[PUG] Osama Bin Laden is dead Part II

[bickelz]

[MENTION=3667]Meer[/MENTION] I should probably do this privately but that negative rep was a dick move. This is a PUG thread so that's how I'm justifying this.

Honestly? A fucking negative rep for my logic being "Heresy"? Are you fucking kidding me? This isn't about logic, it's a speculation because shit looks fishy. And speculation doesn't have to be logical, it's about possibilities. Holy dick, people have been saying they saw bin laden die in 2001. Not that they're necessarily right but you get the picture.

I like what government can do for it's people but this whole middle east thing is fucked and I don't trust what they say about top secret military strikes. Fair enough?

I mean, the guy was on kidney dialysis for 10 years in the desert and we finally find him in a compound outside of the Pakistani capital where we spied on him there for 9 months. We go in and supposedly kill innocent civilians while shooting him in the head. And you don't have questions. I'm sorry but that's pretty naive considering we can't see what the military does, especially given the situation. At least we can read the bills in congress.

It's just speculation but this could all be a hoax. It's just a possibility, that's all I'm offering up. I don't know how logical speculation is supposed to be but sorry it lived up to religious standards.

 

[Septemptus]

To Septemptus - Your right, killing so many people is an act that is almost impossible to forgive, but let's say, if he served his time and was forgiven, and was genuinely sorry for what he did, that would create space for understanding to grow between 'us' and 'them', which would probably be the first step in the right direction to resolving this conflict with minimal conflict. Would agree with this?

I think that's quite idealistic, even if he served his time (though if he would go to prison I doubt he'd ever leave) people would still feel hatred towards him. The justice system gives justice, but whether we forgive the crimes or not that's up to us, and not many people would actually choose to forgive. I also doubt he'd be genuinely sorry. So in a perfect world it could happen, but in the world that we live in resolving this conflict is a really tough nut to crack.

Tolerance of intolerance is intolerable. I just can't find it in myself to be tolerant of the likes of Bin Laden and his ilk.

I don't think anyone here just accepts the fact that he killed so many people and tries to convince anyone that it's okay to do it. It's just this reaction to a person's death that disturbs some of us. Nobody's death should be a subject of such a joy, nobody's death should be a subject of so many inapproriate comments and jokes, nobody's death should be an excuse to let go of morality just like that. It doesn't matter how many awful things he has done, he was still a person. That is my opinion.

 

[Chamomile]

Ok, but this isn't a study being published in a journal, it's the army.


The government chose to release the margin of error, not Gil Grissom.

But the president isn't qualified to do a DNA test, so its all coming from scientists who are staking their reputation on it. If an expert says 99.9% for any reason (including giving himself wiggle room, which they do), the government would be wrong to say anything else. I don't want Obama's opinion on DNA evidence, I want an expert's. It would just be his opinion if he quoted anything but that. No DNA test anywhere says more than 99.9% for this very reason. A government that rounds up or changes anything about expert's findings would be very, very scary.

That's not JUST my opinion, its what I learn in every class where I am assessing or making an estimation based on scientific analysis of remains. You have to give findings as a range or percentage under 100% to avoid ruining your reputation if you ever make a mistake. Its protocol. They can't because it would be unethical and career suicide, that's it.

 

[Quinlan]

I got a perverse feeling of similarity when I heard that people were cheering in the streets outside of the world trade center last night. It reminded me of when there was cheering in the streets in the middle east after those very towers had fallen. Cheering over the death of an enemy.

Exactly, two sides of the same coin, it creeps me out.

 

[Norton]

It's just this reaction to a person's death that disturbs some of us. Nobody's death should be a subject of such a joy, nobody's death should be a subject of so many inapproriate comments and jokes, nobody's death should be an excuse to let go of morality just like that. It doesn't matter how many awful things he has done, he was still a person. That is my opinion.

Yeah, and Pol Pot was a mass murderer, too. And, boy, did I rejoice in his death. You see, he couldn't kill any more people then! That is my opinion. It's the same opinion of the people who gathered last night outside the White House and at Ground Zero. On the other hand, others mourned the tragic death of a "human being," Osama Bin Laden.

 

[bickelz]

But the president isn't qualified to do a DNA test, so its all coming from scientists who are staking their reputation on it. If an expert says 99.9% for any reason (including giving himself wiggle room, which they do), the government would be wrong to say anything else. I don't want Obama's opinion on DNA evidence, I want an expert's. It would just be his opinion if he quoted anything but that. No DNA test anywhere says more than 99.9% for this very reason. A government that rounds up or changes anything about expert's findings would be very, very scary.

That's not JUST my opinion, its what I learn in every class where I am assessing or making an estimation based on scientific analysis of remains. You have to give findings as a range or percentage under 100% to avoid ruining your reputation if you ever make a mistake. Its protocol. They can't because it would be unethical and career suicide, that's it.

Again, this sin't about exact science, it's about informing the masses. If there would be any blame for misidentifying the guy as Bin Laden, Fox News would single-handedly make sure Obama doesn't run in 2012.

At this point in the debate, it's not about the science. In fact, let's throw the science out the window for a sec and assume it was correct.

Why, you being potus, would you leave any sort of doubt in the minds of Americans. Especially when 1/4 of them think you were born in Kenya? I mean, I wouldn't be surprised that there are a large portion of Americans that don't know how you get to one tenth of a percent. Why release the scientific data on this occasion when so vague on so many other topics that matter more (i.e. the debt, tarp, taxes, funding)?

And did you see Obama's speech? He may just have been tired but something seemed a bit off.

 

[myself]

Why did they dump his body in the sea?!

HA!

 

[894tt3h9]

Being that I don't live in a country that was a victim of terrorist attacks I can say that I don't care at all about Bin Laden's death. In fact, had I not seen this thread or the one before it I would have had no idea that anything was going on. I forgot that this man even existed.

No one here is talking about it or celebrating his death or dancing in the streets and thank God for that, they might impede my ability to get to work on time.

 

[bickelz]

Why did they dump his body in the sea?!

HA!

Supposedly because, in the muslim tradition, you're supposed to bury the body within 24 hours. That's the only reason I've heard. Limbaugh said something about it (I don't listen to him and I'm a hardcore liberal so yeah) and proceeded to make a gigantic dick of himself on the radio today.

It does seem a bit "fishy" (bad pun). I think I posted a quote from a website I was on earlier that said a guy's nephew was on the boat and they skinned him. It's not a reliable source so I can't back that up (even though it's not my claim) but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Chamomile]

Why, you being potus, would you leave any sort of doubt in the minds of Americans. Especially when 1/4 of them think you were born in Kenya? I mean, I wouldn't be surprised that there are a large portion of Americans that don't know how you get to one tenth of a percent. Why release the scientific data on this occasion when so vague on so many other topics that matter more (i.e. the debt, tarp, taxes, funding)?

And did you see Obama's speech? He may just have been tired but something seemed a bit off.

I don't mean this in a mean way, but a lot of Americans know that no scientist would ever say 100%, so 99.9% is taken as 100% because its well known that they can't go higher even if they think it is. It is known to me and most people I know, so that isn't leaving doubt at all. Saying 100% would cause uproar AND doubt from a lot of experts. You would also get 99.9% on a paternity test for your child, and to most people its a waste of energy to worry about the odds that your wife found someone with matching DNA to cheat on you with.

I personally dislike Obama and would never trust his speeches after the one where he lied about having an uncle that liberated Auschwitz. If you're willing to lie about THAT, yeah. But for me its not about trusting Obama at all, I trust the scientists that gave him the numbers. And I trust that he wants to be re-elected enough not to lie about it. Those scientists aren't answering to the government, they're answering to their peers and they have much more to lose from them.

Here's the clip about the uncle thing that makes me not trust him btw: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHGfsw-bmOY"]YouTube - Obama lies about his uncle[/ame]

 

[Jungian Trip]

Nobody is more dangerous than he who imagines himself pure in heart; for his purity, by definition, is unassailable. James Baldwin

Yeah, and Pol Pot was a mass murderer, too. And, boy, did I rejoice in his death. You see, he couldn't kill any more people then! That is my opinion. It's the same opinion of the people who gathered last night outside the White House and at Ground Zero. On the other hand, others mourned the tragic death of a "human being," Osama Bin Laden.

I have to note the elephant in the room since it has been stomping around all day.

The United States has invaded two sovereign countries in the past decade and if statistics are to be believed over one million civilians have been killed in Iraq since Operation Iraqi Freedom. Do you rejoice when a young man or woman from a branch of the armed services is killed by an IED? They can't "kill anymore people then."

At what point does tit-for-tat become a useless, dangerous, and heinous game?

I do not agree with the tactics of bin Laden. Not in the least, but most terrorists begin violence with a perceived cause. Some are more akin to realism and many are not (religious, ideological). Bin Laden saw that the U.S. was infusing more and more military in more and more places. That the U.S. greed for oil would not be satiated. Bin Laden saw just cause in hitting a symbolic financial center and what I think of as an evil act of striking over 3,000 civilians.

So, the U.S. sees itself as the victor of morality and freedom and a bulwark of a capitalism Mr. Smith might adore.

Bin Laden and many other terrorists see themselves as upholders of justice for the oppressed and marginalized.

Who is right? Can you really say?

I think neither side is correct. There is no moral foundation buttressing the Empire of the U.S. nor the reckless and senseless crimes against humanity leveled by Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group (that I know about).

If the U.S. is going to invade other countries and police the world and if the U.S. REALLY wants to eliminate terrorism as best as possible then why not work toward building schools, develop irrigation wells for clean water, aid in farming techniques and sustainability? It is often under the auspice of "justice for the poor" that feeds the flames of terrorist recruitment.

The truth is greed, oil and fear (not necessarily in that order). The U.S. is staking claim for resources- which seems to be the prime impetus of modern warfare. Quite a majority, at the prompting of mass media and ease of judgment (who wants ambiguity in warfare, really?), place people in stark terms of light and dark, black and white, good and evil.

And just for curiosity sake what was the death toll of Pol Pot in comparison with Bin Laden?

 

[Septemptus]

Yeah, and Pol Pot was a mass murderer, too. And, boy, did I rejoice in his death. You see, he couldn't kill any more people then! That is my opinion. It's the same opinion of the people who gathered last night outside the White House and at Ground Zero. On the other hand, others mourned the tragic death of a "human being," Osama Bin Laden.

Well I don't mourn his death, I don't feel involved in it either way. What I meant is that it shouldn't be okay to look at death of one person with respect, frowning upon any attempt of disgrace or mockery, while openly celebrating the death of another. I don't think there's any justification for suddenly changing your moral imperatives, and this hypocrisy isn't something that the whole world should nod their heads to.

 

[hk427f3]

@Meer I should probably do this privately but that negative rep was a dick move. This is a PUG thread so that's how I'm justifying this.

Yep, should have been private, but let me clear something up for you.

"Heresy"?

No, "hearsay".

If you'd like to continue chatting about it, PM me.

 

[bickelz]

I don't mean this in a mean way, but a lot of Americans know that no scientist would ever say 100%, so 99.9% is taken as 100% because its well known that they can't go higher even if they think it is. It is known to me and most people I know, so that isn't leaving doubt at all. Saying 100% would cause uproar AND doubt from a lot of experts. You would also get 99.9% on a paternity test for your child, and to most people its a waste of energy to worry about the odds that your wife found someone with matching DNA to cheat on you with.

Herein lies the difference. We're talking about two completely different things since I changed pov a bit. I realize that there is always scientific error and you always have to report it but the scientists aren't spokesman. They are not the ones going on tv telling people this. Scientists report error to cover their asses and to make a more convincing argument.

My question is what is the political motivation for a politician to report error, even if it is low (and standard for scientists). They're policy makers, not scientists. Idk about you, but I wouldn't even start mentioning numbers like this if I were speaking to the masses. I mean honestly, when have you heard a politician talk specifics?

I realize that it is accurate enough but I just don't understand why they couldn't have just said "Yeah, it's him". Do they (as in politicians, not scientists) want to cover their asses too even though the guy is at the bottom of the ocean?

 

[Edith]

Herein lies the difference. We're talking about two completely different things since I changed pov a bit. I realize that there is always scientific error and you always have to report it but the scientists aren't spokesman. They are not the ones going on tv telling people this. Scientists report error to cover their asses and to make a more convincing argument.

My question is what is the political motivation for a politician to report error, even if it is low (and standard for scientists). They're policy makers, not scientists. Idk about you, but I wouldn't even start mentioning numbers like this if I were speaking to the masses. I mean honestly, when have you heard a politician talk specifics?

I realize that it is accurate enough but I just don't understand why they couldn't have just said "Yeah, it's him". Do they (as in politicians, not scientists) want to cover their asses too even though the guy is at the bottom of the ocean?

It's not even just to cover their asses. You can't state with 100% certainty things with DNA. You just can't.

I don't get what you want politicians to do. Would you rather them lie and say that they're 100% sure it was him, or just not mention it at all? Surely they would get asked if they were certain it was him.

Your argument makes no sense to me at all, sorry. It seems really nit-picky and as if you do not understand the basic principle of being able to provide 100% certainty in DNA testing.

 

[bickelz]

It's not even just to cover their asses. You can't state with 100% certainty things with DNA. You just can't.

I don't get what you want politicians to do. Would you rather them lie and say that they're 100% sure it was him, or just not mention it at all? Surely they would get asked if they were certain it was him.

Your argument makes no sense to me at all, sorry. It seems really nit-picky and as if you do not understand the basic principle of being able to provide 100% certainty in DNA testing.

I'm giving up on this. Yes, it is kinda nitpicky. But considering it's a weird ass situation where they threw the body into the ocean because of religious reasons and many people aren't convinced that it was really him, I feel that being nitpicky about what politicians say isn't an irrational thing. Jeez, now I'm the idiot for not trusting US ops in the middle east. Never thought I'd see that day.

And honestly, it's not about being 100% certain. I realize fully that there is error in science. I'm not really trying to argue anything. I'm asking what the motivation is for a politician to report error when they don't need to.

They could have simply said its him. Nobody would find out otherwise so why even mention it?

 

[Chamomile]

Herein lies the difference. We're talking about two completely different things since I changed pov a bit. I realize that there is always scientific error and you always have to report it but the scientists aren't spokesman. They are not the ones going on tv telling people this. Scientists report error to cover their asses and to make a more convincing argument.

My question is what is the political motivation for a politician to report error, even if it is low (and standard for scientists). They're policy makers, not scientists. Idk about you, but I wouldn't even start mentioning numbers like this if I were speaking to the masses. I mean honestly, when have you heard a politician talk specifics?

I realize that it is accurate enough but I just don't understand why they couldn't have just said "Yeah, it's him". Do they (as in politicians, not scientists) want to cover their asses too even though the guy is at the bottom of the ocean?

Yes, politicians need to have proof when they're making a claim like this, absolutely. When anyone at all makes a claim (Osama is dead, for example) the automatic reaction is wanting proof. If you are citing an expert or scientist that analyzed something (like Obama was), you report exactly what they said and how they said it. Politicians should absolutely cite facts and specifics, and when it comes to DNA testing the numbers are ALWAYS cited. If you ever, ever see a politician (or anyone in a place of authority for that matter) making claims like that without citing evidence or worse, altering the evidence (such as saying 100% when the expert said 99.9%): run.

I'm not sure how to break it down any further. If Obama stood up there and said 'we are 100% sure' the scientific community would generally be saying 'no such thing.' Since he was *quoting* members of the scientific community, that is some thin damn ice to skate on and, if he did, he'd piss them the hell off and probably damage their reputations. And those saying 'no such thing' would be right, which most people know and welcome. Nothing is ever 100% sure, that is reality and it mustbe acknowledged. I honestly don't know anyone who is concerned at all that they said 99.9%. Its just what you do. Of course they want to cover their asses, they just killed Osama bin Laden and pissed off a lot of extremists. They're politicians, they ALWAYS cover their ass.

I think its unfair and unrealistic to expect any member of the scientific community or a politician or spokesperson to nuke their own reputation so someone can feel 0.1% better about what people already understand is as good as 100%. They would lose significant credibility. They are sure and people that understand the required margin for possible error know that. Since Obama is citing the work of someone in the scientific community, it would be highly unethical, deceitful, and would hurt his reputation to misrepresent what they said. He would not only be answering to the media, but the scientific community.

Bottom line: its as good as 100%. This is not the difference of .1%. This is the difference between absolutely positive and we're humans and make mistakes and we realistically factor that in. The margin of error is to be acknowledged by absolutely everyone and it is not abnormal or fishy behavior for the government or a spokesman to do so. Exactly the opposite: it is responsible and respectful of the people that analyzed it to cite EXACTLY what they concluded. I dislike him and will happily say he cited the information exactly how it should have been. He'd look like a moron if he didn't. You can choose to believe that 99.9% isn't the same, but honestly its just an expert saying that on the off chance that got messed up, no matter how slim the odds, they didn't spend 10 years in college working towards nothing. They are taught to protect themselves and it would damage the government's relationship with the scientific community to misrepresent them (not to mention how quickly that would get around). I guarantee you'd do the same in protecting yourself. Why would anyone want a leader that didn't think it was important to present the facts and respect the expert's conclusions? I'd no longer be a citizen of the U.S. if the government thought 'Oh we're sure, just trust us' was good enough for citing DNA evidence. Nobody trusts their government, and they know that.

 

[Edith]

Yes, politicians need to have proof when they're making a claim like this, absolutely. When anyone at all makes a claim (Osama is dead, for example) the automatic reaction is wanting proof. If you are citing an expert or scientist that analyzed something (like Obama was), you report exactly what they said and how they said it. Politicians should absolutely cite facts and specifics, and when it comes to DNA testing the numbers are ALWAYS cited. If you ever, ever see a politician (or anyone in a place of authority for that matter) making claims like that without citing evidence or worse, altering the evidence (such as saying 100% when the expert said 99.9%): run.

I'm not sure how to break it down any further. If Obama stood up there and said 'we are 100% sure' the scientific community would generally be saying 'no such thing.' Since he was *quoting* members of the scientific community, that is some thin damn ice to skate on and, if he did, he'd piss them the hell off and probably damage their reputations. And those saying 'no such thing' would be right, which most people know and welcome. Nothing is ever 100% sure, that is reality and it mustbe acknowledged. I honestly don't know anyone who is concerned at all that they said 99.9%. Its just what you do. Of course they want to cover their asses, they just killed Osama bin Laden and pissed off a lot of extremists. They're politicians, they ALWAYS cover their ass.

I think its unfair and unrealistic to expect any member of the scientific community or a politician or spokesperson to nuke their own reputation so someone can feel 0.1% better about what people already understand is as good as 100%. They would lose significant credibility. They are sure and people that understand the required margin for possible error know that. Since Obama is citing the work of someone in the scientific community, it would be highly unethical, deceitful, and would hurt his reputation to misrepresent what they said. He would not only be answering to the media, but the scientific community.

Bottom line: its as good as 100%. This is not the difference of .1%. This is the difference between absolutely positive and we're humans and make mistakes and we realistically factor that in. The margin of error is to be acknowledged by absolutely everyone and it is not abnormal or fishy behavior for the government or a spokesman to do so. Exactly the opposite: it is responsible and respectful of the people that analyzed it to cite EXACTLY what they concluded. I dislike him and will happily say he cited the information exactly how it should have been. He'd look like a moron if he didn't. You can choose to believe that 99.9% isn't the same, but honestly its just an expert saying that on the off chance that got messed up, no matter how slim the odds, they didn't spend 10 years in college working towards nothing. They are taught to protect themselves and it would damage the government's relationship with the scientific community to misrepresent them (not to mention how quickly that would get around). I guarantee you'd do the same in protecting yourself. Why would anyone want a leader that didn't think it was important to present the facts and respect the expert's conclusions? I'd no longer be a citizen of the U.S. if the government thought 'Oh we're sure, just trust us' was good enough for citing DNA evidence. Nobody trusts their government, and they know that.

+1

 

[bickelz]

Yes, politicians need to have proof when they're making a claim like this, absolutely. When anyone at all makes a claim (Osama is dead, for example) the automatic reaction is wanting proof. If you are citing an expert or scientist that analyzed something (like Obama was), you report exactly what they said and how they said it. Politicians should absolutely cite facts and specifics, and when it comes to DNA testing the numbers are ALWAYS cited. If you ever, ever see a politician (or anyone in a place of authority for that matter) making claims like that without citing evidence or worse, altering the evidence (such as saying 100% when the expert said 99.9%): run.

I'm not sure how to break it down any further. If Obama stood up there and said 'we are 100% sure' the scientific community would generally be saying 'no such thing.' Since he was *quoting* members of the scientific community, that is some thin damn ice to skate on and, if he did, he'd piss them the hell off and probably damage their reputations. And those saying 'no such thing' would be right, which most people know and welcome. Nothing is ever 100% sure, that is reality and it mustbe acknowledged. I honestly don't know anyone who is concerned at all that they said 99.9%. Its just what you do. Of course they want to cover their asses, they just killed Osama bin Laden and pissed off a lot of extremists. They're politicians, they ALWAYS cover their ass.

I think its unfair and unrealistic to expect any member of the scientific community or a politician or spokesperson to nuke their own reputation so someone can feel 0.1% better about what people already understand is as good as 100%. They would lose significant credibility. They are sure and people that understand the required margin for possible error know that. Since Obama is citing the work of someone in the scientific community, it would be highly unethical, deceitful, and would hurt his reputation to misrepresent what they said. He would not only be answering to the media, but the scientific community.

Bottom line: its as good as 100%. This is not the difference of .1%. This is the difference between absolutely positive and we're humans and make mistakes and we realistically factor that in. The margin of error is to be acknowledged by absolutely everyone and it is not abnormal or fishy behavior for the government or a spokesman to do so. Exactly the opposite: it is responsible and respectful of the people that analyzed it to cite EXACTLY what they concluded. I dislike him and will happily say he cited the information exactly how it should have been. He'd look like a moron if he didn't. You can choose to believe that 99.9% isn't the same, but honestly its just an expert saying that on the off chance that got messed up, no matter how slim the odds, they didn't spend 10 years in college working towards nothing. They are taught to protect themselves and it would damage the government's relationship with the scientific community to misrepresent them (not to mention how quickly that would get around). I guarantee you'd do the same in protecting yourself. Why would anyone want a leader that didn't think it was important to present the facts and respect the expert's conclusions? I'd no longer be a citizen of the U.S. if the government thought 'Oh we're sure, just trust us' was good enough for citing DNA evidence. Nobody trusts their government, and they know that.

You can undermine anyone's credibility. You just have to look in the right place. Politicians lie to cover their asses, they're never up front. So when a politician is up front up to the last significant figure, I'm skeptical. It's honestly not a huge deal but I'm getting at the way things are phrased, not whether Grissom wants to keep his job based on technicality.

I feel like I'm sounding naive and like I don't understand science. Trust me when I say that isn't the case. I'm just looking into what I know about the situation and since it is limited to what the government releases, I will most definitely look too far into it.

I'm kinda done with this too so I doubt I will be posting on dna any more on this thread. it pisses me off more how we're reacting to it as a country.

 

[88chaz88]

Osama dying changes absolutely nothing. Unless you really believe he was like Dr. Evil planning all the terrorism around the world.