uh
yesss Lil B
We have very definitions of what's plausable then, or at least for this scenario.
If for no other reason, you have to take all of that to be capable, as well as the added layer of being able to keep a secret, for what amounts to be very little gain (which have already been discussed by others; torture doesn't work, fear of leaks, etc...)
d('-'
Someone needs the talk on false equivalence.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...den/index.html
Just clipped the very end but the whole article is farily short and definitely worth reading. I'd say he's right on the money. Apologies if someone else beat me to it already.Recall what happened in 2003 when Howard Dean interrupted the national celebratory ritual triggered by Saddam Hussein's capture when he suggested that that event would likely not make us safer. He was demonized by political leaders in both parties, with Joe Lieberman finally equating him with Saddam by accusing Dean of being in a "spider hole of denial." That will be the same demonizing reaction targeted at anyone who deviates from today's ritualistic script.
I don't think anyone has denied that here.
looooool, I never really had anything against Greenwalt, despite the fact that he fights for the freedom of a god damn traitor but jesus christ he comes across as a pretentious sack of shit here.
when the hell was the last time this happened?Whenever America uses violence in a way that makes its citizens cheer, beam with nationalistic pride, and rally around their leader, more violence is typically guaranteed.
This is neither here nor there, but it might be worth mentioning that Saddam Hussein's threat was to his own country, as opposed to everyone else.
Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, was the head of an international terror network.
While it's hard to define a rubric that would make us "safer", I think it's reasonable to suggest that Hussein's trial did not make us safer, yet the death of Osama bin Laden will.
False equivalence strikes yet again.
sick of faggots trying to down play this. Do you guys throw fits when there is a random nice day during the middle of a shitty winter? Jfc
most would probably consider it a comedy act. perhaps a bout of insanity?
And you're missing the point with regards to the group of Arabs/Muslims who cheered when the towers fell.
Take Iraq for example. We spear-headed the harshest sanctions program against Iraq throughout the 90s. The details of which are readily available. The damage done to Iraqi society was catastrophic.
It's fantastic that Bin Laden is dead. It's a great morale boost for the direct victims of 9/11 and their families. But, personally, there was a whole lot of horror going on before that. And the war/occupation that came after too.
If I didn't feel like our mainstream intelligentsia was already self-righteous, nationalistic, and hypocritical then I'd feel comfortable with the...'celebration'? It just doesn't mean much.
Killing terrorists doesn't solve the root cause of terrorism. This is good for 'us' because it brings some level of closure. But for the millions of people across the Arab world - what?
And this involves them. It's called blowback.
It just still didnt sit right with me us cheering over his death. We should have been remembering all that was lost and unseen consequences of our actions(al qaeda actually having a presence in Iraq after we invaded,actually giving terrorists ethos that america is bad with torture staying in countries after orginal intent was completed) and question how do we really fight terrorism. With big militaries? or covert intelligence?
History of the 2nd Iraq War should involve a primer on the Iraq sanctions:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/201...500_AA300_.jpg
Jesus fuck, can we get back to lulzworthy video/images/comments?