“THAT’S what the people wanted to hear – not just the demise of one evil madman, but the end to all the killing.”

Here are some words I didn’t expect to see myself typing: I agree with Michael Moore. That’s an excellent piece on the Bin Laden killing, particularly on the importance of trials if you really want to defeat extremists – with the second World War as an example. (The headline quote is in relation to when people really started celebrating that victory – it was at the declaration of peace, not the earlier announcements of Hitler’s death or Hiroshima.)

ELSEWHERE: The copyright parasites in that country try to trademark the name of the SEAL team that took Osama down. Trademark it. Seriously.

Records show that just two days after bin Laden’s killing, Disney Enterprises, Inc., filed paperwork to trademark the name “SEAL TEAM 6.”

And Disney is pretty confident the utterly broken IP system that they dominate will let them.

Advertisements

29 responses to ““THAT’S what the people wanted to hear – not just the demise of one evil madman, but the end to all the killing.”

  1. Splatterbottom

    Why quote Michael Moore of all people? He made millions selling lies and distortions to idiot leftists eager to have their prejudices affirmed. In his sewer of hokum and bunkum there may be trace elements of logic but it is rudimentary at best and mostly malformed.

    Take this proposition: “There is no “war with al Qaeda.” Wars are between nations.”

    Moore’s definition would rule out the US Civil war, in which more Americans were killed than any other war. It would also rule out the US War of Independence. Sadly we don’t know what Moore’s point is here. He appears unable to make a logical argument at all.

    There is in fact a real issue here, which is the conduct of countries engaged in asymmetrical warfare. Moore’s style doesn’t allow him to even recognise it. He is more interested in spewing cliches than in making logical arguments. Still there are enough credulous leftists about to make Moore a very wealthy man.

  2. uniquerhys

    You forgot to mention that Michael Moore is fat, SB. I almost had “Bingo!” on the “Reflexive right-wing rant against Michael Moore” card.

  3. uniquerhys

    “Moore’s definition would rule out the US Civil war, in which more Americans were killed than any other war. It would also rule out the US War of Independence.”

    The US South declared themselves an independent nation prior to the Civil War – the Confederate States of America. And there was that whole Declaration of Independence thing that started the USA in the first place.

    I must have missed when the country of Al Qaeda was formed by the people in a geographically distinct area of an existing nation declaring independence. AQ is a criminal gang, using terror tactics to engage in murder for political ends. They are not a nation or government, official or unofficial. You sick police and intelligence agents onto criminal gangs and bring them to trial. Not soldiers.

  4. “Why quote Michael Moore of all people? He made millions selling lies and distortions to idiot leftists eager to have their prejudices affirmed. In his sewer of hokum and bunkum there may be trace elements of logic but it is rudimentary at best and mostly malformed”

    Why waste so many words when writing an ad-hominem attack?

  5. jordanrastrick

    That article is definitely the most well reasoned piece of politics I’ve seen Michael Moore come up with in a long time. Its a shame he couldn’t help slip this in:

    Maybe you knew us so well because you were once one of our mercenaries, funded and armed by us via our friends in Pakistan to fight the other Evil Empire in the last battle of the Cold War.

    While the CIA’s actions are by their very nature always subject to speculation, under the publically available evidence it seems this is improbable at best. American resources were directed toward elements of the native Afghan mujhadeen – the factions that would evolve into the Northern Alliance – not toward the foreign born, caliphate pushing likes of Bin Laden.

  6. Splatterbottom

    Unique you are backsliding on Moore’s definition. The definition was flawed as it did not account for many conflicts ordinarily include wars. Now you want to amend his definition to include conflicts were one side has declared independence within “a geographically distinct area of an existing nation”.

    What an odd qualification. Does that cover attempts to establish political control of the planet under a caliphate? Now I see the reason for your oddly worded backsliding.

    You admit Bin Laden’s goal is political, which is correct given that Islam is at least as much a political system as a personal belief system.

    As I noted earlier there is a very interesting question here about the means a country may use to deal with asymmetric war fare. Sadly that question requires a little more thought than either you or the glutinous Michael Moore are capable of, stuck as you are in your monochrome mind sets.

    RobJ I both commented generally on Moore’s limited logic and discussed an example. Sadly you don’t seem to have grasped the latter aspect of my comment, hence your unwarranted assertion.

  7. Errr, you opened your post with a (long) ad hominem attack, basically what you’re trying to say is ” because I have an example of Moore being wrong then Moore is wrong all the time.”

    You’re shooting the messenger.

    “Sadly you don’t seem to have grasped the latter aspect of my comment”

    You mean I don’t agree with your erroneous comparison.

  8. “What an odd qualification. Does that cover attempts to establish political control of the planet under a caliphate?”

    Attempts. Unsuccessful ones at that, with little support from the local population. I could attempt to declare myself Grand Poobah of the Universe, He Who Must Be Obeyed In All Things, but I lack the capability to back it up militarily should anyone object. Bin Laden also lacked the capability.

    The CSA didn’t last long because they couldn’t defend their new nation over the long term. But for a while there they were a real nation with a constitution and laws and stuff. Al Qaeda was never capable of establishing a world-wide caliphate, even for a short period of time. That was the delusions of a madman, nothing more.

  9. Mr Bottom, you have not responded to Moore’s main point which is why did Bin Laden not get a trial? Tojo got a trial, Goering got a trail, Eichmann the architect of the Holocaust got a trial, so why not Bin Laden?

    I remember well Obama promising to kill Bin Laden during the 2008 election and I thought at the time that there was something pretty crook about a candidate for high office promising to commit murder if he was elected. And something very crook about nobody batting an eyelid about it at the time.

    Because if you murder a murderer it’s still murder.

    This is the point that Mr Bottom cannot refute.

    Brendan O’Reilly

  10. Splatterbottom

    RobJ an ad hom attack is where you attack the man for who he is. I’m attacking Moore on the basis of his behaviour. I made a general proposition and then followed that with a specific example. This is nothing like the ad hom attacks you specialise in which are all abuse and no argument whatsoever.

    UniqueGrandPoobah, it is absolutely true that no one would pay any attention to an empty windbag such as yourself. That wasn’t my point.

  11. “RobJ an ad hom attack is where you attack the man for who he is. I’m attacking Moore on the basis of his behaviour.”

    Yes, also an ad hom attack is when you attack the man not the argument, that you don’t understand this doesn’t invalidate the fact you opened up your post with a (long winded) ad-hom attack.

    SB denying what he wrote just a few minutes ago. You are good entertainment value. 😉

    “This is nothing like the ad hom attacks you specialise in which are all abuse and no argument whatsoever.”

    Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, What a hypocrite! However, being abusive does not necessarily indicate an ad-hominem attack but from your first sentence you evidently do not understand this.

    So SB, if I blow away your argument and add that you’re also twat then I’m not committing and as hom. Understand?

  12. Splatterbottom

    RobJ in my first paragraph I made two points. The first point that Moore’s arguments were illogical and the second point was that Moore profited from retailing illogical arguments to feeble-minded leftists. I then followed up with an example of Moore’s pathetic arguments which demonstrated my first point and then both you and Unique piled on to exemplify my second point.

  13. mondo rock

    UniqueGrandPoobah, it is absolutely true that no one would pay any attention to an empty windbag such as yourself. That wasn’t my point.

    Another ad-hom in place of reasoned argument eh SB? You’re predictable when cornered, I’ll give you that.

    Moore’s point about wars being “between nations” is both well made and easily understood in the context of the US/Al Qaeda conflict. His broader point about the desirability of a trial over an unlawful execution is also well made and difficult to dispute.

    Those who subscribe to American exceptionalism, however, will literally be unable to grasp the concepts he is explaining. These mental midgets see the world in cartoonish simplicity.

    Sadly we don’t know what Moore’s point is here. He appears unable to make a logical argument at all.

    QED.

  14. This is nothing like the ad hom attacks you specialise in which are all abuse and no argument whatsoever.

    Dipped out on the self-awareness gene, obviously.

  15. Splatterbottom

    Mondo: “Another ad-hom in place of reasoned argument eh SB?”

    I was merely agreeing with Unique’s assertion.

    “Moore’s point about wars being “between nations” is both well made and easily understood in the context of the US/Al Qaeda conflict.”

    Don’t be silly his dichotomy is only useful to the black-and-white mind of an ideologue. His definition of war is patently inadequate to describe many wars. The real issue is the appropriate response of governments to various forms of conflict, especially when carried out by non-state actors with the organisation and willingness to conduct major attacks around the globe.

    “His broader point about the desirability of a trial over an unlawful execution is also well made and difficult to dispute.”

    My own view is that their is a worthwhile tactical advantage in taking out the leader in the midst of a war. The Hitler analogy, like virtually everything else Moore said, is hopeless. If Hitler could have been killed at any time during the war he would have, and people would have celebrated. In the event confirmation of Hitler’s death didn’t happen before the war ended.

  16. I admit, I can be abusive toward SB, I hang shit on his belief system as he hangs shit on mine, In his case Catholicism in mine Leftism….What’s good for the goose… SB may notice that I don’t hang shit on other posters for their religion because they don’t constantly harp on that all evil is left and vice versa.

    I may or may not be guilty of engaging in ad-hominem attacks though I don’t think I am. At least I’m not a blatant hypocrite as SB is. I don’t deny being abusive from time to time but for SB to call me on it is rank hypocrisy.

  17. mondo rock

    Unique has more than capably dealt with your nonsense about wars SB, and since it’s irrelevant to Moore’s point anyway I will leave it there.

    My own view is that their is a worthwhile tactical advantage in taking out the leader in the midst of a war.

    “Worthwhile” is a funny word to use in the current context, although I agree that it is well chosen. The assassination may well be “worthwhile” from a number of perspectives – especially if one is deluded enough to believe that the conflict between Al Qaeda and the entire civilised world can be correctly categorised as a war.

    But of course nobody disputes this aspect of the murder of Bin Laden. What is disputed is the legal, ethical, and strategic value of killing an unarmed man in cold blood when he could have been brought to trial for his crimes.

    Unless you cling to a childish “US = Good, US Enemies = Bad” view of international conflict then this question is a tough one to grapple with.

  18. narcoticmusing

    One would be wise to not cling to “US = Good, US Enemies = Bad” view of the world because it changes so rapidly I can never keep up; it’s not like it is due to ideological differences anymore.

  19. My own view is that their is a worthwhile tactical advantage in taking out the leader in the midst of a war.

    Not sure what relevance this comment has, seeing as the US is not at war in Pakistan which is where bin Laden was killed.

  20. “While the CIA’s actions are by their very nature always subject to speculation, under the publically available evidence it seems this is improbable at best.”

    I’d suggest you review ALL the publicly available evidence Jordan.

    Not that it means anything in itself. An association between Bin laden and the CIA during the cold war would be understandable if the common enemy was the USSR. The US and Russia are now allies in the war on terror. So roles had reversed.

    The only thing most of the connections between Western Interests/teh CIA and Bin Laden during the 80s prove is that nations have no permanent allies, only semi permanent interests.

  21. Splatterbottom

    RobJ: “. I don’t deny being abusive from time to time but for SB to call me on it is rank hypocrisy.”

    But RobJ it was you who started this by calling me out for abusing Michael Moron, yet you now admit that you are abusive as well. That would be an admission of rank hypocrisy by your own criteria, no?

    Mondo: “Unique has more than capably dealt with your nonsense about wars SB”

    Not at all. Unique has merely created a false dichotomy which suits his rhetorical purposes (and yours) without actually considering questions of fact and degree or even considering the complexities of the matter.

    “What is disputed is the legal, ethical, and strategic value”

    I don’t know about the legal, but it don’t see the ethical issue at all. the strategic value is what I had in mind for worthwhile, and I can see why a commander would see that value.

    Narcotic, the US is my favorite superpower. I think it has used its power as well as can be expected. I much prefer a strong democratic superpower than any conceivable alternative.

  22. narcoticmusing

    Aww it kinda sounds sweet to have a favourite superpower. It kind of creates this fiction that there are other superpowers now 🙂 Nevertheless, I grudgingly agree that better it be the US than some others I can think of. And there are others that have had a stab at it and failed on a scale that is unthinkable, and yet, happened.

    As for value in killing Bin Laden, I think there is a massive cost in killing him – the immediate martyrdom is obvious. A trial undermines the capacity for someone to be a martyr for there cause and demonstrates the power of being fair and just. Murder is just murder in anyone’s eyes.

    That being said, jury is out as to whether OBL was ‘murdered’ (assassinated, executed, use whatever term you like) or simply killed as a result of an armed shoot out… or if I go full conspiracy theory – was he killed at all? [insert mysterious yet dramatic music here]. Whatever the case, I doubt we’ll ever really know… but wouldn’t it still have been nice (best? legally, ethically and strategically) for him to go before a jury?

  23. I think it has used its power as well as can be expected. I much prefer a strong democratic superpower than any conceivable alternative.

    We all prefer a strong democratic superpower SB, but that doesn’t mean we can’t legitimately agitate for an improvement in that superpower’s behaviour.

    Your comment implying that the alternative options are worse is, in fact, a deliberate irrelevancy. You’re trying to drag the topic away from the real issue: which is whether or not there is a legitmate, stand alone argument that US should hold itself to a higher standard.

    But at the end of the day commentators like Moore, who charge that the US is losing its way, are not logically countered by mere observation that China would be worse.

  24. the bigger question is who or what will be the next goldstein

    and no one finds it amusing that disney is the one trademarking seal team 6?

  25. returnedman

    I for one nominate Luxembourg as my favourite superpower.

    They may not be super or powerful but I think they’re kind of nice.

  26. returnedman

    Hmmm SB provides ONE example (which is then shown to be pretty shaky at best) and expects us to use this as evidence that Michael Moore makes

    millions selling lies and distortions to idiot leftists eager to have their prejudices affirmed

    Sorry, not convinced. I have no idea what you are talking about and you haven’t done a very good job putting your case.

  27. uniquerhys

    One can only hope that Disney’s Seal Team 6 is a cute kids story with computer generated harbour seals saving their bay environment from a toxic waste dumping evil-mastermind cat. With balloon strings and helicopters.

    Sadly, we’re more likely to get a Movie of the Week, “based on actual events”, but bearing no relationship to. I wish there was some rule that history should be allowed to actually become historical before it is reenacted for the purposes of selling popcorn.

  28. Splatterbottom

    Karl, the Disney scam is not so much amusing as another tawdry example of the way intellectual property laws have moved far away from their original purpose of benefiting society by encouraging innovation and creativity. Now IP is just a another method for rent-seekers to screw the public.

  29. narcoticmusing

    Now why can’t we bring Disney into the war on terror? I mean really, the shite they’ve been producing is at the very least oppressive…

    Returnedman, I love your vote for Luxembourg. But Belgium has a chocolate museum* – they clearly have their priorities in the super right place.
    *Only museum close to this awesome would be the lego museum in Germany; or perhaps the touring Star Wars exhibition, but then, its point of origin is Skywalker Ranch, so back at the US again.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s