 sj |
||
|
||
BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Arthur_itus Date: 06 May 11 - 11:21 AM http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13313201 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 May 11 - 11:11 AM Jim, we have thousands of US service men and women here all the time! I used to train with them back in the Cold War. We were very grateful to have them with us in those dark days. All of which means nothing to you. Marxist? Trot? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 06 May 11 - 10:52 AM //From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 06 May 11 - 08:37 AM A billion didn't demonstrate. Good news there.// Yes, I agree. Though the quotes I posted were the ones which seemed most pertinent to some of the discussion below: "Osama bin Laden is a shaheed (martyr). The blood of Osama will give birth to thousands of other Osamas." Have the US cut off the head of a Dragon, or the head of a Hydra? We'll have to wait and see no doubt. And while I have no real opinion on that, the timing of this incident does seem problematic to me both in light of frayed relations between the US and Pakistan, and also in light of the so-called Arab Spring currently breaking out across many states. PS: as a separate note, Don Firth below made a lengthy post castigating comments coming from "Merrie Olde England". In response to that post, I'd like to say that while I agree with him that the UK has a poor track record of imperialist interventions all over the shop (no, I'm not personally proud of much of our history), if he believes that anyone here who has voiced concerns over this incident would be whooping for joy had it been a UK military initiative instead, then he can rest assured that he is most sorely mistaken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 May 11 - 10:27 AM "No, my opinion does not count, compared to statesmen and security experts." Oh dear - here we go again, hiding behind selected 'experts'. "Was Pakistan turned over to soldiers from a state that uses torture and imprisonment without trial?" Pakistan was not consulted - the American's (th ones that use torture and imprisonment without trial) went in without permission or even consultation - you've just given th green light for the same to happen to Britain. "I heard it was a 40 minute incursion by 25 soldiers" Didn't know there was a time limit on incursions. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 06 May 11 - 10:26 AM Elsewhere, filmmaker Michael Moore - anti-matter replica of Donald Trump - told CNN last night he's not sure Bin Laden's dead because governments can lie. More from Mike: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110506/people_nm/us_michaelmoore_1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 May 11 - 10:20 AM No, my opinion does not count, compared to statesmen and security experts. Was Pakistan turned over to soldiers from a state that uses torture and imprisonment without trial? I heard it was a 40 minute incursion by 25 soldiers, but I don't get The Irish Times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 May 11 - 10:00 AM "It is a matter of opinion if the world is safer, but your man is in a minority I think." Yeah - but your opinion doesn't count any more - you've finally admitted you're prepared to turn your country over to soldiers from a state that uss torture and imprisonment without trial- used to b known as Quislings Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 06 May 11 - 09:10 AM Meanwhile, police in Liverpool are still hunting three suspected terrorists: Bin Drinkin, Bin Fightin and Bin Robbin. A fourth suspect, Bin Workin, is thought to be fictitious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 May 11 - 08:49 AM Lighter is right. There were many more and bigger demos when an obscure pastor from a little country church burned one koran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 06 May 11 - 08:37 AM A billion didn't demonstrate. Good news there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 06 May 11 - 08:29 AM Update on some of the (to be expected no doubt) recent reaction on the streets of Pakistan: "About 1,500 Islamists demonstrated against bin Laden's killing, saying more figures like him would arise to wage holy war against the United States. [...] "Jihad (holy war) against America will not stop with the death of Osama," Fazal Mohammad Baraich, a cleric, said amid shouts of "Down with America" at a demonstration near the city of Quetta, capital of Baluchistan province in the southwest. "Osama bin Laden is a shaheed (martyr). The blood of Osama will give birth to thousands of other Osamas." Some protesters burned American flags." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/06/us-binladen-pakistan-protest-idUSTRE74516H20110506 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 May 11 - 08:21 AM "That wasn't hard - was it, though not really surprising that you took so long to confess?" I stated that answer on 05 May 11 - 02:16 PM . It is a matter of opinion if the world is safer, but your man is in a minority I think. Will you stop using that lie now Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 May 11 - 08:10 AM "On this issue, I said I could not object to an incursion if it was legal and justified." At long last - then you would be prepared to allow a country with a bad human rights record to send armed troops into Britain to carry out an assassination, unannounced and uninvited - is that right? That wasn't hard - was it, though not really surprising that you took so long to confess? Whether this action was 'legal' remains yet to be decided, but the world certainly is not a safer place. From an article by John Walters in this morning's Irish Times: "In the long term, the world is safer" From John Walters' column in the Irish Times this morning: "Al -Qaeda is no a hierarchical movement, more a viral thought process - to call bin Laden a leader is like suggesting that the internet has a leader. To kill the man widely associated with Al-Qaeda's most spectacular operations may satisfy desires for vengeance and retribution, but it will not weaken the "movement" which moves without central guidance. On the contrary, it risks offering an untimely and gratuitous provocation which may spark a global re-ignition of anti-western sentiment". If Walters is right, and there's no reason to suppose he's not, far from the world being a safer place, this will have proveed little more than an inneffectual prod at the hornets' nest. Might have been different if America had sought support for its action beforehand, especially from the country concerned - but what are enemies for - if not making them. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Date: 06 May 11 - 07:55 AM "That fact is recognized by every rational person in the U.S., Pakistan, and everywhere else." Nice! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 06 May 11 - 07:52 AM Good link, Charley. But the media rarely discuss the morality of anything. If it feels good, do it! Especially if we get paid! Nevertheless, the President and the SEALs did what they had to, as expeditiously as was humanly possible in a house filled with people. That fact is recognized by every rational person in the U.S., Pakistan, and everywhere else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 May 11 - 06:31 AM It got a laugh, but it makes perfect sense. In the long term, the world is safer, but planned attacks might be brought forward increasing the immediate threat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 06 May 11 - 05:43 AM "the determination of their legal guilt was irrelevant and that it was best to murder suspects on the basis of suspicion?" Did he say that? Well there's an interesting notion. Looking forward to the reaction on the day when a team of Iraqui troops swoop in unannounced and summarily dispatch of Bush & Blair for their war crimes in a similarly hassle-free fashion. The pithy last word by Iannucci recounting the US statement is worth reprising: "The world is a safer place now that Osama Bin Laden is dead, and we must fully expect a terrorist attack." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: 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". |
|
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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Don Firth Date: 05 May 11 - 06:07 PM Read your own posts, Jim. Don Firth |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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? |
