Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[General_Hodge_Podge]

Originally Posted by 2pac Shakur

I voted 3rd party in all elections.

Thanks for answers. I'm new to political so I'm trying to figure out if people actually have these radical views or if it is like debate team.

Either way, great stuff, carry on!

[2pac Shakur]

Originally Posted by General Apathy

wiki

Wiki says any other evidence is classified.


Maybe at the bottom of the ocean.

[General Apathy]

Curse words NSFW

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/8e4...sama-bin-laden

[gomer_tree]

So, I was just randomly thinking about all this stuff last night.

I do have to admit that I'm a bit puzzled by the arguments of some people here regarding the two actions of waterboarding for information and a shoot to kill directive of bin Laden.

I believe my position is fairly consistent. I recognize waterboarding as on the extreme end of what I would consider a practicable action on our part in the context of a "war." nasty, to be sure. Torture? As long as we can all agree taht all acts of causing discomfort and agitation - both mental and physical - are various degrees of torture, then I'll bite on that. I don't accept people who simply label waterboarding as torture without labeling other such means with the same word as being intellectually honest. It all has the same label. If you want to attach your own color scale, then go ahead.

Likewise, I believe that - as a military act, act of "war", etc. - going in and taking out an individual threat with an assassination can also be appropriate, and is the extreme of legitimate military operations. Nasty, to be sure. Acting as judge, jury, and executioner? Yeah, admittedly that is the case.


So, we have one action that is used in relatively rare circumstances with people who we are pretty convinced have high-level information about people who have caused us harm and will continue to cause us harm. This action causes great discomfort, physical stress, mental anguish, and can cause the person to pass out because the body thinks it's drowning. It really must surely suck. It may well cause some mental distress and emotional issues. But it won't kill you or cause physical harm.

This action is being argued against - keeping in mind it's for intelligence purposes during "wartime," on humanitarian grounds because it "doesn't reflect our values" by the exact same people who are arguing that killing OBL was necessary. By contrast, this action is is used in relatively rare circumstances with people who we are pretty convinced have caused us harm and will continue to cause us harm. This action causes a person's brains to be irreversibly splattered from the skull, causing permament death. There are no apparent mental or emotional issues after the fact, however. This may or may not "reflect our values" but it's OK, because... I'm not sure why. I mean, I know why I think it's OK. But I'm not sure why someone who is adamantly opposed to waterboarding thinks it's OK.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by gomer_tree

This may or may not "reflect our values" but it's OK, because... I'm not sure why. I mean, I know why I think it's OK. But I'm not sure why someone who is adamantly opposed to waterboarding thinks it's OK.

I don't understand it either.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by gomer_tree

So, I was just randomly thinking about all this stuff last night.

I do have to admit that I'm a bit puzzled by the arguments of some people here regarding the two actions of waterboarding for information and a shoot to kill directive of bin Laden.

I believe my position is fairly consistent. I recognize waterboarding as on the extreme end of what I would consider a practicable action on our part in the context of a "war." nasty, to be sure. Torture? As long as we can all agree taht all acts of causing discomfort and agitation - both mental and physical - are various degrees of torture, then I'll bite on that. I don't accept people who simply label waterboarding as torture without labeling other such means with the same word as being intellectually honest. It all has the same label. If you want to attach your own color scale, then go ahead.

Likewise, I believe that - as a military act, act of "war", etc. - going in and taking out an individual threat with an assassination can also be appropriate, and is the extreme of legitimate military operations. Nasty, to be sure. Acting as judge, jury, and executioner? Yeah, admittedly that is the case.


So, we have one action that is used in relatively rare circumstances with people who we are pretty convinced have high-level information about people who have caused us harm and will continue to cause us harm. This action causes great discomfort, physical stress, mental anguish, and can cause the person to pass out because the body thinks it's drowning. It really must surely suck. It may well cause some mental distress and emotional issues. But it won't kill you or cause physical harm.

This action is being argued against - keeping in mind it's for intelligence purposes during "wartime," on humanitarian grounds because it "doesn't reflect our values" by the exact same people who are arguing that killing OBL was necessary. By contrast, this action is is used in relatively rare circumstances with people who we are pretty convinced have caused us harm and will continue to cause us harm. This action causes a person's brains to be irreversibly splattered from the skull, causing permament death. There are no apparent mental or emotional issues after the fact, however. This may or may not "reflect our values" but it's OK, because... I'm not sure why. I mean, I know why I think it's OK. But I'm not sure why someone who is adamantly opposed to waterboarding thinks it's OK.

A prisoner being tortured.
An enemy combatant in the field being killed.

Yeah, I can see the difference. I'm surprised anyone can't see the difference.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Harry

A prisoner being tortured.
An enemy combatant in the field being killed.

Yeah, I can see the difference. I'm surprised anyone can't see the difference.

Why can't we kill all unarmed enemy combatants? This would help them avoid being tortured as POWs.

I am opposed to executing prisoners, as well as to torturing them.

[SirVLCIV]

Originally Posted by gomer_tree

This action is being argued against - keeping in mind it's for intelligence purposes during "wartime," on humanitarian grounds because it "doesn't reflect our values" by the exact same people who are arguing that killing OBL was necessary.

It's pretty clear that the 'intelligence gathered' is no more or less useful (honestly, you're telling me the guy that you're ****ing torturing is more likely to tell you the truth, because he's stupid enough to believe you'll know the difference between truth and lie and will stop torturing him if he tells the truth but won't stop if he lies? Are you stupid?), so it's pretty meaningless to do so.

I've long given up hope on this country. We are no better than our enemies.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Lucy

I am opposed to executing prisoners, as well as to torturing them.

If Bin Laden said, "Please take me prisoner, just don't kill me!" Would you be ok with killing him?