bmags

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2011 -> 05:54 PM) There is no win for Pakistan in this scenario. The only other possibility is that they are lying their asses off to their people to keep them from thinking that they turned Bin Laden over in an attempt to prevent further reprisals. True. But I'm not sure how much we should expect from pakistan. Their people DO NOT LIKE THE US yet their leaders at least comply with us and don't declare war on us while we do missile strikes into their country.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2011 -> 05:51 PM) If this is true, the tip that led them down the right path did come from this. They wouldn't have gotten the chance to get down that road without the name of the courier. From what I've read they got the name of the Courier thru phone tapping and other means.

Maybe. But it's a strange way of going about that. But like I said, I'm not sure it matters. The bulk of the reason we got OBL had nothing to do with torture, and I will not be convinced that we needed waterboarding to acquire this info.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 4, 2011 -> 05:23 PM) Both of these statements are accurate given what Panetta said. No, they aren't.

Agreed. I keep hoping they'll flip the switch. That said, my god, KG this could be your last playoffs! Punish those dudes that are punking you

if anyone makes a soap.com order whose never used it before, you can put in: BEN.3578 and they'll take off 20% of your first order. And they'll donate like $10 to charity in my name or something.

The American way.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 4, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) Are you reading the news at all? The planners of this gave it a 60-80% chance that he was there on the day of the mission. They didn't KNOW anything. They suspected that someone important was there, and they guessed it was him, and only since last August. So we had gathered all this evidence and tracked a courier there, and we only were 80% certain. That doesn't prove any point about why the pakistanis should have known. I'm not saying they didn't. But I'm not so sure they were so obviously hiding that they knew his whereabouts.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 4, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) Also, no one is saying the waterboarding led directly to Bin Laden, so I dunno who you're referring to there. I don't understand your point then. They were waterboarded. We KNOW the US tortured people. Whether or not that was a means to effectively gaining information, or whether or not that even matters, is a different point. I'm against torture whether it's useful or not. It's a disgusting stain on this country.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 4, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) Personally, I have nothing against advanced techniques in interviewing that can lead to critical information. I love when Jack Bauer shoots terrorists in the leg. But seriously, if it's vital information that is needed, tough words aren't going to make a f***ing difference. Well, neither is tough force, many studies indicate. The "ticking time bomb" narrative we feed on is not something to base policy on. There's no evidence it works any better than normal interrogations, but does make it incredibly difficult to prosecute them, because any civilized country knows that evidence obtained during torture is usually s***. See: Chicago, 1980 police dept.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 4, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) That's not clear enough for you? Also, no one is saying the waterboarding led directly to Bin Laden, so I dunno who you're referring to there. No, because here are two examples, that dictate two different things: We got the information from the detainees thru waterboarding. The detainees who gave us the information had been waterboarded. Just because they might have been waterboarded, does not dictate that the information came from that means.

so, this is cool:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1766790 In his paper he finds that retaliatory violence is less common after the removal of Tier 1 leaders than Midlevel Tier 3 Leaders.

We knew he was there for "a while"

that doesn't clarify whether the detainees had waterboarding done to them or whether the info came thru waterboarding. Nonetheless the idea that this guys name came after torture and we showed up on its doorstep is stupid.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 3, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) It just bugs me that these analysts say "OH THEY DRAFTED THAT GUY 10 PICKS EARLIER THAN HE SHOULD HAVE" (exaggerating, but barely) when really it's a bit of crapshoot too. So many teams were chastised last year for passing on Jimmy Clausen, but those teams look pretty smart now, don't they? Teams were dumb for passing on Matt Leinart too. Teams were smart for passing on Chris Johnson and Jamaal Charles, but really, neither may be nearly as good in a different system. That's the main point that bugs me - these guys (generally) look at all of these players and teams in a vacuum and don't consider their actual preferences. This isn't a video game though, and you can't just plug and play these players and everything works out fine. Some will fit better in specific schemes than they will others, and that covers more than just a QB running an offense or a linebacker in a particular defense. Three different teams had Big Mike Williams and nobody got anything out of him, and then his old coach Pete Carroll comes in and he has a pretty damn good season. How about that? Everything I've read about Stefen Wisniewski suggests that he is a mauling run blocker. The Raiders were thin on their offensive line, the focus of their offense is going to be to running the ball, and they used their top pick on someone to help them out specifically in that area. That seems smart, even if they did "draft him a round or two too early," doesn't it? I've been saying this speech for a long time. Mel Kiper has given the bears great draft greats for most of the decade. We've drafted TERRIBLY.

we're f***ed. But yeah, they were hitting htose shots completely blind last night. You have to tip your cap to them.

Whoa, this is crazy http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/...unterterrorism/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2011 -> 07:37 PM) It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were people wanting to hit this compound months ago, based on what we've already heard. The reports are that the CIA "Red teamed" their intel early last week...took everything they had to a fresh set of eyes to get them to agree that independent analysts agreed UBL was on site, and that was the final straw. I don't doubt there was a lot of pushing to move quicker on this. And it was a risky operation, so I don't doubt there was a lot of push back on that. But there should be.

lol

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 3, 2011 -> 04:37 PM) Its either that or they are worst f***ing spy agency on the planet. I mean worse than Spy vs Spy who always let the other guy blow him up. If that is the case, they need to shutdown and return the tax money that is funding them, because they are a complete fail. yeah, but it did take US 4 years from really honing in on the courier to finalize this, and i assume they aren't as good as us. There have been fugitives in the US who've also lasted this long and pakistan is far less developed.

are we totally sold that ISI was complicit?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 3, 2011 -> 03:29 PM) tell that to the countries we fought wars in because of the results of WWII. Tell that to the countries that fell under the iron curtian, and still suffer from its effects to this day. And tell that to the arms contractors who can bet that the orders for more and more weapons ain't ever gonna go down.

yglesias

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 2, 2011 -> 08:19 PM) Fast forward a decade, we have been in multiple wars that in hindsight people think were pretty pointless. We caused one of the greatest economic downfalls ever. And now this. I don't think people were necessarily celebrating to celebrate the death of Osama. Rather, we were celebrating because America did something great, something that no one else could apparently do. Something that was a decade in the making. For the first time in my generation's life, we could celebrate the greatness of our country. And that's a good thing. I think this is pretty true. I think the first compelling thing was shock, then a need to be with others who feel the same. But I think the fact that we've had nothing to cheer about for so long and it's been so dark probably ended up manifesting itself as a party. There's a largely symbolic part of OBL, I don't really relate or think of him so much as human. He is very much a symbol of awful things and i'm glad the physical portion of that was killed. These deaths sort of transcend mortality and I don't think it's such an easy comparison to many other deaths.

QUOTE (G&T @ May 2, 2011 -> 08:04 PM) Having memories of family leaving for war is different from having a memory of 9/11 itself. The wars are collateral to the event. Celebrate the return of the soldiers. By the way, I'm not chastizing them for celebrating if it was honest celebration. But I think those who lost family members in 2001 are more solemn than the college students were. If you think people 20-24 don't remember 9/11, i'm just telling you you are sorely mistaken. And that day severely changed the course of a lot of people that age's lives.