Why do you suppose, then, that people keep asking for you to be banned?
b/w
If everybody here had you on Ignore, would you still keep posting?
It's the same old people and it happens in predictable fashion. After the Civil War thread it was only a matter of time before Harvey made the move, for example.
b/w
No. But we both know that's not going to happen, because record collectors suffer from OCD.
Yeah, the fact that he planned 9/11. USS Cole, Khobar Towers, etc., say otherwise, IMO. Maybe David Brooks can do those things and not be "one of the most seasoned guerrilla fighters in the world.", but I doubt it. Or is Brooks saying OBL didn't do those things?
Well there's a difference between actually being a "seasoned guerrilla fighter" and planning military or quasimilitary attacks. I don't know Brooks' source and probably what I'm suggesting isn't true most of the time, but I'd imagine there are people who've planned successful terrorist attacks who haven't done shit in terms of actually fighting anyone, and I know there are a lot of 'successful' (whatever that means) fighters, in the literal sense, who couldn't plan a fucking birthday party.
We're going to have to disagree on agreeing here.
How so?
I'm not saying Brooks is right and/or that bin Laden wasn't in the field (altho 'field' in this case is a weird term, naturally). I'm just saying that, unless you're working with a much broader idea of guerrilla warfare (in which case I think you're probably right), engineering bin Laden's species of attack doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being a guerrilla fighter in the quotidian sense, i.e. on the Che Guevara model.
I haven't done a great deal of research into bin Laden's track record, but from the overviews I've read it would at least appear that his activities consisted mostly of either: 1) training prospective soldiers/bombers/etc; 2) providing funding and shelter for same; and 3) arranging but not usually being involved with attacks like the '93 towers attempt, the Luxor massacre, Sep. 11, etc. Something like the second attempt on the WTC doesn't really require "seasoned guerrilla fighter" tactics; it seems to be primarily about money, connections, intelligence (in the military sense), and planning.
Yeah, the fact that he planned 9/11. USS Cole, Khobar Towers, etc., say otherwise, IMO. Maybe David Brooks can do those things and not be "one of the most seasoned guerrilla fighters in the world.", but I doubt it. Or is Brooks saying OBL didn't do those things?
Well there's a difference between actually being a "seasoned guerrilla fighter" and planning military or quasimilitary attacks. I don't know Brooks' source and probably what I'm suggesting isn't true most of the time, but I'd imagine there are people who've planned successful terrorist attacks who haven't done shit in terms of actually fighting anyone, and I know there are a lot of 'successful' (whatever that means) fighters, in the literal sense, who couldn't plan a fucking birthday party.
We're going to have to disagree on agreeing here.
How so?
I'm not saying Brooks is right and/or that bin Laden wasn't in the field (altho 'field' in this case is a weird term, naturally). I'm just saying that, unless you're working with a much broader idea of guerrilla warfare (in which case I think you're probably right), engineering bin Laden's species of attack doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being a guerrilla fighter in the quotidian sense, i.e. on the Che Guevara model.
I haven't done a great deal of research into bin Laden's track record, but from the overviews I've read it would at least appear that his activities consisted mostly of either: 1) training prospective soldiers/bombers/etc; 2) providing funding and shelter for same; and 3) arranging but not usually being involved with attacks like the '93 towers attempt, the Luxor massacre, Sep. 11, etc. Something like the second attempt on the WTC doesn't really require "seasoned guerrilla fighter" tactics; it seems to be primarily about money, connections, intelligence (in the military sense), and planning.
1) I don't think you can train guerilla soldiers/bombers if you don't have pretty solid experience in those things.
2) Can't just hand out money and lodging on the street, have to have expereince in how to keep ish clandestine, IMO.
3) Planning/arranging (arguably ) the deadliest string of terrorist attacks in the modern age speaks for itself, as far as I'm concerned. A novice couldn't so it. An average dude couldn't either, IMO.
You know what I think possibly could have happened ?
1. They kidnapped OBL (he has too much valuable intel to justify just snuffing him out - esp if he's a sitting duck in a desolate compound with minimal methods of retaliation to a sudden and well planned raid)
2. They put the word out that they killed him and buried him at sea - this reduces the chances of terrorists attacks on the US to try and save or rescue his ass, or force the US to release him. Also reduces the chances of people coming looking for him.
3. They show OBL the evidence that everyone thinks he's dead.
4. They detain him and extract as much intel as possible.
Does this seem kinda plausible given everything we've seen ?
You know what I think possibly could have happened ?
1. They kidnapped OBL (he has too much valuable intel to justify just snuffing him out - esp if he's a sitting duck in a desolate compound with minimal methods of retaliation to a sudden and well planned raid)
2. They put the word out that they killed him and buried him at sea - this reduces the chances of terrorists attacks on the US to try and save or rescue his ass, or force the US to release him. Also reduces the chances of people coming looking for him.
3. They show OBL the evidence that everyone thinks he's dead.
4. They detain him and extract as much intel as possible.
Does this seem kinda plausible given everything we've seen ?
Just a thought.
I would think that would all fall apart when the members of his family who saw him get killed started to talk.
Even al-Qaeda has acknowledged his death.
Sometimes, Anna, a banana is just a banana.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
to date NO ONE has given me a convincing reason why killing him was preferable to taking him alive.
I think this will go down as a major blunder on the part of the administration.
If the key word is convincing I might fall short. Here are some reasons some people have.
He is better dead than alive. [This is a visceral emotional argument that many can relate to.]
Terrorists would try to blackmail the US in to releasing him through retaliatory kidnapping.
A trail would allow him to showcase his worldview.
A trail would be too painful for survivors.
A trail might end in an innocent verdict and set him free.
A trail might end in him being released on a technicality.
Then there are the raw tactical reasons.
He wouldn't surrender.
He was armed.
b/w he might have been armed.
b/w there was not time to determine whether or not he was armed.
Typing this clarifies for me that capture would have been preferable.
I disagree it was a major blunder. I cry no tears.
even though he'd been out of the game for a minute (allegedly), I think it's likely Osama would have had some pretty fucking good intel on this whole al Qaeda organization thingy.
even though he'd been out of the game for a minute (allegedly), I think it's likely Osama would have had some pretty fucking good intel on this whole al Qaeda organization thingy.
So do you think he would have just given this intel up.....or maybe some waterboarding would have been needed.
I think assuming he would have done anything but attempt to further his martyrdom, use the media to further convey his message and inflame his followers is pretty naive.
even though he'd been out of the game for a minute (allegedly), I think it's likely Osama would have had some pretty fucking good intel on this whole al Qaeda organization thingy.
So do you think he would have just given this intel up.....or maybe some waterboarding would have been needed.
I think assuming he would have done anything but attempt to further his martyrdom, use the media to further convey his message and inflame his followers is pretty naive.
whether we would have been able to get him to talk without torture is a good question; I don't know. A skilled interrogator can get people to say some pretty damning things without the use of torture.
But to just toss such a potential treasure trove of intel into the ocean without even trying? that's insanity.
(and there would have been ample legal safeguards available to prevent him from running his mouth for the cameras; Im not proposing we should have put him on Larry King or anything.)
So who here would be against the waterboarding of OBL?
Knowing people who have survived it, I am against torture period.
The idea is to be better than those we abhor, not become them.
And do me a small favour and not call me mambypamby, immature, deluded...whathaveyou.
I can easily return the favour with a few choice judgemental words, but what would that achieve?
We can live in the same world and see things differently.
So who here would be against the waterboarding of OBL?
Treat him nice. Then get that Stockholm Syndrome working. Then get him to do some statements retracting all of his previous nasty-talk, then show videos of him happily working at a MacDonalds and talking about how if he's really good he will get promoted from washing lettuce to filling buns, and then send him to a prison where his arse will look like a clown's pocket within a week.
So who here would be against the waterboarding of OBL?
Surely there would be too many questions for this to work. What would you ask exactly?
Up to now the usual m.o. has been to put them up in a nice place with pool in Florida and let them talk over some glasses of expensive cognac. Not that I am any more in favor of that idea either.
Comments
Why do you suppose, then, that people keep asking for you to be banned?
b/w
If everybody here had you on Ignore, would you still keep posting?
It's the same old people and it happens in predictable fashion. After the Civil War thread it was only a matter of time before Harvey made the move, for example.
b/w
No. But we both know that's not going to happen, because record collectors suffer from OCD.
Is that Joseph Goebbels talking to a Norse god?
How so?
I'm not saying Brooks is right and/or that bin Laden wasn't in the field (altho 'field' in this case is a weird term, naturally). I'm just saying that, unless you're working with a much broader idea of guerrilla warfare (in which case I think you're probably right), engineering bin Laden's species of attack doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being a guerrilla fighter in the quotidian sense, i.e. on the Che Guevara model.
I haven't done a great deal of research into bin Laden's track record, but from the overviews I've read it would at least appear that his activities consisted mostly of either: 1) training prospective soldiers/bombers/etc; 2) providing funding and shelter for same; and 3) arranging but not usually being involved with attacks like the '93 towers attempt, the Luxor massacre, Sep. 11, etc. Something like the second attempt on the WTC doesn't really require "seasoned guerrilla fighter" tactics; it seems to be primarily about money, connections, intelligence (in the military sense), and planning.
1) I don't think you can train guerilla soldiers/bombers if you don't have pretty solid experience in those things.
2) Can't just hand out money and lodging on the street, have to have expereince in how to keep ish clandestine, IMO.
3) Planning/arranging (arguably ) the deadliest string of terrorist attacks in the modern age speaks for itself, as far as I'm concerned. A novice couldn't so it. An average dude couldn't either, IMO.
You disagree. That's cool.
1. They kidnapped OBL (he has too much valuable intel to justify just snuffing him out - esp if he's a sitting duck in a desolate compound with minimal methods of retaliation to a sudden and well planned raid)
2. They put the word out that they killed him and buried him at sea - this reduces the chances of terrorists attacks on the US to try and save or rescue his ass, or force the US to release him. Also reduces the chances of people coming looking for him.
3. They show OBL the evidence that everyone thinks he's dead.
4. They detain him and extract as much intel as possible.
Does this seem kinda plausible given everything we've seen ?
Just a thought.
I would think that would all fall apart when the members of his family who saw him get killed started to talk.
Even al-Qaeda has acknowledged his death.
Sometimes, Anna, a banana is just a banana.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-government-contractor-claims-al-qaeda-has-confirmed-bin-laden-fairytale.html
the osama bin laden exception
good article.
to date NO ONE has given me a convincing reason why killing him was preferable to taking him alive.
I think this will go down as a major blunder on the part of the administration.
If the key word is convincing I might fall short. Here are some reasons some people have.
He is better dead than alive. [This is a visceral emotional argument that many can relate to.]
Terrorists would try to blackmail the US in to releasing him through retaliatory kidnapping.
A trail would allow him to showcase his worldview.
A trail would be too painful for survivors.
A trail might end in an innocent verdict and set him free.
A trail might end in him being released on a technicality.
Then there are the raw tactical reasons.
He wouldn't surrender.
He was armed.
b/w he might have been armed.
b/w there was not time to determine whether or not he was armed.
Typing this clarifies for me that capture would have been preferable.
I disagree it was a major blunder. I cry no tears.
Thanks.
So do you think he would have just given this intel up.....or maybe some waterboarding would have been needed.
I think assuming he would have done anything but attempt to further his martyrdom, use the media to further convey his message and inflame his followers is pretty naive.
whether we would have been able to get him to talk without torture is a good question; I don't know. A skilled interrogator can get people to say some pretty damning things without the use of torture.
But to just toss such a potential treasure trove of intel into the ocean without even trying? that's insanity.
(and there would have been ample legal safeguards available to prevent him from running his mouth for the cameras; Im not proposing we should have put him on Larry King or anything.)
I reckon someones waterboarding the schitt out of him right now somewhere.
'Killed and buried at sea' is the most convenient story to go with if he is being detained for intel purposes.
Adds a whole new dimension to worse things happen at sea.
Answering brutality with brutality is barbaric, etc, etc.
Stop letting your hair post here!!
b/w
I bet OBL would prefer it right now.
Knowing people who have survived it, I am against torture period.
The idea is to be better than those we abhor, not become them.
And do me a small favour and not call me mambypamby, immature, deluded...whathaveyou.
I can easily return the favour with a few choice judgemental words, but what would that achieve?
We can live in the same world and see things differently.
Treat him nice. Then get that Stockholm Syndrome working. Then get him to do some statements retracting all of his previous nasty-talk, then show videos of him happily working at a MacDonalds and talking about how if he's really good he will get promoted from washing lettuce to filling buns, and then send him to a prison where his arse will look like a clown's pocket within a week.
.........................................
I don't know.
Surely there would be too many questions for this to work. What would you ask exactly?
Up to now the usual m.o. has been to put them up in a nice place with pool in Florida and let them talk over some glasses of expensive cognac. Not that I am any more in favor of that idea either.