The Spinsanity article doesn’t prove the facts in the movie was wrong – they chided Moore for “a series of deceptive half-truths and carefully phrased insinuations,” but don’t dispute the facts that were presented. And the Wikipedia entry merely presents different sides of various issues without disproving anything.
Are we really, really sure we want him?
Suppose we actually get him, fair and square, US soldiers drag him out of Boola Boola, haul him to America for trial. Or we trap him there and kill him. The first is a longer, drawn out affair, the second rather sudden, but it amounts to the same.
It means that the head of Al Queda is captured and/or dead, therefore Al Queda collapses in sobbing dismay, its members scattering to their day jobs and its leaders flinging themselves prostrate before the invincible majesty of The Leader.
Let’s call that the optimistic scenario.
The less rosy prospect is creating The Martyr. The inspiring figure now quite secure from failure and stupidity, permanently prescient. Sometimes, when the charismatic leader of a radical movement is captured and snuffed, the said radical movement turns to footnote dust. And other times, the movement continues to some historical significance, varying between the minor and the awe-inspiring.
So far as I know, no one has offered a reliabe predictive method for that possibility.
Would our craving for justice be so sharp if we thought it was a 50/50 proposition that nailing that slimy fuck might cost us 1…5…10? 9/11’s? Put bluntly, for the emotional satisfaction of killing ObL, we are assuming the risk that it cost us many more of our own.
I have little doubt that this has occured to the WH, since I’m neither that smart or that crazy. They will probably choose to take that risk, having solid and hard-headed reasons for that decision. Thier belief that if GeeDubya can come galumphing back with ObL’s head on a stick, they can start laying the groundwork for the President for Life Amendment…will have no bearing.
I’m not sure this is a great idea.
Thanks rjung. Saved me a reading or 2. I’ll pose the same question I posed to Clothahump after he referred to the same article Brutus does. Which incidentally he never answered, standard m.o. I now understand, anyway:
Can you point to one in your face, out-and-out fabrication or error of fact in the film? One?
I haven’t seen it, simply interested in the progress of the debate.
Bin Laden is, according to reports, still involved in planning operations with Al Qaeda to some degree. But the fact is that to another, probably greater degree, they’ve already adjusted to life without him. They’re carrying out smaller attacks that are more spread out, perhaps with smaller financial resources but probably with greater popular support (I can’t remember where I read, this board or some article, that Al Qaeda has become less a band of terrorists and more of a movement). Even if Bin Laden was killed and your everyday Joe Qaeda accepted it, the operation wouldn’t collapse, and I doubt their ardor would fade. They’re coping with not having a centralized leader as it is. They don’t seem less mad or less determined.
The negative possibilities of making Bin Laden a martyr remain, but for now he exists somewhere in between - he’s not a dead to them, but he’s not fully there either - so I think the direst extremes are probably out. It would make a difference, maye more for us than for them. Raising money might get harder, AQ might splinter further or a lot of things might happen, but I can’t envision it disappearing based on what happens to him.
Oh - “according to reports” - well thats good enough for me then … 
I think we are being softened up for him not being produced. If i was the US , and knew he was dead, i wouldnt tell anyone just yet. I’d veeerrry slowly and quite regularly leak that he was rumoured to be dead. Its probably harder to become a well known martyr if you are never heard from, your nemesis (boosh) says he dont care where you are, no one knows what happened to you and any information is based on rumours, “reports” and the like. Spread the process out over, say 3 - 5 years and i reckon you’d help to reduce any martyring (doubt that is a real word!).
Keep the nutters guessing - they will also be unsure whether to promote a new leader too. Start playing with their heads man !
Sin
(I edited out the dumb part.)
Great comment, lissener! One day, you might figure out that ‘The Pit’ exists for reason. If you have a problem, just take it there.
One? Just one measly error, and then you’ll join us in laughing at the Donut Lord and his ludicrous work of Moore-onic propaganda?
Sure.
And there are about 58 other outright fabrications or misrepresentations by Moore outlined at that site. It should be pretty clear by now that no reasonable person would want to actually use F911 as a ‘cite’, but there you have it. Some people just aren’t reasonable when it comes to things like ‘facts’.
I don’t think he’s still living.
First those audio tapes (which could have easily been his son), and then a no-show for the latest “9/11 anniversary” video threat…
In addition to being a medical miracle if he is alive, there’s no incentive for Pakistan to give him up. Better for them to “keep looking”, periodically “closing in”, and then… some low level operatives in exchange for more perks. Back to “keep looking” and so on.
If, even more miraculously, he’s alive and given up, what elucidator said. Plus all kinds of hell for Musharaff.
If Musharaff goes down, the gates of hell open up. Do we really want that?
Who is using Moore as a cite? Like I said before, I’m only interested in the progress of the debate, not having seen the film, or going to. Indifferent to Moore himself.
The example: Better. But still vague, given production/filming dates, the meaning of ‘enlisted’ and so forth. I’m going to have to put this one down as ambiguous. At strongest, it is an error of fact.
I’d like another please, one from the 58 remaining, preferably a fabrication by Moore. Clearer maybe?
This is the source of Moore’s “only one” claim.
The claim was out of date when the film went to air in June. The 2nd enlistment occurred in Feb 2004, 3-4 Months earlier.
I think it is probable production was complete by then. So I’m going to have to give this one to Moore.
If we are being picky:
Firstly we haven’t seen a cite for this claim.
Secondly, the war was not over in February. There was no “insurgent territory.” Accordingly, being as we are in the business of exact standards of truthfulness, this objection is disqualified.
Scratch previous.
And now, we’ll demonstrate how Brutust fails Reading Comprehension 101:
Or, in layman’s terms, “Moore’s statement is true, but I (Dave Kopel) choose to ignore it, because otherwise my argument falls flat on its face.”
Love him or hate him, but Michael Moore at least is bringing facts to the table. His critics can bring all the strawmen and catcalls they want, but this is the SDMB, and you either got facts or you got squat.