Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[theprestige]

No, we shouldn't, because those aren't genuine risks. But america voting in a right-wing president that approves of torture, or of not finding out that they approve of torture before electing them, or that this president chooses a cabinet member who approves of torture? Sorry to say, but that is a risk, and so the "slippery-slope" argument stands.

We probably shouldn't have a standing army, then. Or a nuclear arsenal. What with the risk they might be abused.

 

[bikerdruid]

We probably shouldn't have a standing army, then. Or a nuclear arsenal. What with the risk they might be abused.

isn't a standing army antithetical to the wishes of your founding fathers?

 

[angrysoba]

Another minor detail, his wife said he was rushing in to grab his gun. (Or the NWO made that up whatever suits you)



What other people? Where is the list of males who were not killed and what were they doing during the raid? They shot his wife in the leg I doubt that was a misfire, I guess they expected the women and children not to have bombs on them.

Well, they shouldn't. They have no reason to expect women and children not to have suicide vests on but to assume bin Laden would. According to a Bob Woodward article I read SEALS have regular orders to shoot everyone in a compound like that when they go in but apparently on this occasion they were given specific orders NOT to kill women and children. The presumption being that the women and children are shot on sight as a potential threat also.

As for males not killed in the assault, the news has been that Hamza bin Laden wasn't killed and somehow escaped. Khaled bin Laden was killed and his body apparently taken. While pictures of two dead men were found, another women was apparently killed.

I don't have a list of names of the men who were not killed and I'm not sure why you're asking me for the list.

I agree with you, if getting all of that data is so swell why not take him waterboarding? One consideration is that if he's communicating through the courier and without internet/phone service anything they are doing is probably reflected in that data anyway. He really wasn't going to talk without significant torture, I'm sure they weren't excited about getting involved with that. I don't know, there are a lot of questions.

First off, I don't know how you know that he would only talk if tortured. I already showed you that Ramzi Yusef talked a lot and quite proudly about his exploits. We can't assume that Osama bin Laden would be a useless intelligence asset without torture. If that's your claim then it is you with your work ahead of you to prove it.

Second, I pretty much doubt that "they weren't excited about getting involved with [torture]". I expect "they" are not that squeamish about it. You're not so why should hardened special forces be? If "they" wanted to torture him but didn't want to get their hands dirty then it is easy enough to find people around the world who would oblige.

I think the fact that they went in there to kill him has more to do with the practical realities of the situation.

Okay, until now I wasn't sure where you stood on that. I thought you still believed the special forces went in to capture bin Laden but now you seem to concede that killing him was the main point.

Was it possible for them to have taken him alive? Of course possible, not as easy as some people want you to believe but sure. If they objectively knew that that would be against the interest of the U.S. you'd want them to not do that right?

I think it would have been in the interests of the US to capture him alive if possible, yes. And also not to have simply dumped his body in the sea. I think that was stupid. And no I don't care about whether or not he received a "proper" burial or any of that crap. I just think it was stupid for many reasons. There could have been an autopsy on him to find out just what his health was like and to put to rest many of the myths, rumours etc... I am pretty sure that terrorist scholars also are fuming about this too.

It's not like I don't have sympathies for some of the questions being asked, or even that they don't have good points behind them, they should be considered, but in this case they are completely overwhelmed by the demand of reality.

You have said a few things that suggest you are overwhelmed by the demands of reality. I think it is just nonsense to say that OBL could have been triggering suicide bombs etc... in his house. I think it would have been just as likely that he could have flown out of his house on a magic carpet.

 

[angrysoba]

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?


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"

Joey McGee, it is my contention that you would condone anything and everything if you were told it was a matter of national security.

First of all you say that torture is not okay unless it happens to war criminals or terrorists. This is easy for you to accept even after you were doing that song and dance routine about "enhanced interrogation" for a post or two. The idea was probably to evade the idea that waterboarding is torture by using comfortable euphemisms.

But let's grant you that a) waterboarding is good torture and "it's not as if we're sawing off limbs" and b) only terrorists and war criminals get tortured and no one else has to worry about it.

Where do you draw the line on who constitutes a terrorist? Would, say, Julian Assange counts? Do you think he should be legally tortured if only with say waterboarding. Does this also go for associates of terrorists and war criminals? Should Ratko Mladic be subject to waterboarding right now? Should we do the same for everyone we find on the battlefield in Libya?

Joey McGee PFC "Did you speak to Bradley Manning?" *glug* *glug* "Did you speak to Bradley Manning?" *glug* *glug*

Assange: *glug* *glug* "Y-Yiiiiah! Oi Spoke to Bradley Manning!" *glug* *glug*

Joey McGee PFC: "Alright! I Jack Bauer'd his ass!"

As for (a) you also have a problem because this little question opens the floodgates:

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

In which case, sawing off limbs would immediately become as respectable as waterboarding. In which case, there is no point in you taking the "torture lite" defence because anything and everything would go in such a situation.

Now, I'll raise this as a hypothetical since I don't think it has been proven and it certainly is in line with your Jack Bauer posturing.

It has been reported, maybe it's just made up - who knows? - that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's children were tortured to try and get KSM to crack. Sometimes, you see, these hardened terrorist and war criminal types are actually trained themselves to resist torture but somehow, and it may be difficult to believe, they do care about their own families. Do you think if a terrorist type is not talking when waterboarded - and remember this is ticking timebomb stuff - and doesn't talk when the fingernails are removed and still won't talk after his arm has been dissolved in strong acid then it would be time to start bashing the testicles of his infant son?

 

[angrysoba]

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.

This gets worse. I mean, do you not think, "Hey that guy looks a bit like Osama bin Laden. Let's blow his head off, scoop up some of his brains and send them off for DNA analysis to find out!" sounds a bit whacked to you?

 

[Joey McGee]

First off, I don't know how you know that he would only talk if tortured. I already showed you that Ramzi Yusef talked a lot and quite proudly about his exploits. We can't assume that Osama bin Laden would be a useless intelligence asset without torture. If that's your claim then it is you with your work ahead of you to prove it.

He probably would but how much to really care about keeping him alive? I just don't think they would torture him for some reason, I wouldn't want that.

Okay, until now I wasn't sure where you stood on that. I thought you still believed the special forces went in to capture bin Laden but now you seem to concede that killing him was the main point.

For sure. I just give credit to the idea that if he for some reason he surrendered and was laying on the ground they wouldn't have shot him. Maybe they would?

I think it would have been in the interests of the US to capture him alive if possible, yes. And also not to have simply dumped his body in the sea. I think that was stupid. And no I don't care about whether or not he received a "proper" burial or any of that crap. I just think it was stupid for many reasons. There could have been an autopsy on him to find out just what his health was like and to put to rest many of the myths, rumours etc... I am pretty sure that terrorist scholars also are fuming about this too.

Well these considerations seem trivial, no? The main events of the world probably aren't drastically affected? Put the myths to rest man? Those things have lives of their own.

You have said a few things that suggest you are overwhelmed by the demands of reality. I think it is just nonsense to say that OBL could have been triggering suicide bombs etc... in his house. I think it would have been just as likely that he could have flown out of his house on a magic carpet.

I don't know if I believed in my cause and I had countless computer drives and discs lying around and I wanted to strike a blow to their morale yeah it would be a great idea. It does seem remote but come on, reality?

 

[Joey McGee]

Joey McGee, it is my contention that you would condone anything and everything if you were told it was a matter of national security.

Well that's ridiculous. I'd be highly critical of most cases of actual torture that happen and generally for different soft approaches to reach people like deprogramming.

First of all you say that torture is not okay unless it happens to war criminals or terrorists

In general they just happen to be the kind of people getting themselves into situations where what they know could save a lot of innocent lives...

This is easy for you to accept even after you were doing that song and dance routine about "enhanced interrogation" for a post or two. The idea was probably to evade the idea that waterboarding is torture by using comfortable euphemisms.

I guess I really should have put it in quotes, then people would have known I meant it in jest.

But let's grant you that a) waterboarding is good torture and "it's not as if we're sawing off limbs" and b) only terrorists and war criminals get tortured and no one else has to worry about it.

Where do you draw the line on who constitutes a terrorist? Would, say, Julian Assange counts? Do you think he should be legally tortured if only with say waterboarding. Does this also go for associates of terrorists and war criminals? Should Ratko Mladic be subject to waterboarding right now? Should we do the same for everyone we find on the battlefield in Libya?

Obviously none of those things even remotely justify one of the most extreme actions you can take on another human being.

In which case, sawing off limbs would immediately become as respectable as waterboarding.

It's really not serious when you are invoking TV Characters that show is horrible I never watched it.

In which case, there is no point in you taking the "torture lite" defence because anything and everything would go in such a situation.

No definitely not, you could ideally get away with the threat of torture, or increased torture, and obviously there are serious limits to what any rational person would do.

Now, I'll raise this as a hypothetical since I don't think it has been proven and it certainly is in line with your Jack Bauer posturing.

It has been reported, maybe it's just made up - who knows? - that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's children were tortured to try and get KSM to crack. Sometimes, you see, these hardened terrorist and war criminal types are actually trained themselves to resist torture but somehow, and it may be difficult to believe, they do care about their own families. Do you think if a terrorist type is not talking when waterboarded - and remember this is ticking timebomb stuff - and doesn't talk when the fingernails are removed and still won't talk after his arm has been dissolved in strong acid then it would be time to start bashing the testicles of his infant son?

Never.

 

[jiggeryqua]

baahaha coming from you mr. "This is a concern troll thread that I am too concerned to reply to and I have most of your on ignore" lmao

This is the chance the president was told that it was actually bin laden in the compound, invented?
What? That's impossible, they were in and out in 40 minutes and you want to sit outside and start a siege and you make this statement? What?

Yeah bin Laden is gonna come out quietly! hilarious.
Shooting people because they are mass murdering terrorists is cause for celebration!

I do not have most of you on ignore. There's a specific sort of poster I have on ignore - the sort that can't sustain an argument because they don't have one, and who doesn't answer repeated questions about their contradictory nonsense (in your case, the position that bin Laden needed to be shot in a hurry because he probably had the place rigged to explode, so you should send crack troops into a probable booby-trap).

You claimed that there was a 50/50 chance the target was actually bin Laden (and think shooting someone on a 50/50 chance is 'gutsy'). Yes, I think you invented that (if that's what your largely incomprehensible sentence here means). The fact that you have nothing but an eye-roll smiley to back yourself up is the convincer.

I stand by the claim of the number of variables - but as other people have tried and failed to make you see, 'expediency' is not the only issue.

You profess to know an awful lot about bin Laden, while demonstrably knowing nothing about, for example, human rights, statesmanship, military matters or effective argument. How do you know so much about bin Laden and terrorists, Joey? Perhaps we should torture you to find out?

Shooting people because there's a 50/50 chance of them being someone you want for crimes they may have confessed to but you'd rather not try them because you want to get re-elected is as much a cause for celebration as a lynching.

I think it's a common courtesy to explain to someone that you have put them on ignore, and to explain why. But I've got yellow cards in the past for explaining why, and you'd only pretend it was because you're 'right' anyway, so I'll settle for just letting you know it's happened. Think of it as a victory for bull-headed ignorance if you like. YOU ESS AY!

 

[Joey McGee]

This gets worse. I mean, do you not think, "Hey that guy looks a bit like Osama bin Laden. Let's blow his head off, scoop up some of his brains and send them off for DNA analysis to find out!" sounds a bit whacked to you?

What sounds a bit whacked out to me is this question. It's entirely obvious that they had confirmation at some point that it was the correct address. Whether it was the courier they tracked there shooting and them and being killed or a picture of Osama over the fireplace, you'll have to ask the officials who said it was a circumstantial case going in.

 

[Joey McGee]

I do not have most of you on ignore. There's a specific sort of poster I have on ignore - the sort that can't sustain an argument because they don't have one, and who doesn't answer repeated questions about their contradictory nonsense (in your case, the position that bin Laden needed to be shot in a hurry because he probably had the place rigged to explode,

actually I've also said that turning and going into the room is rationally interpreted as a hostile move, and his wife said he was going for his AK.

so you should send crack troops into a probable booby-trap).

That is exactly what the President worried about most, apparently.

You claimed that there was a 50/50 chance the target was actually bin Laden (and think shooting someone on a 50/50 chance is 'gutsy').

No. Obviously at some point they confirmed they had the right place, they shot the courier first they knew his face so... maybe also they had a picture of Osama on the mantle. Ask them.

Yes, I think you invented that (if that's what your largely incomprehensible sentence here means). The fact that you have nothing but an eye-roll smiley to back yourself up is the convincer.

It's what the officials said so obviously they have a case as to how they confirmed before the kill.

I stand by the claim of the number of variables - but as other people have tried and failed to make you see, 'expediency' is not the only issue.

They are lots of issues indeed.

You profess to know an awful lot about bin Laden, while demonstrably knowing nothing about, for example, human rights, statesmanship, military matters or effective argument. How do you know so much about bin Laden and terrorists, Joey? Perhaps we should torture you to find out?

Just because I don't agree that something applies doesn't mean that I don't understand these arguments or that I was previously unaware they existed.

Shooting people because there's a 50/50 chance of them being someone you want for crimes they may have confessed to but you'd rather not try them because you want to get re-elected is as much a cause for celebration as a lynching.

Yes, killing Osama was a lynching, I totally get it now.

I think it's a common courtesy to explain to someone that you have put them on ignore, and to explain why. But I've got yellow cards in the past for explaining why, and you'd only pretend it was because you're 'right' anyway, so I'll settle for just letting you know it's happened. Think of it as a victory for bull-headed ignorance if you like. YOU ESS AY!

Yellow cards for explaining why, well, it's easy to get into misunderstandings with ya, that's all I can say. I never really meant any offence, and I sympathize with more of your concerns than you know. Cheerios

 

[JihadJane]

We probably shouldn't have a standing army, then. Or a nuclear arsenal. What with the risk they might be abused.

Infantile argument.

Like history never happened.

Just because I don't agree that something applies doesn't mean that I don't understand these arguments or that I was previously unaware they existed.

You clearly don't have a clue what human rights are and have shown no signs of being aware that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights exists.

 

[Virus]

So three terrorists got water poured on their face. Aren't people blowing it all out of proportion? There are states that torture people every day. Like Iran and Syria.

 

[stokes234]

We probably shouldn't have a standing army, then. Or a nuclear arsenal. What with the risk they might be abused.

Those are used to offset greater risks, such as a nuke being fired at you by rogue states, or an army invading your country - though the fact that this chance is so small is part of why I believe western countries should make do with smaller standing armies. Torture carries with it the risk of future abuse, the risk of using it on the wrong guy, the problem of making it harder to argue against other countries using torture, and the general unreliability of the results.

 

[stokes234]

It's quite simple really, anyone can imagine a situation where torturing someone would be the preferred ethical option. Apparently, most Senators etc support the ticking time bomb. If you have a choice between waterboarding someone and killing a lot of innocent people or losing a nuke to terrorists, you'll do it. I appreciate the arguments against torture, they don't outweigh this. I honestly don't know how people think they have a 100% argument against torture.

Yes, sure, ticking time bomb scenario i'm probably with you. But when making the ticking time bomb argument, you need to keep in mind that it doesn't actually happen.

 

[Virus]

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.

You support Gaddafi.

 

[DC]

So three terrorists got water poured on their face. Aren't people blowing it all out of proportion? There are states that torture people every day. Like Iran and Syria.

and i thought we were superior to them? seems not so much then, huh?

 

[Skeptic]

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.

I agree 100% with that. Good post (the rest of it too).

 

[bikerdruid]

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

you countered with this:
You support Gaddafi.

wow.....
streeeeeeeeetch.

 

[Skeptic]

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.

I agree with you 100% on the facts, but the problem is it's used by some people as a trump card in a rhetorical game -- e.g., any time someone points out the risk of Islamic extremism, someone else say, "oh yeah? Well, Christians are terrorists too!". They are -- but by a factor of 1:100, or 1:1000, or more, less than Muslim extremists are.

But pointing out the risk of Islamic terorrism isn't saying there is no risk of non-Islamic one at all, or that such risk should be ignored. It is simply noting that by comparison the risk is far less. Nobody is suggesting Christian terrorists should somehow get a get-out-of-jail card just because Islamic terorrists are far more numerous and dangerous.

 

[JihadJane]

I look forward to the video of Virus being waterboarded to demonstrate to us softies how it's all been blown out of proportion.

Go for it Virus! Dtugg, who shares your delusion that waterborading is having water poured on your face, failed, perhaps you will succeed! I can't wait!