrench · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want to see a long form death certificate

    (stolen from fark)

    --
    I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
    1. Re:where's the long form? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "If Obama preempts the end of The Apprentice to announce they've killed Bin Laden that is going to be the most epic ownage ever." - Comment on Fark.

      I'm studying for finals right now (after taking a 4 year break between MS and BS). I was a freshmen in college when 9/11 hit. Every single other person in this was building was 8-10. Most don't even remember the 1st attack on the WTC. My college had 4xT1s providing 6Mb. My cable connection is faster. ALL of my news came from Slashdot and Fark. Both were barely struggling to survive. Yahoo, MSNBC, CNN all went down. Fark had to roll over to new threads every 300 or so posts (300 posts is considered low these days).

      There was no reddit, digg, facebook or twitter. SMS was just a very expensive feature that no one used.

      Fark's #1 Thread.

      Slashdot's Thread/a

      I know it's not really over, but it's still kind of surreal.

    2. Re:where's the long form? by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you a deather now?

      --
      This space for rent.
    3. Re:where's the long form? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Man, check out this comment... http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21541&cid=2277566

      Nailed it?

    4. Re:where's the long form? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dead Nailed it, along with the follow comments:

      The biggest casualty will probably be our Constitution. Whenever a tragedy likes this occurs, the government always announces a get tough on terrorists policy that will have no effect on the psychopaths who do this, but will severely limit our rights.

      Yep. I give it a week before Bush announces a "war on terrorism". And we all know what "war on XXX" means, don't we? Bye-bye Bill of Rights.

      Yep. Let's put face recognition cameras in all airports and log activity of anyone who enters or leaves an airport. We all know it wouldn't stop the attack, but hey, it will help us correlate who boarded the planes with their respective political associations.

      You don't get it. If the Constitution is a casualty, then the terrorists have won. Their aim is to destroy this country. The Constitution IS this country. It's the only thing that makes us different from any other country in the world.

  5. Re:bye bye bin by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And all it cost were our civil liberties, national character, and trillions of dollars...

  6. Netcraft confirms it... by thelenm · · Score: 5, Funny

    Netcraft confirms it: Osama bin Laden is dead.

    --
    Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
    1. Re:Netcraft confirms it... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry, Dvorak's column later this week will tell us why Netcraft is wrong...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  7. A few details by sayfawa · · Score: 4, Informative

    This article's a bit heavier on details:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/reports-say-osama-bin-laden-dead-us-president-obama-to-speak-soon/article2006299/

    Mr. bin Laden was killed at a mansion outside the Pakistani capital Islamabad, CNN reported. A senior U.S. counterterrorism official told Associated Press Mr. bin Laden was killed in a ground operation in Pakistan, not by a Predator drone. A senior Pakistani intelligence official confirmed that he was killed in Pakistan.

    --
    Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
    1. Re:A few details by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One wonders if he was moving around pretty frequently, and this just happened to be where they caught up with him, or if a mansion outside the capital is actually a good-enough hiding spot. If the latter, he must have had the same sort of 'deep roots in the community' that have historically allowed organized crime leaders to live more or less openly for long periods of time...

    2. Re:A few details by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh...why is the US army engaged in ground operations near the capital of Pakistan?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:A few details by slyborg · · Score: 2

      It was a CIA op, apparently.

    4. Re:A few details by medcalf · · Score: 2

      Per the announcement, it was in Abbottabad, which is nowhere near Islamabad. (It's near Peshawar.)

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    5. Re:A few details by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      Interesting, so the US has ground troops in Pakistan, too? Shall we assume that they have both permission of the Pakistani government and the constitutional blessing of the US Congress for being at war in a FOURTH country...

      Why, yes, as a matter of fact they do. And I'm glad to see that you are clear that they are fighting against the same enemy in Pakistan, not against Pakistan.

      SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

      (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.--- Authorization for Use of Military Force

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:A few details by artor3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      MSNBC just reported that the mansion was several times larger than any other building in the town, surrounded by a 15 foot wall topped with barbed wire, with a double gate, and no telephone wires connecting it to the outside. If that doesn't scream "hide out", nothing does. I'm thinking there were a lot of locals who knew and didn't care. Their loss I guess, they missed out on that million dollar reward.

    7. Re:A few details by Panoptes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Abbottabad is about 50 km north of Islamabad, and 150 km east of Peshawar. It's also the location for a number of major military establishments. Which, of course, raises a whole lot of very interesting questions about the Pakistani government's knowledge of, and possible complicity in, his holing up there.

    8. Re:A few details by MikeUW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a local living in that area, who would you call to report his location and collect your reward? Do you call the police, and hope whoever you talk to is not corrupt?

      I know I'd be keen to collect on the reward, but I don't like being dead either...so I don't really know how I personally would have gone about doing it. Presumably you have to be identifiable at the time that you call in the tip, and that's the catch. (Well, maybe I can think of ways *I* would have gone about it, but the situation would likely be very different for most locals in Pakistan).

  8. Well there you go by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The prez just won his second term

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Well there you go by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, just ask GHW Bush how well that works out. Short answer: it doesn't, especially when the economy goes to shit. His best hope is for the Republicans to follow tradition and nominate a terrible candidate.

    2. Re:Well there you go by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The prez just won his second term

      You overrate both the memory span of the American voter, and the disaster that $4, $5, and $6/gallon gasoline hath wrought. In fact, the fact that gasoline doesn't immediately now drop to $1.29/gallon will be the great disappointment of the majority of the electorate.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    3. Re:Well there you go by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      You need to look up "charisma" in a dictionary of your choice.

    4. Re:Well there you go by tftp · · Score: 2

      Bush never had Obama's charisma, which just shot up even more.

      In a contest between the charisma and the daily piece of bread (jobs, gas price, inflation) charisma is a sure loser.

    5. Re:Well there you go by medcalf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama has charisma? Really? I mean, the guy can spout platitudes, and present a good blank sheet for people to fill in, yeah. But charisma? Not that I can tell.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    6. Re:Well there you go by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

      Hey goofball, a bunch of those trillions were racked up during George Bush's term, most of it from trying to catch this guy, while giving tax cuts to his buddies.

    7. Re:Well there you go by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Man, every geek should know that a Feat of Accomplishment raises your Charisma score at least by 2 points...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:Well there you go by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is the US. NOBODY gets elected without charisma. Hell, we've got front runners with no discernible talents BUT charisma.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    9. Re:Well there you go by IVI+V+K · · Score: 2

      I'm sure you mean Bush's bailout, not Obama's
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008

      Also, if banks lend someone money, or buy packaged loans, they are solely responsible to their investors and stake holders and make sure that those depts are viable? Buyer beware!

      No one was ever forced to loan money to anyone. Congress and the president did not issue the loans,

      Banks didn't care about loan risk because the lender was never planning on collecting on the loans, they were just interested in getting a commission and selling the loan off to another sucker who would have to figure out how to collect on the loans.

      Our financial institutions lost all sense of fiscal rationality, responsibility and morality.

    10. Re:Well there you go by butalearner · · Score: 2

      Here's a direct quote from this CNN article dated 9/24/2008:

      "I'm a strong believer in free enterprise, so my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention," he said. But "these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There has been a widespread loss of confidence.

      "Without immediate action by Congress, America can slip into a major panic."

      "If Congress fails to approve the rescue plan, the nation could face a "long and painful recession," Bush said.

    11. Re:Well there you go by MimeticLie · · Score: 2

      Uh... yes.

      The Bailout started under Bush, you might recall. But regardless off whose idea it was, it hasn't been the massive waste of money that you present it as. As of June last year, 75% of the money had been repaid. And the government was actually turning a profit on what it was getting back.

      Opposing the Bailout is one thing; personally, I think that it sets a bad precedent to loan out that much money with no consequences. But to present it as the sole cause of the deficit and to blame it exclusively on Democrats is simply incorrect. If you want the true cause of the deficit, the fact is that the recession is to blame. But massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (which cost more than the new healthcare law) and two foreign wars, none of which were paid for certainly didn't help.

    12. Re:Well there you go by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 2

      Not that it's likely to change your mind, but you're wrong. As it stands right now, Bush economic decisions account for about $7 trillion of the current debt, compared to $1.7 trillion that can be laid at Obama's feet (and that includes the tax cut extensions forced in December by the right). And given that Obama came in just as the economy hit bottom, you can hardly blame him for reduced tax receipts, even if you disagree with stimulus spending as a means to avert a depression.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
  9. America!!!! by Yorban · · Score: 5, Funny

    AMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERICA fuck yeah! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI

  10. Re:bye bye bin by suso · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, that whole woosy feeling that I got after 9/11 for several years, not unlike getting kicked in the beanbag, has almost gone away. Bringing it back up is kinda like the bully saying "There is that dweeb that I kicked in the balls a few years ago. Ha ha".

  11. Re:Good for Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The folks actually searching for him have been doing so for 10 years, don't give him the credit for their efforts. He just happens to be in office at the right time.

  12. Re:bye bye bin by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, our kids are eating lead...

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  13. Celebrity Apprentice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    For anyone else who missed the end of the Celebrity Apprentice because of the speech, Hope got fired.

  14. Re:Wasn't he already reported dead? by DJ+Particle · · Score: 2

    December 2001 - reported in a newspaper in Egypt. There was even a funeral and an obit. Fox reported it too but removed the story soon after.

  15. Sad Chapter by bradrum · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can we please forget this sad chapter in our history? Thousands and thousands have died, trillions spent, and liberties seemingly irrevocably lost.

    I shed a tear and will not celebrate this at all

  16. Re:Bin Laden murdered? by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Informative

    You think that's bad? Anwar al-Awlaki is the subject of an executive order ordering his death. He's also an American citizen.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  17. yay by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Funny

    rm -f /bin/laden

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:yay by CamD · · Score: 2, Funny

      #!/bin/sh
      rm -f /bin/laden
      pause 259200
      rm -rf /

    2. Re:yay by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Funny

      chmod +x /bin/laden

  18. Re:bye bye bin by techsoldaten · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or we found him living in a mansion outside Islamisbad and killed him after a firefight.

    Not sure what the motivation for making this up would be. There are likely going to be reprisals for this act.

  19. Re:Bin Laden murdered? by hcmtnbiker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Better put, people who shoot at you when you go to take them in for questioning don't warrant due process, the mission included bringing him back alive if circumstances allowed.

    --
    If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
  20. Re:And watch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't worry, Obama explicitly said as much in his speech ("we must remain ever vigilant").

    From what I'm hearing, expect civil rights to be further restricted in the coming months to protect from "counter attacks" over Bin Laden's death.

    After all, this was never the War on Al Qaeda. This is the War on Terror, and Terror still looms... (And don't forget to lock your doors, Al Qaeda is coming to get us back over Bin Laden!)

  21. Re:Bin Laden murdered? by AdamHaun · · Score: 2

    This seems like a pretty solid example of "resisting arrest". Obama said there was a gunfight in the compound.

    --
    Visit the
  22. Re:Competence by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

    Would you please stop running assclowns for preznit now?

    Never.

    Palin/Trump ticket; calling it now.

  23. Re:bye bye bin by Kagura · · Score: 5, Funny

    R.I.P Osama Bin Laden - World Hide And Go Seek Champion (2001 - 2011)

  24. Re:all it cost by Kagura · · Score: 2

    Good ROI in that mission for them huh?

    Yes, quite possibly.

  25. so is the war over now? by decora · · Score: 2

    can we go back to being america ?

  26. Please: NO POLITICAL POSTURING. by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My last day of work at the World Trade Center was September 10, 2001. I remember turning around, looking at a lone guitarist playing near that fountain with the Globe sculpture, it was a beautiful Monday night, around 9 pm. I had worked late, so I was going to show up late to work on Tuesday. I woke up to my phone ringing off the hook. I lost my job, but compared to what others lost, I lost nothing.

    The people who died that day were liberal and conservative, but all were American. Bin Laden hated us all, just because we were American. So please, no political games here. This isn't about left and right, this is about a cowardly attack on all of us, as Americans. As a hardcore liberal, I embrace my fellow Americans who are conservative on this good news for us all.

    Come together, as Americans, left and right, lose the useless political snark and sniping, and celebrate this asshole's death. Good fucking riddance.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Please: NO POLITICAL POSTURING. by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The people who died that day were liberal and conservative, but all were American. Bin Laden hated us all, just because we were American.

      It's more than that. Al Qaeda has killed Muslims, Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Spaniards.....people from all over the world. He was a hater. This is something every sane person in the world can be happy for.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Please: NO POLITICAL POSTURING. by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolutely. Bin Laden isn't an enemy of the USA, he is an enemy of civilization itself. In his thinking is the downfall of us all, of every religion, every race, and every nationality. He won't be the last to think like him, but it's nice to land a big fish. The fishing goes on, but today we celebrate the rightful end of one big grade AAA asshole.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:Please: NO POLITICAL POSTURING. by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 3, Informative

      The people who died that day were liberal and conservative, but all were American.

      Do American's ever pass up an opportunity to look like an ignorant asshat?

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    4. Re:Please: NO POLITICAL POSTURING. by Artemis3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "just because we were American."

      Oh my God, why even you don't know how this all started, and why it will keep going. Its the US foreign policy stupid!. Osama and his group was funded by the US to fight evil commies; when that war was over the money stopped, US showed hostility against Afghanistan (people killed, etc) and they felt betrayed and turned around.

      This guy was on the CIA payroll, and he isn't the only terrorist. Sometimes they never turn around, and get immunity for life. Posada Carriles is a fine example, right now living in FL; he only blew a jetliner full of people, tortured and disappeared countless victims all over latinamerica, put bombs in hotels and universities, oh but all in the name of your holy nation against evil communism, see? just like Bin Laden, except he remained loyal and didn't turn around.

      Do you know where the terrorists are bred from? Did you read that news about children getting massacred by a drone over there? Think!, Feel! that you are there, not carrying the weapon, but on the receiving side, your family and friends dying even when you had nothing to do with either side.

      Now remember you are the "most powerful nation", how are they going to get revenge? Not in conventional warfare.

      Those misguided to hate Americans, do so because the American government sends Americans to kill them! Some people can't understand how the people of USA is so powerless against their own government! And yes, its the innocent that pay; because YOU didn't act against the policy of foreign intervention.

      Tell me, do you think your government will declare Victory, lets return all troops home and now everyone can live safe again? NEVER. None of the liberties you lost in the name of protection from terrorism, will come back; and none of the lands tainted by American boots can be left alone again, because they will turn to revenge for the past.

      So please, please, think a minute; do a little research. Where this Osama Bin Laden and the term "Al Qaeda" came from? YOU! Ok, not you, personally, your government and its institutions, but its a thin line to discern for someone whose life is getting destroyed by a faceless foreign force.

      --
      Artix
      Your Linux, your init.
    5. Re:Please: NO POLITICAL POSTURING. by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      i have no doubt that there are plenty of simpletons, like you, who agree with other simpletons about how the world supposedly works

      the reality is moderates, of any religion, versus extremists, of any religion

      to the extent that reality is christian versus muslim, is only to the extent that intelligent people, christian and muslim, can't keep the lid on you fucking morons

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    6. Re:Please: NO POLITICAL POSTURING. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Osama Bin Laden was never part of a group funded by the U.S. in Afghanistan. He was part of a group that was allied with groups funded by the U.S. that were all fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. According to stories I have read there is serious question as to whether he was actually involved in Afghanistan before the Soviets pulled out. He made strong use of his connection with groups that fought the Soviets to gain "street cred" in the Muslim world, but there is evidence to suggest that he was misstating his involvement to make himself look like a bigger deal than he was at the time. History suggests that killing civilians who provide material support to those fighting you is the most effective way to bring about the end of a war.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  27. Re:Competence by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bullshit. Bush diverted most of our military to a pointless fight in Iraq, and unsurprisingly we never caught Bin Laden. Obama set finding Bin Laden as our top goal in the region, and we found him in a little over two years.

    Just think if we had done that from the start. Bin Laden still dead, without wasting a trillion dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq.

  28. Rest In Hell by a_nonamiss · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Hey, where are my virgins? ...And what is Hitler doing with that pineapple?" - Osama Bin Laden

    --
    -Arthur
    Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
  29. Re:bye bye bin by SpockLogic · · Score: 4, Funny

    bye bye bin.

    I won't believe this until I see his death certificate ........ long form.

  30. Re:And watch... by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would it? It's pretty much accepted that bin Laden was radicalized by the 2nd in command - who, therefore, was the real power behind the throne. What's more, by landing troops in Pakistan, the US risks a great many Pakistanis joining up with terrorist groups.

    Further, by killing bin Laden rather than capturing him, the US has created a martyr. That's usually a very bad move. Further, the media's interpretation of President Obama's remarks was that he had ordered bin Laden's assassination. The US has been trying to assassinate a number of other leaders recently - bodily or by character. That could create some extremely unholy alliances, since leaders generally don't approve of being assassinated and Al Queda is likely to be looking for alternative bases.

    Tomorrow, then, will be just like today only the US will have fewer people to blame.

    Capturing bin Laden would have been the wisest move. By depriving him of martyrdom, the US would have avoided an excalation in the conflicts. Further, it would have likely resulted in a paniced upper echelon of Al Queda as they'd not know what he knew or what he'd say. And in not knowing, they'd likely act rashly. And that is what we needed.

    What happened tonight was a PR stunt intended to bolster the ratings of the Democrats and undercut Republican credentials on security. It had nothing whatsoever to do with actual security at all.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  31. Hey you two by symbolset · · Score: 4, Funny

    Get a room.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  32. Re:Bringing it back up by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'll take the other side and say it goes into an entry as "closure". There were only 2-3 "signature issues" for this whole War on Terror campaign - Saddam/Iraq and Bin Laden. BL was left hanging out there as deep unresolved tension driving this whole ugly crusade by .gov.

    Now it's a democrat in office, with a year left in his term, and wherever you place the mission ops credit, he has put away the defining Republican meme of the decade.

    So now cynicism says ".mil will keep its toys", but without the "But Bin Laden is out there" headline, the sound bites aren't nearly as good. "Be vigiliant". "Against who?" "Oh, some guy, we don't know yet".

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  33. ...congratulations... by holophrastic · · Score: 2

    As a Canadian, serious congratulations are in order. It's good to know that my neighbour can spend that kind of money, time, and resources to get something done. Also as a Canadian, I hope your terrorists respond on your side of the border.

    My family's spent the last hour wondering how this, and most of the war efforts, could possibly reduce the terrorist activity. Sure you've eliminated dictatorships, but those dictatorships were keeping their own people under control. Now, in democratic societies, those peoples will produce more anti-american terrorists. I share the american continant, so I'm none too happy about that. We're expecting a random bombing in the next week, somewhere in the world, crediting osama in order to discredit tonight's events.

    It just doesn't seem like a solution. I hope I'm wrong.

    But really, and I'm totally serious, honestly, good job. I know it wasn't easy, and I know it was important.

    1. Re:...congratulations... by Cosmic+Debris · · Score: 2

      It's not a "solution" so much as closure for a raw wound in American history. I'm not sure you can fully appreciate that aspect of this moment. It's also about finishing a job that was started ten years ago. And finally it's about a very real projection of power to send a message to a section of the world that's full of leaders who grow their fan base on the notion of Western (not just American) weakness and moral corruption. I'm sorry you're so worried about blowback on your soil. It's a legitimate concern. But respectfully let me remind you that OBL and his group has demonstrated time and again that there are no civilians in this war and that any reason, no matter how flimsy, seems to be good enough for to commit a terrorist act. Everyone is fair game and that includes our friends, allies and neighbors in addition to a very significant number of Muslims. As callous as it sounds, I'm going to savor this moment. It is important. Tomorrow will have to take care of itself.

  34. Re:now the US can slash defense spending by Lanteran · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You really think America is in any perceptible less danger than it was before (not that it was in much danger before)? I don't presume to know the reason they were, but the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were hardly waged to keep America safe.

    --
    "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  35. Re:Scumbag President(s) by capnkr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Scumbag Obama: Talk about hope and change. Continue and expand on Bush-era policies.

    Hey, I am just glad that He was the one who since last August has personally overseen, analyzed intel, and, finally, authorized the strike which took Osama out. What a guy. And He is so humble about it.

    --
    "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
  36. Re:bye bye bin by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bin Laden really shouldn't have used his real address on PSN

    --
    This space for rent.
  37. Re:Slashdot by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2

    I saw a film of Obama walking in front of a "Mens Room" sign, showing that he doesn't believe women should hold any political offices. He lives in the "White" House, which proves he hates non-whites. He failed to deliver an Easter address, but has not missed a single Muslim holiday, showing his total hatred toward Christians.

    If you can take assorted signs out of context, and blow them all out of proportion, everyone else should be allowed.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  38. Re:now the US can slash defense spending by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 2

    Does anyone actually believe this?

    If you do, I've got a terrorist-proof bridge to sell you.

    --
    Sent from my CR-48
  39. Re:and here come... by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We don't need any. Killing political leaders is, at best, useless. At worst, given the failed assassination of Gadaffi and the failed attempt to character assassinate Chavez all within the last couple of days, there's a serious risk that the US has miscalculated and will unite segments of Africa and South America with the terrorist organizations. No, that's second-worst. At worst, Russia and China will see this as confirmation of the failed assassination of Gadaffi and the failed character assassination of Chavez, deem the US to be an immediate threat to global security, and take action to stop the Blue Menace.

    However, I'll offer a conspiracy theory if you like. Osama bin Laden has been ill for some time, we know that. The American public is quite incapable of maintaining focus if it perceives the goal as being reached, we know that too. Osama bin Laden gets offered up as a sacrificial lamb, but in a way that radicalizes the whole of Pakistan and could easily lead to a coup. Al Queda loses a man it no longer needs in a gambit to gain a country it covets. You can replace men, but it's much harder to replace a subcontinent.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  40. Terrorists who were trained in Afghanistan by AQ by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    long after most Americans have forgotten why we went to war in the first place.

    Pretty funny that you should talk about "forgetting", because then you say:

    And of course we had to forget that most 9/11 hijackers were Saudis

    Well you seem to have forgotten is that they were mostly Saudis - trained in Afghanistan, by Al Quidea.

    Since that was where AQ was based, where the terrorists were trained, that was in fact the single best place to start in striking back and reducing the threat. I mean, here you seem to imply we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, even though there government there did not condone the terrorism. For a long time after we invaded Iraq there were cries in fact that we should ONLY be in Afghanistan. But you seem to have forgotten that too.

    You seem to have forgotten we are not fighting the people of Afghanistan but AQ who has people based there, just as in Iraq for a time we were not fighting many Iraqis any more, but instead a coalition of AQ fighters from all over - including Syria and Saudi Arabia again.

    Indeed your message about not forgetting is an important one, which is why I felt it necessary to provide historical fact over re-written sentiment.

    Fighting terrorism now means having a TSA agent fondle you or getting photographed naked.

    I hate the new rules too and think they are silly.

    But to be fair, AQ has shown a fetish long after 9/11 of trying to work terrorism through planes, and so that is where the focus has been on protection. It's a matter of finding what is reasonable and what actually works, something I think they are a long way from yet. It's the right focus but totally the wrong technique.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  41. Weird by slimjim8094 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find it very strange to cheer about somebody's death, but here I am.

    It's pretty rare to find undiluted evil in the world, but he sure was it. I was in 5th grade at the time, in northeast NJ. We could see the towers from the top of the slide, and then just two pillars of smoke. Even though I was only 11, I knew damn sure what was going on and what it all meant.

    And I'm damn glad he's dead. His organization continues, of course, but he wasn't exactly a figurehead either. I'm not going to speculate on the ramifications of this, because they're happening now and in the next few hours and days.

    So good job to all involved. Truly a moment in history.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:Weird by RazorSharp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Undiluted evil?

      Perhaps your youth plays a role in that opinion. I'm not too much older than you, I was in high school at the time, but there's a big difference between a fifth grader and a high schooler. On 9/11/2001 I blamed America for what happened. I blamed America for supporting Israel no matter what they did. I blamed America for building military bases in every country we could force our way into. I blamed America for getting involved in the Soviet Union/Afghanistan conflict. I blamed America for having a bloated military.

      We acted like an imperialist bully and still do.

      Osama bin Laden deserved to be brought to justice for what he did, but he didn't kill for the sake of killing. He killed because he believed it was the right thing to do. Undiluted evil is a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer. The way I look at it, Osama bin Laden is no more evil than George W. Bush. They both cost the world untold destruction, death, and insecurity because of their ideological stubbornness. They both declared each other to be the devil and believed it. That's worse than undiluted evil, it's diluted evil. It's diluted by the silly conviction that the battle is being fought for a good cause.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  42. Re:And watch... by gront · · Score: 2

    Um... you don't think he was hiding out by himself with, ya know, no documents, records, phones, or other intel that we might have snagged? That and the messages "you can't hide anywhere" and "we will come and get you, alone, and without the help of the country you are in" are pretty powerful.

  43. Re:bye bye bin by Kagura · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More coverage at ABC News, at CNN, and at Al Jazeera. The reports say that Bin Laden was actually killed about a week ago by a bomb in Pakistan, and the time taken to confirm his identity via DNA testing helped delay the news. In downtown Austin, Texas, in the time since the story broke I've heard what sound like numerous celebratory gunshots.

    That's from the summary. NONE of the three sources state that, and none of the sources I read have said anything like that. I'm not going to jump to conclusions and say he was killed by a bomb in Pakistan a week ago, when the President said he was killed in a ground operation. He was likely killed by American rifles, whether face-to-face or initially from a distance.

  44. Oh goody, another ten years then by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While Osama has been hard to track down, lower echolon leaders have been killed left and right. Didn't change a thing. Partly because the US managed to always find a way to kill a lot of civilians (by accident they claim) to fuel new hatred.

    Thinking the death of Bin Laden will change anything is like thinking the death of Roosevelt in 1945 meant the end of WW2. (For those lacking in history, it didn't).

    The world has changed massively after 9/11 but it also has continued to change. Take the current unrest in North Africa and the middle east. Ghaddafi (however you spell it) went from terrorist leader to friend to target in less then a decade. Now there are calls from the left to watch the bombings in Libya but ALSO to interfere in Syria... wtf? I am sure Israel is wondering just what the hell is going to happen next. Do you think it is an accident Hamas is changing its tune now its allies are burning from within?

    If anything this shows how silly the idea of control is in the world. Bin Laden became a symbol but had little control. He achieved next to nothing. The uprising against the oppressors in muslim nations is instead against both religious AND secular leaders (Syria is secular, its Iranian ally is strongly religious) and the uprisings are both religious and secular. About the only prediction that stands is that nobody predicted any of this.

    What will happen now Bin Laden is death? A symbol is dead but the things that made him a symbol are not. There is severe dissatisfaction in the world and people seem more ready then ever to use violence to made their dissatisfaction known. You might hail this is a fight for freedom or extremists wanting to force their view on the rest of the world, but the fact remains that right now more struggles are happening then in a long time in history.

    A leader of a decade ago is dead, few will mourn him but he is a relic. There are new struggles to overcome. Iraq is still a mess, Afghanistan is a war zone. Pakistan is on the verge of collapse. North Korea is facing collapse and won't go queitly, Libya is in civil war. Syria is about to erupt in war. The list goes on and on. Wikileaks Assange has disappeared of the radar of news but that is still far from finished.

    No, I don't think we can breath a sigh of relieve just yet.

    And that in a way is a good thing. The world has NEVER been a safe place. Better we are aware of it not being safe and work to make it safe even if we make mistakes then to live in false security.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Oh goody, another ten years then by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> However, how do you prove that you have killed a "fighter" or a "civilian?" They both wear the same clothes.

      If you kill someone, then review their body, and find that they were not wearing a uniform, nor were they carrying any weapons, nor were they strapped with explosives, nor were there any weapons nearby, nor is their likelihood that they were directing others to engage in warfare, then they were a civilian.

      These rules are pretty clearly spelled out in some treaties we've signed and ratified. Certainly some of the people claimed as civilians were not, but in some cases they most certainly were.

      >> I would strongly suspect that suicide bombers have killed far more civilians than the US military has.

      I doubt it, given the 200+ year history of the US military and relatively short history of suicide bombers, even taking into account 9/11.

      >> # of civilians killed as a result of US military actions

      There's no web source that cannot be dismissed by you or others as "biased", therefore there is no possible source to give you definitive proof. My short web search started here, which is where I would start reading if I was so inclined:
      http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:Oh goody, another ten years then by rastos1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thinking the death of Bin Laden will change anything is like thinking the death of Roosevelt in 1945 meant the end of WW2. (For those lacking in history, it didn't).

      There is a book in my parents' bookshelves with title "Assassinations that were supposed to change the world". Thick book with chapters about (successful or not) attempts to kill important people. From Franz Ferdinand, through Che Guevara, to Hitler, Rasputin, Lincoln, JFK, Ghandi and many others. Attempts to kill the snake by cutting off the head. It never worked.

    3. Re:Oh goody, another ten years then by c · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Thinking the death of Bin Laden will change anything is like
      > thinking the death of Roosevelt in 1945 meant the end of WW2.

      It means the USA can credibly claim "mission accomplished" and get the hell out of Afghanistan. As long as he was still breathing, there was simply no politically viable exit strategy.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    4. Re:Oh goody, another ten years then by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope that book was not saying that the death of Franz Ferdinand didn't change the world. From what I can tell, it was pretty much the most pivotal single act of the entire 20th Century, if you realize that it directly started WWI, and through the loss of WWI turned Germany into a state bent on revenge and world domination and allowed the Communists to take over in Russia.

      Of course, I don't think the assassin actually meant for things to go down that way, which might be the point of the book, but sometimes killing one person can have a huge effect. Not to mention he did manage to indirectly topple the Hapsburgs, even if they pretty much did that to themselves by overreacting and trying to get a little Serbian soil out of it.

      As for Osama, the very manner of his death could have a larger meaning that we cannot predict. History does have a number of examples where killing a leader does end the movement. While considered very, very unlikely, this *could* be the end of al-Queda due to an unforeseeable chain reaction.

      However, the facts are that being a martyrdom-based group, all leaders of these terrorist groups will likely be expected to die eventually, even if the leaders really had no intentions of seeking out martyrdom. That means that the rank and file terrorists should be able to fit the death into their world-view and not crumble because they lost their leader.

      The real question is how much they relied on his reputation for being elusive and uncatchable to maintain high morale, and what his role in operating the group was. If he was more directly in charge of operations, this could cause at least a partial disorganization, even if a decapitation did not happen. If he was more like the Queen of England, a figurehead, then al-Queda will probably maintain full capabilities and now just be really pissed off.

  45. Re:I for one.... by gront · · Score: 3, Insightful
  46. So much for a fair trial. by Sasayaki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    174 comments and nobody's mentioned this, but what happened to the presumption of innocence?

    I mean, a guy arrested at the scene of a mass shooting, covered in blood and holding an assault rifle, screaming about how the aliens in his head told him to murder all of mankind... still gets a trial. Timothy McVeigh (the second biggest terrorist to attack US soil) got a trial. People who systematically abduct and rape hundreds of little girls and hide their bodies in barrels get a trial.

    If absolutely nothing else, now we'll never truly know if he really did it. Who the power behind him was. Who was sponsoring him, who was protecting him (aside from the obvious: Pakistan), who were his allies. Think of all he could know.

    Action movies lie to you. Dead guys give zero intel and create martyrs. Killing him was, by a huge long away, out and out the worst way to handle it. Bring him in alive. See what he knows. Then put him in prison for the rest of his days.

    This was a poor choice.

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    1. Re:So much for a fair trial. by Dravik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The presumption of innocence and a trial only apply to US citizens and people within the borders of the US. If Osama had been hiding in Michigan then he would have been arrested. Non-US persons outside the US do not fall under the Constitution and do fall under the category of "military targets". Unless of course you think we should have arrested and tried all those German boys on top of Pointe-du-Hoc.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    2. Re:So much for a fair trial. by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure "choice" is a fair word to use.

      In a perfect world, sure, I'm certain that the US gov't would have preferred to grab him alive, milk him dry for intel, and then have him found guilty in a trial and executed.

      However:
      - his capture would simply have resulted in an uncountable number of abductions of US citizens, mostly innocents, in an effort to trade them for his release. How would YOU like to have been the American president faced with telling Mr and Mrs Smith that their little Johnny or Joanna was just BEHEADED on Al-Jazeera when you could have traded this single, nearly-irrelevant, stinky old man for them?
      - further, his capture would have opened up a whole new round of deep hand-wringing about how we 'dare' treat him. Could we dare make him uncomfortable, or would that be "inhumane"? Is forcing him to hear Backstreet Boyz for 24 hours a day cruel and/unusual?
      - his trial would quite likely have been a mockery of grandstanding and posturing - offering him a world stage he's been too afraid to step up to for the last 10 years.
      - finally, in reality, what are the odds that he really was going to EVER be captured? He was not a luxury-loving sybarite like Saddam Hussein, whose narcissism made it likely that - at the end - he wouldn't take himself out. Osama was a different creature, having fought in his 20s with the mujahedeen, and having walked AWAY from wealth and luxury in favor of hardship in pursuit of a 'cause'. Seriously, what is the real likelihood that he could have been so totally surprised and immobilized in less than the 0.5 seconds it would have taken him to put a bullet through the roof of his own mouth?

      As I mentioned above, organizationally he's probably largely irrelevant; but symbols matter - and his extinction lends credibility to the near-magical capabilities of American intel-gathering amongst the Al-Qaeda faithful, as well as a useful air of implacability to the resolution of the US gov't, even across administrations.

      So no, I doubt it was a "choice" by anyone, except OBL himself. Good riddance to him.

      --
      -Styopa
  47. Re:Scumbag President(s) by NiceGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like he gave plenty of credit where it was due, and being Commander-in-chief. It WAS his call.

  48. Competence? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Would you then also rate killing three grandchildren and a reformer son of a dictator as "Competence"?

    Just because the military finally managed to finish something Bush started doesn't tell us much about Obama's abilities, contrasted with an action that Obama started and continues and the direct results we see from trying to run a war we dare not declare a war.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  49. Re:Bringing it back up by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry? What exactly did Saddam and Iraq have to do with the 'War on Terror'? I mean, other than pissing off the fundamentalist Muslims even more than before.

  50. War is not for trials by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean, a guy arrested at the scene of a mass shooting, covered in blood and holding an assault rifle, screaming about how the aliens in his head told him to murder all of mankind... still gets a trial.

    Not if he's still shooting when the police, or anyone with a gun, arrive. Then he gets shot.

    OBL and AQ were still planning other operations. Sometimes in the middle of action there is no time for trial. In a real war trials are madness, you cannot fight real bullets with lawyers not matter how many lawyers you have.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:War is not for trials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      In a real war trials are madness, you cannot fight real bullets with lawyers not matter how many lawyers you have.

      Are you kidding? Just send the lawyers in as a shield!

  51. Re:Scumbag President(s) by uglyMood · · Score: 2

    How do you sleep at night?

    --
    "No matter where you go, there you probably are." -- Buckaroo Heisenberg
  52. Re:And watch... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Further, by killing bin Laden rather than capturing him, the US has created a martyr. That's usually a very bad move.

    I could see it going either way. Bin Laden was a charismatic figure head of an ideology. Sometimes death creates a martyr, but more often in history it kills the movement. When it does create a martyr, it is because the movement is rising anyway, like when John Brown's death became a catalyst in the growing abolitionist movement. More often the cause dies quietly, like when Guy Fawkes failed to draw people to the cause of Catholicism.

    In this case, it appears Middle Easterners have largely given up on the political ideas of Bin Laden, and instead have started turning towards democracy as a way out of their problems. It's hard to know public opinion for sure in that region, but there have been many uprisings of people demanding democracy.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  53. Mission Accomplished... by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "They intend to change our values and way of life". Well, they have. Mission Accomplished indeed.

  54. It is helpful too by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    It isn't just a feel good thing, though there is that. It shows that if you are the kind of asshole that stands against civilization, that just wants to kill and create havoc, you'll be tracked down and dealt with. Bin Laden was very much a figurehead and as such there is a lot of symbolism to his death in a capture attempt, rather than of natural causes. It is sort of an extension of "nobody is above the law."

    Also it will hurt the morale of those who follow his line of thinking. Figureheads are powerful things and his downfall will hurt their morale, their commitment.

    Like you said, this won't be the end of anything, but for all that it is more than just nice, it is helpful. I look at his death the same way I look at McVeigh's capture/sentencing: It is a win for civilization. It is society saying "You cannot attack us and just get away with it. We WILL have justice."

  55. Re:Bringing it back up by frosty_tsm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry? What exactly did Saddam and Iraq have to do with the 'War on Terror'? I mean, other than pissing off the fundamentalist Muslims even more than before.

    It was started under the false premise that it was relevant to the War on Terror and the extremists responded. Our soldiers fought terrorists associated with the same terrorists who attacked us.

  56. Re:bye bye bin by c0lo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And all it cost were our civil liberties, national character, and trillions of dollars...

    TFA quote:

    "I met repeatedly with my National Security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located Bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside Pakistan," the president said.

    "Finally, last week I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action and authorized an operation to get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice," he said.

    Nice wording indeed... (I don't decry the assassination of bin Laden by a military/commando squad, just a bit worried this is called "bringing someone to justice")

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  57. What is intresting is the current situation by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Al Queda was not just at war with the west but with many Muslim nations as well. But it is NOT Al Queda (no matter what fox says) that is behind the overthrowing of the corrupt dictatorships in the middle east. Those uprisings have the potential to change the world far more then 9/11 ever did AND for the better. All 9/11 brought the Muslim world was Iraq and Afghanistan on fire and a spreading hatred of Muslims (imagine ten years ago it being MAINSTREAM policy in Europe to close the borders to immigrants AND have headscarf bans in effect or going through legislation in a lot of countries).

    But in less then a year, peaceful protests mercilessly cut down by Muslims leaders have resulted in more change then we have seen in a long time and it is far from over. If Syria errupts (so far there seems to be no sign of armed resistance despite some soldiers having defected) then the turmoil is complete. Saudia Arabia and Iran are far from save then (Saudia has send troops to support an allied dictator in an other region, tying itself to the fate of said dictator, Iran uses Syria as a puppet to support Hamas in its push to destroy Israel).

    This is changing the world. Without Syria, Iran stands very much alone, Hamas would lose its support (why do you think they have changed their tune so fast recently). Saudia Arabia might face some though questioning of not outright revolt... the middle east might never be the same. Of course, it could also turn very very bad (if you believe fox) but lets hope not shall we (so far Egypt is stable and shows no sign of sliding into a muslim extremist nation despite what fox claimed).

    I think it is very significant that all of this happened without Al Queda at all. Bloody attacks, no change. Peaceful uprisings, the world may never be the same.

    Bin Laden is dead, the path of Martin Luther King jr and Gandhi seem to get the best results. Who would have thought.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  58. Re:bye bye bin by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    As someone pointed out on the news: This comes just in time for the 10-year memorial ceremonies. Close enough to tie-in a few months from now, but early enough that it doesn't overshadow the ceremonies themselves. ie, they've known where he was for a while and just now struck.

  59. Re:Scumbag President(s) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    > I bet that next we'll have a queer

    Been there, done it, airbrushed his boyfriend "Miss Nancy" from the official US Archives a hundred years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan

  60. Re:Wasn't he already reported dead? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    Benazir Bhutto also said that Osama Bin Laden had been assassinated by some named Afghan warlord. She was assassinated shortly after. Also, OBL then started releasing only audio taped messages (harder to verify than video). To me, this was a certain sign that OBL was actually dead. I've been saying that for years now. Current events prove me wrong.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  61. Celebratory gunfire by l00sr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In downtown Austin, Texas, in the time since the story broke I've heard what sound like numerous celebratory gunshots.

    What better way to celebrate the death of a terrorist, than with a potentially deadly act of random violence!

  62. Body in US Hands by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

    Ah, so THAT'S where he was hiding!

  63. Re:Terrorists who were trained in Afghanistan by A by Col+Bat+Guano · · Score: 4, Informative

    Saddam Hussein didn't like Al Quidea - it's very, very unlikely that he would have had anything to do with them at all. AQ moved into Iraq filling the power vacuum when the government fell.

  64. What a day by slasho81 · · Score: 2

    First they found the flight recorder of Air France 447 on the bottom of the freaking ocean, and then they found Osama bin Laden. Are the planets in the solar system aligned or something? Now if only I could find my car keys...

  65. Bush Sr's war was popular, economy did him in by perpenso · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The reality was that the president wanted personal revenge because he blamed Saddam for Daddy losing out on a second term ...

    Uh, no, Ross Perot was to blame for that. :-) The Gulf War was popular and considered well executed. It was the economy that did Bush Sr in, not anything to do with the war. The revenge against Saddam angle would hypothetically be for the attempt to assassinate Bush Sr when he visited the middle east after his presidency.

    The true reality of the situation was that Saddam tried to hide the fact that he no longer possessed WMD. He wanted others, in particular Iran, to think he may still have them. Saddam feared appearing weak. He admitted this under US interrogation. And no there was no water boarding, it was the effective type of interrogation - long term contact, establish a relationship, use psychology, etc. National Geographic had a pretty interesting documentary about Saddam's interrogation.

  66. I bet Bin Laden regrets allowing his iPhone app to by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

    I bet Bin Laden regrets allowing his iPhone app to "use his current location".

    Not my joke. Saw it on Yahoo. Had to share it.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  67. Re:Competence by Dave+Emami · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bullshit. Bush diverted most of our military to a pointless fight in Iraq, and unsurprisingly we never caught Bin Laden. Obama set finding Bin Laden as our top goal in the region, and we found him in a little over two years.

    Nonsense. Military/intel forces are not interchangeable. Except for the actual take-down, getting Bin Laden was a surveillance/analysis problem, not a mass force problem. Taking everything we had in Iraq and throwing it at the task would not have helped, except perhaps for things like UAVs which were not in short supply anyway. A large chunk of the man-hours spent in finding him were probably put in by intelligence people here in the US, going over the data and putting pieces together.

    Remember, Bin Laden was found in Pakistan, and has probably been there for most of the decade. Pakistan has been very upset just with the pinprick drone strikes we've been doing. Are you seriously suggesting that Bush should have attempted to get Bin Laden by taking the forces used in Operation Iraqi Freedom -- large formations of tanks, infantry, artillery, presaged by massive airstrikes -- and instead directing them at a confirmed nuclear-armed Pakistan? Because when you blame the how long it took to capture Bin Laden on Bush invading Iraq, that's the alternative you're implying.

    If you oppose the war in Iraq, fine, there are valid reasons for doing so, but saying that it delayed Bin Laden's capture is ridiculous.

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  68. Re:Bringing it back up by suso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Young Georgie had to get revenge because Saddam made his daddy look bad

  69. Re:Terrorists who were trained in Afghanistan by A by Kagura · · Score: 4, Informative

    Al Qaida did not move into Iraq. Very, very few fighters from Al Qaida or the Taliban operating in Afghanistan or Pakistan made it to Iraq to fight, since they already had infidels to fight. Abu Musab al-Zaraqi renamed his group "Al Qaida in Iraq" and had direct correspondence with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, but they quickly split due to ideological differences. Long story short, there is no current connection between the two groups "Al Qaida" and "Al Qaida in Iraq", and there hasn't been since 2006 at the latest. Be careful which term you use.

  70. Looks like President Obama issued these commands by anurup · · Score: 2

    chmod +x /bin/laden
    rm -f /bin/laden

  71. Re:But nothing will change by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    It disgusts me whenever someone says the world changed after 9-11 and we had to take the actions we took. Even If a 9-11 size event is the price of living with the civil liberties so precious to me, then I am willing to accept the risk of living in such a country.

    We get ten times as many fatalities from traffic accidents every year , and look how loud people scream if they have to pay for a new mandatory safety device when they go shopping for a new car.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  72. Re:Scumbag President(s) by VanGarrett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In chief, specific freedoms regarding privacy. Most of that weight is distributed across the Patriot Act and airport security measures. While I haven't heard a lot of complaining about the Patriot Act in quite some time, the what the TSA has been up to in the last two years or so could possibly be regarded as unreasonable search and seizure. Most of this goes unnoticed in the daily lives of a large swathe of the American population, but it's there, to be sure.

  73. As a Muslim by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am a Muslim, and I'm so happy they finally nailed this creep.
    He's killed thousands of Americans, including many Muslims in my community who worked in lower Manhattan. 9/11 even destroyed the local mosque at the Towers.

    Bin Laden was never a Muslim leader, back in the 1990s Muslim leaders spoke out against him and called for his capture, after his involvement in bombing of US embassies. Even his "spiritual leader" told the press that Bin Laden is not qualified to speak for Islam and he had no training to make rulings or give fatwas.

    God's gonna judge him, and I hope He gives Bin Laden what he deserves, for the misery he's put Muslims worldwide through, and for disgracing Islam and the millions of peaceful patriotic law-abiding American Muslims.

  74. Re:bye bye bin by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IIRC he was suffering from failing kidneys in the late 90s, so unless they had dialysis machines in the caves I smell something fishy my own self. Personally I want to see the body. if we killed him there is a body, yes? let's see it.

    Personally I think it is more likely he has been dead since 03 (after that you'll notice the only vids you got was his picture and a voice) and we probably just now found the body. Since there is no way in hell the military is gonna go "hey guess what?" and admit the guy had been DOA all that time and we were having our collective chains yanked, you shoot the body full of holes and say "got him!".

    So I want to see the body, it ought to be pretty easy to tell if the corpse is fresh or moldy.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  75. Re:Bringing it back up by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing at all.

    The real question is why did you wait nearly a decade to question this?

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  76. Re:bye bye bin by symbolset · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, for once could we let the partisan crap go? A bad guy is dead. That's cause for celebration. It's not an invitation for every partisan whackjob to whip out his pecker and start pissing all over everything.

    We all know the drunk uncle who has to be invited to the wedding, but who can be counted upon to leave the reception cuffed in a squadcar. For today, could you try not to be him?

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  77. TSA by gd2shoe · · Score: 2

    ...do you really think the TSA's antics have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Other than using the attacks as an excuse.

    Uh, yes.

    It's security theater. It's an inept attempt to reassure a panicky populace with an emotion driven response. I really don't think the TSA wanted the headache. They would much rather pretend there wasn't a problem at all (sort of what they're doing anyways).

    Wiretapping (etc) on the other hand, is a different ball game. There are arguments for FBI, border patrol, et al. wanting more power. I don't generally subscribe to such theories, but I'm sure there's at least some truth to it.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  78. Well two things by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) In war, the same rules don't apply. There are rules, but they are different. For the "world rules of war" you can see the Geneva Conventions, though that doesn't cover everything and indeed fighters like bin Laden that do not wear a uniform and attempt to disguise themselves as civilians aren't covered by many of the protections. For more specific US rules you can see the Rules of Engagement. Regardless, wartime rules are different than peacetime rules. You don't have to agree with that idea, but you can't very well claim it isn't how it works, it has been that way in every nation for basically all of history and is codified in national and international law.

    2) To get your chance at a fair trial, you have to not shoot the people that come to get you. Apparently there was a firefight and it was one that bin Laden and his people lost. You shoot at troops, or at police, they'll shoot back. They take the Malcom Renoylds advice to heart: "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" This is true in the civilian/police world as well. If the police come to arrest you for a crime and you and your body guards open fire on them, they'll fire back. They'll then bring in more heavily armed police, and if you keep shooting, they'll eventually kill you. You want your fair trial you need to surrender.

    You'll notice that Saddam Hussein did surrender to US forces when found and he was brought in alive. He was either unarmed or threw down his weapons and surrendered. Per the rules of war, he was then captured and not killed. He got his trial, which of course did not end well for him.

    You can't honestly say that US troops should have just sat there, gotten shot, and not shot back can you? You really think that they could or should be given the order "Go in and capture everyone alive, no matter what. Doesn't matter how many of you die, no lethal force, just keep going in until they run out of bullets and you can take them alive." Hell no, if they got fired on, they had a right to fire back and the idea that you can shoot someone to knock the gun out of their hand is pure action movie BS. You shoot to kill.

    1. Re:Well two things by Sasayaki · · Score: 2

      A very good point well made. Of course, I expect that at some point, if he's putting up a determined fight (and, presumably, aims to kill himself before being caught) capturing him alive just isn't going to happen.

      What the article is unclear about and what nobody knows at this stage, is if he indeed went down fighting, or the US troops burst in and riddled him full of holes. Unfortunately, my faith in the ethical behavior of the US military over the last decade has been substantively eroded to the point where I just assume that's what happened until explicitly proven otherwise.

      Even then, the target was extraordinarily important, high profile, and a known location (which was, granted, quite the defensible site). Someone who presumably had a great deal of military intelligence to give. Siege him in. Surround the place with snipers and pick off his guards one by one. Tear gas the place, for hours if necessary, until he comes out. Use knockout gas if you think he's going to off himself. Cut the power and wait until they starve. Play extraordinarily loud music (175db) all hours of the day and night, punctuated by the occasional grenade and low-altitude F-22 flyby, until he surrenders. That's just all off the top of my head.

      There are ways to get people out of houses without storming it.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    2. Re:Well two things by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would Pakistan allow that?

      Remember that this was not the US operating in the US, they were operating in a foreign country, one who's citizens are not precisely US fans. While it sounds like Pakistan signed off on the raid I'm betting it was a tacit agreement, a sort of "Well we can't actually support this but for some reason there will be no police and military in that area that night and our radar operators will act like they work for the FAA and be asleep on the job."

      A long siege would require direct Pakistani involvement. At the least, they'd have to provide security to keep the populace away from the US forces, and they might well have to execute the operation themselves.

      If he had been hiding out in the woods in Colorado, sure then I'd say this is the way to handle it. Send in the police and siege him till he gives up. Hell, treat him like a common criminal, don't give him the status of being someone who the military goes after. He's not a fighter he's a thug. However that wasn't the case. He was in Pakistan, a country with all kinds of problems when it comes to this. You do what you can do to get his ass, dead or alive.

      Also at this point I'm not sure his intelligence is of all that much value. He had been a figurehead for a long time, not a field commander. That still means getting him is important, figureheads matter or we'd not have them, but it means that any information he might have is not as useful as it once was.

      I'm not saying that taking him alive wouldn't have been better, but I'm realistic about the chances of that. I'm sure the orders were not "And he must be taken alive!" as that would be silly. More likely it was "And take him alive if it is reasonably practical."

    3. Re:Well two things by metacell · · Score: 2

      There's only one problem with that argument - THIS IS NOT A WAR.

      Calling it a "war on terror" is just a rhetorical device - it's not a war in the sense of the Geneva convention. A war is an armed conflict between states; this is an armed conflict between a state (USA) and a number of individuals (the terrorists). That means criminal law applies, not martial law.

    4. Re:Well two things by metacell · · Score: 2

      Not true. First, Pakistani laws apply to all actions perpetrated on Pakistani soil, regardless of who perpetrates them. I think you know this already - after all, if someone visits YOUR country, wouldn't you expect them to be bound by your laws?

      Second, laws which restrict the actions of government generally apply to everything the government does, regardless of where they do it. For example, if the government is not allowed to assassinate a head of state, it doesn't automatically become allowed because you step outside the borders of the country. The US constitution contains no exception for actions the government perpetrates on foreign territory. If anything, actions are *more* restricted on foreign territory - for example, the government is not allowed to land troops on foreign soil without consent from Congress.

      Third, the US constitution clearly talks about the rights of "people", not "citizens". Where it means "citiizen" (for example, who's allowed to run for President), it clearly states so. A foreigner visiting USA has the same constitutional rights to due process as any citizen. Which is the very least you can ask - a country which denies basic human rights to foreign visitors would be despicable.

      Fourth, international law grants each country sovereignty over its own territory. Sending troops into a foreign country without its consent could constitute an act of war.

      Fifth, there are international agreements covering terrorism - they outline, among other things, who is considered a terrorist, and what countries are required to do to assist in apprehending terrorists.

  79. Re:Wasn't he already reported dead? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the audio tapes were more because he had a close call due to video, and the US was dumb enough to talk about it on TV. I can't find a link to it but there was a new segment where they were talking about all the things they could glean from these video messages. My bet is bin Laden (or his security guy) said "Oh shit! So that's how they've come so close! No more video then, audio only."

  80. Re:bye bye bin by pspahn · · Score: 2

    I think this is justice. We went to go get him, and a firefight broke out. He died.

    What, should we have dicked around with UN proceedings for months, if not years, to determine that after all that, it wasn't even him that was responsible? Or that his capture was all under false pretenses?

    I think the world has waited long enough. Before 9/11, everyone in the world was happy and complacent about many things. Now we have to worry about sleeper cells, dirty bombs, IEDs, etc etc, and it's all because he decided to flying some fucking airliners into skyscrapers.

    Screw that guy, he had to go and wake a sleeping giant.

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  81. Doesn't matter who the leaders are really by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I seriously doubt that the leaders are religious fanatics.

    The beliefs of the leaders are totally irrelevant, since the FOLLOWERS are religious fanatics.

    Remember it's the leader who is dead, so only the opinions of the followers matter. And as stated, they believe he has gone on to paradise so on the surface they will not care what you do to him.

    But who will? Religious moderates thinking more of human dignity than religion, and those people would be angered by "wrapping him in bacon". That is exactly the kind of thing that makes the whole thing worse.

    I say cremation and ashes sent into the sun, to literally send him to hell (and avoid any place on earth that could become a place of worship). Moderates can't really disagree with the sentiment and it could possibly un-nerve the followers.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Doesn't matter who the leaders are really by tsa · · Score: 2

      I think if you want to be a good religious leader you need to be an atheist. Only then can you come up with reasons that are ridiculous enough for the believers to believe they fight for a 'good cause' and make them reach your goal while you sit in your fancy house, paid by brainless followers, and watch them toil for you.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  82. Re:You just proved his point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings alone took 150k-246k (mostly civilian) lives.
    But this is a lost battle for me, so believe what you want to believe. Just the fact people need to discuss who kills more innocents should be enough to show neither side has much regard for human life.

  83. Formalities by 200_success · · Score: 2

    It's hardly fair to fuss over what they are wearing, when the US didn't even bother to declare war.

    1. Re:Formalities by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who precisely are we supposed to declare war on? You declare wars on countries. Even when it was running Afghanistan, the Taliban wasn't even running the whole country and it had almost no recognition anywhere.

      Declarations of war are courtesies between nation-states who maintain diplomatic relations and who actually attempt to negotiate with one another in good faith. For terrorist groups, you either ask the country that they are sheltering in to get them, or you ask permission to get them yourselves, if they can't pull it off. If there is no government, you just go and get them.

      The OP point is still valid. These guys don't wear uniforms. If there was a government that could handle actual law enforcement, we probably would ask Afghan law enforcement to arrest them and turn them over. As it stands, the very idea of that is currently a bad joke and will be until we secure the country and the Afghans figure out how to not be corrupt and borderline useless in running their own country.

      Killing civilians is a terrible thing, but the reason that they are dying is the one of the reasons that terrorists are so awful, even to their own people. Uniforms are worn so that the enemy knows who is fighting them, and who is not. If they did wear uniforms, and acted in an manner that followed various conventions and laws of war, they would probably be treated better when captured, and fewer of their own civilians would be killed.

      Of course saying that the killed civilians are "their" civilians isn't even true. The terrorists don't care about anyone outside their own group. Their neighbors are just human meat shields for them. If those same meat shields were not ignorant of the Taliban or al Queda's true nature, they probably wouldn't have the sympathy for the terrorist groups that they do. In the end, there are probably more people alive today, despite the collateral damage, than there would be if people like the Taliban were allowed to keep running their own little patch of Hell. Neighbors are much more efficient at killing civilians than any military. Just look at some of the places we haven't launched Hellfire missiles in, like Sudan or Rwanda.

    2. Re:Formalities by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The problem I have is that we don't ask if the civilian population wants something or not first, we just assume they do because it fits our idea of freedom and the way a nation should be run (democracy) and do it. That tends to result in a lot more people being killed than if the revolution came from the people themselves. The current revolutions in the middle-east are good examples of how it should be done. Yeah, people are dying, but a) we didn't kill them and b) when it is all over and done with they will build a democracy based on their own ideals and care enough to preserve it.

      Democracy in Afghanistan is a joke. There is widespread fraud, more than half the population just votes for whoever their local imam tells them to and that Taliban's authoritarian system of government seems to be attractive to many. We can't just invade and say "congrats, you are now a democracy and are free" - the people have to want it, they have to create it and understand it in the context of their own history.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  84. EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN IS DEAD by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    Does that mean the TSA can go home, now?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  85. Re:Scumbag President(s) by Kagura · · Score: 2
  86. Re:bye bye bin by cculianu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The giant was not sleeping. What reality are you living in? Or do you like to cling to this fantasy because it helps you think that you are on the side of right and justice? It's pretty convenient to believe that because it avoids a lot of cognitive dissonance.

    The reality is more like the giant was hard at work sticking its thumbs in everyone else's pie. An example would be the very fact that Bin Laden was armed and trained by the USA back in the 80s when Bin Laden was a good guy because he was fighting the russkies for us. That's just 1 pie. There are probably 50 others you can use as an example for that period or after.

    Nope, the giant's been pretty busy at work being an imperialist bastard.

    The only difference between "terror" and justice or liberation or whatever misleading labels the propaganda industry uses on death and killing is who is committing it. When we do it, it's "liberation" or "intervention" or whatever and when they do it, it's terror.

  87. Re:bye bye bin by c0lo · · Score: 2

    I think this is justice. We went to go get him, and a firefight broke out. He died.

    Somehow I doubt the normal course of justice was observer in the process (police force, with proper arrest warrant, respecting the jurisdiction, etc).

    What, should we have dicked around with UN proceedings for months, if not years, to determine that after all that, it wasn't even him that was responsible? Or that his capture was all under false pretenses?

    Now, look... I fully understand argumentations along the line of "an act in the war theater, act that happened during the War against Terror".
    The real danger, however, is to call justice what essentially is an act of war. This is a slippery slope... GITMO/Abu Ghraib showed where stepping down on this path actually leads.

    In regards with "UN proceedings... months if not years...".
    Buddy, you know, US isn't the only country to ever have had problems with terrorism: ETA in Spain killed more than 2000, IRA in UK killed more than 3000 people - this even letting aside the Lockerbie bombing (to speak about transnational terrorism). By comparison 9/11 claimed about 1600.
    However, neither of these countries didn't amend - i.e. get around their justice system, see the PATRIOT act and related - in order to deal with terrorism.

    Please, don't think I'm decrying the killing of ObL.... it is only that I refuse to think of this act as justice.
    And, for the sake of the world you and your children will have to live: call it "eliminating a threat", call it "war on terror", call it vengeance, call it in any way you like but do... not... call... it... justice.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  88. Ah, the Buddhist by symbolset · · Score: 2

    I respect your point of view. It's not going to stop me from tapping this keg.

    Every death diminishes all mankind, but the death of a man who plots the death of others in every waking hour? It's a smaller loss. I am diminished less by the loss of him than by his presence. He is the person who lightens a room by leaving it.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  89. No by symbolset · · Score: 2

    To surrender your rights you need only show up at the polling station and vote for one of the provided options.

    To win back surrendered rights requires quite a bit more.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  90. Re:and here come... by fnj · · Score: 2

    Killing a murderous criminal in the act of resisting arrest using deadly force is hardly assassination. Your attempt to draw the parallel is ludicrous. Bin Laden was hardly a political leader. As to your conspiracy leader, you failed to present it a comprehensible manner, so I'll pass on that.

  91. Re:Scumbag President(s) by Lundse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right to a fair trial (Guantanamo detainees).
    Right to privacy (wiretapping).
    Right to travel (indiscriminate no-fly listing).
    The right of congress, not the president, to declare war (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - congress' own damn fault for signing this one away, still illegal though).

    --
    IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
  92. Re:You're joking, but that's exactly how Russians by 21mhz · · Score: 2

    Really? Being a Russian national, I hear quite a few things on what our counter-terrorist forces do, good and bad alike. I never heard of purposeful desecration in the way you describe. Basically, they draw the line at "bury them in unmarked graves".

    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  93. Re:bye bye bin by dave420 · · Score: 2

    You're not allowed to parade corpses around on TV - that's a violation of the Geneva convention, and not to mention fucking retarded.

  94. Re:bye bye bin by icebraining · · Score: 2

    If he died of natural causes, I think the US troops would never see his body again. Al-qaeda leaders would have disposed it (by cremation, possibly) to keep the threat alive.

  95. Re:Bringing it back up by Fjandr · · Score: 2

    It's unlikely this is the first time said poster has asked that question.

  96. The Nobel Committee Called ... by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    Mr. President, they'd like their Peace Prize back. Now.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  97. Pics, or it didn't happen. by Loosifur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, here's the problem. Let's say that there actually was a successful raid which led to the killing of bin Laden.

    First, the body was buried at sea, according to the US military, which means there's no proof he's actually dead. In other words, he's going to turn into the Elvis of Islamic terrorism. Either there is a conspiracy, and he's not dead, or conspiracy theorists will claim that he's still alive somewhere. We live in a world where (some) people believe that the President of the United States forged his own birth certificate with the collusion of the state of Hawaii; you think a 19-year-old terrorist recruit in Whatthefuckistan is gonna just take the word of the United States government that the leader of Al Qaeda was buried at sea?

    Second, I guarantee that within two days a new bin Laden tape will be released. The guy had less value as a strategist than he did as a symbol, and I'll bet that there are pre-recorded tapes yet unreleased, and that there will be audio tapes with a "voice purported to be Osama bin Laden". Probably talking up Ayman al-Zawahiri as the operational leader of AQ.

    Third, while there is potent symbolism for the West in killing bin Laden, keep in mind that he headed an organization which advocated suicide bombing as a tactic. Bin Laden's death is going to make him a martyr in the world of radical Islamic terror. While there may not be a single figure that can replace him right now, there are plenty of other affiliated groups, with plenty of other members, and a successful attack can be planned and carried out by an uncharismatic moron just as easily. For that matter, an unsuccessful attack can have a significant impact, too. Ask Richard Reed.

    Fourth, to the West, this looks like the USA is still the baddest motherfucker around, and we always get our man. To people who live in Pakistan, the Middle East, and other, non-Western places, this looks like the only superpower in the world spent ten years and billions of dollars to kill one guy who pissed it off, in a campaign culminating in the use of clandestine intelligence and spec ops, in someone else's country. How's that for international diplomacy?

    I'm not saying I'm sad the guy's dead, because I'm not. I think it's great. I just wish he'd gotten hit by a truck, or ate some bad dates or something. I have a strong feeling that this is not going to make our lives any easier.

    --
    This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
    1. Re:Pics, or it didn't happen. by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      I see your points, but:

      "First, the body was buried at sea, according to the US military, which means there's no proof he's actually dead. "
      Fact is, people still vehemently deny we went to the moon. It's inarguable that even if they'd had an AL JAZZERA camera team rolling with them, filming everything, and keeping the camera on OBL's face/body from the moment he was spotted, to his killing, to the dragging of his corpse onto a ship and dumping into the sea...conspiracy theorists would STILL question it. Forever. And produce reams of evidence "proving" he's still alive.

      "Second, I guarantee that within two days a new bin Laden tape will be released.
      True. See my point above. Personally, I thought he'd been dead for years and this already was going on. I guess, by some people's standards, I may still be right! LOL

      "Third, while there is potent symbolism for the West in killing bin Laden, keep in mind that he headed an organization which advocated suicide bombing as a tactic. Bin Laden's death is going to make him a martyr in the world of radical Islamic terror."
      So wait, they haven't ALREADY been desperately trying to attack the west for the past 10 (or actually, 18) years? Not sure how that's going to change. If they get a little more suicidal, that's great. Maybe we can outstrip their birthrate.

      "Fourth, to the West, this looks like the USA is still the baddest motherfucker around, and we always get our man. To people who live in Pakistan, the Middle East, and other, non-Western places, this looks like the only superpower in the world spent ten years and billions of dollars to kill one guy who pissed it off, in a campaign culminating in the use of clandestine intelligence and spec ops, in someone else's country. How's that for international diplomacy?"
      If there's one place in the world that appreciates an implacable and unreasoning sense of vengeance, it's the MidEast. Hell, that's possibly the only part of our foreign policy they GET..

      --
      -Styopa
  98. Wrong. CIA had no involvement with bin Laden. by rjh · · Score: 2

    You know, I feel a little dirty responding to what is so obviously a troll, but what the hell:

    When you say, This guy was on the CIA payroll, well, there you're saying things that just aren't true. Bin Laden's group was never funded by the CIA (check the bottom of page three at that link, going on to page four). Why would they need CIA funding? Bin Laden himself was wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of any mujahideen. And given the money to the Afghan mujahideen was all routed through Pakistan, why would they give money to a Saudi? Etc., etc. The meme of "the CIA funded bin Laden!" is one of these things that's just so idiotic it doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny and yet the folk myth simply will not die.

    If you want your political views to be taken seriously by people, I would suggest revising your evangelism. This kind of talk will not convince people to listen to you: it will convince people you should not be listened to.

    How you got modded +5, I have no idea.

  99. Re:bye bye bin by cculianu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bin laden was never trained or funded by the US in the 80's.

    That's pretty much not true. Bin Laden, while he did use his own funds as well, was a Mujahadeen leader and it's pretty well established that the Mujahadeen were given vast sums of money and arms to fight the Russians (indirectly via Pakistan).

    Google around to see that lots of people agree Bin Laden was a CIA asset at one point. That fact is politically embarrassing but plainly true.

    Also, I stand by my definition that the weapon of the US government is terrorism. It's just not called that when they do it. They sometimes call it liberation or exporting democracy. (which is pretty ridiculous but what's more ridiculous is that the population buys it).

  100. DNF by drej · · Score: 2

    Another thing to add to the long list of "Things that took less time than Duke Nukem Forever".

  101. Re:bye bye bin by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Get a grip man! A mortal enemy of western civilization and all the good things it stands for is dead

    Dick Cheney died?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  102. Re:User or System? by Majin+Bubu · · Score: 2

    It's rm -rf /bin/laden actually.

    --
    Ander

    @=

  103. Re:the day the terror died by duguk · · Score: 2

    previous announcements on may 1 have been about the ending of some form of human terror, or the beginning of a new more insidious kind.

    on May 1: 2010- the death of OBL announced.

    Interesting, but you know it's 2011, not 2010 right?

  104. Guilty plea by JSBiff · · Score: 2

    The guy took credit for the Sept 11 attacks. For 9 years. That sounds like a guilty plea to me. You don't get a trial if you plead guilty.

  105. Re:It probably would have been better... by JSBiff · · Score: 2

    Yeah. Blame us for helping Afghanistan fend off the Soviets. That was terrible of us. Just terrible. Obviously we're just getting our "just desserts".

    You can only do, in any situation, what would reasonably seem the right thing at that time. You can never, ever know the entire outcome of every action you take. The thing you can try to decide is, "Is this the RIGHT" thing to do?

    Help Afghanistan fight off the Soviets was the right thing to do, just as helping the Libyans fight off Qaddafi is the right thing to do. But, it's entirely possible that in helping the Libyans, that some terrorist will rise from their ranks in the future and attack America. We shouldn't let that stop us from doing the right thing.

  106. Re:Scumbag President(s) by cavreader · · Score: 2

    BS. You are free to speak and protest anything you like any where you like. These free speech zones are setup to make sure that organized protests do not obstruct the actions being protested. The people being protested against have the same right as those doing the protesting. You say "habeus corpus" is gone and then turn right around and admit it is still there. How do you reconcile your complaints using totally false statements that you yourself admit are false? Eminient domain has been around since the county was founded so if you have a problem with it go protest against it but don't try and associate it with losing your "rights".

  107. Re:Terrorists who were trained in Afghanistan by A by Big+Smirk · · Score: 2

    lIt's a matter of finding what is reasonable and what actually works, something I think they are a long way from yet. It's the right focus but totally the wrong technique.

    I would argue it is in fact the wrong focus. It is focusing on millions of innocent travelers. Lets put it another way. With all the bomb detecting and gun detecting technology employed, how many terrorists were caught... ever? How many terrorist bombs were detected?... ever?

    zero.

    Of the terrorist that were actually stopped, it was done by passengers!

    --
    TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
  108. Re:Scumbag President(s) by vell0cet · · Score: 2

    Do you french kiss your mother with that mouth?

    He calls it a "freedom kiss"

  109. All he ever wanted. by Combatso · · Score: 2

    Al he wanted was a Pepsi.... just one Pepsi... and you wouldn't give it to him