BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 11 - 07:29 AM

"Killing a combatant is.
Doing it with a bomb is legally acceptable whether we like it or not Jim."
Once again you avoid the issue, which was the needless killing of civiliians - written off by you as 'only twenty' though, given the situation, could have been many more - as with the wisdom of throwing open your country to a nation with a track record of human rights abuses, you slither around the question.
I am not discussing the issue of legality - I am asking you to confirm or deny your previous attitude that civilian lives (collateral damage) were expendable - your continued silence on the issue indicates that, as with the use of torture by the US to extract information, you most certainly are.
The only "lie" here is your own.
Plan B was that if bin Laden had attempted to flee (not a combat situation) a 2,000lb bomb should be dropped, wiping out all men, women and children in the compound, (not to mention those in the immediate surrounding area).
Reports indicate that there were between 12 to 17 women and children in the compound, so it is a major massacre of civilians the US was prepared to carry out, for which you are giving your support.
This might have been even more disasterous as, according to the New York Times and The Washington Post, the US troops planned to fight their way out if they had met with any resistance from the Pakistani forces - another battleground to add to Iran and Afghanistan.
"Jim accuses me of hiding behind experts"
I do indeed, and you are, and your persistant use of the excuse, here and elsewhere rings suspiciously like "Ve vere just obeying orders"; the excuse for every inhuman military and political act throughout the 20th century.
Will:
Your excuses for the torture flights by the US really don't stand up.
Their existance here is pretty well accepted and all but admitted by the government - excused, as is the use of torture, as part of the fight against terror.
Plenty more news items on the web - that was just a random gathering.
The suspicion that they continue remains and is fortified by the continued refusal to inspect the planes.
"Really, Jim! In addition to being pointless, that's unworthy of you!"
Probably (for which I apologise),but it might just have had something to do with being accused of making up information, being Anti-American and supporting strange causes, none of which is remotely true.
I welcomed the election of Obama - even got drunk on the night of the announcement on the strength of it; (though admittedly, I would have welcomed the election of Roland Rat in preference to the previous administration).
However, Guantanamo Concentration Camp still remains, despite promises, the suspects remain untried, torture of one form or another is almost certainly still used, and cowboy behaviour like that under discussion continues to make our world a minefield at a time when diplomacy is desperately needed.
Despite claims to the contrary, the US has added yet another enemy to its already formidable list. Pakistan has been deeply offended and alienated by the incursion to the extent that the identity of the head of the CIA has been deliberately made public in retaliation.
Some years ago a British newspaper published a list of over 50 countries where the US had participated in military action since the end of WW2 (these didn't include places where clandestine activity and financial and political interference had taken place).
We threw that list away when it became hopelessly out-of-date.
We live in hope that Obama will take steps to reverse the low opinion of the US (governments not people), but he's taking an awfully long time about it and vengeful adventures like this really don't help.
It's hard not to notice that nutters like Six-Gun-Sarah and The Tea Party are waiting in the wings should he go down, especially as we haven't fully recovered from the last meglo!
As Keith is over-fond of saying - "don't shoot the messenger".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 07:51 AM

Jim,
"Pakistan has been deeply offended and alienated by the incursion to the extent that the identity of the head of the CIA has been deliberately made public in retaliation. "

The previous head had his name leaked 6 months ago.
Pakistan "security" leaks.
That is why they were not informed.
Why do you say they are deeply offended?
It has not been expressed by any government official.
The PM said it was "proper justice."
There were more demonstrations when a Koran was burned!

You repeat the lie that I have ever described human lives as expendable.
I reported the legal position.
Why do you want to make it about me?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 07:55 AM

Jim, "bin Laden had attempted to flee (not a combat situation) "

Yes it is.
Retreating combatants can be killed.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 May 11 - 08:36 AM

Keith is right.

On top of that, it is a reasonable thought that he was retreating in order to get a weapon or to call for assistance.    Or both.    Or possibly a suicide idea--taking quite a few with him.

The SEALs had a right to preserve their own lives by acting to stop any of the above.

So sorry if you don't like it.

But by all means continue whining on behalf of an international terrorist, since it appears your lives are otherwise barren of meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 11 - 08:56 AM

"Pakistan "security" leaks."
It was done deliberately and openly yesterday - keep up
"You repeat the lie that I have ever described human lives as expendable."
No lie Keith - you have constanly implied it in your apologies.
"Retreating combatants can be killed. "
Not deliberately taking countless numbers of non-combatants they can't

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 May 11 - 09:04 AM

It is also fascinating that Richard, one of the chief whiners, has already started two threads attacking Obama.   We are assured that Richard is not a "genteel" racist, yet here he is yet again criticizing Obama for yet another specious reason--since obviously it is Obama who gave the go-ahead for the mission.

We are told Richard is not a racist, but the pattern of attacking the person who is perhaps the most successful black man in the world is getting progressively stronger.

Perhaps Richard knows something of the concept of accumulation of evidence.

It's getting more and more suspicious.

As I said earlier, since Richard is in a hole, the first thing he might want to do is stop digging.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 09:08 AM

"Pakistan "security" leaks."
It was done deliberately and openly yesterday - keep up

It was also done 6 months ago.
Keep up.


No lie Keith - you have constantly implied it in your apologies.


Lie. There was no such implication.


"Retreating combatants can be killed. "
Not deliberately taking countless numbers of non-combatants they can't


Correct. Civilians deaths must be minimised and be proportionate to the value of the target.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 11 May 11 - 09:12 AM

"We are assured that Richard is not a "genteel" racist,"

No. he's definitely not a racist, genteel or otherwise.

He's critical of some of Obama's decisions not because he considers Obama to have reneged on some of his promises and thereby betrayed those who initially believed in him, but quite obviously because Richard is in fact a bearded misandrist.

In fact he's a misandrist lesbian polyandrist, which may also be clearly deduced from his political criticisms of your current married male monogamous president. All very shocking of course, but a racist he's not.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 May 11 - 09:16 AM

Let's lay our cards on the table.

Those who believe that killing, for any reason under any circumstances, is unforgivable, should simply say so and not argue from uninformed interpretations of international law.

Those who believe, in spite of the weight of evidence and expert opinion that the U.S. action was "state terrorism" (because it was carried out by a more powerful nation with a capitalist economy and/or a history of high-handedness) should simply say so and not argue from uninformed interpretations of international law.

It would make for clarity and save aggravation and bandwidth. No evidence can alter a faith-based position.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 11 May 11 - 09:20 AM

PS - grotty personal slurs which are intended to discredit another individual and their arguments, say far more about the slurrer than the sluree.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 09:23 AM

Take note Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 11 May 11 - 09:32 AM

So, who`s going to OBL`s funeral.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 May 11 - 09:36 AM

Too late, ain't it Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 11 May 11 - 09:38 AM

I guess those hoping to dance on his grave (or something similar) will just have to doggy paddle now instead.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 09:59 AM

In case anyone is wondering what I ACTUALLY said as apparent facts belatedly emerged, it was this

"If it be correct that there was an earlier express agreement between a former Pakistan administration and a former US administration permitting US incursion, then there would remain the question of whether that agreement was still effective about 10 years later as between different regimes. ... It is not wholly clear cut but it would make the US's argument much easier.

The other argument concerns whether ObL was a political or religious leader on the one hand (assassination a no-no, but arrest by competent authority or its agent lawful, including the use of REASONABLE force against resistance) or a military commander (assassination permissible in most cases except clear surrender).

If we can trust what later comes to be said about the contents of ObL's computers, then they will probably tell us which role ObL remained discharging. The issue of whether the US forces represented a lawful authority at that time in that place probably goes back to the validity of that agreement."




I was rather keen on Obama's election. I thought it was a big step forward for the USA. I am concerned that he may have done more than avoid unnecessary confrontation once in post. Those things might be more apt to discuss on another thread.



I was however interested to note assertions elsewhere that the funeral of ObL was not carried out in accordance with Islamic Law. Does anyone know the relevant facts? I thought a proper Imam presided and I had therefore assumed that proper ritual was followed.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 11 May 11 - 10:09 AM

Yeah. It`s too late. How`s about a memorial service.

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

"How`s about a memorial service."

I know this great synchronised swimming troupe..

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

"Let's lay our cards on the table."
How about those who believe that this should have been an arrest, trial and conviction rather than an assassination; that way, justice would have been seen to be done and the US would have been regarded as heroes in the fight against terrorism rather than being prepared to stoop to the level of those they are fighting.
Any possibility of hostage taking was by far outweighed by the likelihood of reprisal attacks anywhere in the world.
The fact that the US were prepared to carry out a massacre of non-combatants, and have a shoot-out with Pakistani troops if things had not gone to plan will have sent their reputation even further down the pan than it already is and is an even greater argument for it to have been done properly - "The Yanks are at it again!". The obvious anger in the Pakistani President's speech yesterday and the deliberate disiclosure aimed at damaging the work of the CIA were reflections of what is likely to come from other Middle Eastern countries at a time when their co-operation is vital.
Stop setting up your own straw men Lighter - there are far more alternatives than yours and one prevaricator is more than enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 11:50 AM

"Any possibility of hostage taking was by far outweighed by the likelihood of reprisal attacks anywhere in the world."

Hostages are easily taken.
Aid workers, NGO workers, journalists, etc.
There are many precedents.
Many can still be seen having their heads hacked off on the net.

Reprisal attacks?
They are already attacking as much as they can.
All they could do is bring forward an attack, making it less likely to succeed.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 11:52 AM

Why did I select that issue!??
The whole post is nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 12:27 PM

Jim Carroll: ""Let's lay our cards on the table."
How about those who believe that this should have been an arrest, trial and conviction rather than an assassination; that way, justice would have been seen to be done and the US would have been regarded as heroes in the fight against terrorism rather than being prepared to stoop to the level of those they are fighting."

Actually, Jim, that is a GOOD question, and does deserve a good answer!
If you've been reading my posts, I've addressed the question of laws, which is key here.

Let's play it out....OBL gets arrested, goes to trial..now the question is to what jurisdiction....if it is, lets say, international law, perhaps in the Hague, or even here, by either military tribunal, or even in New York, by a civil trial...this trial would last up to a couple of years, let's say at the outside, the radical Islamists would be screaming bloody murder, that it doesn't recognize that legal system, because they would feel that he should be tried under Sharia law. During the time period, of his incarceration, and publicity of how 'unfair' that would appear, I would think that would be reason for massive recruitment of radicals, using the argument, that the 'infidels' are ignoring their law, by superseding it, and during this whole time, the rhetoric, would escalate...and so would the terrorists activities, demanding his release. The sooner that the ordeal goes on, the more inflamed it gets..virtually consuming every waking moment of the 'news' cycles...The more 'news' the more of an issue, (sorta like on here, but far more dangerous). Also, the snuffing of OBL, gives Obama a 'reason' to crank up the rhetoric on withdrawing from places in the mid-east, because we simply cannot afford the war effort. Possibly the only funding we might get, would be from Saudi Arabia, of which I posted before, and alluded to more recently. Neither the U.S. nor Saudi Arabia could afford to run this a long time...after all, the Saudis are facing the same civil uprisings, that is sweeping the mid-east. A lengthy, inflammatory incarceration, and trial, would put them in a rather sticky wicket, with the population of Islamists, trying to find as many reasons, to get the populace behind them.
Keep in mind, I doubt that the royal family their consults the Qur'an, when setting oil prices...nor do they 'share the wealth' either.
By the way, the answer to my question, (from a few of my posts back) that nobody dared to answer, was 'the Saudis'. They need us, for consuming their product, and for our military to protect them, and we need the oil...No brainer.
Personally I think we should be drilling our own oil and stimulate OUR economy..and I DON'T really think that the only thing preventing us from doing just that, are a bunch of whiny environmentalists! They are nothing but a ruse, to be used, as well.

Does that answer suffice?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 12:35 PM

OOps typo: 15th line, second paragraph should read,"Keep in mind, I doubt that the royal family consults their Qur'an,.."

or even, "Keep in mind, I doubt that the royal family there consults the Qur'an,.."

I screwed up the context of 'there' versus 'their'..

GfS

P.S. there's a couple of lesser ones, as well..but nobody understands anything I say, anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 May 11 - 12:50 PM

Prevaricator?

Straw men?   

If the categories don't fit, Jim, it's reasonable to assume that I was talking about someone else.

In any case, I think my position is clear: the United States did what it had to do, and with the minimum of violence possible.

In an ideal world, perhaps, where nothing goes wrong and all decisions are perfect, Bin Laden would have been arrested and tried -if terrorism even existed in such a world. The legal and medical teams readied by the U.S. show that it had prepared for just that possibility - which casts doubt on the idea that the SEALs had absolute orders to shoot to kill. In the judgment of the shooter, who was there, the only way to complete the mission was to kill Bin Laden. I'd think your argument is with him rather than with the United States.

And I believe that the good fath of the SEALs is beyond question. Why? Because they reported that Bin Laden was not holding a gun. It would have simplified everything if they'd just lied and said he'd been armed or even fired at them. Who could prove otherwise? As honorable men, they didn't.

Beyond all else, Bin Laden's own history and creed imply that, faced with enemy soldiers, he would choose martyrdom rather than surrender.

I can't see that it makes sense to blame anyone for that.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:07 PM

I'm starting to feel intrigued about the death rites.

We nearly know (after much digging and a surprise fact emerging late in the day) that the incursion was lawful (probably, if the agreement was still in force). We won't know whether ObL was political/religious leader or combatant until we know the truth about what was in his computers. The absence of an internet connection would have limited his hands on role in real time.

The factual benefit or otherwise of the death remains to be seen - and so on to the remains.


A little rummaging on the internet seems to reveal some odd points.

First - was ObL for ritual purposes a Muslim at all? An official body had carried out what seems to be the Muslim equivalent of excommunication some years back.

Second, did he die in battle or otherwise? Although I have not nailed down the differences it appears that battlefield death rites are less formal (as one might expect).

Third, does Islam require burial in the earth except in the case of those who die at sea? If it requires return to the earth, what is wrong with the earth that lies under the sea?

Fourth, if burial at sea is permitted, should the body have been lowered not launched, should it have been weighted, should it have been in a clay container or otherwise protected to a greater or lesser extent from being immediately consumed by predators?



Why didn't the US armed forces know the answers to these questions, given the planning that went on and the apparent intention to reduce reprisal risk.


Or doesn't it matter? Would the US be equally happy if fallen US soldiers' bodies were disposed of in accordance with Afghan, Pakistani, or other Islamic law?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:13 PM

Lighter, it seems you've changed you perspective, a little...cool!
It seems that your post left out the 'reported' story, that multiple SEALS opened fire on him, hitting him numerous times. I think that was the order. The medical teams were probably their for the SEALS, should any of them become wounded. That makes more sense.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:24 PM

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." - Osama bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa

So much for due process of law for any man, woman or child anywhere in the world who any fanatic could classify as satisfying the criteria set out above by Mr bin Laden. The phrase then comes to mind, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander".

It always never ceases to amaze me when terrorists, and their sympathisers, complain bitterly about receiving the treatment that they meet out to others as a matter of course, apparently "human rights" and "rules of evidence" should only apply to protect those who utterly despise them. The victim of the terrorist is always at fault in the eyes of the terrorist. In carping on about such treatment they only reveal themselves to be what they truly are cowards to a man.

Of course Osama bin Laden should not have been arrested, put on trial and sentenced, for the perfectly good reasons clearly explained in this thread by others. Osama bin Laden suffered the fate he deserved, shot down like a rabid dog and his remains cast beyond recovery in an unmarked spot to vanish without trace and without any prospect of any shrine or place or rememberance - the right to such places belongs to his victims and to them alone.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:24 PM

Well kids .... the photos are now making there way through the vast WWW ..... appears OBL is in the water.

Sea Hunt with Osama

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:29 PM

Dear Terry

I suggest you audition immediately for a part in "Gunsmoke". Legitimacy does not come from the barrel of a gun.

It is our adherence to principle and law that makes us better than the terrorist.

You seem to want to be a terrorist.

That differs from your stance on Ireland, does it not?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:40 PM

Cool, Richard!!! You're making a lot more sense now.
So I'll help you out, with some of your questions.

We nearly know (after much digging and a surprise fact emerging late in the day) that the incursion was lawful (probably, if the agreement was still in force). We won't know whether ObL was political/religious leader or combatant until we know the truth about what was in his computers. The absence of an internet connection would have limited his hands on role in real time.

Islam (especially the radicals), make NO distinction between political and religious, combining the two into one. There is a link that I provided, that shows that, with NUMEROUS sources, in the bibliography!!
......................................................................

The factual benefit or otherwise of the death remains to be seen - and so on to the remains.

TRUE!!! (Who do you trust these days??)

.....................................................................
A little rummaging on the internet seems to reveal some odd points.

First - was ObL for ritual purposes a Muslim at all? An official body had carried out what seems to be the Muslim equivalent of excommunication some years back.

TRUE! (In the links that I provided, it shows the Islamist grounds for 'excommunication'..which, BTW, can also carry a death sentence, and that is why the world of Islam is yet divided about his death! Radicals either dismiss him, for that reason, OR use him as a symbol to justify more of their deal. Moderates, dismiss him, because he has brought war to them, and on them as well! So, its mixed, depending on what faction re-acts.

....................................................................

Second, did he die in battle or otherwise? Although I have not nailed down the differences it appears that battlefield death rites are less formal (as one might expect).

Again, the death reports are, at best, not fully given, and what we DO have, is just the administrations accounts..which many people doubt, even claiming he was dead a long time ago!..Who knows?

.....................................................................

Third, does Islam require burial in the earth except in the case of those who die at sea? If it requires return to the earth, what is wrong with the earth that lies under the sea?

According to Islam, the dead are supposed to be buried with their head pointed east, toward Mecca. ...Personal note: Hopefully with enough currents, it gets to do that a few times..perhaps!


....................................................................

Fourth, if burial at sea is permitted, should the body have been lowered not launched, should it have been weighted, should it have been in a clay container or otherwise protected to a greater or lesser extent from being immediately consumed by predators?

the 'reported' story, was, and is also true, about burials at sea, is that he would have been placed in a weighted 'bag'(f you will), and lowered. I imagine, coming off the deck of an aircraft carrier, the 'lowering' still would have made a bit of a splash...(but that is speculatory..but is also the common practice at sea.

......................................................................



Why didn't the US armed forces know the answers to these questions, given the planning that went on and the apparent intention to reduce reprisal risk.

I'm sure they did...remember, that there was a 'story' that had to be cooked up, for public consumption..The amount of truth in the released story, may be questioned, for years to come
......................................................................


Or doesn't it matter? Would the US be equally happy if fallen US soldiers' bodies were disposed of in accordance with Afghan, Pakistani, or other Islamic law?

We usually request our fallen to be returned, but not all the time, as one can see on the hills above Normandy.

......................................................................

I hope these answers, which you can research, help you out.
Try the link on one of my previous posts.

I also hope, that you can remain open, about all this. Frankly, its a huge cluster-fuck!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:47 PM

"sent their reputation even further down the pan than it already is and is an even greater argument for it to have been done properly - "The Yanks are at it again!". "

Not one government has criticised the US.
Not even Pakistan.
Hamas did, but because they killed "a holy warrior" (combatant), not for any legal reason.

"The obvious anger in the Pakistani President's speech yesterday"

The President has not even bothered to make a speech about it.
It was the Prime Minister, who was not at all angry (I watched it all. It was obligingly made in English!).
He said it was "proper justice"

Had the compound been bombed, it would have been a tragedy for the children present, but the adults knew well that they were making themselves targets.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:57 PM

Was he a combatant?
US assumed he was and that was a reasonable assumption.
He had been a combatant, had paraded himself as a combatant, and no change of role had been announced.
The incursion was legal.
The killing was legal (unless he actually surrendered in time.)
Not one innocent bystander was hurt.
Not one of the children was hurt.
Pakistan did not object.
No government except Hamas has raised any objection.
UN has raised no objection.
No demos in any country except Pakistan, and very low key there.

So what exactly are Jim and Richard objecting to?
The nationality of the SEALS?
The end of an enemy of the West?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 May 11 - 02:34 PM

I don't believe I've changed my perspective, though my penchant for irony may have suggested it inadvertently.

My last two posts state my position without irony.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 02:45 PM

Keith A of Hertford: "Hamas did, but because they killed "a holy warrior" (combatant), not for any legal reason."

Hamas was also castigated by OBL and he distanced himself from them, earlier on, because they had a falling out. (that, I believe was also in my link).

This is also just my opinion, but a 'reasonably educated one', (I think), but Iran is more of the influence to Hamas, and behind their protestations..more than Hamas, itself. I think Iran, has most of the power hungry influence, in the whole area...and from their standpoint, feel most justified. Now, using that justification, they are getting the whole area up in arms, more than any of the individual factions.
You would have to get acquainted more with the Shaw, overthrow, hostage situation, Iraq/Iran war, our participation, and Iran-Contra history, to see why...which is lengthy...but I have posted some inside stuff in previous posts, (a while back)..and its pretty clear.

The first time I heard of the details, and particulars, on the Iran/Contra affair, in 1986, from Daniel Sheehan, and the Christic Institute's, lawsuit, in Florida's Federal court,,...I actually cried for my country!

............................................................

Keith: "So what exactly are Jim and Richard objecting to?"

I think they are finally asking the right questions, now.

I also hope there is a healing from all this.
Death and war, and our participation in all this, is a black eye for all of us!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 02:49 PM

Ok, we cross-posted....

Lighter: "I don't believe I've changed my perspective, though my penchant for irony may have suggested it inadvertently."

OK, so you're saying that you enjoy being suicidal, and proud of it???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:02 PM

I'm outta this place...!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:06 PM

It is not true that Pakistan has not objected. It voiced its deep concern. But it the intergovernmental agreement was still validly in force that is a red herring.

ASSUMING that someone is a combatant is not a valid logical step.

If the killing needed to be lawful under international law (which I assert it did need to be as otherwise there is anarchy and rule by might) then the distinction or otherwise made by Islamic law between on the one hand a politician or religious leader or on the other hand a combatant is not in point any more than US law. It is the international law on the point that matters, and we have not got the evidence yet.

My concern was and to some extent still is the potential for US hegemony to move into brute force domination. I require my fate to be determined by English law, not John Wayne cultural imperialism.

GFS, I am not sure you have got my drift - and alternatively I am not sure of your expertise on some things.

I think we see eye to eye on ObL's potential status as apostate.

If the present US accounts of the death are accurate, was that a battlefield death for Islamic purposes or not? The importance of the question is that apparently the ceremony carried out before the burial at sea was one that was not for a battlefield death - which in turn somewhat undermines the US justification for the shooting - but more importantly that it was incorrect in Islamic law should have been followed.   Civilised countries do not defile the bodies of their fallen opponents.

I am clear (from the internet) that Islam permits in some cases and in some ways burial at sea. Two questions follow.

First, was this a case in which Islamic law permitted burial at sea? If not, then as a matter of Islamic ritual there was a defilement.

Second, if Islamic law permitted this burial at sea, were the requirements - eg lowering on a rope, use of a clay vessel, attempts to circumvent predation etc - followed.

I suspect we need an Islamic scholar to examine these things if we want to know the answers. Some, I suspect, simply don't want to know.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:21 PM

Richard: "...It is the international law on the point that matters, and we have not got the evidence yet..."

To the Islamist's view, Sharia law, is the aim of them, to be 'international law'. So how they view 'our' international law, has no bearing, as far as they are concerned,..and therefore ,the rub.

Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:47 PM

". . . unless you are planning on sending a gunboat and establishing a colony."

Pots and kettles, Richard?

I am a citizen of a country that used to be a British colony (until we decided we didn't want to be anymore;   "Bloody cheek!!"). You might try learning a little of your own history. For example, that fairly extended era in which the boast was "The sun never sets on the British Empire."

I don't think the United States has any "colonies."

Don Firth

P. S. Someone a few posts back used the phrase, "terrorists and terrorist sympathizers." I'm amazed at the people on this thread who have tacitly declared themselves "terrorist sympathizers" in the literal meaning of the expression!!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:51 PM

"Not even Pakistan."
You keep repeting this and it keeps not being true - I too watched exerpts from the Prime Misister (my mistake) of Pakistan's speech (in impeccible English) and he certainly did object (as much as he could on behalf of a country who is dependent on Western aid - as has been pointed out and as you continue to ignore). The "proper justice" you quote was refrring to the killing of bin Laden, not the way it was done and certainly not excusing Pakistan being left out of the loop, humiliated, threatened with having a large number of its people running the risk of being massacred and its troops being in danger fired on by US forces.
The outing of the CIA chief in Pakistan was also an indication of Pakistani/US soured relations; this from this morning's Irish Times:
"In another sign of the soured relations between US and Pakistani intelligence agencies, the Americans have blamed Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI) for "outing" the CIA station chief in Pakistan, presumably to demonstrate leverage over the US, and as an expression of anger over allegations that the ISI was complicit in bin Laden's presence in Pakistan.
The US station chief reportedly clashed bitterly with Lieut Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the ISI, over the detention of Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor who shot dead two Pakistanis in January.
ISI officials, who allegedly keep some Pakistani journalists on their payroll, are believed to have given an approximate version of the name of the station chief to a private television station which broadcast it, and to the Nation newspaper, described by the New York Times as "supportive of the ISI".
The previous CIA station chief left Pakistan in December, after he was "outed" in the same manner. The new station chief reportedly played a key role in bin Laden's killing, by supervising the safe house in Abbottabad which spied on bin Laden's compound."
The US sent troops into Pakistan without consulting the govenment, it was prpared to kill a large number of Pakistani non combatants to prevent bib Laden from escaping, and the US troops were prepared exchange fire with Pakistani troops if they were fired upon - of course the Pakistanis were ******** well upset by the episode; who wouldn't be (except Keith, who says he is quite happy to let troops walk in and out of his country unmolested as long as they do it 'legally'.)
"but the adults knew well that they were making themselves targets."
So the children were expendable - and those outside the compound quite likely to be injured and killed - assuming that you know the adults knew, of course - didn't read that bit anywhere).
"So what exactly are Jim and Richard objecting to?"
We are objecting to the long term effects of a cowboy military incursion in order to carry out an unnecessary assassination, on the fight against terrorism.
I am also objecting to the fact that the US was prepared massacre a large number of uninvolved non- combatants had their plans gone awry and their target had attempted to escape (not fight back).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: gnu
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:59 PM

Don... "I don't think the United States has any "colonies.""

Iraq? Libya? Kuwait?... wait... you are correct... they are Brit colonies that the Yanks keep in line for the Brits, among others. Sorry. Of course, the technicalities are up for discussion... ad infinitum.

Hmmmm. On a less technical note... what about Hawaii?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 11 - 04:24 PM

"declared themselves "terrorist sympathizers" in the literal meaning of the expression!!"
And that's unworthy of you Don - unless you are referring to those supporting or excusing the use of torture and holding prisoners in concentration camps without charge.
Nobody here is coming even close to sympathising with terrorists, but your government has handed them a huge propaganda victory on a plate, and you appear to be upholding that as some sort of a victory.
Jim Carroll

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

Actually, this might be a good time to hold up on the nasty rhetoric. Understanding, would really clear a lot of this up. Shit, you guys keep this up, and the U.S. and Britain will be fighting again!
So far, I think the consensus is that it is great that OBL is dead...whether we all believe the 'reports' of the ever-changing details, and/or the back-peddling of the administration, to cover whatever they're trying to keep from looking worse than it is. On the other hand, it might have been anything from a clean, slick military operation, to a fiasco..who knows?..and even hiding that OBL might have been already dead, long ago. Its ALL out there! ANY information, that would be accurate, would only come from someone who was there....and that, I doubt, you'd ever find on the internet..or anywhere else.....and then, you'd still have to consider the source, whether it was from the SEALS, or from one of OBL's surviving witnesses! ..depending on their biases and PERCEPTION!!!

one thing I can rest on, is that my posts, have tried, impartially to best describe the actual conflict, between TWO warring world systems!

Oh well, Back to the studio..where the only conflict, is to get it right!

GfS

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

Richard.
Was he a comabatant?
He had been.
He posed as such.
He had never announced a change of role.
Why should anyone not believe, in good faith, that he was a comabatant.
If he was not, and wanted to be treated as a non combatant, he should have told someone.
The US acted in good faith, on the evidence available.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:32 PM

"Nobody here is coming even close to sympathising with terrorists. . . ."

Well, you sure could've fooled me!

You and one or two others seem to totally disregard the young woman who stood there at a shattered window in the World Trade Center that morning and tried to decide whether she preferred to jump out and die when she struck the pavement forty stories below or stay there and burn to death. Or be crushed to death when the building collapsed—and the 3,000 plus other people she was with. Or the firemen who died trying to rescue people and fight an impossible holocaust at the same time. Or the families of those who died that morning, or later as a result of injuries or inhaling asbestos and other building materials released.

Not to mention the personnel in the various embassies around the world that bin Laden masterminded attacks on prior to 9/11.

What manner of justice did Osama bin Laden grant them?

Or, for that matter, the people whose deaths he would continue to mastermind had he NOT been taken out as he was?

Unworthy of me? I DON'T THINK SO!!

I was just stating what should be obvious to everyone!.

####

Apparently Hawaii was far too remote to be exploited by the European counties that tried. Portugal, England, France—and Russia, among others.

On February 10, 1843, Lord George Paulet, on the Royal Navy warship HMS Carysfort, entered Honolulu Harbor and demanded that King Kamehameha III cede the Hawaiian Islands to the British Crown. Under the guns of the frigate, Kamehameha stepped down under protest and surrendered to Paulet on February 25,

Gerrit P. Judd, a missionary who had become the Minister of Finance, secretly sent envoys to the United States, France and Britain, to protest Paulet's actions. The protest was forwarded to Rear Admiral Richard Darton Thomas, Paulet's commanding officer, who arrived at Honolulu harbor on July 26, 1843 on HMS Dublin. Thomas repudiated Paulet's actions, and on July 31, 1843, restored the Hawaiian government.

The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States allowed for duty-free importation of Hawaiian sugar (from sugarcane) into the United States beginning in 1876. This promoted sugar plantation agriculture. In exchange, Hawaii ceded Pearl Harbor, including Ford Island (in Hawaiian, Moku'ume'ume), together with its shore for four or five miles back, free of cost to the U.S.

This treaty explicitly acknowledged Hawaii as a sovereign nation.

During the next decades, there were several internal squabbles and revolutions among would-be Hawaiian monarchs, until finally a group of European and American residents—and native Hawaiians—began the political machinations to become a territory and protectorate of the United States. This took some time, spanning a couple of presidential administrations, but eventually—and I point out that this action was initiated by Hawaiians themselves, NOT the American government—Hawaii was "annexed" as a United States territory and protectorate.

There were some—NOT Hawaiians, incidentally—that tried to claim that this was the United States venturing into "imperialism," despite the fact that, as I said, the move was requested by Hawaiians themselves, hoping that this would resolve the rash of internal disputes. Which it did.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Hawaii Admission Act on March 18, 1959 which allowed for Hawaiian statehood. After a vote of over 93% in favor of statehood, it was admitted as the 50th state on August 21, 1959, with a population of about 423,620 (85%) Americans, Asians, and Europeans, and 76,620 (15%) Native Hawaiians.

Colony? Nah, I don't think it was ever that.

Don Firth

P. S. Thanks for the question, gnu! In looking for the answer, I learned a bit!

P. S. Don't fret it, GfS. Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it.

And most Americans I know are really quite fond of the British. Great people. Great country. But every country has its—    Well, forget it!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:32 PM

Pakistan may be humiliated at not being informed, but the people within ISI who keep leaking the name of the CIA head would also leak the news of an attack.
ObL would have escaped again.
He was taken completely by surprise, secure in the belief there would be no attack without a warning from his friends in ISI.

Pakistan knew this and so agreed in advance that it should happen without their knowledge or consent.
They have expressed concern.
There could have been an incident.
There has been not rebuke, no change in relations, no diplomatic response, nothing.
They are grateful.
30 000 civilian dead and 5 000 military dead.
Grateful.

"military incursion in order to carry out an unnecessary assassination"
Your opinion Jim.
Does any government in the world share it.
List them please.
Not Pakistan obviously, or they would not be so glad he is dead as to call it "proper justice."
They clearly understand that it was necessary.
Are you better informed Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:42 PM

"Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it."

9/11 cost us 67 dead.
The single biggest loss of British life for any act of terrorism.
52 dead on 7/7.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:50 PM

I rather liked this:

Well somebody is lying

Version 1:
According to various "witnesses" judged to be reliable by the Pakistani military (i.e. their own men) and totally believed by Pakistani politicians (Benizir Bhutto) Osama bin Laden died in the mountains of Tora Bora late 2001. No body was ever found presumably as it was buried beneath thousands of tons of rock. The report of this version was never confirmed or denied by Al-Qaeda primarily because it did not suit their purposes.

Version 2:
According to the current US Administration Osama bin Laden was killed during a raid mounted by US Special Forces on a compound in the Pakistani City of Abbottabad. Osama bin Laden was shot and his body was removed from the scene samples having been taken for DNA analysis, his body was then hastily buried at sea.

Common thing with both Versions is that neither can be independently verified or confirmed. The clever thing about Version 2 is that it forces somebody from the other side to react and that reaction came in the form a statement announcing that Osama bin Laden was dead (PS: It does not matter whether he died in 2001 or 2011)

Now we come to "purpose & timing" - May 2011

1. It obviously helps Barack Obama's re-election campaign in that no Democrat is going to be stupid enough to run against the "Man who shot Liberty Valance", but that only helps selection, to ensure making Barack Obama a two-term President this should have happened in 12 months time.

2. Helps get Barack Obama out of a pickle with regard to troop withdrawals from Afghanistan. When he reluctantly and criminally belatedly agreed to General Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops Obama, to appease Joe Biden, slipped in a rather poorly and inaccurately reported time line, that those "surge" troops would begin to be withdrawn in July 2011. In real terms that means that Barack Obama could bring back one single soldier and honour his promise, unfortunately that is not what the "MEEDJA" think having entirely misrepresented what the President had said - They expect thousands to be withdrawn. Well now that Al-Qaeda have announced that Osama bin Laden is dead President Barack Obama can immediately withdraw from Afghanistan the 17,000 to 23,000 troops currently serving in Afghanistan as part of US- Operation Enduring Freedom + 1 soldier "surged" into Afghanistan to serve the ISAF mission - And having done that Barack Obama becomes a "man-of-his-word" and a hero.

Reality:
- As far as Afghanistan goes Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have been a total irrelevance since 2001;
- His death puts nobody any more at risk now than they were before or indeed at any time since 1970;
- It is in short a total non-event, about which nobody really gives a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 05:51 PM

DF, do you really not get it? The fact (which I will take as so for the purpose of this post only) that some Islamists do not recognise international law has no bearing on whether the actions of the US were lawful under international law (considerable parts of which the US does not recognise either).

On cultural imperialism the US has widely and intentionally demanded legal changes, for its own purposes, in other jurisdictions. The threats about Australian copyright are well known, as are the machinations of the US computer giants in European directives and regulations, and WIPO and GATT. Its "long arm" jurisdictions are notorious. The UK/US extradition treaty is a very sore case in point, as is US refusal of reciprocal enforcement of UK judgments. I and many others resent this and do not trust the US with the power to interfere in other jurisdictions. Its tendency to do so appears to be increasing - while the UK's has decreased, is decreasing, and probably (if right wing twerps like Cameron get the chop) will continue to decrease.

Keith - necessity (if there was necessity) is not the same as legality. Further, I shall be most surprised if the belief that someone remains a combatant is equivalent to whether he actually is a combatant.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 06:38 PM

Taking a quick break..can't stay long....

Don Firth: "P. S. Don't fret it, GfS. Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it.

And most Americans I know are really quite fond of the British. Great people. Great country. But every country has its—    Well, forget it! "

I was only referring to battling it out here, on the forum. Actually, I've played music with Brits, on occasion..and one well known British icon, not that very long ago!

Anyway, keep it going..yer' doin' good!

Teribus, also a good post....

gotta go..I just snuck out of the studio for a quick one...and, jeez..ended up here again!!

Regards All!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 11 - 06:39 PM

OHHH...and 700!

GfS

bye....