So how do we stand now?

May 5, 2011 1:19 PM

Following recent events; Frontline has rushed out a special report (53 mins). which takes the viewer inside two fronts of the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They also find new evidence of covert support for elements of the Taliban by the Pakistani military and its intelligence service, the ISI

Some further reactions to recent events from around outside America
Ahmed Rashid: What Did Pakistan Know?
Adam Curtis (Guardian): Who will be the baddie now?
and Jason Burke:What next for al-Qaida and global jihad?
Hasnain Kazim:(Der Spigel) Pakistan, Bin Laden and the Fight against Terror
Syed Saleem Shahzad (Asia Times) Taliban and al-Qaeda: Friends in arms
and By Pepe Escobar: Welcome to the post-Osama world
Rafia Zakaria (Dawn) America after Osama
Cafe Pyala; The Pakistanian Defence And Its Alternatives (via)
Guardian: With its flip-flopping over the official narrative of Bin Laden's killing, the White House has squandered the political capital
Pakistan says US may have breached it's sovereignty
Reuters: European discomfort grows about bin Laden killing

posted by adamvasco (55 comments total)

Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) liken the Pakistani government to Nazis: "you could say that relations with Nazi Germany are complicated but important, that doesn't make them any less Nazis". (05 May 11 AM No release for Osama death photos)
posted by boo_radley at 1:30 PM on May 5, 2011

I've been pretty hard on Obama lately but I can't really find anything to complain about with how he handled all of this. I'm surprised even conservatives would switch back to attack mode so quick.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:31 PM on May 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

I highly recommend watching the Frontline special.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:32 PM on May 5, 2011

I'm surprised even conservatives would switch back to attack mode so quick.

Teenager? Visitor from a parallel world? Frozen Caveman Lawyer?
posted by gerryblog at 1:34 PM on May 5, 2011 [19 favorites]

... for each generation, America is a very different place, and the America we lost on 9/11 -- the America that didn't profile citizens, torture people, or monitor their phone calls -- isn't even a distant memory for the children and teenagers of today's America.
posted by Trurl at 1:36 PM on May 5, 2011 [4 favorites]

I'm surprised even conservatives would switch back to attack mode so quick.

We are the GOP.
The GOP is legion.
The GOP does not forgive.
The GOP does not forget.
Expect us.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 1:38 PM on May 5, 2011 [3 favorites]

I know they are scumbags, it's just they are usually a bit better at propaganda than this. They should realize you won't get very far with a criticism of, "Obama didn't kill bin Laden exactly how we wanted." and "Isn't that Bush guy awesome?"
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:40 PM on May 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm surprised even conservatives would switch back to attack mode so quick.

Hell, there are some liberals in here that never switched out of attack mode.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:40 PM on May 5, 2011 [4 favorites]

Yeah, but I doubt those liberals were as gung-ho about the War on Terror as the conservatives. They would be consistant in attacking Bush for the same thing.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:46 PM on May 5, 2011

My cab driver (not Pakistani) on Monday predicted that the Pakistani government knew both about Osama living there AND that the raid was happening. Once we figured it out they were like 'Eh go ahead and kill him' but they can't reveal that because they don't want to piss off their wackier citizens. That seemed right to me.

Basically blaming them is pointless if you ask me. We got him, they haven't really made a big deal out of it, no whistle no foul, let's move on.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:49 PM on May 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

The squawk about Pakistan possibly not being wholly forthright with the US, even as the two countries coordinate CT activity, is old, old news, getting rehashed now for obvious reasons. Here's a Seymour Hersh piece from '02 (New Yorker) that is essentially the same story.
posted by $0up at 1:54 PM on May 5, 2011

Seems like Osama's mansion may have in fact been a jail. The living conditions were fairly squalid for a million dollar house in the third world (at least, judging by the photos I've seen). A building with 18 foot walls, barbed wire on the roof, no internet or telephone access, located 1000 yards from military installations, sure seems like a place where you might keep someone on ice and incognito.

Maybe ISI nabbed him a while back, made him the type of "honored guest" offer you can't refuse, and was waiting to either release him to cause trouble or to turn him over to the US to get out of same.

Then the US gets wind of the deal, flies in a large force on some fairly hush-hush helicopters, and ISI can't do a damn thing about it.

I'm thinking this is at least a plausible way to interpret most of the events as described; the loose end is the courier, who may have worked for ISI anyway...
posted by jenkinsEar at 1:59 PM on May 5, 2011 [6 favorites]

That show was the closest to the wire that I've ever seen. The video editors were working on it essentially until it aired and the web team didn't get the video until midnight. I made an encode with the loosest settings that I could manage and still get it to fit spec and then later replaced it with a better-looking version.

Response to the show has been very positive. And I'm not objective, but I think it's deserved-- I learned quite a bit by watching it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:12 PM on May 5, 2011 [6 favorites]

I've been pretty hard on Obama lately but I can't really find anything to complain about with how he handled all of this.

o_O

I kid. I kid.
posted by dersins at 2:14 PM on May 5, 2011

These photos (WARNING: some are gruesome) - from my uneducated, but skeptical eye, seem to indicate that the deceased were all hit from behind. At least that's the way it looks to me. I've also read that only one person offered resistance.

That said; I'm not second-guessing anyone on this - not Obama; not the SEALS - nobody. There is simply no way that anyone can know what it was like in that compound (or mostly anyone, unless they're a former SEAL who has participated in actions like the one that brought OBL to his end)

That said (and this is not second-guessing), why all the confusion about essential details in the aftermath? After the proven duplicity exhibited by our current and past administrations, it will be a long time (if ever) before I take any of these people at their word.

Last, my preference would have been to capture OBL alive. (but I'm not unhappy that he's dead - good riddance!).

Just like with Saddam, who probably would have had a lot to say about US complicity in his early power plays (in the 80's), I wonder what we would have heard from OBL about all the help we gave him when Afghans were fighting the Soviets, and how some of that led to the current mess we're in. It seems to me that one good reason for outright elimination *might* have been to save embarassment - along with other (safety) considerations. Would I want to live in a city where PBL was on trial? I don't think so; it would become an immediate goal for every nutcase terrorist to make a "statement" there.

Where do we stand now? Well, we've got millions of uneducated, ignorant people who live in the underdeveloped, Byzantine world of places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and other places who will carry their vengeance on for as long as they can - i.e. "revenge" is embedded in their culture. Expect more terrorism, and more universal surveillance.

The solution? Not entirely sure, but I'm convinced that it's attached to educating the poor - to especially educating and enabling poor women; to have America stop politically manipulating the places that provide our "essential" natural resource needs; to teach American children more about the deep history of the entire world; to create alternatives to whack-job American journalists in venues like Fox news - i.e. people who play on ignorance and help bring out the worst in all of us, even if we don't agree with their "politics" - they exploit emotion to generate ad dollars by delivering the eyeballs of people who have been incited to hate, to their advertisers); to recalibrate our excessive material wants (not needs) and expectations; to do everything we can to wage a war of ideas among those who hate us, so that we can at the very least begin to see the possibility of kids growing up in environments that are not *ruled* by hate and prejudice - with the understanding that hate and prejudice are part of the human fabric, and that civilization is understanding the latter fact, and dealing with it in as non-self-destructive a way as possible.
posted by Vibrissae at 2:16 PM on May 5, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'm surprised even conservatives would switch back to attack mode so quick.

When you're a scorpion, what are you gonna do, open a deli? Take up landscape painting? When you're a scorpion, you only have one thing you do. Well, two: scream for lower taxes, and attack "liberals".
posted by orthogonality at 2:19 PM on May 5, 2011 [4 favorites]

Guardian: With its flip-flopping over the official narrative of Bin Laden's killing, the White House has squandered the political capital

God, the Brits never understand US politics, ever.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:19 PM on May 5, 2011

They could find some reason to go back to attacking Muslims for a while.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:20 PM on May 5, 2011

seem to indicate that the deceased were all hit from behind

1. Seals are trained to shoot in the head and chest.
2. Exit wounds are large, entry wounds are small (and sometimes hard to see).
posted by stbalbach at 2:23 PM on May 5, 2011 [4 favorites]

I don't think comments ought to be wasted about GOP attacks upon Obama. that is a given. The main thing is the post and Pakistan.
1. I don't believe OBL a prisoner there. He had wife and kids and of course the couriers coming and going, though we are told no internet access or phone--yet we are also told that we picked up a number of cells phones when we invaded the compound.
2. I find it hard to believe that ISI knew nothing about OBL presence. Why? OBL had 4 computers, ten hard drives etc etc and felt perfectly safe having them on hand, which means he felt protected. By whom? 6 years! During that period didn't he release a video or two?
3. I have one version (posted at my site) that says ISI knew he was there, approved the raid, and the whole thing allowed to take place so Pakistan would not take the heat for getting him. If that was then the scenario, our sneak helos part of the game. If not true, then what does that tell us about security in Pakistan and its nukes if we can sneak in with a number of planes and people?
4. As pointed out, Pakistan has for some years been sympathetic to the Taliban and has also been allowing men and arms into Afghanistan. In fact, one post at my site noted a "good Taliban" approved by Pakistan who admitted being a member of Al Qaeda.
5. Why do we tolerate what is going on? Because Pakistan has nukes and if Taliban or Al Qaeda or sympathizers route the govt, they will have the nukes and then lord knows what happens.
6. I had seen the show and it is clear that many foreign forces are there and their aim is the spread of Islam and its law--they never said they are there simply to get rid of non-Muslims but to encourage the spread of their religious beliefs...the urge to spread Islam as it once was so vast a power in the past.
7. The weapons were not, it was also noted, from China but rather many from Iran, another enemy of the West and also Islamic.
8. And no, it did not bother me that the Taliban riding motorcycles were not wearing helmets.
posted by Postroad at 2:33 PM on May 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

...and this lady a few years ago said OBL would be found in a villa in Pakistan

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/shock-christiane-amanpour-predicted-bin-laden-whereabouts-in-2008/
posted by Postroad at 2:37 PM on May 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

7. The weapons were not, it was also noted, from China but rather many from Iran, another enemy of the West and also Islamic.

As I recall, the Al Queda lads said they were being supplied by Iran, but when American analysts saw the pictures, they concluded that they actrually WERE from China, or Bulgaria.
posted by timsteil at 2:40 PM on May 5, 2011

I'm reading Colls, The Bin Ladens. Holy War Inc. is a pre-9/11 staple. It was a good show.

Maybe ISI nabbed him a while back, made him the type of "honored guest" offer you can't refuse
I have dsicounted this on the basis of compartmentalization and no back track to plausable denibility. They could have just put a loose tail on him but that seems unlikely. Also, Al Q Inc. had reach, they could have mildly coersed a few people. One axiom holds true, they less people who knew the better. It seems impossible but it is not.
posted by clavdivs at 2:43 PM on May 5, 2011

God, the Brits never understand US politics, ever.

I heard rumors there was a group of militant revolutionaries who had some skirmishes over that, back around 1776.
posted by charlie don't surf at 2:45 PM on May 5, 2011

The PBS server isn't working for me, I get everything but the video. But that's not surprising, even the NYTimes servers were overloaded and inaccessible when the news of OBL's death first hit the web.

This torrent seems to be working.
posted by charlie don't surf at 3:00 PM on May 5, 2011

just read that by Waterboarding a high ranking al qaeda sheik, at
Guantánamo Prison. he finally revealed the connection to OBL, is the courier. The surprising fact was the information finally came after the 183rd Waterboarding episodes. What number in the Guiness Book of Records is the most times the waterboarding record is currently at?
posted by taxpayer at 3:11 PM on May 5, 2011

I highly recommend watching the Frontline special.
posted by Ironmouth

"We're sorry but this video is not available in your region due to rights restrictions"

Would if I could, but this is apparently for US domestic consumption only. Dammit... I can buy Doritos and Mountain Dew from the advertisers too. (I know, I know... it's contractual)
posted by panaceanot at 3:14 PM on May 5, 2011

Would if I could, but this is apparently for US domestic consumption only. Dammit... I can buy Doritos and Mountain Dew from the advertisers too. (I know, I know... it's contractual)

Actually, the P in PBS is for "public". There are no ads....except for short usually non-salesly "brought to you buy" messages from companies and foundations.
posted by birdherder at 3:22 PM on May 5, 2011

Anyone surprised by Pakistan's support for Al Qaeda and the Taliban must have been in a coma for most of the past ten years. The only interesting thing about it now is the faux indignation the Pakistani government is trying to muster.

We need better "friends".
posted by tommasz at 3:24 PM on May 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

Well then I guess it's bandwidth, or what?

It's only the 'gimme, gimme now!' part of me that's complaining anyway. I listen to some fantastic public radio podcasts from the US on a regular basis.
posted by panaceanot at 3:26 PM on May 5, 2011

vuron's comment from the last thread stuck out to me: "this probably means that the ISI finally felt that the advantages of hiding Bin Laden were outweighed by the positives of ditching him"

the angle (and loose end) that's most intriguing to me now is the level of ISI involvement for or against the operation and the level of fallout/resolution (if any) that might still occur...

i found this backgrounder on the ISI informative; imagine if j.edgar hoover ran the country from 1924 to 1972...

also btw from a (pre-hit) wikiLeaks release: Terrorism and the ISI

US authorities listed the main Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), as a terrorist organisation alongside groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranian intelligence. Interrogators were told to regard links to any of these as an indication of terrorist or insurgent activity...

The inclusion of association with the ISI as a "threat indicator" in this document is likely to pour fuel on the flames of Washington's already strained relationship with its key regional ally. A number of the detainee files also contain references, apparently based on intelligence reporting, to the ISI supporting, co-ordinating and protecting insurgents fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan, or even assisting al-Qaida.

oh and from today: Signs Point to Pakistan Link - U.S. and European intelligence officials increasingly believe active or retired Pakistani military or intelligence officials provided some measure of aid to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, allowing him to stay hidden in a large compound just a mile from an elite military academy.
posted by kliuless at 3:27 PM on May 5, 2011 [2 favorites]

"We're sorry but this video is not available in your region due to rights restrictions"

Would if I could, but this is apparently for US domestic consumption only.

It's only supposed to not be available in the UK and Ireland. If anyone not there is seeing that message, please let me know.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:15 PM on May 5, 2011

If a primarily Muslim country were seeking Christian terrorists in the United States, how much real help you think they would get from us?

Pakistan's stance is not about weighing alternatives. It's about religious tribalism. The powers that be over there have a very unenviable position.
posted by Xoebe at 4:21 PM on May 5, 2011

Mayor Curley -- since you seem to have some knowledge about this...

Why can't websites such as the Frontline website actually just say, out front, "This video is only available in $THESECOUNTRIES." Or, conversely, in this case, "This video is not made available in the UK and Ireland." Why does there have to be this game of promise and disappointment?

If the video isn't going to be available, why even have the page which lists it load in those countries to begin with?

The denizens of the interwebs would like a bit of transparency when it comes to video availability, and why not start with where you work?
posted by hippybear at 4:21 PM on May 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

How to have an awkward realization about US foreign policy:

1) We attacked Afghanistan because they sheltered Osama bin Laden.
2) We attacked Iraq because they allegedly had "WMD"s.
3) Pakistan sheltered Osama bin Laden.
4) Pakistan is very open about having a significant nuclear arsenal.
5) We will not be attacking Pakistan.
6) We only attack countries we know we can defeat easily.

So you can conclude,
a) any moral or strategic reasoning aside, we are bullies. We only start fights we know can win easily and/or
b) the strategy we employed in Pakistan, a targeted Special Forces attack, would have worked just fine in Afghanistan in 2001. But we really really like dropping bombs on things.
posted by drjimmy11 at 4:51 PM on May 5, 2011 [2 favorites]

Well, I think on some level, we were using our opening salvo shock-and-awe campaigns to Send An Important Message To Everyone Who Might Oppose Or Challenge Us. Kind of a massive global dick-waving on behalf of the US via our military, which is bigger and more developed than anyone else's by orders of magnitude.

The laughable thing is, the longer we have soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, the more the world can see that our dick waving doesn't have much to back it up behind that opening salvo, and that anyone willing to engage in underground guerilla tactics can annoy us for a decade without us doing much more than ruining any measure of goodwill we may have had in the country we send our military to.

You're absolutely right about the nuclear thing. That's why Iran wants it so bad.
posted by hippybear at 4:58 PM on May 5, 2011

Why can't websites such as the Frontline website actually just say, out front, "This video is only available in $THESECOUNTRIES."

I don't know what PBS uses, but our IP address lookup service can be ... slow. Sometimes it can take up to a second to respond. So you'd be effectively blocking the page from rendering until it figures out where you are. You don't want this, you'd then complain that the page is slow.

With video you're already conditioned to wait for the it to buffer, so an extra half second to block the UI isn't really going to be noticeable. Plus, not everyone who goes to the page will actually view the video, so you can use caching and other things that don't require hitting a service that looksup where you are.

Really the browser should be offering up this sort of information so you can make a guess before you do the actual check.
posted by geoff. at 6:06 PM on May 5, 2011

After all the trouble getting it, that Frontline was rather anticlimactic.

tl,dr; Small time local thugs claim to be big international terrorists. Pakistan is in on it.
posted by charlie don't surf at 6:52 PM on May 5, 2011

I saw Steve Coll mentioned somewhere in there, his "Ghost Wars" is a fantastic book about the events leading up to 9/11 and should be read by anyone who is serious about understanding this topic. Speaking of book recommendations, the video featured Dexter Filkins, and his book about Iraq called The Forever War was outstanding as well.
posted by Man Bites Dog at 6:52 PM on May 5, 2011

Postroad, you hit it on the head. Everyone asks why we are in Afghanistan. Have to engage the baddies enough that they can not topple the weak and corrupt Pakistan gov. If the baddies get their hands on the triggers 9-11 will look like a picnic. Obviously Obama, nor any other responsible person in our government R or D can not say this.

Our ability to extract, disable, or remove nukes from Pakistan is extremely unlikely given how these things go... So, basically we are trying to nurse the government along until we can figure out what to do about this. We exit Afghanistan with a potent Taliban virtually certain nukes end up in the hands of people who will attempt to deploy them against us...

If you are Obama, what would YOU do?
posted by jcworth at 7:08 PM on May 5, 2011

geoff.: you misunderstand me.

Plain text on a page, as part of the product description.

"This video only available in the US."

Or "This video unavailable in the UK and Ireland"

I'm not talking about a lookup. I should have not used a programming variable when I didn't intend any programming to be part of what I was talking about, but it's not unconventional on MetaFilter to use such a device to indicate that you don't want to define something which could be defined, in order to keep the conversation about the subject at hand and not derail it by (for instance) putting in a country name and then having a huge discussion about the name you chose.

Lookups are not necessary. Disclosure would be welcome.
posted by hippybear at 7:28 PM on May 5, 2011

Ghost Wars and The Bin Ladens.. both books by Steve Coll deserve to be mandatory reading for anyone seeking to understand what's happening in that part of the world right now.
posted by vidur at 8:08 PM on May 5, 2011

Thank you kliuless ^ for that informative link
A couple from today's UK Independent.
Robert Fisk: If this is a US victory, does that mean its forces should go home now?
and Johann Hari: The real meaning of Bin Laden's death.
As further background reading I recommend Nicholas Schmidle -To Live or to Perish Forever: Two Tumultuous Years in Pakistan and Ahmed Rashid - Descent into Chaos.
Pakistan continues to spin by pointing it's finger (perhaps not unreasonably) at India as does Ahmed Quraish: Balochistan: CIA's Crumbling Project and probably the next front in this ever spreading war. (predicted here)
posted by adamvasco at 12:28 AM on May 6, 2011

I hate geo-ip restrictions; I do have a pretty good idea for why the implementation is so user hostile.

From a technical perspective, the website content and the video content are often hosted on different servers. The website is often centralized, while the video is hosted on a content distribution network that's closer to the end user. This is particularly likely for larger sites like PBS's.

The practical upshot of this is that you need to build your geo-sensing technology into the video servers. You cannot rely on the honor system to protect your content from being shared into areas that you don't want to send it out to- people will simply grab the URL to the video content and link in directly.

Web engineers are a parsimonious lot; rather than implement the same algorithm twice (once on the video service and once on the central server that generates the enclosing page), we'll tend to rely on the video server's security implementation. This means there's one algorithm, one admin tool to set country, and no realistic bypass around it. In addition, the users you are pissing off are the ones you can't serve, anyway, so not a lot of attention gets paid to the user experience there.
posted by jenkinsEar at 6:44 AM on May 6, 2011

I have no problem with people not being served movies based on geographic location.

Okay, well, I do... But that's not what I'm talking about here.

WHY CAN'T IT JUST STATE CLEARLY ON THE WEBPAGE IN PLAIN TEXT WHERE IT WILL BE SERVED OR BLOCKED?

Why do you have to go through the process of clicking through, thinking that you're going to get to see the movie, and then have the computer deny you? It's not hard to put text on a webpage.

I say this because, as someone who regularly posts videos as FPPs here at MetaFilter, I have no idea where the video is available and where it isn't. And I end up feeling bad when a significant number of readers can't see the video WHICH I COULD HAVE KNOWN IF SOME FUCKER HAD JUST PUT A LINE OR TWO OF TEXT ON THE WEBPAGE.

Why is everyone interpreting this request to be anything more than it is, which is wanting to see in plaintext on the webpage that a video is doing to be blocked in certain countries and to list them out. I don't even need a reason why -- I just want to know that it's happening ahead of time.

And... since the one person I was asking this question of directly in the thread isn't responding... I'll wrap up this derail now.
posted by hippybear at 7:07 AM on May 6, 2011

And... since the one person I was asking this question of directly in the thread isn't responding... I'll wrap up this derail now.

I'd actually like to know myself as well. Mayor Curley, do you know why the Frontline web site does not write a line of disclaimer text on its web page, next to each video, stating, "this video will not be available in [country] and [country]?"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:14 AM on May 6, 2011

I'd actually like to know myself as well. Mayor Curley, do you know why the Frontline web site does not write a line of disclaimer text on its web page, next to each video, stating, "this video will not be available in [country] and [country]?"

We used to do it (or have done it) when users went to a separate page of the subsite to watch the video: "Due to rights restrictions, this film is not available in X country."

Now that the video's on the front page it's more complicated to shoehorn that in there and the rights restrictions weren't clear to us until shortly before launch. I'll suggest it the next time it comes up because user experience is important. We don't geoblock shows often anyway, so it's a fair bet that it's going to be available to everyone. The usual culprit for these sorts of things (in my experience) is a rights agreement involving FL and Channel Four or the BBC.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:12 AM on May 6, 2011

it's a fair bet that it's going to be available to everyone

meaning "an episode you find on the site."
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:13 AM on May 6, 2011

Juan Cole: Pakistani Military between Rock and Hard Place
posted by adamvasco at 1:20 PM on May 6, 2011

Thanks, Mayor Curley. (Hippybear just sounded so frustrated, I wanted to see if I could help get the answer!)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:21 PM on May 6, 2011

(Hippybear just sounded so frustrated, I wanted to see if I could help get the answer!)

I wasn't ignoring him. I just hadn't made it back to the thread.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:42 PM on May 6, 2011

Afghanisan has a life expectancy of 44 and only 12% of women are literate – and it remains one of the most corrupt countries in the world
Nobody in Nato talks about being able to defeat the Taliban any more.
posted by adamvasco at 12:46 PM on May 10, 2011

Kill/Capture: Inside the military's extraordinary secret campaign to take out thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters
posted by homunculus at 9:15 PM on May 10, 2011

I wasn't ignoring him. I just hadn't made it back to the thread.

Oh, no, I didn't mean to imply you were -- I just saw a lot of other people answering the WRONG question, and was afraid that hippybear's actual question would get buried and you wouldn't see it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:07 AM on May 11, 2011

Making peace with the Taliban? UN pressed to lift Afghan sanctions
Britain and US accept insurgents' demand to end sanctions on ex-Taliban leaders including notorious Mohammed Qalamuddin.
posted by adamvasco at 12:58 AM on June 3, 2011