[Update] Killed by a firefight by American operatives on the ground in Pakistan just in the last day, according to the President's speech.
From Los Angeles Times report:
"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, related the news to mourners at a memorial service for political consultant Kam Kuwata. Feinstein said Obama was announcing it on TV as she spoke. However, she announced the news well before Obama began to speak."
I was watching MSNBC cover it. They were ready to break the news, and just before they were about to say it, they pulled it back. I checked Twitter, and the news was already there. NBC announced it a few minutes later.
finally. Can we stop the stupid patdowns of innocent travelers and disconnect the porno scanners at the airports now? I have to travel tomorrow and I'd rather not go through that crap again.
No, because terrorism is decentralized and the millions of people who (rightfully) hate us now will be even angrier. Which will justify further control of the populace for safety.
Because the ones smart enough to organize, finance, and lead the operation will see it as a suicide plan, one that they won't be able to pass down to others. There will probably always be some dudes thinking of themselves as part of the franchise, but without photos and tapes they won't really know who they're taking orders from.
You are assuming that we are dealing with rational people who have rational thoughts. That couldn't be further from the truth. People who plan the mass-murder of others around the world are completely irrational, and I am very confident that there are tons of people with money, organization, and leadership that will step up and try to continue Bin Laden's efforts.
"People who plan the mass-murder of others around the world are completely irrational"
Clearly untrue. Perhaps it is easier for you to view an enemy as a lunatic monster bent on senseless destruction, but nearly every mass murdering organization in the world, whether it's a terrorist group like Al Qaeda or a military power like the US, has very concrete motivations and objectives for its actions, and is well versed in the logic of power. Realpolitik is deeply rooted in a rational worldview. You may disagree with the premises or the reasoning (I certainly do), but calling Al Qaeda 'completely irrational' is way off.
Actually, I think it's one of our great strokes of luck that the people who do this are largely insane and irrational, rather than careful, methodical, intelligent planners. For example, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the guys who tried to drive a burning car through the too-narrow entrance of an airport, and so on. Most of these people are irrational, and that's incredibly lucky for us.
I'm sure many will try to follow the old AQ and some will try to lead the new AQ. Probably someone claiming to be AQ will claim responsibility for some acts of terrorism.
But how will the bottom- and middle-tier guys they know they're taking orders from Bin Laden's designated successor and not agents of some country's (you name it) intelligence services?
It takes a nontrivial amount of planning, preparation, money, and coordination to pull off the kind of simultaneous suicide operation we saw in Sept 2001.
The idea that Bin Laden was remotely involved in most of the terrorist attacks over the last decade is hilarious.
It goes:
People get pissed off > They band together and share their anger > They decide to do something about it > They do something about it.
After the fact WE brand them as part of a large effective organization, 01/09/11 did require funding and planning due to the requirement to fly planes and the synchronization of multiple TEAMS.
The Madrid and London rail bombings required almost none (find people, make explosives, pick time/place, synchronize watches).
The activities in Iraq require almost no planning and really demonstrate that there is no globe spanning plan, if there was all the Iraqi suicide bombers would travel somewhere US interests can be attacked more easily. But they don't, ergo 'AQ' is actually a loose collection of people with similar motivation and very limited ability to communicate or distribute funds globally.
I see OBL living in a cozy compound in a high class gated community among the military elite of Pakistan, not blowing himself up in a crowded unemployment line.
Its a cause, and they accept that they may have to face a violent end to achieve it.
Their grunts may be more normal, but the ones on top are quite committed. Plus, dying for the cause ensures that you are rewarded, so its a pretty hard system to beat.
The downvotes aren't for the idea of decentralized terrorism (which is correct to a degree), but I think for the possible misinterpretation of the sarcasm at the end of the post as being not such.
The way things are going, who knows perhaps this will mean ordinary travelers will now have random mandatory body cavity searches before being allowed to board a commercial flight. Like the saying among politicians goes, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
If I'm too cynical or sarcastic for your taste, I apologize preemptively and profusely.
I hate you for saying that, but I fear that you're right. I forget who noticed this (perhaps it was George Orwell), but the bureaucracy of the British Navy kept growing even as the British Empire collapsed.
The response of any bureaucracy is to double down.
Back in my days as a Catholic seminarian (don't ask), I met a well-connected priest who told several of us that the Catholic Church in the United States is going bankrupt, not because of lawsuits stemming from pedophile scandals, not because of the cost of supporting priests or other religious, but in order to make payroll for laymen working in diocesan bureaucracies. He gave the example of the diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, saying that there were a thousand laymen working full-time in the chancery alone.
I still have trouble believing that number. What does it take to get a business with that many employees?
In any case, the principal way in which Catholic dioceses have been responding to the lack of funds is to shut down parishes rather than scale back the bureaucracies. So, yes, I'm afraid that you're right. The TSA will only get more intrusive.
Fantastic books, all of them (although Inlaws and Outlaws might bemuse anyone who's not English). Well worth picking them up if you get a chance, even 30+ years on.
I hate you for saying that, but I fear that you're right. I forget who noticed this (perhaps it was George Orwell), but the bureaucracy of the British Navy kept growing even as the British Empire collapsed.
And I hate to say it, but the same is almost certain to happen with the "National Security" bureaucracy as the USA empire collapses.
1) Quickly find (or make up) another evil empire or shadow enemy to be afraid of. Suggestions: Wikileaks, music pirates, subversive citizens, militias, Arab dictators, nullification by jury educators ...
That was one of my first thoughts upon hearing the news! "Can we go back to walking people to their gates?" Part of me is afraid of retaliation, however,...
It is very likely that there will be retaliation (or at least some forms of trying to retaliate) in the immediate aftermath. So increased alert levels are more likely.
You know, as someone who lives in the most terror stricken country in the world (well, probably): Israel, I never had to take my shoes off, have a full body scan taken, no pat downs either.
I'm gonna go on a wild guess and say that Ben Gurion airport is one of the most secure airports on Earth. I don't see any justification for all the above stuff.
[Not HN] - Assuming this qualified as interesting/useful to hackers, which I disagree with but obviously it's on the front page, this is two paragraphs (at least currently?) saying Bin Laden is dead, statement to come, i.e. completely devoid of information.
"The worst thing to post or upvote is something that's intensely but shallowly interesting. Gossip about famous people, funny or cute pictures or videos, partisan political articles, etc. If you let that sort of thing onto a news site, it will push aside the deeply interesting stuff, which tends to be quieter."
This is huge news for the U.S. We can argue whether this is the sort of news which should be posted here, but it will likely have a huge emotional impact for the U.S. Our nation came to a standstill on 9/11 and this story will likely have some impact on productivity. ;)
Not just the US. There were a lot of foreigners who worked in the World Trade Center and died on 9/11. I recall shortly after that day reading that for some large number of countries, 9/11 was the largest terrorist attack on their citizens.
They invaded two countries, one of which was tangentially connected to some of the people involved in the hijackings which has resulted in quite a lot of innocent deaths.
I wonder who they'll find next to blame for world terrorism when they have the TSA do some other crazy weird stupid shit.
Cause everything needs a face.
I wouldn't say it's that shallow. Osama's death has serious political repercussions, much more so than e.g. Michael Jackson or Billy Mays. It could certainly generate interesting discussion.
He may become a lot shorter on followers as a result of this. Meanwhile, there is upheaval in a wide variety of Arab countries, which will probably have important national security implications for the United States--possibly for the better--even if Al Qaeda disappears.
P.S. I am listening to live coverage from the BBC just now (relayed by Minnesota Public Radio), and the most interesting thing about this evening's report is that apparently Bin Laden was found in a villa in Islamabad, the seat of government of Pakistan.
Also the fact that his recent 'yearly videos' do not contain any new footage of the man. Experts in the EU have declared the videos 'fake' so the CIA stopped sending them the videos for analysis.
The only problem here is that he has supposedly been thrown in the ocean to prevent anyone from trying to recover his body. However, I must admit that I would also like some form of proof as well.
If anyone remember, his death was announced by an Egyptian newspaper in late 2001. Since then, all published "Osama messages" were fake: he even was obviously younger in the latest videos. This guy was very sick and needed regular dialysis; staying alive for ten years while hiding away would have been tremendously difficult. So yes, I'm with you : unless they release some serious evidence, I'll stay suspicious.
Why? He was only following the plan laid down by the previous President. Nobody in their right mind should credit this to Obama. The US Military should get the full credit. They are the minds and planning behind what happened not any President.
"Nobody in their right mind should credit this to Obama." Why not? He gets the blame for the last administration's screw ups so why shouldn't he take the glory of finding bin laden? (Not that I agree the last admin did anything to help find Osama). Additionally, he's the commander in chief of the military--so the head of the military shouldn't get credit?
At a tactical level, you are correct: the credit goes to the US military.
But you have to give credit to Obama too. Bush had his eyes focused on Iraq, and let BinLaden escape a few times. I still vividly remember, at some press conference a couple of years after 9/11, Bush was asked: what about Bin Laden? He callously replied, "I don't worry about Bin Laden. I don't care about him."
So, if Obama had continued Bush's policy, we would not have got Bin Laden. Obama changed the policy and made Bin Laden priority #1 again, and you have the results today.
Obama changed the policy and made Bin Laden priority #1 again, and you have the results today.
And you know this because of a comment most likely made to avoid giving bin Laden more public attention or further elevating his importance?
Regardless of what one thinks of George W. I have a hard time believing he didn't want bin Laden dead or captured any less than anyone else in the USA, and these kinds of public statements are no way to divine what the CIA has been sent out to do.
GWB may have wanted bin Laden dead but never devoted sufficient resources to allow it to happen. The fact that this was an operation which was beginning to be planned 10 months ago is evidence enough of Obama's ownership.
According Rumsfeld's chief of staff, it was a team of SEALs that carried out the operation. I might try getting basic facts right before posting obviously motivated comments.
You must be a mind-reader to know what GWB was thinking of when he made that comment? (This is not an ad-hominem attack).
All we have to go by is GWB's actions and words. The actions at Tora Bora alone are a strong datapoint; but over the years, I remember reading several articles from people actively involved, claiming that insufficient resources were being tasked for hunting Bin Laden. This particular quote from his news conference fits very well with everything else that we saw was going on, hence it is very believable. There was also one Whitehouse Correspondents' Dinner, where GWB joked about looking under the sofa in the WH for Bin Laden. I myself remember asking myself (and in discussions) countless times, "why aren't we making Bin Laden priority #1, and not Saddam?". Do you remember how we hunted Saddam? Do you remember anything comparable for Bin Laden after the first couple of years?
If you would like to counter this statement of GWB, you are welcome to provide evidence (news articles, etc.) to buttress your claim. All I know is: I was frustrated with us not putting sufficient resources into tracking OBL, and when Obama forcefully said that we'd be making him enemy #1 again, I was delighted.
It is to Obama that you should give prime responsibility, even if the strategy and tactics are by others.
Consider this: a retired military friend was telling old Army stories. A sergeant lost a full-auto weapon, which is a gross violation of Army policy. This led to his chain of command up to the Colonel being court-martialed, and the General was formally reprimanded. It was their responsibility to ensure that their subordinates performed correctly. The same applies to Obama.
Even if you disagree with what he did - upon his shoulders is the responsibility.
I'm sure Winston Churchill thought that too, in 1945, after showing tremendous leadership in WWII. But he lost re-election in a landslide.
Voters are fickle, and often vote for what they want in the future, not to reward past achievement. $6.00/gallon gas and high unemployment will likely have a bigger affect on Obama's chances.
This is a much more complex piece of news than most Americans think. I just hope they don't show his body on TV. That's going to just incite and inflame jihad-minded fighters.
And I sure hope this doesn't make the U.S. pull out of Afghanistan in the next 90 days like NBC just implied, because that would be bad for everyone in that country.
EDIT if OBL really was killed in a mansion in Islamabad, that changes a lot in relations between the US and Pakistan. If he was killed in the FATA, then it's pretty meaningless operationally, it's just a news deal that will inflame the jihadi world for a while.
Edit2 Abbottabad is in NWFP, so not exactly Islamabad and a different interesting. If Obama didn't get Pakistan's permission before going, that is interesting. Not going to change wars on the ground except for a inflammation in jihadi tensions.
really was killed in a mansion in Islamabad, that changes a lot in relations between the US and Pakistan
Everyone in Pakistan already knows that the US has been killing people with drone strikes for years and years now. They're far more aware of it than Americans.
It's hard to see that there are many Pakistanis who are going to dislike America more for having actually gotten OBL. On the other hand, ending US missile strikes in Pakistan can only help.
I think russnewcomer was implying that if he was in a mansion, the Pakastani government must have known more about his whereabouts than they said they did. Which would potentially affect US-Pakastani diplomatic relations.
if he was in a mansion, the Pakastani government must have known more about his whereabouts than they said they did
That's certainly possible or even likely, but it's not like his name would have been on the utility bills either. Many of the homes in my town (not mine) have a finished basement...off the tax records.
It'd be easier to hide a famous person in a big walled compound than a smaller dwelling.
It's no secret that many in the Pakistani intelligence community were overtly pro-Osama. It doesn't mean the whole country or government shared this feeling, nor that the intelligence community is still as pro-Osama (or at all given the jihadist attacks in Pakistan in the last few years). This kind of complicated situation has existed in Pakistan for a long time, and the US is fully aware of it. To a certain extent this kind of situation exists in most countries in the region.
I used to live over there, I know much more than most Americans that there have been drone strikes inside Pakistan for years. And U.S. missile strikes on non-military targets have to end, agreed.
But if the news is true that the U.S. has known about this compound, that it was housing a major terrorist figure, and that the Pakistani Army (not ISI or rather, not just ISI) knew about it, then that's a major game-changer in U.S.-Pakistani governmental relations.
Your average American and your average Pakistani don't know anything about each other. (for very general values of anything, clearly.)
It's only a game-changer if one of the governments recently learned something new about the other. This idea that some in Pakistan's services support OBL and are not so helpful to the US isn't exactly news.
The official US statement went something like "we got a tip back in August".
Which means the important question is how long did each government know OBL was in there? Was Pakistan holding him for the right moment? At what level did they know they were holding him? When did the US learn about it with any confidence? My guess is that the US wouldn't be willing to wait on the info indefinitely given the risk that OBL would give them the slip again.
The idea that ISI doesn't like the U.S. is nothing new, it's true. But the idea that the Pakistani military sheltered him (which is an easy conclusion if he was that close to the military academy) and that the U.S. then went in, made the kill, and then told Pakistan, that could be a major game changer in relations at the official level.
So you are correct, as the details come out, it could turn out to be just country level business. But if it's more like what I described, I think it's a bigger deal for U.S.-Pakistan relations than when Bush forced Musharraf into letting the U.S. hit Afghanistan after 9/11.
I expect that some sort of proof of OBL's death will need to be provided. This is where showing the body comes into play. I don't know if they can get away with not showing it.
Given that we haven't seen anything new from OBL in so many years, it also means that we don't know how he aged, or the state of his health at the time of death (remember the rumours about kidney failure, for example?). Seeing his body may be quite a revelation, in many ways.
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
According to the article, Obama was concerned that the Taliban might gain political influence in Afghanistan after U.S. troops leave and if so, they may invite Osama back to the country. The believe is that killing Osama will help prevent the Taliban from regaining control.
Good point. I just found it interesting that perhaps there was a recent push to go after him. The article does state if the push just started on the 28th or that's just when he wrote about it. I searched and wasn't able to find any other articles that confirmed it.
Interesting. According to commentators, on NBC I think, he was killed a week ago during a drone strike and we've been waiting for complete confirmation beyond any doubt.
Posting this at 11:30pm, before any press conference by the President, but some reports state he was shot in the head by a CIA operative. No drones involved.
To pick a nit, thats not "As reported in the Huffington Post". Gary Chafetz is not an employee or reporter, he's one of those "unpaid bloggers" you hear about. What newspapers used to call "op-ed writers" or a "letter to the editor".
They're saying that we've had his body for a week, it's only coming to light tonight because word leaked through congressional aides. Presumably they were waiting for confirmation beyond doubt.
465 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 289 ms ] threadhttp://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/live-video-of-pr...
From Los Angeles Times report:
"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, related the news to mourners at a memorial service for political consultant Kam Kuwata. Feinstein said Obama was announcing it on TV as she spoke. However, she announced the news well before Obama began to speak."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-pn-osama-b...
It appears that @rawls on twitter was the first to call it http://goo.gl/6FMtV
[1] http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/how-the-osa...
Which almost makes sense.
http://twitter.com/#!/TheRock/status/64877987341938688
They'll have an authentication problem.
Clearly untrue. Perhaps it is easier for you to view an enemy as a lunatic monster bent on senseless destruction, but nearly every mass murdering organization in the world, whether it's a terrorist group like Al Qaeda or a military power like the US, has very concrete motivations and objectives for its actions, and is well versed in the logic of power. Realpolitik is deeply rooted in a rational worldview. You may disagree with the premises or the reasoning (I certainly do), but calling Al Qaeda 'completely irrational' is way off.
But how will the bottom- and middle-tier guys they know they're taking orders from Bin Laden's designated successor and not agents of some country's (you name it) intelligence services?
It takes a nontrivial amount of planning, preparation, money, and coordination to pull off the kind of simultaneous suicide operation we saw in Sept 2001.
It goes:
People get pissed off > They band together and share their anger > They decide to do something about it > They do something about it.
After the fact WE brand them as part of a large effective organization, 01/09/11 did require funding and planning due to the requirement to fly planes and the synchronization of multiple TEAMS.
The Madrid and London rail bombings required almost none (find people, make explosives, pick time/place, synchronize watches).
The activities in Iraq require almost no planning and really demonstrate that there is no globe spanning plan, if there was all the Iraqi suicide bombers would travel somewhere US interests can be attacked more easily. But they don't, ergo 'AQ' is actually a loose collection of people with similar motivation and very limited ability to communicate or distribute funds globally.
Some of his followers might see it too.
Their grunts may be more normal, but the ones on top are quite committed. Plus, dying for the cause ensures that you are rewarded, so its a pretty hard system to beat.
If I'm too cynical or sarcastic for your taste, I apologize preemptively and profusely.
The response of any bureaucracy is to double down.
Back in my days as a Catholic seminarian (don't ask), I met a well-connected priest who told several of us that the Catholic Church in the United States is going bankrupt, not because of lawsuits stemming from pedophile scandals, not because of the cost of supporting priests or other religious, but in order to make payroll for laymen working in diocesan bureaucracies. He gave the example of the diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, saying that there were a thousand laymen working full-time in the chancery alone.
I still have trouble believing that number. What does it take to get a business with that many employees?
In any case, the principal way in which Catholic dioceses have been responding to the lack of funds is to shut down parishes rather than scale back the bureaucracies. So, yes, I'm afraid that you're right. The TSA will only get more intrusive.
That was Cyril Northcote Parkinson, whose writings on the issue are summed up as "Parkinson's Law,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law
"Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."
And I hate to say it, but the same is almost certain to happen with the "National Security" bureaucracy as the USA empire collapses.
1) Quickly find (or make up) another evil empire or shadow enemy to be afraid of. Suggestions: Wikileaks, music pirates, subversive citizens, militias, Arab dictators, nullification by jury educators ...
I'm gonna go on a wild guess and say that Ben Gurion airport is one of the most secure airports on Earth. I don't see any justification for all the above stuff.
Pretty major story of the past decade.
But likely it won't, like most articles about politics and highly charged subjects.
You don't get this kind of blah blah blah on stories about how Haskell and Erlang do garbage collection.
P.S. I am listening to live coverage from the BBC just now (relayed by Minnesota Public Radio), and the most interesting thing about this evening's report is that apparently Bin Laden was found in a villa in Islamabad, the seat of government of Pakistan.
Also the fact that his recent 'yearly videos' do not contain any new footage of the man. Experts in the EU have declared the videos 'fake' so the CIA stopped sending them the videos for analysis.
But you have to give credit to Obama too. Bush had his eyes focused on Iraq, and let BinLaden escape a few times. I still vividly remember, at some press conference a couple of years after 9/11, Bush was asked: what about Bin Laden? He callously replied, "I don't worry about Bin Laden. I don't care about him." So, if Obama had continued Bush's policy, we would not have got Bin Laden. Obama changed the policy and made Bin Laden priority #1 again, and you have the results today.
And you know this because of a comment most likely made to avoid giving bin Laden more public attention or further elevating his importance?
Regardless of what one thinks of George W. I have a hard time believing he didn't want bin Laden dead or captured any less than anyone else in the USA, and these kinds of public statements are no way to divine what the CIA has been sent out to do.
GWB may have wanted bin Laden dead but never devoted sufficient resources to allow it to happen. The fact that this was an operation which was beginning to be planned 10 months ago is evidence enough of Obama's ownership.
According Rumsfeld's chief of staff, it was a team of SEALs that carried out the operation. I might try getting basic facts right before posting obviously motivated comments.
All we have to go by is GWB's actions and words. The actions at Tora Bora alone are a strong datapoint; but over the years, I remember reading several articles from people actively involved, claiming that insufficient resources were being tasked for hunting Bin Laden. This particular quote from his news conference fits very well with everything else that we saw was going on, hence it is very believable. There was also one Whitehouse Correspondents' Dinner, where GWB joked about looking under the sofa in the WH for Bin Laden. I myself remember asking myself (and in discussions) countless times, "why aren't we making Bin Laden priority #1, and not Saddam?". Do you remember how we hunted Saddam? Do you remember anything comparable for Bin Laden after the first couple of years?
If you would like to counter this statement of GWB, you are welcome to provide evidence (news articles, etc.) to buttress your claim. All I know is: I was frustrated with us not putting sufficient resources into tracking OBL, and when Obama forcefully said that we'd be making him enemy #1 again, I was delighted.
My point was that "news articles, etc.", as well as 3rd-hand accounts and hearsay, are likely insufficient to determine just what the CIA is up to.
But maybe Wikileaks has something.
Consider this: a retired military friend was telling old Army stories. A sergeant lost a full-auto weapon, which is a gross violation of Army policy. This led to his chain of command up to the Colonel being court-martialed, and the General was formally reprimanded. It was their responsibility to ensure that their subordinates performed correctly. The same applies to Obama.
Even if you disagree with what he did - upon his shoulders is the responsibility.
The buck stops with the President. Always.
Voters are fickle, and often vote for what they want in the future, not to reward past achievement. $6.00/gallon gas and high unemployment will likely have a bigger affect on Obama's chances.
And I sure hope this doesn't make the U.S. pull out of Afghanistan in the next 90 days like NBC just implied, because that would be bad for everyone in that country.
EDIT if OBL really was killed in a mansion in Islamabad, that changes a lot in relations between the US and Pakistan. If he was killed in the FATA, then it's pretty meaningless operationally, it's just a news deal that will inflame the jihadi world for a while.
Edit2 Abbottabad is in NWFP, so not exactly Islamabad and a different interesting. If Obama didn't get Pakistan's permission before going, that is interesting. Not going to change wars on the ground except for a inflammation in jihadi tensions.
Everyone in Pakistan already knows that the US has been killing people with drone strikes for years and years now. They're far more aware of it than Americans.
It's hard to see that there are many Pakistanis who are going to dislike America more for having actually gotten OBL. On the other hand, ending US missile strikes in Pakistan can only help.
That's certainly possible or even likely, but it's not like his name would have been on the utility bills either. Many of the homes in my town (not mine) have a finished basement...off the tax records.
It'd be easier to hide a famous person in a big walled compound than a smaller dwelling.
But if the news is true that the U.S. has known about this compound, that it was housing a major terrorist figure, and that the Pakistani Army (not ISI or rather, not just ISI) knew about it, then that's a major game-changer in U.S.-Pakistani governmental relations.
Your average American and your average Pakistani don't know anything about each other. (for very general values of anything, clearly.)
The official US statement went something like "we got a tip back in August".
Which means the important question is how long did each government know OBL was in there? Was Pakistan holding him for the right moment? At what level did they know they were holding him? When did the US learn about it with any confidence? My guess is that the US wouldn't be willing to wait on the info indefinitely given the risk that OBL would give them the slip again.
So you are correct, as the details come out, it could turn out to be just country level business. But if it's more like what I described, I think it's a bigger deal for U.S.-Pakistan relations than when Bush forced Musharraf into letting the U.S. hit Afghanistan after 9/11.
Also, I want the body checked for marks of being frozen for a long period of time.
A screen-grab from Express TV (a Pakistani news outlet) showing his body.
I offer no commentary as to its vintage and authenticity, however.
from http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
As of 11:09 pm est, it is either over or hasn't started.
Image: https://skitch.com/sudonim/r7b7f/the-white-house
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-s-chafetz/post_1988_b_854...
According to the article, Obama was concerned that the Taliban might gain political influence in Afghanistan after U.S. troops leave and if so, they may invite Osama back to the country. The believe is that killing Osama will help prevent the Taliban from regaining control.
Additionally huffington post should never be your primary source for anything except opinion.