Monday, May 9, 2011

Re: The Hand Wringing Over Osama’s Death from Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted

Guten Abend From Köln Folks!
 
I have been "hit or miss"  here lately, but have been trying to follow a number of the posts, conversations and a few diatribes.  I did have the ability to see what a lot of Europeans' reactions were, as compared to seeing my own countryman, other than on the media,  which is somewhat unique.
 
I tend to agree with MJ on the reaction aspect of this,  by a lot of Americans.  It just seemed to me, to be literally morbid to cheer and chant over bin Laden's death. 
 
Don't get me wrong, I find no fault with our government for taking him out, and I am just amazed at (1)  the technical prowess of our military in getting in Pakistan  (and out)  undetected,  landing in a compound like that undetected,  and getting out without any American casualties;  and (2)  the fumbling, bumbling idiotic reaction by the Obama Administration in handling this coup. 
 
Hey Mark?   I've heard this "Poor Old Osama On Dialysis"  story for a decade.  We all tried to picture Osama toting around his dialysis machine(s)  around the caves in the Mountains,  and now, we learn that he was living in a multi-million dollar compound  (albeit the pictures still depicted it as a shack)  and I surmise that Osama has never been on a dialysis machine in his life.....EVER!
 
I would have thought that Osama alive, would have offered a lot more intelligence than DeadOsama.  Nevertheless,  I tend to agree that there was probably very little discussion when those Seals hit that compound.  One wrong move, and you would be dead.  No time for chit-chat.   Just as important,  there is no way that this Nation should have allowed any opportunity for Osama to have become a Martyr who has some type of monument or even where he might have been held, as some type of a "sacred ground".
 
 
 

  
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:51 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
so, you don't believe the media or the government?

that's your choice

personally, I don't care when warmongers kill each other
it makes the world a little better

On May 9, 11:48 am, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> it's your choice who you choose believe
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Since theestablishment media has done nothing but parrot unsubstantiated claims as if they were unquestionable facts, how can any intelligent individual choose to believe the crap the is fed to us?  <http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed-navy-seals-firef...>
>
> On 05/09/2011 09:40 AM, plainolamerican wrote:
>
>
>
> > bs
>
> > The White House counterterrorism adviser says that the U.S. forces who
> > killed Osama bin Laden would have taken him alive if they had the
> > opportunity.
>
> > Adviser John Brennan said that the White House thought bin Laden would
> > resist but that there was a "remote" possibility he could be captured
> > alive. Brennan told reporters at the White House Monday that the
> > contingency was prepared for.
>
> > Brennan said that it only would have happened if bin Laden didn't pose
> > any threat to the Americans sent to take him out. Since he fought
> > back, he was killed.
>
> > it's your choice who you choose believe
> > choose sides carefully
>
> > On May 9, 11:32 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> Yep, a 54 Y/O man on daily dialysis who had not been out of the house
> >> in at least 5 years is a huge physical threat... All info says he was
> >> unarmed in the company of one of his young wives.... they took her out
> >> by shooting her in the leg.... obviously they did NOT want him alive
> >> and simply killed him. There is not a word that he "made a move" (as
> >> his medical history is known he would not be capable of it.) No where
> >> is it indicated that he "Fought" at all.
>
> >> On May 9, 9:58 am, plainolamerican<plainolameri...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>   it is illegal in any jurisdictional
> >>> court to assassinate a seated leader, especially one that is unarmed
> >>> and "protected/shielded" by an unarmed woman
> >>> ---
> >>> it was his choice to surrender or fight ... his death, his choice
> >>> On May 8, 12:23 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>> Absolutely fallacious in all aspects. bin Laden was the de facto and
> >>>> internationally recognized head of his militaristic group against who
> >>>> the US declared war (under the patriot act and War powers act).
> >>>> The comparisons to Yamamoto...a simple soldier, (should be Hirohito);
> >>>> is ludicrous. Chomsky has it partially right... it would be Bush (NOT
> >>>> Cheney) or Obama and under all international law (as is presently
> >>>> shown in the Gaddafi/Lybia case) it is illegal in any jurisdictional
> >>>> court to assassinate a seated leader, especially one that is unarmed
> >>>> and "protected/shielded" by an unarmed woman.
> >>>> On May 8, 9:44 am, Bruce Majors<majors.br...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>>> From: Steven Leser<sleser...@yahoo.com>
> >>>>> Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM
> >>>>> Subject: [NewMexico_for_Kerry] The Hand Wringing Over Osama's Death from
> >>>>> Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted
> >>>>> To: Air_Amer...@yahoogroups.com, anti-allawi-gr...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> democraticorla...@yahoogroups.com, Democrats-o...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> Do_something_Amer...@yahoogroups.com, Feingol...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> fellowgrassroot...@yahoogroups.com, floridaforkerry2...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> he...@typemonkeys.com, kerry-edwards...@yahoogroups.com, Victoria Leser<
> >>>>> buffyros...@yahoo.com>, Missouri_for_Ke...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> NewMexico_for_ke...@yahoogroups.com, ohio_for_ke...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> pdnyc...@yahoogroups.com, pinellasdemocr...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> SECULARHUMAN...@yahoogroups.com, southforke...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> stevenleserartic...@yahoogroups.com, tampademocr...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> The_Corrupt_Republicans_C...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> USDemocrat-Flor...@yahoogroups.com, USDemoc...@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/08/974146/-The-Hand-Wringing-Ov...
> >>>>> #
> >>>>> False moral equivalencies, cries of extra-judicial killing, all of this and
> >>>>> more has been the reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden by a particular
> >>>>> segment of the Progressive left.
> >>>>> To understand whether any of these accusations have merit, let's completely
> >>>>> outline the situation that existed and exists between the United States and
> >>>>> bin Laden and his group, Al Qaeda.
> >>>>> In August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued the first of two declarations of
> >>>>> war against the United States. He issued a written religious edict, called a
> >>>>> Fatwa that was unambiguously titled "Declaration of War against the
> >>>>> Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." In this Fatwa, he
> >>>>> called on all Muslims to join him in this war against America and Israel.
> >>>>> In February 1998, bin Laden issued a second Fatwa declaring war against the
> >>>>> United States, it's allies, and Israel. In this second declaration of war,
> >>>>> bin Laden among other things said "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"
> >>>>> On August 7, 1998, i.e., a few months after the second declaration of war,
> >>>>> the group led by bin Laden, Al Qaeda, bombed the US Embassies in the
> >>>>> capitals of Kenya and Tanzania. Through those bombings, along with the
> >>>>> October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and of course the September 11, 2001
> >>>>> attacks, bin Laden and Al Qaeda demonstrated the seriousness of the ideas
> >>>>> and intentions expressed in those two declaration of war Fatwas.
> >>>>> Is it possible for an international law-recognized state of war to exist
> >>>>> between a nation state and a non-nation state entity, or even two or more
> >>>>> non-nation state entities? The answer is, "of course", as an example, many
> >>>>> civil wars fit this description.
> >>>>> My assertion is that according to applicable international law, a state of
> >>>>> war existed and continues to exist between the United States and Al Qaeda
> >>>>> and its affiliates. No cease fire or peace agreement has been signed between
> >>>>> the US and Al Qaeda and acts of war continue between them.
> >>>>> International Law, as outlined in various United Nations documents and the
> >>>>> Geneva Conventions has a number of things to say about terrorism, war and
> >>>>> self defense.
> >>>>> Article 51 of the United Nations Charter says "Nothing in the present
> >>>>> Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
> >>>>> self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United
> >>>>> Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
> >>>>> international peace and security…."
> >>>>> Al Qaeda is not a member of the United Nations and does not recognize the
> >>>>> authority of the United Nations, its charter or its resolutions. Thus, the
> >>>>> idea that the Security council can "take measures necessary to maintain
> >>>>> international peace and security" in this situation via any kind of
> >>>>> diplomatic actions or resolutions is moot, at least as things now stand.
> >>>>> On 12 September 2001, The UN Security Council adopted a resolution that
> >>>>> condemned the September 11th terrorist attacks, expressed determination to
> >>>>> combat terrorist acts by "all means", re-affirmed the inherent right of
> >>>>> individual and collective self-defense, and expressed its readiness "to take
> >>>>> all necessary steps" to respond to the terrorist attacks.
> >>>>> The September 11th attacks resulted in the US and UK as well as Australia,
> >>>>> Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway joining
> >>>>> together in Afghanistan to wage war against Al Qaeda and their Taliban
> >>>>> supporters. Most of those countries are hardly the sort that would be
> >>>>> involved in unnecessary wars or unprovoked wars of aggression. We can go
> >>>>> beyond those countries who participated directly and say that virtually the
> >>>>> entire international community supported the United States in their efforts
> >>>>> to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.
> >>>>> Indeed, in response to the killing of bin Laden, Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary
> >>>>> General of the United Nations said "Personally, I am very much relieved by
> >>>>> the news that justice has been done to such a mastermind of international
> >>>>> terrorism.  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."
> >>>>> Linguistics Professor and political activist Noam Chomsky has compared and
> >>>>> asked us to contrast the attack that killed bin Laden with a hypothetical
> >>>>> attack by Iraqi commandos to kill George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. Chomsky
> >>>>> suggests there is a moral equivalence between the two. Anti war activist and
> >>>>> author David Swanson wrote an article that suggests that bin Laden was
> >>>>> lynched.
> >>>>> As an aside, most Democrats were against the Iraq war, identified it as
> >>>>> unnecessary and unprovoked, and we were proven correct. I have written
> >>>>> several articles critical of the war and proving that the Bush
> >>>>> administration knew several weeks before the war that their primary
> >>>>> justification regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
> >>>>> was not true. Here is one such article http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-....
> >>>>> Those facts make the Iraq war an unprovoked war of aggression and those who
> >>>>> ordered it are guilty of that war crime.
> >>>>> The easiest response to Chomsky's suggestion is that currently no state of
> >>>>> war exists between Iraq and the United States. Not only that, the government
> >>>>> of Iraq signed Status of Forces Agreements in 2008 and 2009 that governs how
> >>>>> many US troops can be in Iraq and for how long. So Chomsky is comparing a
> >>>>> killing that occurred between two entities that are
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Police Break Car Window At DUI Checkpoint (Video)

The modern-day Gestapo in action - do what you're told or go to jail.


Police Break Car Window At DUI Checkpoint
(Video)
http://www.pixiq.com/article/police-break-car-window-at-dui-checkpoint-video

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

Ron Paul driving Republicans' White House campaign


OPINION:
Ron Paul driving Republicans' White House campaign
By Juan Williams - 05/09/11 06:11 AM ET

Here's a news bulletin -- it is becoming increasingly clear that we are living in a time when Republican politics are being shaped by a 75-year-old, 12-term Texas congressman with a son in the Senate. And incredibly, it is no longer out of the realm of possibility that this outcast of the GOP establishment may win the party's presidential nomination.

If you have not been paying attention, it is time to look around and realize that we are living in the political age of Rep. Ron Paul.

A CNN/Opinion Research poll released late last week shows Paul faring the best against President Obama of any potential Republican candidate. He trails the president by only 7 points, 52-45 percent, in a head-to-head matchup. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee trails by 8 points, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney down 11 points to Obama.

In February, Paul won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Action Conference for the second straight year.

Last Thursday, the day of the first GOP debate, one of Paul's fabulously-labeled "money bombs" exploded with the announcement of $1 million in contributions for the Paul campaign.

The Tea Party, which drove the GOP to claim a majority of the House in the mid-term elections, grew largely out of the ashes of his 2008 presidential campaign, which emphasized limited government and a return to constitutional principles. Since then, the Tea Party has bullied the Republican leadership in the House to force budget cuts at the risk of shutting down the government and collectively become the most persistent critic of the Obama presidency on financial regulatory reform and health care.

The roots of all of this are in the libertarian mind of Rep. Paul.

At last week's debate, put on by my other employer, Fox News Channel, I was struck by the libertarian flair the iconoclast injected into the evening. First, his presence along with another libertarian Republican -- former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson -- allowed for Republicans nationwide to witness a debate in which strong arguments for immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan came from the right. But that was just the start. There are instances where Paul's views make the Republican establishment want to scream.

For example, I asked him about his stated concern that Israel will launch a unilateral military strike against Iran. He replied that Israel had become too dependent on U.S. military and foreign aid and that it should be responsible for its own security and sovereignty. In the past he has blasted the "neoconservatives" and their influence on U.S. foreign policy.

He has been adamantly opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning and has called for an immediate pullout of all U.S. troops. He rails against the American "empire" and argues that U.S. spending on a global military presence should be cut.

Paul's thinking is also having an impact on conservative views about domestic policy.

Even when he called for legalization of marijuana, cocaine and heroin at the debate it did not elicit hooting but cheers from South Carolina's famously right-wing Republicans.

Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, was elected as a senator from Kentucky in 2010 with 55 percent of the vote. Paul is a chip off the old block -- espousing many of the same libertarian views as his father. Because of this, he has become one of the most distinctive n...

It was almost exactly four years ago when Ron Paul sparred with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in a 2008 Republican presidential primary debate.  Paul said about the role of U.S. policy in bringing about the 9/11 attacks: "They attack us because we've been over there, we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."

Giuliani shot back: "That's an extraordinary statement of someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

Who could have guessed that, four years later, Giuliani would be off the stage while the persistent Paul is growing, exhibiting more and more power in Republican politics, shaping the GOP debates and in the absence of any strong establishment candidate, looking like a strong contender for the party's 2012 nomination?


Juan Williams is an author and political analyst for Fox News Channel.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/159863-ron-paul-driving-the-republican-campaign

Newt Gingrich, Weasel


May9th
Newt Gingrich, Weasel
Tom Woods

Check out Bob Wenzel's brief but very sharp analysis of Newt Gingrich's weasel platform that avoids discussing spending cuts on the grounds that first we have to get things moving again, etc.  All I would add to Bob's analysis is what I wrote about Gingrich in Rollback: his record is horrendous.  Of course, the media portrays him as some kind of strict free-marketeer, since that's the media's job: define the range of opinion in such a way as to exclude genuine friends of freedom.  For if you are to the right of Newt Gingrich -- and, citizen, we have already told you Newt is as free market as they come! -- you must be some kind of "extremist"!  In fact, you probably don't exist.

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/newt-gingrich-weasel-2/

xxx

Monday, May 9, 2011
Gingrich to Announce Presidential Run
Posted by Robert Wenzel at 11:38 AM

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will officially jump into the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Wednesday with announcements on Facebook and Twitter, according to his spokesman.

The Gingrich campaign strategy appears to be that he will run not on any principles, but more on the fact that he is not President Obama.

A Gingrich snippet:
The fact is, we are not going to close the deficit and move towards a balanced budget unless we follow the policies that foster the economic growth necessary to create jobs.The first and most immediate step would be to employ the policies that encourage investment, create jobs, and reward innovation and entrepreneurship -- exactly the opposite of the Obama anti-jobs policies
Aside from the attack on President Obama, the underlying message here is that Gingrich wants to balance the budget not by reducing government spending, but by increasing tax revenues through more jobs. In other words, Gingrich sees no problem with the current size of government.


http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/gingrich-to-announce-presidential-run.html

Re: The Hand Wringing Over Osama’s Death from Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted

so, you don't believe the media or the government?

that's your choice

personally, I don't care when warmongers kill each other
it makes the world a little better

On May 9, 11:48 am, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> it's your choice who you choose believe
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Since theestablishment media has done nothing but parrot unsubstantiated claims as if they were unquestionable facts, how can any intelligent individual choose to believe the crap the is fed to us?  <http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed-navy-seals-firef...>
>
> On 05/09/2011 09:40 AM, plainolamerican wrote:
>
>
>
> > bs
>
> > The White House counterterrorism adviser says that the U.S. forces who
> > killed Osama bin Laden would have taken him alive if they had the
> > opportunity.
>
> > Adviser John Brennan said that the White House thought bin Laden would
> > resist but that there was a "remote" possibility he could be captured
> > alive. Brennan told reporters at the White House Monday that the
> > contingency was prepared for.
>
> > Brennan said that it only would have happened if bin Laden didn't pose
> > any threat to the Americans sent to take him out. Since he fought
> > back, he was killed.
>
> > it's your choice who you choose believe
> > choose sides carefully
>
> > On May 9, 11:32 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> Yep, a 54 Y/O man on daily dialysis who had not been out of the house
> >> in at least 5 years is a huge physical threat... All info says he was
> >> unarmed in the company of one of his young wives.... they took her out
> >> by shooting her in the leg.... obviously they did NOT want him alive
> >> and simply killed him. There is not a word that he "made a move" (as
> >> his medical history is known he would not be capable of it.) No where
> >> is it indicated that he "Fought" at all.
>
> >> On May 9, 9:58 am, plainolamerican<plainolameri...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>   it is illegal in any jurisdictional
> >>> court to assassinate a seated leader, especially one that is unarmed
> >>> and "protected/shielded" by an unarmed woman
> >>> ---
> >>> it was his choice to surrender or fight ... his death, his choice
> >>> On May 8, 12:23 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>> Absolutely fallacious in all aspects. bin Laden was the de facto and
> >>>> internationally recognized head of his militaristic group against who
> >>>> the US declared war (under the patriot act and War powers act).
> >>>> The comparisons to Yamamoto...a simple soldier, (should be Hirohito);
> >>>> is ludicrous. Chomsky has it partially right... it would be Bush (NOT
> >>>> Cheney) or Obama and under all international law (as is presently
> >>>> shown in the Gaddafi/Lybia case) it is illegal in any jurisdictional
> >>>> court to assassinate a seated leader, especially one that is unarmed
> >>>> and "protected/shielded" by an unarmed woman.
> >>>> On May 8, 9:44 am, Bruce Majors<majors.br...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>>> From: Steven Leser<sleser...@yahoo.com>
> >>>>> Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM
> >>>>> Subject: [NewMexico_for_Kerry] The Hand Wringing Over Osama's Death from
> >>>>> Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted
> >>>>> To: Air_Amer...@yahoogroups.com, anti-allawi-gr...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> democraticorla...@yahoogroups.com, Democrats-o...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> Do_something_Amer...@yahoogroups.com, Feingol...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> fellowgrassroot...@yahoogroups.com, floridaforkerry2...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> he...@typemonkeys.com, kerry-edwards...@yahoogroups.com, Victoria Leser<
> >>>>> buffyros...@yahoo.com>, Missouri_for_Ke...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> NewMexico_for_ke...@yahoogroups.com, ohio_for_ke...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> pdnyc...@yahoogroups.com, pinellasdemocr...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> SECULARHUMAN...@yahoogroups.com, southforke...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> stevenleserartic...@yahoogroups.com, tampademocr...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> The_Corrupt_Republicans_C...@yahoogroups.com,
> >>>>> USDemocrat-Flor...@yahoogroups.com, USDemoc...@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/08/974146/-The-Hand-Wringing-Ov...
> >>>>> #
> >>>>> False moral equivalencies, cries of extra-judicial killing, all of this and
> >>>>> more has been the reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden by a particular
> >>>>> segment of the Progressive left.
> >>>>> To understand whether any of these accusations have merit, let's completely
> >>>>> outline the situation that existed and exists between the United States and
> >>>>> bin Laden and his group, Al Qaeda.
> >>>>> In August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued the first of two declarations of
> >>>>> war against the United States. He issued a written religious edict, called a
> >>>>> Fatwa that was unambiguously titled "Declaration of War against the
> >>>>> Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." In this Fatwa, he
> >>>>> called on all Muslims to join him in this war against America and Israel.
> >>>>> In February 1998, bin Laden issued a second Fatwa declaring war against the
> >>>>> United States, it's allies, and Israel. In this second declaration of war,
> >>>>> bin Laden among other things said "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"
> >>>>> On August 7, 1998, i.e., a few months after the second declaration of war,
> >>>>> the group led by bin Laden, Al Qaeda, bombed the US Embassies in the
> >>>>> capitals of Kenya and Tanzania. Through those bombings, along with the
> >>>>> October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and of course the September 11, 2001
> >>>>> attacks, bin Laden and Al Qaeda demonstrated the seriousness of the ideas
> >>>>> and intentions expressed in those two declaration of war Fatwas.
> >>>>> Is it possible for an international law-recognized state of war to exist
> >>>>> between a nation state and a non-nation state entity, or even two or more
> >>>>> non-nation state entities? The answer is, "of course", as an example, many
> >>>>> civil wars fit this description.
> >>>>> My assertion is that according to applicable international law, a state of
> >>>>> war existed and continues to exist between the United States and Al Qaeda
> >>>>> and its affiliates. No cease fire or peace agreement has been signed between
> >>>>> the US and Al Qaeda and acts of war continue between them.
> >>>>> International Law, as outlined in various United Nations documents and the
> >>>>> Geneva Conventions has a number of things to say about terrorism, war and
> >>>>> self defense.
> >>>>> Article 51 of the United Nations Charter says "Nothing in the present
> >>>>> Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
> >>>>> self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United
> >>>>> Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
> >>>>> international peace and security…."
> >>>>> Al Qaeda is not a member of the United Nations and does not recognize the
> >>>>> authority of the United Nations, its charter or its resolutions. Thus, the
> >>>>> idea that the Security council can "take measures necessary to maintain
> >>>>> international peace and security" in this situation via any kind of
> >>>>> diplomatic actions or resolutions is moot, at least as things now stand.
> >>>>> On 12 September 2001, The UN Security Council adopted a resolution that
> >>>>> condemned the September 11th terrorist attacks, expressed determination to
> >>>>> combat terrorist acts by "all means", re-affirmed the inherent right of
> >>>>> individual and collective self-defense, and expressed its readiness "to take
> >>>>> all necessary steps" to respond to the terrorist attacks.
> >>>>> The September 11th attacks resulted in the US and UK as well as Australia,
> >>>>> Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway joining
> >>>>> together in Afghanistan to wage war against Al Qaeda and their Taliban
> >>>>> supporters. Most of those countries are hardly the sort that would be
> >>>>> involved in unnecessary wars or unprovoked wars of aggression. We can go
> >>>>> beyond those countries who participated directly and say that virtually the
> >>>>> entire international community supported the United States in their efforts
> >>>>> to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.
> >>>>> Indeed, in response to the killing of bin Laden, Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary
> >>>>> General of the United Nations said "Personally, I am very much relieved by
> >>>>> the news that justice has been done to such a mastermind of international
> >>>>> terrorism.  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."
> >>>>> Linguistics Professor and political activist Noam Chomsky has compared and
> >>>>> asked us to contrast the attack that killed bin Laden with a hypothetical
> >>>>> attack by Iraqi commandos to kill George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. Chomsky
> >>>>> suggests there is a moral equivalence between the two. Anti war activist and
> >>>>> author David Swanson wrote an article that suggests that bin Laden was
> >>>>> lynched.
> >>>>> As an aside, most Democrats were against the Iraq war, identified it as
> >>>>> unnecessary and unprovoked, and we were proven correct. I have written
> >>>>> several articles critical of the war and proving that the Bush
> >>>>> administration knew several weeks before the war that their primary
> >>>>> justification regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
> >>>>> was not true. Here is one such article http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-....
> >>>>> Those facts make the Iraq war an unprovoked war of aggression and those who
> >>>>> ordered it are guilty of that war crime.
> >>>>> The easiest response to Chomsky's suggestion is that currently no state of
> >>>>> war exists between Iraq and the United States. Not only that, the government
> >>>>> of Iraq signed Status of Forces Agreements in 2008 and 2009 that governs how
> >>>>> many US troops can be in Iraq and for how long. So Chomsky is comparing a
> >>>>> killing that occurred between two entities that are
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The Hand Wringing Over Osama’s Death from Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted

it's your choice who you choose believe ---------------------------------------  Since the establishment media has done nothing but parrot unsubstantiated claims as if they were unquestionable facts, how can any intelligent individual choose to believe the crap the is fed to us?


On 05/09/2011 09:40 AM, plainolamerican wrote:
bs  The White House counterterrorism adviser says that the U.S. forces who killed Osama bin Laden would have taken him alive if they had the opportunity.  Adviser John Brennan said that the White House thought bin Laden would resist but that there was a "remote" possibility he could be captured alive. Brennan told reporters at the White House Monday that the contingency was prepared for.  Brennan said that it only would have happened if bin Laden didn't pose any threat to the Americans sent to take him out. Since he fought back, he was killed.  it's your choice who you choose believe choose sides carefully  On May 9, 11:32 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote: 
Yep, a 54 Y/O man on daily dialysis who had not been out of the house in at least 5 years is a huge physical threat... All info says he was unarmed in the company of one of his young wives.... they took her out by shooting her in the leg.... obviously they did NOT want him alive and simply killed him. There is not a word that he "made a move" (as his medical history is known he would not be capable of it.) No where is it indicated that he "Fought" at all.  On May 9, 9:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:    
 it is illegal in any jurisdictional court to assassinate a seated leader, especially one that is unarmed and "protected/shielded" by an unarmed woman --- it was his choice to surrender or fight ... his death, his choice 
 
On May 8, 12:23 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote: 
 
Absolutely fallacious in all aspects. bin Laden was the de facto and internationally recognized head of his militaristic group against who the US declared war (under the patriot act and War powers act). 
 
The comparisons to Yamamoto...a simple soldier, (should be Hirohito); is ludicrous. Chomsky has it partially right... it would be Bush (NOT Cheney) or Obama and under all international law (as is presently shown in the Gaddafi/Lybia case) it is illegal in any jurisdictional court to assassinate a seated leader, especially one that is unarmed and "protected/shielded" by an unarmed woman. 
 
On May 8, 9:44 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote: 
 
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steven Leser <sleser...@yahoo.com> Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM Subject: [NewMexico_for_Kerry] The Hand Wringing Over Osama's Death from Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted To: Air_Amer...@yahoogroups.com, anti-allawi-gr...@yahoogroups.com, democraticorla...@yahoogroups.com, Democrats-o...@yahoogroups.com, Do_something_Amer...@yahoogroups.com, Feingol...@yahoogroups.com, fellowgrassroot...@yahoogroups.com, floridaforkerry2...@yahoogroups.com, he...@typemonkeys.com, kerry-edwards...@yahoogroups.com, Victoria Leser < buffyros...@yahoo.com>, Missouri_for_Ke...@yahoogroups.com, NewMexico_for_ke...@yahoogroups.com, ohio_for_ke...@yahoogroups.com, pdnyc...@yahoogroups.com, pinellasdemocr...@yahoogroups.com, SECULARHUMAN...@yahoogroups.com, southforke...@yahoogroups.com, stevenleserartic...@yahoogroups.com, tampademocr...@yahoogroups.com, The_Corrupt_Republicans_C...@yahoogroups.com, USDemocrat-Flor...@yahoogroups.com, USDemoc...@yahoogroups.com 
 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/08/974146/-The-Hand-Wringing-Ov... # 
 
False moral equivalencies, cries of extra-judicial killing, all of this and more has been the reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden by a particular segment of the Progressive left. 
 
To understand whether any of these accusations have merit, let's completely outline the situation that existed and exists between the United States and bin Laden and his group, Al Qaeda. 
 
In August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued the first of two declarations of war against the United States. He issued a written religious edict, called a Fatwa that was unambiguously titled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." In this Fatwa, he called on all Muslims to join him in this war against America and Israel. 
 
In February 1998, bin Laden issued a second Fatwa declaring war against the United States, it's allies, and Israel. In this second declaration of war, bin Laden among other things said "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" 
 
On August 7, 1998, i.e., a few months after the second declaration of war, the group led by bin Laden, Al Qaeda, bombed the US Embassies in the capitals of Kenya and Tanzania. Through those bombings, along with the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and of course the September 11, 2001 attacks, bin Laden and Al Qaeda demonstrated the seriousness of the ideas and intentions expressed in those two declaration of war Fatwas. 
 
Is it possible for an international law-recognized state of war to exist between a nation state and a non-nation state entity, or even two or more non-nation state entities? The answer is, "of course", as an example, many civil wars fit this description. 
 
My assertion is that according to applicable international law, a state of war existed and continues to exist between the United States and Al Qaeda and its affiliates. No cease fire or peace agreement has been signed between the US and Al Qaeda and acts of war continue between them. 
 
International Law, as outlined in various United Nations documents and the Geneva Conventions has a number of things to say about terrorism, war and self defense. 
 
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter says "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security…." 
 
Al Qaeda is not a member of the United Nations and does not recognize the authority of the United Nations, its charter or its resolutions. Thus, the idea that the Security council can "take measures necessary to maintain international peace and security" in this situation via any kind of diplomatic actions or resolutions is moot, at least as things now stand. 
 
On 12 September 2001, The UN Security Council adopted a resolution that condemned the September 11th terrorist attacks, expressed determination to combat terrorist acts by "all means", re-affirmed the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, and expressed its readiness "to take all necessary steps" to respond to the terrorist attacks. 
 
The September 11th attacks resulted in the US and UK as well as Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway joining together in Afghanistan to wage war against Al Qaeda and their Taliban supporters. Most of those countries are hardly the sort that would be involved in unnecessary wars or unprovoked wars of aggression. We can go beyond those countries who participated directly and say that virtually the entire international community supported the United States in their efforts to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. 
 
Indeed, in response to the killing of bin Laden, Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations said "Personally, I am very much relieved by the news that justice has been done to such a mastermind of international terrorism.  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." 
 
Linguistics Professor and political activist Noam Chomsky has compared and asked us to contrast the attack that killed bin Laden with a hypothetical attack by Iraqi commandos to kill George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. Chomsky suggests there is a moral equivalence between the two. Anti war activist and author David Swanson wrote an article that suggests that bin Laden was lynched. 
 
As an aside, most Democrats were against the Iraq war, identified it as unnecessary and unprovoked, and we were proven correct. I have written several articles critical of the war and proving that the Bush administration knew several weeks before the war that their primary justification regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was not true. Here is one such article http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-.... Those facts make the Iraq war an unprovoked war of aggression and those who ordered it are guilty of that war crime. 
 
The easiest response to Chomsky's suggestion is that currently no state of war exists between Iraq and the United States. Not only that, the government of Iraq signed Status of Forces Agreements in 2008 and 2009 that governs how many US troops can be in Iraq and for how long. So Chomsky is comparing a killing that occurred between two entities that are at war and a hypothetical one between two entities that are not only no longer at war, they have good relations. 
 
International law and most countries' criminal law statutes take those kind of distinctions very seriously. 
 
It would be quite an odd argument to claim that bin Laden should get the protection of a non-war status and those who killed him should be prosecuted for an extra-judicial killing after he himself declared war twice and since then has continuously waged war directly through the organization he led. 
 
A helpful second example that illustrates the inaccuracy of the Chomsky and Swanson analogies is the April 18, 1943 killing of Japanese Commander in Chief Isoroku Yamamoto by the US Army Air Corps. Military intelligence learned that Yamamoto would be conducting an inspection of Japanese installations in the Solomon Islands and they learned the flight path his 
 ..  read more »- Hide quoted text -  - Show quoted text - 
 

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

Re: when was the trial?

And that, of course, makes everything just hunky dory?

On 05/09/2011 09:29 AM, plainolamerican wrote:
Does a president just get to order anyone he wants killed? ---- The military's Joint Special Operations Command maintains a target list. U.S. officials have said that the government is prepared to kill even U.S. citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorist activities that threaten Americans.  On May 9, 7:54 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote: 
Obviously true  I don't have a problem with the his being shot or the Seals shooting him.  But Obama doesn't say he sent the Seals to arrest Osama and the Seals had to shoot him because he had an AK47 against the wall and was moving toward it  Obama told Steve Kroft that we gave Osama the justice he deserved  When was the trial, which we had 10 whole years to conduct, to establish that this is justice?  Does a president just get to order anyone he wants killed?  And establish the case later?    On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Beowulf <beow...@westerndefense.net> wrote:  
Hello…NO ONE needs a trial…anywhere in the known universe, to kill someone attacking you. 
 
B 
 
*From:* Individual-Sovereig...@yahoogroups.com [mailto: Individual-Sovereig...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruce Majors *Sent:* Monday, May 09, 2011 5:03 AM *To:* tea-party-patriots@googlegroups.com *Subject:* [I-S] when was the trial? 
 
*When was the trial?* 
 
* I'm not complaining that Osama is dead or even that we shot him. * 
 
*But we had 10 years to try him  (even in absentia) before we "served him justice" as President Obama just told Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes" last night. I saw evidence on "Geraldo at Large" on FOX. * 
 
*Was that the trial? * 
 
Who's next? 
 
 __._,_.___   Reply to sender<beow...@westerndefense.net?subject=RE%3A%20%5BI-S%5D%20when%20was%20the%20trial%3F­>| Reply to group<Individual-Sovereig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=RE%3A%20%5BI-S%5D%20when%20was%20the%20trial%3F>| Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/post;_ylc=X3oDMT...>| Start a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/post;_ylc=X3oDMT...> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/message/236297;_...>( 2)  Recent Activity: 
 
   - New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/members;_ylc=X3o...>    1 
 
 Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjN...>  Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-ow...@yahoogroups.com 
 
 [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkOTE0Z2QyBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycEl...> Switch to: Text-Only<Individual-Sovereignty-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>, Daily Digest<Individual-Sovereignty-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>• Unsubscribe<Individual-Sovereignty-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>• Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>    . 
 
__,_._,___- Hide quoted text - 
 - Show quoted text - 
 

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

Re: The Hand Wringing Over Osama’s Death from Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted

bs

The White House counterterrorism adviser says that the U.S. forces who
killed Osama bin Laden would have taken him alive if they had the
opportunity.

Adviser John Brennan said that the White House thought bin Laden would
resist but that there was a "remote" possibility he could be captured
alive. Brennan told reporters at the White House Monday that the
contingency was prepared for.

Brennan said that it only would have happened if bin Laden didn't pose
any threat to the Americans sent to take him out. Since he fought
back, he was killed.

it's your choice who you choose believe
choose sides carefully

On May 9, 11:32 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yep, a 54 Y/O man on daily dialysis who had not been out of the house
> in at least 5 years is a huge physical threat... All info says he was
> unarmed in the company of one of his young wives.... they took her out
> by shooting her in the leg.... obviously they did NOT want him alive
> and simply killed him. There is not a word that he "made a move" (as
> his medical history is known he would not be capable of it.) No where
> is it indicated that he "Fought" at all.
>
> On May 9, 9:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >  it is illegal in any jurisdictional
> > court to assassinate a seated leader, especially one that is unarmed
> > and "protected/shielded" by an unarmed woman
> > ---
> > it was his choice to surrender or fight ... his death, his choice
>
> > On May 8, 12:23 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Absolutely fallacious in all aspects. bin Laden was the de facto and
> > > internationally recognized head of his militaristic group against who
> > > the US declared war (under the patriot act and War powers act).
>
> > > The comparisons to Yamamoto...a simple soldier, (should be Hirohito);
> > > is ludicrous. Chomsky has it partially right... it would be Bush (NOT
> > > Cheney) or Obama and under all international law (as is presently
> > > shown in the Gaddafi/Lybia case) it is illegal in any jurisdictional
> > > court to assassinate a seated leader, especially one that is unarmed
> > > and "protected/shielded" by an unarmed woman.
>
> > > On May 8, 9:44 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > From: Steven Leser <sleser...@yahoo.com>
> > > > Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM
> > > > Subject: [NewMexico_for_Kerry] The Hand Wringing Over Osama's Death from
> > > > Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted
> > > > To: Air_Amer...@yahoogroups.com, anti-allawi-gr...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > democraticorla...@yahoogroups.com, Democrats-o...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > Do_something_Amer...@yahoogroups.com, Feingol...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > fellowgrassroot...@yahoogroups.com, floridaforkerry2...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > he...@typemonkeys.com, kerry-edwards...@yahoogroups.com, Victoria Leser <
> > > > buffyros...@yahoo.com>, Missouri_for_Ke...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > NewMexico_for_ke...@yahoogroups.com, ohio_for_ke...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > pdnyc...@yahoogroups.com, pinellasdemocr...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > SECULARHUMAN...@yahoogroups.com, southforke...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > stevenleserartic...@yahoogroups.com, tampademocr...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > The_Corrupt_Republicans_C...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > USDemocrat-Flor...@yahoogroups.com, USDemoc...@yahoogroups.com
>
> > > >http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/08/974146/-The-Hand-Wringing-Ov...
> > > > #
>
> > > > False moral equivalencies, cries of extra-judicial killing, all of this and
> > > > more has been the reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden by a particular
> > > > segment of the Progressive left.
>
> > > > To understand whether any of these accusations have merit, let's completely
> > > > outline the situation that existed and exists between the United States and
> > > > bin Laden and his group, Al Qaeda.
>
> > > > In August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued the first of two declarations of
> > > > war against the United States. He issued a written religious edict, called a
> > > > Fatwa that was unambiguously titled "Declaration of War against the
> > > > Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." In this Fatwa, he
> > > > called on all Muslims to join him in this war against America and Israel.
>
> > > > In February 1998, bin Laden issued a second Fatwa declaring war against the
> > > > United States, it's allies, and Israel. In this second declaration of war,
> > > > bin Laden among other things said "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"
>
> > > > On August 7, 1998, i.e., a few months after the second declaration of war,
> > > > the group led by bin Laden, Al Qaeda, bombed the US Embassies in the
> > > > capitals of Kenya and Tanzania. Through those bombings, along with the
> > > > October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and of course the September 11, 2001
> > > > attacks, bin Laden and Al Qaeda demonstrated the seriousness of the ideas
> > > > and intentions expressed in those two declaration of war Fatwas.
>
> > > > Is it possible for an international law-recognized state of war to exist
> > > > between a nation state and a non-nation state entity, or even two or more
> > > > non-nation state entities? The answer is, "of course", as an example, many
> > > > civil wars fit this description.
>
> > > > My assertion is that according to applicable international law, a state of
> > > > war existed and continues to exist between the United States and Al Qaeda
> > > > and its affiliates. No cease fire or peace agreement has been signed between
> > > > the US and Al Qaeda and acts of war continue between them.
>
> > > > International Law, as outlined in various United Nations documents and the
> > > > Geneva Conventions has a number of things to say about terrorism, war and
> > > > self defense.
>
> > > > Article 51 of the United Nations Charter says "Nothing in the present
> > > > Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
> > > > self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United
> > > > Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
> > > > international peace and security…."
>
> > > > Al Qaeda is not a member of the United Nations and does not recognize the
> > > > authority of the United Nations, its charter or its resolutions. Thus, the
> > > > idea that the Security council can "take measures necessary to maintain
> > > > international peace and security" in this situation via any kind of
> > > > diplomatic actions or resolutions is moot, at least as things now stand.
>
> > > > On 12 September 2001, The UN Security Council adopted a resolution that
> > > > condemned the September 11th terrorist attacks, expressed determination to
> > > > combat terrorist acts by "all means", re-affirmed the inherent right of
> > > > individual and collective self-defense, and expressed its readiness "to take
> > > > all necessary steps" to respond to the terrorist attacks.
>
> > > > The September 11th attacks resulted in the US and UK as well as Australia,
> > > > Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway joining
> > > > together in Afghanistan to wage war against Al Qaeda and their Taliban
> > > > supporters. Most of those countries are hardly the sort that would be
> > > > involved in unnecessary wars or unprovoked wars of aggression. We can go
> > > > beyond those countries who participated directly and say that virtually the
> > > > entire international community supported the United States in their efforts
> > > > to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.
>
> > > > Indeed, in response to the killing of bin Laden, Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary
> > > > General of the United Nations said "Personally, I am very much relieved by
> > > > the news that justice has been done to such a mastermind of international
> > > > terrorism.  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."
>
> > > > Linguistics Professor and political activist Noam Chomsky has compared and
> > > > asked us to contrast the attack that killed bin Laden with a hypothetical
> > > > attack by Iraqi commandos to kill George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. Chomsky
> > > > suggests there is a moral equivalence between the two. Anti war activist and
> > > > author David Swanson wrote an article that suggests that bin Laden was
> > > > lynched.
>
> > > > As an aside, most Democrats were against the Iraq war, identified it as
> > > > unnecessary and unprovoked, and we were proven correct. I have written
> > > > several articles critical of the war and proving that the Bush
> > > > administration knew several weeks before the war that their primary
> > > > justification regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
> > > > was not true. Here is one such article http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-....
> > > > Those facts make the Iraq war an unprovoked war of aggression and those who
> > > > ordered it are guilty of that war crime.
>
> > > > The easiest response to Chomsky's suggestion is that currently no state of
> > > > war exists between Iraq and the United States. Not only that, the government
> > > > of Iraq signed Status of Forces Agreements in 2008 and 2009 that governs how
> > > > many US troops can be in Iraq and for how long. So Chomsky is comparing a
> > > > killing that occurred between two entities that are at war and a
> > > > hypothetical one between two entities that are not only no longer at war,
> > > > they have good relations.
>
> > > > International law and most countries' criminal law statutes take those kind
> > > > of distinctions very seriously.
>
> > > > It would be quite an odd argument to claim that bin Laden should get the
> > > > protection of a non-war status and those who killed him should be prosecuted
> > > > for an extra-judicial killing after he himself declared war twice and since
> > > > then has continuously waged war directly through the organization he led.
>
> > > > A helpful second example that illustrates the inaccuracy of the Chomsky and
> > > > Swanson analogies is the April 18, 1943 killing of Japanese Commander in
> > > > Chief Isoroku Yamamoto by the US Army Air Corps. Military intelligence
> > > > learned that Yamamoto would be conducting an inspection of Japanese
> > > > installations in the Solomon Islands and they learned the flight path his
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: who are you

Libertarian


On May 6, 6:05 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://people-press.org/typology/quiz/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The Hand Wringing Over Osama’s Death from Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted

Yep, a 54 Y/O man on daily dialysis who had not been out of the house
in at least 5 years is a huge physical threat... All info says he was
unarmed in the company of one of his young wives.... they took her out
by shooting her in the leg.... obviously they did NOT want him alive
and simply killed him. There is not a word that he "made a move" (as
his medical history is known he would not be capable of it.) No where
is it indicated that he "Fought" at all.

On May 9, 9:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  it is illegal in any jurisdictional
> court to assassinate a seated leader, especially one that is unarmed
> and "protected/shielded" by an unarmed woman
> ---
> it was his choice to surrender or fight ... his death, his choice
>
> On May 8, 12:23 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Absolutely fallacious in all aspects. bin Laden was the de facto and
> > internationally recognized head of his militaristic group against who
> > the US declared war (under the patriot act and War powers act).
>
> > The comparisons to Yamamoto...a simple soldier, (should be Hirohito);
> > is ludicrous. Chomsky has it partially right... it would be Bush (NOT
> > Cheney) or Obama and under all international law (as is presently
> > shown in the Gaddafi/Lybia case) it is illegal in any jurisdictional
> > court to assassinate a seated leader, especially one that is unarmed
> > and "protected/shielded" by an unarmed woman.
>
> > On May 8, 9:44 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Steven Leser <sleser...@yahoo.com>
> > > Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM
> > > Subject: [NewMexico_for_Kerry] The Hand Wringing Over Osama's Death from
> > > Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted
> > > To: Air_Amer...@yahoogroups.com, anti-allawi-gr...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > democraticorla...@yahoogroups.com, Democrats-o...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > Do_something_Amer...@yahoogroups.com, Feingol...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > fellowgrassroot...@yahoogroups.com, floridaforkerry2...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > he...@typemonkeys.com, kerry-edwards...@yahoogroups.com, Victoria Leser <
> > > buffyros...@yahoo.com>, Missouri_for_Ke...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > NewMexico_for_ke...@yahoogroups.com, ohio_for_ke...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > pdnyc...@yahoogroups.com, pinellasdemocr...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > SECULARHUMAN...@yahoogroups.com, southforke...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > stevenleserartic...@yahoogroups.com, tampademocr...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > The_Corrupt_Republicans_C...@yahoogroups.com,
> > > USDemocrat-Flor...@yahoogroups.com, USDemoc...@yahoogroups.com
>
> > >http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/08/974146/-The-Hand-Wringing-Ov...
> > > #
>
> > > False moral equivalencies, cries of extra-judicial killing, all of this and
> > > more has been the reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden by a particular
> > > segment of the Progressive left.
>
> > > To understand whether any of these accusations have merit, let's completely
> > > outline the situation that existed and exists between the United States and
> > > bin Laden and his group, Al Qaeda.
>
> > > In August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued the first of two declarations of
> > > war against the United States. He issued a written religious edict, called a
> > > Fatwa that was unambiguously titled "Declaration of War against the
> > > Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." In this Fatwa, he
> > > called on all Muslims to join him in this war against America and Israel.
>
> > > In February 1998, bin Laden issued a second Fatwa declaring war against the
> > > United States, it's allies, and Israel. In this second declaration of war,
> > > bin Laden among other things said "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"
>
> > > On August 7, 1998, i.e., a few months after the second declaration of war,
> > > the group led by bin Laden, Al Qaeda, bombed the US Embassies in the
> > > capitals of Kenya and Tanzania. Through those bombings, along with the
> > > October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and of course the September 11, 2001
> > > attacks, bin Laden and Al Qaeda demonstrated the seriousness of the ideas
> > > and intentions expressed in those two declaration of war Fatwas.
>
> > > Is it possible for an international law-recognized state of war to exist
> > > between a nation state and a non-nation state entity, or even two or more
> > > non-nation state entities? The answer is, "of course", as an example, many
> > > civil wars fit this description.
>
> > > My assertion is that according to applicable international law, a state of
> > > war existed and continues to exist between the United States and Al Qaeda
> > > and its affiliates. No cease fire or peace agreement has been signed between
> > > the US and Al Qaeda and acts of war continue between them.
>
> > > International Law, as outlined in various United Nations documents and the
> > > Geneva Conventions has a number of things to say about terrorism, war and
> > > self defense.
>
> > > Article 51 of the United Nations Charter says "Nothing in the present
> > > Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
> > > self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United
> > > Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
> > > international peace and security…."
>
> > > Al Qaeda is not a member of the United Nations and does not recognize the
> > > authority of the United Nations, its charter or its resolutions. Thus, the
> > > idea that the Security council can "take measures necessary to maintain
> > > international peace and security" in this situation via any kind of
> > > diplomatic actions or resolutions is moot, at least as things now stand.
>
> > > On 12 September 2001, The UN Security Council adopted a resolution that
> > > condemned the September 11th terrorist attacks, expressed determination to
> > > combat terrorist acts by "all means", re-affirmed the inherent right of
> > > individual and collective self-defense, and expressed its readiness "to take
> > > all necessary steps" to respond to the terrorist attacks.
>
> > > The September 11th attacks resulted in the US and UK as well as Australia,
> > > Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway joining
> > > together in Afghanistan to wage war against Al Qaeda and their Taliban
> > > supporters. Most of those countries are hardly the sort that would be
> > > involved in unnecessary wars or unprovoked wars of aggression. We can go
> > > beyond those countries who participated directly and say that virtually the
> > > entire international community supported the United States in their efforts
> > > to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.
>
> > > Indeed, in response to the killing of bin Laden, Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary
> > > General of the United Nations said "Personally, I am very much relieved by
> > > the news that justice has been done to such a mastermind of international
> > > terrorism.  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."
>
> > > Linguistics Professor and political activist Noam Chomsky has compared and
> > > asked us to contrast the attack that killed bin Laden with a hypothetical
> > > attack by Iraqi commandos to kill George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. Chomsky
> > > suggests there is a moral equivalence between the two. Anti war activist and
> > > author David Swanson wrote an article that suggests that bin Laden was
> > > lynched.
>
> > > As an aside, most Democrats were against the Iraq war, identified it as
> > > unnecessary and unprovoked, and we were proven correct. I have written
> > > several articles critical of the war and proving that the Bush
> > > administration knew several weeks before the war that their primary
> > > justification regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
> > > was not true. Here is one such article http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-....
> > > Those facts make the Iraq war an unprovoked war of aggression and those who
> > > ordered it are guilty of that war crime.
>
> > > The easiest response to Chomsky's suggestion is that currently no state of
> > > war exists between Iraq and the United States. Not only that, the government
> > > of Iraq signed Status of Forces Agreements in 2008 and 2009 that governs how
> > > many US troops can be in Iraq and for how long. So Chomsky is comparing a
> > > killing that occurred between two entities that are at war and a
> > > hypothetical one between two entities that are not only no longer at war,
> > > they have good relations.
>
> > > International law and most countries' criminal law statutes take those kind
> > > of distinctions very seriously.
>
> > > It would be quite an odd argument to claim that bin Laden should get the
> > > protection of a non-war status and those who killed him should be prosecuted
> > > for an extra-judicial killing after he himself declared war twice and since
> > > then has continuously waged war directly through the organization he led.
>
> > > A helpful second example that illustrates the inaccuracy of the Chomsky and
> > > Swanson analogies is the April 18, 1943 killing of Japanese Commander in
> > > Chief Isoroku Yamamoto by the US Army Air Corps. Military intelligence
> > > learned that Yamamoto would be conducting an inspection of Japanese
> > > installations in the Solomon Islands and they learned the flight path his
> > > aircraft would be taking, and they had US Fighter aircraft ambush and shoot
> > > down the plane.
>
> > > The ambushing of Yamamoto was not a crime and no one then or since has
> > > considered it so. In wartime, the commanders of combatants are legitimate
> > > and legal targets. It's not considered an extra-judicial killing or lynching
> > > to attack combatants and their commanders in wartime.
>
> > > A high percentage of those who self identify as Democrats and/or
> > > Progressives also self identify as anti-war, and I include myself in that.
> > > There is a difference, however, between protesting unjust wars and
> > > preferring non-violent solutions to conflicts whenever possible versus
> > > twisting facts and using false equivalencies to demonize actions because you
> > > want to try to assert
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.