BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: gnu
Date: 05 May 11 - 02:46 PM

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM
Date: 05 May 11 - 03:20 AM

I watched the first "Russian" vid. I had to stop. I am raw. I am enraged. Good thing I don't have my finger on the red button right now on accounta I would nuke the fuckers til they glow. The whole lot.

I realize I shall be assailed with the "few bad apples" arguement. I'd still press the button at the moment. Sick motherfuckers.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 02:16 PM

Jim,
"You still dishonestly evade the questions"

Because they are such stupid questions Jim!

If you want to discuss "torture" then no, I will not be a party to such thread creep to get you off this hook.

"Keith - US terrorism and an incursion into Britain , for or against ."

I do not acknowledge US terrorism.
An incursion would have to be justified and lawful.
If it was both, how could I object?

Now answer my question.
If you are glad he is dead and the killing was lawful, what are you angry about?
Is it just that America has had a success, and an enemy of the West destroyed?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 01:49 PM

Jim, I'll bite.

I am for an invasion of Britain to forcably remove all cameras from public streets and allow peace loving citizens to be intoxicated on the streets of any city or township. Then establish non amendable law to insure the allotments of every citizen to be sacrosanct and beyond the influence of any future government official.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 01:43 PM

When you preface your remarks...Dear maggots and morons,
reasonable people may not read furher.



I keep asking questions that a Supreme Court Justice might ask. Questions so basic and universal that the advocate or defense lawyer would have to take a clear stand on the issue.

Some people say we should at least be honest in the words we use and call it assasination instead of justice being served.

"Attention guests in the Liddo Lounge Justice is being Served"
or
We assasinated bin Laden today.

Others still pursue the concept of state murder being illegal.

When police do it I feel it is no less dangerous a precedent as when Navy Seals do it.

I am on the side of getting it right.

Is it right to call Obama a murderer, after all he has ordered and succeeded in the killing of pirates, terrorists and others. He has not always gotten it right.

At least he got this one right.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 11 - 01:29 PM

Oh Jimmy, we must have cross threaded..because you just made more nonsense.
Pakistan's complicity, by either incompetency or deliberate, granted permission!..Not that reality makes a bit of difference to you. You live in your own little world, in your head!
Look, one more time, once a person starts KILLING people INDISCRIMINATELY, then that person is completely open, to whatever fate befalls him..BY HIS STUPID choice to do so!!!
Like I posted before..GET OVER IT!!...besides, you're flat out wrong! The stopping of OBL, anyway possible, was not only inevitable, it was completely necessary, and also welcomed by most of the civilized world.. try living in it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 May 11 - 01:05 PM

I dont believe this kind of propoganda, this reminds me of the nonsense about Mao tse tung swimming the yangtse river.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 01:04 PM

"That is not under discussion."
Yes; it is very much under discussion   - it is important as that nation you opened your doors (or in this case, another nations doors) to willingly is involved in terrorist activity itself. You still dishonestly evade the questions - would you object if the Americans had made a part of Britain their battlegound without permission, consultation or warning, and does it make any difference that they are involved in torture and detention without trial - which makes you both a liar and a coward. Come on Keith - US terrorism and an incursion into Britain , for or against .
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 11 - 01:03 PM

Oh, you dear idiots who have the attention span of a mayfly! Right after 911 massacre in New York, then, President Bush, in an address to both this nation, and the world made the announcement that America was going to hunt down the perpetrators, and go anywhere, to get them, dead or alive..(remember that??). He also declared, that ANY nation harboring them would be held responsible, and subject to whatever military action that was necessary, to accomplish the mission.
By Pakistan's participation, whether in part, or in totality, in providing 'safe harbor' to the mass murderer, after such a declaration, was, in essence, willing to make the gamble.
At this time, it would be incumbent, on Pakistan, to ferret out those within their government, who granted PERMISSION, for the incursion, which led to both the killing of OBL, and to the embarrassment of their country's, either ineptness, or complicity, in providing safe harbor, to this world-wide war criminal!...or, as it did, face the consequences!
By Pakistan, declaring themselves an ally on the 'war on terror', and the fact, that they have only given mixed objections, that they were not informed, (which because of the operation's secrecy concerns), your protests, have NO basis, than your personal bitch!
OBL EARNED what he got! He worked hard for it! He expected it,(note the fortified compound) and had stated as much, that he was willing to die for it..(though, according to the 'reports' he hid behind his woman--great guy). He lived in relative luxury, while he ordered young, both women and young men to their suicidal deaths, to take other innocent lives...WITHOUT WARNING!
So, I guess what goes around, comes around! HE ORDERED the same type of deaths that he brought onto himself....GET OVER IT!!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 May 11 - 01:01 PM

Of course the blameless Jean-Paul de Menezes didn't have any weapons either, when he was shot seven times in the head by the London police, while being held down in his seat on the London Tube.

At least Bin Laden did have some form, and the Seals only shot him twice.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:56 PM

If Hitler had been killed by the attempt of Von Stauffenberg under orders of Oster, would the world consider it murder?

Certainly some elements in the 3rd Reich would certainly consider it murder.


For those here who consider the crime of murder was in fact committed against Usama bin Laden by Obama, could you explain why you feel that way.

And most importantly who would be helped by such an indictment and trial?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:44 PM

Sounds a bit like murder to me.

Naah- just alittle collateral damage.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:38 PM

Keep digging Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:33 PM

Silas, I was just making the case that expert opinion is that the operation was legal.

You are asking if the soldiers themselves behaved properly.
Let's wait until we get the definitive version of events.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:31 PM

Do you have enough evidence to state that people were murdered?

Anyone keeping up with the rapidly changing official versions of events should by now know only one person put up armed resistance only to be killed, minutes after the team went into the compound. That's the official version as it is now. Make of that what you will.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:30 PM

Lets say FOX NEWS can present all relevant facts that would condemn President Obama as a guilty murderer.

Will an International COurt try him?
SHould he be asked for his PEace PRize back?
WIll this cause him to lose an election?
Will Congressman Issa bring murder charges to impeach Obama???


What I really want to consider from all your comments is...

Will the argument of murder help either America or the world at large?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:28 PM

This is not about sympathy for Bin Laden, far from it, the bastard deserved all he got, it is the way that it was done that is deeply disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:24 PM

Glen Beck is also drumming up sympathy for bin Laden, his wife and children along with Khadafy and his kids.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:15 PM

Well, I wouldn't have thought it too difficult. You storm into a building with the intention of killing/capturing a known enemy, but you also end up shooting and killing other unarmed people - people who have nothing to do with your argument apart from the fact that they were related to or personally knew your target.

Sounds a bit like murder to me.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:13 PM

Silas, "murder" is a well defined concept.
Do you have enough evidence to state that people were murdered?

Jim,
You say I am "a trairor who is prepared to put your country's defence in the hands of a nation that uses terrorism as a matter of course - in both war or peacetime."

Why?

"And still not one word of either condemnation or defence on the use of torture against detainees!!"

That is not under discussion.
You always try to change the subject when you lose an argument.
Start a new thread.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 11:50 AM

And while you're avoiding questions perhaps you could continue to avoid this one - would you be just as accomodating if the target had been Wandsworth High Street?
It usually takes about ten goes before yo answer the hard ones, and then you hardly ever give a straight answer.
And BTW - the US act was one of aggression, not defence, and could easily, and should have involved the Pakistani government, especially as one non-combatent was fatally injured and one wounded.
If the Pakistanis were as compliant as you claim they were, they would have had no difficulty in co-operating, or at least giving permission for the incursion.
Now answer the bloody question
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 11:43 AM

The guy on the radio clearly said that it was illigal to shoot and kill a person in your custody which bin laden clearly was. You have not addressd the point about the other murdered people in the raid.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 11:40 AM

You are an apologist for United States aggression and a trairor who is prepared to put your country's defence in the hands of a nation that uses terrorism as a matter of course - in both war or peacetime.
A bit of a mess really.
And still not one word of either condemnation or defence on the use of torture against detainees!!
"Are abusive terms like "redneck" OK?"
They are when it fits as well as it does here (aimed at Abandoned all Sanity btw - not you)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 11:37 AM

Sorry Silas, I see no contradiction.
In any case, I am not qualified to find fault with such eminent authorities on international law.

I have produced expert testimony that it was definitely legal, and some who say it is debatable.
I have found none who state that is was illegal.
Have you Silas?
Have you Jim?

Neither Pakistan nor the UN are about to make a legal challenge anyway.

Jim, you say you are glad he is dead.
You can not show that the killing was illegal.
What ARE you bitching about?
Is it just that America has been successful and destroyed an enemy?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 11:18 AM

"Bin Laden made no attempts to surrender and there was "no indication he wanted to do that," Holder said. Even if the Al Qaeda leader had surrendered, there would have been a "good basis" for "those very brave Navy SEALs" to shoot bin Laden "in order to protect themselves and the other people who were in that building," including "substantial numbers of women and children" who were not harmed in the raid."

Well, which of the two experts that you have quoted do you believe - they diametrically oposite things.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 11:11 AM

According to the principles of self-defense enshrined in the UN Charter, the nation-state has a right to protect itself when attacked. Notwithstanding important questions regarding the limits and legality of pre-emptive self-defense, Bin Laden's continued threats and his proven ability to successfully conduct attacks—9/11 in particular—unequivocally categorized him as a legitimate target at the time he was killed. The attack, therefore, was not an act of retribution under international law. It also adhered to fundamental international law principles, including distinction, military necessity, proportionality and alternatives. As a result, the operation was the manifestation of lawful and legitimate self-defense.
Amos N. Guiora is Professor of Law at S.J. Quinney College of Law, the University of Utah;
http://www.jurist.org/forum/2011/05/amos-guiora-targeting-bin-laden.php

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 11:04 AM

and it "was justified as an act of national self defense."

"Let me make something very clear," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The operation in which Usama bin Laden was killed was lawful. He was the head of al Qaeda, the organization that had conducted the attacks of September 11th. He admitted his involvement ... [and] he said he would not be taken alive."

Holder said it's lawful to "target an enemy commander in the field," just as U.S. forces did during World War II when it shot down a plane carrying Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto.

Bin Laden was "by my estimation, and the estimation of the Justice Department, a lawful military target, and the operation was conducted consistent with our law [and] with our values."

Bin Laden made no attempts to surrender and there was "no indication he wanted to do that," Holder said. Even if the Al Qaeda leader had surrendered, there would have been a "good basis" for "those very brave Navy SEALs" to shoot bin Laden "in order to protect themselves and the other people who were in that building," including "substantial numbers of women and children" who were not harmed in the raid.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:41 AM

No one is at war with Pakistan?

Ask the artillary regiments in India and Pakistan who trade shells almost daily in and around Kashmir.

Ask an average Indian about the Taj Hotel attack by Pakistan ISSA commandos.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:19 AM

I don't have sound on this PC. However, 'Self Defence'? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:18 AM

Listen again Silas.
I agree about the burial, but my last statement was a quote from Lubell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qptc

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:13 AM

Jim, for national self defence The Law Of Armed Conflict allows a state to use forcible measures within the territory of another state without consent.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:08 AM

Are abusive terms like "redneck" OK?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:03 AM

Keith - it might come as a surpise to you, but nobody is at war with Pakistan, nor is it occupied by a foreign power.
Now you are being silly - and have made yourself a terrorist state's dream come true - "Come in, just prop your Kalashnikovs in the corner - don't mind the onlooker you've just shot dead; we'll sweep her up later".
Would you extend this invitation to all our allies, or have our Transatlantic cousins promised you some chewing gum and nylons?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:01 AM

Yes, Keith, I listened to this. It appears that not only were they completely wrong to do what they did, they also were wrong to 'bury' the body at sea.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 09:58 AM

Jim,
"your previously stated low opinion of Pakistanis"

This is a lie Jim.
I never have and never would state anything of the sort.

Jim " you are prepared to accept an unlawful (by international law) incursion into their territory "

Where does you certainty on this come from Jim.
Are you better informed than all the experts I cited?

Also, Noam Lubell of The National Human Rights Centre, Galway University, Ireland, "Europe's top expert on targeted killings"
on BBC Radio 4 World At One, 5th May 2011, starting 7minutes and 40 seconds in.
This available on line for a few days only.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:40 AM

Jim,
"Keith;
As you support the incursion of foreign troops on sovereign in order to ...."

Jim, under the law of armed conflict, a state can attack someone on the territory of another nation for self defence.

Take it up with ICRC.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:34 AM

Ding Dong! bin Laden's dead. Which old bitch? The Wicked bitch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Laden's dead.
Wake up - you sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked bin Laden's dead.
He's gone where goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's see him dead and see what the picture shows.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Laden's dead!

(Obama)
As commander and chief, In the County of the Land of UZ, I inform you most regally.
(Petraus)
But we've got to verify it legally, to see
(Panetta)
To see?
(PEtraus))
If he
(Panetta)
Is photo'd and buried at sea?
(Admiral Mullen)
Is morally, ethically,
(Father No.1)
Spiritually, physically
Father No. 2
Positively, absolutely
(Cable News Talking Heads)
Undeniably and reliably Dead

(DNA expert)
As Coroner I must concur, I thoroughly examined this monstrous cur. His mitochondrial DNA cross referenced with his sister shows...
That he's not only merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead.
(Obama)
Then this is a day of Independence For all good Americans and their descendants
(Petraus)
If any.
(Panetta)
Yes, let the joyous news be spread The wicked bin Laden at last is dead!
(FOX NEWS) We'd really like a pic instead.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:29 AM

"PS Just been PMd a poison pen letter from what sounds like a Christian fundamentalist who chiding me for my opposition to ... executing children"

Ahh, I wonder if this person might be related to the person who posts graphic sexual "snuff" fantasies about people "getting wet" and "getting off" on bombings?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:13 AM

Keith;
As you support the incursion of foreign troops on sovereign in order to carry out an assassination (good old-fashioned treachery as John LeCarre would call it) and are an apologist for torture and internmnt without trial, we really do have nothing to say to each other - may you and your terrorist friends be very happy together.
I have to confess that I had overlooked your previously stated low opinion of Pakistanis (via a previous thread), so it should have come as no surprise to me that you are prepared to accept an unlawful (by international law) incursion into their territory - silly me!!
Richard - you're wasting your time - he's a redneck fruitcake who has been out of work since they finished filming Deliverance
Jim Carroll
PS Just been PMd a poison pen letter from what sounds like a Christian fundamentalist who chiding me for my opposition to homophobia and executing children, and saying something should be done about me - perhaps I should put you two in touch; you appear to have much in common.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:05 AM

Hmmm

WHICH killing Keith? There was more than one death, or are they all 'justified'?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:02 AM

"Lawful killing depends on due process."

Not true.
There are many circumstances where killing can be lawful.

None of the experts I cited would state that this killing was not lawful.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:02 AM

ebbie ebbie ebbie
If I had posted a prison planet link you would have been outraged in the opposite direction.

Do you really feel legality is the main issue?

IS it justified?

IS it revenge?

Is it just revenge?

Assasination by the state is illegal for heads of state.

ObL was not a head of State.

Khadafy is. Missing him last week and again killing his children with drones is technically illegal. The letter of the law isrubbed out in war. The spirit of of the law is ignored. All is fair in war.

The primary issue here in my opinion is war itself.

Every conspiracy theory I have seen has at its core the purpose to frame Obama as the blundering thug, something that was celebrated on high for GWB.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 May 11 - 07:59 AM

So there is a video game in the works, and no doubt several competing docudramas. This will make interesting history to thrash over in the years to come, and maybe a few sequels as well.

Any suggestions for who should play what parts, or should it be the real people?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 May 11 - 07:55 AM

Keith, you really only have to read the remarks you cite to see my point.

Fugitive from Sanity - I have made it very plain that I am not necessarily saying that the death of ObL was "a bad thing". Lawful killing depends on due process. There wasn't any.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 07:51 AM

Is the world a safer place today than it was on Sunday?

I don't think it is.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Brian May
Date: 05 May 11 - 07:46 AM

On a serious note - because you're all being far too frivolous:

Anagram of 'Osama bin Laden' really is 'Lob da man in sea'.

Spooky eh?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 07:31 AM

Jim, Nuremberg was made possible by the defeat and surrender of the Axis forces.
The war against Al Qaeda goes on.

The action was almost certainly legal.
Pakistan and the UN have raised no objections.
What is yours, other than that America has been successful in removing an enemy?

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

Apologies to the forum for my last piece of invective. If anyone watching here is a moderator I'd like to request that they remove that post - and ideally the one from the previous poster containing their loathesome sexual fantasies about bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 05:59 AM

Jim, there is nothing stopping Pakistan objecting.
They do not object, and expressed satisfaction with the outcome.
The only people objecting are Hamas and the likes of you.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,liely
Date: 05 May 11 - 05:52 AM

"or does the thought of bombs ripping through populated public centers get you wet?"

You repulsive fucking cretin.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 05:45 AM

"If the nation concerned has no objections, "
Pakistan was not asked and no nation should be invaded by foreign troops in order to carry out an assassination - so you are granting any power the right to invade Britain and seek permission afterwards - piss off Keith, your prattism get prattier.
As far not protesting - how loud would you protest if an armed bully broke into your house - the Pakistanis protested as loud as they dared - stop lying and prevaricating.
As you still don't comment on the US's use of torture and imprisonment without trial - I assume you support that on the basis that the victims haven't protested loud enough, so must be in favour of it?
Don't ring us - we'll ring you!
I understand that the killing of bin Laden is now to be made into a video game, and I also understand that, as the information leading to his capture was gained through torture, there has been a call from a US senator to continue using it as a means of information gathering.
I also read that four London Metropolitan policemen are now standing trial for the beating up of a terrorist suspect - the disease appears to be contageous.
A letter to the Irish Times this morning sums up my own feelings pretty well - I was particularly moved by the quote from Nurenberg.

"The killing of Osama bin Laden was not the justice that President Obama, a constitutional lawyer, learned about in an American law school.
The scenes of jubilation in Washington DC and New York City were understandable, but regrettable. While bin Laden's death may have been unavoidable -1 hope that it was - far better had he been captured and tried to the highest standards, which the US president pledged to abide by. In his inauguration speech the president said: "Our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." If in fact bin Laden's death was avoidable, then a unique chance for the United States to show the very best of itself to the world was lost, even though the president may benefit in terms of electoral politics.
In 1945, Robert H Jackson, the chief United States prosecutor, said in a court in Nuremberg: "That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to Reason." –"
Yours, etc,
RENE ROSENSTOCK,

Jim Carroll