Terrence Moonseed FTW!

These are just unvarnished genius.

*quality
*news

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by NetRunner.

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.

>> ^NetRunner:

These are just unvarnished genius.


I'm surprised. Most bloodthirsty progressives who cheered the assassination of Osama want to forget about the trampling of a human's rights and move on.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
These are just unvarnished genius.

I'm surprised. Most bloodthirsty progressives who cheered the assassination of Osama want to forget about the trampling of a human's rights and move on.


You're surprised because you're completely out of touch with reality. You think things like "bloodthirsty progressives" exist, not because you've found any, but because it's an article of faith with you that all of us are evil.

You're so intent on trying to prove your prejudices right, that you entirely ignore what progressives actually say, including (and possibly especially) me.

I'm ultimately okay with bin Laden getting killed this way, but I'm not filled with joy about it either. I still have a ton of concerns and reservations about the way the US conducts itself internationally, and the way our society likes to pretend we're more just and honorable than we really are.

If you really cared about these things, you would reach out to progressives and work together with them on this. On the other hand, if all you really care about is trying to win some sort of zero-sum political battle, just keep acting the way you are.

werd
fronted

Wow, that really was some *quality there... top notch

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by spoco2.

Didn't your idol, Milton Friedman, cheer the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Chileans, so that he could force his brutal economic system on an unwilling Chilean public? I should think the death of an international criminal hardly compares to Friedmanite genocide.

Why the double standard?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
These are just unvarnished genius.

I'm surprised. Most bloodthirsty progressives who cheered the assassination of Osama want to forget about the trampling of a human's rights and move on.

@dystopianfuturetoday, really? That's your analogous response? To compare an economist's role in fixing Chile's hyperinflation to a state sanctioned assassination that set a dangerous precedent of skirting the basic right to due process?

Bloodthirsty progressive needs to rethink his arguments.

Is it because Osama Bin Laden was rich and the murdered Chilean women and children were poor? Is your double standard about Freidmanite genocide a class issue, or is it just more of your typical everyday partisanship?

>> ^blankfist:

@dystopianfuturetoday, really? That's your analogous response? To compare an economist's role in fixing Chile's hyperinflation to a state sanctioned assassination that set a dangerous precedent of skirting the basic right to due process?
Bloodthirsty progressive needs to rethink his arguments.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Is it because Osama Bin Laden was rich and the murdered Chilean women and children were poor? Is your double standard about Freidmanite genocide a class issue, or is it just more of your typical everyday partisanship?
>> ^blankfist:
@dystopianfuturetoday, really? That's your analogous response? To compare an economist's role in fixing Chile's hyperinflation to a state sanctioned assassination that set a dangerous precedent of skirting the basic right to due process?
Bloodthirsty progressive needs to rethink his arguments.



lol

This is probably the worst attempt at building an argument you've made on the Sift since I've known you.

You are really dodging the Friedman issue. Why is it that you would bemoan the loss of Osama bin Laden, yet you have no problem "lolling" off the Friedman/Pinochet genocide of tens of thousands of human beings? There was nothing voluntary about those deaths. Nice utopia.

A smart, funny, memorable, and engaging way to present a story, making it probably one of the best ways to ask a good question. Not to mention a killer beat. This guy just got a new fan.

As to the question:
Since we are not bound by Godwin's Law I can (,I hope,) use WWII analogies.

I would argue that during a war, the number one priority is to kill your enemy. No one would argue that the assassination plots against Hitler (well over a dozen) should not have been attempted just so that he could be brought to trial to stand for his crimes. If you have the chance to kill a hostile target, you take it.

The Nuremberg Trials were for Nazis who deliberately surrendered. Since they were no longer enemy combatants they had the right to a trial to determine their guilt or innocence. If Osama had deliberately surrendered then he would have had the same benefit. I would only be outraged if he had been killed at the US military base right after his surrender. That is the scenario that would truly have me in fear of my civil liberties.

Would I have preferred that they took him alive? Absolutely, if it were possible with no risk. But you cannot place unreasonable constraints upon the men who are already risking their lives to bring Osama to justice. Having just one dead soldier who takes a bullet while trying to subdue someone who actively wants to kill you is not worth it.

This does not set a dangerous precedent of where we will no longer accept surrenders and bring people to justice in trials for war crimes. This was a military engagement, where two sides met in combat. Just because we were lucky enough to apprehend their leader does not negate the fact it was combat.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You are really dodging the Friedman issue. Why is it that you would bemoan the loss of Osama bin Laden, yet you have no problem "lolling" off the Friedman/Pinochet genocide of tens of thousands of human beings? There was nothing voluntary about those deaths. Nice utopia.


Dodging? No, it was just a clumsy segue, and quite frankly a lazy attempt at misdirection. If you want to talk Friedman, then we can do that, but let's not jump into that headlong when we're already talking about those of you who applauded the usurping of a man's basic rights.

It has nothing to do with Osama personally. I don't care that he's dead, and his capture had little affect on my life (as I knew it wouldn't). It also had little or no effect on the economy and the restoration of our liberties (also as I knew it wouldn't). If you think state sanctioned assassinations are a way of bringing people to justice, then by all means please keep bringing up Friedman as a distraction in the hopes I take your bait. But I won't.

I'm going to continue to rub your collective noses in this shit. Because you may believe this has something to do with "who" had their rights encroached upon, but it doesn't. It has to do with who decides when rights can be skirted.

@dag, why not stand up and be counted instead of slinking about in the wings? If you have something to say, throw your hat in the ring.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Slinking about in the wings? Something to say? I've got 14,114 comments here - I've had a few things to say. I don't think you like my voting record - that's what you're really saying. Peace and love.
>> ^blankfist:

@dag, why not stand up and be counted instead of slinking about in the wings? If you have something to say, throw your hat in the ring.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
These are just unvarnished genius.

I'm surprised. Most bloodthirsty progressives who cheered the assassination of Osama want to forget about the trampling of a human's rights and move on.


i love the term bloodthirsty progressive
its exactly the type of term a conservative likes to use... 2 contradictory words
i was sickened by images of people celebrating at 12-2am, with their children in tow mind you, surrounding the white house, when this news broke

vengeance != justice
and
that type of response was a complete slap in the face of anyone who'd consider western society more civil than those arab nations where they drag the US flag in the streets and burn it

alot is revealed about the quality of a nation/people when they lose, as the US did during 9/11...
but just as much is revealed when a nation "wins"

what happened to the rule of law? got drowned out by "we went into Pakistan without their knowledge, and murdered someone instead of bringing them to trial. U S A! U S A! U S A!"

>> ^blankfist:

I'm going to continue to rub your collective noses in this shit. Because you may believe this has something to do with "who" had their rights encroached upon, but it doesn't. It has to do with who decides when rights can be skirted.


Since you're so in love with telling lies about people you have political disagreements with this argument, why not articulate it fully, at least?

You're saying...what?

That wars are bad? Progressives agree.

That we're not at war? Afraid we are. Congress voted on it and everything.

That progressives are happy about being at war? Have you listened to anything we've ever said in the last ten fucking years?

Are you saying that morally or legally we had no right to declare war on Al Qaeda after 9/11?

Are you saying hat even if we're at war, we shouldn't fire a shot at anyone, because they deserve a trial first?

Also, why is the killing of OBL the focal point for these concerns? Why not someone less culpable that US forces have killed?

@NetRunner, I'm saying that progressives were cheering the skirting of due process. I probably mentioned that at least two or three times in this thread alone, not to mention in other discussions on this site, so I'm not sure why you're confused.

When I bring this up on the Sift, the bloodthirsty progressives swarm in like flies to honey and build the flimsy straw man argument that I'm somehow standing up for Osama. The "who" in this scenario isn't the point; the "what" is. When government can side step a fundamental right one time and it's cheered by the people, it becomes precedent.

If anything, the progressives should've been in front of the White House demanding Obama step down for his kill order. Even the Nazis had their day in court.

@blankfist Why the hypocrisy?

Nazis had their day in court AFTER they were fully defited, both morally and physically. Al Quida hasn't been defited yet, as an organization and ideology. The courts would have dragged on and opened many cans of worms before an actual victory is achieved.

Give historic example of trial when the war was still going on.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, I'm saying that progressives were cheering the skirting of due process. I probably mentioned that at least two or three times in this thread alone, not to mention in other discussions on this site, so I'm not sure why you're confused.
When I bring this up on the Sift, the bloodthirsty progressives swarm in like flies to honey and build the flimsy straw man argument that I'm somehow standing up for Osama. The "who" in this scenario isn't the point; the "what" is. When government can side step a fundamental right one time and it's cheered by the people, it becomes precedent.
If anything, the progressives should've been in front of the White House demanding Obama step down for his kill order. Even the Nazis had their day in court.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@blankfist Why the hypocrisy?


Changing the subject again so we can go back to beating your straw man?

>> ^theali:

Nazis had their day in court AFTER they were fully defited, both morally and physically. Al Quida hasn't been defited yet, as an organization and ideology. The courts would have dragged on and opened many cans of worms before an actual victory is achieved.
Give historic example of trial when the war was still going on.
>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, I'm saying that progressives were cheering the skirting of due process. I probably mentioned that at least two or three times in this thread alone, not to mention in other discussions on this site, so I'm not sure why you're confused.
When I bring this up on the Sift, the bloodthirsty progressives swarm in like flies to honey and build the flimsy straw man argument that I'm somehow standing up for Osama. The "who" in this scenario isn't the point; the "what" is. When government can side step a fundamental right one time and it's cheered by the people, it becomes precedent.
If anything, the progressives should've been in front of the White House demanding Obama step down for his kill order. Even the Nazis had their day in court.



So one reason we have a necessary need to forego the right to a fair trial is because the courts would've lingered on and "opened a can of worms"? I guess the suspension of Habeas Corpus in GITMO is also a necessary tool to "defit" Al Qaeda?

And there wasn't a kill order put out on Hitler, as far as I know. And he was recent history's most reviled mass murderer. The point is and always has been that due process is important even for the most hated, because the second we allow the government to side-step a very important human right for popular opinion, we've welcomed that selective tyranny onto any one of us.

@blankfist So long as you are willing to make excuses for capitalist authoritarianism, denial will always be your master.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@blankfist So long as you are willing to make excuses for capitalist authoritarianism, denial will always be your master.


Yes, because that's exactly what we were discussing here. *rolls eyes*

This is obviously the only thing you're really upset about. It's also the only thing I think you actually disagree with liberals on, once I overlook your usual straw men and Tinkerbell theory.
>> ^blankfist:

If anything, the progressives should've been in front of the White House demanding Obama step down