Fuck you, it's another Osama thread.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This thread is suddenly

[Don Coyote]

I have no idea what the FUCK this is, but I like it. Carry on my good gentlespags.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

alas, RWHN will never see that pun now...

[Freeky]

I dun geddit.

[Thurnez Isa]

well I think this guy answered all my questions.
Sometimes the simple answer is one right in front of yours face

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2011/05/journal-ding-dong-osamas-dead.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FrzYD+%28Global+Guerrillas%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Too little too late.  A couple of trillion $$ and ten years late.  Too little in that we got a corpse instead of a captive, when there was an opportunity to take him alive (or "mostly dead" if you get the reference).  In all, we got more of a PR stunt than an actual historical event.  Why?  A trial could be cathartic and that is dangerous.  It would reveal the gap between demonization and reality.  It would also deflate the fear bubble.  Fear was/is so useful in making the defense and homeland security dollars flow (at levels beyond reason) and perpetuating the government's emergency powers.

[Cain]

Hey, "symbolic victory" tards.  The Taliban just advanced on Kandahar today, probably wiped out the city's internal security agency and have the Governors compound surrounded, while people are fleeing the city in droves.  Rockets are being fired into the streets, the local police station has been demolished and snipers have already had to take out two suicide bombers.

This is what we call a "material failure".  It trumps symbolic victory through the property of existing in reality.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hey, "symbolic victory" tards.  The Taliban just advanced on Kandahar today, probably wiped out the city's internal security agency and have the Governors compound surrounded, while people are fleeing the city in droves.  Rockets are being fired into the streets, the local police station has been demolished and snipers have already had to take out two suicide bombers.

This is what we call a "material failure".  It trumps symbolic victory through the property of existing in reality.

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[The Commander]

Yeah, that was kinda my point. I mean really, the drone attacks, the door to door firefights, the bombings... its all sanctioned murder. We just call it war so we can feel better about it.

As far as I can tell, sanctioned murder has existed as long as the Rule of Law in every civilization (Maybe there are some exceptions, I dunno). I am reminded of Prof La Paz from the book 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', he argued that every individual is completely responsible for their actions. The man who pulls the trigger is guilty of murder, be he a soldier or a gangster. following 'orders' doesn't change the fact.

Indeed, as far as I can tell the biggest difference between the thousands of 'sanctioned murders' in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the 'sanctioned murder' of Bin Laden is that in the case of Bin Lade, we didn't really have innocent casualties.

What's better, killing a specific bad guy, or killing a bunch of bad guys and a bunch of innocent people? I mean, neither sit real comfortable with me, but in terms of human life it seems kinda clear...

Also, if the police chased down some wanted murderer, busted into his house and he refused to surrender (and had weapons nearby), how many people would be outraged when the cops killed him?

Reading this, the question that comes to mind is "Is use of mass force never justified?" 

I'm not trying to pick an arguement on the subject.  I totally respect that position. Just curious if that is ultimately your stance. Perhaps I am misreading your conclusions.

[Slyph]

Cain, I was more or less going to ask you the same thing, although I was going to say, "What would you say to the "Clash of Civilisations" opined tools?" or "What Would Hegel Do?"

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hey, "symbolic victory" tards.  The Taliban just advanced on Kandahar today, probably wiped out the city's internal security agency and have the Governors compound surrounded, while people are fleeing the city in droves.  Rockets are being fired into the streets, the local police station has been demolished and snipers have already had to take out two suicide bombers.

This is what we call a "material failure".  It trumps symbolic victory through the property of existing in reality.

You have to remember, Cain, that I don't have the human species' best interests at heart.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh shit, I was gonna say something about those two Imams who were removed from a plane after the pilot refused to fly it citing the claim that "some of the passengers might be uncomfortable"

and the irony that the Imams were on their way to a conference about bigotry against Muslims

but I am super tired and I lost the link.

[MMIX]

Oh shit, I was gonna say something about those two Imams who were removed from a plane after the pilot refused to fly it citing the claim that "some of the passengers might be uncomfortable"

and the irony that the Imams were on their way to a conference about bigotry against Muslims

but I am super tired and I lost the link.

you probably mean this one

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/airline-pilot-refuses-to-fly-with-muslim-men-on-board.php?ref=dcblt

[Cain]

Cain, I was more or less going to ask you the same thing, although I was going to say, "What would you say to the "Clash of Civilisations" opined tools?" or "What Would Hegel Do?"

Well, firstly, most people never read Huntingdon that well.  His argument was retarded, but not as retarded as some people made out.  He was arguing that the civilizational level had replaced the state level of analysis in international affairs - an attempt to explain the outbreak of intra-state violence in the post-Cold War world that most Realists never even bothered to try and give reasons for.  His reasoning is faulty, but that is due to the limits of Realist thinking and his own prejudices (see: Huntingdon's ranting about Latinos Catholicizing the USA shortly before he died, for example).

Secondly, I'd point out his coding for the various different civilizations is totally whacked.  Apparently Israel is part of "Judeo-Christian" Western Culture, despite the large influx of Jews descended from those who lived in Eastern Europe, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic and the Russian Empire/Soviet Union.  If anything, Israel derives more from those cultures than, say, America or France.  And has gone even more in that direction as Russians with dubious or questionable Jewish ancestery fled to Israel and bought passports with their fortunes.  That is just one example off the top of my head.

The coding is even worse when it comes to most of Africa.  African conflicts can be seen through an Islamic/Christian lense...but that is because Colonial powers, namely Britain and France, spread Christianity to tribes living near the coast or major river trade routes, whereas Islam spread among inland tribes, who sent their own missionaries through territory they knew better than the invaders.  As such, most conflicts in Africa are between different, if related, tribes.  The recent Ivory Coast conflict is a perfect example of this - it was widely explained in the American press as a "Muslim North vs Christian South" conflict, whereas religious affiliation is more linked to tribal affiliation than true conviction - more the Balkans or Northern Ireland than the Clash of the Civilizations (I was going to say Afghanistan there, as the contrasting example, but most Afghans are the same kind of Muslim, while belonging to different ethnic groups, and so properly belong alongside Northern Ireland and the Balkans, even taking into account the Taliban.  After all, Croatia had the Ustashe).

This seems to hold generally for post-Cold War conflicts. The Clash of the Civilizations is terrible for explaining state on state or international state on sub-state group violence.  America involves itself in the Middle East not because it is a Christian power threatened by Muslim powers, but because the Middle East has no military power which can compare with it, and so it can generate easy military victories there against mostly phantom threats and justify keeping its military spending high and its profitable alliances in place.  Most conflicts around the world take place between genetically closely related people fighting for control over resources, to secede or to ethnically cleanse territory as a prelude to state-building.  Some of these conflicts take place on what Huntingdon considers religious-civilizational fault lines, but ethno-resource fault lines would almost certainly prove a better predictive model.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh shit, I was gonna say something about those two Imams who were removed from a plane after the pilot refused to fly it citing the claim that "some of the passengers might be uncomfortable"

and the irony that the Imams were on their way to a conference about bigotry against Muslims

but I am super tired and I lost the link.

you probably mean this one

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/airline-pilot-refuses-to-fly-with-muslim-men-on-board.php?ref=dcblt

Thanks, yes.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yeah, that was kinda my point. I mean really, the drone attacks, the door to door firefights, the bombings... its all sanctioned murder. We just call it war so we can feel better about it.

As far as I can tell, sanctioned murder has existed as long as the Rule of Law in every civilization (Maybe there are some exceptions, I dunno). I am reminded of Prof La Paz from the book 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', he argued that every individual is completely responsible for their actions. The man who pulls the trigger is guilty of murder, be he a soldier or a gangster. following 'orders' doesn't change the fact.

Indeed, as far as I can tell the biggest difference between the thousands of 'sanctioned murders' in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the 'sanctioned murder' of Bin Laden is that in the case of Bin Lade, we didn't really have innocent casualties.

What's better, killing a specific bad guy, or killing a bunch of bad guys and a bunch of innocent people? I mean, neither sit real comfortable with me, but in terms of human life it seems kinda clear...

Also, if the police chased down some wanted murderer, busted into his house and he refused to surrender (and had weapons nearby), how many people would be outraged when the cops killed him?

Reading this, the question that comes to mind is "Is use of mass force never justified?" 

I'm not trying to pick an argument on the subject.  I totally respect that position. Just curious if that is ultimately your stance. Perhaps I am misreading your conclusions.

I am not a pacifist, sometimes force can be justified. However, I'm saying that mass force doesn't get a discount on murder in bulk. Its just a lot of individuals murdering individuals and each of those murders will have to be justified by the people responsible for that murder, from the solider to the top leader.

I prefer the path of fewest murders, whenever such a thing is possible.