[ May 01, 2011, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Is this the press conference President Obama is supposedly holding tonight? Do you have a semi-authoritative source?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I think it's fact at this point. They're streaming the story over at cnn.com right now.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Wow... seems like it's true. It's almost a let down. What do you do when the Big Bad Wolf is dead?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's something from earlier at McClatchy:
Bin Laden "found" in Pakistan. Other news outlets are saying dead, rather than found, but the White House video feed is still dark for me. Has the Press Conference come and gone and I'm just missing it?
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
It hasn't started yet, I've been monitoring since 10:30.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can't wait to see the GOP spin telling us how Obama should get no credit for this, and he's actually terrible on national security.
Don't get me wrong, they might have gotten him regardless of who was president, but, it'll still be fun to watch. Killing Osama has almost nothing to do with national security right now. Al Qaeda has fractured too much for killing Osama to really matter. This is ALL about politics, and this should be a huge, huge boost to Obama, no matter what the GOP does to try and tamp down excitement. They spent too much time in the last 10 years saying Osama needs to be killed, and made him too important, now actually killing him comes with the requisite credit.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Wow... seems like it's true. It's almost a let down. What do you do when the Big Bad Wolf is dead?
I got the same feeling. The next few months will be interesting. I'm thinking that it's going to be almost impossible for Obama to lose the impending election now though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Wow... seems like it's true. It's almost a let down. What do you do when the Big Bad Wolf is dead?
You create a new one.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And there was much rejoicing.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Ooooh, this should be interesting.
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
Yeah, it's true. Neither political movements nor phobias of enemies disappear just because one guy is dead.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
why is this address taking so long to start, I have papers to write.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Goddamnit, why did he have to die on us, now I have to put off watching more anime tonight until at least Obama gives a speech.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: why is this address taking so long to start, I have papers to write.
Heh, so do Obama's speechwriters. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It seems like everyone was so beyond thinking about him, and to find out he is dead is just so...I don't know what adjective to use.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I can't wait to see the GOP spin telling us how Obama should get no credit for this, and he's actually terrible on national security.
It looks like you don't need to wait for the GOP spin at all.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And that my friends is the sound of the GOP losing 2012 before it even begins! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I can't wait to see the GOP spin telling us how Obama should get no credit for this, and he's actually terrible on national security.
It looks like you don't need to wait for the GOP spin at all.
Yeah, my guess is sooo outside the realm of possibility.
I'd welcome a surprise.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
CNN's was live feed, so it wouldn't load for me.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And that my friends is the sound of the GOP losing 2012 before it even begins!
Data says that while this will cause a temporary spike in Obama's favorables, it will have little long term effect. The health of the economy is much more important to Obama's (or his rivals') 2012 chances than any symbolic victory.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's a pretty big symbol though.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If the Democrats had the GOP ability to drum beat this into the American people with the same tenacity the GOP would if it was their position hell yeah.
Because then nothing else would honestly matter because the GOP would end every sentence, every policy statement, every comment with "But we got Osama".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
There's no need to castigate the GOP for things they haven't even done, even if it's 100% certain they are going to do it. That's the sort of thinking that prevents meaningful discourse from taking place.
This isn't a victory for the Democrats or a defeat for the Republicans, it's something all of us in America have been looking to see resolved.
I only hope it turns out Pakistani elements were integral in his death, it's much better if the Pakistani government can be a part of this instead of being perceived as being in the way, or incompetent.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Also interesting: today is the 8th year anniversary of GWB's "Mission Accomplished" speech.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If the Democrats had the GOP ability to drum beat this into the American people with the same tenacity the GOP would if it was their position hell yeah.
Because then nothing else would honestly matter because the GOP would end every sentence, every policy statement, every comment with "But we got Osama".
Just like Giuliani ended every statement with "September 11." It didn't do him much good, it wouldn't do a GOP President much good, and it won't do Obama much good. Voters don't care (much) about foreign policy success, particularly when they're busy being stressed out over a bad economy. Right or not, it's the way American voters have been, and I don't see any reason that would change in 2012.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There's no need to castigate the GOP for things they haven't even done, even if it's 100% certain they are going to do it. That's the sort of thinking that prevents meaningful discourse from taking place.
This isn't a victory for the Democrats or a defeat for the Republicans, it's something all of us in America have been looking to see resolved.
Riiiiight, I'm just calling it as I see it.
quote: I only hope it turns out Pakistani elements were integral in his death, it's much better if the Pakistani government can be a part of this instead of being perceived as being in the way, or incompetent.
Poor Pakistan, at least they got maybe one good lick in before they descend to the elite exclusive club of failed states*.
*Hmm, I haven't ever looked into this but my friend's Pakistani college wrote a paper on this and it was depressing. My friend is pretty interested in Pakistan.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Lyrhawn-
If I were to anticipate a GOP response it would be 1) a recognition of the bravery and comptence of the American soldier (or "war-fighter" if it turns out that it was CIA drone attack that done him in, which seems most likely to me) 2) praise for our allies (whether they helped us or hindered us is largely beside the point) and 3) a back-handed compliment to Obama about continuing and increasing the Bush team's tactics of cross-border assaults.
<edit>I would expect a general dismissal of the importance of the event from more isolationist Republicans (like maybe Ron Paul). But I would be surprised if any main-stream Republican was as tin-eared as that.</edit>
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There's no need to castigate the GOP for things they haven't even done, even if it's 100% certain they are going to do it. That's the sort of thinking that prevents meaningful discourse from taking place.
This isn't a victory for the Democrats or a defeat for the Republicans, it's something all of us in America have been looking to see resolved.
I only hope it turns out Pakistani elements were integral in his death, it's much better if the Pakistani government can be a part of this instead of being perceived as being in the way, or incompetent.
Oh whatever. I was making a prediction, not castigating. Plenty of time for that.
And it's either naive or foolish to pretend that there are no political ramifications for this. Come on, seriously.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Presser just started...confirmation in the first line.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
I am uneasy in celebrating another human being's death. Even a human being as evil and deplorable as Osama Bin Laden.
The worst images for me of 9/11 were the people celebrating in Pakistan and The Middle East. I sincerely hope, I don't see that today.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: I am uneasy in celebrating another human being's death. Even a human being as evil and deplorable as Osama Bin Laden.
The worst images for me of 9/11 were the people celebrating in Pakistan and The Middle East. I sincerely hope, I don't see that today.
I understand completely what you mean and yet, I am having a hard time not being quite happy right now. I say enjoy it while it lasts, there will be another boogie man right around the corner.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Well...at least he didn't say "winning the future."
Just kidding; it was a good speech. The conclusion was a bit thin, and I thought the central focus on 9/11 (rather than al-Qaida atrocities more generally) was misplaced, but overall it was mostly worth staying up for.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: I wasn't trying to call you out, I just sensed that current as was trying to head it off.
Blayne: That's nice.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
And sorry Humean, but BBC is showing celebrations in DC.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Should be glad to see the Obama-is-Carter meme die an appropriate, belated death.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lyrhawn: I wasn't trying to call you out, I just sensed that current as was trying to head it off.
Blayne: That's nice.
Fair enough. Apologies if I snapped at you.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." - Mark Twain
Two things I posted on Twitter:
"Not a time for raucous celebration. A time for relief, cathartic tears and grim determination to continue fighting murderous extremists."
and
"How to explain? Like when you have to put down a killer dog. Sorrow at the circumstances that required it, relief that a threat is gone."
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: And sorry Humean, but BBC is showing celebrations in DC.
Yeah, I saw that. Make no mistake, I am glad he is dead. Justice has been done, and I agree with that.
I just...I don't know. I don't really know what to say. I have an enormous amount of faith in humanity, I believe that we will always be better than the worst things we can do.
But I won't celebrate the death of anyone. Ever.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I have the same feelings, but I don't begrudge their celebration any more than I do those who celebrated VE or VJ day which represented far more deaths.
Hobbes Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: And sorry Humean, but BBC is showing celebrations in DC.
Yeah, I saw that. Make no mistake, I am glad he is dead. Justice has been done, and I agree with that.
I just...I don't know. I don't really know what to say. I have an enormous amount of faith in humanity, I believe that we will always be better than the worst things we can do.
But I won't celebrate the death of anyone. Ever.
You have just a bit more faith than I, but I applaud you none the less.
Still, I'm pretty darn happy right now. Tinged with some sadness as well but happy.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: And sorry Humean, but BBC is showing celebrations in DC.
Yeah, I saw that. Make no mistake, I am glad he is dead. Justice has been done, and I agree with that.
I just...I don't know. I don't really know what to say. I have an enormous amount of faith in humanity, I believe that we will always be better than the worst things we can do.
But I won't celebrate the death of anyone. Ever.
My thoughts exactly.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "Not a time for raucous celebration. A time for relief, cathartic tears and grim determination to continue fighting murderous extremists."
This.
Seeing the celebrations on tv was odd. I might understand a subdued coming together of strangers. People meeting in the streets to talk and hug and remember the victims.
However, the guy I just saw on tv was decked out in stars and stripes apparel and bouncing around on some pogo-stilts or something while the crowd chanted "USA! USA!"
Personally, I had assumed for years that he was dead and buried so the whole announcement is kinda disorienting.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I really don't know how to feel.
I don't want to open up a can of worms here...I wouldn't call myself a "truther" but I also wouldn't say I believe for a second the "official story" of how 9/11 went down.
As I do not believe the official story, and Bin Laden was a rather large part of that, I wonder what part, if any, he had in it.
Please do not crucify me. I'm just wondering aloud, not claiming anything.
Fair warning, I will be going to bed soon, so please do not expect responses until tomorrow.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Never say never, Humean. It's a fine, noble ideal to strive for - I really do mean that - but how sure are you you rate with the saints for whom that 'never' is really true?
I'm not trying to just be critical-it's an interesting topic to me. I personally think it's pretty easy, or at least easier, to say such a thing in the abstract.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yes Shanna, I understand your surprise. Here Osama bin Laden was not hiding out in a cave like I pictured him, or already dead like you thought. He was living in a mansion!
I have to admit, it looks like President Obama handled this well. He gave the order to go ahead with the operation when he might have waffled. He took advantage of cooperation between U.S. Intelligence and the Pakistani government, and the operation went exceedingly well, with no Americans harmed, and Osama bin Laden's body taken into U.S. custody. They also managed to plan this for nearly two weeks, without anything leaking in Washington or in Pakistan--major accomplishments in themselves.
I think it should also be mentioned, that we owe a sincere thanks to the Pakistani government, that they allowed our operatives to be the ones to move in, engage bin Laden and the three men with him in a firefight, and take custody of bin Laden's body. It is important that it happened this way, so no one can claim that bin Laden actually died months ago and all this was merely being staged.
Final confirmation from DNA analysis can now be done, though it has been said that other forensic evidence the U.S. operatives had with them convinced them that it was indeed bin Laden, and continued intelligence gathering since last September had led U.S. planners to believe bin Laden might be living in the area.
The CIA and U.S. Special Forces command will probably not publish the names of the operatives that took down bin Laden. But however secret, I hope that the awards they receive will indicate the gratitude of the nation.
As far as demonstrations go--I am glad for them. My mind goes back to the shameful people in Gaza who were dancing in the streets after 911. Now dancing in the streets are Americans, around the White House, in Times Square, at Ground Zero. There will probably be more as most Americans wake up tomorrow and learn what happened.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Never say never, Humean. It's a fine, noble ideal to strive for - I really do mean that - but how sure are you you rate with the saints for whom that 'never' is really true?
I'm not trying to just be critical-it's an interesting topic to me. I personally think it's pretty easy, or at least easier, to say such a thing in the abstract.
I'm also uneasy with throwing the term "never" around, no matter how sure I am of something. But I agree with Humean's sentiment. If you wanted to be more careful about it, I could justifiably say, "Given my understanding of the world, my system of ethics, my knowledge of my emotional reactions to events around me, and my probability of correctly predicting my reactions to other extreme situations over time, I can't conceive of a possible future time where I will celebrate the death of another human being, and I say this with as much certainty as I believe it is possible to make any statment."
That would be the more accurate way to put it, but Humean's is shorter. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Geez, the crowds are only getting bigger.
I honestly never thought, if we got him, that the reaction would be like this.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Also worth questioning is how many people are really "celebrating the death of Bin Laden" as opposed to celebrating "closure to the situation", "succeeding in our mission", or something like that.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lyrhawn, we've been waiting for this for almost ten years. This September 11, on the Tenth Anniversary, the observances at Ground Zero and elsewhere will now be much more positive, very different in character from what they would have been if Osama bin Laden still had not been caught and made to answer for his villainy. It took ten years, but in the end, he did not get away with it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Also worth questioning is how many people are really "celebrating the death of Bin Laden" as opposed to celebrating "closure to the situation", "succeeding in our mission", or something like that.
A fair point.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Never say never, Humean. It's a fine, noble ideal to strive for - I really do mean that - but how sure are you you rate with the saints for whom that 'never' is really true?
I don't really know, maybe I should have said that I hope I would never do so, but I'm just not sure either way.
I do think that ideals and beliefs are only true for a person if they hold those ideals even in the hardest and most extreme of times. If you claim that you hold civil rights up as a basic human ideal, then you can't then break that ideal when things become difficult. If that's the case, then you really never ascribed to that belief, you just thought you did.
As human beings, we grow and change, we become better or worse, we fail and we succeed, we accomplish the extraordinary and fail to live up to the notions which we believe make us great, and through it all we realize that the best we can do is simply try. Try our best to be what we set out to be.
For me, I try my best, and I know that I fail. I make no claims otherwise, but I do sincerely hope that I will never revel in the death of any human being. I will try to be that human being. Because I think that's the right thing to do.
Cheers.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"This September 11, on the Tenth Anniversary, the observances at Ground Zero and elsewhere will now be much more positive..."
I don't often say this, but excellent point, Ron.
Posted by @jimformanKING5 on Twitter: "9/11 widow on my flight. In tears. Comforted by entire cabin. Life altering event to see."
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Posted by @jimformanKING5 on Twitter: "9/11 widow on my flight. In tears. Comforted by entire cabin. Life altering event to see."
Just reading that is bringing tears to my eyes. I can't imagine the emotion of actually being there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well here's a question that one of the newscasters just suggested: Does this give Obama a pretext for beginning a drawdown of forces from Afghanistan. In other words, can we move the goal posts and call it a win? He was already planning to pull troops soon, but can he push that more now, with less risk of being attacked for being weak on defense?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Am I the only one who actually feels a little wary right now?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To Humean316:
Well said. Your sentiments are heartfelt and I feel much the same way. Bravo!
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I really don't know how to feel.
I don't want to open up a can of worms here...I wouldn't call myself a "truther" but I also wouldn't say I believe for a second the "official story" of how 9/11 went down.
What do you think happened?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I really don't know how to feel.
I don't want to open up a can of worms here...I wouldn't call myself a "truther" but I also wouldn't say I believe for a second the "official story" of how 9/11 went down.
What do you think happened?
Please don't encourage him on this one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Anyone think there's a connection between Obama choosing to release his birth certificate last week and this announcement?
It strikes me that it's interesting to get that out of the way as a possible way to get maximum effect from THIS announcement.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
For one thing, the hole Pentagon was not shaped like a jumbo jet, and if the building was strong enough to sheer off the wings and the tail, where where they? Where were the turbine engines?
It seemed like a drone or missile strike.
In other words, I believe that it was not a passenger jet that struck the Pentagon
I watched several versions of "Loose Change", all of which included footage of flashes seen through the windows of the towers before they fell going down floor after floor, and they looked like cutting charges going off. I'm not positive about this cliam, but it looked pretty suspicious.
The third flight which went down, the footage from it looked to be lacking even basic plane parts from the crash, no seats, no wings, no bodies, no turbines.
I don't claim to know what happened. I only believe that the story which was presented as the whole truth seemed to be lacking by what evidence I saw.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Please don't encourage him on this one.
I am really not trying to start any controversy, I'm not pushing any agenda. The official 9/11 story just didn't seem to add up for me, so bin Laden being killed left me feeling ambiguous.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I thought samprimary (or maybe it was someone else) had recently posted the link that completely debunks all those theories. I can't remember what website it was at. Maybe he'll come along and post it.
edit: Here it is.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: For one thing, the hole Pentagon was not shaped like a jumbo jet, and if the building was strong enough to sheer off the wings and the tail, where where they? Where were the turbine engines?
It seemed like a drone or missile strike.
In other words, I believe that it was not a passenger jet that struck the Pentagon
I watched several versions of "Loose Change", all of which included footage of flashes seen through the windows of the towers before they fell going down floor after floor, and they looked like cutting charges going off. I'm not positive about this cliam, but it looked pretty suspicious.
The third flight which went down, the footage from it looked to be lacking even basic plane parts from the crash, no seats, no wings, no bodies, no turbines.
I don't claim to know what happened. I only believe that the story which was presented as the whole truth seemed to be lacking by what evidence I saw.
Man, every one of these arguments has been debunked.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm open to it. It would be simpler and it would make my home life better (my wife has banned me from speaking of any possibility that 9/11 went down any way other then the official story) to go with the common belief.
I watched a show on NatGeo about debunking the "truthers" and they had a few good points which changed my mind (the pit of jet fuel bending a steel beam like it was made of plastic was very convincing), but some of it was not well done and truly inconclusive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Am I the only one who actually feels a little wary right now?
Nope. I get gratitude and relief and cautious hope but the glee makes me uncomfortable on several levels.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
This is the first I've heard the news. I have mixed feelings.
If this had happened in the first couple years after 9/11, I think I might have felt relieved and justified at the news.
But all these years later, after all the deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, I don't know how I feel about this. I haven't thought much about bin Laden in years. There is too much else going on to feel much satisfaction from this one event. I suppose I just don't see how his death makes anything better.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:For one thing, the hole Pentagon was not shaped like a jumbo jet, and if the building was strong enough to sheer off the wings and the tail, where where they? Where were the turbine engines?
It seemed like a drone or missile strike.
In other words, I believe that it was not a passenger jet that struck the Pentagon
You have some serious reality blinkers. Hundreds, probably thousands of people saw the plane head at the Pentagon. There are numerous photos available of bits of wing and tail scattered all over the area in front of the Pentagon. The turbine engines were mostly embedded a few rings into the building; they were solid bits that kept going and damaging things.
In fact, you can find photos of all sorts of bits of plane, including numerous ones of the engines and bits of fuselage and such, right here: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 , which collects the copious amounts of information that were all over the news shortly after 9/11. There are a ton of eyewitness accounts, too.
Your belief that it was not a passenger jet that struck the Pentagon is a bad belief. It shows a complete lack of engagement with reality. I suggest seriously re-evaluating why you hold such a belief, when it is entirely inconsistent with the evidence. Several of the things you ask where they went can be seen in dozens of readily available photos!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Stone_Wolfe_, over 100 eye witnesses are on record as seeing an aircraft hit the Pentagon.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Stone_Wolfe_, over 100 eye witnesses are on record as seeing an aircraft hit the Pentagon.
I really shouldn't do this as I am NOT one of the believers in this conspiracy BUT,
I can find over 100 eyewitnesses/victims of alien abduction, bigfoot, lochness, etc. too.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think whats more important about the Loose Change video are the various allegations at the government's general shadiness, untrustworthiness and willingness to attempt to pull off something similar if they felt they could get away with it. The "Even if 5% of this is true..." concept.
The final conclusions of the video, while for sure more or less discredited by this point in time doesn't in my mind disqualify some of the more real questions unintentionally raised.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm looking at the links you guys have suggested, and they are very interesting...
Give me some time here...like I said, I'm open to this info...just a whole lot of it at once...and I should be sleeping...
Thanks Wingracer...a good point is a good point.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: my wife has banned me from speaking of any possibility that 9/11 went down any way other then the official story
I am relieved that your children have at least one parent who isn't bent on believing as many irrational things as possible.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I can find over 100 eyewitnesses/victims of alien abduction, bigfoot, lochness, etc. too.
I'm talking about witnesses corroborating a single event.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... My mind goes back to the shameful people in Gaza who were dancing in the streets after 911. Now dancing in the streets are Americans ...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On the other hand, I guess we can start getting our rights back.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I can find over 100 eyewitnesses/victims of alien abduction, bigfoot, lochness, etc. too.
I'm talking about witnesses corroborating a single event.
But these guys collaborated an event 100 different times! That's statistically relevant and scientifically repeatable!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I find myself very angry...with the people behind "Loose Change"...with myself for not looking into it further and for rivka for saying this crap.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I am relieved that your children have at least one parent who isn't bent on believing as many irrational things as possible.
I'm very glad this is the internet and not in person, because I would have a very hard time not punching you in the face for saying this to me.
I really should not have just watched a few vids online and said...there...proof...bad on me. Kinda have to change my view on some big stuff...and I'm bleary eyed from not sleeping...and very emotional about...my wrong beliefs about our nation's biggest tragedy...I scoffed and rolled my eyes when people called the passengers on flight 93 heroes and thought I knew better.
F me...I don't even know what to do with all this.
I can say this much...I promise to research more before deciding what I believe in the future.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well wait, the video is not without merit, the history related stuff of US black ops I think shouldn't be discounted, thats still pretty serious stuff even if its not really related to their main point.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Am I the only one who actually feels a little wary right now?
Nope. I get gratitude and relief and cautious hope but the glee makes me uncomfortable on several levels.
Does that mean you didnt expect this? I don't see how it's comparable to the dancing and parades that happened on 9/11 either. On 9/11 several airlines full of civilian men, women, and children were used to murder even more men and women, 3000+, today, the leader of the organization that gleefully put into action that murderous rampage was killed as he had lived, with bullets.
Civilians going to work, at work etc on one side, homicidal maniac whod spent the past 16 years trying to kill as many apostates, and westerners as possible on the other side.
It's not even remotely comparable, the justifications for celebrating.
I am leery, and a bit nervous as I have no idea if there are sleeper cells about to wake up in response to this news, and Im not sure what will go down now that he's dead. How the leadership vacuum will be filled, etc, and what the new leadership will do. Lastly, it's always seemed as if Al-Zawahiri was the brains behind the organization, whereas Osama was the charismatic front man. Al Qaeda is not dead yet, just one of its two most important leaders.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Well wait, the video is not without merit, the history related stuff of US black ops I think shouldn't be discounted, thats still pretty serious stuff even if its not really related to their main point.
"Not without merit?" Seriously?
That movie about how the holocaust is fake had great cinematography!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Posted by @jimformanKING5 on Twitter: "9/11 widow on my flight. In tears. Comforted by entire cabin. Life altering event to see."
Just reading that is bringing tears to my eyes. I can't imagine the emotion of actually being there.
Same here.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Stone Wolf, don't beat yourself up about it. Just try and do better in the future. I know I have been wrong, badly wring, a few time in my life and it sucks.
It's fine....even admirable....to questions things. I never take anything an news program states as the whole truth, for instance, even if they have been reliable in the past. I try to see other sides, other angles, and find multiple sources for things that matter to me.
It's been an emotional day for me too, so some very personal reasons.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Apparently Osama Bin Laden's body has now been, "buried at sea".
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
This "rejoicing" is simply disgusting. I think it was just to kill him, but that's all. How can people be so cruel and... ahh.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: This "rejoicing" is simply disgusting. I think it was just to kill him, but that's all.
He was justly killed, but to rejoice in that death is disgusting?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I thought Dick Cheney's response, quoted in this article, was particularly gracious:
quote:I also want to congratulate President Obama and the members of his national security team. At this moment when bin Laden has been brought to justice, we especially remember the sacrifice of the young Americans who’ve paid the ultimate price in defense of the nation, as well as the nearly 3000 Americans who lost their lives on 9/11.
All in all, the Republican leaders quoted have expressed nothing but admiriation and gratitude for a job well done, mostly to the servicemen and women, but also to the President.
<edit>I haven't seen a response from Trump yet, but I imagine if anyone's willing to make a bombastic statement about how this proves the President is doing a terrible job, it'll be Trump. I also haven't seen anything from the nattering class; it could be Andrew Breitbart et al. are writing all sorts of shallow analyses of how this is no big deal. But the leadership response thus far has been dramatically different from the crass and callous responses that Lyrhawn had been expecting.</edit>
[ May 02, 2011, 07:18 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I'm just worried that the whole burial at sea, (while I think it was a very sensible thing to do), will lead to the next lot of birther-esque theorizing. Habeas corpus and all that.
Sort of like all those who believed that Hitler was still living in Argentina or whatever.
Having said that, I think giving the guy an Islamic burial has probably saved lives and increased respect in the Islamic world for the USA.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: This "rejoicing" is simply disgusting. I think it was just to kill him, but that's all.
He was justly killed, but to rejoice in that death is disgusting?
Precisely.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
To expound, he should have been trialed, like Nuremberg or sth, but it would have been difficult to catch him alive, I think.
To Samprimary: I could understand that people would be happy about killing him if he was a serious threat, because that would mean that threat is no more. He was no threat, they are just happy because he is dead.
These pictures of those people laughing and cheering and drinking and singing looked a lot like those of the terrorists in 2001. That's all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: This "rejoicing" is simply disgusting. I think it was just to kill him, but that's all.
He was justly killed, but to rejoice in that death is disgusting?
Precisely.
Why?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: I'm just worried that the whole burial at sea, (while I think it was a very sensible thing to do), will lead to the next lot of birther-esque theorizing. Habeas corpus and all that.
Sort of like all those who believed that Hitler was still living in Argentina or whatever.
Having said that, I think giving the guy an Islamic burial has probably saved lives and increased respect in the Islamic world for the USA.
Was it sensible though? I agree that you needed to follow Islamic tradition and bury him within a day, but at sea??? I just don't know. Wouldn't it have been worth the price of a super fast jet to NOT let the rumors start?
On the other hand, where could we have buried him? It doesn't seem right to bury him on US Soil and if we buried him in a less controversial nation then you have to worry about body snatchers and all that...
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miro: This is the first I've heard the news. I have mixed feelings.
If this had happened in the first couple years after 9/11, I think I might have felt relieved and justified at the news.
But all these years later, after all the deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, I don't know how I feel about this. I haven't thought much about bin Laden in years. There is too much else going on to feel much satisfaction from this one event. I suppose I just don't see how his death makes anything better.
I guess I'm hoping his death DOES make things better because it does take out a symbol. I don't feel like going out and partying, but I do feel a sort of cautious hope that this might mean we're closer to the end of the war. Even though we haven't heard much about him lately, our inability to FIND him was a sign of weakness that our enemies could capitalize on.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: On the other hand, where could we have buried him? It doesn't seem right to bury him on US Soil and if we buried him in a less controversial nation then you have to worry about body snatchers and all that...
More to the point, his grave would almost certainly have become a site of pilgrimage or, yes, desecration. It would have been a massive headache for everyone.
Burial at sea seems a better option. But this in itself will cause problems. I just hope they took photos of the body (and that there was enough left to recognize) to debunk the theorists. Because there's been enough of that recently.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I heard on NPR that other nations would not take the body and it is acceptable in Islam to bury a body at sea.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Samprimary: I explained in the next post
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Really, I just hope Obama kept the spine and toes, so that he can wear them like a ceremonial headdress the next time we need the hoi polloi to dance on the White House lawn.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: I can say this much...I promise to research more before deciding what I believe in the future.
I think it is to your credit that having been confronted you: 1) Examined the presented evidence. 2) Adjusted your beliefs accordingly. 3) Admitted you were wrong.
A large portion who get caught up in conspiracy theory nonsense just dig themselves in deeper when presented with evidence that disproves their claims.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: To expound, he should have been trialed, like Nuremberg or sth, but it would have been difficult to catch him alive, I think.
To Samprimary: I could understand that people would be happy about killing him if he was a serious threat, because that would mean that threat is no more. He was no threat, they are just happy because he is dead.
These pictures of those people laughing and cheering and drinking and singing looked a lot like those of the terrorists in 2001. That's all.
No it doesn't. In 2001 people were rejoicing after seeing thousands of normal fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters die, while at work on a tuesday.
Last night, people were celebrating the death of a man that dedicated his life to killing anyone that didn't agree with his philosophy, in the most heinous ways possible.
How can anyone not see the difference here? Not notice the details involved. This is apples and oranges, not apples and apples.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
One can see the details, but it depends on one's moral framework whether that makes a difference.
For example, consider the capital punishment debate. There are those that consider capital punishment, even for those convicted for the most heinous of crimes to be immoral. In that light, it is understandable that some of those that do not approve of capital punishment might find public celebration of it to be distasteful.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Samprimary: I explained in the next post
You explained that you thought you could understand it if he was a serious threat. Obviously, you don't think he was a serious threat, so we're still at the question. I'm still asking you why you think it's disgusting to rejoice in his death.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I also think that, when the pictures are released (and I think that they must be released and soon) that they should be as "respectful" as they can be while still being an accurate record and proof of exactly what happened.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I'm anti-capital punishment, but I think this was a devil and deep blue sea situation.
If Bin Laden had been captured alive and held in prison, there would have been kidnappings and hijackings continually to have him released. He would have been considered a political prisoner by some, and considering the reputation that US prisons now have internationally, there would have been trouble.
And, if humane treatment was an aim, how would they have found guards prepared to look after him? What security would that prison have needed?
No. There wasn't another option.
Now, in the case of the Nato caused deaths of three of Gaddafi's very young grandchilden (if proven), while he escaped, I think you could validly argue that that attack was shoddy and possibly unnecessary.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm very glad this is the internet and not in person, because I would have a very hard time not punching you in the face for saying this to me.
Charming. How old are you?
This is about the fifth time in the last month that you have made it clear that before you post things on Hatrack, you make little or no effort to check them for rationality or to do any real research. I'm impressed that this time (as has been true about half the time, I believe) you allowed yourself to be convinced.
But your overall attitude has not changed. And I notice that you have no calm, rational response to me. Just a threat.
Nice.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm anti-capital punishment, but I think this was a devil and deep blue sea situation.
I agree. Bin Laden, when we found him, had to die. I'm uncomfortable with the thought, though, that we almost certainly assassinated him -- as in, we had no intention of capturing him alive at all. But then I'm not really sure, on sober reflection, how I feel about assassination.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If Bin Laden had been captured alive and held in prison, there would have been kidnappings and hijackings continually to have him released. He would have been considered a political prisoner by some, and considering the reputation that US prisons now have internationally, there would have been trouble.
I don't believe this. I'm pretty sure they would have taken him alive if they could have, and it would have been better overall for us if they could have.
Of course, seeing as how they had literal human shields (some children) at the mansion, it doesn't seem like this was an option they wanted to leave themselves.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: GOP figures respond to killing of Osama bin Laden. Mostly congratulations to our soldiers and war fighters, as expected. Some congratulations and appreciation of Obama himself.
I thought Dick Cheney's response, quoted in this article, was particularly gracious:
quote:I also want to congratulate President Obama and the members of his national security team. At this moment when bin Laden has been brought to justice, we especially remember the sacrifice of the young Americans who’ve paid the ultimate price in defense of the nation, as well as the nearly 3000 Americans who lost their lives on 9/11.
All in all, the Republican leaders quoted have expressed nothing but admiriation and gratitude for a job well done, mostly to the servicemen and women, but also to the President.
<edit>I haven't seen a response from Trump yet, but I imagine if anyone's willing to make a bombastic statement about how this proves the President is doing a terrible job, it'll be Trump. I also haven't seen anything from the nattering class; it could be Andrew Breitbart et al. are writing all sorts of shallow analyses of how this is no big deal. But the leadership response thus far has been dramatically different from the crass and callous responses that Lyrhawn had been expecting.</edit>
To soon to count the eggs before they hatch just give it time; this is genuinely surprising in a good way and thus far happy for the change in pace but I don't expect it to last that long.
In othernews I'm skeptical that it would've been possible to capture Bin Laden, he strikes me as the sort of person to off himself rather than be captured.
It is sometimes better to die than to be killed.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I think taking him alive would be more trouble than he was worth, can you imagine what a violent religous zealot would do if his prophet were imprisoned on American soil and multiply by however many of them you think there are.
Additionally I believe that to be the thinking behind disposing the body in the ocean, no fuss no muss about the actual corpse.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:If Bin Laden had been captured alive and held in prison, there would have been kidnappings and hijackings continually to have him released. He would have been considered a political prisoner by some, and considering the reputation that US prisons now have internationally, there would have been trouble.
I don't believe this. I'm pretty sure they would have taken him alive if they could have, and it would have been better overall for us if they could have.
Of course, seeing as how they had literal human shields (some children) at the mansion, it doesn't seem like this was an option they wanted to leave themselves.
I agree. It was in the US's interests to capture bin Laden a la KSM, pulling him out in the middle of the night wearing a wife-beater, and sear that image of him into the public imagination, rather than the bearded, cloaked, rebel image from his videos. I think it's unfortunate, from a national security standpoint, that he chose not to surrender when given the chance and that special forces were unable to take him alive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Samprimary, do you really not think there'd be frequent kidnappings and assassinations if ObL were taken alive?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: ... can you imagine what a violent religous zealot would do if his prophet were imprisoned on American soil ...
About the same as if his prophet were martyred? Maybe even less?
I'm going to emphasize that I'm not drawing any equivalence, but just musing on political ramifications. But it's worth thinking about if the Jesus story was more inspiring to the subsequent Christian martyrs with it ending with him being martyred on a cross or if it had just ended with him dying in of old age in some prison.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm anti-capital punishment, but I think this was a devil and deep blue sea situation.
I agree. Bin Laden, when we found him, had to die. I'm uncomfortable with the thought, though, that we almost certainly assassinated him -- as in, we had no intention of capturing him alive at all. But then I'm not really sure, on sober reflection, how I feel about assassination.
Based on the descriptions of the compound, and that a firefight was involved as well as a human shield, I find it equally likely that Bin Laden picked up a gun in his own defense and was firing at the SEALs. In that sort of situation the only rational thing to do is to shoot and shoot to kill. I would not be willing to condone one service man dying because they were trying to capture him rather than kill him.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm glad it went down the way it did--the kill confirmed, and the body buried irretrievably at sea within the limits of Muslim custom. I am sorry about those I've heard of that also died in the process, including the woman bin Laden was using as a human shield. I can't see this being much more than a symbolic victory, however, like Saddam Hussein's capture. I don't like seeing all the celebration over his death. While I am not opposed to pro-American displays I don't think this is dignified and it won't do any good for improving relations with anyone.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Samprimary, do you really not think there'd be frequent kidnappings and assassinations if ObL were taken alive?
You're going to have an excuse for those either way. It's easier when they can say that he has been assassinated or murdered and is therefore a martyr. It's harder when he's being given a trial and people are having trouble figuring out whether to or how to categorize him as a 'political prisoner' when he did pretty plainly organize a brutal attack on civilian targets on american soil which he then took credit for.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My thanks to Rappin' Ronnie Reagan, fugu13, MattP, Kwea, Xavier for good info and moral support.
To rivka, your post was not anything but a hurtful stab, using the well being of my children as the blade.
And for the record, I said I was thankful that the format of our exchange stopped me from venting my (completely appropriate) anger on your face. It was not a threat.
As to me not doing enough research, I've already addressed that fault, and will do my bestest to do better.
As to "little or no effort to check them for rationality" I don't even know where to start. If I had no interest in having my ideas challenged or to refining/changing how I think, I would have posted a blog and not on a discussion board.
quote:These pictures of those people laughing and cheering and drinking and singing looked a lot like those of the terrorists in 2001. That's all.
There is no comparison that is fair. We may never know for sure (I tried to find out through research, but was unable to find anything) if bin Laden was killed while resisting arrest or killed outright. If assassinated, it would still fall under the label of "brought to justice" as our government authorized his procurement "dead or alive".
Of course I would like to think we were trying to grab him and his violence was the determining factor in his demise, but either way, the celebration of his being brought to justice is simply not in the same realm as the murder of innocents.
Would those parties still be going if he had been captured instead of killed? In all likelihood, yes. Is it justice or death that is being celebrated here?
In all the footage I've seen, all people are doing is being happy and dancing and waving US flags, there is no burning of effigies or signs reading "Yay, he's dead!"...although I might have missed them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And for the record, I said I was thankful that the format of our exchange stopped me from venting my (completely appropriate) anger on your face. It was not a threat.
Wow. I was going to defend you, but I think I'll just let you keep digging for a while, now. Don't be an idiot.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I think the only difference would be that if someone used Bin Laden's release from imprisonment as their public motivation for a series of attacks in the US or abroad, eventually - if things got really bad somehow - there might be internal and external pressure on the US government to release him. Which would obviously be impossible. But the political gameplaying could be destructive.
If at some future point, it looked like peace was endangered by Bin Laden's continued imprisonment, he might have one day got out. Look at all the 'political prisoners' who had to be let out in the Northern Ireland peace process (and some of the things they had done). Look at the compromises Israel sometimes has to make with their prisoners. The possibility would always have been there.
Now that he's dead, there's nothing to be done. The problem is off the government's hands.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dang Tom, you are fast on the post...
Let me clarify...I feel my anger is appropriate at the inflammatory statements...
Me physically harming rivka would be inappropriate, thus, I am thankful I lacked the opportunity when I had the urge.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
President Obama said that he gave the order for Osama bin Laden to be killed, not captured. After the awakening he has had over the detainees at Guatanamo, he evidently realized the undesirability of bringing bin Laden back to America to stand trial in the same criminal justice system that let O.J. Simpson get away with murder.
He also directed that bin Laden's body be disposed of at sea, so there would be no grave for his followers to gather around and give him honor, adding yet another pilgrim site for the jihadist "faithful" to visit.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Using physical force because what somebody says hurts is a completely inappropriate way to respond to that feeling. Some part of you feels bad for having said it, but you are still smarting somewhat and allowing for those feelings by saying you are just grateful you weren't there to actually punch rivka in the face.
It's no different than, "You're lucky we're in church, otherwise I'd beat the snot out of you for that."
Your anger might have been justified or appropriate, and I do appreciate the effort you are making to adjust your views on 9/11, I've had to do similar things on other topics, but it does *not* justify your threatening another poster with physical violence, even if you are incapable of actually carrying it out. Don't do that.
---- Ron: I don't believe Pres. Obama said flat out, "Just kill him, we don't want him alive." Maybe he did, but I doubt he'd admit to it if he did. Also he was buried at sea according to officials because Muslims believe they should be buried within 24 hours, and it was considered too hard to find a country willing to host his remains.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Me physically harming rivka would be inappropriate, thus, I am thankful I lacked the opportunity when I had the urge.
The irony here is that you were criticized for being irrational, and responded with an irrational desire to strike another person. You then expressed thanks for being unable to act on that impulse, confirming that even you agree it was irrational.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: President Obama said that he gave the order for Osama bin Laden to be killed, not captured.
Transcript of Obama's statement to this effect is required.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's no different than, "You're lucky we're in church, otherwise I'd beat the snot out of you for that."
It is different. He is saying that he is lucky because he knows that it would have been wrong to indulge that initial, violent response. That he indulged in even stating it was less than charming but so was the implication that he is a detriment to his children. ETA: What does Rivka's religion have to do with anything? If he had felt like punching a Catholic spinster or an atheist father would that have been less reprehensible?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm sorry if you felt threatened rivka, I in no way wish or intend you to feel that way.
Your statements are inflammatory, so you got what you seemingly wanted, me inflamed.
In the future please do not use the well being of my children as a whip to strike at me, regardless of what point you are attempting to make.
The well being of my children is not an area in which I welcome unsolicited advice or "concern".
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Really, I just hope Obama kept the spine and toes, so that he can wear them like a ceremonial headdress the next time we need the hoi polloi to dance on the White House lawn.
I don't know why, but this statement came across as kind of racist. I know it wasn't intentional though.
I'm pretty happy about how things went down. I'm not super happy that they released the information so quickly. Hear me out.
The location OBL was at had no telephone, no internet access, etc. The only contact he had was from two couriers that lived there with their families. I don't know how many AQ operatives or leaders knew where OBL was hiding at, but it was probably very few.
I'm not saying the American people don't have a right to know, I just think that the way they made the announcement and the ensuing celebrations will give members of radical groups more ammunition to use to recruit and justify their actions.
Had they killed OBL and kept it quiet for a few months they could have released the statement then. I don't think the American people would have made as big of a fuss at that point. I doubt the extremists would come out with a statement saying OBL was dead, as he was their figure head.
I do agree that a burial at sea was the best call they could have made. If he were buried anywhere else it would have become either a shrine or a place that was desecrated.
Kudos to Mr. Obama though for giving the order, and even more kudos to the intelligence community and the Navy Seals who carried out the mission. I know we will probably never know their names, but I hope they are rewarded appropriately.
Some credit should go to Bush as well. We may not have found OBL while Bush was President, but I am sure there were things Bush did that in the end helped our men and women find OBL.
[ May 02, 2011, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
In Hatrack tradition this is being very well side-tracked and worse the farther the subject goes. Exactly how does a persons religion weigh in? hitting anyone out of anger is uncivilized and deplorable but why did you feel her theism to be a factor in why she shouldnt be attacked?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...I just think that the way they made the announcement and the ensuing celebrations will give members of radical groups more ammunition to use to recruit and justify their actions.
Changing our behavior to try and change how terrorists will react is a futile endeavor. Terrorists are not logical and reasonable. They will try and recruit anyone they can to kill us for who we are, not for anything we did to them. And anyone who is sitting on the fence about joining such a group and is pushed into their arms by Americans celebrating justice long delayed is likely to do so at any excuse.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm sorry if you felt threatened rivka, I in no way wish or intend you to feel that way.
I have trouble believing this. Especially since you live in fairly easy driving distance from me. I believe you didn't mean to actually threaten me; I don't believe you didn't mean for me to feel threatened.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: you got what you seemingly wanted, me inflamed.
Nope. What I want is for you to think things over -- maybe even Google them a bit -- before posting.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:hitting anyone out of anger is uncivilized and deplorable but why did you feel her theism to be a factor in why she shouldnt be attacked?
I deleted the post this is probably referencing (as several people had posted since I started writing it), so should probably answer this.
I don't think her religion is a factor, I was just trying to use it to get across just how silly I thought the idea of Stone punching her in the face (if he had the opportunity) was. He was threatening a screen name, while I was describing the person herself.
I've met rivka several times, and the thought of any young man (which I am guessing Stone is) in her presence striking her over some comment is honestly pretty laughable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And you thought an insult to his parenting was a good way to do that?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Or his age mind you, not the most mature dialogue.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
We put our flag out today, like we usually do on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, etc. Seems like the thing to do.
Sam, I offer only contempt to your arrogant belief you are able to require anything of me. Pay attention to the TV screen, before you go on making a worse fool of yourself. You are to blame for your own ignorance.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I am relieved that your children have at least one parent who isn't bent on believing as many irrational things as possible.
Means
quote:...I want is for you to think things over -- maybe even Google them a bit -- before posting.
I am highly dubious.
quote:Especially since you live in fairly easy driving distance from me.
You are one up on me, as I have no idea where you live.
quote:I don't believe you didn't mean for me to feel threatened.
I'm sorry you feel this way, but I only felt thankful for not having the opportunity and thus not going to jail for doing something very hotheadedly stupid in moment of anger which I would have instantly regretted, not only for my own personal losses.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I'm sorry you feel this way, but I only felt thankful for not having the opportunity and thus not going to jail for doing something very hotheadedly stupid in moment of anger which I would have instantly regretted, not only for my own personal losses.
How many women have you punched in the face, Stone?
If you never have, why are you so sure you'd have made an exception in this case?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:...I just think that the way they made the announcement and the ensuing celebrations will give members of radical groups more ammunition to use to recruit and justify their actions.
Changing our behavior to try and change how terrorists will react is a futile endeavor. Terrorists are not logical and reasonable. They will try and recruit anyone they can to kill us for who we are, not for anything we did to them. And anyone who is sitting on the fence about joining such a group and is pushed into their arms by Americans celebrating justice long delayed is likely to do so at any excuse.
You missed my point. My point was the timing in which we made the announcement and the ensuing celebrations practically begs extremist groups to release statements and make threats against us.
I just think that waiting a few weeks or months before releasing the statement would have been wiser. It would have removed some of the initial shock of "OMFG OBL died today w00t! Lets party!" and turned it into "OBL died a few months ago, go us, oooooh Game of Thrones is on!"
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have never intentionally hurt a female in my life. While I have put myself between harm's way and females who were complete strangers to me in the past.
Honestly, I had no idea the gender of the persona "rivka" at the time. While the "a" ending of the name suggests a female poster, I didn't have the same reaction to if she was standing before me, and thus if she actually was, I would never have popped her one in the kisser.
I have never actually started a fight in my life, although I have ended a couple.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I think Rivka could take you, Stone. If not her, then her friends in Mossad surely could. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:You missed my point. My point was the timing in which we made the announcement and the ensuing celebrations practically begs extremist groups to release statements and make threats against us.
Respectfully, you missed my point...that no matter what we do, they will try and kill us, because of their unreasonable beliefs and not for anything we have actually done or not done.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I can just imagine the fury of the US population alone - not to mention that of the world in general - had we tried to keep something this critical a secret. Good heavens, we still do have allies against al Qaeda; they certainly have a right to know.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If we had kept it under wraps what would the conspiracy theorists have said? Forget not giving them the long form of birth for two years...we didn't tell anyone we killed bin Laden for a couple of months, buried him at sea, within 24 hours, what really happened here?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Some thoughts.
The big questions--Pakistan. Were they a help or a feared hindrance? How much warning did we give them? How upset will they be?
Frankly, this would be like a military unit from Italy flying into the US to assassinate a mafia crime lord in Connecticut. We in the US would appreciate the removal of the trash, but what about our sovereignty?
Second big question--Revenge. My wife asked if this would be a good thing or a bad thing in the future. I said good, but that we might get a large number of incidents--suicide bombs, gun firing maniacs, etc--over then next few days, and a few major terrorist events over the next two years, in retaliation.
Mostly this will cut both Al-Queda recruitment (they no longer have a mythicaly immortal leader, nor living proof of US impotence.) and command structure. Perhaps even cut some of their funds--so it is a blow to Al-Queda. It is not the end of them.
Although I am hoping a major part of the maneuver was intelligence gathering from the computers, documents, and more in his office, and not just a quick wham-blam-sorry ma'am assassination.
I've heard it mentioned that the woman who died was being used as a shield. Here the assumption is that it was Osama that used her as the shield. Do we have proof of that?
Finally, on to kill or capture. I think the best solution would have been to capture and debunk him as a martyr--get him to break and show his human weaknesses. A drunk Osama would be much more destructive to Al-Queda than a dead Osama. However, since the brave and true people in the US couldn't even risk low level Al-Queda and Taliban soldiers going to trial on our precious soil lest suicide bombs fall like rain, I can picture the controversy of having this person being tried here.
To try, or to bury him in the US would meet further cries of outrage. The fears of it becoming target central for the Al-Queda folks would make any burial spot a political hot-potato. Doing it in another country runs the risk of turning that spot into a shrine for terrorists.
The best place for him is the sea. We respected Islam, and didn't give the terrorists a shrine. I think that is worth an increase in rumors of his non-death--rumors that would be made no matter where we buried him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's no different than, "You're lucky we're in church, otherwise I'd beat the snot out of you for that."
It is different. He is saying that he is lucky because he knows that it would have been wrong to indulge that initial, violent response. That he indulged in even stating it was less than charming but so was the implication that he is a detriment to his children. ETA: What does Rivka's religion have to do with anything? If he had felt like punching a Catholic spinster or an atheist father would that have been less reprehensible?
I'm not commenting on religion at all, merely that SW saying had he been within an arm's reach of rivka he would have punched her. To me that's the same thing as saying, "If we weren't in a place where I couldn't get away with punching you (like church) I would."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry. I should have been clearer. Xavier commented on the badness of of hitting an Orthodox Jewish mother. That post has since been deleted.
ETA: And I still think that there is a difference between the two statements. Stone-Wolf was (basically) expressing anger in a foolish way while acknowledging that his impulse was a wrong one. Your church statement does not acknowledge the wrongness of the impulse and implies that, should they meet elsewhere, he would carry out that action.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:The big questions--Pakistan. Were they a help or a feared hindrance? How much warning did we give them? How upset will they be?
The mansion was built post 9/11, with money that no one could have provided an explanation for. Eighteen foot tall security walls with barb-wire, and the compound did not have a phone-line or internet in a modern city. Pakistan can say what they want but when you know that the worlds most wanted man is most likely in your country and none of this raises alarms, and America finds him before you...
ETA Carol Costello on CNN keeps saying something to the tune of "On this day, even if only for one day, people across the county are united. It could last but atleast for one day..." I have heard her and her alone repeat this several times in the last hour or two. Such pessimism.
And now Fox news is insisting on the text "Usama Bin Laden" and an older man I didnt recognize said "Obama, sorry I meant Usama" at the end of his screen time. This is a new low.
[ May 02, 2011, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I have never intentionally hurt a female in my life. While I have put myself between harm's way and females who were complete strangers to me in the past.
Honestly, I had no idea the gender of the persona "rivka" at the time. While the "a" ending of the name suggests a female poster, I didn't have the same reaction to if she was standing before me, and thus if she actually was, I would never have popped her one in the kisser.
I think it is important that you stew over this a bit. You've never punched a woman in your life, but here in this thread you told one that it is only your "lack of opportunity" that stopped you from doing so.
The poster on the other end of the screen-name is a person. In this case, it was a person you knew very little about. Always consider that when formulating a response.
I think you had justification to be upset. You did not have a justification to bring violence towards another poster into the discussion.
Doing so just made you look like a complete tool. Responding with a calm and rational response would have given you a firm moral high-ground.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
quote:The big questions--Pakistan. Were they a help or a feared hindrance? How much warning did we give them? How upset will they be?
The mansion was built post 9/11, with money that no one could have provided an explanation for. Eighteen foot tall security walls with barb-wire, and the compound did not have a phone-line or internet in a modern city. Pakistan can say what they want but when you know that the worlds most wanted man is most likely in your country and none of this raises alarms, and America finds him before you...
The compound was also just up the street from the largest training facility for the Pakistani Security Forces in the country. And within 100 miles of the Pakistani capital. If elements of the Pakistani government (and particularly the military hierarchy) didn't know who was living there, I'd be... well, not shocked but certainly surprised.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Especially since you live in fairly easy driving distance from me.
You are one up on me, as I have no idea where you live.
Convenient memory you have.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I think you had justification to be upset. You did not have a justification to bring violence towards another poster into the discussion.
Agreed...apologies to rivka.
quote:Responding with a calm and rational response would have given you a firm moral high-ground.
It's not always about securing moral high ground. I can see that even mentioning a violent act was not a good thing, but please understand that I was trying to illustrate the extent to which I found her comments unacceptable, acknowledging even while doing it, that it was inappropriate.
I do my best to have an open mind about most anything, but I am not even a tiny bit open to the idea that I am bad for my kids in general terms.
I love my children more then I even knew was possible to love anything before I had them, and would do anything in the world for their benefit.
When a relative stranger impugns my influence on my babies based on their poor understanding of my opinion daddy bear gets a bit crazy.
I can demonstrate that I find this completely unacceptable without empty, distracting and ultimately self defeating references to physical violence.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Convenient memory you have.
Is it convenient that where you live is so unimportant to me as to be instantly forgotten if it happened to be mentioned in passing in a thread I happened to post in?
I have apologized multiple times to you for my part in this. You have yet to do any such thing and are posting little gems of hostility like the above.
You are dangerously close to being disregarded in my book as a hostile, unreasonable person whom I no longer wish to speak to.
Please let us move on now.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, I offer only contempt to your arrogant belief you are able to require anything of me. Pay attention to the TV screen, before you go on making a worse fool of yourself. You are to blame for your own ignorance.
Ok, so I guess that means that the statement probably doesn't exist and you shouldn't be trusted when you make that statement.
Got it!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: ... They will try and recruit anyone they can to kill us for who we are, not for anything we did to them.
Ah, the good old "they hate us for our freedoms" bit.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's not entirely fair Mucus...
Are you suggesting that our celebrating of bringing bin Laden to justice is actual provocation for violent reprisals?
Why is it that you think that they hate us and wish to kill us?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
And fox news is still airing the Usama text, and they wont say Osama just Bin Laden.
WHY?
ETA And the blonde woman just called General Petraeus General Betrayus. How do they have a such a large fanbase?
[ May 02, 2011, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: <edit>I haven't seen a response from Trump yet, but I imagine if anyone's willing to make a bombastic statement about how this proves the President is doing a terrible job, it'll be Trump. I also haven't seen anything from the nattering class; it could be Andrew Breitbart et al. are writing all sorts of shallow analyses of how this is no big deal. But the leadership response thus far has been dramatically different from the crass and callous responses that Lyrhawn had been expecting.</edit>
quote:I want to personally congratulate President Obama and the men and women of the Armed Forces for a job well done... I am so proud to see Americans standing shoulder to shoulder, waving the American flag in celebration of this great victory... We should spend the next several days not debating party politics, but in remembrance of those who lost their lives on 9/11 and those currently fighting for our freedom. God Bless America.
This is two parts craven and one part classy, but still nothing like what Lyrhawn was predicting. The whole Republican field has really offered nothing but congratulations.
Now, I know from my Facebook feed that several rank and file Republicans have been complaining about Obama's use of the first person in his statement last night. Not enough attention given to the soldiers. I think that's sour grapes, and I imagine it's coming from some right-wing commentator somewhere (probably linked on Drudge). But even that is a far cry from what was being predicted. Indeed, the greatest amount of snark I see today is gloating over at Democratic Underground about how Obama just schooled Republicans in how to fight terrorists, and lots and lots of jokes about Trump wanting to see a "long-form death certificate."
But leadership on both sides have kept it pretty down-the-middle, with no real partisan jabs either way.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
This BBC article has some interesting details about the location of Osama's compound. I'm really looking forward to the Pakistani military's spin on this one.
Also, for the record, I (a) don't think that videos of Americans cheering is gonna be the straw that breaks the camel's back for radical Muslims and (b) don't believe that there would have been any less celebration if the word had been that Osama had been captured, not killed.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
To SenojRetep:
I think you might see some more of what Lyrhawn was predicting come election time, but I am very glad that you haven't found any yet.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Where's the death certificate, Obama?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"And fox news is still airing the Usama text, and they wont say Osama just Bin Laden."
FOX has been fairly consistent, I believe, with using "Usama," which is one of the accepted spellings of his name in English. The FBI and CIA use Usama. AP and most news agencies use Osama.
Now, calling him "Usama bin Landon," as one FOX affiliate did last night, that would be wrong...
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Pay attention to the TV screen, before you go on making a worse fool of yourself.
That's funny. I grew up with pretty much the opposite advice.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Obamabin Laden Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Oh the class, the sweet unbiased and respectful class.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:... They will try and recruit anyone they can to kill us for who we are, not for anything we did to them.
OK, this is one of those learning moments, Stone_Wolf-a moment when people on Hatrack are going to ask you to consider whether something you believe really, really strongly might not be true even though you really, really think it is.
First of all, they're not going to try to recruit just anyone. They don't go door to door-they're not the Girl Scouts selling cookies. I think you'll find, if you do a little research, that they know who to recruit and usually it's people who already have a grievance with the West in general and the USA in particular before ever signing on with a terrorist group.
Right there, that tells you they don't hate us 'because of who we are'. Then the question becomes, what are their grievances? You're allowed to ask that question, you know-simply asking it doesn't actually cede anything to them. Acknowledging the possibility that there might be some wrongdoing on our part isn't some sort of betrayal. So let's start with one big one: the United States has a history of supporting dictatorial regimes throughout much of the Middle East that oppress their peoples, engendering hatred towards those regimes and their past supporters, the USA.
Pretty easy. That's a grievance right there. Not because of American Idol or the First Amendment or anything, though admittedly there are terrorists who really can't stand that stuff. But as a rallying cry for support, "Hey! Those Americans across the ocean! They have freedom of religion! GET `EM!" isn't exactly very compelling. Whereas on the other hand, "Do you hate the House of Saud? Then you should hate America!" is a pretty good rallying cry. Just as an example.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Having "Made in the USA" printed on the weapons and tear gas canisters used against people isn't terribly helpful either.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: If we had kept it under wraps what would the conspiracy theorists have said? Forget not giving them the long form of birth for two years...we didn't tell anyone we killed bin Laden for a couple of months, buried him at sea, within 24 hours, what really happened here?
Who cares what the conspiracy theorists would have said? They have plenty of fodder with his burial at sea anyways.
You are right in that they will hate us whether we released the information now or later. I never argued that. What I am arguing is that releasing the information now and showing all of this partying simply gives them more fodder for the extremists to say "Look at the evil Americans partying over the death of a man."
If it had been more of a "Meh" moment I think it would have been more effective.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Oh the class, the sweet unbiased and respectful class.
Fairly uncharacteristic of NPR, I wonder if they have an auto spellchecker when they type up headlines and articles.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, how would you feel if you were one of our allies, fighting in Afghanistan, and this news was kept from you? An intelligence officer whose job it is to glean news of bin Laden? A voter who feels that the news was manipulated for political effect? Keeping it a secret was not an option.
That said, I do think that the gloating is at best unbecoming and at worst dangerous and probably both.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I just think that waiting a few weeks or months before releasing the statement would have been wiser.
These days, I have to think that it would be leaked one way or another long before we reached weeks or months. Getting it out early at least allows the White House to control the release somewhat.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh,
I stated that in the context of we should not hold back our info about something this momentous only to possibly stave off further terrorists attacks.
As to, "They don't go door to door-they're not the Girl Scouts selling cookies." I said they are going to recruit anyone they can, not attempt to recruit everyone.
You say:
quote: I think you'll find, if you do a little research, that they know who to recruit and usually it's people who already have a grievance with the West in general and the USA in particular before ever signing on with a terrorist group.
I said:
quote:And anyone who is sitting on the fence about joining such a group and is pushed into their arms by Americans celebrating justice long delayed is likely to do so at any excuse.
You say:
quote: You're allowed to ask that question, you know-simply asking it doesn't actually cede anything to them. Acknowledging the possibility that there might be some wrongdoing on our part isn't some sort of betrayal.
I asked:
quote:Why is it that you think that they hate us and wish to kill us?
You are responding to a quote of mine out of context.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: President Obama said that he gave the order for Osama bin Laden to be killed, not captured.
Transcript of Obama's statement to this effect is required.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, I offer only contempt to your arrogant belief you are able to require anything of me. Pay attention to the TV screen, before you go on making a worse fool of yourself. You are to blame for your own ignorance.
Okay, Ron. Let's talk ignorance.
Counter-Terrorism Chief John Brennan in a White House press conference: Operation was intended to take Osama prisoner if possible without risk to friendlies, otherwise killed.
quote:Brennan said U.S. forces would have taken bin Laden alive if "we had the opportunity," but Bin Laden engaged in the gunfire that led to his own death.
Now, I sure think that it would be all over the SCANDALWEBS right now if Obama had said "This was an operation to kill him." and then John Brennan contradicts him in a press conference.
Which is why you need to back yourself up, like you say you always do, and then inevitably fail to do when it's obvious that you're making stuff up.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, I heard the same news conference, and you did not get the nuances right. Predictably, because you haven't shown yourself to be very discerning. For the benefit of anyone who may be interested in the fine points of the operation, the original plan with many contingencies worked out by President Obama and his advisors over the past weeks and months was premised on the idea that U.S. personnel were not to be exposed to any unnecessary danger. If in the unlikely event that an opportunity to take Osama bin Laden captive were presented (presumably such as if he surrended without resistance), then he could be captured alive. But if he resisted, then he was to be killed. No American lives were to be risked by making capture of bin Laden alive a priority. In fact bin Laden did take up a gun and is believed to have joined in the firefight.
The president and his advisors were following the 40-minute firefight "in real time," as stated today by one of the senior spokesmen. So when the point came that it was clear that bin Laden and his cohorts were resisting, President Obama--as he said in his speech last night--gave explicit orders during the operation to go ahead and kill bin Laden. This was the contingency that had been viewed as most probable from the beginning.
It was also learned that bin Laden attempted to hide behind a human shield--reported by some to be his wife. I haven't heard specifically what happened to her. But it was reported that bin Laden was shot in the head, which is what you would expect if a criminal is trying to hide behind a hostage, not realizing that Navy Seals are all good shots, and some of them are great shots.
It has emerged that there may have been less cooperation from the Pakistanis than previously assumed. Pakistan has long given mixed signals on such things. Al Qaeda has declared war on Pakistan, too, and launched terror attacks against schools and sporting events in Pakistan. So there is a strong, widespread opposition to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, especially in the government and most of the people. And yet there appear to be many people who supported bin Laden, enough so that he could live in that million-dollar compound for as much as five years, just 100 yards or so from the Pakistani military training camp--equivalent to our West Point.
I am sure that among the contingencies planned for in the operation against bin Laden was what to do if the Pakistani military took exception to four or more U.S. military helicopters swooping down and launching a company of Navy Seals at bin Laden's compound, and tried to intervene. Perhaps the Pakistani government was able to order the base locked-down, as a covert sort of cooperation with the U.S. action, which covert operation they could plausibly deny.
But the Seals secured the compound, took custody of bin Laden's body, searched for information and confiscated the hard drives from all computers, then got out of there before any real military response could be organized on the part of the Pakistanis, were they so inclined. The president said he had served notice a long time ago that if we had a chance to take bin Laden, we would act unilaterally to do it, if we had to. So they were given fair notice.
As I said before, this is one time when President Obama "got it right." Too many leftist liberals might have wussed out.
[ May 02, 2011, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Hey Ron, you're needed in the birther thread.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Ron, as a sign of good faith here, would you acknowledge that we do not in fact 'see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."' in this video?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Why don't you, Destineer? I gave you the link. I listened to the video and I saw and heard it. It was repeated in fact, emphasized, with translations of each word supplied. It comes about 2/3 of the way through the video. I can only acknowledge that you may have missed it. But it was there. You are without excuse. Your diligence as a scholar needs to improve.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:President Obama said that he gave the order for Osama bin Laden to be killed, not captured.
quote:The president said he had served notice a long time ago that if we had a chance to take bin Laden, we would act unilaterally to do it, if we had to.
Odd, how these things are not at all alike. Why, it's almost a concession, when you think about it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It comes about 2/3 of the way through the video.
2/3rds of the way through the video you hear a voiceover. You don't see her say that. Is this literally beyond your capacity to understand?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To be fair, I'm going to give most people a pass, for a day, on Osama/Obama spelling errors. Mostly because I accidentally did it myself on a Facebook post last night, and deleted it quickly after a frantic phone call from my brother. It's an easy mistake to make when you're used to typing out a word that's only one letter different. Still, I sort of expect better copyediting from a major news organization.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: To SenojRetep:
I think you might see some more of what Lyrhawn was predicting come election time, but I am very glad that you haven't found any yet.
For sure. In hindsight, I should have realized that of course, in the immediate aftermath, congratulations and unity were the only appropriate response from the actual politicians. It'll be interesting to read what the conservative media establishment have to say over the next week. I'm still betting you hear something different from them. And then yes, I expect GOP politicians will have a somewhat different story to tell come election time, but, they might simply try to avoid the topic entirely rather than try some verbal sparring on the topic.
I doubt you'll even get much lip-service from this on actual GOP politicians (rather than their supporters), since the debt-ceiling debate will quickly rise up to supplant it, and for the GOP, I bet that can't come fast enough.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: In hindsight, I should have realized that of course, in the immediate aftermath, congratulations and unity were the only appropriate response from the actual politicians.
I'm cynical, of course, but I really think that the conservatives involved all realized that while this was definitely bad news for them and good news for Obama, they really, really had to avoid looking unclassy on this one, and would do so if they didn't join in congratulations.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It comes about 2/3 of the way through the video.
2/3rds of the way through the video you hear a voiceover. You don't see her say that. Is this literally beyond your capacity to understand?
Even that much is false. The last repeat of the phrase in question occurs at the half-way point and the final frame of actual video of the grandmother is at 1:12. By the 2/3 point (~1:20) we're well into the ominous music and text that occupies the the latter 40% of the video.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: In hindsight, I should have realized that of course, in the immediate aftermath, congratulations and unity were the only appropriate response from the actual politicians.
I'm cynical, of course, but I really think that the conservatives involved all realized that while this was definitely bad news for them and good news for Obama, they really, really had to avoid looking unclassy on this one, and would do so if they didn't join in congratulations.
Whatever their reasons, good for them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh. hm. ok, change it to "1:12"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: In hindsight, I should have realized that of course, in the immediate aftermath, congratulations and unity were the only appropriate response from the actual politicians.
I'm cynical, of course, but I really think that the conservatives involved all realized that while this was definitely bad news for them and good news for Obama, they really, really had to avoid looking unclassy on this one, and would do so if they didn't join in congratulations.
Agreed. I think I was really thinking more of the Fox News and other conservative media mouthpieces as the likely focal points for derision following this. I should have been more specific. But really, I didn't quite expect the full-throated congratulations that people like Boehner are voicing, at least, not without being couched in far more effusive praise to Bush. I still think we will see it, eventually, but my cynicism trumped my better judgement in this case.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The osama/obama confusion is old hat so I wasn't surprised to see goofs on that front, but I seriously would have just keeled over dead from laughter if Fox News put up "Osama Bin Laden (D) Killed In Raid"
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I think Rivka could take you, Stone. If not her, then her friends in Mossad surely could.
That was pretty funny, actually. I laughed. I don't know if the tone was the same for everyone, but it relieved a little bit of the tension for me, and made me snort.
Thanks, Ron. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know if rivka could take me in a physical fight, but I know she's smart and eloquent enough to verbally dismember me and cause some serious psychological trauma if she wanted to.
I wouldn't mess with her. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"They broke seven of your transverse ribs and fractured your clavicle."
"Ah, but I got off several cutting remarks which no doubt caused serious damage to their egos. Thanks to your administrations, I am almost completely healed, but the damage I did to them will last a lifetime."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
RIVKA uses MOSSAD AGENTS
It's SUPER UNEXPECTED
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I wasn't even aware I knew any Mossad agents.
Yeesh, no wonder I can't get a date.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
You work for NCIS right?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: You work for NCIS right?
enhance Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: You work for NCIS right?
The who what now?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: "They broke seven of your transverse ribs and fractured your clavicle."
"Ah, but I got off several cutting remarks which no doubt caused serious damage to their egos. Thanks to your administrations, I am almost completely healed, but the damage I did to them will last a lifetime."
My favorite character.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Sorry, the show NCIS has a petite Isreali Mossad agent who regularly beats up men in the show. The comparison was quite funny to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As I (and many others) suspected, there's already a lot of talk about how this will boost Obama's drive to pull troops out of Afghanistan. He pegged a lot of his election on focusing on the REAL war in Afghanistan, and pulling out before he could present any demonstrable evidence that what he did there actually accomplished something was going to be a tough sell.
Now he can say two things, one that's been true for awhile, and one that's been true for a day: 1. Much of the original purpose for going in was to fight Al Qaeda and kill bin Laden. Well, Al Qaeda isn't really even there anymore. They're pretty much everywhere else, and have become many other peoples' problems. 2. Bin Laden is dead.
He can move the goal posts and call it a win. Some Republicans will say it's a good move. Some will say he's being weak on the war on terror, but he has a pretty sweet defense to that now with bin Laden's death certificate hanging out on his resume. Besides, such a move would be overwhelmingly popular with the citizenry, if polls taken over the last 6 months are even close to right. He can say he amped up troops, fulfilled the mission, and that the war continues, but that Afghanistan is increasingly a local conflict, and for that matter, one of ethnic strife rather than outside interlopers.
We're coming up on the point where Obama was going to make a decision anyway, based on his timetables, for removing troops or reevaluating and staying there. I think he plays the prophet, says he was right all along, and makes big plans for a troop withdrawal, even if slow. Then he gets to run on being the president who ended two wars and averted a genocide in Libya, all while killing bin Laden. True or not, it makes for a nice narrative.
Lots of talk shows have had experts pop on in the last day or two to talk about how A. The war in Afghanistan hasn't made sense for a little while now, and B. That this gives Obama all the justification he needs.
I wonder how true that will end up being, and how Obama will handle the larger war in the weeks to come.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's also a story that's starting to float around about a treasure trove of intelligence data that was found in the compound.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And the question remains: Is there moral philosophical justification for rejoicing over the demise of someone like bin Laden?
"Most people believe that the killing we do in war is justified as the only way to disable an enemy whose cause we believe to be unjust," says Christine Korsgaard, a philosophy professor at Harvard University. "And although it is more controversial, many people believe, or at least feel, that those who kill deserve to die as retribution for their crimes.
"But if we confuse the desire to defeat an enemy with the desire for retribution against a criminal, we risk forming attitudes that are unjustified and ugly — the attitude that our enemy's death is not merely a means to disabling him, but is in itself a kind of a victory for us, or perhaps even the attitude that our enemy deserves death because he is our enemy."
It is important, Korsgaard says, "not to confuse the desire for retribution with the desire to defeat an enemy. But because terrorism partakes of both crime and war, it is perfectly natural, and perhaps legitimate, to have both of these attitudes towards Osama bin Laden: to think that we had to disable him, and to think that he deserved to die."
The two sentiments should be kept apart, she says. "If we have any feeling of victory or triumph in the case, it should be because we have succeeded in disabling him — not because he is dead."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I still think we will see it, eventually, but my cynicism trumped my better judgement in this case.
Santorum, in his effuse drive to hammer in his general irrelevance, wanted to be the first to break that particular floodgate.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Geraine, how would you feel if you were one of our allies, fighting in Afghanistan, and this news was kept from you? An intelligence officer whose job it is to glean news of bin Laden? A voter who feels that the news was manipulated for political effect? Keeping it a secret was not an option.
That said, I do think that the gloating is at best unbecoming and at worst dangerous and probably both.
I see your point. I guess I just think that in the long run the gloating and celebrating on the streets is just going to be used by those that hate us as propaganda. Holding back the information for a little while (even just a couple of weeks) would have been one way to do that. I can't think of any other way they could have minimized it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If the celebrating is what you are trying to quash, then there are better, more effective and less negative side effect ways to accomplish that goal.
If Obama had asked the people of the US to not celebrate, but instead take this time for quiet introspection and prayer for those who lost their lives on 9/11 and our warfighters who fought to bring those responsible to justice, it would accomplish your goal without being dishonest about a major world affecting event.
I am very glad they told us, and would have been very upset if they hadn't (when I found out).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Bin Laden was unarmed, did not use a woman as a human shield, but he did 'resist' in some fashion. There are photos, but apparently they are a bit gruesome and so the government is unsure under what conditions they will release them.
I figured these sorts of details would start popping up with time.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Remember Cindy Sheehan? She was a hero of the anti-war left for awhile, camping outside of Bush's Texas ranch, trying to confront him about her son that died in Iraq. She gave voice to populist anti-war movement prior to its cooption in the 2006 election.
<edit>I'm not saying the anti-war left was loony; certainly there were/are many intelligent people who opposed the war. Sheehan's personal descent from face of the revolution to crackpot conspiracist just struck me as tragi-poetic.</edit>
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's an odd choice from her. Arguably, his death will end the war faster.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I'm not saying the anti-war left was loony;
You're not? Awww, c'mon, you know it's true.
(edit to add emoticon, so nobody takes me too seriously)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's an odd choice from her. Arguably, his death will end the war faster.
There are certainly a lot of people who are hoping so. I think the only impact it'll have on the war is a political one. It doesn't change much of the truth on the ground. Al-Qaida stopped being a significant force in the war some time ago, dwindling to as few as several dozen fighters; it's really the Taliban we've been fighting for the last two to five years, not al-Qaida.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'm not saying I don't believe the news, but I will say that it is a little strange to dump a body into the ocean, thereby destroying all the evidence. Surely the folks in DC had the mental capacity to be able to predict that a ton of people would perceive this as some kind of nutty conspiracy (and they do). I mean geez, it didn't even take a day for it to start. People are already spouting their theories about "what really happened".
I will admit, it is very suspicious, especially since we have no history of disposing of the body of a major criminal or terrorist so quickly. We always keep them, or at least release photos (which may still happen).
I think it is fantastic that this idiot is dead, but the way in which the aftermath of his death has been handled was pathetic. Most reasonable people are also skeptical of most things, so I wasn't really surprised by the conspiracy theories that cropped up when the news didn't show a single photograph of proof.
But regardless, it's not like it matters. The world will turn and tomorrow will come and terrorists will still be trying to kill people for no good reason. Bin Laden dying isn't going to change that, nor would the death of any other human being. It takes more than one person to run an empire built on blood and hate. I think we can all agree on that, at least.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm not saying I don't believe the news, but I will say that it is a little strange to dump a body into the ocean, thereby destroying all the evidence.
What's funny about this is that for 99.999% of the population, keeping the body provides only symbolic evidence, since it was respectfully not going to be provided for, like, public viewing or something.
I think we really wanted to take the 24 hour burial rule as a justification for burial at sea. No place of burial, no shrine to a martyr, etc.
I'm pretty happy to see a new, likely to become excruciatingly more and more untenable conspiracy theory pop up, because I think we've just about capped Birtherism.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I do agree that putting out so much false information in the first few hours will have encouraged more people to believe the conspiracy theories floating around.
So far we've had: - he was armed and firing a gun when he was shot. - he used his wife as a human shield. - his wife was killed. - the house was a million $ mansion.
And I'm sure there are others. It's very annoying, especially since the whole thing was apparently videoed, so you'd think they could just have checked the tape before mouthing off to the media.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't think I once heard officials saying that he used his wife as a human shield. I think the official report was that SOMEONE was using a woman as a human shield. I dunno though.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I have it as my impression right now that he was sitting there on the floor praying, calmly stood up to face the navy seal and then did a symbolic gesture of defiance just so he'ld be shot instead of captured.
I've been severely disappointed with rugged revolutionaries not going down in a blaze of glory (though Che made up for it when he was shot), that I'll take some romanticism from any source at this point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Brennan said on Monday: "There was family at that compound and there was a female who was in fact in the line of fire that reportedly was used as a shield to shield Bin Laden from the incoming fire."
He added: "I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years."
A journalist asked if the woman was his wife. Brennan replied: "That's my understanding. It was one of them … She served as a shield … when there was the opportunity to get to Bin Laden she was positioned in a way that indicated that she was being used as a shield – whether or not Bin Laden or the son, or whatever, put her there, or she put herself there."
...
How the story changed
The president's spokesman on Tuesday corrected Brennan, saying: "In the room with Bin Laden, a woman – Bin Laden's – a woman, rather, Bin Laden's wife, rushed the US assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed."
Brennan being the White House security adviser.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok, yeah. That's a pretty significant initial statement needing correction.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The bigger problem, I think, is the media which overhyped the initial claims without being skeptical enough. Whether the government (or population for that matter) has helped cultivate that non-critical attitude is a related, but maybe off-topic issue. Did they intend on benefitting from that initial impression, knowing that the correction wouldn't nearly travel as far? We may not know until the next big leak Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, something else floating around now that I'm checking
quote:Amid some inconsistencies in early Administration and media accounts of Osama bin Laden's death, a reader points out that President Obama himself was always -- if very subtly -- clear that the terrorist was not killed in a shootout. ... Obama said "... After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."
In less formal remarks last night, Obama offered a similar sequence, describing "an operation that resulted in the capture and death of Osama bin Laden.
quote:OSAMA bin Laden was unarmed and with members of his family - including his 12-year-old daughter - when he was shot dead by US special forces on Monday, according to new details that emerged yesterday. The daughter has claimed that she watched as her father was captured alive and shot before being dragged to a US military helicopter, Arabic news network al-Arabiya quoted Pakistani officials as saying.
quote:I think it is fantastic that this idiot is dead, but the way in which the aftermath of his death has been handled was pathetic. Most reasonable people are also skeptical of most things, so I wasn't really surprised by the conspiracy theories that cropped up when the news didn't show a single photograph of proof.
You could put OBL on display Lenin style and it still wouldn't stop conspiracy theories. "The body on display is a fake!!!" Haters are gonna hate.
May as well quickly "bury" him in accordance with Muslim practices. That hopefully at least buys some good will with moderate Muslims.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The photo of OBL shot in both eyes is clearly fake, but I understand that there are photos which have not been released because of concern of them being too graphic and causing harm in some way or another.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I think it is fantastic that this idiot is dead, but the way in which the aftermath of his death has been handled was pathetic. Most reasonable people are also skeptical of most things, so I wasn't really surprised by the conspiracy theories that cropped up when the news didn't show a single photograph of proof.
You could put OBL on display Lenin style and it still wouldn't stop conspiracy theories. "The body on display is a fake!!!" Haters are gonna hate.
And just imagine the security nightmare that would be.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Lyrhawn, your prediction is off to the races:
This morning, Glen Beck was saying how he was disgusted that Obama took credit for the kill in his speech without even acknowledging the armed forces (at the time, no one was acknowledging it was DevGru), how grotesque it is that Obama's going to be going to Ground Zero soon to "celebrate" the death, and how "classy" Bush was to decline an invitation to join him.
And the Washington Times wrote a bizarre article named "Amercica's Muslim President" OOPS i mean "America's Muslim Precedent" you wouldn't want to get the two confused right~
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmm, something else floating around now that I'm checking
quote:Amid some inconsistencies in early Administration and media accounts of Osama bin Laden's death, a reader points out that President Obama himself was always -- if very subtly -- clear that the terrorist was not killed in a shootout. ... Obama said "... After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."
In less formal remarks last night, Obama offered a similar sequence, describing "an operation that resulted in the capture and death of Osama bin Laden.
quote:OSAMA bin Laden was unarmed and with members of his family - including his 12-year-old daughter - when he was shot dead by US special forces on Monday, according to new details that emerged yesterday. The daughter has claimed that she watched as her father was captured alive and shot before being dragged to a US military helicopter, Arabic news network al-Arabiya quoted Pakistani officials as saying.
That's not going to go over well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Realistically, it probably won't go anywhere. Treatment of prisoners of war immediately after capture has always been a grey area. Between the US stance that prisoners aren't PoW, but are enemy combatants, and that Osama bin Laden doesn't exactly have a lot of sympathy, well, anywhere. Meh.
I'm just reminded of the old reports that if you were a Nazi soldier in WWII, you really wanted to be captured by the Americans rather than the Soviets. If the Soviets captured you, you'd probably be tortured and killed whereas the Americans would actually treat you decently*. And if you were an American soldier, you really really didn't want to be captured by the Japanese because they would shoot you, they didn't respect life like we do. Either that or they would waterboard you. Oh well.
* or give some proper war crimes trials before the death penalty in the worst case
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Well what would you have done? Of course the only reasonable option is to kill the guy. He's too high risk to keep alive, especially when he's the head of a terrorist organization. If he was sent to prison to await execution, I would imagine at least a few of his followers would protest by bombing stuff or at the very least threaten to do it if we didn't release him. Killing him took away the threat and the drama that would have come with his trial.
Then again, that threat could still arise, but in another form.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Lyrhawn, your prediction is off to the races:
...Glen Beck...the Washington Times...
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I can't wait to see the GOP spin telling us how Obama should get no credit for this, and he's actually terrible on national security.
Glenn Beck and Washington Times &ne the GOP. Also, criticisms of process &ne no credit and terrible on national security. Agreed, though, that both the critiques are fatuous.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Well what would you have done? Of course the only reasonable option is to kill the guy. He's too high risk to keep alive, especially when he's the head of a terrorist organization. If he was sent to prison to await execution, I would imagine at least a few of his followers would protest by bombing stuff or at the very least threaten to do it if we didn't release him. Killing him took away the threat and the drama that would have come with his trial.
Then again, that threat could still arise, but in another form.
If he could have been captured alive he SHOULD have been and then tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: ... I would imagine at least a few of his followers would protest by bombing stuff or at the very least threaten to do it if we didn't release him.
I basically answered that earlier on page 3.
In short, if there are terrorists that already have the ability to conditionally strike based on whether release bin Laden, then we already have terrorists that have the ability to strike in revenge for his death. A terrorist operation that pauses and stops to ask if we'll negociate is actually easier to stop than one that goes off with no warning as a form of revenge.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Colbert's commentary on the classified identities of Seal Team 6 sounds like the best idea for fanfiction ever.
"...I can only speculate it was composed of Rambo, John McClain, Master Chief, The Batman, Vin Diesel, and Kungfu panda..."
I might write that.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Also, Holder, Panetta, and many others have denied claims that bin Laden was killed after being taken into captivity. According to Holder, "If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that. But there was no indication that he wanted to do that." It's unclear from Holder's statement whether bin Laden was given the chance or not; Panetta's statement and the fact that bin Laden was unarmed gives a similar impression that there was never any real thought of taking him alive. Personally I think that choice is strategically questionable, but I also imagine that there are smart people who planned the operation that way for good reasons.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm certain Bin Laden is well aware of how we've been treating his comrades, and were I him, *I* would not want to be captured.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yes but if he was captured but they shot him anyways, this is a missed oppurtunity. My assumption is that he would have/should have shot himself to prevent capture; as theres always the danger if he DOES resist they'll shoot to wound (relatively easy to do) to incapacitate him and then capture him.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...as theres always the danger if he DOES resist they'll shoot to wound (relatively easy to do) to incapacitate him and then capture him.
What does relatively easy to incapacitate by shooting to wound mean exactly?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
IRL (as opposed to television or video games) it is NOT easy to shoot someone in a way that incapacitates with low risk of killing them. Regardless of how good a shot you are.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And there were likely other people shooting at them at the time. Just because bin Laden wasn't armed does not mean he was unprotected.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What rivka said is exactly right...if you shoot with bullets.
If you shoot with sticky foam, rubber bullets, a taser, bean bag rounds or a ballistic net you can incapacitate rather easily.
Just to be clear, my initial point was exactly what rivka said, and then it came to me about non-lethal weapons.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Yes but if he was captured but they shot him anyways, this is a missed oppurtunity. My assumption is that he would have/should have shot himself to prevent capture; as theres always the danger if he DOES resist they'll shoot to wound (relatively easy to do) to incapacitate him and then capture him.
rivka is right Blayne, it's extremely hard to shoot so as to wound but not kill. Even on stationary targets there is a spread, how much more then when your target is flailing, running, shaking, etc? Not only that, no matter where you are shot there is a significant risk of bleeding to death. It's why somebody can get shot several times in the torso and still survive, but you take one shot to the leg in the wrong place and you're dead.
It's possible the SEALs made an attempt to shoot without killing him, there's so much information about the actual encounter we don't have, so I wouldn't put much stock in it either way.
I remember there being an X-Files episode where Mulder is about to kill Krycek despite Scully's protests, so Scully turns her gun at point blank range on Mulder and shoots him so as to drop him to the ground so Krycek can get away. They make a point of mentioning she shot him in the shoulder so the bullet could pass clean through, and that only a very good shot could do that even at that range. I still rolled my eyes a little because trying to pull that off would most likely fail a majority of the time.
Even if we granted that a Seal was clever enough to pull that off, it does not guarantee the person is going to just sit there so you can apprehend them, more likely if they did have a gun somewhere, they are going to pull it out and try and fire back.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It is nearly impossible to intentionally incapacitate without causing death with the use of bullets. What I was taught, and then taught others when I was instructing at shooting ranges is that you shoot to incapacitate, if the person lives or not is not your concern, it is a question of do they stop doing what it is you need them to stop doing.
Standard training is to shoot for center body mass, as it is the easiest target to hit. You are likely to hit lungs, or heart, and if you miss a bit, you get guts, shoulder, throat, arms, etc.
If shooting for center body mass does not work, you try for a head shot.
Advanced training dictates you shoot two shots to the body, one to the head. Again, this is not about killing, but rather stopping the person.
Bullets have a limited ability beyond making holes in people, which they are very good at.
Any serious attempt to capture an armed target requires non-lethal weapons, which are very effective at both not killing and at incapacitating.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It is nearly impossible to intentionally incapacitate without causing death with the use of bullets.
Of course, it should be noted that even in the "current" official story, that is what seems to have happened. The official story being that they entered the room where Osama bin Laden was, his unarmed wife rushed them first (rather than being used as a human shield in the initial reports) and was shot in the leg but not killed. Then Osama was killed after resisting (in some manner not specified) but was not armed. This is the official story.
Unless the wife was doing some kind of kung-fu kick while rushing them, it sounds like they did intentionally incapacitate her by shooting her in the leg.
Whether Osama was captured or not is harder to determine. But with the agreement between Obama's two statements that capture preceded his death and the daughter's statement, I'm leaning toward capture. Then he was killed since *these days*, it would virtually be impossible that he would ever be put on trial by the US. However, as BlackBlade said, I'm not particularly upset since Osama more than likely wanted to be killed rather than captured.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: as theres always the danger if he DOES resist they'll shoot to wound (relatively easy to do) to incapacitate him and then capture him.
Yet another clueless statement by someone with no real experience, tell us how it SHOULD have been or COULD have been done.
You are even more wrong about this than usual, Blayne. Shooting to wound is NOT easy is NOT recommended even for SEAL's, and is a great way to get killed.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
It is Blayne you guys are talking to, after all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:It is nearly impossible to intentionally incapacitate without causing death with the use of bullets.
I should add...It is nearly impossible to intentionally incapacitate (an armed assailant, intent on using their weapon) without causing death with the use of bullets.
You can incapacitate someone trying to run away, or have a pleasant day by the pool or reading a book rather easily with use of a gun.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, if the person is alone and no one else is shooting at you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: as theres always the danger if he DOES resist they'll shoot to wound (relatively easy to do) to incapacitate him and then capture him.
Yet another clueless statement by someone with no real experience, tell us how it SHOULD have been or COULD have been done.
You are even more wrong about this than usual, Blayne. Shooting to wound is NOT easy is NOT recommended even for SEAL's, and is a great way to get killed.
Somehow they could shoot to wound a women actively attacking and charging them with no risk of injury but somehow one unarmed arab is just too much for them? Please.
Also that I say that it should be relatively easy to shoot to wound doesn't automatically mean or imply that I think a non lethal bullet wound won't become lethal without immediate medical attention, stop automatically assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, stop jumping over yourselves to act like idiots whenever I post something and actually argue the facts.
You tone and attitude I think is completely uncalled for, if you think I'm wrong, then argue the goddamn facts. That you decide your first recourse is to call me clueless I think says more about you than my argument jackass.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay, Blayne. Next time we will send you to show them how it should be done. If, of course, you are not too busy being an MP.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay, Blayne. Next time we will send you to show them how it should be done. If, of course, you are not too busy being and MP.
SA Mode: What does this even mean!? Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
I think it is meant to read "... being an MP."
In another thread Blayne regretted not running for Parliament, since evidently anyone could be elected MP, as proven by the fact that numerous conservatives were recently elected.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: I remember there being an X-Files episode where Mulder is about to kill Krycek despite Scully's protests, so Scully turns her gun at point blank range on Mulder and shoots him so as to drop him to the ground so Krycek can get away. They make a point of mentioning she shot him in the shoulder so the bullet could pass clean through, and that only a very good shot could do that even at that range. I still rolled my eyes a little because trying to pull that off would most likely fail a majority of the time.
Completely off topic, but I remember that too. I think the only reason it didn't annoy me as much as it should have was that Scully was also an MD as well as a crack shot, so if anyone knew how and where to shoot to wound, it would be her.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And Navy seals are held to less of a standard to skill and professionalism than federal agents? Good to know.
Sure, I could expect any random batch of marines to fail at capturing Bin Laden alive but if anything a navy seal team should have been able to, this leads me to conclude they were given the orders to kill him rather than capture.
The situation is considerably messier than it could have been, especially in absence of OBL giving substantiated resistance.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: In another thread Blayne regretted not running for Parliament, since evidently anyone could be elected MP, as proven by the fact that numerous conservatives were recently elected.
No its because numerous NDP candidates were elected in quebec despite some of them not even being able to speak the simplest french and in one case wasn't even actively campaigning.
All you had to do was be in the ballet and you could win this election in some ridings, its baffling.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And Navy seals are held to less of a standard to skill and professionalism than federal agents? Good to know.
You're not comparing Seals to the guys in X-Files, are you? 'Cause X-Files wasn't real.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Assault rifle on semi to full auto, you and your men have already been in two fire fights. Most wanted man on Earth does something other than put his hands on head, I think it would be difficult to not shoot.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And Navy seals are held to less of a standard to skill and professionalism than federal agents? Good to know.
The fictional ones are held to very high standards. They can shoot someone exactly as required under any conditions whatsoever if the script says so. It's like magic.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Assault rifle on semi to full auto, you and your men have already been in two fire fights. Most wanted man on Earth does something other than put his hands on head, I think it would be difficult to not shoot.
I do not believe the standard assigned assault weapon on US forces supports a full auto mode, only semi or 3 round burst. Assuming their using the M16A4.
I believe the evidence currently available points towards shoot on sight instead of capture unless harm to personnel is likely.
Which is why I feel the current situation is much messier then it could have been, thus far it seems to be the case they had physically managed to apprehend Binlanden moved him a bit, shot him execution style and then loaded his corpse on the helicopter.
Thus, messy.
Also what I said was that "if a fictional federal agent is believeable to pull off that shot, being a federal agents and a crack shot", somehow I'm supposed to believe that real life navy seals whose training is probably the best in the world somehow is less believeable?
Its preposterous.
edit to add: fire discipline is basically the first and most consistent thing they drill into you in the military, you're never supposed to foolishly go full auto in a fire fight unless its for suppressing fire even if your assigned a weapon with full auto capability. Seems SEALs have the M16A3 which has full auto, but they can use whatever gun they feel like, however they still wouldn't be using full auto in confined spaces.
edit2: Also if they're anything like Delta Force its possible their guns won't even have fullauto on a fully automatic weapon because when they dissemble their guns they leave out everything except the minimum needed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Your edit is correct, special forces pick their own weapons.
quote:I believe the evidence currently available points towards shoot on sight instead of capture unless harm to personnel is likely.
Backwards perhaps?
quote:...it seems to be the case they had physically managed to apprehend Binlanden moved him a bit, shot him execution style and then loaded his corpse on the helicopter.
Based on what?
quote:Also what I said was that "if a fictional federal agent is believable to pull off that shot,...
That is what people are telling you...it isn't believable.
quote:Its preposterous.
We will never know for sure in all likelihood exactly how it went down.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You should also note that "full auto" for a special ops team most likely means "burst fire" instead of spraying out a whole mag. By burst fire I mean, aim, fire fire fire fire, re-aim, fire fire fire fire, reassess, aim, fire fire fire, etc.
The more you hold down the trigger, the more weapons tend to drift off target, and people as highly trained as Navy SEALS are likely to be very very good at what they do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Also what I said was that "if a fictional federal agent is believeable to pull off that shot, being a federal agents and a crack shot", somehow I'm supposed to believe that real life navy seals whose training is probably the best in the world somehow is less believeable?
All kinds of things are believable in a fictional story that aren't IRL. Its called "voluntary suspension of disbelief".
Best training in the world for what? Navy seals, like all military, aren't trained to capture criminals. They are trained to fight wars. In a war, the objective is to inflict the maximum damage on your enemy with the minimum risk to yourself and your comrades. That second part is critical. You don't win wars by taking risks in order minimize enemy fatalities.
In civilian law enforcement, there are no enemies to be vanquished. There are suspects and the objective is to capture suspects to be tried. The parameters are completely different.
Posted by J-Put (Member # 11752) on :
Really, that's the thing they drill into you most in the military? Because in my experience it's always been to shoot to eliminate the threat. If he so much as reached for his pocket, put a hand behind his back, or made any sudden movement my training would tell me to stop him from doing whatever he's doing.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
You know, the amount of conspiracy/what-ifs/weird scenarios out there is amazing, if not unsurprising. Two interesting things I've recently heard kicked around:
UBL was shot by his own forces, because he didn't want to be taken alive.
The helicopter didn't crash, it was intentionally hard-landed, abandoned, then burned in order to leave behind evidence of US involvement which could be photographed/ ogled by local Pakistanis/ etc.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Obama has decided not to release the photos. His rationale is they won't convince the skeptics and they're likely to inflame anger because of their gruesome character.
Or, in other words: Redacted! Sigh.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Based on what?
Did anyone read Mucus's link above? Most of the counter arguments are meaningless without that context because you don't even kow what you re arguing against!
quote: By burst fire I mean, aim, fire fire fire fire, re-aim, fire fire fire fire, reassess, aim, fire fire fire, etc.
You're not sprawing in a room, your not "having alot of nerves" and thus holding down the trigger until your out of ammo or everything in front of you stops moving. Also, moot considering Mucus's link above which I was referring to.
quote: Really, that's the thing they drill into you most in the military? Because in my experience it's always been to shoot to eliminate the threat. If he so much as reached for his pocket, put a hand behind his back, or made any sudden movement my training would tell me to stop him from doing whatever he's doing.
What the hell is it with people not reading what I write and simply making up crap to put their instead?
Repeat after me:
"THESE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CONCEPTS NOR DID I SAY THEY WERE."
If you have a situation where the guy is standing there and trying to reach for something that's also enough time for training to kick in and shoot to wound.
Wounds of course, I know damn well, hurt alot and completely incapacitate most people, thats why they're effective for capturing people if your trained to do it.
quote: Best training in the world for what? Navy seals, like all military, aren't trained to capture criminals. They are trained to fight wars. In a war, the objective is to inflict the maximum damage on your enemy with the minimum risk to yourself and your comrades. That second part is critical. You don't win wars by taking risks in order minimize enemy fatalities.
Capturing enemy soldiers, especially officers for intelligence gathering purposes is an important part of war.
Hey look, its called the "war" on terror.
Funny that.
edit: but yes fire discipline IS one of the most important things they drill because you can use up all of your ammunition in under a minute if you just spray, even machine gun crews aren't support to fire in anything other than bursts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Can you stop trying to emulate SA posters and calm down please
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Can you stop trying to emulate SA posters and calm down please
When people's first reaction to perceived inaccuracy isn't to call someone clueless.
and to add to my above point, I know that in the Canadian military the FIRST thing they tell you "being a soldier is not about killing people".
Also when you collaborate this with reports like "It takes 250,000 rounds to kill a single iraqi militant" it becomes clear that "killing" is faaaaaaaaaar from whats being taught.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
and to add to my above point, I know that in the Canadian military the FIRST thing they tell you "being a soldier is not about killing people".
Then maybe they're doing it wrong.
Posted by J-Put (Member # 11752) on :
quote: What the hell is it with people not reading what I write and simply making up crap to put their instead?
Repeat after me:
"THESE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CONCEPTS NOR DID I SAY THEY WERE."
If you have a situation where the guy is standing there and trying to reach for something that's also enough time for training to kick in and shoot to wound.
Wounds of course, I know damn well, hurt alot and completely incapacitate most people, thats why they're effective for capturing people if your trained to do it.
You're not understanding what I'm saying. I've had the military training you're talking about, and according to everything I've been taught you do NOT shoot to wound. Wounds are NOT effective at incapacitating people. You shoot to eliminate the threat. More often than not that means that you shoot to kill.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Can you stop trying to emulate SA posters and calm down please
When people's first reaction to perceived inaccuracy isn't to call someone clueless.
and to add to my above point, I know that in the Canadian military the FIRST thing they tell you "being a soldier is not about killing people".
Also when you collaborate this with reports like "It takes 250,000 rounds to kill a single iraqi militant" it becomes clear that "killing" is faaaaaaaaaar from whats being taught.
Going back to the start of this whole brouhaha: You said that shooting to wound is 'relatively easy to do' and this flies in the face of pretty much everything the military knows. It is actually extremely difficult to do, to the extent that it is not just only discouraged, but in combat arms theory is completely disregarded. You really don't know what you're talking about here. Ask anyone who's actually been in the armed services and trained with modern military firearms. I'm sure you can find a couple.
From everything else you're saying in order to apoplectically defend your initial statement, it is like you are basing the apparent capacities of the seals on impressions gleaned by video games. Your concrete analyses are inundated with fantasy.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
The oak is strong, and it is broken by the wind.
The willow is flimsy, and survives many great storms.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Did anyone read Mucus's link above? Most of the counter arguments are meaningless without that context because you don't even kow what you re arguing against!
I didn't argue anything, it was a simple question. And yes I read it, and found it mostly inconclusive. It hints, it suggests, but it does not constituent proof of anything in my book.
quote:and to add to my above point, I know that in the Canadian military the FIRST thing they tell you "being a soldier is not about killing people".
Osama bin Laden was not killed by the Canadian military.
quote:Also when you collaborate this with reports like "It takes 250,000 rounds to kill a single iraqi militant" it becomes clear that "killing" is faaaaaaaaaar from whats being taught.
This statistic is not about shots aimed at targets in the open, but about the tactic called "covering fire". If you are being fired upon, you take cover. To make the enemy take cover, usually the SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) lays out fire, so that the rest of the squad can safely take aim on enemy combatants and take the shots. The statistic in no way suggests what you would have us believe.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Blayne, do everyone (including yourself) a favor and be a willow, my good man.
You can do this by typing and posting, "Okay, maybe shooting to wound isn't as easy as I first thought."
If you insist on being an oak, I'm afraid all of us windbags (me included) are going to have to just keep blowing until you snap.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Can you stop trying to emulate SA posters and calm down please
When people's first reaction to perceived inaccuracy isn't to call someone clueless.
and to add to my above point, I know that in the Canadian military the FIRST thing they tell you "being a soldier is not about killing people".
Also when you collaborate this with reports like "It takes 250,000 rounds to kill a single iraqi militant" it becomes clear that "killing" is faaaaaaaaaar from whats being taught.
Going back to the start of this whole brouhaha: You said that shooting to wound is 'relatively easy to do' and this flies in the face of pretty much everything the military knows. It is actually extremely difficult to do, to the extent that it is not just only discouraged, but in combat arms theory is completely disregarded. You really don't know what you're talking about here. Ask anyone who's actually been in the armed services and trained with modern military firearms. I'm sure you can find a couple.
From everything else you're saying in order to apoplectically defend your initial statement, it is like you are basing the apparent capacities of the seals on impressions gleaned by video games. Your concrete analyses are inundated with fantasy.
I have never played any such video games, I am going by experience with discussions with actual servicemen and people who know servicemen.
Never touched a tom clancy game in my life.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Obama has decided not to release the photos. His rationale is they won't convince the skeptics and they're likely to inflame anger because of their gruesome character.
Or, in other words: Redacted! Sigh.
Given the recent behavior of people predisposed to think Obama is lying, I have to say I agree. You either believe him or you don't at this point. It'll come out some day.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Its preposterous.
We will never know for sure in all likelihood exactly how it went down.
Let the conspiracy theories blossom like mushrooms after the summer rain!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Not sure what the debate is about really anymore.
According to the "current" official American narrative, Osama bin Laden's wife was shot in the leg and left alive while rushing a Navy Seal. This is not contradicted by any other account so far. However hard it is to shoot to wound, its been done.
As for Osama bin Laden himself, no official narrative so far states that he was shot in an attempt to wound him. The "current" official American narrative is that he was shot while resisting in some unspecified manner after his wife was shot. The Pakistani officials that are holding Osama bin Laden's daughter have revealed that she's saying that Osama bin Laden was captured without a shot and then subsequently killed.
This is basically a "he said, she said situation" unless you take into account Obama's two references to Osama's capture and killing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think we can safely say that, as a strictly practical matter, it's as difficult to hit one square inch of the body as any other-but if you aim for center mass you've got more room to spare. But then if you aim for center mass and miss, well, you're more likely to still do damage and even kill and not have the person you've just hit still be shooting back at you and possibly kill you.
All of that's pretty obvious. What should be equally obvious is that, yeah, sure, 'shoot to wound' is possible, of course. It's also going to obviously be a lot riskier, and because of that fewer soldiers and police - basically fewer everyone trained to use firearms - are trained to do that, everywhere. I mean, that makes sense too. If you train to 'shoot to wound', your survivability will necessarily go down, because you're more likely to miss that spot you're aiming at, and missing that spot will more likely mean you miss flesh and bone entirely, and the target will still be firing back at you.
All of that is also obvious, when it's sat down and thunk on. What may not be obvious is with all of this hinting about about how it may or may not be objectionable that we may or may not have assassinated ObL, and we should've treated him like a criminal* is, well, what does that mean for the people we actually send to go get the guy? "We need you to put your own life and the lives of your unit at x% greater risk of death or maiming, not to prevent collateral civilian casualties, but to take a mass murdering terrorist alive for years-long trial in civilian court." That's what is being asked with the question, "Why didn't we shoot-to-wound?" or, "Why didn't we work harder to capture?" effectively. It's kind of interesting to me how, around here at least, that (what seems to me, anyway) underlying truth seems to get skirted around.
*And let's, just for the sake of argument, say that ObL is just a criminal. Alright, he's a criminal. Y'know, I don't think there's a nation on Earth where they don't eventually say to the cops, "Alright, at some point you're allowed to just kill the guy, OK? Because giving him anything other than an instant's warning is just giving him an even better chance to just kill the hell out of you while you're serving the warrant." That's setting aside the fact that, y'know, how long has this particular criminal - for the sake of argument - had the chance to turn himself in? At what point have the authorities exhausted their obligation to give the criminal a chance to surrender? After how many years of pursuit?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: According to the "current" official American narrative, Osama bin Laden's wife was shot in the leg and left alive while rushing a Navy Seal. This is not contradicted by any other account so far. However hard it is to shoot to wound, its been done.
1) Were they shooting for her leg? Or were they aiming for the trunk and hit the leg?
2) Shots to the leg can become fatal awfully quickly. Two words: femoral artery.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And, y'know, what with one thing and another it's not impossible that ObL's wife was something more than a civilian in a gunfight. I would be wary of writing off *anyone* as just a civilian who'd been connected with a figure such as him-much less after how many days?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Shooting to wound is not done by any professional or well trained operative. How ObL's wife got a leg wound is open to interpenetration. Ricochets, missed shots, friendly fire, strange circomstance are all poissble as well as deliberate shooting to wound.
The way that professional/trained operators attempt to capture high value targets alive is through the use of non-lethal weapons. Non-lethal weapons are effective, but limited in scope, that is, most of them are one shot only, or require an operative to place themselves in harm's reach to use them. So even if the SEALs could have used such weapons in the attempt to capture ObL, and only decreased their odds of survival by a small percentage, I for one am glad that they didn't.
Even if that percentage is so small to be nearly negligible, if it increased the risk to our citizen soldiers (and by my understanding, it would) to use non-lethal weapons which are more effective at capturing but less effective at keeping them safe then they did the right thing.
It is a good thing to attempt to capture hostile combatants, but only if by doing so does not increase the risk to our soldiers.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
rivka: 1) Hasn't been released. They know specifically its the calf though.
I guess technically, maybe they aimed for the torso and accidentally hit the calf, accomplishing a difficult shot by sheer luck? I prefer to think that Navy Seals wouldn't make that kind of mistake in such a small room, but point taken.
2) *shrug* It didn't. She's been taken into custody by the Pakistanis. The Americans want to interrogate her actually.
Not sure what to make of that actually. Maybe you're right and they expected her to die afterwards or maybe they just ran out of space on the helicopter to take her in the first place.
Other news, it seems that double-checking, there's yet another twist
quote:The officials also say a US commando grabbed a woman who charged toward the group. The fear, the officials say, is that she might have been wearing a suicide vest. The Navy Seal pulled the woman away from his fellow Seals.
It doesn't say whether this is the same woman as Osama's wife. Sigh.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:According to the officials' account, as the first SEAL team moved into the compound, they took small-arms fire from the guest house in the compound. The SEALs returned fire, killing bin Laden's courier and the courier's wife, who died in the crossfire. The second SEAL team entered the first floor of the main residence and could see a man standing in the dark with one hand behind his back. Fearing he was hiding a weapon, the SEALs shot and killed the lone man, who turned out to be unarmed. As the U.S. commandos moved through the house, they found several stashes of weapons and barricades, as if the residents were prepared for a violent and lengthy standoff — which never materialized. The SEALs then made their way up a staircase, where they ran into one of bin Laden's sons on the way down. The Americans immediately shot and killed the son, who was also unarmed. Once on the third floor, the commandos threw open the door to bin Laden's bedroom. One of bin Laden's wives rushed toward the NAVY SEAL in the door, who shot her in the leg. Then, without hesitation, the same commando turned his gun on bin Laden, standing in what appeared to be pajamas, and fire two quick shots, one to the chest and one to the head. Although there were weapons in that bedroom, Bin Laden was also unarmed at the time he was shot. Instead of a chaotic firefight, US officials says, the American commando assault was a precision operation, with SEALs moving carefully through the compound, room to room, floor to floor.
There's only one account of a woman rushing the team and that's Bin Laden's wife, so I'm leaning toward the interpretation that to reconcile the AP report and the MSNBC detailed account, one soldier pulled Bin Laden's wife away from the main group and shot her at close range in the leg.
(But who knows! More official changes in the account to come )
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: 2) *shrug* It didn't.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? No one said that people are never shot in such a way as to wound rather than kill in such a situation.
What was said is that ATTEMPTING to do so a priori is a really bad idea. SW has gone into a fair bit of detail on the subject.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Are you being deliberately obtuse?
When did you stop beating your wife? Bah.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mucus: what was it other than being deliberately obtuse? Someone was wounded with a bullet in the raid. That in no way demonstrates that whoever shot her shot to wound instead of kill. Why did you say it did?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: [QB]I guess technically, maybe they aimed for the torso and accidentally hit the calf, accomplishing a difficult shot by sheer luck? I prefer to think that Navy Seals wouldn't make that kind of mistake in such a small room, but point taken.
The military (and two separate police procedure analysts) did a series of studies into house raid style close-quarters battles, first with pistols and other weapons, and found that if two combatants with guns are in very close, point-blank proximity to each other, our cognitive targeting goes haywire, usually compounded by time dilation and heartrate acceleration. IIRC, we're talking maybe all but one in six shots being a complete miss. For two highly trained combatants standing right next to each other.
It's weird. Combat theory is weird, but vital in figuring out how to train, drill, and proceduralize groups like SWAT.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Well everything aside, Obama's approval ratings have gone up (as of this morning) six percent, placing it at about 52%. That's much higher than it was just a few months ago, which makes me think he will probably get re-elected if he rides this Bin Laden train as much as possible, and he probably will.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Given the recent behavior of people predisposed to think Obama is lying, I have to say I agree. You either believe him or you don't at this point. It'll come out some day.
He's been pretty truthful about where he was born, but his administration has lied a whole lot in the course of the war on terror (like about whether some Gitmo prisoners were guilty of anything).
In fact, they broke this whole story with an opening salvo of lies that they've now backed away from.
Anyway, I probably believe the current story at this point. But I don't think we should be keeping information from the American people because it might upset Muslims. That's Cheney-Rumsfeld behavior.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Someone was wounded with a bullet in the raid. That in no way demonstrates that whoever shot her shot to wound instead of kill. Why did you say it did?
*shrug* That was my honest impression of the narrative that had been put forward at that point. "One of bin Laden's wives rushed toward the NAVY SEAL in the door, who shot her in the leg." I figured if the navy seal accidentally shot a piece of furniture and the shot bounced into her leg or some such, they would have added the simple phrase "by accident" or something. Additionally, as the narrative says, if they wanted to kill her for sure I figured they would have taken two shots like what follows in the narrative for Bin Laden. Instead, this way they probably needed to guard her and make sure she didn't either reach for a weapon or set off a hidden suicide bomb.
I don't appreciate the implication that I'm being less than straight-forward here.
Samprimary: I understand that but still find it doubtful. As msnbc says, it seems less and less like a chaotic fire-fight, and more like a careful precision operation.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Well everything aside, Obama's approval ratings have gone up (as of this morning) six percent, placing it at about 52%. That's much higher than it was just a few months ago, which makes me think he will probably get re-elected if he rides this Bin Laden train as much as possible, and he probably will.
Absent more rapid economic improvements, I'd be willing to bet that Obama's approval will be back to pre-bin Laden levels within two months. The killing of bin Laden will have at most marginal impact on the 2012 election.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Well everything aside, Obama's approval ratings have gone up (as of this morning) six percent, placing it at about 52%. That's much higher than it was just a few months ago, which makes me think he will probably get re-elected if he rides this Bin Laden train as much as possible, and he probably will.
Absent more rapid economic improvements, I'd be willing to bet that Obama's approval will be back to pre-bin Laden levels within two months. The killing of bin Laden will have at most marginal impact on the 2012 election.
Not if it can be weaved into a broader narrative of victory over terrorism in the theaters of Afghanistan and Iraq. It becomes a useful centerpiece for that idea.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Well everything aside, Obama's approval ratings have gone up (as of this morning) six percent, placing it at about 52%. That's much higher than it was just a few months ago, which makes me think he will probably get re-elected if he rides this Bin Laden train as much as possible, and he probably will.
Absent more rapid economic improvements, I'd be willing to bet that Obama's approval will be back to pre-bin Laden levels within two months. The killing of bin Laden will have at most marginal impact on the 2012 election.
Not if it can be weaved into a broader narrative of victory over terrorism in the theaters of Afghanistan and Iraq. It becomes a useful centerpiece for that idea.
Maybe, but it would represent a significant deviation from general voting patterns. In general, economic factors are much better predictors of electoral success or failure than are foreign policy achievements.
<edit>Here is Nate Silver opining on the subject, and the next day arguing against himself that maybe it is a bit of a bigger deal. But his evidence in the second piece is pretty weak, IMO; the fact that approval overall tracks more closely to approval on foreign policy than approval on the economy strikes me as evidence that people don't pay much attention to FP. Instead, they let their general feelings about the individual dictate how he/she is doing on foreign policy. To me his evidence could be equally validly interpreted as undermining the argument he's trying to make. I guess we could check this by looking at lagged effects, but he doesn't present any evidence that long-term changes in opinion about foreign policy competence leads to long-term changes in overall approval.</edit>
[ May 05, 2011, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
BTW, on the armed/unarmed question, Dave Weigel has a nice step-by-step of the information released about OBL's access to weapons. The most recent statements from administration officials, quoted within the NYT, is that while bin Laden was unarmed, there was an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol lying within reach.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Samprimary: I understand that but still find it doubtful. As msnbc says, it seems less and less like a chaotic fire-fight, and more like a careful precision operation.
Sigh. On the whole, I am just amazed at how much power theorycrafting has exerted over this whole story. Not yours, but overall. 90% of the commentary on what happened in the mansion is akin to "based on the little snippets, why can't we say this and this happened, and why didn't they do it THIS way?"
Anyway, on the larger front, we're dealing with a major event with fragmented information coming in at a rapid pace, there's going to be confusion. Especially when everybody is going to want to know what's going on immediately.
Did some of the small details get mixed up? Def. Did they do it on purpose? In this incident, probably not.
There's no real advantage to be gained by them knowingly putting out false information on one day only to correct it the second day. If anything it would weaken their position in a way they obviously knew about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Exactly what Samprimary wrote.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think we can safely say that, as a strictly practical matter, it's as difficult to hit one square inch of the body as any other-but if you aim for center mass you've got more room to spare. But then if you aim for center mass and miss, well, you're more likely to still do damage and even kill and not have the person you've just hit still be shooting back at you and possibly kill you.
All of that's pretty obvious. What should be equally obvious is that, yeah, sure, 'shoot to wound' is possible, of course. It's also going to obviously be a lot riskier, and because of that fewer soldiers and police - basically fewer everyone trained to use firearms - are trained to do that, everywhere. I mean, that makes sense too. If you train to 'shoot to wound', your survivability will necessarily go down, because you're more likely to miss that spot you're aiming at, and missing that spot will more likely mean you miss flesh and bone entirely, and the target will still be firing back at you.
All of that is also obvious, when it's sat down and thunk on. What may not be obvious is with all of this hinting about about how it may or may not be objectionable that we may or may not have assassinated ObL, and we should've treated him like a criminal* is, well, what does that mean for the people we actually send to go get the guy? "We need you to put your own life and the lives of your unit at x% greater risk of death or maiming, not to prevent collateral civilian casualties, but to take a mass murdering terrorist alive for years-long trial in civilian court." That's what is being asked with the question, "Why didn't we shoot-to-wound?" or, "Why didn't we work harder to capture?" effectively. It's kind of interesting to me how, around here at least, that (what seems to me, anyway) underlying truth seems to get skirted around.
*And let's, just for the sake of argument, say that ObL is just a criminal. Alright, he's a criminal. Y'know, I don't think there's a nation on Earth where they don't eventually say to the cops, "Alright, at some point you're allowed to just kill the guy, OK? Because giving him anything other than an instant's warning is just giving him an even better chance to just kill the hell out of you while you're serving the warrant." That's setting aside the fact that, y'know, how long has this particular criminal - for the sake of argument - had the chance to turn himself in? At what point have the authorities exhausted their obligation to give the criminal a chance to surrender? After how many years of pursuit?
Not just as a criminal, but as a war criminal, there's a difference in order of magnitude here.
They would've captured Hitler to put him on trial.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I figured if the navy seal accidentally shot a piece of furniture and the shot bounced into her leg or some such, they would have added the simple phrase "by accident" or something.
*blink*
You have SO much more faith in the media than I do.
Past experience tells me that you are an intelligent person. The current conversation would otherwise make me doubt that. Since you are not always entirely direct in your posts (again, this is my impression), I am forced to wonder if your apparent obtuseness is deliberate.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given that the entire initial account of the attack was riddled with errors, that are only slowly being corrected, you think the presence or absence of the phrase "by accident" is enough to determine that?
You didn't consider a number of other alternatives, including
1) in the confusion, a SEAL ended up shooting her once instead of twice.
2) a SEAL tried to shoot her twice (probably chest shots, as that's what they're trained to do), but hit her once in the leg and missed with the other.
Then she stopped presenting a threat, so they didn't shoot her again.
Any of those is vastly more likely than that the SEALs were taking aimed shots at legs (which wouldn't be where they'd be aiming in the first place if they didn't want to kill).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
rivka: I don't think there's a media issue here. Or rather, aside from the overwhelming hype and odd willingness of the American media to believe the initial story about the attack, I haven't really seen the media having problems relaying the various twists and turns that the administration has subsequently put out about the situation.
As for whether I'm being direct or not, I've answered this and don't appreciate the apparent implication that the choice is either I'm being obtuse or I'm unintelligent.
I will continue by addressing those parts of the thread that remain above the belt.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Do you really think the American media (or any media, for that matter?) actually believes the initial (as in, hours later) accounts are accurate-setting aside questions of honesty-or are simply reporting fast fast fast?
I mean, to mean that seems much more in keeping with what happens, media-wise. Report what's given, first and fastest.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Did some of the small details get mixed up? Def. Did they do it on purpose? In this incident, probably not.
I'm not sure I agree with this.
The account of the daughter and the account of the administration are clearly conflicting. Someone is definitely wrong, and I suspect on purpose. Whether this is due to the Pakistanis making stuff up for propaganda purposes or the Americans doing it is of course an easy question for some Americans to answer, but I'm going to keep an open mind anyway.
As for the argument that these details were screwed up due to haste, I can understand, but don't necessarily buy. For example, whether the house is worth a million dollars hence proving that bin Laden was living "high on the hog" is something that they've had a long time to verify. But its awfully convenient that that kind of error happens to coincide with other errors like that of Osama cowardly using his wife as a human shield.
The errors aren't random, but are convenient ones. It smells of propaganda and the comparison has been made to the Jessica Lynch story
quote:The only problem with the official account is that it was untrue. In fact, Lynch's gun jammed and she did not fire a shot; Iraqi hospital staff treated her kindly and tried to return her to US forces; and, there was no need for a raid by army rangers and navy seals as the Iraqi military had fled the day before. Nor, contrary to initial reports, had she been shot or stabbed – her injuries had been caused after her truck was hit and crashed.
...
Giving evidence at a congressional hearing four years later, Lynch said: "I am still confused as to why they chose to lie and tried to make me a legend when the real heroics of my fellow soldiers that day were, in fact, legendary … [The] bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes, and they don't need to be told elaborate tales."
Maybe the new marketing strategy is to dominate the initial headlines with the best story and let the real story quickly trickle out knowing that most people either won't care about the details or won't pay attention anyway. This also prevents the possibility of a damaging Wikileaks-type headline later on.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:According to the "current" official American narrative, Osama bin Laden's wife was shot in the leg and left alive while rushing a Navy Seal. This is not contradicted by any other account so far. However hard it is to shoot to wound, its been done.
Your conclusion is not supported by the data. The simple fact that she was wounded by the shot rather than killed, says absolutely nothing about the intent of those who fired the shot. For all we know they weren't even aiming at her at all.
We know it is possible, even common, for people to be wounded rather than killed by gunfire. The question is how difficult it is in a real life scenario to intentionally and accurately choose to wound rather than kill.
Police statics show that in a real life gunfight, just hitting the target at all is difficult challenge. In 2006, when New York Police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they only hit the person 28% of the time. With those kind of statistics, its highly unlikely that even elite Navy SEALS can accurately hit a person in a particular spot of their choosing in a real life fight.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Not just as a criminal, but as a war criminal, there's a difference in order of magnitude here.
They would've captured Hitler to put him on trial.
For a civilian criminal trial? And how hard would they have tried to capture him alive?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Police statics show that in a real life gunfight, just hitting the target at all is difficult challenge. In 2006, when New York Police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they only hit the person 28% of the time.
In my experience, cops are horrible shots (except SWAT) in general terms.
Cops have to study a lot of things, quite a bit of it having to do with suspect's rights, procedure, all those laws they have to enforce, etc.
While they do practice, most the time that a cop draws and fires their weapon, it is a surprise situation and their training is primarily not as weapon specialists.
Seriously, the requal test target is about half again as big as a normal silhouette target, they put them at 20 feet, instead of 60 or more and all they have to do is hit the silhouette, center mass is scored the same as barely touching the line.
I'm sure there are normal beat cops who are crack shots, but they never came in and shot at the ranges I worked in.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Not just as a criminal, but as a war criminal, there's a difference in order of magnitude here.
They would've captured Hitler to put him on trial.
For a civilian criminal trial? And how hard would they have tried to capture him alive?
They tried pretty hard with the other Nazis. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh? How much actual time did those other Nazis that actually went to civilian court do, for example? There was military presence among both the judges and the prosecution, though if memory serves it was outnumbered by civilians.
Anyway, I was more referring to the effort to actually capture ObL than to perform a civilian trial. How much effort was required to capture the (remaining) Nazi high command alive, exactly? What I can find says that the answer is 'not much' beyond what was already being done to find them anyway. Not very analagous to the ObL situation. The Soviets didn't try to take Hitler alive.
This also ignores the substantial unasnwers question of 'what happens if we've got ObL in captivity for years'? I mean, I'm not saying it's a given that there would be unceasing mayhem for the duration of the trial or anything. I really don't know what would happen. But that's another situation in which the two scenarios don't compare. The Nazis were prostrate at the end of WWII. The same can't be said of the folks who'd be angry if we were holding ObL.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Who said anything about civilian trial? Any trial would do. Just as long as its public and its for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How many people are you willing to risk given the security problems of such a trial?
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
Anyone but himself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Who said anything about civilian trial? Any trial would do. Just as long as its public and its for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
So basically if the SEALS had setup a camera, and broadcast via the internet, a feed of him reading a statement about his crimes before blind-folding him, then putting bullets into him, that would have been better?
edited: Because I initially put the blind fold on before the reading of the statement, which is just silly.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How many people are you willing to risk given the security problems of such a trial?
You of course, and Ace of Spades. If you got time to be yapping you got time to be guarding.
quote: Anyone but himself.
Especially you.
quote: So basically if the SEALS had setup a camera, and broadcast via the internet, a feed of him reading a statement about his crimes before blind-folding him, then putting bullets into him, that would have been better?
edited: Because I initially put the blind fold on before the reading fo the statement, which is just silly.
Are you high?
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
You know, some of the higher nazis were tried "in absentia" at Nuremberg.
Present his own statements on tape to a military tribunal along with any evidence the FBI already has, let the tribunal proclaim that a death sentence would have been appropriate, then close the book on it.
I'm sure it wouldn't satisfy a lot of people, but so what? I'm a big proponent of the idea that sometimes you make a decision, admit that it won't please everyone, then move on.
MOVE ON.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is one of those times it might be a good idea not to ratchet up the angry rhetoric, Blayne. AoS was bein' a jerk. That's `spected. That's what he does. Whoever it is, that's what you see after the name 'Ace of Spades' by default. But, y'know, kmbboots asked a pointed, relevant question and so did BlackBlade, and you replied with a childish insult to them.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
You may not trust the word of our President.
But I trust the brave Navy Seals who spent their time and risked their lives to accomplish this mission.
It has been my experience that there are two kinds of conspiracies--conspiracy of purpose and conspiracy of nature.
A conspiracy of purpose is when a group of people plan something together.
A conspiracy of nature is when natural events combine together to get a result.
Included in nature are stupidity, accident, mistake, laziness, and human nature in general.
I am willing to find a conspiracy of purpose here, if proof is offered.
All I find is conspiracy of nature being grabbed by every anti-Obama believe out there to try and prove him wrong.
They say, "He lies" because everything he says, the make into a lie.
The news that was reported Sunday night was part of a game of telephone that stretched across have the entire planet. Soldiers reported things that went up the chain of command, were repeated to the press, and were spouted on the airwaves in a mad rush to get the news out first. Everywhere up and down that communications lines mistakes could and would be made.
That is human nature, not conspiracy.
A report says a woman attacked the squad. One soldier removed her from the line of fire. One person interprets that report to mean a soldier grabbed her and took her away. The truth, on soldier shot her and hit her in the leg.
Who knows, perhaps after shooting her in the leg he then removed her from the squad. Sure, a shot in the leg will slow down most people--but fanatics on adrenaline and shock can still cause death and injury to our troops.
Guns were nearby. Guns were expected. Heck, guns and bombs were promised. OBL has spent a decade like the 1920's gangster--yelling out his window "you'll never take me alive copper." So soldiers trained to take out -- kill -- the enemy shot him, perhaps a bit to quickly for a fair fight.
I'm not upset.
On the other hand, how many of you anti-Obama folks would be even more upset if one soldier died trying to capture instead of kill OBL? How many of you would be now laying the death of that soldier on the Presidents doorstep?
How many of you really believe that the death of OBL is worth much more than the slightest possibility of one more American's death laid at OBL's feet?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ace of Spades is a troll so.... "Not himself" Srsly? Is that even valid to suggest of someone who clearly isn't in that field?
"IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE MOON SO MUCH WHY DONT YOU MARRY IT HURR DURR DURR (Post Edited by JB)
[ May 05, 2011, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Darth, I trust Navy SEALS to. The question is, what do I trust them to do? Do I trust them to gainsay the word of the US President? Well...absolutely not. I mean, seriously. They kind of have to select for the trait of not gainsaying superior authorities for things like this before one becomes involved in special forces work. I'm not suggesting that means it never happens, but to just say 'I trust them' seems a bit strange in this context.
I also think you're misrepresenting, a bit, some of the concerns here, in a pretty simplistic way.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is one of those times it might be a good idea not to ratchet up the angry rhetoric, Blayne. AoS was bein' a jerk. That's `spected. That's what he does. Whoever it is, that's what you see after the name 'Ace of Spades' by default. But, y'know, kmbboots asked a pointed, relevant question and so did BlackBlade, and you replied with a childish insult to them.
It's not actually a relevant question, my concern had never been that or near that, I only said "It would be ideal if he could be tried publicly at the ICJ" but would accept any kind of trial. Somehow conflating this with somehow meaning basically mimicing said militants by filming it with a handicam in a cave and then shooting him via ad hoc tribunal is incredibly silly and childish appeal to the ridiculous.
As for kmboots, its not really a valid question, those are just details and they don't really matter. It's not as if your holding him IN the compound in Pakistan holding off a horde of muslim zombies but somewhere in Europe probably already in a fairly tight security area.
So what if they're at risk? They're always at risk, they knew it when they signed on.
If I turn around to an advocate of nuclear power and say "but it could be a target of TERRORISM how many dare you risk to guard it?" It's equally invalid and lacking in credibility.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Speaking of conspiracies, I'm just fascinated by the fact that we were initially told that there were live "helmet-cam" video feeds, then later told that for the crucial 25 minutes during which OBL was shot the feed failed.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a believer in conspiracies, and don't have an ax to grind against anyone involved in this, from Obama all the way down to whoever pulled the trigger.)
But here are some intriguing possibilities as to why we might have wanted to deny the existence of the feed and what it showed:
a. OBL shot himself.
b. OBL's guards shot him.
c. Pakistani forces participated in the raid.
d. A US assaulter shot OBL as he was surrendering.
e. OBL was defiant and heroic and inspiring in the face of death.
f. The tape shows bawling kids, crying women being slapped around by assaulters.
g. OBL was shot in the back of his head as he prayed.
h. The seals killed the feed, afraid that if things went totally to crap, and they ended up shooting collateral non-combatants, they would be thrown under the bus and turned over to a Pakistani court to stand trial for murder. (Far-fetched? Did you read about the Dutch citizens who want Obama charged with murder for his role in this?)
i. The audio shows seals yelling "Raghead, Camel-Jockey," and other epithets.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne you said "any trial" would do. Terrorists and heck revolutionary era Americans would call what I just described a "trial". We even have a term for it in the US that originates with the revolution, "Lynch trial" or "Lynch justice". It gets its name from Charles Lynch who hunted down prominent tories and British sympathizers, held such trials, followed by punishments.
Also, I'll be editing one of your posts. /downs is not an acceptable thing to write on this forum, take it back to SA.
[ May 05, 2011, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So...the question of how much international death and destruction might be entailed in imprisoning ObL isn't valied, and the details 'don't matter', Blayne? I'm almost certain she wasn't suggesting Muslim terrorists would storm whatever prison he would be held in.
quote:So what if they're at risk? They're always at risk, they knew it when they signed on.
Well in that case, they're all kamikazes, right? We get to just do whatever we want with `em, right? Because they 'knew the risks'? No. And anyway, the risks aren't just to military.
I'm going to be blunt here: you're sounding like a schmuck here, so blithely willing with remarks like 'they knew it when they signed up', to dismiss these sorts of risks. It's pretty cheap talk from someone whose connection is video games, Internet, and academia. (I'm taking your word on the latter.) I'm almost certain you'll get frothy with anger here, but if you decide to do that, please bear in mind you asked if BB was high and in response to a relevant question (as has been explained, it is relevant), you said you'd be happy if she risked her life.
Just because you didn't like the question, and without ever actually, y'know, addressing it.
quote:If I turn around to an advocate of nuclear power and say "but it could be a target of TERRORISM how many dare you risk to guard it?" It's equally invalid and lacking in credibility.
If you did, you wouldn't actually have answered the criticism, just waved your hands, huffed, and behaved as though there were no problem. When in reality nuclear power plants are pretty hardened installations, ideally, very thoroughly secured. In other words, in the case of nuclear power, the question is asked.
I just wonder if there's ever going to come a point - it's been almost what, five six years now? - when one person saying something snippy to you doesn't, in your own mind at least, give you license to just lash out at everyone disagreeing with you, every single time.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Man, I remember the good old days when Jon Stewart was making fun of Republicans for spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about trying Kalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court in *New York*. And now progressives are saying that trying ObL *anywhere* is too risky?
Oh and:
quote:STEWART: There are valid concerns… O'REILLY: Yes. STEWART: ...about trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court. O'REILLY: Right. STEWART: But one of the valid concerns isn't that it makes us a terrorist target and that it emboldens the enemy. O'REILLY: How do you know? STEWART: Because we're already a terrorist target.
How many people is he blithely willing to risk?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Seems to me, as much as O'Reilly is after all a schmuck, that the lines quoted are a bit specious, because I doubt the actual argument against trying Mohammed in a civilian court is 'we're not a terrorist target now, but if we try him in a civilian court we will be' but rather 'if we try him in a civilian court, we or more rather specific elements will be much more targets of terrorism'. I mean, that's pretty straightforward.
And, y'know. ObL. He isn't the Al Capone of terrorism, he's the Osama bin Laden of terrorism. He is the example of the biggest, most infamous, rally-cry (for and against) figure for radical Islamic terrorism there has been in world history, anti-American specifically.
If there was ever a man who it was too dangerous to allow to be tried in open civilian criminal court, or even open war crimes court, or even ICJ, it's him. I'm honestly a little baffled why you're just what appears to be dismissing this as business-as-usual politics, Mucus, that is-the question being asked, "Is it too dangerous to try him?"
You seem to be taking it as a given that nobody is too dangerous to imprison and try. I don't necessarily grant that premise. I think that perhaps some people might just be too dangerous. And furthermore, I do very much wonder if any such trial that could actually happen would really be satisfactory to the people who want it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It strikes me as ironic that Obama is being criticized for lying and manipulating the truth for giving us a nearly live feed on info coming in, and not waiting for all the intel to finish coming in and get everyone to agree on the "official" story.
I guess America is just not ready for the little detail problems that live info is going to present.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Just as there is no such thing as "too big to fail" there is also no such thing as "too dangerous to try in court."
He who sacrifices some liberty in the name of a little security achieves neither and deserves none.
quote: If you did, you wouldn't actually have answered the criticism, just waved your hands, huffed, and behaved as though there were no problem. When in reality nuclear power plants are pretty hardened installations, ideally, very thoroughly secured. In other words, in the case of nuclear power, the question is asked.
You say that nuclear installations are protected but the anti nuclear advocate would argue that no man made installation is truly safe, pointing at for example various Russian installations that were massive security risks during the 90s.
That and there *is* a massive difference, a nuclear power plant can't be moved around. OBL could be moved around. Moved from holding facility to holding facility until the day of his trial and then moved around until its time again.
quote: Well in that case, they're all kamikazes, right? We get to just do whatever we want with `em, right? Because they 'knew the risks'? No. And anyway, the risks aren't just to military.
Emotional knee jerk response. There are probably entire handbooks that any professional organization, as well as vast resources in which to minimize the risks to a professionally accepted level. Again, not a valid argument; any argument based on "risk" would require there be substantiated risks involved not "maybies" "there COULD be a terrorist attack" etc.
quote: I'm going to be blunt here: you're sounding like a schmuck here, so blithely willing with remarks like 'they knew it when they signed up', to dismiss these sorts of risks. It's pretty cheap talk from someone whose connection is video games, Internet, and academia. (I'm taking your word on the latter.) I'm almost certain you'll get frothy with anger here, but if you decide to do that, please bear in mind you asked if BB was high and in response to a relevant question (as has been explained, it is relevant), you said you'd be happy if she risked her life.
Just because you didn't like the question, and without ever actually, y'know, addressing it.
The question was silly and the person is silly for asking it, that and she surrendered some credibility with her "why don't you run for MP" comment a few pages ago that came out from nowhere. If the question had been asked in a vacuum that would be one thing, but she has to deal with the baggage that comes with it ontop of the context of her earlier remarks.
quote: Blayne you said "any trial" would do. Terrorists and heck revolutionary era Americans would call what I just described a "trial". We even have a term for it in the US that originates with the revolution, "Lynch trial" or "Lynch justice". It gets its name from Charles Lynch who hunted down prominent tories and British sympathizers, held such trials, followed by punishments.
And you wonder why Canadians completely thumb our noses at Americans? This. Above, right there. Just because I said "any kind of trial" doesn't automatically mean "any kind of trial that some redneck from Missouri would be happy with."
Don't be so obstinately literal with peoples arguments.
quote: So...the question of how much international death and destruction might be entailed in imprisoning ObL isn't valied, and the details 'don't matter', Blayne? I'm almost certain she wasn't suggesting Muslim terrorists would storm whatever prison he would be held in.
So your a pragmatist now is that it? Whatever is the "easiest" most convenient path is the best path?
Excuse me for thinking things like justice were important things to the typical american.
quote: I just wonder if there's ever going to come a point - it's been almost what, five six years now? - when one person saying something snippy to you doesn't, in your own mind at least, give you license to just lash out at everyone disagreeing with you, every single time.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Look, over your shoulder! See that glowing, disembodied head? And it's gently whispering to you! What's that it's saying?
"Be the Willow, Blayne. Beeeee the WillooooooW..."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What are you trying to accomplish here Blayne?
Would it have been nice if ObL had been captured and been able to be put on trial? Yes.
Is it possible since he was shot dead? No.
Are some people okay with that considering the circumstances. Yes.
Are you one of those people? No.
Doesn't that about cover it?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What are you trying to accomplish here Blayne?
Would it have been nice if ObL had been captured and been able to be put on trial? Yes.
Is it possible since he was shot dead? No.
Are some people okay with that considering the circumstances. Yes.
Are you one of those people? No.
Doesn't that about cover it?
My entire argument comes down to two things: 1) it would've been nice and ideal if it could have happened.
People seem to disagree.
2) I believe that based on the information so far released that they had gone in their with orders to kill on sight and make no attempt to capture him that coupled with contradictory reporting is making the situation fairly messy. The worst case media scenario to me was them actually managing to physically apprehend OBL and then executing him and not bothering to bring him to a US base.
Some people seem to disagree with this.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
I disagree.
Here's a worse-case scenario:
OBL escapes, his legend grows, numerous women and children are killed, the assault team crashes and burns, rampaging Pakistanis dance around the charred corpses, Obama becomes more Carter than even Carter was, and Americans walk around feeling glum and hopeless.
That would be worse.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Those things you stated above are your opinions, not your goals.
I ask again...what do you want to accomplish here?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Blayne: I don't think so. Your original contention is that SEALS have the training and ability to relatively easily wound instead of kill even in a tense situation where they could expect death at any moment.
That they didn't to some degree indicates they didn't want to capture him and decided to kill him either at the moment they encountered him or were going to all along.
edit: Also, I need to switch accounts.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Those things you stated above are your opinions, not your goals.
I ask again...what do you want to accomplish here?
The same thing we do every night pinky, to try and take over the world.
quote: Blayne: I don't think so. Your original contention is that SEALS have the training and ability to relatively easily wound instead of kill even in a tense situation where they could expect death at any moment.
That they didn't to some degree indicates they didn't want to capture him and decided to kill him either at the moment they encountered him or were going to all along.
Who is this *they*, I specifically mentioned "under orders to".
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Don't mind me ifin I'm wrong, but it seems like you are enjoying arguing and have lost sight of your goal...of world domination, apparently.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride:
Is there room at your wall to bash my brains out too, because ffs
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
The guy is dead, and unless I'm much mistaken, no one on earth has the power to undo that.
While the inability to undo something isn't, in itself, a reason not to act, arguing about it seems particularly pointless in this case. I know all about gray areas and slippery slopes, but I really feel that no matter what the SEALS were trying or not trying to do in this case, it doesn't really matter. Trials are nice and serve a purpose but this really is one case where it wasn't needed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Trials are nice and serve a purpose but this really is one case where it wasn't needed.
Bad idea, bad precedent.
But, eh, later. This thread has been drowned in bad theorycrafting that doesn't understand thin slicing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm pretty sure DDD was simply saying that putting a dead man on trial is kind of a waste of time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne,
quote:Just as there is no such thing as "too big to fail" there is also no such thing as "too dangerous to try in court."
He who sacrifices some liberty in the name of a little security achieves neither and deserves none.
OK, you're doing it again. That thing where you present an idea as though it were already proven and then blithely dismiss any challenges as though they were patently ridiculous. Here, just for fun I'll try it your way: the People's Republic of China is a brutal, oppressive regime that routinely sacrifices some liberty in the name of some security and stability and thus doesn't deserve either.
Not so much fun, is it? Things are complicated, aren't they? I don't say that to (entirely) make you mad, but because I just don't know how to drill past this thing you start doing when someone has taken a shot at you. BlackBlade didn't take a shot at you. Kmbboots didn't take a shot at you-Ace of Spades did. But now, as usual, because you got your dander up, you'll be damned if you're going to say, "Whoops, I overreacted. I oughtn't to have insulted either of them because I was irritated at what someone else said, and I haven't actually addressed their remarks at all."
quote:You say that nuclear installations are protected but the anti nuclear advocate would argue that no man made installation is truly safe, pointing at for example various Russian installations that were massive security risks during the 90s.
That and there *is* a massive difference, a nuclear power plant can't be moved around. OBL could be moved around. Moved from holding facility to holding facility until the day of his trial and then moved around until its time again.
Case in point: you're still not listening. I specifically said the issue was not just, and probably wasn't even primarily, what would happen to and at the prison where ObL was being held. That is to say, I don't think people are worried that if we imprison ObL, we won't be able to repel direct attacks on that prison to free him. We can do that, if we want to. Generally when terrorists decide to attack a conventional military force that is aware that they're coming and is prepared for their arrival, they get their asses kicked.
That's not what people are wondering if we should be worried about, Blayne, for like the sixth time in this thread. I'm not saying, "The possibility of ramped up terrorism in response to ObL's capture makes assassinating him acceptable," I'm saying the question should be asked. That it's not just a given that the answer is 'no'.
quote:Emotional knee jerk response. There are probably entire handbooks that any professional organization, as well as vast resources in which to minimize the risks to a professionally accepted level. Again, not a valid argument; any argument based on "risk" would require there be substantiated risks involved not "maybies" "there COULD be a terrorist attack" etc.
Alright, you are aware that 'emotional knee jerk response' doesn't actually serve as a rebuttal, yes? And I note without surprise that again you ignored the tail end of a remark that you even quoted, that the risks aren't just to the military. I'm saying, "We should assess the risk." Your response to that is, "Pft, risk, we can handle the risk! And anyway, they knew the risks when they signed up! Quit makin' emotional knee-jerk responses!" I'm serious, that is almost verbatim what you actually said.
quote:The question was silly and the person is silly for asking it, that and she surrendered some credibility with her "why don't you run for MP" comment a few pages ago that came out from nowhere. If the question had been asked in a vacuum that would be one thing, but she has to deal with the baggage that comes with it ontop of the context of her earlier remarks.
Oh, OK. So you were lashing out because kmbboots hurt your feelings a few pages ago. When she remarked, after your holding forth...based on...what experience, exactly? (Right, video games, the Internet, and academia-taking that last one on faith)...on the ease with which special forces can 'shoot to wound' instead of, well, how much nearly everyone else who actually holds and fires a firearm says to the contrary, she pointed out in a slightly snarky way that your tone of authority far exceeds any actual experience you have on the matters on which you're speaking, but you don't even appear to acknowledge it.
If we're going to say she surrendered her credibility, Blayne...are you seriously going to sit there in front of your computer screen and suggest you didn't also not just surrender but positively load up into a trebuchet and fling away your credibility when you started holding forth on what is and isn't easy for Navy SEALS to do, marksmanship wise? Really?
(Hint: this is an easy question to answer for anyone who isn't angry and entrenched. Pull a Ron and just ignore the question if you don't want to acknowledge the easy answer. It would be better, in terms of communication, than the SA/TvTropes/whatever style more commonplace when you get like this.)
quote:And you wonder why Canadians completely thumb our noses at Americans? This. Above, right there. Just because I said "any kind of trial" doesn't automatically mean "any kind of trial that some redneck from Missouri would be happy with."
Don't be so obstinately literal with peoples arguments.
Oh, the irony. If you hadn't been so deliberately literal, this wouldn't be so hypocritical.
quote: So your a pragmatist now is that it? Whatever is the "easiest" most convenient path is the best path?
Excuse me for thinking things like justice were important things to the typical american.
Hey, case in point! Lookit how literal you're being! Did you miss the multiple times I said, "This doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but only that the question should be asked." At this point I've asked the question half a dozen times in maybe three posts. You've quoted me multiple times. It's impossible you've missed it.
-----------
Take Flying Fish's advice. It's really good. God knows my 'occasional swing at talking with you about stuff' sure as hell doesn't work, and if this discussion is any indicator is going to keep on not working. Ahh well. I figure in another while I'll see something of yours and shrug my shoulders and give it another shot. Maybe by year 7 your posting style won't be a litany of 'but he said...'
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
During the Prosser affair lots of people felt Republicans were abusing the FOIA (or, rather, its WI analogue). Do people feel this is an appropriate FOIA request, or is it another abuse for political gain? Personally I feel fine about it, but I didn't have a big issue with the Prosser request either, so I'm guessing my response may have something to do with which side of the aisle I sit on.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by J-Put: Really, that's the thing they drill into you most in the military? Because in my experience it's always been to shoot to eliminate the threat. If he so much as reached for his pocket, put a hand behind his back, or made any sudden movement my training would tell me to stop him from doing whatever he's doing.
CENTER MASS, even if you qualify as expert. Which I did 4 times.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't have a problem with this request. It's not intended to have a chilling effect on federal assassinations, after all.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by J-Put:
quote: What the hell is it with people not reading what I write and simply making up crap to put their instead?
Repeat after me:
"THESE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CONCEPTS NOR DID I SAY THEY WERE."
If you have a situation where the guy is standing there and trying to reach for something that's also enough time for training to kick in and shoot to wound.
Wounds of course, I know damn well, hurt alot and completely incapacitate most people, thats why they're effective for capturing people if your trained to do it.
You're not understanding what I'm saying. I've had the military training you're talking about, and according to everything I've been taught you do NOT shoot to wound. Wounds are NOT effective at incapacitating people. You shoot to eliminate the threat. More often than not that means that you shoot to kill.
So have I, although not at a SF level. I have been though some tough courses though, and have scored perfect on most of them.
But far be it for me to counter your arguments with real world experience, actual weapons training, and actual expertise.
You can shoot to wound, but it rarely works, is often fatal anyways, and increases the risk of death and serious injury to you and your team by possibly an order of magnitude.
99.99% of the time it is center mass, because despite what TV shows and Soldier of Fortune mags tell you it is actually fairly hard to hit a moving target at all, let alone do a "call shot".
We are talking about RL, not a game.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: 99.99% of the time it is center mass, because despite what TV shows and Soldier of Fortune mags tell you it is actually fairly hard to hit a moving target at all, let alone do a "call shot".
We are talking about RL, not a game.
Do remember that the SEALs are the same group that shot three pirates, across open ocean, from one moving boat to the other, with three headshots, all three firing at the same time. One of the three was shot through a window.
Some of the things we can only dream of doing in a video game, to them it's "standard procedure".
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Right. Open water, a clear shot, and the Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle.
Did they try to shoot him in the leg though?
BIG difference between an unexpected, coopdinated attack and a fiefight, or urban tactics inside a house looking for OBL.
I know quite a few SEAL's, or have though the years, and not ONE of them would try shooting someone in the leg if center mass was open. Not in any sort of closed room firefight.
It isn't that they couldn't hit a leg, or an arm. It's that the risk or trying to do so while the other person is trying to KILL you is astronomical. It's just a plain stupid thing to even try.....and SEAL's aren't stupid.
Center mass IS trying to wound. You don't shoot center mass because you want to hit there, you fire there because it gives you the best chance of hitting something while the enemy tries to evade your shots.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Blayne,
quote:Just as there is no such thing as "too big to fail" there is also no such thing as "too dangerous to try in court."
He who sacrifices some liberty in the name of a little security achieves neither and deserves none.
OK, you're doing it again. That thing where you present an idea as though it were already proven and then blithely dismiss any challenges as though they were patently ridiculous. Here, just for fun I'll try it your way: the People's Republic of China is a brutal, oppressive regime that routinely sacrifices some liberty in the name of some security and stability and thus doesn't deserve either.
Not so much fun, is it? Things are complicated, aren't they? I don't say that to (entirely) make you mad, but because I just don't know how to drill past this thing you start doing when someone has taken a shot at you. BlackBlade didn't take a shot at you. Kmbboots didn't take a shot at you-Ace of Spades did. But now, as usual, because you got your dander up, you'll be damned if you're going to say, "Whoops, I overreacted. I oughtn't to have insulted either of them because I was irritated at what someone else said, and I haven't actually addressed their remarks at all."
quote:You say that nuclear installations are protected but the anti nuclear advocate would argue that no man made installation is truly safe, pointing at for example various Russian installations that were massive security risks during the 90s.
That and there *is* a massive difference, a nuclear power plant can't be moved around. OBL could be moved around. Moved from holding facility to holding facility until the day of his trial and then moved around until its time again.
Case in point: you're still not listening. I specifically said the issue was not just, and probably wasn't even primarily, what would happen to and at the prison where ObL was being held. That is to say, I don't think people are worried that if we imprison ObL, we won't be able to repel direct attacks on that prison to free him. We can do that, if we want to. Generally when terrorists decide to attack a conventional military force that is aware that they're coming and is prepared for their arrival, they get their asses kicked.
That's not what people are wondering if we should be worried about, Blayne, for like the sixth time in this thread. I'm not saying, "The possibility of ramped up terrorism in response to ObL's capture makes assassinating him acceptable," I'm saying the question should be asked. That it's not just a given that the answer is 'no'.
quote:Emotional knee jerk response. There are probably entire handbooks that any professional organization, as well as vast resources in which to minimize the risks to a professionally accepted level. Again, not a valid argument; any argument based on "risk" would require there be substantiated risks involved not "maybies" "there COULD be a terrorist attack" etc.
Alright, you are aware that 'emotional knee jerk response' doesn't actually serve as a rebuttal, yes? And I note without surprise that again you ignored the tail end of a remark that you even quoted, that the risks aren't just to the military. I'm saying, "We should assess the risk." Your response to that is, "Pft, risk, we can handle the risk! And anyway, they knew the risks when they signed up! Quit makin' emotional knee-jerk responses!" I'm serious, that is almost verbatim what you actually said.
quote:The question was silly and the person is silly for asking it, that and she surrendered some credibility with her "why don't you run for MP" comment a few pages ago that came out from nowhere. If the question had been asked in a vacuum that would be one thing, but she has to deal with the baggage that comes with it ontop of the context of her earlier remarks.
Oh, OK. So you were lashing out because kmbboots hurt your feelings a few pages ago. When she remarked, after your holding forth...based on...what experience, exactly? (Right, video games, the Internet, and academia-taking that last one on faith)...on the ease with which special forces can 'shoot to wound' instead of, well, how much nearly everyone else who actually holds and fires a firearm says to the contrary, she pointed out in a slightly snarky way that your tone of authority far exceeds any actual experience you have on the matters on which you're speaking, but you don't even appear to acknowledge it.
If we're going to say she surrendered her credibility, Blayne...are you seriously going to sit there in front of your computer screen and suggest you didn't also not just surrender but positively load up into a trebuchet and fling away your credibility when you started holding forth on what is and isn't easy for Navy SEALS to do, marksmanship wise? Really?
(Hint: this is an easy question to answer for anyone who isn't angry and entrenched. Pull a Ron and just ignore the question if you don't want to acknowledge the easy answer. It would be better, in terms of communication, than the SA/TvTropes/whatever style more commonplace when you get like this.)
quote:And you wonder why Canadians completely thumb our noses at Americans? This. Above, right there. Just because I said "any kind of trial" doesn't automatically mean "any kind of trial that some redneck from Missouri would be happy with."
Don't be so obstinately literal with peoples arguments.
Oh, the irony. If you hadn't been so deliberately literal, this wouldn't be so hypocritical.
quote: So your a pragmatist now is that it? Whatever is the "easiest" most convenient path is the best path?
Excuse me for thinking things like justice were important things to the typical american.
Hey, case in point! Lookit how literal you're being! Did you miss the multiple times I said, "This doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but only that the question should be asked." At this point I've asked the question half a dozen times in maybe three posts. You've quoted me multiple times. It's impossible you've missed it.
-----------
Take Flying Fish's advice. It's really good. God knows my 'occasional swing at talking with you about stuff' sure as hell doesn't work, and if this discussion is any indicator is going to keep on not working. Ahh well. I figure in another while I'll see something of yours and shrug my shoulders and give it another shot. Maybe by year 7 your posting style won't be a litany of 'but he said...'
Whatever man, if you want an apology you can hold back on the "by year 7..." nonsense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't expect an apology from you, Blayne. I also don't expect you'll give one to BB or kmbboots for being insulting in response to valid points. Still further I don't expect you'll actually ever address the multiple direct challenges made to your arguments.
Why? Years of experience.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't expect an apology from you, Blayne. I also don't expect you'll give one to BB or kmbboots for being insulting in response to valid points. Still further I don't expect you'll actually ever address the multiple direct challenges made to your arguments.
Why? Years of experience.
I feel the same way.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't think what he wants is an apology.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well I'm quite certain you don't, AoS-you are after all a troll, and posts under that name are designed deliberately to insult or annoy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Who might that be an alt for?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ace of Spades isn't an actual card?
But alright, I'll have to be the bigger man, I apologize for my remarks and my overreaction. Your turn.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
I accept your apology. If I ever say anything to offend you or anybody else I'll apologize.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: You can shoot to wound, but it rarely works, is often fatal anyways, and increases the risk of death and serious injury to you and your team by possibly an order of magnitude.
1. The "why didn't they shoot to wound" crowd should put in some serious hours playing urban paintball. Like, get up nice and close-quarters with other people trying to shoot them too. See how far you get not aiming for center mass in the heat of the moment.
2. Physiologically, two great ways to kill someone flat-out dead is to shoot them in the leg or the shoulder. If the bullet or the concussive water shock from the bullet (a large swath, in the tearing, tumbling motion of a 5.56 round) tears open, say, the femoral artery, you're pretty much dead. This is complete armchair medico-generallisimoing on my part, since I am not a doctor and have only fired assault rifles like ten times, but after witnessing the 5.56 vs 7.62 argument multiple times across the years (heads up, AK-lovers, 5.56 wins) I think it's safe to say I'm working on accurate information.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Did you miss the part where I said I don't expect an apology from you, Blayne? I don't even want one from you. (What would be nice would be you actually addressing points made, but *shrug*.)
What would be nice would be some measure of belief that this wouldn't happen again in a matter of weeks. A grudging half-hearted vague apology that is obviously insincere doesn't really serve that purpose. Actually addressing some of the points you've previously thrown a mini-tantrum over, on the other hand, would.
--------
quote:1. The "why didn't they shoot to wound" crowd should put in some serious hours playing urban paintball. Like, get up nice and close-quarters with other people trying to shoot them too. See how far you get not aiming for center mass in the heat of the moment.
Seriously, it's just bizarre how far video games and movies appear to have infiltrated our thinking on this kind of thing. Unless we're just going to say to the people actually doing the shooting-to-wound, "You knew what you signed up for," there are some problems with making that kind of thing a policy: namely it's a lot more dangerous in close quarters. If you do that, you're more likely to get killed.
quote: 2. Physiologically, two great ways to kill someone flat-out dead is to shoot them in the leg or the shoulder. If the bullet or the concussive water shock from the bullet (a large swath, in the tearing, tumbling motion of a 5.56 round) tears open, say, the femoral artery, you're pretty much dead. This is complete armchair medico-generallisimoing on my part, since I am not a doctor and have only fired assault rifles like ten times, but after witnessing the 5.56 vs 7.62 argument multiple times across the years (heads up, AK-lovers, 5.56 wins) I think it's safe to say I'm working on accurate information.
That's just one of the concerns. The other is that, in return for this far-from-guaranteed taken-alive shoot-to-wound policy, how much greater is the risk to the people we have enacting that policy? (Again, lest I be misunderstood, I'm not saying that means we shouldn't do it. I'm saying that means the question should be asked. That there's more to the matter than saying, "Psht, we can just shoot to wound, why didn't we shoot to wound!")
And then, still again, we come to the problem of after all of these unresolved difficulties are resolved, here we've got in prison Osama bin Laden, who's going to have to be incarcerated for years. Will that cause a sharp upswing in international terrorism, a rallying cry? I really don't know. I mean, I really don't know. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we've ever actually had the Cobra Commander of terrorism up before the Hague before, if I'm not mistaken. That's not something that's happened. Maybe I missed it. Rather uncharted waters. (And just in case I'm misunderstood on this point as well, I'm-again-not referring to the problem of securing the prison.)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: I accept your apology. If I ever say anything to offend you or anybody else I'll apologize.
I wasn't talking to you....
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
I apologize on my behalf for hopping into what probably felt, to you Blayne, like a dogpile. I apologize for the willow/oak comments in case they struck you as facetious or condescending -- they were not intended to be. I believe that Lao Tze expressed that aphorism, and I sincerely feel that it's personally helped me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I didn't take any offense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: The other is that, in return for this far-from-guaranteed taken-alive shoot-to-wound policy, how much greater is the risk to the people we have enacting that policy? (Again, lest I be misunderstood, I'm not saying that means we shouldn't do it. I'm saying that means the question should be asked. That there's more to the matter than saying, "Psht, we can just shoot to wound, why didn't we shoot to wound!")
Yeah, I include all that in the example no. 1 — I mean, oh my god. It is so hard to hit a target in close quarters, but this just doesn't register with people. They're like "It's close quarters, and you're a Navy SEAL, it should be easy!" Sure. My bad. The leg is HUGE. It takes up SO MUCH OF THE SCREEN. Just put your reticule over it! Don't worry about the risk to your life, you can take a few shots and then take cover for your health to regenerate, and you get an achievement for taking ObL alive within ten minutes of the mission starting.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...but after witnessing the 5.56 vs 7.62 argument multiple times across the years (heads up, AK-lovers, 5.56 wins)...
quote:The heavier 7.62mm projectile is better in circumstances where the bullet has to pass through any intervening material. This allows the shooter to fire through heavy foliage, light wall materials or a common vehicle's metal body and into an opponent attempting to use these things as cover.
The .223 is nice for tumbling in soft tissue, sure, if you can get to said soft tissue. .223 isn't known for it's ability to punch through cover.
I can't seem to find it, but I read an article about how the Army was distributing surplus M14s to squads to help with enemy combatants who were hiding behind concrete block walls.
If I had the $600+ to buy it, Olympic Arms makes a .762 upper for the AR-15...right now I'm saving up to get the .22lr conversion kit.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I knew that for a long while now.
Though personally I want a mosin-nagant for the cool points.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Keep your cool points and get a semi-auto.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The SVT-40?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have no idea about Canadian assault weapon laws, but if you can, get something with a box magazine. Stripper clips are faster then hand loading, but box mag is king.
[edit]My bad...I was looking at the SVT-38...SVT-40 has a box mag. Looks like a good choice, if you can get your hands on the 7.62x54mmR ammo.[/edit]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Looking over Canadian firearm ownership laws...man, they are confusing and difficult...Good luck Blayne.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
It all makes sense now. We ARE Al Qaida.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:"The soldiers of Islam will continue in groups and united, plotting and planning without getting bored, tired, with determination, without giving up until striking a blow," the statement.
Wanna blow up some Americans?
Naw, I'm bored! Let's just go play some Xbox instead.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
They're definitely sticking to Xbox. Osama put his personal information and address into PSN, and we all know how that turned out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just saw a picture of a Hasidic newspaper which photoshopped all the women out of the picture of obama in the briefing room during the updates of the mission in progress. Big hole where Hillary was sitting. Funny.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: They're definitely sticking to Xbox. Osama put his personal information and address into PSN, and we all know how that turned out.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Just confirmed - Leeroy Jenkins was part of the Navy SEALs team 6 and was responsible for the headshot that took out bin Laden. His words after shooting ObL: "At least I have chicken."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just saw a picture of a Hasidic newspaper which photoshopped all the women out of the picture of obama in the briefing room during the updates of the mission in progress. Big hole where Hillary was sitting. Funny.
That's fascinating. I can't help but wonder if folks who have as a primary or even *any* of their world news from such a source are likely to, well, actually be fooled to some extent by it.
Normally for a story such as this I'd say it was offensive, stupid, and self-defeating. Obviously a news outlet isn't going to be able to hide from people that, y'know, women aren't just domestic baby machines anymore. But I wonder if in a community so insulated as to get their news from an outlet that would try this-that would try to hide that the US Secretary of State is involved in major US foreign policy-from it's people-I wonder if maybe it *can* work.
Not forever, of course. But a helluva lot longer than it otherwise would. If they're editing front-page photos of huge international headlines, holy &)@# it's easy to guess the sorts of editorializing that goes on in their print.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just saw a picture of a Hasidic newspaper which photoshopped all the women out of the picture of obama in the briefing room during the updates of the mission in progress. Big hole where Hillary was sitting. Funny.
It does kinda look like Clinton has her hand on Gates leg...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Normally for a story such as this I'd say it was offensive, stupid, and self-defeating. Obviously a news outlet isn't going to be able to hide from people that, y'know, women aren't just domestic baby machines anymore. But I wonder if in a community so insulated as to get their news from an outlet that would try this-that would try to hide that the US Secretary of State is involved in major US foreign policy-from it's people-I wonder if maybe it *can* work.
Societies like the one this paper belong to engage in as much as they can to impose isolation and 'protection' from outside influences and ideas. Including purposeful linguistic isolation (that paper's in yiddishe).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's kind of sad that they think their views are so weak that they must lie to their people to keep them.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just saw a picture of a Hasidic newspaper which photoshopped all the women out of the picture of obama in the briefing room during the updates of the mission in progress. Big hole where Hillary was sitting. Funny.
You know, all things considered that's not a bad Photoshop job. Maybe North Korea should hire these guys.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who's to say they haven't? Initially meant as a joke, but after a moment's consideration it's not unreasonable that someone who would lie in a newspaper headline (and get paid for it) would lie elsewhere and be paid for it. Not for North Koreans, of course, that's unlikely. But more domestic lying, why not?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
they too busy bein skeered of uncovered womenfolk or whatever
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well that's interesting.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It would appear (unsurprising) that they believe the portions of reported events that permit them to make accusations and criticisms, but are 'justly skeptical' of other details such as whether or not he's actually dead.
Posted by Aurasan (Member # 12570) on :
(if it really was Bin Laden) we have his DNA on file, and why toss him overboard? I think there is some severe lacking of proof. I've made inquiries into USAF Intel.. a couple folks who owe me a favor. will get back to you all
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That article that Blayne posted (a letter from the Binladen family) seems pretty reasonable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone, they've got - from the criticizer's point of view - the best of all possible worlds.
They get to disbelieve or criticize the portions of events as reported that make their targets (the government of the United States, and to a lesser extent its allies) at times. But at other times they get to question whether things happened at all.
They get to be flexible on whether they believe something happened at all. "We're not sure he's dead, we haven't been given ample reason to believe he's dead, but if he's dead, it was wrong to kill him in the way he was killed-and the only way we know he was killed in such and such a way is by the coverage we've already said we mistrust."
That's...sort of reasonable, yes. And they do raise some good questions-such as should OBL have been dealt with in that fashion? Should he have been tried in a court of law (their assumption that this is the only way to go, as though it was a given, is a bit strange to me, but *shrug*)? Should his remains have been buried at sea, or tendered to his family? Etc. Those are reasonable questions, yes-but they've been asked by other people. Their stance, it seems to me, isn't very reasonable. A reasonable stance is one in which you may also be challenged yourself. They don't offer that.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aurasan: (if it really was Bin Laden) we have his DNA on file, and why toss him overboard? I think there is some severe lacking of proof. I've made inquiries into USAF Intel.. a couple folks who owe me a favor. will get back to you all
Yea, why toss him overboard? I mean, except for the explicitly stated reasons of wanting to avoid his grave becoming a tribute to Islamist martyrdom. and wanting to follow the Muslim tradition of burying a body within 24 hours of death.
It just doesn't add up... as long as you ignore the facts...
You should definitely see if your low level Intelligence friends who owe you a favour for helping them move-in will reveal if an international cover-up is afoot.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I guess non americans feel international law and international instutitions and questions of jurisdiction is important?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I don't, I say good-riddance to the sucker. If Pakistan were throwing up a stink about this it'd be different, but they only seem embarrassed to have missed him themselves.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I guess non americans feel international law and international instutitions and questions of jurisdiction is important?
Really, Blayne? Then by all means, please enlighten us Americans-what exactly does international law say about what should've been done with Osama bin Laden?
God in heaven, international law. Seriously? Just for fun, here's a quick question: what does international law say about things like human rights violations, invasions of Tibet, menacing of Taiwain, and so on and so forth? Please note that this is not an invitation to discourse on those subjects at length, just to point out that I've found through amazing investigative skills at least one non-American who doesn't care much about international law, too.
In other words, international law is often very murky. It's often subjective. And when someone says, 'Psh, 'group of people' don't care about international law like I/we do', it's a nice, solid bet they're full of crap.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Their stance, it seems to me, isn't very reasonable. A reasonable stance is one in which you may also be challenged yourself. They don't offer that.
They are issuing a lot of "if then" statements, asking for pretty reasonable stuff...like, can we see proof, publicly or privately, can we please have the other family members back...and they are threatening to go to the UN...which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in my estimation.
I don't understand your objection that they can be challenged...about what...with whom?
I'll give you one thing...this statement
quote:we now condemn the president of the United States for ordering the execution of unarmed men and women.
is rather assumptive...but if my jerkhole uncle was killed, and a few innocent cousins to boot I might feel a bit different. *shrug*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: God in heaven, international law. Seriously? Just for fun, here's a quick question: what does international law say about things like human rights violations, invasions of Tibet, menacing of Taiwain, and so on and so forth?
Shut up, Ai Weiwei, you're coming with me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I guess non americans feel international law and international instutitions and questions of jurisdiction is important?
Really, Blayne? Then by all means, please enlighten us Americans-what exactly does international law say about what should've been done with Osama bin Laden?
God in heaven, international law. Seriously? Just for fun, here's a quick question: what does international law say about things like human rights violations, invasions of Tibet, menacing of Taiwain, and so on and so forth? Please note that this is not an invitation to discourse on those subjects at length, just to point out that I've found through amazing investigative skills at least one non-American who doesn't care much about international law, too.
In other words, international law is often very murky. It's often subjective. And when someone says, 'Psh, 'group of people' don't care about international law like I/we do', it's a nice, solid bet they're full of crap.
Completely legal as neither are nations. But I was pointing at your statement that "(their assumption that this is the only way to go, as though it was a given, is a bit strange to me, but *shrug*)" Made it seem like you absolutely had no idea as to why other people feel the need to go to the international courts.
Surely it is now obvious why this is a very jumpable on statement. The difference between being within the borders of a superpower and not inside said superpower.
People from smaller nations can only feel that the international courts and institutions are the way to protect them from bigger nations, it is their first recourse.
You take it for granted you live in a superpower which is why its mockable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Completely legal as neither are nations.
Yes, Blayne. That is exactly what international law says about Chinese treatment of Taiwan and Tibet-it's completely legal because neither are nations. A brilliant summation that, with absolute impartiality, lends total credibility to the PRC side of things. ( Seriously, it's like I'm reading a line from 8-Bit Theater or something.)
Thank you for offering up a statement that so quickly illustrates my original point-which was that you're not such a fan of it yourself, when it's troublesome to people you like.
quote:You take it for granted you live in a superpower which is why its mockable.
No, Blayne-what I take for granted is that most complaints that international law is being violated, especially when they come from casual observers, are not going to be very credible because most people don't really credit international law with much moral authority, certainly not any actual authority. There are some people I would take such claims seriously from.
The family of OBL, well, you'll have to pardon me for some initial skepticism particularly when it takes the method of 'we haven't been given enough evidence to believe it happened, but if it did happen, the way it happened was wrong-and the only way we know it might've happened wrongly was the evidence we just got done saying wasn't credible.'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Completely legal as neither are nations
For how much you make frenzied, humongous posts defending China using snippets of collected information and apologist pro-china rationalizations, I'm surprised you would fall into a summary this eminently dismissable.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
He's specifically talking about whether the killing violated the UN charter, but points out other legal qualms and links to analysis that address them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: Taiwan isn't a nation? What rubric are you using for nationhood status?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Derp, thought this wasn't an invitation for an indepth discussion, guess someone lied.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't realize I spoke for BlackBlade, Blayne. That's news to me. What's that job pay, I wonder?
Listen, though: there's certainly no need to actually answer BlackBlade's question (on my account anyway) with anything other than shades of 'China says they're not', or to retract your statement/suggestion that I'm a liar because I said I didn't want another in-depth discussion on China with you, and then someone else asked you a question.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh, please answer my question to you in my previous post...thanks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
(To me that reads as very presumptuous, Stone_Wolf, but alright. Given that it's been less than two hours and a couple of posts, and that I already addressed the issue you're talking about. Just wanted you to know that.
I don't believe you meant it as presumptuous and, well, bossy as it sounded...but it did.)
quote:I don't understand your objection that they can be challenged...about what...with whom?
This isn't a very clearly worded question. I'm saying they can't be challenged, at least not in such a way that doesn't give them a perfect opportunity to pivot. They start out by saying, "...but we are not convinced on the available evidence in the absence of dead body, photographs, and video evidence that our natural father is dead."
More or less, "We don't trust the reports we've been given about what's happened to take your (USA's) word for it that he's dead." But then they go on to say, "If it happened that way, then it was done in a bad way-but the only way we know it happened that way is by trusting the sources we just got done saying we don't regard as honest."
How do you argue against that? If you challenge the one set of claims, pivot to the other. They start off by doing just that in their press release.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
First off...the last time I gave you time to answer, you didn't...ever...but that's okay, I didn't press the issue then, but this time I wanted to discuss it, so I asked...nicely. Second, when you claimed I ignored questions, I said, "Just ask nicely" you didn't seem to have a problem with it at the time...so I just asked nicely. Forgive me if I don't count "Please...thanks" as bossy.
As to your assertion that they can't be challenged...how can you challenge a request? They are not claiming that the death is faked, merely asking (rather nicely IMO) for definitive proof. Were it my relative, even being a monster, I would like to know for sure as well.
To the second part of your argument, the press has released official versions where ObL was unarmed, and it is a fair question as to why he was killed. If the answer is as simple as, he lunged towards a weapon, then fine, but I see no problem with them asking it.
Again, no claims...just questions. Their message basically says, please answer these questions and return our relatives or we will seek international intervention.
Where is the bad?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: More or less, "We don't trust the reports we've been given about what's happened to take your (USA's) word for it that he's dead." But then they go on to say, "If it happened that way, then it was done in a bad way-but the only way we know it happened that way is by trusting the sources we just got done saying we don't regard as honest."
Yeah, I'm not sure I follow either.
Why must a valid argument be one that makes assumptions that can be argued against? It seems perfectly reasonable to say, "I'm not sure if I believe you, but if what you're saying is true, then we're deeply concerned." Especially since its reasonable to assume that the US would seek to depict its own involvement in the best possible light.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I didn't realize I spoke for BlackBlade, Blayne. That's news to me. What's that job pay, I wonder?
$1USD a day, you interested? Or else $28.5 NTD aka "fake country Taiwanese dollars" per day. Your choice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I didn't realize we were bringing up a bunch of old stuff here, Stone Wolf. My mistake. Shall I go mine your posts for some gems-perhaps the series where you in effect decided I was being mean and that meant you didn't have to answer direct challenges to your point of view?
Or would you instead respond that we have sharply different recollections of past conversations, and leave it at that instead of dredging them up so directly to serve as ammunition? (You don't get credit for past 'restraint' if you use it later as an example of moral superiority, you know.) And in the realm of 'I coulds', I could say, "Go ahead, show me which question of yours I never answered after you gave me time."
But - since you've decided to be snippy about this - I'll just come right out and say it, I'm not interested in a dredge-the-past game with someone who apparently credits an Onion story, initially, as a serious news source.
(Look at how right I was, by the way, that your 'nice' request was bossy. Hint: I even said, outright, that I didn't believe you meant it in a bossy or presumptuous fashion and you respond with a little persecution head-fake.)
Anyway.
quote: As to your assertion that they can't be challenged...how can you challenge a request? They are not claiming that the death is faked, merely asking (rather nicely IMO) for definitive proof. Were it my relative, even being a monster, I would like to know for sure as well.
You can challenge someone's arguments. They're not just making a request, surely you can see that. That press release wasn't just a 'release the relatives' press release. Furthermore, no, they don't challenge that the death was faked-they just state right in their lead that, "...but we are not convinced...that our natural father is dead."
I don't understand how you could've missed that suggestion, when I quoted it to you in my very last post to you, and it's right at the top of the news story.
quote:
To the second part of your argument, the press has released official versions where ObL was unarmed, and it is a fair question as to why he was killed. If the answer is as simple as, he lunged towards a weapon, then fine, but I see no problem with them asking it.
I don't see a problem with asking it either. I see a slight honesty problem with saying, "We don't trust any of the reports that have been released," and then going on to say, "We criticize the government's actions on the basis of the truthful reporting of the reports that have been released."
quote:Again, no claims...just questions. Their message basically says, please answer these questions and return our relatives or we will seek international intervention.
Well, no, there are claims. He might not be dead. The government hasn't released reliable reports as to what's happened. Those are just two claims for starters. Fair claims, I believe-claims that can be discussed reasonably. But...do you understand the contradiction involved in accusing someone of lying (indirectly, as they are doing), and then accusing them of transgressions when the only record of those transgressions is their unreliable word in the first place?
-----------
quote:
Why must a valid argument be one that makes assumptions that can be argued against? It seems perfectly reasonable to say, "I'm not sure if I believe you, but if what you're saying is true, then we're deeply concerned." Especially since its reasonable to assume that the US would seek to depict its own involvement in the best possible light.
It's not a necessary component of a valid argument, that it have assumptions that can be argued against, obviously. But some consistency is a bit necessary, I should think. For example, in this case it would add up - it seems to me - for an argument for greater transparency in what's being done, not 'we don't necessarily believe it happened', 'but if it happened it was bad-let's set aside that question of whether or not it happened at all, and now you get credit for telling the truth or some of the truth.'
From a PR perspective, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Not at all surprising or unfair, in terms of politics.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Take a deep breath dude...it's okay.
Saying "I'm not convinced" is a world away from "Your lying".
quote:...do you understand the contradiction involved in accusing someone of lying (indirectly, as they are doing), and then accusing them of transgressions when the only record of those transgressions is their unreliable word in the first place?
I personally do not agree that they are directly or indirectly accusing anyone of lying, so my understanding of the contradiction is not applicable.
There are people who will use looser terminology to prove a point without having to claim it, but golly, monster or no, I think it's damn fair for ObL's blood family to see proof of his death, even if the government feels it is not a good idea to release said proof publicly.
I don't care who my father was, ObL, Hitler, Spencer Pratt, Mou Si Tung or Sauron the dark lord of Mordor, if he died I would want more evidence then being told so.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... and now you get credit for telling the truth or some of the truth.
I'm still not sure I follow. Are you working off of the assumption that Obama really wanted to hide that he killed Osama and that he deserves credit for coming clean as having done it or something?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I don't buy the fact that the Balrog is dead just because Gandalf said so. I think he should wheel the beast's dead, burning carcass down the streets of Minas Tirith this instant!!!
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote: President Barack Obama’s decision not to release photos of a dead Osama bin Laden was driven in part by fears that the images would be electronically altered and “misused” in a way that could drive anti-American anger, protests and attacks on U.S. personnel abroad, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.
“One of the things that I think concerns Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton and I is the risk not only of the pictures themselves inflaming people who were bin Laden’s adherents and radical extremists, but we were also worried about the potential for manipulation of those photos and doing things with those photos that would be pretty outrageous in terms of provoking a reaction that might in fact put our troops at greater risk in both Iraq and Afghanistan,” Gates said during a town-hall-style meeting with Marines at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
.../...
Gates said his concerns about releasing the bin Laden photos were dramatized by Photoshopping of an official White House picture taken of Obama’s national security team while they were monitoring a live video feed of the operation in which Navy SEALs ultimately killed bin Laden.
“I have gotten from friends all over the country copies of the picture that was this iconic picture taken in the Situation Room while we were watching the operation. And they have been photoshopped in every way you can imagine, including putting you know, coming after the royal wedding, one of these had all of us in one of these big, wide-brimmed hats from the wedding. Another had various football players seated at the table that had been photoshopped in,” Gates noted.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I didn't realize I spoke for BlackBlade, Blayne. That's news to me. What's that job pay, I wonder?
Listen, though: there's certainly no need to actually answer BlackBlade's question (on my account anyway) with anything other than shades of 'China says they're not', or to retract your statement/suggestion that I'm a liar because I said I didn't want another in-depth discussion on China with you, and then someone else asked you a question.
Its very rude, if you have two people talking, one of them says "okay answer em this although I don't want a long indepth discussion because we have places to be" and the other guy answers in the simplest quickest way possible in order to answer and respect his request; its extremely unfair to walk in and jump on that answer when its clear its elaborated answer would take "days" to go over. It's dishonest.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote: ... one of these had all of us in one of these big, wide-brimmed hats from the wedding. Another had various football players seated at the table that had been photoshopped in,” Gates noted.
Oh noes!!!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't know which is worse: that the white house has concluded that the general populace is pretty much just too dumb to deserve or benefit from the pictures being released, or the fact that they're right.
The Desperate-To-Conspiratize-Obama crowd will just scream that it's obviously fake and photoshopped and why did it take Obama so long to release it anyway what were they afraid of i'm just saying questions remain barack nate dhalani.
The rest of us will lolcat it and turn it into a series of memes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I kinda wish that they plastinated the guy and added him to one of those Body Worlds exhibits.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Is it wrong that I found this funny?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Biden looks so natural in that pose.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Its very rude, if you have two people talking, one of them says "okay answer em this although I don't want a long indepth discussion because we have places to be" and the other guy answers in the simplest quickest way possible in order to answer and respect his request; its extremely unfair to walk in and jump on that answer when its clear its elaborated answer would take "days" to go over. It's dishonest.
I didn't give a reason why I didn't want an in-depth conversation about that topic with you. If you're interested, it's because you can't have a reasonable discussion about China in which one party is critical of Chinese policy, and you're the other party.
Case in point: here we have you first calling me dishonest because I said I didn't want to talk about that with you, and then someone else talked about it, and you complained to me about it-as though I had any control over what someone else said.
And then you go further and call that other person dishonest for not obeying my request, made to you. It's not dishonest. I'm the one who said I didn't want to talk about it with you (I didn't say why, but again, the reason why is because you get pretty hysterical about China). BlackBlade didn't say he didn't want to talk about it with you. In fact, he asked a direct, relevant question about your point. In response, you suggest he's dishonest.
Case: rested.
----------
quote:Take a deep breath dude...it's okay.
Saying "I'm not convinced" is a world away from "Your lying".
I know it's OK. You appear to be misinterpreting irritation with genuine distress. I'm pretty confident, though, that I correctly interpreted your deliberate dredging up of an old disagreement out of nowhere, ellipses and all.
quote:I personally do not agree that they are directly or indirectly accusing anyone of lying, so my understanding of the contradiction is not applicable.
...we're saying, "He's dead. We're offering thus and so evidence to sustain that statement." They're saying, "We don't believe that evidence is sufficient." How is that not an indirect accusation of lying, or the possibility of us lying? (I'm fine with them accusing us of lying, btw-we hardly have an untarnished record.)
quote: There are people who will use looser terminology to prove a point without having to claim it, but golly, monster or no, I think it's damn fair for ObL's blood family to see proof of his death, even if the government feels it is not a good idea to release said proof publicly.
Why is it fair? Serious question. I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just asking, why do they have a right to see proof of his death?
quote:Are you working off of the assumption that Obama really wanted to hide that he killed Osama and that he deserves credit for coming clean as having done it or something?
At this point I've kinda lost track of the conversation. Could you restate your question?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm tired of butting heads with you man, if you feel your outburst was appropriate, fine. If you feel my courteous request sounded rude, fine. I refuse to make our interaction the issue at hand.
quote:"We don't believe that evidence is sufficient." How is that not an indirect accusation of lying...
I simply do not know how to say that the two statements "We are not convinced." and "You are lying." do not equate any other way. The first statement is about the speaker's beliefs, the second about the honesty of the report. You can claim the sky is plaid, but refuse to show me any pictures or video, and I can say "Your word on the matter is not enough to convince me." and I can still believe that you believe it and are speaking honestly, without believing it myself.
What part of this statement means "You are lying."?
quote:...(we) have noted wide coverage of the news of the death of our father, but we are not convinced on the available evidence in the absence of dead body, photographs, and video evidence that our natural father is dead. Therefore, with this press statement, we seek such conclusive evidence to believe the stories published in relation to 2 May 2011 operation Geronimo as declared by the President of United States Barrack Hussein Obama in his speech that he authorized the said operation and killing of OBL and later confirmed his death.
quote:Why is it fair? Serious question. I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just asking, why do they have a right to see proof of his death?
Family members should have a right to view definitive proof of death when it is available, and it is available according to Obama. If your father was killed and there was proof which was not being released, wouldn't you want to see it?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I thought returning body to family of executed killer was standard. I can see the reasons in this case, but considering we didn't provide the body, a private viewing of pics and evidence seems appropriate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't know which is worse: that the white house has concluded that the general populace is pretty much just too dumb to deserve or benefit from the pictures being released, or the fact that they're right.
Too true.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I know for a fact that I'm a fool to engage, but I feel wrongfully accused and wish to set the record straight.
quote:...I'm pretty confident, though, that I correctly interpreted your deliberate dredging up of an old disagreement out of nowhere...
...I think you may have misunderstood me. The post I was referring to was recent, in this thread... this post.
quote:Oh, I didn't realize we were bringing up a bunch of old stuff here, Stone Wolf. My mistake. Shall I go mine your posts for some gems-perhaps the series where you in effect decided I was being mean and that meant you didn't have to answer direct challenges to your point of view?
Or would you instead respond that we have sharply different recollections of past conversations, and leave it at that instead of dredging them up so directly to serve as ammunition? (You don't get credit for past 'restraint' if you use it later as an example of moral superiority, you know.) And in the realm of 'I coulds', I could say, "Go ahead, show me which question of yours I never answered after you gave me time."
But - since you've decided to be snippy about this - I'll just come right out and say it, I'm not interested in a dredge-the-past game with someone who apparently credits an Onion story, initially, as a serious news source.
(Look at how right I was, by the way, that your 'nice' request was bossy. Hint: I even said, outright, that I didn't believe you meant it in a bossy or presumptuous fashion and you respond with a little persecution head-fake.)
I have tried to let this post go, but please review and and consider which of us was "deliberate dredging up of an old disagreement out of nowhere" while hypocritically claiming not to.
That shot at me about the Onion can only be called an insult.
This is also the third time you have used the phrase "sounds like" to slam me while admitting that I clearly did not mean that in actual truth. I call foul sir! This seems like a cowardly tactic, and I would strongly prefer if you cease using in it in regards to me, please.
I know by calling you out I have likely given up all high ground, but I think it's pretty darn clear who was name calling, who was out of control and off topic and who wasn't, and while I know it is not wise of me to say it, I can't seem to help myself. I guess I'm not mature enough to just sit quietly on high ground.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: I didn't give a reason why I didn't want an in-depth conversation about that topic with you. If you're interested, it's because you can't have a reasonable discussion about China in which one party is critical of Chinese policy, and you're the other party.
This is false, You are an ass or completely lacking in observation skills if you believe this to be the case, I've had conversations before that were perfectly reasonable and others have also pointed out that my positions were hardly unreasonable. I gave elaborated arguments, I cited sources and generally back up all my arguments with facts and statistics in "recent" discussions going back about 1-2 years.
I have not in the recent conversations gotten "hysterical", that is blatant character assassination. My assumption is that avoiding a substantiated discussion here is to avoid a derail.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright, so I looked at that post of yours-the one you references giving me time to answer a question you asked that I never answered? There's no question there. It didn't occur to me that you were referring to that, on account of it not matching your complaint.
As for 'sounds like', I'm not going to stop using it to describe, well, what things sound like to me. Initially I said that I didn't believe you *intended* it to be bossy, but I explained why it sounded that way. I think by now you should realize if I'm going to call you bossy, I'll just do so. There's no sense in hiding behind rhetoric of cowardice and bravery, as though you are somehow bravely standing up to me-this is an Internet discussion forum. Bravery rarely enters into it.
Again, you felt the need to ask however politely for me to answer your question after a *very* brief time had passed. You put yourself in the role of polite supervisor. Your justification for this was a reference to a post in which I didn't answer a question in which you'd 'given' me time to answer, even though there wasn't a question there.
Put simply, if you want an answer to a question, don't ask as though you were a supervisor; and don't act as though there were no sense of grievance on your part-and then when challenged promptly display your sense or grievance.
The Onion thing was a shot, and I shouldn't have made it. I am sorry for it.
-------
Blayne,
You're absolutely right-you are capable of calm, reasonable discussion on China. But around here, that's not what you're known for on the subject-and not just among the people whose opinions you get to dismiss immediately because they enjoy persecuting you, therefore you don't have to listen to them if you don't like what they're saying.
Case in point: in this conversation, almost your immediate response was to start calling people liars. TOTALLY REASONABLE.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I would be surprised if more than one in ten of those china discussions haven't gone hysterical and angry over the course of that '1-2 years'.
I have not been here that long but the time I have been here seems to back up rakeesh's statement.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thank you for the apology.
For the record, I never said that I asked you a question, but I can see how you would get that impression, as I used the phrase "gave you time to answer,".
I'm not trying to nit pick you here, but how can I ask you to address a point I feel has been overlooked without sounding supervisory to you?
Is there any way I can get you to not tell me what I sound like please? I find it frustrating to the max and would truly appreciate it if you did this kindness for me please.
Also for the record, it wasn't a sense of grievance, but justification. When I asked you to answer it, I was had no negative emotion. When you suggested how I sounded when you replayed, that was when the negative emotion kicked in, and even then I wasn't doing anything but trying to explain why I felt it was appropriate to ask for an answer in the first place.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:When channel N24 in Germany reported that Osama bin Laden was taken down by Navy SEAL Team 6, they searched for an image to place behind host Mick Locher. Instead of finding the real emblem for SEAL Team 6, researchers located the emblem of the Star Trek freedom fighters, The Maquis.
quote:When channel N24 in Germany reported that Osama bin Laden was taken down by Navy SEAL Team 6, they searched for an image to place behind host Mick Locher. Instead of finding the real emblem for SEAL Team 6, researchers located the emblem of the Star Trek freedom fighters, The Maquis.
That is AWESOME.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Time travelling rebels from the future come back to kill one of the greatest villains of the twenty-first century...
You know, I've seen worse movie pitches.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Re: the aspiring "bin laden's death proves Bush's torture progam worked, suck on that, liberals" angle.
quote:“With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:
“The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda.
“In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.
“I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’
“In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts.
This was obviously written by a weenie, immediately dismissable, draft-dodging anti-war liberal who was in no way actually John McCain, so we can disregard it as just being more liberal winnowing. Oh, I guess it was actually John McCain. Hmm.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
That's one spin. The other, from Marc Thiessen, Porter Goss and Michael Mukasey (who are obviously interested parties, but also people who should know the real story) is that, while the courier's existence and nomme de guerre were derived from an earlier source, it wasn't until KSM broke, post-waterboarding, that significant creedance was given to the earlier report. Despite KSM's attempted disinformation, it was his confirmation of the existence of the courier and identification of his nickname that precipitated further investigation.
quote:The dispute comes down to a few points neither side agrees on. Panetta, and McCain, point to a memo containing information that wasn’t obtained from enhanced interrogation techniques, and say that’s where Abu Ahmed’s name came from.
“Was there a memo in the file beforehand containing that name beforehand?” asked Mukasey. “Yes, but it was disregarded, because it came from somebody who was not regarded as important – who wasn’t important.” Investigators only circled back to the memo after interrogating KSM and others. “After it was married up with later facts that were later learned, it became obvious that he was covering for him, and that was a very significant fact. It was part of a mosaic of facts. There were many stones, and that was one of them."
If you read both Panetta and McCain's quotes carefully, they don't contradict this narrative. Which spin is more accurate, I don't know; I imagine the truth is somewhere between.
But I don't understand what the problem with acknowledging that valuable intelligence was derived from the waterboarding is. It doesn't change the fundamental calculus that waterboarding is wrong and shouldn't be done, unless the only reason given for it being wrong is that it's ineffective. That doesn't seem like the primary (or even secondary or tertiary) reason for not waterboarding to me.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: But I don't understand what the problem with acknowledging that valuable intelligence was derived from the waterboarding is. It doesn't change the fundamental calculus that waterboarding is wrong and shouldn't be done, unless the only reason given for it being wrong is that it's ineffective. That doesn't seem like the primary (or even secondary or tertiary) reason for not waterboarding to me.
I think this is a really important observation. It seems to me you're either fundamentally opposed to torture, regardless of outcomes and benefits, or you're not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think this is a really important observation. It seems to me you're either fundamentally opposed to torture, regardless of outcomes and benefits, or you're not.
Well, it depends on who's being rebutted. According to former VP Cheney, for example:
"Cheney has been a harsh critic of Obama's anti-terrorism policies, especially his decision to end the CIA enhanced interrogation program started by President Bush. Even as he praised Obama, Cheney suggested that program, and its aggressive interrogation of terror of detainees like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, contributed to the ultimate success of the operation against bin Laden."
It's not clear if that's, y'know, true or just something he's saying because most people are going to really examine that kind of statement about as closely as they will claims that there was a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. It may very well be true. But when you've got a guy, the front man* even, saying that our torture techniques helped bagged him and it turns out that might be the exact opposite of true-not only that torture got no answers but got wrong answers, and non-torturous techniques got good answers-well, it's important to say so.
I'm a bit biased, to be honest, though because I just can't freaking stand Dick Cheney. He screams sleaze to me.
*Politics being what it is, too, if the front man is saying 'our methods did it', well even if you completely set aside the question of equivalency or not between conservatives/liberals, Democrats/Republicans in current politics, you just know that further down the chain there will be people saying things that are shades of, "Ha, torture works, suck it!" or at least closer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Most people could have never heard cheney talk or seen his face and he'd still inspire a visceral reaction just from his views.
When I read his articles, I don't even really get the predominant 'this man is evil' vibe. He just sounds like a dumbass, who holds as much conceit for nuanced, realistic views now as he did when he was triumphantly announcing that the Iraqi insurgency was in its 'death throes' and that abu ghraib was really nothing important.
But he's the world's most dangerous type of dumbass, because his particular sociopolitical hallucination involves and reinforces the apparent necessity of turning the united states into a bunch of cowboy torturers who puke trillions of dollars into the dirt and merrily inspire casus belli from other religious fanatics, subsequently using reprisal as justification for what they were doing wrong in the first place.
Which is great if you want to have U.S. affairs play out analogous to the rotted, stinking, torturously amoral mess that is the middle east, but perhaps we could aspire to better things! And, as noted, reject torture not just on consequentialist grounds.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It may very well be true. But when you've got a guy, the front man* even, saying that our torture techniques helped bagged him and it turns out that might be the exact opposite of true-not only that torture got no answers but got wrong answers, and non-torturous techniques got good answers-well, it's important to say so.
Here's a relatively early (May 4) but fairly complete rundown of some of the "mosaic" of clues that led to identification of Sheik Abu Ahmed (the courier) and how they were obtained. In general the article is dismissive of the impact of harsh interrogation techniques, crediting them with hindering the investigative process because KSM and Slahi provided false information after interrogation.
However, other detainees who were not waterboarded but were subjected to other harsh interrogation techniques (Qahtani, Ghul) gave more accurate information. The article partially refutes itself when it references the impact of the differing narratives on identifying Abu Ahmed:
quote:By late 2005, the sharp discrepancies with their accounts caught the attention of agency interrogators and caused them to redouble their efforts to figure out Abu Ahmed’s identity.
When they did, they began to match up the slivers of details about him from multiple detainees with the agency’s internal “profile” of a bin Laden courier and were struck by the match, the U.S. official said.
This matches what Goss and Mukasey were saying: once it became clear that he was lying, KSM's misinformation (and that of Slahi and al-Libi) itself became a clue that this individual was significant.
And Panetta isn't denying this; he's just saying (from what I can tell) that information obtained through torture techniques was not sufficient, that no single piece of information, regardless of how it was obtained, was central to nailing down Abu Ahmed's identity.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Santorum vs. McCain
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: But I don't understand what the problem with acknowledging that valuable intelligence was derived from the waterboarding is. It doesn't change the fundamental calculus that waterboarding is wrong and shouldn't be done, unless the only reason given for it being wrong is that it's ineffective. That doesn't seem like the primary (or even secondary or tertiary) reason for not waterboarding to me.
I think this is a really important observation. It seems to me you're either fundamentally opposed to torture, regardless of outcomes and benefits, or you're not.
I don't think that this is entirely true - or at least, not all the truth. My observation is that people's opinions on torture can fall anywhere on a spectrum from "absolutely not for any reason" to "sure, the scum deserve it". I think that there are a lot of people who hover in the "deplorable but maybe necessary"* camp. I think that the information that torture is rarely, if ever, even useful much less vital, is an important part of that discussion.
*Rather like the way many people feel about abortion.
On another note, I like Sen. McCain so much better when he is not running for president.
[ May 17, 2011, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The "I didn't mean this change the subject," dance from Santorum should be amusing at least.
What a freaking scumbag.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I sincerely doubt Santorum was thinking about John McCain's history when he made that criticism. It sounds like it was just a reflex response more along the lines of, "He isn't working in any of the agencies that deal with intelligence gleaned from Al-Qaeda members."
I'm betting he is reading the responses to these remarks and thinking, "Whoops."
But then again, he's still stupid for not thinking more carefully before speaking.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
To move beyond the Slate-influenced perspective of it, both the Santorum/McCain rift and the Gingrich/Ryan rift are receiving a lot of attention, and Gingrich may have put himself out of his own impossible novelty campaign early.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that this is entirely true - or at least, not all the truth. My observation is that people's opinions on torture can fall anywhere on a spectrum from "absolutely not for any reason" to "sure, the scum deserve it". I think that there are a lot of people who hover in the "deplorable but maybe necessary"* camp. I think that the information that torture is rarely, if ever, even useful much less vital, is an important part of that discussion.
*Rather like the way many people feel about abortion.
On another note, I like Sen. McCain so much better when he is not running for president.
Fair enough, but you certainly don't hear much from the "deplorable but maybe necessary" camp. Perhaps they're the silent majority.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, until people start torturing Americans. Then it's absolutely under zero circumstances acceptable ever, period. Natch.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Well, until people start torturing Americans.
Did you mean that as it sounds or sarcastically?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that this is entirely true - or at least, not all the truth. My observation is that people's opinions on torture can fall anywhere on a spectrum from "absolutely not for any reason" to "sure, the scum deserve it". I think that there are a lot of people who hover in the "deplorable but maybe necessary"* camp. I think that the information that torture is rarely, if ever, even useful much less vital, is an important part of that discussion.
*Rather like the way many people feel about abortion.
On another note, I like Sen. McCain so much better when he is not running for president.
Fair enough, but you certainly don't hear much from the "deplorable but maybe necessary" camp. Perhaps they're the silent majority.
I guess I had assumed that most of the people who consider it necessary also consider it deplorable. How can a decent human being not consider torture deplorable even if they also believe it necessary?
But I admit that I may be giving some of them too much credit.
[ May 18, 2011, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The problem with torture is that it doesn't work. Forget the moral issue completely (it's wrong, no question) and the truth of the matter is that eventually anyone will make up stuff they think you want to hear to make you stop hurting them.
"Do you worship the devil?" <Apply hot irons to genitals> "Do you worship the devil?" <Break fingers> "Admit you have lain with the devil!" <Flense off back skin>
"I worship the devil!"
"He admitted it! Burn the witch!"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The problem with torture is that it is torture. Additionally, it doesn't work.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Did you mean that as it sounds or sarcastically?
What I meant is that when someone somewhere starts torturing an American, say an American soldier being given a good old fashioned savage beating (because like Santorum says, the way it works is, you break 'em, they stay broken, and they're truthfully cooperative forever), we don't start up on this shades of gray business.
When we lecture other people for human rights violations, we don't way, "You're only sometimes allowed to torture certain people."
That's how I meant it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The problem with torture is that it doesn't work.
The problem is worse than that - it's possible that torture *might* work, at least some of the time, and it's fairly difficult to prove incontrovertibly that it doesn't. It's not like we can run large-scale controlled double-blind experiments.
The human brain is a complex store of data and means for accessing it. It seems perfectly plausible that there are means of manipulating it such that the extraction of that data can be coerced, potentially through physically and psychologically tortuous processes.
Personally, I think the moral position against torture is sufficiently strong that it doesn't matter if torture is actually effective. The absolute claims about ineffectiveness are not necessarily well-supported and, if made as the primary objection, will weaken the case against torture the moment an anecdotal case of correct information being produced under torture occurs.
I think practical arguments about the negative results of torture, including losing our authority to protest the torture of our own citizens and how it influences the recruitment and propaganda efforts of our enemies are much more compelling.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Personally, I think the moral position against torture is sufficiently strong that it doesn't matter if torture is actually effective. The absolute claims about ineffectiveness are not necessarily well-supported and, if made as the primary objection, will weaken the case against torture the moment an anecdotal case of correct information being produced under torture occurs.
I think practical arguments about the negative results of torture, including losing our authority to protest the torture of our own citizens and how it influences the recruitment and propaganda efforts of our enemies are much more compelling.
I agree with your practical arguments. I also think that generally abiding by international norms and standards buys goodwill when we want to transgress them (like occasionally entering a sovereign country without permission to assassinate the leader of a terrorist organization).
I think I disagree, though, that the moral position against torture is sufficiently strong to absolutely ban its use. Mostly because I think "torture" (perhaps of necessity) is generally employed to mean "things done to prisoners that I personally don't like" rather than being a clearly delineated class of actions.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Mostly because I think "torture" (perhaps of necessity) is generally employed to mean "things done to prisoners that I personally don't like" rather than being a clearly delineated class of actions.
The Geneva Conventions represent international norms and standards on the subject and are sufficient for a common-sense analysis of virtually any particular technique of interrogation. It strains credulity, for instance, to claim that water boarding does not constitute "acts of violence or threats thereof". My impression is that it's primarily those who support increasing the level of violent and inhumane treatment of prisoners who have a fuzzy definition of torture, attempting to define away those techniques which they personally approve of.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Mostly because I think "torture" (perhaps of necessity) is generally employed to mean "things done to prisoners that I personally don't like" rather than being a clearly delineated class of actions.
The Geneva Conventions represents international norms and standards on the subject and are sufficient for a common-sense analysis of virtually any particular technique of interrogation. It strains credulity, for instance, to claim that water boarding does not constitute "acts of violence or threats thereof". My impression is that it's primarily those on the right who have a fuzzy definition of torture, attempting to define away those techniques which they personally approve of.
I could probably strain my credulity, but instead I'm more concerned that "acts of violence or threats thereof" is a spectrum of actions, some of which I (and, I think, most people) would consider torture and some of which I would not.
For instance, violent acts (to me) would include fairly innocuous activities like sitting someone down forcefully or shoving them in the back to get them to move, neither of which I'd consider torture. It would also include mutilation and beatings, things I would say pretty obviously are torture. I don't think that "torture" as a concept is sufficiently easy to define that we can make unambiguous moral claims about it.
In addition, I would say that because it is a somewhat ambiguous affair to attempt to define concepts like torture, or terrorism, or assassination, it is important to have strong and independent media, democratic institutions, and unbiased judiciary, because it is through these institutions that the messy work of deciding what is appropriate and what isn't gets worked out.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I think I disagree, though, that the moral position against torture is sufficiently strong to absolutely ban its use. Mostly because I think "torture" (perhaps of necessity) is generally employed to mean "things done to prisoners that I personally don't like" rather than being a clearly delineated class of actions.
Even were that the case, "don't do things to others that I wouldn't want done to me" seems like a fairly good application of the golden rule to me.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I think I disagree, though, that the moral position against torture is sufficiently strong to absolutely ban its use. Mostly because I think "torture" (perhaps of necessity) is generally employed to mean "things done to prisoners that I personally don't like" rather than being a clearly delineated class of actions.
Even were that the case, "don't do things to others that I wouldn't want done to me" seems like a fairly good application of the golden rule to me.
I wouldn't want to be imprisoned, but I don't have a problem imprisoning others (depending on circumstances).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I sincerely doubt that "rough handling" would be counted as "torture" unless the speaker is not being 100% honest.
I am not actually familiar with the details laid out in the Geneva Conventions MattP...how specific is it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I think I disagree, though, that the moral position against torture is sufficiently strong to absolutely ban its use. Mostly because I think "torture" (perhaps of necessity) is generally employed to mean "things done to prisoners that I personally don't like" rather than being a clearly delineated class of actions.
Even were that the case, "don't do things to others that I wouldn't want done to me" seems like a fairly good application of the golden rule to me.
I wouldn't want to be imprisoned, but I don't have a problem imprisoning others (depending on circumstances).
I have a problem with it while recognizing that, living in an imperfect world, we must sometimes do bad things. Imprisoning people is (generally*) bad, but allowing them to do harm is worse. Some things are not ideal or what we want to do but that must still be done out of necessity. But we should strive for that ideal and do the minimum of harm possible.
*I believe that there are some people who are better off contained for their own safety as well as that of others.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have a problem with it while recognizing that, living in an imperfect world, we must sometimes do bad things. Imprisoning people is (generally*) bad, but allowing them to do harm is worse. Some things are not ideal or what we want to do but that must still be done out of necessity. But we should strive for that ideal and do the minimum of harm possible.
*I believe that there are some people who are better off contained for their own safety as well as that of others.
IANAPhilosopher, but that seems like a big theoretical step from a deontological to a utilitarian view of ethics. I don't see that as a practical problem, but I feel it does indicate that making categorical statements about the issue (like "the problem with torture is that its torture" or even to assert that the moral case against torture is sufficiently strong, absent other practical considerations, to ban it) is of questionable justifiability.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
SenojRetep...if there was a universally agreed upon definition of torture with no ambiguity, would you agree that it is a good idea to ban it due to it being evil?
Do you agree that it is evil?
What other practical considerations are there?
Do you agree that torture is unreliable at getting information at best?
What circumstances do you feel torture is justified?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't have a problem with that "big theoretical step". We know how we would ideally act and do the best we can given the constraints of living in the world. That some harm to others may be permissible given that greater harm would happen otherwise, does not make that harm good.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't have a problem with that "big theoretical step". We know how we would ideally act and do the best we can given the constraints of living in the world. That some harm to others may be permissible given that greater harm would happen otherwise, does not make that harm good.
I don't have a problem with the big step either. I'm just saying it means you can't say the problem with torture is that it's torture.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't think anyone is saying that. I think there's a fair consensus about what torture means (roughly, to intentionally cause pain/discomfort/humiliation while in a position of absolute authority/control of another individual). The only real equivocation is, again, on the part of those who think some such behavior is justified but do not want the behavior that they advocate to carry the connotations of torture.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: SenojRetep...if there was a universally agreed upon definition of torture with no ambiguity, would you agree that it is a good idea to ban it due to it being evil?
Do you agree that it is evil?
What other practical considerations are there?
Do you agree that torture is unreliable at getting information at best?
What circumstances do you feel torture is justified?
I don't have the time, or (honestly) the inclination to answer all of these right now. I think they're interesting questions, and important ones, but complete answers would lead me into a level of committed discussion that I'm not really ready to engage in.
In shortened form,
(1) I would not necessarily accept as evil something that was viewed as such by everyone but me. However, seeing a unanimity of opinion against me would likely cause me serious reflection about my own convictions.
(3) Practical considerations (some of which are mentioned above) include how we are perceived by friends and foes, what actions it limits in the future, propaganda benefits to enemies, potential for abuse, etc.
(2), (4) & (5) Without clearer definitions of torture I wouldn't be able to answer these and I doubt that any answer I could give would be very satisfying.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I don't think anyone is saying that. I think there's a fair consensus about what torture means (roughly, to intentionally cause pain/discomfort/humiliation while in a position of absolute authority/control of another individual). The only real equivocation is, again, on the part of those who think some such behavior is justified but do not want the behavior that they advocate to carry the connotations of torture.
Apart from the fact that someone (Kate) did say that just a few posts earlier, I would say that your definition isn't a good one, even roughly. It admits far too many (to my opinion) relatively innocuous activities, like the ones I mentioned earlier. In fact, moving from "violence" to "causing pain" increases the set of actions that I would say fall within your definition, and I already gave examples under the previous definition that I think most reasonable people would not consider as torture.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I want to pause to clarify my position, and then I'm going to step away from the thread a bit just because I feel like it has the potential to turn into one of _those_ discussions:
I agree there are good reasons to limit the set of tactics we employ in the interrogation of detainees (or anyone else, for that matter). I feel such limitations are best justified on realist grounds of negative externalities such as those mentioned above. I think moving from a pragmatic to a moral case is difficult, primarily because it's unclear how to delineate the set of actions which are 'torture' in a morally meaningful way. I'm open to, but skeptical of, attempts to do so.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That it is hard to delineate the line in some cases does not mean it isn't entirely reasonable to ban on moral reasons, for instance, slowly boiling someone alive.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: That it is hard to delineate the line in some cases does not mean it isn't entirely reasonable to ban on moral reasons, for instance, slowly boiling someone alive.
The issue for me isn't banning certain practices on moral grounds. The issue is drawing a line and calling all practices that fall within it torture, and then suggesting it is well-justified to ban them all on moral grounds. As I said, I'm open to it, but I'd treat the process skeptically.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
They had an article on the radio about an old/new technique of placing a mesh of wires directly into the brain. It's been used as a research tool to determine what parts of the brain control what functions.
Between better computers and monitors receiving the data, this procedure has returned and has gotten very, very specific reports. They are able to tell the difference between a couple of words a person is speaking. It comes closer and closer to mind reading.
The question is, assuming that the science progresses to the point where they can basically read the mind of a person, once connected to this system, but that connection requires cutting a section of the skull, removing it, and placing wires directly on and in the brain, would this be torture? Should it be used on enemy combatants? What compensation do we give people who forcibly undergo this procedure only to be proven innocent?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I don't think anyone is saying that. I think there's a fair consensus about what torture means (roughly, to intentionally cause pain/discomfort/humiliation while in a position of absolute authority/control of another individual). The only real equivocation is, again, on the part of those who think some such behavior is justified but do not want the behavior that they advocate to carry the connotations of torture.
I am saying that, given any usual definition of torture. I believe that even enemies should be treated with the most care and dignity that we can manage while not allowing them to cause further harm.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...to intentionally cause pain/discomfort/humiliation while in a position of absolute authority/control of another individual...
I'm really not too sure if "humiliation" should be a part of the definition of torture.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:...given any usual definition of torture.
That caveat wasn't part of SenojRetep's assertion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:...to intentionally cause pain/discomfort/humiliation while in a position of absolute authority/control of another individual...
I'm really not too sure if "humiliation" should be a part of the definition of torture.
Why not?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:...given any usual definition of torture.
That caveat wasn't part of SenojRetep's assertion.
Well, no, but if we are going to assume that we have no idea of what torture means, I am not sure we can talk about it at all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
kmbboots...beaten with a whip, broken fingers, flensed alive, fingernails pulled off with pliers, electroshock, water boarding, called a dirty name...
It just doesn't seem to be strong enough to be in the same category.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It probably won't help, but here is what dictionary.com has to say...
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What about forcing you to do something like say, undress in front of members of the opposite sex? What about if they touched you? What if it were expressly forbidden in your religion? How about forcing you to say vile things about your religion? Your wife? Your children? Denying you access to facilities until you defaecate on yourself. Showing video of that to your wife? Your children?
Use some imagination, Stone Wolf. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How would they force me to do these things? If they starved me to get me to do it, it would be torture, if they beat me, it would be torture.
If they denied me the use of basic facilities risking dysentery, that would be torture.
Let's say they drugged me, and dressed me up as a clown with missing crotch section pants and then tied ropes to my limbs and made me dance to disco music while women and children threw horse feces at me...is that imaginative enough?
The drugging, and tying up would be torture, but the crotchless clown suit? I don't know if that would qualify.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The problem isn't a prisoner saying those things, of course. It's the means by which they're pushed to say them. Are they convinced to say `em because they're just tired of sitting in an uncomfortable chair after five hours in front of a warm light with only lukewarm tapwater to drink?
Or are they convinced to say them because they're completely exhausted after sitting nude and bound on a bare, splintery wooden chair getting almost a sunburn from a light after serious sleep exhaustion has set in and they may or may not have been allowed to, y'know, eat and drink as much as might otherwise be healthy? This being the, maybe, fifteenth or sixteenth time it's happened with ongoing hints that if they don't cooperate they're going to go on never being heard from again for years.
It doesn't have to be thumbscrews to be torture. But, to avoid the semantic debate, it doesn't have to be thumbscrews to contain exactly the same kinds of problems that we're supposed reject torture for on pragmatic grounds. That is to say, if we're not supposed to torture someone because the answers we'll get will be unreliable (either because the prisoner will resist the torture, or will cooperate and tell the interrogator what he believes is wanted), well, that same batch of problems entails with the 'everything but' approach, I'd think.
quote:The drugging, and tying up would be torture, but the crotchless clown suit? I don't know if that would qualify.
But...why wouldn't it be? If someone has been raised, especially from infancy, to view exposure of that sort before strangers much less enemies as especially shameful and horrifying...why wouldn't that qualify as a form of torture? What would you call it if you used force to compel a stranger to dress in such a way and then stroll down the street?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone Wolf, say you were threatened with the harm of loved ones? Or even threatened with physical harm? The threat doesn't physically injure you. What if a woman was forced to be naked in front of leering strangers? And denying bathroom facilities for long enough to make one soil oneself is not much of a dysentery risk.
The point is that in your original examples, you use the most brutal forms of physical torture (flaying alive) with a very mild form of psychological torture (name calling).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I see your point kmb...I just don't think that most forms of physiological torture are comparable to physical torture, and I wish there was better terminology to help to delineate the two.
quote:But...why wouldn't it be?
If you read my landmark you know I was tormented as a child/teen with teasing, and having gone through all that, I simply do not think that it is the same thing as being physically tortured.
When it comes to governments using coercion on prisoners, I absolutely find physical torture to abhorrent, but do not feel the same way about emotional abuse.
Maybe that's just me.
ETA: I'm not saying I'm for emotional torture, just that it's a different ball of wax and would depend on individual goal/techniques used, where as all physical torture is in my book off limits.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:When it comes to governments using coercion on prisoners, I absolutely find physical torture to abhorrent, but do not feel the same way about emotional abuse.
Aside from the effect of the abuse itself, emotional abuse tends to be dehumanizing and makes it easier to later commit acts of physical abuse.
Personally, I would *prefer* physical abuse to effective psychological abuse. At least at the end of the process, my mind - what I most think of as "me" - would still be intact. (Though, of course, substantial physical abuse can also have psychological effects.)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:What if a woman was forced to be naked in front of leering strangers?
Why would it be worse for a woman?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why would it be worse for a woman?
Because women are, on average, more sexually vulnerable. Forced removal of clothing is often a prelude to rape. Also, in most cultures, the modesty and "virtue" of women is, for better or worse, higher valued than that of men. A forced compromising of modesty has a greater potential for psychological trauma with a woman than with a man. (again, on average)
Not that it would be sunshine and daisies for men. No one should be forced to discard their personal modesty as a method of intimidation.
[ May 18, 2011, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: The drugging, and tying up would be torture, but the crotchless clown suit? I don't know if that would qualify.
Ah, torture debates.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Why would it be worse for a woman?
Probably because women everywhere on the planet are much, much likelier to be the victims of sexual assault than men are, and women (and men) everywhere on the planet are aware of it on a subconscious level. There are some pretty substantial threats tied into forcing someone to be nude in front of strangers even if nothing ever happens to them besides the forced exposure itself-and again, that goes double for enemies.
And as for men, well, sometimes things happen to prisoners because there's just an awful lot of closed doors between them and the bright light of day. Generally when it comes to preventing people from doing something, the trick isn't to simply say "You can do everything except this," and just assume that will be that-it's also to curtail behaviors that might lead directly to the things you want to avoid.
Such as forcibly exposing prisoners as a method of interrogation. Because hey, now we're (in our hypothetical role as interrogators) talking about it, about what we can get away with it, and the minimum bar we can get away with in this situation and still be completely within the rules is strippin' `em down and humiliating them. That's just us, the law-abiding legitimate interrogators doing our jobs, punching our time cards, and going home at the end of the day.
What happens in the (inevitable) case when someone goes off the reservation, and the bar is at 'sexual humiliation via forced body exposure' instead of 'we're not going to sexually humiliate our prisoners at all', or even 'we're not going to humiliate our prisoners at all'?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I am surprised and against the idea that being a prisoner being humiliated by nudity would be worse off for a woman.
But it illuminates my point that there is a difference between physical torture and physiological "torture".
What if a claustrophobic person was convicted of a crime, wouldn't locking them in jail be "torture"?
If you made the only food available to a Muslim or a Jew slow smoked babyback pork ribs in Sweet Baby Ray's tangy-sweet, smokey, delicious BabBQ sauce, it might be considered torture, but to the rest of us, it would be a good ol' time.
There are people who take off their cloths in front of leering strangers for fun, for profit and/or for a hobby.
But put someone's thumb on concrete and smash it into pulp with a ball-peen hammer and everyone will count it as torture.
While I think there is a difference between physical and mental torture, in the end I'm with kmbboots, just treat them as we would like to be treated, using the minimum force and intrusiveness necessary to keep them from harming others.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Those people (claustrophobic) usually do get some kind of special treatment afaik.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't mean to say it's always worse in all cases for women-I was addressing your question, "Why might it be worse for women?"
It might be worse for women because women are overwhelmingly disproportionate victims of sexual violence, and forcibly exposing someone's body is often a precursor to sexual violence. It's pretty straightforward. There's nothing in it that says men have nothing to fear from being so exposed, I'm just expliaining why a woman might experience it more badly than a man-who would *also experience* it as very bad.
As for your point that there's a difference between physical and psychological torture, that's a point that no one challenged except the scare quotes. Speaking for myself, I'm not saying it's *as bad* to be forcibly exposed as to have one's bones broken; but that doesn't mean they're not both torture of a kind.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think it's interesting that this whole debate seems to float around without ever landing on a clear answer as to what can define torture. Personally I think this is because torture has everything to do with intent, understood by both sides. For instance, you can have your fingers smashed in a building accident and be okay with that- you still feel like you. But have somebody smash them with a balteen hammer, and I think it's safe to say you'll feel differently about what happened to you.
Same with teasing. If you feel fat, and feel that other people notice, that's something you can deal with, probably. IF somebody goes out of their way to let you know that *they know* and that everyone knows, and that this makes you *not okay,* then you're dealing with a bit more than a feeling you have. You're dealing with the will of another human being to destroy or diminish your image. Whenever we deviate from standards of common decency and respect for life in the way we deal with people, we are engaged in something much more profound than the merely physical consequences of that act itself. So, I'd say we'll not ever come up with a definition of torture because, for lack of a better expression, we ought know it when we see it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
When it comes to "torture" for governments with foreign "detainees" or citizen prisoners it should be very simple indeed, if you are withholding food, water, sanitation, decent housing and are causing harm mentally or physically intentionally, you are torturing those people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:When it comes to "torture" for governments with foreign "detainees" or citizen prisoners it should be very simple indeed, if you are withholding food, water, sanitation, decent housing and are causing harm mentally or physically intentionally, you are torturing those people.
I don't understand-so in order for it to be torture and be called torture and not "torture" or 'psychological "torture"', it has to inflict intentional mental harm by the means of denial of food, water, etc. or some sort of direct physical attack? Any other method of inflicting intentional mental harm isn't going to be actual torture, but some form of 'it's something we shouldn't do, but it's not actually torture' kind of thing?
Serious question: doesn't that just serve as a challenge to the human ingenuity of those we have interrogating-not every single one of them, but the institutions in general-to do what can be gotten away with, to inflict the maximum possible mental harm (which can be pretty darn awful indeed) without leaving a physiological mark?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think you are misunderstanding me...
quote:...are causing harm mentally or physically intentionally...
I mean if you are hurting people either their bodies or their minds on purposes, then it IS torture.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright-I was confused, then, because that seems pretty sharply at odds with what you were sayin before.
quote: But it illuminates my point that there is a difference between physical torture and physiological "torture".
What if a claustrophobic person was convicted of a crime, wouldn't locking them in jail be "torture"?
I'm really not too sure if "humiliation" should be a part of the definition of torture.
And so on and so forth. The definition from dictionary.com, which you used in support of your point, largely pointed away from psychological pain as something that could be included in torture.
[ May 19, 2011, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, until people start torturing Americans. Then it's absolutely under zero circumstances acceptable ever, period. Natch.
Cynical part of me wonders if we've already reached the point where even American Muslim and/or brown terrorism suspects could be tortured without much public outcry.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, until people start torturing Americans. Then it's absolutely under zero circumstances acceptable ever, period. Natch.
Cynical part of me wonders if we've already reached the point where even American Muslim and/or brown terrorism suspects could be tortured without much public outcry.
Pssst. Maybe he means real Americans.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh, there is a world of difference between me wishing for another, more specific word and coming up with a usable definition of torture when it comes to governments, so the discussion can progress.
One is an intellectual discussion of theory and semantics, the other is a practical discussion about how people are treated.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Cynical part of me wonders if we've already reached the point where even American Muslim and/or brown terrorism suspects could be tortured without much public outcry.
Well, we're already well past that point and have been for, y'know, many generations depending on which group we're talking about and if we're going to be talking about torture for civilian crime and investigation, not terrorism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, there is a world of difference between me wishing for another, more specific word and coming up with a usable definition of torture when it comes to governments, so the discussion can progress.
I don't understand the distinctions you're drawing then-so you're saying the deliberate infliction of physical and mental harm should be out-of-bounds for captors to do to their prisoners, or just torture torture, that is to say physical torture?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think the word torture should mean physical causing of pain etc, and that the idea behind mental torture should have it's own word, and that neither should be used on prisoners ever.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If neither should be used on prisoners ever, and if mental infliction of pain is to be considered reprehensible, why do we need another word for it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We have different words for lots of things that are all reprehensible things that we shouldn't do to other people. Why not this if we need to distinguish them? Even now we talk about mental torture and physical torture. I think that is sufficient, but I can see where someone else might not as a legal definition as long as whatever we call that is considered in the same category as torture.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that when we start getting into that area - "it's going to mean the same thing, but we're just going to call it something different" - is where things get different. I mean, there's a disconnect there. If it means the same thing, if it carries the same weight, why isn't it called the same thing? And is it really very onerous to say "mental torture" and "physical torture"? It's an extra two or three syllables.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As I said, I don't think so but I can see the argument when it gets to legal definitions.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Presumably Mr. Spock would just dump you in an agony booth and inflict pain without needing physical torture in order to trigger the mental feeling of pain (i.e. mental torture), so the distinction seems kinda moot long term anyways Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Darn that Mr. Spock, always ruining my good time fun!
quote:If neither should be used on prisoners ever, and if mental infliction of pain is to be considered reprehensible, why do we need another word for it?
I believe in specificity. If person A slaps person B, it is different then if person A punches person B, and still different if person A pushes person B and still different if person A shoves person B.
All of these things are person A illegally touching person B, and yet, they are four very different things.
What is the upside of having as few words as possible?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Presumably Mr. Spock would just dump you in an agony booth
'Scuse me? Are you getting Vulcans and Klingons mixed up again?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
? Klingons don't have agony booths.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I believe in specificity. If person A slaps person B, it is different then if person A punches person B, and still different if person A pushes person B and still different if person A shoves person B.
Well, sure-but they all actually fall under the category 'illegal touching', known by a variety of names. Within that umbrella, there are lots of categories.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think you missed my point.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Klingons don't have agony booths.
Mind sifter, agony booth -- same difference.
Anyway, you failed to specify "Mirror-Universe". Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Two relatively recent developments in the OBL aftermath:
[ June 15, 2011, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I believe in specificity. If person A slaps person B, it is different then if person A punches person B, and still different if person A pushes person B and still different if person A shoves person B.
Well, sure-but they all actually fall under the category 'illegal touching', known by a variety of names. Within that umbrella, there are lots of categories.
Person A: "I believe in specificity. The terms you used were too general."
Person B: "Yeah, but generally they are all the same."
Person A: hauls off and decks person B.
Cops: "What happened?"
Person A: "I just gave him a light push."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
At this far remove, I'm not even sure who you're trying to zing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
A few points that I believe were discussed earlier in the thread that are clarified in the article: the fatally shot unarmed woman was standing next to her husband, who was holding (but not necessarily firing) an AK-47; two of bin Laden's wives were standing between him and the SEALs and one was purposefully shot in the leg when she moved in a threatening way; bin Laden was unarmed throughout and there was never a consideration for possibility of capture (the White House disputes this); it was a CIA rather than military operation (although all the personnel in the strike team were military); it was, at the time, the most recent of a dozen or so cross-border raids conducted without the knowledge of Pakistan, only one of which had been reported in the press (no word on whether more raids have occurred since that time).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)