The Guy Who Unknowingly 'Live-Blogged' the Bin Laden Raid 142
netbuzz (955038) writes "Three years ago today, software consultant Sohaib Athar was working on his laptop at home in Pakistan when he tweeted: 'Helicopter hovering above Abbottabad at 1AM (is a rare event).' And then: 'A huge window-shaking bang here in Abbottabad Cantt. I hope it's not the start of something nasty :-S.' It was for Osama bin Laden. Today Athar says, 'People do bring it up every now and then.'"
Slow News Day at Slashdot (Score:1, Insightful)
How old is this story?
ZZzzzzz....
Pretty Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Three years ago today" (Score:2, Insightful)
While living in a cave...
We're talking about the same country who got its ass kicked by vietcongs for at least two decades (while using Napalm). Ass kicked in Afghanistan by people using weapons the CIA gave them back in the late '70s when Brejnev invaded their country and IEDs. The same country that declared WAR against Irak because of WMDs (Oil), but was the only one to use them... Twice... Hiroshima August 6th 1945... Enola Gay...Little Boy...Gun Type 16kT. Nagasaki August 9th 1945... Bockscar...Fat Man...Implosion type 21kT.
Other designs were planned. We're talking about weapon testing... If the war wasn't over back in the old countries, they would *never* have dropped a nuclear weapon in europe.
Re:All these Traitors you have (Score:1, Insightful)
Find zem und kill zem!
The killing part is especially important for people such as Bin Laden, Saddam, Qadaffi, and so on. Can't have them actually on trial, they might have some things to say that would inconvenience the West. That might break the carefully crafted illusion of us being Good guys and hint at the fact that really there's only Bad guys.
All the rhetoric about "international law" and "bring them to justice" is fine in theory, so long as you simply kill them extrajudiciously in practice.
Re:"Three years ago today" (Score:5, Insightful)
I add the following for your consideration.
After dropping those two bombs, nobody on Earth has ever dropped one since. Think about that for a second. Yes, they have been tested, but never once dropped in anger since the first two. And all nuclear-capable countries between the 50s and the 80s have had was at some point to consider using them. All of them treated them as retaliation weapons, only to be used if they were shot at first.
So let us treat Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the ignorant first use of an unknown technology that it was and accept that the world went through a massive, rapid learning curve and HAVE NOT USED THEM SINCE.
Re:"Three years ago today" (Score:5, Insightful)
You are trolling, but I'll still bite.
While living in a cave...
We're talking about the same country who got its ass kicked by vietcongs for at least two decades (while using Napalm). Ass kicked in Afghanistan by people using weapons the CIA gave them back in the late '70s when Brejnev invaded their country and IEDs. .
Interestingly, this is is a time honored methodology for fighting against a much stronger force and is exactly how I would fight against the US, NATO, Russia, China, etc. if I were in a small country. Take to the hills, don't expose yourself to pitched battles that you will lose anyway and subject your opponent to death by a thousand paper cuts. Americans themselves successfully used this methodology against the British between 1775 and 1781.
The only real ways to fight against it are to either make yourself more popular among the populace than the resistance force (VERY difficult to do) or go full Ghengis Khan.
but was the only one to use them... Twice... Hiroshima August 6th 1945... Enola Gay...Little Boy...Gun Type 16kT. Nagasaki August 9th 1945... Bockscar...Fat Man...Implosion type 21kT.
Other designs were planned. We're talking about weapon testing... If the war wasn't over back in the old countries, they would *never* have dropped a nuclear weapon in europe.
So..... its the summer of 1945. YOU are Harry Truman. The war has killed, what 50 million people so far. The battle of Okinawa has just finished and it killed.... oh about 200,000 people. (about half being soldiers of the two side and the rest civilians). That was essentially the dress rehearsal for the invasion of Japan itself. You've just been told about these new kinds of bombs. What would you do? Try to finish the war off by using them and then bluffing the Japanese by saying you have a thousand (you don't. you have two) or go ahead with the invasion?
Re:"Three years ago today" (Score:4, Insightful)
Winston Churchill said the World War II did not begin in 1939, but in 1919 when the Versailles Treaty was signed with punitive sanctions against Germany. That is a lesson they are learnt well, they did not treat Germany and Japan they way losers of WW-I were treated. That is how we avoided WW-III.
If we maintain the distinction, realizing we are not fighting all the Muslims, but only the small section of leaders who whip up the passion we will be able to pacify them as we pacified Japan. Think about it, if someone told Americans in 1944, "we are going to pacify Japan, not subjugate them, not conquer them, but truly make friends out of them" how it would have been received. Now substitute Muslim instead of Japan and see how incredulous most Americans would be. But we did make friends, or at least a reasonable approximation of friend, out of Japan.
Re:"Three years ago today" (Score:5, Insightful)
You are aware that Japan only surrendered after the A-bombs, right? And the U.S. was encouraging Stalin to open up another front for the Japanese in the hopes the U.S. wouldn't have to invade. MacArthur was all for invasion. The most in the Japanese military were all for dying until the last man, woman, and child. They had armed the populace with pitchforks and was teaching them how to gut an American GI. The Emperor signed off on the surrender and parts of the Japanese military attempted a coup but were put down due to some loyal (to the Emperor). Okinawa was only the last of a string of very bloody islands where most Japanese fought until they died or attempted to surrender to get close enough to American GIs to kill them with a grenade. Iwo Jima, Tinian, Saipan, Guam, all were nasty, brutish fights and the Japanese were flinging Kamikazis against American ships.
Fortunately, Admiral Nimitz knew better than to attempt an invasion of Japan and was against it. Germany was already gone, but it took many American lives and the wounded were arriving back in the U.S. with horrific injuries. Truman had to tell the American people the war wasn't over yet because an uncowed Japan would surely attempt to reconstruct its empire. Japanese atrocities in the Pacific and certainly China were legendary. The Pacific campaign had also claimed many American lives and wounded.
Now you sin in Truman's office. Some on his military staff tell you invasion is the only way...estimated U.S. casualties: 250,000 up to 1 million (they couldn't be sure other than the figure was appalling). Some on his military staff tell you the invasion is not necessary. You dither for about 3 months, bombing Japan is certainly reducing the country but they won't surrender. Now one of your secret projects offers a chance to blow some sense into the stiff-necked Japanese. Do you (a) take it, (b) invade at horrible cost, (c) do nothing and attempt to keep a war going that is fast losing support, (d) declare victory believing you will have to come back and fight the war again in 10 years? You have to decide Mr. President.