BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 05:43 AM

"the determination of their legal guilt was irrelevant and that it was best to murder suspects on the basis of suspicion?"

Did he say that? Well there's an interesting notion. Looking forward to the reaction on the day when a team of Iraqui troops swoop in unannounced and summarily dispatch of Bush & Blair for their war crimes in a similarly hassle-free fashion.

The pithy last word by Iannucci recounting the US statement is worth reprising:
"The world is a safer place now that Osama Bin Laden is dead,
and we must fully expect a terrorist attack."

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 06:31 AM

It got a laugh, but it makes perfect sense.
In the long term, the world is safer, but planned attacks might be brought forward increasing the immediate threat.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 May 11 - 07:52 AM

Good link, Charley.

But the media rarely discuss the morality of anything. If it feels good, do it! Especially if we get paid!

Nevertheless, the President and the SEALs did what they had to, as expeditiously as was humanly possible in a house filled with people.

That fact is recognized by every rational person in the U.S., Pakistan, and everywhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 06 May 11 - 07:55 AM

"That fact is recognized by every rational person in the U.S., Pakistan, and everywhere else."

Nice!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 11 - 08:10 AM

"On this issue, I said I could not object to an incursion if it was legal and justified."
At long last - then you would be prepared to allow a country with a bad human rights record to send armed troops into Britain to carry out an assassination, unannounced and uninvited - is that right?
That wasn't hard - was it, though not really surprising that you took so long to confess?
Whether this action was 'legal' remains yet to be decided, but the world certainly is not a safer place.
From an article by John Walters in this morning's Irish Times:
"In the long term, the world is safer"
From John Walters' column in the Irish Times this morning:
"Al -Qaeda is no a hierarchical movement, more a viral thought process - to call bin Laden a leader is like suggesting that the internet has a leader. To kill the man widely associated with Al-Qaeda's most spectacular operations may satisfy desires for vengeance and retribution, but it will not weaken the "movement" which moves without central guidance. On the contrary, it risks offering an untimely and gratuitous provocation which may spark a global re-ignition of anti-western sentiment".
If Walters is right, and there's no reason to suppose he's not, far from the world being a safer place, this will have proveed little more than an inneffectual prod at the hornets' nest.
Might have been different if America had sought support for its action beforehand, especially from the country concerned - but what are enemies for - if not making them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 08:21 AM

"That wasn't hard - was it, though not really surprising that you took so long to confess?"
I stated that answer on 05 May 11 - 02:16 PM .

It is a matter of opinion if the world is safer, but your man is in a minority I think.

Will you stop using that lie now Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 08:29 AM

Update on some of the (to be expected no doubt) recent reaction on the streets of Pakistan:

"About 1,500 Islamists demonstrated against bin Laden's killing, saying more figures like him would arise to wage holy war against the United States. [...]
"Jihad (holy war) against America will not stop with the death of Osama," Fazal Mohammad Baraich, a cleric, said amid shouts of "Down with America" at a demonstration near the city of Quetta, capital of Baluchistan province in the southwest.
"Osama bin Laden is a shaheed (martyr). The blood of Osama will give birth to thousands of other Osamas."
Some protesters burned American flags."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/06/us-binladen-pakistan-protest-idUSTRE74516H20110506

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 May 11 - 08:37 AM

A billion didn't demonstrate. Good news there.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 08:49 AM

Lighter is right.
There were many more and bigger demos when an obscure pastor from a little country church burned one koran.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 06 May 11 - 09:10 AM

Meanwhile, police in Liverpool are still hunting three suspected terrorists: Bin Drinkin, Bin Fightin and Bin Robbin. A fourth suspect, Bin Workin, is thought to be fictitious.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 11 - 10:00 AM

"It is a matter of opinion if the world is safer, but your man is in a minority I think."
Yeah - but your opinion doesn't count any more - you've finally admitted you're prepared to turn your country over to soldiers from a state that uss torture and imprisonment without trial- used to b known as Quislings
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 10:20 AM

No, my opinion does not count, compared to statesmen and security experts.

Was Pakistan turned over to soldiers from a state that uses torture and imprisonment without trial?

I heard it was a 40 minute incursion by 25 soldiers, but I don't get The Irish Times.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 May 11 - 10:26 AM

Elsewhere, filmmaker Michael Moore - anti-matter replica of Donald Trump - told CNN last night he's not sure Bin Laden's dead because governments can lie.

More from Mike: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110506/people_nm/us_michaelmoore_1

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 11 - 10:27 AM

"No, my opinion does not count, compared to statesmen and security experts."
Oh dear - here we go again, hiding behind selected 'experts'.
"Was Pakistan turned over to soldiers from a state that uses torture and imprisonment without trial?"
Pakistan was not consulted - the American's (th ones that use torture and imprisonment without trial) went in without permission or even consultation - you've just given th green light for the same to happen to Britain.
"I heard it was a 40 minute incursion by 25 soldiers"
Didn't know there was a time limit on incursions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 10:52 AM

//From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 May 11 - 08:37 AM
A billion didn't demonstrate. Good news there.//

Yes, I agree.
Though the quotes I posted were the ones which seemed most pertinent to some of the discussion below:

"Osama bin Laden is a shaheed (martyr). The blood of Osama will give birth to thousands of other Osamas."

Have the US cut off the head of a Dragon, or the head of a Hydra? We'll have to wait and see no doubt. And while I have no real opinion on that, the timing of this incident does seem problematic to me both in light of frayed relations between the US and Pakistan, and also in light of the so-called Arab Spring currently breaking out across many states.

PS: as a separate note, Don Firth below made a lengthy post castigating comments coming from "Merrie Olde England". In response to that post, I'd like to say that while I agree with him that the UK has a poor track record of imperialist interventions all over the shop (no, I'm not personally proud of much of our history), if he believes that anyone here who has voiced concerns over this incident would be whooping for joy had it been a UK military initiative instead, then he can rest assured that he is most sorely mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 11:11 AM

Jim, we have thousands of US service men and women here all the time!
I used to train with them back in the Cold War.
We were very grateful to have them with us in those dark days.
All of which means nothing to you.
Marxist?
Trot?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 06 May 11 - 11:21 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13313201

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 11 - 11:35 AM

Again, correct me if I'm wrong Keith, but the US servicemen stationed in the UK are here with official permission.

Even those whose presence is transient as they indulge in "rendition" (translation, illegal kidnapping of suspects for torture) are here with the permission of our craven governments. It is frankly quite shameful that our government is complicit in that activity.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 May 11 - 12:42 PM

I would really be interested in seeing if one of the resident Yank-bashers could address my previous question. That would be: can you provide a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama which does not violate what you see as a "rule of law"?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:01 PM

Artbrooks: "resident Yank-bashers"

Criticism of US military activity (at home and abroad) seems to be something of a sore point on this thread, though I'm uncertain as to why.

If actions of the British govt. is criticised, I don't feel personally affronted because I don't conflate ME with either current - or indeed historic - actions of the British govt.

If I were a "yank basher" I'd be calling you all "lard-arsed burger-stuffing morons" (or whatever your favourite "yank bashing" stereotype is), not merely questioning US foreign policy - which of course, has international consequences which is why it is also of some interest to those of us outside of the US.

I do think there was a "redneck" reference below somewhere however, and to be clear, I don't think such terms are particularly constructive in discussions such as this.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: BanjoRay
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:13 PM

I understand Elton John has recorded a song about Osama Bin Laden. It's called Sandals In The Bin.

Ducks and runs....

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:21 PM

Lively, is that an answer to my question?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:32 PM

"Lively, is that an answer to my question?"

No, as I'm not a "yank basher", your question was not addressed to me. However as it was posted on a public form, as someone interested in this topic, I am free to respond as I see fit.

The use of your term "yank basher", appears to imply that ANY concern voiced over US military actions such as this one, is a personal attack on ALL American citizens.

As such I suggest that some posters here, try to identify the distinction between themselves as sovereign individuals and their activities, and the activities of the state (which they may, or may not, individually sanction).

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:36 PM

Artbrooks, I'd like to apologise for the seeming terseness of my comments in response to your post. There has been some personal hostility displayed on this thread (disgustingly sexual in fact). I think perhaps it has left me feeling a little defensive...

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:03 PM

Fighters are routinely killed, without chance to surrender, by drone strikes.
Would that have been preferred?
No risk to US troops, but all the civilians and children in the compound would have been killed.

(Law of armed conflict states that aircraft are not required to accept surrenders)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:04 PM

No apology needed - this is, after all, a friendly forum in which we are all free to express opinions.

And let me rephrase my question, since it may appear that it some readers believe it was only addressed to a limited audience. There have been a lot of comments made regarding the idea that the attack on the Obama compound in Pakistan and his death during this raid was illegal. Without getting into the question of what law or laws were violated, I would like to know if anyone can provide a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama, under the circumstances thus far on record, which does not violate what you see as a "rule of law"?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:22 PM

Richard, I believe there are a number of American forces in Pakistan too.
So, 25 extra popped in for 40 minutes, and while there removed the leader of a group that has been terrorising them for years and killed 30 000 of their people.

No wonder they are not very cross!
The only question is why Jim IS so cross.

Answer.
Because it was an American success, and an enemy of the West was removed.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:23 PM

The rule of law is not a matter of convenience.

And I am far from clear how a drone attack could have been proper.

An aerial attack on enemy forces in territory they hold or occupy is one thing - as might well a "hot pursuit" attack be, but an aerial attack on a compound in a town in an allied territory would surely be quite another.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:26 PM

Artbrooks, they could have asked the Pakistan military to go in and arrest him.
Of course, he would have escaped.
Again!

That would have been the preferred outcome for some here.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:28 PM

Richard, drone attacks on targets inside Pakistan happen all the time.
There was one yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:40 PM

Thanks for your cordially rephrased question artbrooks, much appreciated.

"a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama, under the circumstances thus far on record, which does not violate what you see as a "rule of law"?"

While I have no decided opinions on much of this incident, for me the question would be more "under the circumstances of such poor current US/Pakistan relations and ongoing major political upheaval among Arab nations, would it have been a more "practical scenario" to 'let sleeping dogs lie'? Albeit while keeping them under surveillance. Otherwise, I'm no military expert. However I feel more comfortable when "the rule of law" is followed rather than dubious tactics. As others have said, what is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander. An international military president has been set here, one which the US (and the rest of us) may come to regret - hopefully not - in time.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:43 PM

Richard Bridge-to-Stupidity: "The rule of law is not a matter of convenience."

Neither is WAR...especially when one side would just as soon as annihilate anyone who had anything to do with drafting it, or obeying it!

Wake up, and welcome to reality....even when it's NOT so 'convenient'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:43 PM

"An international military president"

What a typo! Make that "precendent" :)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:51 PM

"There are still unofficial flights going through Shannon, about half-an-hour's drive from here, unchecked by the Irish authorities, taking uncharged prisoners to god-knows-where to have god-knows-what done to them - it is believed on a weekly basis."

Jim, how do you know that these "still unofficial flights" going through the Shannon airport are transporting uncharged prisoners for the purpose of "special rendition?" Do they have some special insignia that identifies them as such? I'm sorry, but I don't think the CIA is quite that stupid. So. How do you know?

"The arrest of bin Laden, a trial and sentence would have been 100 times more impressive to the rest of the world that the bloody act of vengeance which took place, and would not have caused the antagonism that has arisen over the hasty execution of a murderous terrorist."

This, as I understand it, was considered, but what was also considered was the likelihood of hostage-taking during the incarceration and trial period, along with threats of massive terrorist attacks if bin Laden was found guilty. The people who planned this operation are not as bloodthirsty and stupid as you apparently prefer to think.

And as to that "bloody act of vengeance," as you choose to characterize it. There are vast numbers of people in the world, most especially the families of the innocent people murdered by terrorist attacks masterminded by bin Laden who characterize it as an "act of justice." You show a great deal of sympathy for the murderer and no regard whatsoever for his victims and their families.

Even according to Sharia Law, bin Laden deserved his fate. In fact, he had long since had a Fatwa issued against him. (I heard that on the radio this morning in an interview with an Imam.)

". . . a country with a bad human rights record. . . ."

That is a really ignorant statement, Jim. If you really believe that, you just haven't been paying attention. One of the major thrusts of both the domestic and foreign policies of the United States has been toward the principle stated in the very opening sentence of the U. S. Constitution about "inalienable rights." And the idea that these inalienable rights belong to everyone, whether the government they live under recognizes them or not.

But those "inalienable rights" do not include a "right to commit mass murder on innocent noncombatants."

". . . if America had sought support for its action beforehand, especially from the country concerned. . . ."

America did. The Pakistani government had offered full cooperation in the search for bin Laden. Whether they actually were cooperating is another question, but considering the fact that they offered this cooperation, they are hardly in a position to protest.

AND—you seem to be making the assumption that locating bin Laden required that the U.S. involved torture. What is your evidence for this?

There are a variety of methods by which he could be located that would not involve anything of this nature. Some of which are pretty exotic and don't infringe on anyone's rights.

"Yank bashing." That about sums it up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:56 PM

Lively: "An international military precedent has been set here, one which the US (and the rest of us) may come to regret - hopefully not - in time."

That one, I give you.
Frankly, If you've noticed by the tone of many other threads on Mudcat, there are a great deal of people in our countries, who feel that the administrations in collusion with the international bankers are at war with the common citizenry, of us all. Let's all hope and pray that sanity may eventually rule the day..because as of this moment, it's not too much in the forefront!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 03:22 PM

"That one, I give you."

That's nice of you.

Could I please have an apology for those rather graphic sexually spiked insults you responded to me with last time, please? I found them exceedingly offensive. I'm not proud of the way I reacted either BTW..

As for a conspiracy of Bankers dedicated bringing about The Apocalypse or whatever. I don't really take too much notice of such things, but I do hope they feel better soon. I hear the sea air is a great restorative.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 11 - 03:27 PM

Lively: "Could I please have an apology for those rather graphic sexually spiked insults you responded to me with last time, please?"

Oh, I thought I was complimenting you! (wink)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 03:45 PM

"Oh, I thought I was complimenting you! (wink)"

Ahh, OK thank you - I accept your apology...

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:23 PM

Lively: "Ahh, OK thank you - I accept your apology... "

Yeah...up until then, I wasn't quite sure if you knew much about the subject!

Waving!

gfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Taconicus
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:26 PM

Andrew E. wrote:
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr.

According to Snopes.com, that's a bogus quotation.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:27 PM

"Jim, we have thousands of US service men and women here all the time!"
Are you claimin that torture and imprisonment without trial doesn't happen.
I have no doubt that the troops are their to do their duty but they are there carrying out the policy of a government that has no qualms in using the methods I have described, which is why, of course, you have refused to comment on it.
"Jim, how do you know that these "still unofficial flights"
Established as a fact years ago Don - by an Irish govenment that not only has refused to inspect the planes, as they have a right to do, but who have said they were not prepared to interfere in the war against terrorism.
It provoked a huge row here over the breach of Ireland's policy of neutrality. Pretty well a known and all but admitted fact - sorry.
"This, as I understand it, was considered,"
As the assassination (this is what it was) took place on foreign soil, every effort should have been made to involve the government of that country. The only other nation that takes such action as a matter of course is Israel, and their name is pretty well shit internationally - if that's the reputation you want.....!
This is an extremely sensitive situation which involves us all and needs to be dealt with sensitively - do you think it has been?
"That is a really ignorant statement"
Then you believe the US isn't using torture, holding detainees without trial, hasn't poured napalm on peasants, attempted to starve them by poisoniing their food with Agent Orange, helped overthrow inconvenient governments, bankrolled some of the world's monsters.....?
"AND—you seem to be making the assumption that locating bin Laden required that the U.S. involved torture"
I'm assuming nothing of he sort - it appeared in our press yesterday that one of your senators has stated that as it has proved proved successful in this case, it should be continued as routine policy - think I still have the details somewhere, if not, yesterday's Irish Times has the story.
You need to understand that Ireland is one of the great friends of the US - historical reasons - yet even here there is a great deal of mixed feeling on how the US have behaved in this matter.
I wonder how you would have reacted if a helicopter load of say French troops had landed in your back garden unannounced and started shooting te place up - a little less than a bunch of flowers and the offer of a drink, wouldn't you say?
Please don't hide behind the pathetic 'Yank bashing' - your reputation goes before you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Taconicus
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:36 PM

A couple of points in defense of Pakistan:

1. I understand that the Pakistani government has arrested some 40 people in Abbottabad (is that where Bud Abbott came from?) for helping to hide and protect Osama bin Laden. Although now I can't find the article – can anyone confirm this?

2. Pakistan makes great sheets and reasonable prices. The best sheets I have remade in Pakistan. I bought another made-in-Pakistan set of sheets just yesterday at Target, only $19.95.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:37 PM

Well, from the screed just above, I can see that any further discussion will be unproductive. Assumptions based on personal bias.

Not that I won't necessarily be back if the spirit moves me.

"Yank-bashing" is sure what it sounds like to me. My reputation goes before me? Sorry, Jim, but look who's talking!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Taconicus
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:39 PM

Bah, dang dictation software…

and reasonable = at reasonable
remade = were made

Meh.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:42 PM

Don Firth: "AND—you seem to be making the assumption that locating bin Laden required that the U.S. involved torture"

Jim Carroll: "I'm assuming nothing of the sort - it appeared in our press yesterday that one of your senators has stated that as it has proved proved successful in this case, it should be continued as routine policy"

It was also mentioned on BBC Question Time last night. I think it's generally a well accepted fact that the US used torture to determine Bin Laden's whereabouts and that some are now arguing in favour of the US's continued use of torture.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:46 PM

Oh come on now, it's not torture it's "enhanced interrogation techniques". Get it straight will you.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:51 PM

bobad: "Oh come on now, it's not torture it's "enhanced interrogation techniques". Get it straight will you."

Well, that that old 'politically correct' bullshit for ya!

Them there 'libbies' insist on it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 11 - 05:04 PM

This just in: The rift between the U.S. and Pakistan just got bigger, and more serious, with ultimatums and saber rattling.
I guess we can surmise who's who in the zoo...

gotta go..and catch up on the 'news'(?)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 05:06 PM

""enhanced interrogation techniques". Get it straight will you."

'Enhanced' sounds so, well elegant Bobad! Nothing like the awful nasty crass things being implied here.

Surely you're describing techniques belonging to those 'exotic' ladies we are used to seeing in James Bond films?

I know their 'enhanced' techniques are inevitably foiled by suave old Bond - but of course he was something of a one off.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Taconicus
Date: 06 May 11 - 05:26 PM

It was waterboarding, that's what it was and that's what they're arguing about. Whether you call it "torture" just depends on which side of the argument you're on.