bin Laden killed in groundstrike
 

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources[/url]

Good riddance, Osama. Game, set and match.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;260209][URL]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources[/URL]

Good riddance, Osama. Game, set and match.[/QUOTE]Game certainly; set possibly; match almost certainly not.

Consider a reversed situation ( i.e. s/s/b/). If Al Quaeda had taken out Obama, would they be able to claim game, set and match and expect to be believed?

Paul

The worldwide welcoming of this strike makes no sense to me. What does the death of this man mean precisely? Is there no-one to fill his shoes, or do the other terrorists not understand a concept like revenge?

In my most cynical moments now I'm wondering, probably irrationally but I'm fishing for some sense, whether the timing is designed to show Obama responding to the terrorist threat and reacting to the revenge attack which will take place in the coming months ready for his re-election campaign late in 2012.

I don't really think that, or at least I don't want to.

So what has been achieved by the murder of Bin Laden?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;260236]The worldwide welcoming of this strike makes no sense to me. What does the death of this man mean precisely? Is there no-one to fill his shoes, or do the other terrorists not understand a concept like revenge?

In my most cynical moments now I'm wondering, probably irrationally but I'm fishing for some sense, whether the timing is designed to show Obama responding to the terrorist threat and reacting to the revenge attack which will take place in the coming months ready for his re-election campaign late in 2012.

I don't really think that, or at least I don't want to.

So what has been achieved by the murder of Bin Laden?[/QUOTE]

Justice. He was the head of a terrorist attack that killed ~3000 people.

Is this too hard to comprehend?

And your calling it murder is beneath contempt.

Warning: We do not wish to offend anyone, but if we do, we apologize in advance.


Anytime we hear of anyone being killed it troubles us. Even if they are "bad" people. We believe every human life has (in an overly religious way of saying it) "That of God" inside them.

[SIZE=1](This is, to us, a very complicated view and difficult to explain.)[/SIZE]

We wonder sometimes why the people who flew the planes did what they did. They were certainly not cowards. Has America's policies and actions contributed to this? Are there other factors? Were they just plain crazy? (Have you all watched "Jesus Camp"?)

They are called terrorists. Many respectable and famous historical figures fall into that category, right?

We do not know anyone who was killed on 9/11. We hope that if we did we would have the moral fortitude to stay the course and not let anger or hate govern our life. Perhaps it is impossible. We hope we never have to find out.

We have seen firsthand some very bad things during our previous life as a combat medic. We are thankful that Uncle Sam provided us with an accelerated path to pacifism.

We do not know how we should feel about this recent news.

We just feel sad.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;260240]Warning: We do not wish to offend anyone, but if we do, we apologize in advance.


Anytime we hear of anyone being killed it troubles us. Even if they are "bad" people. We believe every human life has (in an overly religious way of saying it) "That of God" inside them.

[SIZE=1](This is, to us, a very complicated view and difficult to explain.)[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]Me too.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;260240]They are called terrorists. Many respectable and famous historical figures fall into that category, right?[/QUOTE]True. Harry S Truman may be so described. Winston Churchill is another, as is Menachem Begin. All have civilan deaths on their conscience.

There is frequently little to distinguish between terrorists, freedom fighters and patriots other than one's tribal allegiance.

Paul

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;260239]He was the head of a terrorist attack that killed ~3000 people.[/QUOTE]And more people than that died because they were too scared to fly afterward.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;260240]Anytime we hear of anyone being killed it troubles us. Even if they are "bad" people. We believe every human life has (in an overly religious way of saying it) "That of God" inside them.[/QUOTE]This seems appropriate:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor' and 'hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don't they? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don't they? So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48)

That is one of the hardest things that Christians are called upon to do.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;260240]Warning: We do not wish to offend anyone, but if we do, we apologize in advance.


Anytime we hear of anyone being killed it troubles us. Even if they are "bad" people. We believe every human life has (in an overly religious way of saying it) "That of God" inside them.
[/QUOTE]


And those of us who believe that religion and those that follow it are
irrational do not share your unfounded beliefs. (that one has "God" inside;
there is ZERO evidence for the existence of God)

Bin Laden was continuing to lead terrorist efforts. It is not immoral
to kill in self-defense.

[QUOTE=xilman;260248]Me too.

True. Harry S Truman may be so described. Winston Churchill is another, as is Menachem Begin. All have civilan deaths on their conscience.
[/QUOTE]

Which by itself does not make one a terrorist.

The days when armies marched to battle and civilians stayed out of harms
way are long gone. In modern history, civilians are every bit as responsible
for war efforts as soldiers. They build the planes, tanks and bombs and
provide the support and infrastructure. They may not be combatents,
but I see this as irrelevant in modern warfare. One who eats meat
can not sneer at the butcher.

[QUOTE]
There is frequently little to distinguish between terrorists, freedom fighters and patriots other than one's tribal allegiance.
[/QUOTE]

One can certainly make the distinction during a declared war.

I agree about Begin. I don't agree about Truman or Churchill.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;260239]Justice. He was the head of a terrorist attack that killed ~3000 people.

Is this too hard to comprehend?

And your calling it murder is beneath contempt.[/QUOTE]

Another one will come to take his place.
George W. Bush killed more in Iraq.

[QUOTE=em99010pepe;260258]Another one will come to take his place.
George W. Bush killed more in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

I agree about Bush. He should have been put on trial for treason
and war crimes. Along with Cheney and Rumsfeld. Maybe Condi Rice
as well.

Obama is such a wus.

[breaking his oath of office to uphold the constitution by knowingly
conducting illegal wiretaps; torture of prisoners, starting a war under
false pretenses]

[QUOTE]And those of us who believe that religion and those that follow it are irrational do not share your unfounded beliefs. (that one has "God" inside; there is ZERO evidence for the existence of God)[/QUOTE]We do not believe in "God" or a god or gods. We do believe in Trolls.

We are perhaps a pantheist or maybe a humanist. Labels are such a pain in the ass.

We just care about people, marvel at the beauty of nature and believe we have several duties.[LIST][*]To live a simple life, although we encourage Corvette ownership.[*]To promote peace, both home and abroad.[*]To be consistent in word and deed.[*]To treat all people as equals.[*]To understand that we are stewards of the Earth and its resources.[/LIST]The terminology we use was (and is) acquired because we tend to hang out with liberal Quakers.

[SIZE=1]Snake1: Trolls exist! They steal your socks, but only the left ones. What's with that?[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;260259]I agree about Bush. He should have been put on trial for treason
and war crimes. Along with Cheney and Rumsfeld. Maybe Condi Rice
as well.

Obama is such a wus.

[breaking his oath of office to uphold the constitution by knowingly
conducting illegal wiretaps; torture of prisoners, starting a war under
false pretenses][/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact[/url] here get it over with and contact him on the issue.

@xyzzy almost always right ...
"but the socks do not have the right and left ...
only for different design / shape / substance
some sometimes do not bring ...
almost impossible to restore them after washing in pairs ... "

words of trolls

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;260257]Which by itself does not make one a terrorist.

The days when armies marched to battle and civilians stayed out of harms
way are long gone. In modern history, civilians are every bit as responsible
for war efforts as soldiers. They build the planes, tanks and bombs and
provide the support and infrastructure. They may not be combatents,
but I see this as irrelevant in modern warfare. One who eats meat
can not sneer at the butcher.

One can certainly make the distinction during a declared war.

I agree about Begin. I don't agree about Truman or Churchill.[/QUOTE]I was not sneering at the butcher, more pointing out that both Truman and Churchill targeted civilian populations expressly to "demoralize" the enemy. Nice euphemism, that.


Stimson argued strongly for the psychological effects of dropping the bombs on Japan. See [URL]http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_23.htm[/URL] for some aposite quotes. For instance:[quote]And Stimson himself later justified the use of the bomb on the ground that by 1 November conventional bombardment would have caused greater destruction than the bomb. This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that the atomic bomb was considered to be capable of a psychological effect entirely apart from the damage wrought. [/quote]Although Truman recorded in his diary [quote] We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.
Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.
This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. [B]I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.[/B] Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
He and I are in accord. The [B]target will be a purely military one[/B] and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...[/quote]([URL]http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html[/URL], emphasis in the original) I refuse to believe that he was so naive to believe that the target was purely military nor that there would not be an immense number of civilian casualties. He had been well briefed, both by eyewitnesses at Trinity and by military and governmental personel.

I can dig up comparable material on Churchill's decisions too, if you wish.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;260275]I was not sneering at the butcher, more pointing out that both Truman and Churchill targeted civilian populations expressly to "demoralize" the enemy. Nice euphemism, that.


Stimson argued strongly for the psychological effects of dropping the bombs on Japan. See [URL]http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_23.htm[/URL] for some aposite quotes. For instance:Although Truman recorded in his diary ([URL]http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html[/URL], emphasis in the original) I refuse to believe that he was so naive to believe that the target was purely military nor that there would not be an immense number of civilian casualties. [/QUOTE]

Agreed. He knew there would be 'civilian' deaths. I would argue, however,
that when the military places its bases, factories, or armaments among
the civilian population that the responsibility for civilian deaths lies with
them and not an enemy who causes collateral deaths going after military
targets. I also think the distinction between civilian and combatent is
meaningless in modern warfare. Yes, it is possible to target just civilians.
i.e. targets with zero military value. I don't think that Churchill or
Truman had that in mind. At least I hope that they didn't.

Hiroshima/Nagasaki were high value military targets placed among a large
number of civilians. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE to conduct war on
Japan (or Germany) purely on civilian targets. Let me also point out
that civilians backed the Emperor and backed Hitler. They must bear
responsibility.

it's been confirmed by DNA to 99.99% ( quite a few not eliminated in a world of over 6 billion) accurate I think 100-99.99% of 6 billion = 6000 not 1

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;260265]We do not believe in "God" or a god or gods. We do believe in Trolls.

We are perhaps a pantheist or maybe a humanist. Labels are such a pain in the ass.

We just care about people, marvel at the beauty of nature and believe we have several duties.[LIST][*]To live a simple life, although we encourage Corvette ownership.[*]To promote peace, both home and abroad.[*]To be consistent in word and deed.[*]To treat all people as equals.[*]To understand that we are stewards of the Earth and its resources.[/LIST]The terminology we use was (and is) acquired because we tend to hang out with liberal Quakers.

[SIZE=1]Snake1: Trolls exist! They steal your socks, but only the left ones. What's with that?[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[i]Mostly[/i] Laudable. Except that the first item exhibits hypocrisy. Also, the 'simple life' would be quite boring and lead to a lot of misery and death in
our century. Think about agriculture without fertilizers and the technology needed to produce them. Many would starve. Think about how many would
die without modern medicine (vaccines, etc.) and the ability to transport
it (transport food as well). A worldwide population who followed the Quaker
monastic existence would be quite small, as well as being intellectually stilted. How can one 'marvel at nature' without wanting to know how it
works???

Official sources have confirmed that ObL was killed in a ground operation (not an airstrike). Could a moderator please kindly change the title to something more accurate?

Thanks.

[quote]We do not know how we should feel about this recent news.[/quote]

"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure" - Mark Twain

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;260285][i]Mostly[/i] Laudable. Except that the first item exhibits hypocrisy. Also, the 'simple life' would be quite boring and lead to a lot of misery and death in
our century. Think about agriculture without fertilizers and the technology needed to produce them. Many would starve. Think about how many would
die without modern medicine (vaccines, etc.) and the ability to transport
it (transport food as well). A worldwide population who followed the Quaker
monastic existence would be quite small, as well as being intellectually stilted. How can one 'marvel at nature' without wanting to know how it
works???[/QUOTE]

We continue to enlarge the population at our peril.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;260282]Hiroshima/Nagasaki were high value military targets placed among a large number of civilians.[/QUOTE]

Both cities were significant ports, but neither was an intensive manufacturing center. Some historians have argued that these locations were chosen for testing the first atomic bombs precisely because they were [B]not[/B] high value military targets and had been thus spared the fire-bombing that had devastated so many other Japanese cities.


[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;260285]A worldwide population who followed the Quaker monastic existence would be quite small, as well as being intellectually stilted.[/QUOTE]

I think you must be confusing the Quakers with some other group.

[QUOTE=philmoore;260332]Both cities were significant ports, but neither was an intensive manufacturing center. Some historians have argued that these locations were chosen for testing the first atomic bombs precisely because they were [B]not[/B] high value military targets and had been thus spared the fire-bombing that had devastated so many other Japanese cities.




I think you must be confusing the Quakers with some other group.[/QUOTE]

Nope. Pennsylvania Quakers.

Well, when you said "monastic existence", I thought you might be referring to the Shakers, as the Quakers have never advocated a monastic existence as far as I know. I still think you are confused - perhaps you are thinking of the "Pennsylvania Dutch", i.e., Amish? Quakers, we're talking about Benjamin Franklin and Herbert Hoover here, aren't we?

The New York Times has excellent reporting on the story:

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/02reconstruct-capture-osama-bin-laden.html?ref=world]Detective Work on Courier Led to Breakthrough on Bin Laden[/url]: [i]WASHINGTON — After years of dead ends and promising leads gone cold, the big break came last August.[/i]
[quote]A trusted courier of Osama bin Laden’s whom American spies had been hunting for years was finally located in a compound 35 miles north of the Pakistani capital, close to one of the hubs of American counterterrorism operations. The property was so secure, so large, that American officials guessed it was built to hide someone far more important than a mere courier.

What followed was eight months of painstaking intelligence work, culminating in a helicopter assault by American military and intelligence operatives that ended in the death of Bin Laden on Sunday and concluded one of history’s most extensive and frustrating manhunts.

American officials said that Bin Laden was shot in the head after he tried to resist the assault force, and that one of his sons died with him.

For nearly a decade, American military and intelligence forces had chased the specter of Bin Laden through Pakistan and Afghanistan, once coming agonizingly close and losing him in a pitched battle at Tora Bora, in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. As Obama administration officials described it, the real breakthrough came when they finally figured out the name and location of Bin Laden’s most trusted courier, whom the Qaeda chief appeared to rely on to maintain contacts with the outside world.

Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the courier’s pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.
[u]
American intelligence officials said Sunday night that they finally learned the courier’s real name four years ago, but that it took another two years for them to learn the general region where he operated.
[/u]
Still, it was not until August that they tracked him to the compound in Abbottabad, a medium-sized city about an hour’s drive north of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan.

C.I.A. analysts spent the next several weeks examining satellite photos and intelligence reports to determine who might be living at the compound. A senior administration official said that by September the C.I.A. had decided that there was a “strong possibility” that Bin Laden himself was hiding there.

It was hardly the spartan cave in the mountains that many had envisioned as Bin Laden’s hiding place. Rather, it was a mansion on the outskirts of the town’s center, set on an imposing hilltop and ringed by 12-foot-high concrete walls topped with barbed wire.

The property was valued at $1 million, but it had neither a telephone nor an Internet connection. Its residents were so concerned about security that they burned their trash rather putting it on the street for collection the way their neighbors did.
[u]
American officials believed that the compound, built in 2005, was designed for the specific purpose of hiding Bin Laden.
[/u]
Months more of intelligence work would follow before American spies felt highly confident that it was indeed Bin Laden and his family who were hiding there — and before President Obama determined that the intelligence was solid enough to begin planning a mission to go after the Qaeda leader.

On March 14, Mr. Obama held the first of what would be five national security meetings in the course of the next six weeks to go over plans for the operation.

The meetings, attended by only the president’s closest national security aides, took place as other White House officials were scrambling to avert a possible government shutdown over the budget.

Four more similar meetings to discuss the plan would follow, until President Obama gathered his aides one final time last Friday.

At 8:20 that morning, Mr. Obama met with Thomas Donilon, the national security adviser; John O. Brennan, the counterterrorism adviser; and other senior aides in the Diplomatic Room at the White House. The president was traveling to Alabama later that morning to witness the damage from last week’s tornadoes. But first he had to approve the final plan to send operatives into the compound where the administration believed that Bin Laden was hiding.

Even after the president signed the formal orders authorizing the raid, Mr. Obama chose to keep Pakistan’s government in the dark about the operation.

“We shared our intelligence on this compound with no other country, including Pakistan,” a senior administration official said.

It is no surprise that the administration chose not to tell Pakistani officials. The United States never really believed the Pakistanis’ insistence that Bin Laden was not in their country. American diplomatic cables in recent years show constant American pressure on Pakistan to help find and kill Bin Laden. [/quote]


[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/03compound.html?ref=world]Large Compound Stood Out in Neighborhood[/url]: [i]ABBOTTABAD, Pakistan — The sprawling compound where Osama bin Laden sheltered before his death stood out in its middle-class neighborhood on the edges of this scenic city, home to a large Pakistani military base and a military academy.[/i]
[quote]The compound is about eight times the size of most homes in the area and was surrounded by high walls topped with barbed wire. Nearby residents noticed that few people ever ventured out of the house, and although a senior Obama administration official said the property was valued at about $1 million, no telephone lines ran into the compound.

Still, nearby residents in the area called Bilal Town, where many retired and serving military officials live, said they were not suspicious of the house’s occupants and never suspected a high-level militant leader might be living there.

Some said they assumed the occupants mainly kept to themselves because they were religious, although even in most devout Pakistani families, men regularly socialize with other men.
...
The proximity of the house to the military academy, which is about a third of a mile away, raised questions about whether Pakistani intelligence agents or military officials knew Bin Laden was there.
[u]
One Pakistani security analyst said Bin Laden may have moved to the unlikely hiding place, only about 50 miles from Islamabad, because foreign spies would have been unlikely to be able to pry in a town with high-level military installations. The site would also have kept Bin Laden out of the range of American drones that could not venture so far into Pakistan, away from the tribal areas where the armed aircraft patrol, killing many militants.[/u][/quote]


[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/03pakistan.html?src=me&ref=world]News Analysis: Bin Laden’s Death Likely to Deepen Suspicions of Pakistan[/url]: [i]The killing of Osama bin Laden deep inside Pakistan in an American operation, almost in plain sight in a medium-sized city that hosts numerous Pakistani forces, seems certain to further inflame tensions between the United States and Pakistan and raise significant questions about whether elements of the Pakistani spy agency knew the whereabouts of the leader of Al Qaeda.[/i]
[quote]The presence of Bin Laden in Pakistan, something Pakistani officials have long dismissed, goes to the heart of the lack of trust Washington has felt over the last 10 years with its contentious ally, the Pakistani military and its powerful spy partner, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

With Bin Laden’s death, perhaps the central reason for an alliance forged on the ashes of 9/11 has been removed, at a moment when relations between the countries are already at one of their lowest points as their strategic interests diverge over the shape of a postwar Afghanistan.

For nearly a decade, the United States has paid Pakistan more than $1 billion a year for counterterrorism operations whose chief aim was the killing or capture of Bin Laden, who slipped across the border from Afghanistan after the American invasion.

The circumstance of Bin Laden’s death may not only jeopardize that aid, but will also no doubt deepen suspicions that Pakistan has played a double game, and perhaps even knowingly harbored the Qaeda leader.[/quote]
[i]My Comment:[/i] And [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/03burial.html?ref=world]this article[/url] gives the (averred) rationales for the burial at sea.

Isiah?
 

There is a time to refrain from...
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHvf20Y6eoM"]Turn Turn Turn[/URL]

David

PS YouTube says it may be Ecclesiastes.

Sod it. Religious Instruction bored me to tears.

I was probably thinking of [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deeBQZ8Aklc"]Handel[/URL]

[url]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-says-bin-laden-unarmed-killed-025309674.html#mwpphu-container[/url]

my comment:

my mother went from saying we can't trust harper's word after the election vote and yet she basically just said "they wouldn't lie on tv" kinda makes me wonder.

So the latest reports seem to indicate that Bin Laden was neither armed nor resisting capture at the time he was killed - My heart does not bleed for him on that account (though I do feel sorry for his young daughter who saw her father killed in gruesome fashion before her eyes), but just wish the government would straight up say "We had no intention of providing Bin Laden with trial as a further forum to air his views or to rally his followers, so our orders were to kill on sight".

Regarding the "valuable information was obtained from detainees at Guantanamo" angle, we had all the valuable information we needed to capture or kill Bin Laden back in December 2001, but idiotically let politics (the need to demonstrate to our Pakistani and Afghan "allies" that we "trusted" them to guard the border effectively) override military strategy. I find myself in agreement with Mish on the ongoing travesty that is Guantanamo:

[url=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/kidnapping-torture-and-reflections-on.html]Kidnapping, Torture, and Reflections on Alleged "American Values"[/url]

Liars
 

I have no wish to fuel my prejudice any further.
Brown-skinned folk in general, and my ex-wife (half Cypriot half Essex)
in particular are certainly capable of being economical with the truth.

David

[QUOTE=ewmayer;260704]So the latest reports seem to indicate that Bin Laden was neither armed nor resisting capture at the time he was killed - My heart does not bleed for him on that account (though I do feel sorry for his young daughter who saw her father killed in gruesome fashion before her eyes)[/QUOTE]
Do you (as I) still have qualms about that shooting of that
unspellable Romanian guy no matter what his heinous crimes were?

David

It appears this thread magically lost half of its posts. :innocent::cheesehead::Zeta-Flux: (HEY! I still don't have a smiley face.)

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;261190]It appears this thread magically lost half of its posts. :innocent::cheesehead::Zeta-Flux: (HEY! I still don't have a smiley face.)[/QUOTE]

However, the total information content remained constant.....

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;261192]However, the total information content remained constant.....[/QUOTE]You took the words right out of my mouth, but I didn't want to toot my own horn.

It isn't as easy as it sounds to contribute absolutely nothing.