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
> 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 May 9, 11:48 am, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> it's your choice who you choose believe
> ---------------------------------------
>
> ...>
> 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.
