BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 04:46 AM

""In war you kill your enemies, especially if they are active, dangerous and important - To do anything other than that is foolish in the extreme.""

So according to you we shouldn't have taken P.O.W.s, or bothered with the Nuremberg trials, just shot the lot.

We established a serious precedent at Nuremberg, that it is not legal to shoot an unarmed enemy, and that it would be treated as murder to do so.

If you can't see the relevance of that, then it is your perspective that is sadly awry.

Confucius say, when hole is almost too deep to climb out, the sensible man stops digging.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 02:27 AM

Fatwa 1996 "We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it"

Fatwa 1998 "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"

This man was no criminal - Do not apply what would be considered normal criminal proceedings which call for and require apprehension and capture.

This man was a declared enemy, an active, dangerous and important one. It was he himself who declared war against you and directed the execution of that war - In war you kill your enemies, especially if they are active, dangerous and important - To do anything other than that is foolish in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 06:24 PM

You'll go to any lengths, violate any sovereign frontier, and sink to any depths of lawbreaking, including the killing of innocents, to achieve your desired end.

Exactly what you complain about with respect to ObL's actions.

Whose sense of proportion is out of kilter?

With every post you prove that you are a gun happy psycho.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 02:57 PM

"I was wrong. You're not as bad as ObL, you're f**king worse.

Well then Don "What you see is what you get" that speaks volumes with respect your sense of proportion and your grip on reality.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 11:32 AM

""Hey Don fucking(Wyziwyg)T would we have seen you volunteering to take any of their places in order to maintain the niceties of legal protocol - No bloody way we wouldn't, and you damn well know it, you value your own arse too much for that sort of sacrifice - so much for your hypocritical principles.""

You know nothing about me, nor about what I would do or have done, you ignorant prick.

I was wrong. You're not as bad as ObL, you're f**king worse.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 03:13 AM

"'Fraid you did Keith - cited a few postings up."

'Fraid not Jim. Even there I never regarded or spoke of the people in the compound as hostages.

"Perhaps you should cite one of your 'experts' instead of just relying on you 'Sealed Knot' experiences?"

Sealed Knot? I was a reservist soldier for 39 years if that counts.
I just googled up the bomb facts.
I like to get my facts right.
What is wrong with expert opinion Jim?
Just that it never supports you!

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

"How long would that have taken"
Yeah - that's the way to do it - shoot 'em all without a trial and save the state some money - eye-for-an-eye, then we'll really never be able to tell the difference between one bunch of terrorist and another.
"And don't forget to say "f***in'" a lot."
Or twat - some here seem quite happy with "fuckin'" already.
"rather than make a twat of myself on the forum."
Too late, too late, the maiden cried - and on two threads at the same time.
"As I told you then, there would be no casualties outside. "
Perhaps you shoud cite one of your 'experts' instead of just relying on you 'Sealed Knot' experiences?
"I never regarded or spoke of the people in the compound as hostages. 'Fraid you did Keith - cited a few postings up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: andrew e
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 02:48 AM

http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/2011/05/amazing-rotating-glow-in-dark-bin-laden.html

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 01:12 AM

Don T, do me a favour and actually ask those people.
And when you find that most of them do agree with me, don't forget to call them "arrogant fascists."

And don't forget to say "f***ing" a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 07:01 PM

"I wanted him legally extradited, legally tried, and legally punished by a properly constituted judicial authority."

You prissey, self satified, smug, niaive bastard.

How long would that have taken?? In that time how many innocent people would have been abducted and slaughtered in the attempts to get him released. Hey Don fucking(Wyziwyg)T would we have seen you volunteering to take any of their places in order to maintain the niceties of legal protocol - No bloody way we wouldn't, and you damn well know it, you value your own arse too much for that sort of sacrifice - so much for your hypocritical principles.

Tell Don fuckin'(Wyziwyg)T how many of Osama bin Laden's victims were accorded due process of law ("legally extradited, legally tried, and legally punished by a properly constituted judicial authority) before they were killed - I'll tell you, you stupid SOB - NONE. He and He alone found them guilty as charged en-masse in 1996 and again in 1998 - he damn well declared open season on them. Osama bin Laden was charged and found guilty and executed in accordance with a rule of law that he, himself would and could not have had any objection to whatsoever as that is exactly how he himself meted out punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 06:36 PM

""You will not find many in our country who would want him given another chance.
Are you ashamed of all of us Don T?""

I didn't want him given any chance you twerp.

I wanted him legally extradited, legally tried, and legally punished by a properly constituted judicial authority.

Your attitude to the business is too close to the "end justifies the means" policies of people like ObL.

If you act like him you're as f**king bad as he is.

So no, I'm not ashamed of all those you fondly imagine as being favourable to you, just to YOU specifically because I don't like arrogant fascists.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 05:15 PM

No Jim.
I just took the trouble to find out, rather than make a twat of myself on the forum.
Twat.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 05:06 PM

Yup, another military wannabe
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 04:32 PM

Which would be much reduced by the walls of the compound.
As I told you then, there would be no casualties outside.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 04:25 PM

As I told you on 9th May, the Mk84 2000lb bomb is highly accurate and has a danger zone of 315m.

I never regarded or spoke of the people in the compound as hostages.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 03:18 PM

"Indicating nothing of the sort!"
You're at it again Keith; would you like to tell us exactly what it indicated (following directly on after my posting regarding hostages)?
"And Jim, surely even you know that those bombs do not rely on the skill of a "crew" anymore."
O dear, not another military nut; I'd have thought one wannabe was enough)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 01:33 PM

Indicating nothing of the sort!

And Jim, surely even you know that those bombs do not rely on the skill of a "crew" anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 01:16 PM

"The only hostages I have referred to....."
Of for ****'* sake!
You wrote:
"What can you do when fighters surround themselves with civilians including children"
To which I replied:
"You can act on the basis that there are non-combatants in the area - you do not kill hostages"
To which you replied, not disputing my 'hostages' description:
"30 000 Pakistanis killed already by Al Qaeda and Taleban."
Indicating that you accepted the description of killing hostages and excused it on the basis that the Taleban killed people.
"informed" speculation."
Crap - how could you possibly know how accurately an unkown crew could drop a bomb?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 12:55 PM

"towards "hostages" as Keith described them further up the thread."

No Keith did not!
The only hostages I have referred to were those in Iran, in Jimmy Carter's presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 12:12 PM

Osama bin Laden was "rather daft"

You should have made it clearer in your post that the assumption that the women were non-combatants had been made by someone else, again only an assumption that I certainly would have given no credence to if I was ordering my men to enter that compound.

As far as "humanity towards hostages" go, there are far and by way far too many amateur videos of people getting their heads clumsily sawn off by purported supporters of this clown for him ever to have expected anything but wall-to-wall-death when they came knocking at his door. He himself was reported to have stated that he would never ever allow himself to be taken alive. How nice of the US Navy SEAL's to give the man his own personally desired way out.

"Your speculation on how many people would be killed by a 2,000 is just that - pure speculation"

No Jim with regard to this specific point with you it is pure speculation, on my part it is "informed" speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 10:46 AM

"Why do you automatically assume that the 8 women are non-combatants?"
I'm assuming nothing of the sort, they were all described as non-combatant family members by the CIA observers.
The CIA observer making the report took pains to point out that bin Laden was a devoted family man who took an enormous risk in bringing his family to the compound - he headed his statement, "You may not want to know this but....." Given the US record on civilian casualties, BL would have been rather daft to have relied on their humanity towards "hostages" as Keith described them further up the thread.
Your speculation on how many people would be killed by a 2,000 is just that - pure speculation
Maybe they could have use done of those non-chemical weapons you're so fond of!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 10:31 AM

1: "8 women, 13 children and either 4 or 5 adult males - my lousy maths makes that 21 non- combatants in all."

Why do you automatically assume that the 8 women are non-combatants?

2: "the domestic dwellings in the immediate area, many of them adjacent to the compound"

Here are aerial photographs of the "compound" and a drawing detailing 12'; 13'; & 18' perimeter concrete walls:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/bin-laden-compound-abbottabad-google-maps_n_856225.html

The 2,000lb bomb would have killed everybody inside the compound damage outside would have been fairly slight, I expect that you have witnessed the effects of a 2,000lb bomb detonating Jim? If you haven't then the walls deflect the blast upwards before they themselves are knocked down, the shock wave always takes the line of least resistance.

3: "the only people here supporting terrorism are those defending or excusing US behaviour, particularly in regard (or in the US's case, disregard) towards civilians."

Okay for civilian deaths let's just have a look at Afghanistan since 14th April 1978.

April 1978 to October 2001:

Between 2,100,000 to 2,700,000 Afghan citizens killed by Afghan Communists; Soviet 40th Army; Mujahideen War-Lords; Taliban. Over the period that works out using the lower figure at a daily average of 248 Afghan civilians killed every single day for that 23 year period

October 2001 to December 2010:

Since 7th October 2001 there has been an international force operating inside Afghanistan charged with the protection of the general population. Since October 2001 taking the worst case estimates some 35,000 Afghan civilians have been killed in Afghanistan 80% of those have been killed by the Anti-Government Forces (Afghan Taliban; Hekmatyar; Haqqani; Pakistan Taliban; Al-Qaeda). Over the period that works out at a daily average of 10 Afghan civilians killed every single day for that 10 year period. Since ISAF have taken charge throughout Afghanistan (2006) the daily average of Afghan civilians killed each day has dropped to 5 per day of whom 4 are killed by the Taliban.

Don't know how good your mathematics is Jim but I make that a reduction in the average daily total of civilian deaths in Afghanistan of some 96%. And for this US Forces are to be condemned, best ask the citizens of Afghanistan how quickly and how eagerly they wish for a return of the "Good Old Days"

4: "The first of these articles also carried the information that he was unarmed and was shot directly in the face while fleeing"

Anything strike you as being odd about that? How on earth can you be shot in the face whilst fleeing? If you are fleeing you are running away. To be shot in the face you must be running towards, unless of course Osama bin Laden was running backwards at the time.

A combatant running is a legitimate target, a combatant standing still with his hands open over his head is surrendering and is not.

Personally I found at the time a number of strange things about this:

a: If the orders were get him dead or alive then OK that is a judgement call on whoever it is that first comes upon him. As you seem to believe the tale he was running therefore a legitimate target, as nobody could tell for certain what he was running for or towards.

b: If it was an ordered assassination then no-one in the compound would have been left alive and no-one would ever have known that the raid actually took place.

c: What if the man in the compound was not bin Laden? Then he would have to have been shot. His body would have to have been spirited away and disposed of where no-one could ever find it and examine it. The raid and the death of bin Laden would be publicised to the high heavens and shouted from the roof tops. WHY all of this? Because it would then force Al-Qaeda to either produce bin Laden alive to refute the claim of his death, or confirm bin Laden as being dead.

All I know for certain is that the raid and the result of the raid was shouted from the roof-tops, there have been no photographs shown of the dead body that clearly show him as being Osama bin Laden and they made absolutely sure that the body will never be recovered for examination and Al-Qaeda did confirm that Osama bin Laden was dead beyond all shadow of a doubt.

5: "There is no information regarding bin Laden's direct or planning role in operations and it is generally thought that he didn't have one, but was a spiritual and inspirational leader; maybe you should pass on the unique information you appear to have to those who can make better use of it."

1996 - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed proposes the idea of what eventually became the 9/11 attacks to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. The plan is rejected by OBL as being over-elaborate and on too grand a scale, OBL's objection is that with those numbers involved it would never be kept secret. On the technical side OBL also objected to the idea of taking over aircraft on long distance flights flying into the USA as they would arrive at the target destinations with minimal fuel onboard. So KSM was told to go away and re-think the operation.

1998 - Plan resubmitted now using internal long haul flights taking off from US airports on the eastern seaboard to attack targets in New York and Washington DC. WTC picked on the directions of OBL in revenge for those taken in earlier failed Al-Qaeda attack on the same building complex (1993). The plan is now approved by OBL and handed to Mohammed Atef, Al-Qaeda's Chief of Operations. Atef selects Yemenis for the mission but unfortunately as it was discovered in training, they are not good material as prospective airline pilot candidates and their english is simply just not up to it. The Operation is postponed for a second time.

<1998 - Elsewhere Al-Qaeda has organised and planned two operations from inside Afghanistan that successfully blew up two US Embassies in East Africa. One of the side effects of this is that it becomes more difficult to obtain US entry visa from the middle and near east. Atef is instructed by bin Laden to get recruits for the attack on the US mainland from Europe.

1999- Atef's talent scouts locate and groom Mohammed Atta in Germany. In November of 1999 Atta and four others fly first to Pakistan then cross the border into Afghanistan where they are all interviewed by Osama bin Laden. OBL selects Atta to lead the operation and briefs him on the plan.

2000 - The attack on the USS Cole in Yemen

2001 - 9/11 attack + aftermath. The only thing that OBL and the Taliban have underestimated is the US response under GWB. The only thing they have not taken into account and completely overlooked are the ramifications of attacking the US mainland - Mullah Mohammed Omar will regret that oversight until the day he dies, it cost him a country.

And you say what Jim that Osama bin Laden was the "spiritual" leader?? No hand in operational decisions or direction? Bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 05:58 AM

OK Keith, you carry on defending the indefensible, that is your right, I question your capacity to actually think for yourself though, it seems to me that you have fallen for the lies and propaganda that eminates from your govermnment just as much as the 'Ruskies' fell for the same under communist rule. Try shaking off the conventions of how Americans are 'supposed' to think and try to be a little objective and try questiuoning things occasionally - you may yet surprise yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 03:55 AM

"Because it was illegal,"

We discussed the legality early on.
Most expert opinion was that it WAS legal.
Nothing against that from UN, The Hague or even Pakistan.

" it sets a very dangerous precedent,"
Yes. Perhaps it will deter some future terrorists.

" it effectively says that if the world's biggest superpower can ignore protocols like informing a country that it is about to launch an attack on a specific target within its territory,"
Obama was at pains to justify that.

"that the aim was clearly to kill, not to capture,"

That is not clear at all.

" that no regard was taken of any other casualties in the raid,"

Obama must have been tempted to just bomb the compound and kill everyone.
Had the Seals suffered heavy casualties, or the raid degenerated into a Jimmy Carter style fiasco, he would have been very politically damaged.
A brave decision I think.

" that the body was illegally disposed of"
Yes, but as with the whole situation, it was by far the lesser of evils.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 03:54 AM

"So, not very angry and disturbed."
Angry enough to demand an international inquiry.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 03:52 AM

"And you know that for a fact, eh, Jim? You were there? Or are you clairvoyant?"
Didn't need my ouija board Don - those who planned the raid had an almost exact account of who was in the compound prior to the raid, gathered beforehand and given to the troops, who carried that information with them - 8 women, 13 children and either 4 or 5 adult males - my lousy maths makes that 21 non- combatants in all. Added to this are the domestic dwellings in the immediate area, many of them adjacent to the compound, also the busy public road nearby. Using a 2,000 bomb would, in the US's own words have been "a major public relations disaster", .
All this was covered here by The Sunday Times in a comprehensive series of reports, including overhead maps of the area.
I have never mentioned "large numbers" being killed on the raid, I know there weren't. My concern is for the the total disregard for the lives of non-combatants in order to carry out what was, in my opinion, an unnecessary assassination - behaviour we have long come to expect from the US in the field, and are seldom disappointed.
"And it's STILL patently obvious that your sympathies lie with Osama bin Laden"
And you still deliberately distort mine and others opinions in order to defend your country's appalling and continuing human rights record - the only people here supporting terrorism are those defending or excusing US behaviour, particularly in regard (or in the US's case, disregard) towards civilians.   
I think the articles were based on information supplied by Reuters, but can't really remember.   
"We have not been told the exact circumstances."
The first of these articles also carried the information that he was unarmed and was shot directly in the face while fleeing; the only mention of possible armed resistance was that it was thought his son may have been armed (it turned out he wasn't), which was the reason given for his being shot.
"Had OBL been allowed to continue planning mass casualty operations"
There is no information regarding bin Laden's direct or planning role in operations and it is generally thought that he didn't have one, but was a spiritual and inspirational leader; maybe you should pass on the unique information you appear to have to those who can make better use of it.
Among the reports following his death is the fact that al-Quaeda has long ceased to be a definable organisation, but rather, many worldwide unconnected groups linked only by a philosophy - rather like The Mafia. It was suggested that, if it did exist as an identifiable entity, even on a national basis, it could have been dealt with long ago.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 03:15 AM

"Now, why do you think that the operation should not have been successfully carried out?"

Because it was illegal, it sets a very dangerous precedent, it effectively says that if the world's biggest superpower can ignore protocols like informing a country that it is about to launch an attack on a specific target within its territory, that the aim was clearly to kill, not to capture, that no regard was taken of any other casualties in the raid, that the body was illegally disposed of then it is a clear message that terrorism by what is regarded as the world's policeman, is OK, and if it is OK for America, then it follows that it is OK for anyone else to do this. China, Pakistan, Israel or whoever you like, we have no moral high ground any more from which to attempt to apply moderation to other aggressors.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 03:05 AM

Silas, does that advance this debate an inch?
The wars and their costs have been discussed here in great depth over and over and over.

Now, why do you think that the operation should not have been successfully carried out?

Jim,
"Pakistan was one of those listed as being both angry and disturbed at what happened"

Almost as angry and disturbed as they were about one pastor in one church burning one book.

So, not very angry and disturbed.
Any other reason for leaving OBL to his plotting?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 03:02 AM

"A friend of my brother from Cornwall was among the Brits killed by OBL in Bali"


And your point is exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 02:56 AM

Ther have been some 10,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan and probably ten times that number in Iraq since Bush and Blair invaded - but it don't matter does it, they are not democratic western citizens, they don't really count do they.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 02:41 AM

Jon, those bombs were probably already planned, and anyway were just 30 minutes drive from the tribal regions.
Throw the stuff in the back and drive to familiar locations.
Not complex operations like attacking Western countries.
That was OBL's speciality.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 02:14 AM

Had OBL been allowed to continue planning mass casualty operations, unknown numbers more would have been slaughtered.

Or would it have made any difference, Keith?

Following what was described as a revenge attack in Pakistan, you seemed to be arguing Bin Laden's death made no difference and posted (amongst others posts):

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 11 - 03:24 AM

The Pakistan bombs are just the latest in a series that have been going on in Pakistan for years.
Each bomb is justified by the bombers as a reprisal for some recent actions by Pakistan.
If ObL had not been killed some other justification would have been given for this week's bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 02:01 AM

Exactly.

Don T how many of our Nationality are you not ashamed of?
Your ex army brothers?
What is there opinion on this Don T?
People at the pub and folk club?
People at the Conservative Club?

You will not find many in our country who would want him given another chance.
Are you ashamed of all of us Don T?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 01:56 AM

"9/11 was the highest number of our nationality ever killed in a single terror outrage."

Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 01:22 AM

I almost forgot Don T.
A friend of my brother from Cornwall was among the Brits killed by OBL in Bali.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 01:15 AM

Two men and a woman died.
They must have known who he was, what he had done, and that he was a target.
They chose to link their destiny to his and join in his martyrdom.
And they were combatants.

Had OBL been allowed to continue planning mass casualty operations, unknown numbers more would have been slaughtered.
Don T, 9/11 was the highest number of our nationality ever killed in a single terror outrage.
50+ Londoners died in 7/7 and many more live on maimed, mutilated and disfigured.
Those who died in the compound were actively working to kill more of our people Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 09:04 PM

"Screw ObL, he got what he deserved, but in the process a lot of people lost any trust that they might previously have had in US integrity."

You and Jim Carroll.

You keep talking about indefinite but large numbers killed in the raid, striving to make it sound like the Battle of Armageddon. It was my understanding that there were only a couple of casualties other than bin Laden. You have any authoritative figures? And where did you get them?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 08:45 PM

""I would say that the number of caualties was remarkably small for such an operation.
None of the children were hurt, and the adults present must have been complicit.""

Yes Keith, The ease and the cold, callous unconcern with which you are able to write off the lives of men women and children as being insignificant providing the soldiers "get it done" has been well documented, and makes me ashamed to share Nationality with you.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 08:38 PM

""And it's STILL patently obvious that your sympathies lie with Osama bin Laden, a man who is responsible for planning the deaths of thousands pf innocent civilians. How many MORE deaths would you regard as just peachy-keen before you'd think it acceptable for someone to do something about him?""

How many MORE deaths would you regard as just peachy-keen provided that Bin Laden was one of them?

Into how many allied countries would you regard it as just peachy-keen to send special forces, if it suited you to do so?

Screw ObL, he got what he deserved, but in the process a lot of people lost any trust that they might previously have had in US integrity.

That'll come back to bite one day.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 05:30 PM

"Rather they were prepared to slaughter a compound full of mainly women and children. . . ."

And you know that for a fact, eh, Jim? You were there? Or are you clairvoyant?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 03:34 PM

We have not been told the exact circumstances.
We do know he was in his bedroom, so he could not have been "running away."

We can be sure that the possibility of an explosive belt was considered.
In any case, a combatant can legally be killed unless actually surrendering.
Either one of those factors would justify killing him.

We have been through all this before, so what is your actual objection?

"flushed with victory "
That is the salient point.
That war was over. They were no longer combatants.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 03:26 PM

". . . you have yet to recognise that Guantanamo even exists, let alone condemning it."

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel, Jim!

Just because I haven't mentioned something doesn't mean I don't recognize that it exists or that I don't condemn it. I'm dreadfully sorry if I haven't mentioned to you that I'm aware that slavery was rife in the southern United States prior to the Civil War, but I do know about it and I condemn it wholeheartedly. Sorry I haven't mentioned that, just in case you were about to accuse me of condoning slavery as well as applauding waterboarding.

I—and a lot of other outraged American citizens—worked very hard to get George W. Bush and his puppet-master, Dick Cheney, out of office, and now we're working hard to keep the regime that approved that sort of thing out of power.

You, sir, are a veritable fount of pointless cheap shots.

But if that's all you've got, then. . . .

And it's STILL patently obvious that your sympathies lie with Osama bin Laden, a man who is responsible for planning the deaths of thousands pf innocent civilians. How many MORE deaths would you regard as just peachy-keen before you'd think it acceptable for someone to do something about him?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 01:12 PM

Mike - compliments returned - if it was a serious attempt to bring him to justice there would have been some effort to capture him and bring him to stand trial. Rather they were prepared to slaughter a compound full of mainly women and children rather than let him escape and no effort whatever was made to bring him back alive - shot squarely in the face while attempting to escape - come on!!
"well informed people"
Hiding behind selected experts again Keith - look up the varying reports of the response to his killing rather than seizing on the first convenient one.
Incidently, Pakistan was one of those listed as being both angry and disturbed at what happened, contrary to your claims.
There are full breakdowns of the varied responses throughout the world if you care to do your homework properly.
"Also, they are a West hating terrorist organisation, so not surprising they agree with you."
One again a deliberate distortion of what I have put forward - as I said earlier, always a sign that you have run out of steam:
My earlier contribution sums up exactly my own feelings about the whole affair - from an American, and I believe that of others who find it distasteful.
"In 1945, Robert H Jackson, the chief United States prosecutor, said in a court in Nuremberg: "That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to Reason."
That would have been justice and not the act of revenge I believe it was.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 12:01 PM

Errr, Kieth, I don't think anyone is suggesting that OBL did not deserve what he got, the problem is the manner in which it was done, which was so wrong on so many levels.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 11:41 AM

Jim, You can describe an opinion as "insane" and "gratuitous nonsense" if it is just me, but not when such well informed people are saying it.
And what are your quotes worth?
Just vox pops from Yemen!
I was forcefully told that vox pops were worthless a couple of weeks ago.
Except the Hamas quote.
My post acknowledged that they are out of line with Arab thinking.
Not surprising as they are the old kind of regime, authoritarian and undemocratic, that Arabs are busy kicking out just now.
Also, they are a West hating terrorist organisation, so not surprising they agree with you.

Are you going to tell us why you think OBL should not have been killed now?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 11:40 AM

===The assassination was an act of revenge, nothing more===

Jim, you know that I make it a principle to use only moderate language on this forum, & have done so for the last 2 years. & also that I am ambivalent about this thread as a whole.

BUT regarding above comment of yours

DOUBLE BOLLOCKS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 09:39 AM

We can all do that Keith, if we wish to score points. It is far to early to make any such claims, especially based on a couple of articles
Jim Carroll

Reaction in the Arab world to the claim Osama bin Laden is dead has run the full range; from despair to disbelief, to calls for revenge, and happiness a killer's career is over.
In the Gaza strip Hamas's leader Ismail Haniyeh was guarded, yet also clear he saw no change for the better coming from it:
"If the news is correct, we regard this as a continuation of the American policy that is based on oppression and shedding the Muslim and Arab blood."
Saudi Arabia, which stripped bin Laden of his citizenship, hoped his death would help the fight against terror, but in his ancestral home Yemen people on the streets of Sanaa appeared divided on the issue:
"His death is normal of course. This man's name is connected with committing many wrongdoings, hurting Islam more than benefitting it, what can we say? Killing him was right."
"Killing him without any justification, whether he's bin Laden or not bin Laden, this loss of blood is haram is haram is haram – is Forbidden."
"If Osama bin Laden has really died and they killed him as they claim, a thousand Osama Bin Ladens will appear, God willing." Just three reactions, but all different.
Benghazi in rebel-held Libya has other things on its mind, remembering the fallen of its struggle on a martyr's wall, but here too there were voices raised for and against the terrorist leader.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 08:54 AM

Jim,
"Nobody has made a case for or against the action,"

Not true Jim.
We have put up a lot of pros, but no cons from you.
The Arabs are happy, Pakistan is happy.
What exactly is your objection?
Is it just that it was a US operation, and a resounding success?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 08:50 AM

Jim
"it is gratuitous nonsense to claim that "Al Qaeda is no longer relevant to Arabs." ."

Here is some more of it Jim.


How the Arab Spring Made Bin Laden an Afterthought
By Rania Abouzeid / Beirut

During these past few months of momentous political upheaval in the Middle East, Al-Qaeda's leaders were barely seen or heard. Their feeble attempts to claim a role in unshackling Arabs from their decades-old, repressive (and largely pro-American) regimes were ignored. In many ways, Osama bin Laden and his band of extremist brothers were already largely irrelevant in this region long before news of the terror mastermind's death in Pakistan. The movement was marginalized and "little more than a symbol as a result of his past achievements," as Peter Harling, a Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group, told TIME.


Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center and a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, says that in recent years, Al-Qaeda morphed from an organization into an idea, "and the idea has proven increasingly unattractive to most Arabs," he tweeted. "Bin Laden, Hamid says, "presided over Al-Qaeda's turn toward irrelevance the past five years."


, says Olivier Roy, a professor at the European University Institute in Italy, and one of the world's foremost experts on Islam Roy says, "but the bigger blow was already dealt. "It wasn't making headlines in the Middle East, it ceased to be at the core of the region's issues."

While Reuters reported that the Palestinian militant group Hamas released a statement condemning the "assassination" of an "Arab holy warrior," the Palestinian Authority had a very different take on bin Laden's take down. Spokesman Ghassan Khatib said bin Laden's death "is good for the cause of peace worldwide." In Yemen, a member of Al-Qaeda contacted by AFP called the killing a "catastrophe."


"It's certainly coincidence that the two events are linked in time, but in fact it's logical because the death of bin Laden symbolized the marginalization of Al-Qaeda in the Middle East," Roy says.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2068931,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 11 - 08:26 AM

"and you have still not made any case against the OBL action."
Nobody has made a case for or against the action, the whole situation is in the balance, which is why it is gratuitous nonsense to claim that "Al Qaeda is no longer relevant to Arabs." .
The assassination was an act of revenge, nothing more, and it has, at best. done nothing to improve the situation in the middle east; it might have seriously effected the signs of change there; we've yet to find out.
"yawn"
Facts can be boring sometimes, not to mention embarrassing. Wonder what our absent friend Terrorist will make of it?
Well done in bringing this particular issue to a satisfactory conclusion Silas
Jim Carroll