Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[Pardalis]

Rubbish. Byeeeeeeeeeeee!

By refusing to answer simple questions, you leave me no choice but to interpret your intentions.

If you say the Taliban are fighting an unjust "occupier", are you not saying the Taliban should be taking back the country, and if so, what would happen to human rights in Afghanistan?

What do you want for Afghanistan? Continued terrorist chaos? A stable pro-western government? A return to Taliban rule? What?

 

[JihadJane]

I've already explained it so why would I repeat myself? There were two women shot in front of their husbands, one was killed, bin Laden ran into his room, they followed him in and his wife charged them and was shot in the leg. With the fog of war and excitement of the event, it's more probable that a "human shield" story would come out of that than someone would consciously make up a story that they would later retract. This is common sense, not so common to you? Actually I think you get some self-importance out of asking these meaningless questions kind of like "Yep, keepin' em honest!"

The US military and the Pentagon have invented, improbable as it might seem, outrageous "heroic" narratives in the past. Why couldn't they have done so again?

Yep, I'm even more sure of that now. What kind of question is this?

It's a question about your sources of information. Where does the "best evidence" come from?

Bull. If you commit crimes against humanity or are involved in terrorism you lose your right not to be psychologically broken for the benefit of the nation.

How has the US nation benefitted from gaining a reputation as a lawless, torturing, rogue state?

What evidence do you have that breaking people psychology has benefitted the US state?

How will this benefit anyone in US armed forces who falls into the hands of an enemy?

The problem I have with you is that you disgustingly accuse people of "loving torture" Will you admit that is a sick thing to insinuate and that you've lost all connection with reality?

I noticed that you claimed to love human rights while supporting torture. My rhetorical question (not an accusation) was designed to highlight the irony of this contradiction.

Human rights apply to everybody, without convenient exception, or else they are not human rights.

 

[Pardalis]

The US military and the Pentagon have invented, improbable as it might seem, outrageous "heroic" narratives in the past. Why couldn't they have done so again?

Islamic jihadists have lied before. You really think only the US is capable of trickery?

We all know what you think, only evil capitalists have an agenda, jihadists are only "human", reacting to the evil capitalist plots.

Human rights apply to everybody, without convenient exception, or else they are not human rights.

You think the Taliban care about human rights?

 

[Pardalis]

I guess Jihad has got me on ignore now, she can't seem to handle simple questions.

 

[Joey McGee]

The US military and the Pentagon have invented, improbable as it might seem, outrageous "heroic" narratives in the past. Why couldn't they have done so again?

They could have, but just because you wish they did so you'd have something to attack them with, there's no evidence, and the probability is against you, so drop it.

I noticed that you claimed to love human rights while supporting torture. My rhetorical question (not an accusation) was designed to highlight the irony of this contradiction.

It's only an irony because you make it an imaginary philosophical one. No one buys this narrative can't you tell? You attacked me and called me "lover of torture" you can still take it back you know...

 

[bikerdruid]

What do you want for Afghanistan? Continued terrorist chaos? A stable pro-western government? A return to Taliban rule? What?

a stable, pro-afghani govt would be good for afghanistan.

 

[Skeptic]

JihadJane doesn't care two bits about the Afghans, or the Taliban. She just always wants the west to lose to whomever it might be against. To paraphrase Churchill, if tomorrow war between the USA and hell were declared, Jihad Jane would cheer the devil.

 

[Pardalis]

a stable, pro-afghani govt would be good for afghanistan.

I wasn't asking you.

BTW, if you use italics, why can't you use capital letters?

 

[JihadJane]

They could have, but just because you wish they did so you'd have something to attack them with, there's no evidence, and the probability is against you, so drop it.

Your personalizing, attempted mind readings are getting tiresome.

Probability supports both of our positions.

It's only an irony because you make it an imaginary philosophical one. No one buys this narrative can't you tell?

My "imaginary philosophical" "narrative" represents mainstream thought on what human rights are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

You attacked me and called me "lover of torture" you can still take it back you know...

I didn't call you a "lover of torture" That is an invented quote that you have made up out of thin air.

In response to your comment

Everyone has a love of these things, I just happen to have a love of rationality, facts and evidence that matches it.

I asked

And a love of torture as way of discovering these "facts"?

It was an invitation for you to justify your human-rights-are-only-for-people-who-deserve-them position, a position which directly contradicts the central, founding principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[HoverBoarder]

There have been a lot of abortion clinic killings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence, and a fairly well established group that promotes the killings with target posters, address, attempted murders, MURDERS...

There has been 1 (one) killing of a physician who performed abortions in the US since 9/12.

Yes, since the date you choose, 9/12, there has only been one killing at an abortion clinic, although there is still a well established group that encourages this type of behavior. However, the majority of Americans frown upon that type of terrorism.

The ironic thing is that essentially we agree on this though.

Because there is more support for terrorism in the Middle East, more of it happens. As I said in my first post, it is a matter of scale, and it is a MUCH larger problem in the ME because it is seen as acceptable behavior to such a large proportion of people.

I would also include the brutal murders of gays, women, and those accused of blasphemy to be a terrorist acts as well, and when you combine the acceptance of terrorist acts with laws that require it to be legally carried out than it is a whole different ball game from the abortion killers here.

It seems pretty acceptable outside the Middle East, too. The bombing in Indonesia, the (probably) Pakistani shootings in India, a few stabbings in the UK, the Beltway sniper in the US (remember?), the Fort Hood shootings, and quite a few other incidents.

While we do agree in principle, there is a major problem, and a very dangerous component of your statement. Choosing a date and saying that there has been only one killing of an abortion physician, while there has been eight killing at abortion clinics by extreme Christian fundamentalists and over 17 attempted murders in the last 15 years seriously downplays the largest active terrorism threat in America next to Muslim terrorism, extremist Right Wing militias, and White Supremacist groups.

This is not something that we can ignore, and we need to address those organizations that support abortion terrorism in this country by correctly labeling them as Sponsors of terrorism. From this list, there is a surprising number of organizations that do support and actively encourage terrorist acts in this Country: http://www.prolifeamerica.com/right-to-life_pro-life_organizations.cfm

This is a big problem in the US, but not in other parts of the Western world. The difference is the groups and support for this type of terrorism in the US while that do not exist in other parts of the Western world. Those people who engaged in this type of terrorism only did so after receiving consistent support for those types of violent terrorist actions from extremist Christian fundamentalist "pro-Life" groups. Correctly designating those groups that actively support terrorist acts as terrorist organizations could start to address the issue.

Especially given the recent attempted murder by another Christian fundamentalist attempted abortion killer this Friday
Marshfield man charged attempt to kill abortion doctor

Ralph W. Lang, 63, said that after shooting an abortion provider at a Planned Parenthood in Madison, he was next going to go to an abortion clinic in Milwaukee, according to a criminal complaint filed Friday.

A portrait of Lang emerged as an unemployed loner who grew up on a farm with 10 siblings. He has strong anti-abortion convictions and had previously protested - and in 2007 been arrested - at the same Planned Parenthood on the Far East Side that he appeared ready to attack on Thursday.

"He definitely stood out," said Kat Wagner, a reporter for the Catholic Herald, Madison's diocesan newspaper, who met and interviewed Lang when he would hold graphic anti-abortion signs, often standing alone outside the clinic in 2008 in events organized by Madison-based Vigil for Life...

The leader of a national abortion rights group said that Lang's progression is not unusual among the small number of anti-abortion protesters who turn violent.

"This fits a pattern," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, describing "the escalation of activities from perhaps just protesting to making threats to carrying out threats."


Lang said he planned on shooting the clinic's doctor "right in the head," according to the complaint. Asked if he planned to shoot just the doctor or nurses, too, Lang replied he wished he "could line them up all in a row, get a machine gun, and mow them all down," the complaint said.

 

[bikerdruid]

I wasn't asking you.

BTW, if you use italics, why can't you use capital letters?

it's an open forum....get over it.
and.....because it bugs the **** outa you....

 

[stokes234]

Bull. If you commit crimes against humanity or are involved in terrorism you lose your right not to be psychologically broken...

One of the fundamental principles of universal human rights, as I always understood them, is that nobody can lose them. As soon as you start saying that they don't apply to x bad guy, you undermine the whole idea because you leave it open to interpretation as to who is a bad guy. It's a dangerous slippery slope to start saying torture is sometimes ok, because you muddy the water when you try to stop it elsewhere in the world. You'll end up getting into an argument over what constitutes it and when it can be applied, rather than simply being able to say to a dictator, "Torture is wrong, and if you use it you can't deal with us."

 

[Joey McGee]

One of the fundamental principles of universal human rights, as I always understood them, is that nobody can lose them.

It's a human right not to be tortured even if you're a terrorist? Really people think this? Are "human rights" eternal unchanging properties of the universe based on divine wisdom?

As soon as you start saying that they don't apply to x bad guy, you undermine the whole idea because you leave it open to interpretation as to who is a bad guy. It's a dangerous slippery slope to start saying torture is sometimes ok, because you muddy the water when you try to stop it elsewhere in the world. You'll end up getting into an argument over what constitutes it and when it can be applied, rather than simply being able to say to a dictator, "Torture is wrong, and if you use it you can't deal with us."

There's no slippery slope, if you are aren't a war criminal or a terrorist you're not going to be tortured. It's not like we're sawing off limbs or using the pear on them here. You're the one engaging in a fallacy "We have no moral authority/validity because we torture terrorists for actionable intel"

 

[HoverBoarder]

I agree that there is more support for terrorism in the Mid East, but it might be more accurate to describe it as a fundamental element of the political culture in the region.

Interesting analysis. I think the use of political propaganda by Iran, other governments, and Al-Jazaera in downplaying and encouraging terrorism as a legitimate form of expresion could be classified as an encouragement of terrorism via the political culture of the region. However, the part that I cannot agree with is the "fundamental element" aspect of your post.

While, I do think that you have made some good points on this thread and elsewhere, your biggest flaw (in my opinion) is attributing group blame too often. While you have made some very good arguments at times (and others that I do not agree with), sometimes those arguments have been made less effective or become no longer valid because they are attributed to too large of a group.


This is a multi-faceted problem with a number of factors including religious variations, political propaganda, State support for terrorism, educational differences, economics and poverty, historical colonialism, demographic changes, group-think, racism on both sides, and a variation on the definition of what "terrorism is."

To the last point on the definition of terrorism, this is a fundamental part of what has attributed to the length of the war in Afghanistan and the general War on Terror. Nearly everyone has a different definition for what terrorism actually is, and that has caused a variation in what the clear end goals for that conflict will be and for the rest of the War on Terror.


The surveys from Pew Global Research have done a lot to track world views of Muslims and the percent of support for different terrorist groups in the Muslim world.

There has been a clear decline in the support for terrorism and terrorist groups in the Middle East in the last five years. The biggest blow to the support for terrorism in my opinion has been the Arab Spring that has promoted more democratic reforms which goes directly counter to the goals of Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups.

http://pewglobal.org/subjects/islamic-extremism/

2010 Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah
2008 Unfavorable Views of Jews and Muslims on the Increase in Europe
2006 The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other
2005 Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics

 

[stokes234]

It's a human right not to be tortured even if you're a terrorist? Really people think this? Are "human rights" eternal unchanging properties of the universe based on divine wisdom?

Yes, that is exactly what I think. I don't think anyone should be tortured. If he was captured alive, i'd even want to see OBL treated with dignity, because to me that is a sign of human progress.

There's no slippery slope, if you are aren't a war criminal or a terrorist you're not going to be tortured. It's not like we're sawing off limbs or using the pear on them here. You're the one engaging in a fallacy "We have no moral authority/validity because we torture terrorists for actionable intel"

I don't believe it to be a fallacy, though that is not my exact argument.

My overall argument has three points. Firstly, I don't believe it to be ethical to torture prisoners for information, psychologically or otherwise - for various reasons, including the fact that sometimes, you've got the wrong guy. Secondly, doing so reduces your diplomatic capital when trying to prevent other countries from doing the same - to their own, and to your soldiers should they ever capture them. Thirdly, there is a risk that if you allow the rules on torture to be flexible, future leaders will bend them further than you originally intended, to the point where they are no longer acceptable even by your standards.

 

[jiggeryqua]

And what if he decides not to come out? You're going to set up a standoff in the middle of Pakistan? Do you see any logistical problems with this scenario at all? Maybe bin Laden has a cellphone in there to call his jihadist buddies to come attack the idiots waiting outside? Really, please consider all of the issues and actually give us a concrete plan of how you would have conducted the operation. I think you proved my point...

You conceded my point then? You throw up some picky 'what ifs' to cover that, and then claim I proved your point because I didn't answer them in your post?

Yes, I'm going to value my crack troops enough not to send them into a boobytrap (that's the point you conceded, though do let me know if I misunderstood you and you would send them in expecting them to be blown sky high). If he does decide not to come out, then we move to plan B, which would perhaps involve an air strike - do feel free to help me out, with your expertise. He may call jihadists, of course. Luckily, we have crack troops set up around his perimeter. I'd be doing it with the SAS, of course, so I'm less concerned than you about their ability to take on some jihadists.

So that was two ("all the issues") issues. Necessary trains of thought following the decision (that you brush over agreeing with) not to send crack troops into a building you suspect to be wired with explosives. If we knew there were explosives, we'd perhaps know where the trigger/switch was, and might be able to plan confidently to neutralise it. But you don't know about any explosives, so the troops go in just hoping nobody blows the whole place up as soon as they realise they're getting busted (that is what you were suggesting as likely).

You've not thought this through at all. "YOU ESS AY!" isn't an argument for anything, let alone a military strategy and certainly not for murder. You think I've proved your point? You need to have one, and an argument that stands up - just thinking it only satisfies you.

 

[Joey McGee]

Yes, that is exactly what I think. I don't think anyone should be tortured. If he was captured alive, i'd even want to see OBL treated with dignity, because to me that is a sign of human progress.

Yeah, if it was your family on the line you'd torture someone for information Jack Bauer style without thinking, count on it.

I don't believe it to be a fallacy, though that is not my exact argument.

My overall argument has three points. Firstly, I don't believe it to be ethical to torture prisoners for information, psychologically or otherwise - for various reasons, including the fact that sometimes, you've got the wrong guy.

Hey why even put people in prisons? You might have the wrong guy after all... yeah "supposedly" innocent people have been tortured which sucks.

Secondly, doing so reduces your diplomatic capital when trying to prevent other countries from doing the same - to their own, and to your soldiers should they ever capture them.

Obviously trumped by the value of the information you get from torture or they wouldn't do this... yes war has horrible decisions involved.

Thirdly, there is a risk that if you allow the rules on torture to be flexible, future leaders will bend them further than you originally intended, to the point where they are no longer acceptable even by your standards.

Slippery slope can be invoked for almost any argument on any topic and rarely applies.

Yep torture is not a great thing by any definition. We don't support it because we like it.

 

[Joey McGee]

You conceded my point then? You throw up some picky 'what ifs' to cover that, and then claim I proved your point because I didn't answer them in your post?

Yes, I'm going to value my crack troops enough not to send them into a boobytrap (that's the point you conceded, though do let me know if I misunderstood you and you would send them in expecting them to be blown sky high). If he does decide not to come out, then we move to plan B, which would perhaps involve an air strike - do feel free to help me out, with your expertise. He may call jihadists, of course. Luckily, we have crack troops set up around his perimeter. I'd be doing it with the SAS, of course, so I'm less concerned than you about their ability to take on some jihadists.

So that was two ("all the issues") issues. Necessary trains of thought following the decision (that you brush over agreeing with) not to send crack troops into a building you suspect to be wired with explosives. If we knew there were explosives, we'd perhaps know where the trigger/switch was, and might be able to plan confidently to neutralise it. But you don't know about any explosives, so the troops go in just hoping nobody blows the whole place up as soon as they realise they're getting busted (that is what you were suggesting as likely).

You've not thought this through at all. "YOU ESS AY!" isn't an argument for anything, let alone a military strategy and certainly not for murder. You think I've proved your point? You need to have one, and an argument that stands up - just thinking it only satisfies you.

Sending troops in to a dangerous mission with a 50-50 chance of it even being bin Laden is what make it a gutsy move by the President. Airstrike was out of the question because we needed his DNA. Your mini-war in the middle of Pakistan has too many variables to be sane. The idea of asking bin Laden to come out nicely is insane.

 

[Joey McGee]

I didn't call you a "lover of torture" That is an invented quote that you have made up out of thin air.

lol you can't admit you insinuated that I loved torture because now that I've pointed that out it makes you look silly so you've resorted to somehow justifying that statement?

 

[stokes234]

Yeah, if it was your family on the line you'd torture someone for information Jack Bauer style without thinking, count on it.

Actually, i'm not sure I would, mainly because I know my family's politics, and they wouldn't want me to torture for them. When it comes to the ticking time bomb scenario, i'm undecided, but that scenario is a fallacy.

Hey why even put people in prisons? You might have the wrong guy after all... yeah "supposedly" innocent people have been tortured which sucks.

Putting people in prisons and torturing them are two different things. I'd like to see fewer and shorter criminal sentences for non-violent crime, but I accept that prisons are a neccessary aspect of modern society. I don't accept that torture is a neccessary aspect. In my opinion, "not invading middle eastern countries" would be a better way to reduce terrorism than trying to torture the information out of prisoners.

Obviously trumped by the value of the information you get from torture or they wouldn't do this... yes war has horrible decisions involved.

"War has horrible decisions involved" can be used to justify anything you want it to. I'd rather see society move to a point where we no longer have to justify the horrible decisions because we're not making them.

There is also the question of how reliable information gained from torture actually is, as seen from the case of this guy, who gave false information under torture that was cited by Bush and Powell when making the case for the iraq war.

Slippery slope can be invoked for almost any argument on any topic and rarely applies.

Yes, it can. But unless you can explain why it doesn't apply here, you don't have an argument.

Yep torture is not a great thing by any definition. We don't support it because we like it.

I don't accuse you of liking it.