|
01 May 11 - 10:51 PM (#3146143) Subject: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 It's starting to circulate around the web .... Obama to make news announcement later. biLL |
|
01 May 11 - 10:55 PM (#3146145) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Number 6 It's now making news on CNN biLL |
|
01 May 11 - 10:57 PM (#3146147) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: LilyFestre It's on NBC as well. Dead by US military action. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:01 PM (#3146148) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Genie 60 Minutes has also been interrupted for the news confirming that Bin Laden's body is in US custody. Of course, news reports have been wrong before, but this is not just an internet rumor. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:05 PM (#3146150) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Genie President Obama is going to have a TV news conference about this in a few minutes. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:06 PM (#3146151) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Haruo It was reported here before it made the front page of Google News! |
|
01 May 11 - 11:08 PM (#3146152) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: SINSULL Stunned and baffled. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:13 PM (#3146154) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: EBarnacle Now, can everyone declare victory and go home? |
|
01 May 11 - 11:15 PM (#3146155) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: michaelr I want to see the death certificate. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:15 PM (#3146156) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S It's been reported that he was killed by a bomb or missle from the US and that DNA tests confirm that the body is Bin Laden. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:18 PM (#3146157) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: J-boy Srange. I feel almost nothing at all. Ten years ago (almost) I would have felt justice had been served with the man's death. Revenge is a very cold dish indeed. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:27 PM (#3146160) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Killed by a "US asset" outside Islamabad. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:28 PM (#3146161) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Amergin Not going to change anything....they'll just come up with another boogeyman to scare us into submission. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:29 PM (#3146162) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jeri So important to get the 'scoop', eh? Obama was supposed to be on at 10:30, before the leak hit the air. It's nearly an hour later now, everybody knows, and folks have to get up in the morning. I feel very ambivalent about Bin Laden. Glad they finally got him, but not going to put the party hat on and get the noise-maker out. On a different sort of positive note, this new pre-empted Trump's Celebrity Apprentice. (He fired Hope.) |
|
01 May 11 - 11:33 PM (#3146168) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Rapparee What if it's not Bin Laden? |
|
01 May 11 - 11:34 PM (#3146171) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Genie LOL, MichaelR! Will we now have Orly Taitz, Donald Trump, etc., being "deathers?" |
|
01 May 11 - 11:36 PM (#3146173) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Genie Obama is speaking now. Not a press conference but an address to the nation. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:46 PM (#3146176) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Rapparee Yup, he said Bin Laden's dead, killed in an attack on a compound in Pakistan by US forces. I have no feelings now one way or the other, but that might change. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:46 PM (#3146177) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: J-boy Guess who just guaranteed himself a second term? |
|
01 May 11 - 11:47 PM (#3146178) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad He is now cavorting in paradise with 72 virgins -- some guys have all the luck. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:52 PM (#3146181) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Jesse Ventura said that a week ago, oddly enough. Also, the speech by the President, was the most presidential that I've seen him, ever....even if he was using a teleprompter, and the speech was written a week ago. I hope, though guardedly, that this may begin a easing of tensions, rather than a 'new martyr' to lift up. GfS |
|
02 May 11 - 12:04 AM (#3146186) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Don Meixner This to me is very good news. I imagine it will disrupt the organization of terror for some time. It won't stop Al Quieda and it will probably have some retaliation. But this will disrupt things for a while. If ever there was a man who deserved this type of justice it was Bin Laden. The world didn't need him and it won't miss him Don |
|
02 May 11 - 12:09 AM (#3146187) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jack the Sailor Obama pre-empting Trump? I'm starting to see the 2012 election as a "pro wrestling" style scripted battle cooked up between those two. Will they hit each other with fake metal chairs during the "debates"? It is not as if the GOP had Pawlenty of strong candidates. Navy Seals on the ground in Pakistan, Osama shot in the head, body recovered! I wonder who has the movie rights? Vin Diesel and The Rock in Osama Vs Obama! Coming to Imax and Real 3d! |
|
02 May 11 - 12:16 AM (#3146188) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Stilly River Sage Yes! Finally! So many things we do today are impacted by the planning and plotting of that one man. It's time his evil was brought to an end. Everyone of a certain age will no doubt remember where they were when they heard of the planes hitting the twin towers, just as those of us old enough remember where we were when Kennedy was shot, or the Challenger exploded. It also seems to be such an incredible weekend of opposites - a Royal Wedding and the death of a Monster. I dubbed it "beauty and the beast" in my twitter feed. SRS |
|
02 May 11 - 12:17 AM (#3146189) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: J-boy Throngs are gathering outside the White House and ground zero to celebrate. I thought this sort of tribal enthusiasm was on the wane. I was wrong. But it was nice of Obama to wait until after the royal wedding. And that was just a more civilized form of primal group-think by the way. |
|
02 May 11 - 12:33 AM (#3146192) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: J-boy USA! USA! USA! It's just like when we beat the Soviets at hockey! I grow weary of it. So very very weary. Has anybody got a better plan? |
|
02 May 11 - 12:51 AM (#3146196) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Little Robyn He has his just desserts! Somehow, I feel a little safer tonight. Robyn |
|
02 May 11 - 01:08 AM (#3146197) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: robomatic So was it worth the powder it took to blow him to Hell? |
|
02 May 11 - 01:20 AM (#3146198) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ron Davies It's not been a good year for al-Qaeda. in some ways other events are more important than this--particularly the toppling of Mubarak by a bunch of middle-class Facebook, etc. fans rather than al-Qaeda and other radical groups, which had been trying to remove him for about 30 years. Al-Qaeda is in grave danger of becoming irrelevant. But the death of bin Laden certainly will help Obama politically. It will be much harder to argue that he is somehow sympathetic to radical Islam. So on that score it's great news. |
|
02 May 11 - 01:22 AM (#3146199) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: J-boy I can't say I will sleep safer tonight Robyn. We have more important things to worry about than Bin Laden and his ragged group of fundamentalists. I'm more concerned about the thousands of thermonuclear warheads in the armories of the world. That is our real threat. That and the fundamentalists we might elect to office in our own countries. |
|
02 May 11 - 02:05 AM (#3146213) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Backwoodsman The sad thing is that more innocent people are going to die now, in the reprisal attacks that will follow as surely as night follows day. Maybe not on the scale of 9/11, but remember Madrid and London, Reid the shoe-bomber et al. Bin Laden had become almost an irrelevance, they could quite easily have left him to pass away whatever time he had left in a hole in Pakistan, but his death at US-hands will almost certainly re-awaken and re-juvenate The Beast in al-Quaeda. Those guys just love a martyr to avenge, and Bin Laden has just become the biggest of them all. Enjoy your 'celebrations' if you must but, mark my words, this will all end in tears. |
|
02 May 11 - 02:23 AM (#3146216) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Stilly River Sage Backwoodsman, they were probably going to die anyway. That's the sad truth of an organization like Al Qaeda. SRS |
|
02 May 11 - 02:33 AM (#3146221) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: J-boy I only wish Al Qaeda was the disease. They are but a symptom. |
|
02 May 11 - 02:51 AM (#3146222) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lonesome EJ It seems that Bin Laden died using a woman as a human shield. You'd think he might have been less of a coward knowing that Paradise was just moments away, wouldn't you? |
|
02 May 11 - 02:53 AM (#3146223) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: skarpi I don`t believe them when they say he is dead , and I don`t believe that Bin laden was the head of the attack on twin tower , with all the respect for the victim may they rest in peace and god watch over their love onces , I don`t trust Us , it is all about oil and it was about oil and selling weapons and still is m,its all about power and they who runs don`t give a damm about lives . Power and greed , to make more money and misery . I am sorry if some one is hurt my writing , but this my feeling about this and from where I stand , this is my vision . Same goes for the question , is there a live on other planned of course it is , and are the alien `s around yes there is. Why should we be alone in this huge universe rest well kv Skarpi |
|
02 May 11 - 02:55 AM (#3146224) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Backwoodsman "Backwoodsman, they were probably going to die anyway. That's the sad truth of an organization like Al Qaeda" The operative word being probably, SRS. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Now, we'll never know, and probability has been turned into certainty. He was a sleeping dog, old and tired, that should have been let lie. Instead he's been 'martyred', and a renewed impetus almost certainly driven into his band of followers who, raggle-taggle though they may be viewed by some, have demonstrated in London, Madrid and other places that they are still capable of inflicting damage and great loss of innocent life. Ten years ago I'd have joined in the partying. At that time it would have been a hard punch on the nose for al-Quaeda, right when they were busying patting themselves on the back. Unfortunately, the USA-ian idiot who announced that they were tracking Bin Laden by his cellphone-signals blew that chance right out of the water, and gifted him a further ten years of freedom (9/11-conspiracy-theorists, think about that one please!) Today, I think a nest of very dangerous hornets has been given an unnecessary stir for God-knows-what reason. And, as always, the innocent will pay the price. Usual disclaimers - IMHO, YMMV etc. |
|
02 May 11 - 02:55 AM (#3146225) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge A dead martyr is a dangerous thing. |
|
02 May 11 - 03:30 AM (#3146229) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lizzie Cornish 1 " . . . For the American forces to expect anything from me personally reflects a very narrow perception. Thousands of millions of Muslims are angry. The Americans should expect reactions from the Muslim world that are proportionate to the injustice they inflict." - Osama bin Laden - to Time Magazine Dec 1998 My Jihad Camel, the one who started his lonely trek across a Libyan desert just a few weeks ago, gained tens of thousands of supporters the other day, when Gadaffi's grandchildren were killed. Today, it has gained millions more..... And meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Americans rejoice. There are times when Rejoicing & Retaliation become Twin Towers of their own, reaching far higher, far wider, into the heart of this world than mere bricks and steel could ever do, castingn shadows so dark that it may take many years for the sun to penetrate. May God Help Us All, Inshallah PS: I wonder who they'll blame for everything now? |
|
02 May 11 - 04:06 AM (#3146244) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "Bin Laden had become almost an irrelevance, they could quite easily have left him to pass away whatever time he had left in a hole in Pakistan," Is there not a case for justice against a mass murderer? Reprisals? You would have to believe that they were holding back for some reason. All they might do is bring forward an attack planned anyway. That means it is less likely to succeed. This man said all Americans deserved death without discriminating between military and civilian. He did kill thousands of you. He was your enemy. |
|
02 May 11 - 04:12 AM (#3146246) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: C-flat Bin Laden will have passed over the operational management of his organisation long ago, although his continued evasion of Western intelligence services still made him a powerful figurehead to every anti-western extremist group. As such we must now expect some form of retaliation. With luck, their capabilities are seriously limited, and their rush for vengeance may prove ill-planned. 10 years ago Bin Ladens' death may have been a cause for celebration, today, whilst sending a clear message that no matter how long, terrorists will be brought to justice, it signals a time for vigilance. |
|
02 May 11 - 05:12 AM (#3146275) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Roger the Skiffler Reports from Reuters remain confused. In revenge for a rocket attack by Mohammed Ali on British former boxer Sir Henry Cooper US forces are believed to have attacked the home products warehouse of Osman Bin Liners due to a transcription error on the Special Forces satnav. Buckingham Palace sources have denied that the helicopter shot down was taking a British copuple Mr & MRs Will & Kate Windsor-Wales to their honeymoon in the Maldives. Reports are continuing. RtS |
|
02 May 11 - 05:14 AM (#3146277) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Roger the Skiffler This just in: OBL was buried at sea. Admiral Rocco Soprano led a brief committal ceremony: "Sleep with the fishes, mother..."(transmission lost at this point.) RtS |
|
02 May 11 - 05:44 AM (#3146294) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) Intersting that they got him in Pakistan. |
|
02 May 11 - 05:48 AM (#3146298) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Backwoodsman ROFLMAO Roger. Knowing the track record of US-Military Intelligence (isn't that an oxymoron?) your report could just be true! :-) :-) |
|
02 May 11 - 05:54 AM (#3146301) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: McGrath of Harlow Maybe he's dead. I hope this means an end to innocent people being killed by drones in ah attempt to kill this pretty irrelevant man. |
|
02 May 11 - 05:56 AM (#3146303) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu "Obama struck a less than boastful tone in his brief announcement, although he said the death of bin Laden was "the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al-Qaida. "His death does not mark the end of our effort. There's no doubt that al-Qaida will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must and we will remain vigilant," he added." |
|
02 May 11 - 06:50 AM (#3146321) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Arnie I wonder if there was a chance of taking him alive? Must've been considered but I suppose that this would have lead to Western hostage-taking on a grand scale by Al Qaeda so much better not to give them the excuse. There will of course still be some nasty retaliation to come but taking hostages will serve no purpose and there will be no trial to disrupt. As his hideout was a high-security compound 70 miles from Islamabad, questions are already being asked about how much the Pakistan authorities knew about his location. |
|
02 May 11 - 06:58 AM (#3146329) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Pretty irrelevant? Obama disagrees. Early in his office he made him the first priority of the CIA. You know better? Bin Laden plotted the violent deaths of you and your loved ones. It was just chance that they escaped and others just like them died. Not relevant? He hated your liberalism and sought to destroy it and you. Brave men risked their own violent death to protect our liberal ideals from him and his like. Sure he was less involved in recent years, but can you not acknowledge with some gratitude that a threat to what you hold dear has been removed? |
|
02 May 11 - 07:10 AM (#3146334) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,John MacKenzie Osama Obama Ding Dong Bam Bam, Osama gone Wham Wham, Obama stay on. Thump Thump, Donald Trumped! |
|
02 May 11 - 07:31 AM (#3146341) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S I wonder what the "inside jobbers" will have to say about all of this? Maybe they won't believe it since the body has been buried at sea. They can get together with the Birthers and chant "Where's the body?" |
|
02 May 11 - 07:31 AM (#3146342) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble Evidently this raid on Bin Laden's secret compound had been in the planning stages since February. It's nice to know that our armed forces are capable of carrying out such high risk mission. Now, can we all go home? Charley Noble |
|
02 May 11 - 07:31 AM (#3146343) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Backwoodsman Keith - Al Quaeda, the Taliban, yadda-yadda-yadda - they won't be defeated by the gun. For each one that's blown away, another will spring up to replace him - FACT. Vengeance is an ugly concept - FACT. Too many have died in this century already. It won't stop with the killing of OBL, in fact his death will change nothing except, probably, to further radicalise Muslim extremists, and refresh and revitalise their hatred of the US and its allies - FACT. The time to 'get' OBL was ten years ago - immediate retribution when the scale of his evil-doing was still fresh in everyone's minds (including his followers'). The Muppets blew it back then. It's a complete waste of effort now (unless you happen to be an American President who's trying desperately to secure his future employment) - FACT. Education, not brute force, is the strongest weapon we have against people like OBL and his followers - FACT. IMHO, YMMV etc. I'm out (and I mean it). |
|
02 May 11 - 07:40 AM (#3146349) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle You can the yanks (poor souls) have little experience of this sort of thing. We had 30 years of this with the IRA. Nows the time you have to be specially careful - some other ghastly atrocity will be committed as a 'reprisal'. Bet on it. |
|
02 May 11 - 07:44 AM (#3146357) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Arnie This is when we discover whether or not there really are 'dirty' nuclear bombs hidden in various cities across the West. |
|
02 May 11 - 07:50 AM (#3146362) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,kendall An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth only makes the whole world blind and toothless. (M.M. Gandhi). Keith, I believe our freedom and liberty had Nothing to do with his hatred of us. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq is why he hated us. He said so and I have no reason to doubt him. If I was in any part of that area of the world, I would get the hell out, NOW! Mark my words, heads will roll. |
|
02 May 11 - 08:08 AM (#3146373) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Hard to explain Kendall. but you've got to see it. Its an arab thing. Its still there in the south of Spain, where they ruled for so long. England and especially the USA are seen as pits of moral decadence. Live with it - they hate our guts. Our ability to respond to a smack in the face is probably the one thing they respect. |
|
02 May 11 - 08:25 AM (#3146376) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,John MacKenzie Those who swore they wanted dance on his grave, are now free to do so. :-) Surely his being buried at sea is no bar? Certainly a difficult place to build a shrine too! |
|
02 May 11 - 09:13 AM (#3146391) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email) Expect immediate retaliatory action on American interests aboard by members/units unable to contain their anger be means of suicide missions. Biggest worry will be from the thinking men within this organisation. They will most likely bide their time until the code red begins to dim. The incident will not go without a credible response, sadly a number of innocent civilians will most likely be the preferred target and pay with their lives. I recall in Ulster, cutting edge responses usually came within a three year window. Long enough for senior security to relax it's guard and short enough to be seen as a response by those who support them. His removal was never up for negotiation, he had to go, but I suspect his leadership role diminished several years ago due to inability to travel. A very concerning time ahead for all of us. |
|
02 May 11 - 09:15 AM (#3146393) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lizzie Cornish 1 "...England and especially the USA are seen as pits of moral decadence..." Sadly, they are exactly that. |
|
02 May 11 - 09:17 AM (#3146397) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S Already in my short drive taking my son to school I heard consrvative radio talk show hosts pointing out that this raid had been in the planning stages long before Obama got into office. So why is he getting all the credit? It all started with Bush. |
|
02 May 11 - 10:09 AM (#3146430) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Who gives a shit? Does anyone with even a little brains think the death of this one man in an organization the size of Al Quaida is going to make any difference whatsoever? Whoopee, the Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave carried out an assassination -- and in doing so created another thousand Bin Ladens. The moment they shot Osama in the head, they shot the U.S. in the foot, if not in a more vital spot. Besides, chances of being killed by Bin Laden & his gang approach negative numbers. Now, Been Drinkin'- THERE'S a real killer |
|
02 May 11 - 10:34 AM (#3146439) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko " "...England and especially the USA are seen as pits of moral decadence..." Sadly, they are exactly that. " You say "moral decadence" as if it were a bad thing. Sorry, but neither country has anything to apologize for. Some folks seem to feel that the only defense is to grab your ankles and bend over and apologize for creating the situation. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I'm not a flag waver and I'm not about to go dancing in the street, but this threat had to be fought. Sure, there were many mistakes and many lives wasted. We can't change what has happened, but we can affect the future so that this won't happen again. Education IS the best defense, and showing Bin Laden with a bullet in his head and dumped in the ocean is a just image of what will happen when you try to inflict warped values on others. |
|
02 May 11 - 10:34 AM (#3146440) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Mrrzy The "burial at sea" thing bothers me, nobody sees no body, I don't always believe my government, how about everybody else? |
|
02 May 11 - 10:46 AM (#3146447) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp Jeri wrote: So important to get the 'scoop', eh? Obama was supposed to be on at 10:30, before the leak hit the air. It's nearly an hour later now, everybody knows, and folks have to get up in the morning. I feel very ambivalent about Bin Laden. Glad they finally got him, but not going to put the party hat on and get the noise-maker out. On a different sort of positive note, this new pre-empted Trump's Celebrity Apprentice. (He fired Hope.) *** Proof that in these days of celebrity worship nobody is guilty of anything other than being boring. But don't worry. The "Osama's not really dead" conspiracy theories are already flying. You can entertain yourself with that, I'm sure. |
|
02 May 11 - 10:46 AM (#3146448) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: kendall Allen, how far back do you want to go? The Crusades?, when Richard the Lionheart slaughtered 50,000 Muslim men women and children?He wiped out a whole village of civilians. The problem is, they are convinced that we are out to destroy Islam, and that is the fuel that keeps them going. |
|
02 May 11 - 10:51 AM (#3146450) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: olddude One cannot defeat a movement of hate through a bullet or a bomb. The only thing that defeats hate is to understand the root cause of it and take action to do some good. 1000 more like him just spring up. If his death saves more innocent lives then I accept that but I do not believe it changes anything. Hate brings on more hate ... No matter who the man is, no matter how evil the deeds. I will never celebrate the death of another. With each act of violence, we lose part of ourselves, no matter the country, no matter the race, creed or religion. The world is a violent place, yes we need to protect ourselves, but we also need to think about our own actions and policies that initially caused the hate to form .. I am glad to hear no seals were killed or wounded. They just carry out their orders and make no political calls. They take the oath and take it serious and seal team 6 is the best of the best. At least I am thankful they are ok. |
|
02 May 11 - 10:51 AM (#3146451) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp ////The "burial at sea" thing bothers me, nobody sees no body, I don't always believe my government, how about everybody else?//// So if they showed his body blown to bits, you'd have bought that? It doesn't make any difference what they show or don't show. We are at the mercy of what the press reports and doesn't report. We hate to admit that we only know what they tell us but it's true. So is he dead or alive? Take your pick. |
|
02 May 11 - 10:56 AM (#3146454) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: jacqui.c I prefer to live in a 'morally decadent' country that allows me, as a female, the right to education, to decent medical attention and to being able to choose for myself who and whether to marry. I prefer to be able to dress as I please, even at the risk of offending others,to drive a car, go out unaccompanied, take up whatever work I am capable of and to make the myriad decisions about my own life that are denied to many Muslim women, including being able to divorce an abusive husband and retain custody of my children. |
|
02 May 11 - 11:01 AM (#3146455) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: kendall He wasn't "Blown to bits", he was shot in the head. Old Dude, right on. We should cease disrespecting them and remove the reasons they hate us. ie invading Muslim countries, stationing our "Infidel troops" on their holy ground, and coveting their oil! We started this punch up when we invaded Iraq 20 years ago. They hit us BACK! |
|
02 May 11 - 11:06 AM (#3146457) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S ////The "burial at sea" thing bothers me, nobody sees no body, I don't always believe my government, how about everybody else?//// The burial at sea also makes sure that there isn't a shrine made out of his body and his funeral can't be turned into an event. |
|
02 May 11 - 11:07 AM (#3146458) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp While there is a long history of Western aggression against Islam that may justify some of their actions, let's face it: Islam is a religion in need of enemies. Look what happens when there's no Jews or Americans around to hate--they turn on each other. Remember when the Sunnis and Shiites were roaming the streets of Baghdad killing each other openly and the US occupational forces could do nothing to stop it but wall themselves inside their little Green Zone compound? They're great at directing tremendous hate at the West but when there are no Westerners around to hate, they direct it just as virulently at one another. You know why Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other? They disagree over whether a certain lieutenant of Mohammad was the first or the fourth caliph. That's at the root of their murderous hatred towards one another. These are people who need someone to hate. It really doesn't matter who. So all this "killing Osama will just make another thousand Osamas want to take his place" is typical bleeding heart crap that ignores the reality of Islam--that there were a thousand Osamas ready to take his place long before he was dead. And if he isn't dead--one of them will surely kill him now so he can take his place. |
|
02 May 11 - 11:19 AM (#3146463) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bill D They announced "big news coming" at 10:15PM, at 10:20, I told my wife,"I'll bet they got bin Laden" at 10:40, news people who had 'sources' could no longer restrain themselves and began leaking what they knew. As to what it means, and what will happen? That IS speculation. One man whose opinion I respect is Richard Engle, who speaks Arabic and spent much time in Afghanistan. He believes this will 'generally' reduce al Quaida's influence and help end this chapter. Will there be some individual acts of attempted 'revenge'? Probably...but so what? If we had gotten bin Laden at Tora Bora 9 years ago, there would STILL have been reactions from those who viewed him as a hero! All we have done is said: "We won't take attacks on us without responding." What else did they expect? |
|
02 May 11 - 11:20 AM (#3146464) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad These are the folks who did the heavy lifting: "The members of Team 6 are all "black" operatives. They exist outside military protocol, engage in operations that are at the highest level of classification and often outside the boundaries of international law. To maintain plausible deniability in case they are caught, records of black operations are rarely, if ever, kept." "When a former Navy SEAL was called for a comment about this article all he could say was: "You know I'd love to help you man, but I can't say a word about Team 6. There is no Team 6." http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/02/meet-the-navy-seals-who-killed-osama-bin-laden/ |
|
02 May 11 - 11:24 AM (#3146467) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: pdq "...questions are already being asked about how much the Pakistan authorities knew about his location." Actually, the Pakistani government is working against the US in every way possible. They are two-faced SOBs who want the US to lose in Afghanistan and they allow the Taliban to have safe refuge in the western part of their counrty. They are Muslim and we are not. It's that simple. |
|
02 May 11 - 11:27 AM (#3146469) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wolfgang The "burial at sea" thing bothers me, nobody sees no body, I don't always believe my government, how about everybody else? Thinking logically: There's nothing the USA could win by lying in this case. OBL would love to send a tape in which he speaks about an event after yesterday and Obama would have egg on his face. Wolfgang |
|
02 May 11 - 11:28 AM (#3146471) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Taconicus It's a nice change that we finally did everything right: don't inform the false Pakistani allies in advance so he's not warned; shoot to kill, not capture, so we don't have a show trial or hostages taken to secure his release; dump (er, bury) the body at sea so we don't have a grave to serve as a shrine for his followers, etc. |
|
02 May 11 - 11:32 AM (#3146475) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lonesome EJ Some of these comments remind me of an old joke. A boxer goes into the ring and the bell sounds for the first round. He is first tapped a couple of times by his opponent, and responds by covering up and retreating. His opponent then comes after him in a flurry of punches which rock him, but he recovers and continues covering up. At the end of the round, his trainer holds a wet cloth to his battered face and says "why in hell don't you hit him back?" The fighter looks at the trainer through swollen eyes and says "I don't want to make him mad." Bin Laden intentionally murdered 3000 innocent people and was the sworn enemy of my country. I don't care if it happened yesterday or ten years ago. He got less than what he deserved in my opinion. They should have turned him over to the thousands who lost family members to his twisted blood lust. I thank and congratulate the brave men who were dropped into his compound and flushed him out of his nest. |
|
02 May 11 - 11:33 AM (#3146476) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Amos I am glad to hear it, although I see no grounds for celebration. My prediction: the several branches of Al Qeda will begin sputtering and dying out by attrition. A |
|
02 May 11 - 11:38 AM (#3146478) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: katlaughing No matter who the man is, no matter how evil the deeds. I will never celebrate the death of another. With each act of violence, we lose part of ourselves, no matter the country, no matter the race, creed or religion. Same here, olddude. |
|
02 May 11 - 11:40 AM (#3146480) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Taconicus A number of people around here are so steeped in the anti-(American) military tradition that they could never bring themselves to find cause for celebration in any American military victory. |
|
02 May 11 - 11:50 AM (#3146484) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Beer My exactly Amos. I look at the celebrations over hear and think the only thing missing is guns shooting in the air. Is it really the end of a great war? I don't think so. A quiet vigil would show a lot more class and respect. ade. |
|
02 May 11 - 11:57 AM (#3146486) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lonesome EJ I don't see a reason to parade in the street waving a flag either. I would suggest it is highly appropriate, whatever your feeling about this, to take a moment and pause, and think about where these people might be today if Bin Laden had never existed. |
|
02 May 11 - 12:05 PM (#3146491) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Rapparee Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of thousands, not only in the US but all in other countries. His orders killed Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and those of other faiths or no faith at all. I wish he could have been brought to trial (the order, according to Obama, was to "capture or kill"). Now, according to his faith, he has to answer to a Higher Judge -- I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. |
|
02 May 11 - 12:10 PM (#3146493) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp The bleeding hearts on here are really starting to piss me off. If you don't like this country GET THE FUCK OUT!!! |
|
02 May 11 - 12:16 PM (#3146497) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,John MacKenzie Which country? |
|
02 May 11 - 12:19 PM (#3146500) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lonesome EJ Well, josepp, it might be pointed out that many of the posters to this thread are not residents of this country. In addition, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and that's what America is supposed to be about, right? Having said that, I completely get why you are pissed off. |
|
02 May 11 - 12:27 PM (#3146504) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: michaelr Josepp, if you don't like this forum, why don't you get the fuck out? |
|
02 May 11 - 12:34 PM (#3146507) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp Anybody who lives outside the US who are criticizing the US action to kill Bin Laden need to shut up. 9-11 didn't happen in their country. And it wasn't payback for Iraq. Apparently these idiots don't realize that Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq happened AFTER 9-11. And for the record-- I despise George Bush and everything he stands for and I loathe with every fiber of my being anyone who supports him. After Abu Ghraib, I consider such scum scarcely human. But the people who participated in torture at Abu Ghraib were disgraced, some sent to prison. The US doesn't always do the right thing. I was ashamed of the invasion of Iraq. But Bin Laden declared war on the US and drew innocent blood without a hint of an apology for it. He got what he deserved. I'm sick of these "every person who is killed takes away from us" bullshit. It's letting certain people live who don't deserve it which disrespects that person's victims and their families that takes away from us. They hide their cowardice behind bullshit platitudes and use it to act holier than thou and I am goddamn sick of it. |
|
02 May 11 - 12:36 PM (#3146509) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp ////Josepp, if you don't like this forum, why don't you get the fuck out?//// I wouldn't give you the satisfaction. |
|
02 May 11 - 12:42 PM (#3146511) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel Ding Dong! bin Laden's dead. Which old bitch? The Wicked bitch! Ding Dong! The Wicked bitch is dead. Wake up - you sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed. Wake up, the Wicked bitch is dead. He's gone where goblins go, Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out. Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low. Let them know The Wicked bitch is dead! (Obama) As commander and chief, In the County of the Land of Ooz, I inform you most regally. (Petraus) But we've got to verify it legally, to see (Panetta) To see? (O'Reilly) If he (Panetta) Is burned and buried at sea (O"Reilly)) Is morally, ethicly, certainly, interestingly (Father No.1) Spiritually, physically Father No. 2 Positively, absolutely (Talking Heads) Undeniably and reliably Dead (DNA expert) As Coroner I must concur, I thoroughly examined his mitochondrial DNA cross referencing it with his sister... And 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 Old bitch at last is dead! ------------------------------- as for my fellow Americans telling other fellow Americans to get out of the country, that is of course the most Un American thing you can say, intend and spew. Get a grip or get some help. Remember your hero, "FInding bin Laden is not important" George W Bush |
|
02 May 11 - 12:43 PM (#3146512) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: olddude No Seal Team 6 is not black ops. They are counter Terrorism specialists and the most highly trained unit in the Seals. They are currently on loan to the CIA but they are not black ops ... that is entirely different and usually involves Delta or the CIA's own special tactical group |
|
02 May 11 - 12:45 PM (#3146513) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lonesome EJ The "burial at sea" thing bothers me, nobody sees no body, I don't always believe my government, how about everybody else? What, do we think he was stuffed and mounted on somebody's wall? Bin Laden releases a video every two or three months. Don't you think he'd already have one on Al Jazeera if he was alive? |
|
02 May 11 - 12:50 PM (#3146517) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel There is a picture of the hole in the water where he was dumped, if that makes you feel better. |
|
02 May 11 - 12:53 PM (#3146520) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel We have retained his nose and are storing it in liquid nitrogen. Perhaps one day it will be stolen and they will try to clone fearless leader back to life from his nose...or has that already been done? |
|
02 May 11 - 12:55 PM (#3146525) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lonesome EJ And a Holy Hole it is. |
|
02 May 11 - 12:56 PM (#3146526) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel We have seen what has become of the Birthers. Ir you really want to contest the death of he who I will no longer mention, you will be reffered to as the crazy Deather. |
|
02 May 11 - 12:57 PM (#3146528) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad More on the Navy Seal team that got him, also photos and schemata of his compound: http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/the-secret-team-that-killed-bin-laden-20110502 |
|
02 May 11 - 01:05 PM (#3146534) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel I have video of two well known generals conversing and gleefully gesticulating prior to the Obama announcment at Noon today. You can clearly see one general excitedly describing the wounds of "the evil one" by pointing to the left eye and temporal region as well as the right occipital region. He did this by pointing to places on the other general's head and then pointing to his own left eye. I thought of kids in a candy store. These kind of dark scenarios is what I refer to as the new American Gothic. |
|
02 May 11 - 01:07 PM (#3146537) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge I am certainly concerned that the absence of a dead body will fail to seem convincing to the Arab world. |
|
02 May 11 - 01:19 PM (#3146546) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel "Why didn't Pakistan help us find bin Laden, after all we have given them 18 billion dollars since 2001 to help us find him?" isn't it great when they answer their own question with the question itself? |
|
02 May 11 - 01:26 PM (#3146549) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lonesome EJ You know, Richard, it wouldn't be entirely surprising to find out that a video showing Osama was being cobbled together to inform the Arab World that he's still alive. You have to wonder if he was smart enough to have pre-filmed something that would dispute claims that he was killed, which could be photoshopped with, for example, a 5/3 edition newspaper. |
|
02 May 11 - 01:34 PM (#3146552) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "And it wasn't payback for Iraq. Apparently these idiots don't realize that Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq happened AFTER 9-11." That's correct. I think the prior poster was confusing Bin Laden's statement about his reasons for the 9/11 attack. In fact he claimed that it was retribution for the American-Israeli alliance, the Israeli occupation of Palastine and invasion of Lebanon: "Allah knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed – when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women." – Osama bin Laden, 2004[98] |
|
02 May 11 - 01:44 PM (#3146559) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel All biting satire aside... After spending nearly 4 trillion dollars off budget in military expenditures since 2002 followed by a Wall St. inside job of stealing another 4 trillion dollars by fraudulently wagering up to 90 trillion... what ever ideas Usama bin laden had by attacking our financial center and hoping for a bankrupting war similar to the Russians in Afghanistan that led to the loss of their empire, I daresay his prayers were answered many times over. Given these facts, the same issues I warned about 10 years ago, I am sad to say bin Laden was partly victorious in the financial destruction of America. Didn't anyone in the Bush Administartion read the Art of War? Similar to Bill D's psychic notion that an annourcment of our getting bin Laden was forthcoming, I said 8 years ago that if we want to have any chance of getting this guy we will need to follow his video tape courior. regarding cable news. There is a difference of course between the FOX converage of this event compared to NBC. FOX says that Usama was told told to surrender before he was shot. NBC says that capture was not the mission. It was only to kill. FOX said his body was burned and then buried at sea. NBC describes cleansing, wrapping, prayers in Arabic and burial at sea. FOX mentioned Obama by name less than 6 times all day unless it was a quote by Dick Cheney who mentioned Obama by name. Otherwise FOX only says "The President". George W Bush is mentioned by name more than Obama. Obama is critisized for his handling of this mission. NBC is roughly the opposite of the above. FOX is saying that this mission is hard proof for an increased use of rendition and special interrogation techniques. Both NBC and FOX have only seldom mentioned the killing of his adult son and the wounding of his wife. |
|
02 May 11 - 02:01 PM (#3146568) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday hailed Osama bin Laden's death as a key turning point in the world's struggle against terrorism. "The death of Osama bin Laden, announced by President (Barack) Obama last night, is a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism," Ban told reporters. Maybe he and Obama know something Mudcat libs don't? |
|
02 May 11 - 02:24 PM (#3146580) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: saulgoldie This from Andy Borowitz: WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In what historians are calling an unprecedented development in American politics, both major parties decided today to cancel the 2012 election. The decision to scrap the 2012 contest came on the heels of a new poll showing President Barack Obama with an approval rating of one hundred percent, believed to be a record high for an American president. Mr. Obama even polled well among Republicans, with a majority of GOP voters agreeing with the statement, "I no longer care that he wasn't born here." The new bipartisan spirit sweeping the nation was captured well by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who tearfully told reporters, "This is a great day for America… oh, leave me alone, goddamn it." Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump made no official announcement, but sources said he was considering running for Prime Minister of Canada. The cancellation of the election comes in the aftermath of the death of Osama bin Laden, whose last words reportedly were, "I knew I shouldn't have signed up for Foursquare." Of all the major news networks, Fox News did not report news of bin Laden's death, saying that it would air cartoons "until further notice." In Libya, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi issued the following official statement: "Uh-oh." In North Korea, President Kim Jong-Il said this: "I have lost my last friend on Facebook." And in Wasilla, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said this: "We must find and kill Osama bin Laden." |
|
02 May 11 - 02:28 PM (#3146582) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jack the Sailor It may have made things more dangerous id the very short run. In the long run, he is not much of a martyr caught cowering in his million dollar bunker. As for being safer, there is this. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/02/cia-analyze-electronic-evidence-seized-bin-laden-compound/ Fox is reporting a large quantity of valuable information found in the compound. Fox is no friend of the Administration. So there is probably some truth to the report. |
|
02 May 11 - 02:30 PM (#3146583) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: kendall josepp, better get out the bifocals and look again. The first invasion of Iraq happened in 1991. Osama also said they hate us for the reasons I already stated. |
|
02 May 11 - 02:31 PM (#3146585) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: McGrath of Harlow Well, he would say that. Can you imagine him saying "It doesn't really make much difference"? Bin Laden was probably more of a cheerleader than anything. If anything being killed will make him a more effective cheerleader. It's hard to see any way in which it makes it any more likely that the people who share his ideology will give up or be defeated any more quickly because he is dead. And what on earth are you adopting this Americanised jargon about "libs" for, Keith? Barack Obama is a "lib", in that sense, and so are you. |
|
02 May 11 - 02:37 PM (#3146591) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lonesome EJ Had Ted Bundy been prevented from further serial killing and become only a "cheerleader" for serial killing, or for that matter for the abolition of capital punishment, it wouldn't have made him any more benign or any less deserving of his fate. |
|
02 May 11 - 02:38 PM (#3146592) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: olddude Look I am a person with military ties in my family back through the ages. I have a deep love and respect for those in uniform. I trained people in uniform. However, my heart and conscience says revenge is never a good path to take. I have no desire to mourn for that guy, he was pure evil ... my comment was, in order to stop terrorism you have to address the root cause you can't stop it with bullets ... I think that is a logical assumption. Likewise, even in battle, I take no delight in the killing of another. At times it has to be done to protect others, but it is nothing to cheer about I think anyway. My only concern is we did not lose any of our people during the mission. Bin Laden was evil, but finding out what made him that way and taking steps to stop the creation of another Bin Laden is the proper path ... If it is our policies, or our attitudes or our whatever then we need to address that. There will also be people who just do evil things for no reason .. I know that also .. but celebrating a death no matter who it is , I think is not the right path in life. |
|
02 May 11 - 03:14 PM (#3146615) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lonesome EJ It's called justice, old dude, and I think that's what he got. I am not saying that we don't need to understand his motivations, or deal with the conditions that created him, or examine our own transgressions in the middle east. Clyde Barrow was raised in an era of great poverty, repression, and injustice in the 30s. So was my Grandfather. The difference is my Grandfather treated people well, worked hard, and scrapped for a living. Clyde Barrow robbed banks and killed people. There is no doubt that a depression is a bad thing and needs to be prevented or eradicated. To do so, we must understand the facts about a depression. But morality, justice, and ethics are primary codes of human behavior, and someone like Clyde barrow, or Bin Laden, should never be excused for his actions, especially when performed on the scale of mass murder. |
|
02 May 11 - 03:17 PM (#3146616) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: frogprince "They hide their cowardice behind bullshit platitudes" Josepp, you have all the right in the world to disagree with the stance of the people you're speaking of. But you have no justification whatever for linking their position to cowardice, and you are responding to an individual whom you have no justification whatever for marking as cowardly. Dean |
|
02 May 11 - 03:19 PM (#3146617) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: olddude Ej I can completely understand that logic my dear friend, I do ... I will shed no tear for that creep ... I just won't celebrate it ... but I can certainly understand those who do for sure. |
|
02 May 11 - 03:19 PM (#3146618) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jack the Sailor Kendall, I think your point was a good one. I think the problem was in the way you put it. As I recall it, what Bin Laden said was that he was fighting at that time was the presence of infidels in Saudi Arabia. Though there was a lot of aerial bombardment at the time and Allied troops did cross Iraqi borders while chasing the invasion force out of Kuwait, Iraq was not per se invaded at that time. And I have never heard anything form Bin Laden indicating that he cared at all about Iraq until the GW Bush invasion. That said, I don't think we could have allowed Saddam to keep Kuwait and to threaten Saudi Arabia just because Bin Laden did not like it. I think that G H W Bush did what he had to. So did Clinton. The major mistakes on this matter were made by W. |
|
02 May 11 - 03:29 PM (#3146625) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lonesome EJ old dude, agreed. That's why today I am keeping in mind the victims of 911 and their families. I think this brings some closure to them, as it does to the country. |
|
02 May 11 - 03:30 PM (#3146627) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth When the compound was stormed, bin Laden was found in an upstairs room. The troops who found him said that he was using a woman as a shield. They said he was given an opportunity to surrender and come quietly, but instead he reached for a weapon. The troops fired, carefully avoiding hitting the woman, hitting bin Laden twice in the head. Muslim funeral rituals require that a person who has just died must be buried within twenty-four hours. bin Laden's body was ceremonially washed as is required by Muslim law, and the funeral ceremony was properly conducted by an Imam before he was buried at sea. Wesley has the right of it. The decision to bury him at sea was in order to avoid his grave, wherever it might have been, from becoming "the shrine of a martyr." The "birthers," now the "deathers" ("I don't believe it! Where's the body!?"), and all the conspiracy theory squirrel bait out there (and, of course, right here on Mudcat) are going to have a field day. But then, what's new? A day for celebration? I think not! I felt that all that cheering and flag-waving is quite inappropriate. A feeling of grim satisfaction, yes. But celebrating? Kind of tacky. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** For the person who, whenever Barack Obama appears on television, never fails to say something about his using a teleprompter, as if Obama where incapable of stringing together a cohesive sentence (like Sarah Palin, who, when she starts a sentence in Ohio, it winds up on Mars and contains neither subject nor predicate). Actually, Obama, a very bright man, has, on many occasions, proven himself to be an excellent extemporaneous speaker. The remark, of course, is to try make him out to be some sort of mushy-brained doofus, which he obviously is not. Profession broadcasters who work before television cameras all the time use teleprompters, and it only makes sense, if one is delivering a formal address on nationwide television, to have one's notes, or for that matter, the entire speech, written out and available on a teleprompter. Before television cameras and telepromters, speakers (FDR, Eisenhower, whoever) during the days of radio, often read their speeches from typed text, or most certainly from outlined notes. Many popular entertainers use a teleprompter. And before it was invented, entertainers (Andy Williams, other singers, various comedians) had The Words written out in large letters on large cards held by someone standing next to the camera, who carefully changed cards as the song or routine progressed. So—give it a rest, already!! It just makes YOU look petty and mean-spirited. That's a friendly tip, by the way. Don Firth |
|
02 May 11 - 03:35 PM (#3146629) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu In light of the varied discussions herein, I have a question... in the "Bible' ir in the "Torah", are there any "directives" to kill people of other faiths simply based on their faith? |
|
02 May 11 - 03:41 PM (#3146631) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jack the Sailor I don't think that the people celebrating V-E day and V-J were celebrating the tens of thousands of deaths in Nagasaki and Dresden. I think that they were happy and proud that their side had prevailed and an arduous and trying period of the war was over. I'm not saying that the manhunt for Bin Laden was equal to the war in scale or cost to the country. On the other hand the celebration on the streets for the end of the threat of Bin Laden also was much smaller. |
|
02 May 11 - 03:43 PM (#3146633) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jack the Sailor Gnu, I'd like for you to explain your question a bit. You seem to be implying that Bin Laden was killed for his faith. That's not like you at all so I am sure that I missed something. |
|
02 May 11 - 03:48 PM (#3146636) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Amos Let me point out that this entire operation probably cost less than fifty million, including choppers and intel. Imagine if we had categorized this man as a high-pri international criminal target of special ops ten years ago? We'd have had him by 2005, I imagine. Ten years ago a bad policy call by a stupid individual put us instead on a course of invasion and war. PErhaps there's a lewsson to be learned here? A |
|
02 May 11 - 03:55 PM (#3146641) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lizzie Cornish 1 "...You say "moral decadence" as if it were a bad thing. Sorry, but neither country has anything to apologize for. Some folks seem to feel that the only defense is to grab your ankles and bend over and apologize for creating the situation. Sorry, it doesn't work that way...." Ron, when Al used that term, to me it meant moral decay, morals thrown out the window, morals and outlook going down, down, deeper and down. Whether we like it or not, that's exactly what has happened in both our countries. Personally, I don't like it. Moral decadence, to me, has *nothing* to do with women being treated as equals...(this is in relation to jacqui's post) I've said many a time that until the women of the Middle East rise up against how they are treated nothing will move forwards respect-wise. Of course women should have the same rights as men, be free to make their own choices, etc..I don't argue with that at all. What saddens me is how things have progressed in our country these days, to a state of *anything* goes, because it seems to me that so many folks, men and women alike, have lost respect for themselves over here and in the USA. We really could do with folks putting their clothes back on a bit more, raising the standard of behaviour and having both respect for others and respect for themselves. That's what I was talking about, nowt to do with women's freedom etc, which goes without saying. |
|
02 May 11 - 03:59 PM (#3146644) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bill D I repeat what I said above" "If we had gotten bin Laden at Tora Bora 9 years ago, there would STILL have been reactions from those who viewed him as a hero!" Likewise..If we had gotten bin Laden at Tora Bora 9 years ago, or even had been successful in those several years BEFORE 9/11, there would have been little concern over our motives, or our methods! If a bully hits you, and it takes you awhile to get justice, are you less entitled? Bin Laden was a symbol to terrorists and a future danger if we had simply gotten tired of looking and given up. |
|
02 May 11 - 04:10 PM (#3146647) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jeri My life was directly, but only moderately affected by him for about 3 weeks in June, 1998. He was a threat before 9/11, and he would have continued to be a threat as long as he lived. I don't want to celebrate, either. The only option was to get rid of him, and while people are likely glad that one less killer is out in the world, nobody, including me, wants to think about what had be done to eliminate him. |
|
02 May 11 - 04:23 PM (#3146659) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge While there may be occasions in which police or military in a police role may lawfully use "deadly force" without the target having been lawfully condemned to death, for example when someone is lawfully required to yield and in stead reaches for a weapon, what legal right did US forces have to detain someone in Pakistan? I am quite concerned that if this US action was lawful (as distinct from desirable - I think it quite likely that it was desirable although I worry about the creation of a martyr and the absence of populist proof of death) then there may be many outside the USA who might claim that similar attempts to seize someone in the USA would be lawful and that their resistance rendered killing them lawful. Much the same I think applies to attempts to kill Gadaffi - the distinction between "control and command" and him personally being a silly and transparent sophistry. |
|
02 May 11 - 04:26 PM (#3146662) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: McGrath of Harlow I can't see how stuff about a "end of a threat" are relevant - Bin Laden is no less of a threat dead than alive. |
|
02 May 11 - 04:56 PM (#3146681) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu JtS... explain my question... Okay, here it is... again... but MUCH more clearly asked. In light of the varied discussions herein, I have a question... in the "Bible' or in the "Torah", are there any "directives" to kill people of other faiths simply based on their faith? Sorry about the typo. I am sure that is what threw you off. |
|
02 May 11 - 05:01 PM (#3146685) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Taconicus Donuel, I've been watching all three cable networks sequentially, and most of what you say about the difference between the coverage by the three networks is false. Perhaps you're hearing the coverage through your own perceptual filter. FOX said his body was burned and then buried at sea. False. Fox News says buried, not burned, "according to Islamic tradition." Not once did they say burned. FOX mentioned Obama by name less than 6 times all day unless it was a quote by Dick Cheney who mentioned Obama by name. Otherwise FOX only says "The President". George W Bush is mentioned by name more than Obama. I've heard no perceptible difference in the coverage in this regard between the three cable networks. [On FOX] Obama is critisized for his handling of this mission. I've been watching since last night, and I've heard no criticism whatsoever on Fox News (or the other networks) for the handling of this mission. In fact, they've been outright laudatory. FOX is saying that this mission is hard proof for an increased use of rendition and special interrogation techniques. Fox News did mention that the intel for the mission was obtained by rendition, and suggested this would be evidence in favor of those techniques, but they never used the term "hard proof" or anything like it. I believe this may be your editorial contribution. Both NBC and FOX have only seldom mentioned the killing of his adult son and the wounding of his wife. No perceptible difference between the three cable networks in reporting this. |
|
02 May 11 - 05:10 PM (#3146693) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: katlaughing Donuel, Once again, you have done BRILL with your parody skills. PLEASE send it to Rachel Maddow or give me permission to do so? Jeri, well said, I agree. |
|
02 May 11 - 05:29 PM (#3146701) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Richard... "Much the same I think applies to attempts to kill Gadaffi - the distinction between "control and command" and him personally being a silly and transparent sophistry." Indeed, such is, at the VERY least, an insult (sorry for such a POOR term) to all. It is inane. |
|
02 May 11 - 06:10 PM (#3146717) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Shanghaiceltic The killing of Bin Laden will not stop the AQ carrying out further attacks, however it has removed a figurehead and an important one at that. Had he been captured alive then that would have led to kidnappings and deaths worldwide in order to free him. So it was a right decision to take him out. AQ will of course continue their attacks and continue to promote hate on non muslims, they now have a saint on which to hang their beliefs. Been listening to the BBC news and it appears that he was given a respectful sea burial, not just dumped. That at least shows some forethought on the part of the people behind the operation. I can never see the end of the terrorism, it will never go away, it is now so deeply rooted and entrenched in all parts of the middle east and quite honestly there is no one who can stop it unless you take out all fundementalists of all religeons and that is never going to happen. |
|
02 May 11 - 06:11 PM (#3146718) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S This will show what I think happened yesterday: Youtube Filmclip Did he feel happy about what happened - no Did he celebrate - no Would he do it again tomorrow - you bet. |
|
02 May 11 - 06:12 PM (#3146719) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Actually, Osama Bin Laden didn't kill anyone. His minions did. In which case, why hasn't Navy Seal Team 6 put bullets into Henry Kissinger's head? Ain't that just the American Way, tho - an extra-legal assasination without trial. Makes me so proud, I could just shit. |
|
02 May 11 - 06:24 PM (#3146729) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S "Makes me so proud, I could just shit. " Please don't. One of you is enough.... |
|
02 May 11 - 06:31 PM (#3146733) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Hey, Wes- what about that "rule of law", & "due process" bullshit, eh? Just something to be disregarded as it suits, right? |
|
02 May 11 - 06:32 PM (#3146734) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Kinda puts the Land Of The Free on the same level as the Tay-Rists, don't it, Wes? |
|
02 May 11 - 06:36 PM (#3146735) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S Check out the film clip Greg. That should explain to to you. |
|
02 May 11 - 06:39 PM (#3146736) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S Maybe another film clip would help..... The Rule of Law |
|
02 May 11 - 06:41 PM (#3146737) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Janie Well said, Jeri. |
|
02 May 11 - 06:43 PM (#3146738) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Wesley S... the video... indeed. Well "said". RATHER well said indeed. My hat is off to you sir. |
|
02 May 11 - 07:06 PM (#3146749) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,TIA Actually Donuel's characterization of the FOX coverage is pretty good. They interviewed *only* former Bush admin people (Chertoff, Perino, etc.) and lauded the information gained at Gitmo by enhanced interrogation,nary a mention of the current president. It was a day-long celebration of GWB. Oh, and by the way, a number of FOX stations mistakenly (yeah right) put up headlines or crawlers saying that Obama bin Laden was dead. No shit. Go Google it. |
|
02 May 11 - 07:11 PM (#3146753) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Janie Thanks for that To Kill a Mockingbird clip, Wesley. |
|
02 May 11 - 07:23 PM (#3146760) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Janie A somewhat thoughtful article. http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/02/osama.bin.laden.emotions/index.html?hpt=T1 |
|
02 May 11 - 07:36 PM (#3146768) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad For those wringing their hands over the legality of the op, I heard a spokesman for the Pakistani foreign service saying that Pakistan had an agreement with the US that if they located Bin Laden in Pakistan they could take him out. |
|
02 May 11 - 08:00 PM (#3146780) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Joe_F Good riddance, anyway. ObSongs: We will heave him down into some dark hole Where the sharks'll have his body and the Devil have his soul. |
|
02 May 11 - 08:00 PM (#3146781) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Janie skarpi, I can't simply let your post stand, even knowing you are a popular figure here, and I am likely to be castigated for commenting. First, let me say I do not celebrate the death of bin Laden. I do not celebrate the death of any person. I accept your antipathy and complete but somewhat (though not entirely) irrational antipathy and mistrust toward the United States as your right, and of course understand that you do not advocate violence toward us. I also accept that every person's point of view is valid from their perspective. What you wrote was.... I don`t believe that Bin laden was the head of the attack on twin tower .... Osama bin Laden very publicly claimed credit for the attack on the Twin Towers. He was a very smart man, and very certain of his righteousness and his mission. He went to great pains, and made considerable personal sacrifice, to organize and provide the seed financing for a terrorist group known as Al Qaeda, and in his righteous certainty, sowed more seeds of hate and terrorism around the world. The implication of your statement, intended or not, is that the United States staged the attacks on September 11, 2001 for the sake of oil. I find that both absurd and offensive. |
|
02 May 11 - 09:03 PM (#3146803) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp ////josepp, better get out the bifocals and look again. The first invasion of Iraq happened in 1991. Osama also said they hate us for the reasons I already stated.//// Newsflash: there was no invasion of Iraq in 1991. They were pushed out of Kuwait. They were not pursued across the borders of Iraq and Hussein was left in power. THAT's what Osama didn't like. Bin Laden and Hussein despised one another. Why do you think there were no Iraqi hijackers on 9-11 and no al-Qaida in Iraq? The US did him the biggest favor by taking out Saddam. No matter what Bin Laden says (and who in their right mind would take anything he says at face value?), Saddam hated him and would have had him killed if he dared set foot in Iraq which is why he never did. Osama Bin Laden gave us George Bush the dictator, he gave us the REAL Invasion of Iraq, he gave us the War on Terror, he gave us the no-fly list and TSA body searches and the Patriot Act and the rise of Iran. If it hadn't been for him, Geroge Bush would have been done in 4 years. So am I glad he's dead? You're fuckin' A right I'm glad he's dead. I wish he'd died back in 1998 and saved the world a whole lot of trouble. So, in many ways, he won. He got what he wanted. So fuck him. |
|
02 May 11 - 09:25 PM (#3146814) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T I don't have the smallest smidgeon of concern for Osama Bin Laden, or any other terrorist. As far as I am concerned the only just end for them is death. I'm glad he has gone although the idea that his death makes anyone safer is naive in the extreme. I am concerned by the establishment of what I consider to be a dangerous precedent. Ex Pakistan leader Musharraf was interviewed on BBC TV News this morning, and his views are very similar to my own. American special forces violated the sovereignty of an ally (nominally at least) in an action which would in the past have been considered an act of war. Now it has been said above that there was tacit agreement with the current Pakistan government (as yet unconfirmed), but a precedent has still been set, of military action in a foreign sovereign state without the specific consent or knowledge of that state's rulers. So, when the US gets its next GeeDub type President, we might expect some nasty situations to develop. Or maybe we won't have to wait that long. Could we see Assange surgically removed from Sweden, or that young fool who hacked US computers taken off English soil. I don't really expect either of those scenarios to occur. I just feel that the world has become a little less safe from the US, and I wonder what the US response would be if a high priority target terrorist were snatched from US soil by the SAS without the White House being notified. Don T. |
|
02 May 11 - 09:37 PM (#3146819) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks Josepp, it would be a great surprise to a number of friends of mine to be told that Coalition troops did not cross the borders of Iraq. Wonder where they were, really? This might refresh your memory. |
|
02 May 11 - 09:46 PM (#3146821) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Taconicus There's a difference between celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden as an expression of hatred, and celebrating his death as a victory against Al Qaeda, which it is. For great many reasons, his death is a big advance in that war, which is still continuing. It's not morally wrong to celebrate it for that reason. Nor is it wrong to feel that it is a victory for justice. |
|
02 May 11 - 10:00 PM (#3146826) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Justice requires due process. |
|
02 May 11 - 10:04 PM (#3146827) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Janie The following link was posted by a fellow Mudcatter on their facebook page. Without that person's permission, I'm not comfortable with attributing that person's posting of the link. Very thoughtful, what is expressed. http://ethicalplatform.net/leaders/2011/05/a-time-to-mourn/ |
|
02 May 11 - 10:20 PM (#3146837) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: EBarnacle I heard and interesting report on one of the financial sites. It seems that the long term effect of taking out OBL may be that the funding of al-Qaeda will dry up. Apparently, it has become increasingly difficult for AQ fundraisers to raise money unless they were able to get back to OBL to verify their legitimacy. |
|
02 May 11 - 10:29 PM (#3146838) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bobert Well, I didn't learn of this until just a couple of hours ago... Been kinda busy... Haven't read all this thread either... But... ... as much as I hate seeing people killed for their ideas I guess I'd rather see them get off'd than a couple hundred innocent people... Take Saddam... We could have off'd him and saved 4000 Americans and maybe a million Iraqis??? Yeah, that would have been messed up to have off'd Saddam but just do the "numbers game"??? Nah, this all boils down to ending the geo-political war that has been going on since WW II... I mean, we keep havng these "proxy wars"... Problem is that real people get real dead in them... In the words of the late and great Waylon Jennings, "We need a change..." But, hey, at least the Repubs gott eat a little crow pie tonight so Obama has a couple days off from the "birther" loonies... I mean, a couple days off from loonies ain't a bad thing... B~ |
|
02 May 11 - 10:32 PM (#3146839) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bill D "Justice requires due process." Spoken like one who makes his living following specific FORMS of due process....and there in nothing wrong with that, when it is both possible and appropriate. ...but 'due process' can defined in various ways. Formal 'legal' due process is only one way. When a terrorist or other serious criminal had vowed NOT to be taken alive, and is protected in various ways, justice can be served in other ways. |
|
02 May 11 - 10:38 PM (#3146842) Subject: Obama Bin Laden ??? From: Taconicus Justice requires due process. – R. Bridge He got the kind of due process that is due an enemy on the battlefield, as appropriate. Oh, and by the way, a number of FOX stations mistakenly (yeah right) put up headlines or crawlers saying that Obama bin Laden was dead. No shit. Go Google it. – Tia Not exactly, Tia. A local Fox affiliate station in Sacramento, California did show a headline that read: "Obama bin Laden dead". But mentioning that as an example of media bias at Fox News is disingenuous, and only shows the bias of the poster, because it doesn't mention all the other stations that made the same easy mistake. Leftwinger Keith Olbermann made the same slip – blogging that George W Bush had "deprioritised the hunt for Obama". An MSNBC correspondent tweeted: "Obama shot and killed". In fact, the mistake was so common that a number of other anchors or journalists also got their Obamas and Osamas mixed up, including at CNN and ABC News stations. |
|
02 May 11 - 10:49 PM (#3146850) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: kendall Ok, let's split a few hairs. What Osama objected to was our invasion of Muslin holy ground whether it be Iraq or Kuwait. We are still there and they still hate us for it. Too many people believe that Bush lie about our freedom being the cause of their hate. Bollox! Comparing Bin Laden to Clyde Barrow just doesn't fly. Barrow was seveley abused in prison and he vowed to get even. He did. |
|
02 May 11 - 10:55 PM (#3146852) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Rapparee I am no more celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden than I celebrated the death of Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein. Saddam had a trial, in his own country, and he was punished under his country's laws. Amin died a "natural death," as I remember. bin Laden had declared "a Holy War" against the US: "We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997 If someone declares war on me and takes violent actions against me I will defend myself as I find appropriate to the situation. Whether or not this applies to nations I don't know. I do know that a human being (three or four, actually -- I've read different accounts) was killed in a firefight. I can wish that that person had been taken alive, but he himself said We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the difference between us two. Some do not believe he is dead: he is. This is the man who said I'm fighting so I can die a martyr and go to heaven to meet God. Our fight now is against the Americans. All I can say is that he got his wish. I neither lament nor rejoice; I only hope that his death helps lower the level of terrorism in the world. It will never go away -- there is no guarantee of safety and security and there never was. What I do hope is that the combat in Afghanistan and elsewhere ends soon. |
|
02 May 11 - 11:25 PM (#3146865) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bobert End the geo-political war thinking... Ya' know, Rodney King understands it better than the "collective" thinking world: "Get the heck along"... No... Make that "Get the fuck along" if that's what it takes to make it cool... Just do it... B~ |
|
03 May 11 - 12:00 AM (#3146873) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: J-boy It's a strange but true fact that Osama Bin Laden was once our ally. The CIA and Osama helped us supply the mujahadeen in their holy war against the Soviets. Some of those weapons we supplied are now being used against us. Round and round it goes. |
|
03 May 11 - 12:22 AM (#3146878) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: LadyJean President Obama began as a trial lawyer. My father was also a trial lawyer as is my sister. If there's one thing a lawyer who tries cases can do it's speak and speak well! It's their stock in trade. President Obama has, undoubtably, had plenty of experience speaking off the cuff, and he can, without doubt, do it better than most people. He does not need a teleprompter. Bin Laden's unhappy demise means Obama can scale back military operations without looking weak. That will save lives. I composed this in the fall of 2001. This will, probably be the last time I write it. OSAMA BIN LADEN (With Appologies to Leigh Hunt) Osama Bin Laden, may his tribe decrease, Came home one night from disturbing the peace. And in his cave was amazed to see An angel writing on a gold PC. Wow! said Osama, looking awed, Are you listing the names of those who love God. Nope, said the angel, this database lists everyone who spits in God's face. Great! said Osama, list away. But you'll have to list the whole U.S.A. With their Baywatch babes and their rock and roll. Theirs is a nation without any soul. Said the angel, Osama take a hint Conisder as I save and print, The things you do in Allah's name. Osama was never quite the same, For on that printout, as I know you guessed, Lo! Bin Laden's name lead all the rest. (Though the "Reverend" Fred Phelps ran a close second.) |
|
03 May 11 - 12:24 AM (#3146880) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp ////Josepp, it would be a great surprise to a number of friends of mine to be told that Coalition troops did not cross the borders of Iraq. Wonder where they were, really? This might refresh your memory.//// That's not an invasion. That was to get them out of kuwait. When they were chased back far enough, we left. Try again. |
|
03 May 11 - 12:39 AM (#3146887) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp ////don't really expect either of those scenarios to occur. I just feel that the world has become a little less safe from the US, and I wonder what the US response would be if a high priority target terrorist were snatched from US soil by the SAS without the White House being notified.//// What right would the US have to complain if we kept telling the SAS that we didn't have that high priority terrorist target when they can see he's living in Washington DC six blocks from the White House? Pakistan is untrustworthy and a completely unworthy ally. If we have to depend on them to get anything done it will never happen. They have no integrity, their own word means nothing to them. They've taken our money and spent on themselves. They have breached international relations not the US. I've had a bellyful of Pakistan and their lying, dysfunctional bullshit. Obama got it right. If they want to be trusted, they need to be trustworthy. They are not. And from I see they never will be. If Pakinstan had known we were going in after Bin Laden you can bet he would not have been there by the time we arrived. I'd trust Saudi Arabia before I trusted ever thought of trusting Pakistan and I don't trust Saudi Arabia one wit. |
|
03 May 11 - 12:57 AM (#3146891) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: JohnInKansas I didn't see a prior link to this: World Leader Comments on Osama Warning: "Frank" language. John |
|
03 May 11 - 01:15 AM (#3146893) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks Webster, invasion: "an entering or being entered by an enemy military force". Perhaps you have 'invasion' and 'occupation' confused? |
|
03 May 11 - 02:18 AM (#3146899) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Kevin, "Well, he would say that. Can you imagine him saying "It doesn't really make much difference"?" I can imagine the Guardian saying it, but they don't. Strong letter required? The extremist liberal view, pity the perpetrator and blame the victim, has gone too far here. He was just so angry we that we supported Kuwait with the blessing of every other Arab and Muslim government. He should be allowed to live out his life in luxury in a modern city. No. |
|
03 May 11 - 02:44 AM (#3146906) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "He was just so angry we that we supported Kuwait" I've no idea what Bin Laden's motivation was for bombing the twin towers, apart from the statement that he made describing his motivations. In which he goes into detail about the American-Israeli alliance (and in which he makes no mention of either Kuwait or Iraq): "Allah knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed – when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women." – Osama bin Laden, 2004 It's fair enough to discuss what might have been additional motivations - but as someone said below - those were the motivations he publicly stated and as such I have no reason to assume his motivations were other than those which he publicly stated. |
|
03 May 11 - 03:01 AM (#3146909) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge No, Taconicus, ObL did not get even that process. US forces, without proper authority, secretly entered the territory of a nation with which the US was not at war, proposed unlawfully to kidnap someone by force, and when he resisted, killed him. Even if there had been a properly declared war, international law provides that one may not assassinate the leader of one's enemy. The presence of an Imam to carry out Islamic rituals strongly suggests that death rather than capture was at least a significant objective. The death of ObL may turn out to be a good thing, although there are risks that he may continue to be adulated as duly executed Irish terrorists once were, and there are risks that the absence of a body to exhibit may lead to some remaining unconvinced of the death. But it is silly to pretend that it was achieved in accordance with law. Without rule of law the only remaining authority is might - "might is right". |
|
03 May 11 - 03:08 AM (#3146911) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Thanks Lively, but Kuwait has been offered as a justification here. My argument stands. |
|
03 May 11 - 03:17 AM (#3146914) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Patsy Well that was one long extended eventful UK Bank Holiday all in all. I was woken by my son at 5am just as the news about OBL came through saying 'Oh my God, you have got to wake up and watch this.' Bin Laden being in Pakistan did not surprise me and walking free right under peoples noses. He was obviously an educated and calculating man so knew he would be more likely to be found in hiding rather than walking around freely, clever. I am glad he is gone but I don't feel any safer with extremists around and I don't think I ever will. If he was shot in the head as it was told on the news I can understand that action, he was the mastermind of so many atrocities it would have been too lengthy a trial for the same outcome on top of that he would have had to been fed and watered etc. The sea burial seemed the most logical thing to do under the circumstances. |
|
03 May 11 - 04:25 AM (#3146942) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: McGrath of Harlow You're still using that term "liberal" in that Americanized sense. Keith. |
|
03 May 11 - 05:07 AM (#3146949) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""What right would the US have to complain if we kept telling the SAS that we didn't have that high priority terrorist target when they can see he's living in Washington DC six blocks from the White House?"" Disingenuous Josepp. You know damn well that would not be the response. The next day the President would be demanding that the members of that SAS unit be handed over to the US for trial, and threatening military action if they were not. Where is the moral justification for doing to others what you would not accept being done to you? The end achieved was a worthwhile one, rather spoiled by the means used to achieve it. I would be quite interested in hearing the opinion of the UN on this one, but I fear they will wimp out. Don T |
|
03 May 11 - 05:56 AM (#3146971) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Don, I posted Bam Ki Moon's reaction. |
|
03 May 11 - 05:58 AM (#3146972) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Apparently, so I've just heard on the BBC News, Obama and Hilary Clinton were watching everything on video link. Whether they filmed the actual murder, I've no idea...but I find that fact disturbing. Also, it was said that the moment he'd been given news that Osama bin Laden was dead, he immediately went out to tell the world. Yet, wasn't the news already out there on the internet, prior to President Obama telling everyone? I have such a bad feeling about all of this. Such a gut-churning, gut-wrenching feeling..and watching so many people whooping it up in New York made that feeling even worse. It was almost as if I could sense, in other parts of the world, others watching those very same scenes, whilst in their heads and their hearts declaring the word 'JIHAD!' as never before... I just hope to Allah that I am wrong. But with this murder the world becomes an even more dangerous place. |
|
03 May 11 - 07:12 AM (#3146994) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S It's also being reported that when the Seals took Osamas body away that they also removed his computer and hard drive. That should be interesting. So what to the 9/11 "inside job" cultists have to say about all of this? By the way - isn't it time to remove the question marks from the title of this thread? |
|
03 May 11 - 07:46 AM (#3147007) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble It seems clearer this morning that the Presidential order was "Shoot to kill!" for better or worse. I hope the Administration doesn't release the video and the still photography for a few decades, with the exception of one of the funeral ceremony. Those who publicly celebrated Bin Laden's execution should realize (but probably won't) that videos of their "joy" will be spread around the world and be used to recruit more suicide bombers. A "day (or year) in court" for Bin Laden instead of execution would have endangered thousands more. Maybe this "immoral choice" was the better call. Charley Noble |
|
03 May 11 - 07:58 AM (#3147011) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Janie, I forgot to say earlier on...that link of yours, yes, very thought provoking indeed. I've often wondered about so many deeply intelligent folks who decide to cross that fatal line into destruction rather than salvation. |
|
03 May 11 - 10:21 AM (#3147077) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Mrrzy Oh, I'm not saying he isn't dead (I've started calling him Been Laden), just that I wish we'd seen the body before they buried it at sea. There should be another word for that, to me "burial" implies in the ground. Maybe me cause in French it's "enterrer" - put into the earth - but still. I have to say that it's the first time I was glad somebody was dead, and I was properly ashamed of myself for that feeling. Now I've rationalized it into being happy for Obama. Bet he still doesn't say Been Laden as often as Bush said 9/11 when campaigning for reelection! (Footnote: it wasn't Al Quaeda who killed my dad in 1983, it was Hezbollah, financed by Iran - specifically Ayatollah-following Syrian-trained Lebanese moslems. But I'm still not sorry, not even that we went into another country to get him, since we'd warned that other country we would.) |
|
03 May 11 - 10:45 AM (#3147088) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Rapparee US forces, without proper authority, secretly entered the territory of a nation with which the US was not at war, proposed unlawfully to kidnap someone by force, and when he resisted, killed him. 9 Such as the Israeli kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann? |
|
03 May 11 - 10:48 AM (#3147091) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp Here's the Meriam-Webster definition verbatim. There was no invasion of Iraq in 1991. There was no conquest of plunder. Accept it. Main Entry:in£va£sion Pronunciation:in-*v*-zh*n Function:noun Etymology:Middle English invasioune, from Anglo-French invasion, from Late Latin invasion-, invasio, from Latin invadere to invade Date:15th century 1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder 2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful |
|
03 May 11 - 11:06 AM (#3147098) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp /////""What right would the US have to complain if we kept telling the SAS that we didn't have that high priority terrorist target when they can see he's living in Washington DC six blocks from the White House?"" Disingenuous Josepp. You know damn well that would not be the response. The next day the President would be demanding that the members of that SAS unit be handed over to the US for trial, and threatening military action if they were not.///// No, I do not know that damn well and neither do you. And even if the US did that, Pakistan is in no position to so who cares? "You came into our country illegally and took Bin Laden!" "Well, you swore you didn't have him after we gave you billions of dollars in aid as an ally." Now what does Pakistan say? No, Pakistan is going to be very quiet. Look at it this way, one day your car is missing and you ask your neighbor if he saw anything. He says no. Then one day, he opens his garage door and you could SWEAR that's your missing car in there! You go to the cops who tell you, "We need more than that. You have to prove it's your car." So you open the guy's garage while he's at work and it's definitely yours. Now who are the cops going to arrest? You for breaking into his garage or him for grand theft auto? ////Where is the moral justification for doing to others what you would not accept being done to you?///// You want deeply religious president, Don? I've had enough of those. I want a practical one and what Obama did was practical. I'd be furious with a president who refused to act on religious grounds. ////The end achieved was a worthwhile one, rather spoiled by the means used to achieve it.//// And you know damn well you'd have done exactly the same thing if you were in Obama's shoes. You know if you ask permission, Bin Laden will be spirited away and then Pakistan will deny he was ever there. By doing it this way, Pakistan is exposed for the lying, two-faced bastards they are. They're the ones with explaining to do. As far as I am concerned Obama was perfectly justified. /////I would be quite interested in hearing the opinion of the UN on this one, but I fear they will wimp out.//// Anyone heere who thinks Obama was wrong to do it this way, tell me what you would have done if you were in his place. I know this is going to be GOOD. |
|
03 May 11 - 11:07 AM (#3147100) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel Justice being served is a stretch but just revenge or vengeful justice is closer to the mark |
|
03 May 11 - 11:13 AM (#3147102) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel "Why didn't Pakistan help us find bin Laden, after all, we have given them 18 billion dollars since 2001 to help us find him?" isn't it great when they answer their own question with their own question ? What have you learned about Usama since the raid? I learned he slept on a water bed with an unfinished pine board frame. He kept a jar of Vasoline by the bed. He had the same carpet I have. He seemed to not have a choice about where to live. The secret police probably kept him there as an ace in the hole for US aid or ransom, whichever was greater. |
|
03 May 11 - 11:19 AM (#3147108) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks Josepp, you are wrong. The Coalition forces conquered Saddam in 1991. He lost - that is what conquer means. They choose not to occupy. Accept it. |
|
03 May 11 - 11:29 AM (#3147115) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: wysiwyg How's THIS for surreal. Saturday was to have been the Race Against Racism, for which I had joined the Islamic Society's team to get to know and learn about THEIR culture. They welcomed me warmly to the team... I worked on getting sponsors.... but the Race got postponed to June, due to flooding at the venue. Then we were away from TV/papers for a few days, and only learned of the purported hit on Bin Laden, when we were driving yesterday to an event. We learned it accidentally via cell from the contact we'd called for parking info-- she said that the venue had been closed and evacuated the night before due to an Islamic bomb threat because of Bin Laden! She wasn't sure we could even get into the city it was to be held in! And there WE were, worrying that the GPS might or might not work to find their new convention center! It was an anti-racism event about the Underground Railroad, and on the way home-- as I reflected on the presentation, the consultation I picked up, and the issues of the people we'd just met-- all I could think about was the new friend I'd made for that Race, at the Islamic Society... and the awareness that I know NOTHING about how his life has changed since the weekend, but that it must have! And that it's on me to let him know that he is in my thoughts! Bin Laden, BTW? We'll never "really" know, any more than we can ever be sure what really happened in Dallas. Too many layers of story-spinning, by real perfessionals. I'm keeping MY eye on the ball in MY court-- new Islamic friends to (hopefully) continue to get to know. ~Susan |
|
03 May 11 - 12:53 PM (#3147149) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. There was no invasion of Iraq in 1991 Not only is he WRONG, Art, he'a apparently delusional. |
|
03 May 11 - 01:23 PM (#3147167) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Little Hawk Article: On Bin Laden's Death |
|
03 May 11 - 01:27 PM (#3147169) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jack the Sailor Wesley, That clip shows the Boers lined up and shot firing squad style after being captured and secured. I think it was more like this. |
|
03 May 11 - 01:37 PM (#3147173) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble LH- Thoughtful point of view. Charley Noble |
|
03 May 11 - 01:40 PM (#3147174) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Pretty much everyone has welcomed it including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan (Karzai has also told NATO it must stop bombing.), Pakistan... only bunch I have heard of so far that haven't is Hamas. NHK Japan... US officials say Osama bin Laden was buried at sea after his death was confirmed by DNA testing. Speaking to reporters on Monday, officials from the Defense Department and the CIA revealed the multiple methods used to identify the body of the Al Qaeda leader. They said bin Laden was identified by a woman believed to be his wife, and by CIA experts who compared his face and body to known pictures of bin Laden. The officials also said that a DNA test using samples collected from bin Laden's family members confirmed the identity. A senior government official said that it was difficult to find a country willing to accept the remains and bury them within 24 hours in accordance with Islamic practice. The official said that the corpse was lowered into the Arabian Sea from a US aircraft carrier on Monday. The US government says there has been no evidence showing that the Pakistani government knew bin Laden was hiding in a compound near Islamabad. The US government hopes to collect information about senior members of Al Qaeda by examining items, including computers, confiscated from the hideout. Tuesday, May 03, 2011 08:32 +0900 (JST) |
|
03 May 11 - 01:53 PM (#3147182) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp ////Josepp, you are wrong. The Coalition forces conquered Saddam in 1991. He lost - that is what conquer means. They choose not to occupy. Accept it.//// Oh, really? They conquered Saddam in 1991? Then who was running Iraq from 1992 until the Invasion? How did George Bush manage to convince the American public and apparently much of the world that Saddam, conquered since 1991, had somehow managed to stockpile over 25,000 liters of anthrax ("enough doses to kill several million people"), over 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ("enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure"), approximately "500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" along with "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents"? Not to mention trying to get 500 tons of yellowcake out of Niger! That's pretty good for a conquered leader. It's only because he was not conquered that Bush foisted that lie off on the world and got away with it. The dirty ragged man they pulled out of spider hole in December of 2003? THAT was a conquered leader. Could the US have conquered him in 1991 if they wanted to? Yes, of course. The US chose not to and therefore there was no invasion. Iraqi troops were chased out of Kuwait and it was left at that. Now, come on, be reasonable. |
|
03 May 11 - 02:03 PM (#3147189) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp ////I'm keeping MY eye on the ball in MY court-- new Islamic friends to (hopefully) continue to get to know.//// There's an eatery down the street from me run by two Arab brothers, both Muslims. I was talking to the younger brother one night and he said that Jews and Muslims are cousins and the fighting would stop if only people on both sides would quit stirring things up. "Osama bin Laden?" he said, "I would gladly kill him myself if I knew where he was." Unfortunately, the press only plays up on the crazy Muslims in America rather than ones like my friends down the street. |
|
03 May 11 - 02:08 PM (#3147190) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. How did George Bush manage to convince the American public Easy. He lied. |
|
03 May 11 - 02:14 PM (#3147194) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp Well, of course, he lied. I'm asking how he could have convinced anyone of the lie if Saddam had been conquered 1991? This isn't rocket science, folks. Those who say the US invaded Iraq in 1991 are wrong. Just admit it--you're wrong. The US's actions in 1991 simply don't meet the definition of an invasion. |
|
03 May 11 - 02:17 PM (#3147195) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. The US's actions in 1991 simply don't meet the definition of an invasion. Sez you. Rave on. |
|
03 May 11 - 02:40 PM (#3147206) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Amos Obviously, you guys, there is a difference between invading someone's territory, and overthrowing their government and taking control of their capitol. When we drove Saddam out of Kuwait we conquered him, invaded part of his territory, whupped his army, and left. We invaded him without overthrowing him. Second time, we overthrew him. A |
|
03 May 11 - 02:49 PM (#3147210) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,roderick warner Osama? One scumbag less... |
|
03 May 11 - 02:55 PM (#3147216) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp ////Obviously, you guys, there is a difference between invading someone's territory, and overthrowing their government and taking control of their capitol. When we drove Saddam out of Kuwait we conquered him, invaded part of his territory, whupped his army, and left.//// No, you didn't read the verbatim definition of invasion I posted from Meriam-Websters. Breaching the borders is an incursion. An invasion is an incursion for purposes or plunder or conquering. The US is guilty only of an incursion. The US did not invade Iraq in 1991. The US invaded Iraq in 2003. |
|
03 May 11 - 03:15 PM (#3147228) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu CP is reporting "Pakistan slams US". Others are reporting Pakistan's foreign minister as approving in press conference. ??? |
|
03 May 11 - 03:26 PM (#3147233) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford So has US now "invaded" Pakistan? Of course not. It carried out a limited operation on Pakistani territory and withdrew, as with Gulf war 1 and the attempt to rescue hostages in Iran a few years earlier. Not invasions. |
|
03 May 11 - 03:27 PM (#3147235) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Now the White House is releasing information, that Osama wasn't armed, when he was shot dead....hmm..now before all the doily-headed, numb-skulls, start bitching of how unfair that was, consider that neither was anyone in the Trade Towers, either....or the commuters in train stations, or most of the people that he, and his cohorts murdered either. Personally, I think the SEALS were on a mission to 'neutralize', him and gather intelligence, and that's what they did...FINALLY! I do commend the whole operation, and Obama's decision to do it....in fact, I hope they get the rest of the scum-suckers, from the intelligence they gathered, Pakistan straightens up, and then the President gets onto cleaning up the economy, and the corruption that caused all of it!....and its not open for a stupid 'debate'! GfS |
|
03 May 11 - 03:30 PM (#3147240) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday hailed Osama bin Laden's death as a key turning point in the world's struggle against terrorism. "The death of Osama bin Laden, announced by President (Barack) Obama last night, is a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism," Ban told reporters. U.S. officials said late on Sunday that bin Laden had been killed in a U.S. assault on his Pakistani compound on Monday, then quickly buried at sea. "The crimes of al Qaeda touched most continents, bringing tragedy and loss of life to thousands of men, women and children," Ban said. "This is a day to remember the victims and families of victims here in the United States and everywhere in the world," he added. The written version of Ban's reaction included several remarks that were not included in the statement he made to reporters on camera. The additional comments made clear that Ban felt the U.S. targeting of bin Laden was just. "Personally, I am very much relieved by the news that justice has been done to such a mastermind of international terrorism," Ban said in the emailed text of his statement. "I would like to commend the work and the determined and principled commitment of many people in the world who have been struggling to eradicate international terrorism," he added. (Reporting by Louis Charbonneau; Editing by Paul Simao) |
|
03 May 11 - 03:55 PM (#3147247) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble GfS- I think myself a peaceful person but I agree with you that shooting Bib Laden, armed or not, was the better call than taking him prisoner. It's not the morally correct call but it's politically efficient. Now maybe Obama can focus on getting our troops our of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention creating more jobs for the unemployed. Charley Noble |
|
03 May 11 - 03:55 PM (#3147248) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth In 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait with the aim of appropriating and taking control of their oil resources. The United States, acting in Kuwait's behalf, repelled the Iraqi invader and drove them out and back into their own country. The United States "invaded" Iraq only in a very loose sense of the word "invade." International Law recognizes "the Right of Hot Pursuit." This permits a nation or law enforcement agency to pursue wrong-doers, whether they are private criminals (such as, say, pirates) or the retreating armed forces of a hostile country across national borders without it being construed as an "invasion" as such. Discovering the location of a wanted international criminal and entering another country to get him falls under the "hot pursuit" clause of International Law, and although the host country may bellow like a goosed moose, it does not constitute an "invasion," provided the pursuers withdraw once the criminal is dealt with. Especially if there is some suspicion that the country may actually be sheltering the criminal and denying it, while claiming to cooperate. "It's in the book!" —Doodles Weaver The actual invasion of Iraq, declared by the Bush Administration in response (according to Bush) to the 9/11 attack and Iraq's alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction (which turned out not to exist), was an invasion. But obviously that did not occur until some time after September 11, 2001 Don Firth |
|
03 May 11 - 04:05 PM (#3147252) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jack the Sailor /// josepp I'm sure you know what Kendall meant. You constant prattling on about who invaded whom is worse than useless. Fact is Osama DID complain about "invasion" of his holy lands. "Invasion" was his choice of words Whether he meant, Arabia, or all of the Middle East or every Arab land was not made clear. Why don't you go argue with him? By the way. I'd tell you just how I thought about how you were acting. But if I said you were acting like and asshole you would probably tell me that "Websters" defines you as dickhead. Also, I liked the comments about the neighbors. I like the Muslims I have met. I agree with your point of view on that issue. |
|
03 May 11 - 04:07 PM (#3147254) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Don-Babes, I think you hit it on the head!!! Oh, and as an addendum to my last post, I think they should release the photos, with OBL pecker cut off, and stuffed in his mouth, and his body wrapped in pig shit. Maybe that would send a message to any other would be radical Muslim terrorists!!! ...Respectfully, GfS |
|
03 May 11 - 04:12 PM (#3147256) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Oh, and with a caption for the photo, "This awaits ALL Muslim terrorists who we capture, or kill in action!!" GfS |
|
03 May 11 - 05:05 PM (#3147291) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bobert I will be the first to admit that I have not had time to follow the story as close as I'd like but I had to drive into town and had NPR on and NPR reported that bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot... Anyone have the facts??? B~ |
|
03 May 11 - 05:11 PM (#3147294) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bill D GfS... you sure have some 'interesting' suggestions ... ..that would ASSURE new terrorist recruits and jihads for years to come. Why don't you just threaten to bomb Mecca? Or something equally asinine... |
|
03 May 11 - 05:11 PM (#3147295) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: McGrath of Harlow Invasion is a word, not a verdict regarding whether it is justified or not. It means one country's military forces enter into another country without the consent of the invaded country. It may be followed by an occupation or by a withdrawal or retreat. For example, France was invaded in 1949, and Germany was invaded in 1945. |
|
03 May 11 - 05:13 PM (#3147296) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth The word I heard was that bin Laden was found in an upstairs room. There was a woman with him (not necessarily "in flagrante delicto"). He was told to surrender and come quietly. He grabbed the woman to use her as a shield and was reaching for a weapon when the raiders opened fire, trying carefully to avoid wounding the woman and hitting him twice in the head. That was the report that I heard. Your mileage may vary. Don Firth |
|
03 May 11 - 05:27 PM (#3147301) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford McG. I think you meant that France was invaded in 1939. What about the Bruneval raid 1942? Was that an invasion of France too? Dieppe 1942? St. Nazaire 1942? No. They were raids, not to be compared with invasions like that of 1939 and 1944. |
|
03 May 11 - 05:28 PM (#3147302) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge It is now officially admitted that ObL was unarmed. This is the day civilisation ended. There is now no rule of law or safety of life. What has been established is that the US will kill who it likes, where it likes, when it likes, without trial and without any pretext of self defence. Welcome to the wild West. |
|
03 May 11 - 05:31 PM (#3147304) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bobert Hmmmmm??? So bib Laden was wrestling with a woman and trying to retrieve a weapon at the same time??? Something fishy here... B~ |
|
03 May 11 - 05:36 PM (#3147308) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Nope. His wife trued to rush the US soldiers and was shot but not fatally. ObL was double-tapped, once in the head and once in the chest. Come in peace (?) , shoot to kill. |
|
03 May 11 - 05:57 PM (#3147319) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr. None of us know the "truth". Only what we're told, which can change from day to day. http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=65&func=view&catid=2&id=70152 |
|
03 May 11 - 06:35 PM (#3147335) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble Don- "The word I heard was that bin Laden was found in an upstairs room. There was a woman with him (not necessarily "in flagrante delicto"). He was told to surrender and come quietly. He grabbed the woman to use her as a shield and was reaching for a weapon when the raiders opened fire, trying carefully to avoid wounding the woman and hitting him twice in the head." That was one of the initial reports but now the story is that the woman was his wife and she was wounded in the foot when she tried to rush to Seals. Then they shot the unarmed Bin Laden twice in the head. His wife survived. GfS- You're on your own special trip now. Have fun while it lasts. Charley Noble |
|
03 May 11 - 06:49 PM (#3147345) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad The touchy-feely platitudes and accusations of lawlessness apply equally to the terrorists, I presume. |
|
03 May 11 - 07:30 PM (#3147358) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth There seems to be someone here who is all a-weep over the fact that bin Laden was shot while unarmed (although I heard--within the past hour--that he was going for a weapon, but didn't make it), and accusing those who shot him of "Wild West"ing it. Not an ounce of sympathy for the 3,000+ people who were killed, and their families, when the World Trade Center was attacked. Strange sense of values. Sounds like the kind of person who would sympathize with a rapist and blame his victim for provoking the attack. Don Firth |
|
03 May 11 - 07:50 PM (#3147369) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bobert It ain't about that, Don... Bin Laden got off too easy... There isn't any report that I know of that says bin Laden was going for a weapon so given what he did (9/11 et al) I think a life time of being locked up in a 8 X 12 cell with one very horny, ugly and brutal murderer would have been fine with me... He got off light... B~ |
|
03 May 11 - 08:22 PM (#3147387) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Well... if they could have taken him alive they would have. The trial would have been swift as he is on video tape saying he did the crime. As for him spending time in prison being Bubba's bitch, that don't happen nor should it. It just don't happen. As for all the CSI shit, I don't understand it. What supposedly happened supposedly happened. Now it will be to step up to the plate time for NATO... stop the bombing and the killing and work with "the enemy" or continue to be an enemy of the enemy who will, in turn, be an enemy... ad infinitum. There is an opportunity to move forward... or further backward... and most nations, especially Arab nations, have expressed same. |
|
03 May 11 - 10:09 PM (#3147428) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Rapparee Well, whatever the truth of the matter is, Osama bin Laden is with his friends now. |
|
03 May 11 - 10:27 PM (#3147433) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity First of all, how short Americans memory serves them. Does anyone here remember the initial reports of Jessica Lynch??...and the truth that came out after????? Second, This punk, Osama got young, naive religious jerks to blow up innocent people(including themselves), while he hid away and hid behind women..at least his own according to those same 'reports'...nonetheless, he declared war on America, and killed plenty of us...so, if that's his deal, why all the ballyhoo about how or when or the circumstances of his demise? What?? You want to 'rehabilitate' him?? This pig IS one of the corporate fat cats, who you regularly hate on this forum. Why all this bleeding heart sympathy, for this mass murderer??. Next, you'll be weeping for Charles Manson!...and this pig was WAY worse! That being said, I am against murder, of virtually any sort..so, something had to stop him! (ever consider that?) GfS |
|
03 May 11 - 10:36 PM (#3147438) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Prof. Pervez Hoodbhoy on how the Pakistan Army gave protection to Osama Bin Laden, treating him as the Golden Goose that helped them extract more and more from the Americans. http://tribune.com.pk/story/160658/the-curious-case-of-osama-bin-laden/ |
|
03 May 11 - 11:11 PM (#3147447) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Rapparee As I said before, I'm sorry he's dead. I'm sorry when anyone dies. I am not, however, weeping over him anymore than I weep over the deaths of Adolph Hitler, Che Guevara, Elizabeth Bathory, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Tsar Ivan III, Pope Alexander VI, Boone Helm, Clay Allison, John Henry Holliday, Colonel Patrick Edward Connor, George Custer, Irma Ida Ilse Grese, Ilse Koch, Stalin or any others of that sort. |
|
03 May 11 - 11:43 PM (#3147456) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Rapparee: "As I said before, I'm sorry he's dead. I'm sorry when anyone dies. I am not, however, weeping over him anymore than I weep over the deaths of Adolph Hitler, Che Guevara, Elizabeth Bathory, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Tsar Ivan III, Pope Alexander VI, Boone Helm, Clay Allison, John Henry Holliday, Colonel Patrick Edward Connor, George Custer, Irma Ida Ilse Grese, Ilse Koch, Stalin or any others of that sort." Any less? GfS |
|
03 May 11 - 11:57 PM (#3147461) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ebbie As far as his being unarmed goes, that seems irrelevant to me. This operation was not a sheot'em up western; this was meant to take him out if he resisted in any way. It is most likely if he had held up his arms and fallen to his knees he would be alive. Like Saddam- he was taken alive because he came meekly. |
|
04 May 11 - 12:03 AM (#3147462) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Clint Westwood conspiracy theory 1: shoot to kill to silence him to avoid capture and potentially embarrassing implicating trial disclosures.. conspiracy theory 2: killed years ago, body kept in deep freeze to be thawed at an opportunistic political moment.. conspiracy theory 3: knew where he was all the time, CIA funded and built compound to keep him safe from prying eyes until he was no longer a viable asset.. conspiracy theory 4: Genetic experiment gone wrong, Alien tissue samples fused with his body producing uncontrollable mutant super villain capable of wiping out all life on planet with one blast of evil x ray mind vision.. conspiracy theory 5: oops.. it's the wrong bloke, they aint got him after all... etc etc etc etc etc... |
|
04 May 11 - 12:09 AM (#3147464) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp ////I'm sure you know what Kendall meant. You constant prattling on about who invaded whom is worse than useless.//// They were pratlling more than anybody--shut up, man! ////Fact is Osama DID complain about "invasion" of his holy lands.//// I don't give a fuck what he waws complain about. He's dead so fuck him. ////By the way. I'd tell you just how I thought about how you were acting. But if I said you were acting like and asshole you would probably tell me that "Websters" defines you as dickhead./// That's how I'd define you. ///Also, I liked the comments about the neighbors. I like the Muslims I have met. I agree with your point of view on that issue./// Whoopee. |
|
04 May 11 - 12:11 AM (#3147465) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: josepp ///Fact is Osama DID complain about "invasion" of his holy lands. "Invasion" was his choice of words Whether he meant, Arabia, or all of the Middle East or every Arab land was not made clear. Why don't you go argue with him?/// Whose prattling about invasion now? Fuckin asshole. |
|
04 May 11 - 12:53 AM (#3147478) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: J-boy Some fuckwit in my hometown of Portland,Maine spray painted "Obama today. Islam tomorow"(sic) on the side of our local muslim community center. I wish I could say it was surprising. |
|
04 May 11 - 01:09 AM (#3147480) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Did "civilization end" in 1941 when there was a British attempt to kill Rommel? |
|
04 May 11 - 01:13 AM (#3147482) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Moral of the story: Declare war, kill people, and you might be next. Maybe he should have taken up folk music! GfS |
|
04 May 11 - 01:20 AM (#3147484) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: J-boy Bin Laden did look a bit like a folkie. What with that beard and all... |
|
04 May 11 - 01:25 AM (#3147488) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: michaelr Nah, too skinny. |
|
04 May 11 - 01:39 AM (#3147491) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks Give up on polite dialogue, eh Josepp? |
|
04 May 11 - 02:16 AM (#3147496) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge In case it escapes you Keith, there was a declared war in progress then. It may be a "good thing" that ObL is dead, although there are possible adverse consequences, but the manner of his killing was improper. If he was not an enemy soldier he was entitled to due process as much as anyone else. Outlawry vanished from civilised jurisprudence centuries ago. I hope that even the USA no longer has a category of "Wanted, dead or alive". There was no trial. There was no lawful sentence of death. If he was an enemy soldier, then he was entitled to be treated as per convention. He wasn't. If he was an enemy leader then international law proscribed assassination. The US had no lawful power of arrest - or military action in what was neither within their jurisdiction nor an enemy territory. This was simply the power of the gun. The outcome may turn out to be advantageous, but that does not make it proper. |
|
04 May 11 - 02:26 AM (#3147501) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Richard Bridge to Nowhere: "This was simply the power of the gun." Hey, he was the one who ordered CIVILIAN planes to kill innocent people in the WTC..according to the Geneva Convention, while declaring war on us, right???..and you're bitching because he wasn't wearing a uniform???? OK, now that you read this post, you can replace your head up your ass! GfS |
|
04 May 11 - 03:59 AM (#3147529) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "In case it escapes you Keith, there was a declared war in progress then." Of course! Sorry I missed that obvious distinction. Had US been at war with Al Qaeda, it would be quite legal to kill any fighter unless they offered to surrender. |
|
04 May 11 - 04:17 AM (#3147534) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Patsy I can believe that some of the people in that neighbourhood truly might have been unaware of him living locally. It is quite possible. There have been many cases in the UK of murderers and abducters for example living in quiet residental areas. Neighbours have been shocked and surprised because it was claimed that the person was so quiet, easy going and unassuming so I can go along with that. A short while ago quite recently I recall a news report saying that a recording from Bin Laden the first in a long while had been broadcast. It seems a bit of a coincidence now this has happened, seems really fishy to me, could it be the broadcast was fake? With all the inconsistencies about the events it does make you wonder. |
|
04 May 11 - 04:40 AM (#3147546) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas I just love you American guys. Not only do you illegally enter a foreign country armed to the teeth, you break into a private residence, murder unarmed people in cold blood, injure and cause grievous bodily harm to others, remove a body and 'bury' it without due process, AND THEN have the gall to say that the use of torture on illegally held prisoners who have never been charged with any crime was justified as it allowed you to do all this. Priceless. |
|
04 May 11 - 05:30 AM (#3147564) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lox "As far as his being unarmed goes, that seems irrelevant to me. This operation was not a sheot'em up western; this was meant to take him out if he resisted in any way. It is most likely if he had held up his arms and fallen to his knees he would be alive." How about if you are unarmed and cowering behind your wife? |
|
04 May 11 - 05:52 AM (#3147566) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lox Well the answer is that you and your wife both get shot. Its as if the US Government are deliberately thinking of ridiculous lies just make sure we understand that they couldn't give a shit. |
|
04 May 11 - 06:59 AM (#3147582) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Er - not only that Keith. The US in this case were not acting on enemy held territory. Please note that I am not saying that the death of ObL was necessarily a bad thing - we will have to wait and see. The manner of its doing was IMHO unlawful. Fugitive from Sanity: ObL may have committed crimes. Was he lawfully taken tried and sentenced? No. Unless rule of law prevails there is only the power of the gun. Generally: There are statements circulating (and parts of them may be true) that there had been offers to surrender ObL for an unbiassed trial in an unbiassed jurisdiction - but that the USA refused to consider them. That may or may not be accurate, but it is disturbingly similar to the refusal of the USA to recognise the jurisdiction of other countries on war crimes. I cannot see how ObL could have got a fair trial in the USA - indeed with the number of gun nutters there it would have been difficult to see how he could have survived in the USA until trial. Proper trial is what separates criminal process from vigilantism. While I do not claim to be a master of US procedural rules it seems to me plausible that any trial of ObL in the US would have fallen foul of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. |
|
04 May 11 - 07:24 AM (#3147593) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad It's no surprise that someone from the legal profession is a proponent of a, most likely, quite lengthy and very expensive trial....did I mention expensive....ka ching! |
|
04 May 11 - 07:46 AM (#3147604) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "Er - not only that Keith. The US in this case were not acting on enemy held territory" No, the terrirory of an ally who have no objections, and who have themselves lost thousands to Al Qaeda. No one is objecting except Hamas and the Mudcat left-libs. |
|
04 May 11 - 08:48 AM (#3147632) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter I'm a lib. Don't link me with the views in question. |
|
04 May 11 - 09:10 AM (#3147649) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble I do hope that the Obama Administration resists the call by some to release photos of the deceased Bin Laden, with the exception of the funeral service. Such a release would serve no other purpose than to further inflame his supporters around the world to take some kind of action, and recruit more to their cause. That should be an easy call but for some reason some Republicans want to see the proof; maybe they can have a private viewing of the photos after confiscating their cell-phones. Such photos might be released after 50 years or so, after passions simmer down. I also hope that the members of the Navy Seal Team are never identified for their personal safety. Seals should be protected. Charley Noble |
|
04 May 11 - 09:18 AM (#3147659) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Charley, Pentagon policy is that the names of special operations people are never divulged. It doesn't matter whether they release the photos or not. Fakes are already circulating on the Net, and anybody that eager to kill will take his or her cue from one of them. |
|
04 May 11 - 09:55 AM (#3147687) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Taconicus Even if there had been a properly declared war, international law provides that one may not assassinate the leader of one's enemy. - Richard. Bridge There is no such international law. You're speaking off the top of your head with obviously no knowledge of what you're talking about. "Osama Bin Laden ... was an appropriate military target. As the titular and spiritual head of al-Qaida, he was the functional equivalent of a head of state or commander in chief of a terrorist army. From the beginning of recorded history, killing the king was the legitimate object of military action. The very phrase 'check mate' means 'the king is dead,' signifying the successful end of the battle." - Alan Dershowitz, Constitutional law scholar, renowned criminal and civil liberties attorney http://www.hudson-ny.org/2093/targeted-killing-vindicated |
|
04 May 11 - 09:59 AM (#3147690) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "No one is objecting except Hamas and the Mudcat left-libs. " "ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan says it is deeply concerned over what it said was an "unauthorized" American raid that killed Osama bin Laden. The government statement says the raid should not serve as a precedent for future U.S. actions there and called the raid an "unauthorized unilateral action." If the world is to have a self-appointed military pliceman it should not be a state that uses torture, imprisonment without trial, clandestine international terrorism, chemical warfare and the targeting of civilians (for which they have re-invented the English language - collateral damage). America is a terrorist state, openly using terrorist tactics in its own political and economic interests and is every bit a danger to world eace as any other terrorist state. Jim Carroll |
|
04 May 11 - 10:04 AM (#3147696) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Agree 100% Jim. |
|
04 May 11 - 10:17 AM (#3147705) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "The very phrase 'check mate' means 'the king is dead,' signifying the successful end of the battle." Not quite sure where this little piece of disinformation came from, but killing the King rarely meant the successful end of a battle. |
|
04 May 11 - 10:27 AM (#3147710) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "the king is dead" - is right Silas - from the Persian. However, I doubt very much if seeing off Bin Laden, however welcome that may be, has brought about the end of this particular holy war - just another erratic prod into the hornet's net. Jim Carroll |
|
04 May 11 - 10:34 AM (#3147717) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel My earlier remarks here regarding the bin Laden strategy to help bankrupt America as he did with the former Soviet Union, was beautifully expanded by Rachel Maddow last night. The book "the three trillion dollar war" was metioned along with the writings of money man bin Laden that focused entirely on how much money his efforts were costing America. Our off budget spending on the wars is much higher than the official totals of 1.4 trillion dollars. It is true that the focus of bin Laden was always money. His book the 10 trickey verses in the Koran was merely a means to an end which was the financial defeat of America. By the way the picture we are not supposed to see clearly show 2 holes an inch or more above his left eye (not in the eye itself) and the right rear side of his head blown out. His eyes are nearly closed but crossed. There are many more gory pictures that came out of the Bosnia Muslim massacres. I did not see the alledged chest wound. |
|
04 May 11 - 10:37 AM (#3147723) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas I know it means the king is dead, that was not my point. |
|
04 May 11 - 11:19 AM (#3147754) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Bin Laden was not a king or a head of state. He was a criminal considered armed and dangerous. Unless he was stark naked when shot, the SEALs had every reason to suspect he could be wearing a suicide belt. Inside a fortified enemy compound with only one way out, faced with the most wanted fugitive on earth and an unknown number of his bodyguards, the only way to prevent shooting would have been for everybody but the SEALs to throw up their hands in surrender. Everybody. Under the actual circumstances, it would have taken superhuman and possibly suicidal restraint not to shoot him. The fact that so few shots were fired, and that the U.S. government frankly admits Bin Laden wasn't holding a weapon (and is now debating whether the release of photos would be offensive) shows how America actually tries to operate. |
|
04 May 11 - 11:21 AM (#3147757) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Bollocks |
|
04 May 11 - 11:33 AM (#3147766) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, are you being naive or disingenuous? "Deep concern" is just about as mild a rebuke as you can get! Imagine the outrage and breaking of relations had US pulled such a stunt in any other country on earth! Even the closest of allies such as Britain or Israel. Al Qaeda and the Pakistan government are sworn enemies. Thousands of Pakistanis have been killed and they are greatful for anything US does against them. It is just that their security and intelligence services are heavily infiltrated, and America is not popular. They express concern over the predator strikes too, but never demand that they stop. |
|
04 May 11 - 11:38 AM (#3147771) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel He was a rich kid since the age of 10 when he got his first 80 million dollars. He was the money man. He did the photo ops. Any actual fighting he may have done was brief and all for show. His money gave him virtual Royal status. The people who are focused only upon mass murder of the infidel did the real planning. They may have nuclear capabilities at this time and pose a real and present danger. Bin Laden was about the financial destruction of America. His buddies are even crazier and may opt for nuclear options despite the futility and the diminished need for their cause among many Arab nations in revolution against dictator regiemes. I hope sanity prevails. |
|
04 May 11 - 11:43 AM (#3147774) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas I have little hope of sanity prevailing when the Whitehouse is run by lunatics. |
|
04 May 11 - 11:59 AM (#3147786) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. He was a rich kid since the age of 10 when he got his first 80 million dollars. He was the money man. Kinda like the Koch Brothers, eh? |
|
04 May 11 - 12:44 PM (#3147812) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Peter Laban Ten Myths about Osama Bin Laden see : 2. the money |
|
04 May 11 - 12:49 PM (#3147813) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Oh Tacky... (you don't mind if I call you that do you?) Try some academic reading on the subject. http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=373 |
|
04 May 11 - 01:53 PM (#3147877) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel the Guardian link has less detail and substantiated knowledge than my informal remarks. Fact: Osama bin Laden inherited 80 million at age ten. Money continued to define his identity and importence until he became more serious in has late twenties when being a person of faith gave him new advantages. His father was a multi billionaire building contrator for many of the largest projects is SA. Split 20 billion dollars 50 ways and it is still a good piece of cash. GHW Bush was partners with Osamma's brother in the part ownership of Carlyle Group Inc. Members of the bin Laden family had one of the few flights out of Dulles on 9-12-2001. I am unaware of any of Ossama's assets being siezed by anyone including his family. |
|
04 May 11 - 03:40 PM (#3147944) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Jim, are you being naive or disingenuous?" You said that nobody complained except yatta-yatta - you got it wrong - Pakistan complained, just as Britain would have complained had they gone storming up Wandsworth High Street and mown down a couple of people in The Spead Eagle. You have no right to claim immunity on their behalf - they have committed an act of aggression against a friendly nation - who the **** are you to say how offended they are? America does not respect national boundaries when it suits them not to do so. They routinely use torture and arrest without trial; for the former they ship illegally detained 'suspects' to countries that are not too fussy about that sort of thing; (they are flown though our local airport regularly); 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. The US is a terrorist state using every terrorist method they believe themselves able to get away with. As far as I am concerned, the only things distinguishing them from other terrorist states is their wealth, influence and their nuclear capability. It is this gung-ho behaviour which has endangered the world and put a hugh question mark over all our futures - every bomb that went off in London following the phony search for WMDs is down to Pres. Dubya and his poodle Blair. I have to say, it comes as no surprise to me whatever that you have taken the Quisling line of apologising for their behaviour - runs in the blood apparently. Jim Carroll |
|
04 May 11 - 04:21 PM (#3147970) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu I read that the Pakistan foreign minister issued a staement saying Pakistan welcomed the action. It was on NHK Japan this AM. Can't find it now. In any case, WTF is the problem? Pakistan couldn't find the fucker living next to a top military installation and the USA did and took the fucker out. Job done. And Pakistan didn't even have to pay for the bullets. The cheap fuckers should send a cheque to Obama for supplying the bullets on accounta they didn't spend any of Obama's money looking for the piece of shit in the first place. Death to America? No. Not fuckin likely. Ten years or a thousand ain't gonna butter the biscuit. The USA is here to stay. I don't agree with what they do a lot of the time but only a stunned as me arse idiot fucks with them. Pakistan pissing them off is idiotic and doesn't help lead to peace in any form. |
|
04 May 11 - 04:41 PM (#3147977) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: olddude It is what it is, done and over with. Any country US included had the right and indeed already had an agreement in place. Does it change anything no .. do I care .. not really he was a monster, however, I will not celebrate any death .. revenge is not my way ... but I no longer care about it .. He was responsible for terrible acts throughout the world ... It will change nothing now that he is gone .. justice, probably was done. However, what difference does it all make. We are still involved in two wars and a partial third ... we don't learn and neither does the rest of the world ... until people stop killing each other over nonsense both will keep burying each other |
|
04 May 11 - 04:43 PM (#3147978) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e Some alternative views. http://whatreallyhappened.com/ http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/ |
|
04 May 11 - 04:53 PM (#3147980) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bobert Actually, gn-zer... The Pakistani president has an op-ed in today's Washigton Post that says the very same thing... B~ |
|
04 May 11 - 05:08 PM (#3147992) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, "you got it wrong - Pakistan complained," No they did not. They expressed concern. As you say, any other country would be outraged, but they are grateful for the help against a mass murderer of their people. The blame for London's dead lies with the West you say. Pity the perpetrator and blame the victim. That is your philosophy. Right Jim? |
|
04 May 11 - 05:32 PM (#3148018) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks Visualize this scenario: The US, having ascertained that Osama bin Laden is almost certainly living in a villa a short drive from the capital of Pakistan, presents their ambassador in Washington with a formal note requesting his extradition to face criminal charges in the US. Acting in an extremely expeditious manner for Pakistanis, a constable of the Abbottabad police force arrived at his compound only three weeks later to request his peaceful surrender so that a decision can be made on whether or not the American request will be honored, or if he will be deported to his native Saudi Arabia instead. To the policeman's surprise, he finds the place deserted. Seal Team 6, having been sitting in the SOG ready room at Hurlburt AFB, FL for the past 3 1/2 weeks, goes home. Articles of Impeachment are served on Pres. Obama. |
|
04 May 11 - 05:57 PM (#3148046) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Pity the perpetrator and blame the victim." I pity nobody here - Where have I expressed pity for anybody - do not put words into my mouth. They are all a bunch of terrorists, and unlike you, I am not prepared to put the defence of my, or anybody's country in the hands of anybody else - whatever happened to that Union Jack you were waving so vehemently not s long ago - do you think that every country should throw open its borders to any foreign power? What would your reaction to a bunch of cowboy marines storming through London, or Manchester? Do you give the right to the US to drop in whenever they feel like taking out somebody in Britain? I can't help but notice that you avoid commenting on their record on human rights violations and use of torture - that's ok is it? Jim Carroll |
|
04 May 11 - 06:24 PM (#3148063) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Mosquitos more worthy of mercy than bin Laden: Dalai Lama The Dalai Lama, the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, implied at a talk that the Obama administration's targeted killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was justified. During a talk at the University of Southern California Tuesday, the Dalai Lama was asked about bin Laden's killing, and whether that could be rationalized in the context of Buddhism's dharma of forgiveness and compassion. "Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened," he said, according to the LA Times. "If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures." In the same talk, titled "Secular Ethics, Human Values and Society," the Dalai Lama also said he tries to avoid killing mosquitos when they land on him, "when my mood is good and there is no danger of malaria." http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/04/mosquitos-more-worthy-of-mercy-than-bin-laden-dalai-lama/ |
|
04 May 11 - 06:44 PM (#3148070) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth All weepy over taking out a mass murderer who was undoubtedly in the process of planning more mass murders (indeed, that was his stated intent). This man was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 plus people some ten years ago. People who got up in the morning and went to work as usual, who shortly thereafter were suddenly confronted with such decisions as having to choose whether to jump out of a fiftieth story window and plunge to their deaths in the street below or stay there and burn to death. And I seem to recall there was an explosion or two in London undergrounds, plotted by the same man, that killed a lot of people, people who had harmed no one, and who also were only going about their normal day's activities. The peculiar sentiments of some people here are enough to gag a maggot! Don Firth |
|
04 May 11 - 06:57 PM (#3148080) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Of course, the British never dirtied their hands in India...." Can't speak for Silas but - yes Britain certainly did, and has my full condemnation for having done so. I don't think they napalmed third world peasants, or attempted to destroy their food sources with Agent Orange - nor did they drive them into their huts and burn them to death, as did your Major Calley - but what they did was no less excusable - The Empire On Which The Sun Never Sets, or The Blood Never Dries - that was how I was brought up to think of the British Empire. And just as you got your collective arses kicked off the roof of the Saigon Embassy, our country got kicked out of (most of) our former colonies. Some of us learned our lesson from what our Governments did - now let's hear it from you for waterboarding, or special rendition, or collateral damage, or detention without trial.... or all the other aspects of American civiliasation that puts gas in the tanks of your SUVs. As with Keith - I won't hold my breath though!! Jim Carroll |
|
04 May 11 - 07:06 PM (#3148086) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "All weepy over taking out a mass murderer" Has anybody become weepy Don - seems most of us are having a bit of difficulty telling the difference? Jim Carroll |
|
04 May 11 - 07:09 PM (#3148089) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth At the end of World War II in Europe, the architect of mass murder, Adolph Hitler chose to commit suicide rather than face justice. Americans were involved in that operation. And British. Did you get all choked up about that, too, Jim? Or are you old enough to even remember? Don Firth |
|
04 May 11 - 07:19 PM (#3148093) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: olddude One thing I am thankful for is no member of the seal team was hurt. That is something at least .. I don't know the current members of that team but they always were the most elite and most dedicated of all the service branch. They are always in harms way and answer the call of duty when ordered. They don't make political decisions, they serve and protect with their lives. Most of the other branches call those guys the archangels, because when you are pinned down or captured , their normal job is to go in and get you out alive. That is what they normally do. This time it wasn't about capture but command gave the order not them. |
|
04 May 11 - 07:29 PM (#3148103) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bobert I'd still rather have him alive and living at Gitmo... I question why that didn't happen... Yes, I realize that the Repubs have made a domestic trial in a US court near impossible but had I been Obama I would have pushed harder for "alive"... B~ |
|
04 May 11 - 07:37 PM (#3148109) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Bobert, I think the fear was that holding him alive would spawn countless kidnappings and beheadings by his rabid followers both as an attempt at ransom and in retaliation. |
|
04 May 11 - 07:58 PM (#3148120) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bobert Yeah, bobad... It might have... This one is a toughie... B~ |
|
04 May 11 - 08:25 PM (#3148128) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel I assume you have seen the pictures of his bloody bedroom floor by his water bed on the third floor. This should settle the debate over water bedding having anything to do with his capture and killing. |
|
04 May 11 - 08:26 PM (#3148129) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e http://www.prisonplanet.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag.html |
|
04 May 11 - 09:08 PM (#3148141) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Canadian NDP Deputy Leader has doubts photo's exist biLL |
|
04 May 11 - 09:19 PM (#3148146) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Don - no bleeding heart here. My concerns are twofold. Was it legal? The breakdown of the rule of law is dangerous as is US belief in its own omnipotence. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If this was legal, so are some at least Islamist attempts to assassinate the president of the USA. |
|
04 May 11 - 09:28 PM (#3148149) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad "Was it legal?" Alan Dershowitz says it is: "The decision to target and kill Osama Bin Laden is being applauded by all decent people. Approval to capture or kill this mass-murdering terrorist leader was given by Presidents Obama and Bush. It was the right decision, both morally and legally." |
|
04 May 11 - 09:59 PM (#3148165) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Well, the the party (NDP) that holds the official opposition in Canada is holding off on the applause ... if you read the CBC link I posted .... if not, here's a quote from Thomas Mulcair the deputy leader of the opposition "Mulcair also said the killing requires "a full analysis" on whether it was self-defence or a direct killing because "that has to do with American law and international law as well." I think his point is valid, and over the next few days (as the dust of celebration settles down) many decent people will probably raise the same question .... if the NDP had won the election this would be the official stand of the Canadian government .... now I know many Canadian catter's would not and did not vote for Harper or the Liberals ... hmmmm, so who did they vote for .... :-) biLL |
|
04 May 11 - 10:06 PM (#3148172) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 One last point here .... I also raise question if the other 3 victims were also armed .... if not, then it would be murder (would it not) or ... were they just collateral damage. biLL |
|
04 May 11 - 10:18 PM (#3148183) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu sIx... ""Mulcair also said the killing requires "a full analysis" on whether it was self-defence or a direct killing..." It was about as direct as you can get. They came to call with nasty sons-a-bitches in choppers and shot the fucker. The under-leader of the NDP don't know what took place? Then he's a fuckin idiot. How could he say something so stunned-as-me-arse? |
|
04 May 11 - 10:31 PM (#3148196) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 gnu .... "The under-leader of the NDP don't know what took place?" exactly ... that's why he is asking for a full analysis. "because "that has to do with American law and international law as well." sounds fair to me. biLL |
|
04 May 11 - 10:32 PM (#3148198) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Thomas Mulcair has the reputation of being a loose cannon. |
|
04 May 11 - 10:40 PM (#3148202) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Maybe Bobad .... but we also don't want legitimate countries of the world running around as loose cannons either .... it could make things even worse for us out there ... bad enough as it is. biLL |
|
04 May 11 - 10:52 PM (#3148207) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ebbie Hey. Has anyone else clicked on the link that 'andrew' made? If even half of the information given there is true, the game is over. |
|
04 May 11 - 11:40 PM (#3148234) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Janie Ebbie, fwiw, and maybe not much, prisonplanet is so conspiracy-minded as to make it nearly impossible to separate the facts from the paradigm. One always has to try to separate the wheat from the chaff, but when 70-90% of the raw material is chaff, it isn't worth my time to separate out the kernels. |
|
05 May 11 - 12:50 AM (#3148257) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Richard Bridge: "Was it legal? The breakdown of the rule of law is dangerous as is US belief in its own omnipotence." Gee, you pulled your head out again..probably for some 'fresh air'! Look, in case you haven't heard this before, (being as you are hiding under 'legal-speak'), 'War is the total breakdown of law'. OBL, chose to make his play OUTSIDE ANY law, that you are holding up, for us to adhere to..not only that, he plays under his OWN rules, with utter contempt for ANY law you are quoting. Do you think 'International Law, and the 'rules of war' apply here????..or is there a breakdown, initiated by OBL, in an attempt to replace your quoted law, with Sharia law..but with himself in charge???? Do you think he should sit cross-legged, holding hands, singing 'Kumbayah', swaying back and forth, like your 'rehabilitation program' for wayward cookie jar thieves??? Hey! wise up! If ANYONE goes flying planes into buildings, killing innocent people all over the world, because he is trying to advance a primitive interpretation, to a cultist 'everybody must die who doesn't believe in Allah religion'..so no law of toleration is due them, I'm sorry....its not like mommy caught you with your fingers in the cookie jar...you go do shit like he's pulled, and you're in the big time!!..Maybe OBL should have thought of your International war rules BEFORE, he declared war on innocent people and started killing them, indiscriminately! Believe it or not, some STUPID things have consequences. If he wants to live outside the law, maybe it was fitting that he died 'outside the law'. HE made that choice!! To stop ANY further plans of his BULLSHIT, was/and is, the decent thing to do...unless YOU can get him into your make-believe world of swaying, glassy-eyed, campfire singers of 'Kumbayah'!!! Get fuckin' real, and stop making a parody of common sense, or, for that matter, yourself! Chances are, the directive for the mission was terminate him and gather all intelligence possible, within a certain time limit. The fucker is DEAD!!! Got it?? Why bitch over the details??? OK, now you can re-insert your head back into that cozy warm place, and blow 'law bubbles' out the opening! GfS |
|
05 May 11 - 01:40 AM (#3148264) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: J-boy Hey GfS, You can go ahead and leave "Kumbayah" out of it. What did that song ever do to you? |
|
05 May 11 - 01:45 AM (#3148267) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth A bit graphically put, GfS, but very much to the point! Don Firth |
|
05 May 11 - 01:46 AM (#3148268) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Did you get all choked up about that, too, Jim? Or are you old enough to even remember?" Sorry Don - you're doing a Keith here. I have expressed no regret whatever that Bin Laden has gone to... wherever fanatical religious terrorists go - good riddance - another thug out of the way. I am concerned that the US - you know the one - the big guy with the nuclear arsenal - feels it within its remit to invade any country they choose, abduct and imprison suspects and hold them indefinitely without charge or trial, ship them off to be tortured..... and all the other things terrorist countries do. The world is an unsafe enough place without its most powerful nation acting as though it is in a John Wayne movie. Jim Carroll |
|
05 May 11 - 01:59 AM (#3148272) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Pitying the perpetrators Jim. You said, "every bomb that went off in London following the phony search for WMDs is down to Pres. Dubya and his poodle Blair." That seems to absolve Bin Laden's bombers from responsibility for the carnage. US and British terrorism made them do it, poor dears. You may be outraged on Pakistan's behalf, but they are not. They act out the charade of being "concerned", as with the drone strikes, but it is well understood that they are delighted. They have lost 30 000 dead in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and receive a billion dollars a year in military aid to resist them. |
|
05 May 11 - 02:12 AM (#3148278) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 300...of mostly dumb things to say! GfS |
|
05 May 11 - 02:16 AM (#3148280) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 02:29 AM (#3148287) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Taconicus 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. ;-) |
|
05 May 11 - 02:39 AM (#3148290) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ebbie 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? |
|
05 May 11 - 03:20 AM (#3148311) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
05 May 11 - 03:31 AM (#3148315) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
05 May 11 - 03:49 AM (#3148318) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Stu Bin Laden's not dead - I've just seen him shopping in Tesco's at Handforth Dean. |
|
05 May 11 - 03:50 AM (#3148319) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
05 May 11 - 03:52 AM (#3148320) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
05 May 11 - 03:58 AM (#3148321) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Watch the videos, and you'll see the 'trial' your side gives! gfS |
|
05 May 11 - 04:01 AM (#3148322) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "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. |
|
05 May 11 - 04:10 AM (#3148324) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
05 May 11 - 04:15 AM (#3148325) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "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. |
|
05 May 11 - 04:18 AM (#3148326) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 04:28 AM (#3148335) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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? |
|
05 May 11 - 04:49 AM (#3148343) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 04:55 AM (#3148345) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
05 May 11 - 05:41 AM (#3148366) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "...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... |
|
05 May 11 - 05:45 AM (#3148368) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
05 May 11 - 05:52 AM (#3148372) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,liely "or does the thought of bombs ripping through populated public centers get you wet?" You repulsive fucking cretin. |
|
05 May 11 - 05:59 AM (#3148375) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 06:05 AM (#3148378) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 07:31 AM (#3148406) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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? |
|
05 May 11 - 07:46 AM (#3148418) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Brian May 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? |
|
05 May 11 - 07:51 AM (#3148423) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Is the world a safer place today than it was on Sunday? I don't think it is. |
|
05 May 11 - 07:55 AM (#3148430) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 07:59 AM (#3148435) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble 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 |
|
05 May 11 - 08:02 AM (#3148436) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 08:02 AM (#3148437) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "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. |
|
05 May 11 - 08:05 AM (#3148440) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Hmmm WHICH killing Keith? There was more than one death, or are they all 'justified'? |
|
05 May 11 - 08:13 AM (#3148448) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll 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 |
|
05 May 11 - 08:29 AM (#3148460) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "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? |
|
05 May 11 - 08:34 AM (#3148461) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 08:40 AM (#3148464) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 09:58 AM (#3148505) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 10:01 AM (#3148506) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 10:03 AM (#3148507) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll 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 |
|
05 May 11 - 10:08 AM (#3148509) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Are abusive terms like "redneck" OK? |
|
05 May 11 - 10:13 AM (#3148515) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 10:18 AM (#3148517) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Listen again Silas. I agree about the burial, but my last statement was a quote from Lubell. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qptc |
|
05 May 11 - 10:19 AM (#3148519) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas I don't have sound on this PC. However, 'Self Defence'? Really? |
|
05 May 11 - 10:41 AM (#3148528) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 11:04 AM (#3148544) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 11:11 AM (#3148548) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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 |
|
05 May 11 - 11:18 AM (#3148549) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "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. |
|
05 May 11 - 11:37 AM (#3148556) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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? |
|
05 May 11 - 11:40 AM (#3148559) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll 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 |
|
05 May 11 - 11:43 AM (#3148562) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 11:50 AM (#3148566) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll 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 |
|
05 May 11 - 12:13 PM (#3148586) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 12:15 PM (#3148587) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas 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. |
|
05 May 11 - 12:24 PM (#3148594) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel Glen Beck is also drumming up sympathy for bin Laden, his wife and children along with Khadafy and his kids. |
|
05 May 11 - 12:28 PM (#3148598) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas This is not about sympathy for Bin Laden, far from it, the bastard deserved all he got, it is the way that it was done that is deeply disturbing. |
|
05 May 11 - 12:30 PM (#3148602) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel Lets say FOX NEWS can present all relevant facts that would condemn President Obama as a guilty murderer. Will an International COurt try him? SHould he be asked for his PEace PRize back? WIll this cause him to lose an election? Will Congressman Issa bring murder charges to impeach Obama??? What I really want to consider from all your comments is... Will the argument of murder help either America or the world at large? |
|
05 May 11 - 12:31 PM (#3148603) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Peter Laban Do you have enough evidence to state that people were murdered? Anyone keeping up with the rapidly changing official versions of events should by now know only one person put up armed resistance only to be killed, minutes after the team went into the compound. That's the official version as it is now. Make of that what you will. |
|
05 May 11 - 12:33 PM (#3148604) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Silas, I was just making the case that expert opinion is that the operation was legal. You are asking if the soldiers themselves behaved properly. Let's wait until we get the definitive version of events. |
|
05 May 11 - 12:38 PM (#3148609) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Keep digging Keith. |
|
05 May 11 - 12:44 PM (#3148615) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Sounds a bit like murder to me. Naah- just alittle collateral damage. |
|
05 May 11 - 12:56 PM (#3148625) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel If Hitler had been killed by the attempt of Von Stauffenberg under orders of Oster, would the world consider it murder? Certainly some elements in the 3rd Reich would certainly consider it murder. For those here who consider the crime of murder was in fact committed against Usama bin Laden by Obama, could you explain why you feel that way. And most importantly who would be helped by such an indictment and trial? |
|
05 May 11 - 01:01 PM (#3148631) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: McGrath of Harlow Of course the blameless Jean-Paul de Menezes didn't have any weapons either, when he was shot seven times in the head by the London police, while being held down in his seat on the London Tube. At least Bin Laden did have some form, and the Seals only shot him twice. |
|
05 May 11 - 01:03 PM (#3148635) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Oh, you dear idiots who have the attention span of a mayfly! Right after 911 massacre in New York, then, President Bush, in an address to both this nation, and the world made the announcement that America was going to hunt down the perpetrators, and go anywhere, to get them, dead or alive..(remember that??). He also declared, that ANY nation harboring them would be held responsible, and subject to whatever military action that was necessary, to accomplish the mission. By Pakistan's participation, whether in part, or in totality, in providing 'safe harbor' to the mass murderer, after such a declaration, was, in essence, willing to make the gamble. At this time, it would be incumbent, on Pakistan, to ferret out those within their government, who granted PERMISSION, for the incursion, which led to both the killing of OBL, and to the embarrassment of their country's, either ineptness, or complicity, in providing safe harbor, to this world-wide war criminal!...or, as it did, face the consequences! By Pakistan, declaring themselves an ally on the 'war on terror', and the fact, that they have only given mixed objections, that they were not informed, (which because of the operation's secrecy concerns), your protests, have NO basis, than your personal bitch! OBL EARNED what he got! He worked hard for it! He expected it,(note the fortified compound) and had stated as much, that he was willing to die for it..(though, according to the 'reports' he hid behind his woman--great guy). He lived in relative luxury, while he ordered young, both women and young men to their suicidal deaths, to take other innocent lives...WITHOUT WARNING! So, I guess what goes around, comes around! HE ORDERED the same type of deaths that he brought onto himself....GET OVER IT!!!!! GfS |
|
05 May 11 - 01:04 PM (#3148636) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "That is not under discussion." Yes; it is very much under discussion - it is important as that nation you opened your doors (or in this case, another nations doors) to willingly is involved in terrorist activity itself. You still dishonestly evade the questions - would you object if the Americans had made a part of Britain their battlegound without permission, consultation or warning, and does it make any difference that they are involved in torture and detention without trial - which makes you both a liar and a coward. Come on Keith - US terrorism and an incursion into Britain , for or against . Jim Carroll |
|
05 May 11 - 01:05 PM (#3148638) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: The Sandman I dont believe this kind of propoganda, this reminds me of the nonsense about Mao tse tung swimming the yangtse river. |
|
05 May 11 - 01:29 PM (#3148653) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Oh Jimmy, we must have cross threaded..because you just made more nonsense. Pakistan's complicity, by either incompetency or deliberate, granted permission!..Not that reality makes a bit of difference to you. You live in your own little world, in your head! Look, one more time, once a person starts KILLING people INDISCRIMINATELY, then that person is completely open, to whatever fate befalls him..BY HIS STUPID choice to do so!!! Like I posted before..GET OVER IT!!...besides, you're flat out wrong! The stopping of OBL, anyway possible, was not only inevitable, it was completely necessary, and also welcomed by most of the civilized world.. try living in it! GfS |
|
05 May 11 - 01:43 PM (#3148658) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel When you preface your remarks...Dear maggots and morons, reasonable people may not read furher. I keep asking questions that a Supreme Court Justice might ask. Questions so basic and universal that the advocate or defense lawyer would have to take a clear stand on the issue. Some people say we should at least be honest in the words we use and call it assasination instead of justice being served. "Attention guests in the Liddo Lounge Justice is being Served" or We assasinated bin Laden today. Others still pursue the concept of state murder being illegal. When police do it I feel it is no less dangerous a precedent as when Navy Seals do it. I am on the side of getting it right. Is it right to call Obama a murderer, after all he has ordered and succeeded in the killing of pirates, terrorists and others. He has not always gotten it right. At least he got this one right. |
|
05 May 11 - 01:49 PM (#3148659) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel Jim, I'll bite. I am for an invasion of Britain to forcably remove all cameras from public streets and allow peace loving citizens to be intoxicated on the streets of any city or township. Then establish non amendable law to insure the allotments of every citizen to be sacrosanct and beyond the influence of any future government official. |
|
05 May 11 - 02:16 PM (#3148674) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, "You still dishonestly evade the questions" Because they are such stupid questions Jim! If you want to discuss "torture" then no, I will not be a party to such thread creep to get you off this hook. "Keith - US terrorism and an incursion into Britain , for or against ." I do not acknowledge US terrorism. An incursion would have to be justified and lawful. If it was both, how could I object? Now answer my question. If you are glad he is dead and the killing was lawful, what are you angry about? Is it just that America has had a success, and an enemy of the West destroyed? |
|
05 May 11 - 02:46 PM (#3148691) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM Date: 05 May 11 - 03:20 AM I watched the first "Russian" vid. I had to stop. I am raw. I am enraged. Good thing I don't have my finger on the red button right now on accounta I would nuke the fuckers til they glow. The whole lot. I realize I shall be assailed with the "few bad apples" arguement. I'd still press the button at the moment. Sick motherfuckers. |
|
05 May 11 - 03:09 PM (#3148714) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Not just a few bad apples gnu, that is how Al Qaeda conducts its business. Jim is anxious to have US behaviour discussed, but not that stuff. Right Jim? |
|
05 May 11 - 03:24 PM (#3148723) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Well, I think those videos (I only watched part of one) should be shown on the major TV networks around the world repeatedly to expose their sick minds. Would it be an incitement against Islam? Yup. Too fuckin bad. I am still reeling. I just cannot fathom the disgusting... fuck.... I have NO words. If I Had A Rocket Launcher? (Sorry Bruce.) Religion is one fucked up deal with the devil. I am raw... and sad. |
|
05 May 11 - 03:44 PM (#3148741) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Because they are such stupid questions Jim!" You have the reasons these questions need to be addressed Keith and once more, as you did on your 'degenerate Pakistani' thread, you claim thread creep. You have proposed that it was acceptible for the US to go into Pakistan uninvited and unannounced (giving the strange reason that the Pakistanis didn't mind or they would have protested louder than they did - and they did protest, in spite of your denials - what responsible government would not protest?) If you are going to allow any armed military force within your borders - invited or otherwise - you have to be sure they can be trusted. The US has a well established and verified track record of arresting people without charge, denying them legal advice or access to their (uninformed) families and holding them in intolerabe, inhuman conditions - undisputed. In the past these prisoners have been humiliated, abused and terrorising for the entertainment of the prison staff - also indisputed. Some have been, and probably still are being shipped off to be tortured in countries with human rights records even poorer than that of the US (not to mention the in-house torture routinely carried out by US personell and authourised by their superiors - also undisputed). Why is all this not relevant to the US sending troops into Pakistan - would you want such people, armed and prepared to kill, storming their way around Britain? It has every relevance to allowing an armed incursion into any sovereign state; and you know damn well it is, which is why you will not say if you would think it acceptable if it were to happen in Britain. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner. If you say you would accept it happening to Britain, you would then have to tackle the problem of the US's human rights record and explain why these people would not put British citizens at risk - especially British Asians (perhaps not a problem for you given your 'culturally degenerate view of British Pakistanis). If, on the other hand, you say it is not acceptable in Britain, that would make your stance blatently hypocritical in allowing an incursion in another country, but not into your own. So you spinelessly opt out, claiming these questions not relevant - sorry Keith - it just doesn't wash - they have every relevance. Why are you prepared to allow a heavily armed military force of a nation with a track record of human rights abuses - particularly in regard to Asians - into an Asian country, uninvited and unannounced?. A failure to answer these questions exposes you as the hypocrite I believe you to be. Jim Carroll PS "Oh Jimmy" I see we've got Jed Clampitt back with us - shouldn't that be "Here's Johnny" |
|
05 May 11 - 03:54 PM (#3148747) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Let me get this straight: It's okay for someone to order lobbing missiles at U.S. embassies around the world, killing American ambassadors and their staffs, and it's okay for the same person to mastermind the destruction of the World Trade Center, leading to the horrible deaths of over three thousand ordinary American citizens, and it's just ducky-peachy if this same person sends suicide bombers into the London Underground and onto a double-decker bus during rush-hour to kill God knows how many citizens of the UK. But it's NOT okay if the United States sends in what amounts to a SWAT team and takes the blood-thirsty, murdering son-of-a-bitch out before he has a chance to order the deaths of still MORE people—some of whom might very well be British! After all, when it comes to empire and exploitation, Merry Olde England has quite a lengthy and checkered history in the Middle-East that many Middle-Easterners haven't forgotten about. Pakistan ostensibly was helping the United States (and other countries, don't forget) try to find Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, so they could hardly have any objection to the U.S. sending in a SWAT team quickly, when he WAS found, lest he escape again. Especially when there was some doubt as to just how much the Pakistani government really WAS cooperating, in spite of what they claimed. As to the legality of the operation, there is the principle of "the right of hot pursuit" as I mention up-thread. It's LEGAL according to International Law. If you don't like it, take it up with The Hague! The level of prejudice against Americans that a couple of people on this thread are displaying is really quite revealing! If David Cameron had ordered the raid and it had proceeded in exactly the same manner, I think the reaction of these SAME FOLKS would have been jubilation rather than condemnation. Disgusting!! Don Firth P. S. Speaking of David Cameron: David Cameron hailed the death of Osama bin Laden as a "massive step forward" in the fight against terrorism.From The Guardian |
|
05 May 11 - 04:05 PM (#3148753) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Justa Picker I for one don't buy any of it for 1 second. The timing of it is hugely suspect and creates a nice (temporary) diversion (and patriotic feel good moment) from the economy, the collapsing dollar, the hugely unpopular Obama and Dem. administration, the cost of gas, the skyrocketing debt, the move away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency, as well as an opportunity to isolate Pakistan, and increase all levels of internal spying and boost the security apparatus via Big Brother (because "now we have to worry about reprisals") plus no pics-no body ... all of which if anyone has 1/2 a brain = HOAX. For a little bit of a different perspective and possible enlightenment, you might want to read this article - not that it would be taken seriously on a forum and community such as this one. |
|
05 May 11 - 04:05 PM (#3148755) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Cross posted "Jim is anxious to have US behaviour discussed, but not that stuff." Nobody here condones orhas attemped to avoid the behaviour of these people - if this is not so, show me where they have. They should be punished for what they are and what they do - but it is eqyually important that those who oppose them are not placed in the same bracket of being human rights abusers or military cowboys acting as if they are on the set of a Silvester Stallone film - it is as much a matter of winning hearts and minds as it is taking out the enemy - only this will bring long term peace and trust - something that he Stormin' Normans of this world have yet to learn. Jim Carroll |
|
05 May 11 - 04:10 PM (#3148760) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Don - no, nobody here said that. Remedial reading 101 for you. Fugitive From Sanity - So, the Srub made a declaration of unlawful intent. Wow! Keith: "An incursion would have to be justified and lawful". Precisely. |
|
05 May 11 - 04:20 PM (#3148768) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S Justa Picker - I wasn't able to access the article you referenced. All I got was a home page. Could you cut and paste? |
|
05 May 11 - 04:27 PM (#3148773) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Justa Picker http://www.prisonplanet.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag.html |
|
05 May 11 - 04:40 PM (#3148782) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "it is as much a matter of winning hearts and minds as it is taking out the enemy - only this will bring long term peace and trust" Precisely. America's relationship with Pakistan was already damaged enough prior to this incident, I can't see that publicly humiliating the Pakistani government and people will help to repair that damage. As for the so-called 'war on terror', as others have said, only time will tell as to whether this will be shown to be a strategic faux pass as well as a diplomatic one. |
|
05 May 11 - 04:42 PM (#3148785) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth "Don - no, nobody here said that. Remedial reading 101 for you" Sorry, Richard, but it stands out like a angry, red boil on the tip of Jim Carroll's nose. Pretty hard to hide. No problem with my reading comprehension. Don Firth |
|
05 May 11 - 04:47 PM (#3148788) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "red boil on the tip of Jim Carroll's nos" Which bit did I get wrong about the US's cack handed approach Don? Jim Carroll |
|
05 May 11 - 04:58 PM (#3148795) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Was bin Laden's killing and burial legal? |
|
05 May 11 - 06:07 PM (#3148842) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Read your own posts, Jim. Don Firth |
|
05 May 11 - 06:25 PM (#3148855) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Read your own posts, Jim." Carry them in my head Don - now tell me the US doesn't use torture and imprisonment without trial in it's fight against tourism - as Dubya would have it - and if it does, how does that make the US any different from any other terrorist state - unless you have 'God on you side' Jim Carroll |
|
05 May 11 - 06:27 PM (#3148859) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Wow Don!..I love the passion, in which you come off with!! (mine ain't too shabby, either)! THAT is what translates GREAT into music!!..providing we 'practice, practice, practice!' ..and although the above sentences may SEEM out of place here, it sure beats being involved with the behavior of groups of people who conduct war!!!! Hey, Regards!!....Let's put this to good use!!...(works for me) Nonetheless, OBL needed to go, any way, that made it happen!..and your last post of From: Don Firth Date: 05 May 11 - 03:54 PM .................was dead on the money!!! GfS |
|
05 May 11 - 06:33 PM (#3148863) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""You want deeply religious president, Don? I've had enough of those. I want a practical one and what Obama did was practical. I'd be furious with a president who refused to act on religious grounds."" Where in fucks name did you find any religious reference in my posts man? Don't put words into my mouth to bolster your weak arguments. Even atheists can and do have morals. Your country apparently considers them a hindrance to their self appointed role as world policeman. Being practical is all very well and the world is a much better place without that scumbag, but I'm left with the feeling that I am not sure which presents the greater threat to the world, the hatred in the hearts of terrorists, or the immoral arrogance of pragmatists. Don T. |
|
05 May 11 - 06:44 PM (#3148870) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks I would be very interested in seeing a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama from some of those who believe that what actually happened violated some "rule of law". |
|
05 May 11 - 06:45 PM (#3148872) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Oh, and gnu, you were, as I was, really furious at the barbaric behavior of Muslims in those gruesome videos...and there are LOTS of them!(unfortunately)...especially those asinine practitioners, of a medieval, crackpot 'religion'! Any one, who has ANY idea, of what OBL and his devotees, to bullshit, have been up to, would clearly welcome the removal of that scum off the earth......even if it's by another type of scum! GfS |
|
05 May 11 - 06:52 PM (#3148878) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth ". . . tell me the US doesn't use torture and imprisonment without trial in it's fight against tourism - as Dubya would have it - and if it does, how does that make the US any different from any other terrorist state - unless you have 'God on you side'" Waterboarding and other such "enhanced interrogation" methods have long since been condemned by a vast number of American citizens AND politicians. And some Americans have called for those who perpetrated it, and especially those who ordered it, to face trial in an international tribunal. And those who speak out against the use of torture are NOT being rounded up and put in concentration camps. THAT, among other things, makes the U.S. quite different from terrorist states. You can't condemn American intelligence services using torture any more that Americans themselves do, Jim. It's unacceptable and they will answer for it. In the meantime, your prejudices are patently obvious and tend to undermine anything serious that you might have to say. Don Firth P. S. Busy evening, so I won't be back for awhile. So if I don't respond to the inevitable attacks, that doesn't mean I agree with them. See ya later. |
|
05 May 11 - 07:48 PM (#3148913) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Sorry you're not here Don; I'm not trying to score points in your absence but I think your comments are relevant to this. Whatever the American people have to say about what happens - it still happens, and that is how your nation is judged - just as the UK was judged for its collusion in the invasion of Iraq, despite the fact that a million people took to the streets in opposition on the eve of the invasion. Nobody is trying to implicate the whole of the American people, but while waterboarding, special rendition and collateral damage happens, it is America that makes it happen. There are still unofficial flights going through Shannon, about half-an-hour's drive from here, unchecked by the Irish authorites, taking uncharged prisoners to god-knows-where to have god-knows-what done to them - it is believed on a weekly basis. The arrest of bin Laden, a trial and sentence would have been 100 times more impressive to the rest of the world that the bloody act of vengeance which took place, and would not have caused the antagonism that has arisen over the hasty execution of a murderous terrorist. America is good at many things, but winning friends isn't one of them - perhaps some of your leaders should drag their copies of Dale Carnegie off the shelf and take another look! Jim Carroll |
|
05 May 11 - 08:19 PM (#3148921) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble I hate to break into a spirited discussion but maybe we should all take a deep breath and consider how the rest of the world has been discussing this event. The Mudcat current discussion of Bin Ladin's death is highly unusual compared to the main media, blogs and other websites: click here for overview! The focus of discussion here is predominately on the morality of his death. Charley Noble You have to go to http://www.journalism.org/ and click on it there. I think they've blocked the direct link. |
|
05 May 11 - 09:14 PM (#3148937) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks BTW, "collateral damage", as the news media and other such dolts use the term, has been happening ever since an archer aimed at Alexander the Great and hit his horse. It is neither unique to the US military not is it a matter of policy or intent. |
|
05 May 11 - 10:57 PM (#3148970) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Jim Carroll: "America is good at many things, but winning friends isn't one of them - perhaps some of your leaders should drag their copies of Dale Carnegie off the shelf and take another look!" The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a far shorter read...and they don't even read them..or act like they know what's in them..and furthermore, don't seem to care! GfS |
|
06 May 11 - 02:03 AM (#3149021) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford This thread is about the taking of Bin Laden, and is the only thread where we can discuss that. Jim is only interested in venting his demented hatred for the West in general, and USA in particular. This subject lacks scope for that so he seeks to make it yet another thread about rendition and interrogation. Please do not indulge him. The legality of this operation has not been challenged by any country or organisation. Not Pakistan, not UN, not even Hamas. If the soldiers behaved unlawfully, I will not defend them. We do not know all the details, and they had to assume he would have a suicide belt. The law of armed conflict does not preclude operations against targets where civilians are present and vulnerable. |
|
06 May 11 - 02:34 AM (#3149026) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Jim is only interested in venting his demented hatred for the West in general, and USA in particular." Empty invective is one way of avoiding the important questions and your insistence on not answering them gives us all the answers we need. For or against Keith? Jim Carroll |
|
06 May 11 - 02:53 AM (#3149033) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Paddy Ashdown (for the benefit of USAians, former leader of the Lib-Dems and in the past a senior SAS soldier) gave a nastly little neocon writer SUCH a verbal kicking on question time last night. One difference being that Paddy Ashdown had practical experience of what he was talking about. |
|
06 May 11 - 02:55 AM (#3149035) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford For or against what Jim? If it is not about the death of Bin Laden I will not answer here. There are many old threads you can open, or start a new one. This is the only thread we have about this momentous event. |
|
06 May 11 - 03:15 AM (#3149038) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim keeps repeating this lie. e.g. "given your 'culturally degenerate view of British Pakistanis" Can he be prevented from slandering me in that particularly disgusting way please. |
|
06 May 11 - 03:55 AM (#3149052) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll How can the human rights record of a country you are prepared to give carte blanche to, to enter your country and carry our an assassination not be relevent to the events under discussion? Of course you won't answer; your stance on this is totally hypocritical and dishonest. As with whether you would accept the same nation with the same human rights record entering Britain unnanounced and without permission' how difficult can it possibly be to answer yes or no? If you would support the right of U.S. troops to enter Pakistan, then it follows that you have to do the same with Britain - otherwise you need to explain why. This thread is about the death of bin Laden and the method of bringing that about - you really cannot spin this one into 'thread drift.' The entry into sovereign territory by foregn troops is very much an issue here and is part of everybody's input - why not give us yours? "particularly disgusting way please." Your 'cultural link to Pakistani paedophilia' is on record on the 'Muslim prejudice' thread for all to see - get it removed if it's an embarrassment. Jim Carroll |
|
06 May 11 - 04:07 AM (#3149055) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "Your 'cultural link to Pakistani paedophilia' is on record" Lie. I knew nothing of the culture. I reported the view, expressed separately by prominent figures, including Pakistanis, that their marriage customs led a small minority into illegal activities. It did not come from me at all. You use lies to discredit and undermine me. On this issue, I said I could not object to an incursion if it was legal and justified. |
|
06 May 11 - 04:07 AM (#3149056) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "nasty little neocon writer" Douglas Murray. In fact he seemed to think that we shouldn't *ever* bother with war crimes trials at-all (such as those we had for the Nazis), because they're too much hassle. The implication being that we should summarily execute all such criminals, because it's easier to do so than bothering with involving the justice system. |
|
06 May 11 - 05:19 AM (#3149085) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Indeed did he not go further and suggest that the determination of their legal guilt was irrelevant and that it was best to murder suspects on the basis of suspicion? I was guite surprised that on-one on the panel responded to the suggestion that torture was useful with the three words "Salem Witch Trials" - or the two "Witchfinder General". |
|
06 May 11 - 05:43 AM (#3149097) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "the determination of their legal guilt was irrelevant and that it was best to murder suspects on the basis of suspicion?" Did he say that? Well there's an interesting notion. Looking forward to the reaction on the day when a team of Iraqui troops swoop in unannounced and summarily dispatch of Bush & Blair for their war crimes in a similarly hassle-free fashion. The pithy last word by Iannucci recounting the US statement is worth reprising: "The world is a safer place now that Osama Bin Laden is dead, and we must fully expect a terrorist attack." |
|
06 May 11 - 06:31 AM (#3149124) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford It got a laugh, but it makes perfect sense. In the long term, the world is safer, but planned attacks might be brought forward increasing the immediate threat. |
|
06 May 11 - 07:52 AM (#3149146) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Good link, Charley. But the media rarely discuss the morality of anything. If it feels good, do it! Especially if we get paid! Nevertheless, the President and the SEALs did what they had to, as expeditiously as was humanly possible in a house filled with people. That fact is recognized by every rational person in the U.S., Pakistan, and everywhere else. |
|
06 May 11 - 07:55 AM (#3149148) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad "That fact is recognized by every rational person in the U.S., Pakistan, and everywhere else." Nice! |
|
06 May 11 - 08:10 AM (#3149152) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "On this issue, I said I could not object to an incursion if it was legal and justified." At long last - then you would be prepared to allow a country with a bad human rights record to send armed troops into Britain to carry out an assassination, unannounced and uninvited - is that right? That wasn't hard - was it, though not really surprising that you took so long to confess? Whether this action was 'legal' remains yet to be decided, but the world certainly is not a safer place. From an article by John Walters in this morning's Irish Times: "In the long term, the world is safer" From John Walters' column in the Irish Times this morning: "Al -Qaeda is no a hierarchical movement, more a viral thought process - to call bin Laden a leader is like suggesting that the internet has a leader. To kill the man widely associated with Al-Qaeda's most spectacular operations may satisfy desires for vengeance and retribution, but it will not weaken the "movement" which moves without central guidance. On the contrary, it risks offering an untimely and gratuitous provocation which may spark a global re-ignition of anti-western sentiment". If Walters is right, and there's no reason to suppose he's not, far from the world being a safer place, this will have proveed little more than an inneffectual prod at the hornets' nest. Might have been different if America had sought support for its action beforehand, especially from the country concerned - but what are enemies for - if not making them. Jim Carroll |
|
06 May 11 - 08:21 AM (#3149158) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "That wasn't hard - was it, though not really surprising that you took so long to confess?" I stated that answer on 05 May 11 - 02:16 PM . It is a matter of opinion if the world is safer, but your man is in a minority I think. Will you stop using that lie now Jim? |
|
06 May 11 - 08:29 AM (#3149162) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Update on some of the (to be expected no doubt) recent reaction on the streets of Pakistan: "About 1,500 Islamists demonstrated against bin Laden's killing, saying more figures like him would arise to wage holy war against the United States. [...] "Jihad (holy war) against America will not stop with the death of Osama," Fazal Mohammad Baraich, a cleric, said amid shouts of "Down with America" at a demonstration near the city of Quetta, capital of Baluchistan province in the southwest. "Osama bin Laden is a shaheed (martyr). The blood of Osama will give birth to thousands of other Osamas." Some protesters burned American flags." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/06/us-binladen-pakistan-protest-idUSTRE74516H20110506 |
|
06 May 11 - 08:37 AM (#3149163) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter A billion didn't demonstrate. Good news there. |
|
06 May 11 - 08:49 AM (#3149167) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Lighter is right. There were many more and bigger demos when an obscure pastor from a little country church burned one koran. |
|
06 May 11 - 09:10 AM (#3149180) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Meanwhile, police in Liverpool are still hunting three suspected terrorists: Bin Drinkin, Bin Fightin and Bin Robbin. A fourth suspect, Bin Workin, is thought to be fictitious. |
|
06 May 11 - 10:00 AM (#3149206) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "It is a matter of opinion if the world is safer, but your man is in a minority I think." Yeah - but your opinion doesn't count any more - you've finally admitted you're prepared to turn your country over to soldiers from a state that uss torture and imprisonment without trial- used to b known as Quislings Jim Carroll |
|
06 May 11 - 10:20 AM (#3149209) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford No, my opinion does not count, compared to statesmen and security experts. Was Pakistan turned over to soldiers from a state that uses torture and imprisonment without trial? I heard it was a 40 minute incursion by 25 soldiers, but I don't get The Irish Times. |
|
06 May 11 - 10:26 AM (#3149210) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Elsewhere, filmmaker Michael Moore - anti-matter replica of Donald Trump - told CNN last night he's not sure Bin Laden's dead because governments can lie. More from Mike: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110506/people_nm/us_michaelmoore_1 |
|
06 May 11 - 10:27 AM (#3149211) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "No, my opinion does not count, compared to statesmen and security experts." Oh dear - here we go again, hiding behind selected 'experts'. "Was Pakistan turned over to soldiers from a state that uses torture and imprisonment without trial?" Pakistan was not consulted - the American's (th ones that use torture and imprisonment without trial) went in without permission or even consultation - you've just given th green light for the same to happen to Britain. "I heard it was a 40 minute incursion by 25 soldiers" Didn't know there was a time limit on incursions. Jim Carroll |
|
06 May 11 - 10:52 AM (#3149225) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively //From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 06 May 11 - 08:37 AM A billion didn't demonstrate. Good news there.// Yes, I agree. Though the quotes I posted were the ones which seemed most pertinent to some of the discussion below: "Osama bin Laden is a shaheed (martyr). The blood of Osama will give birth to thousands of other Osamas." Have the US cut off the head of a Dragon, or the head of a Hydra? We'll have to wait and see no doubt. And while I have no real opinion on that, the timing of this incident does seem problematic to me both in light of frayed relations between the US and Pakistan, and also in light of the so-called Arab Spring currently breaking out across many states. PS: as a separate note, Don Firth below made a lengthy post castigating comments coming from "Merrie Olde England". In response to that post, I'd like to say that while I agree with him that the UK has a poor track record of imperialist interventions all over the shop (no, I'm not personally proud of much of our history), if he believes that anyone here who has voiced concerns over this incident would be whooping for joy had it been a UK military initiative instead, then he can rest assured that he is most sorely mistaken. |
|
06 May 11 - 11:11 AM (#3149236) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, we have thousands of US service men and women here all the time! I used to train with them back in the Cold War. We were very grateful to have them with us in those dark days. All of which means nothing to you. Marxist? Trot? |
|
06 May 11 - 11:21 AM (#3149240) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Arthur_itus http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13313201 |
|
06 May 11 - 11:35 AM (#3149246) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Again, correct me if I'm wrong Keith, but the US servicemen stationed in the UK are here with official permission. Even those whose presence is transient as they indulge in "rendition" (translation, illegal kidnapping of suspects for torture) are here with the permission of our craven governments. It is frankly quite shameful that our government is complicit in that activity. |
|
06 May 11 - 12:42 PM (#3149276) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks I would really be interested in seeing if one of the resident Yank-bashers could address my previous question. That would be: can you provide a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama which does not violate what you see as a "rule of law"? |
|
06 May 11 - 01:01 PM (#3149282) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Artbrooks: "resident Yank-bashers" Criticism of US military activity (at home and abroad) seems to be something of a sore point on this thread, though I'm uncertain as to why. If actions of the British govt. is criticised, I don't feel personally affronted because I don't conflate ME with either current - or indeed historic - actions of the British govt. If I were a "yank basher" I'd be calling you all "lard-arsed burger-stuffing morons" (or whatever your favourite "yank bashing" stereotype is), not merely questioning US foreign policy - which of course, has international consequences which is why it is also of some interest to those of us outside of the US. I do think there was a "redneck" reference below somewhere however, and to be clear, I don't think such terms are particularly constructive in discussions such as this. |
|
06 May 11 - 01:13 PM (#3149286) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: BanjoRay I understand Elton John has recorded a song about Osama Bin Laden. It's called Sandals In The Bin. Ducks and runs.... |
|
06 May 11 - 01:21 PM (#3149287) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks Lively, is that an answer to my question? |
|
06 May 11 - 01:32 PM (#3149296) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "Lively, is that an answer to my question?" No, as I'm not a "yank basher", your question was not addressed to me. However as it was posted on a public form, as someone interested in this topic, I am free to respond as I see fit. The use of your term "yank basher", appears to imply that ANY concern voiced over US military actions such as this one, is a personal attack on ALL American citizens. As such I suggest that some posters here, try to identify the distinction between themselves as sovereign individuals and their activities, and the activities of the state (which they may, or may not, individually sanction). |
|
06 May 11 - 01:36 PM (#3149301) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Artbrooks, I'd like to apologise for the seeming terseness of my comments in response to your post. There has been some personal hostility displayed on this thread (disgustingly sexual in fact). I think perhaps it has left me feeling a little defensive... |
|
06 May 11 - 02:03 PM (#3149318) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Fighters are routinely killed, without chance to surrender, by drone strikes. Would that have been preferred? No risk to US troops, but all the civilians and children in the compound would have been killed. (Law of armed conflict states that aircraft are not required to accept surrenders) |
|
06 May 11 - 02:04 PM (#3149319) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks No apology needed - this is, after all, a friendly forum in which we are all free to express opinions. And let me rephrase my question, since it may appear that it some readers believe it was only addressed to a limited audience. There have been a lot of comments made regarding the idea that the attack on the Obama compound in Pakistan and his death during this raid was illegal. Without getting into the question of what law or laws were violated, I would like to know if anyone can provide a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama, under the circumstances thus far on record, which does not violate what you see as a "rule of law"? |
|
06 May 11 - 02:22 PM (#3149335) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, I believe there are a number of American forces in Pakistan too. So, 25 extra popped in for 40 minutes, and while there removed the leader of a group that has been terrorising them for years and killed 30 000 of their people. No wonder they are not very cross! The only question is why Jim IS so cross. Answer. Because it was an American success, and an enemy of the West was removed. |
|
06 May 11 - 02:23 PM (#3149336) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge The rule of law is not a matter of convenience. And I am far from clear how a drone attack could have been proper. An aerial attack on enemy forces in territory they hold or occupy is one thing - as might well a "hot pursuit" attack be, but an aerial attack on a compound in a town in an allied territory would surely be quite another. |
|
06 May 11 - 02:26 PM (#3149338) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Artbrooks, they could have asked the Pakistan military to go in and arrest him. Of course, he would have escaped. Again! That would have been the preferred outcome for some here. |
|
06 May 11 - 02:28 PM (#3149339) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, drone attacks on targets inside Pakistan happen all the time. There was one yesterday. |
|
06 May 11 - 02:40 PM (#3149344) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Thanks for your cordially rephrased question artbrooks, much appreciated. "a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama, under the circumstances thus far on record, which does not violate what you see as a "rule of law"?" While I have no decided opinions on much of this incident, for me the question would be more "under the circumstances of such poor current US/Pakistan relations and ongoing major political upheaval among Arab nations, would it have been a more "practical scenario" to 'let sleeping dogs lie'? Albeit while keeping them under surveillance. Otherwise, I'm no military expert. However I feel more comfortable when "the rule of law" is followed rather than dubious tactics. As others have said, what is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander. An international military president has been set here, one which the US (and the rest of us) may come to regret - hopefully not - in time. |
|
06 May 11 - 02:43 PM (#3149346) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Richard Bridge-to-Stupidity: "The rule of law is not a matter of convenience." Neither is WAR...especially when one side would just as soon as annihilate anyone who had anything to do with drafting it, or obeying it! Wake up, and welcome to reality....even when it's NOT so 'convenient'! GfS |
|
06 May 11 - 02:43 PM (#3149347) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "An international military president" What a typo! Make that "precendent" :) |
|
06 May 11 - 02:51 PM (#3149348) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth "There are still unofficial flights going through Shannon, about half-an-hour's drive from here, unchecked by the Irish authorities, taking uncharged prisoners to god-knows-where to have god-knows-what done to them - it is believed on a weekly basis." Jim, how do you know that these "still unofficial flights" going through the Shannon airport are transporting uncharged prisoners for the purpose of "special rendition?" Do they have some special insignia that identifies them as such? I'm sorry, but I don't think the CIA is quite that stupid. So. How do you know? "The arrest of bin Laden, a trial and sentence would have been 100 times more impressive to the rest of the world that the bloody act of vengeance which took place, and would not have caused the antagonism that has arisen over the hasty execution of a murderous terrorist." This, as I understand it, was considered, but what was also considered was the likelihood of hostage-taking during the incarceration and trial period, along with threats of massive terrorist attacks if bin Laden was found guilty. The people who planned this operation are not as bloodthirsty and stupid as you apparently prefer to think. And as to that "bloody act of vengeance," as you choose to characterize it. There are vast numbers of people in the world, most especially the families of the innocent people murdered by terrorist attacks masterminded by bin Laden who characterize it as an "act of justice." You show a great deal of sympathy for the murderer and no regard whatsoever for his victims and their families. Even according to Sharia Law, bin Laden deserved his fate. In fact, he had long since had a Fatwa issued against him. (I heard that on the radio this morning in an interview with an Imam.) ". . . a country with a bad human rights record. . . ." That is a really ignorant statement, Jim. If you really believe that, you just haven't been paying attention. One of the major thrusts of both the domestic and foreign policies of the United States has been toward the principle stated in the very opening sentence of the U. S. Constitution about "inalienable rights." And the idea that these inalienable rights belong to everyone, whether the government they live under recognizes them or not. But those "inalienable rights" do not include a "right to commit mass murder on innocent noncombatants." ". . . if America had sought support for its action beforehand, especially from the country concerned. . . ." America did. The Pakistani government had offered full cooperation in the search for bin Laden. Whether they actually were cooperating is another question, but considering the fact that they offered this cooperation, they are hardly in a position to protest. AND—you seem to be making the assumption that locating bin Laden required that the U.S. involved torture. What is your evidence for this? There are a variety of methods by which he could be located that would not involve anything of this nature. Some of which are pretty exotic and don't infringe on anyone's rights. "Yank bashing." That about sums it up. Don Firth |
|
06 May 11 - 02:56 PM (#3149351) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Lively: "An international military precedent has been set here, one which the US (and the rest of us) may come to regret - hopefully not - in time." That one, I give you. Frankly, If you've noticed by the tone of many other threads on Mudcat, there are a great deal of people in our countries, who feel that the administrations in collusion with the international bankers are at war with the common citizenry, of us all. Let's all hope and pray that sanity may eventually rule the day..because as of this moment, it's not too much in the forefront! GfS |
|
06 May 11 - 03:22 PM (#3149362) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "That one, I give you." That's nice of you. Could I please have an apology for those rather graphic sexually spiked insults you responded to me with last time, please? I found them exceedingly offensive. I'm not proud of the way I reacted either BTW.. As for a conspiracy of Bankers dedicated bringing about The Apocalypse or whatever. I don't really take too much notice of such things, but I do hope they feel better soon. I hear the sea air is a great restorative. |
|
06 May 11 - 03:27 PM (#3149364) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Lively: "Could I please have an apology for those rather graphic sexually spiked insults you responded to me with last time, please?" Oh, I thought I was complimenting you! (wink) GfS |
|
06 May 11 - 03:45 PM (#3149376) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "Oh, I thought I was complimenting you! (wink)" Ahh, OK thank you - I accept your apology... |
|
06 May 11 - 04:23 PM (#3149403) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Lively: "Ahh, OK thank you - I accept your apology... " Yeah...up until then, I wasn't quite sure if you knew much about the subject! Waving! gfS |
|
06 May 11 - 04:26 PM (#3149408) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Taconicus Andrew E. wrote: "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr. According to Snopes.com, that's a bogus quotation. |
|
06 May 11 - 04:27 PM (#3149409) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Jim, we have thousands of US service men and women here all the time!" Are you claimin that torture and imprisonment without trial doesn't happen. I have no doubt that the troops are their to do their duty but they are there carrying out the policy of a government that has no qualms in using the methods I have described, which is why, of course, you have refused to comment on it. "Jim, how do you know that these "still unofficial flights" Established as a fact years ago Don - by an Irish govenment that not only has refused to inspect the planes, as they have a right to do, but who have said they were not prepared to interfere in the war against terrorism. It provoked a huge row here over the breach of Ireland's policy of neutrality. Pretty well a known and all but admitted fact - sorry. "This, as I understand it, was considered," As the assassination (this is what it was) took place on foreign soil, every effort should have been made to involve the government of that country. The only other nation that takes such action as a matter of course is Israel, and their name is pretty well shit internationally - if that's the reputation you want.....! This is an extremely sensitive situation which involves us all and needs to be dealt with sensitively - do you think it has been? "That is a really ignorant statement" Then you believe the US isn't using torture, holding detainees without trial, hasn't poured napalm on peasants, attempted to starve them by poisoniing their food with Agent Orange, helped overthrow inconvenient governments, bankrolled some of the world's monsters.....? "AND—you seem to be making the assumption that locating bin Laden required that the U.S. involved torture" I'm assuming nothing of he sort - it appeared in our press yesterday that one of your senators has stated that as it has proved proved successful in this case, it should be continued as routine policy - think I still have the details somewhere, if not, yesterday's Irish Times has the story. You need to understand that Ireland is one of the great friends of the US - historical reasons - yet even here there is a great deal of mixed feeling on how the US have behaved in this matter. I wonder how you would have reacted if a helicopter load of say French troops had landed in your back garden unannounced and started shooting te place up - a little less than a bunch of flowers and the offer of a drink, wouldn't you say? Please don't hide behind the pathetic 'Yank bashing' - your reputation goes before you. Jim Carroll |
|
06 May 11 - 04:36 PM (#3149410) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Taconicus A couple of points in defense of Pakistan: 1. I understand that the Pakistani government has arrested some 40 people in Abbottabad (is that where Bud Abbott came from?) for helping to hide and protect Osama bin Laden. Although now I can't find the article – can anyone confirm this? 2. Pakistan makes great sheets and reasonable prices. The best sheets I have remade in Pakistan. I bought another made-in-Pakistan set of sheets just yesterday at Target, only $19.95. |
|
06 May 11 - 04:37 PM (#3149411) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Well, from the screed just above, I can see that any further discussion will be unproductive. Assumptions based on personal bias. Not that I won't necessarily be back if the spirit moves me. "Yank-bashing" is sure what it sounds like to me. My reputation goes before me? Sorry, Jim, but look who's talking! Don Firth |
|
06 May 11 - 04:39 PM (#3149412) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Taconicus Bah, dang dictation software… and reasonable = at reasonable remade = were made Meh. |
|
06 May 11 - 04:42 PM (#3149414) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Don Firth: "AND—you seem to be making the assumption that locating bin Laden required that the U.S. involved torture" Jim Carroll: "I'm assuming nothing of the sort - it appeared in our press yesterday that one of your senators has stated that as it has proved proved successful in this case, it should be continued as routine policy" It was also mentioned on BBC Question Time last night. I think it's generally a well accepted fact that the US used torture to determine Bin Laden's whereabouts and that some are now arguing in favour of the US's continued use of torture. |
|
06 May 11 - 04:46 PM (#3149415) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Oh come on now, it's not torture it's "enhanced interrogation techniques". Get it straight will you. |
|
06 May 11 - 04:51 PM (#3149417) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity bobad: "Oh come on now, it's not torture it's "enhanced interrogation techniques". Get it straight will you." Well, that that old 'politically correct' bullshit for ya! Them there 'libbies' insist on it! GfS |
|
06 May 11 - 05:04 PM (#3149421) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity This just in: The rift between the U.S. and Pakistan just got bigger, and more serious, with ultimatums and saber rattling. I guess we can surmise who's who in the zoo... gotta go..and catch up on the 'news'(?) GfS |
|
06 May 11 - 05:06 PM (#3149423) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively ""enhanced interrogation techniques". Get it straight will you." 'Enhanced' sounds so, well elegant Bobad! Nothing like the awful nasty crass things being implied here. Surely you're describing techniques belonging to those 'exotic' ladies we are used to seeing in James Bond films? I know their 'enhanced' techniques are inevitably foiled by suave old Bond - but of course he was something of a one off. |
|
06 May 11 - 05:26 PM (#3149437) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Taconicus It was waterboarding, that's what it was and that's what they're arguing about. Whether you call it "torture" just depends on which side of the argument you're on. |
|
06 May 11 - 07:53 PM (#3149518) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks I would guess that the senators who are claiming that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques led to - or didn't lead to - Osama's capture know about as much about it as anyone here...which is to say, nothing. The most credible comment I've heard is that his location was deduced by putting a number of very small pieces together over several years. |
|
06 May 11 - 10:42 PM (#3149562) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S I'm wondering if the people who are saying that the ""enhanced interrogation techniques" worked and helped find Bin Laden - are the same people who WANT it to work and support it's usage. |
|
06 May 11 - 11:12 PM (#3149574) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e |
|
07 May 11 - 12:42 AM (#3149593) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel The prior administration does deserve all the debt and credit for killing bin Laden Listen up. It is as large and oily as the nose on your face that Dick Cheney is instrumental in killing bin Laden. First he showed America and the world the technique of shooting old men in the face at close range. Second, torture clearly defeated bin Laden. Did you know that Ossama was in the same room as his wife and a couple toddlers for 6 years and never went out of the house !? When the commandos showed up he said "Just shoot me". All this is behind us now. It has gone full circle. All the conspiracy nuts are even at peace. Since they thought bin Laden is not really dead and that it was really George Bush who did 9-11 by implosion to distract attention from Hawaii where CIA operatives were planting photoshopped birth certificates so that a Kenyan guy named Obama could come to power to kill the phoney bin Laden who Bush blamed for blowing up the WTC in a phoney act of terrorism. With the exception of a couple dozen Pakistani nukes and several small nukes that they have lost the pass words to make them explode, we can all take a collective sigh of relief. As long as we don't let the Supreme Court elect another D student spoiled rich kid with a daddy complex to the white house, we should do OK. Bunker entrance _ __ ____ ______ ________ H=========== H H H H=========== H H H HH=========== H H mmmmMmMMmmm H H___H----H___ A loud and droning hum of the ventillation system reverberates deep underground in the situation room where Obama speaks plainly asking each advisor their opinion. Barak asks quetly, "What do you say we get out of Afghanistan?" Hillary says "Yes we can". Petraus says "its to soon to change" Pannetta says "Yeah man, thats a good idea. Barack: "Yeman? really? I think its a good idea too. OK lets go into Yeman next ." Panetta: "Sir is this a joke like your 'two jihadists walk into a bar' story?" Barak: No, I'm serious, but this time were are going to give George W Bush and Dick Cheney full credit from the git go." Petraus: "Sending them both to Gitmo has been a secret wish of mine for the last eight years." Barak: "Thanks everyone lets break for lunch and get this plan started ASAP." |
|
07 May 11 - 12:58 AM (#3149596) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel I say spike the football, do a victory lap, make the very special mini series... IF we can't have a real picture of bin Laden's dead head, I say we issue a postage stamp of a wounded bin Laden and postmark the shit out of his face for the next year. Or maybe casting a bust of bin Laden with all the gory wounds and sell them as lawn ornaments. I think the politically correct restraint has left a deep seated need to have one last swipe at the fucker. |
|
07 May 11 - 02:51 AM (#3149621) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Yank-bashing" is sure what it sounds like to me" One way out Don - but you really need to look in the mirror sometime. Nobody here has a good word to say about bin Laden and his bunch of fanatics - we all wanted justice - for 9-11, for London, and for every act of terror they've committed, but the operative word is justice - not vengeance. You blew it - you executed your man without taking him through due process, you killed a bystander and you invaded the sovereign territory of another nation (needlessly) to do it. In that way you were, and are seen by many as little different from them, especially with your unenviable track record. Almost the first comment in the press here was of the jingoisticly triumphalist chanting mobs on the streets of New York and Washington. You'll get your support from brown-noses like Keith, who will happily bare their country's arse for whatever you choose to do, but you'll not get it from where it counts, which is what will be needed if our kids are to have a future where they can live in peace - you don't shoot and bomb religious fanatics into submission - that's the way to give them something to die for. You're right - there is a great deal of anti-Americanism in all this - it's the self-flagellation kind, rising directly from your own behaviour. Jim Carroll BTW - it was Dick Cheyney who has called for the continued use of torture. |
|
07 May 11 - 03:09 AM (#3149631) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford " you executed your man without taking him through due process" You know this Jim? How? Were they in fear of their lives possibly? ", you killed a bystander" An extraordinarily low number of civilian casualties for such an operation. There were about twenty people in that compound. "and you invaded the sovereign territory of another nation" Yes but only for fourty minutes by 25 blokes. And they did them a massive favour while there. No one is complaining and it was legal. |
|
07 May 11 - 04:40 AM (#3149652) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "No one is complaining and it was legal. " Yes they are, and the legality remains to be seen - your 40 minutes is just bloody nonsense - it wouldn't make any difference if it had been 40 seconds and one soldier - they belligerantly sent troops into a country to carry out an assassination when there was no need for them to do so. Not only did they kill a bystander in the process, the importance of which you have snopaked out (collateral damage) but they incurred the animosity of many countries, which will have repercussions on the fight against terrorism ("The Yanks are at it again") In the end it is not the point. Appeasers like yourself can sell your or anybody's country to the highest bidder on the grounds of legality if you want - the question being discussed here is was the US action the best course to follow - it wasn't and it is likely to backfire on all of us - it is about time they cleaned up their act, for all of our sakes. Jim Carroll |
|
07 May 11 - 04:54 AM (#3149659) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "they incurred the animosity of many countries" Which countries Jim? Give us a short list of the major ones. The only ones complaining are you, and other West hating fanatical extremists. |
|
07 May 11 - 04:57 AM (#3149661) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "No one is complaining and it was legal." I would say that outside of the US, reactions have been very mixed and less than jubilant. Pakistan in particular has given out some very mixed messages, including threats of "disastrous consequences" if the US were to attempt any more unauthorised unilateral military raids of like kind within Pakistan. Those sound like fighting words to me. In any event, as to the issue of legality, I believe that question is still open. The UN have requested full disclosure of details pertaining to the raid from the US: "the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially decided punishment. 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. In respect of the recent use of deadly force against Osama bin Laden, the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards. For instance it will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden." http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10987&LangID=E |
|
07 May 11 - 05:05 AM (#3149664) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Jim, I don't think Keith is an appeaser. He just approves of shooting people. In his world justice comes from the barrel of a gun. Indeed I suspect he'd have rather the UK assassinated ObL as a measure of our virility. Notice how he sets out no legal justification of drone attacks - merely that they are common. Don, pretending that waterboarding is not torture is pretty silly. It involves slowly drowning people, letting them cough their lungs up, and doing it again. "Stress positions" are no more justifiable - simply modern variations of the strappado. With torture you can get anyone to say anything. Just think Salem witch trials. You appear to be treating the world like a Stephen Seagal film. The US does not set a great example for civil rights or the rule of law. Guantanamo bay was established precisely to keep detainees out of any available justice system. Its oppression of its indigenous peoples is worse than anything the UK ever did in Ireland (about which so many USAians wax wroth), and probably as bad as the world's first concentration camps - used by the UK against Boers. Whether the USA is still involved in rendition is not the point. The fact of rendition is well established. Imagine that you are an innocent man, siezed in your home country, and flown to where you can conveniently be tortured until you admit to something you did not do. Some so seized may be guilty even though their guilt is not established, but a 100% record of accuracy in deciding who to seize and torture is simply inconceivable. I would also mention that although the US is claiming that its torture regime found ObL they would say that, wouldn't they? I have seen other suggestions that it was the interception of one telephone call "from a trusted lieutenant" that actually enabled the USA to find ObL. |
|
07 May 11 - 06:12 AM (#3149681) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Lively, if you read it in context,"of "disastrous consequences" if the US were to attempt any more unauthorised unilateral military raids of like kind within Pakistan." they were concerned that they might be an unintended engagement. Richard,that was not a nice thing to say about me, and it is not true. Wars do sometimes have to be fought. In war it is accepted that you must kill enemy combatants without warning or due process. OBL was an enemy combatant. I find it surprising if he did not have some way of taking some Americans with him. I am not knowledgeable on the law regarding drone strikes, but they have been happening for years now with no legal challenge. They are also credited with turning the tide against the insurgency. |
|
07 May 11 - 06:28 AM (#3149689) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Keith, I agree that the phrase is ambiguous and open to differing interpretations. I haven't seen any clarification of what was precisely meant by it from the source however. .... An (unrelated) opinion piece from Noam Chomsky on the "planned assassination" of Bin Laden: "We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic." http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/ While I have much respect for him as a thinker and writer, I imagine feelings about Chomsky will range very widely on this forum. |
|
07 May 11 - 07:09 AM (#3149698) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford I have already stated that I will not support the soldiers if they acted unlawfully. That would be if they ignored a request to surrender. Remember, their own lives depended on a split second decision. We are told that his companion, you have to say bravely, rushed at the soldiers. She clearly did not intend to be taken without a fight. Is he about to detonate an explosive belt? If it was your son or daughter in that room, what advice would you give them? That is what your UN piece was about Lively. No-one is questioning the legality of the incursion itself. |
|
07 May 11 - 07:12 AM (#3149700) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Lively, that exact phrase, in the context I gave, was used by a Pakistan government official in that BBC programme I linked to. It comes just before Lubell comes on. |
|
07 May 11 - 07:34 AM (#3149708) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "I have already stated that I will not support the soldiers if they acted unlawfully. That would be if they ignored a request to surrender. ... That is what your UN piece was about Lively." Yes, that's correct. I wouldn't advice soldiers on anything of course. However, considering the differing accounts of the event as initially given by The Whitehouse press office, compared to those later submitted by the Seals themselves, I think it legitimate that the UN request disclosure of further details pertaining to the operation. Note the text of the UN statement which refers to the planning of the mission rather than it's execution: "the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards. For instance it will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden." If it were to unfold that this was in fact a planned assassination, as some indeed suspect, then it's not merely soldiers who acted unlawfully. Many on this thread (from your statements, clearly you are not among them) clearly find issues of lawfulness or otherwise, to be an irrelivancy in this matter. I don't agree with such a position. |
|
07 May 11 - 07:40 AM (#3149712) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "Lively, that exact phrase, in the context I gave, was used by a Pakistan government official in that BBC programme I linked to." Thank you, I'll have to take a look later. |
|
07 May 11 - 07:41 AM (#3149713) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Thanks for that endorsement Lively. It would have been legal to make an attempt on his life. It is illegal to order soldiers to kill a prisoner. If such an order was given, it would not have been on the record, and we shall never know. |
|
07 May 11 - 08:02 AM (#3149722) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks Sailors, actually. |
|
07 May 11 - 09:09 AM (#3149743) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter One of CNN's regular legal commentators (in other words, not someone specially selected to address this case) says that it is legal under international law to seize a suspect like Bin Laden in another country if it can be shown that that country "is unable or unwilling" to extradite him or otherwise bring him to justice. She suggested that the fact that Bin Laden had been living for years less than a mile from a military installation while Pakistan knew he was wanted internationally was prima facie evidence that Pakistan was unwilling or unable to deal with him. I suppose that questions may still be raised (in theory) about how many of the shots actually fired by the Americans were "legal" or "illegal," but international law would seem to have been observed. As it is never observed by Al Qaida. There is also the moral principle of choosing the lesser of two evils: invade one house in Pakistan for forty minutes or let Bin Laden plot ten thousand more deaths. As far as I'm concerned, case closed. |
|
07 May 11 - 09:14 AM (#3149744) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "There is also the moral principle of choosing the lesser of two evils: invade one house in Pakistan for forty minutes or let Bin Laden plot ten thousand more deaths." Indeed Lighter. Who will disagree? Jim? |
|
07 May 11 - 09:35 AM (#3149758) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad The only people I see disagreeing are this sites usual malcontents and other terrorists like Hamas that they side with. |
|
07 May 11 - 09:42 AM (#3149763) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "the moral principle of choosing the lesser of two evils" As has already been discussed here, I suppose that depends on what you consider the "two evils" to actually be? Bin Laden is already being described as "Obi Wan Bin Laden" online for example, or in other words, more powerful dead than alive. Here are some considered comments on the possible long term fallout of this incident and the dangerous potential consequences of a resultant "redirection of the Arab spring": Ed Husain, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says that Osama bin Laden is more valuable to al-Qaeda dead than alive. |
|
07 May 11 - 09:59 AM (#3149777) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford From Livlely's link, 1m 20secs in. "I am not arguing for a moment that he should not have been killed. Of course he should have been killed." |
|
07 May 11 - 10:13 AM (#3149781) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "I am not arguing for a moment that he should not have been killed. Of course he should have been killed." Yes, of course the speaker there wasn't responding to the question of a supposed moral case involving "the lesser of two evils" - I was. The "moral case" Lighter put forward based on "the lesser of two evils", was founded on the premise that Bin Laden would be a more dangerous figure alive than dead - others however - such as the speaker in that clip, argue differently. I think it's a valid point of view. |
|
07 May 11 - 10:17 AM (#3149782) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad That's all just speculation for now, remove the tumour first and deal with any potential complications as they arise. |
|
07 May 11 - 10:29 AM (#3149785) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, I hope you are not still compiling that list. I only asked for a short list of the major countries. |
|
07 May 11 - 10:42 AM (#3149792) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter It's a valid point of view, lively, but it's a question that could (and can) never be answered. Who knows what might have happened? Bin Laden could even have died of a sudden heart attack minutes before the raiders got there. That wouldn't mean they shouldn't have gone. Or whether Bin Laden's natural death, saving him (presumably by God's will) from his enemies, would have inspired his followers even more. Decisions for action have to be based on the known or probable rather than on the completely unknown or unknowable. Because the world is as it is and humans are fallible, sometimes those decisions are wrong. This one, I believe, was right. |
|
07 May 11 - 11:55 AM (#3149827) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Fuck him..he's dead..get over it! GfS |
|
07 May 11 - 11:57 AM (#3149828) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel Jim, there are plenty of people who complain about the legality. I whole hearteldy accept my humanity and remain homest about the hypocrisy of being a blood thirsty pacifist. The most Chrstian cheek turning enemy loving person is not a fanatic in certain circumstances. Murdering a genocidal rich fanatic is one of those cases where humanity is tested and left wanting. I know this is no more profound than saying "it is what it is" but in this world of food chains that is the way it is. Nature makes mistakes, people make mistakes and I wager even bacteria makes mistakes. The dilemma of enforcing our law outside our border with or without the UN or International courts is settled by one factor. Might makes right. This was evidenced when a Belgian COurt was forced to back down from thier indictment and arrest warrent for Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld. Whatever they were threatened with, worked. What has the CIA learned from Usama's villa and personal effects? He used American products like Vasoline. Planned rail and bridge attacks. Was more a prisoner of Pakistan than a guest. Was not very computer savvy. When it came to movies he was a big VIn Diesel Fast and Furious fan. What we have learned that is surprising is that Usama bin Laden, one of 55 children of a common father slept on a cheap water bed and had over a dozen pot plants growing in a room off his bedroom. Imagine if he had been captured and some of the charges at his indictment in his Gitmo tribunal, included growing pot, bigamy, aiding the deliquency of minors, sodomy, conspiracy to commit murder, interferring with the business of Wall St, |
|
07 May 11 - 01:08 PM (#3149874) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu He's on video tape... turn on your TV news. |
|
07 May 11 - 01:15 PM (#3149878) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Jim, I hope you are not still compiling that list." Will be ready when you give us your thoughts about the US use of torture and imprisonment without trial, and the wisdom of giving free access to your country to such a nation Jim Carroll |
|
07 May 11 - 01:28 PM (#3149889) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "Who knows what might have happened? ... whether Bin Laden's natural death, saving him (presumably by God's will) from his enemies, would have inspired his followers even more. Decisions for action have to be based on the known or probable ... sometimes those decisions are wrong. This one, I believe, was right." Lighter, well I think I may differ with you there somewhat. As to the "known or probable", well Obama himself made a statement a few years ago (I can't summon the quotes offhand) amounting to a promise that Bin Laden would never be made a martyr on his watch. Of course Obama was clearly aware of the power of martyrdom and the serious danger implied by making Bin Laden a martyr to the cause of extreme Islamists. Martyrs are those who sacrifice themselves for their cause - not old men who die peacefully in their sleep, and arguably there's no better death for a wannabe martyr than getting "executed in cold blood" (as it has been represented by some) by one's enemy during a controversial midnight raid. That said, I respect your view and while I don't know any better than you what the outcome of this will be, I am always happy to exchange civilly expressed differences of opinion.. |
|
07 May 11 - 01:35 PM (#3149891) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Wait no longer Jim! I have already given my opinion on a US incursion into Britain, and the other matter is outside the scope of this thread. I will oblige as soon as you reopen one of the many threads on the subject. |
|
07 May 11 - 02:25 PM (#3149920) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth "Don, pretending that waterboarding is not torture is pretty silly." You, too, Richard? Will you people stop trying to put words in my mouth? PTUI!! I am NOT "pretending" that waterboarding is not torture. I am unalterably opposed to any form of torture no matter who does it, and I deeply resent your and Jim's accusations that I condone it. You both seem to be assuming that the information that led to locating bin Laden came solely from torture, knowing really nothing about the intelligence processes that were actually used. Never even took into account the detail and accuracy available from spy satellites, for one thing. Capable of identifying the make and model of an automobile from 200 miles up, for example—AND often, of recognizing people. And that was one of their capabilities twenty years ago. I suspect they've made substantial advances since. Somewhat less high-tech, perhaps, are overflights with drones, which, believe me, have been on the prowl for some time, and are NOT solely used for "killing civilians," as you keep accusing American forces of using them for. And remember--American forces are not the ONLY ones there! You conveniently forget that this has been a joint operation from the start. ". . . although the US is claiming that its torture regime found ObL. . . ." REALLY? Who said THAT? Dick Cheney? And you accept the idea that people like that speak for the entire American citizenry? Now, I'm fully aware that there are a lot of very iffy issues about tracking down bin Laden, and what might ultimately grow out of it, and there will be a lot of dissections and investigations of it in the future—done by American jurists, and, of course, by politicians of various stripes. That's inevitable. But your knee-jerk idea that Americans in general, or me personally, totally approve of the whole operation, especially the possibility of the use of (and call it what it is!) torture, are insulting, offensive, holier-than-thou, and blatant evidence of rank prejudice. SHAME! Don Firth |
|
07 May 11 - 04:30 PM (#3149984) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Much of the mess that some folks are blaming "America" for started with an administration that lost the popular vote by a close margin, but through the machinations of a corrupt election system in the State of Florida (where George W. Bush's brother was Governor) and a conservative-biased Supreme Court, was put into office anyway. From Truthout: On Sunday, May 1, President Obama stated "al-Qaeda's leader and symbol" Osama bin Laden had been killed: "Tonight, I can report to the American people and the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden." Less than 24 hours after President Obama made his announcement, Sarah Palin, in a speech at Colorado Christian University, said, "We thank President [George W.] Bush for having made the right calls to set up this victory." She never mentioned President Obama. The conservative Washington Times newspaper wrote, "Bin Laden's death is more Mr. Bush's victory than Mr. Obama's because American forces wouldn't even be fighting in South Asia had Democratic doves had their way." The National Review Online wrote, "Mr. Obama might have noted that this work began under President Bush, but as usual he did not."This is the same administration that authorized such things as "waterboarding" and "enhanced interrogation" (euphemisms for torture), and "extraordinary rendition," so they wouldn't have to watch. No matter what one may think of the Obama administration, it beats the hell out of the alternative. Put the onus where it belongs!! Barack Obama got stuck with the thankless task of trying to cleam up the septic tank that the Bush/Cheney administration dumped on the nation and the world. Don Firth |
|
07 May 11 - 04:44 PM (#3149990) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Well, it looks like our resident America-bashers are back at it. Perhaps they would have liked it if they would have asked 'permission' from the corrupt U.N. before they carried out a top secret mission..but then, going to the VERY corrupt U.N., would for sure, screwed up the element of surprise, because, for a price, the info would have gotten to the Pakistanis, and eventually to OBL...where he could have made an escape, to frolic in the Islam dream world, of killing everything innocent, that doesn't subscribe to one sect's or another sect's bullshit1 Now that doesn't bother our resident 'intellectuals' who can't reason past their noses..I mean, if you're are going to plan a secret attack, why not tell the whole world, before you do it??..Even though, then President Bush did just that!..which I pointed out, but the 'wonder-geniuses' can't seem to register that...speaking of which, some operations are secret..like 'Operation Overlord'...which had you have been alive, I'm sure you would have wanted Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Churchill, to get your fucking approval....but then, maybe you're just pissed off, because you'd rather be speaking German, hating the U.S. and killing Jews!!..which happens to be consistent with the sentiments of most of your posts, even before this thread!!!! Check it out yourselves! "Like most 'intellectuals'..they are intensely boring!" --'Dangerous Liaisons' 'We can for give those who bore us, we can NEVER forgive those who We bore!'--Wilde Agreeing, GfS |
|
07 May 11 - 04:52 PM (#3149997) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Don Firth: "your knee-jerk idea that Americans in general, or me personally, totally approve of the whole operation," I can't speak on behalf of anyone else of course, but I'm sure that no-one who has read through this thread properly could have missed that responses from US posters have been varied and considered and certainly not smugly self-congratulatory or jingoistic. "No matter what one may think of the Obama administration, it beats the hell out of the alternative." I believe you. And being an outsider, I really don't have a dog in that race. However, I feel it is still nonetheless appropriate to judge this President according to both his words and actions. The statement I referred to previously also made mention of the importance of emulating the inspirational example set by the Nuremburg trails in relation to any future capture of bin Laden: "'What would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he's engaged in and not to make him into a martyr, and to assure that the United States government is abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism.' The senator cited the Nuremberg trials as an inspiration because the liberators of Nazi-occupied Europe acted to advance universal principles and set a tone for the creation of an international order." Quote from the Daily Mail, which isn't a preferred usual source, but it seems an unbiased report: I Won't Make bin Laden a Martyr |
|
07 May 11 - 05:33 PM (#3150018) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity By the way, I think Obama is a crappy President!..but taking out OBL was the first promise he's ever kept!..health-care not withstanding..but that was Pelosi's and Reid's baby! I do question the reason 'Why' he chose to to it, being as he hasn't given a damn about anything else American..but nonetheless, OBL died according to HIS rules, and by his rules! Thousands of his victims, never even were even aware that 'his rules' is what killed them! Osama was just a festering pimple on the ass of humanity, that's time to get popped just came up. Civilized people around the world are grateful. Fanatic jihadists inflamed....whiny, bleeding heart screwballs, just have to feel 'involved' to champion, some sort of 'unfairness', and use any lame excuse they can, to feel important!...You want to feel important, and useful??...Go comfort one of the many thousands of families whose loved ones were killed needlessly by the lunatic, whose time just ran out! He 'wanted' to be a 'martyr', which was just empty rhetoric, to get others to do the dirty work...Team Six merely gave him a 'helping hand'!...sorta like the 'Make-A-Wish-Foundation'. (They give terminally ill children their wish, as to 'lighten their suffering'). Now, OBL got his phony wish. You should be happy for him! May all your wishes come true!!!!...(as long as they don't include killing innocent men women and children!!)....Osama got all of his!! Rejoice, and be glad!...sing a folk song in his memory!..raise a toast to him for getting his 72 virgins!..He's in great shape!..that is, if you believe in that horseshit! GfS |
|
07 May 11 - 05:35 PM (#3150020) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S "However, I feel it is still nonetheless appropriate to judge this President according to both his words and actions." And - being an outsider - you realize that your opinion and $2.00 American will get you a small cup of Starbucks coffee. |
|
07 May 11 - 05:55 PM (#3150034) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad I'm wondering if those who are spewing spittle over the Americans "violating" Pakistan's sovereignty feel the same about Afghani Taliban who regularly move into and out of Pakistan without, I am sure, checking into customs. |
|
07 May 11 - 06:21 PM (#3150046) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 "being an outsider - you realize that your opinion and $2.00 American will get you a small cup of Starbucks coffee." ... come to Canada .... you can get a much better cup of coffee at much less the cost at Tim Horton's !! No one might give a rat's ass on you opinion there but what the hell eh .... biLL |
|
07 May 11 - 06:25 PM (#3150049) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "being an outsider - you realize that your opinion and $2.00 American will get you a small cup of Starbucks coffee." Most definitely - I assure you that I'm not as dumb as I sound.. |
|
07 May 11 - 09:15 PM (#3150115) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble "come to Canada .... you can get a much better cup of coffee at much less the cost at Tim Horton's" Come to Maine and you can get your cup of coffee at Tim Hortons but most of us don't, or at Starbuck's either. There's still local breakfast places we can get our coffee black, when we're too lazy to brew up our own. Anyone bothered to check out the neat videos that were released today from the raid of Bin Laden's compound? I especially liked the one where Bin Laden is shown at his Playstation gunning down aliens. Charley Noble |
|
08 May 11 - 02:16 AM (#3150196) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Those who argued that Obama was wrong have stopped trying to defend their beliefs. They have stopped posting. Given up. Change of heart? |
|
08 May 11 - 03:13 AM (#3150210) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Kieth A of Hertford: "Change of heart?" Maybe they read their own posts... Maybe they thought of the families who lost loved ones, and considered that they were more victims, than their killer! Maybe they thought of empathizing with children without fathers or mothers, who were on their way to work, to provide them with food, and homes, more than slick 'legal' arguments to justify why those families deserved that. Maybe they thought that while the SEALS were rappelling down from their choppers, OBL was planning to make more orphans, and widows.....then again.. Maybe they just don't care...and were tired of embarrassing themselves...and showing other musicians, that they didn't have a heart to begin with. Maybe they're thinking.... Maybe we're all thinking... Maybe we should be praying for peace in the hearts of all mankind. Maybe love really is the answer....we've tried enough alternatives... Guest from Sanity |
|
08 May 11 - 03:38 AM (#3150221) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge I believe it is now established that the US did not inform Pakistan prior to the raid, much less seek consent. Illegal incursion unless a case of hot pursuit. Which it wasn't. The US claims that its information came from "enhanced interrogation" - call a spade a spade - torture. Fruit of the poisonous tree. There was no lawful warrant for the arrest of ObL. Therefore the US had no lawful power to seek to seize ObL at that time and in that place. Therefore to use reasonable force to resist arrest would have been lawful. It is clearly established by US admission that ObL was unarmed. His brave wife was I think also unarmed. Against armed soldiers their efforts could have been no more than reasonable force. Therefore the killing was unlawful. It remains to be seen whether it was a good thing in the abstract. |
|
08 May 11 - 03:53 AM (#3150226) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Never trust in a man's better nature...he might not have one! Is it Richard?..or maybe..never-mind.... You really have nothing to say..nor I to you. |
|
08 May 11 - 04:20 AM (#3150237) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford OBL was clearly taken completely by surprise. He expected his friends within Pakistan security to tip him off of any such move. I agree Richard that Pakistan was not informed. That is why the SEALS are still living and OBL is not. The incursion is legal if for national self defence. Pakistan is not disputing the legality of the incursion. Neither is the UN or any other country or organisation. The SEALS were entitled to assume that such a fighter would be armed, and to assume a suicide belt |
|
08 May 11 - 04:37 AM (#3150240) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Given up." - "Maybe they read their own posts..." And maybe they have a life away from the screen. It is is a beautiful day here in the West of Ireland. Yesterday we were treated to superb displays of traditional music, mainly on the uilleann pipes, from some of the most talented musicians in Ireland, many of them young Travellers - all taking place in the idyllic surroundings of the Atlantic coastline. The sessions lasted well into the early hours of the morning. In half an hour's time we're off again to hear more superb playing, drink more foaming pints of Guinness, and spend more time in the the company of people who share our love of music. This again will almost certainly go on into the early hours of tomorrow morning, when we will roll home with our ears ringing with wonderful music and great conversation, having partaken of probably more than enough of the hospitality of 'the blonde in the brown skirt'. Given the choice of this, and discussing the finer points of assassination, invasion and regimes that use torture and illegal imprisonment, with two spineless individuals who don't even have the bottle to face the conclusions of their own twisted logic - sorry, no competition. You really should try to get out more. Jim Carroll |
|
08 May 11 - 05:48 AM (#3150257) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Glad you had a nice day yesterday Jim. The weather was not so good here, but we have been very lucky in recent weeks. I made my comment 24 hours after your early posts yesterday morning. You did post again during the day, but not to make any contribution to the debate. Just a snipe at me, and a refusal again to list those countries you referred to earlier. No contribution in your last post either. Have you given up? |
|
08 May 11 - 07:03 AM (#3150285) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford You typed more words than I did yesterday Jim. Get a life mate. |
|
08 May 11 - 12:07 PM (#3150372) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble Richard- The US claims that its information came from "enhanced interrogation" A more correct phrasing of what you've posted above would be that there's an active debate within the US of whether any information derived form "enhanced interrogation" was useful or critical. It seems that the alias of the courier did first come from "enhanced interrogation" but that name was meaningless until other prisoners were interviewed with more conventional interrogation techniques and provided corroboration and more detail. Linking the courier to a phone call was the next step and then tracking him to Bin Laden's hide-a-way was the final piece in the puzzle. Charley Noble |
|
08 May 11 - 12:41 PM (#3150383) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Stringsinger ObL targeted assassination was Obama's hail mary pass to get re-elected. "Congress? He don't need no stinkin' Congress!" Does it matter? If you think so, you're kidding yourself. Zawarhiri is still out there to become another political football. The idea that ObL was really behind 911 is becoming increasingly more ludicrous, the more information out there is available. No one has completely debunked a "conspiracy theory" about 911. There just isn't enough information available to the public. Forget transparency in government. |
|
08 May 11 - 12:53 PM (#3150394) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "ObL targeted assassination was Obama's hail mary pass to get re-elected." I think similarly, that it was a primarily political decision rather than a pragmatic one. "Does it matter? If you think so, you're kidding yourself. Zawarhiri is still out there to become another political football." Yes.. "The idea that ObL was really behind 911 is becoming increasingly more ludicrous, the more information out there is available. No one has completely debunked a "conspiracy theory" about 911." You don't have to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to suspect that in the absence of any other takers Bin Laden may well have falsely claimed the attack, not because he actually masterminded it, but instead for purposes of enhancing his prestige. |
|
08 May 11 - 12:57 PM (#3150395) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: WalkaboutsVerse On the BBC news, did I just see a video of Bin Laden watching himself on TV???...I have strong doubts... |
|
08 May 11 - 01:11 PM (#3150398) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Stringsinger: "ObL targeted assassination was Obama's hail mary pass to get re-elected. "Congress? He don't need no stinkin' Congress!" I pretty much agree with you on that one! I've always distrusted him, from the beginning, as I'm sure my previous posts for the last two-three years would attest to. After the election I layed off of him for a years, as voluntarily promised Amos, and to give the guy room for a chance to do whatever he was going to do...and for the FIRST time, since he's been President, he actually went through the motions, of acting Presidential...and as soon as this bump in the polls go down, I imagine he'll release the photos, just to 'remind' people how 'wonderful' he is. Personally, I think he is a schill for the bankers, with an 'almost' black face, to appeal to the left/liberals, but in fact, he is just a continuation of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Ford/Kissinger/Carter regimes..with NO slack in between!...each 'appealing' to the 'left' or 'right' ON THE SURFACE, but the main policies, which are ripping off the citizens, of their freedom, liberty, money, property, rights and warring foreign countries, for the highest bidding corporate 'special interests' has NOT changed!..Therefore, the hard sell to the American public! Also, you possibly are correct about 911, and you can add the Oklahoma City federal building bombing, in with that..(remember the middle eastern guy getting out of the truck, right before the blast, as reported by several witnesses, and caught on camera?). Sooner or later, all the truth may come out, but meanwhile, the country pretty much applauds Obama for OBL....but looks the other way for Waco! Still, that being said, my heart goes out for all the innocent victims, who lost their families, or loved ones during this whole charade. As far as OBL, it appears that the recalcitrant terrorist was at it, all the way to the end, and he was just stopped, in the course of it. Only his supporters, and sympathizers are doing the bitching. Makes you wonder, huh? GfS |
|
08 May 11 - 02:07 PM (#3150437) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Stringsinger Guests,I agree and as an addition,, my heart goes out to all of the Iraqis and Afghans who George Bush killed during his "terrist" assaults. Colin Powell's graphs said it all. Weapons of Mass Delusion. |
|
08 May 11 - 02:54 PM (#3150464) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Surely, Charlie, the official line is: "The US claims that its information came from "enhanced interrogation"". Keith, Pakistan has officially voiced its concern. It can hardly do more if it still wants its aid. "The incursion is legal if for national self defence." - Hmm, funny, what about the Graf Spee? |
|
08 May 11 - 03:04 PM (#3150474) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "Colin Powell's graphs said it all. Weapons of Mass Delusion." I was aware of the shoddy case of the plagiarised and 'sexed-up' Phd thesis that our intelligence service used to push the war, I wasn't aware until just now of the shoddy case of the CIA (ab)using Powell by briefing him with material gathered from sources already known to be unreliable. The more you hear about this stuff, the more attractive the prospect of Iraqui troops swooping in on their own midnight raid to assassinate Bush & Blair becomes. |
|
08 May 11 - 03:23 PM (#3150484) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks Just because I'm always interested in what other peoples' media are reporting, exactly what "official" source said that the information on Osama's location came from "enhanced interrogation"? |
|
08 May 11 - 03:39 PM (#3150486) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Somehow I don't agree that the most complicated, most sinister explanations of events are most likely to be correct. Obama is not Stalin. Years ago I saw Oliver Stone's paranoid-fantasy flick JFK in the theater. In one scene, an unknown somebody secretly places a bullet on JFK's stretcher. The little old lady next to me shouted out, "Those sons of bitches!" She believed it because she saw it in a movie. If anyone doubts the Warren Commission (and I know you do), I recommend Vincent Bugliosi's exhaustive book on the subject. Bugliosi is the former prosecutor who secured convictions for Charles Manson and company. A later book strongly indicted George W. Bush for an unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Bugliosi concludes, among many other things, that Stone's film is baloney. But Bugliosi could be part of the conspiracy too, and Manson might be innocent. Think about it. The anti-Bush book would then be part of Bugliosi's cover, perhaps written to Obama's order. And I can't prove it wasn't, either. |
|
08 May 11 - 04:01 PM (#3150497) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively I saw it discussed on BBC's Question Time, though I don't recall if any official source for the information was cited then. Possibly not. Otherwise, an article in The Telegraph here CIA Admits Waterboarding Yeilded Vital Information goes into greater detail. According to Leon Panetta (director of the CIA) both so-called "enhanced" and other more conventional methods contributed to the full picture. I hear there has been some criticism of the Obama administration's seeming coyness about divulging this detail of the story, particularly from those who support the use of such methods. |
|
08 May 11 - 04:17 PM (#3150504) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Just as a point of interest, Obama outlawed waterboarding almost as soon as he took office in 2009. |
|
08 May 11 - 04:27 PM (#3150508) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "Obama outlawed waterboarding" I believe the relevant information gleaned by such methods, was about ten years old. Clearly there is a contingent of commentators who wish to ensure that "credit" for Bin Laden's elimination, goes to the prior Bush administration. |
|
08 May 11 - 04:48 PM (#3150521) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, I have acknowledged that Pakistan expressed "concern" That is not challenging the legality of the incursion. Their concern was that, not having been informed, there could have been an incident. Reasonable concern I suppose. Richard, are you not aware that national self defence can justify an incursion without consent? That is what you would have to argue against. Some individuals do, but no country or organisation so far. |
|
08 May 11 - 04:53 PM (#3150526) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Re 9/11 conspiracy. I do not believe it, but I accept that cleverer people than me do. I followed all the arguments and counterarguments, but that was before the administration changed. What are the theories about the Democrats? Were they in on it from the start? |
|
08 May 11 - 05:23 PM (#3150539) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Keith, what is the latter part of your post timed at 04:48 trying to say? |
|
08 May 11 - 05:42 PM (#3150544) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth I can't speak for Keith, but I believe he's talking about the stipulations of International Law. Rulings of the World Court in The Hague. Among other things, after WWI and as a result of the fact that it was totally uncontrollable once released, it outlawed the use of poison gas, which is why it was NOT used in WWII. You might want to acquaint yourself with that body of law. Don Firth |
|
08 May 11 - 06:40 PM (#3150556) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Actually, the Japanese often used poison gas against the Chinese in WWII. The Chinese didn't have any to strike back with. The Japanese never used it against the western Allies, who did. One reason that it wasn't used in Europe is that both sides had it. If anybody had thought that the use of gas, lawful or not, would have given them a decisive advantage, they'd have used it. More than one treaty banned the use of poison gas after WWI, but industrial nations kept right on developing and manufacturing them for decades - just in case. |
|
08 May 11 - 07:29 PM (#3150577) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Jim, we have thousands of US service men and women here all the time! I used to train with them back in the Cold War. We were very grateful to have them with us in those dark days. All of which means nothing to you. Marxist? Trot?"" So that's where you picked up your biased ideas. Pity you didn't notice that they were here by agreement between the US and UK governments. Pillock? Prat? Don T. |
|
08 May 11 - 07:58 PM (#3150581) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth By the way, I almost missed this many posts back. Jim: "Established as a fact years ago Don - by an Irish govenment that not only has refused to inspect the planes, as they have a right to do, but who have said they were not prepared to interfere in the war against terrorism." Which is to say, the planes were NOT inspected. So what kind of cargo they may or may not have been carrying is NOT KNOWN. So the idea that they were transporting people for "extraordinary rendition" is merely speculation. Not a "fact" at all! V-e-e-e-e-ery interesting. . . . Don Firth |
|
08 May 11 - 08:09 PM (#3150582) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The only people I see disagreeing are this sites usual malcontents and other terrorists like Hamas that they side with."" Bobad you are a complete arse, and your agenda is both transparent and reprehensible. Nobody here is siding with terrorists, and nobody here is the least bit sorry that ObL is dead. The bone of contention is the way in which the US government rides roughshod over the sovereignty of enemies and friends alike. You obviously support their attitude as you do the very similar arrogance of the Israeli government. As a citizen of one of the countries most likely to take the brunt of any retaliatory action, I object to the way in which the US handled the affair, and to their insanely self congratulatory insistence that they have made the world a safer place. It might look that way sitting 4000 miles away from the source of such action, but unlike our resident cold war hero, many in the UK will feel that they stand right in the line of fire from both sides and won't be any too sure which represents the greater danger. Don T. |
|
08 May 11 - 08:18 PM (#3150585) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""But your knee-jerk idea that Americans in general, or me personally, totally approve of the whole operation, especially the possibility of the use of (and call it what it is!) torture, are insulting, offensive, holier-than-thou, and blatant evidence of rank prejudice."" Your case might be quite a strong one Don, if you ignore the television coverage of all those non political Americans dancing in the streets. Don T. |
|
08 May 11 - 08:18 PM (#3150586) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad "Nobody here is siding with terrorists" The "usual malcontents" have defended the actions of Hamas in attacking Israel, you can look it up. As for calling me an arse....well, that doesn't surprise me. |
|
08 May 11 - 08:55 PM (#3150596) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad President Obama on 60 Minutes: "As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out," Obama said. "Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined." |
|
08 May 11 - 09:32 PM (#3150604) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Are you listening, Bobad? It's not whether ObL deserved to die. It's whether the operation and his killing were LEGAL. Oh, and if Keith were to be right that self defence legally justifies incursion, then that would be a perfect answer to the claim that Hamas are terrorists. Oh, and surely Obama, former editor of the Harvard law review realises that no court of competent jurisdiction had ever convicted ObL of murder. He's just found an approach that plays well to the rednecks. The law of the Wild West. |
|
08 May 11 - 09:44 PM (#3150606) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Don Firth, the USA at present refuses to recognise the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (unless it wants to) or the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court at all. Dual standard? Or were you referring to something else? |
|
08 May 11 - 09:45 PM (#3150607) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks It is now slightly more than 72 hours since I originally said the following: I would be very interested in seeing a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama from some of those who believe that what actually happened violated some "rule of law". Anyone care to take it on? |
|
08 May 11 - 09:49 PM (#3150609) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Oh, I'm listening alright, to a lot more eminent legal mind than yours, contrary to what you might think, and the vast majority of them are of the opinion that it was legal. |
|
08 May 11 - 09:53 PM (#3150610) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Just as a point of interest, the United States is a legally constituted government recognized as a nation by every other nation on earth. So is Pakistan. Hamas is a political party. |
|
09 May 11 - 01:18 AM (#3150657) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, national self defence could justify an incursion such as this one, but not random acts of terror against a civilian population as practiced by Hamas. Don T, was I wrong volunteer to stand with the British Army alongside our US allies, against the might of the Warsaw Pact's armoured divisions? |
|
09 May 11 - 02:08 AM (#3150663) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wotcha OBL put himself into combat on 9/11 so it did not matter whether he was picking his nose, brandishing a weapon, or sleeping when he was shot by a service member nearly 10 years later. For this op it appears he was declared a combatant (along with others in his entourage) by the highest national authority, therefore he could be targeted under the ROE being used. This is not assassination but a lawful military action. This was not a civilian law enforcement matter but an extraordinary military action, therefore neither police rules on self defense nor arrest warrants applied. Naturally every op has unintended consequences but that's why Obama is paid to be the "decider" ... |
|
09 May 11 - 02:21 AM (#3150666) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama" As said I'm no military expert. However I'm sure that there are those of us here, who would have preferred it if those who are military experts could have done so, and that there had been a proper trial rather than an execution. By the by, I wonder how many US posters here are aware of the Wiki leaked information (from US intelligence) which threatened a nuclear attack in Europe if Bin Laden were to be killed in the way that he just has been? I mention that not in support of terrorists, but just as a reminder to those here angered by outsiders expressing concerns over aspects of this operation, that US military actions can and do have implications for the rest of the world. |
|
09 May 11 - 02:50 AM (#3150670) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford No-one could take that threat seriously Lively. They hated us enough already. You can't believe they were holding back on any attacks they could make. |
|
09 May 11 - 03:22 AM (#3150684) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Just in case there is any doubt about the Pakistani government's attitude to the incursion into its territory. Plan B, from a Sunday Times report into the raid: ".... if bin Laden had tried to escape before the Seals arrived a 2,000lb bomb would have been dropped on the compound, obliterating it." - and no doubt, a considerable number of Pakistani citizens along with it - I'm sure they were as happy to welcome the troops as some would suggest in such circumstances!! Jim Carroll |
|
09 May 11 - 03:31 AM (#3150685) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Well, Bobad, you are not conveying that you are so listening. The points you seek to make here are as to practicality not legality or the gut-level argument of "well he deserved it". Maybe he did, but hard cases make bad law. Keith: your point to Don is irrelevant. I expect he will tell you why. I am still not clear what your point I queried above was and should be grateful if you would clarify. I do not think I agree with your assertion that "self defence" could not apply to attacks by Hamas or Hezbollah. Most rocket attacks by them for example, it seems to me, are targeted as accurately as the technology they can muster enables. But further, the US courts have held that the IRA were freedom fighters and political prisoners (InOBU gave details some years ago on here) and I do not see grounds for a more favourable view of the IRA than of Hamas or Hezbollah. Moreover, if the USA were to recognise international law (see my comments above) as far as I know the determination under international law that a person was an unlawful combatant requires to have been made by a court of competent jurisdiction, and there was no such determination. |
|
09 May 11 - 04:00 AM (#3150696) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, it is not my assertion, it is the position taken by the US government. "Reinhard Heydrich was one of the key architects of Hitler's genocide against the Jews. In 1941, the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) was authorised by Winston Churchill to assassinate high-ranking Nazis wherever they could be found. In 1942, two of the many Czech citizens whom the SOE had trained to implement this strategy blew up the car carrying Heydrich to his office in Prague. He died a week later from infection following his injuries. If that had taken place today, we would most likely find the Archbishop of Canterbury fretting 'justice didn't seem to be done', Paddy Ashdown tut-tutting that the rule of law did not condone 'non- judicial execution', and human rights lawyers seeking to arrest Churchill for war crimes" |
|
09 May 11 - 04:02 AM (#3150697) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, Hamas' rockets are indiscriminate. Lack of better technology does not excuse their use. Their use is an act of terror. |
|
09 May 11 - 04:14 AM (#3150702) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "No-one could take that threat seriously Lively." Perhaps not, I really wouldn't know the truth of the matter. All I know is what I have read, and that is that one week prior to Bin Laden's killing, Wikileaks released materials indicating that certain information had been gleaned by US intelligence pertaining to a nuclear threat supposedly located in Europe - by which one might well suppose London. |
|
09 May 11 - 04:51 AM (#3150715) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Yes, I read that too. I do not believe they would hold it back in case OBL was taken. Maybe save it for an important occasion, e.g. royal wedding or 9/11 anniversary. |
|
09 May 11 - 05:24 AM (#3150721) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "".... if bin Laden had tried to escape before the Seals arrived a 2,000lb bomb would have been dropped on the compound, obliterating it." - and no doubt, a considerable number of Pakistani citizens along with it - I'm sure they were as happy to welcome the troops as some would suggest in such circumstances!!" There were about 20 people in the compound. No one in nearby buildings would have been harmed. |
|
09 May 11 - 05:42 AM (#3150729) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: WalkaboutsVerse Saw the abovementioned video again and it does indeed seem Bin Laden had himself filmed watching TV - probably produced to prove, at some stage, he was alive. |
|
09 May 11 - 05:51 AM (#3150732) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Peter Laban Or maybe just the wife or one of the children messing about with the camcorder? |
|
09 May 11 - 06:16 AM (#3150736) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: WalkaboutsVerse Either way, PL, I suppose the main issue is could/should they have taken him as prisoner. |
|
09 May 11 - 06:16 AM (#3150737) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "No one in nearby buildings would have been harmed. " Oh - only 20 - that's all right then! Jim Carroll |
|
09 May 11 - 06:39 AM (#3150742) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford What can you do when fighters surround themselves with civilians including children. The SEALS did well to spare all the children and most of the adults (who all knew their host). |
|
09 May 11 - 06:59 AM (#3150744) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "What can you do when fighters surround themselves with civilians including children." You can act on the basis that there are non-combatants in the area - you do not kill hostages - we've been here before with you. It was never necessary to kill bin Laden and it would have been a far greater diplomatic victory - not to mention justice seen to be done, had he been taken and tried. The argument that hostages might have been taken to free him is far outweighed by the threat of reprisals yet to come for his death. Your arrogant assumption that only those in the compound would heve been killed doesn't even hold water - it would depend where the bomb landed, and an assuption that a 2,000lb bomb would restrict damage to within a confined area is bloody nonsense. This was an act of revenge with no consideration of how many would be killed, and has proved to be an utter diplomatic shambles, comparable only with the shootout at the OK Corral. Jim Carroll |
|
09 May 11 - 07:26 AM (#3150755) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 30 000 Pakistanis killed already by Al Qaeda and Taleban. The Mk84 2000lb bomb is highly accurate and has a danger zone of 315m. No buildings were that close to the compound. |
|
09 May 11 - 07:29 AM (#3150756) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford the JDAM system will provide a minimum weapon accuracy CEP of 13 meters or less when a GPS signal is available, though Boeing and the Air Forces report less than 10 meters CEP in testing. If the GPS signal is jammed or lost, the JDAM can still achieve a 30 meter CEP or less for free flight times up to 100 seconds |
|
09 May 11 - 07:34 AM (#3150759) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "30 000 Pakistanis killed already by Al Qaeda and Taleban." The Taliban are terrorists - are you now saying the Americans are? "No buildings were that close to the compound. " Again, ignorance on your part - according to the map in the Sunday times the compound ware many houses inthe area and itis not far from a public road - stop making it up to excuse the potentioan killing of non-combatants. Jim Carroll |
|
09 May 11 - 07:35 AM (#3150760) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Should read potential - of course Jim Carroll |
|
09 May 11 - 07:54 AM (#3150766) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford We have all seen pics of the compound now. It stands alone. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Entertainment/20110504/obama-osama-death-announcement-ratings-110504/ |
|
09 May 11 - 07:58 AM (#3150770) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ron Davies "if bin Laden had tried to escape...." If Times says this, what is their source? My understanding is that they did not actually know bin Laden was in the building. This being the case there was no contingency plan to drop a bomb on the building. They had considered this idea and rejected it for the specific reason there was no certainty bin Laden was in the building. If this is not so, let's have a direct quote from an authoritative source. I don't claim to have the last word, but we need some direct quotes here. Thanks. |
|
09 May 11 - 08:12 AM (#3150776) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: WalkaboutsVerse It seems a small group of U.S. leaders probably do know the answer to part of the above question "COULD/should he have been taken as prisoner?" - they were watching it via cameras strapped to the SEALS, yes? And wouldn't international lawyers say that, if he could have, he definitely should have been taken alive for trial? |
|
09 May 11 - 08:13 AM (#3150777) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Prague was enemy territory, 1942 was wartime. Even so the fact that Churchill authorised one assasination it does not prove that it was lawful - he was of course a very right wing alcoholic manic-depressive which may from time to time have impaired his rationality. It certainly does not prove that this assassination was lawful. What, Keith, do you expect the US to say? They invented the wholly spurious legal case for detention at Guantanamo Bay, precisely to prevent fair trial or habeas corpus. It may turn out that both assassinations were good things - although in Heydrich's case I suspect the harm was already done so it was mere revenge - but that does not mean that they were lawful. Equally it may turn out that the present assassination was a bad thing, if the Arab spring turns into a winter of discontent, but that does not mean that it was unlawful. You may believe that the US will never turn on the UK or others of its present allies. That is not a universal view. You may believe that it is "right" that the US can disobey the law but that people of a largely non-white or non-Xtian persuasion must not - but that is not a universal view. I have asked you to explain a particular point you were trying to make. Would you kindly do so? At present I do not know what you were trying to say and cannot therefore respond if appropriate. |
|
09 May 11 - 08:24 AM (#3150782) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ron Davies "taken alive...". Thanks for your perceptive comment, showing complete knowledge of the circumstances of trying to take into custody an international terrorist, who is not trying to give himself up, and who has heavily armed assistance in the building. And just think, then we could have all agonized over how unfair it was that he was not to be tried by a jury of his peers; that is, a jury of international terrorists. What fun we could have had. |
|
09 May 11 - 08:36 AM (#3150787) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: WalkaboutsVerse You post as if they have released the footage from the SEALS cameras, Ron..? |
|
09 May 11 - 08:36 AM (#3150788) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, The President will have taken legal advice. That advice was that as an act of national self defence it was legal to kill or capture OBL in Pakistan. The legality may be challenged. Some individuals already have. No country or organisation yet has. I think you are saying that even if legal it was wrong. I respect but disagree with that opinion. |
|
09 May 11 - 09:14 AM (#3150792) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "It stands alone." Just seen arial photiographs on the news - no it doesn't. You have produced a photograph showing a close up view from the front; the place is scattered with local dwellings. Whatever anyway - the killing of 20 non-combatants would heve been akin to an act of terrorism - is that what you are excusing? As I said, this has been a public relations disaster - it was not necessary to kill bin Laden and it would have been far more effective to have taken and tried him. It is pretty well accepted that Al Qaeda is not an organisation as such, but unconnected groups scattered all over the world. Bin Laden's strategic role was of no importance whatever; rather he was a spiritual leader. Two days after the assassination US drones tried and failed to kill a likely successor, Anwar al Awlaki - in Yemen; four others have been identified as also likely successors - 3 in Afghanistan and 1 in either Afghganistan or Pakistan - business as usual. There hasnever been a greater need to get co-operation from other countries - especially after the move to democracy in North Africa; already there is fighting on the streets of Egypt between Muslims and Coptic Christians. This adventure will have done much to polarise Muslims and halt any advances made over the past yars. im Carroll |
|
09 May 11 - 09:18 AM (#3150797) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford You would prefer he escaped again Jim? |
|
09 May 11 - 09:23 AM (#3150799) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble Here's an interesting snippet from a Pakistani retired general that I hadn't run across before that indicates the Bin Ladin's compound had attracted some security attention when it was under construction: Shaukat Qadir, a retired military brigadier, told Al Jazeera that the blame rested with "all parties" because the house bin Laden was reportedly living in should have been under surveillance since it had a history of being an al-Qaeda hideout. "When the particular house bin Laden was living in was under construction in 2003, it was first raided by the ISI to catch a senior al-Qaeda leader. "So if this was under suspicion in 2003, how could it not remain under surveilance now?" I realize that not everyone in this thread is concerned with the details of this story but I'm always interested in the details. The "big picture" is of course more important and will certainly be debated for years. Charley Noble |
|
09 May 11 - 09:27 AM (#3150803) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter If Pakistan were as outraged as some posters think it is, or should be, its government would be doing a lot more than just complaining, which I believe is chiefly for home consumption. It would be going to the UN, recalling its ambassador, cancelling trade agreements, breaking off diplomatic relations, etc., etc. That's what you do when a nation commits an "act of war" against you, assuming you don't have the desire or wherewithal to strike back with weapons. Let's see how much of that happens. |
|
09 May 11 - 09:46 AM (#3150813) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ron Davies Walkabout--I have read and listened to quite a bit of reporting on this. All reports which have addressed the issue of "taking alive" agree that he had armed assistance in the house and was not eager to surrender. If you think this is incorrect, we need sources and exact quotes. |
|
09 May 11 - 10:11 AM (#3150824) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Pakistan PM Gilani described killing as "proper justice." He said relations with US "remain strong". He described the incursion as a violation of sovereignty, which of course is technically correct. |
|
09 May 11 - 10:19 AM (#3150834) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S Jim sez "As I said, this has been a public relations disaster -" To whom? The presidents ratings have soared here in the states { at least for a little while }. If someone is upset other than you I havn't heard about it. Those who have hated the Americans will continue to do so. And nothing will change that. A couple of pundits who didn't like us anyway are upset. We get to trade that for the life of Bin Laden. Pretty good trade if you ask me. |
|
09 May 11 - 10:41 AM (#3150853) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Pat Condell's rant on the fuss in Pakistan over the killing of Bin Laden and his disposal at sea. http://www.patcondell.net/ |
|
09 May 11 - 11:19 AM (#3150871) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "You would prefer he escaped again Jim? " No I would not but, unlike you, I would not suggest in a million years that his capture was worth countless numbers of civilian lives, all slaughtered in an assassination attempt. There was no reason at all that he should have escaped and, as I pointed out, the US would have gained a huge moral and tactical victory had he been taken and tried. Press comments here are pointing out that even Adolph Eichmann got a trial. This was no more than an act of vengeance. This is not the first time that you have relagated hostages to the role of being 'expendable' - you did so on one of the Israeli atrocity discussions. The killing of civilians in wartime is sometimes unavoidable, but to have dropped a bomb on a compound full of men, women and children non-combatants, not to mention those living close by (which you have attempted to deny were there) in order to carry out an assassination would have been simple murder - a war crime, no less. The Americans were prepared to do it and you would, of course, have argued in their defence, had they done so. This is what you are supporting, which is in line with what was considered by those who sent the troops in, and also in line with your 'support-by-silence' of the technique of torture as a method of extracting information - making you an armchair promoter of military atrocities. Jim Carroll |
|
09 May 11 - 11:38 AM (#3150877) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, "This is not the first time that you have relagated hostages to the role of being 'expendable' - you did so on one of the Israeli atrocity discussions." Lie Jim, made worse by putting it in quotes. I merely explained that there was no breach of the Law Of Armed Conflict. " I would not suggest in a million years that his capture was worth countless numbers of civilian lives, all slaughtered in an assassination attempt." Then you should be very happy. |
|
09 May 11 - 12:08 PM (#3150890) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Lie Jim, made worse by putting it in quotes." What you said amounts to the same thin bot here and there "this is in quotes" 'this is emphasised' Jim Carroll |
|
09 May 11 - 12:46 PM (#3150908) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford I never did nor would say that people were expendable. Your post gave the impression that I did. I find that dishonest. I just stated facts. |
|
09 May 11 - 01:47 PM (#3150932) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "What can you do when fighters surround themselves with civilians including children. The SEALS did well to spare all the children and most of the adults (who all knew their host)." Clearly implies that you go ahead with military action and if civilians are injured it is down to the hostage takers. You even praised the troops for not killing the children Had they used bombs they would all have been killed - you didn't think the fact that they were prepared, had bin Laden tried to escape to worthy of comment - never mind condemnation. Your approach was similar to the wounded Palestinians in Gaza. Jim Carroll |
|
09 May 11 - 02:06 PM (#3150944) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity So, do you blame the SEALS for 'just obeying orders' OR do you blame President Obama for 'just obeying his?' GfS |
|
09 May 11 - 02:17 PM (#3150948) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: WalkaboutsVerse "Walkabout--I have read and listened to quite a bit of reporting on this. All reports which have addressed the issue of "taking alive" agree that he had armed assistance in the house and was not eager to surrender. If you think this is incorrect, we need sources and exact quotes." (Ron)...I don't, but the point I made, above, is that it's probably not just God who knows for sure - there's the SEALS themselves and the group of U.S. leaders who watched live footage (which I have seen a pic of on our news) via cameras on the SEALS. |
|
09 May 11 - 02:49 PM (#3150959) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Pragmatism Jim. If he was not stopped, how many more deaths? 30 000 Pakistani civilians and 5000 of their miltary killed already. The presence of civilians does not always make military action illegal. |
|
09 May 11 - 03:11 PM (#3150976) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Keith A of Hertford: "The presence of civilians does not always make military action illegal." In addition to that.... CIVILIANS make up most of the terrorist's targets!..so should someone send the COPS to show up and 'arrest' the terrorists????..with a lawyer, and read them their Miranda rights, first??..I mean, you DO want to make it all clean and legal, don't you??? About as practical as a 12 pound yo-yo! This ideological debate is not only STUPID, it IS the distraction AWAY from the real issue...and that's exactly what it is designed to do! Regardless, that being said, OBL(whose name, if I never heard again, would be too soon), needed to be taken out! The distraction is 'why' and who's interest was REALLY served, and WHY NOW?? (remember my post about the musical notes, and the whole tune?)...You, had you'd been following a lot of my posts, would have already told you, who is really calling the shots...come on, now, think and remember, real hard....who did GfS tell us who was telling Bush where to send our military?..,HINT: It has to do with their interests, more than our 'self defense'. When you get done figuring that one out, why now? Who is more desperate to NOT have a Muslim uprising, in their country?? Let's see what all fits into place!!! GfS |
|
09 May 11 - 03:16 PM (#3150982) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth "This was no more than an act of vengeance." No, it was a bit more, Jim. It was an act of justice. You are conveniently whistling by the fact that this man masterminded the murder of thousands of Americans, and at least 52 British citizens, men, women, and children, in the London Underground, and God knows how many other people. And it also acts as a warning to anyone who might wish to step into his shoes that he is painting a bull's eye on his forehead. "It may take awhile, but sooner or later, we'll get you! So think about it!" Jim, your biases are patently clear and your sympathies lie in strange places indeed! The American people are satisfied that Osama bin Laden is dead. That is understandable to any sane person. Some had the bad taste to go out in public and celebrate raucously—and much of the media, in its equally bad taste, love to focus on this sort of thing, and this, of course, is what you see on television and feel impelled to comment on. But—the vast majority of Americans felt a grim satisfaction that bin Laden has been dealt with and will not be engineering any more mass murders. They didn't, however, go out, wave a flag, and cheer about it. One does not generally celebrate the execution of a mad dog. Those who get their jollies by thinking the worst of Americans will, of course, continue to think that the whole population was cheering and flag-waving. By this means, they demonstrate their own prejudices. As to the matter of vast armadas of American aircraft transporting detainees to countries where torture is legal going through Shannon airport—or Heathrow, or Orly, or any other commercial airport is concerned—simply does not make sense. Think about it! If a suspected terrorist were to be captured here in Seattle and he were deemed by the CIA to be withholding important information, he would not be flown out of the Seattle-Tacoma International airport—or O'Hare, or JFK, or Logan, or LaGuardia—over the pole to Shannon, Ireland, and then to some country where "enhanced interrogation" is practiced. He would be put on a military aircraft and flown out of McChord Air Force Base near Fort Lewis south of Tacoma. Or some other military airfield. And if landing to refuel were necessary, the plane would not land at commercial airports, it would land at military airbases, which the same "Yank-bashers" are giggly to point out, are located all over the world, and are "yet another example of U.S. imperialism and exploitation." So all those "extraordinary rendition" flights going through Shannon airport that you like to harp on about? I think I have good reason to believe that they are products of your imagination. Or of somebody's imagination, and you, in your biases, are predisposed to believe them. Bloody nonsense!! Now, Barack Obama said early on that he would end such things as "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation," which the vast majority of Americans found (and continue to find) totally unacceptable. As they find many of the practices of intelligence agencies in general. Whether Obama did end the practice may be open to question, but if it were to be discovered or revealed that he didn't, I think he could say goodbye to any idea of a second term. There are not enough bulls in the galaxy to produce the amount of manure that's floating around here in sympathy for the sudden and much deserved demise of a mass murder! And animosity directed at those who had the dangerous and unenviable job of taking out the garbage. Don Firth P. S. Pat Condell had the right of it. |
|
09 May 11 - 04:00 PM (#3151019) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "No, it was a bit more, Jim. It was an act of justice." No Don, justice would have been having him captured, tried and sentenced - as was Saddam Hussain - and as is being pointed out over here - Adolph Eichmann. I am not sypathetic to Muslim - or any religious fanatics; I am concerned that the US quest for oil has left the world on a knife-edge, and ham-fisted assassinations play right into their hands. Nor am I anti-American; I know enough Americans who share my view on what has happened, recently and in the past. You have had a number of shit governments doing enough shit things to have dragged the name of your country into the - well - shit. "I think I have good reason to believe that they are products of your imagination." Then produce your reasons. You haven't been following what is happening here - arguments about neutrality in the Dail, demonstrations lasting years, planes damaged in protest - read it up; it's all well documented. It's dead easy for you to hide behind the "anti - American" defence and pretend that waterboarding is a new form of bathing, or napalm was just a harmless defolient, or Linndy England was really a religious instructor - America's record on human rights is crap, and until the man-in-the-street does something about it, it will stay that way - Even some of your own politicians have come clean about your use of torture - have they got reason to make it up - Dick Cheyney calling for the continued use of torture - even Gun-Totin' Sarah commended Dubya for giving the nod to allowing torture to be used to trace the wherebouts of bin Laden - or has she got they own agendas. Take your head out of your arse Don - it's all happening. "evil triumphs when good people look the other way." "I think he could say goodbye to any idea of a second term" We wre assures a few postings go that the assassination has confirmed his second term. "30 000 Pakistani civilians and 5000 of their miltary killed already." By terrorists - are you saying that it's ok to do it if they do it? You've already said that it was ok because only twenty civilians would be killed by a bomb - make yourself clear Keith - for or against killing by pragmatism? Jim Carroll |
|
09 May 11 - 04:28 PM (#3151041) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford You say you are glad he is dead Jim. What cost would you consider justified to stop someone intent on more mass murder? Not one person must be hurt even if that condemns another thousand to die? |
|
09 May 11 - 04:32 PM (#3151045) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Don; Plenty more where these came from: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0624/rendition.html http://www.shannonwatch.org/story/lack-progress-suspect-rendition-flights-through-shannon-yet-another-irish-government-failure http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1217/breaking42.html http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0319/1224292610221.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States "Not one person must be hurt even if that condemns another thousand to die?" Read what has been said Keith For or against? Jim Carroll |
|
09 May 11 - 04:53 PM (#3151053) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. You are conveniently whistling by the fact that this man masterminded the murder of thousands of Americans, and at least 52 British citizens, men, women, and children, in the London Underground, and God knows how many other people. As mentioned previously, Henry Kissinger masterminded the murder of countless thousands of innocent Cambodians (many times the number Bin Laden' minions did) and thousands if innocent Chileans, & etc. & etc. About time the Gummint put a SEAL team on him & put a bullet in HIS head, no? |
|
09 May 11 - 04:58 PM (#3151054) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth State my reasons? I did, Jim. And you can blow them off if you wish, but they're still there. I've heard all this kind of thing before from people with your particular bias, and although I could take you on point by point, I know it won't get through to you, so why should I waste my time? Make of it what you will, which of course you would do anyway, even if I wrote a couple of books worth of refutation. I leave it to others on this thread to make their own assessment. I have a great deal of respect for your scholarship when it comes to folk music, but as of now, that does not extend to your grasp of what's going on in the world at large. Okay, sock it to me! Don Firth P. S. I will read the links you have posted when I have time. |
|
09 May 11 - 05:10 PM (#3151059) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Yeah, Jim, its a helluva thing to be biased in favor of due process and the rule of law. Shame on you! |
|
09 May 11 - 05:29 PM (#3151068) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Greg, whenever someone takes only what they want from something someone else posted, twists the intent, and then uses their twisted version to attack the poster, from that point on, I know what their posts are worth. Don Firth |
|
09 May 11 - 06:29 PM (#3151091) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e http://www.prisonplanet.com/10-facts-that-prove-the-bin-laden-fable-is-a-contrived-hoax.html |
|
09 May 11 - 07:53 PM (#3151122) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Richard, national self defence could justify an incursion such as this one, but not random acts of terror against a civilian population as practiced by Hamas."" What about the "collateral" damage then? ""Don T, was I wrong volunteer to stand with the British Army alongside our US allies, against the might of the Warsaw Pact's armoured divisions?"" My brother and two cousins did exactly the same, but they don't consider themselves military or legal experts. You apparently are much more arrogant, unless of course you are telling the truth when you claim to be merely reporting others' words, in which case you are a Parrot, and we've all heard the term "bird brain". Don T. |
|
09 May 11 - 08:05 PM (#3151128) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""In 1941, the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) was authorised by Winston Churchill to assassinate high-ranking Nazis wherever they could be found."" Apples and housebricks Keith. The British were at war (a declared war) with Germany, and the territory in which such assassinations were approved was either the territory of an enemy power, or territory occupied and/or controlled by that enemy power. Pakistan is not an enemy of the US, nor was it (by any stretch of the imagination) under the occupation or control of ObL or Al Qaeda. Do you, I wonder, really understand what is meant by rational discussion? Somehow, I doubt it! Don T. |
|
09 May 11 - 08:10 PM (#3151131) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""What can you do when fighters surround themselves with civilians including children. The SEALS did well to spare all the children and most of the adults (who all knew their host)."" All I can say is this. If many of our fighting men have the same utterly callous and immoral attitude to the "collateral" deaths of twenty bystanders, God Help the UK. Don T. |
|
09 May 11 - 08:11 PM (#3151132) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: michaelr Henry Kissinger masterminded the murder of countless thousands of innocent Cambodians (many times the number Bin Laden' minions did) and thousands if innocent Chileans, & etc. & etc Yeah, but those weren't white people, much less Americans! |
|
09 May 11 - 08:21 PM (#3151134) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The "big picture" is of course more important and will certainly be debated for years."" Or at least until the first bombs go off in London or Paris, and our gallant US allies say "Well, thank God it wasn't us". Don T. |
|
09 May 11 - 08:33 PM (#3151137) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""All reports which have addressed the issue of "taking alive" agree that he had armed assistance in the house and was not eager to surrender. If you think this is incorrect, we need sources and exact quotes"" Do you guys ever look at the situation? He had about twenty people in that house, some of whom were women and children, and that doesn't leave much of an armed assistance. Also, none of those supposed "armed assistants" managed to get off a single shot, and hardly anybody was killed, on either side. It seems Al Qaeda is recruiting the wrong people, unless they were just civilians. So, if the Seals captured all of those "armed assistants" without killing them, how come they made an exception for ObL, wounding his wife in the process? Doesn't seem very plausible. And for Keith, to save him the trouble of talking about having to make split second decisions, that is precisely what they train for. Don T. |
|
09 May 11 - 09:17 PM (#3151148) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Greg, whenever someone takes only what they want... OK then, Don - enlighten me. What precisely is Jim's "particular bias" that you refer to? |
|
09 May 11 - 09:19 PM (#3151149) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks Media reports that there was a backup plan to drop a one-ton bomb on the compound. Did anybody real say that, or is the media making it up? Someone also referred to "collateral damage"? I hope that you realize that this is a term that the media uses for unplanned and tragic injuries and deaths of innocent civilians, and the US military uses it for something entirely different. Unplanned and tragic injuries and deaths of innocent civilians are normally referred to as...unplanned and tragic injuries and deaths of innocent civilians. |
|
09 May 11 - 09:40 PM (#3151158) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: michaelr Oh? So what does the military mean by it, Art? |
|
09 May 11 - 10:58 PM (#3151173) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks It is damage caused by bombs or artillery fire (including nuclear artillery) that isn't part of the intended mission - for example, firing on a fortification whose destruction blocks a road that the friendly forces had planned to use, or unintentionally starting a forest fire that prevents movement into or through an area. It is the equivalent of accidentally shooting yourself in the foot...doing something that you hadn't planned on that may have adverse consequences on something else you had intended. |
|
09 May 11 - 11:19 PM (#3151183) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: michaelr Thanks, Art. It sure has assumed a different meaning in common usage... I wonder how that happened. Are you sure it didn't begin with some commander describing civilian deaths as collateral damage? |
|
10 May 11 - 12:01 AM (#3151191) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks Possible, but not too likely...at least since it has a specific meaning that is taught in officers' training - or at least it was when I was teaching junior officers. It is more likely, IMHO, that it got to the media by way of the civilian side of the military...DOD staffers and the like. |
|
10 May 11 - 12:04 AM (#3151192) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: number 6 Collateral damage ... a very clinical, cold expression .... a term that relinquishes the perpetrator from any prosecution from an earlier post of mine in this thread. "I also raise question if the other 3 victims were also armed .... if not, then it would be murder (would it not) or ... were they just collateral damage." biLL |
|
10 May 11 - 12:04 AM (#3151193) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ron Davies "Do you guys ever look...?" I'm sure you'd be much happier with a pitched battle and many deaths. So sorry to disappoint you. I'll have to advise them that in their next mission they need to up the death toll, since a Mudcatter requires it. I have read and heard reports which indicated there were heavily armed supporters of Osama in the house. The SEALS wanted to make it a quick mission--in fact they had to since the Pakistani forces might well object. Interesting that it never seems to enter your mind that they actually were capable of carrying out the mission successfully--that is, with a minimum of death and other violence. If you have read or reports that there were not heavily armed supporters of Osama in the house, let's have exact sources and quotes. I note with interest that Mr. Walkabout has managed to come up with precisely zero quotes and sources. |
|
10 May 11 - 12:18 AM (#3151197) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 600!! yippee! |
|
10 May 11 - 12:31 AM (#3151201) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Ron Davies: "The SEALS wanted to make it a quick mission--in fact they had to since the Pakistani forces might well object. Interesting that it never seems to enter your mind that they actually were capable of carrying out the mission successfully--that is, with a minimum of death and other violence." Hold on!!..The SEALS 'might have wanted to..' is folly. What really is, is that the SEALS, especially on a mission like this, would have been following ORDERS! They do not have the liberty, to make up their own agendas! If you knew anything about the SEALS, or if you know anything about the SEALS, you would, or should know that....Ok..now, reconsider your question, or think it all the way though..and going up the chain of command, you'd have to ask, according to WHO gave that particular order. That being said, I'm not knocking anything you're asking, but do be advised, that your question is too hypothetical! Now carry on, with all the 'what ifs'?...but I don't know why..I'd rather work with the 'What IS's'...and what REALLY happened, What Really is, and 'WHY?' GfS |
|
10 May 11 - 02:22 AM (#3151225) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "I could take you on point by point..." Humour me and give it a try. You people never do take us on point-by-point; you scurry into your "Anti-Americanism" bunker and never attempt to explain, defend or object to the behaviour of your governments on your behalf. Nobody here is anti-American, but some of us would happily be accused of anti-militarism when it comes to American international helicopter-diplomacy. Please make time and read the links - I would welcome your input. And Keith; please start reading what others have said, and if you disagree with their comments, debate them and stop ignoring them. "What cost would you consider justified to stop someone intent on more mass murder?" Not the needless deaths of 20-30-100 - or however many civilians in order to carry out the assassination of a terrorist who had no strategic importance, has been replaced already and whose death will not effect terrorist activity by one single casulty. Make up your mind - you squeal like a stuck pig when you are accused of advocating the criminal behaviour of deliberately targeting non-combatants; now you are apparently advocating just that again. Please be consistent with your prevarications; it's difficult to keep up. Jim Carroll |
|
10 May 11 - 03:01 AM (#3151231) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford " the needless deaths of 20-30-100 - or however many civilians in order to carry out the assassination of a terrorist who had no strategic importance, has been replaced already and whose death will not effect terrorist activity by one single casulty. " It may be your opinion that he was of no significance, but that is highly contentious. Do any governments say that? Does his own organisation say that? He was more than a criminal. He was engaged in offensive military operations against us. It was a military operation against him. Not one innocent bystander was hurt. (All the adults in the compound were complicit.) It has not caused a rift with Pakistan. Success. |
|
10 May 11 - 03:09 AM (#3151232) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Don't you think it a little both pretentious and silly to argue points, about the details, when the only info you got to work from is 'news' releases or whatever the government is saying, happened..which seems to change from day to day..sometimes even several times a day?? Shit, and people are not even believing he's even dead?!? Seems a little futile to me. GfS |
|
10 May 11 - 03:12 AM (#3151234) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford The name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad has just been leaked for the second time in 6 months. You can see why OBL felt so safe, and why Pakistan security was kept out of the loop on this one. |
|
10 May 11 - 03:44 AM (#3151243) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Thank you Keith for conceding that the incursion was a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. I must correct you on one point. I am not arguing whether the killing of ObL was morally wrong or otherwise. In my view it was an unlawful killing. It may or may not turn out to have been generally beneficial. I am worried about the precedent it sets. If the US may (I know it can) violate the sovereignty of one of its allies, enter their territory, and kill an unarmed person there, what keeps the rest of us safe? |
|
10 May 11 - 04:01 AM (#3151254) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Technically a violation, but they are not objecting so why must you on their behalf. They seem quite pleased with the outcome. "proper justice" It might be your opinion that it was unlawful, but you might be wrong. Is international law your field? I asked if you were better informed than all those legal experts who said it was legal. You declined to answer. |
|
10 May 11 - 04:01 AM (#3151255) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Do any governments say that?" All we can give here is our own opinions based on what we read and see - the alternative appears to be the blind faith in governments and experts that you hide your arguments behind. He could have been taken alive, tried and punished; there was no intention of doing so - he was executed on the spot - leaving behind a threat of reprisals which could be aimed at any of us anywhere. Now answer the question - are you now advocating that it would have been acceptible to drop a bomb on the compound killing an unkown number of non- combatants - you shrieked liar before, now you appear to be defending the idea Jim Carroll |
|
10 May 11 - 04:18 AM (#3151260) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford It was a lie that I had described people as 'expendable' We give our opinions and debate the validity of them. You often dismiss mine in threads because I am in a minority. Your opinions only seem to be held by anti American fanatics. It is quite legitimate for me to point out that they are extreme fringe opinions, not mainstream. War is bad. Combatants are required by law to minimise civilian casualties. Success. |
|
10 May 11 - 04:48 AM (#3151267) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Keith, I have told you why I am worried. I don't trust the US government and military machine. You have not set out the reasoning of the stated experts - of course we all know that experts engaged by governments say what the governments tell them to say - we have consistency in the USA about Guantanamo bay and the UK about the invasion of Iraq. I know not whether their reasoning might convince me: it has not been set out. I have, however set out my reasoning. I have asked you to clarify the meaning of your words: - "Richard, are you not aware that national self defence can justify an incursion without consent? That is what you would have to argue against. Some individuals do, but no country or organisation so far." You have not done so but since you have conceded that the incursion was a violation of sovereignty the point is I now think moot. |
|
10 May 11 - 05:14 AM (#3151277) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, I am not sure what you want. My understanding is that an incursion (violation) can be justified on grounds of national self defence. If so, the argument is about whether or not national self defence can be claimed in this case. Some individuals have opined that it can not, e.g. you. No government (not even Pakistan) and no organisation (not UN or even Al Qaeda) have given that opinion. |
|
10 May 11 - 05:22 AM (#3151278) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "It was a lie that I had described people as 'expendable'" You have indicated that it would be acceptible to drop a bomb on "only twenty" non combatants in order to carry out an assassination in the case of the targer fleeing. You are refusing to confirm or deny that statemant therefore you are saying that those non combatanyts are expendible Easy solution - confirm or deny what you have already said - you can't have it both ways. Jim Carroll |
|
10 May 11 - 05:31 AM (#3151280) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "You have indicated that it would be acceptible to drop a bomb on "only twenty" non combatants in order to carry out an assassination in the case of the targer fleeing." Assassination is not legal. Killing a combatant is. Doing it with a bomb is legally acceptable whether we like it or not Jim. |
|
10 May 11 - 05:42 AM (#3151282) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford The LOAC governs the conduct of aerial warfare. The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy's military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means. |
|
10 May 11 - 06:48 AM (#3151308) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge I should like to see the basis for a legal argument that an incursion into neutral or allied territory can be rendered lawful by the ground of national self defence. I cannot construct any analogue in private law. I can appreciate that an incursion into the territory of an enemy can be lawful on such ground. Then there is the separate question of whether killing ObL was an act of national self defence. Certainly my impression at the time of the killing was that he was more figurehead than anything else - a politician rather than a combatant. If we get told the truth about the contents of his hard drives it may become clear whether he was a field commander in chief - which would justify his killing if all else was in order. I remain concerned about the propriety of killing anyone based on information found from torture - and the US claims that what the rest of the world can see is torture but they call "enhanced interrogation" was essential to enabling the killing. Unconditionally approving what the US government and military did here makes the US government and military more dangerous to the rest of the world. |
|
10 May 11 - 07:36 AM (#3151331) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford From The European Journal Of International Law. Was the Killing of Osama bin Laden Lawful? Author: Marko Milanovic Filed under: EJIL AnalysisMonday May 2,2011 Yes. I wouldn't say beyond any doubt, but for practical purposes very nearly so. As I've argued before, there are three bodies of law (potentially) relevant for assessing the legality of a targeted killing: the jus ad bellum, IHL, and human rights law. As for the jus ad bellum, it is unclear at this time whether the Pakistani government – parts of whose security apparatus undoubtedly harboured and protected OBL – consented to the use of force by the US on Pakistani soil. The Pakistani government has not yet publicly expressed its views on the matter; all things considered, however, it seems such consent was given. If it was not, then the US would have to argue self-defense in killing OBL, which is of course a complex question. At any rate, it is for Pakistan to raise a jus ad bellum issue, and it does not seem at all politically likely that they will now say, oh yes, we've been hiding OBL for years now, but the US had no right to violate our sovereignty. As for IHL, the jus in bello, it either does not apply at all as the killing was not done as a part of any legally cognizable armed conflict (probably the better view), or OBL was a lawful target as a leader of an organized armed group taking part in a non-international armed conflict a la Hamdan. As for IHRL, as readers are aware the US argues that the ICCPR does not apply extraterritorially, e.g. to a targeted killing in Pakistan. That position is in my view incorrect. No matter how despicable, OBL was a human being with human rights, and he was protected by the ICCPR – but his human rights were still not violated. IHRL does allow states to deliberately kill individuals if they have a sufficient justification. OBL was undoubtedly a highly dangerous individual, whose apprehension was needed to protect the lives of others. The US military operation at least contemplated the capture of OBL; the troops on the ground shot him in a firefight. There are no indications that he had tried to surrender before being shot. Under the same facts, his killing would have been equally as lawful had he been hiding somewhere in Alaska rather than in Abbottabad. |
|
10 May 11 - 07:43 AM (#3151336) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Bin Laden Killing: the Legal Basis May 2, 2011 Author: John B. Bellinger III, Adjunct Senior Fellow for International and National Security Law The U.S. killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan was lawful under both U.S. domestic law and international law. The U.S. government's legal rationale will be similar to arguments used by both the Bush and Obama administrations to justify drone strikes against other al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and elsewhere. The Authorization to Use Military Force Act of September 18, 2001, authorizes the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against persons who authorized, planned, or committed the 9/11 attacks. The killing is not prohibited by the longstanding assassination prohibition in Executive Order 12333 because the action was a military action in the ongoing U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force. The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defense. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda and as a legitimate action in self-defense, given that bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks. Some critics of the administration's legal theory that the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda might--if they were consistent with their past criticisms--argue that the United States did not have a right to use military force against bin Laden outside of Afghanistan, and that Washington should instead have sent an extradition request to Pakistan or asked the Pakistani government to arrest bin Laden. But such traditional critics may prefer to remain silent in this instance. In addition, under the UN Charter, the United States would normally be prohibited from using force inside Pakistan without obtaining Pakistan's consent. It is not clear whether the Obama administration received the consent of the Pakistani government to use force inside Pakistan in this case, but the Pakistani government appears at least to have consented after the fact to this potential infringement of its sovereignty. |
|
10 May 11 - 07:47 AM (#3151340) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? One Top UN Expert Says So. Mark Leon Goldberg May 4, 2011 Mark Leon Goldberg Category: Rights Topics: Bin Laden The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms Martin Scheinin believes the killing of Osama Bin Laden was legal. "The United States offered bin Laden the possibility to surrender, but he refused. Bin Laden would have avoided destruction if he had raised a white flag", Scheinin said on Tuesday. According to Scheinin, apprehending a dangerous criminal like Osama bin Laden means that one must be prepared to use force. He noted that killing is permissible under international law only if the person being apprehended resists, and if there are no other means available. Scheinin said that the United States was prepared for the possibility of catching bin Laden alive, noting that the operation involved a commando raid on his hiding place, and not a missile strike. Scheinin is no American patsy. He previously served as special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism and has called Guantanamo a "legal black hole." He has been sharply critical of the America detention policies and the military commissions to try terror suspects. Meanwhile, the top UN human rights official Navi Pillay also gives a wink and nod to the U.S. operation. "I note that the United States has clearly stated that their intention was to arrest bin Laden if they could, I fully understand that this was always likely to have been difficult," she added. "This was a complex operation and it would have been helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding his killing," the High Commissioner for Human Rights said. All counter-terrorism operations had to respect international law, she added. This all goes to show that the United States fumbled a little bit when Obama administration officials quickly changed their story surrounding the precise details of Bin Laden's death. First, they said, he raised a weapon to resist –so the shooting was clearly justified and legal. Now, they say, he was making other threatening gestures, which would also justify his killing. However, if he was shot while trying to surrender then the legality of his killing becomes less clear. That's why human rights officials like Pillay have to tread somewhat carefully here. |
|
10 May 11 - 07:52 AM (#3151343) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Richard all these are linked to here. http://news.lib.uchicago.edu/blog/2011/05/ Did American forces comply with applicable law when they killed Osama bin Laden? Yes, according to Law School Professor Aziz Huq. In a recent radio interview (Does the death of Osama bin Laden change the legal game?), Professor Huq states that the killing of bin Laden "falls within the domain of permissible force that can be used by the [U.S.] military[Rules of Engagement] and doesn't fall within the prohibition on assassinations that applies to civilian agencies [Executive Order]." Other commentators have also weighed in on the issue. Here are links to some selected legal analyses (see also the Lawfare national security blog for summaries of commentary on the legality of killing Osama bin Laden): ■John B. Bellinger III, Bin Laden Killing: The Legal Basis (Council on Foreign Relations, May 2, 2011) ■bin Laden Slaying: Was It Legal? (Rebecca Baker reporting on Pace international law symposium, May 6, 2011) ■Thomas Darnstädt, Justice, American Style: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? (SPIEGEL ONLINE, May 3, 2011) ■Ashley S. Deeks, Pakistan's Sovereignty and the Killing of Osama Bin Laden (ASIL Insights, May 5, 2011) ■Kevin Jon Heller, Quick Thoughts on UBL's Killing, and a Response to Lewis (Opinio Juris, May 4, 2011)(legal under international humanitarian law (IHL)) ■In bin Laden killing, legal clarity (National Law Journal, May 9, 2011; quotes U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, Jr.)(available via LexisNexis) ■Raffi Khatchadourian, Bin Laden: The Rules of Engagement (The New Yorker, May 4, 2011) (includes links to related magazine and newspaper articles) ■Fiona de Londras, Killing Osama bin Laden; Doing Justice? (IntlawGrrls, May 4, 2011) ■Marko Milanovic, When to Kill and When to Capture, (EJIL: Talk!, May 6, 2011) ■Marko Milanovic, Was the Killing of Osama bin Laden Lawful? (EJIL: Talk!, May 2, 2011) ■Mary Ellen O'Connell, The bin Laden aftermath: Abbottabad and international law (Foreign Policy, May 4, 2011) ■Mary Ellen O'Connell, The Death of bin Laden As a Turning Point (Opinio Juris, May 3, 2011) ■Geoffrey Robertson, Why it's absurd to claim that justice has been done (The Independent, May 3, 2011) ■Ben Saul, Delivered from evil…to a minefield of law and consequence (The Drum Opinion, ABC, May 4, 2011) ■Jeffrey Toobin, Killing Osama: Was It Legal? (The New Yorker, May 2, 2011) ■Beth Van Schaack, Assassination under International & Domestic Law (IntLawGrrls, May 2, 2011) (includes links to some relevant documents) ■Debra Cassens Weiss, Disclosure that Bin Laden Was Unarmed Has Critics Claiming a Violation of International Law (ABA Journal, May 4, 2011) ■What Was the Legal Basis for the Bin Laden Strike? (BLT, Blog of the Legal Times, May 2, 2011 |
|
10 May 11 - 08:11 AM (#3151350) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford NY Times says they have been told that, Two specialist teams were on standby, probably on the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the Arabian Sea: one to bury Bin Laden if he was killed, and a second team of lawyers, interrogators and translators if he was taken alive The Guardian says they have been told that, a deal struck between former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and former US President George W Bush in 2001, paved the way for the US to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan if they knew of Bin Laden's whereabouts. The paper quotes serving and retired Pakistani and US officials as saying that under the terms of the arrangement Pakistan would "vociferously protest the incursion" after it took place. |
|
10 May 11 - 10:27 AM (#3151400) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity To anyone concerned: Legal?? That is your basis for right and wrong??? Smoking Pot??? Seems like some of you pick and choose about your 'moral judgments'! GfS |
|
10 May 11 - 10:34 AM (#3151410) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Backwoodsman Never smoked pot. Neither do I want to. |
|
10 May 11 - 11:39 AM (#3151468) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Prediction: starting very soon, books will be written and videos produced that argue that the SEAL raid was illegal, immoral, and part of the 9/11 coverup. The case will be made through insinuation, lots of rhetorical questions, dubious claims and ambiguous evidence, and the suppression of inconvenient facts. Conspiracy buffs and generally naive people everywhere will be convinced. Just part of the trend to make "alternative history" more than just a kind of fantasy fiction. And to make money too, and gain a following. See if it doesn't happen. |
|
10 May 11 - 12:04 PM (#3151479) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Well, some of us don't..but what I was merely pointing out, is that some people love to moralize about the 'legality' of various things, then pick and choose what is OK for them to do, and wrong for others to do. Maybe the pot thing was 'less than a good example'..so let's try this one...Illegal aliens have been crossing our borders, and even killing ranchers, on our side. Now the 'uber-left', seems to justify that, and make excuses, but then turn around and condemn the killing of OBL, based on the same illegality, of crossing a border, to take some one out! Two things: We are either 'relieved' or 'glad' OBL was snuffed, or we are opposed to it, and that should be consistent with other border crossings to commit murder, including those killings of innocent citizens, sorta like 911 as well, or we oppose all of it..not just those whose policies we agree with! Secondly: For all those who are standing on using the legality of their interpretation of international law, you can spout off all your interpretations, to defend this action, which seems understandable, but those who you are defending, would just as soon put a bullet in YOUR head, because they don't recognize international law, and because you are not of their particular sect of Islam..no matter how much you vehemently, side with them!!! Not only that, they wish to replace your international law, with Sharia law, which justifies a lot more death sentences, for things your/our cultures take for granted, every day. That being said, personally I abhor, not only war, but what our government has been doing throughout the world, on the behalf of other 'special interests', and then cloaking it all with hypocritical rhetoric, for the public, back home. This has been going on through both types of administrations, left or right,(doesn't matter), and we here at home, are left with a tragically divided public, which division itself, keeps the main problems from being addressed! Rarely, does it seem, that when a new policy is acted upon, it is NOT in the interests of the public at large, but rather to facilitate whatever 'special interest' from making a profit, from its implementation! The OBL killing(?), was done for political expediency, more than protection of the West, but because it was also beneficial(we think) for us as well, we'll see these arguments take place. So, if you want Sharia law to replace international law, or, if you want to see Sharia law, become international law, consider this as well. The law you are defending would make it 'legal' to kill you instantly, for not swearing allegiance to 'Allah'..but if you did that, to their INTERPRETATION of Sharia law, that most accurately fits THEIR radical views. You might say it is a battle of the 'laws'. Sometime it will occur to some of you, that, as I said before, WAR is the breakdown of ALL laws!....and this particular war that is going on, is going to get a LOT nastier, and crueler and chaotic, that anyone can imagine! Does that justify any of what is going on? Right now, or at least for the moment, we have gathered lots of intel from the raid...perhaps that can stall more bloodshed....while we use that time to 'rip-off, illegally, and hypocritically others in the world community...not for peace, not for order, but for the profiteers, and control freaks, to keep the peace at home, long enough to force the public, to become dependent, buy and use the resources that keep them in power! There is another law, yet still, but the uber-left, the far right, and Sharia law ALL hate...and that is, "Love God above all THINGS" and Love your neighbor as yourself"......but that's to lame for all you 'progressives'...(rolls eyes).... GfS |
|
10 May 11 - 12:31 PM (#3151491) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. ...he was making other threatening gestures, which would also justify his killing. Uh, no, Bobad, not by any standard of law can you use lehal force in that instance. Why don't you kill the next person that gives you the finger & see what happens to you, if you try the "he was making threatening gestures" defense. |
|
10 May 11 - 12:54 PM (#3151502) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: WalkaboutsVerse "I note with interest that Mr. Walkabout has managed to come up with precisely zero quotes and sources." (Ron)..."Mr. Walkabout" doesn't know what was happening as Hillary Clinton's hand went to her mouth (Bin Laden's hands may have been on a weapon or raised above his head in surrender for all I know)...but, as I say, a small group of U.S. leaders/officials, plus the SEALS, probably know quite well, and I presume the footage from the SEALS cameras has been kept... |
|
10 May 11 - 12:55 PM (#3151503) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad "Uh, no, Bobad, not by any standard of law can you use lehal force in that instance." I think you got the wrong guy there, I didn't say that. |
|
10 May 11 - 12:59 PM (#3151504) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Greg, oh dear Greg, How do you KNOW he was 'making threatening gestures'?...the 'news'?....given by who??? Same with ALL these 'reports'. Oh, and being flipped the finger, really doesn't much fall into threatening category....maybe he was just picking the finger he liked the best! I think that, knowing from what I already know, about such stuff, they carried out their primary orders...neutralize or terminate the target, and gather ALL intelligence possible, within a certain time frame. The rest of the storied 'reports' was to make it palatable for public consumption! If you want to attack the actions of the SEALS, then you'd have to focus on who gave that order, and/or why?...but then, you'd have to view Obama as a war criminal. If you want to go that way, well then YOU would have to re-examine your enthusiastic support of him, or join in on the guilt, for voting for him...after all, that's how our enemies look at it, don't they? GfS GfS |
|
10 May 11 - 01:39 PM (#3151527) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Here, this is what it's about! Read it, then consider what I posted about a war of 'laws'. Interesting read, for everyone, who thinks they know more than they really do! You tell me!... GfS |
|
10 May 11 - 03:02 PM (#3151564) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Guest Insanity, read Post by bobad Date: 10 May 11 - 07:47 AM, final paragraph. Bobad, hard to tell if the final paragraph in your post cited above was you, or Mr Goldberg. Walkabouts, the self-styled "Simple Seeker After Truth" (a.k.a. Ron Davies) has a positively anal fixation with "quotes ans sources" which he requires for everyone but himself. Ignore him. |
|
10 May 11 - 03:26 PM (#3151578) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Ok..I re-read it, as per requested, by you. Let me call your attention to one particular part..(Note my inserted caps): "This all goes to show that the United States fumbled a little bit when Obama administration officials quickly CHANGED their story surrounding the precise details of Bin Laden's death. First, they said, he raised a weapon to resist –so the shooting was clearly justified and legal. NOW, THEY SAY, he was making other threatening gestures, which would also justify his killing. However, IF he was shot while trying to surrender then the legality of his killing becomes less clear." Again, let me re-iterate,"...How do you KNOW he was 'making threatening gestures'?...the 'news'?....given by who??? Same with ALL these 'reports'." You will notice through my posts regarding this, that when using the words 'news' and 'reports' I always put them in quotation marks, because, frankly, to believe any of these sources, as truth, is nonsense! The only TRUTH that comes from the White House, the administration-S, is usually only by co-incidence!..not accuracy in 'reporting'....and if you've noticed, even on the press briefings, the 'explanations' are usually left 'open-ended', just in case they need to be embellished!..Which they often do! Personally, I think trusting EVERYTHING that they utter, is just that, UTTER NONSENSE! Thanks for the heads up, though. GfS |
|
10 May 11 - 03:40 PM (#3151591) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively ""Mr. Walkabout" doesn't know what was happening as Hillary Clinton's hand went to her mouth" Supposing that she wasn't in the process of witnessing something somewhat shocking involving the execution of an elderly man then Ms. Clinton's hand was no doubt either caught in the act of suppressing either a loud belch, or a guffaw, or maybe more sinisterly she was repressing her sudden embarrassment over discovering that a tiny fart which she had she had stealthily released (on the foolish assumption that it would be innocuously airy) possessed far greater noxious powers than she had formerly anticipated.. We may suppose from the expressions on the faces of her companions, that the latter may well have been the truth. |
|
10 May 11 - 04:06 PM (#3151611) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad "....the execution of an elderly man ...." Who incidentally happens to have been a mass murderer, an innocent oversight on your part I presume. |
|
10 May 11 - 04:39 PM (#3151628) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks GROSS IMAGE ALERT It is, of course, entirely possible that was the instant when a bullet went into his forehead and the side of his head was blown off. |
|
10 May 11 - 05:48 PM (#3151687) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge More interestingly (although I should thank you for the links, Keith et al, although I might want to disagree with some of the views shortly expressed or indeed see the full argument rather than short assertions) it now (and rather belatedly) appears that Pakistan expressly consented some 10 years ago to the USA making an incursion. The US law argument is of course a red herring. The US does not have the power to decide the law of other jurisdictions. That would be wholly colonialist. |
|
10 May 11 - 06:15 PM (#3151713) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "The US law argument is of course a red herring. The US does not have the power to decide the law of other jurisdictions. That would be wholly colonialist." Without wishing to incorrectly suppose myself either an expert on international law or on international farting, I had considered that this might very well be the case myself.. |
|
10 May 11 - 07:20 PM (#3151737) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Richard, I am not sure what you want. My understanding is that an incursion (violation) can be justified on grounds of national self defence. If so, the argument is about whether or not national self defence can be claimed in this case."" Keith, since you have set yourself up as the definitive expert upon military matters both procedural and legal, perhaps you would explain to me what likelihood you see, of any judge allowing a self defense claim from the aggressor in a fight. you wouldn't get that concept past any primary school teacher. Tommy claims Billy punched him on the nose. Billy says it was in self defense. Tommy retorts that Billy threw the only punch in the incident. Billy says "I did it in self defense Miss, I hit him back before he could hit me"! Who thinks that the claim of self defense has any merit?.....And it is even more unlikely to succeed if Billy had to knock Tommy's front door down to do it. I think that dog is seriously unlikely to hunt. As for protesting on behalf of Pakistan Keith, nothing so altruistic I'm sorry to say. I don't give a flying fuck about the human rights or the death of ObL. I care almost as little for the plight of a Pakistani government which couldn't apparently find its collective arse without a road map. What I do care about is having my own and my family's safety compromised by the cavalier actions of a nation which is supposed to be an ally, and having my intelligence insulted by the leaders of that nation claiming to have made me and the rest of the World safer. SAFER FROM WHOM? After all, we've just seen what that nation does to its "allies" whenever it feels inclined. Which of you is going to stand up and say that your governments are worthy of OUR trust? And you had better have some damn convincing argument, because I'm feeling nostalgic about the Cold War, when two bullies wouldn't fight because neither could be sure of winning. Consider this....It's only since the USSR collapsed, leaving the US as supreme military power that we, or you, have had this trouble with terrorists. And before you dive in Keith, Northern Ireland was a separate issue, and last time I looked, not Muslim. Don T. |
|
10 May 11 - 07:42 PM (#3151744) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: artbrooks "It's only since the USSR collapsed, leaving the US as supreme military power that we, or you, have had this trouble with terrorists." Excuse me, Don...dare I mention the IRA? Oh, I didn't notice that Ireland doesn't count. How about the SLA? The Shining Path? The Tamil Tigers? |
|
10 May 11 - 07:58 PM (#3151747) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Checked your links, Jim. Link 1 – June, 2008 – during the Bush administration. Link 2 – Amnesty International "SUSPECTS." But no proof. Amnesty International is a generally good organization and one that I support, but they are often given to erring on the side of suspicion. Not a bad characteristic in such an organization. But you've got to do better than "suspect," JIM. You can't convict on "suspicion." And people "suspect" a lot of things. Conspiracy theories and baseless accusations are built on "suspicions." LINK 3 – Unable to open. Link incomplete. Link 4 – I read that some time back. Two things: The map does not indicate flights going through Shannon;. The dates indicate that this was also information from during the Bush administration. Obama indicated that he was going to put an end to such practices. Now, I cannot verify that it's not still going on. Nor can you prove that it is. But "enhanced interrogation" is not the ONLY way the intelligence services have of getting the information they seek, nor is it necessarily all that reliable. I have already mentioned in previous posts the imaging capabilities of satellites—and of drones. The drones are used far more for reconnaissance than they are as attack weapons. And a compound like the one bin Laden occupied would obviously draw attention to itself as a place to watch very carefully. And I would also suggest, as others here have done, that you acquaint yourself with the laws and agreements between countries having to do with various kinds of hostile situations. Don Firth P. S. By the way: 60 Minutes interview with Barack Obama this past Sunday evening regarding the Osama bin Laden operation. Well worth watching if you wish to be well informed as to the decisions and planning behind it, and WHY certain choices were made. P. P. S. "Take your head out of your arse Don. . . ." Really, Jim! In addition to being pointless, that's unworthy of you! |
|
10 May 11 - 08:08 PM (#3151756) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Beware of any argument that includes "of course," unless you already know something to be a fact. "Of course" is often a simple debating trick. International law sets the standard, and law always requires interpetation because its principles are general. How is that "wholly colonialist"? What does "wholly colonialist" mean here anyway? Pakistan is not a colony of the United States, NATO, or anyone else. Pakistan, moreover, is allowing the US to interrogate the three of Bin Laden's wives now in custody. That doesn't sound to me as though Islamabad thinks the raid was unlawful or that it believes it's being treated in a "colonialist" manner. |
|
10 May 11 - 08:57 PM (#3151770) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble Not that anyone will be interested in this update but "the firefight" has now been reduced to a single shot fired at the SEALS by one of Bin Laden's couriers, one of the 3 or 4 others shot in the raid. I'm still pleased that Bin Laden was shot dead, even if the action did evidently violate international law. Charley Noble |
|
10 May 11 - 09:44 PM (#3151795) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S "even if the action did evidently violate international law." Well pilgrim - sometimes a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do. Presidents too. |
|
10 May 11 - 10:00 PM (#3151798) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity artbrooks: "GROSS IMAGE ALERT It is, of course, entirely possible that was the instant when a bullet went into his forehead and the side of his head was blown off." Ironic, how we can watch any time we want, JFK's head being blown off, but the photos of our enemy gettin' snuffed, are to 'much for us to take'(?) Maybe the radicals need to see it! As to the speculation on what the group in the situation room was thinking, especially Clinton, I originally took it as watching in suspense, as the deal unfolded, probably with, maybe, a little more suspense than watching the judging on 'Dancing With the Stars' or 'American Idol'. That was my original impression, and pretty much still is....but, like I said before, it is only speculation...Who knows??....and does it really matter?? GfS |
|
10 May 11 - 11:50 PM (#3151834) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bin Laden, inspiration to the 'believers'............. The Islamic "shock troops" are already here. Most people don't recognize them as shock troops, because they don't behave like shock troops, and also because for the most part, people don't understand Islam and "hijra" (conquest by immigration). With an Islamic invasion, shock troops are opposite to the normal understanding of the term. They due things that are normally forbidden in Islamic countries, they smile at, and befriend infidels, they offer charitable assistance to infidels, they profess tolerance and respect for all other religions (Mohammed did the same thing in his early period, when he was outnumbered in Mecca, he later came back with an army and wasn't so "nice" then), they, in other words, make nice. Here are a few other things they have been up to in countries that were not always, or are still not, Islamic states. Coming soon to your neighborhood: 2011.05.09 (Laghman, Afghanistan) - Three children are among five civilians torn to shreds by a Shah-id suicide bomber. 2011.05.09 (Ghazni, Afghanistan) - The Taliban machine-gun a half-dozen policemen at point-blank range. 2011.05.08 (Imbada, Egypt) - Salafists shoot the 16-year-old nephew of a Catholic bishop in the head. 2011.05.08 (Makhachkala, Dagestan) - A journalist is among two people slain by Jihadi gunmen in separate attacks. 2011.05.08 (Pattani, Thailand) - Islamists gun down two Buddhists in front of a mosque. 2011.05.07 (Cairo, Egypt) - Fundamentalists assault two churches with firebombs and gunfire, killing five Copt defenders and seven more in an ensuing rampage. Not making nice with infidels in these places, are they? i guess this is 'legal'..for some folks..... GfS |
|
10 May 11 - 11:53 PM (#3151836) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Lighter, Bobad cites Bellinger on US law. US law is irrelevant for the reasons I stated. If it be correct that there was an earlier express agreement between a former Pakistan administration and a former US administration permitting US incursion, then there would remain the question of whether that agreement was still effective about 10 years later as between different regimes. In terms of Don Thompson's argument that is about knocking down Fred's door, not Tommy's. It is not wholly clear cut but it would make the US's argument much easier. The other argument concerns whether ObL was a political or religious leader on the one hand (assassination a no-no, but arrest by competent authority or its agent lawful, including the use of REASONABLE force against resistance) or a military commander (assassination permissible in most cases except clear surrender). If we can trust what later comes to be said about the contents of ObL's computers, then they will probably tell us which role ObL remained discharging. The issue of whether the US forces represented a lawful authority at that time in that place probably goes back to the validity of that agreement. |
|
11 May 11 - 12:47 AM (#3151846) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ron Davies "execution of an elderly man" Open mouth, insert foot. "execution"--drivel, as detailed already on the thread "elderly"---born 10 Mar 1957 Let's see, that makes him an elderly 54-year-old man. Younger than most Mudcatters, I suspect--including possibly the illustrious poster quoted. That would make said poster a decrepit, doddering old fool. Hey, that might not be too far off. "man"--In all likelihood Osama was a man. So congratulations to the poster--he actually got something right. Osama had several wives. But who knows, perhaps that's just circumstantial evidence. Perhaps said poster would like to consider the possibility of doing some actual research---rather than absurd blather. Just a suggestion. |
|
11 May 11 - 01:39 AM (#3151858) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim accuses me of hiding behind experts, which I do not regard as a criticism. Don T accuses me of setting myself up as an expert. Not true. I just like to back up my posts with evidence. I think it better than relying on prejudice and ignorance. Don, Al Q launched a number of bomb attacks against US targets abroad and in New York that resulted in heavy loss of US lives. These attacks culminated in the devastating attacks of 2001. As I understand it, USA is entitled to strike back at Al Q, even on the soil of another country if they appear not to be taking effective action. Clinton made strikes against them in other countries using cruise missiles even before 2001. |
|
11 May 11 - 03:01 AM (#3151886) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively I have done my research!! It seems that I was in fact incorrect about the supposed farting incident. According to her own testimony, Hilary was not expressing shock at witnessing anything at all (least of all the execution of any doddering old fools either present in bin Laden's compound or posting on Mudcat) merely repressing a "spring cough". Hope that helps. |
|
11 May 11 - 07:02 AM (#3151981) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Richard Bridge: "Lighter, Bobad cites Bellinger on US law. US law is irrelevant for the reasons I stated." What my citation actually states: "The U.S. killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan was lawful under both U.S. domestic law and international law." |
|
11 May 11 - 07:28 AM (#3151994) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Yes. The bit about US law is irrelevant - unless you are planning on sending a gunboat and establishing a colony. |
|
11 May 11 - 07:29 AM (#3151995) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Killing a combatant is. Doing it with a bomb is legally acceptable whether we like it or not Jim." Once again you avoid the issue, which was the needless killing of civiliians - written off by you as 'only twenty' though, given the situation, could have been many more - as with the wisdom of throwing open your country to a nation with a track record of human rights abuses, you slither around the question. I am not discussing the issue of legality - I am asking you to confirm or deny your previous attitude that civilian lives (collateral damage) were expendable - your continued silence on the issue indicates that, as with the use of torture by the US to extract information, you most certainly are. The only "lie" here is your own. Plan B was that if bin Laden had attempted to flee (not a combat situation) a 2,000lb bomb should be dropped, wiping out all men, women and children in the compound, (not to mention those in the immediate surrounding area). Reports indicate that there were between 12 to 17 women and children in the compound, so it is a major massacre of civilians the US was prepared to carry out, for which you are giving your support. This might have been even more disasterous as, according to the New York Times and The Washington Post, the US troops planned to fight their way out if they had met with any resistance from the Pakistani forces - another battleground to add to Iran and Afghanistan. "Jim accuses me of hiding behind experts" I do indeed, and you are, and your persistant use of the excuse, here and elsewhere rings suspiciously like "Ve vere just obeying orders"; the excuse for every inhuman military and political act throughout the 20th century. Will: Your excuses for the torture flights by the US really don't stand up. Their existance here is pretty well accepted and all but admitted by the government - excused, as is the use of torture, as part of the fight against terror. Plenty more news items on the web - that was just a random gathering. The suspicion that they continue remains and is fortified by the continued refusal to inspect the planes. "Really, Jim! In addition to being pointless, that's unworthy of you!" Probably (for which I apologise),but it might just have had something to do with being accused of making up information, being Anti-American and supporting strange causes, none of which is remotely true. I welcomed the election of Obama - even got drunk on the night of the announcement on the strength of it; (though admittedly, I would have welcomed the election of Roland Rat in preference to the previous administration). However, Guantanamo Concentration Camp still remains, despite promises, the suspects remain untried, torture of one form or another is almost certainly still used, and cowboy behaviour like that under discussion continues to make our world a minefield at a time when diplomacy is desperately needed. Despite claims to the contrary, the US has added yet another enemy to its already formidable list. Pakistan has been deeply offended and alienated by the incursion to the extent that the identity of the head of the CIA has been deliberately made public in retaliation. Some years ago a British newspaper published a list of over 50 countries where the US had participated in military action since the end of WW2 (these didn't include places where clandestine activity and financial and political interference had taken place). We threw that list away when it became hopelessly out-of-date. We live in hope that Obama will take steps to reverse the low opinion of the US (governments not people), but he's taking an awfully long time about it and vengeful adventures like this really don't help. It's hard not to notice that nutters like Six-Gun-Sarah and The Tea Party are waiting in the wings should he go down, especially as we haven't fully recovered from the last meglo! As Keith is over-fond of saying - "don't shoot the messenger". Jim Carroll |
|
11 May 11 - 07:51 AM (#3152003) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, "Pakistan has been deeply offended and alienated by the incursion to the extent that the identity of the head of the CIA has been deliberately made public in retaliation. " The previous head had his name leaked 6 months ago. Pakistan "security" leaks. That is why they were not informed. Why do you say they are deeply offended? It has not been expressed by any government official. The PM said it was "proper justice." There were more demonstrations when a Koran was burned! You repeat the lie that I have ever described human lives as expendable. I reported the legal position. Why do you want to make it about me? |
|
11 May 11 - 07:55 AM (#3152006) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, "bin Laden had attempted to flee (not a combat situation) " Yes it is. Retreating combatants can be killed. |
|
11 May 11 - 08:36 AM (#3152032) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ron Davies Keith is right. On top of that, it is a reasonable thought that he was retreating in order to get a weapon or to call for assistance. Or both. Or possibly a suicide idea--taking quite a few with him. The SEALs had a right to preserve their own lives by acting to stop any of the above. So sorry if you don't like it. But by all means continue whining on behalf of an international terrorist, since it appears your lives are otherwise barren of meaning. |
|
11 May 11 - 08:56 AM (#3152044) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Pakistan "security" leaks." It was done deliberately and openly yesterday - keep up "You repeat the lie that I have ever described human lives as expendable." No lie Keith - you have constanly implied it in your apologies. "Retreating combatants can be killed. " Not deliberately taking countless numbers of non-combatants they can't Jim Carroll |
|
11 May 11 - 09:04 AM (#3152049) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ron Davies It is also fascinating that Richard, one of the chief whiners, has already started two threads attacking Obama. We are assured that Richard is not a "genteel" racist, yet here he is yet again criticizing Obama for yet another specious reason--since obviously it is Obama who gave the go-ahead for the mission. We are told Richard is not a racist, but the pattern of attacking the person who is perhaps the most successful black man in the world is getting progressively stronger. Perhaps Richard knows something of the concept of accumulation of evidence. It's getting more and more suspicious. As I said earlier, since Richard is in a hole, the first thing he might want to do is stop digging. |
|
11 May 11 - 09:08 AM (#3152052) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "Pakistan "security" leaks." It was done deliberately and openly yesterday - keep up It was also done 6 months ago. Keep up. No lie Keith - you have constantly implied it in your apologies. Lie. There was no such implication. "Retreating combatants can be killed. " Not deliberately taking countless numbers of non-combatants they can't Correct. Civilians deaths must be minimised and be proportionate to the value of the target. |
|
11 May 11 - 09:12 AM (#3152058) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "We are assured that Richard is not a "genteel" racist," No. he's definitely not a racist, genteel or otherwise. He's critical of some of Obama's decisions not because he considers Obama to have reneged on some of his promises and thereby betrayed those who initially believed in him, but quite obviously because Richard is in fact a bearded misandrist. In fact he's a misandrist lesbian polyandrist, which may also be clearly deduced from his political criticisms of your current married male monogamous president. All very shocking of course, but a racist he's not. |
|
11 May 11 - 09:16 AM (#3152060) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Let's lay our cards on the table. Those who believe that killing, for any reason under any circumstances, is unforgivable, should simply say so and not argue from uninformed interpretations of international law. Those who believe, in spite of the weight of evidence and expert opinion that the U.S. action was "state terrorism" (because it was carried out by a more powerful nation with a capitalist economy and/or a history of high-handedness) should simply say so and not argue from uninformed interpretations of international law. It would make for clarity and save aggravation and bandwidth. No evidence can alter a faith-based position. |
|
11 May 11 - 09:20 AM (#3152065) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively PS - grotty personal slurs which are intended to discredit another individual and their arguments, say far more about the slurrer than the sluree. |
|
11 May 11 - 09:23 AM (#3152066) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Take note Jim. |
|
11 May 11 - 09:32 AM (#3152068) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,999 So, who`s going to OBL`s funeral. |
|
11 May 11 - 09:36 AM (#3152071) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Too late, ain't it Bruce? |
|
11 May 11 - 09:38 AM (#3152072) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively I guess those hoping to dance on his grave (or something similar) will just have to doggy paddle now instead. |
|
11 May 11 - 09:59 AM (#3152081) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge In case anyone is wondering what I ACTUALLY said as apparent facts belatedly emerged, it was this "If it be correct that there was an earlier express agreement between a former Pakistan administration and a former US administration permitting US incursion, then there would remain the question of whether that agreement was still effective about 10 years later as between different regimes. ... It is not wholly clear cut but it would make the US's argument much easier. The other argument concerns whether ObL was a political or religious leader on the one hand (assassination a no-no, but arrest by competent authority or its agent lawful, including the use of REASONABLE force against resistance) or a military commander (assassination permissible in most cases except clear surrender). If we can trust what later comes to be said about the contents of ObL's computers, then they will probably tell us which role ObL remained discharging. The issue of whether the US forces represented a lawful authority at that time in that place probably goes back to the validity of that agreement." I was rather keen on Obama's election. I thought it was a big step forward for the USA. I am concerned that he may have done more than avoid unnecessary confrontation once in post. Those things might be more apt to discuss on another thread. I was however interested to note assertions elsewhere that the funeral of ObL was not carried out in accordance with Islamic Law. Does anyone know the relevant facts? I thought a proper Imam presided and I had therefore assumed that proper ritual was followed. |
|
11 May 11 - 10:09 AM (#3152085) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,999 Yeah. It`s too late. How`s about a memorial service. |
|
11 May 11 - 10:11 AM (#3152090) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "How`s about a memorial service." I know this great synchronised swimming troupe.. |
|
11 May 11 - 11:03 AM (#3152123) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Let's lay our cards on the table." How about those who believe that this should have been an arrest, trial and conviction rather than an assassination; that way, justice would have been seen to be done and the US would have been regarded as heroes in the fight against terrorism rather than being prepared to stoop to the level of those they are fighting. Any possibility of hostage taking was by far outweighed by the likelihood of reprisal attacks anywhere in the world. The fact that the US were prepared to carry out a massacre of non-combatants, and have a shoot-out with Pakistani troops if things had not gone to plan will have sent their reputation even further down the pan than it already is and is an even greater argument for it to have been done properly - "The Yanks are at it again!". The obvious anger in the Pakistani President's speech yesterday and the deliberate disiclosure aimed at damaging the work of the CIA were reflections of what is likely to come from other Middle Eastern countries at a time when their co-operation is vital. Stop setting up your own straw men Lighter - there are far more alternatives than yours and one prevaricator is more than enough Jim Carroll |
|
11 May 11 - 11:50 AM (#3152147) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "Any possibility of hostage taking was by far outweighed by the likelihood of reprisal attacks anywhere in the world." Hostages are easily taken. Aid workers, NGO workers, journalists, etc. There are many precedents. Many can still be seen having their heads hacked off on the net. Reprisal attacks? They are already attacking as much as they can. All they could do is bring forward an attack, making it less likely to succeed. |
|
11 May 11 - 11:52 AM (#3152150) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Why did I select that issue!?? The whole post is nonsense. |
|
11 May 11 - 12:27 PM (#3152169) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Jim Carroll: ""Let's lay our cards on the table." How about those who believe that this should have been an arrest, trial and conviction rather than an assassination; that way, justice would have been seen to be done and the US would have been regarded as heroes in the fight against terrorism rather than being prepared to stoop to the level of those they are fighting." Actually, Jim, that is a GOOD question, and does deserve a good answer! If you've been reading my posts, I've addressed the question of laws, which is key here. Let's play it out....OBL gets arrested, goes to trial..now the question is to what jurisdiction....if it is, lets say, international law, perhaps in the Hague, or even here, by either military tribunal, or even in New York, by a civil trial...this trial would last up to a couple of years, let's say at the outside, the radical Islamists would be screaming bloody murder, that it doesn't recognize that legal system, because they would feel that he should be tried under Sharia law. During the time period, of his incarceration, and publicity of how 'unfair' that would appear, I would think that would be reason for massive recruitment of radicals, using the argument, that the 'infidels' are ignoring their law, by superseding it, and during this whole time, the rhetoric, would escalate...and so would the terrorists activities, demanding his release. The sooner that the ordeal goes on, the more inflamed it gets..virtually consuming every waking moment of the 'news' cycles...The more 'news' the more of an issue, (sorta like on here, but far more dangerous). Also, the snuffing of OBL, gives Obama a 'reason' to crank up the rhetoric on withdrawing from places in the mid-east, because we simply cannot afford the war effort. Possibly the only funding we might get, would be from Saudi Arabia, of which I posted before, and alluded to more recently. Neither the U.S. nor Saudi Arabia could afford to run this a long time...after all, the Saudis are facing the same civil uprisings, that is sweeping the mid-east. A lengthy, inflammatory incarceration, and trial, would put them in a rather sticky wicket, with the population of Islamists, trying to find as many reasons, to get the populace behind them. Keep in mind, I doubt that the royal family their consults the Qur'an, when setting oil prices...nor do they 'share the wealth' either. By the way, the answer to my question, (from a few of my posts back) that nobody dared to answer, was 'the Saudis'. They need us, for consuming their product, and for our military to protect them, and we need the oil...No brainer. Personally I think we should be drilling our own oil and stimulate OUR economy..and I DON'T really think that the only thing preventing us from doing just that, are a bunch of whiny environmentalists! They are nothing but a ruse, to be used, as well. Does that answer suffice? GfS |
|
11 May 11 - 12:35 PM (#3152172) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity OOps typo: 15th line, second paragraph should read,"Keep in mind, I doubt that the royal family consults their Qur'an,.." or even, "Keep in mind, I doubt that the royal family there consults the Qur'an,.." I screwed up the context of 'there' versus 'their'.. GfS P.S. there's a couple of lesser ones, as well..but nobody understands anything I say, anyway! |
|
11 May 11 - 12:50 PM (#3152183) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Prevaricator? Straw men? If the categories don't fit, Jim, it's reasonable to assume that I was talking about someone else. In any case, I think my position is clear: the United States did what it had to do, and with the minimum of violence possible. In an ideal world, perhaps, where nothing goes wrong and all decisions are perfect, Bin Laden would have been arrested and tried -if terrorism even existed in such a world. The legal and medical teams readied by the U.S. show that it had prepared for just that possibility - which casts doubt on the idea that the SEALs had absolute orders to shoot to kill. In the judgment of the shooter, who was there, the only way to complete the mission was to kill Bin Laden. I'd think your argument is with him rather than with the United States. And I believe that the good fath of the SEALs is beyond question. Why? Because they reported that Bin Laden was not holding a gun. It would have simplified everything if they'd just lied and said he'd been armed or even fired at them. Who could prove otherwise? As honorable men, they didn't. Beyond all else, Bin Laden's own history and creed imply that, faced with enemy soldiers, he would choose martyrdom rather than surrender. I can't see that it makes sense to blame anyone for that. |
|
11 May 11 - 01:07 PM (#3152194) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge I'm starting to feel intrigued about the death rites. We nearly know (after much digging and a surprise fact emerging late in the day) that the incursion was lawful (probably, if the agreement was still in force). We won't know whether ObL was political/religious leader or combatant until we know the truth about what was in his computers. The absence of an internet connection would have limited his hands on role in real time. The factual benefit or otherwise of the death remains to be seen - and so on to the remains. A little rummaging on the internet seems to reveal some odd points. First - was ObL for ritual purposes a Muslim at all? An official body had carried out what seems to be the Muslim equivalent of excommunication some years back. Second, did he die in battle or otherwise? Although I have not nailed down the differences it appears that battlefield death rites are less formal (as one might expect). Third, does Islam require burial in the earth except in the case of those who die at sea? If it requires return to the earth, what is wrong with the earth that lies under the sea? Fourth, if burial at sea is permitted, should the body have been lowered not launched, should it have been weighted, should it have been in a clay container or otherwise protected to a greater or lesser extent from being immediately consumed by predators? Why didn't the US armed forces know the answers to these questions, given the planning that went on and the apparent intention to reduce reprisal risk. Or doesn't it matter? Would the US be equally happy if fallen US soldiers' bodies were disposed of in accordance with Afghan, Pakistani, or other Islamic law? |
|
11 May 11 - 01:13 PM (#3152199) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Lighter, it seems you've changed you perspective, a little...cool! It seems that your post left out the 'reported' story, that multiple SEALS opened fire on him, hitting him numerous times. I think that was the order. The medical teams were probably their for the SEALS, should any of them become wounded. That makes more sense. GfS |
|
11 May 11 - 01:24 PM (#3152201) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." - Osama bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa So much for due process of law for any man, woman or child anywhere in the world who any fanatic could classify as satisfying the criteria set out above by Mr bin Laden. The phrase then comes to mind, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander". It always never ceases to amaze me when terrorists, and their sympathisers, complain bitterly about receiving the treatment that they meet out to others as a matter of course, apparently "human rights" and "rules of evidence" should only apply to protect those who utterly despise them. The victim of the terrorist is always at fault in the eyes of the terrorist. In carping on about such treatment they only reveal themselves to be what they truly are cowards to a man. Of course Osama bin Laden should not have been arrested, put on trial and sentenced, for the perfectly good reasons clearly explained in this thread by others. Osama bin Laden suffered the fate he deserved, shot down like a rabid dog and his remains cast beyond recovery in an unmarked spot to vanish without trace and without any prospect of any shrine or place or rememberance - the right to such places belongs to his victims and to them alone. |
|
11 May 11 - 01:24 PM (#3152203) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Well kids .... the photos are now making there way through the vast WWW ..... appears OBL is in the water. Sea Hunt with Osama biLL |
|
11 May 11 - 01:29 PM (#3152207) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Dear Terry I suggest you audition immediately for a part in "Gunsmoke". Legitimacy does not come from the barrel of a gun. It is our adherence to principle and law that makes us better than the terrorist. You seem to want to be a terrorist. That differs from your stance on Ireland, does it not? |
|
11 May 11 - 01:40 PM (#3152214) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Cool, Richard!!! You're making a lot more sense now. So I'll help you out, with some of your questions. We nearly know (after much digging and a surprise fact emerging late in the day) that the incursion was lawful (probably, if the agreement was still in force). We won't know whether ObL was political/religious leader or combatant until we know the truth about what was in his computers. The absence of an internet connection would have limited his hands on role in real time. Islam (especially the radicals), make NO distinction between political and religious, combining the two into one. There is a link that I provided, that shows that, with NUMEROUS sources, in the bibliography!! ...................................................................... The factual benefit or otherwise of the death remains to be seen - and so on to the remains. TRUE!!! (Who do you trust these days??) ..................................................................... A little rummaging on the internet seems to reveal some odd points. First - was ObL for ritual purposes a Muslim at all? An official body had carried out what seems to be the Muslim equivalent of excommunication some years back. TRUE! (In the links that I provided, it shows the Islamist grounds for 'excommunication'..which, BTW, can also carry a death sentence, and that is why the world of Islam is yet divided about his death! Radicals either dismiss him, for that reason, OR use him as a symbol to justify more of their deal. Moderates, dismiss him, because he has brought war to them, and on them as well! So, its mixed, depending on what faction re-acts. .................................................................... Second, did he die in battle or otherwise? Although I have not nailed down the differences it appears that battlefield death rites are less formal (as one might expect). Again, the death reports are, at best, not fully given, and what we DO have, is just the administrations accounts..which many people doubt, even claiming he was dead a long time ago!..Who knows? ..................................................................... Third, does Islam require burial in the earth except in the case of those who die at sea? If it requires return to the earth, what is wrong with the earth that lies under the sea? According to Islam, the dead are supposed to be buried with their head pointed east, toward Mecca. ...Personal note: Hopefully with enough currents, it gets to do that a few times..perhaps! .................................................................... Fourth, if burial at sea is permitted, should the body have been lowered not launched, should it have been weighted, should it have been in a clay container or otherwise protected to a greater or lesser extent from being immediately consumed by predators? the 'reported' story, was, and is also true, about burials at sea, is that he would have been placed in a weighted 'bag'(f you will), and lowered. I imagine, coming off the deck of an aircraft carrier, the 'lowering' still would have made a bit of a splash...(but that is speculatory..but is also the common practice at sea. ...................................................................... Why didn't the US armed forces know the answers to these questions, given the planning that went on and the apparent intention to reduce reprisal risk. I'm sure they did...remember, that there was a 'story' that had to be cooked up, for public consumption..The amount of truth in the released story, may be questioned, for years to come ...................................................................... Or doesn't it matter? Would the US be equally happy if fallen US soldiers' bodies were disposed of in accordance with Afghan, Pakistani, or other Islamic law? We usually request our fallen to be returned, but not all the time, as one can see on the hills above Normandy. ...................................................................... I hope these answers, which you can research, help you out. Try the link on one of my previous posts. I also hope, that you can remain open, about all this. Frankly, its a huge cluster-fuck! GfS |
|
11 May 11 - 01:47 PM (#3152219) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "sent their reputation even further down the pan than it already is and is an even greater argument for it to have been done properly - "The Yanks are at it again!". " Not one government has criticised the US. Not even Pakistan. Hamas did, but because they killed "a holy warrior" (combatant), not for any legal reason. "The obvious anger in the Pakistani President's speech yesterday" The President has not even bothered to make a speech about it. It was the Prime Minister, who was not at all angry (I watched it all. It was obligingly made in English!). He said it was "proper justice" Had the compound been bombed, it would have been a tragedy for the children present, but the adults knew well that they were making themselves targets. |
|
11 May 11 - 01:57 PM (#3152222) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Was he a combatant? US assumed he was and that was a reasonable assumption. He had been a combatant, had paraded himself as a combatant, and no change of role had been announced. The incursion was legal. The killing was legal (unless he actually surrendered in time.) Not one innocent bystander was hurt. Not one of the children was hurt. Pakistan did not object. No government except Hamas has raised any objection. UN has raised no objection. No demos in any country except Pakistan, and very low key there. So what exactly are Jim and Richard objecting to? The nationality of the SEALS? The end of an enemy of the West? |
|
11 May 11 - 02:34 PM (#3152244) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter I don't believe I've changed my perspective, though my penchant for irony may have suggested it inadvertently. My last two posts state my position without irony. |
|
11 May 11 - 02:45 PM (#3152252) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Keith A of Hertford: "Hamas did, but because they killed "a holy warrior" (combatant), not for any legal reason." Hamas was also castigated by OBL and he distanced himself from them, earlier on, because they had a falling out. (that, I believe was also in my link). This is also just my opinion, but a 'reasonably educated one', (I think), but Iran is more of the influence to Hamas, and behind their protestations..more than Hamas, itself. I think Iran, has most of the power hungry influence, in the whole area...and from their standpoint, feel most justified. Now, using that justification, they are getting the whole area up in arms, more than any of the individual factions. You would have to get acquainted more with the Shaw, overthrow, hostage situation, Iraq/Iran war, our participation, and Iran-Contra history, to see why...which is lengthy...but I have posted some inside stuff in previous posts, (a while back)..and its pretty clear. The first time I heard of the details, and particulars, on the Iran/Contra affair, in 1986, from Daniel Sheehan, and the Christic Institute's, lawsuit, in Florida's Federal court,,...I actually cried for my country! ............................................................ Keith: "So what exactly are Jim and Richard objecting to?" I think they are finally asking the right questions, now. I also hope there is a healing from all this. Death and war, and our participation in all this, is a black eye for all of us! GfS |
|
11 May 11 - 02:49 PM (#3152253) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Ok, we cross-posted.... Lighter: "I don't believe I've changed my perspective, though my penchant for irony may have suggested it inadvertently." OK, so you're saying that you enjoy being suicidal, and proud of it??? GfS |
|
11 May 11 - 03:02 PM (#3152257) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter I'm outta this place...! |
|
11 May 11 - 03:06 PM (#3152259) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge It is not true that Pakistan has not objected. It voiced its deep concern. But it the intergovernmental agreement was still validly in force that is a red herring. ASSUMING that someone is a combatant is not a valid logical step. If the killing needed to be lawful under international law (which I assert it did need to be as otherwise there is anarchy and rule by might) then the distinction or otherwise made by Islamic law between on the one hand a politician or religious leader or on the other hand a combatant is not in point any more than US law. It is the international law on the point that matters, and we have not got the evidence yet. My concern was and to some extent still is the potential for US hegemony to move into brute force domination. I require my fate to be determined by English law, not John Wayne cultural imperialism. GFS, I am not sure you have got my drift - and alternatively I am not sure of your expertise on some things. I think we see eye to eye on ObL's potential status as apostate. If the present US accounts of the death are accurate, was that a battlefield death for Islamic purposes or not? The importance of the question is that apparently the ceremony carried out before the burial at sea was one that was not for a battlefield death - which in turn somewhat undermines the US justification for the shooting - but more importantly that it was incorrect in Islamic law should have been followed. Civilised countries do not defile the bodies of their fallen opponents. I am clear (from the internet) that Islam permits in some cases and in some ways burial at sea. Two questions follow. First, was this a case in which Islamic law permitted burial at sea? If not, then as a matter of Islamic ritual there was a defilement. Second, if Islamic law permitted this burial at sea, were the requirements - eg lowering on a rope, use of a clay vessel, attempts to circumvent predation etc - followed. I suspect we need an Islamic scholar to examine these things if we want to know the answers. Some, I suspect, simply don't want to know. |
|
11 May 11 - 03:21 PM (#3152268) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Richard: "...It is the international law on the point that matters, and we have not got the evidence yet..." To the Islamist's view, Sharia law, is the aim of them, to be 'international law'. So how they view 'our' international law, has no bearing, as far as they are concerned,..and therefore ,the rub. Fair enough? GfS |
|
11 May 11 - 03:47 PM (#3152277) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth ". . . unless you are planning on sending a gunboat and establishing a colony." Pots and kettles, Richard? I am a citizen of a country that used to be a British colony (until we decided we didn't want to be anymore; "Bloody cheek!!"). You might try learning a little of your own history. For example, that fairly extended era in which the boast was "The sun never sets on the British Empire." I don't think the United States has any "colonies." Don Firth P. S. Someone a few posts back used the phrase, "terrorists and terrorist sympathizers." I'm amazed at the people on this thread who have tacitly declared themselves "terrorist sympathizers" in the literal meaning of the expression!! |
|
11 May 11 - 03:51 PM (#3152280) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Not even Pakistan." You keep repeting this and it keeps not being true - I too watched exerpts from the Prime Misister (my mistake) of Pakistan's speech (in impeccible English) and he certainly did object (as much as he could on behalf of a country who is dependent on Western aid - as has been pointed out and as you continue to ignore). The "proper justice" you quote was refrring to the killing of bin Laden, not the way it was done and certainly not excusing Pakistan being left out of the loop, humiliated, threatened with having a large number of its people running the risk of being massacred and its troops being in danger fired on by US forces. The outing of the CIA chief in Pakistan was also an indication of Pakistani/US soured relations; this from this morning's Irish Times: "In another sign of the soured relations between US and Pakistani intelligence agencies, the Americans have blamed Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI) for "outing" the CIA station chief in Pakistan, presumably to demonstrate leverage over the US, and as an expression of anger over allegations that the ISI was complicit in bin Laden's presence in Pakistan. The US station chief reportedly clashed bitterly with Lieut Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the ISI, over the detention of Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor who shot dead two Pakistanis in January. ISI officials, who allegedly keep some Pakistani journalists on their payroll, are believed to have given an approximate version of the name of the station chief to a private television station which broadcast it, and to the Nation newspaper, described by the New York Times as "supportive of the ISI". The previous CIA station chief left Pakistan in December, after he was "outed" in the same manner. The new station chief reportedly played a key role in bin Laden's killing, by supervising the safe house in Abbottabad which spied on bin Laden's compound." The US sent troops into Pakistan without consulting the govenment, it was prpared to kill a large number of Pakistani non combatants to prevent bib Laden from escaping, and the US troops were prepared exchange fire with Pakistani troops if they were fired upon - of course the Pakistanis were ******** well upset by the episode; who wouldn't be (except Keith, who says he is quite happy to let troops walk in and out of his country unmolested as long as they do it 'legally'.) "but the adults knew well that they were making themselves targets." So the children were expendable - and those outside the compound quite likely to be injured and killed - assuming that you know the adults knew, of course - didn't read that bit anywhere). "So what exactly are Jim and Richard objecting to?" We are objecting to the long term effects of a cowboy military incursion in order to carry out an unnecessary assassination, on the fight against terrorism. I am also objecting to the fact that the US was prepared massacre a large number of uninvolved non- combatants had their plans gone awry and their target had attempted to escape (not fight back). Jim Carroll |
|
11 May 11 - 03:59 PM (#3152287) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Don... "I don't think the United States has any "colonies."" Iraq? Libya? Kuwait?... wait... you are correct... they are Brit colonies that the Yanks keep in line for the Brits, among others. Sorry. Of course, the technicalities are up for discussion... ad infinitum. Hmmmm. On a less technical note... what about Hawaii? |
|
11 May 11 - 04:24 PM (#3152303) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "declared themselves "terrorist sympathizers" in the literal meaning of the expression!!" And that's unworthy of you Don - unless you are referring to those supporting or excusing the use of torture and holding prisoners in concentration camps without charge. Nobody here is coming even close to sympathising with terrorists, but your government has handed them a huge propaganda victory on a plate, and you appear to be upholding that as some sort of a victory. Jim Carroll |
|
11 May 11 - 05:04 PM (#3152328) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Actually, this might be a good time to hold up on the nasty rhetoric. Understanding, would really clear a lot of this up. Shit, you guys keep this up, and the U.S. and Britain will be fighting again! So far, I think the consensus is that it is great that OBL is dead...whether we all believe the 'reports' of the ever-changing details, and/or the back-peddling of the administration, to cover whatever they're trying to keep from looking worse than it is. On the other hand, it might have been anything from a clean, slick military operation, to a fiasco..who knows?..and even hiding that OBL might have been already dead, long ago. Its ALL out there! ANY information, that would be accurate, would only come from someone who was there....and that, I doubt, you'd ever find on the internet..or anywhere else.....and then, you'd still have to consider the source, whether it was from the SEALS, or from one of OBL's surviving witnesses! ..depending on their biases and PERCEPTION!!! one thing I can rest on, is that my posts, have tried, impartially to best describe the actual conflict, between TWO warring world systems! Oh well, Back to the studio..where the only conflict, is to get it right! GfS |
|
11 May 11 - 05:13 PM (#3152334) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Richard. Was he a comabatant? He had been. He posed as such. He had never announced a change of role. Why should anyone not believe, in good faith, that he was a comabatant. If he was not, and wanted to be treated as a non combatant, he should have told someone. The US acted in good faith, on the evidence available. |
|
11 May 11 - 05:32 PM (#3152348) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth "Nobody here is coming even close to sympathising with terrorists. . . ." Well, you sure could've fooled me! You and one or two others seem to totally disregard the young woman who stood there at a shattered window in the World Trade Center that morning and tried to decide whether she preferred to jump out and die when she struck the pavement forty stories below or stay there and burn to death. Or be crushed to death when the building collapsed—and the 3,000 plus other people she was with. Or the firemen who died trying to rescue people and fight an impossible holocaust at the same time. Or the families of those who died that morning, or later as a result of injuries or inhaling asbestos and other building materials released. Not to mention the personnel in the various embassies around the world that bin Laden masterminded attacks on prior to 9/11. What manner of justice did Osama bin Laden grant them? Or, for that matter, the people whose deaths he would continue to mastermind had he NOT been taken out as he was? Unworthy of me? I DON'T THINK SO!! I was just stating what should be obvious to everyone!. #### Apparently Hawaii was far too remote to be exploited by the European counties that tried. Portugal, England, France—and Russia, among others. On February 10, 1843, Lord George Paulet, on the Royal Navy warship HMS Carysfort, entered Honolulu Harbor and demanded that King Kamehameha III cede the Hawaiian Islands to the British Crown. Under the guns of the frigate, Kamehameha stepped down under protest and surrendered to Paulet on February 25, Gerrit P. Judd, a missionary who had become the Minister of Finance, secretly sent envoys to the United States, France and Britain, to protest Paulet's actions. The protest was forwarded to Rear Admiral Richard Darton Thomas, Paulet's commanding officer, who arrived at Honolulu harbor on July 26, 1843 on HMS Dublin. Thomas repudiated Paulet's actions, and on July 31, 1843, restored the Hawaiian government. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States allowed for duty-free importation of Hawaiian sugar (from sugarcane) into the United States beginning in 1876. This promoted sugar plantation agriculture. In exchange, Hawaii ceded Pearl Harbor, including Ford Island (in Hawaiian, Moku'ume'ume), together with its shore for four or five miles back, free of cost to the U.S. This treaty explicitly acknowledged Hawaii as a sovereign nation. During the next decades, there were several internal squabbles and revolutions among would-be Hawaiian monarchs, until finally a group of European and American residents—and native Hawaiians—began the political machinations to become a territory and protectorate of the United States. This took some time, spanning a couple of presidential administrations, but eventually—and I point out that this action was initiated by Hawaiians themselves, NOT the American government—Hawaii was "annexed" as a United States territory and protectorate. There were some—NOT Hawaiians, incidentally—that tried to claim that this was the United States venturing into "imperialism," despite the fact that, as I said, the move was requested by Hawaiians themselves, hoping that this would resolve the rash of internal disputes. Which it did. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Hawaii Admission Act on March 18, 1959 which allowed for Hawaiian statehood. After a vote of over 93% in favor of statehood, it was admitted as the 50th state on August 21, 1959, with a population of about 423,620 (85%) Americans, Asians, and Europeans, and 76,620 (15%) Native Hawaiians. Colony? Nah, I don't think it was ever that. Don Firth P. S. Thanks for the question, gnu! In looking for the answer, I learned a bit! P. S. Don't fret it, GfS. Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it. And most Americans I know are really quite fond of the British. Great people. Great country. But every country has its— Well, forget it! |
|
11 May 11 - 05:32 PM (#3152349) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Pakistan may be humiliated at not being informed, but the people within ISI who keep leaking the name of the CIA head would also leak the news of an attack. ObL would have escaped again. He was taken completely by surprise, secure in the belief there would be no attack without a warning from his friends in ISI. Pakistan knew this and so agreed in advance that it should happen without their knowledge or consent. They have expressed concern. There could have been an incident. There has been not rebuke, no change in relations, no diplomatic response, nothing. They are grateful. 30 000 civilian dead and 5 000 military dead. Grateful. "military incursion in order to carry out an unnecessary assassination" Your opinion Jim. Does any government in the world share it. List them please. Not Pakistan obviously, or they would not be so glad he is dead as to call it "proper justice." They clearly understand that it was necessary. Are you better informed Jim? |
|
11 May 11 - 05:42 PM (#3152359) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it." 9/11 cost us 67 dead. The single biggest loss of British life for any act of terrorism. 52 dead on 7/7. |
|
11 May 11 - 05:50 PM (#3152362) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus I rather liked this: Well somebody is lying Version 1: According to various "witnesses" judged to be reliable by the Pakistani military (i.e. their own men) and totally believed by Pakistani politicians (Benizir Bhutto) Osama bin Laden died in the mountains of Tora Bora late 2001. No body was ever found presumably as it was buried beneath thousands of tons of rock. The report of this version was never confirmed or denied by Al-Qaeda primarily because it did not suit their purposes. Version 2: According to the current US Administration Osama bin Laden was killed during a raid mounted by US Special Forces on a compound in the Pakistani City of Abbottabad. Osama bin Laden was shot and his body was removed from the scene samples having been taken for DNA analysis, his body was then hastily buried at sea. Common thing with both Versions is that neither can be independently verified or confirmed. The clever thing about Version 2 is that it forces somebody from the other side to react and that reaction came in the form a statement announcing that Osama bin Laden was dead (PS: It does not matter whether he died in 2001 or 2011) Now we come to "purpose & timing" - May 2011 1. It obviously helps Barack Obama's re-election campaign in that no Democrat is going to be stupid enough to run against the "Man who shot Liberty Valance", but that only helps selection, to ensure making Barack Obama a two-term President this should have happened in 12 months time. 2. Helps get Barack Obama out of a pickle with regard to troop withdrawals from Afghanistan. When he reluctantly and criminally belatedly agreed to General Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops Obama, to appease Joe Biden, slipped in a rather poorly and inaccurately reported time line, that those "surge" troops would begin to be withdrawn in July 2011. In real terms that means that Barack Obama could bring back one single soldier and honour his promise, unfortunately that is not what the "MEEDJA" think having entirely misrepresented what the President had said - They expect thousands to be withdrawn. Well now that Al-Qaeda have announced that Osama bin Laden is dead President Barack Obama can immediately withdraw from Afghanistan the 17,000 to 23,000 troops currently serving in Afghanistan as part of US- Operation Enduring Freedom + 1 soldier "surged" into Afghanistan to serve the ISAF mission - And having done that Barack Obama becomes a "man-of-his-word" and a hero. Reality: - As far as Afghanistan goes Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have been a total irrelevance since 2001; - His death puts nobody any more at risk now than they were before or indeed at any time since 1970; - It is in short a total non-event, about which nobody really gives a damn. |
|
11 May 11 - 05:51 PM (#3152363) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge DF, do you really not get it? The fact (which I will take as so for the purpose of this post only) that some Islamists do not recognise international law has no bearing on whether the actions of the US were lawful under international law (considerable parts of which the US does not recognise either). On cultural imperialism the US has widely and intentionally demanded legal changes, for its own purposes, in other jurisdictions. The threats about Australian copyright are well known, as are the machinations of the US computer giants in European directives and regulations, and WIPO and GATT. Its "long arm" jurisdictions are notorious. The UK/US extradition treaty is a very sore case in point, as is US refusal of reciprocal enforcement of UK judgments. I and many others resent this and do not trust the US with the power to interfere in other jurisdictions. Its tendency to do so appears to be increasing - while the UK's has decreased, is decreasing, and probably (if right wing twerps like Cameron get the chop) will continue to decrease. Keith - necessity (if there was necessity) is not the same as legality. Further, I shall be most surprised if the belief that someone remains a combatant is equivalent to whether he actually is a combatant. |
|
11 May 11 - 06:38 PM (#3152384) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Taking a quick break..can't stay long.... Don Firth: "P. S. Don't fret it, GfS. Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it. And most Americans I know are really quite fond of the British. Great people. Great country. But every country has its— Well, forget it! " I was only referring to battling it out here, on the forum. Actually, I've played music with Brits, on occasion..and one well known British icon, not that very long ago! Anyway, keep it going..yer' doin' good! Teribus, also a good post.... gotta go..I just snuck out of the studio for a quick one...and, jeez..ended up here again!! Regards All!! GfS |
|
11 May 11 - 06:39 PM (#3152386) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity OHHH...and 700! GfS bye.... |
|
11 May 11 - 07:02 PM (#3152392) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth 700, GfS? I don't know whether congratulations or condolences are in order. "DF, do you really not get it?" Oh, I get it all right! I can recongnize a double standard when I see it. Don Firth |
|
12 May 11 - 12:48 AM (#3152502) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "Legitimacy does not come from the barrel of a gun. On occasion it very much does, on others people believe that it does ask the Taliban and those who support the view that they were ever the "legitimate" rulers of Afghanistan. It is our adherence to principle and law that makes us better than the terrorist. Really? They (the terrorists) too adhere to their "principles" and their "laws" as they see them. Being involved in the legal profession you mistake law for justice, I can buy law to escape justice if I have enough money and the right connections (There have been numerous cases that demonstrate that the world over) You seem to want to be a terrorist. That differs from your stance on Ireland, does it not? Most certainly not!!! I hold ALL terrorist organisations in equal low regard, they are ALL simply murdering self-serving scum in my book - You do not reason with a snake or scorpion, you do not try to change it's nature or behaviour - You kill it. |
|
12 May 11 - 01:07 AM (#3152516) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Teribus: "Most certainly not!!! I hold ALL terrorist organisations in equal low regard, they are ALL simply murdering self-serving scum in my book - You do not reason with a snake or scorpion, you do not try to change it's nature or behaviour - You kill it." ...unless you're a mega-global conglomerate corporation..then you make them your pet! GfS |
|
12 May 11 - 01:10 AM (#3152518) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, a policeman shoots an armed man after all the correct warnings etc. It transpires the weapon was a harmless replica. I remember a case when the gun turned out to be a chair leg in a bag. As long as the officer acted in good faith, he is OK. |
|
12 May 11 - 01:21 AM (#3152528) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Or the Stockwell shooting. In good faith, the police officers believed he was a combatant. No crime. |
|
12 May 11 - 02:34 AM (#3152564) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Well, you sure could've fooled me!" And now you now are reduced to theatrically using your own dead to excuse a stunt that is quite likely to create more 9/11s and kill more innocents in America and elsewhere - shame on you Don. Somebody's fooled you - I think it's you Jim Carroll |
|
12 May 11 - 02:59 AM (#3152573) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, these children came to no harm. The emotion and outrage you express for them contrasts starkly with the cold lack of concern that you showed in recent weeks for the hundreds of English children, who suffered brutal gang raping, pimping, and in at least one case being literally butchered. Indeed, you ridiculed me when I expressed human compassion for them. How do you account for that Jim? Reverse racism? |
|
12 May 11 - 12:23 PM (#3152787) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Jim, these children came to no harm." The fact that the US was prepared to bomb the compound if bin Laden attempted to escape meant that they were prepared to carry out a pre-meditated massacre of non combatants (between 12 to 17 womwn and children)- the fact that you refuse to condemn or even address this means that you are prepared to support mass murder. I've heard of people wrapping themselves in the flag to excuse the behaviour of their governments, but it's not often you come across somebody who wraps themself in another country's flag - well done that man! "with the cold lack of concern that you showed..." On the contrary, I was concerned that you did not use the abuse of children to peddle your 'Pakistani cultural depravity' line, and my contempt was for your gloating at having found even more examples to use for your racist message, followed closely by a disgusting amaturish hand-wringing display of crocodile tears when you were twigged. Jim Carroll |
|
12 May 11 - 12:39 PM (#3152794) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Jim Carroll: "How do you account for that Jim? Reverse racism?" I think there is a difference between being 'racists' and not liking assholes who fly planes into buildings, killing over 3000 people! Nope, the race thing is far too worn out, and is a VERY LAME subject to even broach. Frankly, maybe it used to work, to some degree, but now, naw..it shows people who can't address anything of substance. If someone, criticizes the President, for his dumb agendas, some clown inadvertently jumps up and announces "Racism!!"..Its the convenient way of saying, "Hey you're right, but I'm too stupid and brain-locked to offer an intelligent rebuttal!" So, let's keep the discussion more intelligent, and informative, OK? ..because there is some good stuff on here, not to detour it into simplistic bullshit! That being said, I think Jim has offered stimulating posts in this thread. GfS ..and at that, I'm done, for a while. |
|
12 May 11 - 01:19 PM (#3152821) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, " peddle your 'Pakistani cultural depravity' line" As MtheGM (Michael) kept telling you in that thread, I never posted anything to justify that slur. Neither did I express anything I did not feel. I dare you to put up an example of my "crocodile tears." On this thread you have expressed far more concern for the unharmed children in the compound than you did for actual child victims. I find that odd. I have only made factual observations about the legality of what was done and what you say was planned. |
|
12 May 11 - 02:03 PM (#3152838) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford It is also odd that Jim and Richard have not been on the Libyan thread expressing outrage. It would be illegal to assassinate Gaddafi, so NATO denies trying, but there is little doubt that they are trying to kill him. 2 days after ObL was killed Gaddafi's compound was bombed. His son and three grandchildren under 12 were killed. Why no outrage? Because Gaddafi had long ceased to be an enemy of the West? |
|
12 May 11 - 02:34 PM (#3152857) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford (Richard had been critical of NATO on there, but not since mid April.) |
|
12 May 11 - 03:16 PM (#3152879) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "As MtheGM (Michael) kept telling you in that thread," And as most of the other contributors on that thread kept telling you, yes you did, and the fact that you keep raising the subject is an indication that you're quite proud of it. "I dare you to put up an example of my "crocodile tears." Oh - come on - you made Henry Irving sound like a method actor - anybody can read your disgusting display; just go to the point where you gloated over finding even more raped children and follow your nose. I certainly have no intention of re-opening that slimeball of a thread, but it's there for anybody with a strong stomach to do so - 'Muslim Prejudice', you can tell it by the smell. "It is also odd that Jim and Richard have not been on the Libyan thread expressing outrage." As I said, some of us have a life beyond the keyboard. Gadaffi is facing a long overdue revolution, as are a number of African dictators. It was interesting that up to the point he started slaughtering non-combatants, the rebels insisted that there should be no outside interference. Gadaffi's son was killed as an outcome of the fighting, not a catch-all massacre, as the US had intended as their plan B. "I have only made factual observations about the legality of what was done" "We were only obeying orders - heil whoever!" I have to admit, you are consistent from thread-to-thread - your distaste for Pakistanis on the previous one and your disregard for their sovereignty here; your willingness to use raped children to get your racist message across and your indifference to the possible slaughter of women and children here. "Richard had been critical of NATO on there, but not since mid April." Perhaps if you paid more attention to what you write rather than monitoring what others have to say, yoy wouldn't make yourself such a pillock. Jim Carroll |
|
12 May 11 - 04:12 PM (#3152916) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford I was right about you not daring to put up any of my "crocodile tears." Sometimes I would prefer to be wrong! You and Lox would not accept what Michael kept telling you, but you both also failed to produce any example as he kept requesting. That is because it was and is a lie. Obeying orders? Under LOAC obeying unlawful orders is no defence. And it is no offence to quote LOAC on here Jim. |
|
12 May 11 - 04:30 PM (#3152934) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel Considering all the torture techniques we have used in Abu Graib and secret cia prisons over the last 10 years I dare say that we have out done the Nazis. Much of what we did was not even for intelligence but to punish demean and destroy individuals. I was a student of all the techinques used and most of them far exceeded the cruelty of our version of water torture now known as water boarding. Shall we illuminate the uninitiated to the all the torture techniques we employed? Shall we list them here? |
|
12 May 11 - 04:31 PM (#3152935) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Too bad that Jim has descended to personal insults. His stuff on the music threads is pretty good. On the basis of that, I really thought better of him. Just got this in my e-mail this morning. It's a bit long, but I think it's well worth reading and some people might actually learn something by doing so and thinking a bit about what it says. Nobody knows anywhere near as much as they think they do, and they're basing their attacks on their own prejudices rather than any actual knowledge. So why don't you read it, then shut up until you actually KNOW something? Was the Killing of Osama bin Laden Legal?I wonder how many people actually got this far. Some folks can't wait for the facts to come out. Fed by their biases, they feel impelled to start popping off right away. All heat. No light. Don Firth |
|
12 May 11 - 05:14 PM (#3152975) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Don, thank you for that post. I feel it rather echoes what I have seaid, although I have no interest in US domestic law which may not run outside its borders. Keith, I am reasonably confident that I have nowhere on this thread confused law with justice. If I have I would wish to correct such an impression. Your view on UK law is flawed. It turns first on having lawful authority (a still slightly moot point here) and second reasonable cause (a very moot point here) and is not a matter of international law nor relevant when there is an issue as to the existence of a state of war or a combatant role or otherwise. Few people wish to defend the met's barber shop (doing Brazilians for nothing) and while I am not inclined to rush to judgement on that issue I am concerned at your continued advocacy of shoot on sight and to kill policies. No, I have not been on the Libya thread. It is increasingly obvious that illegal regime change was the be-all and end-all of the US NATO and UK (etc) operation. The operation was excused by a false assertion as to what Gadaffi threatened. It was very arguably ultra vires NATO or the UN. The attack on CG's family was transparently in terrorem. My concern is to make it plain that the fact that the US has at present the biggest guns does not give it the lawful right to rule the world, nor to kill people outwith its jurisdiction. As Bob Dylan said "If God's on our side, then we'll start the next war". Invade my country, USA, and I will be in the hills as long as my legs can carry me. You do not rule the world, and the rest of the world will oppose you. By the way - Gaddafi and ObL were both nasty shits. But I'd rather they lived than that the USA might claim precedent to assert that it could invade the UK or without UK due process kill people in the UK. Who else elects people like Schwarzenegger or Eastwood to office based on their fictitious persona for vigilante "justice"? |
|
12 May 11 - 08:36 PM (#3153062) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth "Who else elects people like Schwarzenegger or Eastwood to office based on their fictitious persona for vigilante "justice"?" You folks have a very warped opinion of the American people—warped in a very uncomplimentary way, which stems from—yes, your increasingly apparent prejudices. Granted, there are a fair number of idiots with voter registration cards, but in that respect, we certainly don't outnumber the British. Just because these two guys are fairly well-known actors does not automatically make them lightweights. Another bit of prejudice. Eastwood was elected mayor of Carmel, California, where he was a resident, and he had some good ideas about what constituted the good of the community. The citizens of Carmel "made his day," not because of his firm jaw and cold eye, but because of his policies. Eastwood. Conan the Barbarian got elected partly because he was a Republican in a state that is often kind to Republicans, but also because he is not stupid, despite what many people like to think, and he was (is) sufficiently "middle of the road" to appeal to some Democrats as well—AND the fact that he was strongly influenced by Maria Shriver, a member of the KENNEDY family (noting the latest, of course, that after 25 years, they are divorcing). Conan has actually been a fairly good governor. Far from ideal, but a lot better than some. Those are my impressions of him from several hundred miles north, but I will leave judgment to Californians, such as Amos. Schwarzenegger In any interference in the internal affairs of places like Libya, we are not alone there, we were asked to join in, and are performing only a limited function. No "boots on the ground." The issue is human rights. Look! Americans get shat on for interfering with countries that ride roughshod over their own populations. Americans also get shat on if some tin-pot dictator oppresses his own population and we DON'T interfere. I don't think there are any plans afoot for the U. S. to invade the U. K. and set things right there. You're on your own. Don Firth |
|
12 May 11 - 10:08 PM (#3153081) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Yes, I'm sure we can all agree what happened on September 11th, 2001 was a direct attack that 3k+ humans were murdered. But, there has been no mention in this thread (I don't think there was) about the 100K+ innocent lives that have been lost in the retaliation against OBL and his evil deeds. These lives also were a travesty in humanity madness , and yes, as Donuel mentioned the thousands who have been tortured in the process of seeking out the revenge of OBL. I dunno,the hatred, distrust and revenge (from both sides) will continue as far as I'm concerned. No one can prove me wrong on this. As I mentioned earlier in this thread once the celebrations of OBL's death subside, the questions regarding the legality of OBL's demise will surface evermore and the clouds of war will cover the truth and the current victors will write history in their own 'image'. biLL |
|
13 May 11 - 12:20 AM (#3153130) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Do, thanks for your info. A number of individual experts have given their own conflicting opinions now. On whether the incursion was legal, I am obviously not qualified to have an opinion. US government under the Attorney General will have planned it so that they at least had a good case. We will see if it is tested. They claim that capture WAS an option and it was not predetermined to kill. They would have to say that of course, and an order to kill will not be on the record if issued. I know a bit more about the legality of a "fight" An order to kill a prisoner is not legal and must not be obeyed. The SEALS were on their own. The legality depends on what happened and on what they had reasonable grounds to believe. Your piece does not consider the possibility of a suicide vest or belt. They would have to consider that he might have such a device. Likewise his wife, who they gave the benefit of the doubt. |
|
13 May 11 - 12:26 AM (#3153132) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "But, there has been no mention in this thread (I don't think there was) about the 100K+ innocent lives that have been lost in the retaliation against OBL and his evil deeds." I would dearly love to know where this 100K+ innocent lives comes from. Even taking the highest estimated figures the total of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan comes to less than half that and as various NGOs and the UN have reported from Afghanistan 75% of civilian casualties have been caused by the Taleban and their allies. Strictly speaking in Afghanistan since May 2006 there have been no lives lost in retaliation against Osama bin Laden as by then in Afghanistan the US-OEF mission was replaced by ISAF (Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the Taleban are not even mentioned in the ISAF Mission Statement - In the summer of 2006 it was the Taleban from acros the border in Pakistan who declared war on ISAF's reconstruction effort, nothing to do with OBL) Only in Pakistan are US-OEF attacks carried out primarily by drones where even the Pakistani authorities say that they are effective. Iraq of course had absolutely nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. |
|
13 May 11 - 03:36 AM (#3153176) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Too bad that Jim has descended to personal insults." Sorry Don, a bit rich from someone who has accused us of being racist towards Americans, supporting strange causes (presumably Muslim terrorism) and (me in particular) of inventing widely known and acknowledged international incidents to prop up our prejudices and causes. Rather than admitting that the special rendition flights actually did happen, and possibly still are still taking place, you attempt to pass them off as out-of-date, and, at best, promise that the culprits will get their punishment in the sweet bye and bye - not good enough if we are to understand and put right the shit-hole that the world has become, with the assistance of your various governments and presidents. The only anti-Americanism on this thread has come from those who would down-play and cover up America's role in this miserable and highly volatile holy war, thus allowing present and future administrations to 'carry on the good work'. "I was right about you not daring to put up any of my "crocodile tears." THere for all to see, and can't be unwritten - sorry Keith "Sometimes I would prefer to be wrong!" Then you must go to bed each night a happy man. Jim Carroll |
|
13 May 11 - 03:59 AM (#3153179) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "THere for all to see, and can't be unwritten " It should be easy to show us then Jim. Why don't you? |
|
13 May 11 - 05:23 AM (#3153215) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Why don't you?" Because that would be thread drift - the reason you won't mention US use of torture? Jim Carroll |
|
13 May 11 - 05:36 AM (#3153224) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Of course jim. |
|
13 May 11 - 05:40 AM (#3153225) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford But wait a minute, you have already brought it into the thread, I am asking for clarification, so you can post it up with a clear conscience. |
|
13 May 11 - 06:53 AM (#3153255) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Do you a deal - I'll put up the reference to your whole disgusting exhibition - in all its gloriously full context - if you say why allowing the troops of a country with with a poor human rights record into your (Britain, Pakistan, anywhere's) territory in order to carry out an assassination, should not be a matter of deep concern to us all, especially when the massacre of civilians was also accepted as an option. Jim Carroll |
|
13 May 11 - 06:58 AM (#3153257) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Why do I have to make a deal? You REPEATEDLY make accusations against me of things I am supposed to have done in previous threads. I have a RIGHT to demand you justify those accusations, because I deny them. Now, please post an example of my "crocodile tears" or take back the accusation. |
|
13 May 11 - 07:32 AM (#3153262) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Terribus ... the revenge for 09/11 has not just been contained within the Afghani and Pakistan. biLL |
|
13 May 11 - 07:43 AM (#3153267) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Viewpoint by Anatol Lieven Professor of War Studies, King's College London The death of Osama Bin Laden is a triumph for the United States, which may considerably reduce the terrorist threat to the US and the West. the main significance of this US success lies in its potential impact on the war in Afghanistan. the end to what is widely seen in the Muslim world - and especially Pakistan - as the illegal occupation of a Muslim country should diminish the appeal of militancy in Pakistan and the Pakistani diaspora, and reduce terrorist recruitment. Operationally, these groups will be wholly unaffected by Bin Laden's death. On the one hand, they were not under his control. On the other, they were already dedicated to attacking the West, and any additional anger caused by his death will only be one more factor amidst a plethora of real or perceived reasons their supporters have to attack the West. The killing of Bin Laden should reduce greatly the sting of talking with the Afghan Taliban, and the ability of the Republican opposition in the US to portray this as "weakness" or "treachery" on the part of the Obama administration. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13266128 |
|
13 May 11 - 09:53 AM (#3153317) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Now, please post an example of my "crocodile tears" or take back the accusation. " As I said - it's on file for anyone to open - I have no intention in turning this thread into another of our pointless duets on a subject which has nothing to do with this one. Answer something that is relevant to this thread and I'll reply - brefly - to something that isn't - I'll even throw in where you described Pakistanis as culturally inclined to paedophelia, presented African immigrants as plague carriers and questioned whether they should be entitled to medical treatment and any of your other profound thoughts. I have become thoroughly pissed off with your making statements, then either twisting them or denying you made them when challenged - and particularly of your lastest stunt of unilaterally declaring 'thread drift' to relevant questions you can't answer; debate honestly or piss off - I personally can't be arsed with your lying and conniving - debate with some integrity and consideration to other contributors or not at all. Jim Carroll |
|
13 May 11 - 10:31 AM (#3153336) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "it's on file for anyone to open " Over 2000 posts on that thread. How could anyone find it? If you were not lying you could provide a link or a date time. But you can not. Instead you throw in more lies . YOU brought up these "crocodile tears" for cruelly abused children. Justify it or take it back. |
|
13 May 11 - 10:49 AM (#3153347) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""How about the SLA? The Shining Path? The Tamil Tigers?"" If you wouldn't mind pointing out the precise number and dates of their attacks on your, or my, country Art, I may have to admit making a mistake. Don T. |
|
13 May 11 - 10:59 AM (#3153357) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge There are a million people with ideas no worse than Eastwood or Schwarzenegger. They didn't get elected. Those two did because of their representations of vigilantes. It's an undesirable part of the mass US psyche. At lest they were better actors than Ronnie Raygun, possibly the most inept president the Screen Actors' Guild ever had. |
|
13 May 11 - 11:15 AM (#3153368) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Jim accuses me of hiding behind experts, which I do not regard as a criticism."" Not hiding behind experts Keith. Hiding behind those you perceive to be experts, based solely upon the fact of their agreeing with your well documented, hard wired prejudices. ""Don T accuses me of setting myself up as an expert. Not true. I just like to back up my posts with evidence. I think it better than relying on prejudice and ignorance."" What evidence? Your interpretation of international law. I had no idea you were that well qualified.........and you're NOT, are you? In fact ignorance and prejudice is exactly what drives you to blindly accept, and then re-interpret, the words of your so-called experts. It's all there in your record of posts on a number of very contentious subjects (the only kind you take any interest in). ""Don, Al Q launched a number of bomb attacks against US targets abroad and in New York that resulted in heavy loss of US lives. These attacks culminated in the devastating attacks of 2001."" Care to make a balanced statement about that, or do you really believe that they got their knickers in a twist spontaneously and for no reason? Your prejudice has control of your keyboard again, but what else is new? ""As I understand it, USA is entitled to strike back at Al Q, even on the soil of another country if they appear not to be taking effective action."" AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT? No further comment required. ""Clinton made strikes against them in other countries using cruise missiles even before 2001."" Tommy did it first Miss! Don T. |
|
13 May 11 - 11:42 AM (#3153382) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Justify it or take it back. " I'll take that as a no then? Jim Carroll |
|
13 May 11 - 11:46 AM (#3153383) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""It always never ceases to amaze me when terrorists, and their sympathisers, complain bitterly about receiving the treatment that they meet out to others as a matter of course, apparently "human rights" and "rules of evidence" should only apply to protect those who utterly despise them. The victim of the terrorist is always at fault in the eyes of the terrorist. In carping on about such treatment they only reveal themselves to be what they truly are cowards to a man."" I wholeheartedly agree with every word of that Teribus. But I do have a different view of your second paragraph. ""Of course Osama bin Laden should not have been arrested, put on trial and sentenced, for the perfectly good reasons clearly explained in this thread by others. Osama bin Laden suffered the fate he deserved, shot down like a rabid dog and his remains cast beyond recovery in an unmarked spot to vanish without trace and without any prospect of any shrine or place or rememberance - the right to such places belongs to his victims and to them alone."" Yes! He deserves every bit of that and probably worse, BUT that punishment must be the logical outcome of due legal process, not vigilantism. If you load old Betsy, and go out and double tap your friendly neighbourhood dealer, he undoubtedly deserves it. But you're still going to jail for life, convicted of murder. Similarly, if you do what your government did to ObL, what makes you any better than him? Due legal process would have done wonders for the reputation and good name of the United States. As it is, you're going to find it more difficult getting on with the rest of the World now. Don T. |
|
13 May 11 - 12:03 PM (#3153392) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Was he a comabatant? He had been. He posed as such. He had never announced a change of role. Why should anyone not believe, in good faith, that he was a comabatant. If he was not, and wanted to be treated as a non combatant, he should have told someone. The US acted in good faith, on the evidence available."" Irrelevant if, as reported, he was unarmed. If so, he was effectively already a prisoner, and we don't shoot prisoners do we? We hanged several Waffen SS men for doing that. Don T. |
|
13 May 11 - 12:09 PM (#3153397) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T """Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it.""" You smug, self satisfied bastard. You and Don Firth are going WAY too far with this insistence on ignoring what we are actually saying, in order to attribute entirely false motives to our concerns. You Keith, are damn lucky that you haven't had the opportunity to say that to my face. Don T. |
|
13 May 11 - 12:15 PM (#3153406) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "You Keith, are damn lucky that you haven't had the opportunity to say that to my face." Say what Don? And, you do not have to wait for an enemy soldier to get his gun. That does not make him a prisoner. Only if he actually surrenders. |
|
13 May 11 - 12:41 PM (#3153429) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Iraq of course had absolutely nothing to do with Osama bin Laden."" Disingenuous T. By the time Geedub invaded Iraq, he had made sure that half of the US populace believed it was about ObL and 9/11. In fact, by the start of hostilities I think he believed it himself. That's the kind of thing that happens when you elect an imbecile. Don |
|
13 May 11 - 01:01 PM (#3153448) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Operationally, these groups will be wholly unaffected by Bin Laden's death. On the one hand, they were not under his control. On the other, they were already dedicated to attacking the West, and any additional anger caused by his death will only be one more factor amidst a plethora of real or perceived reasons their supporters have to attack the West."" Thank you Keith, though I'm sure you won't enjoy it. What you have posted here is effectively a counter to claims that ObL was a combatant, quite possibly rendering his killing illegal. And before you and Don Firth get all knotted up again get THIS! I'M FUCKING GLAD HE IS DEAD!!! Understand? I am simply concerned with the legality, or otherwise, of the method. Does US law no longer prescribe due process? Because if it does there should be a whole lot of US citizens asking the same questions. Have we really more to fear from American boots trampling on our sovereignty than from Muslims blowing it up? Assuming of course that we don't end up with BOTH! Don T. |
|
13 May 11 - 01:21 PM (#3153458) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "BUT that punishment must be the logical outcome of due legal process, not vigilantism.- Don(Wyziwyg)T The raid, or operation, that resulted in the shooting of Osama bin Laden was not a "police action", there was no over-riding duty to arrest, or capture alive. The operation came about as a result of Osama bin Laden declaring war on the United States of America and her allies (Refer to Fatwas issued by Osama bin Laden in 1996 and in 1998). The US Navy SEAL Team members were going into that compound to "get" their target (The self-declared head of the organisation that had been attacking and killing US citizens since 1993) dead or alive it did not matter one iota which. It was a straightforward military action against a self-declared enemy of the USA. There is no question of vigilantism about it. Declare war and that crosses a line. From that point on it runs 24/7 until it has reached a conclusion one way or the other. It is entirely preposterous to say that Osama bin Laden is only the enemy and can only be shot when he is in a position to defend himself particularly inside an unfamiliar building where bin Laden had the advantage of intimate knowledge of his surroundings and where things might be. The SEAL who shot bin Laden had to make a split second decision and he made it the way he did. Not all that different from the decisions taken by the SAS Team that took out the PIRA ASU in Gibraltar in 1988 (Verdict - Lawful Killing on all three counts by a 9-2 Majority) |
|
13 May 11 - 02:00 PM (#3153486) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Don T, even if he was not in complete control of Al Q, even if he had no status other than fighter, he could be engaged unless he surrendered. And, what did I say that I am lucky not to have said to your face? You would attack me if I said it? |
|
13 May 11 - 02:31 PM (#3153498) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Whether or not I am unjustly accusing a couple of posters here of anti-American bias, I will simply say just read their posts and judge for yourself. When people descend to the level of nastiness (even to physical threats) exhibited in recent posts, it is obvious that any thought of rational discussion has flown out the window and it will be nothing but bile and spleen from here on in. I have neither the time nor the inclination for this. TTFN. Don Firth |
|
13 May 11 - 02:37 PM (#3153504) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""And, what did I say that I am lucky not to have said to your face?"" That comment was in direct response to an exceedingly insulting misrepresentation, by you, of my motives. I put that insulting comment of yours in quotes at the top of my post as always, and once again you have proved that you cannot be bothered to read what others say, merely picking out one line and having to ask what it means. As a debater of issues you are a dead loss without insurance, and if you won't read, or respond to what I actually say, I would prefer that you not bother to respond at all. Don T. |
|
13 May 11 - 02:38 PM (#3153505) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Test this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg&feature=related |
|
13 May 11 - 02:40 PM (#3153509) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity //www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg&feature=related |
|
13 May 11 - 02:41 PM (#3153510) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T 13th May 2011 First instalment of repayment for US action re Osama bin Laden drawn in Pakistan today. 80 lives on account. Don T. |
|
13 May 11 - 02:41 PM (#3153512) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford YOU need to read a lot more carefully Don T! I never said it. And you have driven Don F away with your violent, aggressive nastiness. |
|
13 May 11 - 02:42 PM (#3153513) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg |
|
13 May 11 - 02:45 PM (#3153517) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I was having problems with the 'blue clicky' The post below is mine Let's try this one.... GfS |
|
13 May 11 - 02:51 PM (#3153523) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity ...and then there is this....! |
|
13 May 11 - 03:15 PM (#3153537) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford So Jim, I was right about you not daring to put up any of my "crocodile tears." Sometimes I would prefer to be wrong! |
|
13 May 11 - 03:24 PM (#3153544) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Sometimes I would prefer to be wrong! " Pompous pratt - you have my offer, now you only need the balls to take it up. Jim Carroll |
|
13 May 11 - 03:32 PM (#3153550) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Let me rephrase what DonT said. Pakistan? I told you so. |
|
13 May 11 - 03:42 PM (#3153553) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Looks like Osama wasn't just beating infidels: Porn found in Osama bin Laden's hideout |
|
13 May 11 - 05:00 PM (#3153584) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity bobad: "Looks like Osama wasn't just beating infidels: Porn found in Osama bin Laden's hideout." Oh, how can I resist THIS one!?......I guess he had a lot more, than blood on his hands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Never fails, with those guys! GfS |
|
13 May 11 - 05:12 PM (#3153594) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, I reject your offer. You made a false statement about me. A slur. You have done it before. As usual you can not produce the offending post because it does not exist. It is another Jim lie. I do not need to negotiate that you substantiate or withdraw. Common decency demands that you do. |
|
13 May 11 - 06:05 PM (#3153632) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""YOU need to read a lot more carefully Don T! I never said it. And you have driven Don F away with your violent, aggressive nastiness."" Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 11 May 11 - 05:42 PM "Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it." 9/11 cost us 67 dead. The single biggest loss of British life for any act of terrorism. 52 dead on 7/7. Your comments Keith? As for Don Firth, his leaving has, I think, more to do with being unable to prevent justifiable criticism of his government's "violent, aggressive nastiness". Don T. |
|
13 May 11 - 06:11 PM (#3153633) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jack Campin And if you're looking for some primary source information: http://twitter.com/alemarahweb The Twitter page of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, i.e. the Taliban. |
|
13 May 11 - 06:30 PM (#3153639) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad As if these fanatic terrorists need an excuse to kill people. Their real target is sycophantic hand wringers and they've reeled in a few from here. |
|
13 May 11 - 06:44 PM (#3153647) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad DonT "First instalment of repayment for US action re Osama bin Laden drawn in Pakistan today. 80 lives on account." Richard Bridge Let me rephrase what DonT said. Pakistan? I told you so. They killed fellow Muslims -- WTF is the matter with you people? |
|
13 May 11 - 10:16 PM (#3153742) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel bobad, After reviewing a mere slice of bin Laden's porn collection I have already come across a video that included one of my ex girl friend's performances. While I have mixed feelings of outrage, hypocrisy and laugh my ass off reaction, I must say after my exaustive research on his porn collection, that it is indeed a small world. |
|
13 May 11 - 11:14 PM (#3153761) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth As for Don Firth, his leaving has, I think, more to do with being unable to prevent justifiable criticism of his government's "violent, aggressive nastiness". Not so. The justification is obvious. Slamming me in my absence, Don T.? A bit cheesy, I calls it. I'm still looking in from time to time. And I see that prejudice is still rife. Why am I not surprised? Don Firth |
|
13 May 11 - 11:32 PM (#3153765) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel Don Firth !? Perhaps there is not a finer man who as ever breathed. Certainly he's subject to the same human foibles and feet of clay as the rest of us, but he is a man among men. Just yesterday I was speaking to Beatrice Wombworthy and she said that Don was not only a scholar and a gentleman but indeed has displayed compassion in situations in which a common man would never be able to muster an iota of empathy. As for his nation, well as Reginald Cocqueswain would say, "Thats a bit of apples and oranges now init?" |
|
13 May 11 - 11:40 PM (#3153773) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel I have a close up photo of bin Laden's vaseline jar by his bed. Today it takes on a new light. I should post my collection of Usama photos from childhood to 53. |
|
14 May 11 - 01:30 AM (#3153799) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Don T, the quote was from Don F. I expect you missed it because it was part of a longish post. My only comment was "9/11 cost us 67 dead. The single biggest loss of British life for any act of terrorism. 52 dead on 7/7." You would assault me physically for stating those facts? You are also the only person to have used the word "fucking" or anything like it on this thread. Why can't you just be nice, like the other Don? |
|
14 May 11 - 01:54 AM (#3153802) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, this is the first post about gang raped children that you ridiculed as "crocdile tears." 5th April 2011 1.12AM We have heard many victims' stories now. Emma, the girl in the Woman's Hour interview, cases detailed in Lively's links. Cases in the various articles such as Yorkshire Post. All very similar, and I found them deeply moving. You don't even remember. The only thought elicited in you was, "how can I discredit them?" Hillary Wilmer is universally praised and admired for her work. We have read some of her victims' stories. She offered them as typical examples. She has hundreds. We know they exist. You shut your ears to the cries. You wont hear or see anything that challenges your preconceptions. Perhaps I should have looked for a better word to describe you. |
|
14 May 11 - 01:59 AM (#3153803) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford This one Jim? 06 Apr 11 - 03:22 AM Jim you repeated my question to Lox. "WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE CHILD VICTIMS????" I put the same question to you. Everyone states that they were raped by gangs of BPs. Not one has been found who identifies any other group. Why won't you listen? To save your face you try to make liars of these children. That itself is abuse. |
|
14 May 11 - 02:03 AM (#3153804) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford You ridiculed me for this post too. 06 Apr 11 - 12:29 PM Again you deny and betray the child victims. They all say they were raped by gangs of BPs, not by other groups. Why will you not listen to those poor raped children. No-one likes it, any more than you do. But, it is a fact and we should learn to deal with it. |
|
14 May 11 - 03:38 AM (#3153827) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Thank you for putting up examples of your highly florid crocodile tears Keith - they'll do very nicely as starters, but lots more to choose from. Excuse me for not joining you in turning this thread into yet another pointless slanging match between us, in deference to those who wish continue discussing the topic in hand - couldn't if I wanted to - off to sunny (I hope) Corfu tomorrow. On topic. Despite what has been claimed above nobody here has expressed the slightest degree of support or sympathy for Osama bin Laden; that remains a figment of the imagination of those wishing to defend the indefencible (don't you just know your point has struck home when your opponents deliberately distort what you have to say?) Kidnapping, false imprisonment in intolerable conditions, torture, assasination, indescriminate killing... these are the things we associate with terrorism, yet these have become the accepted practices of those supposedly involved in George Bush's "fight against tourism" - the 'anti-terrorists' are becoming indistinguishable from those they are fighting. Iraq and Afghanistan have proved that this war cannot be won militarily; it might be contained for a while, but it is there waiting in the wings, ready to bring about more 9/11s or 7/7s. Al Qaeda is a world wide, non- connected, non-organistion; four replacements for bin Laden were immediately identified following his death, scattered all over the Middle East - I wonder if the intention is to kill them all - then the ones that follow - then the ones that follow them...... As I see it, the only way to oppose them is to cut off their support; to attempt to win the hearts and minds of their would-be followers. This won't be done by invading sovereign territory, endangering the lives of innocents and humiliating governments in order to assassinate somebody whose strategic role was, at best, highly questionable and who is as replacable as member of any pub quiz team. With the events in countries like Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, there are signs of a desire for a break with the old ways - this cowboys and Indians shoot-out is no way to make the best of welcome developments at a time they could go either way. Jim Carroll |
|
14 May 11 - 03:41 AM (#3153829) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "they'll do very nicely as starters, but lots more to choose from." Let's see them then. I kept asking for just that courtesy. |
|
14 May 11 - 04:04 AM (#3153832) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Let's see them then." I can only put this down to a deliberate attempt on your part to wreck this discussion - if you continue with your obsessive behaviour I hope somebody has the good sense to have you removed from this thread. Jim Carroll |
|
14 May 11 - 04:10 AM (#3153834) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford No danger of that Jim. There are no more for you to show. It is a lie. Just giving a date/time or a link would not affect this discussion at all. But you can not. You lie. |
|
14 May 11 - 07:16 AM (#3153905) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""They killed fellow Muslims -- WTF is the matter with you people?"" And stated that it was in reprisal for what? American action! I kind of expected that the killings would be quite acceptable to you, as long as they stick to Pakistanis or British and leave Israel and the US alone. When they get round to the US, don't expect the same level of sympathy you had after 9/11. The UK had no part in this game, but we'll be targets too. One day you guys will be asking the same questions I'm asking now. Just because you could, should you have done it, and was it worth it? Don T. |
|
14 May 11 - 07:20 AM (#3153910) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Bobad - 0644 - "They killed fellow Muslims -- WTF is the matter with you people?" Are we to infer, Bobad, that they don't count? Are we to infer that personnel in training by an ally of the US to patrol and police the tribal areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan, being trained to oppose the Taliban - are somehow in your twisted mind enemies of the USA and allies of the Taliban? Or is it just that they are Muslims? Incidentally, how do you know that they were all Muslims? There are Xtians in Pakistan you know? Let me explain. This was a Taliban attack on the forces of the Pakistan state that is officially an ally of the USA. It was because the Pakistan state is officially an ally of the USA. I told you so. |
|
14 May 11 - 07:28 AM (#3153913) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad The Taliban are retaliating against America by killing Muslims in Pakistan???? You people sure are twisted. |
|
14 May 11 - 07:34 AM (#3153917) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I'm still looking in from time to time. And I see that prejudice is still rife. Why am I not surprised?"" If you keep trotting off at regular intervals your posts still get responses, as do mine and everyone else's......Live with it! And pardon me for being prejudiced, but I am convinced that I am entitled to a little prejudice against being made a target by the ill advised vigilante behaviour of a supposed ally, which is the only prejudice I have exhibited here. Incidentally, this report on BBC News this morning. The Pakistani government has demanded that the US cease the current drone attacks carried out within Pakistani territory, and threaten to cut off supply routes to coalition forces in Afghanistan if the US do not comply. There is a further call for the Pakistani government to mount a full public inquiry into the circumstances of the raid. So Keith can no longer use his standard mantra that nobody is complaining. I think that the eventual cost of this will be more than the most gung ho Americans would consider reasonable, and the US government may find that the whole thing blows up in its face. Don |
|
14 May 11 - 07:55 AM (#3153924) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Why can't you just be nice, like the other Don?"" Do you and Don F consider it nice to ignore everything that I have said, and claim that I, (and others who disagree with you) are terrorist sympathisers and anti American? I have been at pains to make reference to the US government, not the US people, throughout this thread, so where is the Anti American sentiment which you attribute to me? I have lost count of the times I have repeated that I have no problem with the fact that ObL is dead (though I think that he got off too lightly). It is the way in which that was achieved to which I object. Eighty innocent Pakistanis have already paid some of the price for this "victory", which doesn't seem to bother any of you at all. As Bobad said ""They killed fellow Muslims -- WTF is the matter with you people?"" So that's all right then! No need to worry till they get round to the US civilians. I don't think I look at all prejudiced compared to THAT! By the way Keith (assuming that you have bothered to read this far, which is unlikely on past evidence), if you choose to repeat what somebody else has posted and add to it, you can't go back and hide from your endorsement of by claiming you didn't say it. You DID SAY IT! And you did believe it. Now have the guts to own it. Don T. |
|
14 May 11 - 08:06 AM (#3153928) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad "As Bobad said ""They killed fellow Muslims -- WTF is the matter with you people?"" So that's all right then! No need to worry till they get round to the US civilians. I don't think I look at all prejudiced compared to THAT!" I see that your logic is as twisted as theirs is, but that is to be expected. |
|
14 May 11 - 08:13 AM (#3153930) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad 'The Pakistani government has demanded that the US cease the current drone attacks carried out within Pakistani territory, and threaten to cut off supply routes to coalition forces in Afghanistan if the US do not comply. There is a further call for the Pakistani government to mount a full public inquiry into the circumstances of the raid." You really have very little understanding of the internal politics of Pakistan, specifically the relationship between government and military. Here is a quote in regards to the above from someone who does: "As Al-Qaeda and Taliban commit mass murder in Pakistan, the country's cowardly politicians succumb to military blackmail and condemn not the Taliban, but the USA!" |
|
14 May 11 - 08:55 AM (#3153941) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Don T, I quoted Don F and stated 2 brief facts about casualty numbers. For that you would do me harm. I have been in some arguments here in the last dozen years, but I have never been threatened like that! And why do you have to use such language? You should work on your anger and aggression. It is so easy for Taliban to blow people up close the their tribal homelands in Pakistan. Just a 50 minute drive. They already had plans to attack Western targets. They can not increase an already all out effort. They already hated us, even before Iraq and Afghanistan. |
|
14 May 11 - 09:45 AM (#3153950) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,999 Well, three things which should piss EVERYone off: 1) I`m glad the murdering bastard (OBL or UBL depending on whether you`re an ordinary guy or a CIA wannabee) is dead 2) If I knew how to reach the SEALs who killed him I`d send a box of chocolates 3) As for those who figure OBL should have received a trial--he did. He chose his verdict when he began to slaughter people in the name of his religion. Fuck him! |
|
14 May 11 - 09:57 AM (#3153954) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge I `ad one of them taliban in my cab the other day. Funny `at, scraggy beard and a grenade launcher. I said, "Morning Mohammed, where to today?" `e said, "Allah mode Jim, could you take me to that Mustaq`s Kebab `ouse in Barking. It doubles up as a mosque when `es not cooking. We`re `olding a memorial do for Osama Bin Liner, the martyr." I said, "Martyr! You`re `aving a laugh. I never once saw a picture of `im wearing a suicide belt, only the other poor suckers." `e said, "No, I know. `e was allergic to explosives!!" Whaddam I Like?? |
|
14 May 11 - 10:17 AM (#3153963) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Pretty obvious really - the US attack, on Pakistan's soil, puts its ally, Pakistan in the hot seat. It puts all opponents of the Taliban in the hot seat. Why is the ugly American unable to understand that? |
|
14 May 11 - 10:42 AM (#3153971) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford What about the massive loss of life in the March bombings in Pakistan. Islamist militants seeking to overthrow the government have bombed hundreds of police, army, commercial and civilian targets in Pakistan over the past three years. ISI offices in the Punjabi cities of Multan and Lahore have been attacked, as well as in the northwest city of Peshawar. No change. |
|
14 May 11 - 11:06 AM (#3153983) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jeri 999, I agree 100%. I don't think we would have ever gotten permission. I think the Pakistani government, at least those not in bed with Al Qeda, are glad, although they can't really say so. We went in, killed him, then got the hell out. If we'd had him stand trial, he'd wind up dead too, but there would have been a whole lot of stuff in between, possibly including more deaths and things going "boom". And terrorist killings of innocents of another country are NOT simple crimes. |
|
14 May 11 - 11:28 AM (#3153996) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble Sad to say, I have to agree with 999 as well. But most of the posts on this thread are a classic example of self-indulgent venting. Charley Noble |
|
14 May 11 - 12:07 PM (#3154025) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus I still see that Don T is banging on about "vigilantism". Let me see the action of a vigilante is: 1: Totally unauthorised, completely unofficial. 2: The independent action of a private individual or a small group of like minded private individuals who have no official standing. Looking at the killing of Osama bin Laden: 1: He declared himself the head of an international terrorist group, that had declared war on the United States of America and her allies and had ordered his followers to kill any American man, woman or child wherever and whenever the opportunity presented itself. 2: Under his own definitions he would never describe himself as anything other than an enemy combatant with respect to the forces of the United States of America. 3: The people who killed bin Laden were members of the US Navy SEALS, a duly constituted, recognised and fully authorised branch of the armed forces of the United States of America. 4: The people who killed bin Laden were acting under orders from their Commander-in-Chief, who personally authorised this mission. 5: In the performance of their duties in carrying out this raid Osama bin Laden was shot and killed as an enemy combatant. No grounds whatsoever could be established to substantiate calling this the act of a "vigilante", or could describe it as an example of "vigilantism". Had this been an operation aimed at the specific execution of Osama bin Laden then everyone in the compound would have been killed. Every single body would have been removed. And most important of all nobody would have said a thing about it. There would have been no grand announcements. I totally agree with Guest999. |
|
14 May 11 - 12:15 PM (#3154030) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jeri Well, Charley, I look at the contributors to the thread and I believe they'd have a major 1,000 post fight over whether beige is a real color, only about 97% will spell it "colour". Mudcat Traveling Wrecking Crew. But everybody's still pals at the end, and ready to carry it on somewhere else, right? ...and all most of us, including you and I, do is "self indulgent venting". (Actually, it's just venting, because it is, by nature, self indulgent.) I'm trying to take a more practical view of world events. Yes, there is good and bad, right and wrong, but they're often so jumbled up it's hard to tell where things fall on the big balance. After something's over and done, we can talk about it, but it won't change anything that already happened. Whether or not anyone thinks killing a past, present and (probably) future terrorist who leads an association of terrorists is a good or bad thing, it already happened. I don't this will all happen again the same way... I mean OBL. The argument probably will go on forever, in infinite variation. |
|
14 May 11 - 12:28 PM (#3154035) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Now, now, lads - let's not lose sight of the central issues of this, er, "discussion." I've organized and outlined them for you: I. Was the US raid justifiable? A. Legally? B. Morally? C. Tactically? II. Was the Taliban's suicide bombing in Pakistan justifiable? A. Legally? B. Morally? C. Tactically? III. Does the US bear any responsibility for the Taliban bombings? A. Legally? B. Morally? C. Tactically? Also, when will someone raise the possibility that the "Taliban" bombings were a false-flag operation actually carried out by somebody else? I can conceive of a number of possible perpetrators and motives, all very devious and therefore more likely than the media story, but I'll let you deal with that issue on your own. |
|
14 May 11 - 01:31 PM (#3154069) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jeri Er... Lighter? I think your broad outline will wind up (pun accidental) covering the next 100 or so threads. A. It's all W's fault. B. The US is capable, and willing (under the right direction--see 'A.') to do really stupid things just because we can. (1.) I believe the war in Iran is one of those things, and probably the war in Afghanistan. BUT I lack the intelligence (military info--stop laughing) to know for sure. (2.) I believe killing O/UBL is NOT one of those things. I think farting around and starting a bunch of wars instead of going after O/UBL IS one. (See 'A.') |
|
14 May 11 - 02:34 PM (#3154095) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) The bastard is dead, good riddance. Thanks to the U. S. for taking him out without loss of life outside his compound. There are a few more who should be targeted- |
|
14 May 11 - 05:22 PM (#3154171) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus I. Was the US raid justifiable? A. Legally? YES B. Morally? YES C. Tactically? YES II. Was the Taliban's suicide bombing in Pakistan justifiable? A. Legally? NO B. Morally? NO C. Tactically? NO The Taleban have tried to peddle the lie that they had no connection with Al-Qaeda or bin Laden so why are THEY avenging him? We have only THEIR word for it that this bombing wasn't an operation planned weeks ago. The Taleban's (Pakistani Taleban we are talking about here right?) fight is with the Pakistani Government, their aim is to destabilise the Pakistani Government and they have been attacking similar targets in Pakistan ever since the Pakistani Army moved against them in Buner and Swat Provinces. III. Does the US bear any responsibility for the Taliban bombings? A. Legally? NO B. Morally? NO C. Tactically? NO The reason the Pakistani Taleban attack targets inside Pakistan has got nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or bin Laden or Afghanistan. |
|
14 May 11 - 05:34 PM (#3154174) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""You are also the only person to have used the word "fucking" or anything like it on this thread."" Not so! There have been a fair number of epithets produced in the course of this thread, and by several posters other than myself. I was unaware that you had been promoted to the lofty position of profanity watchdog. However, although I am not obliged to account to you for either my words or my actions, I will point out that after having stated numerous times that I had no sympathy for ObL and was pleased that he was dead, both you and Don Firth continued to ignore that and to categorise me as a terrorist sympathiser. I decided to emphasise the point by using the F word, which I hardly ever use (please note that I have used the euphemistic form in deference to your delicate sensibilities), but I might as well not have bothered, since the only part of "I'M F**KING GLAD HE'S DEAD!" that you actually saw was the F word. Which word, incidentally, was not even directed at you or Don Firth, but an adjective qualifying my feelings about his death. It was established long ago that bad language on this forum would not be barred or moderated except in terms of a direct attack, and Joe Offer has also indicated his abiding dislike of euphemisms. Don T. |
|
14 May 11 - 05:43 PM (#3154180) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu 999... "2) If I knew how to reach the SEALs who killed him I`d send a box of chocolates" If you do "reach" them, I'll add a box of bullets. Allah bless the SEALs. |
|
14 May 11 - 05:55 PM (#3154186) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""3: The people who killed bin Laden were members of the US Navy SEALS, a duly constituted, recognised and fully authorised branch of the armed forces of the United States of America."" But not a duly constituted, recognised and fully authorised branch of the armed forces of the country in which they were operating, (in case you've forgotten) Pakistan. ""4: The people who killed bin Laden were acting under orders from their Commander-in-Chief, who personally authorised this mission."" I see, you are saying that this Commander-in-Chief has some officially authorised role in the government of the Sovereign State of Pakistan, which permits him to carry out military actions within its borders. Isn't he a bit stretched running two countries so far apart? ""No grounds whatsoever could be established to substantiate calling this the act of a "vigilante", or could describe it as an example of "vigilantism"."" If there is an internationally established maximum size for a group whose activities can be described as vigilantism, perhaps you would direct me to the relevant statute? Authorisation has yet to be tested, let alone proved. Don T. |
|
14 May 11 - 06:05 PM (#3154189) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""If we'd had him stand trial, he'd wind up dead too, but there would have been a whole lot of stuff in between, possibly including more deaths and things going "boom". And terrorist killings of innocents of another country are NOT simple crimes."" A very pragmatic point of view Jeri, but the killings have started, and whatever Bobad thinks (and his record is far from unbiased), the fact that they were Pakistani deaths doesn't mean they can simply be written off as irrelevant. And riding roughshod over the sovereignty of another country is NOT a simple crime. In terms of the effect on other allies who were neither informed nor consulted, I can only hope that the inevitable retaliation will be selectively targetted. I'm sorry, but that to me seems only fair. Don T. |
|
14 May 11 - 06:31 PM (#3154195) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jeri 800 |
|
14 May 11 - 06:41 PM (#3154197) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad DonT is a liar! |
|
14 May 11 - 07:11 PM (#3154213) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=26287 |
|
14 May 11 - 07:42 PM (#3154223) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth ". . . both you and Don Firth continued to ignore that and to categorise me as a terrorist sympathiser." Don T., where and when did I, specifically, refer to you, specifically, as a "terrorist sympathizer?" Cite the post (date and time) in which I allegedly said this. Don Firth |
|
14 May 11 - 07:50 PM (#3154225) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Since DonT is a conservative and I am not it grieves me to have to say this, but he needs no assistance on this thread on the last few posts and is obviously right. We are concerned at the legality of US action in this. We are even more concerned that the US tries to declare itself judge as to what is legal in this. Is it Dietrich Bonhoeffer I should be citing? I told you so. |
|
14 May 11 - 08:00 PM (#3154232) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth You didn't read that article I posted, did you, Richard? Don Firth |
|
14 May 11 - 08:44 PM (#3154243) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 An interesting article from Spiegel, in case anyone is interested. Of course it will be greatly contested in this thread. But, what the hell, I have to agree somewhat. Terrorists Have Rights Too biLL |
|
14 May 11 - 09:02 PM (#3154247) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter It seems to me that the only rights that a terrorist has is to renounce terrorism, surrender peaceably, confess guilt or else plead his case in court, and exhort his associates to do the same. Bin Laden chose not to exercise those rights. No one could do it for him. |
|
14 May 11 - 09:48 PM (#3154257) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu I didn't click sIx. Binny didn't have any rights. Binny took it twixt the lookers with his eyes wide open.... or shut... depending on how you view it. Course, I really don't think he's dead. He and Sadman are sipping mints on an island paradise with vestal virgins, playing checkers and having a laugh, wondering when Hosni and Moe will show up so they can play bridge. |
|
14 May 11 - 11:11 PM (#3154275) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Up until a year ago I certainly would have agreed with many here on this thread. A visit a while back from good friend of my youth changed my attitude regarding revenge and justice. This friend happens to be a criminal lawyer. During his visit we had a debate regarding justice and revenge (relative to violent criminals) that continued late into the evening. I eventually understood his platform of reasoning … simply put, no matter how much we are repulsed by such crimes, by not adhering to the right of the accused to have his day in court no matter what the cost to taxpayers we are no different to these perpetrators of such hideous crimes … This same reasoning can be applied to international humanitarian law that we in the western world have drafted and believe we adhere to. I should also mention this friend of mine is also a child of holocaust survivors who themselves suffered horrifically during there incarceration at Auschwitz. Anyway ... that's my 2 cents worth to this issue for what it's worth. Now, go on and continure your arguments. biLL |
|
15 May 11 - 03:24 AM (#3154304) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford The Pakistan bombs are just the latest in a series that have been going on in Pakistan for years. Each bomb is justified by the bombers as a reprisal for some recent actions by Pakistan. If ObL had not been killed some other justification would have been given for this week's bombs. |
|
15 May 11 - 03:24 AM (#3154305) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Don(Wyziwyg)T - Date: 14 May 11 - 05:55 PM Missed the points I made entirely "the action of a vigilante is: 1: Totally unauthorised, completely unofficial. 2: The independent action of a private individual or a small group of like minded private individuals who have no official standing. So according to Don(Wyziwyg)T: - The US Navy Seal Team that killed bin Laden were unauthorised and had no official status - which we all know and appreciate is complete and utter bullshit - The raid carried out by the US NAvy SEAL Team was undertaken entirely off their own bat - Again which we all know and appreciate is complete and utter bullshit As to this heinous crime of the forces of one country operating in another? Extremely old and accepted principle originally known as the right of "Hot Trod" along the Anglo-Scottish Border, in modern times it became known as the right to exercise "Hot Pursuit". There apparently was a secret agreement between the US and Pakistani Governments that allowed the US to undertake this mission with respect to bin Laden and the leadership of Al-Qaeda. The desirability and necessity of such an agreement from the point of view of both parties should be blatantly obvious to all. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad after all was captured by the Pakistani ISI and handed over to the Americans - Why? As proof of their commitment? No way could they do the same with Osama bin Laden the uproar would have been deafening, no wonder they left it to the "infidel" Americans, much more acceptable solution to the problem. More complete and utter bullshit from Don T: "A very pragmatic point of view Jeri, but the killings have started, and whatever Bobad thinks (and his record is far from unbiased), the fact that they were Pakistani deaths doesn't mean they can simply be written off as irrelevant." Ah so the killings have just started have they?? What the hell do you think that the Tehrik-i-Taliban (Pakistani Taleban) have been doing for the last two or three years? Mullah Muhammad Omar the leader of the Quetta Shura and the Afghan Taleban has actually pleaded with the Tehrik-i-Taliban to stop attacks inside Pakistan because ultimately 150 million non-Pashtun Pakistani's are going to get fed up with bombs going off in market places and shopping centres, put two and two together and turn on the Taleban and they will not distinguish between the Pakistani and Afghan varieties. But they, the TTP, have studiously ignored him - so much for solidarity. Not surprising really as the Pakistani Government came to an agreement with the Pakistan Taliban over Swat Province which allowed Talib contol over this area under Sharia law but it required the Pakistani Taliban to disarm - which of course they never did. Shortly after moving into Swat the Pakistani Taliban then turned their attention to the neighbouring Buner Province and that was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as the Pakistani Government was concerned. The Pakistani Border Police and Army conducted a full scale military attack on the Taliban in Buner, in Swat and in South Waziristan. And that Don(Wyziwyg)T is why the TTP carry out suicide bombing attacks in Pakistan - It has got nothing whatsoever to do with Osama bin Laden - but convenient excuse for propaganda purposes though. Bigger flare up over cartoons and burning books. |
|
15 May 11 - 04:28 AM (#3154317) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford After a double suicide bomb killed 80 people in Pakistan on Friday here is a timeline of major extremist attacks carried out in the country in the last five years. By Laura Roberts 10:31AM BST 13 May 2011 April 1, 2011: At least 41 people were killed in twin suicide bomb attacks at the Sufi shrine in Dera Ghazi Khan district, in Pakistan's central province of Punjab, as worshippers gathered for a festival. The Taliban claimed responsibility. March 31, 2011: At least 13 people were killed in a suicide bomb attack on the leader of one of Pakistan's most influential Islamic parties and a long–standing ally of the Afghan Taliban movement. It was the second suicide bomb attack on the leader of Jamiat Ulema–i–Islam in two days. Twelve people were killed when a suicide bomber on a motorbike attacked a crowd in Swabi waiting for Mr Rehman to address them. November 5, 2010: A suicide bomber killed 68 people at a mosque in the northwest area of Darra Adam Khel. Hours later, grenades thrown into a second mosque, near Peshawar, killed at least two people. October 2010: 25 people were killed in a blast at a shrine in Punjab province. Another attack at a Karachi shrine two weeks earlier killed nine and was claimed by the Taliban. July 10, 2010: Double suicide bombing kills 102 people in village of Kakaghund in northwestern Pakistan. April 5, 2010: Taliban fighters using rocket-propelled grenades, car bombs and suicide vests tried to storm the United States consulate in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province. Five security guards were among seven people killed during the raid in Peshawar. Several explosions in the area caused buildings to collapse. Enough. |
|
15 May 11 - 05:04 AM (#3154330) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "Well, Charley, I look at the contributors to the thread and I believe they'd have a major 1,000 post fight over whether beige is a real color, only about 97% will spell it "colour". Mudcat Traveling Wrecking Crew." I don't know how many US posters here have expressed concerns about this action, but there were quite a number of more critical US based posters at the outset I believe. Currently there do seem to be a number of non US / international posters - principally from Canada and the UK it seems, who have are more critical than most of the US posters currently posting. I haven't read any international media coverage, but it would be interesting to find out - if or how - media analysis in different countries internationally, differed from that of mainstream US media coverage in terms of how positively or negatively, the mission has been represented. |
|
15 May 11 - 05:33 AM (#3154342) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Ahh but Keith all those attacks were carried out by the Taleban in retaliation for the US thinking about killing Osama bin Laden. |
|
15 May 11 - 06:20 AM (#3154359) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Don T., where and when did I, specifically, refer to you, specifically, as a "terrorist sympathizer?"" Never claimed you did! If you go back to my first post mentioning the way you and Keith are misrepresenting I clearly said "myself (and others who disagree with you)". In the past, I have generally found myself on the same side as you in most debates, but in this one I have been disappointed in the extreme with the way that our misgivings have been used to brand us as terrorist sympathisers. However, since there is no point trying to debate with anyone who persists in deliberately distorting what I say, I will simply leave (and I don't come back again, when I say that). I wish you joy of your "victory", and I genuinely hope that it will prove worth the cost (only Pakistani lives.......SO FAR!) Don T. |
|
15 May 11 - 06:28 AM (#3154361) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Good riddance....you won't be missed. |
|
15 May 11 - 08:18 AM (#3154406) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Family Guy segment on Osama Bin Laden in which Stewie takes on the Sheik (the man, not the condom). |
|
15 May 11 - 09:07 AM (#3154417) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Lively, the British media has been overwhelmingly positive. Where are you? (Sorry I referred to you as "he" on previous thread.) |
|
15 May 11 - 09:41 AM (#3154436) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Lively .... the link I posted down below which presented some valid arguments against legality of the U.S. action taken is from Der Spiegel ... a weekly German publication with a vast amount of readers throughout Europe. biLL |
|
15 May 11 - 10:07 AM (#3154443) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Thanks for sharing that link Bobad!! Actually it's very good laff ... and goodness knows, we all need a good laff on a regular basis. biLL .... :-) |
|
15 May 11 - 12:21 PM (#3154503) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Pakistan protest http://uk.news.yahoo.com/no-repeat-bin-laden-raid-pakistan-parliament-004656674.html Particularly note: "British newspaper the Guardian reported last week that a secret agreement in 2001 between Pakistan's then military ruler Pervez Musharraf and then US president George W. Bush allowed the United States to carry out a unilateral raid inside Pakistan if they discovered bin Laden's whereabouts. But Musharraf has vehemently denied having signed such a deal" Oh, goodness me. |
|
15 May 11 - 12:25 PM (#3154508) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad "But Musharraf has vehemently denied having signed such a deal" Well, of course he has....duh! |
|
15 May 11 - 02:48 PM (#3154569) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Well, there it is again. One of the reasons I bowed out of this thread (along with the escalation of personal insults and threats of violence if the debaters ever met face-to-face) is the way in which a couple of people in particular keep denying that they said what they have said (despite the fact that it's right there on the screen for anyone to read) and accused others of saying things that they didn't, without being able to point to the posts in which they allegedly did so. Case in point: Don T. accuses me of saying that he is a "terrorist sympathizer." When I asked him to point out the post in which I said this, he denies that he ever made the accusation and leaves in a huff, congratulating me for my "victory." I was interested in a, hopefully, enlightening debate, not in "scoring points" regardless of the facts. Frankly, as a result of a nasty streak a couple of people have revealed on this thread, along with some ingrained prejudices, I'm afraid I've lost a lot of respect for them when I had regarded them highly up until now. Very disappointing. Don Firth |
|
15 May 11 - 04:03 PM (#3154609) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, I do not subscribe to the editorial values of The Guardian, but I do not suspect them of making shit up. Do you? Musharraf or the Guardian. Who do you think most reliable Richard? |
|
16 May 11 - 01:57 AM (#3154847) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth 60 Minutes interviews with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a former Afghan intelligence officer (touching on Pakistan's somewhat duplicitous relationship with the United States), and the anarchistic and extremely dangerous "Sovereign Citizen" movement (I knew there were small groups of "survivalists" and "citizens' militias" out "playing soldiers" on weekends in several backwards parts of the country, but I didn't know about THIS collection of fanatics until I saw this program). Watch all three. You might learn something. 60 Minutes Don Firth |
|
16 May 11 - 02:08 AM (#3154852) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Keith, it ain't hard to prove teh existence of a signed document. |
|
16 May 11 - 02:53 AM (#3154875) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford The Guardian story was that denial was part of the agreement. I can see why Musharif would have to lie, but not why Guardian would invent the whole thing. |
|
16 May 11 - 04:45 AM (#3154905) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "Musharraf has vehemently denied having signed such a deal" Hey Richard, that would be the same President Musharraf who vehemently denied that Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan right? |
|
16 May 11 - 06:42 AM (#3154964) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 15 May 11 - 02:48 PM Well, there it is again. One of the reasons I bowed out of this thread (along with the escalation of personal insults and threats of violence if the debaters ever met face-to-face) is the way in which a couple of people in particular keep denying that they said what they have said (despite the fact that it's right there on the screen for anyone to read) and accused others of saying things that they didn't, without being able to point to the posts in which they allegedly did so. Case in point: Don T. accuses me of saying that he is a "terrorist sympathizer." When I asked him to point out the post in which I said this, he denies that he ever made the accusation and leaves in a huff, congratulating me for my "victory." I was interested in a, hopefully, enlightening debate, not in "scoring points" regardless of the facts. Frankly, as a result of a nasty streak a couple of people have revealed on this thread, along with some ingrained prejudices, I'm afraid I've lost a lot of respect for them when I had regarded them highly up until now. Very disappointing. Don Firth Read that last post again, and this time take in the salient point Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM Date: 15 May 11 - 06:20 AM ""Don T., where and when did I, specifically, refer to you, specifically, as a "terrorist sympathizer?"" Never claimed you did! If you go back to my first post mentioning the way you and Keith are misrepresenting I clearly said "myself (and others who disagree with you)". In the past, I have generally found myself on the same side as you in most debates, but in this one I have been disappointed in the extreme with the way that our misgivings have been used to brand us as terrorist sympathisers. However, since there is no point trying to debate with anyone who persists in deliberately distorting what I say, I will simply leave (and I don't come back again, when I say that). I wish you joy of your "victory", and I genuinely hope that it will prove worth the cost (only Pakistani lives.......SO FAR!) Don T. With apologies for the length of the cut 'n paste, the following is a list of Don F's posts on the subject of terrorist sympathies. They are clearly aimed at UK members, and three in particular (myself, Richard Bridge, and Jim Carroll), which is in keeping with the sentence highlighted above. First a post out of sequence, giving Don F's opinion on those who would distort what he said, followed by a number of his posts which do exactly that of which he complains. Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 09 May 11 - 05:29 PM Greg, whenever someone takes only what they want from something someone else posted, twists the intent, and then uses their twisted version to attack the poster, from that point on, I know what their posts are worth. Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 03 May 11 - 07:30 PM There seems to be someone here who is all a-weep over the fact that bin Laden was shot while unarmed (although I heard--within the past hour--that he was going for a weapon, but didn't make it), and accusing those who shot him of "Wild West"ing it. Not an ounce of sympathy for the 3,000+ people who were killed, and their families, when the World Trade Center was attacked. Strange sense of values. Sounds like the kind of person who would sympathize with a rapist and blame his victim for provoking the attack. Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 04 May 11 - 06:44 PM All weepy over taking out a mass murderer who was undoubtedly in the process of planning more mass murders (indeed, that was his stated intent). This man was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 plus people some ten years ago. People who got up in the morning and went to work as usual, who shortly thereafter were suddenly confronted with such decisions as having to choose whether to jump out of a fiftieth story window and plunge to their deaths in the street below or stay there and burn to death. And I seem to recall there was an explosion or two in London undergrounds, plotted by the same man, that killed a lot of people, people who had harmed no one, and who also were only going about their normal day's activities. The peculiar sentiments of some people here are enough to gag a maggot! Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 05 May 11 - 03:54 PM Let me get this straight: It's okay for someone to order lobbing missiles at U.S. embassies around the world, killing American ambassadors and their staffs, and it's okay for the same person to mastermind the destruction of the World Trade Center, leading to the horrible deaths of over three thousand ordinary American citizens, and it's just ducky-peachy if this same person sends suicide bombers into the London Underground and onto a double-decker bus during rush-hour to kill God knows how many citizens of the UK. But it's NOT okay if the United States sends in what amounts to a SWAT team and takes the blood-thirsty, murdering son-of-a-bitch out before he has a chance to order the deaths of still MORE people—some of whom might very well be British! After all, when it comes to empire and exploitation, Merry Olde England has quite a lengthy and checkered history in the Middle-East that many Middle-Easterners haven't forgotten about. Pakistan ostensibly was helping the United States (and other countries, don't forget) try to find Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, so they could hardly have any objection to the U.S. sending in a SWAT team quickly, when he WAS found, lest he escape again. Especially when there was some doubt as to just how much the Pakistani government really WAS cooperating, in spite of what they claimed. As to the legality of the operation, there is the principle of "the right of hot pursuit" as I mention up-thread. It's LEGAL according to International Law. If you don't like it, take it up with The Hague! The level of prejudice against Americans that a couple of people on this thread are displaying is really quite revealing! If David Cameron had ordered the raid and it had proceeded in exactly the same manner, I think the reaction of these SAME FOLKS would have been jubilation rather than condemnation. Disgusting!! Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 06 May 11 - 04:37 PM Well, from the screed just above, I can see that any further discussion will be unproductive. Assumptions based on personal bias. Not that I won't necessarily be back if the spirit moves me. "Yank-bashing" is sure what it sounds like to me. My reputation goes before me? Sorry, Jim, but look who's talking! Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 11 May 11 - 03:47 PM ". . . unless you are planning on sending a gunboat and establishing a colony." Pots and kettles, Richard? I am a citizen of a country that used to be a British colony (until we decided we didn't want to be anymore; "Bloody cheek!!"). You might try learning a little of your own history. For example, that fairly extended era in which the boast was "The sun never sets on the British Empire." I don't think the United States has any "colonies." Don Firth P. S. Someone a few posts back used the phrase, "terrorists and terrorist sympathizers." I'm amazed at the people on this thread who have tacitly declared themselves "terrorist sympathizers" in the literal meaning of the expression!! Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 11 May 11 - 05:32 PM "Nobody here is coming even close to sympathising with terrorists. . . ." Well, you sure could've fooled me! You and one or two others seem to totally disregard the young woman who stood there at a shattered window in the World Trade Center that morning and tried to decide whether she preferred to jump out and die when she struck the pavement forty stories below or stay there and burn to death. Or be crushed to death when the building collapsed—and the 3,000 plus other people she was with. Or the firemen who died trying to rescue people and fight an impossible holocaust at the same time. Or the families of those who died that morning, or later as a result of injuries or inhaling asbestos and other building materials released. Not to mention the personnel in the various embassies around the world that bin Laden masterminded attacks on prior to 9/11. What manner of justice did Osama bin Laden grant them? Or, for that matter, the people whose deaths he would continue to mastermind had he NOT been taken out as he was? Unworthy of me? I DON'T THINK SO!! I was just stating what should be obvious to everyone!. Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 13 May 11 - 11:14 PM As for Don Firth, his leaving has, I think, more to do with being unable to prevent justifiable criticism of his government's "violent, aggressive nastiness". Not so. The justification is obvious. Slamming me in my absence, Don T.? A bit cheesy, I calls it. I'm still looking in from time to time. And I see that prejudice is still rife. Why am I not surprised? Don Firth No matter how often we say that the death of ObL is not a problem, but the method is, and also its implications for the future, this is twisted by Don Firth (and others) to sympathising with terrorists. Now I'm out of here, hopefully with the record set straight. Which is the liar? YOU DECIDE! Don T |
|
16 May 11 - 06:53 AM (#3154974) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge Look - if you say you never signed a document and then someone produces it, you'd look a bit silly wouldn't you? Keith - how long has Musharref been out of power? I don't go quite as far as DonT. The death of ObL (a man who most likely did deserve to die - but only in accordance with law) has already turned into a problem for Pakistan (but, hey, who cares about them, eh, say all the gung-ho on here) even though (and indeed probably because) they were officially US allies and it may well be that matters will go further. As I said, a martyr can be a dangerous thing. But more important these events are likely to be taken as a precedent that the US can make an incursion and shoot who they like. That should not be a practical precedent and it is very doubtful whether it is the law. |
|
16 May 11 - 10:30 AM (#3155112) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bill D Suppose for a moment that bin Laden had directed the 9/11 attacks from this very compound in Pakistan, and that we had known or suspected where he was, having tracked him as a dangerous terrorist for several years. Suppose that we had sent a Seal team...or even a drone missle... to take him out within a few hours.... would there be any of this "we had no right" speculation? It 'feels' to me as if some folks are thinking that because he got away and managed to hide for a few years, that the rules are different. It is ALWAYS awkward to discover that a major, wanted fugitive is in another country, but when there is evidence that he is being tolerated there...or even knowingly harbored there... the 'rules' are suspended. (If Muslim extremists had been able to find Salman Rushdie, would they have cared where they found him?) |
|
16 May 11 - 12:02 PM (#3155165) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Backwoodsman If the situation was reversed Bill, if major wanted fugitive from Pakistan was hiding in New York, or Philadelphia, or Boston, or Redneckville, and troops from the Pakistani special forces flew in in a helicopter, murdered him, flew off with his body and dropped it in the sea (or even worse, if he fought back and they dropped a 2,000-lb bomb on his premises, destroying surrounding premises and killing many innocent people - which was apparently the plan if ObL had decided to fight back), would your view still be that 'the rules are suspended' in such cases, and that it was all perfectly acceptable? Or would you be squealing like a stuck pig about 'Homeland security' and 'violation of borders', and spouting off about acts of war? I think we all know the answer to that one (although I doubt you'd admit it). |
|
16 May 11 - 12:14 PM (#3155170) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel With the killing of bin Laden the US is more on a par with the human rights policy of China. China will execute Corporate fraud criminals within hours of a conviction. Remember the CEO of the company that adulterated baby formula with toxic plastc in order to boost the percieved protein content of watered down formula. Guilty...shot to death within hours. Chinese executions look like a football half time show with prisoners lined up on a field and shot to death in rows. Suppose we found Goldman Sachs executives guilty of knowingly costing the United States more financial harm that we suffered in WW II? Should we put them on trial and if found guilty, shoot them twice in the head within hours? hmm While it is a slippery slope, what if some of the most wealthy and dangerous, crooks in corporate USA should learn that they are not immune from swift justice. The greatest domestic harm is coming from a few humdred people in American who are currently intrepid and secure in the notion they are too big to fail, too wealthy to be prosecuted and too important to pay taxes or even pay for their crimes. bin LKaden's strategy was a financial attack by violence. GOldman Sachs strategy was a fainancial attack that would lead to the loss of families nomes, jobs, health, suicides, loss of education and our nation's future for generations to come. There is a real equivelency here. SO if we can soot bin Laden, can we shoot Wall St. finanicaiil terrorists who wield financial instruments of Mass Destruction? tempting tempting, but it is wrong. Trading expediency for another little piece of our soul and Constitution will always be tempting. 35 Wall St. bozo scape goats like Bernie, Martha Stewart and Raj have been prosecuted so far. Goldman Sachs remains above the fray. Do we want a Chinese Justice Department? Domestic terrorists like the Soverigns and NRA off shoot militias are a tempting target but it opens the door to the kind of society like Iraq, Pakastan, Iran and other governments stricken by insurgencies and civil war. NO one has responded to me in this thread thus far so I wonder if someone might give me proof that my questions actually appear here. |
|
16 May 11 - 12:19 PM (#3155174) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bill D Backwoodsman.... it would depend on the details of the circumstances, of course. We KNOW what bin Laden did...he bragged about it. It was, essentially, an act of war...instigated by a group of individuals rather than a specific country. History is full of examples where borders were crossed when countries deemed to be the enemy, or collaborating with the enemy, could not be expected to cooperate. It is just part of the politics that Pakistan 'officially' objects, when they were privately embarrassed and shown to be either careless or guilty of harboring a war criminal. (I'm sure Argentina would not have approved of Israel coming in to get Adolph Eichmann, either, but almost everyone saw the point of not saying "pretty please?" first! Now if Muslim extremists entered a country to 'get' Rushdie, when the only offense was a supposed 'insult', it would be a different matter. |
|
16 May 11 - 12:43 PM (#3155185) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel You will learn in time that the 9-11 plan had a quiet side, in that a mass influx of student visa teenage Muslim boys, without thier parents, were sent to the USA immediately prior to the attack. They came with no language skills or employment skills. The number of these vanished kids after their visas expired is alarming. Their training and integration over the last 10 years is a matter of conjecture and concern but not knee jerk overreaction. Naturally we can imagine what bin Laden had in mind. IF we as a society were good to these boys they may have found a path for their lives that is their own. If we were hateful to these boys we may have inspired reason and resentment for these boys, who are now men, to do harm. The intelligence from the raid in Pakistan is essential. |
|
16 May 11 - 12:52 PM (#3155189) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Backwoodsman: "if a major wanted fugitive from Pakistan was hiding in New York, or Philadelphia, or Boston, [and if] he fought back and they dropped a 2,000-lb bomb on his premises, destroying surrounding premises and killing many innocent people - which was apparently the plan if ObL had decided to fight back" This is a really very important point which some posters in support of certain aspects of the mission appear to be failing (to my mind) to address. If the roles were reversed how would US posters feel about their citizens in one of their towns becoming collateral damage? After all we might imagine (not so long ago perhaps) a high profile IRA terrorist leader who is wanted for a London bombing killing hundreds (or indeed maybe thousands) of Londonders, hiding out in some American town with strong republican sympathies. Let us imagine that the US government of the day, was also sympathetic to the Irish republican cause while simultaneously retaining a political alliance with the UK. Let us imagine that the UK government were aware of such sympathies in the US establishment. Let us imagine that the firepower and strength of the UK and the US were fully reversed, and that the UK (being unable to capture their suspect) instead bombed the small US town in which their IRA terrorist was hiding unfortunately eliminating a number of innocent American families in the process. Despite the fact that the US and the UK are very different animals these days, and the US is far too powerful for the UK (and *mostly* anyone else in the world) to EVER dream of pissing off in such a fashion, such otherwise plausible hypothetical scenarios are worth thinking about. |
|
16 May 11 - 01:21 PM (#3155203) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Backwoodsman Precisely why I asked the question, Lively. And I wonder if any of the testosterone-overloaded loudmouth 'Fuck 'em' brigade will bother to engage their brains and answer? |
|
16 May 11 - 01:22 PM (#3155205) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge I'm more worried about the US deciding to invade the UK than the UK deciding to invade the US, but a plausible scenario can me made out about twitter and other US owned media. These media deliberately enable breach of UK court injunctions. They do so by speech directed specifically at the UK, so the UK courts have jurisdiction. That is a contempt of court and the UK courts do have the power to order the arrest of the contemnors. Shall we send a gunboat? |
|
16 May 11 - 01:34 PM (#3155214) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "Precisely why I asked the question, Lively." Of course BWMan, I merely rephrased the question you posited, in terms that some US posters might be able to more clearly recognise. After all, there has historically been a great deal of sympathy - and practical support - for for the Irish 'cause' in the US. As to whether the IRA like so many groups, are dubbed 'terrorists' or 'freedom fighters' or their activists 'terrorists' or 'heroes' really depends on political allegiances. Again, some US posters might better appreciate the Irish situation from "the other side", than the one currently under debate. It appears to me that elements of the Middle East feel the same way today towards the US as elements of Ireland have until recently to the UK. Arguably it's just a much bigger map and the bombs are bigger these days.. |
|
16 May 11 - 02:55 PM (#3155268) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Okay, Don T., I stand by what I have written. You and a couple of other people are all pissed off at the United States for taking out the man who is responsible for the senseless murder of God knows how many thousands of innocent people (INCLUDING British citizens). Having done a re-evaluation, I'll say it flat out! What are you doing OTHER THAN sympathizing with the terrorists? If that upsets you, go take a good look in a mirror! Don Firth |
|
16 May 11 - 03:16 PM (#3155278) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford The analogy with IRA terrorists is a false one. Reasons. Both our courts are independent of governments. When extradition failed, we had to accept it. IRA never deliberately caused indiscriminate killings of civilians, though they were often culpably careless of whether a few civilians died or not |
|
16 May 11 - 03:16 PM (#3155279) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "What are you doing OTHER THAN sympathizing with the terrorists?" With respect DF, I believe that has been covered. If you have missed the salient points, you should perhaps re-read this thread. Your repeated characterisation of the legitimate questioning (not all by non US members here) of this US military action as either: a) Terrorist Sympathising, or b) Anti-US bigotry Are, with all due respect, in my view cop-outs equal to that of another US poster who attempted to insinuate that a UK poster here must be a racist merely for being critical of some Obama's policies. I responded to a previous post of yours which asserted that had this been a British military initiative, the same posters would have been "Jubilant", I say again, that this presumption on your part, is sorely mistaken. Here in the UK, most people with any kind of political conscience, tend to be very critical of their hired political servants. Unfortunately the system here (albeit somewhat less crumby than your own) is still wanting. |
|
16 May 11 - 03:24 PM (#3155288) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "The analogy with IRA terrorists is a false one." Yes, that may well be so Keith. I wasn't attempting a full analogy as such, merely an imagined alternative model. As for your prior comments btw. I am in the UK. And as you have gathered, I am also female - I didn't challenge general assumptions from other posters that I was male on that "other" thread, as (it seemed to me) it didn't seem relevant to the points I was trying to make there. |
|
16 May 11 - 04:13 PM (#3155323) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Please don't confuse indignation with justice. If I were a Pakistani, I might well be angry that foreigners did what they did, but I hope I would also see that justice had been done since my own government obviously couldn't do it. In fact, that seems to be essentially the position of the Pakistani government, which, despite some dangerous corruption, has been fighting the Taliban vigorously. It has even allowed the U.S. to interrogate Bin Laden's three wives. According to CNN, Pakistan has lost more troops in Afghanistan than has the U.S. |
|
16 May 11 - 04:29 PM (#3155331) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "Please don't confuse indignation with justice." Indeed. And I'm very much a 'fair play' type of person, so I find it deeply frustrating when posters choose to willfully misrepresent the posts of another, based on *their* (the readers) personally biased reading of the others stated position. This has been happening a great deal in this thread, and as I said before, it's a cop-out. Not only is it a weak cop-out lacking any argument but that of slur, but it's in effect an ad hominem attack. |
|
16 May 11 - 04:32 PM (#3155334) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Hear! Hear! |
|
16 May 11 - 04:33 PM (#3155335) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Why, thank you for your support Bobad! ;) |
|
16 May 11 - 05:28 PM (#3155357) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth OBVIOUSLY nobody listened to the "60 Minutes" videos that I linked to. I suggest that you do so, and listen ESPECIALLY to what the former Afghan intelligence officer is saying. Here. Let me help. Here's the post containing the link AGAIN: Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???WATCH AND LEARN! Don Firth |
|
16 May 11 - 05:47 PM (#3155366) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "OBVIOUSLY nobody listened to the "60 Minutes" videos that I linked to." Don, is that a specific response to the post I made in response to you, as it's somewhat unclear? It's good that you are offering some viewpoints on the event (I and others have done similarly) but IMO if you wish to attempt to make some kind of specific point from doing so, it's helpful to clarify a) what that point is, and b) give a rough precise of the content you have linked to which makes that point. Just so you know, I clicked a couple of links and nothing seemed to happen. As I wasn't sure what I was supposed to be looking for or why, I didn't proceed further. No disrespect. |
|
16 May 11 - 06:09 PM (#3155373) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e Italian Nella fantasia io vedo un mondo giusto, Lì tutti vivono in pace e in onestà. Io sogno d'anime che sono sempre libere, Come le nuvole che volano, Pien' d'umanità in fondo all'anima. Nella fantasia io vedo un mondo chiaro, Lì anche la notte è meno oscura. Io sogno d'anime che sono sempre libere, Come le nuvole che volano. Nella fantasia esiste un vento caldo, Che soffia sulle città, come amico. Io sogno d'anime che sono sempre libere, Come le nuvole che volano, Pien' d'umanità in fondo all'anima. English translation In my imagination I see a fair world, Everyone lives in peace and in honesty there. I dream of souls that are always free, Like the clouds that fly, Full of humanity in the depths of the soul. In my imagination I see a bright world, Even the night is less dark there. I dream of souls that are always free, Like clouds that fly. In my imagination there exists a warm wind, That breathes on the cities, like a friend. I dream of souls that are always free, Like clouds that fly, Full of humanity in the depths of the soul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7cehPEeRgw&feature=watch_response |
|
16 May 11 - 06:10 PM (#3155375) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth The point I'm trying to make is that things are nowhere near as clear-cut as some folks here are trying to make them seem. Lots of folks are just popping off with opinions based on their own prejudices and a distinct lack of any actual knowledge. I'm merely trying to supply some of that knowledge, or at least show that there is INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION to justify some of the assumptions that they are making. The link is to the "60 Minutes" web site, whereby clicking on the appropriate buttons allows one to listen to and watch the interviews again. I tried them and they worked fine for me. Go to the link. Click on one of the three photos on the right side of the page. This will take you to another page. Scroll down a small amount to a photo on the left. Under that photo, click on "Play CBS Video." Wait for a few seconds and the interview begins. Don Firth |
|
16 May 11 - 06:44 PM (#3155403) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "Lots of folks are just popping off with opinions based on their own prejudices and a distinct lack of any actual knowledge. I'm merely trying to supply some of that knowledge," so t seems that you believe that other posters here either have NO sources from which they are forming their opinions (or, at least those opinions which you object to) or that YOUR source is somehow much superior to theirs. I'm not sure which, but seeing as I a) have done my homework from multiple sources, and b) I'm seemingly expected to sit through sixty minutes of something with no explanation as to *what* it actually contains, I'm not about to try to disabuse you of your incorrect presumptions.. I should probably sing Rule Britannia, while flogging a poor chimney sweep, and drinking a cup of Earl Grey from a china cup right about now then.. ;-) |
|
16 May 11 - 07:00 PM (#3155407) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth DAMN!! I am not saying that at all, lively! I bloody give up!! Some of you folks are trying to turn this into a US versus UK donnybrook. WATCH THE FRIGGIN' VIDEOS! Don Firth |
|
16 May 11 - 07:11 PM (#3155419) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Stringsinger The frat party in New York was disgusting. Let's end these meaningless wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and Iraq and then we'll really have something to celebrate. |
|
16 May 11 - 07:58 PM (#3155440) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth "I should probably sing Rule Britannia, while flogging a poor chimney sweep, and drinking a cup of Earl Grey from a china cup right about now then.." Whatever turns your crank, lively. The three interviews were aired on CBS's "60 Minutes" news magazine last night. The first interview is with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who talks about current US policy in Afghanistan. The second is with Amrullah Saleh, who four years ago told Pakistan's president that bin Laden was living in that very area. Yet, Pakistan's president did nothing about it while assuring the United States that he was cooperating. Was he afraid of losing the billions in foreign aid the US was sending to Pakistan while secretly aiding bin Laden? The third interview does not relate to the other two. It deals with a dangerous, self-styled anarchist "militia." Not unlike Neo-Nazis. I, too, "have done my homework from multiple sources." Too much trouble for some folks on this thread. They would much rather (speaking of John Wayne) just shoot from the hip. Don Firth |
|
16 May 11 - 10:42 PM (#3155475) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Very enlightening interview with Amrullah Saleh from your link, Don. This bit may be of particular interest to Richard Bridge who seems to be a tad uninformed as to the nature of politics in Pakistan. "Saleh says he confronted former President Pervez Musharraf back in 2007. He told him Afghan intelligence believed bin Laden was in the Pakistani city of Mansehra. Saleh told us Musharraf was so offended that he lunged at him, and that Afghan President Hamid Karzai had to intervene. It turns out Mansehra is just 12 miles from where bin Laden was eventually found." Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/13/60minutes/main20062650.shtml#ixzz1MZcx41Sm |
|
17 May 11 - 06:08 AM (#3155586) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 16 May 11 - 02:55 PM Okay, Don T., I stand by what I have written. You and a couple of other people are all pissed off at the United States for taking out the man who is responsible for the senseless murder of God knows how many thousands of innocent people (INCLUDING British citizens). Having done a re-evaluation, I'll say it flat out! What are you doing OTHER THAN sympathizing with the terrorists? If that upsets you, go take a good look in a mirror! Don Firth"" Thank you Mr Firth for confirming my statements about your intentional twisting of anything I say on this subject. Now everybody can see that you have indeed altered ""I am not concerned about the death of ObL, but about the manner of its execution, and the (still arguably illegal) nature of the incursion with its implicit ignoring of the possibility of loss of innocent life, and according to some sources a willingness to kill innocent civilians if deemed necessary."" to ""You and a couple of other people are all pissed off at the United States for taking out the man who is responsible for the senseless murder of God knows how many thousands of innocent people (INCLUDING British citizens)."" You demanded that I show where you have twisted my words. Now I'd like you to find just one post of mine which expresses any sympathy for Osama Bin Laden, or says that he did not deserve to die. Once you have failed to find any such, I believe I am owed an apology, but I'm pretty sure you are not man enough for that, so once again I'm out of here and will return only if you tell more LIES about me otr my motives. Don T. PS Bobad go screw yourself. Everybody knows where your sympathies lie. |
|
17 May 11 - 06:38 AM (#3155597) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Andrew e, Great choice of music and artists! Here is another from Chloe, somewhat related. ...even though some won't get it... There are two, in the group, who have been WONDERFUL, close friends, and truly inspirational, specially with musical input! This one is from one of those: ....for what its worth...a great song/prayer for protection GfS |
|
17 May 11 - 07:23 AM (#3155614) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad "PS Bobad go screw yourself. Everybody knows where your sympathies lie." You've got that right, unlike yours they lie with the victims of terrorists not with the terrorists. Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM Date: 15 May 11 - 06:20 AM "I will simply leave (and I don't come back again, when I say that)." Ha! Ha! |
|
17 May 11 - 09:53 AM (#3155687) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Hmmmm. Looks like bobad is chanelling Richard Nixon ....... |
|
17 May 11 - 01:17 PM (#3155798) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 From the BBC (if your interested, or not completely biased as to what some of us are advocating to the debate in this thread) OBL's killing may set a precedent biLL |
|
17 May 11 - 02:34 PM (#3155840) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu They also found a "stash of pornography"??? I hope the chicks had their faces covered. |
|
17 May 11 - 02:48 PM (#3155850) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Don T., your sympathy for bin Laden and his pack of bully-boys is IMPLICIT in what you have said all along. I have pointed out several times that any country (including, when and if the time comes, the U. K.) has the legal right of "hot pursuit" into another sovereign, and for that matter, neutral country to go after criminals, terrorists, or other hostiles fleeing to or hiding out in that country. This is recognized in international law, and the precedent goes back to the days when a pursued pirate ship would try to elude its pursuers by sailing into a "neutral harbor." The neutral country may not like it, but the incursion was often preferable to being thought of as in collusion with the pirates and hence, culpable as well. I (and I'm far from alone in this) see this as exactly parallel to the legality of the U. S. Navy Seals raid. As to taking bin Laden alive and bringing him to trial, one of the scenarios that was deemed quite likely was that bin Laden's followers might very well take innocent hostages or just operate at random with the threat of killing, say, twenty civilians for each day bin Laden is held captive pending trial unless he is released immediately. And of unleashing a campaign of mass murder of innocents if he is found guilty and executed. There is no question of bin Laden's guilt. Not only is there more than ample evidence, but HE has proudly said that he's responsible. So, this way, no muss, no fuss. And it sends a graphic message to anyone who may wish to replace or emulate him. "Sooner or later, you will meet that same fate." Even if the way the matter was handled does offend your delicate sensibilities. One does not have to say something in so many specific words, Don T., to make it bloody obvious that THAT is where your sympathies lie. So YOU are the one who owes ME an apology. Are YOU man enough? Don Firth P. S. Just as a point, as I mention above ("hot pursuit"). As to the BBC article biLL linked to just above, the precedent has already been set. Some centuries ago, AND it is in the body of International Law. Not to be used willy-nilly, but when all else fails. OR when the supposedly neutral or friendly country is, in reality but surreptitiously, offering "safe harbor" to the fugitives. And that IS a strong suspicion in this case. |
|
17 May 11 - 03:08 PM (#3155856) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Good 'ol Amerikan porn, a big $cahs$ industry ...... but who really gives a rat's ass if he was into porn or stuffed toys. now ... let's stay with the issues that really matter ... biLL |
|
17 May 11 - 03:18 PM (#3155863) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad I hear there may have been donkeys involved but it's just a rumour being spread by some ass. |
|
17 May 11 - 04:04 PM (#3155891) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Well ... there ya go ... some ass has slandered the good natured reputation of donkeys. Geeeeezuz H. biLL |
|
17 May 11 - 04:10 PM (#3155896) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth FYI Cross-Border ManhuntsDon Firth |
|
17 May 11 - 07:13 PM (#3155997) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "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. |
|
17 May 11 - 07:34 PM (#3156010) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "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. |
|
17 May 11 - 07:37 PM (#3156014) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "According to CNN, Pakistan has lost more troops in Afghanistan than has the U.S." Yes but they died fighting for the Taleban. |
|
17 May 11 - 07:41 PM (#3156016) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest (Tommy) "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 |
|
17 May 11 - 07:54 PM (#3156019) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter "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. |
|
17 May 11 - 08:27 PM (#3156025) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively 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. |
|
17 May 11 - 11:32 PM (#3156085) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
18 May 11 - 02:44 AM (#3156122) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
18 May 11 - 05:39 AM (#3156175) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
18 May 11 - 09:58 AM (#3156315) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 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 |
|
18 May 11 - 02:40 PM (#3156456) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu 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. |
|
18 May 11 - 05:27 PM (#3156576) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
18 May 11 - 08:45 PM (#3156717) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter My guess is that the porn more likely belonged to his son or one of the two "couriers." Unless they found Viagra too. |
|
18 May 11 - 09:30 PM (#3156728) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Only his hairdresser knows for sure.... GfS |
|
19 May 11 - 07:56 AM (#3156953) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble 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 |
|
19 May 11 - 08:18 AM (#3156962) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 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 |
|
19 May 11 - 08:55 AM (#3156976) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Charley Noble, judge and jury for all international terrorists Does that include the CIA, Charlie? |
|
19 May 11 - 08:54 PM (#3157294) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
19 May 11 - 09:01 PM (#3157298) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble 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 |
|
20 May 11 - 06:16 AM (#3157464) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest (Tommy) "You might have well chronicled the first thing that ALL Mudcatters actually agree upon!!!!!" Not according to Don F Tommy |
|
20 May 11 - 06:54 AM (#3157477) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "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? |
|
20 May 11 - 09:02 AM (#3157518) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter 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. |
|
20 May 11 - 09:36 AM (#3157534) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Well what would you call an organisation that kidnaps people, holds them for years without charges or trial and tortures them? |
|
20 May 11 - 09:51 AM (#3157543) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 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 |
|
20 May 11 - 02:33 PM (#3157704) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth 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 |
|
29 May 11 - 04:47 PM (#3162271) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cia-officers-deaths-kept-secret-13-years-among-050113178.html |
|
29 May 11 - 07:12 PM (#3162323) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Stringsinger 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. |
|
29 May 11 - 08:22 PM (#3162358) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lighter 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. |
|
29 May 11 - 08:59 PM (#3162369) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bill D "..... 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. |
|
30 May 11 - 05:48 PM (#3162817) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=26939 http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=27101 |
|
30 May 11 - 07:34 PM (#3162846) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu "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? |
|
31 May 11 - 07:39 AM (#3163035) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lighter 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." |
|
31 May 11 - 11:36 AM (#3163130) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus 900 |
|
31 May 11 - 02:58 PM (#3163233) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
31 May 11 - 03:19 PM (#3163248) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. 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 ?? |
|
31 May 11 - 05:42 PM (#3163346) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/conditioned-to-love-deception.html |
|
31 May 11 - 06:35 PM (#3163372) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Great joke site andrew e, I laughed 'till I nearly pissed myself. |
|
31 May 11 - 07:49 PM (#3163393) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lighter 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.... |
|
31 May 11 - 11:27 PM (#3163496) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: number 6 Lighter .... Actually, (by the sounds of it) I think it's about time you got yourself an HDTV. biLL |
|
31 May 11 - 11:31 PM (#3163499) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
01 Jun 11 - 06:00 AM (#3163592) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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! |
|
01 Jun 11 - 06:01 AM (#3163593) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford " use of chemical weapons on and habitual slaughter of civilians." USA? Hyperbole? |
|
01 Jun 11 - 08:04 AM (#3163654) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: number 6 "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 |
|
01 Jun 11 - 10:05 AM (#3163711) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 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 |
|
01 Jun 11 - 12:26 PM (#3163776) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
02 Jun 11 - 03:23 AM (#3164054) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus 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. |
|
02 Jun 11 - 03:55 AM (#3164063) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
02 Jun 11 - 04:24 AM (#3164069) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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? |
|
02 Jun 11 - 05:28 AM (#3164086) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Excuse me Jim but which civilians have been delibertely targeted and killed with WP munitions in Libya? |
|
02 Jun 11 - 06:36 AM (#3164106) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
02 Jun 11 - 07:52 AM (#3164128) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford If only wars never needed to be fought Jim. Given that they do, all weapons of war are intended to cause violent death, and should never be used indiscriminately. OBL and his followers did and do use them indiscriminately. I do not accept that USA or Israel do. |
|
02 Jun 11 - 08:08 AM (#3164136) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "I do not accept that USA or Israel do." Really?? No, really? |
|
02 Jun 11 - 08:15 AM (#3164138) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "If only wars never needed to be fought Jim." Giving war as an excuse for atrocities is as old as war itself. The difference between My Lai and Lidice or Belsen and Guantanamo is little more than a matter of degree, and which side of the fence you happen to sit on of course. "I do not accept that USA or Israel do." 'Course you don't Keith - we invented napalm, Agent Orange and phosphorous, and the effect they have on human beings because we don't like the Yanks or the Israelis - they were really only dropping food parcels! Jim Carroll |
|
02 Jun 11 - 08:50 AM (#3164152) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford I am not "giving war as an excuse for atrocities." There are accepted rules of warfare. If they are breached, prosecution is possible. You have never shown a clear breach (except My Lai.) War is always horrific. That is the nature of it. |
|
02 Jun 11 - 08:54 AM (#3164156) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Keith, prosecution can only be carried out by the 'winners' - winners are hardly likley to prosecte themselves. |
|
02 Jun 11 - 09:15 AM (#3164165) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion Volenti non fit injuria |
|
02 Jun 11 - 09:19 AM (#3164167) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Volenti non fit injuria Hardly applies to non combat civilians. |
|
02 Jun 11 - 09:21 AM (#3164168) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion "The difference between My Lai and Lidice or Belsen and Guantanamo"-- Don't know who wrote this -- came across the concept first & purposely avoided looking to see. I am not involved in this argument except for the Latin tag above which is all I have to contribute ~~ except to comment that the coupling of My Lai & Guantanamo with Lidice & Belsen is unspeakably contemptible. |
|
02 Jun 11 - 09:46 AM (#3164179) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lighter Lt. Calley was prosecuted for My Lai by his own side. So were the Abu Ghreib idiots and the murderers in other cases. There was a little thing about Breaker Morant a while back too. (Despite the glib movie, he was guilty as charged.) |
|
02 Jun 11 - 09:59 AM (#3164187) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Lt. Calley was initially sentence to life imprisonment ... the day after the sentence President Richard Nixon ordered he serve time not at Leavenworth prison but at a comfy house arrest .... in all Calley served 3 years of house arrest. Others should have been charged along with Calley, such as his superior ... Captain Earnest Medina ... but these individuals got away scott free. The whole thing awas travesty of justice. biLL |
|
02 Jun 11 - 12:38 PM (#3164243) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Napalm a chemical?? Its bloody glorified petroleum with a gelling agent FFS - you were right you do run your van on it. Agent Orange is a defoliant?? Weed-Killer in other words Neither are "Chemical" weapons, that description is normally reserved for Chemical Warfare Agents such as VX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, etc. US has targeted civilians with WP where? |
|
02 Jun 11 - 01:11 PM (#3164258) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "I am not "giving war as an excuse for atrocities."" That's what it looks like from where I'm standing, otherwise, what did you mean by; "If only wars never needed to be fought Jim." "You have never shown a clear breach (except My Lai.)" I would say the daily use of napalm (harmless as can of petrol it would appear, if 'Terrorist' is to be believed) on non-combatants was clearly a continual atrocity - including hospitals and schools. The shipping of uncharged suspects to countries where they will be tortured is a continual atrocity. The bankrolling of monsters like Marshall Ky, Batista, Duvalier, Pinochet, the Contras - all atrocities, albeit by proxy. "My Lai & Guantanamo with Lidice & Belsen is unspeakably contemptible." Me, I'm afraid Mike - wh contemptable? All are the deliberate incarceration and massacre of human beings - differing only in the extent to they were carried out. "US has targeted civilians with WP where?" According to the Sunday Times article (including photograph of same "around the village of Donga in the Korengal Valley, eastern Afghanistan." It has been claimed that they used it against civilans in Iraq - why not; they seem to have gone in for that sort of thing. The Israelis used it fairly extensively against the Palestinians in their little tete-a-tete Jim Carroll. |
|
02 Jun 11 - 01:32 PM (#3164269) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll A couple of quick scoops from Wiki - you might also like to try Googling 'Fallujah' while you're looking for ways to excuse US behaviour regarding civilian. Jim Carroll. White phosphorus (WP) is a material made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus that is used in smoke, tracer, illumination and incendiary[1] munitions. As an incendiary weapon, WP burns fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire, and cause serious burns or death. It has been extensively used as a weapon since World War II. White phosphorus is used in bombs, artillery, mortars, and short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact. It is commonly referred to in military jargon as "WP," and the slang terms "Whiskey P.," "Willy," "Willie Pete, and "Peter" (derived from the phonetic alphabet in use during World War I) are still sometimes used by infantry and artillery servicemen. In addition to its offensive capabilities, white phosphorus is also a highly efficient smoke producing agent, burning quickly and causing an instant bank of smoke. As a result, smoke-producing white phosphorus munitions are very common, particularly as smoke grenades for infantry, loaded in grenade dischargers on tanks and other armored vehicles, or as part of the ammunition allotment for artillery or mortars. These create smoke screens to mask movement, position or the origin of fire from the enemy. Agent Orange is the code name for one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.[1] A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical. The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was later discovered to be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, an extremely toxic dioxin compound. It was given its name from the color of the orange-striped 55 US gallon (200 L) barrels in which it was shipped, and was by far the most widely used of the so-called "Rainbow Herbicides".[2]During the Vietnam War, between 1962 and 1971, the United States military sprayed 20,000,000 US gallons (80,000,000 L) of chemical herbicides and defoliants in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia, as part of Operation Ranch Hand.[3] The program's goal was to defoliate forested and rural land, depriving guerrillas of cover; another goal was to induce forced draft urbanization, destroying the ability of peasants to support themselves in the countryside, and forcing them to flee to the U.S. dominated cities, thus depriving the guerrillas of their rural support base and food supply.[4][5] The US began to target food crops in October 1962, primarily using Agent Blue. In 1965, 42 percent of all herbicide spraying was dedicated to food crops.[5] Rural-to-urban migration rates dramatically increased in South Vietnam, as peasants escaped the destruction and famine in the countryside by fleeing to the U.S.-dominated cities. The urban population in South Vietnam more than tripled: from 2.8 million people in 1958, to 8 million by 1971. The rapid flow of people led to a fast-paced and uncontrolled urbanization; an estimated 1.5 million people were living in Saigon slums, while many South Vietnamese elites and U.S. personnel lived in luxury.[6] Air Force records show that at least 6,542 spraying missions took place over the course of Operation Ranch Hand.[7] By 1971, 12 percent of the total area of South Vietnam had been sprayed with defoliating chemicals, which were often applied at rates that were 13 times as high as the legal USDA limit.[8] In South Vietnam alone, an estimated 10 million hectares of agricultural land were ultimately destroyed.[9] In some areas TCDD concentrations in soil and water were hundreds of times greater than the levels considered "safe" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[10][11] Overall, more than 20% of South Vietnam's forests were sprayed at least once over a nine year period.[5] |
|
02 Jun 11 - 01:52 PM (#3164276) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion "My Lai & Guantanamo with Lidice & Belsen is unspeakably contemptible." Me, I'm afraid Mike - wh contemptable? All are the deliberate incarceration and massacre of human beings - differing only in the extent to they were carried out.=== Oops ~ sorry Jim; had no wish to quarrel. I think it was Hegel, OR ONE OF THOSE TEUTONIC LOT ANYHOW, WHO WROTE SOMEWHERE WHAT HAS ALWAYS SEEMED TO ME AN ATOM OF SENSE IN ALL THAT IMPENETRABLE *METaphysical jungle, that there comes a point where a quantative difference transmutes into a qualitative difference. This seems to me an instance; ML & Guant were horrible to be sure; but surely not in the same discursive realm of evil as the other two? ~M~ *[bugger these cap locks that will FIGHT me: don't you just hate it when inanimate objects will just bloody FIGHT you!] |
|
02 Jun 11 - 02:09 PM (#3164283) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: olddude In any war, who is just who is not just is determined by what side you are on. Any leader anywhere can sell the idea that what they do is for the good. Everyone says they hate war but yet history proves that man is a violent species and always will be sadly. I submit that anyone who has been in battle, will fight and die for the cause they sworn to uphold. And anyone that has ever been in battle knows that war is all about monstrous deeds and unspeakable acts of violence with casualties to the innocent everywhere. No side walk away good when doing acts of violence to another. It is not possible. It is what it is. Now I won't shed a tear for the guy, nor should anyone else. I just don't celebrate it and accept it as part of war. And like everything else in war, nothing good ever results until people finally stop. All sides. But humans being what they are, we will continue the insanity. |
|
02 Jun 11 - 02:53 PM (#3164306) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "who is just who is not just is determined by what side you are on" No, there are absolutes. We have the Law Of Armed Conflict. Some weapons are proscribed. Civilians must not be targeted. Civilian casualties must be avoided, or at least minimised. By killing OBL, the atrocities he was planning may have been prevented. The LOAC would require that civilian casualties incurred in the action be proportionate to the importance of the target. The undropped 2000 pound bomb would have been considered proportionate. You may disagree Jim, but LOAC is the fruit of years of debate by the greatest minds, and has been the greatest humanitarian achievement of the 20th Century. No doubt you could come up with something better, but this is what we have |
|
02 Jun 11 - 03:52 PM (#3164333) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Oops ~ sorry Jim; had no wish to quarrel." No - I'm sorry Mike. I certainly overstated my comparison with Belsen, which was, of course, an extermination camp. However, I see no problem with describing Guantanamo as a concentration camp holding illegally held 'suspects', uncharged and untried, in intollerably inhuman conditions. As for Lidice; following the assassination of Heydrich the village of Lidice was raided; 198 women and 98 children were rounded up and sent to Ravensbruch; 137 men were executed. On the other hand, somewhere between 347 and 504 men, women and children were massaced by US troops - the punishment for which was, as Guest No 6 acurately describes, a travesty of justice. "By killing OBL, the atrocities he was planning may have been prevented." As we have no idea which atrocities he was planning (his role has been more or less universally acknowleged as spiritually inspirational rather than operational), we'll never know how many lives, if any, were saved by his being assassinated. However, we do know that at least half a dozen revenge attacks, minimally reported, have taken place since his death, including a fairly major one in Pakistan - an odd way of saving lives, don't you think? Not sure of your point about 'The Law of Armed Combat', though it does serve to illustrate the fact that the US appears to regard it as not applying to them. If nothing else, this turn of discussion does appear to have put to one side your earlier bullshit claim that you don't regard civilian hostages as 'expendable' = "The undropped 2000 pound bomb would have been considered proportionate." To you maybe (that would be 8 women, 13 children and 4 or 5 men in order to make sure that 1 man didn't escape - are you sure you know the meaning of the word 'proportionate?). To the civilised among us it would have been an act of cold-blooded murder in order to ascertain that their quarry didn't escape; even the US authorities realised this in the planning of the raid and took it into consideration. Jim Carroll |
|
02 Jun 11 - 04:01 PM (#3164339) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "To you maybe" NO JIM! How can you not still get it? It would be considered proportionate under the LOAC. If you think they have it wrong and you know better, take it up with ICRC. |
|
03 Jun 11 - 02:34 AM (#3164564) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "take it up with ICRC." No I will not. These debates are about what we think, not about a bunch of laws supposedly setting out the 'ethical' or 'acceptable' way of killing people. Nobody gives a rat's ass what we think, but it doesn't stop us having opinions about what is done to us, or in our name, yet once again you scurry behind a set of rules or the opinions of 'experts' to avoid having to defend your reactionary and inhuman views. To me, killing civilians is wrong, and is, in these cases, avoidable, and should be opposed - you appear to see nothing wrong with it - defend your own views and stop hiding behind the behaviour and 'expertise' of others. You and your funny friend have consistently defended the use of phosphorus weapons on civilians by suggesting that it is harmless - you have an analysis of this obscene stuff above - show us where it is wrong. Now your strange friend has attempted to present napalm and Agent Orange, as used indisriminately on Third World peasants, as acceptable by distorting its effects. Your own views suport him with your; "I do not accept that USA or Israel do." What kind of people are you to attempt to defend these acts? Piss or get off the pot. Jim Carroll |
|
03 Jun 11 - 04:18 AM (#3164589) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, you are like an airhead in a beauty pageant, whose ambition is world peace. You think that war is a bad thing, and imagine there is a debate about that. You don't approve of people getting killed and imagine there is an alternative opinion. Grow up. Universal peace and love is not going to break out any time soon. Mass murdering monsters have to be stopped, and real people have to make real decisions about acceptable costs to achieve an aim that you say you support. So, don't stand back wringing your hands and imagining you are the only one who cares. |
|
03 Jun 11 - 04:46 AM (#3164599) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "Mass murdering monsters have to be stopped" Well, I think we can all agree on that. What is the current Iraqi body count? |
|
03 Jun 11 - 04:48 AM (#3164603) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""It would be considered proportionate under the LOAC. If you think they have it wrong and you know better, take it up with ICRC."" OK Keith, once again we see you expressing an opinion as to the expendability of civilian lives, and when challenged, once again we have you running away to hide behind some expert or inapplicable legal precept. The LOAC was formulated to prevent the worst atrocities in a situation of armed conflict between two sovereign nations, involving the(trained and uniformed)armies of those nations. Which nation is the US at war with?.........Pakistan? Don T. |
|
03 Jun 11 - 04:56 AM (#3164608) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon Mass murdering monsters have to be stopped By bigger mass murdering monsters? |
|
03 Jun 11 - 05:21 AM (#3164623) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Mass murdering monsters have to be stopped" Yes they do Keith, and not defended, as you and your atrocity-defending buddies are doing here and alsewhere. I think you have had your responses to your statement, now let's hear what you think, not the experts you have now taken to hiding behind on an increasinly regular basis. Jim Carroll |
|
03 Jun 11 - 05:26 AM (#3164626) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "you are like an airhead in a beauty pageant," And btw - I very much enjoyed your wondfully sexist turn of phrase - I do hope some of our women contributors are looking in Jim Carrol |
|
03 Jun 11 - 05:47 AM (#3164631) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion Jim ~~ You miss the point of Keith's 'airhead' comment: are you not constantly amused by all the Miss World & Miss Universe contestants, asked what they most wish for, who dutifully reply "World peace" as if they thought this would make some sort of original appeal to the judges? Or do you never ever ever watch such programmes? Once again I have to say I think Keith is getting a raw deal on this thread. Whom should he quote in support of his arguments but the internationally recognised body which deals with these sorts of rules of engagement? In what way is quoting reputable recognised authority "hiding behind" anyone? And please do not trot out all his dire rightie form again ~~ we've been there, most unproductively, before, haven't we...? ~M~ ~M~ |
|
03 Jun 11 - 06:46 AM (#3164648) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon Whom should he quote in support of his arguments but the internationally recognised body which deals with these sorts of rules of engagement? In what way is quoting reputable recognised authority "hiding behind" anyone? I think the question is over whether or not he has stated his personal opinion. The way I'm reading it does confirm his personal outlook and he is saying for example: That Agent Orange may have caused 500,000 birth defects and countless other civilian deaths and injuries is completely irrelevant. As the "rule book" classifies it as a herbicide (or may otherwise consider its use legal), its use is perfectly OK. It's an outlook that I find very disturbing. |
|
03 Jun 11 - 07:35 AM (#3164655) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "who dutifully reply "World peace"" Sorry Mike - I did miss the point; not part of my refgular viewing I'm afraid; have I missed much? "Whom should he quote in support of his arguments " He can quote whoever he wishes as long as he doesn't opt out with his regular "don't blame the messenger" escape clause whenever the going gets tough. As guest Jon has pointed out, if the 'experts' he is putting forward reflect his own views he should have the courage and honesty to say so and be prepared to defend them rather than hide behind them, as he constatly does. Jim Carroll |
|
03 Jun 11 - 07:41 AM (#3164658) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Agent Orange was nearly half a century ago in a Cold War surrogate conflict. It could not be less relevant to this thread. Just a measure of the desperation of some to run down USA. Start a thread on the Vietnam war and I will tell you what I think about it. |
|
03 Jun 11 - 07:55 AM (#3164664) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon No need Keith. As far as I'm concerned, your response has confirmed what I felt. |
|
03 Jun 11 - 10:29 AM (#3164711) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lighter Let's not get tangled up in political ideologies. The fact is that G could have saved many lives by resigning weeks and weeks ago. He chose not to. He could save an unknown number of lives today by resigning now. He chooses not to. If NATO ends its campaign, G's resistance will prove to his peers that no international alliance has the staying power to call any ruthless dictator to account. As soon as the shooting stops, the mass executions begin. Anyone who wants to lump G and NATO togther as equivalent and indistinguishable "mass murderers" can go right ahead. The choice of terminology does not change the fact that G brought on the violence through decades of arbitrary power and repression, G could and should have ended the situation by resigning before the intervention, G can end the killing now, and the ethical burden is squarely upon G to do so. Immediately. |
|
03 Jun 11 - 11:03 AM (#3164725) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford I think I have made my opinions clear. The operation was justifiable. The world is a better place because of it. |
|
03 Jun 11 - 11:11 AM (#3164727) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Yes, No, No. |
|
03 Jun 11 - 03:33 PM (#3164816) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Just a measure of the desperation of some to run down USA." The continued practice of using chemical weapons on civilians makes it clear that while the weapons may have changed, the practice of killing civilians has not - that is why the behaviour of the US is still an issue. The use of imprisonment without trial in intolerable, inhuman conditions, the use of torture and the practice of shipping out 'suspects' to places where extreme torture will be used is further evidence that the US is sinking even deeper into being a terrorist state. This is what you are supporting - openly by your defence of the act of bombing civilians and tacitly by your continued silence on the US's record on human rights. Far from being a safer place, bin Laden's place as spitirual leader was re-filled within a week, with a further 3 candidates waiting in the wings should their services be called upon. One of the most positive changes to have taken place recently in the Arab world has been the 'Arab Spring', the demands for democracy which has drawn many hundreds of thousands out on to the streets of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria... All this has been put at risk by the cowboy behaviour of the US, the contempt shown by them for the sovereignty of Pakistan and the double standards being applied towards the calls for reforms in these countries. Some of the most repressive opposition to the demands for change has come from the Bahrain regime (30-odd protesters killed, 60-odd injured, and two sentenced sentenced to death for their part in the protests), yet far from eliciting one word of condemnation by either Britain or America, some of the crack troops that put down the protests so viciously were still being trained by the British Army at Sandhurst long after the protests had begun. Far from our gaining much needed support in the Arab countries, it is facts like these that will drive the people who are now demanding reforms right into the arms of the Muslim extremists. Jim Carroll |
|
03 Jun 11 - 03:57 PM (#3164840) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "The continued practice of using chemical weapons on civilians makes it clear that while the weapons may have changed, the practice of killing civilians has not" USA, planet Earth? |
|
03 Jun 11 - 04:24 PM (#3164854) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion ==Sorry Mike - I did miss the point; not part of my refgular viewing I'm afraid; have I missed much?=== You have missed zilch, Jim; they are horrible, exploitative programmes IMO ~~ & that of my late first wife Valerie, with whom I sometimes had to watch them many years ago when she had senior editorial posts on a couple of women's magazines. I haven't watched one since: but do recall that the parroted standard reply of "world peace" when the girls were interviewed about their ambitions & wishes as part of the 'personality' section of the competitions became something of a standing joke ~ the one to which Keith was referring. ~M~ |
|
03 Jun 11 - 04:35 PM (#3164855) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lighter Just did a Google search for "Libya 'chemical weapons' NATO June 2011." Found nothing about NATO use, just NATO concerns about G's stockpile. But I gave up looking after the first two pages. (I also checked Al Jazeera.) Anyone care to try harder? |
|
03 Jun 11 - 06:15 PM (#3164892) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e http://www.davidicke.com/articles/media-and-appearances/36009-david-icke-problem-reaction-solution |
|
04 Jun 11 - 02:43 AM (#3165037) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "they are horrible, exploitative programmes IMO" Still find the 'airhead' reference very offensive Mike, even moreso having been told that it is a reference to Eric Morely's annual meat market. But if all her were to be honest, if was an attempt on K's part to steer the argument away from the awkward bits and make it something it is not. I find nothing risable about the desire for world peace, something I would have thought we would all wish for - even Keith, for all his sneers (oh - and the "airheads and their beauty pagents" - nasty, debasing little phrase, whatever it was referring to). This is not what this argument is about; it's about which particular brand of terrorism we are prepared to oppose and which (in Keith's case) we are prepared to ignore or excuse, simple as that - personally, I can't see the difference; if you use terrorist tactics then you can expect to be labelled a terrorist. "And please do not trot out all his dire rightie form again" And btw; "And please do not trot out all his dire rightie form again" Didn't think I had - have only brought in his past support for the use of chemical weapons on civilians, which I believe is relevant to what is being discussed here. Keith has done a wonderful job of nailing his own colours to the mast - he always does (as his fairy godmother, surely you have noticed that). Jim Carroll |
|
04 Jun 11 - 04:19 AM (#3165056) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford " his past support for the use of chemical weapons on civilians" This is another lie against me by Jim. Why can you not just challenge what I actually say, and have an honest debate Jim? |
|
04 Jun 11 - 05:30 AM (#3165072) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion Jim ~~ do you know I have never quite understood what it means to 'nail one's colours to the mast'; I thought your objection was that K didn't, he used other people's; but as I say it has always struck me as one of those phrases... Only time it has appealed to me was in a Cambridge Footlights review that I reviewed many years ago [1968, I think it was], with the late Jonathan James-Moore doing a send-up of nostalgia for the great days of Empire: "Nail the colours to the mast," he carolled in a red coat; "the wogs have pinched the string." Despite the possible objections to the ironic non-PC, I still smile at that. "Fairy godmother" is it? Well, now, I shall have to cogitate on the implications of that one. But I can say right off that it is a matter of some indifference to me as to who, or whether anybody, goes to the ball. ~M~ |
|
04 Jun 11 - 05:32 AM (#3165073) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion BTW ~ I did once play Ugly Sister in our village pantomime. Relevant? Not sure. ~M~ |
|
04 Jun 11 - 06:49 AM (#3165101) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "According to the Sunday Times article (including photograph of same "around the village of Donga in the Korengal Valley, eastern Afghanistan." White Phosphorus munitions are used to mark targets - True? And the article did say that the US troops were in contact with insurgents so in this instance there was no question about civilians being targeted with WP by US Forces "It has been claimed that they used it against civilans in Iraq - why not; they seem to have gone in for that sort of thing." Oh Jim a shit load of things can be CLAIMED but that does not necessarily meant that things actually happened does it. And from quoting those two instances (one where no civilians were targeted and the other where no substantive proof exists) you have the bloody nerve to level the accusation that "they seem to have gone in for that sort of thing" But we both know organisations that did deliberatley target civilians, their whole campaign was based on that very tactic, and who, if they could have got hold of WP munitions they would have used it without a second thought. |
|
04 Jun 11 - 07:09 AM (#3165110) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I thought your objection was that K didn't, he used other people's;"" That is precisely the point Mike. He nails his colours to the mast, and when taken to task, says "They're not mine! I borrowed them from him over there." Politicians call it "plausible deniability", because it enables them to say exactly what they think without ever having to take the responsibility. Enter Keith! Don T. |
|
04 Jun 11 - 07:18 AM (#3165112) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Oh Jim a shit load of things can be CLAIMED " It can indeed Terrorist - thanks for the accomanying example from your own fair hand. Despite your claims, the effects of white phosphorus on human beings is indesputable and as far as I'm concerned, govenments who use it on civilians are desrving of the description "terrorist", and those who support them "terrorist sympathysers". If you have access to the article you will see the photograph clearly showing the stuff showering down on the village ("in order to flush our insurgents", I think the caption reads). The use of phosphorus in Iraq (and in Gaza)is beyond question - the only controversy being whether its use on built-up areas contravenes international law (which doesn't make it any less of an atrocity as far as I'm concerned). You seem to have gone silent on naplam and Agent Orange? Jim Carroll |
|
04 Jun 11 - 07:19 AM (#3165113) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Pakistan"s officials secretly support covert US military action, in their country, latest leaked diplomatic cables reveal. "Zardari noted that he would be willing to 'take the political heat' of a cross-border raid if a really important high value target was captured". Al Jazeera |
|
04 Jun 11 - 08:10 AM (#3165123) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lighter There's the way the world works, and then there's the way ideologues are sure it works. |
|
04 Jun 11 - 08:22 AM (#3165127) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad You've got that right Lighter, that should put paid to their uninformed bleating about violation of sovereignty. |
|
04 Jun 11 - 09:01 AM (#3165144) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Still, as Jim says, it was not worth doing because he could be replaced. Pity that lesson is lost on Al Q. They go to great, even suicidal, lengths to kill our soldiers, commuters and air travellers, and we just don't care. We just replace them. They should listen to our Jim. (One likely replacement for OBL just killed by a drone in Pakistan) |
|
04 Jun 11 - 11:45 AM (#3165203) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "and we just don't care." That's the problem Keith - some of us do care and we want this to stop, so don't come your crocodile tears with us again - it was disgusting enough last time. British soldiers died in Iraq and are now dying in Afghanistan. Adventures like this are going to make matters worse. The only hope we have is by winning some hearts and minds in the Arab world; not going to happen by dropping bombs on civilians, invading sovereign states and putting civilian lives at risk, or by training crack troops and sending them back to Pearl Square to slaughter demonstrators demanding reforms. Bin Laden could have been taken with the co-operation of the Pakistani Government (if a crack Seal team couldn't manage to overcome him and his four male companions perhaps they should have a closer look at their training methods), tried and sentenced in full public view to the satisfaction of all rather than being shot full in the face while fleeing (never managed to work that one out - was he running backwards?). Once again - you and your funny friend (who appears to have disappeared - maybe to get a book on chemical weapons out of the library) are the only ones here supporting terrorist behaviour. Don't suppose we're going to get a retraction of your inane descripion of phosphorus bombs, are we, or of your mate's crass downgrading of napalm and Agent Orange? Tought not. Jim Carroll |
|
05 Jun 11 - 02:02 AM (#3165366) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford I will gladly retract any "inane remark " I have made. What is it? I have never posted anything that could be described as "crocdile tears." Put it up if I have. Also put up any evidence that the Arab or Moslem world is affected by this in the way you claim. I have seen none. I think you have misjudged this badly. |
|
05 Jun 11 - 04:37 AM (#3165383) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "I will gladly retract any "inane remark " I have made." No you won't - you never have so why should you start now? "I have never posted anything that could be described as "crocodile tears."" Been there, done that; got nowhere. You put up an excellent example of them up yourself earlier in this thread, why waste any more space? "Also put up any evidence that the Arab or Moslem world is affected by this in the way you claim." If you think that invading the space of a sovereign state to carry out an assassination, training special forces which will return to Bahrain to continue to put down protests, imprisoning 'supects' in concentration camp conditions, torturing them and shipping them off to countries where torture is commonplace to be 'fine-tuned', using chemical weapons on civilians, continuing to count Middle Eastern despots as "friends and allies"..... and all the other double dealing that is happening at present (most of which you refuse even to discuss as 'off-topic'), then I see little point in takng up more space here. I've stated my views on the 'Arab Spring' and the possible positive and negative effects on the Middle East situation. Already there are signs that some of these effects are being dissapated and being taken advantage of by Muslim extremists (fighting between Muslims and Coptic Christians in Egypt for instance). There is a possibility of further major confligration breaking out in the not-to-distant future; this time involving Israel and Iran - I suggest you look our the recent statment from the retired head of Mossad Bombings and assassination are no way to a solution to the Middle East problems a has been proven over and over again. Jim Carroll |
|
05 Jun 11 - 05:42 AM (#3165391) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus 1: "the effects of white phosphorus on human beings is indesputable and as far as I'm concerned, govenments who use it on civilians are deserving of the description "terrorist", and those who support them "terrorist sympathysers"." So far you have provided us with actual evidence that White Phosphorus was used on civilians, as previously stated the troops in question were under attack and targets were being marked in efforts to repel an insurgent attack on the village. If they were marking the area in this way it would be in order to bring in an air strike. 2: "You seem to have gone silent on naplam and Agent Orange?" Not in the slightest, nothing more to be said about either, you claimed them to be "Chemical Weapons" which they most certainly are not. They are, "napalm" = fuel with a gelling agent and a means of detonation an incendiary in other words, "Agent orange" = defoliant, weed killer. That their effects on both people and vegitation is undoubtedly horrible, neither were as you described them, i.e. "Chemical Weapons" FACT - live with it. Both at their time of use were perfectly legal "weapons". Pssst there are no "nice" ways of dying in any war or civil conflict. Osama bin Laden the spiritual leader of Al-Qaeda?? Where did you pluck that "myth" from?? The man himself never purported to be any such thing, and guess what, I'll believe his take on his role and position long before I would accept your ramblings on anything. |
|
05 Jun 11 - 05:43 AM (#3165392) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Correction This line should of course read: So far you have provided us with NO actual evidence that White Phosphorus was used on civilians |
|
05 Jun 11 - 05:45 AM (#3165393) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford If I have made an inane remark, point it out. If you can't, why mention it and suggest I retract it???? You refused to substantiate the "crocodile tears" before, and now you do again. Here they are, except that no-one would denigrate them as such. thread.cfm?threadid=137528&messages=969#3153803 (be patient) Also, no evidence of "this adventure" making anything worse either. You have not made much of a case Jim. |
|
05 Jun 11 - 07:39 AM (#3165420) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Quickly: "So far you have provided us with actual evidence that White Phosphorus was used on civilians," Iraq - Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre Ex US soldier and anti-war activist Jeff Englehart talking about the use of white phosphorus against Iraqi civilians in Fallujah. Creator Sigfrido Ranucci and Maurizio Torrealta Country Italy Language Italian, English Original channel RAI Release date 2005-11-08 Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre is a documentary film by Sigfrido Ranucci and Maurizio Torrealta which first aired on Italy's RAI state television network on November 8, 2005. The film documents the use of weapons that the documentary asserts are chemical weapons, particularly the use of incendiary bombs, and alleges indiscriminate use of violence against civilians and children by military forces of the United States of America in the city of Fallujah in Iraq during the Fallujah Offensive of November 2004. The film's primary themes are: Establishing a case for war crimes against civilians committed by the United States. Documenting evidence for the use of chemical devices by the US military. Documenting other human rights abuses by American forces and their Iraqi counterparts. This article offers a synopsis of the material presented in the documentary. White phosphorus White phosphorus a highly efficient smoke producing agent, burning quickly and causing an instant bank of smoke. As a result, smoke producing White phosphorus munitions are common, particularly as smoke grenades for infantry, loaded in defensive grenade dischargers on tanks and other armored vehicles, or as part of the ammunition allotment for artillery or mortars. These create smokescreens to mask movement from the enemy, or to mask his fire. As an incendiary weapon, WP burns fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire. White phosphorus use is legal for purposes such as illumination and obscuring smoke, and the Chemical Weapons Convention does not list WP in its schedules of chemical weapons. War crimes The primary theme of the film is its assertion of a case for war crimes committed by the United States in its military offensive against Fallujah in Iraq.[clarification needed] The film documents the use of weapons based on white phosphorus and other substances similar to napalm, such as Mark-77, by American forces. Interviews with American ex-military personnel who claimed to have been involved in the Fallujah offensive back up the case for the use of weapons by the United States, while reporters who were stationed in Iraq discuss the American government's attempts to suppress the news by covert means.[clarification needed] Incendiary weapons used against personnel and civilians Hand of Iraqi woman said to have been incinerated by American weapons. An undamaged plastic misbah (Islamic prayer beads) gives rise to speculation, but also may have been placed as memorial item. The film states that the use of napalm and similar agents was banned by the United Nations in 1980 for use against civilians and also for use against military targets in proximity to civilians. White phosphorus, when used for screening or as a marker, is not banned by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. But if used as a weapon in civilian areas, it would be prohibited. The protocol specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed Protocol III.[1] The March–April 2005 online Field Artillery magazine has confirmed the use of WP (white phosphorus) in so-called "shake 'n bake" attacks, so the use of white phosphorus is substantiated by US Army sources only for screening and psychological effects: "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out." [P.26] Graphic visual footage of what are claimed to be WP weapons being fired from helicopters into urban areas is displayed, as well as detailed footage of the remains of those allegedly killed by these weapons, including children and women. The filmmakers interview ex US military soldier turned antiwar activist Jeff Englehart of Colorado who discusses the American use of white phosphorus, nicknamed "Willie Pete" (pre-NATO US phonetic alphabet for "WP" - White Phosphorus) by U.S. servicemembers, in built-up areas, and describes the Fallujah offensive as "just a massive killing of Arabs." However, Englehart was not in the Fallujah area at the time. Following pressure from former Labour MP Alice Mahon, the British Ministry of Defence confirmed the use of MK77 by US forces during the initial invasion of Iraq [1]. [edit] Indiscriminate violence The film alleges that the US military deliberately targeted Iraqi civilians and children during the Fallujah offensive as part of its campaign to exterminate opposition to its occupation. The film interviews former US Army scout Garret Reppenhagen, also from Colorado, who claims that civilian deaths were common and intentional. However this claim, like some other claims made in this documentary, is unsubstantiated due to the fact that those being interviewed had no part in the fighting in November 2004 in Fallujah. The US military responded by stating that they gave civilians several days of advanced warning of the assault and urged them to evacuate the city. This was done through loudspeakers and leaflets dropped by helicopter. "If I have made an inane remark, point it out." Most of your remarks are inane, but you might start by explaining your theory that white phosphorus is harmless. Lots more to chose from but The Burren and Poulnabrone beckon - bye for now. Jim Carroll |
|
05 Jun 11 - 07:59 AM (#3165424) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Not in the slightest, nothing more to be said about either, you claimed them to be "Chemical Weapons" which they most certainly are not." The effects of Agent Orange and Phosphorus has been covered elsewhere Try this for 'non-chemical' napalm. Jim Carroll Napalm is a thickening/gelling agent generally mixed with gasoline or a similar fuel for use in military operations -- it sticks to the naked skin, and offers no real chance of removal of the burning goo from the agonised victim. The term napalm is a combination of the names of its derivatives (coprecipitated aluminum salts of naphthenic, and palmitic acids).[1] This type of napalm has long been obsolete in warfare. "Napalm B" is the more modern version of napalm and, although distinctly different in its chemical composition, it is often referred to simply as "napalm".[2] Colloquially, napalm has been used as the generic name of several flammable liquids used in warfare, often forms of jellied gasoline, such as to be expelled by flamethrowers in infantry and armored warfare.[2] Forms of Napalm Napalm B is not actually the original form of napalm. Rather, it is usually a mixture of the plastic polystyrene and the hydrocarbon benzene. This is used as a thickening agent to make jellied gasoline. Napalm B has a large advantage over the original napalm in that its ignition can be well-controlled. This was a great advantage to the soldiers, airmen, and sailors using it, because there had been numerous accidents caused by soldiers, airmen, and sailors smoking around stockpiles of napalm.[3] There are a number of different forms of napalm B. One of these is called Fallbrook napalm, which is a mixture of 46 parts of polystyrene, 33 parts of gasoline, and 21 parts of benzene. Modern napalm is composed primarily of benzene and polystyrene, and is known as napalm-B,[2] super-napalm, NP2, or also Incendergel. The commonly quoted composition is 21% benzene, 33% gasoline (itself containing about 1.0 to 4.0 percent benzene to raise its octane number), and 46% polystyrene. This mixture is difficult to ignite. A reliable pyrotechnic initiator, often based on thermite (for ordinary napalm) or white phosphorus (for newer compositions), must be used.[4][5] The original napalm usually burned for 15 to 30 seconds while napalm-B can burn for up to 10 minutes.[5] Napalm 877 was used in flamethrowers and bombs by American and Allied forces to increase the deadliness of its predecessors. This substance is formulated to burn close to a specified rate and also to adhere to surfaces. Napalm B is mixed with gasoline in various proportions to achieve this. Another deadly effect of napalm B, primarily in its use in firebombs, is that napalm "rapidly deoxygenates the available air" and it also releases large amounts of deadly carbon monoxide. Napalm bombs were notably used during the Vietnam War.[2] Lesser known was the use of napalm during the Korean War, such as during the defense of "Outpost Harry" in South Korea during the night of June 10 – 11, 1953. Alternative compositions exist for different uses, e.g. thickened pyrophoric agent based on triethylaluminium that ignites itself when exposed to the atmosphere. Development Use of fire in warfare has a long history; similar to napalm is the earlier Greek fire, which was also described as "sticky fire" (πῦρ κολλητικόν) and is believed to have had a petroleum base. Thickened burning compositions proved their advantages. The development of napalm was precipitated by the use of jellied gasoline mixtures by the Allied forces during World War II.[2] The latex that had been used in these early forms of incendiary devices became logistically impossible to use during the Pacific Theater of Operations, since natural rubber was next to impossible to obtain. (The Japanese Army had overrun all of the rubber plantations in Malaya, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand.) This extreme shortage of natural rubber prompted the chemists at American companies such as Du Pont and Standard Oil, as well as researchers at Harvard University, to strive to develop factory-made alternatives - artificial rubber for all uses, including for vehicle tires, tank tracks, gaskets, hoses, medical supplies and rain clothing. A team of chemists led by Louis Fieser at Harvard University was the first one to develop synthetic napalm, during 1942 for the U.S. Armed Forces.[1] From 1965 to 1969, the Dow Chemical Company manufactured napalm B for the American armed forces. After news reports of napalm B's deadly and disfiguring effects were published, Dow Chemical experienced some boycotts of all its products, and its recruiters for new chemists, chemical engineers, etc., graduating from college were subject to campus boycotts. The management of the Dow Chemical Company decided that "its first obligation was the government." Meanwhile, napalm B became a symbol for the Vietnam War.[6] Effects When used as a part of an incendiary weapon, napalm can cause severe burns (ranging from superficial to subdermal) to the skin and body, asphyxiation, unconsciousness, and death. In this implementation, explosions can create an atmosphere of greater than 20% carbon monoxide[2] and firestorms with self-perpetuating windstorms of up to 70 miles per hour (110 km/h).[7][unreliable source?] One of the main features of napalm is that it sticks to the naked skin, and it leaves no real chance for removing the burning napalm from the skin of the victim. Napalm is suitable for use against dug-in enemy personnel. The burning incendiary composition flows into foxholes, trenches and bunkers, and drainage and irrigation ditches and other improvised troop shelters. People even in undamaged shelters can be killed by hyperthermia/heat stroke, radiant heat, dehydration, suffocation, smoke exposure, or carbon monoxide poisoning. The firebombing raids on German cities, e.g. Dresden and Hamburg, frequently caused death by this mechanism; the resulting deformation to the baked corpses was referred to as Bombenbrandschrumpfleichen (incendiary-bomb-shrunken bodies).[5] One firebomb released from a low-flying plane can damage an area of 2,500 square yards (2,100 m2). Historical use The French Aviation navale drops napalm over Viet Minh guerrilla positions during an ambush (December 1953). Napalm was first used as fuel for flamethrowers and went on to be used more prevalently in firebombs.[2] In 1942, researchers at Harvard University found that a jelly gasoline-like substance burnt more slowly and thus was far more effective. They found that mixing an aluminum soap powder of naphthene and palmitate (hence na-palm), also known as napthenic and palmitic acids, with gasoline produced a brownish sticky syrup that burned more slowly than raw gasoline. This new mixture of chemicals was widely used in the Second World War in flame throwers and fire bombs. Napalm bombs burned out 40% of the area of Japanese target cities in the World War.[citation needed] Useful weapons continue to be improved, and napalm was no exception. With many more chemical compounds available after World War II, the safer (in storage) and just-as-effective napalm B compound was developed.[3] On July 17, 1944, napalm incendiary bombs were dropped for the first time by 14 American P-38 Lightning aircraft of the 402d Fighter Squadron / 370th Fighter Group on a fuel depot at Coutances, near St. Lô, France.[8] Further use of napalm by American forces occurred in the Pacific Theater of Operations, where in 1944 - 45, napalm was used as a tactical weapon against Japanese bunkers, pillboxes, tunnels, and other fortifications, especially on Saipan, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and Okinawa, where deeply dug-in Japanese troops refused to surrender. Napalm bombs were dropped by aviators of the U.S. Navy, the United States Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Marine Corps in support of their ground troops.[9] Then, when the U.S. Army Air Forces on the Marianas Islands ran out of conventional thermite incendiary bombs for its B-29 Superfortresses to drop on Japanese cities, its top commanders, such as General Curtis E. LeMay turned to napalm bombs to continue its fire raids on the large Japanese cities.[10] In the European Theater of Operations napalm was used by American forces[11] in the siege of La Rochelle in April 1945 against German soldiers (and inadvertently[citation needed] French civilians in Royan) - about two weeks before the end of the war.[12] Napalm B was also used during the Greek Civil War between the Greek Army and Communist rebels. During the last year of this Civil War, 1949, the United States increased its military aid to the Greek Government by introducing a new weapon to finish off the war - napalm B. The first napalm attack in Greece took place on the mountain of Grammos, which was the stronghold of the Communists rebels.[citation needed] Napalm B was also widely used by the United Nations military forces during the Korean War.[2] These Allied ground forces in Korea were frequently outnumbered, and greatly, by their Chinese and North Korean attackers, but the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy naval aviators had control of the air over nearly all of the Korean Peninsula. Hence, close air support of the ground troops along the border between North Korea and South Korea was vital, and the American and other U.N. aviators turned to napalm B as an important weapon for defending against communist ground attacks. Usage in warfare Riverboat of the U.S. Brown-water navy deploying an ignited napalm mixture from a riverboat mounted flamethrower in Vietnam. The US Air Force and US Navy used napalm with great effect against all kinds of targets to include troops, tanks, buildings and even railroad tunnels. The effect was not always purely physical as napalm had tangible psychological effects on the enemy as well. During World War II, the U.S. Marines quickly learned that the Japanese soldiers, when threatened with napalm and other incendiary weapons, would abandon positions in which they would fight to the death against other weapons. During the Korean War, the demoralizing effect napalm had on the enemy became apparent when scores of North Korean and Chinese troops began to surrender to aircraft flying overhead. Pilots noted that they saw surviving enemy troops waving white flags on subsequent passes after dropping napalm. The pilots radioed to ground troops and the enemy combatants were captured. Interviews with enemy prisoners of war determined that napalm was the most feared weapon used against them.[13] More recent uses include: by France during the First Indochina War (1946–1954), the Algerian War (1954–1962),[14] the Portuguese Colonial War (1961–1974) and the Western Sahara War (1975–1991), in Nigeria (1969), India & Pakistan (1965 & 1971), Turkey used napalm bombs to depopulate entire towns and villages which were converted to military bases in Cyprus (1964, 1974), by Morocco during the Western Sahara War (1975–1991), Iran (1980–88), Israel (1967, 1982), Brazil (1972), Egypt (1973), Iraq (1980–88, 1991, 2003–present), Angola (1993), and by Argentina (1982).[4][15] "Napalm is the most terrible pain you can imagine," said Kim Phúc, a napalm bombing survivor known from a famous Vietnam War photograph. "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius (212°F). Napalm generates temperatures of 800 (1,500°F) to 1,200 degrees Celsius (2,200°F)."[16] Phúc sustained third-degree burns to half her body and was not expected to live after the attack by South Vietnamese aircraft. But thanks to assistance from South Vietnamese photographer Nick Ut and American doctors she survived a 14-month hospital stay and 17 operations. International law International law does not prohibit the use of napalm or other incendiaries against military targets,[16] but use against civilian populations was banned by the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in 1980.[citation needed] Protocol III of the CCW restricts the use of all incendiary weapons, but a number of states have not acceded to all of the protocols of the CCW. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), states are considered a party to the convention, which entered into force as international law in December 1983, if they ratify at least two of the five protocols. The United States, for example, is a party to the CCW but did not sign protocol III.[17] |
|
05 Jun 11 - 08:04 AM (#3165426) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford " his past support for the use of chemical weapons on civilians" Lie. "Don't suppose we're going to get a retraction of your inane description of phosphorus bombs" WHAT WAS IT?? I can find no such. YOU should retract if you can not substantiate! "Most of your remarks are inane, but you might start by explaining your theory that white phosphorus is harmless." Lie. I would never say such a stupid thing, and I have not. Why can you never just debate honestly? Why do you always try to smear me with made up posts that I never have and never would make, and would be irrelevant to this debate even if they were true, which they emphatically are not! |
|
05 Jun 11 - 08:21 AM (#3165430) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus ƒ Upon consent to be bound by Protocol III: "The United States of America, with reference to Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, reserves the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons, but in so doing will take all feasible precautions with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life,injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects." 1: Those interviewed were not present and took no part in the fighting in Fallujah - TRUE? (Under law their so called testimony in interview would be regarded as hearsay and thus be inadimissable) 2: The Film supposedly shows and reports White Phosphorus munitions being deployed in "civilian areas" by helicopter. "Graphic visual footage of the weapons allegedly being fired from helicopters into urban areas is displayed, as well as detailed footage of the remains of those apparently killed by these weapons, including men. Questions have been raised concerning this footage since white phosphorus can not be delivered by helicopters in the manner shown in the film. The helicopters in the film are more likely dispensing illumination flares or counter measures to divert heat seeking surface to air missiles." 3: White phosphorus burns through everything it comes into contact with until the phosphorus itself is totally consumed - Yet it does not melt or effect the outward appearance of plastic prayer beads?? How come? Or were the beads placed in the hand afterwards for effect? 4: Please provide the quote from any of my posts where I have stated that: "white phosphorus is harmless." |
|
05 Jun 11 - 08:24 AM (#3165432) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon "Agent orange" = defoliant, weed killer. Even when used at concentrations several times higher than the USDA maximum and with 2,4,5-T, one of its constituents, known (apparently Monsanto first warned the US military in 1952) to be contaminated with a toxin? |
|
05 Jun 11 - 08:31 AM (#3165434) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Another of Jim's tactics. He has failed to make a case against the OBL operation, so he hijacks the thread, changing the subject to agent orange, white phosphorus and napalm, none of which were used in the operation. (Agent orange not used anywhere these past 50 years!) |
|
05 Jun 11 - 08:34 AM (#3165435) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Jim Carroll - Date: 05 Jun 11 - 07:59 AM Thanks for that long and informative cut'n'paste out of wiki which strongly supports my contention that napalm IS NOT a chemical weapon, if it were it would fall under the Convention applicable to such weapons not some Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) |
|
05 Jun 11 - 11:58 AM (#3165484) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: WalkaboutsVerse Without seeing the footage from the cameras attached to the SEALS, we can't say if or if not a wrong has been done in terms of international law; but we can say that two wrongs don't make a right. |
|
05 Jun 11 - 12:41 PM (#3165503) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus We do however know that the right thing was done. |
|
05 Jun 11 - 04:07 PM (#3165584) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Whether napalm is a classified as a chemical weapon is a moot point - it contains chemicals in order to give it its desired attributes, which is enough for me to be comfortable with the description, and not me alone, it would appear. I suspect that the fact that it is not regarded by the powers that be as such has far more to do with the authority wielded by those who would use such weapons (on military and civilian targets alike) than on its constituant parts. Some eye witness accounts of the effects of napalm and other weapons used in Viet Nam: "As well as explosive bombs the United States Air Force dropped a considerable number of incendiary devices. The most infamous of these was napalm, a mixture of petrol and a chemical thickener which produces a tough sticky gel that attaches itself to the skin. The igniting agent, white phosphorus, continues burning for a considerable amount of time. A reported three quarters of all napalm victims in Vietnam were burned through to the muscle and bone (fifth degree burns). The pain caused by the burning is so traumatic that it often causes death. A New Jersey Housewife visiting Viet Nam in order to adopt 3 Vietnamese children: "I had heard and read that napalm melts the flesh, and I thought that's nonsense, because I can put a roast in the oven and the fat will melt but the meat stays there. Well, I went and saw these children burned by napalm, and it's absolutely true. The chemical reaction of this napalm does melt the flesh, and the flesh runs right down their faces onto their chests and it sits there and grows there... These children can't turn their heads, they were so thick with flesh... And when gangrene sets in, they cut off their hands or fingers or their feet. Martha Gelhorn in 1967: "In the children's ward of the Qui Nhon province hospital I saw for the first time what Napalm does. A child of seven, the size of our four-year-olds, lay in the cot by the door. Napalm had burned his face and back and one hand. The burned skin looked like swollen red meat; the fingers on his hand were stretched out, burned rigid. A scrap of cheesecloth covered him, for weight is intolerable, but so too is air." 4 Viet Nam war vererans visiting Ho Chi Mhin City in 1982 "In Ho Chi Minh City we visited two hospitals which house the deformed children thought to be victims of Agent Orange. Since the dumping on Vietnam of some 11 million gallons of Agent Orange there has been a huge increase in the frequency of genetic malfunctions. Children have been born without eyes, with twisted, mangled limbs, even without brains. In the main hospital in Tay Ninh, a quarter of all births are miscarriages... Hydrocephalus, or water on the brain, is thought to be one of the many malformations attributable to Agent Orange. At the Tu Do Hospital, doctors need to perform some 100 operations a year on hydrocephalic babies. The operation required is a relatively simple one, frequently performed in the West, using a special silicone tube. But the Vietnamese doctors cannot carry out the operations because they have no silicone tubes... The tubes are manufactured in the US and America has imposed a complete embargo on exports to Vietnam." "so he hijacks the thread, changing the subject to agent orange" A bit rich coming from someone who helped hijack a thread and turn it into and interminable and extremely vicious racist attack on British Pakistanis. However, the way the US conducts is wars is extremely relevant to this subject, and to try to separate the assassination of bin Laden from the war going on in the Middle East is utter nonsense. The US attitude to civilian casualties came to the fore in the 1960s and has never altered, according to eye witnesses, some of them US soldiers, they were still using chemical weapons on civilians half a century later in Fallujah. And they have even sanitised and dehumanised the English language to make their behavious acceptable - what was killing and maiming civilians is now "collateral damage". America and Britain are allies; how the US behaves at war rubs off on every one of its allies. Thanks to Tony Blair, and at the request of George Bush, Britain was dragged into an illegal invasion on totally false pretences - what the the US did reflects on all those supporting it and how the people of the Middle East regard us it vital to the outcome of the current unrest if we are to have any say in its outcome. Add this to the fact that, from his admission, Keith would happily open the door to a power which not only uses torture and illegal detention against its own citizens, but also behaves as described above in warfare. I have no doubt that he is not alone and there are other quislings who would be prepared to do exactly the same. Jim Carroll |
|
05 Jun 11 - 04:25 PM (#3165594) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "Whether napalm is a classified as a chemical weapon is a moot point - it contains chemicals in order to give it its desired attributes," Like gunpowder then Jim. "A bit rich coming from someone who helped hijack a thread and turn it into and interminable and extremely vicious racist attack on British Pakistanis" Lie. I stuck with the original subject days longer than Lox and others, and there were no racist attacks by me (or anyone else). I say that your statement is a lie. Put up a quote to show that you are not a liar Jim. |
|
05 Jun 11 - 05:08 PM (#3165613) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "Whether napalm is a classified as a chemical weapon is a moot point - it contains chemicals in order to give it its desired attributes" ERmm Jim, everything on this earth contains chemicals in various combinations and concentrations to give their desired attributes - That does not necessarily make everything on this earth a "Chemical Weapon" Napalm - conventional munitions - incendiaries Agent Orange was a glorified weed killer At the time they were used neither was proscribed. Psst!! Jim still waiting for you to show me where it was I stated that White Phosphorus was harmless - Or are you having a bit of trouble with that? Not surprising really as I never said anything of the sort. |
|
05 Jun 11 - 06:07 PM (#3165639) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e http://www.bushstole04.com/911/laden_dead_9_times.htm |
|
05 Jun 11 - 06:35 PM (#3165645) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth andrew, enough bovine manure on this thread without tossing wheezy conspiracy theories into the works. Long been debunked. Don Firth |
|
06 Jun 11 - 04:15 AM (#3165835) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Agent Orange was a glorified weed killer" And I assume the human beings, including the children referered to are merely to be regarded as 'weeds'? "In the main hospital in Tay Ninh, a quarter of all births are miscarriages... Hydrocephalus, or water on the brain, is thought to be one of the many malformations attributable to Agent Orange. At the Tu Do Hospital, doctors need to perform some 100 operations a year on hydrocephalic babies." "Since the dumping on Vietnam of some 11 million gallons of Agent Orange there has been a huge increase in the frequency of genetic malfunctions. Children have been born without eyes, with twisted, mangled limbs, even without brains. In the main hospital in Tay Ninh, a quarter of all births are miscarriages." Similarly, you have both presented white phosphorus as only being used for illumination - you've have both said it enough for me to believe that it is your opinion and neither of you have ever retracted it. In the end, it really doesn't matter whether they are chemical or not, they are horrendous weapons, especially when used against civilians, as they have been regularly and consistently, and they are indicative of how the US has conducted warfare for at least half a century. "enough bovine manure" If what we are saying is wrong, please tell us that the US doesn't and has never behaved as described, has never used white phosphorus, napalm.... et al on civilians, does not arrest suspects without charge, hold them in concentration camp conditions and ship them off around the world to be tortured - otherwise you are supporting what is being done in your name. None of the Americans I know would give their/your government such permisssion to act as they have done and are still doing. Jim Carroll |
|
06 Jun 11 - 04:43 AM (#3165843) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, what has any of this to to with OBL? Agent Orange was not used as an anti personnel weapon, or as a weapon at all. It was used as a defoliant. Its harmful effects were not known at the time, hence US service people suffered effects. But that was half a century ago. White phosphorus is used for illumination and making smoke, but it does burn. That is how it makes light and smoke. It was not used to get OBL so why discuss it here? Likewise napalm? Jim, what was my "inane description of phosphorus bombs" that you thought I should retract? And Jim, you accuse me of an "extremely vicious racist attack on British Pakistanis" That smear can not be allowed to stand Jim. Substantiate it with a quote, or withdraw the lie. |
|
06 Jun 11 - 04:56 AM (#3165846) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon Its harmful effects were not known at the time The US military were first informed one of Agent Orange's constituents was contaminated with a toxic substance in the 1950! They may not have known the full effects when they started using it but they did know it was not "pure herbicide". Agent Orange was used between 1961 and 1971. It stretches the imagination somewhat to believe that the US were not aware of its effects on the civilian population well before 1971. |
|
06 Jun 11 - 05:05 AM (#3165848) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford The harmful effects were not immediate so it can not be regarded as a weapon. The effects came years later. Why are we discussing it here? |
|
06 Jun 11 - 05:27 AM (#3165851) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon The effects came years later. Quoting from Wikipedia: "Prior to the controversy surrounding Agent Orange, there was already a large body of scientific evidence linking 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D to serious negative health effects and ecological damage.[14] But in 1969, it was revealed to the public that the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), and that the TCDD was causing many of the previously unexplained adverse health effects which were correlated with Agent Orange exposure." Public knowledge even in 1969 but the US didn't stop until 1971. Why are we discussing it here? I think I joined in when someone suggested "monsters" should be executed... |
|
06 Jun 11 - 06:07 AM (#3165860) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "The harmful effects were not immediate so it can not be regarded as a weapon." Oh dear!!!Read andrespond to what Guest Jon has posted And napalm and phosphorus bombing?? We are discussing it because that is how the US is conducting its wars. Surely the events in Yemen have shown that we need to clean up our acts if we are going to have an influence in putting a satisfactory end to what has happened in the Middle East? Jim Carroll |
|
06 Jun 11 - 06:44 AM (#3165868) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Long term health effects do not make sense as a weapon of war, especially if it effects your own people too. It was not a weapon. It was half a century ago. There is no connection with Afghanistan, Pakistan, or anything else remotely related to OBL, but Jim would much rather not discuss OBL. Jim, what was my "inane description of phosphorus bombs" that you thought I should retract? And Jim, you accuse me of an "extremely vicious racist attack on British Pakistanis" That smear can not be allowed to stand Jim. Substantiate it with a quote, or withdraw the lie. |
|
06 Jun 11 - 10:50 AM (#3165962) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "And Jim, you accuse me of an "extremely vicious racist attack on British Pakistanis"" One more time Keith If you did not write: "There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for." about the British Pakistani community (numbering 1.2 million people) based on a tiny handful of examples, then I unreservedly withdraw my comment that you made racist statements and I apologise unreservedly. I find such a statement outageously racist, and so did others on that thread - we might be wrong though! Similarly, if you did not contibute 535 postings (not the final figure by any means, but I can't be arsed re-counting them) attempting to prove that the British Pakistani community were predominant in procuring underage girls for sex, on a thread supposedly dealing with Muslim prejudice, then I withdraw my accusation that you are accusing me of thread creep when you have been guilty of the same to a spectacular degree elsewhere, and again, I apologise unrervedly. Jim Carroll |
|
06 Jun 11 - 11:24 AM (#3165973) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lighter Wikipedia Rule One: Do not rely on Wikipedia alone, particularly for controversial topics. First, no source is given for the horrific picture of the Vietnamese man. Even if it is authentic, it would be very difficult and perhaps impossible to know whether his condition resulted from any environmental factor, including Agent Orange. Horrible birth defects are, unfortunately, always with us. The other pictures are equally questionable. The issue of Agent Orange can't be decided by anybody's unsourced or propaganda-source photographs. Only medical and epidemiological research can establish the medical, including the statistical, risks posed by any substance. Second, always beware of the words "linked to." All they mean is that somebody has offered *some* evidence that two things *may* have *some sort of* connection. That's all! The real question is how real and important is the "link" - assuming it's real at all. Here is the list of conditions recognized by the Veterans Administration as possibly caused by Agent Orange exposure. http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/diseases.asp It's reasonable to suppose that further research will show additional conditions. Any "link" to birth defects, however, though widely promoted by concerned veterans' families in the '70s, seems to be especially weak. Not all the conditions listed are equally serious, and most result from unusually heavy Agent Orange exposure. More to the point: not everybody exposed to Agent Orange develops any of these conditions. As far as I can tell, the *precise* risk of *any* medical consequences to anyone, soldier or civilian, from simple Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam is still quite unclear despite years of study. But it appears to be rather low. If Agent Orange were really as lethal as propagandists have claimed, there should be, forty-odd years later, an enormous number of such cases. Agent Orange is bad for you. But it was not the health scourge of Vietnam that propagandists claim. The real risks of exposure in Vietnam were roughly comparable to the risks involved in handling any sort of herbicide or pesticide. People deserve compensation for ill effects because they were exposed without their knowledge, not because Agent Orange was an "illegal" weapon. Because its use was not intended to kill people, it was not a "weapon" at all. (Though that obviously doesn't mean that it was a harmless substance.) The threat of Agent Orange appears to have been far less, for example, than the exposure of hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers to clouds of airborne asbestos, a known and very dangerous carcinogen, by Osama Bin Laden on 9/11. |
|
06 Jun 11 - 11:30 AM (#3165980) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon LOL. |
|
06 Jun 11 - 12:07 PM (#3166010) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford I did write that Jim, but as you know and choose not to mention, that suggestion came not from me but from eminent Pakistanis like Mohamed Shafique, Lord Ahmed, and Yasmin Aibhai-Brown. As I was only reporting their opinions I can not be accused of the attack, and it is ludicrous to accuse those famously anti racist Pakistanis of "an extrememely vicious racist attack" on their own people. So withdraw. |
|
06 Jun 11 - 12:11 PM (#3166011) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford And Jim, I am still waiting for my "inane remark" that you thought should be retracted, and when I ever "supported the use of chemical weapons on civilians." |
|
06 Jun 11 - 12:11 PM (#3166012) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "LOL. " Seconded - and I'm sure the pilots who dropped the stuff and came home with cancer would have a bit of a giggle about it - assuming they survived, of course. Jim Carroll |
|
06 Jun 11 - 12:18 PM (#3166015) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus 1000 |
|
06 Jun 11 - 12:18 PM (#3166016) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus 1000 |
|
06 Jun 11 - 12:36 PM (#3166020) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "In the end, it really doesn't matter whether they are chemical or not," It bloody well does if some complete and utter berk sits down and taps away spouting emotive drivel about people purposely targeting unarmed civilians with chemical weapons "......they are horrendous weapons, especially when used against civilians, Psst you clown, ALL WEAPONS are horrendous when used against unarmed civilians, or hadn't you realised that. As I have stated previously there are no NICE ways to die in an armed conflict irrespective of who you are. "...as they have been regularly and consistently, and they are indicative of how the US has conducted warfare for at least half a century." Regularly and consistently you say? Not surprising really as neither of these so called "weapons" were proscribed or considered illegal. If any combatant wished to kill their opponents put yourself in their position Jim Lad - are you honestly trying to tell me that your weapons of choice would be a smoke grenade or an aerosol can of weed-killer? If so more fool you, in your position I would choose something that guaranteed the result immediately (not fifty years down the line) and with far greater accuracy. |
|
06 Jun 11 - 01:23 PM (#3166045) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Well, Agent Orange and Napalm is/was a Chemical, yes? It was used as a weapon, yes? Well........ |
|
06 Jun 11 - 01:52 PM (#3166067) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Psst you clown," Ooooo I love it when you're angry - because it's a sign that you've run out of steam. The idea that the most powerful nationin the world resorted to trying to starve a Third World country into submission was obscene enough, but the level they sank to here with the long-term effects and the deformities really puts your argument in the sewer where it belongs. Still have the glow after seeing the helicopters lifting the Saigon embassy staff of the roof to safety - almost as good as Thatcher leaving Downing Street in tears - good memories eh?? Jim Carroll |
|
06 Jun 11 - 02:40 PM (#3166092) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, no-one here could shrug off an accusation of "extremely vicious" racism. If you would only keep the Mudcat rule against personal attacks, we would not keep getting in to these binds. You justify calling me that on the ground that I reported an opinion proffered by one Leftwing senior statesman and a Leftwing former MP, and later endorsed by three eminent Pakistanis. I pointed out that I myself did not have the knowledge of the culture to form or express such an opinion. The opinion was widely reported in all the reputable media, and was crucial to the debate. |
|
06 Jun 11 - 03:03 PM (#3166104) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "You justify calling me that on the ground that I reported an opinion proffered by one Leftwing senior statesman and a Leftwing former MP, and later endorsed by three eminent Pakistanis." Whoever said it - it is a racist statment - one that stereotypes all British Pakistanis as potential paedophiles. You did not put it up as a quotation; you presented it as your opinion, exactly as I have reproduced it here. I am totally fed up with your hiding behind other people's quotes - I can only assume that as you put it up IT IS YOUR RACIST OPINION AND COMPLETELY IN LINE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE YOU HAD TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT ON THAT ABOMINABLE THREAD WHICH YOU HI-JACKED TO GET YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS. For ****'* sake, grow up and take responsibility for what you put forward. Now leave it alone and let's move on; you are only making yourself look stupid as well as racist. Jim Carroll |
|
06 Jun 11 - 03:20 PM (#3166112) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Jim, you do have a real knack for getting the wrong end of the stick. The "bovine manure" I was referring to was in response to andrew e.'s posting of a link to a web site that claims that Osama bin Laden died nine years ago of kidney failure. This web site appears to be a veritable convention of conspiracy theories, including the claim that 9/11 was bit the work of al Qaeda, but of the Bush Administration. But that is actually small potatoes compared to the other bovine manure on this thread. If someone is hell-bent on trying to trash some other country or group of people and their initial charges don't hold water, they frequently go rummaging around in the country's history in search of dirty laundry. And every country of any historical significance has a lot of it. For example, shall we examine the history of a few other countries? Where shall we start, eh? Don Firth |
|
06 Jun 11 - 03:27 PM (#3166116) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "initial charges don't hold water" Explain please |
|
06 Jun 11 - 03:53 PM (#3166129) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "For example, shall we examine the history of a few other countries? Where shall we start, eh?" I apologise if I have mistaken your posting; but that alters nothing here. I repeat - if we have got it wrong about America's past and present record regarding human rights, please point out where and stop hiding behind 'Anti-Americanism' - it really isn't the case. You've heard the accusations and been given the examples; now where did we get it wrong? We really don't have to rummage round your history - we lived through the period and it was a formative influence on our thinking. I couldn't agree more about the record of other countries - Britain in particular; "the Empire on which the sun never set, nor the blood ever dried". I would be the last person in the world to defend the inhumanity carried out in the name of 'Great' Britain, from Amritsar to Tony Blair's 'weapons of mass destruction', but this in no way absolves the US from its not-so-distant past and present behaviour, and acting as an apologist for it drags every American down to the level of its leaders. Jim Carroll |
|
06 Jun 11 - 04:21 PM (#3166136) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim calls me an "extremely vicious" racist. He justifies this because I repeated a widely reported opinion of eminent non racist people about something for which no other explanation was offered. It is simply a vicious personal attack on me to smear, undermine and discredit me. |
|
06 Jun 11 - 04:27 PM (#3166139) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Well, Agent Orange and Napalm is/was a Chemical, yes? Most things on this earth are chemical in composition, if in the course of them being used someone is killed - they have not been killed by a "Chemical Weapon". If as you suggest there is no distinction then why is there a Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons and a completely separate Convention covering Chemical and Biological Weapons? Psst in the latter you will find no reference to Napalm or Agent Orange. It was used as a weapon, yes? No they were NOT Well........ Do some reading. Or would you like Jim Carroll bring a smoke grenade and a can of weed killer to a gun fight? |
|
06 Jun 11 - 05:00 PM (#3166157) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,999 Napalm was used in WW II. The first use was July 23, 1944. Just in case anyone wants to know. |
|
06 Jun 11 - 05:26 PM (#3166170) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Or would you like Jim Carroll bring a smoke grenade and a can of weed killer to a gun fight" By talking down the horrors of these weapons, all used against civilians, you are making my case perfectly. You've seen the evidence of what they can do, you've had the proof that they have been used on civilians - so sneer away; it only underlines what a evil bunch you really and your kind really are. Of course, you could prove that they don't do what the information says they do, or that they weren't used as the reports say they were, on civilians and we are making it all up because we don't like Yanks or their supporters, but it's to much of a proven point for that really, isn't it? "It is simply a vicious personal attack on me to smear, undermine and discredit me." Stop being pathetic Keith, you've managed to discredit yourself without my help. Tell us you didn't write what I claimed you did, or that you don't believe it and only put it up as a typing exercise, and we've all misjudged you. Jim Carroll |
|
06 Jun 11 - 06:47 PM (#3166210) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "By talking down the horrors of these weapons, all used against civilians, you are making my case perfectly." Not in the slightest Jim - you are a dissembler of facts Your initial statement referred to persistent and habitual use by the Americans of chemical weapons deliberately targeted at civilians - I pulled you up on that and that was when this discussion about Agent Orange and Napalm came into the thread. At the time they were used, both were "legitimate", if you wish to use the term, not being banned by any treaty or convention. Neither can in any way, shape, or form be described as a "Chemical Weapon" in the accepted sense of the term as dealt with and detailed in the CWC, or to give it it's full title - "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction" Another example of your dissembling is the accusation: "By talking down the horrors of these weapons" Another direct question of mine that you can ignore. I shall put it with the other one: 1: Where and when did I state that White Phosphorus was harmless?? (Still waiting for your answer on that) 2: Where and when did I ever "Talk Down" the horrors of these weapons?? (In fact I believe that I expressed an opinion that there are no nice ways of dying in an armed conflict, and no nice weapons when targeted against civilians) |
|
06 Jun 11 - 06:59 PM (#3166215) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Where and when did I ever "Talk Down" the horrors of these weapons??" "smoke grenade and a can of weed killer" That'll do nicely thank you Jim Carroll |
|
06 Jun 11 - 07:50 PM (#3166231) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth s "I repeat - if we have got it wrong about America's past and present record regarding human rights, please point out where and stop hiding behind 'Anti-Americanism' - it really isn't the case." How far back do you want to go, Jim? Before the Civil War in the 1860s? If America has such an egregious civil rights record, how do you explain the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement, Freedom Riders, all that? That was essentially a grass-roots movement. Democracy does work. It involves concerned people—citizens—getting together in an essentially non-bloody revolution and lightin a fire under the political leaders. This was one of the essential factors in ending the Vietnam War. I remember the peace marches, the passive resistance (learned from Ghandi, whom you may recall, had a few issues with the British government), and the demonstrations. I remember the smell of tear gas. I was there. I also remember the eeriness of the anti-war demonstration here in Seattle on the eve of the Iraq war. It stated at St. James Catholic Cathedral in downtown Seattle. A candlelight vigil. It left St. James and some 30,000 people, most carrying lighted candles, marched silently from downtown, through the Broadway District on Capitol Hill, and gathered at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral. No singing. No chanting. 30,000 people marching silently. I was there. The United Nations has not objected, nor has The Hague, and Pakistan, although some political leaders were a bit miffed, has raised no official objection to the U. S. incursion. But YOU. You have a hissy-fit about U. S. Navy Seals going in and taking out the terrorist leader who is responsible for the deaths of AT LEAST 3,000 people (people trapped in the buildings, including the Pentagon, the passengers and crews of for hi-jacked commercial airliners, firefighters and rescue workers who died trying to rescue people, and many New Yorkers who lived or worked in the area from breathing asbestos and other toxic substances released by the destruction of the buildings. And that says nothing about the prior attacks on American embassies abroad, which resulted in many deaths. And when you're called on that, you bring up the Vietnam War and pointing a finger at "Americans" for things the military did which many American citizens themselves have taken the military—and the politicians—to task for. And in some cases, have turfed out of office! You are a piece of work, Jim! Now, it would never occur to me to accuse the English in general of being nothing but a bunch of Col. Blimps. But you, Jim, I could easily make and exception for. Don Firth |
|
06 Jun 11 - 10:58 PM (#3166291) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford I am no racist and have never made a racist post. It is disgusting that you should accuse someone of "extremely vicious racism" without any justification. It is not even relevant to this thread. It is just a gratuitous and nasty personal attack. The suggestion you quote came from eminent, respected people including famously anti-racists from within the Pakistani community. It is simply ludicrous to suggest a writer of the stature of Jasmin Allibhai-Brown is guilty of racist views against her own people, or that I am racist for reporting her views. Likewise Lord Ahmed who has worked all his life on behalf of the poorest members of the Pakistani community. Likewise Mohammed Saffiq who is a tireless campaigner for that community. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 01:19 AM (#3166329) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus ""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?" |
|
07 Jun 11 - 02:27 AM (#3166341) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas 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. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 03:07 AM (#3166349) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
07 Jun 11 - 03:40 AM (#3166358) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas 'Bluster'? Well, I have never been accused of that before... |
|
07 Jun 11 - 03:45 AM (#3166361) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
07 Jun 11 - 03:56 AM (#3166363) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
07 Jun 11 - 04:03 AM (#3166367) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
07 Jun 11 - 04:14 AM (#3166371) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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?! |
|
07 Jun 11 - 04:18 AM (#3166376) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas FFS can you not post these comments on the original thread and stop contaminating this one with the same old same old. Thanks |
|
07 Jun 11 - 04:22 AM (#3166380) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion Silas - Is that last post aaddressed to your oppo Keith or your mate Jim ~~ just out of interest? |
|
07 Jun 11 - 04:26 AM (#3166382) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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? |
|
07 Jun 11 - 04:28 AM (#3166383) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas 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. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 04:43 AM (#3166385) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Michael, it was aimed at both of the buggers! |
|
07 Jun 11 - 05:14 AM (#3166395) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
07 Jun 11 - 05:21 AM (#3166398) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 05:23 AM (#3166399) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "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. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 05:27 AM (#3166400) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
07 Jun 11 - 05:28 AM (#3166401) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon 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. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 06:13 AM (#3166413) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
07 Jun 11 - 06:23 AM (#3166416) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 06:24 AM (#3166417) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Yawn - |
|
07 Jun 11 - 06:27 AM (#3166418) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon Maybe it is time to take it out of this thread and to the other one or to PM or something Keith? |
|
07 Jun 11 - 06:42 AM (#3166427) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford All my posts have been reactive, and will continue to only be so. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 12:16 PM (#3166552) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus 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. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 12:34 PM (#3166564) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas 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. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 01:30 PM (#3166598) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll ""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 |
|
07 Jun 11 - 02:01 PM (#3166615) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth "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 |
|
07 Jun 11 - 02:31 PM (#3166625) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll 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?" |
|
07 Jun 11 - 03:35 PM (#3166652) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
07 Jun 11 - 04:04 PM (#3166670) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth ". . . 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 |
|
07 Jun 11 - 05:00 PM (#3166702) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus 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. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 05:01 PM (#3166703) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/7753-cias-bin-laden-hunter-ordered-to-stand-down-10-times |
|
07 Jun 11 - 05:06 PM (#3166707) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus 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. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 05:16 PM (#3166710) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll 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 |
|
07 Jun 11 - 10:31 PM (#3166865) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth ". . . 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 |
|
08 Jun 11 - 01:15 AM (#3166901) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "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. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 04:11 AM (#3166940) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
08 Jun 11 - 04:26 AM (#3166948) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "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. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 04:31 AM (#3166951) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 04:58 AM (#3166956) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
08 Jun 11 - 05:41 AM (#3166976) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon 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... |
|
08 Jun 11 - 05:55 AM (#3166980) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "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. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 06:46 AM (#3166998) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll 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 |
|
08 Jun 11 - 06:50 AM (#3167000) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html Worth a read? |
|
08 Jun 11 - 06:54 AM (#3167001) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "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. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 06:55 AM (#3167003) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Thanks Silas (yawn). |
|
08 Jun 11 - 07:08 AM (#3167009) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas 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. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 07:13 AM (#3167012) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Relevant to Jim's diversion from the thread. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 07:29 AM (#3167020) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas OK Keith, perhaps you can tell me what you think about the other people who were assasinated during the 'Get Bin Laden' operation? |
|
08 Jun 11 - 07:48 AM (#3167031) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 08:26 AM (#3167043) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "and you have still not made any case against the OBL action." Nobody has made a case for or against the action, the whole situation is in the balance, which is why it is gratuitous nonsense to claim that "Al Qaeda is no longer relevant to Arabs." . The assassination was an act of revenge, nothing more, and it has, at best. done nothing to improve the situation in the middle east; it might have seriously effected the signs of change there; we've yet to find out. "yawn" Facts can be boring sometimes, not to mention embarrassing. Wonder what our absent friend Terrorist will make of it? Well done in bringing this particular issue to a satisfactory conclusion Silas Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jun 11 - 08:50 AM (#3167063) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim "it is gratuitous nonsense to claim that "Al Qaeda is no longer relevant to Arabs." ." Here is some more of it Jim. How the Arab Spring Made Bin Laden an Afterthought By Rania Abouzeid / Beirut During these past few months of momentous political upheaval in the Middle East, Al-Qaeda's leaders were barely seen or heard. Their feeble attempts to claim a role in unshackling Arabs from their decades-old, repressive (and largely pro-American) regimes were ignored. In many ways, Osama bin Laden and his band of extremist brothers were already largely irrelevant in this region long before news of the terror mastermind's death in Pakistan. The movement was marginalized and "little more than a symbol as a result of his past achievements," as Peter Harling, a Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group, told TIME. Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center and a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, says that in recent years, Al-Qaeda morphed from an organization into an idea, "and the idea has proven increasingly unattractive to most Arabs," he tweeted. "Bin Laden, Hamid says, "presided over Al-Qaeda's turn toward irrelevance the past five years." , says Olivier Roy, a professor at the European University Institute in Italy, and one of the world's foremost experts on Islam Roy says, "but the bigger blow was already dealt. "It wasn't making headlines in the Middle East, it ceased to be at the core of the region's issues." While Reuters reported that the Palestinian militant group Hamas released a statement condemning the "assassination" of an "Arab holy warrior," the Palestinian Authority had a very different take on bin Laden's take down. Spokesman Ghassan Khatib said bin Laden's death "is good for the cause of peace worldwide." In Yemen, a member of Al-Qaeda contacted by AFP called the killing a "catastrophe." "It's certainly coincidence that the two events are linked in time, but in fact it's logical because the death of bin Laden symbolized the marginalization of Al-Qaeda in the Middle East," Roy says. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2068931,00.html |
|
08 Jun 11 - 08:54 AM (#3167065) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, "Nobody has made a case for or against the action," Not true Jim. We have put up a lot of pros, but no cons from you. The Arabs are happy, Pakistan is happy. What exactly is your objection? Is it just that it was a US operation, and a resounding success? |
|
08 Jun 11 - 09:39 AM (#3167089) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll We can all do that Keith, if we wish to score points. It is far to early to make any such claims, especially based on a couple of articles Jim Carroll Reaction in the Arab world to the claim Osama bin Laden is dead has run the full range; from despair to disbelief, to calls for revenge, and happiness a killer's career is over. In the Gaza strip Hamas's leader Ismail Haniyeh was guarded, yet also clear he saw no change for the better coming from it: "If the news is correct, we regard this as a continuation of the American policy that is based on oppression and shedding the Muslim and Arab blood." Saudi Arabia, which stripped bin Laden of his citizenship, hoped his death would help the fight against terror, but in his ancestral home Yemen people on the streets of Sanaa appeared divided on the issue: "His death is normal of course. This man's name is connected with committing many wrongdoings, hurting Islam more than benefitting it, what can we say? Killing him was right." "Killing him without any justification, whether he's bin Laden or not bin Laden, this loss of blood is haram is haram is haram – is Forbidden." "If Osama bin Laden has really died and they killed him as they claim, a thousand Osama Bin Ladens will appear, God willing." Just three reactions, but all different. Benghazi in rebel-held Libya has other things on its mind, remembering the fallen of its struggle on a martyr's wall, but here too there were voices raised for and against the terrorist leader. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 11:40 AM (#3167134) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion ===The assassination was an act of revenge, nothing more=== Jim, you know that I make it a principle to use only moderate language on this forum, & have done so for the last 2 years. & also that I am ambivalent about this thread as a whole. BUT regarding above comment of yours DOUBLE BOLLOCKS |
|
08 Jun 11 - 11:41 AM (#3167135) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, You can describe an opinion as "insane" and "gratuitous nonsense" if it is just me, but not when such well informed people are saying it. And what are your quotes worth? Just vox pops from Yemen! I was forcefully told that vox pops were worthless a couple of weeks ago. Except the Hamas quote. My post acknowledged that they are out of line with Arab thinking. Not surprising as they are the old kind of regime, authoritarian and undemocratic, that Arabs are busy kicking out just now. Also, they are a West hating terrorist organisation, so not surprising they agree with you. Are you going to tell us why you think OBL should not have been killed now? |
|
08 Jun 11 - 12:01 PM (#3167139) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Errr, Kieth, I don't think anyone is suggesting that OBL did not deserve what he got, the problem is the manner in which it was done, which was so wrong on so many levels. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 01:12 PM (#3167172) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Mike - compliments returned - if it was a serious attempt to bring him to justice there would have been some effort to capture him and bring him to stand trial. Rather they were prepared to slaughter a compound full of mainly women and children rather than let him escape and no effort whatever was made to bring him back alive - shot squarely in the face while attempting to escape - come on!! "well informed people" Hiding behind selected experts again Keith - look up the varying reports of the response to his killing rather than seizing on the first convenient one. Incidently, Pakistan was one of those listed as being both angry and disturbed at what happened, contrary to your claims. There are full breakdowns of the varied responses throughout the world if you care to do your homework properly. "Also, they are a West hating terrorist organisation, so not surprising they agree with you." One again a deliberate distortion of what I have put forward - as I said earlier, always a sign that you have run out of steam: My earlier contribution sums up exactly my own feelings about the whole affair - from an American, and I believe that of others who find it distasteful. "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." That would have been justice and not the act of revenge I believe it was. Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jun 11 - 03:26 PM (#3167226) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth ". . . you have yet to recognise that Guantanamo even exists, let alone condemning it." You're scraping the bottom of the barrel, Jim! Just because I haven't mentioned something doesn't mean I don't recognize that it exists or that I don't condemn it. I'm dreadfully sorry if I haven't mentioned to you that I'm aware that slavery was rife in the southern United States prior to the Civil War, but I do know about it and I condemn it wholeheartedly. Sorry I haven't mentioned that, just in case you were about to accuse me of condoning slavery as well as applauding waterboarding. I—and a lot of other outraged American citizens—worked very hard to get George W. Bush and his puppet-master, Dick Cheney, out of office, and now we're working hard to keep the regime that approved that sort of thing out of power. You, sir, are a veritable fount of pointless cheap shots. But if that's all you've got, then. . . . And it's STILL patently obvious that your sympathies lie with Osama bin Laden, a man who is responsible for planning the deaths of thousands pf innocent civilians. How many MORE deaths would you regard as just peachy-keen before you'd think it acceptable for someone to do something about him? Don Firth |
|
08 Jun 11 - 03:34 PM (#3167233) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford We have not been told the exact circumstances. We do know he was in his bedroom, so he could not have been "running away." We can be sure that the possibility of an explosive belt was considered. In any case, a combatant can legally be killed unless actually surrendering. Either one of those factors would justify killing him. We have been through all this before, so what is your actual objection? "flushed with victory " That is the salient point. That war was over. They were no longer combatants. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 05:30 PM (#3167287) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth "Rather they were prepared to slaughter a compound full of mainly women and children. . . ." And you know that for a fact, eh, Jim? You were there? Or are you clairvoyant? Don Firth |
|
08 Jun 11 - 08:38 PM (#3167357) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""And it's STILL patently obvious that your sympathies lie with Osama bin Laden, a man who is responsible for planning the deaths of thousands pf innocent civilians. How many MORE deaths would you regard as just peachy-keen before you'd think it acceptable for someone to do something about him?"" How many MORE deaths would you regard as just peachy-keen provided that Bin Laden was one of them? Into how many allied countries would you regard it as just peachy-keen to send special forces, if it suited you to do so? Screw ObL, he got what he deserved, but in the process a lot of people lost any trust that they might previously have had in US integrity. That'll come back to bite one day. Don T. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 08:45 PM (#3167358) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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."" Yes Keith, The ease and the cold, callous unconcern with which you are able to write off the lives of men women and children as being insignificant providing the soldiers "get it done" has been well documented, and makes me ashamed to share Nationality with you. Don T. |
|
08 Jun 11 - 09:04 PM (#3167367) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth "Screw ObL, he got what he deserved, but in the process a lot of people lost any trust that they might previously have had in US integrity." You and Jim Carroll. You keep talking about indefinite but large numbers killed in the raid, striving to make it sound like the Battle of Armageddon. It was my understanding that there were only a couple of casualties other than bin Laden. You have any authoritative figures? And where did you get them? Don Firth |
|
09 Jun 11 - 01:15 AM (#3167442) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Two men and a woman died. They must have known who he was, what he had done, and that he was a target. They chose to link their destiny to his and join in his martyrdom. And they were combatants. Had OBL been allowed to continue planning mass casualty operations, unknown numbers more would have been slaughtered. Don T, 9/11 was the highest number of our nationality ever killed in a single terror outrage. 50+ Londoners died in 7/7 and many more live on maimed, mutilated and disfigured. Those who died in the compound were actively working to kill more of our people Don T. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 01:22 AM (#3167444) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford I almost forgot Don T. A friend of my brother from Cornwall was among the Brits killed by OBL in Bali. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 01:56 AM (#3167450) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "9/11 was the highest number of our nationality ever killed in a single terror outrage." Exactly. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 02:01 AM (#3167451) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Exactly. Don T how many of our Nationality are you not ashamed of? Your ex army brothers? What is there opinion on this Don T? People at the pub and folk club? People at the Conservative Club? You will not find many in our country who would want him given another chance. Are you ashamed of all of us Don T? |
|
09 Jun 11 - 02:14 AM (#3167454) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon Had OBL been allowed to continue planning mass casualty operations, unknown numbers more would have been slaughtered. Or would it have made any difference, Keith? Following what was described as a revenge attack in Pakistan, you seemed to be arguing Bin Laden's death made no difference and posted (amongst others posts): Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 May 11 - 03:24 AM The Pakistan bombs are just the latest in a series that have been going on in Pakistan for years. Each bomb is justified by the bombers as a reprisal for some recent actions by Pakistan. If ObL had not been killed some other justification would have been given for this week's bombs. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 02:41 AM (#3167462) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Jon, those bombs were probably already planned, and anyway were just 30 minutes drive from the tribal regions. Throw the stuff in the back and drive to familiar locations. Not complex operations like attacking Western countries. That was OBL's speciality. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 02:56 AM (#3167464) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Ther have been some 10,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan and probably ten times that number in Iraq since Bush and Blair invaded - but it don't matter does it, they are not democratic western citizens, they don't really count do they. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 03:02 AM (#3167467) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "A friend of my brother from Cornwall was among the Brits killed by OBL in Bali" And your point is exactly? |
|
09 Jun 11 - 03:05 AM (#3167468) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Silas, does that advance this debate an inch? The wars and their costs have been discussed here in great depth over and over and over. Now, why do you think that the operation should not have been successfully carried out? Jim, "Pakistan was one of those listed as being both angry and disturbed at what happened" Almost as angry and disturbed as they were about one pastor in one church burning one book. So, not very angry and disturbed. Any other reason for leaving OBL to his plotting? |
|
09 Jun 11 - 03:15 AM (#3167470) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "Now, why do you think that the operation should not have been successfully carried out?" Because it was illegal, it sets a very dangerous precedent, it effectively says that if the world's biggest superpower can ignore protocols like informing a country that it is about to launch an attack on a specific target within its territory, that the aim was clearly to kill, not to capture, that no regard was taken of any other casualties in the raid, that the body was illegally disposed of then it is a clear message that terrorism by what is regarded as the world's policeman, is OK, and if it is OK for America, then it follows that it is OK for anyone else to do this. China, Pakistan, Israel or whoever you like, we have no moral high ground any more from which to attempt to apply moderation to other aggressors. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 03:52 AM (#3167482) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "And you know that for a fact, eh, Jim? You were there? Or are you clairvoyant?" Didn't need my ouija board Don - those who planned the raid had an almost exact account of who was in the compound prior to the raid, gathered beforehand and given to the troops, who carried that information with them - 8 women, 13 children and either 4 or 5 adult males - my lousy maths makes that 21 non- combatants in all. Added to this are the domestic dwellings in the immediate area, many of them adjacent to the compound, also the busy public road nearby. Using a 2,000 bomb would, in the US's own words have been "a major public relations disaster", . All this was covered here by The Sunday Times in a comprehensive series of reports, including overhead maps of the area. I have never mentioned "large numbers" being killed on the raid, I know there weren't. My concern is for the the total disregard for the lives of non-combatants in order to carry out what was, in my opinion, an unnecessary assassination - behaviour we have long come to expect from the US in the field, and are seldom disappointed. "And it's STILL patently obvious that your sympathies lie with Osama bin Laden" And you still deliberately distort mine and others opinions in order to defend your country's appalling and continuing human rights record - the only people here supporting terrorism are those defending or excusing US behaviour, particularly in regard (or in the US's case, disregard) towards civilians. I think the articles were based on information supplied by Reuters, but can't really remember. "We have not been told the exact circumstances." The first of these articles also carried the information that he was unarmed and was shot directly in the face while fleeing; the only mention of possible armed resistance was that it was thought his son may have been armed (it turned out he wasn't), which was the reason given for his being shot. "Had OBL been allowed to continue planning mass casualty operations" There is no information regarding bin Laden's direct or planning role in operations and it is generally thought that he didn't have one, but was a spiritual and inspirational leader; maybe you should pass on the unique information you appear to have to those who can make better use of it. Among the reports following his death is the fact that al-Quaeda has long ceased to be a definable organisation, but rather, many worldwide unconnected groups linked only by a philosophy - rather like The Mafia. It was suggested that, if it did exist as an identifiable entity, even on a national basis, it could have been dealt with long ago. Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jun 11 - 03:54 AM (#3167483) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "So, not very angry and disturbed." Angry enough to demand an international inquiry. Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jun 11 - 03:55 AM (#3167484) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "Because it was illegal," We discussed the legality early on. Most expert opinion was that it WAS legal. Nothing against that from UN, The Hague or even Pakistan. " it sets a very dangerous precedent," Yes. Perhaps it will deter some future terrorists. " it effectively says that if the world's biggest superpower can ignore protocols like informing a country that it is about to launch an attack on a specific target within its territory," Obama was at pains to justify that. "that the aim was clearly to kill, not to capture," That is not clear at all. " that no regard was taken of any other casualties in the raid," Obama must have been tempted to just bomb the compound and kill everyone. Had the Seals suffered heavy casualties, or the raid degenerated into a Jimmy Carter style fiasco, he would have been very politically damaged. A brave decision I think. " that the body was illegally disposed of" Yes, but as with the whole situation, it was by far the lesser of evils. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 05:58 AM (#3167520) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas OK Keith, you carry on defending the indefensible, that is your right, I question your capacity to actually think for yourself though, it seems to me that you have fallen for the lies and propaganda that eminates from your govermnment just as much as the 'Ruskies' fell for the same under communist rule. Try shaking off the conventions of how Americans are 'supposed' to think and try to be a little objective and try questiuoning things occasionally - you may yet surprise yourself. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 10:31 AM (#3167650) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus 1: "8 women, 13 children and either 4 or 5 adult males - my lousy maths makes that 21 non- combatants in all." Why do you automatically assume that the 8 women are non-combatants? 2: "the domestic dwellings in the immediate area, many of them adjacent to the compound" Here are aerial photographs of the "compound" and a drawing detailing 12'; 13'; & 18' perimeter concrete walls: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/bin-laden-compound-abbottabad-google-maps_n_856225.html The 2,000lb bomb would have killed everybody inside the compound damage outside would have been fairly slight, I expect that you have witnessed the effects of a 2,000lb bomb detonating Jim? If you haven't then the walls deflect the blast upwards before they themselves are knocked down, the shock wave always takes the line of least resistance. 3: "the only people here supporting terrorism are those defending or excusing US behaviour, particularly in regard (or in the US's case, disregard) towards civilians." Okay for civilian deaths let's just have a look at Afghanistan since 14th April 1978. April 1978 to October 2001: Between 2,100,000 to 2,700,000 Afghan citizens killed by Afghan Communists; Soviet 40th Army; Mujahideen War-Lords; Taliban. Over the period that works out using the lower figure at a daily average of 248 Afghan civilians killed every single day for that 23 year period October 2001 to December 2010: Since 7th October 2001 there has been an international force operating inside Afghanistan charged with the protection of the general population. Since October 2001 taking the worst case estimates some 35,000 Afghan civilians have been killed in Afghanistan 80% of those have been killed by the Anti-Government Forces (Afghan Taliban; Hekmatyar; Haqqani; Pakistan Taliban; Al-Qaeda). Over the period that works out at a daily average of 10 Afghan civilians killed every single day for that 10 year period. Since ISAF have taken charge throughout Afghanistan (2006) the daily average of Afghan civilians killed each day has dropped to 5 per day of whom 4 are killed by the Taliban. Don't know how good your mathematics is Jim but I make that a reduction in the average daily total of civilian deaths in Afghanistan of some 96%. And for this US Forces are to be condemned, best ask the citizens of Afghanistan how quickly and how eagerly they wish for a return of the "Good Old Days" 4: "The first of these articles also carried the information that he was unarmed and was shot directly in the face while fleeing" Anything strike you as being odd about that? How on earth can you be shot in the face whilst fleeing? If you are fleeing you are running away. To be shot in the face you must be running towards, unless of course Osama bin Laden was running backwards at the time. A combatant running is a legitimate target, a combatant standing still with his hands open over his head is surrendering and is not. Personally I found at the time a number of strange things about this: a: If the orders were get him dead or alive then OK that is a judgement call on whoever it is that first comes upon him. As you seem to believe the tale he was running therefore a legitimate target, as nobody could tell for certain what he was running for or towards. b: If it was an ordered assassination then no-one in the compound would have been left alive and no-one would ever have known that the raid actually took place. c: What if the man in the compound was not bin Laden? Then he would have to have been shot. His body would have to have been spirited away and disposed of where no-one could ever find it and examine it. The raid and the death of bin Laden would be publicised to the high heavens and shouted from the roof tops. WHY all of this? Because it would then force Al-Qaeda to either produce bin Laden alive to refute the claim of his death, or confirm bin Laden as being dead. All I know for certain is that the raid and the result of the raid was shouted from the roof-tops, there have been no photographs shown of the dead body that clearly show him as being Osama bin Laden and they made absolutely sure that the body will never be recovered for examination and Al-Qaeda did confirm that Osama bin Laden was dead beyond all shadow of a doubt. 5: "There is no information regarding bin Laden's direct or planning role in operations and it is generally thought that he didn't have one, but was a spiritual and inspirational leader; maybe you should pass on the unique information you appear to have to those who can make better use of it." 1996 - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed proposes the idea of what eventually became the 9/11 attacks to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. The plan is rejected by OBL as being over-elaborate and on too grand a scale, OBL's objection is that with those numbers involved it would never be kept secret. On the technical side OBL also objected to the idea of taking over aircraft on long distance flights flying into the USA as they would arrive at the target destinations with minimal fuel onboard. So KSM was told to go away and re-think the operation. 1998 - Plan resubmitted now using internal long haul flights taking off from US airports on the eastern seaboard to attack targets in New York and Washington DC. WTC picked on the directions of OBL in revenge for those taken in earlier failed Al-Qaeda attack on the same building complex (1993). The plan is now approved by OBL and handed to Mohammed Atef, Al-Qaeda's Chief of Operations. Atef selects Yemenis for the mission but unfortunately as it was discovered in training, they are not good material as prospective airline pilot candidates and their english is simply just not up to it. The Operation is postponed for a second time. <1998 - Elsewhere Al-Qaeda has organised and planned two operations from inside Afghanistan that successfully blew up two US Embassies in East Africa. One of the side effects of this is that it becomes more difficult to obtain US entry visa from the middle and near east. Atef is instructed by bin Laden to get recruits for the attack on the US mainland from Europe. 1999- Atef's talent scouts locate and groom Mohammed Atta in Germany. In November of 1999 Atta and four others fly first to Pakistan then cross the border into Afghanistan where they are all interviewed by Osama bin Laden. OBL selects Atta to lead the operation and briefs him on the plan. 2000 - The attack on the USS Cole in Yemen 2001 - 9/11 attack + aftermath. The only thing that OBL and the Taliban have underestimated is the US response under GWB. The only thing they have not taken into account and completely overlooked are the ramifications of attacking the US mainland - Mullah Mohammed Omar will regret that oversight until the day he dies, it cost him a country. And you say what Jim that Osama bin Laden was the "spiritual" leader?? No hand in operational decisions or direction? Bollocks. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 10:46 AM (#3167663) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Why do you automatically assume that the 8 women are non-combatants?" I'm assuming nothing of the sort, they were all described as non-combatant family members by the CIA observers. The CIA observer making the report took pains to point out that bin Laden was a devoted family man who took an enormous risk in bringing his family to the compound - he headed his statement, "You may not want to know this but....." Given the US record on civilian casualties, BL would have been rather daft to have relied on their humanity towards "hostages" as Keith described them further up the thread. Your speculation on how many people would be killed by a 2,000 is just that - pure speculation Maybe they could have use done of those non-chemical weapons you're so fond of!! Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jun 11 - 12:12 PM (#3167724) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Osama bin Laden was "rather daft" You should have made it clearer in your post that the assumption that the women were non-combatants had been made by someone else, again only an assumption that I certainly would have given no credence to if I was ordering my men to enter that compound. As far as "humanity towards hostages" go, there are far and by way far too many amateur videos of people getting their heads clumsily sawn off by purported supporters of this clown for him ever to have expected anything but wall-to-wall-death when they came knocking at his door. He himself was reported to have stated that he would never ever allow himself to be taken alive. How nice of the US Navy SEAL's to give the man his own personally desired way out. "Your speculation on how many people would be killed by a 2,000 is just that - pure speculation" No Jim with regard to this specific point with you it is pure speculation, on my part it is "informed" speculation. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 12:55 PM (#3167751) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "towards "hostages" as Keith described them further up the thread." No Keith did not! The only hostages I have referred to were those in Iran, in Jimmy Carter's presidency. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 01:16 PM (#3167771) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "The only hostages I have referred to....." Of for ****'* sake! You wrote: "What can you do when fighters surround themselves with civilians including children" To which I replied: "You can act on the basis that there are non-combatants in the area - you do not kill hostages" To which you replied, not disputing my 'hostages' description: "30 000 Pakistanis killed already by Al Qaeda and Taleban." Indicating that you accepted the description of killing hostages and excused it on the basis that the Taleban killed people. "informed" speculation." Crap - how could you possibly know how accurately an unkown crew could drop a bomb? Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jun 11 - 01:33 PM (#3167780) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Indicating nothing of the sort! And Jim, surely even you know that those bombs do not rely on the skill of a "crew" anymore. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 03:18 PM (#3167853) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "Indicating nothing of the sort!" You're at it again Keith; would you like to tell us exactly what it indicated (following directly on after my posting regarding hostages)? "And Jim, surely even you know that those bombs do not rely on the skill of a "crew" anymore." O dear, not another military nut; I'd have thought one wannabe was enough) Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jun 11 - 04:25 PM (#3167911) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford As I told you on 9th May, the Mk84 2000lb bomb is highly accurate and has a danger zone of 315m. I never regarded or spoke of the people in the compound as hostages. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 04:32 PM (#3167915) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Which would be much reduced by the walls of the compound. As I told you then, there would be no casualties outside. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 05:06 PM (#3167936) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll Yup, another military wannabe Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jun 11 - 05:15 PM (#3167940) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford No Jim. I just took the trouble to find out, rather than make a twat of myself on the forum. Twat. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 06:36 PM (#3168000) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""You will not find many in our country who would want him given another chance. Are you ashamed of all of us Don T?"" I didn't want him given any chance you twerp. I wanted him legally extradited, legally tried, and legally punished by a properly constituted judicial authority. Your attitude to the business is too close to the "end justifies the means" policies of people like ObL. If you act like him you're as f**king bad as he is. So no, I'm not ashamed of all those you fondly imagine as being favourable to you, just to YOU specifically because I don't like arrogant fascists. Don T. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 07:01 PM (#3168013) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "I wanted him legally extradited, legally tried, and legally punished by a properly constituted judicial authority." You prissey, self satified, smug, niaive bastard. How long would that have taken?? In that time how many innocent people would have been abducted and slaughtered in the attempts to get him released. Hey Don fucking(Wyziwyg)T would we have seen you volunteering to take any of their places in order to maintain the niceties of legal protocol - No bloody way we wouldn't, and you damn well know it, you value your own arse too much for that sort of sacrifice - so much for your hypocritical principles. Tell Don fuckin'(Wyziwyg)T how many of Osama bin Laden's victims were accorded due process of law ("legally extradited, legally tried, and legally punished by a properly constituted judicial authority) before they were killed - I'll tell you, you stupid SOB - NONE. He and He alone found them guilty as charged en-masse in 1996 and again in 1998 - he damn well declared open season on them. Osama bin Laden was charged and found guilty and executed in accordance with a rule of law that he, himself would and could not have had any objection to whatsoever as that is exactly how he himself meted out punishment. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 01:12 AM (#3168169) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Don T, do me a favour and actually ask those people. And when you find that most of them do agree with me, don't forget to call them "arrogant fascists." And don't forget to say "f***ing" a lot. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 02:48 AM (#3168183) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/2011/05/amazing-rotating-glow-in-dark-bin-laden.html |
|
10 Jun 11 - 03:03 AM (#3168189) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "How long would that have taken" Yeah - that's the way to do it - shoot 'em all without a trial and save the state some money - eye-for-an-eye, then we'll really never be able to tell the difference between one bunch of terrorist and another. "And don't forget to say "f***in'" a lot." Or twat - some here seem quite happy with "fuckin'" already. "rather than make a twat of myself on the forum." Too late, too late, the maiden cried - and on two threads at the same time. "As I told you then, there would be no casualties outside. " Perhaps you shoud cite one of your 'experts' instead of just relying on you 'Sealed Knot' experiences? "I never regarded or spoke of the people in the compound as hostages. 'Fraid you did Keith - cited a few postings up. Jim Carroll |
|
10 Jun 11 - 03:13 AM (#3168190) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "'Fraid you did Keith - cited a few postings up." 'Fraid not Jim. Even there I never regarded or spoke of the people in the compound as hostages. "Perhaps you should cite one of your 'experts' instead of just relying on you 'Sealed Knot' experiences?" Sealed Knot? I was a reservist soldier for 39 years if that counts. I just googled up the bomb facts. I like to get my facts right. What is wrong with expert opinion Jim? Just that it never supports you! |
|
10 Jun 11 - 11:32 AM (#3168427) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Hey Don fucking(Wyziwyg)T would we have seen you volunteering to take any of their places in order to maintain the niceties of legal protocol - No bloody way we wouldn't, and you damn well know it, you value your own arse too much for that sort of sacrifice - so much for your hypocritical principles."" You know nothing about me, nor about what I would do or have done, you ignorant prick. I was wrong. You're not as bad as ObL, you're f**king worse. Don T. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 02:57 PM (#3168524) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "I was wrong. You're not as bad as ObL, you're f**king worse. Well then Don "What you see is what you get" that speaks volumes with respect your sense of proportion and your grip on reality. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 06:24 PM (#3168646) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T You'll go to any lengths, violate any sovereign frontier, and sink to any depths of lawbreaking, including the killing of innocents, to achieve your desired end. Exactly what you complain about with respect to ObL's actions. Whose sense of proportion is out of kilter? With every post you prove that you are a gun happy psycho. Don T. |
|
11 Jun 11 - 02:27 AM (#3168795) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Fatwa 1996 "We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it" Fatwa 1998 "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it" This man was no criminal - Do not apply what would be considered normal criminal proceedings which call for and require apprehension and capture. This man was a declared enemy, an active, dangerous and important one. It was he himself who declared war against you and directed the execution of that war - In war you kill your enemies, especially if they are active, dangerous and important - To do anything other than that is foolish in the extreme. |
|
11 Jun 11 - 04:46 AM (#3168814) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""In war you kill your enemies, especially if they are active, dangerous and important - To do anything other than that is foolish in the extreme."" So according to you we shouldn't have taken P.O.W.s, or bothered with the Nuremberg trials, just shot the lot. We established a serious precedent at Nuremberg, that it is not legal to shoot an unarmed enemy, and that it would be treated as murder to do so. If you can't see the relevance of that, then it is your perspective that is sadly awry. Confucius say, when hole is almost too deep to climb out, the sensible man stops digging. Don T |
|
11 Jun 11 - 06:31 AM (#3168836) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Please show me where at Nurenburg or anywhere else this Precedent of yours was set? It is considered unlawful and a crime to deliberately shot an enemy who is trying to surrender. How do you KNOW that your enemy IS UNARMED until you have him in custody and have searched him? I always find it rather quaint that people think that there are rules of war - once engaged, there are no rules save one which is the most important - WIN!!!! "So according to you we shouldn't have taken P.O.W.s, or bothered with the Nuremberg trials, just shot the lot." P.O.W's - Ehmm hate to point out the obvious difference Don T but they found themselves taken as POW's because they DID SURRENDER. The Nurnberg Trials? Well for the principal guests (Himmler, Goering) it was just really a case of "Wheel the Guilty Bastards in, we're here to decide just how guilty they are." Their sentences were foregone conclusions, after all you cannot set the World alight, thereby causing the deaths of some 72 million people and expect to get away with a community service order. |
|
11 Jun 11 - 10:10 AM (#3168895) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad For those who maintain that the US should have informed and sought cooperation with Pakistani officials for the Bin Laden raid here's something for you to chew on with your morning coffee: "ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Twice in recent weeks, the United States provided Pakistan with the specific locations of insurgent bomb-making factories, only to see the militants learn their cover had been blown and vacate the sites before military action could be taken, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials. Overhead surveillance video and other information was given to Pakistani officials in mid-May, officials said, as part of a trust-building effort by the Obama administration after the killing of Osama bin Laden in a U.S. raid early last month. But Pakistani military units that arrived at the sites in the tribal areas of North and South Waziristan on June 4 found them abandoned. U.S. officials say they do not know how the operation was compromised. But they are concerned that either the information was inadvertently leaked inside Pakistan or insurgents were warned directly by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or ISI. The Washington Post |
|
11 Jun 11 - 02:36 PM (#3168998) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth The Marquis of Queensbury rules do not apply with people like Osama bin Laden. Had they found him naked in a bathtub with nothing more lethal than a washcloth, a bar of soap, and a loofah within arms' reach, they could have safely taken him into custody. But when he leaps up, grabs the woman he's with, and uses her for a shield, it's not untoward to assume that he is not going to come quietly. A man like bin Laden would more than likely be armed at all times, even if with nothing more than a knife or a small caliber pistol, such as this: CLICKY. About 4 1/2 inches long, weighs about 9 ounces (small and light enough to fit in a shirt or bathrobe pocket), and it has a capacity of nine puny, perhaps, but potentially quite lethal .25 caliber rounds. Unless he was standing there with his hands in the air, I wouldn't take any chances. And even then. . . . It's easy enough to be a Monday morning quarterback. After something like this, they come crawling out of the woodwork. Don Firth |
|
11 Jun 11 - 03:36 PM (#3169015) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: MGM·Lion Teribus Purely in interests of accuracy ["MtheGM, your pedantry is legendary," a dear friend posted on another forum] ~~~ Himmler was not a defendant at Nürnberg. ~M~ |
|
11 Jun 11 - 05:00 PM (#3169037) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,dan bromberg Hi Don, I see from one of your previous postings that you knew Dick Rosmini (a much nicer and far more talented guy than Osama Bin Laden, I'm sure!). Any background info or sheet/tab music (especially from his "Adventures..." album - in particular, Little Brown Dog) would be greatly appreciated. After all, he was my hero! Happy trails!, Dan |
|
11 Jun 11 - 06:45 PM (#3169071) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""P.O.W's - Ehmm hate to point out the obvious difference Don T but they found themselves taken as POW's because they DID SURRENDER."" In the world you seem to want, they would never have had the chance to surrender. Win at any cost. Use any means. No rules other than shoot first, let God sort 'em out. Don T. |
|
12 Jun 11 - 05:23 AM (#3169208) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas As I understood it, these guys who assasinated Bin Laden were wearing helmet cameras - any reason why the footage has not yet been released? |
|
12 Jun 11 - 06:21 AM (#3169231) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Very true MtheGM but: "Himmler was arrested on 22 May by Major Sidney Excell and, in captivity, was soon recognized. Himmler was scheduled to stand trial with other German leaders as a war criminal at Nuremberg, but on 23 May[42] committed suicide in Lüneburg by means of a potassium cyanide capsule before interrogation could begin." Had Himmler stood trial there would be no question of there being any possibility of his innocence, merely the extent of his guilt. A combatant throws dow his weapon or stands before you perfectly still with his open hands raised - that man is undoubtedly in the act of surrendering Don T, and it would be a crime to shoot him. A combatant who runs away from you remains a combatant and a danger to you - you shoot him. I ask you again where and when was this Precedent you refer to set? Silas when do the military, or the Government ever put into the public domain live close-up footage of people being shot? |
|
12 Jun 11 - 06:25 AM (#3169235) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Plenty of footage of Iraqi and Afghanistani civilians being bombed. However, we do not need to see the actual shooting, just the events leading up to it, just to see the truth of him usuing a woman as a shield, to see if he was actually armed, or indeed if anyone was. There is so much bollocks being talked about 'what if he had a....' we, dis he or did he not. |
|
12 Jun 11 - 09:03 AM (#3169285) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "Plenty of footage of Iraqi and Afghanistani civilians being bombed." The question you were asked Silas was: "when do the military, or the Government ever put into the public domain live close-up footage of people being shot? The only instance I can immediately recall was the shooting of the Reuters Team in Baghdad in 2007 and that footage was leaked it was not released into the public domain by the Government or the military. The answer to my question Silas is never. |
|
12 Jun 11 - 09:20 AM (#3169290) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas OK, show us the film and pixilate the shooting bit. |
|
12 Jun 11 - 02:41 PM (#3169410) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Just so as to make clear: 1: You train up Forces to perform Special tasks and operations 2: You deploy those men on such an operation 3: You then wish to release for view by the general public video coverage of those operations? Silas, a fairly obvious question that begs to be asked: Are you bloody insane?? |
|
13 Jun 11 - 04:08 AM (#3169714) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas OK Mr T, Let's look at this shall we. As you rightly say, you train these guys intensively they are possibly the elite in their chosen profession. Guys who are supposed to know what exactly is a threat and what isn't, how to effectively disarm an enemy, how to kill efficiently. On that I think we would agree. Tell me, why were they wearing helmet cameras? There can be only one reason – to record the events as they unfolded. Now, you may think me slightly cynical, but I am of the opinion that if things went to plan, or if there was evidence that Bin Laden or his oppo's had been armed, or they were using women and children as human shields, then I think the footage would have been released to show that. It is my opinion, based on nothing but previous experiences of US misinformation, that this operation was a complete balls up from start to finish, and the reason that they will not release footage is because it would show them in a bad light. |
|
13 Jun 11 - 06:30 AM (#3169773) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively I don't think the US should be expected to publicly release images of the shooting of OBL, but I think it appropriate that they release such images and other pertinent information, to the UN (as has been requested). All supposing the Obama administration aren't telling porky pies about aspects of the operation, there should be no reason not to comply with such a request for transparency. |
|
13 Jun 11 - 07:22 AM (#3169786) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "As you rightly say, you train these guys intensively they are possibly the elite in their chosen profession. Guys who are supposed to know what exactly is a threat and what isn't, how to effectively disarm an enemy, how to kill efficiently. On that I think we would agree." - they are definitely the elite and are extremely well trained. - they are trained to be capable of instantly evaluating threats and reacting accordingly (That is a great deal different to your take on things, the situations they are put into are almost never "threat free" environments, even when they are purely acting as escorts and body-guards as in Libya earlier this year) - they are trained "how to effectively disarm an enemy"? Where on earth did you get that from? The types of operations these troops are used for depends on them killing their enemy - that being the most effective way of disarming him. "Tell me, why were they wearing helmet cameras? There can be only one reason – to record the events as they unfolded." Absolutely, it also makes the debrief after the operation more efficient and effective. You actually see what went right and you see what went wrong. The footage however is "for their eyes only" not for public consumption, why on earth would you want to gift to your enemies the exact nature of such an attack - after all they might be better prepared the next time as a result of such idiotic exposure. For those such as yourself, they would appear in a bad light irrespective of what the footage showed, as if it did show them in a good light you and such as you would dismiss the film as "disinformation" and something concocted by your Government to deceive you. Guest lively So the UN get to see what they request and then tell who that was all well? What kind of transparancy is that, and would the likes of Silas and Co believe what the UN tell them? Apparently you now have some US Treasure hunter looking for ObL's body, to "find out the truth". Obviously he has more money than sense. Bottom line is that Al-Qaeda was forced into admitting that Osama bin Laden had been killed (personally I believe that he died back in Tora Bora in 2001) |
|
13 Jun 11 - 07:37 AM (#3169791) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "Guest lively So the UN get to see what they request and then tell who that was all well? What kind of transparancy is that, and would the likes of Silas and Co believe what the UN tell them?" If the US were to agree to the UN's request for transparency, what kind of transparency is that? I guess it would be the kind of transparency which makes the United Nations privy to details about this operation, which thus far only the the Obama administration is privy to. As for Silas, he'll have to speak for himself. |
|
13 Jun 11 - 07:42 AM (#3169794) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas OK Mr T. What you are saying then is that every one they killed was armed and the mission was to kill Bin laden. |
|
13 Jun 11 - 08:25 AM (#3169816) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus As there is no outcry from the UN I would venture the opinion that they already know everything they want to know and need to know about the operation. The same goes for the Government of Pakistan. Recent revelations indicate that the US will be sharing less and less information with the Pakistani miltary and Intelligence Services, while the traffic going the other way will have to increase dramatically if Pakistan still wants US aid. Calls for anti-Taliban strikes against North Waziristan can now no longer be shuffled aside and ignored by the Pakistani Government, if they do not take any action then the US most certainly will. "What you are saying then is that every one they killed was armed and the mission was to kill Bin laden." Why must everything be reduced to idiotic over simplification? I am saying that everyone they killed was armed? Where have I said that everyone they killed was armed? Please show me? Or are these words that you yourself are putting in my mouth? I have got no idea whether or not everyone they killed was armed, the point is irrelevant, if they were not openly surrendering, they remained as enemy combatants and could legitimately be shot. As to the orders for the mission again I have not got a clue what they were exactly. However it would not surprise me at all if the mission was to kill bin Laden, or kill whoever was posing as bin Laden. Much tidier doing it the way it was done - No protracted proceedings during the course of which thousands could have been put at risk, hostages taken and executed. Far, far better, "Bang", "Splash", "Done", no shrines, no place of memorial, no point of focus. |
|
13 Jun 11 - 08:40 AM (#3169819) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Well "they are trained to be capable of instantly evaluating threats and reacting accordingly" And "The types of operations these troops are used for depends on them killing their enemy - that being the most effective way of disarming him." These are your words... |
|
13 Jun 11 - 08:53 AM (#3169825) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "As there is no outcry from the UN I would venture the opinion that they already know everything they want to know and need to know about the operation." Correct so far as there has been no "outcry" from the UN, but a request for full disclosure from the UN human rights council, has been made: "In respect of the recent use of deadly force against Osama bin Laden, the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards." http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10987&LangID=E |
|
13 Jun 11 - 10:26 AM (#3169870) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Psssst Guest lively how do you know that they haven't already given the UN all the information and that the UN aren't completely satisfied? Or do they have to run all this past you personally. Silas "What you are saying then is that every one they killed was armed and the mission was to kill Bin laden." - The words that you tried to put into my mouth - True Example 1: (As offered by Silas) "they are trained to be capable of instantly evaluating threats and reacting accordingly" Example 2: (As offered by Silas) "The types of operations these troops are used for depends on them killing their enemy - that being the most effective way of disarming him." Please tell me where in either of the examples quoted the word "armed" appears? Please provide an example where I have stated that "every one they killed was armed" |
|
13 Jun 11 - 10:30 AM (#3169875) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Well, let's look at your two sentences. First you say that they are capable of evaluating a threat and reacting accordingly. Second you say that to disarm a person you have to kill them. Therefore, either they were armed and consequently shot, or they were not armed and offered no threat and were not shot. I fail to see how you can draw any other conclusion from what you have written. |
|
13 Jun 11 - 10:56 AM (#3169903) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "Psssst Guest lively how do you know that they haven't already given the UN all the information and that the UN aren't completely satisfied? Or do they have to run all this past you personally." Without wishing to sound terribly naive, one would presume - not unreasonably I think - that as and when the US has responded to the UN's request and the desired inquiry has taken place, that an update to the UN's request will be publicly posted on the same UN web page that the UN's request has been publicly posted. |
|
13 Jun 11 - 01:43 PM (#3170001) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "Therefore, either they were armed and consequently shot, or they were not armed and offered no threat and were not shot." I rather liked this bit of the above: "or they were not armed and offered no threat" I will give you an example of the idiocy of that remark. You pull a gun on me for whatever reason if you let me approach you, or you approach me with that drawn gun and get closer to me than 3 metres. I can guanrantee this, your gun is now of greater danger to you than it is to me - because I will shoot you with it. My guess is that the US Navy SEAL Team members are trained in much the same way as our Special Forces. If they are covering anybody with any firearm they will not be allowed within 5 metres if they attempt to close that distance you shoot them. By the way how come Osama bin Laden was shot in the face if he was fleeing? Nobody ever came back to me on that, it suggests he was fleeing towards the threat - does that not seem odd to anybody? "Without wishing to sound terribly naive, one would presume - not unreasonably I think - that as and when the US has responded to the UN's request and the desired inquiry has taken place, that an update to the UN's request will be publicly posted on the same UN web page that the UN's request has been publicly posted." Why what has it got to do with anyone other than them? Particularly if they have been told the information and the details are considered "Secret" or "Confidential" - Perhaps Mr Assange knows. |
|
13 Jun 11 - 02:06 PM (#3170007) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Well Mr T, this proves the old adage, never get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Sorry matey, I thought you had more about you, I was wrong. |
|
13 Jun 11 - 03:10 PM (#3170038) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively "what has it got to do with anyone other than them?" That is a question you should probably ask the UN human rights council, after all it was the UN which publicly posted the request for full disclosure from the US, up on their "news and events" web page in the first place. If you are really interested to know more on the matter, you can contact them directly about it: For more information and media requests, please contact: Ms. Pasipau Wadonda-Chirwa (Tel: +41 22 917 9252 / email: pwadonda-chirwa@ohchr.org) or Mr. Nikolaus Schultz (Tel: +41 22 917 9402 / email: nschultz@ohchr.org) or write to eje@ohchr.org or srct@ohchr.org. |
|
13 Jun 11 - 05:17 PM (#3170098) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Ah Silas, what's up, sulking because you cannot demonstrate in any way shape or form that I stated that every one who was killed was armed? Why not just admit that you were in error attempting to make a stupid and irrelevant point. Guest Lively, as far as the death of Osama bin Laden goes I already know all I want to know - The SOB is dead - Good Riddance. Terrorists all over the world might be worried about what precedent it sets - It doesn't worry me one jot. |
|
14 Jun 11 - 02:06 AM (#3170271) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "that being the most effective way of 'disarming' him." Oh dear. Look, how can you disarm an unarmed person. Again - these are YOUR words. Do try to keep up. |
|
14 Jun 11 - 09:06 AM (#3170406) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus You find yourself confronted by an enemy, you have no idea whether he is armed or not, if you want to hang about and take the chance betting on the fact that he not then more fool you, we'll send flowers. If you do not not know whether he or she is armed or not and they are not definitely surrendering, then kill them - it cuts out oven doubt, whatever the case you have "disarmed" them - they can no longer use their arms. |
|
14 Jun 11 - 09:09 AM (#3170409) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas OK. So the situation is this then, correct me if I am wrong. You get a bunch of elite troops, they force entry into a private residence inside another country and kill everyone in sight just in case they are armed? And thats OK is it? |
|
14 Jun 11 - 09:14 AM (#3170413) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Jon Wonder what they would be like in a hostage situation. |
|
14 Jun 11 - 10:54 AM (#3170465) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "You get a bunch of elite troops, they force entry into a private residence inside another country and kill everyone in sight just in case they are armed? And thats OK is it?" If all inside are considered to be enemy combatants YES most certainly, not one of them alive is worth one of ours dead. As they obviously were not in the case of Osama bin Laden's pad in Abbotabad not everyone in the compound was killed. "Wonder what they would be like in a hostage situation." - Guest Jon Normally pretty good - it is a mission that they are trained for. One of the best has to be Operation Thunderbolt (Entebbe), one of the worst has to be Operation Eagle Claw (US Embassy Hostage rescue Tehran 1980) Recently the missions by both RAF/SAS/SBS to lift 150 civilians out of Libya went well. Given the choice between the uncertainty of getting my head sawn off for a video or the chance of me getting killed in an attempted rescue I'd yell come and get me boys every bloody time (Because at least in the latter scenario I'd be taking some of the bastards with me). |
|
14 Jun 11 - 10:59 AM (#3170467) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Sorry, just where did this qualification about 'all iside considered to be enemy combatants' come from - how would they know if the person they were shooting was considered to be an enemy combatent? HOW WOULD YOUR ELITE SOLDIER KNOW? Or is it a case of just shoot the buggers anyway, after all, they are just a bunch of ragheads? |
|
14 Jun 11 - 03:31 PM (#3170603) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Ehmm Silas I think in this case the compound had been under observation for quite some time. The numbers of men, women and children in the compound were known. The men would definitely be classified as combatants (armed or not) The women would be classified as potential combatants depending on what the observation team reported The children would be classified as non-combatants THAT SILAS OLD SON IS HOW THE ELITE SOLDIERS WOULD KNOW |
|
14 Jun 11 - 05:35 PM (#3170665) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas I think you are living in a fantasy world mate. |
|
14 Jun 11 - 07:44 PM (#3170714) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Wonder what they would be like in a hostage situation."" We know exactly. Remember the female aid worker in Afghanistan? It wasn't long ago. Seems they tossed a grenade into a building containing a hostage and, surprise surprise, it killed her. At first they claimed the other side killed her, but American grenade fragments would have been hard to explain away, so they came clean. Makes you think though! If they were going to blow her up, the whole business was a bit pointless. Still, what the hell, they got the kidnappers so that's all right then. Don T. |
|
15 Jun 11 - 12:44 AM (#3170806) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Fantasy world Silas? "bin Laden's" location identified to within 12 miles by Afghan Intelligence in 2004. "bin Laden's" location identified to the city/town they actually found "him" in in 2007. "bin Laden's" compound identified in August 2010 "bin Laden's" presence confirmed and compound attacked on 2nd May 2011. Now what was my fanasty world version again? Oh yes it ran something like this: "I think in this case the compound had been under observation for quite some time. The numbers of men, women and children in the compound were known. The men would definitely be classified as combatants (armed or not) The women would be classified as potential combatants depending on what the observation team reported The children would be classified as non-combatants THAT SILAS OLD SON IS HOW THE ELITE SOLDIERS WOULD KNOW" |
|
15 Jun 11 - 12:48 AM (#3170808) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Don T, that would be the rescue attempt where her captors moved her at the last minute and she broke free and hid in a room in the compound that was presumed at the briefing to be empty, or if people were detected there (infra-red) they were to be presumed as enemy? Of course errors and mistakes are made in the real world, yes things do go wrong, except for you of course who never fail and never make any mistakes. |
|
15 Jun 11 - 05:05 AM (#3170852) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Yes matey, fantasy world. You know almost nothing but are very big on your assumptions. Strikes me that the way that they differentiate between combatants and non-combatants are the ones that were shot were, the ones that were not wern't. You will have to admit that the good old US do not have a very happy record in these matters and incidents of 'friendly fire' |
|
15 Jun 11 - 08:19 AM (#3170905) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Well Silas, all things are relative including knowledge and "almost nothing" is a damn sight better than being completely and utterly clueless as you have more than adequately demonstrated that you are. But as you have not been able to directly challenge one single "assumption" of mine (most of which are known fact) I do not think that I need respond to any more of your idiotic ramblings. Most in the world, including myself, are absolutely delighted that this sorry piece of sh*t has been got rid off, he was undeniably a complete and utter waste of space and oxygen, the world is a far better place without him. |
|
15 Jun 11 - 08:27 AM (#3170906) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "Known Fact" Really? The only known facts are that they went in, carlessly lost a helicopter, shot dead and injred a number of people, one of which was supposed to be Bin Laden, and came out again. |
|
15 Jun 11 - 09:46 AM (#3170940) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Psst Silas, looks as though a few more of my assumptions were in fact perfectly correct: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/15/pakistan-arrests-five-spying-cia "The CIA hideout in Abbottabad was set up some time after last August, when the CIA began to suspect Bin Laden could be hiding in the area, less than a mile from a major Pakistani military facility. Watching from behind mirrored glass, CIA officials used telephoto lenses and infra-red imaging equipment to establish a "pattern of life" inside the compound and eavesdropped on voices inside. But they never conclusively identified Bin Laden." |
|
15 Jun 11 - 10:07 AM (#3170947) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas I still fail to see what relavence this has, however, as you say, they had been spying since August and still had no positive ID. Quite remarkable then that they new who were the combatants even though they could not even identify the one person they were looking for... This quote from the same article is interesting, isn't it? "A senior Pakistani official said the dispute represented a clash between "Pakistani hyper-nationalism and American arrogance"." |
|
15 Jun 11 - 11:15 AM (#3170979) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus So Silas add up the bits and pieces so far and what do you get? 1: Suspect compound under close observation for nine months, the construction of the compound was unique, eight times the size of adjacent compounds but with no telephone or internet facilities - "The bottom line of our collection and analysis was that we had high confidence that the compound held a high-value terrorist target. There was a strong probability that it was bin Laden."; 2: Pattern of behaviour and routine of life inside the compound mapped and logged, visitors identified and no doubt checked up on. Replica of the compound built to aid training of the attack team. 3: No positive, or definitive ID on bin Laden obtained by those watching from the house nearby does not mean that there was no positive ID period. IIRC Barack Obama said that he waited until he got positive ID before giving the operation the go-ahead, that positive ID could have come from other sources; 4: US Navy SEAL Team were relieved of any order to capture bin Laden alive, if he surrendered then all well and good, if not then kill him. 5: A man shot in the face (left eye) whilst fleeing towards the threat he was confronted with? DNA for bin Laden supplied by Saudi Authorities matched that of the body 100%, bin Laden's son was present ans was also killed, photgraphs taken were run through facial recognition programmes again 100% match, bin Laden's wife identified the remains as being those of Osama bin Laden. 6: Five people were killed Osama bin Laden, Hamza bin Laden, a male courier, couriers brother and one woman. 7: None of the helicopters used in the raid were meant to land inside the compound. There was no crash, the special Chinook suffered a mechanical problem it had to land, a reserve machine was called in and the damaged machine was deliberately destroyed. |
|
15 Jun 11 - 11:47 AM (#3170991) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Identifying non combatants would not be as hard as you suggest Silas. When the helicopters landed outside the compound and the shooting started, they would be the ones hiding under cover. What would you be doing? |
|
15 Jun 11 - 12:05 PM (#3170998) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Keith, it's not identifing 'non-combatents that is the problem, its identifying 'combatents'. However, it seems to me that they wern't too bothered anyway and we have to assume that if they were shot, they were combatents. |
|
15 Jun 11 - 12:57 PM (#3171017) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford The body count argues against tha Silas. And, not one of the children was even injured. |
|
15 Jun 11 - 01:03 PM (#3171020) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "And, not one of the children was even injured." And they are to be congratulated for THAT????? A bunch of well armed highly trained troops bursts into a residential compound who's residents are almost certainly unarmed, they seem to kill indiscriminatly, but its OK becaus etyhey missed killing the kids. What a joke. |
|
15 Jun 11 - 02:15 PM (#3171039) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Silas, since when was that a "residential compound" and not a headquarters for Al Qaeda? Don Firth |
|
15 Jun 11 - 03:31 PM (#3171075) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford If they killed indiscriminately you would expect more deaths and a broader range of victims. As I said, the non combatants had plenty of time to hide away. I would be very suspicious of anyone standing to meet such an assault. |
|
15 Jun 11 - 05:26 PM (#3171123) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus "A bunch of well armed highly trained troops bursts into a residential compound who's residents are almost certainly unarmed, they seem to kill indiscriminately" As an execise in cock-eyed logic this takes the biscuit. How was it the CIA Observation Team and the analysts described the place again: "The bottom line of our collection and analysis was that we had high confidence that the compound held a high-value terrorist target. There was a strong probability that it was bin Laden." All of a sudden it becomes simply "a residential compound" !!! What with 18ft walls, double security gates, no outside windows, no telephone, no internet connection in a 1 million US$ property!!! "Whose resident's are most certainly unarmed"!!! What are you drinking?? I take it that you can say (straight-faced) with the same degree of certainty that high value terrorist targets always leave their guns at the office when they pack up work for the day?? "Killed indiscriminately"??? What are you talking about 24 or 25 people inside that compound and only five end up dead, the four men and one woman. Finally figured out how bin Laden got shot in the face and how the woman got killed. Rumour central states that bin Laden used a woman as a shield. Osama bin Laden was shot in the left-eye facing what he perceived to be the main threat. Was he standing behind the woman peeking out over her left shoulder when he got shot? Did the same burst or second shot kill the woman? 5 out of 25 = 20% when there was a potential of 44% being combatants does not tally up to the firing or killing being indiscriminate. |
|
16 Jun 11 - 04:20 AM (#3171314) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Yes, residential compound, nothing anyone has said changes that, there were men women and children living there. High value terrorist target< well they had been watching it for nine months and were still unable to identifyu OBL. Headquaters for AQ? with no phone opr internet connection? You ARE joking? They have confirmed that OBL was NOT hiding behind a woman - so think again Mr T and try to come up with another fantasy. |
|
16 Jun 11 - 05:26 AM (#3171329) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford "headquaters for AQ? with no phone opr internet connection? You ARE joking?" That was the significance of hte couriers Silas. 'Phone or internet opens them up to tracing. |
|
16 Jun 11 - 07:12 AM (#3171365) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas It being impossible, of course, to itercept a courier... |
|
16 Jun 11 - 07:23 AM (#3171368) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford A courier could well be intercepted, but you would know it had happened, and would trust him to withold your location as long as he could. |
|
16 Jun 11 - 07:36 AM (#3171374) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Yeah right. Perhaps they had carrier pigions? Or possibly somke signals? I really don't think it likley that this would be AQ headquaters, in fact, the very idea is laughable. |
|
16 Jun 11 - 07:44 AM (#3171379) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Silas, you're being a total jerk, the US won this round, the terrorists lost, live with it. |
|
16 Jun 11 - 09:18 AM (#3171425) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas bobad, don't bother, I value not your opinion. |
|
16 Jun 11 - 10:29 AM (#3171460) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Nor anyone else's bar your own it would seem Silas |
|
16 Jun 11 - 10:31 AM (#3171462) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Silas and others seem to base their understanding of commando raids on the screenplay of "The Dirty Dozen." (Or is it "Inglourious Basterds"?) |
|
16 Jun 11 - 03:12 PM (#3171601) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Silas, the absence of 'phone and internet in an upmarket residence is an anomaly. Who else would use couriers in preference? |
|
16 Jun 11 - 04:28 PM (#3171640) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 "the US won this round, the terrorists lost, live with it." What did they win ?? It's still the same sh&t as it was the day before he was shot. Is the world a safer place, has the fighting stopped, has the hatred stopped, has the paranoia stopped, is there now peace and stability in the Afghani, in Iraq .... ?? biLL |
|
16 Jun 11 - 05:34 PM (#3171670) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus For the ordinary people of both life is better now than it has been at any time since 14th April 1978 as far as Afghanistan is concerned and 22nd July 1979 as far as Iraq is concerned As a member of the general public in both countries you stand 97% better chance of not dying a violent death today in Afghanistan and a 90% better chance of not dying a violent death today in Iraq. Is the world a safer place? The world has never been a safe place, is it safer today because bin Laden is dead? Yes it probably is in the long term. |
|
16 Jun 11 - 07:09 PM (#3171717) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 The world is no safer now that bin Laden has met his demise. Bin Laden's Relevance was long dead by the time the those commandos got to him. It's still a barrel of sh%t in the mideast. It's is a lot more complicated than just fighting terrorism. biLL |
|
17 Jun 11 - 01:41 AM (#3171803) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus The world is certainly no safer for would be terrorists, and more important for those who would, as Governments or regimes, support them. As far as the world in general goes? The Universities of Vancouver and Uppsala disagree with you Bill, their studies (2007) indicate that the World is safer today than it was 25 years ago. As far as Afghanistan was concerned bin Laden became irrelevant in 2001, yet we still had many ridiculing the US Government, US Intelligence Agencies and US Military over their failure to kill or capture their declared Public Enemy No.1 - Those people are not laughing now, and as information trickles out we now know that far from being clueless, inept and incompetent: 1: bin Laden's whereabouts as to area was pinpointed to within 12 miles in 2004. 2: bin Laden's whereabouts wrt the town/city and knowledge of his means of communication was identified and focused in on in 2007. 3: bin Laden's whereabouts as to his exact location was identified in August 2010. All the result of good, painstaking, patient intelligence work. The US Security and Intelligence Agencies identified the threat of asymmetric attacks resulting from the formation of an "axis of evil" in 1997 and reported the same to President Bill Clinton. The "Axis of Evil" was misreported in the UK media as being something involving Iraq, Iran & North Korea, whereas the "Axis of Evil" as reported to the President was: A "rogue state" or regime with an anti-US agenda and access to WMD or WMD materials and/or technology allying itself to an international terrorist group to mount an anonymous attack on the USA that could not be traced back to that "rogue state" or regime. Actions taken by the USA subsequent to the attacks of 11th September, 2001 sent the message to any would be terrorist group and to any would be "rogue regime" that any "axis of evil" game plan would not work. US action against Iraq in 2003 dissuaded the would be "rogue states". As far as the fight against terrorism goes the killing of bin Laden WAS a victory, an undeniable "win" for the US that must be galling for its detractors, in this bobad is perfectly correct. "It's still a barrel of sh%t in the mideast." When has it been anything else? It is up to the people of the middle-east to sort out. Had the Arabs of the middle-east followed the example set by the people of Israel in 1949 then there would have been no bloodshed. However they did not, they chose to fight, they chose violence as a means to deliver impossible promises to the people they shut up in refugee camps (on land actually owned by the refugees themselves) and kept in deliberate despair and poverty, to be used as political pawns. |
|
17 Jun 11 - 09:10 AM (#3171892) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas If you seriously think the killing of OBL will make the world a safer place you are a bigger fool than I thought you were. You must by now have some idea of the mindset of these people, do you really think that there will be no retaliation, do you not think that this retaliation will make 911 look like a fly swat, because I do. |
|
17 Jun 11 - 07:01 PM (#3172094) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Bin Laden charges formally dropped Whoooops .... but we just shot him !! biLL .... :-) |
|
17 Jun 11 - 07:39 PM (#3172104) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad "Typically, court indictments are dismissed when the defendant dies or is convicted on other unrelated cases. Such requests to drop charges are procedural and routine." |
|
17 Jun 11 - 09:47 PM (#3172124) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Bobad .... I'm aware of that. But when you stand back a bit. Look at that headline, you can't but help but ponder ... from all sides of the arguments ... the insanity of mankind. oh well at least he had his day in court. biLL |
|
17 Jun 11 - 10:22 PM (#3172133) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bobert I hate to agree with t-Bird but... ...bin Laden's death will certainly make recruiting a lot harder... Glad he is gone... B~ |
|
17 Jun 11 - 10:31 PM (#3172137) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Not being of the hand wringing persuasion I'll have to agree with Bobert 'Glad he is gone..." |
|
17 Jun 11 - 10:57 PM (#3172149) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 For you guys that agree .... can we now loosen up the security at airports, and border crossings into the U.S. ... if not, then why not? biLL |
|
18 Jun 11 - 01:59 AM (#3172190) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Hey, guys, let's get down to the nitty-gritty here. Anybody REALLY want bin Laden back? Don Firth |
|
18 Jun 11 - 04:47 AM (#3172223) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas "...bin Laden's death will certainly make recruiting a lot harder..." Are you seriously suggesting that his eath will make recruitment to AQ harder? I suggest that you look at the history of this sort of thing - particularly the aftermath of Bloody Sunday in N. Ireland. THis 'Gotcha' mentality is for the playground, is dosent work in real life. |
|
18 Jun 11 - 10:01 AM (#3172328) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""As far as the world in general goes? The Universities of Vancouver and Uppsala disagree with you Bill, their studies (2007) indicate that the World is safer today than it was 25 years ago."" So they feel the World has become safer because of something which happened between 1982 and 2007, you ignore the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent end of the "Cold War", and blithely assume that the death of ObL in 2011 has caused them to come to that conclusion four years before it happened. Stunning! Don T. |
|
18 Jun 11 - 01:31 PM (#3172410) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford No-one assumed that Don dear. |
|
20 Jun 11 - 11:11 AM (#3173320) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Hey, all you celebrants of assassination! This one's for you! Kuma Games, Inc's video game Kuma War 107:Osama 2011 Each player is a Navy Seal, armed to the teeth & equipped with night vision, creeping up those stairs in Abbotabad! Per Kieth Halper, CEO of Kuma Games sez"People feel relieved that Osama's gone. To be able to re-create his death is just an added bonus." Get Yours Today! http://www.kumagames.com/osama_2011.html Gee, ya think that Osama may have had something in despising the U.S. as a degraded state & exporter of cultural toxins? |
|
20 Jun 11 - 11:24 AM (#3173332) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Greg, that is pretty sick. I assume it is a 'real' game? |
|
20 Jun 11 - 12:01 PM (#3173347) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 That game .... sick. biLL |
|
20 Jun 11 - 12:23 PM (#3173357) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. You betcha its real! Check http://www.kumagames.com/osama_2011.html USA! USA! Proud To Be An Amerikun!!! |
|
10 Jul 11 - 04:40 PM (#3185035) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Richard Bridge I note with interest that I appear to have been right about the relationships between the government of Pakistan and that of the USA in relation to the US "incursion": I win the prize of, what was it, $800 million? |
|
01 Aug 11 - 11:30 AM (#3199741) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble The New Yorker Magazine has just published what appears to be a well-researched article on the raid and its planning: Click here for story The details of this evolving story are always fascinating to the history buffs. Charley Noble |
|
01 Aug 11 - 12:59 PM (#3199810) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Thanks for that Charley |
|
28 Feb 12 - 02:07 PM (#3314690) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad For all those who were wringing their hands over the US's "incursion" into Pakistan: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9109457/Stratfor-Osama-bin-Laden-was-in-routine-contact-with-Pakistans-spy-agency.html |
|
25 May 12 - 04:58 AM (#3355386) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford A 33 year sentence, (tried without judge or jury) for the doctor who was used to identify who was in the compound. No-one yet convicted for concealing Bin Laden. |
|
25 May 12 - 07:36 AM (#3355434) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad The Pakistanis have a good gig going - they get billions of dollars from the US to fight the terrorists who they are covertly aiding thus ensuring the cash keeps flowing - a perpetual cash cow. |
|
25 May 12 - 11:30 AM (#3355516) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Teribus I think bobad that little wheeze of thiers (The Pakistani's that is) is coming to an end. Foreign Aid that their military relied on will dry up. Everybody looks to this withdrawal from combat operations within Afghanistan by ISAF and erroneously compare that with the Soviet abandonment of Afghanistan in 1991. What the Taleban realise is that after December 2014 the fighting on the ground in Afghanistan becomes an "All Afghan Affair". The ANSF have now been fighting and gaining experience since 2008. The man in charge after 2014 will more than likely be Abdul Rashid Dostum, after Ahmad Shah Massoud the most competent and capable military commander in Afghanistan. It took 71 days to drive the Taleban from power in 2001 and Dostum did that with less than 25,000 men, aided by less than 1,000 US Specialist Advisers and the combat aircraft from two USN Strike Carriers. From January 2015 Dostum will have over 350,000 men of the ANSF + 20,000 US troops + all the air power he could ask for. My guess is that Mullah Omar's Taleban, the Haqqani Group and those following Gulbuddin Hekmatyar will forget about Afghanistan and they will focus on grabbing land from Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, the Federal Administered Tribal Areas and parts of Baluchistan to create their Pashtunistan. The Pak military starved of the aid it needs will be a much easier opponent than Dostum. The Pakistani Government will do some sort of deal with their Taleban and if they then try anything on with regard to harbouring international terrorists or meddling in Afghanistan's affairs then a wall could be built round their Pashtunistan and everyone could use it as the biggest weapons testing, live-firing range in the world. |
|
25 May 12 - 03:32 PM (#3355627) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu I heard that US Naval Intelligence just released a press statement. In a nutshell, they said... he was living undetected in the compound in a house for five years with his fives wives and they now believe he was the one who called the Navy Seals. |
|
25 May 12 - 04:03 PM (#3355642) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Wesley S Polygamy is it's own punishment. |
|
26 May 12 - 01:12 PM (#3355914) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Stringsinger What Obama did was anti-American in that he assassinated a criminal perpetrator without putting him on trial first. "Habeas Corpus" is in the U.S. DNA and in the Constitution. What Obama did was un-Constitutional and should be condemned by rational Americans. I'm certain that most of the world would have found bin Laden guilty of murder had there been a trial. Also, not every member of the Taleban supports Al Quaeda. One thing is certain, the Afghan Security Force is ultimately being trained to kill American soldiers. The US is naively unaware of the quagmire that their incursion into Afghanistan has caused. The evidence is shown by the role of the mujahadeen in fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Why did the US support the bin Laden family (as well as Usama?) Was it "oil"? |
|
26 May 12 - 02:01 PM (#3355927) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu "Also, not every member of the Taleban supports Al Quaeda." No matter. Our troops shoot all Taleban. It's their mission. |
|
26 May 12 - 02:16 PM (#3355934) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Jim Carroll "I think bobad that little wheeze of thiers " Don't you mean "theirs"? Jim Carroll |
|
27 May 12 - 05:18 AM (#3356081) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford At least we know where you stand on typos Jim. Stringsinger, was it "anti-American" to try and shoot down the Japanese at Pearl harbour without trial? |
|
11 Feb 13 - 01:57 PM (#3478308) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad From the horse's mouth - how it all went down by the seal who inserted three slugs into OBL's skull expediting his passage to paradise: The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden |
|
11 Feb 13 - 05:03 PM (#3478393) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Little Hawk Keith, it is completely inappropriate and stupid to respond to a criminal act by a small, clandestine group of terrorists as if it were an open, official act of war by the armed forces of another sovereign nation. And that is why drawing parallels with Pearl Harbour is completely irrelevent. But...if you simply want to use such an incident as a provocation in order to panic your own public into supporting a series of foreign wars (and occupations) on other sovereign nations, and a reduction in their own civil liberties at home, and a boost to military spending...then Bob's your uncle! It works like a charm. And that's exactly what was done. I doubt that Bin Laden had anything to do with planning 911. He has said himself (in tapes he submitted to the Middle East media) that he had nothing to do with 911. If he had planned it, I think he'd have been boasting to the skies about it. |
|
11 Feb 13 - 05:33 PM (#3478405) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Donuel http://www.esquire.com/features/man-who-shot-osama-bin-laden-0313-2 |
|
26 Mar 13 - 06:46 PM (#3495250) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad That Esquire Story About The SEAL Who Killed Osama Bin Laden Is "Complete B.S." According to Another SEAL Gawker |
|
26 Mar 13 - 09:08 PM (#3495306) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Elmore Breaking News. This Just In. Osama Bin Laden Still Dead. |
|
27 Mar 13 - 11:15 AM (#3495497) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ron Davies "official act of war". It's slightly amazing that, aside from types of German planes in WW II, the poster's knowledge of history is so circumscribed. If Pearl Harbor was an "official" act of war, please tell us when the declaration of war on the US by Japan was made. And if it was declared, exactly why was the US not informed? A secret declaration of war is an interesting hybrid. Thanks so much. |
|
27 Mar 13 - 11:24 AM (#3495500) Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Ron Davies A secret official declaration of war is even more intriguing. |
