You’re engaging in a circle jerk trying to describe other people engaging in a circle jerk.
If you don’t have anything meaningful to contribute, please, by all means, piss off.
Before I saw who was posting, for a minute or so I thought they’d unbanned Weirddave.
At any rate, here’s the reason why it’s a disingenuous argument:
Obviously, you’d like to be able to take the more significant terrorists alive where possible, so you can find out if you can get useful information from them. But equally obviously, the degree of difficulty and risk involved in capturing a terrorist alive is generally much greater than the degree of difficulty and risk involved in killing him. This is especially true now that we can blow up a target pretty accurately with an unmanned drone guided by an analyst back at Fort Belvoir, without an American soldier within a hundred miles. But capturing him would typically involve getting a team of soldiers strong enough to overcome the terrorist and his henchmen to the place where the terrorist is, actually overcoming the terrorist and his henchmen, and getting a helicopter in there to pick up the team and the terrorist.
Unless the critics know of situations when we’ve killed terrorists that such a capture operation would have been a low-risk operation (low-risk particularly with respect to having our troops captured or our helicopter shot down in hostile territory) or that the capture operation would have been much simpler and less risky than the sort of thing envisioned in my brief description, then they really have no idea whether the Obama Administration is playing things badly by killing in lieu of capturing.
And while it may possibly turn out to be the case that Thiessen is right, as details of such operations become declassified, the fact is that right now he in particular knows nothing. He’s just a hack speechwriter who has no more access to sensitive information than any of us do. He’s making an argument without any backing at all. This is bullshit, pure and simple.
All he’s got is that Obama is killing a lot of terrorists. That’s not, in and of itself, evidence that he could be capturing more of them. And he’s got no additional evidence to bring to the table. Case closed.
So you’re saying I’m wrong to cue up the Unreal Tournament “killing spree” sound file every time I hear about another Al Qaeda #2 being killed?
By the way, I also play “Godlike” whenever I see Obama give a speech.
What is a circle jerk? Where you jerk off a circle? How is that even possible?
And when we do capture a terrorist … the first thing Glen Beck wants us to do is shoot him in the head.
According to this Reuters piece two thirds of major al Qaeda leaders have been killed rather than captured since 2001. Only 7 have been captured so Obama only has to catch less than 1 a year to keep up the average. He can kill all the rest.
So what intelligence are you going to get from the terrorists? I presume the location of other terrorists would be the main item of interest. So you can, you know… bomb them.
Maybe they will say he is too young and good looking (compared to them), giving him an unfair advantage in “this age of televised ummmm stuff”?
It’s just the usual political bullshit.
braaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiins
There’s another reason, too.
Someone is coordinating and organizing the terrorists. At some level, the leadership of al-Qaeda is finding recruits and grouping them into cells, introducing the would-be bombers to the bomb makers, channeling funds and picking targets. For Thiessen’s argument to have any merit, he needs to show that learning about their plans is more important than simply stopping them from planning.
If it’s a choice between killing someone now and capturing them (maybe) next month, you have to consider how much more damage they can do in the meantime.
Besides, aren’t these the same people who said Clinton should have killed bin Laden in the 90’s?
Last place eats the cookie.
Um, what? 
I’d heard of it, all us dirty young men have. Idea was everybody starts at the same time, first guy to blow wad wins. Never actually did it, I don’t think anything could turn the Hammer of Thor into a shriveled worm quicker than a bunch of guys strangling the chicken. About as sexy as kissing your sister. The ugly one.
Nothing of the kind. There’s not a human being in this thread, the Straight Dope, or either party who thinks they have any intention behind saying this except to negate, counter, attack, and oppose the other party.
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/Bush%20Has%20Widened%20Authority%20of%20C_I_A_%20to%20Kill%20Terrorists.htm Bush authorized the CIA to kill terrorists. He wanted them dead. That was good. Obama is actually killing them. That is bad. We all know pretending you can capture them and then extract good information is easier said than accomplished.
The whole argument is ridiculous. We are creating terrorists at a rate faster than we can kill them anyway. Even packing up and going home wont make us safe. To assume that those whose family has been killed by America will just forget about it when we leave is a dream. Bush’s mess will haunt us for years to come.
Wait, wait, guys, I’ve got it!
See, if the U.S. kills the “terrorists” in the battlefield, then it can’t take them to Gitmo and *torture *them. And then what?! American Idol can only hold our interest for so long.
deleted
One of my main objections to Obama is that he won’t accept this but keeps trying to be bipartisan. The Right has NO INTEREST in being bipartisan and hasn’t for many years, the left either, so accept that and realize pleasing them anymore than you absolutely have to for legislation is not necessary.
The whole notion of torture for information is bankrupt. Not just morally, but tactically.
"Good morning, Al Queda recruits. My name is Achmed CamelScrotum, and I’m your security officer, and I’m here to brief you. My name isn’t really CamelScrotum, and it may be Achmed, but it doesn’t matter because all you’re gonna call me is “Sir”.
We ain’t gonna tell you shit. We’ll tell you what you need to know to complete any given mission, and that’s it. You need to know, we’ll tell you, if we don’t tell you, you don’t need to know and have no good reason to ask. So don’t.
If you get captured, they will break you, the Americans have no respect for human life. So don’t bother. Tell him everything you know, starting from the first time someone glowers at you in an unfriendly manner. We know what we told you, we’ll know what you told them. We’ll count noses every day, and if anybody is missing, we’re going to assume the enemy knows everything he knew. We change the codes, we change the safe houses, anything he knew is compromised. Period. Full stop. No exceptions. You want to put on a show, what a tough guy you are, go ahead. You piss yourself and start babbling, go ahead. Same difference. Welcome to fighting in the name of God."
And of course, why wouldn’t they send in the occassional ringer? Some guy shows up at the recruiting center, wants to die for Allah because he gets inexperienced nookie in Paradise. Fine. But maybe he’s weak, maybe he cant be trusted. Why not fill his head with bullshit and let him get captured? And watch the CIA/Blackwater go tearing off on a gaggle of wild geese chases. Why not? Why wouldn’t you?
And if a lefty peckerwood like me can figure that out, what makes you think they wouldn’t?
Well, that doesn’t address what the guy is saying. He isn’t saying don’t kill the recruits. He’s saying don’t kill the higher-ups. He wants us to capture CamelScrotum.