Top Taliban captured in Pakistan

[bloodyminded]

When it comes to the left, DOP, every topic comes around to either Israel or the West being evil. As certain as death and taxes.

"The left," huh?

More interesting by far is the fact of the moral relativists and belligerant nationalists who tend to people these discussions. The idea is this (and you guys are explicit about it): "stop complaining about the terrible crimes of the West, and start focussing all your energy on the crimes of official enemies."

Well, any coward can avoid looking at the Western crimes in favour of looking at others.'

Every coward does just that.

Edited February 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

When it comes to the left, DOP, every topic comes around to either Israel or the West being evil. As certain as death and taxes.

Oh, I agree...the America haters tend to be rather selective in terms of what in history counts and what apparently doesn't. Condemning the US and Israel while giving free rides to everybody else involved. Pretty typical and not surprising.

[bloodyminded]

Oh, I agree...the America haters tend to be rather selective in terms of what in history counts and what apparently doesn't. Condemning the US and Israel while giving free rides to everybody else involved. Pretty typical and not surprising.

"Stop criticizing the poor widdle America and its allies!"

The pantywaisted whining continues apace.

[sharkman]

You're missing the point, blood. This is a thread about a captured Taliban terrorist, not about the West's failings. There are many threads about the West's failings, but you simply can't see good and bad when it comes to the West. It's all bad, and so predictable.

[DogOnPorch]

"Stop criticizing the poor widdle America and its allies!"

The pantywaisted whining continues apace.

You can side with America's enemies all you like. It just makes you my enemy as well as others.

Edited February 18, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Guest American Woman]

More interesting by far is the fact of the moral relativists and belligerant nationalists who tend to people these discussions. The idea is this (and you guys are explicit about it): "stop complaining about the terrible crimes of the West, and start focussing all your energy on the crimes of official enemies."

Well, any coward can avoid looking at the Western crimes in favour of looking at others.'

Every coward does just that.

But as has already been pointed out, this thread is about a top Taliban being captured, not about crimes of the west. I've noticed no comment from you about that, so I'm curious, what is your reaction?

[bloodyminded]

But as has already been pointed out, this thread is about a top Taliban being captured, not about crimes of the west. I've noticed no comment from you about that, so I'm curious, what is your reaction?

I was responding to the usual reactionary comments about objectors to torture being those who "want to give terrorists' hugs." It went on from there, as posts often move around in different directions.

I didn't start the new direction; I responded to a ridiculous remark.

As to the question itself, sure, it's good that terrorists are captured.

[bloodyminded]

You can side with America's enemies all you like. It just makes you my enemy as well others.

I'm not "siding with America's enemies." As for your deciding that I'm your enemy, well, that's your prerogative. It disturbs me slightly less than a msoquito bite.

Edited February 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Peter F]

You can side with America's enemies all you like. It just makes you my enemy as well as others.

Don't forget me! I'd hate to be left out of your enemies list...

[Bonam]

I dunno how much capturing these individual Taliban leaders really does. I mean these are not exactly invaluable geniuses without which their organizations will collapse. These are thugs and brutes, where one goes down, others will fill his place.

[Guest American Woman]

I dunno how much capturing these individual Taliban leaders really does. I mean these are not exactly invaluable geniuses without which their organizations will collapse. These are thugs and brutes, where one goes down, others will fill his place.

According to the article: Baradar is known to coordinate the movement's military operations throughout the south and southwest of Afghanistan.

Hard to say how many in the organization would have the same ability to do that as effectively. In other words, we don't know how easy it would be to replace a top leader like Baradar. Furthermore, I suspect the Taliban is made up mostly of people such as you describe, so when one who has higher skills is taken out, it likely would be a major setback; at least that's what those who do have more knowledge of the situation seem to think.

[Guest American Woman]

I was responding to the usual reactionary comments about objectors to torture being those who "want to give terrorists' hugs." It went on from there, as posts often move around in different directions.

I didn't start the new direction; I responded to a ridiculous remark.

I understand where your response was coming from, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between that remark and your remark regarding those who believe juveniles who commit murder should sometimes receive adult sentences as "horny for prosecution."

As to the question itself, sure, it's good that terrorists are captured.

Sure it is, but this guy had a high position, and as such, his capture could have a major impact.

[bloodyminded]

I understand where your response was coming from, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between that remark and your remark regarding those who believe juveniles who commit murder should sometimes receive adult sentences as "horny for prosecution."

Really? You'll have to be more exact in explaining how they're even faintly alike.

In your latter example, where I was speaking both off-the-cuff and out of frustration, I was responding, as you say, to people with different views on youth sentencing. As such, my remark isn't actually about my opponents in any real sense. Unfortunately an insult, but wholly unrelated to the target.

But in this case, I was responding to people who believe focussing on Western crimes rather than enemy crimes is disgusting...rather than being a basic moral stance, which it decidedly is. I was responding to folks who consider every critique of powerful Western nations as "anti-American" and "siding with the terrorists."

Meaning they are profoundly stupid debating tactics, hostile to thought, hostile to an ethical view, and patently dishonest. One could scarcely mock their views too harshly, since their views are hypernationalistic sewage.

Sure it is, but this guy had a high position, and as such, his capture could have a major impact.

Yes, it could. But since we have been fed uncountable numbers of "successes" that "could have a major impact" starting around, oh, November 2001, there's no sense in overestimating. It's not that you might not be completely correct, it's that I think it wiser to remain an agnostic on such matters; to defer judgement until some resulting material successes become evident.

Edited February 22, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

Top this captured and top that captured and such great public relations and great propaganda but no BIN LADEN - billions spent and millions of man hours but no fish..makes you wonder if those in charge should be in charge.