I just discovered this Derren Brown chap.. couple of things of his on the sift, but I thought this one was really interesting.

AfroNinja is in the video.. this is the full video.

"without peanuts or peanut products.." frickin' hilarious. Just had to watch it again.

Brilliant

Look, O'Reilly is an arrogant ass, but he is right on in this. This woman's position is so incredibly ridiculous, his outrage is quite justified.

*discard

The link as it comes up on my page is:

http://www.videosift.com/%3Cbr%20/%3E%20%3Ca%20href=

Man, this debate is just so silly. Of course we should research every available avenue. I think both sides agree with that, actually. The problem is that this debate is actually about something else entirely: abortion. A perfect example of how one unresolved issue effects many other issues. It is way beyond the time that this abortion issue gets resolved, but neither side is willing to yield.

How about a compromise abortion policy?

Neither side is going to agree on whether life begins at conception or not. I don't think it does, and I'm a religious man. Is a miscarriage an abortion by G-d? Well, if G-d can do an abortion, so can we. But let's compromise on the timeframe. We all agree that a life has ended when the heart has stopped beating, why not just all agree that life has started when the heart starts beating? Or use brain-activity as the test. Or just pick some arbitrary number of months, 3 or 4 or 5. Or perhaps up until the time when the fetus would actually be viable and be able to live even outside the womb with all the help from modern medical technology. Some arguments are just not worth continuing. Let us agree to disagree between the sides and then find an acceptable compromise.

For the religious folk: You don't know when the soul enters the body and you have no basis on which to make such a claim. For sure we should take every effort to preserve human life, but is a zygote a human? You don't know when it makes the transition from potential-human to actual human, nor do I, nor does anybody. Stop being so intransigent and let's find a real solution.

For the non-religious folk: You don't know either, so find some compromise timeframe. For certain partial-birth is inexcusable. What about the week before delivery when it could have been delivered by C-section? And the week before that? Keep working your way back and at some point you'll find the gray line - there's the point at which a compromise can be constructed.

To all: I read the first 30-40 of the posts here, but I couldn't bring myself to read all the rest. If this has been said before, then plese forgive my interruption.

Oh, and I forgot to add...

It's not just a hypothetical. It has yielded tangible results and the prevention of several attacks, and that's just from the one case that we know of: Kaled Sheik Mohammed. On the moral question, would it have been better to refrain from the "coercive interrogation" and let the attacks happen?

What is more moral, preventing the murder of hundreds or thousands or refraining from coercive techniques like this one?

Had the attacks not been prevented and you learned that there was a KSM type that had information that could have stopped the attacks in advance, would you or anybody else be content with the argument that the attacks could not be prevented because we wanted to maintain our sense of moral superiority and refrain from the use of coercive interrogation?

And we only know about KSM because it was leaked. How many other attacks were prevented due to the use of coercive interrogation on other jihadis that we don't even know about?

Again, we're not talking about people arrested on suspicion - we're talking about jihadis that have been captured on the actual battlefield.

Hey LB, that link doesn't work, but I'd still like to visit there.. mind posting it again?

theo47,

I agree, they need to be an actual jihadist and have relevant information, which is exactly what I said: "However, if it is beyond a reasonable doubt that this or that particular jihadist has information about an active terror cell, then I think there is the moral latitude to suspend consideration of his human rights for a period of time until the actual lives and limbs of the innocent are secured."

I think there was a need to come up with some sort of justification for Iraq. There was justification, but perhaps not rising to the level that required an invasion. But I think that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were strategic and that they were both an absolute necessity to create strategic depth against Iran. My estimation of the situation goes like this:

1. 9/11
2. World terrorist threat assessment is updated and given top priority.
3. At the top of the threat chart is Iran, the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world run by armeggedon-scenario death-cult religious fanatics.
4. Iran has modern and very effective weaponry and is seeking the nuclear edge.
5. Iran has a 500,000-man standing army and another 700,000 in reserve.
6. Immediate invasion of Iran is not even an option on the table, because the only route of invasion would be through a small littoral region - a clear lack of strategic depth.
7. Additionally problematic is that fact that the states on both sides of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) are both hostile as well, though significantly less of a threat. But if Iran is the first invasion target, all three states coalesce into a single fighting force.
8. Decision is made to take down the two lesser threats first, and simulateously create strategic depth for an invasion of Iran.
9. Invasions of the two lesser threats has to be "sold" to the people, but more importantly, "sold" to the Iranians - gambit would not work if Iran saw the invasion of its border countries as an attempt to surround them.
10. Afghanistan had actual jihadist training camps and was a clear staging ground for terrorists - easy sell.
11. Iraq was largely contained and weak, but was a necessary sell.
12. We now arrive at the enpoint of the overall strategy and have Iran surrounded.

I don't know if an invasion of Iran will occur or not, but if it is necessary, there are now three very large fronts from which to attack. At the minimum, there is at least some containment on Iran, similar to how the Marshall Plan contained the USSR. The key difference between the USSR and Iran is that the USSR were not religious fanatics bent on bringing about their version of armageddon, so in the case of Iran, I'm not sure that containment of any sort will be effective.

ultimateforce,

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether we're better than them if we're dead. We're not talking about virtues and morals, but rather, survival.

Upvote... not because I'm against the tactic, but because this actually portrays the tactic realistically. Using this tactic and weighing it against the threat (in limited circumstances) of horrific acts of terror, I don't have a problem with it and no sane person should. The jihadists don't care about your human rights, but that doesn't give us the moral opening to trample on their human rights. However, if it is beyond a reasonable doubt that this or that particular jihadist has information about an active terror cell, then I think there is the moral latitude to suspend consideration of his human rights for a period of time until the actual lives and limbs of the innocent are secured.

Derschowitz makes a good point about how it should be authorized, I think that's the way to go.

The opposing parody on the original shitty RNC ad.

Parody on the original RNC ad that is supposed to be sexist (http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=17981)... I still don't understand how the original is racist or sexist, but that doesn't change the fact that it's crass and over the line.

that was fantastic... where can I see more of this?