Due Process and the Murder of Osama bin Laden
Archie
Pay attention.
For homework tonight I want a 500 word essay on due process, the
killing of Osama bin Laden, and the ascension of the state over the
rule of law.
Answer the question: Why not, he was a bad guy?
For an extra point: Give an example of legal extrajudicial killing.
Charlie Yankee
Perhaps he just needed a basketball court and a caseworker.
Chom Noamsky
There is no such thing as "legal extrajudicial killing", it's a silly
oxymoron you made up. So, murdering Osama isn't what boy scouts would
do. What would boy scouts do, Archie?
Barry Bruyea
Most communist regimes practiced 'legal extrajudicial killings',
Archie.
Archie
Fail.
Sorry.
In the future try not to come to class drunk.
Archie
Fail.
You have completely missed the question on due process and its value.
Have you taken your ritalin today?
Archie
>
> >Answer the question: Why not, he was a bad guy?
>
> >For an extra point: Give an example of legal extrajudicial killing.
>
> Most communist regimes practiced 'legal extrajudicial killings',
> Archie.
And communism is bad why? State tyranny?
Like the rest of the class, you have not understood the question about
due process and why is is essential to preventing state tyranny,
fascism, and the problem you have with communist tyranny (without
providing citations).
Fail.
Charlie Yankee
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is this your attempt to scoop up (no pun intended) Ignatieff's old job
before he gets a chance to sign the offer?
Chom Noamsky
No, I didn't miss the question, what I wanted you to say was: "Why, Boy
Scouts would give even the most despised enemy the benefit of due
process!" A Boy Scout is trustworthy; loyal; helpful; friendly;
courteous; kind; obedient; cheerful; thrifty; brave; clean and reverent.
You seem to have just discovered that governments are known to take
"short cuts". Do you remember the outrage on the left when Bush failed
to get Osama? Do you think Obama was going to let him slip away, again,
and suffer that embarrassment all over? Get him and let God be the
judge. A trial would have been proper, and it would have been the gong
show of the century. And we don't know facts about whether they DID try
to take him alive or not.
We have extrajudicial killings going on right here in Canada, police who
shoot first and ask question later, then get paid for nothing while
government prosecutors debate and agonize for months or years whether to
even charge them with something.
And you're worried about an admitted mortal enemy of the west getting a
fair shake?
Charlie Yankee
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Enemy of my enemy", you know.
Charlie Yankee
> And you're worried about an admitted mortal enemy of the west getting a
> fair shake?
Must...not...make...Jack Layton joke.
Chom Noamsky
What about rogues who are counting on your total faith in "Truth,
Justice, and the American Way"? In the comic book world the rogues can
do all the evil they want to you, even obliterate your planet. The
worst thing that happens to them is they get caught, tried and thrown in
a magic prison. Don't you think there is a great deterrent factor in
"we'll make an effort to treat your fair, but we're still prepared to
blow your head off to get you".
Of course, if you simply hate the United States and its club, no amount
of effort will ever be satisfactory.
Well Done
---
--> "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" <--
--> Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net <--
gmr36v...@free.teranews.cm
"Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:d16afdf8-6f2a-4939...@q21g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
Guess the government can't complain if people interpret the law the same
way, and make unilateral decisions against their perceived illegal
activities..
Interesting that the FBI never had any evidence of BL involvement in 911,
nor was any credible evidence produced showing it. Some of the tapes
released were proven fakes.
Of course the chatter from inside some nine years ago was that Bin Laden
died of Kidney failure, but they wanted to maintain his status as "boogie
man" to scare the sheep... Assuming that is true, then don't expect any
pictures of his dead body... They will come up with some excuse as to why
they never took any pictures, or they would be too disturbing for us to see,
and/or they had to destroy the body before it reanimated, etc... No doubt
coupled with some BS about how things are even more dangerous now that he's
dead... they have bioweapons, nukes, blah blah blah all developed in secret
hideouts... so give us more of your liberty, and we'll try to protect you...
blah blah blah.
Its amazing how people are being played with this whole "terrorist"
theatrics and hysteria. This con goes back to Nero.
Barry Bruyea
The fact that you've never had a problem with communist tyranny is in
itself a problem.
Fail.
Archie
>
> And you're worried about an admitted mortal enemy of the west getting a
Yes.
I'm worried about precedent. This is a thin edge of a wedge that can
be used against you and me. So is waterboarding, renditions, and the
bombing of civilian populations.
You often say you're worried about the state overextending itself.
Really?
Archie
>
> "Enemy of my enemy", you know.-
Even in formal, declared war you don't murder unarmed enemies.
Archie
>
> Of course, if you simply hate the United States and its club, no amount
I don't hate the United States. On the contrary.
I do hate the American state however but that's just a degree higher
than I hate all states.
You and pretty much everybody (not everybody) that posts here can't
seem to grasp the notion of how important legal principles are and how
important it is that the state does not rise above them.
Once that happens, anything can happen.
Archie
>
> The fact that you've never had a problem with communist tyranny is in
> itself a problem.
>
We are not all black and white. I am not an evil communist. In fact,
the principles of individual freedom, that spirit as intended in the
legal systems of most Western democracies is as important to be as
left wing socialist principles.
That is why is rail against socialist, communist and capitalist based
states when they place themselves above basic legal principles.
The state can ruin any society, as you well know. And it will if we
let it.
Archie
$10h...@free.teranews.cm> wrote:
> "Archie" <akenn...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d16afdf8-6f2a-4939...@q21g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Okay class.
> > Pay attention.
>
> > For homework tonight I want a 500 word essay on due process, the
> > killing of Osama bin Laden, and the ascension of the state over the
> > rule of law.
>
> > Answer the question: Why not, he was a bad guy?
>
> > For an extra point: Give an example of legal extrajudicial killing.
>
> Guess the government can't complain if people interpret the law the same
> way, and make unilateral decisions against their perceived illegal
> activities..
>
> Interesting that the FBI never had any evidence of BL involvement in 911,
> nor was any credible evidence produced showing it. Some of the tapes
> released were proven fakes.
I found it chilling that when 9 11 happened, nobody claimed
responsibility. I have been watching new through the 70s, when these
thigns happen the responsible party always claims responsibility. To
them it's a huge propaganda victory and even when it isn't, for
example when the IRA or the PLO would inadvertently kill the wrong
people, they would still claim responsibility. Bin Laden would have
loved to claim responsibility for 9 11, but he didn't because he
didn't even know about it until it happened. I've seen him talk about
how he found out about it on television.
It is very strange how, once people catch the patriotic narrative, how
they cannot accept inconvenient facts that get in the way of their
story line.
>
> Of course the chatter from inside some nine years ago was that Bin Laden
> died of Kidney failure, but they wanted to maintain his status as "boogie
> man" to scare the sheep... Assuming that is true, then don't expect any
> pictures of his dead body... They will come up with some excuse as to why
> they never took any pictures, or they would be too disturbing for us to see,
> and/or they had to destroy the body before it reanimated, etc... No doubt
> coupled with some BS about how things are even more dangerous now that he's
> dead... they have bioweapons, nukes, blah blah blah all developed in secret
> hideouts... so give us more of your liberty, and we'll try to protect you...
> blah blah blah.
I don't agree. The American are not that clumsy. Claiming him to be
aloive when he is dead would shatter their credibility altogether. I
believe they found out where he was, sent in the military, and ordered
him executed and not taken prisoner.
>
> Its amazing how people are being played with this whole "terrorist"
> theatrics and hysteria. This con goes back to Nero.
What I find even more fascinating than 9 11, the murder of Bin laden
and so on is the willingness people have to give up legal principles
that are vital to a free society such as we have witnessed in this
thread.
I would love to do some research on this.
I used to wonder how tyrants can rise and adhere to modern educated
populations. I still wonder.
Barry Bruyea
You make it sound that what was done would cause the commission of
brutality or execution to Westerners? Where the hell have you been,
Archie? Public beheadings and other brutal acts that have violated
international rules. Where were your objections then, Archie?
Barry Bruyea
"Anything" has happened, Archie, many times.
Archie
>
> You make it sound that what was done would cause the commission of
> brutality or execution to Westerners? Where the hell have you been,
> Archie? Public beheadings and other brutal acts that have violated
> international rules. Where were your objections then, Archie?
We can respond to brutality with shoring up security above all else,
as has been the response by Western nations to the 9 11 attacks. Or we
could stand our ground and proceed with legal means to arrest any
conspirators that have been involved.
Instead we have responded with all the cowardice shown by the
communists you so often decry.
We have a collective choice. We can live with freedom and due process
or we can live under arbitrary state power. There are no examples you
can provide of a state that we can trust. They all abuse power. It's
the nature of the beast.
Since I am a lone voice here, which surprises me to no end, we can
rest assured that the state, our state Canada, the USA, and all the
states we had thought of as states that operated UNDER the law will
operate above the law with impunity.
So much for standing on guard for thee.
This is perhaps the most important thing we can discuss.
But hey, I'm just a communist. Right?
Chom Noamsky
You're falling into the trap of legal positivism. Just because
something is legal doesn't mean it's moral, and vice versa. Was it
moral to execute bin Laden? In my opinion hell yeah, he was an admitted
cancer to anyone who likes to live by secularist and democratic values.
Was is legal and proper? Probably not. In the court of public
opinion, if the action was perceived as moral then the legality of it is
basically moot.
David Johnston
> On May 3, 8:09 pm, Chom Noamsky <f...@stew.yum> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And you're worried about an admitted mortal enemy of the west getting a
> > fair shake?-
>
> Yes.
>
> I'm worried about precedent.
The precedent that American operatives kill troublesome foreigners has
been ever-present since the start of the Cold War. This is nothing
particularly new.
David Johnston
Pretty much any military operation involves extrajudicial killing. As
long as it was authorized by higher command and doesn't violate a
Geneva Convention, it's legal.
Charlie Yankee
>
> - Show quoted text -
Okay, time for a less glib response.
Do I approve of extrajudicial killing as a general practice? No.
Applying the Categorical Imperative, I cannot then in all honesty say
that killing Bin Laden without a trial was a morally or legally
correct thing to do. Weighing that on the scale against the
extrajudicial killing of 3000 people for the sole crime of working in
an American office complex, however, I find it difficult to summon
much outrage about how Bin Laden left the world.
Even if we assume that OBL had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, he
was by the very nature of his profession a killer of innocents.
Deliberately targeting and killing non-combatants was and is the
raison d'etre of the organization of which he was the "emir". There
is no concept of "collateral damage" in al-Qaeda, other than perhaps
the death of one of their own. They don't try to avoid killing
civilians. That's what they do. That is the task they devoted
themselves to. So there is no valid "one man's terrorist is another
man's freedom fighter" moral equivalency cop-out here. Was killing
OBL without a trial wrong? Probably. Am I going to have any
sleepless nights over it? Probably not.
Archie
This is exactly my point. The desirability of it is not the issue.
The legality of it is the issue. That the state can act outside the
law with impunity is the point.
Once you've crossed that line, you are standing on the side of the
fascists, the feualists, the mafia and Hell's Angels. Once you cross
that line and once the state crosses that line, civil order is a
farce. An illusion.
Once they are permitted to do it to Bin Laden, with impunity, we are
all at risk. We no longer live in a society under the rule of law.
Archie
>
> The precedent that American operatives kill troublesome foreigners has
> been ever-present since the start of the Cold War. This is nothing
> particularly new.
Doing it covertly isn't new. Doing it openly is. Since 9 11 the state
has intentionally crossed many lines that should never have been
permitted. Extrajudicial killings is but one.
The fact that they openly brag about it is not so much about the
actual crime itself. It is about setting a definition of the
situation. It is about normalizing state omnipotence. We shrug at our
own collective peril.
in the light1@worldnews.ca Sparky in the light1
>Okay class.
>Pay attention.
>For homework tonight I want a 500 word essay on due process, the
>killing of Osama bin Laden, and the ascension of the state over the
>rule of law.
>Answer the question: Why not, he was a bad guy?
>For an extra point: Give an example of legal extrajudicial killing.
Archie how can you have due process, when Bin Laden was already dead, this
false flag operation was nothing more then a political scam...
The new boogeyman is: You, the average American Citizen.
What is it about?
Mirroring how George W. Bush stood on the rubble of the twin towers to
perform a staged public relations stunt in the aftermath of 9/11 as he
enjoyed a huge surge in popular approval, Barack Obama is attempting to pull
off the same trick, invoking “9/11-style unity” and busily head right to
ground zero to shamefully exploit the Bin Laden fairytale his administration
has crafted.
Steve R. Pieczenik prepared to tell grand jury name of general who told him
9/11 was false flag attack.Top US government insider Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik,
a man who held numerous different influential positions under three
different Presidents and still works with the Defense Department, shockingly
told The Alex Jones Show yesterday that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001 and
that he was prepared to testify in front of a grand jury how a top general
told him directly that 9/11 was a false flag inside job.
Top US government insider Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a man who held numerous
different influential positions under three different Presidents and still
works with the Defense Department, shockingly told The Alex Jones Show
yesterday that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001 and that he was prepared to
testify in front of a grand jury how a top general told him directly that
9/11 was a false flag inside job.
Pieczenik cannot be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”. He served as the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations,
Nixon, Ford and Carter, while also working under Reagan and Bush senior, and
still works as a consultant for the Department of Defense. A former US Navy
Captain, Pieczenik achieved two prestigious Harry C. Solomon Awards at the
Harvard Medical School as he simultaneously completed a PhD at MIT.
Recruited by Lawrence Eagleburger as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Management, Pieczenik went on to develop, “the basic tenets for
psychological warfare, counter terrorism, strategy and tactics for
transcultural negotiations for the US State Department, military and
intelligence communities and other agencies of the US Government,” while
also developing foundational strategies for hostage rescue that were later
employed around the world.
Pieczenik also served as a senior policy planner under Secretaries Henry
Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker and worked on George
W. Bush’s election campaign against Al Gore. His record underscores the fact
that he is one of the most deeply connected men in intelligence circles over
the past three decades plus.
The character of Jack Ryan, who appears in many Tom Clancy novels and was
also played by Harrison Ford in the popular 1992 movie Patriot Games, is
also based on Steve Pieczenik.
Back in April 2002, over nine years ago, Pieczenik told the Alex Jones Show
that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months,” and that the government
was waiting for the most politically expedient time to roll out his corpse.
Pieczenik would be in a position to know, having personally met Bin Laden
and worked with him during the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan
back in the early 80′s.
Pieczenik said that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special
forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA
physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had
marfan syndrome,” adding that the US government knew Bin Laden was dead
before they invaded Afghanistan.
Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no
permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer.
“He died of marfan syndrome, Bush junior knew about it, the intelligence
community knew about it,” said Pieczenik, noting how CIA physicians had
visited Bin Laden in July 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai.
“He was already very sick from marfan syndrome and he was already dying, so
nobody had to kill him,” added Pieczenik, stating that Bin Laden died
shortly after 9/11 in his Tora Bora cave complex.
“Did the intelligence community or the CIA doctor up this situation, the
answer is yes, categorically yes,” said Pieczenik, referring to Sunday’s
claim that Bin Laden was killed at his compound in Pakistan, adding, “This
whole scenario where you see a bunch of people sitting there looking at a
screen and they look as if they’re intense, that’s nonsense,” referring to
the images released by the White House which claim to show Biden, Obama and
Hillary Clinton watching the operation to kill Bin Laden live on a
television screen.
“It’s a total make-up, make believe, we’re in an American theater of the
absurd….why are we doing this again….nine years ago this man was already
dead….why does the government repeatedly have to lie to the American
people,” asked Pieczenik.
“Osama Bin Laden was totally dead, so there’s no way they could have
attacked or confronted or killed Osama Bin laden,” said Pieczenik, joking
that the only way it could have happened was if special forces had attacked
a mortuary.
Pieczenik said that the decision to launch the hoax now was made because
Obama had reached a low with plummeting approval ratings and the fact that
the birther issue was blowing up in his face.
“He had to prove that he was more than American….he had to be aggressive,”
said Pieczenik, adding that the farce was also a way of isolating Pakistan
as a retaliation for intense opposition to the Predator drone program, which
has killed hundreds of Pakistanis.
“This is orchestrated, I mean when you have people sitting around and
watching a sitcom, basically the operations center of the White House, and
you have a president coming out almost zombie-like telling you they just
killed Osama Bin Laden who was already dead nine years ago,” said Pieczenik,
calling the episode, “the greatest falsehood I’ve ever heard, I mean it was
absurd.”
Dismissing the government’s account of the assassination of Bin Laden as a
“sick joke” on the American people, Pieczenik said, “They are so desperate
to make Obama viable, to negate the fact that he may not have been born
here, any questions about his background, any irregularities about his
background, to make him look assertive….to re-elect this president so the
American public can be duped once again.”
Pieczenik’s assertion that Bin Laden died almost ten years ago is echoed by
numerous intelligence professionals as well as heads of state across the
world.
Bin Laden, “Was used in the same way that 9/11 was used to mobilize the
emotions and feelings of the American people in order to go to a war that
had to be justified through a narrative that Bush junior created and Cheney
created about the world of terrorism,” stated Pieczenik.
During his interview with the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Pieczenik also
asserted he was directly told by a prominent general that 9/11 was a stand
down and a false flag operation, and that he is prepared to go to a grand
jury to reveal the general’s name.
“They ran the attacks,” said Pieczenik, naming Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz,
Stephen Hadley, Elliott Abrams, and Condoleezza Rice amongst others as
having been directly involved.
“It was called a stand down, a false flag operation in order to mobilize the
American public under false pretenses….it was told to me even by the general
on the staff of Wolfowitz – I will go in front of a federal committee and
swear on perjury who the name was of the individual so that we can break it
open,” said Pieczenik, adding that he was “furious” and “knew it had
happened”.
“I taught stand down and false flag operations at the national war college,
I’ve taught it with all my operatives so I knew exactly what was done to the
American public,” he added.
Pieczenik re-iterated that he was perfectly willing to reveal the name of
the general who told him 9/11 was an inside job in a federal court, “so that
we can unravel this thing legally, not with the stupid 9/11 Commission that
was absurd.”
Pieczenik explained that he was not a liberal, a conservative or a tea party
member, merely an American who is deeply concerned about the direction in
which his country is heading.
Watch the full interview with Dr. Pieczenik below.
Archie
>
> Pretty much any military operation involves extrajudicial killing. As
> long as it was authorized by higher command and doesn't violate a
> Geneva Convention, it's legal.
Killing an unarmed soldier in cold blood is certainly illegal.
Killing a man in his home amongst his family that has already been
apprehended is certanly illegal. There can be no legal justification
for that under any set of laws.
The fact is, Obama has committed first degree murder.
Archie
>
> Okay, time for a less glib response.
>
> Do I approve of extrajudicial killing as a general practice? No.
> Applying the Categorical Imperative, I cannot then in all honesty say
> that killing Bin Laden without a trial was a morally or legally
> correct thing to do. Weighing that on the scale against the
> extrajudicial killing of 3000 people for the sole crime of working in
> an American office complex, however, I find it difficult to summon
> much outrage about how Bin Laden left the world.
This is not about emotion.
We cannot forge laws based on outrage or any emotion.
Doing so opens into another dimension and we know, from history, what
that dimension is like.
> Even if we assume that OBL had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, he
> was by the very nature of his profession a killer of innocents.
> Deliberately targeting and killing non-combatants was and is the
> raison d'etre of the organization of which he was the "emir". There
> is no concept of "collateral damage" in al-Qaeda, other than perhaps
> the death of one of their own. They don't try to avoid killing
> civilians. That's what they do. That is the task they devoted
> themselves to. So there is no valid "one man's terrorist is another
> man's freedom fighter" moral equivalency cop-out here. Was killing
> OBL without a trial wrong? Probably. Am I going to have any
> sleepless nights over it? Probably not.-
That's not the point.
The point is that if Western law and civilization is as paper thin as
that - that not only the American Constitution but a system of laws
dating back to the Magna Carta - that's back to the year 1215, is
treated with contempt for political or military expedience, or for
emotional satisfaction, we really are no different than any barbarians
we complain about.
So, ultimately, we are no different than Al Qeada.
Chom Noamsky
I got the point, I'm not unclear on it. I just look at due process in
the United States and find myself shaking my head a lot. What the US
has is better than most countries but it isn't exactly a model of
perfection. No system is.
I just think all the people screaming about bin Laden's rights (it's a
high profile media event, not just some poor sap getting the shaft by
crooked or overzealous government prosecutors) should focus on fixing
the system and protecting rights on the domestic front, first. Then we
can worry about fixing justice for terrorist thugs.
And we're doing SOMETHING right if we can at least sit here and debate
whether it was legal and proper. In many stats around the world we
wouldn't even be able to challenge government actions.
Archie
>
> And we're doing SOMETHING right if we can at least sit here and debate
> whether it was legal and proper. In many stats around the world we
Be careful about that patting ourselves on the back.
It wasn't so long ago we in Canada, the people in the USA and much of
the Western world woprld be outraged by extraordinary renditions,
Gitmo, torture, and extrajudicial killings.
The fact that most are not spooks the hell out of me.
I feel like I'm in some strange episode of the Twilight Zone.
Chom Noamsky
If they are sufficiently incapacitated, no, but if they attempt to evade
capture then I think they are fair game. Especially alleged terrorist
thugs wanted for murdering thousands of people.
There are scores of dead, untried people in Canada and the U.S. with
police bullet holes in the back. It usually gets chalked up to
overzealous policing and rarely results in criminal charges.
Archie
>
> If they are sufficiently incapacitated, no, but if they attempt to evade
> capture then I think they are fair game. Especially alleged terrorist
> thugs wanted for murdering thousands of people.
>
> There are scores of dead, untried people in Canada and the U.S. with
> police bullet holes in the back. It usually gets chalked up to
> overzealous policing and rarely results in criminal charges.
You're going to green light this state murder no matter what.
I'm warning you these types of events are the thin edge of a fascist
wedge.
Your problem with Stalin was what exactly?
Chom Noamsky
There are higher priority injustices to worry about.
gmr36v...@free.teranews.cm
"Chom Noamsky" <fr...@stew.yum> wrote in message
news:jrCdnYQPus7xW1zQ...@giganews.com...
> On 5/4/2011 3:21 AM, Archie wrote:
>> On May 3, 8:12 pm, Charlie Yankee<charlieyan...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Enemy of my enemy", you know.-
>>
>> Even in formal, declared war you don't murder unarmed enemies.
>
> If they are sufficiently incapacitated, no, but if they attempt to evade
> capture then I think they are fair game. Especially alleged terrorist
> thugs wanted for murdering thousands of people.
Still would have been an opportunity to show that civilized societies use
due process to prosecute criminals... like they did with many of the Nazi
leaders. Capturing him would have instilled more fear in the minds of
terrorists, as dying is pretty much how they become saints in their circle.
Being captured would have been seen as a humiliation. Not to mention all the
info they might have gathered.
This whole scenario seems more like a Tom Clancy novel or video game.... In
fact ABC even used video game graphics to show what supposedly occured.
gmr36v...@free.teranews.cm
"Chom Noamsky" <fr...@stew.yum> wrote in message
The problem is, who defines what a "terrorist thug" is, you or the
government? How big is the no-fly list now.... how high on the list do you
need to be to be capped without trial or evidence?
Once you set the precedent that its ok to cap terrorists, just being on the
list makes you a target. The capping of the top guy is just to set the
precedent, not limit the means.
Archie
>
> There are higher priority injustices to worry about.
The rule of law is fundamental.
It's nothing to tamper with.
Giving arbitrary power to the state is an incredibly dangerous
devlopment.
This is one arguement I wish I was wrong on. But I'm not.
You'll see.
Archie
$10h...@free.teranews.cm> wrote:
>
> Still would have been an opportunity to show that civilized societies use
> due process to prosecute criminals... like they did with many of the Nazi
> leaders. Capturing him would have instilled more fear in the minds of
> terrorists, as dying is pretty much how they become saints in their circle.
> Being captured would have been seen as a humiliation. Not to mention all the
> info they might have gathered.
A trail for Bin Laden would have been quite an event.
But that is what they feared more than anything else. There's no way
they were going to let that happen.
Too many myths would be shattered.
Dave Smith
It's sort of like giving arbitrary power to religious whackos who claim
to be acting on behalf of god.
gmr36v...@free.teranews.cm
"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Vwlwp.89445$9_7....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Yes, well the 'religion of government' is the biggest cult in human history,
and has caused more deaths than any other human endeavour... It arises out
of the misguided idea that man made government is godlike in its authority,
having universal authority over all within their border, and being above
law, and the sole source of law.. Constitutions, enacted by the people, are
supposed to limit the power and scope of their governments, but these only
last until "war measures" or "public safety concerns" are invented by their
"leaders" (gods in effect) that people then allow (through fear, misguided
patriotism and ignorance) to supersede the contract made by the people as a
license for government to exist, and be legitimate. The dog that was
supposed to protect you now growls at you.
Its usually not long after that that everything falls apart, and new
patriots are forced to build from the ashes - if any are left.
How do you win a war where your enemy supposedly "hates your freedom"....?
Every time you are attacked, you finds ways to increase freedom, or be sure
to preserve the freedom you have, so as not to encourage your enemy that he
is winning. Instead we see just the opposite.... so there is a clear
relationship between the terrorist, and the politician who assists his
goal... and its not hidden from view either. Governments have used terror to
gain ever more power over their people since before Nero.
in the light1@worldnews.ca Sparky in the light1
bizarre turn this week as Washington announced that after ten years of
searching they have finally located and killed their illusive adversary,
Osama bin Laden.
This means that, in theory, there can only be a limited number of actual
witnesses and that there is no body to verify that it genuinely was bin
Laden, leaving the public with only the government’s official version of
events to believe. Confusion, not conclusion, will be the order of the day.
It is likely that this tactic was an intentional one on the part of
Washington, providing pundits and conspiracy theorists with an endless knot
that will take decades to unravel.
Numerous past reports of bin Laden’s death
Since 2001, numerous reports and statements have been made confirming the
death of bin Laden. Infowars chronicled a list of these incidents recently,
reporting the following:
Osama bin Laden died of kidney failure soon after the September 11, 2001,
attacks.
This confirmed the evidence that Jones had been given by the CFR and others.
Predictable Results and the US Governments Fear-mongering tactic's too
hoodwink the public further
With little to celebrate in the US where the US dollar is plummeting,
unemployment numbers have reached record highs and government deficits are
bleeding the public resources, and the US government has a police state in
Action now... Bin Laden’s reported death has provided something for American
to celebrate with spontaneous celebrations erupting in places like New York
City and Washington DC. With a system of which has grown into an institution
since 2001, the security state’s reaction to the announcement of Bin Laden’s
demise is as routine as it is predictable. For a public who has been trained
to live in a perpetual state of fear, the alleged death of Bin Laden
translates into a brief respite and opportunity to celebrate followed by yet
another increase in the security apparatus.
The result of this latest chapter in the Bin Laden saga has been an
elevation in “Terror Threat Levels”. In near robotic fashion, all major news
outlets are running identical talking points centred on authorities in
Western countries who are advising “vigilance against possible Al Qaeda
strikes in retaliation to the death of Osama Bin Laden”.
Authorities are also advising that people “avoid travel to areas where
anti-western protests may erupt” and also to “avoid public gathering that
might attract a revenge attack”.
Questions are raised about the media’s reporting of latest bin Laden death.
It wasn’t long ago that Wikileaks files were cited where Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed told Guantanamo Bay interrogators the terror group would detonate
the nuclear device if the al-Qaeda chief was captured or killed. The alleged
mastermind of the 9/11 attacks is said to have warned that al-Qaeda has
hidden a nuclear bomb “somewhere in Europe” which will unleash a “nuclear
hell storm” if Osama bin Laden was ever captured. Obama: A timely
announcement Broadcasters and pollsters will tell you that Sunday evening is
the very best time to plant a story because most Americans are home,
preparing to face another work week, and the largest percentage of Americans
watch TV on Sunday evening. When President Obama finally made his statement
about how he had located bin Laden and killed him in a firefight, the
President proceeded to take no reporter questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-N3dJvhgPg&feature=player_embedded
Obama’s bin Laden moment: the President bolsters his wartime resume this
week.
The timing of this announcement certainly carries a high political value for
a US administration soon entering a new Presidential election cycle in 2012.
In the world of modern US politics, the “patriot card” is the ace which can
be produced during any speech or Presidential debate. Obama has clearly
positioned himself as the man who will “take credit” for the killing of
Osama bin Laden, even though he died back in 2001. The ten year anniversary
for Sept 11, 2001 will take place this fall and it is certain that Obama
will rehash this week’s glorious assassination from a podium at Ground Zero.
Obama’s wartime resume will also be bolstered by this week’s event, a tool
he will likely employ in the Democrat effort to effectively stave off any
challengers from the Republican Party’s right wing next year.
Another state-sponsored assassination
In the wake of the infamous Iraqi WMD debacle and with tax payer confidence
in the abilities of US Intelligence community at an all-time low, this
latest announcement will be used by Washington to demonstrate that their
agencies are indeed competent and can actually produce valid and actionable
intel. In effect, Washington will use its latest campaign to wipe the old
slate clean and build on this apparent victory, possibly with some future
intel concerning prospective adversaries like Iran.
This latest state-sponsored assassination also re-enforces the precedent of
targeting foreign leaders outside of the boundaries of legal justice.
Currently the US and NATO are carrying out a series of targeted
extrajudicial killings in Libya, an effort that has already claimed the
lives of Gaddafi’s immediate family and one which hopes to eventually
eliminate Gaddafi himself.
Both unusual and illegal as this may appear on its surface, the Western
public has now become accustomed to seeing its governments carry out these
high level state mafia-style hits, a rather bizarre trend for evolved
Western civilization. It goes without saying that in almost all of these
cases, each of these high-profile victims could not be successfully brought
in front of any real court of justice due to an acute lack of evidence
against them. They amount to purely political targets who unfortunately will
be denied the luxury of any proper investigation into the West’s charges
against them.
A shift in focus towards new enemies
Amongst all the hype and revelry, it still seems rather implausible that
Osama bin Laden has “been on the run” for nearly a decade. Authorities would
like us to believe that it took the entire US military industrial complex 10
years to both locate and kill Osama Bin Laden, their sworn public enemy
number one. What is more plausible is that this particular moment in time
has in fact been chosen and the event has been staged and later
choreographed for mass media consumption.
Once the feel-good factor, public traction and the brief heightened state of
alert has been spent, Washington and its NATO allies will be turning their
sights further down field.
Most significant, is that this new announcement could very well be signaling
a shift in US and NATO war plans, gradually moving focus away from the War
on Terror and repositioning US public angst towards a cadre of new
nation-state enemy players. With both occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan
still on the burner, US imperial aspirations overseas are already at near
breaking point. Polls and historical trends also show that American voters
will not likely want to switch their leadership during a hot military
conflict, so we can expect that an expansion of ground troops could occur in
Libya, or that a brand new operation could be launched as early as next
spring 2012. On top of US and NATO agendas for prospective conflicts are
clearly Libya (currently in progress), Iran and possibly Syria. Any one of
these potential conflicts will require solid backing from the US public in
order to ensure their launch and longevity.
Mark Twain could not have scripted a better ending for this, the season
finale of Osama On the Run. As events unfold in the coming months, educated
members of the public will be able to better piece together the real behind
significance of Sunday’s announcement and read the long-range foreign policy
game plan of the US, Israel and their NATO allies. Watch this space.
Remember you the public will be accused of being a terrorist soon enough and
Hitler's Dreams come to life...
Erik®
I'm curious why you consider bin Laden to be 'special' when you're
fully aware that tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent nobodies have
already been victims of what is essentially 'state murder' during the
US/NATO/UN adventures in the Middle East. Same thing is going on right
now in Libya.
If Obama really did kill Osama (which is becoming somewhat
questionable), why is it so important to heap extra condemnation on the
murder of a figurehead who is undeniably a fomentor of violent anti-
Western Jihadism?
Everything about war has changed, Archie. Until the last couple of
decades or so, for thousands of years the idea has been to boast about
how many of the enemy 'our side' has killed, while minimizing our own
casualties. Now it's the opposite. For example Canadians hear about
almost every one of our war deaths in Afghanistan but we don't have a
clue how many of the enemy we've killed. The mainstream media mostly
talks about destroyed enemy infrastructure or vehicles, but not enemy
combatants. We do hear about civilian casualties from time to time.
After the mess in Iraq things are really coming closer to their logical
conclusion in Libya. The bombing of Gadhaffi's residences in Tripoli
are called attacks on his 'command and control centres' rather than
targeted attacks on the dictator and his family - but it's pretty
obvious to most people what this is really about. The Obama
administration is trying to pretend that they're not really all that
involved in this particular war.
If the endgame becomes, by following these examples, only trying to
knock off enemy heads of state or the leaders of opposing factions, then
I'd be all for it; except by then the only collateral damage will be a
drastic increase in the loss of civil liberties we're already seeing.
Barry Bruyea
I don't want our troops in Afghanistan and I certainly don't want them
anywhere else that is not a clear cut mandate to protect a population
under extreme danger. We should have been in Rwanda, but the
selective choices made by a ridiculously ineffective U.N. kept us out
except for a token force led by a Canadian general who could do
nothing. In Afghanistan, we are not protecting anyone. Everyday the
(in most cases, unarmed) population is being slaughtered by their own
so our presence is a useless exercise that has killed 150 Canadians.
I no longer give a damn what the Americans are doing in Iraq or
Afghanistan and the fact that the Americans chose to kill (or murder
if that's what you think) the man they hold responsible, I don't
really give a damn and refuse to make moral judgements one way or the
other.
Archie
> Archie wrote...
>
> > On May 4, 6:34 pm, Chom Noamsky <f...@stew.yum> wrote:
>
> > > If they are sufficiently incapacitated, no, but if they attempt to evade
> > > capture then I think they are fair game. Especially alleged terrorist
> > > thugs wanted for murdering thousands of people.
>
> > > There are scores of dead, untried people in Canada and the U.S. with
> > > police bullet holes in the back. It usually gets chalked up to
> > > overzealous policing and rarely results in criminal charges.
>
> > You're going to green light this state murder no matter what.
> > I'm warning you these types of events are the thin edge of a fascist
> > wedge.
>
> > Your problem with Stalin was what exactly?
>
> I'm curious why you consider bin Laden to be 'special' when you're
> fully aware that tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent nobodies have
> already been victims of what is essentially 'state murder' during the
> US/NATO/UN adventures in the Middle East. Same thing is going on right
> now in Libya.
You've never heard me complain about war, extrajudicial killing,
torture? In this case I'm complaining about the normalizing of what is
essentially the mafia style hit on an enemy. When the state can act
like this with impunity, it crosses a lione - is my point, that I
continue to make, over, and over, and over, and over again. It seems
to be completely unheard. Please tell me that you get that point and
please address that point.
>
> If Obama really did kill Osama (which is becoming somewhat
> questionable), why is it so important to heap extra condemnation on the
> murder of a figurehead who is undeniably a fomentor of violent anti-
> Western Jihadism?
Due process. It's about allowing the state to rise abouve and beyond
the law. It should occur occur in no circumstances, never. I don't
want to be governed by Hells Angels, mafia, or any facsimile of these
organizations.
>
> Everything about war has changed, Archie. Until the last couple of
> decades or so, for thousands of years the idea has been to boast about
> how many of the enemy 'our side' has killed, while minimizing our own
> casualties. Now it's the opposite. For example Canadians hear about
> almost every one of our war deaths in Afghanistan but we don't have a
> clue how many of the enemy we've killed. The mainstream media mostly
> talks about destroyed enemy infrastructure or vehicles, but not enemy
> combatants. We do hear about civilian casualties from time to time.
Bombing has become normalized. In my opinion bombing citiers, towns,
villages, should be illegal in any and all circumstances. Torture,
targeted assdassinations and so on don't even come close to the
unethical practice that bombing is. But in this thread, I'm
complaining about the state crossing a very dangerous line and on the
otehr side of that line were Hitler, Stalin, and every tyrant in
history.
>
> After the mess in Iraq things are really coming closer to their logical
> conclusion in Libya. The bombing of Gadhaffi's residences in Tripoli
> are called attacks on his 'command and control centres' rather than
> targeted attacks on the dictator and his family - but it's pretty
> obvious to most people what this is really about. The Obama
> administration is trying to pretend that they're not really all that
> involved in this particular war.
>
> If the endgame becomes, by following these examples, only trying to
> knock off enemy heads of state or the leaders of opposing factions, then
> I'd be all for it; except by then the only collateral damage will be a
> drastic increase in the loss of civil liberties we're already seeing.-
I couldn't agree with you more and Obama and company are poking a fire
they will wish they left smolder. It's not Bin laden or heads of state
I'm worried about, or Gaddafi. It's state power.
Archie
>
> I don't want our troops in Afghanistan and I certainly don't want them
> anywhere else that is not a clear cut mandate to protect a population
> under extreme danger. We should have been in Rwanda, but the
> selective choices made by a ridiculously ineffective U.N. kept us out
> except for a token force led by a Canadian general who could do
> nothing. In Afghanistan, we are not protecting anyone. Everyday the
> (in most cases, unarmed) population is being slaughtered by their own
> so our presence is a useless exercise that has killed 150 Canadians.
> I no longer give a damn what the Americans are doing in Iraq or
> Afghanistan and the fact that the Americans chose to kill (or murder
> if that's what you think) the man they hold responsible, I don't
> really give a damn and refuse to make moral judgements one way or the
> other.
State power Barry, is the problem.
They are getting way out of hand.
The particularites (Bin laden) are not the point.
Barry Bruyea
I'm more concerned about 'State Power' as it pertains to domestic
affairs. More and more our government is controlling too many aspects
of our day to day life and they are getting away with it because we
are apathetic and don't seem to realize what is happening all around
us such as the fact the 'Free Speech' is no long front and centre as a
mainstay of our democracy. P.C., Hate Laws, even trying to control
things concerning what the hell we eat. Personal responsibility is
disappearing from society and we are letting it happen. And we
continue to let this happen, we can hardly start screaming bloody
murder about what is happening outside of our borders.
Charlie Yankee
> More and more our government is controlling too many aspects
> of our day to day life and they are getting away with it because we
> are apathetic and don't seem to realize what is happening all around
> us such as the fact the 'Free Speech' is no long front and centre as a
> mainstay of our democracy.
"Free speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value."
-- Dean Stacey, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Gives one the chills, doesn't it?
Archie
>
> I'm more concerned about 'State Power' as it pertains to domestic
> affairs. More and more our government is controlling too many aspects
> of our day to day life and they are getting away with it because we
> are apathetic and don't seem to realize what is happening all around
> us such as the fact the 'Free Speech' is no long front and centre as a
> mainstay of our democracy. P.C., Hate Laws, even trying to control
> things concerning what the hell we eat. Personal responsibility is
> disappearing from society and we are letting it happen. And we
> continue to let this happen, we can hardly start screaming bloody
You want to be free to advocate violence on certain groups of people?
That is what is illegal as far as I know. And while I agree this is
something that we should watch I'm not going to spend a lot of time
advocating for people's rights to campaign to kill gay people.
THIS is what gets you - and the killing, the torture and bombing of
foreigners isn't really much of an issue. Eg. The state can be as
brutal as they want to the people of Gaza. But don't fuck with an
Israelis right to say what he wants. Classification #1 vs.
classification #2 eh?
I have a hankering to nominate you for a Nobel prise.
Chom Noamsky
I will always favour the rights of the individual above those of the
state. That's what I advocate for - small, efficient, tamed government
with an emphasis on personal freedom. For example, I identified an
encroachment of rights in Canada's long gun registry. It wasn't so much
the registration that bothered me, but the fact that the legislation
gives the state the right to enter your home and inspect your property,
and seize it, without so much as a warrant. To me, that violates a
basic constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Just because I'm a moose hunter. That is unjust. And YOU supported
that legislation, along with penny and Karen, a bunch who would be
tickled pink to see the state seize all firearms (except from police, of
course).
You have two faces, Archie, one that gets all indignant over the
injustice of alleged terrorists getting executed without a trial, and
another that giggles when the state wields its power over moose and duck
hunters.
But I do agree with you, even evil terrorists should get a fair trial
and should not be executed without one. They shouldn't even be
executed, they should be incarcerated for life or whatever term society
deems to be apt.
But you ain't no libertarian, Archie, you love the heavy hand of the
state when it comes to applying 'socialist' values. You've demonstrated
that more than a few times.
Barry Bruyea
You remind me of those in dictatorships like the USSR and China who,
when interfering in other countries used to use the term, "We fight
for Freedom Loving Peoples in the World' while enslaving those in
their own countries.
Archie
> That is unjust. And YOU supported
> that legislation, along with penny and Karen, a bunch who would be
> tickled pink to see the state seize all firearms (except from police, of
> course).
The polcie can just arbitrarily enter your home and search it without
a warrant?
I don't think so.
I support the gun registry in the same way I support the registration
of cars.
> You have two faces, Archie, one that gets all indignant over the
> injustice of alleged terrorists getting executed without a trial, and
> another that giggles when the state wields its power over moose and duck
> hunters.
When the state kills people illegally it's time for us all to start
getting a little paranoid.
>
> But I do agree with you, even evil terrorists should get a fair trial
> and should not be executed without one. They shouldn't even be
> executed, they should be incarcerated for life or whatever term society
> deems to be apt.
>
> But you ain't no libertarian, Archie, you love the heavy hand of the
> state when it comes to applying 'socialist' values. You've demonstrated
> that more than a few times.
You support the state as all you right wing libertarians do. You
support it more than the average Joe. Nobody loves the military more
than you people do. And if that ain't the state, there is no such
thing as the state.
You support extrajudicial killing as you have shown here. Your lip
service 'terrorists should get a fair trial' is just more of the
dishonest pablum your spread over your desire for the powerful to do
as they please to citizens with impunity.
As long as people like you are around, waiting for a chance to
exploit, abuse, and steal from cisitzens, there will need to be
mechanisms in place to ensure that you are curtailed.
You want to pave the way for the rich and powerful and the biullies.
That is your aim. That is why you call yourself a libertarian.
And as long as there are people like me alive, you'll not get your
libertarian capitalist utopia.
Archie
>
> You remind me of those in dictatorships like the USSR and China who,
> when interfering in other countries used to use the term, "We fight
> for Freedom Loving Peoples in the World' while enslaving those in
You remind me of those people in the USSR - the USSR - the USSR.
You're a fucking moron Bruyea. No more clever than that pig of a moron
that calls himself Rhino.
Subtly is not your strong point.
Chom Noamsky
> The polcie can just arbitrarily enter your home and search it without
> a warrant?
> I don't think so.
Yup. If police want to search or inspect your home under the Firearms
Act they either have to ask for consent, or give you 'reasonable
notice'. No judicial approval is necessary. The consent provision is
questionable, because police are trained in using psychological coercion
to obtain a 'yes'. The 'reasonable notice' provision is a total joke
because you don't have the option of declining.
In other words, under the current Firearms Act, all police need for a
warrantless search on your home is the belief that there are firearms
inside. This applies to *everyone*, not just to registered gun owners.
Can you see the potential for abuse? Police can and have used this
law to go on arbitrary fishing expeditions.
See sections 102-105 of the Firearms Act.
> I support the gun registry in the same way I support the registration
> of cars.
I support registering anything if it's voluntary. Registries are a good
way to prove ownership. If I use my vehicles strictly on private
property I don't have to register them. There is nothing voluntary
about the long gun registry.
> When the state kills people illegally it's time for us all to start
> getting a little paranoid.
People like you make me paranoid because you have an extremely fucked-up
sense of morality and justice.
> You support the state as all you right wing libertarians do. You
> support it more than the average Joe. Nobody loves the military more
> than you people do. And if that ain't the state, there is no such
> thing as the state.
Wrong. We are locked into treaties such as Nato, and therefore are
trapped into maintaining a level of military capability that we wouldn't
otherwise need to. I've never supported arms buildup above and beyond
what we need to monitor and defend out own borders. Stop telling lies.
> You support extrajudicial killing as you have shown here. Your lip
> service 'terrorists should get a fair trial' is just more of the
> dishonest pablum your spread over your desire for the powerful to do
> as they please to citizens with impunity.
I agreed with you on the due process thing, and now you insult me for
agreeing with you.
You are one intellectually disturbed motherfucker.
> As long as people like you are around, waiting for a chance to
> exploit, abuse, and steal from cisitzens, there will need to be
> mechanisms in place to ensure that you are curtailed.
WTF are smoking? All I've ever believed and PRACTICED in life is doing
unto others and keeping what I work for.
"No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or
possessions."
-- John Locke
> You want to pave the way for the rich and powerful and the biullies.
> That is your aim. That is why you call yourself a libertarian.
> And as long as there are people like me alive, you'll not get your
> libertarian capitalist utopia.
And as long as there are people like me alive, your kind will not harm
my life, my health, my liberty, or my possessions. See above.
Charlie Yankee
Archie's fine with the first two. It's just the last two he has an
issue with.
Charlie Yankee
In fact, he doesn't *anyone* to have the final two until he's
convinced everyone has the first two. Of course, many who share
Archie's basic worldview consider trying to hold onto your possessions
or liberty to be forfeiting your life.
Barry Bruyea
Predictably, Archie, you've lowered yourself to name calling again.
It always happens with you when your true beliefs are exposed and you
go totally lame. You don't debate, you preach and can't stand it when
reality bites you in the ass.
Archie
>
> Predictably, Archie, you've lowered yourself to name calling again.
> It always happens with you when your true beliefs are exposed and you
> go totally lame. You don't debate, you preach and can't stand it when
> reality bites you in the ass.
You debate? You predictably call me a Stalinist, or imply it, because
you are weak.
Archie
>
> In other words, under the current Firearms Act, all police need for a
> warrantless search on your home is the belief that there are firearms
> inside. This applies to *everyone*, not just to registered gun owners.
> Can you see the potential for abuse? Police can and have used this
> law to go on arbitrary fishing expeditions.
I do have a problem with that. Granting police arbitrary power is
anotehr legal wedge that can really turn on all of us.
>
> See sections 102-105 of the Firearms Act.
>
> > I support the gun registry in the same way I support the registration
> > of cars.
>
> I support registering anything if it's voluntary. Registries are a good
> way to prove ownership. If I use my vehicles strictly on private
> property I don't have to register them. There is nothing voluntary
> about the long gun registry.
Notwithstanding your claims where police can arbitrarily search your
home without a warrant, I have no problem with registring guns.
>
> > When the state kills people illegally it's time for us all to start
> > getting a little paranoid.
>
> People like you make me paranoid because you have an extremely fucked-up
> sense of morality and justice.
Good answer Biff.
>
> > You support the state as all you right wing libertarians do. You
> > support it more than the average Joe. Nobody loves the military more
> > than you people do. And if that ain't the state, there is no such
> > thing as the state.
>
> Wrong. We are locked into treaties such as Nato, and therefore are
> trapped into maintaining a level of military capability that we wouldn't
> otherwise need to. I've never supported arms buildup above and beyond
> what we need to monitor and defend out own borders. Stop telling lies.
Oh fuck off. That is (locked into) simply an excuse.
>
> > You support extrajudicial killing as you have shown here. Your lip
> > service 'terrorists should get a fair trial' is just more of the
> > dishonest pablum your spread over your desire for the powerful to do
> > as they please to citizens with impunity.
>
> I agreed with you on the due process thing, and now you insult me for
> agreeing with you.
>
> You are one intellectually disturbed motherfucker.
You constantly and consistently say that I am in favour of communist
tyrants. Why? Because you suspect it. If you didn't have straw men to
rip apart and had to rely on what I say you'd have nothing to argue
with.
In this case you are provide implicit supprt for extrajudical killings
and you expect me to not be suspicious? You expect me to think you
don't worship state power? After all you support for the state's
response to julian assange, illegal drone killings abroad and so on, I
have no choice but to conclude you are a closet fascist.
>
> > As long as people like you are around, waiting for a chance to
> > exploit, abuse, and steal from cisitzens, there will need to be
> > mechanisms in place to ensure that you are curtailed.
>
> WTF are smoking? All I've ever believed and PRACTICED in life is doing
> unto others and keeping what I work for.
Doing unto others before they do it to you, right?
>
> "No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or
> possessions."
>
> -- John Locke
>
> > You want to pave the way for the rich and powerful and the biullies.
> > That is your aim. That is why you call yourself a libertarian.
> > And as long as there are people like me alive, you'll not get your
> > libertarian capitalist utopia.
>
> And as long as there are people like me alive, your kind will not harm
> my life, my health, my liberty, or my possessions. See above.
See you at the barracades.
Roy
==
Who are you emulating now?...Robespierre back in the days of the
French Revolution? Quite the "drama queen" you are Archie.
==
Archie
>
> ==
> Who are you emulating now?...Robespierre back in the days of the
> French Revolution? Quite the "drama queen" you are Archie.
Robespierre? Yeah - I'M the drama queen.
You don't like it much when I rub your girlfriend's face in his own
bullshit, do you Roy?
in the light1@worldnews.ca Sparky in the light1
>Who are you emulating now?...Robespierre back in the days of the
>French Revolution? Quite the "drama queen" you are Archie.
Roy, how long have you had this mental castration thing you got going on,
three, five, ten years now?
gmr36v...@free.teranews.cm
"Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:e7582440-a5cb-4ed6...@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 2:59 pm, Chom Noamsky <f...@stew.yum> wrote:
>> That is unjust. And YOU supported
>> that legislation, along with penny and Karen, a bunch who would be
>> tickled pink to see the state seize all firearms (except from police, of
>> course).
>The polcie can just arbitrarily enter your home and search it without
>a warrant?
>I don't think so.
If you asked the government for a license for anything regarding the
possession of property the government can come and take it, because your
need for a license is an acknowledgment of illegal conduct. That was the
purpose of the licensing requirement, which was certification before all
this nonsense, and that system worked well.
>I support the gun registry in the same way I support the registration
>of cars.
but there is nothing in law that requires registration of property, so it
has to be voluntary. There is nothing preventing you from registering your
car. Its only the use of force to make someone register property that is
illegal. Constitutions set these limits of power, and when governments
violate the Constitution they are operating illegally, and we have no
obligation in the law to follow such statutes.
Why do you need to be threatened before you register your vehicle?
Archie
What's unfair about the whole affair is that "Chom" won't even bother
defending this loyal groupie.
Dobranski used to have another loyal defender - I forget his name. The
guy with the thesarus. He disappeared half a year ago after a falling
out, lover's spat with the incredible, the fantastic - Biff.
The three of them used to beat me up regularly. Who was he?
in the light1@worldnews.ca Sparky in the light1
On May 6, 3:38 pm, "Sparky in the light1" <Sparky in the
lig...@worldnews.ca> wrote:
> Puppeteer Roy said:
>
> >Who are you emulating now?...Robespierre back in the days of the
> >French Revolution? Quite the "drama queen" you are Archie.
>
> Roy, how long have you had this mental castration thing you got going on,
> three, five, ten years now?
>What's unfair about the whole affair is that "Chom" won't even bother
>defending this loyal groupie.
Oh no, Chom is not defending his loyal groupie, well that is just not
right...dam that chom'.....always looking out for himself...
>Dobranski used to have another loyal defender - I forget his name. The
>guy with the thesarus. He disappeared half a year ago after a falling
>out, lover's spat with the incredible, the fantastic - Biff.
>The three of them used to beat me up regularly. Who was he?
If I remember correctly, (getting old you know) Terry Pearson was another
loyal groupie of chom's..
Barry Bruyea
Oh, so predictable.
Neil
Mex Rurphy
Archie
>
> Mex Rurphy-
Well Jesus - did you see Rex gushing over Preston Manning and the
Great, the Honourable and the Terrific Stephen Harper on CBC.
It was a sight to behold bye.
Archie
>
> Oh, so predictable.
So, Barry. Where are we here?
Are you thinking - na na na na na?
Or, 'I am rubber, you are glue...'
Are you forgetting a lot? Leaving the burner on? Go see a doctor.
Erik®
I understand the point; I agree with it. But given the reality that
this is going on all the time now - that nowadays our governments are
prepared to begin bombing at the drop of a hat, using any pretext to get
a UN resolution which they soon violate the terms of; then I see it as a
relatively insignificant matter that the US assassinated bin Laden.
He's been the figurehead for the anti-West jihadist movement, so why
would it be so important when so many other people have already been
killed? The act plays well in the US, where Obama's popularity might
increase for a while, but other than that it's pretty much meaningless.
If the islamists managed to knock off the US President, another would
simply take his place, with even more of a popular mandate to go after
'our enemy'. No different with Osama & the militant islamic jihadists.
> >
> > If Obama really did kill Osama (which is becoming somewhat
> > questionable), why is it so important to heap extra condemnation on the
> > murder of a figurehead who is undeniably a fomentor of violent anti-
> > Western Jihadism?
>
> Due process. It's about allowing the state to rise abouve and beyond
> the law. It should occur occur in no circumstances, never. I don't
> want to be governed by Hells Angels, mafia, or any facsimile of these
> organizations.
The problem with that is that there has never really been an established
tradition of international 'rule of law'. There've been stabs at it:
the former practice of formally declaring war before invading another
state, and the idea of diplomatic privilege; the Geneva Conventions...
Nowadays all we have are UN resolutions and threats from toothless
international kangaroo courts over in Europe. So there are no rules.
The only court left that matters is the court of public opinion. And
this gets addressed, as I suggested before, by telling us about how our
troops are getting killed while serving the innocent people of the
countries we're attacking.
> Bombing has become normalized. In my opinion bombing citiers, towns,
> villages, should be illegal in any and all circumstances. Torture,
> targeted assdassinations and so on don't even come close to the
> unethical practice that bombing is. But in this thread, I'm
> complaining about the state crossing a very dangerous line and on the
> otehr side of that line were Hitler, Stalin, and every tyrant in
> history.
Fair enough. My argument is that this line has already been crossed so
many times that it doesn't exist anymore. The days when 'kings' could
watch battles from a nearby hilltop and expect to be put up in a nice
manor if they were captured before being ransomed back home are done.
> I couldn't agree with you more and Obama and company are poking a fire
> they will wish they left smolder. It's not Bin laden or heads of state
> I'm worried about, or Gaddafi. It's state power.
And it's the basic concepts behind what we call 'rule of law' that have
existed and been further developed for centuries within Western
countries that are being broken down, not by 'troops on every street
corner' but very slowly by legislation, always claimed to be for our own
good; and quite often justified by the same reason we keep going off to
war - this amorphous 'enemy'.
Erik®
Funny that Archie has bought in to Karen Gordon's long standing habit of
outing posters as being someone else. Did you know that I'm actually
Neil Kennedy, according to Karen? That makes you either an impostor or
another part of my split personality.
Of course this also means you're Shel Scott...
M.I. Wakefield
"Erik®" <er...@loosends.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.282e39422...@news.eternal-september.org...
There was one report that the only way bin Laden would have been taken alive
was if he had been discovered naked ... otherwise the military was operating
on the assumption that he had explosives concealed on his person.
Neil
Oh that explains it. When did it happen? You're not old enough fot WW1
so it must have been WW2 that caused you to be Shel Shock
.
Barry Bruyea
Just keep trying, Archie, sooner or later you'll get it.
Garek
> On Fri, 6 May 2011 17:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Archie
>
> >On May 6, 7:27 pm, Barry Bruyea <justforlau...@still.com> wrote:
>
> >> Oh, so predictable.
>
> >So, Barry. Where are we here?
> >Are you thinking - na na na na na?
> >Or, 'I am rubber, you are glue...'
>
> >Are you forgetting a lot? Leaving the burner on? Go see a doctor.
>
> Just keep trying, Archie, sooner or later you'll get it.
I'm waiting for the wedding video where Archie dances with Fidel.
Archie
>
> I understand the point; I agree with it. But given the reality that
> this is going on all the time now - that nowadays our governments are
> prepared to begin bombing at the drop of a hat, using any pretext to get
> a UN resolution which they soon violate the terms of; then I see it as a
> relatively insignificant matter that the US assassinated bin Laden.
> He's been the figurehead for the anti-West jihadist movement, so why
> would it be so important when so many other people have already been
> killed? The act plays well in the US, where Obama's popularity might
> increase for a while, but other than that it's pretty much meaningless.
> If the islamists managed to knock off the US President, another would
> simply take his place, with even more of a popular mandate to go after
> 'our enemy'. No different with Osama & the militant islamic jihadists.
The Americans have targeted Anwar Al Awlaki a few days ago in Yemen.
They murdered Gaddafi's son and grandchildren a few weeks ago. And
through bombing they are killing people week in, week out in Pakistan.
This is not widely reported on mainstream news but it is not denied by
the USA or NATO when it happens, they either apologize or conflict
with Pakistan over the nature of the victims.
Here, I'm not complaining about bombing civilians although it is a far
more heinous crime. I'm complaining about living in a world where it
is okay for a President (or a Prime Minister) to capriciously and
arbitrarily decide, I'm going to kill him, does it, and that's that. I
would by far prefer to live ina world with the threat of criminals
and terrorists.
In this way we have become terrorists. I say we because the Americans
usually define the situation about what's normal and acceptable -
Harper may do the same. And even if you accept Obama's murdering of
enemies, what about two, three Presidents down the line? Sarah Palin
or Adolph Schmitler decides they are going to kill communists,
leftists, fascists, Jews, atheists Muslims because they are a menace
to society. You say that's a stretch? Not once you cross this line
(sanctioning extrajudicial killings).
Don't get caught up in the emotional flavour of the day. The
particular situation doesn't matter.
As I said before, I find it Twilight Zonish that I'm making this
argument with reasonable people on Usenet. I find it very bizarre.
What's even more bizarre is that you all disagree with me even though
you say you agree with the principle. You don't agree with the
principle. Your argument is that "given the reality that
this is going on all the time now" and worse is happening I perhaps
should just pipe down.
My fear is that soon people like you will be saying 'pipe down or you
deserve what you get'. In my early twenties I started a breakaway
union against a corrupt American union and was told by a surprising
number of people that I better watch my back. I better just shut up.
The American union even came around with men in suits and we knew they
were trying to intimidate us. Let's not, collectively, stop barking -
for fucks sake.
>
> The problem with that is that there has never really been an established
> tradition of international 'rule of law'. There've been stabs at it:
> the former practice of formally declaring war before invading another
> state, and the idea of diplomatic privilege; the Geneva Conventions...
> Nowadays all we have are UN resolutions and threats from toothless
> international kangaroo courts over in Europe. So there are no rules.
Eric. You are arguing technicalities when the state is assassinating
people - not trial, not even an attempt to capture. This is scary
shit. What are we becoming here?
>
> The only court left that matters is the court of public opinion. And
> this gets addressed, as I suggested before, by telling us about how our
> troops are getting killed while serving the innocent people of the
> countries we're attacking.
NO!!!! The court of public opinion is exactly what we need to protect
ourselves against. Tyrants like Hitler are experts at shaping public
opinion. Do you really think Hoitler was a one off? Do you really
think the same thing can't happen again? It's happening again.
>
> > Bombing has become normalized. In my opinion bombing cities, towns,
> > villages, should be illegal in any and all circumstances. Torture,
> > targeted assassinations and so on don't even come close to the
> > unethical practice that bombing is. But in this thread, I'm
> > complaining about the state crossing a very dangerous line and on the
> > other side of that line were Hitler, Stalin, and every tyrant in
> > history.
>
> Fair enough. My argument is that this line has already been crossed so
> many times that it doesn't exist anymore. The days when 'kings' could
> watch battles from a nearby hilltop and expect to be put up in a nice
> manor if they were captured before being ransomed back home are done.
If the line has been crossed, as you say, then it is imperative that
we re draw the line, draw a new line. It is imperative that we
separate ourselves from the barbarians.
>
> > I couldn't agree with you more and Obama and company are poking a fire
> > they will wish they left smolder. It's not Bin laden or heads of state
> > I'm worried about, or Gaddafi. It's state power.
>
> And it's the basic concepts behind what we call 'rule of law' that have
> existed and been further developed for centuries within Western
> countries that are being broken down, not by 'troops on every street
> corner' but very slowly by legislation, always claimed to be for our own
> good; and quite often justified by the same reason we keep going off to
> war - this amorphous 'enemy'.-
So, if you agree that the rule of law is being corrupted, why are you
making an argument ostensibly in support of extrajudicial killing aka
murder in the first degree.
Archie
What's up with you, Barry. Chom Noamsky, Roy and your consistency in
ganging up on Karen Gorden, Penny and a few others here? Why do you
people need to do that? It smacks of cowardice and bullying.
Archie
>
> Oh that explains it. When did it happen? You're not old enough fot WW1
> so it must have been WW2 that caused you to be Shel Shock
This seems to have hit a nerve with Schild - outing Dobranski's name.
I love the way pipsqueak bullies cower together in little corners.
C'mon Roy, Bruyea. Come out of hiding. Where are you Dobranski? Maybe
there's another woman gonna post here - you can all beat up. Fucking
pathetic little pigs - all in a row.
Sometimes I have to say - good work Karen Gordon, or whoever you are.
Barry Bruyea
In almost every post you are resorting to name calling. You're like
an adolescent in the school yard, Archie. I guess that's what comes
of trying to defend archaic, bankrupt idealogies for most of your
adult life.
Archie
> On Sat, 7 May 2011 05:51:16 -0700 (PDT), Archie
>
The only poster in my opinon that I argue with here, who rarely
personalizes and attacks on that level, that has the guts to stick
with content, is Charlie Yankee.
If you want to put an end to insults and name calling between you and
me and stick strictly with content, I'd be happy to do it. That goes
for everyone else.
Archie
>> You're like
> > an adolescent in the school yard, Archie.
But if expect me to be honourable and take the highter road in the
face of attacks, forget it. I can be as much a pitbull as any
rightwinger.
Archie
>
> There was one report that the only way bin Laden would have been taken alive
> was if he had been discovered naked ... otherwise the military was operating
Oh. There was a report was there?
Oh.
I didn't realize there was a report.
If only I had known there was a report.
Oh.
Chom Noamsky
What says a lot about your character, Archie, is going along with the
numerous lies that Karen Gordon, penny, et al, have told. Even when
presented with verifiable facts they refused to change their tunes.
Rejecting people like that and the failed policy they support isn't
"ganging up", it's called "rejcting failed policy".
You're slimy, Archie, just slimy.
Chom Noamsky
You're a lemming.
Chom Noamsky
> On May 6, 6:51 am, Barry Bruyea<justforlau...@still.com> wrote:
>>
>> Predictably, Archie, you've lowered yourself to name calling again.
>> It always happens with you when your true beliefs are exposed and you
>> go totally lame. You don't debate, you preach and can't stand it when
>> reality bites you in the ass.
>
> You debate? You predictably call me a Stalinist, or imply it, because
> you are weak.
You promote ideology identical to communism yet you get pissed when
anybody labels you a communist. Maybe you can clear things up by
stating how your ideology deviates from communism, or how your brand of
communism would not result in another Stalin-like dictatorship?
The soviet system was the epitome of grassroots democracy, yet the power
was so easily taken from the people and placed in the hands of
authoritarian extremists.
Archie
And as Stalin-like policies proceed from the American war machine,
what do you do.
When I raise criticism you say the following:
"Why, Boy Scouts would give even the most despised enemy the benefit
of due
process!" A Boy Scout is trustworthy; loyal; helpful; friendly;
courteous; kind; obedient; cheerful; thrifty; brave; clean and
reverent.
You seem to have just discovered that governments are known to take
"short cuts". Do you remember the outrage on the left when Bush
failed
to get Osama? Do you think Obama was going to let him slip away,
again,
and suffer that embarrassment all over? Get him and let God be the
judge. A trial would have been proper, and it would have been the
gong
show of the century. And we don't know facts about whether they DID
try
to take him alive or not.
We have extrajudicial killings going on right here in Canada, police
who
shoot first and ask question later, then get paid for nothing while
government prosecutors debate and agonize for months or years whether
to
even charge them with something.
And you're worried about an admitted mortal enemy of the west getting
a
fair shake?" - Chom Noamsky (this thread)
So, you can take your criticism of Stalin and any other tyrant,
including Hitler, and shove it up your arse as far as I'm concerned.
You are a hypocrite. If you were in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's
Russia, you'd be a cheerleader.
Archie
>
> What says a lot about your character, Archie, is going along with the
> numerous lies that Karen Gordon, penny, et al, have told. Even when
> presented with verifiable facts they refused to change their tunes.
> Rejecting people like that and the failed policy they support isn't
> "ganging up", it's called "rejcting failed policy".
>
You're talking about the gun registry right?
I support the gun registry - for the simple fact that cops know where
guns are responding to domestic violence situation. They are very
volatile.
It isn't on my radar however - one way or the other. I don't care.
Barry Bruyea
Given you are usually the one that initiates the name calling just is
one more indicator of your damn hypocrisy.
Archie
>
> Given you are usually the one that initiates the name calling just is
I don't believe I am the one that initiates it.
I'd backcheck if I gave a shit what you think of me.
But I don't.
Roy
==
They say that skunks actually enjoy their own scent too.
==
carl
I notice that Archie doesn't speak Spanish.
I guess he wouldn't do well in Venezuela or Cuba.
That's probably why he lives in Canada and not there.
in the light1@worldnews.ca Sparky in the light1
On May 7, 6:35 pm, Roy <wila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 2:38 pm, Archie <akenn...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 5:34 pm, Barry Bruyea <justforlau...@still.com> wrote:
>
> > > Given you are usually the one that initiates the name calling just is
> > > one more indicator of your damn hypocrisy.-
>
> > I don't believe I am the one that initiates it.
>
> > I'd backcheck if I gave a shit what you think of me.
> > But I don't.
>
> ==
> They say that skunks actually enjoy their own scent too.
> ==
>I notice that Archie doesn't speak Spanish.
I bet you speak chimpanzees very well too..
>I guess he wouldn't do well in Venezuela or Cuba.
Just as you would be well in the south pole talking to your penguin
friends...
>That's probably why he lives in Canada and not there.
Why bring Canada into odd-ball, socialist, thinking.... if only you nitwits
would allow Canada to be the country it should be...
in the light1@worldnews.ca Sparky in the light1
On May 7, 2:38 pm, Archie <akenn...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 5:34 pm, Barry Bruyea <justforlau...@still.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Given you are usually the one that initiates the name calling just is
> > one more indicator of your damn hypocrisy.-
>
> I don't believe I am the one that initiates it.
>
> I'd backcheck if I gave a shit what you think of me.
> But I don't.
>They say that skunks actually enjoy their own scent too.
You know what is really funny Roy, You should know, as someone who been
mentally castrated..
You can't even tell, that you been hoodwinked by your own governments, and
yet even some of the NDP elected are even questioning the US governments
terrorism on the world...
Erik®
"Police seek help identifying mystery Nanaimo woman"
"RCMP Constable Gary O'Brien says the woman gave officials several
names, but none of them have checked out."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/05/05/bc-
nanaimo-unidentified-woman.html
or: http://tinyurl.com/3ma7m3n
Dave Smith
>
>> You're slimy, Archie, just slimy.-
>
> You're talking about the gun registry right?
>
> I support the gun registry - for the simple fact that cops know where
> guns are responding to domestic violence situation. They are very
> volatile.
Simple fact? Simple.... yes. Fact.... no.
In order for a person to own firearms legally, he has to have a licence.
Just knowing that he is licenced should provide enough information
that there is likely to be guns in the house. However, some people
acquire guns illegally, and since this is a case of violence to which
the police have been called, it is a pretty good indication that the
party is not law abiding. He may have guns without a licence, and he may
have guns that are not registered.
If the person has convictions for violent crimes he is likely to be
under a firearms prohibition. He cannot get a licence and, therefore,
cannot register them. You may recall that a few years ago there were
four RCMP killed on a farm in Mayerthorpe. The killer had a long history
of violence and was under a firearms prohibition. If those four
officers had each made an inquiry to the registry they would have come
back negative.
The people who run the registry are so desperate for data to show that
their system is useful that they have resorted to citing the number of
hits on it. The only benefit in that case was that there would have been
four more hits, and there for a sign that police are using it.... or
following procedures it.
The fact is that the registry cannot be relied on to advice officers of
the presence of firearms. That is why police always assume that there
may be.
Erik®
> The Americans have targeted Anwar Al Awlaki a few days ago in Yemen.
> They murdered Gaddafi's son and grandchildren a few weeks ago. And
> through bombing they are killing people week in, week out in Pakistan.
> This is not widely reported on mainstream news but it is not denied by
> the USA or NATO when it happens, they either apologize or conflict
> with Pakistan over the nature of the victims.
Actually it's reported all the time.
> Here, I'm not complaining about bombing civilians although it is a far
> more heinous crime. I'm complaining about living in a world where it
> is okay for a President (or a Prime Minister) to capriciously and
> arbitrarily decide, I'm going to kill him, does it, and that's that. I
> would by far prefer to live ina world with the threat of criminals
> and terrorists.
Well then you've bought into the 'us vs. them' mentality the western
pols would like you to have. And you choose to be part of 'them'. If I
say that Presidents or PM's kill people all the time and that the
terrorist threat is so insignificant as to be meaningless it makes you
pretty angry, doesn't it?
> In this way we have become terrorists. I say we because the Americans
> usually define the situation about what's normal and acceptable -
> Harper may do the same.
I'm not an American - are you? If 'we' are to become part of the cabal
via Harper, don't forget that your pals Iggy and Bob Rae wanted Canada
to stick around in Afghanistan when Harper announced we were out. But
of course they were only your pals when you were Wally Scoop, right?
> And even if you accept Obama's murdering of
> enemies, what about two, three Presidents down the line? Sarah Palin
> or Adolph Schmitler decides they are going to kill communists,
> leftists, fascists, Jews, atheists Muslims because they are a menace
> to society. You say that's a stretch? Not once you cross this line
> (sanctioning extrajudicial killings).
As Chom already pointed out, extra-judicial killings are already de-
facto sanctioned in Canada. If you got off your fat-ass pulpit for a
change you might discover that this kind of behaviour is more important
to me than Osama bin Laden. It has been for years.
> Don't get caught up in the emotional flavour of the day. The
> particular situation doesn't matter.
>
> As I said before, I find it Twilight Zonish that I'm making this
> argument with reasonable people on Usenet. I find it very bizarre.
> What's even more bizarre is that you all disagree with me even though
> you say you agree with the principle.
I'm only one person - not 'you all'. And here we go again... another
Archie melt-down...
> You don't agree with the
> principle.
That's right. I'm a big bogeyman secret Conservative supporter who just
'pretends' to have principles.
> Your argument is that "given the reality that
> this is going on all the time now" and worse is happening I perhaps
> should just pipe down.
Your argument is that anyone who posts anything that doesn't exactly
parrot what you say is some kind of enemy. Incredible: Archie creates a
strawman and then claims it attacked him!
[ed. Archie's rant continues...]
> My fear is that soon people like you
There's no one else like me, Archie.
> will be saying 'pipe down or you
> deserve what you get'.
Or maybe "fuck off" which is a standard retort or yours?
[ed. next Archie begins to describe his personal background]
> In my early twenties I started a breakaway
> union against a corrupt American union and was told by a surprising
> number of people that I better watch my back. I better just shut up.
> The American union even came around with men in suits and we knew they
> were trying to intimidate us. Let's not, collectively, stop barking -
> for fucks sake.
Irrelevant.
> > The problem with that is that there has never really been an established
> > tradition of international 'rule of law'. There've been stabs at it:
> > the former practice of formally declaring war before invading another
> > state, and the idea of diplomatic privilege; the Geneva Conventions...
> > Nowadays all we have are UN resolutions and threats from toothless
> > international kangaroo courts over in Europe. So there are no rules.
>
> Eric. You are arguing technicalities when the state is assassinating
> people - not trial, not even an attempt to capture. This is scary
> shit. What are we becoming here?
Now we're 'we' are we?
> > The only court left that matters is the court of public opinion.
And
> > this gets addressed, as I suggested before, by telling us about how our
> > troops are getting killed while serving the innocent people of the
> > countries we're attacking.
> NO!!!! The court of public opinion is exactly what we need to protect
> ourselves against. Tyrants like Hitler are experts at shaping public
> opinion. Do you really think Hoitler was a one off? Do you really
> think the same thing can't happen again? It's happening again.
So if you don't believe that the court of public opinion is the way to
go - that it's actually the enemy, then lets all watch Archie foam at
the mouth until the clouds part and the sun shines once again.
> So, if you agree that the rule of law is being corrupted, why are you
> making an argument ostensibly in support of extrajudicial killing aka
> murder in the first degree.
Simple. The other guys in our usenet posting consortium told me to.
Also, I need to make sure the checks from the Fraser Institute keep
coming in.
I'm done with you, Archie. You are an angry martinet - a dilletante who
spouts rubbish to usenet due to your own personal issues.
Roy
<a wee bit of snippage>
> I'm done with you, Archie. You are an angry martinet - a dilletante who
> spouts rubbish to usenet due to your own personal issues.
==
Archie was more civil and "reasonable" when he was Wally
Scoop...perhaps he should keep that persona for a while and continue
with a more amiable interchange of ideas.
==
Archie
>
> Well then you've bought into the 'us vs. them' mentality the western
> pols would like you to have. And you choose to be part of 'them'. If I
> say that Presidents or PM's kill people all the time and that the
> terrorist threat is so insignificant as to be meaningless it makes you
> pretty angry, doesn't it?
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
>
> > In this way we have become terrorists. I say we because the Americans
> > usually define the situation about what's normal and acceptable -
> > Harper may do the same.
>
> I'm not an American - are you? If 'we' are to become part of the cabal
> via Harper, don't forget that your pals Iggy and Bob Rae wanted Canada
> to stick around in Afghanistan when Harper announced we were out. But
> of course they were only your pals when you were Wally Scoop, right?
Wally Scoop was playing. I don't have a partisan bone in my body.
>
> > And even if you accept Obama's murdering of
> > enemies, what about two, three Presidents down the line? Sarah Palin
> > or Adolph Schmitler decides they are going to kill communists,
> > leftists, fascists, Jews, atheists Muslims because they are a menace
> > to society. You say that's a stretch? Not once you cross this line
> > (sanctioning extrajudicial killings).
>
> As Chom already pointed out, extra-judicial killings are already de-
> facto sanctioned in Canada. If you got off your fat-ass pulpit for a
> change you might discover that this kind of behaviour is more important
> to me than Osama bin Laden. It has been for years.
I'm missing something. What's more important to you?
>
> I'm only one person - not 'you all'. And here we go again... another
> Archie melt-down...
I am arguing here with more than you and you are all treating the
American state *as lynch mob* as just another day on the killing
fields.
>
> That's right. I'm a big bogeyman secret Conservative supporter who just
> 'pretends' to have principles.
>
> Your argument is that anyone who posts anything that doesn't exactly
> parrot what you say is some kind of enemy. Incredible: Archie creates a
> strawman and then claims it attacked him!
We are oceans apart in our philosophical outlook on the state and its
role.
>
> [ed. Archie's rant continues...]
>
> > My fear is that soon people like you
>
> There's no one else like me, Archie.
>
> > will be saying 'pipe down or you
> > deserve what you get'.
>
> Or maybe "fuck off" which is a standard retort or yours?
>
> > Eric. You are arguing technicalities when the state is assassinating
> > people - not trial, not even an attempt to capture. This is scary
> > shit. What are we becoming here?
>
> Now we're 'we' are we?
Let's not discuss the content - that the state is normalizing lynch
mob behaviour for fuck sake. Anything but.
>
> So if you don't believe that the court of public opinion is the way to
> go - that it's actually the enemy, then lets all watch Archie foam at
> the mouth until the clouds part and the sun shines once again.
You try to turn that statement into the equivalent to my seeing
"public opinion" as the enemy?
Really? You're not stupid Eric. You know exactly what I mean.
Would you see the "court of public opinion" in Germany in 1939 with
the same unconditional reverence? It's easy to whip nationalism and
hate into a dangerous frenzy. I'm afraid that's exactly what's
happening in the USA.
>
> Simple. The other guys in our usenet posting consortium told me to.
> Also, I need to make sure the checks from the Fraser Institute keep
> coming in.
>
> I'm done with you, Archie. You are an angry martinet - a dilletante who
> spouts rubbish to usenet due to your own personal issues.
That's a shame.
Why don't you think about what's pissing you off to this degree? Is it
all Archie's fault or is there something amiss in your view of the
state?