BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 02:16 AM

jim, you said,
"Having kids doesn't give anybody a special insight or wisdom - it just makes them experts on changing shitty nappies. "

Both my sons were down in the Underground when the 7/7 bombs went off.
I have to disagree with you.
There were no bombs in Co. Clare were there.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Taconicus
Date: 05 May 11 - 02:29 AM

And meanwhile, I believe Osama bin Laden is still dead. Probably cavorting with his (how many?) virgins right now. Who, if there is justice in the hereafter, probably have teeth in unusual places.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 May 11 - 02:39 AM

Jim Carroll, you say: "for the latter, they have constructed concentration camps where similar illegally detained 'suspects' are held in inhuman conditions (60 odd of them at the last count) for indefinite periods with no access to friends, family or legal assistance."

Do you have firm evidence of these "concentration camps"? Where are they and how is it that you know about them?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 11 - 03:20 AM

Here, take a 'look-see'....
THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DEFENDING!!!!

Download a couple of the videos...then tell me that this bullshit doesn't deserve what is coming to them!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 03:31 AM

"That seems to absolve Bin Laden's bombers from responsibility for the carnage."
No it doesn't Keith - stop wriggling.
The whole mess we are in at present can be traced back directly to the US behaviour in the middle east; original support for Saddam, Gulf War, WMD.... etc. Blair and his cronies involved Britain by sucking up to Bush and sending young men off to die for the Holy Grail that was (or wasn't) weapons of mass destruction.
None of this absolves Bin Laden, or those who will follow him - they are all part of the bloody mess that is the world today.
Now about allowing foreign troops to violate your national territory - for or against?
So far you seem to be happy that the US can send troops wherever they please, without permission, or even consultation; and you have remained silent of the use of torture et al of illegally held suspects... would you please confirm orr deny this.
And about the acts of terror carried out by the US - for or against?
"experts on changing shitty nappies"
You scurried away from the last thread - please don't bring it here - if you have anything to say on this, take it where it belongs.
I have no intention of turning this into yet another dialogue - life's far too short to spend with eejits.
Ebbie:
"they have constructed concentration camps where similar illegally detained 'suspects' are held in inhuman conditions"
Go to Florida and head south for about 90 miles – it's called Guantanamo and everybody knows about it.
GfI
Nobody is defending anything - we are wondering who is going to defend us from the defenders.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Stu
Date: 05 May 11 - 03:49 AM

Bin Laden's not dead - I've just seen him shopping in Tesco's at Handforth Dean.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 11 - 03:50 AM

Jim Carroll: "Nobody is defending anything - we are wondering who is going to defend us from the defenders."

Well, you should have seen the videos, by now...Those are your co-defenders..join up, with them, then!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 03:52 AM

"Those are your co-defenders..join up, with them, then!"
Sorry GfI
Not into torture and internment without trial - leave that to you terrorists.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 11 - 03:58 AM

Watch the videos, and you'll see the 'trial' your side gives!

gfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 May 11 - 04:01 AM

"Those are your co-defenders..join up, with them, then!"

There are a group of people on this thread who are willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting the concerns that other posters are voicing about the METHOD of Bin Laden's assassination.
These are legitimate concerns about the cavalier behaviour of one of the most powerful states in the world.

I don't see anyone weeping over dead terrorists or lining up to join Islamic extremist organisations here. Perhaps reducing the discussion to such false emotive nonsense is a bi-product of watching too much of that infamous Fox News or something.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 11 - 04:10 AM

Fuck the method!..A mass murderer who was the figure head of more murders was snuffed out..Good riddance!...any method was more humane than his!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 May 11 - 04:15 AM

"Fuck the method!."

Yes, you've made it clear that you believe 'the means justifies the ends' and I suppose that's fine for you in your own back yard, but other people think that the US with all it's Weapons of Mass Destruction and incessant military meddling in the Middle East for which it is greatly hated, might like to tread a little more cautiously.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 May 11 - 04:18 AM

I really don't think I need to comment on Fugitive from Sanity. All that he knows is the power of the gun. A perfect example of the anarchy that could result from the breakdown of the rule of law.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 04:28 AM

Jim,
"Now about allowing foreign troops to violate your national territory - for or against?"

If the nation concerned has no objections, who are you to object on their behalf Jim?

Other means to end this career of carnage have failed.
You all claim to be glad he has gone, but you would have preferred to wait another ten or twenty years for it to be done in a way that you find acceptable.
At what cost?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 04:49 AM

Richard, you seem very certain of the law on this.
Are you better informed than all these?

Was the killing of Bin Laden legal?

The use of deadly force against Bin Laden, who was said to be unarmed, is unlikely to be challenged in an American court, but the US has already sought to defend its position on legal grounds.

US Attorney General Eric Holder said the acts taken were "lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way".

US legal experts point to the fact that the US had declared itself to be in armed conflict with al-Qaeda.

Kenneth Anderson, a fellow in national security and law at the Hoover Institution, told Reuters: "It's lawful for the United States to be going after Bin Laden if for no other reason than he launched an attack against the US."

Other legal experts questioned whether this would stand up under international law.

Targeted killings under US law remains a disputed area.

US executive order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan, says: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

However, the term assassination has never been fully defined and some US legal advisers have sought to argue it does not apply in conflict situations.

State department legal adviser Harold Koh, quoted by Mr Anderson, said in March: "Under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems - consistent with the applicable laws of war - for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defence or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute 'assassination'."

Profs William C Banks and Peter Raven-Hansen, writing in the University of Richmond Law Review, also argue it does not apply to figures such as Bin Laden, nor when the US is "in hostilities such as the Gulf War or war on those responsible for the 11 September attacks".

"The targeted killing of terrorists is therefore not unlawful," they conclude.

Mindful of its need to stress the military nature of the killing and the need to abide by conventions, the US has also said that Bin Laden presented a clear danger to its troops.

CIA director Leon Panetta said: "Obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him."

Another US defence official said: "There were certainly capture contingencies, as there must be."

British law professor Philippe Sands QC, of University College London, says the US can certainly argue that it was entitled to take action to protect its citizens against a deadly enemy.

"Even if the use of deadly force was unlawful, international law recognises that there are exceptional circumstances where necessity precludes wrongfulness, and this will be said to be one of those case," Mr Sands told the BBC.

But Mr Sands says that what Pakistan knew and authorised, and what happened when the commandos confronted Bin Laden, will need to be known before the legal situation of the raid becomes clear.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has called for more information and stressed international law must be respected - but accepted that taking Bin Laden alive was always likely to be difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 11 - 04:55 AM

So what prescription do you take?? 'Stupid pills??'

No, I do not believe that the 'ends justify the means'...but it seems to me that you 'get off' on having a brutal mass murderer slaughtering innocent people...like it's some twisted fantasy of yours!
watch the videos, I posted...then you figure a way to
'reason' with the 'inspirational figure head' of the loons, committing those atrocities!
Your ideological, political beliefs are running am-muck over both your experience in life, and common sense!
This asshole declared WAR on non 'believers', and targeted unarmed women children, and any civilians, of our cultures as his targets!...So what do you want us to do?..give him a 'fine' and probation??
..and don't get me wrong, yes, there are things that both our countries do, that I don't like...but that is no excuse to be so willingly as nonsensical as you two idiots!
Would it matter to either one of you, of how many more innocent people might be spared, by knocking this crackpot out?..or does the thought of bombs ripping through populated public centers get you wet? ...so you think you can claim some sort of moral high ground?
The guy should have been taken out a long time ago..any way possible!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 May 11 - 05:41 AM

"...but it seems to me that you 'get off' on having a brutal mass murderer slaughtering innocent people...like it's some twisted fantasy of yours!"

It seems to me that you're so stupid that you're incapable of understanding the very basics of what other people write, and prefer to attribute them with bizzare fantasies of your own creation instead. Must be a lot of fun living in your mind.

Byeee...

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 05:45 AM

"If the nation concerned has no objections, "
Pakistan was not asked and no nation should be invaded by foreign troops in order to carry out an assassination - so you are granting any power the right to invade Britain and seek permission afterwards - piss off Keith, your prattism get prattier.
As far not protesting - how loud would you protest if an armed bully broke into your house - the Pakistanis protested as loud as they dared - stop lying and prevaricating.
As you still don't comment on the US's use of torture and imprisonment without trial - I assume you support that on the basis that the victims haven't protested loud enough, so must be in favour of it?
Don't ring us - we'll ring you!
I understand that the killing of bin Laden is now to be made into a video game, and I also understand that, as the information leading to his capture was gained through torture, there has been a call from a US senator to continue using it as a means of information gathering.
I also read that four London Metropolitan policemen are now standing trial for the beating up of a terrorist suspect - the disease appears to be contageous.
A letter to the Irish Times this morning sums up my own feelings pretty well - I was particularly moved by the quote from Nurenberg.

"The killing of Osama bin Laden was not the justice that President Obama, a constitutional lawyer, learned about in an American law school.
The scenes of jubilation in Washington DC and New York City were understandable, but regrettable. While bin Laden's death may have been unavoidable -1 hope that it was - far better had he been captured and tried to the highest standards, which the US president pledged to abide by. In his inauguration speech the president said: "Our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." If in fact bin Laden's death was avoidable, then a unique chance for the United States to show the very best of itself to the world was lost, even though the president may benefit in terms of electoral politics.
In 1945, Robert H Jackson, the chief United States prosecutor, said in a court in Nuremberg: "That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to Reason." –"
Yours, etc,
RENE ROSENSTOCK,

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,liely
Date: 05 May 11 - 05:52 AM

"or does the thought of bombs ripping through populated public centers get you wet?"

You repulsive fucking cretin.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 05:59 AM

Jim, there is nothing stopping Pakistan objecting.
They do not object, and expressed satisfaction with the outcome.
The only people objecting are Hamas and the likes of you.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 May 11 - 06:05 AM

Apologies to the forum for my last piece of invective. If anyone watching here is a moderator I'd like to request that they remove that post - and ideally the one from the previous poster containing their loathesome sexual fantasies about bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 07:31 AM

Jim, Nuremberg was made possible by the defeat and surrender of the Axis forces.
The war against Al Qaeda goes on.

The action was almost certainly legal.
Pakistan and the UN have raised no objections.
What is yours, other than that America has been successful in removing an enemy?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Brian May
Date: 05 May 11 - 07:46 AM

On a serious note - because you're all being far too frivolous:

Anagram of 'Osama bin Laden' really is 'Lob da man in sea'.

Spooky eh?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 07:51 AM

Is the world a safer place today than it was on Sunday?

I don't think it is.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 May 11 - 07:55 AM

Keith, you really only have to read the remarks you cite to see my point.

Fugitive from Sanity - I have made it very plain that I am not necessarily saying that the death of ObL was "a bad thing". Lawful killing depends on due process. There wasn't any.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 May 11 - 07:59 AM

So there is a video game in the works, and no doubt several competing docudramas. This will make interesting history to thrash over in the years to come, and maybe a few sequels as well.

Any suggestions for who should play what parts, or should it be the real people?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:02 AM

ebbie ebbie ebbie
If I had posted a prison planet link you would have been outraged in the opposite direction.

Do you really feel legality is the main issue?

IS it justified?

IS it revenge?

Is it just revenge?

Assasination by the state is illegal for heads of state.

ObL was not a head of State.

Khadafy is. Missing him last week and again killing his children with drones is technically illegal. The letter of the law isrubbed out in war. The spirit of of the law is ignored. All is fair in war.

The primary issue here in my opinion is war itself.

Every conspiracy theory I have seen has at its core the purpose to frame Obama as the blundering thug, something that was celebrated on high for GWB.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:02 AM

"Lawful killing depends on due process."

Not true.
There are many circumstances where killing can be lawful.

None of the experts I cited would state that this killing was not lawful.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:05 AM

Hmmm

WHICH killing Keith? There was more than one death, or are they all 'justified'?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:13 AM

Keith;
As you support the incursion of foreign troops on sovereign in order to carry out an assassination (good old-fashioned treachery as John LeCarre would call it) and are an apologist for torture and internmnt without trial, we really do have nothing to say to each other - may you and your terrorist friends be very happy together.
I have to confess that I had overlooked your previously stated low opinion of Pakistanis (via a previous thread), so it should have come as no surprise to me that you are prepared to accept an unlawful (by international law) incursion into their territory - silly me!!
Richard - you're wasting your time - he's a redneck fruitcake who has been out of work since they finished filming Deliverance
Jim Carroll
PS Just been PMd a poison pen letter from what sounds like a Christian fundamentalist who chiding me for my opposition to homophobia and executing children, and saying something should be done about me - perhaps I should put you two in touch; you appear to have much in common.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:29 AM

"PS Just been PMd a poison pen letter from what sounds like a Christian fundamentalist who chiding me for my opposition to ... executing children"

Ahh, I wonder if this person might be related to the person who posts graphic sexual "snuff" fantasies about people "getting wet" and "getting off" on bombings?

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

Ding Dong! bin Laden's dead. Which old bitch? The Wicked bitch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Laden's dead.
Wake up - you sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked bin Laden's dead.
He's gone where goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's see him dead and see what the picture shows.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Laden's dead!

(Obama)
As commander and chief, In the County of the Land of UZ, I inform you most regally.
(Petraus)
But we've got to verify it legally, to see
(Panetta)
To see?
(PEtraus))
If he
(Panetta)
Is photo'd and buried at sea?
(Admiral Mullen)
Is morally, ethically,
(Father No.1)
Spiritually, physically
Father No. 2
Positively, absolutely
(Cable News Talking Heads)
Undeniably and reliably Dead

(DNA expert)
As Coroner I must concur, I thoroughly examined this monstrous cur. His mitochondrial DNA cross referenced with his sister shows...
That he's not only merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead.
(Obama)
Then this is a day of Independence For all good Americans and their descendants
(Petraus)
If any.
(Panetta)
Yes, let the joyous news be spread The wicked bin Laden at last is dead!
(FOX NEWS) We'd really like a pic instead.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:40 AM

Jim,
"Keith;
As you support the incursion of foreign troops on sovereign in order to ...."

Jim, under the law of armed conflict, a state can attack someone on the territory of another nation for self defence.

Take it up with ICRC.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 09:58 AM

Jim,
"your previously stated low opinion of Pakistanis"

This is a lie Jim.
I never have and never would state anything of the sort.

Jim " you are prepared to accept an unlawful (by international law) incursion into their territory "

Where does you certainty on this come from Jim.
Are you better informed than all the experts I cited?

Also, Noam Lubell of The National Human Rights Centre, Galway University, Ireland, "Europe's top expert on targeted killings"
on BBC Radio 4 World At One, 5th May 2011, starting 7minutes and 40 seconds in.
This available on line for a few days only.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:01 AM

Yes, Keith, I listened to this. It appears that not only were they completely wrong to do what they did, they also were wrong to 'bury' the body at sea.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:03 AM

Keith - it might come as a surpise to you, but nobody is at war with Pakistan, nor is it occupied by a foreign power.
Now you are being silly - and have made yourself a terrorist state's dream come true - "Come in, just prop your Kalashnikovs in the corner - don't mind the onlooker you've just shot dead; we'll sweep her up later".
Would you extend this invitation to all our allies, or have our Transatlantic cousins promised you some chewing gum and nylons?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:08 AM

Are abusive terms like "redneck" OK?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:13 AM

Jim, for national self defence The Law Of Armed Conflict allows a state to use forcible measures within the territory of another state without consent.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:18 AM

Listen again Silas.
I agree about the burial, but my last statement was a quote from Lubell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qptc

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:19 AM

I don't have sound on this PC. However, 'Self Defence'? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 10:41 AM

No one is at war with Pakistan?

Ask the artillary regiments in India and Pakistan who trade shells almost daily in and around Kashmir.

Ask an average Indian about the Taj Hotel attack by Pakistan ISSA commandos.

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

and it "was justified as an act of national self defense."

"Let me make something very clear," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The operation in which Usama bin Laden was killed was lawful. He was the head of al Qaeda, the organization that had conducted the attacks of September 11th. He admitted his involvement ... [and] he said he would not be taken alive."

Holder said it's lawful to "target an enemy commander in the field," just as U.S. forces did during World War II when it shot down a plane carrying Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto.

Bin Laden was "by my estimation, and the estimation of the Justice Department, a lawful military target, and the operation was conducted consistent with our law [and] with our values."

Bin Laden made no attempts to surrender and there was "no indication he wanted to do that," Holder said. Even if the Al Qaeda leader had surrendered, there would have been a "good basis" for "those very brave Navy SEALs" to shoot bin Laden "in order to protect themselves and the other people who were in that building," including "substantial numbers of women and children" who were not harmed in the raid.

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

According to the principles of self-defense enshrined in the UN Charter, the nation-state has a right to protect itself when attacked. Notwithstanding important questions regarding the limits and legality of pre-emptive self-defense, Bin Laden's continued threats and his proven ability to successfully conduct attacks—9/11 in particular—unequivocally categorized him as a legitimate target at the time he was killed. The attack, therefore, was not an act of retribution under international law. It also adhered to fundamental international law principles, including distinction, military necessity, proportionality and alternatives. As a result, the operation was the manifestation of lawful and legitimate self-defense.
Amos N. Guiora is Professor of Law at S.J. Quinney College of Law, the University of Utah;
http://www.jurist.org/forum/2011/05/amos-guiora-targeting-bin-laden.php

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 11:18 AM

"Bin Laden made no attempts to surrender and there was "no indication he wanted to do that," Holder said. Even if the Al Qaeda leader had surrendered, there would have been a "good basis" for "those very brave Navy SEALs" to shoot bin Laden "in order to protect themselves and the other people who were in that building," including "substantial numbers of women and children" who were not harmed in the raid."

Well, which of the two experts that you have quoted do you believe - they diametrically oposite things.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 11:37 AM

Sorry Silas, I see no contradiction.
In any case, I am not qualified to find fault with such eminent authorities on international law.

I have produced expert testimony that it was definitely legal, and some who say it is debatable.
I have found none who state that is was illegal.
Have you Silas?
Have you Jim?

Neither Pakistan nor the UN are about to make a legal challenge anyway.

Jim, you say you are glad he is dead.
You can not show that the killing was illegal.
What ARE you bitching about?
Is it just that America has been successful and destroyed an enemy?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 11:40 AM

You are an apologist for United States aggression and a trairor who is prepared to put your country's defence in the hands of a nation that uses terrorism as a matter of course - in both war or peacetime.
A bit of a mess really.
And still not one word of either condemnation or defence on the use of torture against detainees!!
"Are abusive terms like "redneck" OK?"
They are when it fits as well as it does here (aimed at Abandoned all Sanity btw - not you)
Jim Carroll

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

The guy on the radio clearly said that it was illigal to shoot and kill a person in your custody which bin laden clearly was. You have not addressd the point about the other murdered people in the raid.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 11 - 11:50 AM

And while you're avoiding questions perhaps you could continue to avoid this one - would you be just as accomodating if the target had been Wandsworth High Street?
It usually takes about ten goes before yo answer the hard ones, and then you hardly ever give a straight answer.
And BTW - the US act was one of aggression, not defence, and could easily, and should have involved the Pakistani government, especially as one non-combatent was fatally injured and one wounded.
If the Pakistanis were as compliant as you claim they were, they would have had no difficulty in co-operating, or at least giving permission for the incursion.
Now answer the bloody question
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:13 PM

Silas, "murder" is a well defined concept.
Do you have enough evidence to state that people were murdered?

Jim,
You say I am "a trairor who is prepared to put your country's defence in the hands of a nation that uses terrorism as a matter of course - in both war or peacetime."

Why?

"And still not one word of either condemnation or defence on the use of torture against detainees!!"

That is not under discussion.
You always try to change the subject when you lose an argument.
Start a new thread.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Silas
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:15 PM

Well, I wouldn't have thought it too difficult. You storm into a building with the intention of killing/capturing a known enemy, but you also end up shooting and killing other unarmed people - people who have nothing to do with your argument apart from the fact that they were related to or personally knew your target.

Sounds a bit like murder to me.