Bin Laden is dead

[HoonDing]

I don't applaud revenge, but I can see the need for occasional harsh justice or straightforward use of military force.

Nice. You must have been one hell of a prosecutor.

Prosecutor during the day, masked avenger during the night.

[WDeranged]

Fed Threat Shuts Down TSA "Groping" Bill in Texas

 

Yes we can!..touch your balls

[Nepenthe]

I don't applaud revenge, but I can see the need for occasional harsh justice or straightforward use of military force.

Nice. You must have been one hell of a prosecutor.

 

"A legal construction is not fallacious merely because it has harsh results"

 

Scalia dissenting in Husain v. Olympic Airlines, 540 U.S. 644.

 

 

You must understand that my "harsh" in a femleft nordic society is probably something that, say, in the USA would be considered a holiday in a federal country club.

[Walsingham]

I don't understand this TSA business. If you put an area of the body off limits then THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE WILL PUTS STUFF.

 

FFS, it's not complicated.

[Gorgon]

http://intramuros.es/2008/02/15/big-culo-d...e-great-arsoli/

[Gorgon]

It keeps on going like that for a while.

[Nepenthe]

I don't understand this TSA business. If you put an area of the body off limits then THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE WILL PUTS STUFF.

For reference, see general obsesion with anal sex.

[Hell Kitty]

If the TSA were fondling genitals ten years ago there might not have been a 9/11.

[WDeranged]

If the TSA were fondling genitals ten years ago there might not have been a 9/11.

 

I'm not 100% sure if you're being sarcastic, either way that's the official rationale, but considering the worlds most prominent and destructive terrorist attack was caused without weapons of any kind I'm really not sure, box cutters erm...don't cut it

 

If these "enhanced patdowns" were so crucial why didn't they go straight for our balls immediately after 9/11?

 

I tend to think it's because without ten years of war and fear backing it up, people wouldn't have accepted it.

 

In fact most of the bomb attacks in recent terrorist history have been in shopping precincts and on buses and trains, the logical answer is surely to install checkpoints at all public locations, in fact, oh look.

 

Living in a free society is risky business, I suppose my real concern is where does security in the name of safety end?

[Walsingham]

Wderanged, you can't seriously be saying that the fact that most attacks are now in shopping areas that this means planes are somehow not targets? The shift to very low security targets is a function of improved safety at big targets. More importantly you've got incidences regularly of cells plotting to attack airports and planes, but being thwarted by intelligence lead operations long before fruition.

 

It's all very trendy to say we are being exploited through a climate of fear. And I can see how it would play into some politicians hands. But the convenience of terror to some people does not erase the genuine threat it poses. Unless you wish to suggest we collectively accept a few thousand deaths a year as the price for not being groped now and then. Personally I'd rather have the sanctity of my balls violated but still physically attached, than pristine* and flapping about in the turbulence of an exploding airliner.

 

*The pristinitude of my balls may go down as well as up. Terms and conditions apply.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Walsingham

[Hell Kitty]

If the TSA were fondling genitals ten years ago there might not have been a 9/11.

 

I'm not 100% sure if you're being sarcastic

 

The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.

[WDeranged]

snip

 

The odds of your balls being detached in a good old fashioned airline disaster are far greater, in fact it's much more likely that you'd be separated from them in a road accident or a nasty tumble off the Stannah

 

At this point I'm obviously going to trot out the impractical suggestion of banning road travel and stairlifts, and no, I'm obviously not suggesting that airliners aren't targets, everything is a target to someone, you can't protect it all, but somewhere, someone thinks you can and will probably find a way to profit from it.

 

So first we have enhanced checkpoints at airports, and the bogieman moves on to public transport, eventually we'll have them in busy public places and the bogieman will find something else to blow up, feels like whack a mole.

 

I'm intelligent enough to know there's no easy solution, but I like to think I've lived just long enough to be able to recognise control freakery and proto fascism.

[Walsingham]

Attempting to defend very vulnerable portions of the network doesn't mean that eventually I won't be able to go to my kitchen without getting buttsearched. Even if we extend the timeline to when I really will need a stennah.

 

Fascism is the extreme end of an axis of state power versus individual power. I suggest that what you are panicing about is just a move towards state power. But this is no more protofascism than I become proto Libyan by walking Eastwards. In fact it's simply a case of the people demanding that the state fulfil its obligation to act as defender of life and liberty. Because the majority of people object to tiny groups of halfwits committing mass murder, enough to be prepared to sacrifice some personal liberty in order to reduce it.

[Nepenthe]

Airlines have always been priority targets due to the symbolic connection they traditionally have had to nation states (outside of the U.S., anyway). Getting to mess with a flag carrier gives you terrorist cred unlike any other civilian target, you essentially have to start hitting military or diplomatic targets

[Malcador]

New Yorker article on the raid

[Hildegard]

Walsh still didn't my post. Shame on you, shame shame shame....

[Walsingham]

Walsh still didn't my post. Shame on you, shame shame shame....

 

The who the what now? Which post?

[Nepenthe]

Walsh accidentally the whole post!

Edited August 8, 2011 by Nepenthe

[Walsingham]

I don't even know what verb I haven't effected! Read? Polished? Admired? Smalkucked?

[DeathViper1959]

For myself i do not think Bin Laden is really dead,

 

why would we kill someone who has the kind of information that he has?

 

i think he was captured and reported dead because dead people have no rights period.

 

he can be tortured in any number of ways to get as much intel about the terrorist groups he knew about, they can use all kinds of drugs with no oversight, and no accountability, and with his burial at sea the Arabs wont demand his release or commit God knows what kind of terrorism to get him released.

 

there is even a hour long show about Seal team 6 that got Bin Laden, notice the advertisment said got Bin Laden not killed, but got. maybe the wording is a hint, and maybe not.

 

but why kill someone with his knowledge of names places and dates?

[Walsingham]

but why kill someone with his knowledge of names places and dates?

 

Because he wouldn't have had daily operational updates on what was going on. The whole point of where he was was that he was not on phonelines etc.

 

Saying something's happened to him just because we've no proof he's dead is completely insane. I can play that game too: I hear he's actually alive and well and living under the Whitehouse. He escaped the guards and lives free roaming in the ducting, like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. But with more canapes.

[Hurlshort]

Conspiracy theories work great for movies and television, not so much for real life.

 

Wait, sorry, I mean the GOVERNMENT killed OSAMA to cover up the fact that they blew up the twin towers from the INSIDE!

[Walsingham]

That's just another fiendish Anglo cover -up. The truth is that the British Empire NEVER WENT AWAY. We're still running things.

 

9/11 really happened because John Prescott ATE some of the supporting struts after becoming anxious when two enormous planes flew into the building. The coward.

 

[Gromnir]

For myself i do not think Bin Laden is really dead,

 

why would we kill someone who has the kind of information that he has?

 

i think he was captured and reported dead because dead people have no rights period.

 

he can be tortured in any number of ways to get as much intel about the terrorist groups he knew about, they can use all kinds of drugs with no oversight, and no accountability, and with his burial at sea the Arabs wont demand his release or commit God knows what kind of terrorism to get him released.

 

there is even a hour long show about Seal team 6 that got Bin Laden, notice the advertisment said got Bin Laden not killed, but got. maybe the wording is a hint, and maybe not.

 

but why kill someone with his knowledge of names places and dates?

 

one thing to keep in mind when considering osama conspiracies is that he were a terrorist leader. is not the same as capturing an enemy general in some hollywood ww2 scenario. terrorists typical use variations o' the cell system... is a model o' organization that is specific designed so that capture o' any one particular individual or cell will not lead to collapse o' the whole organization. furthermore...

 

"Current patterns display an increasing use of loosely affiliated networks that plan and act on generalized guidance on waging terror. Individuals with minimal or no direct connection to al-Qaida may take their inspiration for terrorism from ideological statements of senior al-Qaida leaders." --usaf guide to terrorism in the 21st century (15 Aug 07)

 

osama has been a very important figurehead... particularly post 9/11. even so, his actual personal involvement in day-to-day activities o' al-Qaida woulda' been intentionally minimized. sadly for al-Qaida, osama were far more important as a symbolic leader. from a skills and information pov, there is no indispensable individual in a cell organization. that being said, osama were the face o' al-Qaida, if not its soul. 'course this also ignores fact that as soon as osama were killed/captured, al-Qaida woulda' moved quickly to render any info gleaned during/after his capture relative useless. again, the whole point o' cell systems is to make it impossible to cut the head from the snake.

 

hey, we got an even better conspiracy theory. US purpose dispose o' body in a way that will result in some hopeful elements o' al-Qaida believing osama is alive. osama-is-alive nonsense leads to wasted resources by some al-Qaida elements as they search for their leader. also may makes osama replacement more difficult if there is internal strife related to the question o' osama demise. nonsense? sure it is... but is no less plausible than the osama-is-alive stuff.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 13, 2011 by Gromnir

[Walsingham]

Leaving an enemy to do his own intelligence work is ALWAYS going to be a good idea. Particularly if he's a basket case and will split into a bongzillion different theories, as Gromnir suggests.