Interesting World: Man Unwittingly Live Tweets Raid That Killed Osama Bin Laden

from the so-that-happened dept

There’s really not much for us to say on the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, since that’s really not a topic for this blog… and, of course, it’s being covered quite ably pretty much everywhere else. However, I do find this one minor side story, highlighted by Mike Butcher at TechCrunch, quite fascinating as an indication of the type of world we live in today. Apparently, while the helicopter raid was going on, an IT consultant in Abbottabad, Pakistan named Sohaib Athar, happened to be up and hear the helicopters and went to Twitter to talk about it on his account @ReallyVirtual (which is a great Twitter handle, by the way). You can read his tweets (and some of his retweets and responses) below. Start from the bottom to get them in order:

He seems a bit in shock from his sudden internet fame, which is certainly understandable. However, what gets me is that something like this is even possible today. Just a few years ago, almost no one have ever thought that the world would be connected to such a level. One can hope that the sort of connections and humanization that come about due to such technological advances might one day lead to a world where we don’t have to deal with bombings and terrorists to chase down…

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Interesting World: Man Unwittingly Live Tweets Raid That Killed Osama Bin Laden”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
40 Comments
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Bracing for retaliation

Well, I certainly hope our government feels its citizens are safe now, and repeals all the intrusive legislation and reins in their paranoid behavior.

Because if they don’t, what’s their excuse? First, WMDs were used as means to an end and Bin Laden became the new WMD. I’m sure the threat level has escalated as we should be expecting retaliatory action. I see more of the same, only faster and harder for awhile.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Bracing for retaliation

“I just hope the Patriot Act is now a non-issue and is repealed. The war is over.”

You’re forgetting the painstaking groundwork done over the last 10 years w/everyone making the point that “bin Laden is NOT the objective”. The war goes on because there are people to scare, profits to be had, and a nation to drive into the ground (ours)….

harbingerofdoom (profile) says:

i see no real change on the horizon. oh, the current administration will do their victory dance and perhaps claim some, none or all of the credit and all the while give lip service to how much safer we all actually are and gas prices will start to go down a bit (that will happen over the next couple days, but it wont be anything huge, just enough to get news outlets to report it).

but the big content industries will still be writing laws that benifit them and only them, the TSA will still be grabbing your junk and our millitary will still be deployed while our infrastructure continues to fall down around our ears.

but hey… youre all safe now!!

PolyPusher (profile) says:

TMZ?

Last night when the news broke, a buddy online told me. I went to Google news to check out the stories and noticed that the oldest story at the time was from TMZ. There were about 400 articles 15 minutes after the news broke and of all the news agency’s TMZ got the story out first… Not saying they were actually the first but they were on my Google news page…

Yes. Yes it is an interesting world…

Anonymous Coward says:

Does not seem like a particularly good time for sarcasm, or remarks associated with TSA, Patriot Act, etc. Those will come in due course.

To me it is more than enough at this time to at least quitely reflect that an individual at the heart of murderous activity over the past 24+ years throughout the world no longer walks among those of us who value the sanctity of human life.

It is also a time to pay our respects to the thousands of innocent people everywhere whose lives were cut short by a man who led a radical movement that inflicted such pain and suffering on the families and friends of its victims.

bean.java says:

worried

cut and pasted from my comment on slashdot http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/05/02/0326243/Osama-Bin-Laden-Reported-Dead-Body-In-US-Hands

comment http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2118920&cid=36000330

I know everyone may believe that Osama was behind al Qaeda and directly ordered all of the attacks. However, i would like to remind everyone of something.

This Is The United States of America that killed him.

Here in the US we are supposed to be Innocent until proven guilty in a Court Of Law. I don’t remember a trial of any kind. Do the “Terrorist’s” deserve the presumption of innocence that the US constitution guarantees? That seems to be the argument surrounding Guantanamo. Should the US have killed Osama bin Laden without a trial?

My answer is no. I say that because it shows that the US government is demonstrating that the laws of the country do not apply to them. The US government(and likely alot of other governments around the world) all claim that they have proof of Osama bin Laden’s role in al Qaeda, but the trial by public opinion is not a trial by LAW.

Before you moderate against me i would like to point out something. How many times….well lets narrow it down a little…. How many times since 9/11 has the US government be caught deceiving the people of the world. 10 times? 20 times? 100 times?

Ryan Diederich says:

Just so you know...

Before we entered the Middle East, they held executions in the kids’ soccer fields. They stoned women to death, made music and fun illegal, and held a grip of fear over the region.

As an American, I am proud to say that our nation is the ONLY ONE on the face of the Earth devoted to freedom.

And to the dumbass above me, he video taped himself admitting to being responsible. I dont know how much more of a CONFESSION you want, but why should be have to bring him back?

He was using a human shield, hes a monster, I feel bad that he died so quickly.

All of you people who are against these wars, think back for a second, to where the United States came from…

Hmmmmmm…. can we think of another situation where a foreign nation aided a country in getting its freedom? Think really hard now its a tough one.

Dont take your freedom for granted. The US has one of the highest standards of living on the planet. The poverty level begins at TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars per year. Can you wrap your brain around how much money that is? 99% of the planet makes less than our poverty level.

If you would rather watch people suffer under evil rulers, then I question your morals.
How can you complain about the US government. Hell, let them take over our whole country, lets not do anything about it, what do we need freedom for?

bean.java says:

Re: Just so you know...

damn i wish i could remember any of the badass comments about liberty that Neil Gaiman made in the book American Gods.
Anyway back to your topic.

The US has seemingly always maintained that “We Are the World’s Police”. What does that imply?
I will tell you. That implies that we bring JUSTICE to the world. What is justice?

World English Dictionary #!via http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Justice !#
justice (ˈdʒʌstɪs) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

? n
1. the quality or fact of being just
2. ethics
a. the principle of fairness that like cases should be treated alike
b. a particular distribution of benefits and burdens fairly in accordance with a particular conception of what are to count as like cases
c. the principle that punishment should be proportionate to the offence
3. the administration of law according to prescribed and accepted principles
4. conformity to the law; legal validity
5. a judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature
6. short for justice of the peace
7. good reason (esp in the phrase with justice ): he was disgusted by their behaviour, and with justice
8. do justice to
a. to show to full advantage: the picture did justice to her beauty
b. to show full appreciation of by action: he did justice to the meal
c. to treat or judge fairly
9. do oneself justice to make full use of one’s abilities
10. bring to justice to capture, try, and usually punish (a criminal, an outlaw, etc)

Was his assassination Justice? OR Was his assassination Vengeance?

The answer SEEMS to be….Vengeance.

If the US wanted him to come to JUSTICE they might have used that operation to capture him, but they either would have brought him the the local authorities(however Pakistan deals with authorities). They might also have made an endrun around Pakistani authorities and brought him to US authorities. However they brought him to authorities he would have stood trial(by whoever’s definition). Since he did not stand trial, he was murdered out of vengeance. I don’t know what you believe but, How many attacks will now be made against the US people(not against the government) in the name of vengeance?

Murder begets Murder. Vengeance begets Vengeance. If we apply the concept of “An Eye for an Eye” we will ALL end up blind.

JB says:

Re: Re: Just so you know...

@bean.java:

1. Take a look at your definition for Justice, particularly letter c, “the principle that punishment should be proportionate to the offence.” This is fully inline with what has occurred.

2. How do you know that the mission’s goal was assassination? It very well could have been a mission to capture him alive. When the service men were attacked and their lives put in grave danger or the lives of others (in the case of him using a woman as a human shield), then lethal force was appropriate.

3. If we truly apply the concept of “An eye for an eye,” then it stops with only two eyes gone; the victim’s and the attacker’s. The person carrying out the punishment is not held liable for the punishment as long as it is properly administered; including determination of guilt and in full observance of the law. Therefore, unless every person in the world were to carry out the punishment maliciously and with disregard to law, the process would stop short of everyone being blind.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...