lostfan

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 4, 2011 -> 06:03 PM) Waterboarding is torture, though. And thanks, I hadn't figured out the Jack Bauer part. It was a rhetorical statement not really intended for you (I pretty regularly come across people who talk about Jack Bauer the stuff he does is stuff we should really be doing)

They could've dragged Osama out onto Freedom Plaza, and gave President Obama a handgun so he can personally execute him in public live on TV and probably a good 80% of the electorate wouldn't have a huge problem with it. That's what's kind of tripping me out about people asking whether it was illegal. Even if it wasn't totally above board, what are you going to actually PROSECUTE someone? Who's going to do it?

There is no single authority somewhere that dictates whether "torture" (however you might choose to define it) is "effective" or "not effective." It's a f***ing pointless argument and as of right now its only use is for partisan hackery. Hilariously, the bin Laden killing proved EVERYBODY right. If you want to continue heavy troop presence in Afghanistan then this proved you right. If you want to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan you were proved right. If you supported the invasion of Iraq you were right. If you supported waterboarding you were right. If you thought waterboarding was torture and torture should never be used you were right. If you wanted to invade whatever country you were right. Confirmation bias is a motherf***er. I still say, as I've always said, this is an intelligence and special forces issue though and not a military one. Navy SEALs and other elite commando-type units are much more equipped to deal with counterterrorism... could you picture PFC Snuffy from the 10th Mountain, with all of 18 months in the Army kicking down doors and taking on high-value targets like UBL? Yeah... no. There's a pretty wide gap in training between the two and it should be pretty obvious.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 4, 2011 -> 10:41 AM) Personally, I have nothing against advanced techniques in interviewing that can lead to critical information. I love when Jack Bauer shoots terrorists in the leg. But seriously, if it's vital information that is needed, tough words aren't going to make a f***ing difference. It's not "tough words." That is not how interrogation works at all. It's 100% about control and manipulation, and keeping the detainee off-balance (waterboarding is one of those ways, but there are others). Jack Bauer is a fictional character, fun to watch but can't be applied to real-life scenarios.

The 2007 White Sox should be on this list.

QUOTE (High Mileage @ May 3, 2011 -> 10:36 PM) At this point, you all now know exactly how it feels to be a Royals fan. At least you kind of know this going in though.

lol you KNOW it's bad, because I know Jim is being sincere, I saw his FB post before he posted this.

We suck so f***ing hard. This is embarrassing. No-hit by a team that sucks as bad as we do.

Who did what and when is irrelevant and first-class political hackery (besides writing a post about how frustrated I get with US foreign policy I haven't done that in this thread and I won't). People that work in the intelligence community do it for a career and they have no term limits so their work on long-term projects like this will span multiple administrations. So, really, if someone wanted to play THAT game and be honest they'd have to go all the way back to the Clinton Administration.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2011 -> 09:25 PM) FYI, torture isn't what led us to OBL. Yeah I was wondering where all that was coming from with the claims about it vindicating waterboarding and whatever (btw this article says waterboarding had nothing to do with it and then says where it might have). All they got was the guy's nickname which was kind of "hey we might have something."We don't even know if they gave up that info while actually being waterboarded. It may or may not have slightly contributed to the full mission and we don't even know if the information actually came from waterboarding since they were also interrogated other times. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement or anything. It's kind of an irrelevant point in terms of the big picture.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 3, 2011 -> 01:59 PM) I don't think you can blame the guy. The president of any country isn't going to come out and say one or more of his highest ranking officials was conspiring with one of the world's most wanted men. He had to paint the picture that Pakistan had a united front against him on the side of the US. And for what it's worth, I believe that to be the case for the most part. 90something% of Pakistani officials were probably intent on aiding in the capture or murder of bin Laden. But as is the case with many things, it only takes a couple of people working against the others to prevent or delay it. He did it for the same reason that Obama gave the bulls*** line about how he appreciates Pakistan's help in the speech and strained not to call them out when you know he wanted to. It's just kind of expected diplomatic protocol. Still funny though.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 3, 2011 -> 01:10 PM) Think about it in this sense. Say one or two high ranking officials, a couple of generals, were well aware of it. In any military (correct me if I'm wrong, lostfan or any of the other veterans), aren't any subordinates going to just follow the order to ignore that location? I'm sure there would be plenty of people who had their doubts and reservations, but isn't it also highly frowned upon to go over someone's head in the military? Sort of, maybe. Depends on the military I guess, a need-to-know kind of thing. Maybe you're not so much told not to go somewhere as much as you're just not told to go somewhere. If you're the lowest ranking soldier, or just a NCO or junior officer running that team, you probably aren't questioning it. You'd just be one piece of the picture.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 3, 2011 -> 11:37 AM) Its either that or they are worst f***ing spy agency on the planet. I mean worse than Spy vs Spy who always let the other guy blow him up. If that is the case, they need to shutdown and return the tax money that is funding them, because they are a complete fail. ^^This I read some quotes from Pakistani officials saying this is an intelligence failure and acting embarrassed. LOL I'm not sure which is worse. They've been ADAMANTLY denying bin Laden was in their country for YEARS and then, hey! There he is. Oh s***!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2011 -> 09:07 AM) Where in the EO text does it say "Head of state"? Here's the Wiki version: Does the word "Assassination" imply "head of state"? Isn't attempting to shoot a political figure an assassination (i.e. Rep. Giffords, for example). Does it really matter? You could make a pretty convincing argument, pretty easily, that he's an enemy combatant I'd think.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 2, 2011 -> 09:26 PM) Bigger f*** you from Obama this weekend: Trump, or ISI? Good question.

Someone mentioned EO12333 earlier (Balta I think). It doesn't really matter, Osama wasn't a head of state and wasn't a US person

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 2, 2011 -> 09:16 PM) No. He absolutely was. He was giving credit to Obama but everything after the first couple of sentences was pure sarcasm. If I had the quote up I'd bold the parts where he was being over-the-top and making fun of the media. He was saying "nobody else, not a single member of his national security team or general could've come up with this idea, it was all Obama"

Trump said he wants to call a truce and stop the partisan bickering. That is funny as hell, the "bickering" was going one way and Obama was ignoring him. Finally Obama responds and it's a nasty combo of b**** slaps that stung (ending in him roasting Trump while an operation was underway to kill Osama bin Laden, and the announcement pre-empts his show the following day). Trump cries uncle at first contact like his name was Cedric Benson. Lesson learned? Stay in your lane.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 2, 2011 -> 07:52 PM) The other side of this comes in the vein of trying to improve our image in the world. There was a lot of talk about how our actions looked to the rest of the world during the Bush years, and those kids of celebrations aren't going to help it at all. The best way I know how to put it is like this. How would we have felt if it was our President who got shot, and we got to watch the people responsible for it (in a nation sense) celebrate publicly, knowing that they too were responsible for a lot of deaths around the world? I agree (you're sounding kind of like a lefty though, lol, that's one of the things we've been saying) I guess it's like... do you want to be that guy who acts like Dwyane Wade, who goes to dunk while the guy guarding him is letting him dribble out the clock because the game is won?

I'm not celebrating (in the sense that I am outside cheering) but a mass murderer is dead and I think I'm cool with it.

That's pretty funny.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ May 2, 2011 -> 04:22 PM) Well I guess like anything else there's going to be arguments. Should we celebrate? Shouldn't we? Who gets credit? Who doesn't? Display the body? Bury the body? Bury at sea? pfft...I don't really care about any of it. I'm glad he's dead. I didn't cheer, but I'm not bothered by those he did. Different strokes for different folks. What we should all agree on though...is the Navy SEALS are the most bad ass heroic individuals on the planet!!! co-sign. Well I cracked a lot of jokes and got some "f*** yous" at Osama's expense but yeah.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 2, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) Can we put up the real MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign now? It was alluded to earlier in the thread, but that speech was given on 1 May 2003

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 2, 2011 -> 02:35 PM) If they could do this why haven't they already? Same with the nuke scenario. That's what I've been asking. It's not like they haven't been trying desperately. All of a sudden we're scared? Why? I mean, the status quo hasn't changed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 2, 2011 -> 06:57 PM) Did you catch the thing I posted a page ago about the Pakistanis scrambling fighters? About the scrambling jets thing yeah. Had the Pakistani government been briefed it'd have been leaked to the ISI and everyone would've been evacuated and the whole thing would've been an embarrassing debacle to the administration. If there was any doubt that the ISI was unreliable AT BEST this should be the final nail in the coffin