 sj |
||
|
||
BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
|
|
|
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 - 12:28 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 - 12:30 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: 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: 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: Richard Bridge Date: 05 May 11 - 12:38 PM Keep digging Keith. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:09 PM Not just a few bad apples gnu, that is how Al Qaeda conducts its business. Jim is anxious to have US behaviour discussed, but not that stuff. Right Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Date: 05 May 11 - 03:24 PM Well, I think those videos (I only watched part of one) should be shown on the major TV networks around the world repeatedly to expose their sick minds. Would it be an incitement against Islam? Yup. Too fuckin bad. I am still reeling. I just cannot fathom the disgusting... fuck.... I have NO words. If I Had A Rocket Launcher? (Sorry Bruce.) Religion is one fucked up deal with the devil. I am raw... and sad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 May 11 - 03:44 PM "Because they are such stupid questions Jim!" You have the reasons these questions need to be addressed Keith and once more, as you did on your 'degenerate Pakistani' thread, you claim thread creep. You have proposed that it was acceptible for the US to go into Pakistan uninvited and unannounced (giving the strange reason that the Pakistanis didn't mind or they would have protested louder than they did - and they did protest, in spite of your denials - what responsible government would not protest?) If you are going to allow any armed military force within your borders - invited or otherwise - you have to be sure they can be trusted. The US has a well established and verified track record of arresting people without charge, denying them legal advice or access to their (uninformed) families and holding them in intolerabe, inhuman conditions - undisputed. In the past these prisoners have been humiliated, abused and terrorising for the entertainment of the prison staff - also indisputed. Some have been, and probably still are being shipped off to be tortured in countries with human rights records even poorer than that of the US (not to mention the in-house torture routinely carried out by US personell and authourised by their superiors - also undisputed). Why is all this not relevant to the US sending troops into Pakistan - would you want such people, armed and prepared to kill, storming their way around Britain? It has every relevance to allowing an armed incursion into any sovereign state; and you know damn well it is, which is why you will not say if you would think it acceptable if it were to happen in Britain. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner. If you say you would accept it happening to Britain, you would then have to tackle the problem of the US's human rights record and explain why these people would not put British citizens at risk - especially British Asians (perhaps not a problem for you given your 'culturally degenerate view of British Pakistanis). If, on the other hand, you say it is not acceptable in Britain, that would make your stance blatently hypocritical in allowing an incursion in another country, but not into your own. So you spinelessly opt out, claiming these questions not relevant - sorry Keith - it just doesn't wash - they have every relevance. Why are you prepared to allow a heavily armed military force of a nation with a track record of human rights abuses - particularly in regard to Asians - into an Asian country, uninvited and unannounced?. A failure to answer these questions exposes you as the hypocrite I believe you to be. Jim Carroll PS "Oh Jimmy" I see we've got Jed Clampitt back with us - shouldn't that be "Here's Johnny" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 05 May 11 - 03:54 PM Let me get this straight: It's okay for someone to order lobbing missiles at U.S. embassies around the world, killing American ambassadors and their staffs, and it's okay for the same person to mastermind the destruction of the World Trade Center, leading to the horrible deaths of over three thousand ordinary American citizens, and it's just ducky-peachy if this same person sends suicide bombers into the London Underground and onto a double-decker bus during rush-hour to kill God knows how many citizens of the UK. But it's NOT okay if the United States sends in what amounts to a SWAT team and takes the blood-thirsty, murdering son-of-a-bitch out before he has a chance to order the deaths of still MORE people—some of whom might very well be British! After all, when it comes to empire and exploitation, Merry Olde England has quite a lengthy and checkered history in the Middle-East that many Middle-Easterners haven't forgotten about. Pakistan ostensibly was helping the United States (and other countries, don't forget) try to find Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, so they could hardly have any objection to the U.S. sending in a SWAT team quickly, when he WAS found, lest he escape again. Especially when there was some doubt as to just how much the Pakistani government really WAS cooperating, in spite of what they claimed. As to the legality of the operation, there is the principle of "the right of hot pursuit" as I mention up-thread. It's LEGAL according to International Law. If you don't like it, take it up with The Hague! The level of prejudice against Americans that a couple of people on this thread are displaying is really quite revealing! If David Cameron had ordered the raid and it had proceeded in exactly the same manner, I think the reaction of these SAME FOLKS would have been jubilation rather than condemnation. Disgusting!! Don Firth P. S. Speaking of David Cameron: David Cameron hailed the death of Osama bin Laden as a "massive step forward" in the fight against terrorism.From The Guardian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Justa Picker Date: 05 May 11 - 04:05 PM I for one don't buy any of it for 1 second. The timing of it is hugely suspect and creates a nice (temporary) diversion (and patriotic feel good moment) from the economy, the collapsing dollar, the hugely unpopular Obama and Dem. administration, the cost of gas, the skyrocketing debt, the move away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency, as well as an opportunity to isolate Pakistan, and increase all levels of internal spying and boost the security apparatus via Big Brother (because "now we have to worry about reprisals") plus no pics-no body ... all of which if anyone has 1/2 a brain = HOAX. For a little bit of a different perspective and possible enlightenment, you might want to read this article - not that it would be taken seriously on a forum and community such as this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 May 11 - 04:05 PM Cross posted "Jim is anxious to have US behaviour discussed, but not that stuff." Nobody here condones orhas attemped to avoid the behaviour of these people - if this is not so, show me where they have. They should be punished for what they are and what they do - but it is eqyually important that those who oppose them are not placed in the same bracket of being human rights abusers or military cowboys acting as if they are on the set of a Silvester Stallone film - it is as much a matter of winning hearts and minds as it is taking out the enemy - only this will bring long term peace and trust - something that he Stormin' Normans of this world have yet to learn. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 05 May 11 - 04:10 PM Don - no, nobody here said that. Remedial reading 101 for you. Fugitive From Sanity - So, the Srub made a declaration of unlawful intent. Wow! Keith: "An incursion would have to be justified and lawful". Precisely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S Date: 05 May 11 - 04:20 PM Justa Picker - I wasn't able to access the article you referenced. All I got was a home page. Could you cut and paste? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Justa Picker Date: 05 May 11 - 04:27 PM http://www.prisonplanet.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 05 May 11 - 04:40 PM "it is as much a matter of winning hearts and minds as it is taking out the enemy - only this will bring long term peace and trust" Precisely. America's relationship with Pakistan was already damaged enough prior to this incident, I can't see that publicly humiliating the Pakistani government and people will help to repair that damage. As for the so-called 'war on terror', as others have said, only time will tell as to whether this will be shown to be a strategic faux pass as well as a diplomatic one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 05 May 11 - 04:42 PM "Don - no, nobody here said that. Remedial reading 101 for you" Sorry, Richard, but it stands out like a angry, red boil on the tip of Jim Carroll's nose. Pretty hard to hide. No problem with my reading comprehension. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 May 11 - 04:47 PM "red boil on the tip of Jim Carroll's nos" Which bit did I get wrong about the US's cack handed approach Don? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Date: 05 May 11 - 04:58 PM Was bin Laden's killing and burial legal? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 05 May 11 - 06:07 PM Read your own posts, Jim. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 May 11 - 06:25 PM "Read your own posts, Jim." Carry them in my head Don - now tell me the US doesn't use torture and imprisonment without trial in it's fight against tourism - as Dubya would have it - and if it does, how does that make the US any different from any other terrorist state - unless you have 'God on you side' Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 May 11 - 06:27 PM Wow Don!..I love the passion, in which you come off with!! (mine ain't too shabby, either)! THAT is what translates GREAT into music!!..providing we 'practice, practice, practice!' ..and although the above sentences may SEEM out of place here, it sure beats being involved with the behavior of groups of people who conduct war!!!! Hey, Regards!!....Let's put this to good use!!...(works for me) Nonetheless, OBL needed to go, any way, that made it happen!..and your last post of From: Don Firth Date: 05 May 11 - 03:54 PM .................was dead on the money!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 May 11 - 06:33 PM ""You want deeply religious president, Don? I've had enough of those. I want a practical one and what Obama did was practical. I'd be furious with a president who refused to act on religious grounds."" Where in fucks name did you find any religious reference in my posts man? Don't put words into my mouth to bolster your weak arguments. Even atheists can and do have morals. Your country apparently considers them a hindrance to their self appointed role as world policeman. Being practical is all very well and the world is a much better place without that scumbag, but I'm left with the feeling that I am not sure which presents the greater threat to the world, the hatred in the hearts of terrorists, or the immoral arrogance of pragmatists. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks Date: 05 May 11 - 06:44 PM I would be very interested in seeing a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama from some of those who believe that what actually happened violated some "rule of law". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 May 11 - 06:45 PM Oh, and gnu, you were, as I was, really furious at the barbaric behavior of Muslims in those gruesome videos...and there are LOTS of them!(unfortunately)...especially those asinine practitioners, of a medieval, crackpot 'religion'! Any one, who has ANY idea, of what OBL and his devotees, to bullshit, have been up to, would clearly welcome the removal of that scum off the earth......even if it's by another type of scum! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 05 May 11 - 06:52 PM ". . . tell me the US doesn't use torture and imprisonment without trial in it's fight against tourism - as Dubya would have it - and if it does, how does that make the US any different from any other terrorist state - unless you have 'God on you side'" Waterboarding and other such "enhanced interrogation" methods have long since been condemned by a vast number of American citizens AND politicians. And some Americans have called for those who perpetrated it, and especially those who ordered it, to face trial in an international tribunal. And those who speak out against the use of torture are NOT being rounded up and put in concentration camps. THAT, among other things, makes the U.S. quite different from terrorist states. You can't condemn American intelligence services using torture any more that Americans themselves do, Jim. It's unacceptable and they will answer for it. In the meantime, your prejudices are patently obvious and tend to undermine anything serious that you might have to say. Don Firth P. S. Busy evening, so I won't be back for awhile. So if I don't respond to the inevitable attacks, that doesn't mean I agree with them. See ya later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 May 11 - 07:48 PM Sorry you're not here Don; I'm not trying to score points in your absence but I think your comments are relevant to this. Whatever the American people have to say about what happens - it still happens, and that is how your nation is judged - just as the UK was judged for its collusion in the invasion of Iraq, despite the fact that a million people took to the streets in opposition on the eve of the invasion. Nobody is trying to implicate the whole of the American people, but while waterboarding, special rendition and collateral damage happens, it is America that makes it happen. There are still unofficial flights going through Shannon, about half-an-hour's drive from here, unchecked by the Irish authorites, taking uncharged prisoners to god-knows-where to have god-knows-what done to them - it is believed on a weekly basis. 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. America is good at many things, but winning friends isn't one of them - perhaps some of your leaders should drag their copies of Dale Carnegie off the shelf and take another look! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble Date: 05 May 11 - 08:19 PM I hate to break into a spirited discussion but maybe we should all take a deep breath and consider how the rest of the world has been discussing this event. The Mudcat current discussion of Bin Ladin's death is highly unusual compared to the main media, blogs and other websites: click here for overview! The focus of discussion here is predominately on the morality of his death. Charley Noble You have to go to http://www.journalism.org/ and click on it there. I think they've blocked the direct link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks Date: 05 May 11 - 09:14 PM BTW, "collateral damage", as the news media and other such dolts use the term, has been happening ever since an archer aimed at Alexander the Great and hit his horse. It is neither unique to the US military not is it a matter of policy or intent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 May 11 - 10:57 PM Jim Carroll: "America is good at many things, but winning friends isn't one of them - perhaps some of your leaders should drag their copies of Dale Carnegie off the shelf and take another look!" The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a far shorter read...and they don't even read them..or act like they know what's in them..and furthermore, don't seem to care! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 May 11 - 02:03 AM This thread is about the taking of Bin Laden, and is the only thread where we can discuss that. Jim is only interested in venting his demented hatred for the West in general, and USA in particular. This subject lacks scope for that so he seeks to make it yet another thread about rendition and interrogation. Please do not indulge him. The legality of this operation has not been challenged by any country or organisation. Not Pakistan, not UN, not even Hamas. If the soldiers behaved unlawfully, I will not defend them. We do not know all the details, and they had to assume he would have a suicide belt. The law of armed conflict does not preclude operations against targets where civilians are present and vulnerable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 May 11 - 02:34 AM "Jim is only interested in venting his demented hatred for the West in general, and USA in particular." Empty invective is one way of avoiding the important questions and your insistence on not answering them gives us all the answers we need. For or against Keith? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 May 11 - 02:53 AM Paddy Ashdown (for the benefit of USAians, former leader of the Lib-Dems and in the past a senior SAS soldier) gave a nastly little neocon writer SUCH a verbal kicking on question time last night. One difference being that Paddy Ashdown had practical experience of what he was talking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 May 11 - 02:55 AM For or against what Jim? If it is not about the death of Bin Laden I will not answer here. There are many old threads you can open, or start a new one. This is the only thread we have about this momentous event. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 May 11 - 03:15 AM Jim keeps repeating this lie. e.g. "given your 'culturally degenerate view of British Pakistanis" Can he be prevented from slandering me in that particularly disgusting way please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 May 11 - 03:55 AM How can the human rights record of a country you are prepared to give carte blanche to, to enter your country and carry our an assassination not be relevent to the events under discussion? Of course you won't answer; your stance on this is totally hypocritical and dishonest. As with whether you would accept the same nation with the same human rights record entering Britain unnanounced and without permission' how difficult can it possibly be to answer yes or no? If you would support the right of U.S. troops to enter Pakistan, then it follows that you have to do the same with Britain - otherwise you need to explain why. This thread is about the death of bin Laden and the method of bringing that about - you really cannot spin this one into 'thread drift.' The entry into sovereign territory by foregn troops is very much an issue here and is part of everybody's input - why not give us yours? "particularly disgusting way please." Your 'cultural link to Pakistani paedophilia' is on record on the 'Muslim prejudice' thread for all to see - get it removed if it's an embarrassment. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 May 11 - 04:07 AM "Your 'cultural link to Pakistani paedophilia' is on record" Lie. I knew nothing of the culture. I reported the view, expressed separately by prominent figures, including Pakistanis, that their marriage customs led a small minority into illegal activities. It did not come from me at all. You use lies to discredit and undermine me. On this issue, I said I could not object to an incursion if it was legal and justified. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 06 May 11 - 04:07 AM "nasty little neocon writer" Douglas Murray. In fact he seemed to think that we shouldn't *ever* bother with war crimes trials at-all (such as those we had for the Nazis), because they're too much hassle. The implication being that we should summarily execute all such criminals, because it's easier to do so than bothering with involving the justice system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 May 11 - 05:19 AM Indeed did he not go further and suggest that the determination of their legal guilt was irrelevant and that it was best to murder suspects on the basis of suspicion? I was guite surprised that on-one on the panel responded to the suggestion that torture was useful with the three words "Salem Witch Trials" - or the two "Witchfinder General". |
