BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 11 - 02:58 PM

"would have indicated some displeasure."
Last week's Sunday Times refers to Pakistan's "rage" at the US military incursion and has demanded a UN enquiry - which makes sense following an invasion into sovereign territory by troops of a country with a track record of imprisonment without trial, torture, use of chemical weapons on and habitual slaughter of civilians.
The artical also made it clear that US intelligence had identified in advance of the assassination that the occupants of the compound numbered 8 women, 13 children and either four or five male adults, yet the troops had instructions to drop a 2,000 bomb had bin Laden attempted to escape, though they did acknowledge that the repercussions to this taking place would have bee "catastropic" - not that i's been too much of a problem in the past!!
Case closed my arseum!!
As somebody has pointed out elsewhere - even Mladic, arguably the worst war criminal since the end of WW2 will get a trial - but that's civilisation for you!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 May 11 - 03:19 PM


Of course the US and Pakistan might be colluding in a blatant disregard for international law...

Oh, no- SHOCK HORROR!! The Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave disregarding international law???

How could you even SUGGEST such a thing ??

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: andrew e
Date: 31 May 11 - 05:42 PM

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/conditioned-to-love-deception.html

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 31 May 11 - 06:35 PM

Great joke site andrew e, I laughed 'till I nearly pissed myself.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Lighter
Date: 31 May 11 - 07:49 PM

Yeah, I used to watch The X-Files every week. So I obviously know that "They" control everything, including my ability to doubt their control.

I don't even try to adjust my television set. Because they are in complete control. They control the vertical. They control the horizontal. They can roll the image, make it flutter. They can change the focus to a soft blur - or sharpen it to crystal clarity. I sit quietly as they control all that I see and hear....

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: number 6
Date: 31 May 11 - 11:27 PM

Lighter .... Actually, (by the sounds of it) I think it's about time you got yourself an HDTV.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 May 11 - 11:31 PM

Whatever the truth is about 'colluding', for the sakes of human consumption, I'm sure the illusion is painted, or it wouldn't even begin to work!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 11 - 06:00 AM

Jim,
" invasion into sovereign territory by troops of a country with a track record of imprisonment without trial, torture, use of chemical weapons on and habitual slaughter of civilians."

Pakistan has a much worse record, so by your logic they should be happy!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 11 - 06:01 AM

" use of chemical weapons on and habitual slaughter of civilians."

USA?
Hyperbole?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: number 6
Date: 01 Jun 11 - 08:04 AM

"My baby says she's traveling
on the one after 909
I said move over honey
I'm traveling on that line
I said move over once
Move over twice
Come on baby, don't be cold as ice
I said I'm traveling
on the one after 909 "

.. biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 01 Jun 11 - 10:05 AM

Oh ... btw .... in case anyone is wondering why that little excerpt from that Beatle song in that post up above .... it's because it is the 910th post to this thread.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 11 - 12:26 PM

"Pakistan has a much worse record, so by your logic they should be happy!"
I think you'll find that even countries with poor human rights records regarding the use of torture draw a line at inviting foreigners who pursue the same practices to freely enter their territory unchecked, thereby opening up the possibility of those practices being used on their own citizens.
The use of torture by the US seems to have been an accepted fact for some time now - as evidenced by feature films such as the rather good 2007 film 'Rendition' which seem quite at ease with the subject.
You aren't suggesting that because Pakistan has an iffy reputation regarding human rights, it's ok for the US to behave likewise, are you? That may be your logic, it's certainly not mine.
"Hyperbole?"
Nope - no need for exaggeration - the US has been using chemical weapons on civilians at least as far back as the Viet Nam war - we were able to watch nightly as the B52s pouring burning petrol in the form of napalm on rural peasants night after night back in the 60s.
The defoliant, Agent Orange, used as an attempt to starve the Vietnames into submission, proved to be a bit of a problem as it sent US aircraft crews home with cancer.
Back then, the US General, Westmorland, publicly proposed extending the bombing campaigns in order to "blast Viet Nam back into the stoneage".   
More recently white phosphorus has become a favourite; and in case you are still clinging to the myth that it is merely for producing pretty lights, this, from a Sunday Times tribute to photojournalist Chris Hetherington who was killed recently in Libya - the text accompanies a rather spectacular photograph of the chemical showering down on a village in Afghanistan.

"CHEMICAL REACTION
American forces detonate a device containing white phosphorus in a bid to repel insurgents around the village of Donga in the Korengal Valley, eastern Afghanistan.
White phosphorus (or WP) catches fire when its casing expolodes and it comes into contact with oxygen. It can be detonated in mortar bombs, artillery shells and short-range missiles. Its use as a flammable bomb targeted at people is highly controversial, but it can also be used to produce smoke for concealing troop movements or for identifying targets" - end of quote.

Nice to have you discussing US human rights abuses at long last, even if it is only in an attempt to explain them away - no surprise there!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 03:23 AM

Chemical Weapons??

Napalm - an incendiary

Agent Orange - Weed-Killer

White Phosphorus??

"CHEMICAL REACTION

American forces detonate a device containing white phosphorus in a bid to repel insurgents around the village of Donga in the Korengal Valley, eastern Afghanistan.

White phosphorus (or WP) catches fire when its casing expolodes and it comes into contact with oxygen. It can be detonated in mortar bombs, artillery shells and short-range missiles. Its use as a flammable bomb targeted at people is highly controversial, but it can also be used to produce smoke for concealing troop movements or for identifying targets" - Sunday Times

So US forces under attack used white phosphorus to mark targets. I rather liked the way that latter secion in bold was presented - "but it can also be used" - Fuckin' idiot!!! Making smoke to conceal the movement of troops and for marking targets is the PRIMARY use of white phosphorus munitions.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 03:55 AM

"Fuckin' idiot!!! Making smoke to conceal the movement of troops and for marking targets is the PRIMARY use of white phosphorus munitions."
Yeah, yeah - we know all about that - and I use napalm to start my van in the morning.
Fuckin' apologist for the killing of civilians!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 04:24 AM

Jim, are you denying that WP is primarily a smoke munition, and does any reputable authority (sorry, you don't qualify) classify it, or napalm, or agent orange as chemical weapons?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 05:28 AM

Excuse me Jim but which civilians have been delibertely targeted and killed with WP munitions in Libya?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 06:36 AM

"Excuse me Jim but which civilians have been delibertely targeted and killed with WP munitions in Libya?"
Who said anybody was? - I said that the article was a tribute to a photo-journalist who was killed in Libya - read the script!
"Jim, are you denying that WP is primarily a smoke munition"
Don't care what its 'primary use' is supposed to be - it has the effect as described in the article, as well proven by its extensive use on civilians, both by the US and by the Israeli's. The latter use produced many accounts by medical workers, of severe injuries to non-combatants - which, I seem to remember you dismissed as expendable in previous threads.
Is napalm a 'chemical weapon'? - call it what you will, it was described as chemical at the time. All a bit academic really, as it has the effect of burning ito anything it touches, including human flesh.
Why don't you give it a name?
Agent Orange is a chemical cancer-causing defoliant whose primary use was to destroy the food source of the Vietnamese people in order to starve them into submission - what would you like to call that?
Which of your selected 'experts' would you like to call on to justify the use of any of these weapons on civilians - or don't they have the effects described on human beings ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 07:52 AM

If only wars never needed to be fought Jim.
Given that they do, all weapons of war are intended to cause violent death, and should never be used indiscriminately.
OBL and his followers did and do use them indiscriminately.
I do not accept that USA or Israel do.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 08:08 AM

"I do not accept that USA or Israel do."


Really??

No, really?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 08:15 AM

"If only wars never needed to be fought Jim."
Giving war as an excuse for atrocities is as old as war itself.
The difference between My Lai and Lidice or Belsen and Guantanamo is little more than a matter of degree, and which side of the fence you happen to sit on of course.
"I do not accept that USA or Israel do."
'Course you don't Keith - we invented napalm, Agent Orange and phosphorous, and the effect they have on human beings because we don't like the Yanks or the Israelis - they were really only dropping food parcels!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 08:50 AM

I am not "giving war as an excuse for atrocities."
There are accepted rules of warfare.
If they are breached, prosecution is possible.
You have never shown a clear breach (except My Lai.)
War is always horrific.
That is the nature of it.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 08:54 AM

Keith, prosecution can only be carried out by the 'winners' - winners are hardly likley to prosecte themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 09:15 AM

Volenti non fit injuria

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 09:19 AM

Volenti non fit injuria

Hardly applies to non combat civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 09:21 AM

"The difference between My Lai and Lidice or Belsen and Guantanamo"--

Don't know who wrote this -- came across the concept first & purposely avoided looking to see. I am not involved in this argument except for the Latin tag above which is all I have to contribute ~~


except to comment that the coupling of My Lai & Guantanamo with Lidice & Belsen is unspeakably contemptible.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 09:46 AM

Lt. Calley was prosecuted for My Lai by his own side.

So were the Abu Ghreib idiots and the murderers in other cases.

There was a little thing about Breaker Morant a while back too.

(Despite the glib movie, he was guilty as charged.)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 09:59 AM

Lt. Calley was initially sentence to life imprisonment ... the day after the sentence President Richard Nixon ordered he serve time not at Leavenworth prison but at a comfy house arrest .... in all Calley served 3 years of house arrest. Others should have been charged along with Calley, such as his superior ... Captain Earnest Medina ... but these individuals got away scott free.

The whole thing awas travesty of justice.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 12:38 PM

Napalm a chemical?? Its bloody glorified petroleum with a gelling agent FFS - you were right you do run your van on it.

Agent Orange is a defoliant?? Weed-Killer in other words

Neither are "Chemical" weapons, that description is normally reserved for Chemical Warfare Agents such as VX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, etc.

US has targeted civilians with WP where?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 01:11 PM

"I am not "giving war as an excuse for atrocities.""
That's what it looks like from where I'm standing, otherwise, what did you mean by;
"If only wars never needed to be fought Jim."
"You have never shown a clear breach (except My Lai.)"
I would say the daily use of napalm (harmless as can of petrol it would appear, if 'Terrorist' is to be believed) on non-combatants was clearly a continual atrocity - including hospitals and schools.
The shipping of uncharged suspects to countries where they will be tortured is a continual atrocity.
The bankrolling of monsters like Marshall Ky, Batista, Duvalier, Pinochet, the Contras - all atrocities, albeit by proxy.
"My Lai & Guantanamo with Lidice & Belsen is unspeakably contemptible."
Me, I'm afraid Mike - wh contemptable? All are the deliberate incarceration and massacre of human beings - differing only in the extent to they were carried out.   
"US has targeted civilians with WP where?"
According to the Sunday Times article (including photograph of same "around the village of Donga in the Korengal Valley, eastern Afghanistan."
It has been claimed that they used it against civilans in Iraq - why not; they seem to have gone in for that sort of thing.
The Israelis used it fairly extensively against the Palestinians in their little tete-a-tete
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 01:32 PM

A couple of quick scoops from Wiki - you might also like to try Googling 'Fallujah' while you're looking for ways to excuse US behaviour regarding civilian.
Jim Carroll.

White phosphorus (WP) is a material made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus that is used in smoke, tracer, illumination and incendiary[1] munitions. As an incendiary weapon, WP burns fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire, and cause serious burns or death. It has been extensively used as a weapon since World War II. White phosphorus is used in bombs, artillery, mortars, and short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact. It is commonly referred to in military jargon as "WP," and the slang terms "Whiskey P.," "Willy," "Willie Pete, and "Peter" (derived from the phonetic alphabet in use during World War I) are still sometimes used by infantry and artillery servicemen.
In addition to its offensive capabilities, white phosphorus is also a highly efficient smoke producing agent, burning quickly and causing an instant bank of smoke. As a result, smoke-producing white phosphorus munitions are very common, particularly as smoke grenades for infantry, loaded in grenade dischargers on tanks and other armored vehicles, or as part of the ammunition allotment for artillery or mortars. These create smoke screens to mask movement, position or the origin of fire from the enemy.

Agent Orange is the code name for one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.[1]
A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical. The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was later discovered to be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, an extremely toxic dioxin compound. It was given its name from the color of the orange-striped 55 US gallon (200 L) barrels in which it was shipped, and was by far the most widely used of the so-called "Rainbow Herbicides".[2]During the Vietnam War, between 1962 and 1971, the United States military sprayed 20,000,000 US gallons (80,000,000 L) of chemical herbicides and defoliants in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia, as part of Operation Ranch Hand.[3] The program's goal was to defoliate forested and rural land, depriving guerrillas of cover; another goal was to induce forced draft urbanization, destroying the ability of peasants to support themselves in the countryside, and forcing them to flee to the U.S. dominated cities, thus depriving the guerrillas of their rural support base and food supply.[4][5]
The US began to target food crops in October 1962, primarily using Agent Blue. In 1965, 42 percent of all herbicide spraying was dedicated to food crops.[5] Rural-to-urban migration rates dramatically increased in South Vietnam, as peasants escaped the destruction and famine in the countryside by fleeing to the U.S.-dominated cities. The urban population in South Vietnam more than tripled: from 2.8 million people in 1958, to 8 million by 1971. The rapid flow of people led to a fast-paced and uncontrolled urbanization; an estimated 1.5 million people were living in Saigon slums, while many South Vietnamese elites and U.S. personnel lived in luxury.[6]
Air Force records show that at least 6,542 spraying missions took place over the course of Operation Ranch Hand.[7] By 1971, 12 percent of the total area of South Vietnam had been sprayed with defoliating chemicals, which were often applied at rates that were 13 times as high as the legal USDA limit.[8] In South Vietnam alone, an estimated 10 million hectares of agricultural land were ultimately destroyed.[9] In some areas TCDD concentrations in soil and water were hundreds of times greater than the levels considered "safe" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[10][11] Overall, more than 20% of South Vietnam's forests were sprayed at least once over a nine year period.[5]

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 01:52 PM

"My Lai & Guantanamo with Lidice & Belsen is unspeakably contemptible."
Me, I'm afraid Mike - wh contemptable? All are the deliberate incarceration and massacre of human beings - differing only in the extent to they were carried out.===

Oops ~ sorry Jim; had no wish to quarrel.

I think it was Hegel, OR ONE OF THOSE TEUTONIC LOT ANYHOW, WHO WROTE SOMEWHERE WHAT HAS ALWAYS SEEMED TO ME AN ATOM OF SENSE IN ALL THAT IMPENETRABLE *METaphysical jungle, that there comes a point where a quantative difference transmutes into a qualitative difference. This seems to me an instance; ML & Guant were horrible to be sure; but surely not in the same discursive realm of evil as the other two?

~M~

*[bugger these cap locks that will FIGHT me: don't you just hate it when inanimate objects will just bloody FIGHT you!]

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: olddude
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 02:09 PM

In any war, who is just who is not just is determined by what side you are on. Any leader anywhere can sell the idea that what they do is for the good. Everyone says they hate war but yet history proves that man is a violent species and always will be sadly. I submit that anyone who has been in battle, will fight and die for the cause they sworn to uphold. And anyone that has ever been in battle knows that war is all about monstrous deeds and unspeakable acts of violence with casualties to the innocent everywhere. No side walk away good when doing acts of violence to another. It is not possible. It is what it is. Now I won't shed a tear for the guy, nor should anyone else. I just don't celebrate it and accept it as part of war. And like everything else in war, nothing good ever results until people finally stop. All sides. But humans being what they are, we will continue the insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 02:53 PM

"who is just who is not just is determined by what side you are on"

No, there are absolutes.
We have the Law Of Armed Conflict.
Some weapons are proscribed.
Civilians must not be targeted.
Civilian casualties must be avoided, or at least minimised.

By killing OBL, the atrocities he was planning may have been prevented.
The LOAC would require that civilian casualties incurred in the action be proportionate to the importance of the target.

The undropped 2000 pound bomb would have been considered proportionate.
You may disagree Jim, but LOAC is the fruit of years of debate by the greatest minds, and has been the greatest humanitarian achievement of the 20th Century.

No doubt you could come up with something better, but this is what we have

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 03:52 PM

"Oops ~ sorry Jim; had no wish to quarrel."
No - I'm sorry Mike.
I certainly overstated my comparison with Belsen, which was, of course, an extermination camp.
However, I see no problem with describing Guantanamo as a concentration camp holding illegally held 'suspects', uncharged and untried, in intollerably inhuman conditions.
As for Lidice; following the assassination of Heydrich the village of Lidice was raided; 198 women and 98 children were rounded up and sent to Ravensbruch; 137 men were executed.
On the other hand, somewhere between 347 and 504 men, women and children were massaced by US troops - the punishment for which was, as Guest No 6 acurately describes, a travesty of justice.
"By killing OBL, the atrocities he was planning may have been prevented."
As we have no idea which atrocities he was planning (his role has been more or less universally acknowleged as spiritually inspirational rather than operational), we'll never know how many lives, if any, were saved by his being assassinated.
However, we do know that at least half a dozen revenge attacks, minimally reported, have taken place since his death, including a fairly major one in Pakistan - an odd way of saving lives, don't you think?
Not sure of your point about 'The Law of Armed Combat', though it does serve to illustrate the fact that the US appears to regard it as not applying to them.
If nothing else, this turn of discussion does appear to have put to one side your earlier bullshit claim that you don't regard civilian hostages as 'expendable' = "The undropped 2000 pound bomb would have been considered proportionate."
To you maybe (that would be 8 women, 13 children and 4 or 5 men in order to make sure that 1 man didn't escape - are you sure you know the meaning of the word 'proportionate?). To the civilised among us it would have been an act of cold-blooded murder in order to ascertain that their quarry didn't escape; even the US authorities realised this in the planning of the raid and took it into consideration.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 11 - 04:01 PM

"To you maybe"
NO JIM!
How can you not still get it?

It would be considered proportionate under the LOAC.
If you think they have it wrong and you know better, take it up with ICRC.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 02:34 AM

"take it up with ICRC."
No I will not.
These debates are about what we think, not about a bunch of laws supposedly setting out the 'ethical' or 'acceptable' way of killing people.
Nobody gives a rat's ass what we think, but it doesn't stop us having opinions about what is done to us, or in our name, yet once again you scurry behind a set of rules or the opinions of 'experts' to avoid having to defend your reactionary and inhuman views.
To me, killing civilians is wrong, and is, in these cases, avoidable, and should be opposed - you appear to see nothing wrong with it - defend your own views and stop hiding behind the behaviour and 'expertise' of others.
You and your funny friend have consistently defended the use of phosphorus weapons on civilians by suggesting that it is harmless - you have an analysis of this obscene stuff above - show us where it is wrong.
Now your strange friend has attempted to present napalm and Agent Orange, as used indisriminately on Third World peasants, as acceptable by distorting its effects. Your own views suport him with your; "I do not accept that USA or Israel do."
What kind of people are you to attempt to defend these acts?
Piss or get off the pot.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 04:18 AM

Jim, you are like an airhead in a beauty pageant, whose ambition is world peace.
You think that war is a bad thing, and imagine there is a debate about that.
You don't approve of people getting killed and imagine there is an alternative opinion.

Grow up.
Universal peace and love is not going to break out any time soon.
Mass murdering monsters have to be stopped, and real people have to make real decisions about acceptable costs to achieve an aim that you say you support.

So, don't stand back wringing your hands and imagining you are the only one who cares.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 04:46 AM

"Mass murdering monsters have to be stopped"

Well, I think we can all agree on that.

What is the current Iraqi body count?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 04:48 AM

""It would be considered proportionate under the LOAC.
If you think they have it wrong and you know better, take it up with ICRC.""

OK Keith, once again we see you expressing an opinion as to the expendability of civilian lives, and when challenged, once again we have you running away to hide behind some expert or inapplicable legal precept.

The LOAC was formulated to prevent the worst atrocities in a situation of armed conflict between two sovereign nations, involving the(trained and uniformed)armies of those nations.

Which nation is the US at war with?.........Pakistan?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 04:56 AM

Mass murdering monsters have to be stopped

By bigger mass murdering monsters?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 05:21 AM

"Mass murdering monsters have to be stopped"
Yes they do Keith, and not defended, as you and your atrocity-defending buddies are doing here and alsewhere.
I think you have had your responses to your statement, now let's hear what you think, not the experts you have now taken to hiding behind on an increasinly regular basis.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 05:26 AM

"you are like an airhead in a beauty pageant,"
And btw - I very much enjoyed your wondfully sexist turn of phrase - I do hope some of our women contributors are looking in
Jim Carrol

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 05:47 AM

Jim ~~ You miss the point of Keith's 'airhead' comment: are you not constantly amused by all the Miss World & Miss Universe contestants, asked what they most wish for, who dutifully reply "World peace" as if they thought this would make some sort of original appeal to the judges?

Or do you never ever ever watch such programmes?

Once again I have to say I think Keith is getting a raw deal on this thread. Whom should he quote in support of his arguments but the internationally recognised body which deals with these sorts of rules of engagement? In what way is quoting reputable recognised authority "hiding behind" anyone?

And please do not trot out all his dire rightie form again ~~ we've been there, most unproductively, before, haven't we...?

~M~

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 06:46 AM

Whom should he quote in support of his arguments but the internationally recognised body which deals with these sorts of rules of engagement? In what way is quoting reputable recognised authority "hiding behind" anyone?

I think the question is over whether or not he has stated his personal opinion. The way I'm reading it does confirm his personal outlook and he is saying for example:

That Agent Orange may have caused 500,000 birth defects and countless other civilian deaths and injuries is completely irrelevant.

As the "rule book" classifies it as a herbicide (or may otherwise consider its use legal), its use is perfectly OK.

It's an outlook that I find very disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 07:35 AM

"who dutifully reply "World peace""
Sorry Mike - I did miss the point; not part of my refgular viewing I'm afraid; have I missed much?
"Whom should he quote in support of his arguments "
He can quote whoever he wishes as long as he doesn't opt out with his regular "don't blame the messenger" escape clause whenever the going gets tough.
As guest Jon has pointed out, if the 'experts' he is putting forward reflect his own views he should have the courage and honesty to say so and be prepared to defend them rather than hide behind them, as he constatly does.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 07:41 AM

Agent Orange was nearly half a century ago in a Cold War surrogate conflict.
It could not be less relevant to this thread.
Just a measure of the desperation of some to run down USA.

Start a thread on the Vietnam war and I will tell you what I think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 07:55 AM

No need Keith. As far as I'm concerned, your response has confirmed what I felt.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 10:29 AM

Let's not get tangled up in political ideologies.

The fact is that G could have saved many lives by resigning weeks and weeks ago. He chose not to. He could save an unknown number of lives today by resigning now. He chooses not to.

If NATO ends its campaign, G's resistance will prove to his peers that no international alliance has the staying power to call any ruthless dictator to account. As soon as the shooting stops, the mass executions begin.

Anyone who wants to lump G and NATO togther as equivalent and indistinguishable "mass murderers" can go right ahead.

The choice of terminology does not change the fact that G brought on the violence through decades of arbitrary power and repression, G could and should have ended the situation by resigning before the intervention, G can end the killing now, and the ethical burden is squarely upon G to do so. Immediately.

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

I think I have made my opinions clear.
The operation was justifiable.
The world is a better place because of it.

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

Yes, No, No.