 sj |
||
|
||
BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Date: 14 May 11 - 06:41 PM DonT is a liar! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e Date: 14 May 11 - 07:11 PM http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=26287 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 14 May 11 - 07:42 PM ". . . both you and Don Firth continued to ignore that and to categorise me as a terrorist sympathiser." Don T., where and when did I, specifically, refer to you, specifically, as a "terrorist sympathizer?" Cite the post (date and time) in which I allegedly said this. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 14 May 11 - 07:50 PM Since DonT is a conservative and I am not it grieves me to have to say this, but he needs no assistance on this thread on the last few posts and is obviously right. We are concerned at the legality of US action in this. We are even more concerned that the US tries to declare itself judge as to what is legal in this. Is it Dietrich Bonhoeffer I should be citing? I told you so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 14 May 11 - 08:00 PM You didn't read that article I posted, did you, Richard? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 14 May 11 - 08:44 PM An interesting article from Spiegel, in case anyone is interested. Of course it will be greatly contested in this thread. But, what the hell, I have to agree somewhat. Terrorists Have Rights Too biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 14 May 11 - 09:02 PM It seems to me that the only rights that a terrorist has is to renounce terrorism, surrender peaceably, confess guilt or else plead his case in court, and exhort his associates to do the same. Bin Laden chose not to exercise those rights. No one could do it for him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Date: 14 May 11 - 09:48 PM I didn't click sIx. Binny didn't have any rights. Binny took it twixt the lookers with his eyes wide open.... or shut... depending on how you view it. Course, I really don't think he's dead. He and Sadman are sipping mints on an island paradise with vestal virgins, playing checkers and having a laugh, wondering when Hosni and Moe will show up so they can play bridge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 14 May 11 - 11:11 PM Up until a year ago I certainly would have agreed with many here on this thread. A visit a while back from good friend of my youth changed my attitude regarding revenge and justice. This friend happens to be a criminal lawyer. During his visit we had a debate regarding justice and revenge (relative to violent criminals) that continued late into the evening. I eventually understood his platform of reasoning … simply put, no matter how much we are repulsed by such crimes, by not adhering to the right of the accused to have his day in court no matter what the cost to taxpayers we are no different to these perpetrators of such hideous crimes … This same reasoning can be applied to international humanitarian law that we in the western world have drafted and believe we adhere to. I should also mention this friend of mine is also a child of holocaust survivors who themselves suffered horrifically during there incarceration at Auschwitz. Anyway ... that's my 2 cents worth to this issue for what it's worth. Now, go on and continure your arguments. biLL |
|
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: Teribus Date: 15 May 11 - 03:24 AM Don(Wyziwyg)T - Date: 14 May 11 - 05:55 PM Missed the points I made entirely "the action of a vigilante is: 1: Totally unauthorised, completely unofficial. 2: The independent action of a private individual or a small group of like minded private individuals who have no official standing. So according to Don(Wyziwyg)T: - The US Navy Seal Team that killed bin Laden were unauthorised and had no official status - which we all know and appreciate is complete and utter bullshit - The raid carried out by the US NAvy SEAL Team was undertaken entirely off their own bat - Again which we all know and appreciate is complete and utter bullshit As to this heinous crime of the forces of one country operating in another? Extremely old and accepted principle originally known as the right of "Hot Trod" along the Anglo-Scottish Border, in modern times it became known as the right to exercise "Hot Pursuit". There apparently was a secret agreement between the US and Pakistani Governments that allowed the US to undertake this mission with respect to bin Laden and the leadership of Al-Qaeda. The desirability and necessity of such an agreement from the point of view of both parties should be blatantly obvious to all. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad after all was captured by the Pakistani ISI and handed over to the Americans - Why? As proof of their commitment? No way could they do the same with Osama bin Laden the uproar would have been deafening, no wonder they left it to the "infidel" Americans, much more acceptable solution to the problem. More complete and utter bullshit from Don T: "A very pragmatic point of view Jeri, but the killings have started, and whatever Bobad thinks (and his record is far from unbiased), the fact that they were Pakistani deaths doesn't mean they can simply be written off as irrelevant." Ah so the killings have just started have they?? What the hell do you think that the Tehrik-i-Taliban (Pakistani Taleban) have been doing for the last two or three years? Mullah Muhammad Omar the leader of the Quetta Shura and the Afghan Taleban has actually pleaded with the Tehrik-i-Taliban to stop attacks inside Pakistan because ultimately 150 million non-Pashtun Pakistani's are going to get fed up with bombs going off in market places and shopping centres, put two and two together and turn on the Taleban and they will not distinguish between the Pakistani and Afghan varieties. But they, the TTP, have studiously ignored him - so much for solidarity. Not surprising really as the Pakistani Government came to an agreement with the Pakistan Taliban over Swat Province which allowed Talib contol over this area under Sharia law but it required the Pakistani Taliban to disarm - which of course they never did. Shortly after moving into Swat the Pakistani Taliban then turned their attention to the neighbouring Buner Province and that was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as the Pakistani Government was concerned. The Pakistani Border Police and Army conducted a full scale military attack on the Taliban in Buner, in Swat and in South Waziristan. And that Don(Wyziwyg)T is why the TTP carry out suicide bombing attacks in Pakistan - It has got nothing whatsoever to do with Osama bin Laden - but convenient excuse for propaganda purposes though. Bigger flare up over cartoons and burning books. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 May 11 - 04:28 AM After a double suicide bomb killed 80 people in Pakistan on Friday here is a timeline of major extremist attacks carried out in the country in the last five years. By Laura Roberts 10:31AM BST 13 May 2011 April 1, 2011: At least 41 people were killed in twin suicide bomb attacks at the Sufi shrine in Dera Ghazi Khan district, in Pakistan's central province of Punjab, as worshippers gathered for a festival. The Taliban claimed responsibility. March 31, 2011: At least 13 people were killed in a suicide bomb attack on the leader of one of Pakistan's most influential Islamic parties and a long–standing ally of the Afghan Taliban movement. It was the second suicide bomb attack on the leader of Jamiat Ulema–i–Islam in two days. Twelve people were killed when a suicide bomber on a motorbike attacked a crowd in Swabi waiting for Mr Rehman to address them. November 5, 2010: A suicide bomber killed 68 people at a mosque in the northwest area of Darra Adam Khel. Hours later, grenades thrown into a second mosque, near Peshawar, killed at least two people. October 2010: 25 people were killed in a blast at a shrine in Punjab province. Another attack at a Karachi shrine two weeks earlier killed nine and was claimed by the Taliban. July 10, 2010: Double suicide bombing kills 102 people in village of Kakaghund in northwestern Pakistan. April 5, 2010: Taliban fighters using rocket-propelled grenades, car bombs and suicide vests tried to storm the United States consulate in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province. Five security guards were among seven people killed during the raid in Peshawar. Several explosions in the area caused buildings to collapse. Enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 15 May 11 - 05:04 AM "Well, Charley, I look at the contributors to the thread and I believe they'd have a major 1,000 post fight over whether beige is a real color, only about 97% will spell it "colour". Mudcat Traveling Wrecking Crew." I don't know how many US posters here have expressed concerns about this action, but there were quite a number of more critical US based posters at the outset I believe. Currently there do seem to be a number of non US / international posters - principally from Canada and the UK it seems, who have are more critical than most of the US posters currently posting. I haven't read any international media coverage, but it would be interesting to find out - if or how - media analysis in different countries internationally, differed from that of mainstream US media coverage in terms of how positively or negatively, the mission has been represented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Date: 15 May 11 - 05:33 AM Ahh but Keith all those attacks were carried out by the Taleban in retaliation for the US thinking about killing Osama bin Laden. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 May 11 - 06:20 AM ""Don T., where and when did I, specifically, refer to you, specifically, as a "terrorist sympathizer?"" Never claimed you did! If you go back to my first post mentioning the way you and Keith are misrepresenting I clearly said "myself (and others who disagree with you)". In the past, I have generally found myself on the same side as you in most debates, but in this one I have been disappointed in the extreme with the way that our misgivings have been used to brand us as terrorist sympathisers. However, since there is no point trying to debate with anyone who persists in deliberately distorting what I say, I will simply leave (and I don't come back again, when I say that). I wish you joy of your "victory", and I genuinely hope that it will prove worth the cost (only Pakistani lives.......SO FAR!) Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Date: 15 May 11 - 06:28 AM Good riddance....you won't be missed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Date: 15 May 11 - 08:18 AM Family Guy segment on Osama Bin Laden in which Stewie takes on the Sheik (the man, not the condom). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 May 11 - 09:07 AM Lively, the British media has been overwhelmingly positive. Where are you? (Sorry I referred to you as "he" on previous thread.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 15 May 11 - 09:41 AM Lively .... the link I posted down below which presented some valid arguments against legality of the U.S. action taken is from Der Spiegel ... a weekly German publication with a vast amount of readers throughout Europe. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 15 May 11 - 10:07 AM Thanks for sharing that link Bobad!! Actually it's very good laff ... and goodness knows, we all need a good laff on a regular basis. biLL .... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 May 11 - 12:21 PM Pakistan protest http://uk.news.yahoo.com/no-repeat-bin-laden-raid-pakistan-parliament-004656674.html Particularly note: "British newspaper the Guardian reported last week that a secret agreement in 2001 between Pakistan's then military ruler Pervez Musharraf and then US president George W. Bush allowed the United States to carry out a unilateral raid inside Pakistan if they discovered bin Laden's whereabouts. But Musharraf has vehemently denied having signed such a deal" Oh, goodness me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Date: 15 May 11 - 12:25 PM "But Musharraf has vehemently denied having signed such a deal" Well, of course he has....duh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 15 May 11 - 02:48 PM Well, there it is again. One of the reasons I bowed out of this thread (along with the escalation of personal insults and threats of violence if the debaters ever met face-to-face) is the way in which a couple of people in particular keep denying that they said what they have said (despite the fact that it's right there on the screen for anyone to read) and accused others of saying things that they didn't, without being able to point to the posts in which they allegedly did so. Case in point: Don T. accuses me of saying that he is a "terrorist sympathizer." When I asked him to point out the post in which I said this, he denies that he ever made the accusation and leaves in a huff, congratulating me for my "victory." I was interested in a, hopefully, enlightening debate, not in "scoring points" regardless of the facts. Frankly, as a result of a nasty streak a couple of people have revealed on this thread, along with some ingrained prejudices, I'm afraid I've lost a lot of respect for them when I had regarded them highly up until now. Very disappointing. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 May 11 - 04:03 PM Richard, I do not subscribe to the editorial values of The Guardian, but I do not suspect them of making shit up. Do you? Musharraf or the Guardian. Who do you think most reliable Richard? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 11 - 01:57 AM 60 Minutes interviews with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a former Afghan intelligence officer (touching on Pakistan's somewhat duplicitous relationship with the United States), and the anarchistic and extremely dangerous "Sovereign Citizen" movement (I knew there were small groups of "survivalists" and "citizens' militias" out "playing soldiers" on weekends in several backwards parts of the country, but I didn't know about THIS collection of fanatics until I saw this program). Watch all three. You might learn something. 60 Minutes Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 May 11 - 02:08 AM Keith, it ain't hard to prove teh existence of a signed document. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 May 11 - 02:53 AM The Guardian story was that denial was part of the agreement. I can see why Musharif would have to lie, but not why Guardian would invent the whole thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Date: 16 May 11 - 04:45 AM "Musharraf has vehemently denied having signed such a deal" Hey Richard, that would be the same President Musharraf who vehemently denied that Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 May 11 - 06:42 AM Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 15 May 11 - 02:48 PM Well, there it is again. One of the reasons I bowed out of this thread (along with the escalation of personal insults and threats of violence if the debaters ever met face-to-face) is the way in which a couple of people in particular keep denying that they said what they have said (despite the fact that it's right there on the screen for anyone to read) and accused others of saying things that they didn't, without being able to point to the posts in which they allegedly did so. Case in point: Don T. accuses me of saying that he is a "terrorist sympathizer." When I asked him to point out the post in which I said this, he denies that he ever made the accusation and leaves in a huff, congratulating me for my "victory." I was interested in a, hopefully, enlightening debate, not in "scoring points" regardless of the facts. Frankly, as a result of a nasty streak a couple of people have revealed on this thread, along with some ingrained prejudices, I'm afraid I've lost a lot of respect for them when I had regarded them highly up until now. Very disappointing. Don Firth Read that last post again, and this time take in the salient point Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM Date: 15 May 11 - 06:20 AM ""Don T., where and when did I, specifically, refer to you, specifically, as a "terrorist sympathizer?"" Never claimed you did! If you go back to my first post mentioning the way you and Keith are misrepresenting I clearly said "myself (and others who disagree with you)". In the past, I have generally found myself on the same side as you in most debates, but in this one I have been disappointed in the extreme with the way that our misgivings have been used to brand us as terrorist sympathisers. However, since there is no point trying to debate with anyone who persists in deliberately distorting what I say, I will simply leave (and I don't come back again, when I say that). I wish you joy of your "victory", and I genuinely hope that it will prove worth the cost (only Pakistani lives.......SO FAR!) Don T. With apologies for the length of the cut 'n paste, the following is a list of Don F's posts on the subject of terrorist sympathies. They are clearly aimed at UK members, and three in particular (myself, Richard Bridge, and Jim Carroll), which is in keeping with the sentence highlighted above. First a post out of sequence, giving Don F's opinion on those who would distort what he said, followed by a number of his posts which do exactly that of which he complains. Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 09 May 11 - 05:29 PM Greg, whenever someone takes only what they want from something someone else posted, twists the intent, and then uses their twisted version to attack the poster, from that point on, I know what their posts are worth. Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 03 May 11 - 07:30 PM There seems to be someone here who is all a-weep over the fact that bin Laden was shot while unarmed (although I heard--within the past hour--that he was going for a weapon, but didn't make it), and accusing those who shot him of "Wild West"ing it. Not an ounce of sympathy for the 3,000+ people who were killed, and their families, when the World Trade Center was attacked. Strange sense of values. Sounds like the kind of person who would sympathize with a rapist and blame his victim for provoking the attack. Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 04 May 11 - 06:44 PM All weepy over taking out a mass murderer who was undoubtedly in the process of planning more mass murders (indeed, that was his stated intent). This man was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 plus people some ten years ago. People who got up in the morning and went to work as usual, who shortly thereafter were suddenly confronted with such decisions as having to choose whether to jump out of a fiftieth story window and plunge to their deaths in the street below or stay there and burn to death. And I seem to recall there was an explosion or two in London undergrounds, plotted by the same man, that killed a lot of people, people who had harmed no one, and who also were only going about their normal day's activities. The peculiar sentiments of some people here are enough to gag a maggot! Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 05 May 11 - 03:54 PM Let me get this straight: It's okay for someone to order lobbing missiles at U.S. embassies around the world, killing American ambassadors and their staffs, and it's okay for the same person to mastermind the destruction of the World Trade Center, leading to the horrible deaths of over three thousand ordinary American citizens, and it's just ducky-peachy if this same person sends suicide bombers into the London Underground and onto a double-decker bus during rush-hour to kill God knows how many citizens of the UK. But it's NOT okay if the United States sends in what amounts to a SWAT team and takes the blood-thirsty, murdering son-of-a-bitch out before he has a chance to order the deaths of still MORE people—some of whom might very well be British! After all, when it comes to empire and exploitation, Merry Olde England has quite a lengthy and checkered history in the Middle-East that many Middle-Easterners haven't forgotten about. Pakistan ostensibly was helping the United States (and other countries, don't forget) try to find Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, so they could hardly have any objection to the U.S. sending in a SWAT team quickly, when he WAS found, lest he escape again. Especially when there was some doubt as to just how much the Pakistani government really WAS cooperating, in spite of what they claimed. As to the legality of the operation, there is the principle of "the right of hot pursuit" as I mention up-thread. It's LEGAL according to International Law. If you don't like it, take it up with The Hague! The level of prejudice against Americans that a couple of people on this thread are displaying is really quite revealing! If David Cameron had ordered the raid and it had proceeded in exactly the same manner, I think the reaction of these SAME FOLKS would have been jubilation rather than condemnation. Disgusting!! Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 06 May 11 - 04:37 PM Well, from the screed just above, I can see that any further discussion will be unproductive. Assumptions based on personal bias. Not that I won't necessarily be back if the spirit moves me. "Yank-bashing" is sure what it sounds like to me. My reputation goes before me? Sorry, Jim, but look who's talking! Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 11 May 11 - 03:47 PM ". . . unless you are planning on sending a gunboat and establishing a colony." Pots and kettles, Richard? I am a citizen of a country that used to be a British colony (until we decided we didn't want to be anymore; "Bloody cheek!!"). You might try learning a little of your own history. For example, that fairly extended era in which the boast was "The sun never sets on the British Empire." I don't think the United States has any "colonies." Don Firth P. S. Someone a few posts back used the phrase, "terrorists and terrorist sympathizers." I'm amazed at the people on this thread who have tacitly declared themselves "terrorist sympathizers" in the literal meaning of the expression!! Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 11 May 11 - 05:32 PM "Nobody here is coming even close to sympathising with terrorists. . . ." Well, you sure could've fooled me! You and one or two others seem to totally disregard the young woman who stood there at a shattered window in the World Trade Center that morning and tried to decide whether she preferred to jump out and die when she struck the pavement forty stories below or stay there and burn to death. Or be crushed to death when the building collapsed—and the 3,000 plus other people she was with. Or the firemen who died trying to rescue people and fight an impossible holocaust at the same time. Or the families of those who died that morning, or later as a result of injuries or inhaling asbestos and other building materials released. Not to mention the personnel in the various embassies around the world that bin Laden masterminded attacks on prior to 9/11. What manner of justice did Osama bin Laden grant them? Or, for that matter, the people whose deaths he would continue to mastermind had he NOT been taken out as he was? Unworthy of me? I DON'T THINK SO!! I was just stating what should be obvious to everyone!. Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 13 May 11 - 11:14 PM As for Don Firth, his leaving has, I think, more to do with being unable to prevent justifiable criticism of his government's "violent, aggressive nastiness". Not so. The justification is obvious. Slamming me in my absence, Don T.? A bit cheesy, I calls it. I'm still looking in from time to time. And I see that prejudice is still rife. Why am I not surprised? Don Firth No matter how often we say that the death of ObL is not a problem, but the method is, and also its implications for the future, this is twisted by Don Firth (and others) to sympathising with terrorists. Now I'm out of here, hopefully with the record set straight. Which is the liar? YOU DECIDE! Don T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 May 11 - 06:53 AM Look - if you say you never signed a document and then someone produces it, you'd look a bit silly wouldn't you? Keith - how long has Musharref been out of power? I don't go quite as far as DonT. The death of ObL (a man who most likely did deserve to die - but only in accordance with law) has already turned into a problem for Pakistan (but, hey, who cares about them, eh, say all the gung-ho on here) even though (and indeed probably because) they were officially US allies and it may well be that matters will go further. As I said, a martyr can be a dangerous thing. But more important these events are likely to be taken as a precedent that the US can make an incursion and shoot who they like. That should not be a practical precedent and it is very doubtful whether it is the law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bill D Date: 16 May 11 - 10:30 AM Suppose for a moment that bin Laden had directed the 9/11 attacks from this very compound in Pakistan, and that we had known or suspected where he was, having tracked him as a dangerous terrorist for several years. Suppose that we had sent a Seal team...or even a drone missle... to take him out within a few hours.... would there be any of this "we had no right" speculation? It 'feels' to me as if some folks are thinking that because he got away and managed to hide for a few years, that the rules are different. It is ALWAYS awkward to discover that a major, wanted fugitive is in another country, but when there is evidence that he is being tolerated there...or even knowingly harbored there... the 'rules' are suspended. (If Muslim extremists had been able to find Salman Rushdie, would they have cared where they found him?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Backwoodsman Date: 16 May 11 - 12:02 PM If the situation was reversed Bill, if major wanted fugitive from Pakistan was hiding in New York, or Philadelphia, or Boston, or Redneckville, and troops from the Pakistani special forces flew in in a helicopter, murdered him, flew off with his body and dropped it in the sea (or even worse, if he fought back and they dropped a 2,000-lb bomb on his premises, destroying surrounding premises and killing many innocent people - which was apparently the plan if ObL had decided to fight back), would your view still be that 'the rules are suspended' in such cases, and that it was all perfectly acceptable? Or would you be squealing like a stuck pig about 'Homeland security' and 'violation of borders', and spouting off about acts of war? I think we all know the answer to that one (although I doubt you'd admit it). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel Date: 16 May 11 - 12:14 PM With the killing of bin Laden the US is more on a par with the human rights policy of China. China will execute Corporate fraud criminals within hours of a conviction. Remember the CEO of the company that adulterated baby formula with toxic plastc in order to boost the percieved protein content of watered down formula. Guilty...shot to death within hours. Chinese executions look like a football half time show with prisoners lined up on a field and shot to death in rows. Suppose we found Goldman Sachs executives guilty of knowingly costing the United States more financial harm that we suffered in WW II? Should we put them on trial and if found guilty, shoot them twice in the head within hours? hmm While it is a slippery slope, what if some of the most wealthy and dangerous, crooks in corporate USA should learn that they are not immune from swift justice. The greatest domestic harm is coming from a few humdred people in American who are currently intrepid and secure in the notion they are too big to fail, too wealthy to be prosecuted and too important to pay taxes or even pay for their crimes. bin LKaden's strategy was a financial attack by violence. GOldman Sachs strategy was a fainancial attack that would lead to the loss of families nomes, jobs, health, suicides, loss of education and our nation's future for generations to come. There is a real equivelency here. SO if we can soot bin Laden, can we shoot Wall St. finanicaiil terrorists who wield financial instruments of Mass Destruction? tempting tempting, but it is wrong. Trading expediency for another little piece of our soul and Constitution will always be tempting. 35 Wall St. bozo scape goats like Bernie, Martha Stewart and Raj have been prosecuted so far. Goldman Sachs remains above the fray. Do we want a Chinese Justice Department? Domestic terrorists like the Soverigns and NRA off shoot militias are a tempting target but it opens the door to the kind of society like Iraq, Pakastan, Iran and other governments stricken by insurgencies and civil war. NO one has responded to me in this thread thus far so I wonder if someone might give me proof that my questions actually appear here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bill D Date: 16 May 11 - 12:19 PM Backwoodsman.... it would depend on the details of the circumstances, of course. We KNOW what bin Laden did...he bragged about it. It was, essentially, an act of war...instigated by a group of individuals rather than a specific country. History is full of examples where borders were crossed when countries deemed to be the enemy, or collaborating with the enemy, could not be expected to cooperate. It is just part of the politics that Pakistan 'officially' objects, when they were privately embarrassed and shown to be either careless or guilty of harboring a war criminal. (I'm sure Argentina would not have approved of Israel coming in to get Adolph Eichmann, either, but almost everyone saw the point of not saying "pretty please?" first! Now if Muslim extremists entered a country to 'get' Rushdie, when the only offense was a supposed 'insult', it would be a different matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel Date: 16 May 11 - 12:43 PM You will learn in time that the 9-11 plan had a quiet side, in that a mass influx of student visa teenage Muslim boys, without thier parents, were sent to the USA immediately prior to the attack. They came with no language skills or employment skills. The number of these vanished kids after their visas expired is alarming. Their training and integration over the last 10 years is a matter of conjecture and concern but not knee jerk overreaction. Naturally we can imagine what bin Laden had in mind. IF we as a society were good to these boys they may have found a path for their lives that is their own. If we were hateful to these boys we may have inspired reason and resentment for these boys, who are now men, to do harm. The intelligence from the raid in Pakistan is essential. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 16 May 11 - 12:52 PM Backwoodsman: "if a major wanted fugitive from Pakistan was hiding in New York, or Philadelphia, or Boston, [and if] he fought back and they dropped a 2,000-lb bomb on his premises, destroying surrounding premises and killing many innocent people - which was apparently the plan if ObL had decided to fight back" This is a really very important point which some posters in support of certain aspects of the mission appear to be failing (to my mind) to address. If the roles were reversed how would US posters feel about their citizens in one of their towns becoming collateral damage? After all we might imagine (not so long ago perhaps) a high profile IRA terrorist leader who is wanted for a London bombing killing hundreds (or indeed maybe thousands) of Londonders, hiding out in some American town with strong republican sympathies. Let us imagine that the US government of the day, was also sympathetic to the Irish republican cause while simultaneously retaining a political alliance with the UK. Let us imagine that the UK government were aware of such sympathies in the US establishment. Let us imagine that the firepower and strength of the UK and the US were fully reversed, and that the UK (being unable to capture their suspect) instead bombed the small US town in which their IRA terrorist was hiding unfortunately eliminating a number of innocent American families in the process. Despite the fact that the US and the UK are very different animals these days, and the US is far too powerful for the UK (and *mostly* anyone else in the world) to EVER dream of pissing off in such a fashion, such otherwise plausible hypothetical scenarios are worth thinking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Backwoodsman Date: 16 May 11 - 01:21 PM Precisely why I asked the question, Lively. And I wonder if any of the testosterone-overloaded loudmouth 'Fuck 'em' brigade will bother to engage their brains and answer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 May 11 - 01:22 PM I'm more worried about the US deciding to invade the UK than the UK deciding to invade the US, but a plausible scenario can me made out about twitter and other US owned media. These media deliberately enable breach of UK court injunctions. They do so by speech directed specifically at the UK, so the UK courts have jurisdiction. That is a contempt of court and the UK courts do have the power to order the arrest of the contemnors. Shall we send a gunboat? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 16 May 11 - 01:34 PM "Precisely why I asked the question, Lively." Of course BWMan, I merely rephrased the question you posited, in terms that some US posters might be able to more clearly recognise. After all, there has historically been a great deal of sympathy - and practical support - for for the Irish 'cause' in the US. As to whether the IRA like so many groups, are dubbed 'terrorists' or 'freedom fighters' or their activists 'terrorists' or 'heroes' really depends on political allegiances. Again, some US posters might better appreciate the Irish situation from "the other side", than the one currently under debate. It appears to me that elements of the Middle East feel the same way today towards the US as elements of Ireland have until recently to the UK. Arguably it's just a much bigger map and the bombs are bigger these days.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 11 - 02:55 PM Okay, Don T., I stand by what I have written. You and a couple of other people are all pissed off at the United States for taking out the man who is responsible for the senseless murder of God knows how many thousands of innocent people (INCLUDING British citizens). Having done a re-evaluation, I'll say it flat out! What are you doing OTHER THAN sympathizing with the terrorists? If that upsets you, go take a good look in a mirror! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 May 11 - 03:16 PM The analogy with IRA terrorists is a false one. Reasons. Both our courts are independent of governments. When extradition failed, we had to accept it. IRA never deliberately caused indiscriminate killings of civilians, though they were often culpably careless of whether a few civilians died or not |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 16 May 11 - 03:16 PM "What are you doing OTHER THAN sympathizing with the terrorists?" With respect DF, I believe that has been covered. If you have missed the salient points, you should perhaps re-read this thread. Your repeated characterisation of the legitimate questioning (not all by non US members here) of this US military action as either: a) Terrorist Sympathising, or b) Anti-US bigotry Are, with all due respect, in my view cop-outs equal to that of another US poster who attempted to insinuate that a UK poster here must be a racist merely for being critical of some Obama's policies. I responded to a previous post of yours which asserted that had this been a British military initiative, the same posters would have been "Jubilant", I say again, that this presumption on your part, is sorely mistaken. Here in the UK, most people with any kind of political conscience, tend to be very critical of their hired political servants. Unfortunately the system here (albeit somewhat less crumby than your own) is still wanting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 16 May 11 - 03:24 PM "The analogy with IRA terrorists is a false one." Yes, that may well be so Keith. I wasn't attempting a full analogy as such, merely an imagined alternative model. As for your prior comments btw. I am in the UK. And as you have gathered, I am also female - I didn't challenge general assumptions from other posters that I was male on that "other" thread, as (it seemed to me) it didn't seem relevant to the points I was trying to make there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 16 May 11 - 04:13 PM Please don't confuse indignation with justice. If I were a Pakistani, I might well be angry that foreigners did what they did, but I hope I would also see that justice had been done since my own government obviously couldn't do it. In fact, that seems to be essentially the position of the Pakistani government, which, despite some dangerous corruption, has been fighting the Taliban vigorously. It has even allowed the U.S. to interrogate Bin Laden's three wives. According to CNN, Pakistan has lost more troops in Afghanistan than has the U.S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 16 May 11 - 04:29 PM "Please don't confuse indignation with justice." Indeed. And I'm very much a 'fair play' type of person, so I find it deeply frustrating when posters choose to willfully misrepresent the posts of another, based on *their* (the readers) personally biased reading of the others stated position. This has been happening a great deal in this thread, and as I said before, it's a cop-out. Not only is it a weak cop-out lacking any argument but that of slur, but it's in effect an ad hominem attack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Date: 16 May 11 - 04:32 PM Hear! Hear! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 16 May 11 - 04:33 PM Why, thank you for your support Bobad! ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 11 - 05:28 PM OBVIOUSLY nobody listened to the "60 Minutes" videos that I linked to. I suggest that you do so, and listen ESPECIALLY to what the former Afghan intelligence officer is saying. Here. Let me help. Here's the post containing the link AGAIN: Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???WATCH AND LEARN! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 16 May 11 - 05:47 PM "OBVIOUSLY nobody listened to the "60 Minutes" videos that I linked to." Don, is that a specific response to the post I made in response to you, as it's somewhat unclear? It's good that you are offering some viewpoints on the event (I and others have done similarly) but IMO if you wish to attempt to make some kind of specific point from doing so, it's helpful to clarify a) what that point is, and b) give a rough precise of the content you have linked to which makes that point. Just so you know, I clicked a couple of links and nothing seemed to happen. As I wasn't sure what I was supposed to be looking for or why, I didn't proceed further. No disrespect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e Date: 16 May 11 - 06:09 PM Italian Nella fantasia io vedo un mondo giusto, Lì tutti vivono in pace e in onestà. Io sogno d'anime che sono sempre libere, Come le nuvole che volano, Pien' d'umanità in fondo all'anima. Nella fantasia io vedo un mondo chiaro, Lì anche la notte è meno oscura. Io sogno d'anime che sono sempre libere, Come le nuvole che volano. Nella fantasia esiste un vento caldo, Che soffia sulle città, come amico. Io sogno d'anime che sono sempre libere, Come le nuvole che volano, Pien' d'umanità in fondo all'anima. English translation In my imagination I see a fair world, Everyone lives in peace and in honesty there. I dream of souls that are always free, Like the clouds that fly, Full of humanity in the depths of the soul. In my imagination I see a bright world, Even the night is less dark there. I dream of souls that are always free, Like clouds that fly. In my imagination there exists a warm wind, That breathes on the cities, like a friend. I dream of souls that are always free, Like clouds that fly, Full of humanity in the depths of the soul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7cehPEeRgw&feature=watch_response |
