 sj |
||
|
||
BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
|
|
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Teribus Date: 31 May 11 - 11:36 AM 900 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lighter Date: 31 May 11 - 07:39 AM I can't believe people are still debating this. Pakistan has even returned the wrecked helicopter instead of turning its stealth technology over to the Chinese. That would have been a decided "Gotcha!" Even keeping the wreck for themselves - which would have been justified - would have indicated some displeasure. Of course the US *and* Pakistan might be colluding in a blatant disregard for international law; but since they're the only governments involved and the Hague has shown no interest and the UN thinks it's cool, I believe we can say "Case closed." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Date: 30 May 11 - 07:34 PM "assassinating bin Laden" Nope. He was taken out as an enemy and a combatant who clearly voiced his status as so on video. He was not assasinated. He was taken out in an act of war... a war he engaged in wholeheartedly. Never mind all the conspiracy theories. He was taken out as he should have been. Of course, he may actually be living on a tropical isle with Saddam and drinking margaritas and fucking virgins but WE will never know eh wha? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e Date: 30 May 11 - 05:48 PM http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=26939 http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=27101 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bill D Date: 29 May 11 - 08:59 PM "..... misguided citizens are big on revenge over justice." Awww...c'mon. 'Some' may feel that way, but as I said before, if we had gotten bin Laden 2 DAYS after 9/11, none of this would be relevant. You don't exactly need a trial from someone who bragged and exhulted about his success in 'bringing death to the infidels'. And Lighter has it right...Noam Chomsky is not exactly my choice for sage advice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lighter Date: 29 May 11 - 08:22 PM Bin Laden is a martyr only to those who loved him while he was alive. Others either feared, disdained him, him or don't much care. The 1973 War Powers Act does not require consultation with Congress before the fact. It does require the President to advise Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action. Which Obama did. As far as anyone can know, had OBL surrendered he'd be alive today. Don't think so? Your privilege. Because of point one, Noam Chomsky's opinion has little bearing on the case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Stringsinger Date: 29 May 11 - 07:12 PM Obama made a serious mistake in assassinating bin Laden. 1. He made him a martyr in certain parts of the middle east. 2. He violated the "war powers act" by not consulting with the whole body of Congress. 3. He had the opportunity to capture bin Laden alive and have him tried internationally in a court of law (ala the Nurenberg Trials) and the result would have been that the world could have seen justice done and the American jurisprudence at work. 4. Noam Chomsky says that his being gone is not such a point of interest with many in the Mid-East countries. It's only big in America where many misguided citizens are big on revenge over justice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Date: 29 May 11 - 04:47 PM http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cia-officers-deaths-kept-secret-13-years-among-050113178.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 20 May 11 - 02:33 PM From a newsletter I received in this morning's e-mail – from an organization call Human Rights First. News of Bin Laden's death wasn't even a day old when Dick Cheney and his allies started claiming torture "worked."For your information. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 20 May 11 - 09:51 AM I agree Silas .... especially when that certain organzion flies them to such countries as Syria (yes Syria), Egypt and Algeria to be tortured .... whew, I dunno about you guys, just the thought of that terrorizes me. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 20 May 11 - 09:36 AM Well what would you call an organisation that kidnaps people, holds them for years without charges or trial and tortures them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 20 May 11 - 09:02 AM My reading of both Wikipedia and history is that while the CIA can get nasty, it is not a "terrorist organization" according to international understanding and usage of that term. Assuming that inconvenient but basic distinctions still matter around here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 20 May 11 - 06:54 AM "Tommy" if I am not mistaken, I believe some of the quotes that you cited in your prior post, were taken from a UN statement requesting full disclosure from the US of preparatory plans for the mission? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest (Tommy) Date: 20 May 11 - 06:16 AM "You might have well chronicled the first thing that ALL Mudcatters actually agree upon!!!!!" Not according to Don F Tommy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble Date: 19 May 11 - 09:01 PM The CIA's has been on the top of my list as a terrorist organization for years. Of course they're "our terrorists." Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 11 - 08:54 PM biLL: "I don't think there is anyone who has posted to this thread (including myself) who would say they miss OBL, or (for gawd's sake) consider him a hero .... and I think we all agree, he was a man of vilolence and evil." You might have well chronicled the first thing that ALL Mudcatters actually agree upon!!!!! Well sakes alive!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Date: 19 May 11 - 08:55 AM Charley Noble, judge and jury for all international terrorists Does that include the CIA, Charlie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 19 May 11 - 08:18 AM I don't think there is anyone who has posted to this thread (including myself) who would say they miss OBL, or (for gawd's sake) consider him a hero .... and I think we all agree, he was a man of vilolence and evil. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble Date: 19 May 11 - 07:56 AM No, I just checked and I really don't miss him. And I could care less about his alleged personal preferences, with the exception of those which killed and maimed thousands across the world. Charley Noble, judge and jury for all international terrorists |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 May 11 - 09:30 PM Only his hairdresser knows for sure.... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 18 May 11 - 08:45 PM My guess is that the porn more likely belonged to his son or one of the two "couriers." Unless they found Viagra too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 May 11 - 05:27 PM What do you think he 'felt better' with...a good porn session, or another report of a successful suicide bomber?????.....and that is supposed to cause us to 'appreciate' his life more? He's the one who showed disregard for life, in general, either his own, the TENS OF THOUSANDS of lives that were lost at his command, his family, or the victims of the war he was waging on anyone who disagreed with his interpretation of the Qur'an?..I guess he was REALLY into the Qu'ran to be jerking off, between various death success reports! Hands crossed over my breast, with starry eyd glassed stare, "My-y-y-y Hero!!!" Get over it, nincompoops!!...Some people are just begging to taken out of the gene pool!!!!...and probably so is Mother Nature!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Date: 18 May 11 - 02:40 PM sIx... "who really gives a rat's ass if he was into porn or stuffed toys." He was fuckin stuffed toys? Sick bastard deserved what he got! I was makin a joke in the last post... this one too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 18 May 11 - 09:58 AM Just to let everyone know .... since I started this thread don't worry about drifting off it's subject .... in fact you can argue about anything ... IRA, WWII, WWIII, the legal system (domestic or international), porn and it's link to terrorists, the assination of JFK, or should Dominique Strauss-Kahn be held without bail. go to it, keep the arguments and debating on the go ... I just ask that you refrain from personal attacks and name calling. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 May 11 - 05:39 AM Keith A of Hertford: "Without defending IRA, they are different." Yes they are. You are correct. One wants to be a separate, independent state, free from Britain, with it's own borders and boundaries... and the other wants to exterminate all those who don't accept their religion....even IF you sympathize WITH them, and/or support their 'cause'!...and anywhere on the planet. This 'war' is NOT like any model, found in recent history, of civilized people..except Nazi Germany's fixation on the 'Final Solution' to the Jewish population..first in Germany, then onto other countries, other than its own, beyond its own borders. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 May 11 - 02:44 AM Teribus, I think you know that I remember Bloody Friday. Coded warnings rendered useless by numerous coded hoax warnings. (We are seeing coded hoaxes again from the dissidents.) The revulsion created by that did the Republicans a lot of harm and they did nothing like it again. Innocent deaths tended to be reckless incompetence thereafter, while AL Q supporters are only interested in a big body count of innocent people and even children. Also there are no negotiables with Al Q. Without defending IRA, they are different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 11 - 11:32 PM Not my list, lively. In order not to "cherry-pick" paragraphs that only supported my position (as some folks are wont to do), I quoted Peter Beeching's entire article, and it was in that. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 17 May 11 - 08:27 PM Otherwise, [according to Don Firth's list] it seems the biggest fans of such incursions are the US & Israel, and the KGB, and some fascists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 17 May 11 - 07:54 PM "Otherwise it seems the biggest fans of such incursions are the US & Israel, and the KGB, and some fascists." Examples would be nice. What fascists? (Hitler and Mussolini didn't launch "incursions," they simply invaded.) I don't know about the "KGB" either (Hungary and Czechoslovakia didn't involve the hot pursuit of terrorists), but the US and Israel have been among the most frequent targets. So of course they strike back more often than...who? Do we know that much about local conflicts in the Third World? I know I don't. What about the Ho Chi Minh trail? Not just a temporary incursion, a years-long occupation by North Vietnam of two neutral nations unable to defend their borders. The lesson is that any nation will take advantage of any other nation if it feels strongly enough that it needs to and believes it can get away with it. The second is that, regardless of the first point, the weight of legal opinion everywhere is that the US acted legally under international law in raiding Bin Laden's compound. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest (Tommy) Date: 17 May 11 - 07:41 PM "The issue here is whether what was done was an act of legitimate self-defence," said Benjamin Ferencz, an international law specialist who served as a prosecutor during the Nuremburg trials and argued that it would have been better to capture Bin Laden and send him to court. "Killing a captive who poses no immediate threat is a crime under military law as well as all other law," he told the BBC World Service. Like Mr Ferencz, British law professor Philippe Sands QC says it is impossible to make a definitive legal judgement without knowing precisely what happened. But he says the case for the raid's legality has been weakened. The raid to kill Bin Laden took place at a villa in the town of Abbottabad "The question to ask is: were the measures taken in the actual situation that pertained reasonable and proportionate, given the circumstances in which the [Navy Seals] found themselves?" he told the BBC. "The facts for Bin Laden don't appear to easily meet that standard. "As a matter of international law, one country is not free to enter another country apparently without the authorisation of that country, and intervene, whether to kidnap or kill a national of a third state," Mr Sands said. He acknowledged that under what is known as the doctrine of necessity, where there is an "overriding threat to national security", such an act might not give rise to responsibility or liability. But he said the difficulty with that argument was that it comes against a background of a rise in extrajudicial killings, including through the use of drones, and that this was not a "lawful direction to be taking". The logical conclusion of any idea that Bin Laden could be killed as an enemy combatant was "that anyone associated with al-Qaeda in any country in the world can be taken out, can be executed," Mr Sands said. "I think it's deeply troubling if we are indeed moving to a place where you can have a global assassination policy for those who are perceived to cause trouble," he added. "In certain exceptional cases, use of deadly force may be permissible as a measure of last resort... including in operations against terrorists," they said in statement. "However, the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially decided punishment," they added. "Actions taken by states in combating terrorism, especially in high profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life will be treated in future instances." Source BBC News Aidan Lewis Tommy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Date: 17 May 11 - 07:37 PM "According to CNN, Pakistan has lost more troops in Afghanistan than has the U.S." Yes but they died fighting for the Taleban. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Date: 17 May 11 - 07:34 PM "IRA never deliberately caused indiscriminate killings of civilians, though they were often culpably careless of whether a few civilians died or not" You are joking aren't you?? Then again perhaps you didn't have to live through "Bloody Friday" where they deliberately and indiscriminately attacked civilians in the centre of Belfast (What was it again 22 bombs in the space of 80 minutes) For each location, first bomb warning called in, second bomb placed at the spot people were directed to as a safe muster point. 22 actual bombs with a number of hoax's called in all with the intent of overwhelming the emergency services. Never deliberately caused indiscriminate killings of civilians - my arse. The fact that only 6 civilians died and 130 were injured stands as testament to the magnificent work done on the 21st July 1972 by the Security and Emergency Services at work in Belfast that day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 17 May 11 - 07:13 PM "Still on the topic of Argentina, which has always claimed the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands as part of its sovereign territory, the United Kingdom went there in 1982, snatching it back from Argentine occupation because its residents were overwhelmingly loyal to Britain." Err yes, the 'incursion' was that of Argentinia, which is why the piece correctly states that the island was being "occupied" by Argentinia (despite claims of sovereignty). What a peculiar example to give. Otherwise it seems the biggest fans of such incursions are the US & Israel, and the KGB, and some fascists. |
