Writer Erin O'Brien comments on all things human.
Hopefully, but, I had heard on our news that high alert may be in effect...
My fingers are crossed.
Are you serious? Not even an little bit satisfied? Not just a little, yeah!? I thought he was already dead. I'm glad he's gone. I think he deserves the shitbag label and that place in hell, more than Donald.
I firmly believe that if you're going to grin at another man's death, you better make sure no one's looking. And if you mutter "good riddance," do it under your breath and with a solemn face. I don't care how despicable he was. Karma.Don't like hearing it from me? Dig you some Mark Twain: "I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."
Hitler. Yay! Pol Pot. Yay! Mother Teresa. Boo!
This is a big so what. We're still in Afghanistan with no signs of ever leaving.
This comment struck me as apt:"There are deaths that I will never mourn. But I don't think that there is a death that I will celebrate. This isn't a person. This is a movement. It's not over...no matter how much we wish it were." - Doria Biddle
I always knew we were kindred spirits.May your soul always stay pure and your wine glass always full.
"It's OK to wish a man to rot in hell but just don't celebrate when he begins his journey." Bill, 2011Great guotes of hypocrisy.
Still not happy, Bill? Then here's a compromise: don't start your celebration of OBL's demise until you can board an airplane without taking off your shoes.
I am uncomfortable celebrating any man's death, even if he was a mass murderer. But, I have to be honest - the world is a tad better off without him.Just a tad, because as Erin points out, you still have to take your shoes off (and possibly get felt up) in order to board a plane. In fact, the terror level could increase as a result of this as there is speculation that there could be retaliatory attacks against US interests, or on the mainland itself. Nevertheless, the man responsible for 3,000 American deaths (and countless others) is gone.I would be dishonest if I didn't say that was a good thing.And The Donald...wow, talk about getting pwned! I think this photo sums it up best:http://imgur.com/3df80.jpg
There is NO WAY, Erin, that terrorism will decrease as a result of Osama's demise. Might even increase for a while. I'm still glad we got him.
I'm glad he's dead. Really glad.As for taking shoes off at the airport, that isn't going to change anytime soon. Why? These people want to kill us (non-believers), period. They will use any method without remorse. The end justifies the means for them. And they will not stop - ever. Is this unfortunate? Yes, but it is also reality.As for retaliatory attacks, that should come as a surprise to no one. These people blame America for everything - I imagine if they stub a toe, it's our fault. They don't need OBL's death as a reason to conduct attacks - they'd do it simply because they want to either subdue all of those who don't believe like they do or kill them. Again, this is unfortunate but also reality.I'm not running around the streets at the moment celebrating OBLs demise. I am however, celebrating it in my own way.AlTRAG
I remember how shocked I was seeing people in Afghanistan cheer in their streets when they heard the news of 9/11. I could not fathom their lack of remorse for another human beings life. I was just as shocked last night when I saw Americans doing the same...granted he was a monster and not 1,000s of innocent people but wow. Just, wow. Also, I fear that all the celebration will only fuel their retaliation.I suppose I am a tad naive...
May this day mark the beginning of the end of it.If only that were possible. Unfortunately, I do not think it will be so. bin Laden was just the angry, glaring head of the Islamofascist pimple, the rest is still filled with pus, I'm afraid.
More like a sigh of relief than a celebration.James Old Guy
Here are the FACTS:"President" Obama didn't get Bin Ladin...The amazing brave men and women of the US Military got Bin Ladin.Yes...this will no doubt be a shot in the arm for Obama's sagging popularity and the lapdogs in the state run media will be making sure he is getting the credit for something he didn't do.OBama's only part in this was to say "yes" to allowing the mission to go forward.And he still isn't a legitimate president because he isn't a natural born citizen.
Dear Lord,You are fucking beautiful.Love,Erin
Drinker: Have you seen any remorse, from anyone, about the blowing up of Ghadaffi's 3 little grandchildren? As far as not celebrating the offing of Osama; add a little bourbon to that sweet tea and give a little cheer.
Bill: Have you seen any legitimate confirmation, from anyone, about that event?
For a thoughtful analysis, always go to Juan Cole. He never disappoints...http://www.juancole.com/2011/05/obama-and-the-end-of-al-qaeda.html
I'm always hearing cries of "They hate us!!!" But nobody seems to notice that we hate them right back...with a vengeance! The hate in this comment section is palpable.Maybe if we didn't hate "them" so much, they wouldn't hate us so much.
@ Dogs - they would still hate us. President Obama went out of his way, especially early in his term to reach out to the Muslim world (remember the speech in Cairo, extending an olive branch to Ahmedinejad in Iran, and visiting the Saudis?). It's done him no good whatsoever. Oil prices are at an all time high, we've had several terrorist attacks attempted, and Iran is still pushing to acquire nuclear weapons. We could try sitting around a campfire, singing kumbaya and making 'smores with these people, and they'd still hate us at the end of the day. Again, they (and by this I mean the people who wish to do us harm) pretty much blame the west for everything - that's been my experience anyway.AlTRAG
Now I want Smores!
I disagree Al.They hate us because of Abu Ghraib.They hate us because of "collateral damage." They hate us because of "The Kill Team."They hate our occupation of their soil in general. If anyone invaded Kentucky or Arizona or Washington state and did any of those things in order to keep a Middle East country "safe," we'd hate them too. We'd bomb, kill and rip them to shreds.
I like how the hillbillies in my neighborhood went outside and shot off their guns after they heard the news. I felt a few synapses die off...
@ Erin - one of the reasons Osama declared war on the US was due to our presence in Saudi Arabia. We left. And he still hated us. So he found other reasons to hate us.Again, even if Abu Ghraib, collateral damage, etc. not happened, they would find another reason to hate the West in general, and the US in particular. What's interesting to me is that instead of working to solve the very real problems countries in that region of the world face, they blame everyone else for their situations. Can't be that they don't fix things themselves, has to be the fault of the west.As for the Arizona/Kentucky/Washington comparison, if a terrorist attack occurs there, we will hunt those responsible down and kill/capture them. And we didn't go to Iraq or Afghanistan (initially, anyway) to keep anyone safe. Afghanistan is a no-brainer - that's where the bad guys were, and where they planned the 9/11 attacks. As for Iraq, as has been discussed here and elsewhere there were lots of reasons given for it. Keeping folks safe came much later. I agree that many view our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as an occupation, and in many respects it was/is. But there is also no denying that we have indeed tried hard to improve things in both countries. Whether it will be appreciated remains to be seen.The Kill Team - if you read about the "ringleader" of the team, and especially the E4 that eventually got busted for it, both come from less than stellar backgrounds. What they did is inexcusable, but it pales in comparison to what the bad guys do when they capture one of ours. I can't go into detail, but trust me, it's not pretty. As for the "kill team," they are being brought to account by our Army, as they should be. I hope they lock them up and throw away the key. Yes, we have killed innocents, but unfortunately it happens in war. I can tell you with some confidence that we go to huge lengths to limit collateral damage. Huge. We, unlike our adversaries at least attempt to minimize civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. The other guys don't even try. As I said previously, the end justifies the means. Today I read that the Taliban used a 12 year old kid in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan - a 12 year old kid. How do you reason with people who would do that? The answer is you don't.@ Kirk: The mission still goes on. If you think Al Qaeda and affiliated groups are going away now that OBL is gone, think again. This, unfortunately, will go on for a very, very long time.AlTRAG
I'm late to the dance and have benefit of all the other quotes but my interpretation is that there are no winners in war. I can sorta kinda get my brain around old time territorial conflicts like in Medieval times or maybe ancient tribal cultures when they bashed each other with fists and clubs but in this day and age I find it hard to believe the death of any human in violent conflict serves our species in a positive way.Let there be Peace on Earth and let it begin with me.RJ
A little something from Reverend King:I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that"~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Have you been over to Velociman's page? It seems that you two are...almost...in agreement on this one. Rare, indeed.
Erin: No. I haven't seen a confirmation about those killings from NATO or our government. No denials though.Hey y'all! You can't turn the other cheek if you've been decapitated.
Let's see the President's adviser brought him a number of scenarios and he chose the one he thought best. He gave the order to go. Yet he had nothing to do with it? I bet if the mission had failed there would be plenty of people blaming the president! He is the Commander In Chief...he is in charge! He did what Bush/Cheney stopped trying to do. Remember when Bush said he didn't care about him.Sorry Lord Basil, you are a little behind the times, with your lies. The President has shown his long form Birth Certificate. Your side has now transition to the lie that he faked his school records. You need to update your Teapublican talking points.
Good Lord, I need to remind myself if Basil has commented, I need to move to the next post.
"Let's see the President's adviser brought him a number of scenarios and he chose the one he thought best. He gave the order to go. Yet he had nothing to do with it? I bet if the mission had failed there would be plenty of people blaming the president! He is the Commander In Chief...he is in charge! He did what Bush/Cheney stopped trying to do. Remember when Bush said he didn't care about him."Of course his advisors brought him a number of scenarios and options - that's what they get paid to do. They most likely recommended sending in SEAL Team 6 because they absolutely had to verify for certain that it was indeed Bin Laden. My guess is that Obama saw the wisdom of such a course of action and ordered it to be executed. You are correct that had it failed Obama would have been blamed. However, that comes with the job. Personally, I give him kudos for ordering the strike. But I give more kudos to the brave Sailors/Soldiers (the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, any Army component of the Army's Special Operations Command flew the helicopters) who executed the raid.Finally, keep in mind that the intelligence operations that made this strike possible began under Bush/Cheney. There would be no strike if that had not happened, period. Equal credit IMHO goes to both Presidents Bush and Obama for not taking their eyes off the ball. And make no mistake, had Bush had this level of detailed intelligence, he would have done the same thing. The fact is we didn't learn about Bin Laden's courier until 2007, and we didn't identify where he was living until last August, which led us to Bin Laden. Once we knew that, the focus was on that compound, and the rest is history as they say.Bush may have said he didn't care about Bin Laden, but I think that was bravado. Of course he cared about getting Bin Laden - he just didn't have the information at the time to act on it. Fortunately, Obama did and ordered in SEAL Team 6. The world is a better place with OBL gone as a result. I think we can all agree on that point.AlTRAG
Ms. amanda @ 8:13-this quote is not entirely Dr. King's. See Megan McCardle's post in Atlantic Monthly for an explanation of how it was mangled via twitter-Mike R
Something that isn't often remarked on is how utterly Bin Laden failed; the aim of 9/11 was to further the creation of a universal Islamic theocracy like Iran. The reality was that his actions led to the dismantling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which he supported, and the establishment of democracy there and in Iraq, which he opposed as a form of heresy. He did not destroy western civilization, if anything, he provided a unifying focus that had been missing since the cold war ended. Furthermore, his belief in violence as a method to achieve political change has been completely invalidated by the removal of dictators in Egypt and Tunisia by peaceful protest.Bin Laden's legacy is the complete failure of violent Islam and that is something worth celebrating.
Memo to Erin, Do you suppose the individual using the nom de keyboard "Lord Basil" is any relation to late-60's early 70's Atlantic recording artist Screaming Lord Sutch? (google it-I'm not making it up)It would explain a lot.-Mike R XXOO
:) Caught my mistake later in the day! I'm choosing to call it a mash-up.It's a great collaboration.
"Finally, keep in mind that the intelligence operations that made this strike possible began under Bush/Cheney." TRAG Not really challenging you Al but posted this because I can't help but wonder if bin Laden hadn't "worn out his welcome" as we say and someone in Pakistan/Saudi Arabia figured it was time to flip him and get what was likely the best value they were going to get. al Qaeda, in spite of Western reports to the contrary, hasn't really had a role in the "Arab Spring" liberation movements. This line of thought being discussed on Al Jazeera and The Asian Times out of India among others. An interesting alternative narrative.RJ
@ RJ - I've heard/read that sentiment as well. Whether it is true or not remains to be seen.AlTRAG
The party line for the righties and their response to the fact that Obama is the POTUS that got OBL is simple: credit Dubya and his admin. I turned on FOX last night and Hannity had Rumsfeld on, treating him like he'd stormed the compound himself.It's laughable, really.REALLYBush on OBL: "He's a person who's now been marginalized."
I have a nicer apartment than bin Laden did.$185/month, walking distance to the Lake.Slightly less ammo.God Bless America.
And if the timing of the announcement pre-empting Trump's drivel was happenstance, karma. If it was intentional, hilarious.
Fact, Bush said he didn't care about Bin Laden, in 2002. Fact, Bush dismantled the CIA program specifically looking for Bin Laden, in 2006. Fact, Obama reinstated that program in 2008. Yes, information gathered years ago was used in the mission. Information that was there for Bush to use, but he didn't. Obama chose the plan and gave the order. Our best military team (SEAL Team 6) carried out those orders flawlessly. Maybe Bush shouldn't have dropped the investigation.
Lord Basil = Screaming Lord Sutch, could be. Come on Basil, the truth will set you free! lol!
A few comments, if I may ....There is no debate as to whether the policies initiated by President Bush began the long process by which OBL was dispatched. He approved the use of enhanced interrogation techniques which yielded the first bit of information identifying a trusted courier used by OBL. Had those techniques not been used, it is unclear whether we would have ever gotten it. In the end, we did use them, and we did get the information. President Obama continued these policies for the most part and it led to further intelligence work that ultimately led us to OBL. I think credit to both Presidents and administrations is due.Second, Bush dismantled the office dedicated to searching for Bin Laden due to the fact that Al Qaeda had, by that time, become a much more decentralized organization. In other words, there were multiple targets and cells that required intelligence and other work. It made sense to dismantle that office in response and reorganize it to deal with a changed Al Qaeda hierarchy. Not do to so would have been a waste of assets, and a potential duplication of effort amongst and between US intelligence agencies. I'm not sure what Obama did in 2008 to reconstitute that office, and what they actually did, so I won't comment on it.My guess is that in the coming weeks and months, we will learn more about how the killing of OBL came about, and with that, more information as to who/what agencies did what and when. Until then, I think we would all do well to cease "claiming credit" for OBL's demise. This was a victory for Americans, not Republicans or Democrats.AlTRAG
@ Videodude - "Yes, information gathered years ago was used in the mission. Information that was there for Bush to use, but he didn't."From what I've read and seen reported, we identified the trusted courier by his nom de guerre, Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti, in 2007. However, we could not locate him. Two years ago (2009), we identified the areas in Pakistan in which the courier operated, but couldn't pinpoint exactly where he lived. In August 2010, our intelligence located the courier's residence (Abbottabad) in Pakistan. Given the size and construction of the residence, analysts concluded that the residence housed a high value target. The other events subsequent to August 2010 are now well known, leading up to Bin Laden's death this past Sunday.It's worth noting that despite the best efforts of our intelligence agencies, we didn't learn the name and residence of the courier until four years after we learned his nom de guerre. From what I've seen and read, there are a lot of reasons for this (e.g., not using cellphones, no use of internet, etc.). I'm not privy to the methods used to finally locate the courier and ultimately Bin Laden, but I do know that intelligence analysis is painstaking work. It doesn't surprise me in the least that it took as long as it did to find and kill Bin Laden.To infer that Bush had the information he needed (he didn't, as outlined above) to "use" and capture/kill Bin Laden but didn't is being a bit unfair, I think. Had the same information available to President Obama been available to President Bush at any time during his presidency, I have no doubt he would have acted as President Obama did.AlTRAG
I have become privy, through tightly controlled channels, to a conversation reported by an anonymous Navy SEAL just before he entered the room where bin Laden was found..."and then I heard 'Osama I told you! One more wise crack about my burqa being big enough to cover a family of bedouins and I was calling the red phone. SEE YOU IN PARADISE SWINE!'"Of course this report will never enter the official record, given it's sensitive nature.RJ
Sponge Bomb Square Pants. A new cartoon resulting from UBL's new, undersea, home. This from Dennis Miller. Ha!
See!? Look at the treasure trove of intellegence we got from OBL's compound! And, we didn't have to water board him!
If Bin Laden was no longer important so Bush dismantled the CIA investigative team. Then why try to take credit for it now?Yes, Bush would have acted on the same info, but he stopped looking for Bin Laden in 2006. FACT! There is no credible evidence that Torture yielded any useful intelligence in this action. In fact, it has been said by Gov. Officials that KSM lied about the courier.
video: It's fun to make up your own reality.
@ Video - if you believe our intelligence community stopped looking for OBL in 2006, you are naive in the extreme. We have many, many intelligence agencies, and trust me, the dismantling of an office does not equate with a lack of effort to find Bin Laden.No credible evidence that enhanced interrogation techniques yielded actionable intelligence? Rep. Peter King and CIA Chief Leon Panetta are on record as having said as much. KSM lied about the courier when asked - so did Al Libi. CIA analysts interpreted their firm denials as proof that there was credence to the information about the courier. Again, this is a matter of record from a multitude of sources.AlTRAG
Al@ 8:52-all merits aside, I personally wouldn't cite Congressman King's opinion in reference to issues of terrorism. During the lead-up to his sketchy hearings on the so-called radicalization of the American muslim community he was forced to attempt to justify his previous support for the IRA, a terrorist organization. Situational ethics is always problematic. Mike R "canses"
Again, I ask, If OBL was so unimportant, why try to take credit for his death now?
"one of my biggest regrets" Paraphrasing, but that's what W said in his book about not getting UBL. Of course it's important.
@ Video Dude - OK, so if Bush gets no credit, then who does? Obama? For doing what? Ordering the raid based on the recommendations of his staff? I don't think so. That's what he gets paid to do, the same as any other President. As I've said previously, this is not a Republican victory, a Democrat victory, a Bush victory, an Obama victory. It is a victory for all Americans, the result of painstaking teamwork over a ten-year period. It's also worth noting that President Bush himself isn't out there beating his chest. If the tea partiers want to do so, they can, but the fact remains that the policies and procedures that ultimately led to the death of Bin Laden began under Bush's watch.AlTRAG
Post a Comment
Subscribe in a reader