Osama bin Laden: Dead

[Gawdzilla Sama]

little old fart shitting in his pants

Hush, little boy, I'm talking about you, not to you.

[epepke]

Mmmmh, I admire Chomsky's work as a linguist, that does not mean I have to agree 100% with his politics

I don't, really, and I've done a lot of linguistics. Actually, it's kind of the same thing for me.

His pioneering work in structural linguistics was good, and we still use the Chomsky taxonomy for grammars. The idea of recognizing grammars was important. Good stuff, until the Transformational Grammar and the insistence that there was a uniquely human grammar engine that was merely mapped to the grammars of various languages, he jumped the shark.

Trouble is that by that time he had managed to assemble a cult that hung on his every word. This cult has held back work on grammar, especially more promising avenues such as HPSG, deep case structure (a la Fillmore), and even the more interesting discoveries from animal language.

It's the same thing with his politics. He can produce interesting and even perspicacious utterances, but he seems mostly interested in a cult of Chomsky, whereby acolytes have to swallow everything he says as gospel.

[sandinista]

little old fart shitting in his pants

Hush, little boy, I'm talking about you, not to you.

[Seth]

sandinista wrote:
I, personally, have no "theory" about any of this other than the official line of the US government is a lie.

That is your automatic response in any debate on international issues, so you have no need to state it anymore...

I wonder why, the US government is know for it's truth telling Pat Tillman, WMD, jessica lynch.

What leads you to the mistaken belief that the US government is obliged to tell the truth, much less the whole truth, to you or any other civilian, at all times?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

sandinista wrote:
I, personally, have no "theory" about any of this other than the official line of the US government is a lie.

That is your automatic response in any debate on international issues, so you have no need to state it anymore...

I wonder why, the US government is know for it's truth telling Pat Tillman, WMD, jessica lynch.

What leads you to the mistaken belief that the US government is obliged to tell the truth, much less the whole truth, to you or any other civilian, at all times?

Sandy wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass. And he's not interested in truth unless it furthers his paranoid agenda.

[Seth]

If OBL was deliberately assassinated, I don't particularly care. I don't think it sets up much of a precedence for cases where the US was not attacked on a 9-11 scale by a guy who declared war on the US and called for Americans and their allies, both civilians and military, to be killed wherever possible.

I'm not sorry he's dead, either, but I think that there are some worrying aspects about how it was done. It's not quite me saying that the ends can never justify the means, but that a valuble end might be accomplished by means which somewhat tarnish the achievement, and can have negative consequences down the line.

Take this scenario:

A Chinese activist has escaped from China, and is part of a movement of chinese dissidents actively working to get rid of the communist leadership. The Chinese government would like him to go away, permanently - he is charismatic and effective, and actively urging disobedience and even acts of violent resistance against the state. They learn that he is living under an assumed name in a suburb of Maniila. Their special forces repeat the American actions, brushing aside any Phillipine forces quite easily.

When criticised by the international community, all they have to do is say that, if it's good enough for America, it's good enough for them...

They would be evil totalitarian murderous communists, of course. You see, not all nations are morally equivalent. China is a despicable, evil Communist totalitarian state that has no moral right to exist at all. They still exist only because the have nukes and we cannot overthrow the Red Chinese Central Committee and free the people of China from Communist slavery through overt action. That's unfortunate for the Chinese people, but Red China is not the moral equal of the United States. Never has been, never will be.

[sandinista]

sandinista wrote:
I, personally, have no "theory" about any of this other than the official line of the US government is a lie.

That is your automatic response in any debate on international issues, so you have no need to state it anymore...

I wonder why, the US government is know for it's truth telling Pat Tillman, WMD, jessica lynch.

What leads you to the mistaken belief that the US government is obliged to tell the truth, much less the whole truth, to you or any other civilian, at all times?

I kind of make it a point not to answer your posts, but on this rare occasion I agree with you. I have no mistaken belief that the US government is obliged to tell the truth. On the contrary, I know that they are much more likely to fabricate the truth, lie, misrepresent, and generate propaganda to further their own purposes. That is exactly what I expect, which is why I don't believe a word coming out of that administrations mouth.

sandinista wrote:
I, personally, have no "theory" about any of this other than the official line of the US government is a lie.

That is your automatic response in any debate on international issues, so you have no need to state it anymore...

I wonder why, the US government is know for it's truth telling Pat Tillman, WMD, jessica lynch.

What leads you to the mistaken belief that the US government is obliged to tell the truth, much less the whole truth, to you or any other civilian, at all times?

Sandy wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass. And he's not interested in truth unless it furthers his paranoid agenda.

Little man, big mouth.

[Seth]

sandinista wrote:
I, personally, have no "theory" about any of this other than the official line of the US government is a lie.

That is your automatic response in any debate on international issues, so you have no need to state it anymore...

I wonder why, the US government is know for it's truth telling Pat Tillman, WMD, jessica lynch.

What leads you to the mistaken belief that the US government is obliged to tell the truth, much less the whole truth, to you or any other civilian, at all times?

I kind of make it a point not to answer your posts, but on this rare occasion I agree with you. I have no mistaken belief that the US government is obliged to tell the truth. On the contrary, I know that they are much more likely to fabricate the truth, lie, misrepresent, and generate propaganda to further their own purposes. That is exactly what I expect, which is why I don't believe a word coming out of that administrations mouth.

Which you're entitled to do. Most people think that they are entitled to know everything the Administration knows, and that they have a right to pass judgment on what the Administration does in the prosecution of a war. They are wrong. It's perfectly commonplace for governments to put the best light on their actions in a war, because they need to maintain public support and morale.

It's one thing to tell deliberate lies, however, like Nixon did, and another thing entirely to conceal the facts in the interests of national and military security.

Moreover, any changes in the story about Osama's death can easily be attributed to erroneous news reports and the "fog of war" in which the details released early do not necessarily accurately reflect all the actual details, but the reason is merely logistical and not intentional. If you've never been in battle, you won't understand. If you have, you will.

[.Morticia.]

If OBL was deliberately assassinated, I don't particularly care. I don't think it sets up much of a precedence for cases where the US was not attacked on a 9-11 scale by a guy who declared war on the US and called for Americans and their allies, both civilians and military, to be killed wherever possible.

I'm not sorry he's dead, either, but I think that there are some worrying aspects about how it was done. It's not quite me saying that the ends can never justify the means, but that a valuble end might be accomplished by means which somewhat tarnish the achievement, and can have negative consequences down the line.

Take this scenario:

A Chinese activist has escaped from China, and is part of a movement of chinese dissidents actively working to get rid of the communist leadership. The Chinese government would like him to go away, permanently - he is charismatic and effective, and actively urging disobedience and even acts of violent resistance against the state. They learn that he is living under an assumed name in a suburb of Maniila. Their special forces repeat the American actions, brushing aside any Phillipine forces quite easily.

When criticised by the international community, all they have to do is say that, if it's good enough for America, it's good enough for them...

They would be evil totalitarian murderous communists, of course. You see, not all nations are morally equivalent. China is a despicable, evil Communist totalitarian state that has no moral right to exist at all. They still exist only because the have nukes and we cannot overthrow the Red Chinese Central Committee and free the people of China from Communist slavery through overt action. That's unfortunate for the Chinese people, but Red China is not the moral equal of the United States. Never has been, never will be.

SEth, you're definitely toning down and have learnt some things lately.

Now you don't state that totalitarianism and communism are the same things, otherwise you wouldn't have to use both words.

And yes, china is evil. They use Stalinist totalitarianism to facilitate their Capitalist economy. What a nasty nasty combination.

[sandinista]

Which you're entitled to do. Most people think that they are entitled to know everything the Administration knows, and that they have a right to pass judgment on what the Administration does in the prosecution of a war. They are wrong. It's perfectly commonplace for governments to put the best light on their actions in a war, because they need to maintain public support and morale.

It's one thing to tell deliberate lies, however, like Nixon did, and another thing entirely to conceal the facts in the interests of national and military security.

Moreover, any changes in the story about Osama's death can easily be attributed to erroneous news reports and the "fog of war" in which the details released early do not necessarily accurately reflect all the actual details, but the reason is merely logistical and not intentional. If you've never been in battle, you won't understand. If you have, you will.

Exactly, which is why it surprises me...well, surprise may be the wrong word, that some people (certainly not all) are so quick to believe the government line. Warfare is all about manipulation and deceit, whether it be international armies or one on one fights. The Tillman story is a prime example of a deliberate lie. I would disagree that the reasons are logistical and not intentional though. Propaganda during wartime is almost entirely intentional whether it is intended to manipulate the public, the enemy, or to advance national interests. Anyone that puts stock in media reports provided by the government during wartime is naive.

[Seth]

If OBL was deliberately assassinated, I don't particularly care. I don't think it sets up much of a precedence for cases where the US was not attacked on a 9-11 scale by a guy who declared war on the US and called for Americans and their allies, both civilians and military, to be killed wherever possible.

I'm not sorry he's dead, either, but I think that there are some worrying aspects about how it was done. It's not quite me saying that the ends can never justify the means, but that a valuble end might be accomplished by means which somewhat tarnish the achievement, and can have negative consequences down the line.

Take this scenario:

A Chinese activist has escaped from China, and is part of a movement of chinese dissidents actively working to get rid of the communist leadership. The Chinese government would like him to go away, permanently - he is charismatic and effective, and actively urging disobedience and even acts of violent resistance against the state. They learn that he is living under an assumed name in a suburb of Maniila. Their special forces repeat the American actions, brushing aside any Phillipine forces quite easily.

When criticised by the international community, all they have to do is say that, if it's good enough for America, it's good enough for them...

They would be evil totalitarian murderous communists, of course. You see, not all nations are morally equivalent. China is a despicable, evil Communist totalitarian state that has no moral right to exist at all. They still exist only because the have nukes and we cannot overthrow the Red Chinese Central Committee and free the people of China from Communist slavery through overt action. That's unfortunate for the Chinese people, but Red China is not the moral equal of the United States. Never has been, never will be.

SEth, you're definitely toning down and have learnt some things lately.

Now you don't state that totalitarianism and communism are the same things, otherwise you wouldn't have to use both words.

And yes, china is evil. They use Stalinist totalitarianism to facilitate their Capitalist economy. What a nasty nasty combination.

Not all totalitarians are Communists, but all Communists are totalitarians. Furthermore, all Marxist socialists are totalitarians.

[.Morticia.]

yes dear

[Svartalf]

Is the sarcasmeter broken, or did you just make the gauge go through the roof Comrade Morticia?d

[.Morticia.]

Is the sarcasmeter broken, or did you just make the gauge go through the roof Comrade Morticia?

I might have

[sandinista]

Is the sarcasmeter broken, or did you just make the gauge go through the roof Comrade Morticia?

I might have

Looks like it