Osama Bin Laden Dead.

[Calabrio]

I think McCain knows what constitutes torture

I think McCain was tortured, I don't think his experience has anything to do with the question I asked.

You make waterboarding sound benign.

I didn't editorialize it in anyway, I simply explained the process as it is reported to have been done by the CIA in a few, rare instances. It's important to clarify because the term waterboarding can mean a wide range of methods, some I would agree are clearly torture.

For example, in Vietnam, they would "waterboard" by forcing water down the throats of the the subject until the stomachs were distended, then they would beat the subject in the stomach.

I'm sure if someone tilted your head back and poured water down your nose you would be "uncomfortable" to say the least and would yell out something even if it wasn't the truth.

How I would respond to a controlled simulating drowning that causes no physical damage is besides the point, just as what you consider torture is irrelevant.

The question is, when they use "torture" and "enhanced interrogation" interchangeably, what are they talking about when they say it was used to gain actable intelligence used to prevent future attacks and kill Bin Laden.
This is significant when you realize just how broad the term is.

Are they saying that playing Barney, cold rooms, and maybe the THREE people who were waterboarded by the CIA? Are they just talking about the THREE people who were waterboarded? Or are they included the rendition program?

 

[04SCTLS]

It is good that Bin Laden is dead and maybe Islam will move on now after the dust settles but look at the price one man who changed the world using guile and religion as justification has forced the mighty United States to pay for it's foreign policy.

 

[Calabrio]

It is good that Bin Laden is dead and maybe Islam will move on now after the dust settles

You give Bin Laden far too much credit.
And this will not result in any evolution of Islam.

but look at the price one man who changed the world using guile and religion as justification has forced the mighty United States to pay for it's foreign policy.

Bin Laden absolutely did not work alone.
And our foreign policy is a subject far more complicated than you understand.

The problems we are facing right now are internal. The amount of money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 is reported to be $1.2 Trillion.

That's a little less than the reported one year budget deficit in 2010.

 

[04SCTLS]

And our foreign policy is a subject far more complicated than you understand

You know
I'm getting tired of your condescention and the way your simple little checkers mind works.
I don't tell you that you are stupid.
What makes you and your opinions more superlative?
You rarely have anything interesting to say that isn't just a repeat of someone else's talking points and when pressed your retorts are weak silly bombastic exagurations of hyperbole.The creative response and witty putdown is not your forte.

You dismiss trillions of dollars as if it's nothing but fail to understand that it's effect on the sum total is what makes the difference between
stength and weakness-comfort and having to make tough unpopular choices.

Islam may have been not friendly with the west for centuries but it took a Bin Laden to take it out of the 15th century make it into a real threat in these times.
Do not downplay the power of (a single) man
You put down the power that one man can have by sheer force of will.
The relatively muted reaction to Bin Laden's killing in the Muslim world is a good sign.
To Muslims like any man he was a combination of good and bad things
(the contradiction of a man) and even they saw the bad things while admiring the in their opinion good ones.
Al Queda wasn't that good in the first place.
They ate their own and killed more Muslims than Americans
9/11 was so spectacular and impressive it gave them a greater fear than they were worth.
Since 9/11 their attacks have been petty amateur in comparison.
I think it is you who are trying to masquerade as someone who is intellectual.

 

[Calabrio]

frustrated attack we've all read before

Are you done? I've read this rant from you a few times already. If you continue to confuse an effort to state complicated issues in a way that is simple to understand, that's fine. Unfortunately, you still can't understand it, maybe I'll try using more pictures when we communicate.

I stand by what I've said about you, while I don't take into question your ability to understand some of these things, I do think it's evident that you have a narrow understanding of them. You have little interest in trying to learn about them, yet despite your incomplete picture, you confidently make bold assertions, oblivious to how narrow your awareness is. Usually, when called on this, you just excuse it because you were playing "devil's advocate," eventually, in a thread like this, you get frustrated and lash out, trying to save face.

Your "analysis" amounts to little more than a knee-jerk reaction to events strained through you're narrow frame of reference and bias. No effort is made to develop a broader understanding.

You dismiss trillions of dollars as if it's nothing but fail to understand that it's effect on the sum total is what makes the difference between
stength and weakness-comfort and having to make tough unpopular choices.

I've done no such thing. It is ignorant to say that the economic, and related social challenges facing the United States are the result of spending $1.2 Trillion dollars over the course of decade. Such a statement demonstrate just how narrowly you focus on things. There are causes far more significant that you could cite.

As I mentioned, the on-book budget defecit this year alone exceeds this cost. The budget deficit last year was considerably more than these decade long wars. Saying that our economic condition is because of the war is ignorant. And recognizing your ignorant comment doesn't mean I'm necessarily defending the way the wars are being run, or whether, with hindsight, I think all of the decisions were right.

But none of this matters, because this thread devolved into a one-note samba with you just trying to pound the foreign policy of President Bush, reality be damned.

Islam may have been not friendly with the west for centuries but it took a Bin Laden to take it out of the 15th century make it into a real threat in these times.

You make such broad, unsupportable statements, it's very challenging to respond to them in a concise manner. But isn't it you who insists that Islam doesn't posse a threat to the West?

I'm not going to launch into a history of Islam. You won't read it anyway. I will again say that you give Bin Laden far too much credit.

At best, he's an example of the right person at the right time. He was a wealthy guy, from a respected family, who was considered charismatic and a very effective fund raiser. He was the face of an organization.

What you fail to recognize is that the roots of the organization can be traced back to the Muslim Brotherhood. This organization, this movement goes well beyond Bin Laden, that's why killing him is not an example of just cutting the head off of a snake.

But regardless how clearly I try to explain this to you, you'll dismiss it, again. Your narrow understanding of Islam dictates that they are all cave-dwelling, unsophisticated goat herders incapable of sophisticated organization or long term planning.

This subject has already been discussed in this thread.

The relatively muted reaction to Bin Laden's killing in the Muslim world is a good sign.

What does that even mean? That you haven't seen any news reports related to the story? Do I prove you wrong if I mention the 80 Pakistani's that were killed in retaliation yesterday?

To Muslims like any man he was a combination of good and bad things (the contradiction of a man) and even they saw the bad things while admiring the in their opinion good ones.

To Muslims? Who are you speaking of? And where do you get the authority to even begin to speak for that nation of people? Have you studied the history? Have you done any study of the religion? The politics? Or even the current events? Yet you're going to now spew philosophical ramblings and inane flow of conscience so trite that they would make a pot head embarrassed for you?

I think it is you who are trying to masquerade as someone who is intellectual.

You can think whatever you'd like about me. It's not like I'm the type of guy that is so insecure that he'd go on the internet and lie to a forum about my success in business, or to use that charade as a way of legitimizing weak, poorly conceived arguments.

 

[04SCTLS]

To Muslims? Who are you speaking of? And where do you get the authority to even begin to speak for that nation of people?

I wasn't speaking for Muslims as a nation.
In your haste responding mostly bombastic Ad Hominum to my provocation responding to your condescention you missed my point.
All men and women are combinations of plusses and minuses so what I was getting at was more Muslims would see him that way as opposed to Americans who would more likely see him as Bush called "evildoers"(80% approved killing him)
and the way his killing is explained to children.

Our own leaders and politicians as people are also combinations of plusses and minuses so it depends on how good a balance sheet with assets and liabilities your character shows.
We'll see how much retribution we get for killing Bin Laden.
I didn't say Islam was not a threat only that it was a weak threat that was made bigger by 9/11 than it really is and we should keep that in perspective.
Your big picture view seems pretty set.