 sj |
||
|
||
BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 11 - 07:48 AM I would say that the number of caualties was remarkably small for such an operation. None of the children were hurt, and the adults present must have been complicit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 08 Jun 11 - 07:29 AM OK Keith, perhaps you can tell me what you think about the other people who were assasinated during the 'Get Bin Laden' operation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 11 - 07:13 AM Relevant to Jim's diversion from the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 08 Jun 11 - 07:08 AM Sorry Keith, I know it is not as riveting as your post about who said what about you and when, but it does have the merit of being relavent tio this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 11 - 06:55 AM Thanks Silas (yawn). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 11 - 06:54 AM "the future is totally undecided " Obviously. As I said earlier, "No doubt they (Islamists) will try to exploit the power vacuum" You can not dismiss what has happened in just a few weeks as " no achievement" and you have still not made any case against the OBL action. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 08 Jun 11 - 06:50 AM http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html Worth a read? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jun 11 - 06:46 AM No Keith - nothing has been achieved yet in the way of the direction that these countries will take, whether it will be to embracing fundamentalist practices or democratic ones. Newspaper articles, no matter how independent, do not speak for the people as a whole, or even those who are going to bring about any changes, certainly not at this stage of the game, and one article in one newspaper can in no way give anything like an accurate picture of the thinking or even the events in these countries. The future of all of these countries hang in the balance, the future is totally undecided and instead of (your) spurious comparisons with Ireland, perhaps it is far more apposite to remember what happened when the Shah fell in Iran, an event that opened up this whole can of worms. That al Qaeda is no longer relevant is an extremely dangerous and irresponsible assumption - certainly not the case in Yemen; we have no idea whatever of the situation anywhere else. And please stop whining about personal abuse and the "accusations" are well enough recorded not to require further mention. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 11 - 05:55 AM "And for those who have attempted to suppress any calls for change militarily and with extreme force," We must not debate Ireland here Jim, but Britain did not do that. It accepted many changes such that the NI Civil Rights Association disbanded because its claims were all met. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Jun 11 - 05:41 AM It would be interesting if America, as well, could be united in confronting its real enemies of our Freedom!! That, I think is the key question... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Jun 11 - 04:58 AM Wow Keith! Very interesting article, assuming that is accurate, in it's reflection of their mind set. It would be interesting if America, as well, could be united in confronting its real enemies of our Freedom!! It remains to be seen, in either instance. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 11 - 04:31 AM In an independent Egyptian daily, al-Shorouq, Imad Eddin Hussein condemns Mr bin Laden and his approach to Islamic liberation as an utter failure: God have mercy on Osama bin Laden… He did everything he thought he could to serve the Muslim cause. But in the end, if America and Israel had launched a multi-trillion dollar campaign to demonise Muslims, they couldn't have done a better job… Al-Qaeda ended up killing more Muslims than anyone else. They inflicted indescribable damage on the Muslim nation, while failing to inflict any real damage on the West…For us to confront the West, we need to be strong. But we will only become strong when we become free, well-educated citizens of democratic nations. If we could achieve that, Israel would not be able to push us around—the West would not be able to occupy our lands. Who knows—maybe they would start giving us the respect we deserve without us having to fire a single shot. But for us to simplistically reduce our relationship with the West either to complete subordination (à la Hosni Mubarak) or perpetual clash (as bin Laden would have had it)—that is the real tragedy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 11 - 04:26 AM "Nothing has been "achieved" yet" Of course it has Jim. Tunisia and Egypt, regimes overturned. Yemen, leader ousted. These are regimes that have resisted all reforms for decades. The scale of the popular demonstrations in Syria, utterly unprecedented and whatever happens the regime will be forced to reform. "Nor has there been any support for it (OBL's killing) - which is probably much more significant." It just emphasises that Al Qaeda is no longer relevant to Arabs. You have failed to make any case against the operation Jim. Just irrelevant, dead issues, made up accusations and personal abuse. Even Pakistan does not care about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jun 11 - 04:11 AM "ordinary decent Arabs have no time for them." The Arab spring still hangs in the balance. There has been open fighting between Christians and Muslims in Egypt, Yemen is heavily influenced by Muslim extremism, Syria and Bahrain is resisting any reforms with extreme violence (the latter with British trained special forces), Gadaffi is still hanging on by his fingernails in Libya, not one country so far is in a position to plan a future and the religious militants are waiting in the wings for a chance to jump into the gap. Nothing has been "achieved" yet. "There has been no outcry over his killing" Nor has there been any support for it - which is probably much more significant. Everything hangs in the balance and to claim it doesn't is sheer, arrogantly stupid complacency - our behaviour, past and present, has meant that we really don't have many friends, "ordinary decent" or otherwise" in the Arab world, (except a handful of feudal despots, ex-rulers or deposed) and the training of the special forces of feudal regimes or the killing and maiming of civilians isn't going to win us too many. "A lesson for Ireland's dissidents" And for those who have attempted to suppress any calls for change militarily and with extreme force, such as the shooting down unarmed demonstrators, the Diplock Courts, and the jailing of innocents who would undoubtedly have been executed had we still retained the quaint old custom of capital punishment. "You have a great gift for twisting anything" And you have a great gift for avoiding the real issues by putting up straw men and arguing against something that has not been suggested; this is the nearest you have come to admitting that torture has even happened, and you have yet to recognise that Guantanamo even exists, let alone condemning it. I caught the end of a feature film called 'Special Rendition' last night which depicted a British Asian being picked up on the streets somewhere in Southern England by American and British agents, flown to an unnamed country and tortured until he signed a confession for something he knew nothing about - a work of fiction, but claimed to have been based on an actual event. The message flashed up on the screen at the end was that there have been over 1,100 such cases of 'suspects' having been taken by CIA and British agents and sent abroad since 2002 - this is the reputation that goes before you and which you need to openly discuss. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 11 - 01:15 AM "Separating the assassination of bin Laden from the Middle East situation in general is, as far as I'm concerned, insane." The Arab Spring has left al Qaeda marginalised and irrelevant. They have been trying to overthrow the likes of Mubarak for twenty years or more. Ordinary pro-democratic people managed it peacefully in a few weeks where extreme violence and anti-democracy failed. (A lesson for Ireland's dissidents if the lesson of US Civil Rights movement was not enough.) No doubt they will try to exploit the power vacuum, but ordinary decent Arabs have no time for them. There has been no outcry over his killing on the Arab Street. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jun 11 - 10:31 PM ". . . I re-read the article, which says torture shouldn't happen, indicating that it still does." Non sequitur. Saying that torture shouldn't happen does NOT mean that it's still happening. What they are saying is that it should not even be considered. And they are taking to task those who are claiming that it should be used--the ones who authorized it in the first place. This matter is far from settled. You have a great gift for twisting anything to fit your pre-conceived notions. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 11 - 05:16 PM Don, Nobody has accused the American people of these crimes - the finger is pointed at your various governmets who have overseen these atrocities. I re-read the article, which says torture shouldn't happen, indicating that it still does. "We're doing everything we can to strengthen the consensus against torture." We don't know if the special rendition flights still happen, but we do know they were happening a couple of years ago. Obama promised to close Guantanamo, yet it remains, with 80 odd prisoners still being held there, uncharged and untried, in intolerable conditions. America has a fairly recent history to live down, and until it comes clean and says that these atrocities no longer happen (unlike you, I doubt if anybody's head will roll for them), any claim for the fight against terrorism will continue to ring very hollow. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Date: 07 Jun 11 - 05:06 PM OK I will ask you once again: "Where and when did I state that white Phosphorus was harmless?" please tell me what part or parts of that question that you do not understand. White Phosphorus: "White phosphorus is a material made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus that is used in smoke, tracer, illumination and incendiary munitions. As an incendiary weapon, white phosphorus burns fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire, and cause serious burns or death. 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 launchers 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. White phosphorus is used in bombs, artillery, mortars, and short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact Any of you clowns read read any reference to smoke grenades in that passage? Read anything there about Chemical Weapons?? Funny thing is I didn't. Care to explain why White Phosphorus and Napalm are dealt with specifically in a Convention relating to Conventional Weapons but are not covered by the specific convention concerned with Chemical Weapons? Hint for both Silas and Jim - just because you want to call Agent Orange and Napalm Chemical weapons does NOT necessarily make them so. Loved this bit though Jim-lad: "White phosphorus is believed to have been first used by Fenian arsonists in the 19th century Any words by way of condemanation?? LOL you just couldn't make it up. Your reference to CIA?? Well let's take a look at it shall we: "In Iraq, the Saddam Hussein regime used white phosphorus, as well as chemical weapons that are scheduled in the Chemical Weapons Convention, in the Halabja poison gas attack during the Iran–Iraq War in 1988, according to the ANSA news agency. Another news report said "US intelligence" called WP a chemical weapon in a declassified Pentagon report from February 1991: "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus Guess what is missing here?? A coma perhaps?? chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships." Care to tell me what Depleted Uranium has to do with Osama bin Laden?? Or are you just introducing another off topic red herring? US and UK used DU ammunition in Desert Storm, care to tell us where? And against what targets? Now tell us who fired loads of DU ammunition in and around Basra in 1991? Tell us what ammunition gets spouted out of the twin barrelled Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 cannon mounted on a Mil-24 Hind Gunship as flown by the Iraqi Air Force of Saddam Hussein? In Desert Storm what iraqi armoured formations were centred in or around Basra (Hint for you - None) So what would cause the our Coalition of the willing to load up Apaches and A-10 Warthogs with DU munitions specifically designed to "kill" tanks to strike at places where there were no tanks? I actually believe that those aircraft and those munitions were targeted at Iraqi armoured formations all of whom were out in open desert far, far away from Basra. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e Date: 07 Jun 11 - 05:01 PM http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/7753-cias-bin-laden-hunter-ordered-to-stand-down-10-times |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Date: 07 Jun 11 - 05:00 PM OK I will ask you once again: "Where and when did I state that white Phosphorus was harmless?" please tell me what part or parts of that question that you do not understand. White Phosphorus: "White phosphorus is a material made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus that is used in smoke, tracer, illumination and incendiary munitions. As an incendiary weapon, white phosphorus burns fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire, and cause serious burns or death. 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 launchers 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. White phosphorus is used in bombs, artillery, mortars, and short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact Any of you clowns read read any reference to smoke grenades in that passage? Read anything there about Chemical Weapons?? Funny thing is I didn't. Care to explain why White Phosphorus and Napalm are dealt with specifically in a Convention relating to Conventional Weapons but are not covered by the specific convention concerned with Chemical Weapons? Hint for both Silas and Jim - just because you want to call Agent Orange and Napalm Chemical weapons does necessarily make them so. Loved this bit though Jim-lad: "White phosphorus is believed to have been first used by Fenian arsonists in the 19th century Any words by way of condemanation?? LOL you just couldn't make it up. Your reference to CIA?? Well let's take a look at it shall we: "In Iraq, the Saddam Hussein regime used white phosphorus, as well as chemical weapons that are scheduled in the Chemical Weapons Convention, in the Halabja poison gas attack during the Iran–Iraq War in 1988, according to the ANSA news agency. Another news report said "US intelligence" called WP a chemical weapon in a declassified Pentagon report from February 1991: "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus Guess what is missing here?? A coma perhaps chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships." Care to tell me what Depleted Uranium has to do with Osama bin Laden?? Or are you just introducing another off topic red herring? US and UK used DU ammunition in Desert Storm, care to tell us where? And against what targets? Now tell us who fired loads of DU ammunition in and around Basra in 1991? Tell us what ammunition gets spouted out of the twin barrelled Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 cannon mounted on a Mil-24 Hind Gunship as flown by the Iraqi Air Force of Saddam Hussein? In Desert Storm what iraqi armoured formations were centred in or around Basra (Hint for you - None) So what would cause the our Coalition of the willing to load up Apaches and A-10 Warthogs with DU munitions specifically designed to "kill" tanks to strike at places where there were no tanks? I actually believe that those aircraft and those munitions were targeted at Iraqi armoured formations all of whom were out in open desert far, far away from Basra. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jun 11 - 04:04 PM ". . . to many of us here, indisputable." To you, I'm quite sure. Americans citizens became aware of such things as the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, Guantanamo, waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, and such abberations, and whether YOU credit it or not, they were outraged that our own government should be condoning this sort of thing. This was one of the major factors in turfing the Bush administration out of office. And the major reason for organizations such as Human Rights First. To maintain a lookout for this sort of thing and keep American citizens informed, even whenever some political leader or official may advicate it. Go back and read the article again. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 11 - 03:35 PM "If what you keep on claiming were actually true" So you are saying that torture hasn't been used, nor is still being used against terrorist suspects, or eve those believed to have information, that suspects are not being flown out to countries where torture techniques are more extreme than the run-of-the-mill methods used by US interrogators, that suspects are not still being held without charge in Guantanamo, that the US not is failing to take into consideration the civilian population in its militarry actions.....? I have no idea if torture was used in the assassination of bin Laden, though I do know that one of your senators claimed it was and that it was a reason it should continue. As far as I can see, the organisation you put up was commenting on the information leading to the discovery of bin Laden, not the general use of torture, which, to many of us here, indisputable. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 11 - 02:31 PM Terribus Perhaps you'd like to add this to your reading list. Jim Carroll "A BBC investigation can reveal that the US and UK military have continued to use depleted uranium weapons despite warnings from scientists that it poses a potential long-term cancer risk to civilians. A former senior scientist with the United Nations has told the BBC that studies showing that it was carcinogenic were suppressed from a seminal World Health Organisation report. The US has refused to fund major research and has been criticised for failing to cooperate with UN attempts to conduct a post conflict assessment in Iraq. Angus Stickler reports: When depleted uranium bullets are fired, the rounds can rip through the tank armour. And once inside — on contact with air they combust exploding into a 10,000 degrees centigrade ball of fire. Both the US and UK used depleted uranium in Iraq. The US fired 320 tons in Gulf War I — and possibly as much as 2,000 tonnes in Gulf War II. But its use is highly controversial — blamed as one of the possible causes of cancer and birth defects. It's this that prompted the Untied Nations' World Health Organisation to conduct a major assessment of the post conflict hazards. The findings were published in 2001. Dr Mike Repacholi retired as the Coordinator of the W.H.O. Radiation and Environmental Health Unit in June of this year. He oversaw the project. He says, "Depleted uranium is basically safe — you can touch depleted uranium for hours and not cause and radiation damage you can ingest it and it's excreted through the body — 99 per cent of it goes within about a day — you would have to ingest a huge amount of depleted uranium dust to cause any adverse health effect." The W.H.O. assessment warns that children should be restricted from going into post conflict areas. The monograph — as it is called — is now used by some as the definitive document on the potential health hazards of depleted uranium. But now this BBC investigation has been told — its findings may skewed. Dr Keith Baverstock — now retired — was a senior radiation advisor with 12 years experience at the W.H.O — part of Dr Repacholi's editorial team at the time. He came across research indicating that depleted uranium is a potentially dangerous carcinogen: "When you breathe in the dust the deeper it goes into the lung the more difficult it is to clear. The particles that dissolve pose a risk — part radioactive — and part from the chemical toxicity in the lung — and then later as that material diffuses into the rest of the body, and into the blood stream a potential risk at sites like the bone marrow for leukaemia, the lymphatic system and the kidney" according to Dr Baverstock. Health warnings suppressed This is called genotoxicicty says Dr Baverstock, it could take decades before evidence of cancer starts to emerge. As part of the W.H.O. team he submitted these findings — based on peer reviewed research conducted by the United States Department of Defense — for inclusion into the monograph. It received short shrift. Dr Repacholi says this was with good reason. It was the committee's general conclusion that this data did not substantiate that there was a health effect at this stage. Was the science that was in that report — which was research that came effectively from the US Department of Defense — was it wrong? DR REPACHOLI: We want a comprehensive report — we want to include everything that we can — but we don't want fairytale stuff — it wasn't collaborated by other reports — that was felt to the level that science would say this was established. ANGUS STICKLER: My understanding is that at the time that there were eight published peer reviewed research studies — attesting to the genotoxic nature of uranium — all of which could have been included in the monograph? REPACHOLI: Yep — these — er — papers were speculative at the time and W.H.O. will only publish data that they know is established. STICKLER: Shouldn't the World Health Organisation err on the side of caution? REPACHOLI: W.H.O is a conservative organisation there's no doubt — it's not a leader in this sort of thing — it's not out there saying wow we should be concerned about this, this and this — it's not there to do that. Dr Baverstock disagrees. He says the W.H.O stance that this is inconclusive science is not safe science. He attempted to take the issue further. DR BAVERSTOCK: When it wasn't included in the monograph — I with two other colleagues prepared a paper for the open literature and the W.H.O did not permit me to submit that paper for publication. ANGUS STICKLER: Why not — what reasons were you given? BAVERSTOCK: Well ha — I still have not had a reason as to why that paper was not allowed to be published. STICKLER: Could it be the case that the science you're talking about is unsafe — in that you're — as a scientist — a bit miffed that they didn't include what you wanted them to include? BAVERSTOCK: No I'm not miffed about it at all — we use this kind of laboratory testing in many systems to screen chemicals and to know whether things are going to be dangerous or not. STICKLER: Why do you think your study was — as you say — suppressed? BAVERSTOCK: It is naive to think that in institutions like the United Nations one is free from political influences — the member states have their own agendas. STICKLER: What you seem to be saying there is that the W.H.O. was pressurised by the likes of the United States to come to the right conclusion? BAVERSTOCK: I think that could be the case — yes. It's ironic that the major player that Dr Baverstock believes was behind the decision block publication of his study — was the nation state that conducted the research he was citing: The United States' Department of Defence Armed Forces Radiobiological Research Institute: a credible State laboratory. A point I put to Dr Repacholi. DR REPACHOLI: The problem that W.H.O had and it went right up to the Director General's office that it was finally disapproved at that level was that on the basis of the evidence that we have — we can't conclude that it is harmful — and to have a paper from another W.H.O staff member that says we absolutely think it's harmful — makes W.H.O look a bit odd. STICKLER: With the greatest respect — that's going to have very little truck with someone who may get seriously ill because of depleted uranium the fact that the W.H.O. may look a bit odd?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jun 11 - 02:01 PM "Sorry Don - none of what you wrote explains or excuses the torture, the concentration camps, the horrific weapons used mainly on third-world peasants........" Jim, read this. I received it in my e-mail a couple of days ago. This is from an organization that feels very strongly about torture and those who advocate its use. News of the Osama bin Laden operation wasn't even a day old when torture apologists began claiming vindication. To hear former vice president Dick Cheney and his allies tell it, without the CIA's water-boarding program, the United States would never have found bin Laden. Cheney and company want Americans to believe that torture makes us safe, and they don't seem to care about the dangers it poses—to our national security, our national character, and our men and women in uniform.If what you keep on claiming were actually true, this organization would be the first to be screaming their heads off about it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 11 - 01:30 PM ""Where and when did I state that White Phosphorus was harmless?" You just have by referring to it as 'smoke-bombs', just as you have with Agent Orange by describing it as weed-killer, and comparing napalm to petrol - as I said earlier, downgraded to draw the attention away from their effects.. If you are aware of the Wiki definition of White phosphorus, you weill have come across this, no doubt: "Another news report said "US intelligence" called WP a chemical weapon in a declassified Pentagon report from February 1991" Seems I am not alone in my mis-definition of white phosphorus as being a chemical weapon - perhaps a message to the Pentagon might not go amiss. More later. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 07 Jun 11 - 12:34 PM I think your 'smoke bombs and weedkiller' comment needs looking at! I also am concerned that it was not just Bin Laden who was assasinated during this raid - something that seems to be conveniently forgotten. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Date: 07 Jun 11 - 12:16 PM Mr Carroll, For the fourth time of asking: "Where and when did I state that White Phosphorus was harmless?" If you are not honest enough or man enough to admit your error then we shall just have to let the matter go, but it serves as a perfect example of your style of "debate", i.e. invent positions taken by people, put words into their mouths then attempt to take them to task over it. How utterly pathetic. "...it isn't the actual killing of bin Laden that bothers me, but the repercussions from how it was done,..." What repercussions?? Are you trying to tell us that the Pakistani Taliban had entered a "ceasefire" with the Pakistani Government immediately prior to bin Laden's death?? Are you trying to tell us that the attack that occurred immediately after the attack on bin Laden's compound was a spur of the moment thing, that it hadn't been planned days if not months before?? We are no more at risk now from islamic terrorists than we have been for any time in the last forty years. "...which I feel fits in perfectly with the past policies of the US, and more recently, of Britain, in attempting to bring the situation to heel militarily." What past policies? What situations? Since the end of the Second World War most have been UN operations and in most instances military intervention did succeed in stopping the killing of innocent civilians and getting both sides to negotiate a settlement. Where it hasn't worked? Rwanda? Congo? Somalia? Darfur? "There is a huge problem of religious fanaticism involved here," Bullshit!!! Anyone who believes that Al-Qaeda or the Taliban are religious fanatics want their bumps read, they are a bunch of opportunistic thugs and bandits on the make, religion is merely one of the buttons they know they can press and guarantee that it will work in certain circumstances. Doubt that then review their behaviour in Musa Qalah; Swat and Buner (In all if Sharia law went against their wishes they just murdered the Cleric, and imposed the settlement that best suited them) "...but there is just as serious a problem of the most powerful nation in the world securing its own interests, in this case, the supply of oil, by all means possible, including by force." Ah, so its all about oil is it? Care to tell us how much oil "the most powerful nation in the world" has managed to secure for itself, by force? If it was oil they wanted why did they not invade and occupy Saudi Arabia, or better still Canada or Venezuela where they get most of their oil from, taking it all for free. Care to explain to us why the USA and the UK for that matter pays full market price for all their oil whether imported or home produced? "Separating the assassination of bin Laden from the Middle East situation in general is, as far as I'm concerned, insane." bin Laden never gave a rat's ass about "the middle-east situation", his primary beef has always been with the Saudi Royal family and their descision to allow them access to bases from which to launch the attacks that liberated Kuwait. No Arab has ever cared two hoots about the Palestinians, who to them are at best useful pawns in the game, to be kept in despair and poverty for as long as required after which they will just be conveniently ignored and forgotten. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jun 11 - 06:42 AM All my posts have been reactive, and will continue to only be so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 07 Jun 11 - 06:27 AM Maybe it is time to take it out of this thread and to the other one or to PM or something Keith? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 07 Jun 11 - 06:24 AM Yawn - |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jun 11 - 06:23 AM No-one is "bickering." You made an unjustified, unjustifiable, irrelevant personal attack, and I responded as anyone would. Your repeated use of false accusations and statements is despicable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 11 - 06:13 AM "Hope all this makes sense!" Yes it does, but it isn't the actual killing of bin Laden that bothers me, but the repercussions from how it was done, which I feel fits in perfectly with the past policies of the US, and more recently, of Britain, in attempting to bring the situation to heel militarily. There is a huge problem of religious fanaticism involved here, but there is just as serious a problem of the most powerful nation in the world securing its own interests, in this case, the supply of oil, by all means possible, including by force. Separating the assassination of bin Laden from the Middle East situation in general is, as far as I'm concerned, insane. Regarding my arguments with Keith - I have said all I have to say on the matter and have no intention of taking it further here, and hopefully elsewhere - people are free to make of it what they will. I hope he is prepared to, at the very least, take it to the appropriate thread out of consideration for those who wish to continue with this one. Again, my apologies for my part in cluttering this up with our bickering Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 07 Jun 11 - 05:28 AM Would you let such an accusation pass? In fairness, Keith, while I disagree with you on just about everything else in this thread, I would have to answer no to that. For the record, I think that one can be treading a fine line in a thread like that other one but I felt you were on the right side of that line. Personally, I think if there is a statistical anomaly, it should be investigated although in this case, my personal feeling is that more detailed analysis to confirm or reject the initial finding was required. As such I might be inclined to find you guilty of jumping on the side of one interpretation rather quickly and heavily but racist, I for one do not think so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion Date: 07 Jun 11 - 05:27 AM Well, Jim: my impression is that the overall sympathy of posters here is against rather than for you, which is unusual; a general irrelevance seems to be the complaint of quite a lot who are usually more sympathetic to your POVs. If I have not engaged too deeply with the main point of this thread, it is because it represents one of my "can see virtue in both sides" arguments. I regret any necessity for abuse of any state's territorial integrity; but cannot feel much compassion for the man who got what he had explicitly asked for, and thoroughly deserved; and, pace Richard [whose pov as a man of the law I perfectly well comprehend] I think any attempt to secure him for 'due process' {which I should in general regard as an essential element in the achievement of justice} would in this instance have brought more problems than solutions in its wake. Hope all this makes sense! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 07 Jun 11 - 05:23 AM "What should I do about it?" Just let it go, people will make up their own minds anyway, no matter what you or he say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jun 11 - 05:21 AM I am sorry too, but I can not let such a nasty accusation stand. It keeps happening because Jim keeps making these personal attacks. Gratuitously, he accuses me of being an extreme, vicious racist. What should I do about it? No-one else I know of here behaves like this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 11 - 05:14 AM "bluster' on your part" No Mike. Just pointing out that you have chosen not to participate to any great degree in this thread, yet feel comfortable with throwing in brickbats from the sidelines which have little to do with the subject under discussion. My 'bluster' has been an effort on my part to say what I feel about this 'adventure' and its effect on all our lives. I have made my case as best I can, and, so far, have been met with an avalanche of tabloidese-type misrepresentation, distortion of facts and evasion. As for my (interminable) arguments with Keith; I apologise to all, it seems to go with any discussion I have had with him and it stops here with me; lets see how he responds. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 07 Jun 11 - 04:43 AM Michael, it was aimed at both of the buggers! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 07 Jun 11 - 04:28 AM I would refer him to the previous thread. Its a bit tedious for us other posters to have you two just repeating over and over again the same remarks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jun 11 - 04:26 AM Silas, I am not continuing the old debate. I am defending myself from a disgusting, gratuitous, personal attack by Jim, which he made on this thread. Would you let such an accusation pass? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion Date: 07 Jun 11 - 04:22 AM Silas - Is that last post aaddressed to your oppo Keith or your mate Jim ~~ just out of interest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 07 Jun 11 - 04:18 AM FFS can you not post these comments on the original thread and stop contaminating this one with the same old same old. Thanks |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jun 11 - 04:14 AM Jim, " Aren't you drifting threads again?" You raised the subject with a disgusting accusation that I can not let pass unchallenged. "it is an accurate reproduction of what you wrote and apparently what you believe" I have no reason not to believe. I am no expert on Pakistani culture, but those people all had intimate knowledge of it, or were actually part of it. The question is, what specialist knowledge do you have that you somehow just know that they are all wrong?! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion Date: 07 Jun 11 - 04:03 AM Perhaps so, qua contribution, Jim; but my name came up along with Keith's in the IMO blustering resuscitation of another thread which you may think, but on the other ☜ as I say may NOT, have 'historical' relevance to this one. So ~~ YOUR ref back to MY Ugly-Sister-history - a bit more 'bluster' on your part, perhaps? Best as ever ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jun 11 - 03:56 AM "Just happens to be an accurate description of exactly what they are." No - it is an attempt to divert the argument away from what they do. "It is just a gratuitous and nasty personal attack." No it isn't - it is an accurate reproduction of what you wrote and apparently what you believe - tell us you didn't and you don't. Aren't you drifting threads again? Sorry Don - none of what you wrote explains or excuses the torture, the concentration camps, the horrific weapons used mainly on third-world peasants........ The departure of bin Laden doesn't worry me one bit; the manner of his going and the effect it is having and will continue to have on the Middle East and the effect of American policy on the safety and the well-being of the world does. If that makes me "a piece of work" I'll live with that, and so, I'm sure, will those of us who are appalled at the US's continued gung-ho diplomacy in an extremely dangerous situation largely of its own creation. Even our military experts have said that the Middle East situation cannot be solved militarily, and I believe that cutting yet another head off the Hydra has already produced at least one more - hearts and minds have to be more effective than body bags; surely that's obvious? "you can only bluster." Rings a little hollow from someone whose most significant contribution to this thread to date has been that he once played an ugly sister in a pantomime Mike. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion Date: 07 Jun 11 - 03:45 AM Well, you have now, Silas; so it is now part of your 'History', for others to draw such lessons from as may be appropriate, isn't it? Regards ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 07 Jun 11 - 03:40 AM 'Bluster'? Well, I have never been accused of that before... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion Date: 07 Jun 11 - 03:07 AM No we don't Silas: we are aware of past history as you and Jim. We just recognise that, although lessons where appropriate must be learnt from it, it is not invariably relevant to the immediate case. The important thing is to be able to make distinctions in this particular. We can. You and Jim are so hidebound in your thinking that you can't; you can only bluster. This applies both to the history of the world and of our nations; and to the 'history' of what posters on this thread might have said on previous occasions. The fact that Keith and I once made certain points on a different thread on a different topic may be relevant to this thread; but it is not NECESSARILY so, as Ira Gershwin observed. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 07 Jun 11 - 02:27 AM Well you agree that they are chemicals, they are being used as a weapon so they ARE chemical weapons whatever YOU may want to call them. THe difference is between people like Jim and I and yourselves is that we are aware of our countries histories and behaviours in the past, but we do not attempt to justifty or excuse it, you, sadly, do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Date: 07 Jun 11 - 01:19 AM ""smoke grenade and a can of weed killer" Just happens to be an accurate description of exactly what they are. Calling them and referring to them as being "chemical weapons" isn't. Now for the third time of asking: "here and when did I state that White Phosphorus is harmless?" |
