BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 10:58 PM

I am no racist and have never made a racist post.
It is disgusting that you should accuse someone of "extremely vicious racism" without any justification.
It is not even relevant to this thread.
It is just a gratuitous and nasty personal attack.

The suggestion you quote came from eminent, respected people including famously anti-racists from within the Pakistani community.
It is simply ludicrous to suggest a writer of the stature of Jasmin Allibhai-Brown is guilty of racist views against her own people, or that I am racist for reporting her views.
Likewise Lord Ahmed who has worked all his life on behalf of the poorest members of the Pakistani community.
Likewise Mohammed Saffiq who is a tireless campaigner for that community.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 07:50 PM

s
"I repeat - if we have got it wrong about America's past and present record regarding human rights, please point out where and stop hiding behind 'Anti-Americanism' - it really isn't the case."

How far back do you want to go, Jim? Before the Civil War in the 1860s? If America has such an egregious civil rights record, how do you explain the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement, Freedom Riders, all that? That was essentially a grass-roots movement. Democracy does work. It involves concerned people—citizens—getting together in an essentially non-bloody revolution and lightin a fire under the political leaders.

This was one of the essential factors in ending the Vietnam War. I remember the peace marches, the passive resistance (learned from Ghandi, whom you may recall, had a few issues with the British government), and the demonstrations. I remember the smell of tear gas. I was there.

I also remember the eeriness of the anti-war demonstration here in Seattle on the eve of the Iraq war. It stated at St. James Catholic Cathedral in downtown Seattle. A candlelight vigil. It left St. James and some 30,000 people, most carrying lighted candles, marched silently from downtown, through the Broadway District on Capitol Hill, and gathered at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral. No singing. No chanting. 30,000 people marching silently. I was there.


The United Nations has not objected, nor has The Hague, and Pakistan, although some political leaders were a bit miffed, has raised no official objection to the U. S. incursion. But YOU. You have a hissy-fit about U. S. Navy Seals going in and taking out the terrorist leader who is responsible for the deaths of AT LEAST 3,000 people (people trapped in the buildings, including the Pentagon, the passengers and crews of for hi-jacked commercial airliners, firefighters and rescue workers who died trying to rescue people, and many New Yorkers who lived or worked in the area from breathing asbestos and other toxic substances released by the destruction of the buildings. And that says nothing about the prior attacks on American embassies abroad, which resulted in many deaths. And when you're called on that, you bring up the Vietnam War and pointing a finger at "Americans" for things the military did which many American citizens themselves have taken the military—and the politicians—to task for. And in some cases, have turfed out of office!

You are a piece of work, Jim!

Now, it would never occur to me to accuse the English in general of being nothing but a bunch of Col. Blimps.

But you, Jim, I could easily make and exception for.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 06:59 PM

"Where and when did I ever "Talk Down" the horrors of these weapons??"
"smoke grenade and a can of weed killer"
That'll do nicely thank you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 06:47 PM

"By talking down the horrors of these weapons, all used against civilians, you are making my case perfectly."

Not in the slightest Jim - you are a dissembler of facts

Your initial statement referred to persistent and habitual use by the Americans of chemical weapons deliberately targeted at civilians - I pulled you up on that and that was when this discussion about Agent Orange and Napalm came into the thread.

At the time they were used, both were "legitimate", if you wish to use the term, not being banned by any treaty or convention. Neither can in any way, shape, or form be described as a "Chemical Weapon" in the accepted sense of the term as dealt with and detailed in the CWC, or to give it it's full title - "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction"

Another example of your dissembling is the accusation:

"By talking down the horrors of these weapons"

Another direct question of mine that you can ignore. I shall put it with the other one:

1: Where and when did I state that White Phosphorus was harmless?? (Still waiting for your answer on that)

2: Where and when did I ever "Talk Down" the horrors of these weapons?? (In fact I believe that I expressed an opinion that there are no nice ways of dying in an armed conflict, and no nice weapons when targeted against civilians)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 05:26 PM

"Or would you like Jim Carroll bring a smoke grenade and a can of weed killer to a gun fight"
By talking down the horrors of these weapons, all used against civilians, you are making my case perfectly.
You've seen the evidence of what they can do, you've had the proof that they have been used on civilians - so sneer away; it only underlines what a evil bunch you really and your kind really are.
Of course, you could prove that they don't do what the information says they do, or that they weren't used as the reports say they were, on civilians and we are making it all up because we don't like Yanks or their supporters, but it's to much of a proven point for that really, isn't it?
"It is simply a vicious personal attack on me to smear, undermine and discredit me."
Stop being pathetic Keith, you've managed to discredit yourself without my help.
Tell us you didn't write what I claimed you did, or that you don't believe it and only put it up as a typing exercise, and we've all misjudged you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 05:00 PM

Napalm was used in WW II. The first use was July 23, 1944. Just in case anyone wants to know.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 04:27 PM

Well, Agent Orange and Napalm is/was a Chemical, yes?

Most things on this earth are chemical in composition, if in the course of them being used someone is killed - they have not been killed by a "Chemical Weapon". If as you suggest there is no distinction then why is there a Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons and a completely separate Convention covering Chemical and Biological Weapons? Psst in the latter you will find no reference to Napalm or Agent Orange.

It was used as a weapon, yes? No they were NOT

Well........ Do some reading. Or would you like Jim Carroll bring a smoke grenade and a can of weed killer to a gun fight?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 04:21 PM

Jim calls me an "extremely vicious" racist.
He justifies this because I repeated a widely reported opinion of eminent non racist people about something for which no other explanation was offered.

It is simply a vicious personal attack on me to smear, undermine and discredit me.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 03:53 PM

"For example, shall we examine the history of a few other countries? Where shall we start, eh?"
I apologise if I have mistaken your posting; but that alters nothing here.
I repeat - if we have got it wrong about America's past and present record regarding human rights, please point out where and stop hiding behind 'Anti-Americanism' - it really isn't the case.
You've heard the accusations and been given the examples; now where did we get it wrong?
We really don't have to rummage round your history - we lived through the period and it was a formative influence on our thinking.
I couldn't agree more about the record of other countries - Britain in particular; "the Empire on which the sun never set, nor the blood ever dried". I would be the last person in the world to defend the inhumanity carried out in the name of 'Great' Britain, from Amritsar to Tony Blair's 'weapons of mass destruction', but this in no way absolves the US from its not-so-distant past and present behaviour, and acting as an apologist for it drags every American down to the level of its leaders.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 03:27 PM

"initial charges don't hold water"

Explain please

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 03:20 PM

Jim, you do have a real knack for getting the wrong end of the stick.

The "bovine manure" I was referring to was in response to andrew e.'s posting of a link to a web site that claims that Osama bin Laden died nine years ago of kidney failure. This web site appears to be a veritable convention of conspiracy theories, including the claim that 9/11 was bit the work of al Qaeda, but of the Bush Administration.

But that is actually small potatoes compared to the other bovine manure on this thread.

If someone is hell-bent on trying to trash some other country or group of people and their initial charges don't hold water, they frequently go rummaging around in the country's history in search of dirty laundry.

And every country of any historical significance has a lot of it.

For example, shall we examine the history of a few other countries? Where shall we start, eh?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 03:03 PM

"You justify calling me that on the ground that I reported an opinion proffered by one Leftwing senior statesman and a Leftwing former MP, and later endorsed by three eminent Pakistanis."
Whoever said it - it is a racist statment - one that stereotypes all British Pakistanis as potential paedophiles.
You did not put it up as a quotation; you presented it as your opinion, exactly as I have reproduced it here.
I am totally fed up with your hiding behind other people's quotes - I can only assume that as you put it up IT IS YOUR RACIST OPINION AND COMPLETELY IN LINE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE YOU HAD TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT ON THAT ABOMINABLE THREAD WHICH YOU HI-JACKED TO GET YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS.
For ****'* sake, grow up and take responsibility for what you put forward.
Now leave it alone and let's move on; you are only making yourself look stupid as well as racist.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 02:40 PM

Jim, no-one here could shrug off an accusation of "extremely vicious" racism.
If you would only keep the Mudcat rule against personal attacks, we would not keep getting in to these binds.

You justify calling me that on the ground that I reported an opinion proffered by one Leftwing senior statesman and a Leftwing former MP, and later endorsed by three eminent Pakistanis.
I pointed out that I myself did not have the knowledge of the culture to form or express such an opinion.

The opinion was widely reported in all the reputable media, and was crucial to the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 01:52 PM

"Psst you clown,"
Ooooo I love it when you're angry - because it's a sign that you've run out of steam.
The idea that the most powerful nationin the world resorted to trying to starve a Third World country into submission was obscene enough, but the level they sank to here with the long-term effects and the deformities really puts your argument in the sewer where it belongs.
Still have the glow after seeing the helicopters lifting the Saigon embassy staff of the roof to safety - almost as good as Thatcher leaving Downing Street in tears - good memories eh??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 01:23 PM

Well, Agent Orange and Napalm is/was a Chemical, yes?

It was used as a weapon, yes?

Well........

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 12:36 PM

"In the end, it really doesn't matter whether they are chemical or not,"

It bloody well does if some complete and utter berk sits down and taps away spouting emotive drivel about people purposely targeting unarmed civilians with chemical weapons

"......they are horrendous weapons, especially when used against civilians,

Psst you clown, ALL WEAPONS are horrendous when used against unarmed civilians, or hadn't you realised that. As I have stated previously there are no NICE ways to die in an armed conflict irrespective of who you are.

"...as they have been regularly and consistently, and they are indicative of how the US has conducted warfare for at least half a century."

Regularly and consistently you say? Not surprising really as neither of these so called "weapons" were proscribed or considered illegal. If any combatant wished to kill their opponents put yourself in their position Jim Lad - are you honestly trying to tell me that your weapons of choice would be a smoke grenade or an aerosol can of weed-killer? If so more fool you, in your position I would choose something that guaranteed the result immediately (not fifty years down the line) and with far greater accuracy.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 12:18 PM

1000

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 12:18 PM

1000

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 12:11 PM

"LOL. "
Seconded - and I'm sure the pilots who dropped the stuff and came home with cancer would have a bit of a giggle about it - assuming they survived, of course.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 12:11 PM

And Jim, I am still waiting for my "inane remark" that you thought should be retracted, and when I ever "supported the use of chemical weapons on civilians."

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 12:07 PM

I did write that Jim, but as you know and choose not to mention, that suggestion came not from me but from eminent Pakistanis like Mohamed Shafique, Lord Ahmed, and Yasmin Aibhai-Brown.

As I was only reporting their opinions I can not be accused of the attack, and it is ludicrous to accuse those famously anti racist Pakistanis of "an extrememely vicious racist attack" on their own people.

So withdraw.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 11:30 AM

LOL.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 11:24 AM

Wikipedia Rule One:

Do not rely on Wikipedia alone, particularly for controversial topics.

First, no source is given for the horrific picture of the Vietnamese man. Even if it is authentic, it would be very difficult and perhaps impossible to know whether his condition resulted from any environmental factor, including Agent Orange. Horrible birth defects are, unfortunately, always with us. The other pictures are equally questionable. The issue of Agent Orange can't be decided by anybody's unsourced or propaganda-source photographs. Only medical and epidemiological research can establish the medical, including the statistical, risks posed by any substance.

Second, always beware of the words "linked to." All they mean is that somebody has offered *some* evidence that two things *may* have *some sort of* connection. That's all! The real question is how real and important is the "link" - assuming it's real at all.

Here is the list of conditions recognized by the Veterans Administration as possibly caused by Agent Orange exposure.

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/diseases.asp

It's reasonable to suppose that further research will show additional conditions. Any "link" to birth defects, however, though widely promoted by concerned veterans' families in the '70s, seems to be especially weak.

Not all the conditions listed are equally serious, and most result from unusually heavy Agent Orange exposure.

More to the point: not everybody exposed to Agent Orange develops any of these conditions. As far as I can tell, the *precise* risk of *any* medical consequences to anyone, soldier or civilian, from simple Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam is still quite unclear despite years of study. But it appears to be rather low.

If Agent Orange were really as lethal as propagandists have claimed, there should be, forty-odd years later, an enormous number of such cases.

Agent Orange is bad for you. But it was not the health scourge of Vietnam that propagandists claim. The real risks of exposure in Vietnam were roughly comparable to the risks involved in handling any sort of herbicide or pesticide. People deserve compensation for ill effects because they were exposed without their knowledge, not because Agent Orange was an "illegal" weapon.

Because its use was not intended to kill people, it was not a "weapon" at all. (Though that obviously doesn't mean that it was a harmless substance.)

The threat of Agent Orange appears to have been far less, for example, than the exposure of hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers to clouds of airborne asbestos, a known and very dangerous carcinogen, by Osama Bin Laden on 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 10:50 AM

"And Jim, you accuse me of an "extremely vicious racist attack on British Pakistanis""
One more time Keith
If you did not write:
"There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
about the British Pakistani community (numbering 1.2 million people) based on a tiny handful of examples, then I unreservedly withdraw my comment that you made racist statements and I apologise unreservedly.
I find such a statement outageously racist, and so did others on that thread - we might be wrong though!
Similarly, if you did not contibute 535 postings (not the final figure by any means, but I can't be arsed re-counting them) attempting to prove that the British Pakistani community were predominant in procuring underage girls for sex, on a thread supposedly dealing with Muslim prejudice, then I withdraw my accusation that you are accusing me of thread creep when you have been guilty of the same to a spectacular degree elsewhere, and again, I apologise unrervedly.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 06:44 AM

Long term health effects do not make sense as a weapon of war, especially if it effects your own people too.
It was not a weapon.
It was half a century ago.
There is no connection with Afghanistan, Pakistan, or anything else remotely related to OBL, but Jim would much rather not discuss OBL.


Jim, what was my "inane description of phosphorus bombs" that you thought I should retract?
And Jim, you accuse me of an "extremely vicious racist attack on British Pakistanis"
That smear can not be allowed to stand Jim.
Substantiate it with a quote, or withdraw the lie.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 06:07 AM

"The harmful effects were not immediate so it can not be regarded as a weapon."
Oh dear!!!Read andrespond to what Guest Jon has posted
And napalm and phosphorus bombing??
We are discussing it because that is how the US is conducting its wars.
Surely the events in Yemen have shown that we need to clean up our acts if we are going to have an influence in putting a satisfactory end to what has happened in the Middle East?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 05:27 AM

The effects came years later.

Quoting from Wikipedia:

"Prior to the controversy surrounding Agent Orange, there was already a large body of scientific evidence linking 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D to serious negative health effects and ecological damage.[14] But in 1969, it was revealed to the public that the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), and that the TCDD was causing many of the previously unexplained adverse health effects which were correlated with Agent Orange exposure."

Public knowledge even in 1969 but the US didn't stop until 1971.

Why are we discussing it here?

I think I joined in when someone suggested "monsters" should be executed...

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 05:05 AM

The harmful effects were not immediate so it can not be regarded as a weapon.
The effects came years later.
Why are we discussing it here?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 04:56 AM

Its harmful effects were not known at the time

The US military were first informed one of Agent Orange's constituents was contaminated with a toxic substance in the 1950! They may not have known the full effects when they started using it but they did know it was not "pure herbicide".

Agent Orange was used between 1961 and 1971. It stretches the imagination somewhat to believe that the US were not aware of its effects on the civilian population well before 1971.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 04:43 AM

Jim, what has any of this to to with OBL?
Agent Orange was not used as an anti personnel weapon, or as a weapon at all.
It was used as a defoliant.
Its harmful effects were not known at the time, hence US service people suffered effects.
But that was half a century ago.

White phosphorus is used for illumination and making smoke, but it does burn.
That is how it makes light and smoke.
It was not used to get OBL so why discuss it here?
Likewise napalm?

Jim, what was my "inane description of phosphorus bombs" that you thought I should retract?
And Jim, you accuse me of an "extremely vicious racist attack on British Pakistanis"
That smear can not be allowed to stand Jim.
Substantiate it with a quote, or withdraw the lie.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 04:15 AM

"Agent Orange was a glorified weed killer"
And I assume the human beings, including the children referered to are merely to be regarded as 'weeds'?
"In the main hospital in Tay Ninh, a quarter of all births are miscarriages... Hydrocephalus, or water on the brain, is thought to be one of the many malformations attributable to Agent Orange. At the Tu Do Hospital, doctors need to perform some 100 operations a year on hydrocephalic babies."
"Since the dumping on Vietnam of some 11 million gallons of Agent Orange there has been a huge increase in the frequency of genetic malfunctions. Children have been born without eyes, with twisted, mangled limbs, even without brains. In the main hospital in Tay Ninh, a quarter of all births are miscarriages."
Similarly, you have both presented white phosphorus as only being used for illumination - you've have both said it enough for me to believe that it is your opinion and neither of you have ever retracted it.
In the end, it really doesn't matter whether they are chemical or not, they are horrendous weapons, especially when used against civilians, as they have been regularly and consistently, and they are indicative of how the US has conducted warfare for at least half a century.
"enough bovine manure"
If what we are saying is wrong, please tell us that the US doesn't and has never behaved as described, has never used white phosphorus, napalm.... et al on civilians, does not arrest suspects without charge, hold them in concentration camp conditions and ship them off around the world to be tortured - otherwise you are supporting what is being done in your name. None of the Americans I know would give their/your government such permisssion to act as they have done and are still doing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 06:35 PM

andrew, enough bovine manure on this thread without tossing wheezy conspiracy theories into the works.

Long been debunked.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: andrew e
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 06:07 PM

http://www.bushstole04.com/911/laden_dead_9_times.htm

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

"Whether napalm is a classified as a chemical weapon is a moot point - it contains chemicals in order to give it its desired attributes"

ERmm Jim, everything on this earth contains chemicals in various combinations and concentrations to give their desired attributes - That does not necessarily make everything on this earth a "Chemical Weapon"

Napalm - conventional munitions - incendiaries

Agent Orange was a glorified weed killer

At the time they were used neither was proscribed.

Psst!! Jim still waiting for you to show me where it was I stated that White Phosphorus was harmless - Or are you having a bit of trouble with that? Not surprising really as I never said anything of the sort.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 04:25 PM

"Whether napalm is a classified as a chemical weapon is a moot point - it contains chemicals in order to give it its desired attributes,"

Like gunpowder then Jim.

"A bit rich coming from someone who helped hijack a thread and turn it into and interminable and extremely vicious racist attack on British Pakistanis"

Lie.
I stuck with the original subject days longer than Lox and others, and there were no racist attacks by me (or anyone else).

I say that your statement is a lie.
Put up a quote to show that you are not a liar Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 04:07 PM

Whether napalm is a classified as a chemical weapon is a moot point - it contains chemicals in order to give it its desired attributes, which is enough for me to be comfortable with the description, and not me alone, it would appear. I suspect that the fact that it is not regarded by the powers that be as such has far more to do with the authority wielded by those who would use such weapons (on military and civilian targets alike) than on its constituant parts.
Some eye witness accounts of the effects of napalm and other weapons used in Viet Nam:

"As well as explosive bombs the United States Air Force dropped a considerable number of incendiary devices.
The most infamous of these was napalm, a mixture of petrol and a chemical thickener which produces a tough sticky gel that attaches itself to the skin. The igniting agent, white phosphorus, continues burning for a considerable amount of time. A reported three quarters of all napalm victims in Vietnam were burned through to the muscle and bone (fifth degree burns). The pain caused by the burning is so traumatic that it often causes death.

A New Jersey Housewife visiting Viet Nam in order to adopt 3 Vietnamese children:
"I had heard and read that napalm melts the flesh, and I thought that's nonsense, because I can put a roast in the oven and the fat will melt but the meat stays there. Well, I went and saw these children burned by napalm, and it's absolutely true. The chemical reaction of this napalm does melt the flesh, and the flesh runs right down their faces onto their chests and it sits there and grows there... These children can't turn their heads, they were so thick with flesh... And when gangrene sets in, they cut off their hands or fingers or their feet.

Martha Gelhorn in 1967:
"In the children's ward of the Qui Nhon province hospital I saw for the first time what Napalm does. A child of seven, the size of our four-year-olds, lay in the cot by the door. Napalm had burned his face and back and one hand. The burned skin looked like swollen red meat; the fingers on his hand were stretched out, burned rigid. A scrap of cheesecloth covered him, for weight is intolerable, but so too is air."

4 Viet Nam war vererans visiting Ho Chi Mhin City in 1982
"In Ho Chi Minh City we visited two hospitals which house the deformed children thought to be victims of Agent Orange. Since the dumping on Vietnam of some 11 million gallons of Agent Orange there has been a huge increase in the frequency of genetic malfunctions. Children have been born without eyes, with twisted, mangled limbs, even without brains. In the main hospital in Tay Ninh, a quarter of all births are miscarriages... Hydrocephalus, or water on the brain, is thought to be one of the many malformations attributable to Agent Orange. At the Tu Do Hospital, doctors need to perform some 100 operations a year on hydrocephalic babies. The operation required is a relatively simple one, frequently performed in the West, using a special silicone tube. But the Vietnamese doctors cannot carry out the operations because they have no silicone tubes... The tubes are manufactured in the US and America has imposed a complete embargo on exports to Vietnam."

"so he hijacks the thread, changing the subject to agent orange"
A bit rich coming from someone who helped hijack a thread and turn it into and interminable and extremely vicious racist attack on British Pakistanis.
However, the way the US conducts is wars is extremely relevant to this subject, and to try to separate the assassination of bin Laden from the war going on in the Middle East is utter nonsense.
The US attitude to civilian casualties came to the fore in the 1960s and has never altered, according to eye witnesses, some of them US soldiers, they were still using chemical weapons on civilians half a century later in Fallujah. And they have even sanitised and dehumanised the English language to make their behavious acceptable - what was killing and maiming civilians is now "collateral damage".
America and Britain are allies; how the US behaves at war rubs off on every one of its allies. Thanks to Tony Blair, and at the request of George Bush, Britain was dragged into an illegal invasion on totally false pretences - what the the US did reflects on all those supporting it and how the people of the Middle East regard us it vital to the outcome of the current unrest if we are to have any say in its outcome.
Add this to the fact that, from his admission, Keith would happily open the door to a power which not only uses torture and illegal detention against its own citizens, but also behaves as described above in warfare.
I have no doubt that he is not alone and there are other quislings who would be prepared to do exactly the same.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 12:41 PM

We do however know that the right thing was done.

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

Without seeing the footage from the cameras attached to the SEALS, we can't say if or if not a wrong has been done in terms of international law; but we can say that two wrongs don't make a right.

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

Jim Carroll - Date: 05 Jun 11 - 07:59 AM

Thanks for that long and informative cut'n'paste out of wiki which strongly supports my contention that napalm IS NOT a chemical weapon, if it were it would fall under the Convention applicable to such weapons not some Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 08:31 AM

Another of Jim's tactics.
He has failed to make a case against the OBL operation, so he hijacks the thread, changing the subject to agent orange, white phosphorus and napalm, none of which were used in the operation.
(Agent orange not used anywhere these past 50 years!)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 08:24 AM

"Agent orange" = defoliant, weed killer.

Even when used at concentrations several times higher than the USDA maximum and with 2,4,5-T, one of its constituents, known (apparently Monsanto first warned the US military in 1952) to be contaminated with a toxin?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 08:21 AM

ƒ Upon consent to be bound by Protocol III:

"The United States of America, with reference to Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, reserves the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons, but in so doing will take all feasible precautions with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life,injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects."

1: Those interviewed were not present and took no part in the fighting in Fallujah - TRUE? (Under law their so called testimony in interview would be regarded as hearsay and thus be inadimissable)

2: The Film supposedly shows and reports White Phosphorus munitions being deployed in "civilian areas" by helicopter.

"Graphic visual footage of the weapons allegedly being fired from helicopters into urban areas is displayed, as well as detailed footage of the remains of those apparently killed by these weapons, including men. Questions have been raised concerning this footage since white phosphorus can not be delivered by helicopters in the manner shown in the film. The helicopters in the film are more likely dispensing illumination flares or counter measures to divert heat seeking surface to air missiles."

3: White phosphorus burns through everything it comes into contact with until the phosphorus itself is totally consumed - Yet it does not melt or effect the outward appearance of plastic prayer beads?? How come? Or were the beads placed in the hand afterwards for effect?

4: Please provide the quote from any of my posts where I have stated that:

"white phosphorus is harmless."

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 08:04 AM

" his past support for the use of chemical weapons on civilians"

Lie.

"Don't suppose we're going to get a retraction of your inane description of phosphorus bombs"

WHAT WAS IT??
I can find no such.
YOU should retract if you can not substantiate!

"Most of your remarks are inane, but you might start by explaining your theory that white phosphorus is harmless."

Lie.
I would never say such a stupid thing, and I have not.

Why can you never just debate honestly?
Why do you always try to smear me with made up posts that I never have and never would make, and would be irrelevant to this debate even if they were true, which they emphatically are not!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 07:59 AM

"Not in the slightest, nothing more to be said about either, you claimed them to be "Chemical Weapons" which they most certainly are not."
The effects of Agent Orange and Phosphorus has been covered elsewhere
Try this for 'non-chemical' napalm.
Jim Carroll

Napalm is a thickening/gelling agent generally mixed with gasoline or a similar fuel for use in military operations -- it sticks to the naked skin, and offers no real chance of removal of the burning goo from the agonised victim. The term napalm is a combination of the names of its derivatives (coprecipitated aluminum salts of naphthenic, and palmitic acids).[1] This type of napalm has long been obsolete in warfare.
"Napalm B" is the more modern version of napalm and, although distinctly different in its chemical composition, it is often referred to simply as "napalm".[2]
Colloquially, napalm has been used as the generic name of several flammable liquids used in warfare, often forms of jellied gasoline, such as to be expelled by flamethrowers in infantry and armored warfare.[2]

Forms of Napalm
Napalm B is not actually the original form of napalm. Rather, it is usually a mixture of the plastic polystyrene and the hydrocarbon benzene. This is used as a thickening agent to make jellied gasoline. Napalm B has a large advantage over the original napalm in that its ignition can be well-controlled. This was a great advantage to the soldiers, airmen, and sailors using it, because there had been numerous accidents caused by soldiers, airmen, and sailors smoking around stockpiles of napalm.[3]
There are a number of different forms of napalm B. One of these is called Fallbrook napalm, which is a mixture of 46 parts of polystyrene, 33 parts of gasoline, and 21 parts of benzene.
Modern napalm is composed primarily of benzene and polystyrene, and is known as napalm-B,[2] super-napalm, NP2, or also Incendergel. The commonly quoted composition is 21% benzene, 33% gasoline (itself containing about 1.0 to 4.0 percent benzene to raise its octane number), and 46% polystyrene. This mixture is difficult to ignite. A reliable pyrotechnic initiator, often based on thermite (for ordinary napalm) or white phosphorus (for newer compositions), must be used.[4][5] The original napalm usually burned for 15 to 30 seconds while napalm-B can burn for up to 10 minutes.[5]
Napalm 877 was used in flamethrowers and bombs by American and Allied forces to increase the deadliness of its predecessors. This substance is formulated to burn close to a specified rate and also to adhere to surfaces. Napalm B is mixed with gasoline in various proportions to achieve this. Another deadly effect of napalm B, primarily in its use in firebombs, is that napalm "rapidly deoxygenates the available air" and it also releases large amounts of deadly carbon monoxide. Napalm bombs were notably used during the Vietnam War.[2]
Lesser known was the use of napalm during the Korean War, such as during the defense of "Outpost Harry" in South Korea during the night of June 10 – 11, 1953.
Alternative compositions exist for different uses, e.g. thickened pyrophoric agent based on triethylaluminium that ignites itself when exposed to the atmosphere.
Development
Use of fire in warfare has a long history; similar to napalm is the earlier Greek fire, which was also described as "sticky fire" (πῦρ κολλητικόν) and is believed to have had a petroleum base. Thickened burning compositions proved their advantages. The development of napalm was precipitated by the use of jellied gasoline mixtures by the Allied forces during World War II.[2] The latex that had been used in these early forms of incendiary devices became logistically impossible to use during the Pacific Theater of Operations, since natural rubber was next to impossible to obtain. (The Japanese Army had overrun all of the rubber plantations in Malaya, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand.)
This extreme shortage of natural rubber prompted the chemists at American companies such as Du Pont and Standard Oil, as well as researchers at Harvard University, to strive to develop factory-made alternatives - artificial rubber for all uses, including for vehicle tires, tank tracks, gaskets, hoses, medical supplies and rain clothing. A team of chemists led by Louis Fieser at Harvard University was the first one to develop synthetic napalm, during 1942 for the U.S. Armed Forces.[1]
From 1965 to 1969, the Dow Chemical Company manufactured napalm B for the American armed forces. After news reports of napalm B's deadly and disfiguring effects were published, Dow Chemical experienced some boycotts of all its products, and its recruiters for new chemists, chemical engineers, etc., graduating from college were subject to campus boycotts. The management of the Dow Chemical Company decided that "its first obligation was the government." Meanwhile, napalm B became a symbol for the Vietnam War.[6]
Effects
When used as a part of an incendiary weapon, napalm can cause severe burns (ranging from superficial to subdermal) to the skin and body, asphyxiation, unconsciousness, and death. In this implementation, explosions can create an atmosphere of greater than 20% carbon monoxide[2] and firestorms with self-perpetuating windstorms of up to 70 miles per hour (110 km/h).[7][unreliable source?]
One of the main features of napalm is that it sticks to the naked skin, and it leaves no real chance for removing the burning napalm from the skin of the victim.
Napalm is suitable for use against dug-in enemy personnel. The burning incendiary composition flows into foxholes, trenches and bunkers, and drainage and irrigation ditches and other improvised troop shelters. People even in undamaged shelters can be killed by hyperthermia/heat stroke, radiant heat, dehydration, suffocation, smoke exposure, or carbon monoxide poisoning. The firebombing raids on German cities, e.g. Dresden and Hamburg, frequently caused death by this mechanism; the resulting deformation to the baked corpses was referred to as Bombenbrandschrumpfleichen (incendiary-bomb-shrunken bodies).[5]
One firebomb released from a low-flying plane can damage an area of 2,500 square yards (2,100 m2).
Historical use
The French Aviation navale drops napalm over Viet Minh guerrilla positions during an ambush (December 1953).
Napalm was first used as fuel for flamethrowers and went on to be used more prevalently in firebombs.[2]
In 1942, researchers at Harvard University found that a jelly gasoline-like substance burnt more slowly and thus was far more effective. They found that mixing an aluminum soap powder of naphthene and palmitate (hence na-palm), also known as napthenic and palmitic acids, with gasoline produced a brownish sticky syrup that burned more slowly than raw gasoline. This new mixture of chemicals was widely used in the Second World War in flame throwers and fire bombs. Napalm bombs burned out 40% of the area of Japanese target cities in the World War.[citation needed] Useful weapons continue to be improved, and napalm was no exception. With many more chemical compounds available after World War II, the safer (in storage) and just-as-effective napalm B compound was developed.[3]
On July 17, 1944, napalm incendiary bombs were dropped for the first time by 14 American P-38 Lightning aircraft of the 402d Fighter Squadron / 370th Fighter Group on a fuel depot at Coutances, near St. Lô, France.[8] Further use of napalm by American forces occurred in the Pacific Theater of Operations, where in 1944 - 45, napalm was used as a tactical weapon against Japanese bunkers, pillboxes, tunnels, and other fortifications, especially on Saipan, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and Okinawa, where deeply dug-in Japanese troops refused to surrender. Napalm bombs were dropped by aviators of the U.S. Navy, the United States Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Marine Corps in support of their ground troops.[9]
Then, when the U.S. Army Air Forces on the Marianas Islands ran out of conventional thermite incendiary bombs for its B-29 Superfortresses to drop on Japanese cities, its top commanders, such as General Curtis E. LeMay turned to napalm bombs to continue its fire raids on the large Japanese cities.[10]
In the European Theater of Operations napalm was used by American forces[11] in the siege of La Rochelle in April 1945 against German soldiers (and inadvertently[citation needed] French civilians in Royan) - about two weeks before the end of the war.[12]
Napalm B was also used during the Greek Civil War between the Greek Army and Communist rebels. During the last year of this Civil War, 1949, the United States increased its military aid to the Greek Government by introducing a new weapon to finish off the war - napalm B. The first napalm attack in Greece took place on the mountain of Grammos, which was the stronghold of the Communists rebels.[citation needed]
Napalm B was also widely used by the United Nations military forces during the Korean War.[2] These Allied ground forces in Korea were frequently outnumbered, and greatly, by their Chinese and North Korean attackers, but the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy naval aviators had control of the air over nearly all of the Korean Peninsula. Hence, close air support of the ground troops along the border between North Korea and South Korea was vital, and the American and other U.N. aviators turned to napalm B as an important weapon for defending against communist ground attacks.
Usage in warfare
Riverboat of the U.S. Brown-water navy deploying an ignited napalm mixture from a riverboat mounted flamethrower in Vietnam.
The US Air Force and US Navy used napalm with great effect against all kinds of targets to include troops, tanks, buildings and even railroad tunnels. The effect was not always purely physical as napalm had tangible psychological effects on the enemy as well. During World War II, the U.S. Marines quickly learned that the Japanese soldiers, when threatened with napalm and other incendiary weapons, would abandon positions in which they would fight to the death against other weapons. During the Korean War, the demoralizing effect napalm had on the enemy became apparent when scores of North Korean and Chinese troops began to surrender to aircraft flying overhead. Pilots noted that they saw surviving enemy troops waving white flags on subsequent passes after dropping napalm. The pilots radioed to ground troops and the enemy combatants were captured. Interviews with enemy prisoners of war determined that napalm was the most feared weapon used against them.[13]
More recent uses include: by France during the First Indochina War (1946–1954), the Algerian War (1954–1962),[14] the Portuguese Colonial War (1961–1974) and the Western Sahara War (1975–1991), in Nigeria (1969), India & Pakistan (1965 & 1971), Turkey used napalm bombs to depopulate entire towns and villages which were converted to military bases in Cyprus (1964, 1974), by Morocco during the Western Sahara War (1975–1991), Iran (1980–88), Israel (1967, 1982), Brazil (1972), Egypt (1973), Iraq (1980–88, 1991, 2003–present), Angola (1993), and by Argentina (1982).[4][15]
"Napalm is the most terrible pain you can imagine," said Kim Phúc, a napalm bombing survivor known from a famous Vietnam War photograph. "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius (212°F). Napalm generates temperatures of 800 (1,500°F) to 1,200 degrees Celsius (2,200°F)."[16]
Phúc sustained third-degree burns to half her body and was not expected to live after the attack by South Vietnamese aircraft. But thanks to assistance from South Vietnamese photographer Nick Ut and American doctors she survived a 14-month hospital stay and 17 operations.
International law
International law does not prohibit the use of napalm or other incendiaries against military targets,[16] but use against civilian populations was banned by the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in 1980.[citation needed] Protocol III of the CCW restricts the use of all incendiary weapons, but a number of states have not acceded to all of the protocols of the CCW. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), states are considered a party to the convention, which entered into force as international law in December 1983, if they ratify at least two of the five protocols. The United States, for example, is a party to the CCW but did not sign protocol III.[17]

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 07:39 AM

Quickly:
"So far you have provided us with actual evidence that White Phosphorus was used on civilians,"

Iraq - Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre
Ex US soldier and anti-war activist Jeff Englehart talking about the use of white phosphorus against Iraqi civilians in Fallujah.
Creator
Sigfrido Ranucci and Maurizio Torrealta
Country
Italy
Language
Italian, English
Original channel
RAI
Release date
2005-11-08
Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre is a documentary film by Sigfrido Ranucci and Maurizio Torrealta which first aired on Italy's RAI state television network on November 8, 2005. The film documents the use of weapons that the documentary asserts are chemical weapons, particularly the use of incendiary bombs, and alleges indiscriminate use of violence against civilians and children by military forces of the United States of America in the city of Fallujah in Iraq during the Fallujah Offensive of November 2004.
The film's primary themes are:
Establishing a case for war crimes against civilians committed by the United States.
Documenting evidence for the use of chemical devices by the US military.
Documenting other human rights abuses by American forces and their Iraqi counterparts.
This article offers a synopsis of the material presented in the documentary.
White phosphorus
White phosphorus a highly efficient smoke producing agent, burning quickly and causing an instant bank of smoke. As a result, smoke producing White phosphorus munitions are common, particularly as smoke grenades for infantry, loaded in defensive grenade dischargers on tanks and other armored vehicles, or as part of the ammunition allotment for artillery or mortars. These create smokescreens to mask movement from the enemy, or to mask his fire. As an incendiary weapon, WP burns fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire. White phosphorus use is legal for purposes such as illumination and obscuring smoke, and the Chemical Weapons Convention does not list WP in its schedules of chemical weapons.

War crimes
The primary theme of the film is its assertion of a case for war crimes committed by the United States in its military offensive against Fallujah in Iraq.[clarification needed] The film documents the use of weapons based on white phosphorus and other substances similar to napalm, such as Mark-77, by American forces.
Interviews with American ex-military personnel who claimed to have been involved in the Fallujah offensive back up the case for the use of weapons by the United States, while reporters who were stationed in Iraq discuss the American government's attempts to suppress the news by covert means.[clarification needed]
Incendiary weapons used against personnel and civilians
Hand of Iraqi woman said to have been incinerated by American weapons. An undamaged plastic misbah (Islamic prayer beads) gives rise to speculation, but also may have been placed as memorial item.
The film states that the use of napalm and similar agents was banned by the United Nations in 1980 for use against civilians and also for use against military targets in proximity to civilians.
White phosphorus, when used for screening or as a marker, is not banned by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. But if used as a weapon in civilian areas, it would be prohibited. The protocol specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed Protocol III.[1]
The March–April 2005 online Field Artillery magazine has confirmed the use of WP (white phosphorus) in so-called "shake 'n bake" attacks, so the use of white phosphorus is substantiated by US Army sources only for screening and psychological effects: "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out." [P.26]
Graphic visual footage of what are claimed to be WP weapons being fired from helicopters into urban areas is displayed, as well as detailed footage of the remains of those allegedly killed by these weapons, including children and women. The filmmakers interview ex US military soldier turned antiwar activist Jeff Englehart of Colorado who discusses the American use of white phosphorus, nicknamed "Willie Pete" (pre-NATO US phonetic alphabet for "WP" - White Phosphorus) by U.S. servicemembers, in built-up areas, and describes the Fallujah offensive as "just a massive killing of Arabs." However, Englehart was not in the Fallujah area at the time.
Following pressure from former Labour MP Alice Mahon, the British Ministry of Defence confirmed the use of MK77 by US forces during the initial invasion of Iraq [1].
[edit] Indiscriminate violence
The film alleges that the US military deliberately targeted Iraqi civilians and children during the Fallujah offensive as part of its campaign to exterminate opposition to its occupation. The film interviews former US Army scout Garret Reppenhagen, also from Colorado, who claims that civilian deaths were common and intentional. However this claim, like some other claims made in this documentary, is unsubstantiated due to the fact that those being interviewed had no part in the fighting in November 2004 in Fallujah.
The US military responded by stating that they gave civilians several days of advanced warning of the assault and urged them to evacuate the city. This was done through loudspeakers and leaflets dropped by helicopter.
"If I have made an inane remark, point it out."
Most of your remarks are inane, but you might start by explaining your theory that white phosphorus is harmless.
Lots more to chose from but The Burren and Poulnabrone beckon - bye for now.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 05:45 AM

If I have made an inane remark, point it out.
If you can't, why mention it and suggest I retract it????

You refused to substantiate the "crocodile tears" before, and now you do again.
Here they are, except that no-one would denigrate them as such.
thread.cfm?threadid=137528&messages=969#3153803 (be patient)

Also, no evidence of "this adventure" making anything worse either.
You have not made much of a case Jim.

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

Correction

This line should of course read:

So far you have provided us with NO actual evidence that White Phosphorus was used on civilians

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 05:42 AM

1: "the effects of white phosphorus on human beings is indesputable and as far as I'm concerned, govenments who use it on civilians are deserving of the description "terrorist", and those who support them "terrorist sympathysers"."

So far you have provided us with actual evidence that White Phosphorus was used on civilians, as previously stated the troops in question were under attack and targets were being marked in efforts to repel an insurgent attack on the village. If they were marking the area in this way it would be in order to bring in an air strike.

2: "You seem to have gone silent on naplam and Agent Orange?"

Not in the slightest, nothing more to be said about either, you claimed them to be "Chemical Weapons" which they most certainly are not. They are, "napalm" = fuel with a gelling agent and a means of detonation an incendiary in other words, "Agent orange" = defoliant, weed killer. That their effects on both people and vegitation is undoubtedly horrible, neither were as you described them, i.e. "Chemical Weapons" FACT - live with it. Both at their time of use were perfectly legal "weapons". Pssst there are no "nice" ways of dying in any war or civil conflict.

Osama bin Laden the spiritual leader of Al-Qaeda?? Where did you pluck that "myth" from?? The man himself never purported to be any such thing, and guess what, I'll believe his take on his role and position long before I would accept your ramblings on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 04:37 AM

"I will gladly retract any "inane remark " I have made."
No you won't - you never have so why should you start now?
"I have never posted anything that could be described as "crocodile tears.""
Been there, done that; got nowhere. You put up an excellent example of them up yourself earlier in this thread, why waste any more space?
"Also put up any evidence that the Arab or Moslem world is affected by this in the way you claim."
If you think that invading the space of a sovereign state to carry out an assassination, training special forces which will return to Bahrain to continue to put down protests, imprisoning 'supects' in concentration camp conditions, torturing them and shipping them off to countries where torture is commonplace to be 'fine-tuned', using chemical weapons on civilians, continuing to count Middle Eastern despots as "friends and allies"..... and all the other double dealing that is happening at present (most of which you refuse even to discuss as 'off-topic'), then I see little point in takng up more space here.
I've stated my views on the 'Arab Spring' and the possible positive and negative effects on the Middle East situation.
Already there are signs that some of these effects are being dissapated and being taken advantage of by Muslim extremists (fighting between Muslims and Coptic Christians in Egypt for instance).
There is a possibility of further major confligration breaking out in the not-to-distant future; this time involving Israel and Iran - I suggest you look our the recent statment from the retired head of Mossad   
Bombings and assassination are no way to a solution to the Middle East problems a has been proven over and over again.
Jim Carroll

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

I will gladly retract any "inane remark " I have made.
What is it?
I have never posted anything that could be described as "crocdile tears."
Put it up if I have.
Also put up any evidence that the Arab or Moslem world is affected by this in the way you claim.
I have seen none.
I think you have misjudged this badly.