• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Osama bin Laden dead,

Ziggurat said:
Why would that have anything to do with it? That notion just doesn't mesh with the information that has been made public so far:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...as-culmination-years-work-sr-admin-official-s

"Sunday afternoon’s raid by U.S. forces that killed Osama bin Laden was the “culmination of years of careful and highly advanced intelligence work,” senior administration officials said in a conference call"

The description of the chain of events just doesn't match a binary "Bush screwed up, Obama got it right" narrative. Obama got it right, but it took a long time to get right, starting from well before Obama took office.
Click to expand...
And yet we see Bush quit bothering with Osama in 2005 and Obama re-instituted the effort in 2009.

Per my post here.
 
I guess Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well given that many people have used this joyous occasion to bash him.
 
dtugg said:
Please. I acknowledged it was a highly improbable scenario. Ben said he was against government torture not matter what. I was asking him if was really true.

And how about you. Would you do it? I understand if you decide to ignore the question. Either your principals are flexible, or you think that a million lives are less important than the rights of some terrorist scumbag. Probably a question best left unanswered from your point of view.
Click to expand...

No I would not. First, I don't believe the scenario is realistic, but more importantly I believe it would be a waste of time. The evidence is clear that torture almost never if ever elicits actionable information and much more often only elicits lies either because the goal of the torture is only to get a false confession for propaganda purposes, or, because if you are being tortured you will say anything to get the torture stopped.


People have a TV version of torture. In reality intelligence experts know the TV version is unrealistic and most intelligence people against torture agree it wastes more resources than it provides benefit. So in your scenario, we'd be much more likely to waste time and resources looking for the bomb based on torture elicited information than if we used other means of obtaining the information.
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
I guess Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well given that many people have used this joyous occasion to bash him.
Click to expand...
Obama idi in Pakistan what the Shrub should have done in Afghanistan. No bluster, no warnings, just send the Airborne and Delta
Force or SEALS or whoever they thought they could insert and grab the religious whackadoodle and blow away his camp and get the hell out. Would have been a lot cheaper and more awesome.

If the Shrub gets credit for killing Osama, why doesn't Carter get credit for bringing down the soviet Union by backing the Mujahedeen? All old Jelly-brain did was kick Gorby in the shins when he tried to stand down, but he is credited for "winning" the Cold War.

Republicons make no sense at all when it comes to military strategy.
 
dtugg said:
I guess Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well given that many people have used this joyous occasion to bash him.
Click to expand...
In my case, this joyous occasion rubs salt in old Bush caused wounds. It reminds me how much damage he did to this country.
 
dtugg said:
Please. I acknowledged it was a highly improbable scenario. Ben said he was against government torture not matter what. I was asking him if was really true.

And how about you. Would you do it? I understand if you decide to ignore the question. Either your principals are flexible, or you think that a million lives are less important than the rights of some terrorist scumbag. Probably a question best left unanswered from your point of view.
Click to expand...

In the face of your BS scenario I would possibly torture someone for the information if I ran out of other options and was desparate. I would however do this knowing full well it was a criminal activity and I would expect and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for it after the fact.
I would certainly NOT expect it to be policy, much less allowed, or even tacitly condoned, by the government of any civilized country. And I would probably feel shame if my country pardoned me for it if the information panned out.
To clarify that, I would certainly be ashamed of myself regardless, but I would be ashamed of my country if they let me off for torture just because it worked.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No I would not. First, I don't believe the scenario is realistic, but more importantly I believe it would be a waste of time. The evidence is clear that torture almost never if ever elicits actionable information and much more often only elicits lies either because the goal of the torture is only to get a false confession for propaganda purposes, or, because if you are being tortured you will say anything to get the torture stopped.


People have a TV version of torture. In reality intelligence experts know the TV version is unrealistic and most intelligence people against torture agree it wastes more resources than it provides benefit. So in your scenario, we'd be much more likely to waste time and resources looking for the bomb based on torture elicited information than if we used other means of obtaining the information.
Click to expand...

So your reasons are purely pragmatic. If it worked, it would be acceptable?
 
Ausmerican said:
In the face of your BS scenario I would possibly torture someone for the information if I ran out of other options and was desparate. I would however do this knowing full well it was a criminal activity and I would expect and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for it after the fact.
I would certainly NOT expect it to be policy, much less allowed, or even tacitly condoned, by the government of any civilized country. And I would probably feel shame if my country pardoned me for it if the information panned out.
To clarify that, I would certainly be ashamed of myself regardless, but I would be ashamed of my country if they let me off for torture just because it worked.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering. For me it is extremely clear that 1,000,000 lives>rights of some piece of crap. And thus there is no reason to feel shame. I don't even really understand how anyone could feel otherwise.
 
dtugg said:
If the information was gained through torture it is a pretty clear, pragmatic reason to support it.
Click to expand...

And if Bush really did cock things up, it's good reason to point that out too no? If, if, if...

Seriously, we all know this is going to be used to stroke whatever idea, person, or group people liked in the first place. You're going to advocate torture with it. Lefty's going hate on Republicans. BaC's going to hate on Obama. Please, can we keep those pet subjects on their threads? Just a suggestion.
 
tyr_13 said:
And if Bush really did cock things up, it's good reason to point that out too no? If, if, if...

Seriously, we all know this is going to be used to stroke whatever idea, person, or group people liked in the first place. You're going to advocate torture with it. Lefty's going hate on Republicans. BaC's going to hate on Obama. Please, can we keep those pet subjects on their threads? Just a suggestion.
Click to expand...

You're right. I will let it drop.
 
dtugg said:
So your reasons are purely pragmatic. If it worked, it would be acceptable?
Click to expand...

A, it is not acceptable because of the negative consequences, and B, it is even less acceptable because it doesn't work.

To put forth a fake scenario and ask a loaded question does not get an honest answer. I refuse to be manipulated and you only want a manipulated answer. Why don't you ask your question honestly? You want to know if I believe there is a moral IMPERATIVE against torture. I don't think there is. Now what?

If going to war would save a gazillion innocent children would a conscientious objector have reservations about their convictions?

This manipulation is aimed at proving a moral imperative is not the basis of being against something. Well I don't happen to believe there is a moral imperative against torture. Moral implications of finding torture unacceptable only reinforces my beliefs it does not dictate them. If it did, that would be dogmatic and dogma is an unsuccessful approach to the Universe.

So yes, in this case my reasons are very pragmatic. Does that negate my position because it is not based on the moral imperative you imagine my decision is based on? 'Fraid not.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
In my case, this joyous occasion rubs salt in old Bush caused wounds. It reminds me how much damage he did to this country.
Click to expand...
Then everything must rub salt in those wounds, because Bush, in spite of his many faults, went after bin Laden. This is not an occasion to remember his faults, but to celebrate the fact that two presidents had the same vision and that vision finally came to fruition. Bush was extremely gracious in giving Obama credit. I'd like to think that we can put aside differences and offer the same to Bush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom