Now that calls for a WOOT!!

woohoo!

Indeed, the news broke during my celebrity apprentice. From what I gather so far since there hasn't been an official statement is it was a joint effort of U.S and Pakistan intelligence. Killed in a mansion outside the capital. It's believed his family was there as well.

...."Bin Laden.....YOU'RE FIRED!!"

Who were you? Omaroosa? LOL

May he rot in hell with his 72 virgins, just like this one.

Or this.

Maybe this.

Itchy, your pinups are disturbing.

Maybe we should just put his head on a pike and walk it from Ankara to Riyadh.

Not trying to put a damper on things, I've very happy he's been ended, but the celebrations in the street are pretty stupid IMO.

Well, Inane, the people who were celebrating and handing out sweets on 9/11 are not celebrating tonight.

Tonight is our night to celebrate. Evil has been dealt a blow.

Islamic Jihadists have been making religious war on the West for centuries. This evil creed murdered thousands in New York City, at the Pentagon, murdered our marines in Khobar, murdered our people in Beirut, an American in a wheel chair on a cruise ship in the Mediterranean,in La Belle Disco in Germany, on the USS Cole in Yemen, etc., etc.

Our celebrations are an expression of joy for the triumph of good over evil. Nothing stupid about it.

As someone who grew up in NYC, and was about 30 miles North of ground zero on Sept 11th on that day (at a nuclear power plant), I can tell you in my opinion that the celebrations are more than warranted. I've been celebrating all night.

I hope the MF'er is buring in Hell right now.

I'm with you Mr. Roode. I grew up in Manhattan. I went to college in Manhattan. I lost friends on 9/11. Every American suffered our loss on 9/11.

I think every American is experiencing joy that justice has been dealt to that murderous piece of sh!t.

May all his followers, allies and supporters quickly join him in hell.

My wife woke me up to tell me last night, this is awesome news!


"May all his followers, allies and supporters quickly join him in hell."

Better late than never...

Nice!!!

I wish he had been taken alive.

We could have put him on display in a glass box for a few weeks, then brought him to ground zero.

There we would rope him to an upside down crucifix.

For a dollar, from 25 feet, you get to shoot 5 BB's at him. The carnival doesn't stop until everyone who wants to has had their shots, or there's nothing left to aim at.

Then we'd save the whole process on a video loop, sped up for our convenience. It would automatically pause at the parts where pieces of him actually fall off.

It would run all day in a kiosk at the New World Trade Center visitor's center.

PopeBob for President!

You're absolutely right. As much as I dislike Bin Laden, his death does not inspire joy. Just like the deaths of over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians at the hands of the U.S does not.
I can’t believe the overt disrespect of life by these members. Adrian, what’s it like being a U.S kiss ass. You’ve got something on your nose Adrian, wonder what it is.

It's no wonder this U.S is so disliked, the exception being Adrian.
You are all disgusting and you get what you reap!

It's a good day for me to stay off the boards.

I'll read the 6,497 new posts later tonight.

Instead of the 72 virgins granted I hear Osama was granted 72 hungry pigs in his descent into hell.

Are you for real?

You do know Canadians were killed in the World Trade Centre, don't you. What an idiot.

Bin Laden was responsible for the killing of people all over the world, not just in the US. His evil only started gaining attention during the Clinton Administration after he claimed responsibility the US embassy bombings in Africa.

His evil parallels people like Hitler. One superior race the other build one superior religion and kill in the name of. People should be joyful he's dead.

I'm glad he's dead, but isn't this just going to incite more hatred of the US by his cronies, and possibly more retaliation.

As in, "I kill you!".
"No. I kill you!".
"No. I kill you!".
"No, no, no. I kill you!".
Ad infinium.

Yes, of course, catbrat, you're right. The only way to stop that "cycle of violence" is to let them kill you and do nothing. Maybe you can ask them what they want and give it to them. Submission to Islam. You can convert or become a dhimmi. Pay your protection money (Jizzyah), give up your legal and civil rights as an equal, and live as a subservient.

Of course, since the world is divided into two parts, a Dar al Islam (The world of Islam) and the Dar al Harb (the world of war - that is, subject to force to effectuate submission or conversion) and since you live in the Dar al Harb, well girl ... you can always try to make your master happy.

Doing nothing would eventually lead to world wide oppression. That is what islamic extremists and terrorists like Bin Laden wanted. Submission to their view of religion and way of life.

Well said 2x6.

You are such an imbecile Adrian. Sadly 24 Canadians died on Sept. 11.01. Sadly anybody died that day. My point is I can’t justify jumping for joy over anybody’s death. Are you really so stupid Adrian that you could not infer that from my previous post?
- “You do know Canadians were killed in the World Trade Centre, don't you. What an idiot.”
How are the deaths of Canadians supposed to change my opinion? Any killing is wrong, being it the lives of the British, Canadians, U.S. Americans or any nationality.
If being thoughtful makes me an idiot in your opinion, so be it. At least I am thoughtful.
Now Adrian, turn on that #2 brain cell and think for yourself!
If only the world was as simple as you and 2x6spds.

People did not die on 9/11. Islamic Jihadists led by Osama bin Laden MURDERED them.

Ukiah, you want to be merciful to the cruel. That will only bring more cruelty to the merciful. Wake up. You are morally confused.

OBL died in a shoot out, or he was executed. He forefeited his life. OBL was a mass murderer. Cry over him if you like, but tell us why.

2x6spds, I am absolutely with you on this.

And I try not to get caught up in political threads, so it is doubtful I will post again in this one.

Freedom.

Osama bin Laden - Goodbye and good riddence.

Freedom! It's not free.

I'm not implying that we do nothing. But killing a few terrorist's probably isn't going to stop them. Probably nothing is going to stop them short of total annihilation. Genocide, or whatever the popular term is. Like, you know, turning out planet into a radioactive mess.

Killing a VERY wealthy figurehead that funded and organized such operations is a good start. But yes you are correct, their philosphy is numbers and that is what is very scary. Its a battle that will go on forever, unless the western world gives up.

Yes catbrat, the totalitarian Islamic leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran threaten genocide against the Jewish state of Israel, while they deny the European genocide of the Jewish population ever happened, even while Iran seeks nuclear weapons but denies doing so all the while referring to tiny Israel as a "one bomb country."

See through the fog.

In the meantime, OBL dead. Feel good story of the day.

I also agree: there is no reasoning with al Qaeda. You must defeat them with whatever means necessary: military, intelligence, financial, etc. In this sense, Ukiah, the death of Osama bin Laden is a good thing. He can no longer lot and plan the deaths of innocent Americans and other citizens of the world.

Now, I'm not saying I'm going to jump around, do a happy dance, and chant "U-S-A" in the streets. That's not my style. But I understand why others are doing that, and it doesn't bother me.

It is worth noting that the majority of Muslims do not share the views of al Qaeda. They view what al Qaeda does in the name of their religion as a horrible hijacking and twisting of it. I just wish they were more vocal and able/willing to prevent so many of their young people from picking up arms against non-Muslims.

Anticipating the response that the Koran has verses in which Muhammed says to go forth and murder non-Muslims: while this is true, one can look at the Bible and find plenty of similarly objectionable ideas (sacrificing children, punishment by death for all sorts of crazy things, slavery, etc, etc) that are likewise dismissed by modern Christians and Jews.

The terrorist state of Israel is destroying an entire civilization, and it doesn't recognize the Armenian genocide....

See through the fog.

There are one million Muslim Arabs who live in Israel as fully franchised citizens. They, including the women, have the right to vote, full civil liberties, they do not have to pay a special tax because of their faith. The Arab Muslims in Israel, are Israeli citizens who have elected Arab Muslim members of Parliament. An Arab Muslim sits on the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. Israeli Arab Muslims enjoy greater civil liberties, including equality under the law, than do Arab Muslims living in any Muslim country.

Although there are a million Israeli Arab Muslim citizens there is not a single Jewish citizen in Jordan, less than a handful in Syria, absolutely not one in Saudi Arabia, the 300 Jews of Yemen, a remnant of a once great population, are being spirited out of that country even now. There are no more than a handful of Jews left in Egypt. Hardly any in Iraq.

The Palestinian mandate territories were divided between Jews and Muslims in 1922. Jordan was the Muslim state, Palestine, the Jewish state. The Jewish portion was divided again, by the UN in 1947. Israel declared its independence as a Jewish homeland in 1948. It was not hilarity which ensued.

The armies of the 5 Arab nations, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt attacked Israel. Although Israel hardly had any arms, they prevailed. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem instructed the Muslims to leave Israel and return to take the lands and homes of the Jews after the Arab armies exterminated them.

Things did not work out for those Jihadists. The Arabs who stayed became citizens of Israel. Those who left, were not permitted to return.

To refer to Israel as a terrorist state is simply a lie. I have an appointment I have to go to. I expect there will be posts on this subject. I'll be back.

In the meantime, Osama bin Laden is DEAD. Good! May all genocidal murderers share the same fate.

The general Muslim population may not agree with Al Qaeda, but if Al Qaeda was to war against a group of people (place any nation here), would the Muslim population fight against Al Qaeda, or, just step aside. To me stepping aside would be the same as agreeing with Al Qaeda.

It was nice to see Pakistan extend an olive branch in this take down. Hopefully this can set a precedent going forward with their relations.

Another Canadian who is very happy to hear this news. I hope it was a unpleasant death.

I should have known it was you cam. Osama bin Laden is dead. Sorry for your loss. What a shame ... all your genocidal heros have gone to their reward ... Stalin, Mao, Che, Idi Amin, Saddam, Osama. Who are you left with. ... Robert Mugabe ... Ayman Zawarhiri?

To be clear, Donald Trump is slightly less of an assh*le than Osama bin Laden.

The proof will be coming soon... as for my birth certificate Donald.

I don't like dt but has he murdered anyone?

Hey Dr. House BlueJays1, thanks for stealing my thunder, dude. I was going to follow-up with that one later on.

Seriously, I love that Obama caption.

And I just realized the irony that the news broke during an episode of Trump's show. Trump has to be peeved that the spotlight has turned away from him.

Good one.

I personally don't believe Osama was killed yesterday. He's a bad guy that should have been brought to justice, rather than taken out in an act of terrorism, if he in fact was, though.

We have certain elementary principals, and one of those is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This principle even (rightly) extended to Hitler's goons in the Nuremberg trials, and they were some of the most despicable people the world has seen.

The U.S. has never put forth any direct evidence that connects Osama with 9/11 (even after al-Qaida said that they would turn him over if they provided some), which is one reason they wouldn't want to try him. Another is that who knows what he would say; the U.S. created him, lest not forget that fact.

I want those who committed the atrocities on 9/11 to be held accountable, as much as the next person does, but you certainly don't reach justice by becoming the enemy that which you deplore. I find it unfortunate that so called civilized nations can become uncivilized because vengeance can get the better of some of us.

There's something prolifically wrong with a society that can deem one culture wrong for stoning someone to death as a form of judicial punishment, but then turn around and just shoot someone, rather than capturing them and holding true to our democratic system that we like to speak so highly of.

All that this form of jurisprudence has done, unfortunately, is made things worse (assuming they actually did kill him, of course).

Leave it up to Cam for the crackpot conspiracy theories. Glad you didn't let us down.

As for Hitlers goon's, some didn't see a trial once the mossad or other agencies got to them. Some did. OBL didn't go down without a gunfight. If he would have surrendered I see no reason why they wouldn't keep him alive. Safety first for the seals and on a job well done. Their actions were appropriate under the circumstances.

Further irony is that on May 1st 2011 the US announced the death of Osama Bin Laden, and on May 1st 1945 Germany announced the death of Adolf Hitler.

What conspiracy theory?

That he wasn't killed yesterday.

Dude, this is only a personal opinion based on all the news reports, and how oddly things transpired i.e. shoot him and dump his remains on the beach or in the ocean. There's just a lot of things that don't add up. It doesn't make any sense to me why the remains wouldn't be kept as proof.

Like scientists rely on evidence to prove or disprove something, I rely on proof rather than blindly believing what anyone says, let alone any government.....WMD's.

Maybe it's a crackpot way to live a life, but that's me.

There's another parallel, in that on May 1st, 2003, George W. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, whereas on May 1st, 2011, Barack Obama announced the successful mission to kill OBL.

True that.



Here's an excerpt from a news program I watched this morning-

"AMY GOODMAN: And the news of how Osama bin Laden died?

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, that’s interesting. Allan and I were talking before the show about this, and I’d be interested in hearing what he has to say. The phrasing that President Obama used was very interesting. I mean, we’ll have to see before, I think, we give any detailed commentary on it. They said there was a firefight there. They said someone used a woman as a human shield at some point during the operation. It sounds like Osama bin Laden was shot in the head. Navy Seals are the most highly trained forces within the U.S. military. It wouldn’t be surprising that they could sniper shoot him from a distance and hit him dead between his eyes. Maybe something else went down. I don’t—we don’t know what happened inside of that compound, but it does sound like he was shot directly in the head."

All I take from that is he didn't put down his gun, and the woman in front he was holding prevented "nut" knee shot!

Explain to me how bin Ladens death has decreased the terrorist threat. It hasn’t! In fact, right after they released the information on his death, the threat level went up. How about that?
While the U.S. is dancing in the streets, the extremist are making plans. Martyrs are powerful.
The death of bin Laden is nothing more than a token win for the U.S. government, a trophy of sorts that the U.S. will be paying for for decades, unfortunately. How many more lives need to be destroyed before we learn from the past?
I feel no pitty for bin Laden or his followers, but I feel for the lives this action will distroy.

The only lives this action destroyed where OBL and the few cohorts that lived with him in the compound. Not only did they destroy the main person responsible for orchestrating and funding terrorist acts around the world, the seals gathered evidence from the compound which they think can be used to fight terrorism in the future.

Is his death a token for the U.S government and its people, sure. But this is a step in the correct direction in the fight on terrorism around the world.

Exactly what do you say we are supposed to "learn from the past"?

You think killing bin Laden was a bad idea?

You think that because we killed bin Laden we have made it more likely that terrorists will kill us, therefore we should not have killed him?

Haven't you figured it out yet? Islamic terrorists commit acts of terror in order to advance their goal of imposing Sharia law on the the Dar al Harb, that part of the world not yet subjugated to Islam.

Every time anyone acts to resist them, that act is characterized as a provocation to people who need no provocation. It's a mind game to discourage people from resisting. It is an invitation to cowards to restrain those who would resist Islamic Jihad.

You cannot give up everything and remain free of these people.

Don't you get it?

Appeasement does not work. Europe appeased Hitler ... to what end?

There is no act offensive to Islam which does not provoke acts of violence and murder or threats.

Should we ban cartoons which mock Mohammad? Surely, you know that such cartoons provoked murderous mobs of Muslims all over the world. Do you think anyone is going to make a movie showing the life and acts of their prophet? You'd have burning theaters full of screaming infidels.

We are already restrained. In Canada Ezra Levant was prosecuted for republishing the Mohammad cartoons. Gert Wilders, a member of parliament, prosecuted in Holland for speech which is offensive to Muslims.

Where do you draw the line in order to avoid provoking Islamic Jihadists?

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF ALL THE SHEEP UNANIMOUSLY PASS A RESOLUTION IN FAVOR OF VEGETARIANISM WHEN THE WOLVES ARE OF A DIFFERENT OPINION ON THE MATTER?

2x6spds

“Haven't you figured it out yet? Islamic terrorists commit acts of terror in order to advance their goal of imposing Sharia law on the the Dar al Harb, that part of the world not yet subjugated to Islam.”
If you actually believe this, then you are an idiot of extreme proportions. The extremists don’t care about the way we live in the west, they just don’t like it when we kill them and the families by the tens of thousands.
“It is an invitation to cowards to restrain those who would resist Islamic Jihad.” – Yes, you are delusional or plain stupid. Because an individual resists the need to kill, does not make them a coward, it makes them human and not a paranoid jackass with a gun.
“Don't you get it?” You obviously don’t, so you go hide behind your big old flag. Do what you do best, which is cling to your weapon. That attitude has served to U.S well over the last 50 years.
“Europe appeased Hitler ... to what end?” What? Ever head of the Second World War? I think there are at least a couple of books regarding this issue. You should read one, or just learn to read.
“There is no act offensive to Islam which does not provoke acts of violence and murder or threats.” – Well if by “offensive” you mean killing them, then you are correct. You ever heard of the Crusades?
Ezra Levant is a f*ckface racist pig, nothing more. As for the cartoons, I never said Islam did not have its radicals, but so do us Christians.
You are an extremely paranoid man sir. Sleep with the light on if it helps.

Usually I'm pretty comfortable with my belief that consequences for actions in your lifetime are limited to the time where your consciousness/soul/being is firmly attached to your body. However, it's days like this that I really see how believing in hell would be great, so I could believe Osama would be reliving each death he was involved in for eternity.

You would not have found me partying in the streets if you looked today, but I'm extremely glad he is no longer living, not only for justice sake, but for the sake of closure to a pretty nasty chapter on our little planet.

Let's hope nobody rises to replace him.

Axiom, please start using board moderators to get rid of these nut jobs, eh!

Where are you going to draw the line? First it's Ukiah, then Cam?

Let Ukiah rant. He lost a hero.

Everybody has a right to their opinion. I, for one, am glad people like Ukiah exist. If there is no part of you, however small, that can see where he's coming from, then there's something missing in your head. You don't have to agree with his opinion, but to be unable to see his opinion as valid? It just strengthens his argument that Americans are a bunch of gun-toting, unthinking, reactionary macho-men.

In an effort to lighten things back up...

I reject his opinions. However, I would not agree with censoring him.

As to pmbuko, what a hair trigger you have before you spill your gut opinion that Americans are gun toting, unthinking, reactionary macho men.

On the other hand, like pmbuko, I wasn't dancing in the streets. But, I am pleased that he was found, that Pakistan's perfidy has been revealed, that he was given the opportunity to surrender and that he was executed.

If there is a hell, I expect he is being taken apart in a most terrible way reserved for mass murderers.

True to form, you react to an excerpt rather than the whole message. I do applaud you, however, for attempting to explain to Ukiah why you reject his opinion.

Cry baby!But typical of your type.

Ukiah, because every forum deserves a resident whackadoodle.

We can see you're full of hate for America, and that your spelling skills are poor.

As to bin Laden's death, I can't say I'm sorry for your loss.

"He lost a hero." - I think not. I'm glad he's gone, just for the closure. I simply feel there are other ways to fix our planet. How many innocents have died for the west to satisfy their vengeance?
As for sirquack, you lack intelligence, so I will not entertain you with subjects you don’t understand.

I don't dislike all of the U.S., just shitheads like yourself.
You know the type, big tough men behind a keyboard.

'whackadoodle"

Your thimble of humour overflows.

I'm glad OBL is dead, I think he got what he deserves. However, I don't think the celebration on the streets and the U-S-A chants are appropriate. The reality is that most of those people on the street are uneducated people that have no clue of what's going on. All they know is that 10 years ago there was 9/11, since then they've been looking for OSB cause he needs to pay, that "american" soldiers died in Afghanistan and Irak and that the US being the most powerful country in the world accomplished its mission.
Yes, 9/11 was horrible, yes they should have gone after OSB, yes 3000+ US citizens died that day by the hand of Al Qaeda, but what people seem to easily forget is that it took the US 10 years to find him, destroyed 2 countries in the meantime and how many innocent men, women and child died by their hand in the process, thousands! The thing that bothers me is that the US only counts the casualties that they suffer, for the rest, I guess sh*t happens (CNN is a very good example of that).
I mean, they were right going to Afghanistan to look for him but not to completely destroy everything and leave the people worst than what they were before. A couple of years later, they can't find him, the people start asking questions so what do they do, they take their eyes off the objective and distract people's mind by giving them a new enemy, Sadam and his weapons of mass destruction. When they couldn't find them, to not look stupid, they say that they went to free the people (how cliche is that!), meanwhile another country is destroyed and 8 years later, the people is not in a better situation than it was before, just different people being oppressed by different oppressors. Throughout history, many countries had their revolutions without nobody's help, that's just the way it is supposed to be, Iraq would have overthrown their government in their own time, just like many countries did. Who is the US to decide who should be free and when? I guess if Iraq would grow carrots instead of oil the Iraqi people would still be oppressed. Why doesn't the US decided to go free the people from North Korea, it's not like they are in any better situation that the people from Iraq...

All of this to say that yes, I believe that OBL got what he deserved but this celebration by these people that are basically celebrating their ignorance and reassuring themselves that they're living in a country made of good that vanquished evil is just wrong. This reinforces the typical american stereotype same as comments like these:

I mean, this looks like it has been taken from a Hollywood movie!

So yes, 9/11 was horrible, but celebration is not appropriate when the US's quest for justice has cost thousands of innocent lives and for me, an innocent child is an innocent child no matter its nationality.

I'm no expert in war or history, this is just my opinion on the whole thing.

This is my point... aren't "we" better than that?



A million, at the hands of the U.S. huh... I say B.S!

Yes, though I do not complete agree with Ukiah's opinions, I respect them along with his right to express them. I do wish he, and others, would express them without the heated, personal insults.

As for me, I am relieved and pleased that someone as evil as OBL is no longer among us. I feel his removal was justifiable and necessary. However, on an intellectual level, I am not entirely comfortable with rejoicing over anyone's death, even someone as evil as OBL. I would like to be more civilized than that, more civilized than they are.

So, you would not find me out in the streets celebrating. The celebrations remind me too much of the celebrations in the Middle East just after 9/11. Of course, one might find it mitagating that those in the Middle East were celebrating the deaths of more than 3000 innocent people while those here are celebrating the death of one, truly evil man. So, though I do not sanction the celebrations, I do not condemn them either. But, I am not interested in being a participant.

Innocent people, children included, die in every war. The US did not carpet bomb Iraq or Afghanistan. Many innocent people died nonetheless.

They all be G-d's chillun. No question about it. Maybe someday there will be no more war. In the meantime, confused as it may be, some wars you have to fight. WWII case in point.

The Taliban had to be destroyed, even if it was a creation of Pakistan's ISI and maybe the US as well. No sane person would say that the people of Afghanistan were better off under the cruel oppression of the Taliban unless after it all, the Taliban return and take over again.

Iraq, well, the major intelligence services of the nations thought Saddam and his Arab National Socialist tyranny were acquiring weapons of mass destruction. If we had known, Saddam was a bluffer, or that he already moved his biochem weapons to Syria, then with benefit of hindsight it was a mistake to invade Iraq. That's not to say that Saddam was not a monster who threatened world peace. It is only to say, that by removing Saddam, the West delivered Iraq to Iran, worse monsters who really are acquiring nuclear weapons.

In any case, I think it is sad that Pakistan hid Osama bin Laden for almost 10 years. We might have avoided a lot of pain had we found him and killed him a long time ago.

In the meantime, as to Osama Bin Laden, his supporters, allies and friends, may they all rot in hell.

We are in complete agreement, Jack. I do believe Ukiah shot himself in the foot with this personal attacks and profanity, despite espousing non-violent methods of fixing the world.

Though it DOES feel good to indulge oneself by just letting all that vitriol pour out, it sort of destroys the illusion of even trying to be even handed and fair doesn't it. Personally, when the bile comes spilling out, their arguments don't seem to carry much weight anymore.

I agree with you inane, I say, B.S., as to the slander that we took the lives of a million people in Iraq.

I don't equate the celebration that swept from Jersey City to Jedda on 9/11. The "street" celebrated the murders of more than 3,000 infidels at the hands of Islamic Jihadists because they understood they were at war with us and that they hurt us badly. They caused our towers to fall. That is a celebration of evil triumphing over innocence.

Last night, thousands celebrated the just execution of one of the master minds of that attack on the US, western civilization and the world of non-Muslims. Immature? Who am I to say? Evil? No. The same thing as the celebration of Islamic Jihadist terrorists' successful attack and mass murder of Americans? No.

Ezra Levant is a hero for standing up to the politically correct (and often profane) anti free speech nut-bars.

Dundas, you right there!! Ezra Levant is not a racist, he is a hero for standing up against the Thought Police who have criminalized free speech which offends Muslims in Canada.

Jack nailed it. Again.

Thanks, Tom.

One other thing. I might be more willing to celebrate if I believed that OBL's death meant the end to, or even a significant dent in, the terrorism campaign. I am of the opinion that, regrettably, little has changed. Hope I'm wrong. However, even believing in advance that no significant change would result, I still feel his removal was necessary and justifiable,

Yup. Agree with you there.

What? That's it? No birthday wishes?

Just for fun, since the topic of Hell comes up a lot here and it is a biblical subject, here's my translation of what it is after years of study.

Hell is not a current place where anybody goes. There is no such thing as a soul that leaves the body upon death. The word soul in the bible is the Greek word pneumatic (or similar) meaning air, or breath. Upon the next return of Christ, he will gather up His people, alive and those that had died. His glorified presence and the presence of His Father, who returns with him destroys everything else, so nothing is left on the earth. Even the atmosphere is removed. Then 1000 years goes by, and the city built in heaven that contains all of His people is transported to earth, that is made inhabitable again. All of the people who ever lived are resurrected and are not His are presented with what they have missed out on. The city, btw is huge. I forget the exact size, but it think it is hundreds of miles on each side and is square. After a certain time, when every one has had time to see it and reflect upon their lives, the event that is the actual hell arrives, when everyone outside the city is instantly destroyed and the earth is recreated to it's pristine condition.

I just read all nine pages of these posts. I'm holding each of you responsible for giving me that time back. It's like I'm watching the the Am. Rep. Theater's take on 12 Angry Men, only without the passing subway train.

First, they came for 2 x 6. I was not a piece of wood, so I said nothing.

Then, they came for Cam. I was not a hotrod revolutionary, so I said nothing.

Then they came for Ukiah. It was Special Opps taking him to Gitmo, so we partied!

Tom is in charge of the beer.

Is that really wise?

Ha, not guarding it, but procuring it. Lord knows, if it were up to Ken or Peter we'd be up to our ears in Bud Light.

Not true. Peter has a very astute palate, and Ken enjoys big beers from Belgium and elsewhere.

Thou shalt not slander my beer brethren.

YOU, on the other hand...

Thank God this thread got derailed to something important!

Aw, come on, I just wanted to see what life was like on the other side of the reality curtain for a minute, so I forayed into willful antagonism. My, that was exciting.

Yes, I am bummed that Zima is dead. But in its place have sprung dozens of like-minded bitch beers. Mwah ha ha, death by a thousand paper cuts, infidel.

Jack -

I agree with Tom. Well put and my thoughts are very similar to yours regarding OBL and the resent events.

It's unfortunate that so many people have to resort to angry and disrespectful retorts to support their opinion or position on a subject. I am often embarrassed when I reflect upon some of the things I have said in the past. Some of the comments in this thread remind me of the person I do not want to be or be like.

If they're after you, your bound to have a bad day!

Thank you, Mike. You have every right to be proud of the positive contributor to this forum you've become.

(((((Group hug)))))

Seriously, I think that both of you guys are cool, and evidence that, by and large, our forum attracts and retains quality people.

Jack, I'm glad I got to spend time with you last September, and I hope our paths will cross again. Likewise, Mike, I'm sure I'd enjoy it if our paths crossed one day.

Peace be with you.

(and also with you)

Me too, JP. Me too.

Funny, you don't know the first thing about me, but that is ok, that is a good thing.

OK, so I had the news on in the background today and heard that Osama bin Laden was shot while dressed in a bath robe, in his bedroom, with his grandchildren and a wife present. No weapon.

So, he was executed, a targeted assassination.

Now, I am not aware that the president of the United States has the authority to order an assassination. Bin Laden is a mass murderer. He murdered thousands of Americans. He declared war on the United States.

Was he given the opportunity to surrender? Did the Obama administration not want him alive? Did Obama want him dead?

Interesting moral dilemma.

Not as clear on day two as on day one.

Obama said in his campaigning that he will hunt down and kill Bin Laden.

The only elucidation on the circumstances of OBL's death I've heard is that he was unarmed, did not use his wife as a human shield, but apparently still resisted capture. I don't want to speculate on details, but I can tell you this: every minute of that 40-minute mission was planned out and practiced endlessly before Seal Team 6 arrived. They would not have killed OBL if that was not their plan from the get-go.

They would have taken him alive according to one gent, but going in they knew it would be a very small chance of that happening and they admitted so. If they were met with any type of resistance he was to be killed.

Any who, keeping him alive at this point would have created more problems, controversy and tension in the middle east IMO.

They did not want him alive. For security, they'd have had to take him to Gitmo. Now that Ukiah is there, their concern was that he might start talking to Osama. That would pose the grave risk that, before trial, Bin Laden would attempt suicide, repeatedly.

First, just some quick background stuff to help explain where I'm coming from.

I am a native born US citizen
I love my country
In my mind, "country" and "government" are NOT synonymous
I love the ideal on which my government is founded.
I have some serious problems with the reality my government has become

That being said, whether this was a targeted elimination or failed capture attempt, I do not care. Normally, I care very much what the rest of the world thinks of my country. In this particular case, I do not. This act, justifiably IMHO, was about doing what was in the best interest of the United States and I can only hope that the decision turns out to be the right choice. I am relieved it was a choice I did not have to make.

The thing about, its just not in the best interest of the united states, eliminating terrorists such as him is in the best interest of the world. Osama Bin Laden orchestrated the killing of people all over the world.

Commenting against my better judgement...

IF we had targeted that compound with predators, cruise missiles, or <insert big bomb type thing here> and then been able to verify OBL's death subsequently, I do not believe there would be as much controversy.

The decision to instead send a Seal team ensured that there would be no civilian casualties AND also incurred greater risk to American lives.

Having him alive would have been a huge liability.

We are at war. This was "the right thing".

Technically, I think that's the first thing they look for when diagnosing schizophrenia. ' least that's what Auggie says.

Yes, Tom and Blue Jay, (Jack and others) I agree. The world is certainly much better off without that Islamic Jihadist mass murderer.

My problem is that there is no restraint on a president's power to order the assassination of any person. There is no judicial review, no consultation with Congress ... Ours is supposed to be a government of laws not men.

Although I approve of Obama's target this time, I have no confidence that I will necessarily approve of his next.

Osama declared war on the united states. Its as simple as that. Instead of a country it was an individual and al-queda.

Going a little ways back in the thread, but an olive branch from Pakistan? I'm not sure how you see it that way. From what I can tell:

1. He was hiding in their country, practically next store to one of their biggest military compounds.

2. We went in to take him out without getting an ok from Pakistan first, since we didn't trust that they would not tip him off.

I believe Pakistan was knowingly hiding him in their country. We'll see what if any fallout comes from that, or if the administration concludes that they really didn't know he was there, which I find hard to believe.

Yes, that is true. If we had put a JDAM down his noggin, that would be fine - target command and control. But, the guy was in a bathrobe. Under the law of war I don't think it is OK to just shoot the guy.

Of course we have no idea what really happened. For all I know, Osama is in the brig of a US Aircraft Carrier engaged in conversations with professionals. However, if he was standing in his bedroom, unarmed and asked to surrender, and said "La" Arabic for "no," I don't know that shooting the guy was lawful.

Don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly at peace with the idea of the demons of hell picking at his entrails for all eternity (metaphoric of course), it's the effect on our democratic institutions of this barbaric religious war which is being waged against the non Muslim civilization.

Agree 100%. Pakistan is a double dealing terror state with nukes. Ask the Indians. Mumbai.

There is a lot of new information out there now. The initial response was that of thanks to Pakistan in their involvement. The new information is disturbing and they need to answer some tough questions.

In hindsight, Pakistan could have made this situation much worse if they retaliated to the invasion on their home soil by shooting down the planes, having the government condemn their actions etc.

I'd be willing to bet that if all governments and fanatical individuals were removed from the earth, that everyone would probably get along just fine.

Who would decide who is considered fanatical though? The government? Ooops, we got rid of them. The people? Good luck getting consensus.

Maybe an alien race comes and does this for us. Of course, we'd all consider them oppressors then and unite to fight the aliens.

You don't really believe that, do you, catbrat?

Ask Laura Logan. That wasn't hundreds of government agents who had unconsented-to intimate relations with her in broad daylight, in the middle of the street while they chanted, "Jew, Jew ..."

The world's population is about 7 billion. What size world population do you think a world without governments could support?

Will it be the strong who survive at the expense of the weak?

Cat, who would protect you and your lolly pop from the big bad men?

lol. Never mind. I'd just stick my head back in the sand, but I can't get the rose colored glasses off.

You're OK. You just think you live in a better world than this one.

Your avatar is still scary.

...Using the same interrogation techniques that the Bush Administration was criticized for... Yup. The information that lead to the whereabouts of this scumbag started rolling in back with the previous president and continued with the "inhumane alternative interrogation techniques" like waterboarding that the current administration still uses.

Although all of that, I give neither Bush NOR Obama credit. They both wanted him dead, and they both had something to prove. It was the (usually horrible) intelligence agency and the strategic command that came up with the plan(s) and executed them. It was just a matter of the president saying "go"...

As for Trump, while I think that if he ever was president (dear Lord I hope not), I think that he wouldn't take crap from anyone, but then again he would just piss other world leaders off. Lesser of 2 evils. Be a charismatic push-over that is really doing nothing to stop the death spiral that the country is in, or someone so blunt that the world hates the US even more... Maybe I should move to Canada. Nobody hates Canada...

Trump is a buffoon. Not fit to be president. I'd take him over Obama in a heartbeat.

They DIDN'T gain any intelligence about OBL via unlawful, inhumane enhanced interrogation techniques. That was just another nutty republicans claim on O'Reilly.

Here's the truth.

I like Trump and respect him a lot but I also think he would not be a good choice for president. However, I think he is a much better choice than somebody like Palin.

"Trump is every trend in Republican politics over the past thirty-five years taken to its logical conclusion. He is the Republican id, finally entirely unleashed from all restraint and all reality."

-- Johann Hari, in a superb piece in the Independent

(h/t to Chez at http://www.deusexmalcontent.com)

I'll take Palin over Obama, or as Ted Kennedy referred to him, Osama ba Bama. I would like a more excellent choice however.

Well, gee, CIA director Leon Panetta disagrees with the commies. Enhanced interrogation played a significant role in obtaining key information regarding the identity of the couriers.

Did it? link

Torture is illegal, and more importantly, immoral. It should not be used by any modern, civil society, period. It's embarrassing to all involved that this "debate" is suddenly being talked about again.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
-Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil, p I'm too lazy to get the book and find the quote, but it's in there)

Craig, I'm not saying that enhanced interrogation is or is not torture. That is a conversation and determination that should be made. I'm just saying that enhanced interrogation was effective. Anyone who denies this is missing the point. It is effective. That is not to say it is moral, or where we draw the line between unpleasant interrogation and torture.

Craig, although I appreciate your argument, I disagree with you.

Hypothetical

The US government discovers that Hizbullah has acquired a bio weapon of a hybrid of a particular vicious small pox variety crossed with the Spanish Flu. There are 20 canisters hidden in US cities. Release date is 10 days. Best estimates are that if released in all 20 sites, the US will suffer 100 million deaths in the first 144 hours after release. Things will get worse after that.

You Craig, are chief National Security Adviser to the President of the USA. You are informed by your Director of CIA that they have the mastermind in custody, the guy who knows the location of each of the canisters. Traditional methods of persuasion have resulted in peals of laughter and prayer. No actionable information.

Do you tell the President of the USA that you are morally bound not to use torture. The President asks you whether water boarding is torture.

Craig P., tells the President: ____________________________

The President asks you whether he should authorize the use of water boarding.

Craig P. tells the President: ____________________________

President asks Craig what if water boarding is ineffective, can we morally justify destructive torture in order to save the lives of 100 million Americans and probably 4 billion people worldwide.

Craig P. says, ___________________________________.

Fill in the blank political post. Brilliant!

First we have those who deny reality in order to avoid the difficult moral issues ... i.e., those who say torture is not effective. This is politically correct nonsense. No one can resist torture for long.

Once we acknowledge that torture is effective, we are then confronted with the moral questions which challenge smug and shallow self righteous conclusions.

It is easy to conceive of situations which force us to weigh terrible alternatives.

It's effective? Really? So Matthew Alexander, a former senior military interrogator who conducted or supervised over 1,300 interrogations in Iraq is full of shit and you have first hand experience that proves otherwise? He was interviewed yesterday- link .

Also, if you are fine with your country bending the rules of international law or laws of war etc., are you okay with other countries doing the same to your countries servicemen and women? Do you apply the same standards to yourself? If you don't acknowledge uniformity, then you are being self-righteous.

Excerpt-

"My argument is pretty simple, Amy. I don’t torture because it doesn’t work. I don’t torture, because it’s immoral, and it’s against the law, and it’s inconsistent with my oath of office, in which I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States. And it’s also inconsistent with American principles. So, my primary argument against torture is one of morality, not one of efficacy.

You know, if torture did work and we could say it worked 100 percent of the time, I still wouldn’t use it. The U.S. Army Infantry, when it goes out into battle and it faces resistance, it doesn’t come back and ask for the permission to use chemical weapons. I mean, chemical weapons are extremely effective—we could say almost 100 percent effective. And yet, we don’t use them. But we make this—carve out this special space for interrogators and say that, well, they’re different, so they can violate the laws of war if they face obstacles.

And that’s an insult to American interrogators, who are more than capable of defeating our enemies and al-Qaeda in the battle of wits in the interrogation room. And American interrogators have proven this time and time again, from World War II through Vietnam, through Panama, through the First Gulf War. And let’s go back to the successes of American interrogators. You know, American interrogators found Saddam Hussein without using torture. We found and killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda Iraq, which helped turn the Iraq war, without using torture. And numerous other leaders that we have found and captured—another guy named Zafar, that I describe in my book—all these successes have come without the use of torture."

Yes, anyone who says torture is ineffective is wrong. You don't think you could withstand torture interrogation, do you?

I'll assume you did not understand my post when you suggest I approve of torture.

I notice that you avoid the moral issue raised by my hypothetical. I'm not surprised.

By the way, do you make a distinction between enhanced interrogation and torture?

My dad always told me don't fight... but if it going to happen, hit hard as you can, hit first and don't stop till its over and you win .. it's not a game, a contest, if your that far in, your not there to be fair, it's to win (war)

He also said your rights (and your option) extend as far as the end of the other man's nose

Perfect? no. good advice? I liked it! was he a good father? nah but I liked this advice!

Jeff

Ah yes, the old ticking time bomb scenario. A good plot device for poorly written dramas. The problem here is that no such scenario (of note) has ever occurred in the real world. It just doesn't make sense. Why would one person only know the "key" information? And if you've got him in a bunker, then you're safe from him? If there are others, wouldn't they activate their device the second their comrade was captured/missing/etc. And when do ACTUAL terrorists hide giant WMDs with TIMERS? What sense does that make? If you have them, you set them off immediately, or maybe you trigger it by remote for some sort of ransom thingy? Regardless, the ticking time bomb thing is a device used strictly by lazy writers to give a fixed drama point and tension in their stories. It's never happened in real life, so your construct isn't applicable to our real life debate.


Torture doesn't work. Fact. Why? the information is gathered is completely unreliable. People will say anything to make the torture stop. They'll tell the truth. They'll lie. They'll tell you what they think you want you to hear. THEY WILL SAY ANYTHING. And since you don't know the answer to the question (that's why you're torturing them) you have no way to verify the accuracy of any of it.
As noted above, people who perform the actual interrogations say torture doesn't work. Many more sources, I'm not gonna bother to find them. Please feel free to do so yourself.
(And all of this without even dipping into the moral side of the argument)

Torture doesn't work.

I disagree I'll go out of true character and say what I know is the truth, If I have to listen to rap at a stop light to determine whether or not I think the offender thinks I like rap music or to make it stop!

Like I thought, Craig. You can't answer the question. Your insult about poor plot devices notwithstanding, or how unlikely the scenario, you avoid the point, because you cannot deal with it in an honest way.

As to your statement that torture doesn't work, that people will say anything to make it stop, if you don't think that can be used to obtain totally accurate information, you are not thinking clearly. You are merely spouting cliches.

Really, think about! Put yourself in the position of a person being tortured for information. Every time you bullsh!t, you are forced to endure the unendurable. How many times, before the pure, clear truth emerges?

Be honest.

Not true...THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!

Picard said four lights, but he saw five.

Put a double double, fries, and shake under my nose and I'm snitching on everyone!

I nominate this as the best post in the entire thread.

(One of the best ST:TNG episodes)

Don't forget Chuck Norris!

Does the US Government use "advanced interrogation techniques" today? Yes. Did they use it under the last president? Yes. Before him? I would bet so...

Is it morally right? Not with me. Does it potentially save dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions of people? I have no idea. The government won't say.

Is is wise for anyone in the position of knowing and acting today with action of torture to admit to it? Heck no. There is no way that they would say, "Yes, we tortured the snot out of these guys."

What about other countries? There are reports a couple of times a year about people (almost all military troops) who have been horribly tortured in other countries. Body parts cut off, severely burned, blinded by various methods, forced to drink toxic chemicals... It happens and it is terrible. IF I may paraphrase the old Terminator 2 movie, Arnold says something in response to John Connor's comment about the human race isn't going to make it, and he says something like, "It is in your nature to destroy yourselves." There is a lot of unfortunate truth in that statement.

Anyway, are there all sorts of conspiracy theories, even in the middle-east about Bin Laden really being alive, or killed 10 years ago, or frozen (read that one earlier today)? Absolutely. Even people that are news makers are questioning things like how this went from point A to point Z so fast from the attack, to the killing, to the DNA test, to the tossing of the body into the ocean. Stating that they find it hard to believe, regardless of the religious right to a fast burial, that it all happened THAT fast.

Would I put it past ANY president to "save" something like this (action or delayed announcement) to save their political butt? No.

Look. The guy was horrible. The #2 guy that is now #1 is horrible too. From a moral point of view, I throw that out the window (maybe it makes me a horrible person too) when someone comes after me, my family, or my livelihood. With that said, Obama has done more damage to all three of those for me personally more than Osama (Usama) has. That doesn't mean that I don't care about or know a good number of people direly impacted by 9/11 and understand their grief, anger, and now somewhat of a relief in the announcement.

As for those people that feel that they need to call names, or say that people are ignorant, etc. Come on... This is why political threads are generally discouraged here. You are all entitled, as far as I am concerned, to voice your opinion, but the name calling towards other members here needs to stop.

I think I get what you're trying to say -- that Obama's policies have more direct impact on your life than some dude living in a cave mansion largish-compound in plain sight -- and I agree with that point, but the way you wrote it seems to be implying that Obama has it in for you, your family, and your livelihood.

Here's another source that cites US officials saying that waterboarding and/or other forms of torture did not help capture Osama.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/04/rumsfeld-and-other-u.html

Proof that bin Laden was buried at sea...

[quote=nickbuol You are all entitled, as far as I am concerned, to voice your opinion, but the name calling towards other members here needs to stop. [/quote]

Don't be such a poosie.

Read an interesting article pointing out the differences btw. Pres. Bush's and Pres. Obama's war strategies.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/vantage-point/obama-s-war-against-al-qaida-20110505

Following this rather interesting thread with tongue firmly planted in cheek
Can we assume that if religion was removed from this mess that everything would be right in the world or would these nut jobs find something else to argue about?
Just my 0.02
Peace

Make the world unable to support life and we're there.

As long as primates exist, there will be disagreements that lead to violence. It can arguably be expanded to mammals and beyond. Humans are, without a doubt, the worst offenders, though.

Adolf Hitler

I see people in a different and better light. Humans are, without a doubt, the highest achievers of all living things on this world.

Every individual, is a combination of good and evil, courage and cowardice, wisdom and folly, strength and weakness. Even among the participants of this thread, there is disagreement as to what constitutes good or evil, courage or cowardice, wisdom or folly, strength or weakness.

Nevertheless, we have a nominee for worst offender in the animal kingdom ... oh, and it's us, also known as the crown of creation.

Yup, it's all true, but a bit more complex, I think.

Great post 2x6!

It's my understanding that Hitler referred to a higher power of varying titles in Mein Kampf and many speeches. I think the only one that truly knows that whack jobs religious views is Hitter himself.

Hitler didn't use religion as his main motive/propaganda for his mass murder actions.

Well said.

That reminds me of a very relevant quote that is one of my credos-

"The enemy is not the other. The enemy is you". Jiddu Krishnamurti

He DID however, think he was doing God's work.

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

Hitler had his own vague, conflicting religious references/ rationalizations. He didn't use mainstream religion as his main propaganda tool like OBL. With or without the existence of religion, Hitler would have been the same, evil murdering bastard.

Good stuff Phil.

I think Hitler's spirituality was the will to power in the struggle for supremacy among racial groups. His prophets were Darwin and Herbert Spencer, Heidegger, Baeumier. After all, as Hitler remarked, Alles Leben ist Kampf.

Western civilization's spiritual - religious framework is Judeo-Christian ethical monotheism. Hitler's 'spirituality' is not congruent with that higher theme. In fact, Hitler was the antithesis of ethical monotheism, complaining that Judaism and Christianity and their ethical schema weakened the Superior Aryan Geist.

It would be very unfair to hold Hitler up as an example of religion gone mad. On the other hand, even a cursory review of Mohammad's life and conduct and the values which are normative in Islamic cultures might lead to different conclusion.

You keep avoiding the point. I didn't answer your question because it is not based in THE REAL WORLD, which is what we're (trying) to talk about here.

You also keep ignoring the points the against using torture. "Enduring the unendurable..." To repeat, if the torturer doesn't know the answer, then how can that person tell the difference between the truth and the "bullsh!t" !?

Please see this outline from the US Army Training Manual.

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.
Source

The above which I grabbed from here also points out a CIA operative that says torture is unreliable, brings up the point that basic human memory can be flawed and unreliable (you know, why courts tend to require cold hard proof, not just eye-witness testimony, because people just remember things wrong sometimes) and various scientific proof that human memory gets worse when deprived of sleep or put under pressure...

But I suppose you know more than the people who wrote the US Army Training Manual? CIA operatives? Dozens of scholarly articles on human memory, etc..

Please note I found this article just now, but it does include your ticking-time bomb scenario and considers it the same as I did previously.

It's clear at this point you are unable to have a reality based discussion, so I will cease responding to you now. Feel free to make another glib comment on how I "cannot deal in an honest way" as your only retort while you continue to ignore all the evidence against your point. I am done here.

Well said, Craig. Thanks for the info.

Interesting that a true military manuals would be open for public view by a plain citizen.

As far as military secrets, how much information in the manual is that sensitive? I'm assuming they have to give a lot of them out. It would be a lot to expect it to never see the light of day. And even for the more sensitive information, it's not like WikiLeaks never happens.

Here's the Official Department of the Army Publications and Forms. And here's all of the army's doctrine and training publications.

Despite what training manuals say, they're very rarely followed (officers go beyond what's appropriate), which is why they aren't that sensitive. They're equivalent to something like Canada's food guide .

Racism has been a tool for a long time but it's not written in any manual.

No one is saying that enhanced interrogation or torture is morally correct. If you a priori assume that neither enhanced interrogation nor torture can obtain reliable information, then there is no need to reach the moral issue. Instead, you can dispose of the issue on purely utilitarian grounds, as you Craig and Stupidity is Not a Handicap have done.

I acknowledge the US military training manuals' statements regarding torture and enhanced interrogation. The manual pertains to military prisoners. Here we are talking about terrorists, or non nation state players such as soldiers in the army of Allah.

As to soldier prisoners, you can't even play loud music or interfere with a prisoner's sleep. I agree with this whole heartedly.

I submit however, that the case is different for terrorists, especially terrorists who hope to use weapons of mass destruction to annihilate the population of an American city or render it uninhabitable. Do you urge the restraints set out in the US military manual against discomforting a prisoner who has such information?

Not to put too fine a point on it, Craig and Stupidity is Not a Handicap, but your arguments lack even the courage to engage the moral issues presented.

I also find your reliance on a US military manual potentially ironic as I suspect you both regard the US military as at least an unsavory if not a criminal organization.

By the way, you don't really think either of you could resist even 60 seconds of torture before giving up your families, do you? So much for torture is ineffective.

I still don't see how this means the information gathered is reliable... especially as unreliable as some families are.

Torture is effective in making the tortured want to do anything to make it stop. That torture provides reliable information is what's under debate here. You seem to be ignoring all the evidence that supports the opposing opinion.

I haven't seen any evidence. Statements by politicians or the US Military Manual after being massaged by the politically correct is not evidence.

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that torture is, on occasion, when inflicted by masters of pain and persuasion, a method by which reliable and actionable information may be obtained quickly.

I assume we all agree that torture is terrible.

Now, when you weigh the terrible nature and negative consequences of torture, on the one hand, against the value of obtaining information in possession of a captive that if given would save one life, one hundred lives, a hundred million lives ... or for the militant PETA and ELF members, out there, the lives of 10 goldfish and a Pit Bull, the calculus cannot be so easy.

Let's take it furrher. Let's assume that one man has information affecting the fate of the entire universe.






Would you torture God?

Clever pmbuko, your style is to avoid the issue, make it go away. How brave of you.

You seem to think you have devised your own Kobayashi Maru. You haven't. It's a contrived situation with no connection to the real world.

In your scenario, the prisoner's guilt is a foregone conclusion, as well as his possession of all the details necessary to prevent an enormous tragedy. You're also assuming that torture will divulge precisely what you need, when you need it. As such, I could reply, "Sure! Torture the bastard until he tells us what we want to hear!" But then I'd be buying in to your fantasy. Since I don't buy into it, I choose not to play your game.

Capisce?

No, respectfully, you are incorrect. There are no certainties, only percentages. It is all well and good to take the high moral position that no threat can justify enhanced interrogation or torture. This is fatuous and avoids the difficult moral problem posed by a situation in which there is a high probability that person A is in possession of information which if divulged in a timely manner could to a high probability avoid a catastrophic loss of life. Such a situation is not so difficult to conceive of except for those who refuse to even engage in the discussion of the moral and ethical implications of such a situation.

It is easy to reject the idea of enhanced interrogation if you define it as torture. It is easy to reject the use of torture by a civilized society. However, there are situations in which a civilized society may have to choose between the value of 'NO-TORTURE' and survival.

Would torture be justified to save a single innocent life? A thousand? A million? 8 million?

Although such a hypothetical may have been inconceivable 100 years ago, that is no longer the case.

Weapons of mass destruction exist which could be transported by a single person and which could take the lives of millions of people.

So, what is the ethical mandate when faced with this choice? Does the calculation differ based on the number of people at risk?

How about it?

You can only ever operate on the information you have in front of you. I realize that in high stakes situations, more options are necessarily on the table, some of which probably walk the line between "enhanced interrogation" and torture. I still firmly believe if you feel you must resort to torture, it's only because you've already failed elsewhere.

It's a matter of how much time there is before the bad event is likely to take place and the nature of the harm threatened.

I don't understand what you're saying. You're saying that we need to go by the numbers, but... for the sake of conversation, let's assume that this very unlikely set of circumstances is in place. Which is it?

Risk analysis. The risk is a function of the likelihood of the occurrence of an event in relation to the degree of harm threatened.

If the likelihood is low that person A is in possession of information that could avoid the occurrence of a catastrophic event then there would be no question that the use of coercive interrogation would be inappropriate and immoral.

The ethical problem arises when you have high confidence that person B is in possession of information that could avoid the occurrence of a catastrophic event.

Here's where the calculus becomes terrible. What if person B is in possession of information that the operator is confident will result in the deliverance of an innocent person from otherwise certain death. Most would say, our values are such that the greater good is served by not using extremely coercive interrogation to save the innocent person. This would also be the case if 10 innocent persons were at risk.

But, what if person B were in possession of information the if secured within time (x) would avoid the risk of harm which is the release in a major international airport of a highly contagious, airborne virus worse than the Spanish Flu? The risk is a lethal pandemic that could reduce the world's population by a non trivial percentage.

What then? What is the moral choice?

The answer is clear. If you weigh the risk of harm (death of scores of millions of people), against the likelihood of the occurrence of the risk (100% unless the information is obtained), and a high likelihood (>50%) that person B is in possession of the information which if obtained would avoid the occurrence of harm. Turn on the faucet.

If it is just a matter of numbers, then why is it ethical not to use coercive interrogation in order to save a single innocent life?

What do numbers have to do with ethics? You can either use numbers to justify what you do or do the right thing. That's what makes it a hard choice.

Yes, of course. Numbers do not count. Ethically, we all agree that torture is unethical and an offense to society, injurious to the person who tortures and to the person tortured.

However, a hard and fast rule that says the issue is purely ethical and that numbers cannot alter the calculus raises difficult ethical issues as well.

If you are comfortable with an inflexible application of the rule no-torture even if torture could avoid the deaths of millions of people, then you have made the hard choice.

Millions dead, but you sleep comfortably in the knowledge that you have done the right thing at the great expense of others.

Numbers count. Count the numbers. Count the people. People aren't numbers.

On Saturday, Noam Chomsky stated his reaction to Osama bin Laden's death, and being the most important intellectual alive today (had the most profound impact on my life), I think it's important to heed his sentiments.

I've attached my post because there's parallels in my post and Noam's (even the analogies of incongruous foundations - stoning vis-a-vis the assassination of Bush, which I abstained from saying because I felt I'd be hollered at).



"Noam Chomsky's Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death :

It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about. "

I gotta say, 2x6, that if you're half as dogged and determined to win your courtroom arguments as you are to win your Axiom message board arguments, then I'd hire you in a nanosecond.

Medic8r, sometimes we have interesting discussions about interesting and important topics. It's a pleasure posting with folks who disagree and test each other's positions with reason.

What's your name today, Cam? Oh, Powertothepeople. Right on Man!

Chomsky is a chump. He did his best work in the late 60's in linguistics. Now, he is just another leftist political hack spouting from his ivory tower.

You can use any hypothetical or scenario you want, but the fact of the matter is that the intelligence that has been gained to justify enhanced interrogation on another person, could easily be flawed. As a result, an innocent person has been treated immorally and suffered extreme emotional and physical trauma, you save nobody, and ultimately make things worse because it creates more hatred.

And what about if 10, 100, 1000 people were waterboarded prior to said person, but all were as a result of faulty intelligence that was just passed down the line? Just as enhanced interrogation could work (for the sake of the argument of morality) on one person to save 1000, it can also fail on 1000 innocent people to save one (or what ever number of people you wish).

In an effort to find credible information, I believe the moral dilemma is solved if there's a risk of inhumane treatment to one person using a flawed system by someone playing god.

Now all we need to do is get Cam through law school and the bar, and then we can set him and 2x6 against each other in the courts. Big payday, y'all!

Riiiiiiiight.

And you are quite obviously a personal ball washer for right wing political hacks spouting from their ivory bathtubs.

Although I find it quite odd, they would pay good money for your services, and it would easily supersede anything you'd achieve as a lawyer.

I've taken enough crap from you, and although I won't stoop to your level, I'm done with being diplomatic.

My apologies for carrying this thread on. That will be my last post on the topic.

Well, if you feel it best to step back, then I'd go with that gut instinct. Seems like you can only pound each other so much before tiring out/realizing the futility of trying to change each others' minds.

BTW, I think you know this, but I just wanted to clarify that I didn't mean anything sinister with my last couple of posts. I was just reflecting on the tenacity you two had. You guys must be part pit bull.

See you in the Pop Tart thread.

I would like a scotch Bin Laden bartender.

Huh?

Two shots with water.

That's funny! Are you here all week? I'll have the prime rib.

I know what you meant, JP. I will say that I am encouraged to see that Peter has been in it for the long haul . I learn quite a bit from some of his posts (Charles, too).

And I think I'd do much better if I recruited Dean and just passed papers to him in the courtroom .

The hardcore leftists that voted for Obama are stuck in a pickle with this one.

During election, didn't one of the things Obama campaigned in regards to terrorism was to track down Osama Bin Laden and kill him?

[quote] [endquote]

Were those "Air Quotes"?

No. Those were Air Jordans.

I like that BlueJays, a Scotch Bin Laden, 2 shots and a splash.

As to Cam's suggestion that thousands have been tortured, only 3 people were waterboarded, including Khalid Sheik Mohammad.

Now, perhaps Cam thinks of KSM as a revolutionary par excellence who not only masterminded the 9/11 slaughter of 3,000 but who personally beheaded the Jewish Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl.

I'm sure Cam never had a word to say about Daniel Pearl's torture, and suspect Cam thinks President Bush and the Israelis were responsible for the 9/11 massacre. Is that right, Cam, or do I have you wrong?

I'm hoping that Team Bondi/Rockstar allow us the possibility to torture criminals in the new detective video game L.A. Noire during interrogation.

Although that paints a funny picture, it's going against the tone we're trying to maintain here. Note that 2x6 criticized Chomsky and not you. You turned around and criticized him, not his words.

Rise above, my friend.

What's a ball washer?

Is Cam talking about testicles again? What's your preoccupation Cam? Previously, you referred to "tea bagging." I thought that was simply inappropriate, but it appears to be a thread that runs through your commentaries.

Cam, really, keep your sexual preferences and fetishes to yourself. You toss the F-bomb into this forum and then when the grown ups point out that your language is inappropriate, you whine that you are being picking on.

This is a family audio site where, on occasion, we discuss grown up issues, hopefully, like grown-ups. Try to raise your game.

Peter, I couldn't agree with you more regarding "rising above", but that criticism was a result of a recent jab (and many more) at me in my barbeque thread - , as well as this PM I received from him yesterday morning (titled "Picking on you")- "Yes, Cam, I noticed you waive your pseudo revolutionary beliefs in everything from your user names to your messages. As you know, I find some of your heroes to be mass murderers. People who survived Castro's Cuba have suffered and lost family members to your heroes. So, I poked at you a bit to see what you were about. You obliged.

So, which revolutionary rag of flag are you flying as your avatar today? Is that the PLA flag? The black panther banner? Which enemies of western civilization are you celebrating today?

If you like, we can have our discussions in PMs.".

Even though it doesn't bother me one bit, there comes a point where pacifism just ain't gonna cut it (if it's not my words, it's my footrests breaking shins). We all have a boiling point.

2x6, have you read McCain's article on this whole thing? He discusses many of the points we've been going over here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/b...mdsG_story.html

Yes, I am aware of McCain's position, and it is understandable given the fact that he was tortured terribly by the North Vietnamese.

Don't forget that the Vietnamese did not torture McCain for the purpose of extracting information. They tortured him over a long period of time to punish him, to hurt him and to inflict permanent injury. There can be no moral justification for what they did to him.

The torture that the N. Vietnamese communists inflicted on our servicemen did not raise any ethical dilemma. It was clearly and completely criminal and unethical.

The scenarios we are discussing here are very different and much more difficult to resolve ethically.

In the latest saga surrounding OBL, Navy Seals confiscate and I quote "a massive cache" of pornography from the compound where OBL was living.

LOL!

http://www.smh.com.au/world/porn-found-in-bin-laden-home-20110514-1enfl.html

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Many of the 9/11 terrorists spent their last days with hookers and strippers.