Author Topic: Michael Moore  (Read 16703 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5516
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +383
    • my site
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #60 on: May 05, 2011, 04:43:20 PM »
0
man, sundown all over, if you wanted to eventually agree with me and have a discussion, why did you have to start with the lazy and dull condescension? it makes me unable to appreciate your corrections and it also makes me have to work a little harder by not wanting to throw some half-heartedly snide insults back at you, such as: I'm sorry I'm not armchair-military-buff enough for your liking. and yes, I understand military buffs usually occupy the armchair already, and I'll admit it and save you the trouble by saying yes, the essence of what I'm saying is true. now please tell me about the inaccuracies of them military video games.

ps just to make it confusing, I actually liked your comments and maybe if it was 2003 I would've appreciated your pre-internet 2.0-style, socially awkward obsession with some idiot's second language.

That was many of America's previous M.O., such as the execution of previous most wanted terrorist Pablo Escobar.

That's a lazy and dull comparison that overlooks all sorts of moral complexities, and it's also an erroneous use of m.o.  The particulars of the two executions are vastly different, and the particulars are what establish the m.o.

Aside from semantics, the essence of what you're saying is true, but these problems are relative to their times.  The US was a lot sneakier and insidious with many Central America operations.  I appreciate Obama's attempts at transparency because as the world press likes to mention the only account of the scene comes from us (Americans), and Obama has stripped away some of the attempts to camouflage the ordeal.  If he doesn't use the word execution, at least he paints the picture.
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

Mr. Merrill Lehrl

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Respect: +5
    • Internal Revenue Service
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #61 on: May 05, 2011, 04:54:03 PM »
0
man, sundown all over, if you wanted to eventually agree with me and have a discussion, why did you have to start with the lazy and dull condescension? it makes me unable to appreciate your corrections and it also makes me have to work a little harder by not wanting to throw some half-heartedly snide insults back at you, such as: I'm sorry I'm not armchair-military-buff enough for your liking. and yes, I understand military buffs usually occupy the armchair already, and I'll admit it and save you the trouble by saying yes, the essence of what I'm saying is true. now please tell me about the inaccuracies of them military video games.

ps just to make it confusing, I actually liked your comments and maybe if it was 2003 I would've appreciated your pre-internet 2.0-style, socially awkward obsession with some idiot's second language.

That was many of America's previous M.O., such as the execution of previous most wanted terrorist Pablo Escobar.

That's a lazy and dull comparison that overlooks all sorts of moral complexities, and it's also an erroneous use of m.o.  The particulars of the two executions are vastly different, and the particulars are what establish the m.o.

Aside from semantics, the essence of what you're saying is true, but these problems are relative to their times.  The US was a lot sneakier and insidious with many Central America operations.  I appreciate Obama's attempts at transparency because as the world press likes to mention the only account of the scene comes from us (Americans), and Obama has stripped away some of the attempts to camouflage the ordeal.  If he doesn't use the word execution, at least he paints the picture.

To clarify, I wasn't being intentionally condescending, as in I didn't consider myself speaking to you from some high area and you were in some low area.  I engaged you on what to me was an equal level.  There are just some kinks I have to work out concerning my engagements with the personalities of the Xixax members.  So really I was being kinky with you.  But really, no offense intended, and it was just about the topic (as in I don't think you are dull or lazy, I just thought the comparison was).
“If I had to hold up the most heavily fortified bank in America,” Bolaño says, “I’d take a gang of poets. The attempt would probably end in disaster, but it would be beautiful.”

Pas

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • Respect: +10
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #62 on: May 06, 2011, 06:56:31 AM »
0
"How come no headline ever read "Multi-Millionaire Murders 3,000"? It would have been correct. No, best to focus on OBL being a "Muslim,'

Hahaha so that's Michael Moore logic for you. I don't have to explain how this sophism is ridiculous.

"What's so wrong w/ just saying the truth? "We executed him." Fine. I'm guessing most would applaud u. So I like trials! Call me an American!" he wrote.

That part is quite right though.
yeah I had no doubt that he was executed as well. they wouldn't only send two helicopters if they expected any type of resistance or firefight. they also couldn't possibly have arrested him; that would've been a diplomatic (and pre-election) headache for the obama admin as they sought to try him in American courts, trying to wrestle him out of the hands of the Afghans and the Pakastanis. He had to be put down there and then.

That was many of America's previous M.O., such as the execution of previous most wanted terrorist Pablo Escobar.

Well I for one disagree and not just about the semantics part of it ha.

You think they couldn't have arrested him because it would be a pre-election headache? Holy fuck I hope if I'm accused of a crime someday it won't be before an election or they'll just shoot me in the face and dump me in a lake. The rule of law doesn't take into account pre-elections or having to do complicated things (wrestle him our of Pakistan). Imagine the local courtrooms if this respect of the rule of law was everywhere:

''You honor, we COULD prove the accused is guilty, but it would be a headache to gather evidence. I propose we shoot him in the face there and then.''

YES it is tempting when we are SURE the guy did it but it's hard to find evidence. Yes I have been very mad in my life about seeing guilty people walk away because of lack evidence. But damn, the hardest and the right thing to do are often one and the same, as they say in sports movies.

Reinhold

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Respect: +3
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #63 on: May 06, 2011, 08:27:35 AM »
0
nobody's denying that he was executed-- top brass and the whitehouse have said that it was a kill-or-capture mission. that means that the only way he could have gotten out of it alive is by immediately dropping to the ground and trying to surrender. if that was the case and they shot him in spite of that, i wouldn't feel good about that...  but i believe that nothing like that happened. what do you want? obama to get behind a podium and say "we're murderers. all of us-- we're just as bad as bin laden because we killed him without asking permission." he wasn't innocent by any stretch of the imagination. and if he was-- he either was the biggest idiot or the most megalomaniacal suicidal jerkoff on the face of the planet and probably should have been shot anyway if you ask me.

he had no respect for america or the american legal system, nor do his followers. a trial wouldn't have satisfied anybody's concerns about fairness. in fact i believe any kind of public trial would merely be a propaganda platform for him and for the US government.  (i myself have only a little respect for america's usual version of rule of law, but i'm not remotely dangerous in the way that he was. as much as i'd hate to be steamrolled by the legal system or shot in the face and dumped in the lake, the reality is that it's not going to happen to me or anyone else who isn't doing some really terrible things.) also, what would the point be of trying him in a court? he wasn't a criminal, he was a military enemy. he was also a known extremely dangerous man with  both a rifle and a pistol within reach at the time of his death. granted they could have shot him in the leg and taken him alive-- but i think this sends a better message to the kind of people we're dealing with. he got everything he was owed by getting it quick and in the face.

it's not like we took out a shoplifter here... it's osama bin laden for christ's sake.
Obviously what you are doing right now is called (in my upcoming book of psychology at least) validation. I think it's a normal thing to do. People will reply, say anything, and then you're gonna do what you were subconsciently thinking of doing all along.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10936
  • Respect: +1342
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #64 on: May 06, 2011, 10:40:21 AM »
0
There's so much to disagree with there, I'm not even sure where to start.

he had no respect for america or the american legal system, nor do his followers.

By this logic, should we apply a "do you respect the legal system?" test to every criminal, and if they fail, shoot them in the street? So yeah, that's a completely irrelevant point.

he wasn't a criminal, he was a military enemy.

I'm honestly surprised you (or anyone, for that matter) are still buying Bush's endless state of war garbage, nearly ten years after it started. If you consider terrorists military enemies, we are in an endless state of war. How are terrorists not criminals? Terrorist attacks are complex events, and there are usually many people involved. As such, how do you propose seeking justice, if not through evidence-gathering? That is, after all, what we do with crimes, even horrible ones, and that is how we find criminals, even terrorists, with police/FBI/etc. and courts.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Reinhold

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Respect: +3
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #65 on: May 06, 2011, 11:18:21 AM »
0
all i meant by the no respect for american legal system thing is that no matter how thoroughly or thoughtfully he were to be tried-- the whole thing would be viewed as a farce by people who don't already think the guy deserves the full extent of punishment. there's literally nothing we can do to get people aligned with bin laden to view him as guilty. he's responsible but correct in their view, so holding a trial is moot. i'll concede that his feelings about the american legal system are irrelevant and that it would be utterly ridiculous to just shoot everyone who doesn't like the way things are done.

as for the other point-- the dude has a standing army! al qaeda leadership commands, trains, finances, distributes propaganda for, and otherwise facilitates a global network of people with the stated goal of destroying the united states and everything it stands for, killing innocent civilians, and leveling our cities. bin laden was also a criminal guilty of terrible crimes, but he was first and foremost a military enemy in my view. i understand that he's not part of a nation state's military, but al qaeda is likely more capable of and more interested in engaging the united states military than some countries are.

i don't like bush's cowboy-up mentality-- pretty much all i do believe about his post 9/11 rhetoric is that these people are determined to kill us-- not because bush says so but because they say so. i'd shoot a guy in my own home if he posed an imminent threat to me, and i'd shoot him in his own home if i/the authorities couldn't otherwise intervene before he were in mine. it doesn't bother me that the united states government thinks that way. if these guys had a different line-- something along the lines of "leave us alone and we'll leave you alone" that would be fine with me. I hate most of what they stand for but i don't have the right to influence what they do in their own countries or homes if it doesn't involve harming people (me/us).  

i'm not celebrating his death... it's just that i don't see other viable options for dealing with a guy like this. i'd rather see rule of law prevail in a general sense-- but i think it would be a huge mistake to hold a secret trial and an equally damaging mistake to make a show trial. i don't like that we made him a martyr, i don't like that his body was dumped-- but considering that the alternatives are letting him live out his life on taxpayers' dime or going marcellus wallace on his ass, i think the best thing to do is shoot him in the head and deny his followers a shrine site.
Obviously what you are doing right now is called (in my upcoming book of psychology at least) validation. I think it's a normal thing to do. People will reply, say anything, and then you're gonna do what you were subconsciently thinking of doing all along.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5516
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +383
    • my site
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #66 on: May 06, 2011, 11:55:57 AM »
0

Well I for one disagree and not just about the semantics part of it ha.

You think they couldn't have arrested him because it would be a pre-election headache? Holy fuck I hope if I'm accused of a crime someday it won't be before an election or they'll just shoot me in the face and dump me in a lake. The rule of law doesn't take into account pre-elections or having to do complicated things (wrestle him our of Pakistan). Imagine the local courtrooms if this respect of the rule of law was everywhere:

''You honor, we COULD prove the accused is guilty, but it would be a headache to gather evidence. I propose we shoot him in the face there and then.''

YES it is tempting when we are SURE the guy did it but it's hard to find evidence. Yes I have been very mad in my life about seeing guilty people walk away because of lack evidence. But damn, the hardest and the right thing to do are often one and the same, as they say in sports movies.


you're talking about the rule of law caring or not caring as if it was the one that called and planned for the operation. I can use your quote thing to make you sound ridiculous too, check it out.

"mr. rule of law, how do you want this kinda illegal operation on sovereign soil carried out?"
"capture him so I can have a trial in a vacuum devoid of any legal or political ramifications, none that pas could see anyways."
"but sir in the past--"
"HOW DARE YOU BRING UP HISTORY BEFORE THE RULE OF LAW?!"
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

Pas

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • Respect: +10
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #67 on: May 06, 2011, 12:32:56 PM »
0
I disagree about the illegality of the operation if it was meant for capture. I'm not a lawyer or any kind of expert but I reckon Pakistan is an ally to the US in the war on terror officially. Sure, there is a lot of intrigue going on. But they could never openly resist the capture and transport of Bin Laden to the US. Unless a trip to the stone age is something that interest them.

So basically you take Bin Laden alive, transfer him in a top security facility and call Pakistan-dude and tell him what's going on.

At worst he would have been tried in Pakistan.

There's no denying that capture was a possible choice. The debate is more : what is the reason why it was not the choice that was taken. Some say it's practical reasons like pete and reinhold. Maybe it is so, maybe capture proved too dangerous and would stir too much shit. But surely it was still the right thing to do in my opinion.

Also, imagine all the crazy shit that trial would've let out!

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10936
  • Respect: +1342
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #68 on: May 06, 2011, 12:36:14 PM »
0
all i meant by the no respect for american legal system thing is that no matter how thoroughly or thoughtfully he were to be tried-- the whole thing would be viewed as a farce by people who don't already think the guy deserves the full extent of punishment. there's literally nothing we can do to get people aligned with bin laden to view him as guilty. he's responsible but correct in their view, so holding a trial is moot.

I think this is an even weaker argument. The purpose of trying him is not to put on a show for his supporters or to try to persuade them (should we even care?); it's to discover the some kind of truth and to seek justice.

as for the other point-- the dude has a standing army!

To call a loosely connected and increasingly decentralized terrorist network "a standing army" is a reckless exaggeration. And everything you're saying is still completely in sync with the Bush paradigm and implies that we should be in a perpetual state of war against anyone we think might harm us. How you don't recognize the insanity of that is baffling.

a global network of people with the stated goal of destroying the united states and everything it stands for, killing innocent civilians, and leveling our cities.

Take a look at what we actually know, and you'll find out that the "he won't stop until he's leveled all our cities!" talk is completely wrong. Bin Laden's goals concerning the United States were very specific.

In his writings, Bin Laden takes credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union. He says his goals were to (1) turn them into a self-destructive national security state and (2) force them to bankrupt themselves with endless military spending. He expressly and explicitly had the same goals for the United States, and we've done pretty well on our end to see that those goals are met, especially #2. He also had a third goal for the United States, and in a way his most personal goal--to shut down the U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, his homeland. Bush did just that in 2003.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Stefen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 7777
  • smh
  • Respect: +191
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #69 on: May 06, 2011, 01:16:42 PM »
0
You can't leave Osama Bin Laden alive. Not even if he was naked and laying face first on the ground surrendering. You have to kill him. It's a disaster if he's caught alive.

He's the only one I would say that about.
Let's go to a motel. We don't have to do anything -- we could just swim.

Pas

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • Respect: +10
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #70 on: May 06, 2011, 01:59:18 PM »
0
That makes no sense to me! Wouldn't you bust a nut seeing the guy in shackles, shamed and publicly humiliated?

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10936
  • Respect: +1342
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #71 on: May 06, 2011, 02:02:25 PM »
0
I'm certainly not mourning Bin Laden's death, and I don't think executing him was a significant moral crime, and I do get the practical reasoning. I would have rather tried him, but in some ways that is a moot point (as much as I agree with it), because it was never going to happen.

I was actually more upset by the semi-related things Reinhold was talking about, and his reasoning.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Stefen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 7777
  • smh
  • Respect: +191
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #72 on: May 06, 2011, 02:18:04 PM »
0
That makes no sense to me! Wouldn't you bust a nut seeing the guy in shackles, shamed and publicly humiliated?

No, not at all. I can put my bleeding heart and liberal ideals aside when it comes to Osama Bin Laden. Like I said, he's the only one I could do this for.

The cons of him being caught alive far outweigh the pros.
Let's go to a motel. We don't have to do anything -- we could just swim.

socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #73 on: May 06, 2011, 02:33:31 PM »
0


No, not at all. I can put my bleeding heart and liberal ideals aside when it comes to Osama Bin Laden. Like I said, he's the only one I could do this for.


I think the general sentiment opposed to this is that if one strongly believes in upholding laws when given the option you always put a man on trial, because terrorists win when your judicial system is broken down and actions are made based on emotion. Because really that's what the other side is doing, so it is sinking to their level. When you have strong beliefs, you must apply them in all circumstances because an emotionally invested judge/jury/executioner is not a sober minded one.  This is why laws were invented. So why make an exception to your philosophy stefen?

on that note, who knows what happened in that compound. I believe it's equally plausible killing bin ladin was in their minds as much as it's likely capture was their intent. if bin ladin did pull out his gun, then they did what was necessary. I guess we're left trusting what they've said, because we'll never know.
the one last hit that spent you...

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5516
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +383
    • my site
Re: Michael Moore
« Reply #74 on: May 06, 2011, 02:36:15 PM »
0
I'm not saying I don't want a trial; I'm saying the people in charge don't necessarily want a trial.



I disagree about the illegality of the operation if it was meant for capture. I'm not a lawyer or any kind of expert but I reckon Pakistan is an ally to the US in the war on terror officially. Sure, there is a lot of intrigue going on. But they could never openly resist the capture and transport of Bin Laden to the US. Unless a trip to the stone age is something that interest them.

So basically you take Bin Laden alive, transfer him in a top security facility and call Pakistan-dude and tell him what's going on.

At worst he would have been tried in Pakistan.

There's no denying that capture was a possible choice. The debate is more : what is the reason why it was not the choice that was taken. Some say it's practical reasons like pete and reinhold. Maybe it is so, maybe capture proved too dangerous and would stir too much shit. But surely it was still the right thing to do in my opinion.

Also, imagine all the crazy shit that trial would've let out!
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy