Poll
4 votes (30.76%) | |||
9 votes (69.23%) |
13 members have voted
We got Bin Ladden just about a week ago. He appeared to be hiding in one place maybe for years. He might have not been able to leave and being held as a trump card of some sort by Pakistan should they have needed him badly. For example, if there was trouble with India, they tell us "come get him" and after we are supposed to like them. No matter what, he was in one place for years.
Suppose you were wanted. Not as wanted as he was, but wanted enough that those in power would not forget you. (Maybe you robbed Bellagio or something.)
One school of thought says you keep moving. Rumors were that Arafat and Kadaffy never slept two nights in the same place for security reasons. They were not "hiding" but if you keep moving it is hard for them to raid and ambush you.
OTOH, people can get caught when they are moving. This was even part of a storyline at the end of "The Shield." You drive down the interstate in a Camry to blend in and a cop sees you.
Which do you think is better and how would you hide? On the move or stay in one place?
It's pretty hard to get found that way unless someone around you gets careless. It worked pretty well, as far as we know.
How do you do anything that requires a social security number? Using that probably triggers a red flag with the FBI. The same is true of your credit cards. Doing related to living a normal life (getting married, buying a house, getting a car or other loan) would require some sort of SSN, and therefore not be possible.
I suppose if you had enough money you could find and pay somebody to get you a fake SSN (using a dead person's number or something).
On the other hand, if you are in Pakistan or other less developed countries, it seems like it would be easier to avoid these issues.
Quote: rxwineOne thing I wondered about bin Laden, was if he ever completely cut his hair and adopted a western attire. Now that I've seen more information on what he's been doing all this time, it seems that if he ever did it might have been early on. So far, it appears he's been hanging out in couple rooms the last few years with walks around the yard maybe.
Way back, like 2002 or so I remember the news speculating on him blending in. One thing they said was the SOB is 6'4" or so. Doesn't sound like much, but it made him taller than something like 90% of the population, even in a "taller" country as the USA. For that reason alone traveling and blending would have been hard they said.
Remember Saddam and the "possible" photos? When they found him he looked worse than the homeless near Freemont St. Seems hiding out takes a toll.
Given a bag of cash, an unknown person could easily get lost in a small town where there is no need for transportation and buy your groceries with cash. An urban setting would work as well. You could hide in one place for the rest of your life.
If you are easy to recognize then no matter where you go you'll have to trust someone else to interface with the outside world for supplies. In this case it would be best to keep moving.
There was an episode of Mayberry R.F.D. where Aunt Bee finally got a job as a receptionist at a new print shop opening in town. Of course it turns out that the backroom was being used to make counterfeit money... Andy got it all straightend out in the end. It's hard to get away with anything in a small town.
Quote: kpbag of cash
This is a must have, when you plan to be a serious fugitive. Or a fugitive to be taken seriously?
Quote: AyecarumbaSmall towns are dicey. People tend to be more nosey regarding new neighbors, and when your picture comes up on "America's Most Wanted", you're toast. I think you have a better chance in an urban environment, where there are lots of folks coming and going all the time.
I have to agree there. I used to have small and not even very small towns on a sales territroy. I can't count how many times I'd ask for directions and give an address and the person stopped me and said, "who are you looking for?" Quite often they knew the name but not the street address (or RD area back then.) It was a weird attitude they had. Friendly and proud of their small town. But at the same time someone who moved to the town they would wonder why on earth anyone would move there without good reason.
In that regard, Phoenix and Las Vegas would be easy to hide out in. Big walls around your backyard. Most people are transplants and most don't make much if any effort to know the neighbors. If you don't make effort to even be outside your home no one notices. Where did the WPP send Sammy Gravano? PHOENIX!
Quote: AZDuffmanOTOH, people can get caught when they are moving. This was even part of a storyline at the end of "The Shield." You drive down the interstate in a Camry to blend in and a cop sees you.
The last season of The Shield was absolutely fantastic, in particular the last 5 or 6 episodes. Best. Show. Evah.
[/derail]
Quote: zippyboyThe last season of The Shield was absolutely fantastic, in particular the last 5 or 6 episodes. Best. Show. Evah.
[/derail]
I miss Vic, he got a raw deal. Claudette should have just left him alone. Only other cop charachter comes close to how good he was would be Sipowictz.
Assuming that they do not have any additional information, the best strategy for them would be to pick some kind of a system, and search each location one by one until each one has been searched (if you are not found by then, pick another system, and start over). If you are not moving, you will be found after at most N days, and on average after N/2 days.
On the other hand, if you pick a new location at random every day, you chance to be found that day is p=1/N.
So, the expected number of days you will stay free is p + 2*p(1-p) + 3*p(1-p)^2 + ... = pSUM(k*(1-p)^k-1) = 1/p = N.
Since N > N/2, moving is (about twice) better than staying put.
"Search for bin Laden" might be an interesting game. You get tiny bits of clues here and there; you have limited resources and spies, and difficult areas to search. There are political implications of just blowing up suspected areas where you think he's hiding. And years of time are accelerated in hours.
Quote: weaselmanSuppose, there are N locations in the world where you can hide. Assume, that those who are looking for you have no clue which one(s) of the N you are going to use, let's say it takes them 1 day to search a single location.
Assuming that they do not have any additional information, the best strategy for them would be to pick some kind of a system, and search each location one by one until each one has been searched (if you are not found by then, pick another system, and start over). If you are not moving, you will be found after at most N days, and on average after N/2 days.
On the other hand, if you pick a new location at random every day, you chance to be found that day is p=1/N.
So, the expected number of days you will stay free is p + 2*p(1-p) + 3*p(1-p)^2 + ... = pSUM(k*(1-p)^k-1) = 1/p = N.
Since N > N/2, moving is (about twice) better than staying put.
Interesting. But assume you are the head of a well funded organization, and the son of a Saudi oil sheik, so you have many locations at your disposal. If N=3 million, you could effectively plan to stay in one location and keep your big ugly head down until you died of natural causes. Both strategies appear valid vs. the average terrorist's lifespan.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhich do you think is better and how would you hide? On the move or stay in one place?
I wonder which method DB Cooper used?
In bin Laden's situation, I would have had two tunnels ready, (if such were doable)
Quote: LucyjrI am quite surprised that he didn't have a "panic room".
A "panic cave", you mean? Saddam was inside his when he was found, remember? Didn't help him.
What do you think of capturing bin Laden this way as a bet?
I think it's a high stakes bet. The odds I've heard quoted (risk/reward) would be good if you were a long term gambler wanting to come out ahead. But isn't this a terrible high stakes bet. Don't you want a high stakes bet to be in the upper 90 percentile for success at the very least?
I'm defining "high stakes" as not as a particular amount, but a risk you really can't afford to lose. Somewhat like betting the house. Your actual home. (if you only have one -- if you have many to spare, no big deal)
The things that could have combined to go wrong:
-bin Laden not there
- killing occupants - innocents
- some of SEAL team getting killed
- engaging Pakistan forces in a firefight in attempt to escape - more carnage.
Were all those to happen -- holy shit. We would still be talking about it, of course, but there would be a whole 'nother perspective.
But then, here's something that might be familiar to gamblers. The dangerous thing about winning a high stakes bet is any confidence you gain. Maybe you can pull another one off one more time. You really can't afford to lose any of these kind of bets though.
President Obama certainly fared better than President Carter in using helicopters to conduct high stakes covert military operations. He only lost one chopper. Carter lost three, and 8 good men lost their lives in a failed attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages.
Quote: LucyjrI vote to stay in one place. I am quite surprised that he didn't have a "panic room". Assuming that the covert operation had to be done quickly, a hidden, secure room might have significantly changed the outcome. Imagine the international backlash towards the US if the "intel was bad".
I think a "panic room" is fine if you are trying to defend yourself against a group of guys with side arms. I am sure that a raid by a group of SEALS is a different thing. I sincerely doubt that he could have built a "panic room" against 50 lbs of C-4.
From what they said, they had time to build a duplicate of the compound, and train the operatives thoroughly.
Christine Amanpour was still at CNN when she appeared on HBO's Bill Maher in October 3rd, 2008 when a source told her bin Laden was living in a villa, not a cave. It's my guess that the US government had some pretty good INTEL even when Bush was president. I think that partly explains Obama's gesture to the ex-president. I think they had tunnels pretty well covered. Since there were some other houses only 100' away I suspect they had them covered as well.
Quote: AyecarumbaI think the President maximized his "advantage" by carefully analyzing all the available information before putting anything on the line. The worst case would have been if OBL had slipped away while this analysis was being conducted. Remember, that reports indicate the compound was under surveillance for MONTHS.
President Obama certainly fared better than President Carter in using helicopters to conduct high stakes covert military operations. He only lost one chopper. Carter lost three, and 8 good men lost their lives in a failed attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages.
Obama has shown himself to be very risk-adverse. My guess is he greenlighted the raid after months of study showing Osama rarely if ever left.
Quote: AZDuffmanObama has shown himself to be very risk-adverse. My guess is he greenlighted the raid after months of study showing Osama rarely if ever left.
The compound is on the images in Google map historical imagery dated 14 June 2005 (it looks like it is in early stages of construction).
Why take a chance on a raid if Bin Laden wasn't capable of hurting people? I should think that once found the USA can follow someone almost forever unless he has the entire power of the state behind him. There could have been multiple bugs on all of his cars, with video surveillance.
Quote: pacomartinTheoretically, let's assume that Obama found out in his first briefing as president, that the Bush administration had already located him. Why take a chance on a raid if he wasn't capable of hurting people. I should think that once found the USA can follow someone almost forever unless he has the entire power of the state behind him. There could have been multiple bugs on all of his cars, with video surveillance.
Simple reason to "take a chance" on a raid. "The Sopranos" explained this very well. Several times Tony didn't really want to take action. But he would always say, "if I don't do something, how is it going to look?"
Bush understood this well which was a major reason for the Iraq War. Warning after warning and no consequences. Eventually people get the idea you do not mean what you say. So lets pretend Bush told Obama we knew Osama was and all he did, right down to how he took his coffee in the morning. Obama says, "cool, I don't need to risk a mission, he is harmless." Well, some other terrorist hears this and decides, "hey, the USA is afraid to kill Osama and after all he did to them! I am going to kill some Americans and make myself famous!" BAM, another attack.
If you doubt this, remeber Osama said America was a paper tiger who turns tail the minute there are even a very small number of casualties (Somalia.) This is a major reason I get POed at people who said we had to leave Iraq because of "casualties." We lost more in WWII in many days as we have in 8 years in Iraq. I'm not saying I want casualties, but if the enemy gets wind that you have no tolerance for *any* loss of life then all they need to do is kill as many people as possible and wait.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf you doubt this, remeber Osama said America was a paper tiger who turns tail the minute there are even a very small number of casualties (Somalia.) This is a major reason I get POed at people who said we had to leave Iraq because of "casualties." We lost more in WWII in many days as we have in 8 years in Iraq. I'm not saying I want casualties, but if the enemy gets wind that you have no tolerance for *any* loss of life then all they need to do is kill as many people as possible and wait.
I think the Tet Offensive quite nicely sums up your point as well. Absolute failure for the Viet Cong in terms of tactical and strategical objectives obtained, but caused enough casualties to make the US reconsider their position.
Quote: AyecarumbaRemember, that reports indicate the compound was under surveillance for MONTHS.
Perhaps the original assessment I heard has changed. Which was even though they had months of observation, had observed a figure outside, their confirmation of it being bin Laden wasn't so high that it couldn't have turned out to be an eccentric from Dubai (or some odd figure was suggested)
Quote: gofaster87From what i understand from talking to guys in military ops, people like Bin Laden also have look-a-likes to draw attention from them.
They said that about Saddam. Harder for Bin Ladden to do since he was so tall. Not impossible, though, and a good point. Raid and kill a loolalike and you look foolish.
Quote: JimbodaBimboI'm still perplexed at his hiding place being called a mansion. If that's the case my home must be some kind of palace to those robewearers.
Pretty big compound, at least 300 feet of road frontage, and the main house is over 4000 square feet.
It's on Google Earth at ( 34°10'9.26"N, 73°14'33.10"E) , the main house is on the historical imagery dated 14 June 2005, but the compound is much smaller.
The property is an empty field on imagery dated 22 March 2001.
The president says it is still unclear if the house was built for Bin Laden, but he has lived there at least 5 years.
He should have gone with a Polish crew...
Quote: JimbodaBimboIt looks like it's more like a small ranch would be to us. 4000 square feet isn't that big for such a ranch house. But I was really referring to the interior pictures I've seen. Shabby walls and ceilings with dangling wires sticking out of them, cheap doors and cheap overall construction. I can only imagine what the kitchen and bathrooms look like. I just did read where most of the people in that country live in wretched poverty, so I can now see how that place would be considered a mansion to the locals.
This home is for sale for US$37,700 in Abbotobad. It is 16 feet wide street and 2 bed rooms with attach bath,wide car porch, living room, laundry marble floors and wooden doors.
Pakistan has a Human Development Index below Nicaragua and Guatemala (and below every other country in the Western Hemisphere) but above Haiti if you are looking for an equivalent.
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide.