1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did it work or didn't it?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by CarltonBanks, May 20, 2011.

  1. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I don't believe I've argued that waterboarding is illegal. I have said it's torture; I fall into the camp that doesn't think it yields great intelligence and compromises our international position too much.

    However, what you call assassination, most other people call the disposal of the highest military target in an ongoing war. So to compare the two is a false equivalency, and it will always be a false equivalency no matter how many times it's repeated.
  2. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    But "torture" is illegal.
  3. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    You were asking me about my arguments, not the existing laws. Briefly, because I know you've been trying to sell this version for a month now: I believe killing Bin Laden was the prudent military course of action, and he was a military target and not a criminal or political one. So I do not call it an assassination.
  4. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    So do you consider Abbottabad an active battlefield?
  5. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I consider Bin Laden's house to have been an active battlefield. As he is no longer there, I do not consider it active; however, if we get irrefutable information that his successor has set up shop there, I expect us to treat that person the same way. At this point Anwar al-Awlaki's and Ayman al-Zawahiri's houses are active battlefields.
  6. CarltonBanks

    CarltonBanks New Member

    Boom, no matter how much it has been tap-danced around you have made your point. At this juncture it is an exercise in futility to try to get them to admit what we know they realize...but would never say even if they were being waterboarded.
  7. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    If you accept that Bin Laden is a soldier, what do you consider the prisoners at GITMO?

    If you consider them soldiers, then that would be in conflict with the liberal narrative over the past 8 years that claimed they were terrorists and should be afforded due process.
  8. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I laughed when I read that, but it's so obviously true that those who can't accept it just don't get it on any level.

    Are you glad Bin Laden is dead? If you are, you should be glad the US did what it had to to get the information it needed to assassinate him.

    It's common sense.
  9. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    But that's not a fait accompli, but a meme
  10. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Bin Laden was plotting an attack on Los Angeles.

    I don't care what we had to do to get him. I'm just glad we got him.

    If that sounds simplistic, so be it. I certainly would not want to be the one who tells our military what lines they should and should not cross when we're at war with terrorists who would gladly kill all of us given the chance.
  11. Mark McGwire

    Mark McGwire Member

    No. It's insane.
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    But what if - hypothetically - we could have gotten him five years earlier by not torturing? By putting our resources into other interrogation/information-gathering techniques?

    The ends don't always justify the means. For the last time, you have to evaluate the situation not by itself, but against other reasonable alternatives.

    That's more than just "common sense." It's science.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page