Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Conspiracy hypotheses

19 views
Skip to first unread message

Windmill

unread,
May 7, 2011, 1:47:15 PM5/7/11
to
None of the above could be dignified by the name 'theories', but for my
money they killed that Obama Sin Laden guy around 5 years ago.

No sensible organisation would wish to claim credit, if that is the
word.
Whoever did the Trade Towers job deserved to die, which is not to say
that one should wipe him/them out rather than finding out who was
behind so many deaths.
But if you were smart, you wouldn't want to say 'we were the ones who
got the guy'.
(One could think of a few who might have done the deed back then.)

Eventually, though, it becomes time to move on from the continuing
bogeyman stories.
Then you have to find someone to erase, someone you can claim was Mr.
Big (not sure how you'd say that in Arabic).

In which case the Pakistanis would have known _someone_ lived near
their base, but not the named bogeyman. If, indeed, anyone whose name
was so similar to the person who followed Bush did ever exist.


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
Til...@Nonetel.com @ O n e t e l
. c o m

M Holmes

unread,
May 10, 2011, 11:04:45 AM5/10/11
to
Windmill <spam-n...@Onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote:

> None of the above could be dignified by the name 'theories', but for my
> money they killed that Obama Sin Laden guy around 5 years ago.

I'm prepared to take them at their word that they killed him last week.

That itself leads to some new worries. The US was founded by folks who
wanted to escape despotic regimes and establish a country where rule of
law was the basis for a country in which everyone was equally protected.
There are many of us who laud such a project and have hoped the actual
US would move somewhat closer to it.

This is not a step in that direction. That US of the mind would have
arrested Bin Laden and either surrendered him for trial at The Hague or
tried him in a US court of law.

What we got instead is an Obama Death Squad. This is on a par with the
Israeli death squads which followed the 1972 Munich Olympics atrocities
where Israeli athletes were killed. They continued this tactic with
attacks in Lebanon to kill "known terrorists" in their houses. The US
condemned such attacks.

The Israeli death squads ended up killing an innocent waiter in Norway.
This sad event neatly demonstrated the problem of skipping the court of
law part: the Defence don't get to holler "Hand on a tick, you've got
the wrong guy!"

It also brings Obama into moral equivalence with Osama. Obama claims
that it's OK to kill people who are responsible for the murder of kith
and kin. Osama claims much the same reasoning for the Twin Towers,
except that "responsible for" is transitive from the Saudi government
which did the killing through the US governments which finance and
arm the Saudi government and then finally to the US population
which voted in those US governments.

My suspicion is that the cheering will stop when Obama's goons get a
wrong address on their no-knock murders and suddenly the voters find
themselves with President Palin.

Sadly, those who cheered extra-judicial murder will simply be reaping
what they've sown.

FoFP

Zimmy

unread,
May 10, 2011, 11:33:31 AM5/10/11
to
On 10/05/2011 16:04, M Holmes wrote:
> Windmill<spam-n...@Onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> None of the above could be dignified by the name 'theories', but for my
>> money they killed that Obama Sin Laden guy around 5 years ago.
>
> I'm prepared to take them at their word that they killed him last week.

Well lets look at the evidence: no photos, no Saddam-style videos and
hastily buried at sea. Hmmm.

>
> That itself leads to some new worries. The US was founded by folks who
> wanted to escape despotic regimes and establish a country where rule of
> law was the basis for a country in which everyone was equally protected.
> There are many of us who laud such a project and have hoped the actual
> US would move somewhat closer to it.
>
> This is not a step in that direction. That US of the mind would have
> arrested Bin Laden and either surrendered him for trial at The Hague or
> tried him in a US court of law.

Yes, but what evidence would they present against him in a proper court?
That he said things they didn't like in a few videos?
They probably weighed up the outrage against state-sponsored murder of a
state-labelled 'evil terrorist' versus the outrage against said
state-labelled evil terrorist getting off in a fair trial. Which would
you choose in their position?

>
> What we got instead is an Obama Death Squad. This is on a par with the
> Israeli death squads which followed the 1972 Munich Olympics atrocities
> where Israeli athletes were killed. They continued this tactic with
> attacks in Lebanon to kill "known terrorists" in their houses. The US
> condemned such attacks.
>
> The Israeli death squads ended up killing an innocent waiter in Norway.
> This sad event neatly demonstrated the problem of skipping the court of
> law part: the Defence don't get to holler "Hand on a tick, you've got
> the wrong guy!"
>
> It also brings Obama into moral equivalence with Osama. Obama claims
> that it's OK to kill people who are responsible for the murder of kith
> and kin. Osama claims much the same reasoning for the Twin Towers,
> except that "responsible for" is transitive from the Saudi government
> which did the killing through the US governments which finance and
> arm the Saudi government and then finally to the US population
> which voted in those US governments.
>
> My suspicion is that the cheering will stop when Obama's goons get a
> wrong address on their no-knock murders and suddenly the voters find
> themselves with President Palin.
>
> Sadly, those who cheered extra-judicial murder will simply be reaping
> what they've sown.

Jean Charles de Menezes's family might tell you that this is not only
limited to the US.

Z

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 10, 2011, 11:44:46 AM5/10/11
to
On 2011-05-10 16:33:31 +0100, Zimmy said:

> Yes, but what evidence would they present against him in a proper
> court? That he said things they didn't like in a few videos?
> They probably weighed up the outrage against state-sponsored murder of
> a state-labelled 'evil terrorist' versus the outrage against said
> state-labelled evil terrorist getting off in a fair trial. Which would
> you choose in their position?

fair trial. That's sort of the whole point.

M Holmes

unread,
May 10, 2011, 12:21:21 PM5/10/11
to
Zimmy <z@y.x> wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 16:04, M Holmes wrote:
>> Windmill<spam-n...@Onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> None of the above could be dignified by the name 'theories', but for my
>>> money they killed that Obama Sin Laden guy around 5 years ago.
>>
>> I'm prepared to take them at their word that they killed him last week.

> Well lets look at the evidence: no photos, no Saddam-style videos and
> hastily buried at sea. Hmmm.

Let's look at the counterevidence: someone said so on the interweb.

>> That itself leads to some new worries. The US was founded by folks who
>> wanted to escape despotic regimes and establish a country where rule of
>> law was the basis for a country in which everyone was equally protected.
>> There are many of us who laud such a project and have hoped the actual
>> US would move somewhat closer to it.
>>
>> This is not a step in that direction. That US of the mind would have
>> arrested Bin Laden and either surrendered him for trial at The Hague or
>> tried him in a US court of law.

> Yes, but what evidence would they present against him in a proper court?
> That he said things they didn't like in a few videos?

Such as claiming that he was responsible for both attacks on the Towers?

> They probably weighed up the outrage against state-sponsored murder of a
> state-labelled 'evil terrorist' versus the outrage against said
> state-labelled evil terrorist getting off in a fair trial. Which would
> you choose in their position?

I'd have chosen the rule of law, and that's not nearly because I don't
understand the instinct to revenge. I'd previously have hoped that
Obama's instincts ran that way too, and I'm much disappointed.

BTW: I don't think Bin Laden would have been acquitted. I do think the
uS would have been embarassed concerning the financing and training of
Bin Laden with US money in Afghanistan, and also by the fact that some
evidence would have been inadmissible because it was obtained in a US
torture camp.

Nevertheless, I still believe the US would look better in the world
today if it had taken that route.

If it insisted on the other way, I'd have retained respect for Obama if
he'd immediately surrendered himself at The Hague and invited them to
try him for a war crime, with the intention of proving otherwise.


>>
>> Sadly, those who cheered extra-judicial murder will simply be reaping
>> what they've sown.

> Jean Charles de Menezes's family might tell you that this is not only
> limited to the US.

I'm on record here as stating that the very last people who should be
asked about policy on drugs/guns/knives/whatever are the families of
victims and I'm astonished and sadenned that politicians cynically try
to use them. They can't help but think emotionally and the instinct to
revenge would run in all but saints in those circumstances.

The President of the uS however should be able to make a dispassionate
analysis and opt for the rule of law. That Obama cannot means he is
unfit for office. If he can, but chose not to, then he's as guilty of
using an execution to further his political career as Clinton was with
Robbie Ray Rector(*).

FoFP

(*) A previous Democratic tilt at the Presidency had been derailed by
the "revolving door" ads implying that the candidate was too soft on
crime and on executions. Clinton decided to prove himself tough
mid-campaign when he sanctioned this execution as Governor of Arkansas.
Robbie Ray Rector was so retarded at this point that he thought the
trial trips to the death sentence room were hospital visits and he put the
dessert of his last meal aside "for later".

--
During the time of the Scopes Trial, the folks who comprise the Tea
Party were led by William Jennings Bryan, an intellectual know-nothing.
Now they're led by know-nothing know-nothings. The US is not the better
for this.

TheMgt

unread,
May 10, 2011, 1:36:17 PM5/10/11
to
I suspect that the US actually did want to capture Bin Laden but are
reluctant to admit to a cockup. If they simply wanted to kill him they'd
have used a drone. Having him alive to parade on camera would have
nipped the conspiracy theories in the bud even if he didn't provide any
useful information.

Mike Dickson

unread,
May 10, 2011, 5:27:43 PM5/10/11
to
On 10/05/2011 16:04, M Holmes wrote:

> It also brings Obama into moral equivalence with Osama.

If you want to touch on the subject or moral equivalence, read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

I don't see a great gulf between the two of them.

> My suspicion is that the cheering will stop when Obama's goons get a
> wrong address on their no-knock murders and suddenly the voters find
> themselves with President Palin.

I just like the idea that it took trillions of dollars, incredible heaps
of dead bodies and a decade to find bin Laden. At home.

> Sadly, those who cheered extra-judicial murder will simply be reaping
> what they've sown.

Which is - among other things - another martyr. They are good at
martyrdom, those wacky guys. Mind you, so are the Americans. They just
like theirs Irish.

--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

Free Music Project: http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/
Or http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson
Or http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson
Or http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson
Or http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks

Mike Dickson

unread,
May 10, 2011, 5:30:23 PM5/10/11
to
On 10/05/2011 16:33, Zimmy wrote:

>> I'm prepared to take them at their word that they killed him last week.
>
> Well lets look at the evidence: no photos, no Saddam-style videos and
> hastily buried at sea. Hmmm.

The world isn't such a complicated place that complicated answers are
always needed.

> Yes, but what evidence would they present against him in a proper court?

My thoughts are that they might not like what he had to say, given that
he is more or less a US creation.

> Jean Charles de Menezes's family might tell you that this is not only
> limited to the US.

Oh hardly. There is nothing to say he wasn't killed by accident, however
gung-ho it may have been. They actually set out to execute the other guy.

Murff

unread,
May 10, 2011, 5:57:30 PM5/10/11
to
On Tue, 10 May 2011 15:04:45 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

>
> This is not a step in that direction. That US of the mind would have
> arrested Bin Laden and either surrendered him for trial at The Hague or
> tried him in a US court of law.
>

In an ideal world, maybe. However bin Laden alive simply wasn't worth the
kidnaps and other nonsense that would have followed his capture.

This was a high-risk operation. The Americans did their best to load
things in their favour: the best trained soldiers they had, stealthed
helicopters, maybe even tampering in one way or another with a local
Pakistani military response. Making sure that bin Laden gave no trouble
at all on the way out can be seen in this light as just another risk
mitigation.

Think Jimmy Carter and Iran for the alternative.

> What we got instead is an Obama Death Squad.

No, we didn't. Or at least no more than using drones. And a good deal
better than using drones for a number of reasons.

> It also brings Obama into moral equivalence with Osama.

No, it doesn't. Wiping out the whole town just to make the point that the
US really didn't like bin Laden would have brought them into moral
equivalence.

Facetious? Maybe, but slaughtering everyone they found in the compound
would also have been tending toward equivalence - and that would have
been very easy indeed. Apparently, the various Mrs bin Ladens are
currently in Pakistani custody, as opposed to being dead.

So it looks to me like lancing a nasty boil as cleanly and with as little
fuss as possible. That is absolutely not the same thing as trying to
stage spectacular mass atrocities for marketing purposes, which is al-
Qaeda's game.

> My suspicion is that the cheering will stop when Obama's goons get a
> wrong address on their no-knock murders and suddenly the voters find
> themselves with President Palin.

They do that frequently when they take out cars and houses with missiles
from their drones. The militants who are the targets make sure of it. It
pisses off the locals. "The voters" don't notice, or particularly care.

Murff...

M Holmes

unread,
May 11, 2011, 11:29:18 AM5/11/11
to
Mike Dickson <forename...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 16:04, M Holmes wrote:

>> It also brings Obama into moral equivalence with Osama.

> If you want to touch on the subject or moral equivalence, read this:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

Which says much the same as I did only with a great deal more superstition.

> I don't see a great gulf between the two of them.

Obama probably wouldn't use quite as much appeal to superstition, though
anyone who is serious about politics in the US has to at least sing on
Sunday.

>> My suspicion is that the cheering will stop when Obama's goons get a
>> wrong address on their no-knock murders and suddenly the voters find
>> themselves with President Palin.

> I just like the idea that it took trillions of dollars, incredible heaps
> of dead bodies and a decade to find bin Laden. At home.

If only they could find Lord Lucan too.

>> Sadly, those who cheered extra-judicial murder will simply be reaping
>> what they've sown.

> Which is - among other things - another martyr. They are good at
> martyrdom, those wacky guys. Mind you, so are the Americans. They just
> like theirs Irish.

The Irish weren't terrorists. The yanks saw them in a movie about
freedom and so they can't be terrorists.

The Palestinians and Wahabbis are terrorists though, because they want
their...

Oh, wait...

FoFP

M Holmes

unread,
May 11, 2011, 11:44:51 AM5/11/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 15:04:45 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

>>
>> This is not a step in that direction. That US of the mind would have
>> arrested Bin Laden and either surrendered him for trial at The Hague or
>> tried him in a US court of law.

> In an ideal world, maybe. However bin Laden alive simply wasn't worth the
> kidnaps and other nonsense that would have followed his capture.

Bin Laden may not have been worth it. The rule of law however might
just be worth just a little more consideration before we throw it into
the sea too.

> This was a high-risk operation. The Americans did their best to load
> things in their favour: the best trained soldiers they had, stealthed
> helicopters, maybe even tampering in one way or another with a local
> Pakistani military response. Making sure that bin Laden gave no trouble
> at all on the way out can be seen in this light as just another risk
> mitigation.

Alternatively:

1. Pakistan discovers where Bin Laden is hiding.

2. Pakistan tells the US.

2a. However, the US can't tell anyone Pakistan told them and so must
concoct a story about following a courier all over the planet.

3. Pakistan can't arrest Bin Laden because it'd be unpopular with its
own people.

3a. The US can't have Pakistan unpopular with its own people because:

3a1. Pakistan has physics packages.
3a2. Many in Pakistan can't be told from the folks the US fights in
Afghanistan and who the don't want to have the physics packages.

=>

4. The US has to go get Bin Laden, but

4a. The Pakistani government has to have deniability, though
4b. This is awkward because the Sandhurst of Pakistan is next door.

So

5. The US uses stealth helicopters and
5a. Leaves (destroyed) evidence of this behind to prove it, thus
5b. showing why the military missed the attack until too late.

Now

6. Bin Laden is dead and the two governments make a lot of noise to
ensure everyone has an excuse.

> Think Jimmy Carter and Iran for the alternative.

That must be uppermost in the mind of any US Pres who tries this.

>> What we got instead is an Obama Death Squad.

> No, we didn't. Or at least no more than using drones.

I agree that they're philosophically equal. However there's enough
established practice in collateral damage from air attacks that it is
not quite seen as outright murder any more. Sending a goon squad to a
home address to kill a specific person is just as much a death squad as
when any tinpot dictator does exactly the same thing. Obama being US
President doesn't give him a special pass in that regard.

> And a good deal
> better than using drones for a number of reasons.

It annoys the neighbours less?

>> It also brings Obama into moral equivalence with Osama.

> No, it doesn't. Wiping out the whole town just to make the point that the
> US really didn't like bin Laden would have brought them into moral
> equivalence.

Yeah, it's not like the US has done that anywhere...

> Facetious? Maybe, but slaughtering everyone they found in the compound
> would also have been tending toward equivalence - and that would have
> been very easy indeed. Apparently, the various Mrs bin Ladens are
> currently in Pakistani custody, as opposed to being dead.

Which do you suppose is better?

> So it looks to me like lancing a nasty boil as cleanly and with as little
> fuss as possible. That is absolutely not the same thing as trying to
> stage spectacular mass atrocities for marketing purposes, which is al-
> Qaeda's game.

You're saying that none of this was for marketing purposes?

>> My suspicion is that the cheering will stop when Obama's goons get a
>> wrong address on their no-knock murders and suddenly the voters find
>> themselves with President Palin.

> They do that frequently when they take out cars and houses with missiles
> from their drones.

I'm sure they do, but I'm unconvinced "they did it too!" will prove a
good excuse when they get it wrong up close and personal.

> The militants who are the targets make sure of it. It
> pisses off the locals. "The voters" don't notice, or particularly care.

I'm not taking a dim view of Obama because I especially like the other
side. Neither am I doing so because I'm especially prone to a knee-jerk
dislike of the US. I accept that a blot on humanity has been removed
from the landscape while still thinking what was done was nothing but
state-sanctioned murder.

FoFP

Sam Wilson

unread,
May 11, 2011, 12:31:04 PM5/11/11
to
In article <LKu6q...@freebie.onetel.net.uk>,
spam-n...@Onetel.net.uk.invalid (Windmill) wrote:

> ...


> In which case the Pakistanis would have known _someone_ lived near

> their base, but not the named bogeyman. ...

Having just spent some time within about 10km of the alleged hideout, I
can believe very easily that someone could successfully in that kind of
location. The standard form of housing is a compound with a high wall
and gates. Family groups are large and extended. You could exist in
one of these places without ever being seen by anyone outside the wall.

Sam

Sam Wilson

unread,
May 11, 2011, 12:32:44 PM5/11/11
to
In article <iqbk6d$2rtr$1...@automatic.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> ...

> Sadly, those who cheered extra-judicial murder will simply be reaping
> what they've sown.

I don't often agree with political analysis by Mycroft, but this I do.

Sadly.

Sam

Murff

unread,
May 11, 2011, 3:34:20 PM5/11/11
to
On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:44:51 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

> Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 15:04:45 +0000, M Holmes wrote:
>
>> In an ideal world, maybe. However bin Laden alive simply wasn't worth
>> the kidnaps and other nonsense that would have followed his capture.
>
> Bin Laden may not have been worth it. The rule of law however might
> just be worth just a little more consideration before we throw it into
> the sea too.
>

The rule of whose law, exactly ? The fact that everything seems to be
knee deep in lawyers these days doesn't make bumping off international
terrorist leaders illegal. Undesirable in a number of ways, maybe - but
even then, undesirable started a long time before.

>
> Alternatively:
> ...

Alternatively, the US considers what whilst there are clearly some in
Pakistan who see their interests as being aligned with the West -
particularly in the military given that a lot of Pakistani military kit
comes from there, and they can't go to the Russians because that is what
India uses.

But the ISI really can't be trusted. Period. Not even by the Pakistanis.
Quite possibly not even by itself.

So even assuming some parts of the Pakistani "authorities" did find out,
and did tell the US (as they claim they did), it is almost certain that
it was done without the knowledge of all, or at least some important
parts, of the ISI. Otherwise the US would have gotten to bin Laden's
house, and shot some poor skinny stable boy with a beard, then found
themselves with an Iran situation all over again.

> Sending a goon squad to a
> home address to kill a specific person is just as much a death squad as
> when any tinpot dictator does exactly the same thing. Obama being US
> President doesn't give him a special pass in that regard.

Not quite. Tinpot dictators tend to do it on their own turf. The West has
this idea that governments owe some sort of duty of care to their
citizens, which is why the dictators and their death squads are held in
bad odour. Sending in some soldiers to take out bin Laden, on someone
else's turf, and turf that could very easily have turned very hostile had
things gone wrong, is a different matter.

Otherwise, any unit of soldiers who kills any enemy combatants under any
circumstances, counts as a death squad.

>> And a good deal
>> better than using drones for a number of reasons.
>
> It annoys the neighbours less?
>

Amongst other things, yes.

> Yeah, it's not like the US has done that anywhere...

Where has the US wiped out a town to take out a single terrorist leader ?

>
>> Facetious? Maybe, but slaughtering everyone they found in the compound
>> would also have been tending toward equivalence - and that would have
>> been very easy indeed. Apparently, the various Mrs bin Ladens are
>> currently in Pakistani custody, as opposed to being dead.
>
> Which do you suppose is better?
>

I'm not sure. There would have been some sound reasons for taking them
out, too. On balance, leaving them alive is probably better.

>
> You're saying that none of this was for marketing purposes?
>

Not primarily, no. The US gained various organisational advantages from
decapitating al Qaeda, and presumably some intelligence gain from
documentation obtained on site. Obama got to make some political hay out
of it - deservedly since it was a politically brave move and a failure
would have ruined him. Maybe, even, given the apparent lack of an
alternative charismatic leader, and the deterioration of support for
militants implicit in the "Arab Spring", the US have inflicted
existential damage on al Qaeda.

And the US has nothing to gain from saying "look how strong we are".
Everybody knows the US is strong. That is the whole point of the
terrorist approach. 9/11 was no existential threat to the US (not even if
they'd hit the White House), scored no intelligence. It has as it turned
out inflicted reputational and financial damage on the US but not exactly
to al Qaeda's gain. 9/11 was purely a marketing exercise.

> I'm sure they do, but I'm unconvinced "they did it too!" will prove a
> good excuse when they get it wrong up close and personal.

They do get it wrong. So does everybody. de Menezes was about as up-close-
and-personal as it gets and the UK government survived. And that was on
domestic territory. US domestic law enforcement gets it wrong, too. So
does the occasional armed US citizen. I don't see any reason why the US
would be threatened by any of this. Or their voters.

And it is highly unlikely to make any difference to the notion of
"President Palin". Bumping off bin Laden was a good excuse for a bit of a
party and waving some flags. But it didn't do much about China, jobs, or
relatively expensive gasoline, which are more important items of voter
concern just now.

> I accept that a blot on humanity has been removed
> from the landscape while still thinking what was done was nothing but
> state-sanctioned murder.

It is one of the things states do - carry out offensive operations on
foreign soil. The legality is normally determined after the fact.

Murff...

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 11, 2011, 6:16:33 PM5/11/11
to
On 2011-05-11 20:34:20 +0100, Murff said:

> The rule of whose law, exactly ? The fact that everything seems to be
> knee deep in lawyers these days doesn't make bumping off international
> terrorist leaders illegal.

What law would make it legal?

Murff

unread,
May 11, 2011, 6:32:12 PM5/11/11
to

One could propose any number of laws which "would make it legal",
explicitly, were one so minded. However, that reverses the point. Under
what law is it *illegal* ?

Murff...

Mike Dickson

unread,
May 12, 2011, 1:19:17 AM5/12/11
to
On 11/05/2011 20:34, Murff wrote:

>> Yeah, it's not like the US has done that anywhere...
>
> Where has the US wiped out a town to take out a single terrorist leader ?

Thinking back to the first time the US bombed Tripoli, they managed to
flatten about four blocks around the Colonel's house as well as blasting
his own home to powder.

Mind you, they also quite specifically said that they were not after his
as a specific target, so that was alright.

--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

Mike Dickson

unread,
May 12, 2011, 1:20:31 AM5/12/11
to

Doesn't Pakistan (or any other country for that matters) have laws
covering murder?

--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 12, 2011, 2:38:02 AM5/12/11
to
On 2011-05-11 23:32:12 +0100, Murff said:

> One could propose any number of laws which "would make it legal",
> explicitly, were one so minded. However, that reverses the point. Under
> what law is it *illegal* ?

I'm not sure which legal code it would come under (US? Pakistan?), but
they presumably both have laws which say that, by default, killing
people is illegal. So you'd need to find some kind of exception to
that general case to make it legal.

Zimmy

unread,
May 12, 2011, 4:17:37 AM5/12/11
to


I do broadly agree, my point being that these issues are so well spun
that, for me, its virtually impossible to come to a definite conclusion
as to what exactly happened and why.
However, I find nothing to celebrate in this case and suggest that we
(as in 'the West') have done nothing to prevent further anger and
terrorism against us, and we will all have to live with continuing
counter-terrorism measures, although hopefully not to the extent of JCdM.

Z

M Holmes

unread,
May 12, 2011, 7:14:53 AM5/12/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:44:51 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

>> Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 15:04:45 +0000, M Holmes wrote:
>>
>>> In an ideal world, maybe. However bin Laden alive simply wasn't worth
>>> the kidnaps and other nonsense that would have followed his capture.
>>
>> Bin Laden may not have been worth it. The rule of law however might
>> just be worth just a little more consideration before we throw it into
>> the sea too.

> The rule of whose law, exactly ?

I'd be happy enough with The Hague in this instance. It'd have been an
improvement on assassination though to go with US or Pakistani law.

> The fact that everything seems to be
> knee deep in lawyers these days doesn't make bumping off international
> terrorist leaders illegal.

I noted that the US condemned this tactic when Israel used it with their
death squads after the 1972 Olympics and when the killed a terrorist
leader in Lebanon.

As far as international law goes, note that the US has not declared war
on Pakistan, an so bumping of residents of Pakistan is dodgy at the very
least.

I'd retain some admiration for Obama though if he surrendered himself at
The Hague willing to prove this was a lawful act.

> Undesirable in a number of ways, maybe - but
> even then, undesirable started a long time before.

That will be relevant when "They did it too!" becomes a valid legal
defence. For most of us, its legal utility expired around age three.

FoFP

M Holmes

unread,
May 12, 2011, 7:38:20 AM5/12/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:

>> Sending a goon squad to a
>> home address to kill a specific person is just as much a death squad as
>> when any tinpot dictator does exactly the same thing. Obama being US
>> President doesn't give him a special pass in that regard.

> Not quite. Tinpot dictators tend to do it on their own turf. The West has
> this idea that governments owe some sort of duty of care to their
> citizens, which is why the dictators and their death squads are held in
> bad odour. Sending in some soldiers to take out bin Laden, on someone
> else's turf, and turf that could very easily have turned very hostile had
> things gone wrong, is a different matter.

I think that's even worse. How would the US feel if someone send a goon
squad to their turf to kill their citizens? Oh, wait...

> Otherwise, any unit of soldiers who kills any enemy combatants

In what way is Bin Laden an "enemy combatant"? The Geneva Conventions
would require US Congress to declare war on Pakistan *and* for Bin
Laden to have been wearing an enemy uniform in battle, not sitting in
his pyjamas watching "The IT Crowd" at home.

> under any
> circumstances, counts as a death squad.

If it kills civilians at home deliberately, it's a death squad.

>> Yeah, it's not like the US has done that anywhere...

> Where has the US wiped out a town to take out a single terrorist leader ?

Was New York wiped out on your planet?

>> You're saying that none of this was for marketing purposes?

> Not primarily, no.

Come on. Obama has milked this for all the votes he could.

> The US gained various organisational advantages from
> decapitating al Qaeda, and presumably some intelligence gain from
> documentation obtained on site.

Given.

> And the US has nothing to gain from saying "look how strong we are".
> Everybody knows the US is strong. That is the whole point of the
> terrorist approach. 9/11 was no existential threat to the US (not even if
> they'd hit the White House), scored no intelligence. It has as it turned
> out inflicted reputational and financial damage on the US

Out of the US overreaction in invading a country which had zilch to do
with 9/11 and in unnecessarily groping and searching its own and other
citizens as they travel to and from the US. Bin Laden had their number
and knew theey'd overreact. It's part of the Terrorist Recruitment Guide
to get an enemy to do that. Abu Ghraib and the Guantanam Torture Camp
were probably unexpected bonuses. A Death Squad though, that really
brings The Great Satan down to Al Qaeda's level. I'm massively
disappointed in the US for falling for it, but their reaction on 9/11
indicated it was always on the cards they'd be manipulated into this.

>> I'm sure they do, but I'm unconvinced "they did it too!" will prove a
>> good excuse when they get it wrong up close and personal.

> They do get it wrong. So does everybody. de Menezes was about as up-close-
> and-personal as it gets and the UK government survived.

Largely because it was a cockup rather than a planned assassination. See
the Gibraltar deaths for the public's reaction when a UK government
decides on a public execution using death squads.

> And that was on
> domestic territory. US domestic law enforcement gets it wrong, too. So
> does the occasional armed US citizen. I don't see any reason why the US
> would be threatened by any of this. Or their voters.

Threatened? Perhaps not. Lost yet more moral authority? Definitely.
Those lefties who've been whining for years about the Bush torture
camps, and who have been cheering this, have been duly noted. I
anticipate a shortkey for "hypocrite" becoming necessary in the near future.

Not, of course, that I would dream of accusing you of being a leftie.

> And it is highly unlikely to make any difference to the notion of
> "President Palin".

Let's see what happens when the Death Squad gets a wrong address.

> Bumping off bin Laden was a good excuse for a bit of a
> party and waving some flags. But it didn't do much about China, jobs, or
> relatively expensive gasoline, which are more important items of voter
> concern just now.

China is headed for its own credit crash. Nobody knows if it will
happen before next November. Yanks are paying half what the rest of us
pay for petrol, but of course they don't care. Given that it's the yank
presses being run by Sir Printsalot's apprentice that are mainly causing
the commodities spike, they deserve what they get. The Job situation
will probably continue to improve in the US while the money-printing
lasts. It's when they find out that they can't borrow their way out of
debt that things will start to get difficult over there.

>> I accept that a blot on humanity has been removed
>> from the landscape while still thinking what was done was nothing but
>> state-sanctioned murder.

> It is one of the things states do - carry out offensive operations on
> foreign soil. The legality is normally determined after the fact.

,,,, by the winners. Yes, I'm realist enough to understand that.

FoFP

Julian Bradfield

unread,
May 12, 2011, 8:20:18 AM5/12/11
to
On 2011-05-12, M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In what way is Bin Laden an "enemy combatant"?

Because he declared that he was conducting a war against the U.S. ?

> The Geneva Conventions
> would require US Congress to declare war on Pakistan *and* for Bin
> Laden to have been wearing an enemy uniform in battle, not sitting in
> his pyjamas watching "The IT Crowd" at home.

The Geneva Conventions only apply to other State Parties. There are no
Geneva Conventions about war with a non-state organization.

> Largely because it was a cockup rather than a planned assassination. See
> the Gibraltar deaths for the public's reaction when a UK government
> decides on a public execution using death squads.

You have some evidence that the rest of us haven't seen?
Nor was there a particularly dramatic reaction at the time to the
suggestions that the killings were intended, which suggestion has
been rejected by the inquest jury, the ECHR, and the historian of MI5.

M Holmes

unread,
May 12, 2011, 8:32:56 AM5/12/11
to

*Suggestions* that the killings were intended? Is it supposed by anyone
that the SAS were indulging in target practice in a public place and the
IRA activists just happened to be standing where they were practicing?

Unless one has a very poor view of the SAS's shooting skills, one would
have to believe that they did in fact intend to shoot and kill the IRA
people.

> which suggestion has
> been rejected by the inquest jury, the ECHR, and the historian of MI5.

I admit I missed that.

I do remember that there was a great deal of anger at the actions of the
SAS, although many did support it and indeed celebrate that there were
three fewer of the IRA around.

Julian Bradfield

unread,
May 12, 2011, 8:44:00 AM5/12/11
to
On 2011-05-12, M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 2011-05-12, M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
...

>>> Largely because it was a cockup rather than a planned assassination. See
>>> the Gibraltar deaths for the public's reaction when a UK government
>>> decides on a public execution using death squads.
>
>> You have some evidence that the rest of us haven't seen?
>> Nor was there a particularly dramatic reaction at the time to the
>> suggestions that the killings were intended,
>
> *Suggestions* that the killings were intended? Is it supposed by anyone
> that the SAS were indulging in target practice in a public place and the
> IRA activists just happened to be standing where they were practicing?

"intended" in the sense "decided by the UK government", as you said.

>> which suggestion has
>> been rejected by the inquest jury, the ECHR, and the historian of MI5.
>
> I admit I missed that.

The inquest brought in justifiable homicide. The ECHR rejected
suggestions that the operation was conducted with intent to kill; it
found (10-9) against the UK government on the ground that the
planning of the operation did not give sufficient weight to the
desirability of avoiding situations where the soldiers on the ground
might think it necessary to shoot. The judgement is a bit hazy about
whether this is to be ascribed to incompetence, or to a bad balancing
exercise. The MI5 historian thinks it was just not well enough planned.

Murff

unread,
May 12, 2011, 1:05:46 PM5/12/11
to
On Thu, 12 May 2011 11:38:20 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

> Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
>
>> Otherwise, any unit of soldiers who kills any enemy combatants
>
> In what way is Bin Laden an "enemy combatant"?

In a good deal more of a way than he had any claim to being a "civilian".



> If it kills civilians at home deliberately, it's a death squad.
>

Again, that is to assume bin Laden qualified for civil protections. *If*
he did so qualify, then fair enough. I'm afraid my credulity doesn't
stretch so far as to accept that. The US is imperfect in many ways - but
in this case I'm happy to accept that bin Laden had put himself beyond
any claim to civil protection.

And, given that:

a. He was leader of a paramilitary organisation, and

b. Pakistan, as a state, could not be trusted

bin Laden qualified as a legitimate military target. Messy, yes. But like
undesirable, messy started a long time before this.

>> Where has the US wiped out a town to take out a single terrorist leader
>> ?
>
> Was New York wiped out on your planet?
>

I hadn't noticed the US armed forces, or intelligence services, trying to
wipe out New York recently. Hollywood has tried so on numerous occasions,
but that maybe isn't the same thing.

>>> You're saying that none of this was for marketing purposes?
>
>> Not primarily, no.
>
> Come on. Obama has milked this for all the votes he could.

So what ? It has certainly made him look rather better - and counter to
some very specific Republican criticisms - than he did before. But there
aren't any votes happening soon.

And that is in no way equivalent to doing it for marketing purposes.

> Out of the US overreaction in invading a country which had zilch to do
> with 9/11 and in unnecessarily groping and searching its own and other
> citizens as they travel to and from the US.

"Groping" ? I've been to the US a number of times since 9/11 and whilst
they do things like fingerprint scans and so on, I've never been
"groped". I've also always found the DHS people on the inbound desks to
be very polite, too.

> Threatened? Perhaps not. Lost yet more moral authority? Definitely.

By taking out bin Laden ? No, I don't think so. Yes, by invading Iraq
when that had nothing to do with al Qaeda and 9/11. Yes, ultimately by
making a mess of Afghanistan. *Not* by attacking the Taliban, but by
making a mess of the regime change. But not by taking out bin Laden.



> Not, of course, that I would dream of accusing you of being a leftie.
>

We do aim to please :-)



>> And it is highly unlikely to make any difference to the notion of
>> "President Palin".
>
> Let's see what happens when the Death Squad gets a wrong address.

Uh huh. Care to provide some examples of intended targets, that might
result in entertainingly wrong addresses ?

>> Bumping off bin Laden was a good excuse for a bit of a party and waving
>> some flags. But it didn't do much about China, jobs, or relatively
>> expensive gasoline, which are more important items of voter concern
>> just now.
>
> China is headed for its own credit crash.

Taking the perspective of the "US voter" for a minute - since that was
the "marketing target" we were talking about: so what ?

And in any case, even where the dependencies between the US and China are
understood - and more to the point ignoring any notions of "superpower
prestige" - the potential impact of such a crash on the US remains a
cause for concern. China still ranks unfinished terrorism business in
voters' minds.

> Yanks are paying half what the rest of us
> pay for petrol, but of course they don't care.

They do care lots. Because they don't see the artificial differences in
fuel prices between the US and, say, European countries brought on by
taxation. They see the very real increase in relative domestic fuel
costs. That through choice and oversight the US has made itself
particularly vulnerable to the economic damage caused by price rises only
makes it more of a voter concern: because it means solutions are far
harder to grasp. So gasoline prices also still outrank terrorism in
voters' minds.

> The Job situation
> will probably continue to improve in the US while the money-printing
> lasts. It's when they find out that they can't borrow their way out of
> debt that things will start to get difficult over there.

... except that the job situation isn't actually improving particularly.
Maybe those who are in work are feeling less nervous, but hiring isn't
picking up as much as it has in the past. The voters already know they
can't borrow their way out of debt. And they do know that the politicians
are trying to duck the issue. So jobs and debt still rank terrorism, too.

With the possible exception, that it isn't clear anyone there is being
honest with themselves or the public about the deficit, *all* this will
be very clear to Obama. And still the election is a good way off -
certainly time for a relatively minor feel-good to dissipate. So the
political payoffs for Obama just don't make sense as a marketing
exercise, to justify the risk.

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 12, 2011, 1:07:48 PM5/12/11
to
On Thu, 12 May 2011 12:32:56 +0000, M Holmes wrote:
>
> I do remember that there was a great deal of anger at the actions of the
> SAS, although many did support it and indeed celebrate that there were
> three fewer of the IRA around.
>

A "great deal of anger" ? Depends how closely you look.

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 12, 2011, 1:24:23 PM5/12/11
to
On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:17:37 +0100, Zimmy wrote:

> However, I find nothing to celebrate in this case and suggest that we
> (as in 'the West') have done nothing to prevent further anger and
> terrorism against us, and we will all have to live with continuing
> counter-terrorism measures, although hopefully not to the extent of
> JCdM.

We're not the only actors in this. The Pakistani ISI, for example, isn't
necessarily supportive of anti-NATO operations in Afghanistan because it
has been infiltrated by militants (though there may be some of that). It
is supportive because it is in the interests of the state of Pakistan to
keep those parts of the country quiescent where its writ doesn't run; and
because it is using much the same people in activities against India.

Mossad does its own activities, too.

It isn't even necessarily clear that the West is uppermost in a lot of
the militant's minds for much of the time. The Afghan Mujahideen were
happy to accept US support when they were bashing the Russians.

Remember Vietnam ? And the Domino Theory ? How all those nasty commies
were trying to dominate the world ? The Vietnamese were nationalists -
they'd only gone to the Russians for help because the French had gotten
the US on their side, in support, as the Viet Minh saw it, of maintaining
a colonial presence. The next bunch the Vietnamese were fighting after
seeing off the Americans, were the Chinese. Then the Cambodians.

Murff...


Murff

unread,
May 12, 2011, 3:42:47 PM5/12/11
to
On Thu, 12 May 2011 11:14:53 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

> Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:44:51 +0000, M Holmes wrote:
>
>> The rule of whose law, exactly ?
>
> I'd be happy enough with The Hague in this instance.

Assuming you don't mean arbitrarily to finger Dutch law in this case, the
question still stands. Whose law ? It isn't at all clear that the Hague
Conventions make the US action illegal.

> It'd have been an
> improvement on assassination though to go with US or Pakistani law.
>

How so ? Going "with Pakistani law" would have been the same as dropping
leaflets saying "bugger off old chap, time to take to the caves again".
And US law explicitly allows (as does British law) for the use of lethal
force even in domestic cases. Military operations overseas are also
permitted.

So, whose law ? The ICJ ? The notion of anybody turning up at a court
and saying "Please Try me!" would at least be entertaining... Because
that is what it would come to. ICJ procedure requires an applicant.
Unless... I'm sure they'd let you have a go if you felt sufficiently
strongly about it.

>> The fact that everything seems to be
>> knee deep in lawyers these days doesn't make bumping off international
>> terrorist leaders illegal.
>
> I noted that the US condemned this tactic when Israel used it with their
> death squads after the 1972 Olympics and when the killed a terrorist
> leader in Lebanon.

Not very loudly. And that still doesn't make it illegal.

> As far as international law goes, note that the US has not declared war
> on Pakistan, an so bumping of residents of Pakistan is dodgy at the very
> least.

Dodgy, maybe. OTOH it isn't shown either that the Pakistani government -
or at least some elements of it - didn't know.

> I'd retain some admiration for Obama though if he surrendered himself at
> The Hague willing to prove this was a lawful act.

As I said "Please Try me" would at least be entertaining. More likely
Obama would be dead of old age before they figured out the legal protocol
for handling such a bizarre event.

>> Undesirable in a number of ways, maybe - but even then, undesirable
>> started a long time before.
>
> That will be relevant when "They did it too!" becomes a valid legal
> defence. For most of us, its legal utility expired around age three.

Legal defence is only relevant in the case of legal prosecution. There
isn't any clear illegality here - your preference for Obama asking the
ICJ to try him notwithstanding.

Murff...


Murff

unread,
May 12, 2011, 3:43:48 PM5/12/11
to
On Thu, 12 May 2011 06:19:17 +0100, Mike Dickson wrote:

>
> Mind you, they also quite specifically said that they were not after his
> as a specific target, so that was alright.

Yup. These damned desert mossies can get really big.

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 12, 2011, 3:47:39 PM5/12/11
to
On Thu, 12 May 2011 06:20:31 +0100, Mike Dickson wrote:

>
> Doesn't Pakistan (or any other country for that matters) have laws
> covering murder?

Presumably. They may depend on whether you're male or not.

However, how would that be relevant to *this case* being illegal ?

Murff...

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 12, 2011, 4:01:06 PM5/12/11
to
On 2011-05-12 20:47:39 +0100, Murff said:

> However, how would that be relevant to *this case* being illegal ?

If this case is not murder, there needs to be some exception to the
general law, which would make it murder. What is that exception?

Murff

unread,
May 12, 2011, 4:04:23 PM5/12/11
to

I'm not sure that it is true that "by default, killing people is
illegal". That is why in normal domestic cases a charge of murder, or
manslaughter etc, is brought, and tried. It is very clearly possible to
"kill someone" and for there to be no charge brought.

Note that that is not the same thing as the existence of a defence.

Examples of that are the application of lethal force by police, for
example, in the course of their duties; or private citizens defending
themselves.

Even so, it is still less clear how that would apply to a military
operation authorised by the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Services,
in pursuit of a legitimate military goal. You could maybe ask the US
Supreme Court to rule on it (I've had a quick check and I'm not sure the
Consitution is explicitly clear on this case), maybe when they'd stopped
laughing they'd tell you it was OK.

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 12, 2011, 6:58:25 PM5/12/11
to

Not so. You're making a presumption that this is a case of murder - or at
least that we should start by making that presumption.

What is this "general law" which needs some exception ? Rather than
presumption, in the "rule of law" surely you need to bring a charge of
murder ? You need to state your reasons for doing so, and the
justification for the charge being murder, as opposed to something else.
The simple fact that bin Laden ended up dead doesn't automatically, or by
default, mean he was murdered.

But, all that tedious rule of law stuff aside, you're bringing a charge
of murder. I'm rejecting that charge on the grounds that it was duly
authorised military action against a military target.

Murff...

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 13, 2011, 6:03:57 AM5/13/11
to
On 2011-05-12 21:04:23 +0100, Murff said:

> I'm not sure that it is true that "by default, killing people is
> illegal". That is why in normal domestic cases a charge of murder, or
> manslaughter etc, is brought, and tried. It is very clearly possible to
> "kill someone" and for there to be no charge brought.

Yes, that's why I said "by default" there are obviously plenty of
special cases where it is *not* illegal, but the default case, where
none of these special cases apply, is that it is illegal. Sorry, I'd
assumed that was clear.

> Examples of that are the application of lethal force by police, for
> example, in the course of their duties; or private citizens defending
> themselves.

Yes, precisely so.

>
> Even so, it is still less clear how that would apply to a military
> operation authorised by the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Services,
> in pursuit of a legitimate military goal. You could maybe ask the US
> Supreme Court to rule on it (I've had a quick check and I'm not sure the
> Consitution is explicitly clear on this case), maybe when they'd stopped
> laughing they'd tell you it was OK.

Yes, I think that is what they should be doing, or preferably should
have done before killing him. Maybe they did, even.

Note, you seem to be assuming that I think it was illegal. I don't
actually have an opinion on that: I just think that, if it wasn't there
needs to be something that says it wasn't.


Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 13, 2011, 6:06:58 AM5/13/11
to
On 2011-05-13 11:03:57 +0100, I said:

> Yes, that's why I said "by default" there are obviou

missing colon and other botched punctuation, should have been:

Yes, that's why I said "by default": there are obviously plenty of

special cases where it is *not* illegal but the default case, where

Murff

unread,
May 13, 2011, 6:21:15 AM5/13/11
to
On Fri, 13 May 2011 11:03:57 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:

>
> Yes, that's why I said "by default" there are obviously plenty of
> special cases where it is *not* illegal, but the default case, where
> none of these special cases apply, is that it is illegal. Sorry, I'd
> assumed that was clear.

Nope, sorry. "Default illegality" sounds uncomfortably like presumption
of guilt.



> Note, you seem to be assuming that I think it was illegal. I don't
> actually have an opinion on that: I just think that, if it wasn't there
> needs to be something that says it wasn't.

As a military operation, there already was.

Murff...

M Holmes

unread,
May 13, 2011, 6:48:26 AM5/13/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 21:01:06 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:

>> On 2011-05-12 20:47:39 +0100, Murff said:
>>
>>> However, how would that be relevant to *this case* being illegal ?
>>
>> If this case is not murder, there needs to be some exception to the
>> general law, which would make it murder.

> Not so. You're making a presumption that this is a case of murder - or at
> least that we should start by making that presumption.

I think most jurisdictins, when they see a boddy with bullet holes,
start from a presumption of murder and then look for exceptions (such as
self-defence).

Obviously, since this was a home-invasion, the normal concept of
self-defence doesn't apply.

> What is this "general law" which needs some exception ? Rather than
> presumption, in the "rule of law" surely you need to bring a charge of
> murder ? You need to state your reasons for doing so, and the
> justification for the charge being murder, as opposed to something else.
> The simple fact that bin Laden ended up dead doesn't automatically, or by
> default, mean he was murdered.

The bullet holes indcate that there was most likely human agency
involved in the death. Since he wasn't holding a gun, we can assume that
someone other killed him. It's looking like the sort of situation where
a normal cop would start to think about murder.

> But, all that tedious rule of law stuff aside, you're bringing a charge
> of murder. I'm rejecting that charge on the grounds that it was duly
> authorised military action against a military target.

The uS is not at war with Pakistan and we've established that he's not
an actor in a state military. Surely that means he's just a civilian
troublemaker and subject to arrest for his crimes much as were members
of the IRA?

FoFP

M Holmes

unread,
May 13, 2011, 6:54:11 AM5/13/11
to
Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> The Geneva Conventions
>> would require US Congress to declare war on Pakistan *and* for Bin
>> Laden to have been wearing an enemy uniform in battle, not sitting in
>> his pyjamas watching "The IT Crowd" at home.

> The Geneva Conventions only apply to other State Parties. There are no
> Geneva Conventions about war with a non-state organization.

In which case he's simply a criminal and should have been subject to
arrest and trial.

FoFP

M Holmes

unread,
May 13, 2011, 7:04:42 AM5/13/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:

>>> Where has the US wiped out a town to take out a single terrorist leader
>>> ?
>>
>> Was New York wiped out on your planet?
>>

> I hadn't noticed the US armed forces, or intelligence services, trying to
> wipe out New York recently. Hollywood has tried so on numerous occasions,
> but that maybe isn't the same thing.

Let's try it the other way around: where did Bin Laden wipe out an
entire town just to get a single person?

>>>> You're saying that none of this was for marketing purposes?
>>
>>> Not primarily, no.
>>
>> Come on. Obama has milked this for all the votes he could.

> So what ? It has certainly made him look rather better -

To you perhaps. Certainly not to me.

> and counter to
> some very specific Republican criticisms - than he did before. But there
> aren't any votes happening soon.

The candidates for the next US Presidential election have hit the point
in the electoral cycle where they declare themselves and seek support.

> And that is in no way equivalent to doing it for marketing purposes.

I'm not naive enough to swallow that one. Sorry.

>> Out of the US overreaction in invading a country which had zilch to do
>> with 9/11 and in unnecessarily groping and searching its own and other
>> citizens as they travel to and from the US.

> "Groping" ? I've been to the US a number of times since 9/11 and whilst
> they do things like fingerprint scans and so on, I've never been
> "groped".

You should sue. I've been groped, been through a terahertz scanner, and had
my shoes and belt searched. I was even (somewhat jokingly) threatened
with "the rubber glove" if I didn't shut up.

> I've also always found the DHS people on the inbound desks to
> be very polite, too.

Oh, they were polite enough.

>> Threatened? Perhaps not. Lost yet more moral authority? Definitely.

> By taking out bin Laden ? No, I don't think so. Yes, by invading Iraq
> when that had nothing to do with al Qaeda and 9/11. Yes, ultimately by
> making a mess of Afghanistan. *Not* by attacking the Taliban, but by
> making a mess of the regime change. But not by taking out bin Laden.

We differ on the last. Let's see how things play out when someone in the
US is assassinated. My prediction is that the US will not respond "Fair
enough. He was a military target".

>>> And it is highly unlikely to make any difference to the notion of
>>> "President Palin".
>>
>> Let's see what happens when the Death Squad gets a wrong address.

> Uh huh. Care to provide some examples of intended targets, that might
> result in entertainingly wrong addresses ?

You think that they won't try this again with other Al Qaeda high heid yins?

Richard Tobin

unread,
May 13, 2011, 7:00:09 AM5/13/11
to
In article <iqheg7$fe5$2...@dont-email.me>, Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:

>You could maybe ask the US Supreme Court to rule on it

Does the US Supreme Court have jurisdiction in Pakistan?

-- Richard

Richard Tobin

unread,
May 13, 2011, 7:06:31 AM5/13/11
to
In article <iqj0mr$o05$1...@dont-email.me>, Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:

>Nope, sorry. "Default illegality" sounds uncomfortably like presumption
>of guilt.

No, presumption of innocence is about whether someone committed a
given crime, not about determining whether some action is a crime.

-- Richard

Message has been deleted

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 13, 2011, 7:29:42 AM5/13/11
to
On 2011-05-13 11:21:15 +0100, Murff said:

> Nope, sorry. "Default illegality" sounds uncomfortably like presumption
> of guilt.

No, it doesn't. It is defaultly illegal *after it has been established
(by a trial) that you performed the act*.

Murff

unread,
May 13, 2011, 9:16:15 AM5/13/11
to

Did you end up with only one side left, by the time you'd finished
assembling that ? :-)

More seriously: then it isn't "default". It is specifically shown to the
extent required by law.

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 13, 2011, 9:17:39 AM5/13/11
to

Hence "like".

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 13, 2011, 9:17:09 AM5/13/11
to
On Fri, 13 May 2011 11:06:31 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

Hence "like".

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 13, 2011, 9:28:58 AM5/13/11
to
On Fri, 13 May 2011 10:48:26 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

> Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2011 21:01:06 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
>>> On 2011-05-12 20:47:39 +0100, Murff said:
>>>
>>>> However, how would that be relevant to *this case* being illegal ?
>>>
>>> If this case is not murder, there needs to be some exception to the
>>> general law, which would make it murder.
>
>> Not so. You're making a presumption that this is a case of murder - or
>> at least that we should start by making that presumption.
>
> I think most jurisdictins, when they see a boddy with bullet holes,
> start from a presumption of murder and then look for exceptions (such as
> self-defence).

You're forgetting "battle casualty".

>> But, all that tedious rule of law stuff aside, you're bringing a charge
>> of murder. I'm rejecting that charge on the grounds that it was duly
>> authorised military action against a military target.
>
> The uS is not at war with Pakistan and we've established that he's not
> an actor in a state military. Surely that means he's just a civilian
> troublemaker and subject to arrest for his crimes much as were members
> of the IRA?

Members of the IRA were when the occasion allowed. Quite a number of them
were shot when the occasion required, too. Not being a serviceman from an
enemy state, bin Laden's status isn't simplistically that of an enemy
soldier - at least to the extent that, say, the Hague Conventions cover
it. But "civilian due normal civil protections" is a long way from the
only alternative.

The US position would be that bin Laden was a legitimate military target,
and was taken out by legitimate military means. In this case, I'm happy
to accept that, because I'd have come to the same conclusion.

Murff...


Murff

unread,
May 13, 2011, 9:47:56 AM5/13/11
to
On Fri, 13 May 2011 11:04:42 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

>
> Let's try it the other way around: where did Bin Laden wipe out an
> entire town just to get a single person?

Let's try the original point: the US didn't try to wipe out an entire
town to make the point they didn't like bin Laden. bin Laden's boyos
wiped out approximately the population of a small town, essentially to
gain bragging rights amongst militants that he didn't like the US.

> You should sue. I've been groped, been through a terahertz scanner, and
> had my shoes and belt searched. I was even (somewhat jokingly)
> threatened with "the rubber glove" if I didn't shut up.

Perk of the job, I expect. Not my cup of tea, but it takes all sorts.

> We differ on the last. Let's see how things play out when someone in the
> US is assassinated. My prediction is that the US will not respond "Fair
> enough. He was a military target".

al Qaeda aren't expected to react "fair enough" either - though they do
seem comfortable with the notion that bin Laden was a military target.

>> Uh huh. Care to provide some examples of intended targets, that might
>> result in entertainingly wrong addresses ?
>
> You think that they won't try this again with other Al Qaeda high heid
> yins?

The more of them the better.

Murff...

M Holmes

unread,
May 13, 2011, 10:08:11 AM5/13/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:

>>> Not so. You're making a presumption that this is a case of murder - or
>>> at least that we should start by making that presumption.
>>
>> I think most jurisdictins, when they see a boddy with bullet holes,
>> start from a presumption of murder and then look for exceptions (such as
>> self-defence).

> You're forgetting "battle casualty".

You're forgetting there's no war between the US and Pakistan (because
the US Congress has not declared one) and so we have a civilian casualty
here. He is admittedly a Very Naughty Boy, but he's as much a civilian
as Gerry Adams is.

>>> But, all that tedious rule of law stuff aside, you're bringing a charge
>>> of murder. I'm rejecting that charge on the grounds that it was duly
>>> authorised military action against a military target.
>>

>> The US is not at war with Pakistan and we've established that he's not


>> an actor in a state military. Surely that means he's just a civilian
>> troublemaker and subject to arrest for his crimes much as were members
>> of the IRA?

> Members of the IRA were when the occasion allowed. Quite a number of them
> were shot when the occasion required, too.

I.E when they resisted arrest with extreme prejudice. Bin Laden was
watching telly in his pyjamas, not threatening to off his arrestors.

> Not being a serviceman from an
> enemy state, bin Laden's status isn't simplistically that of an enemy
> soldier - at least to the extent that, say, the Hague Conventions cover
> it. But "civilian due normal civil protections" is a long way from the
> only alternative.

The US was founded on the basis of law for all.

> The US position would be that bin Laden was a legitimate military target,
> and was taken out by legitimate military means. In this case, I'm happy
> to accept that, because I'd have come to the same conclusion.

If Al Qaeda off a politician here, will you take the same view?

M Holmes

unread,
May 13, 2011, 10:10:05 AM5/13/11
to
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

> US courts make some rather expansive claims of jurisdiction.

Then when it's suggested that something such as The Hague have universal
jurisdiction over war crimes, they come over all shy about the US having
sovereign intergrity over its borders.

M Holmes

unread,
May 13, 2011, 10:17:58 AM5/13/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2011 11:04:42 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

>>
>> Let's try it the other way around: where did Bin Laden wipe out an
>> entire town just to get a single person?

> Let's try the original point: the US didn't try to wipe out an entire
> town to make the point they didn't like bin Laden. bin Laden's boyos
> wiped out approximately the population of a small town

Except that this was in a rather big town. Should we say that Guantanamo
is a "torture town"?

Anyway, either it's OK to send goons into another country and kill
people in revenge for attacks on your kith and kin or it isn't. The
principle is the same whether you kill one or six million.

If it is OK, then why is it any less OK for Osama to do it than it is
Obama? (note: I accept that the government of a coutry can discriminate
in this regard, but in these two cases, neither government was consulted
beforehand).

> essentially to
> gain bragging rights amongst militants that he didn't like the US.

Much the same as Obama getting bragging rights amongst US voters.

>>> Uh huh. Care to provide some examples of intended targets, that might
>>> result in entertainingly wrong addresses ?
>>
>> You think that they won't try this again with other Al Qaeda high heid
>> yins?

> The more of them the better.

No doubt that's what the Israelis were cheering before their death
squads offed an innocent Norweigan waiter.

You might write it off as collateral damage. Personally, I'd rather live
under some sort of rule of law than be subject to the whims of the death
squads of various tinpot politicians.

Murff

unread,
May 13, 2011, 10:31:26 AM5/13/11
to
On Fri, 13 May 2011 14:08:11 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

> Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
>
>
>> You're forgetting "battle casualty".
>
> You're forgetting there's no war between the US and Pakistan (because
> the US Congress has not declared one) and so we have a civilian casualty
> here. He is admittedly a Very Naughty Boy, but he's as much a civilian
> as Gerry Adams is.

No, I'm not. The US took no military action against Pakistan. It took
military action against the head of an international terrorist
organisation.



>> Members of the IRA were when the occasion allowed. Quite a number of
>> them were shot when the occasion required, too.
>
> I.E when they resisted arrest with extreme prejudice.

When the situation required. The requirement is a tactical one which
includes getting out with your captive.

These days, for example, in a domestic environment and given the
existence of things like Tasers, even a target resisting arrest with a
firearm may well not warrant lethal force. Especially not in the first
instance. The domestic environment *usually* means that once the police
have subdued their target, the situation is over and everybody gets to go
home.

> Bin Laden was
> watching telly in his pyjamas, not threatening to off his arrestors.

In a potentially very hostile environment, where it doesn't take very
much at all for everything to go very badly wrong, the opposite case
applies. Bollocks this one up and he'll be off, with his reputation
strengthened, and it'll take you at least another 10 years to find him
again, if at all. Oh, and your failure will probably destabilise the
Pakistan government, too. And the locals don't know who you are but it is
obviously heavy business so they're keeping their heads down - for now.
So even if you do subdue your captive, you're not necessarily going to
get him out. And the more he wriggles in the process, the less likely you
are to get him out, the more likely you are to fail.

So, you kill him. Means you're more likely to get away. And even if you
don't get away, you've still got the job done. *That* is a tactical
military decision. It is not the sort of decision civil police tend to
encounter.

>
> The US was founded on the basis of law for all.
>

Don't have a problem with that, since I don't see anything other than a
lawfully authorised military operation against a legitimate military
target.

As I said, al Qaeda seem to agree. They're making noises about vengeance,
they're not consulting their lawyers.

>> The US position would be that bin Laden was a legitimate military
>> target, and was taken out by legitimate military means. In this case,
>> I'm happy to accept that, because I'd have come to the same conclusion.
>
> If Al Qaeda off a politician here, will you take the same view?

I can give them a list of ones they can get away with...

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 13, 2011, 11:11:53 AM5/13/11
to
On Fri, 13 May 2011 14:17:58 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

> Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 May 2011 11:04:42 +0000, M Holmes wrote:
>
>
>>> Let's try it the other way around: where did Bin Laden wipe out an
>>> entire town just to get a single person?
>
>> Let's try the original point: the US didn't try to wipe out an entire
>> town to make the point they didn't like bin Laden. bin Laden's boyos
>> wiped out approximately the population of a small town
>
> Except that this was in a rather big town.

Which hasn't been wiped out... al-Jazeera would have had a field day
reporting it, even if all the Western media were in on the conspiracy.

> Anyway, either it's OK to send goons into another country and kill
> people in revenge for attacks on your kith and kin or it isn't.

It is preferable not to have to.

> If it is OK, then why is it any less OK for Osama to do it than it is
> Obama?

Were al Qaeda interested in legal process, they'd be able to pursue it.
Lots of legal process in the US. They're not. They're interested in
waging what they see as war. Only it isn't war because they're not a
state.

> Much the same as Obama getting bragging rights amongst US voters.
>

Explain away the following difference: By taking out bin Laden, the US
can offer some justification in that they've compromised future
activities of al Qaeda and its members - both by removing their leader,
and through seizure of documentary intelligence. What similar aim can al
Qaeda offer in justification of 9/11 etc ?

> You might write it off as collateral damage. Personally, I'd rather live
> under some sort of rule of law than be subject to the whims of the death
> squads of various tinpot politicians.

I'm quite happy that the action was taken in a legal and lawfully
authorised way.

Murff...

Mike Dickson

unread,
May 13, 2011, 3:30:35 PM5/13/11
to
On 12/05/2011 18:07, Murff wrote:

> On Thu, 12 May 2011 12:32:56 +0000, M Holmes wrote:
>>
>> I do remember that there was a great deal of anger at the actions of the
>> SAS, although many did support it and indeed celebrate that there were
>> three fewer of the IRA around.
>>
>
> A "great deal of anger" ? Depends how closely you look.
>
> Murff...

*At the time* I don't remember much anger at all. There were some
slightly muted voices of discontent maybe, but given that they were an
active unit who had just planted a 500 pound car bomb under the
governor's car I'd say these voices were in the absolute minority.

As ever, the voices of discontent were raised a bit later and inevitably
by people who have never seen an angry man in their lives.

--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

Free Music Project: http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/
Or http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson
Or http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson
Or http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson
Or http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks

Mike Dickson

unread,
May 13, 2011, 3:36:19 PM5/13/11
to

Probably because it was technically illegal. By the technical bullet
that was fired through his technical skull.

I am guessing here I admit, but one of the few times that murder is
actually sanctioned is in times of war. Pretending that the US was 'at
war' is a convenient myth for them to hide their military activity behind.

That doesn't remove the fact that the overall result is not a bad one.
My overarching opinion is the same about the facts of the IRA on Gib in
1988. Which is 'fuck em'. You want to get involved in a dirty business?
Be prepared for a messy end. They don't have to play by any rules.

The means may (may) have been questionable, but the end result is not a
problem for most people. My only issue with it is that deaths tend
towards martyrdom which is a pretty good recruitment plan in some cases.

--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

Mike Dickson

unread,
May 13, 2011, 3:41:42 PM5/13/11
to
On 13/05/2011 11:21, Murff wrote:

> On Fri, 13 May 2011 11:03:57 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, that's why I said "by default" there are obviously plenty of
>> special cases where it is *not* illegal, but the default case, where
>> none of these special cases apply, is that it is illegal. Sorry, I'd
>> assumed that was clear.
>
> Nope, sorry. "Default illegality" sounds uncomfortably like presumption
> of guilt.

Only if you're pretty confused. The act and the concept of individual
'guilt' (or liability) are two distinct things.

A court won't debate the point as to whether a window was broken or not,
but will listen to arguments about whether you did it, whether you had
the right to do it or whether you intended to do it.

--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 13, 2011, 3:48:33 PM5/13/11
to
On 2011-05-13 14:16:15 +0100, Murff said:

> More seriously: then it isn't "default". It is specifically shown to the
> extent required by law.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

If person A has died
then if it is established that they were killed
then if it is established that person B killed them
then if it is established there are no special circumstances (ie "by
default")
then person B has performed an illegal act.

Mike Dickson

unread,
May 13, 2011, 3:50:27 PM5/13/11
to

They are not even remotely similar. One is the illegal act, the other is
the liability for that act.

--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

Murff

unread,
May 13, 2011, 6:45:40 PM5/13/11
to

That is rather too much process to go through to qualify as "default".

It may be an entirely correct process. But not "default".

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 13, 2011, 7:06:49 PM5/13/11
to
On Fri, 13 May 2011 20:36:19 +0100, Mike Dickson wrote:

> On 12/05/2011 20:47, Murff wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2011 06:20:31 +0100, Mike Dickson wrote:
>>
>> However, how would that be relevant to *this case* being illegal ?
>

> I am guessing here I admit, but one of the few times that murder is
> actually sanctioned is in times of war. Pretending that the US was 'at
> war' is a convenient myth for them to hide their military activity
> behind.
>

"Murder" is illegal, even in war. It happens that due to the nature of
war it is probably easier to get away with in wartime. But it is still
illegal. Obvious example, maybe, was the murder of Allied PoWs on
Hitler's orders following the escape from Stalag Luft 3 in March 1944.

I'm unconvinced by "pretending that the US was 'at war'".

"War" as a legal term according to, for example, the Hague Conventions,
or the US Constitution, doesn't clearly consider action against an
international terrorist organisation. Not surprising given when they were
written.

But "war" as an activity is conflict between "different people or
groups" (OED). So there is no "pretence". The conflict between the US and
al Qaeda has been described as "war" by both sides, it qualifies
therefore as "war" both by dictionary definition and by mutual agreement
of the protagonists, that the term is appropriate.

> The means may (may) have been questionable, but the end result is not a
> problem for most people. My only issue with it is that deaths tend
> towards martyrdom which is a pretty good recruitment plan in some cases.

That is certainly a cost - or at least a risk. As is al Qaeda's reaction
- which we have to assume will go beyond the very brave vengeance taken
against a bunch of young civil police recruits, and some civilians, with
no obvious connection to the US. Maybe one just has to have special
militant spectacles to see the logic of that sort of thing.

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 13, 2011, 7:09:48 PM5/13/11
to
On Fri, 13 May 2011 20:41:42 +0100, Mike Dickson wrote:

> A court won't debate the point as to whether a window was broken or not,
> but will listen to arguments about whether you did it, whether you had
> the right to do it or whether you intended to do it.

That is the point. There is no default: there is only the outcome of
consideration of the case. To invoke some kind of "default" implies not
doing the consideration.

Murff...

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 15, 2011, 2:44:52 PM5/15/11
to
On 2011-05-13 23:45:40 +0100, Murff said:

> That is rather too much process to go through to qualify as "default".
>
> It may be an entirely correct process. But not "default".

Have you considered a career in politics?

Mike Dickson

unread,
May 15, 2011, 3:02:23 PM5/15/11
to

He couldn't possibly comment.

--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

Murff

unread,
May 15, 2011, 4:19:31 PM5/15/11
to

I'd rather get paid for shovelling shit.

Murff...

Windmill

unread,
May 13, 2011, 7:32:19 AM5/13/11
to
M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:

>I'd have chosen the rule of law, and that's not nearly because I don't
>understand the instinct to revenge.

Then I'd say you're very unusual. I certainly understand it; what I
don't understand is why anyone past their teens still thinks it's OK to
indulge it.

>I'm on record here as stating that the very last people who should be
>asked about policy on drugs/guns/knives/whatever are the families of
>victims and I'm astonished and sadenned that politicians cynically try
>to use them. They can't help but think emotionally and the instinct to
>revenge would run in all but saints in those circumstances.

Amen to that.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
Til...@Nonetel.com @ O n e t e l
. c o m

Windmill

unread,
May 13, 2011, 7:27:16 AM5/13/11
to
M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:

>Windmill <spam-n...@Onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote:

>> None of the above could be dignified by the name 'theories', but for my
>> money they killed that Obama Sin Laden guy around 5 years ago.

>I'm prepared to take them at their word that they killed him last week.

I'm no longer willing to take the word of politicians - anyone's
politicians - for anything.
Believing the opposite of what they say is probably a good starting point.
(The law of opposites applies in many areas. NHS=National Illness
Service, MOD=Ministry of Offence, Life insurance=Death insurance,
"I have complete faith in XXX"=XXX is on his way out, Homeland Security
=Fatherland Insecurity.)

>That itself leads to some new worries. The US was founded by folks who
>wanted to escape despotic regimes and establish a country where rule of
>law was the basis for a country in which everyone was equally protected.
>There are many of us who laud such a project and have hoped the actual
>US would move somewhat closer to it.

I also felt that way. I like ordinary Americans: they do a lot of
things very well. But the sinking feeling in my stomach, which began
when it became clear that come hell or high water Bush was going to
invade Iraq, has never gone away.

>The Israeli death squads ended up killing an innocent waiter in Norway.
>This sad event neatly demonstrated the problem of skipping the court of
>law part: the Defence don't get to holler "Hand on a tick, you've got
>the wrong guy!"

We don't even know who else has been killed, by our incompetent goons
or anyone else's. If done away from public gaze, the few who knew could
be threatened into silence, using some of the laws passed for the
purpose.

>It also brings Obama into moral equivalence with Osama.

Precisely. Neither would tolerate such behaviour in their children,
but in affairs of state it's 'different'.

>Sadly, those who cheered extra-judicial murder will simply be reaping
>what they've sown.

I can't believe that it's possible to kill hundreds of thousands and
not create millions of enemies in the form of relatives and friends.

And it's not just a short-term thing.

I may not hate the English - I don't at all, and they also do a lot of
things right - but if I were a sports fan I too would be cheering for
whichever side was playing England.
There's a kind of folk memory, unconsciously absorbed by each generation.

Windmill

unread,
May 13, 2011, 7:39:41 AM5/13/11
to
TheMgt <the...@morningstar.eu.org> writes:

>I suspect that the US actually did want to capture Bin Laden but are
>reluctant to admit to a cockup. If they simply wanted to kill him they'd
>have used a drone. Having him alive to parade on camera would have
>nipped the conspiracy theories in the bud even if he didn't provide any
>useful information.

Of course there's also the interesting idea that the Republicans saw an
up-and-coming threat called Obama, and decided to give the unknown
terrorist a similar name as a way of discrediting Barack.
In which case, if they wanted to move on, they'd have to kill someone
and call him Osama.

(A bit far out, I suppose, but you never know with the 'redactists')

Windmill

unread,
May 13, 2011, 7:59:45 AM5/13/11
to
Mike Dickson <forename...@geemail.com> writes:

>I just like the idea that it took trillions of dollars, incredible heaps
>of dead bodies and a decade to find bin Laden. At home.

Maybe whoever is Mr. Big is always called Osama bin Laden. The king is
dead: long live the king.

Most names translate in some way; I wonder what his means. (They say Al
Qaeda just means The Camp. Not nearly scary enough in English.)

My father was in the Home Guard during the war, and I remember Bren
guns and a Sten gun under the table in the kitchen. Changed times!
I can still remember the special tones my parents used to refer to
someone called Mr. Mann. There's a way people talk when they refer to
'The Rothschilds' (or whatever), meaning that these are Important
People, and that was clearly the case with Mr. Mann.
Nowadays I wonder if every unit had a 'Mr. Mann' as a contact person
with central authority.
Didn't Dad's Army have a character called Captain Mainwaring or
Mannering or some such? I believe that was what set me thinking about
Mr. Mann.
Wouldn't any organisation which was or might have to become an
undercover operation need some tricky naming schemes?

Windmill

unread,
May 13, 2011, 8:05:17 AM5/13/11
to
Mike Dickson <forename...@geemail.com> writes:

>> Jean Charles de Menezes's family might tell you that this is not only
>> limited to the US.
>Oh hardly. There is nothing to say he wasn't killed by accident, however
>gung-ho it may have been. They actually set out to execute the other guy.

I suppose so. Though if for some undisclosed reason they did want to
kill Meneze we might not know for another 50 years.

It depends if they thought that we thought that he thought...... :-)

Windmill

unread,
May 13, 2011, 8:12:17 AM5/13/11
to
Sam Wilson <Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk> writes:

>Having just spent some time within about 10km of the alleged hideout, I
>can believe very easily that someone could successfully in that kind of
>location. The standard form of housing is a compound with a high wall
>and gates. Family groups are large and extended. You could exist in
>one of these places without ever being seen by anyone outside the wall.

But some individuals would have to go out for food, and people talk.
Not that it would matter if everyone knew for a fact that his name was
Potamo in Midden.

Windmill

unread,
May 13, 2011, 7:42:41 AM5/13/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> writes:

>> My suspicion is that the cheering will stop when Obama's goons get a
>> wrong address on their no-knock murders and suddenly the voters find
>> themselves with President Palin.
>They do that frequently when they take out cars and houses with missiles
>from their drones. The militants who are the targets make sure of it. It
>pisses off the locals. "The voters" don't notice, or particularly care.

It's not just 'they' who take out cars. We do too, because according to
what I've read some of the drones are remotely operated from the U.S.
by RAF personnel.

Windmill

unread,
May 13, 2011, 8:22:07 AM5/13/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> writes:

>Where has the US wiped out a town to take out a single terrorist leader ?

They wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki to discourage an emperor elsewhere.

>Not primarily, no. The US gained various organisational advantages from
>decapitating al Qaeda,

But how many heads does a hydra have?

>would have ruined him. Maybe, even, given the apparent lack of an
>alternative charismatic leader, and the deterioration of support for
>militants implicit in the "Arab Spring", the US have inflicted
>existential damage on al Qaeda.

We'll see.

>It is one of the things states do - carry out offensive operations on
>foreign soil. The legality is normally determined after the fact.

And the continuance of such operations may explain why SETI finds
nothing. Though I'd put my money on supernovae instead.

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 16, 2011, 8:24:39 AM5/16/11
to
On 2011-05-15 21:19:31 +0100, Murff said:

> I'd rather get paid for shovelling shit.

There's at least one story about using an algorithm for picking
politicians which is to pick the person who would least like to do the
job. Actually probably not a bad approach. (I am not sure if this is
"Null-P", though I suspect it's not.)

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 16, 2011, 8:28:55 AM5/16/11
to
On 2011-05-13 12:59:45 +0100, Windmill said:

> Maybe whoever is Mr. Big is always called Osama bin Laden.

Until quite recently they were always called "Ceaser". Are any still?

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 16, 2011, 8:33:48 AM5/16/11
to
On 2011-05-13 13:22:07 +0100, Windmill said:

> They wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki to discourage an emperor elsewhere.

In that case they were at war (it's not clear if that makes the
destruction of cities OK, but everyone was doing it, or trying to, by
then).

M Holmes

unread,
May 16, 2011, 9:26:10 AM5/16/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:

> Explain away the following difference: By taking out bin Laden, the US
> can offer some justification in that they've compromised future
> activities of al Qaeda and its members - both by removing their leader,
> and through seizure of documentary intelligence. What similar aim can al
> Qaeda offer in justification of 9/11 etc ?

Terrorists have two objectives:

1) recruit more terrorists. The most efficient way to do this is to
provoke the target t overreact and create moral repugnance at their
actions and thus a queue of folks at the recruiting stations.

2) terrorise the civilians of the target nation to think that the game
is not worth the candle and press for politicians to give in to demands.

Bin Laden failed fairly completely on 2 but succeeded beyond his wildest
dreams on 1. He got the US to institute torture camps, to invade a
country which not only had zilch to do with 9/11 but which was an enemy
of Al Qaeda, and finally managed to provoke a US President into forming
a death squad.

Whatever moral high ground the US may have had on the afternoon of 9/11
(and even the usually US-hating lefties I drink with had enormous
sympathy at that point) has now been completely squandered.

FoFP

Murff

unread,
May 16, 2011, 12:38:09 PM5/16/11
to
On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:24:39 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:

>
> There's at least one story about using an algorithm for picking
> politicians which is to pick the person who would least like to do the
> job. Actually probably not a bad approach.

In theory it isn't a bad approach. Probably open to abuse though as it
would create an incentive to look like you didn't want the job, when you
actually did.

Another approach might be something closer to jury service.

Only trouble with that is nobody really wants to *do* jury service so
everybody tries to get out of it.

On the whole I don't have any particular problem with representative
democracy. I'm not keen on the buggers trying to do more than they have
to, which always seems to result in heaps of expensive, inefficient
rules. But I've no trouble with the principle.

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 16, 2011, 1:06:42 PM5/16/11
to
On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:26:10 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

> Terrorists have two objectives:
>
> 1) recruit more terrorists. The most efficient way to do this is to
> provoke the target t overreact and create moral repugnance at their
> actions and thus a queue of folks at the recruiting stations.
>

OTOH bin Laden's bunch - and those like them - have slaughtered far more
Muslims than either the US has, or they have Westerners....

> Bin Laden failed fairly completely on 2 but succeeded beyond his wildest
> dreams on 1. He got the US to institute torture camps, to invade a
> country which not only had zilch to do with 9/11 but which was an enemy
> of Al Qaeda,

... so whilst this is true up to a point, the gain has been relatively
short-lived. Consider Iraq. The various "militant factions" started to
find that the US presence was wearing very thin, as an excuse for their
killing and maiming large numbers of Iraqi civilians, and young military
or police recruits. It is maybe a matter worthy of some debate the extent
to which this contributed to any improvement in stability in Iraq, versus
the US "surge".

Similarly, bin Laden's bunch "revenge" recently, was to kill a whole
bunch of young police recruits who it seems were at best very unlikely to
be connected with the US military action which took out bin Laden
himself. And some more Pakistani civilian bystanders.

This sort of thing starts being important because in asymmetric warfare,
the insurgents are critically dependent on the good will of the populace,
to an extent which the occupying force isn't. That, ultimately, helped
the UK and the Irish Republicans to recognise that neither could defeat
the other.

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 16, 2011, 1:18:33 PM5/16/11
to
On Fri, 13 May 2011 12:22:07 +0000, Windmill wrote:

> Murff <mu...@warlock.org> writes:
>
>>Where has the US wiped out a town to take out a single terrorist leader
>>?
>
> They wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki to discourage an emperor
> elsewhere.

If you mean Stalin, then fair enough :-)



>>Not primarily, no. The US gained various organisational advantages from
>>decapitating al Qaeda,
>
> But how many heads does a hydra have?

They aren't all equally formidable. So the fact that you won't run out of
terrorists doesn't stop their being some point, and benefit, in wiping
out the worst of them when you can.

Murff...

Windmill

unread,
May 17, 2011, 1:31:46 AM5/17/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> writes:

>On the whole I don't have any particular problem with representative
>democracy. I'm not keen on the buggers trying to do more than they have
>to, which always seems to result in heaps of expensive, inefficient
>rules. But I've no trouble with the principle.

I've felt for a long time now that there's nothing democratic about it;
people vote based on misinformation or for the wrong reasons or based
on dogma, and the politicians who're elected ignore what they said in
order to get the job and the 150K a year (probably more if you count
all the perks).

What it does do, though, is provide a mechanism for kicking the
bastards out before they become too entrenched, after which it would
only be possible to remove them by violence (which creates a very bad
precedent and encourages future Glorious Bleeders to kill dissenters
for fear they might be killed themselves).

Windmill

unread,
May 17, 2011, 1:50:32 AM5/17/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> writes:

>> But how many heads does a hydra have?
>They aren't all equally formidable. So the fact that you won't run out of
>terrorists doesn't stop their being some point, and benefit, in wiping
>out the worst of them when you can.

Unless you create ten new terrorists for each you kill, because of
(un)popular reaction to your killings.
That sort of thing must have greatly helped the IRA.

With a kill ratio of about 100:1 the U.S. would run out of opponents
before they ran out of Americans, but other factors would stop them
long before that became an issue.

Windmill

unread,
May 17, 2011, 2:03:34 AM5/17/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> writes:

>OTOH bin Laden's bunch - and those like them - have slaughtered far more
>Muslims than either the US has, or they have Westerners....

More than a million??

Murff

unread,
May 17, 2011, 3:43:51 AM5/17/11
to
On Tue, 17 May 2011 05:50:32 +0000, Windmill wrote:

> Murff <mu...@warlock.org> writes:
>
>>> But how many heads does a hydra have?
>>They aren't all equally formidable. So the fact that you won't run out
>>of terrorists doesn't stop their being some point, and benefit, in
>>wiping out the worst of them when you can.
>
> Unless you create ten new terrorists for each you kill, because of
> (un)popular reaction to your killings. That sort of thing must have
> greatly helped the IRA.
>

It isn't clear that the IRA had all that many actual terrorists. What
they did have was a lot of sympathisers. And a lot of them will have been
sympathetic anyway - "sympathy" doesn't necessarily mean actively
approving of what they called "the armed struggle". More than one (from
personal conversations) would have described their position as
"distatefully accepting the rationale for" it.

Again, though, much of the dynamic here is complex. It isn't simply a
case of "the US killed bin Laden, so al Qaeda gets a pile of recruits".
The US killed bin Laden, and al Qaeda "retaliated" by killing a pile of
young police trainees. Hmmm.

The Taliban didn't come to power in Afghanistan because everybody there
liked the idea of chucking rocks at women in the middle of football
pitches. They came to power in part through reach and organisation as the
most powerful of a range of interests - backed up when they were there,
by the usual sanctions available to religious authoritarian regimes.
Support for the Taliban now, on the ground, seems to depend in large part
on how likely they look to be getting NATO to lose interest and leave the
country to rot.

In Iraq, matters were even more complicated. Not only did you have the
power vacuum left by the removal of the Baathist regime: with the
instability as various sectarian and ethnic groups debated the issue in
the usual Middle Eastern manner. You had the Americans there, too.

> With a kill ratio of about 100:1 the U.S. would run out of opponents
> before they ran out of Americans, but other factors would stop them long
> before that became an issue.

Indeed. High profile targets can justify expense, sometimes. But the
returns diminish rapidly. Especially where the only reason much of the
electorate knows where a place is, is due to news reports of locals
shooting at US soldiers.

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 17, 2011, 3:45:39 AM5/17/11
to
On Tue, 17 May 2011 05:31:46 +0000, Windmill wrote:

>
> What it does do, though, is provide a mechanism for kicking the bastards
> out

Agreed absolutely.

Murff...

Murff

unread,
May 17, 2011, 3:58:34 AM5/17/11
to
On Tue, 17 May 2011 06:03:34 +0000, Windmill wrote:

> Murff <mu...@warlock.org> writes:
>
>>OTOH bin Laden's bunch - and those like them - have slaughtered far more
>>Muslims than either the US has, or they have Westerners....
>
> More than a million??

Quite possibly. In Iraq alone, principally due to insurgent action, the
Lancet suggested in excess of 600,000 "violent deaths" between March 2003
and June 2006 (very quick search on my part - "iraq insurgency casualty
count" on Goofle). That includes the second war - for which the "Iraq
Body Count" project suggested 7500 civilian casualties. A lot of these
violent deaths were due to truck and other suicide bombs aimed at market
places, police and army recruitment centres and so on.

That is just Iraq. It doesn't include places like Algeria, Morocco and so
on.

Murff...

Sam Wilson

unread,
May 17, 2011, 5:18:55 AM5/17/11
to
In article <LL4v8...@freebie.onetel.net.uk>,
spam-n...@Onetel.net.uk.invalid (Windmill) wrote:

> Sam Wilson <Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >Having just spent some time within about 10km of the alleged hideout, I
> >can believe very easily that someone could successfully in that kind of
> >location. The standard form of housing is a compound with a high wall
> >and gates. Family groups are large and extended. You could exist in
> >one of these places without ever being seen by anyone outside the wall.
>
> But some individuals would have to go out for food, and people talk.
> Not that it would matter if everyone knew for a fact that his name was
> Potamo in Midden.

So long as people were reasonably discreet or committed to the project
it would work.

Sam

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 17, 2011, 5:37:03 AM5/17/11
to
On 2011-05-16 17:38:09 +0100, Murff said:

> In theory it isn't a bad approach. Probably open to abuse though as it
> would create an incentive to look like you didn't want the job, when you
> actually did.

I think the magic element in the story was that they had a way of
telling if you were faking.

> On the whole I don't have any particular problem with representative
> democracy. I'm not keen on the buggers trying to do more than they have
> to, which always seems to result in heaps of expensive, inefficient
> rules. But I've no trouble with the principle.

my problem is people who are driven by wanting power (which the story
was about as well, which is probably why it made an impression on me).

Murff

unread,
May 17, 2011, 6:04:49 AM5/17/11
to

I accept that, but I think the most practicable approach is to set limits
on the power they can wield. Assuming that it is better to have
representatives with some measure of clue, then as with any job someone
who wants it is more likely to demonstrate that, than somebody plucked
off the street.

So it doesn't always work: wanting the job too much is clearly a bad
thing for everybody, as Gordon Brown amply demonstrated.

Whilst some commentators' urge to sneer clouds their judgment, maybe more
generally expectations aren't right. Maybe it is better to consider
representatives as suppliers of services, whose contract renewal can
periodically be withheld: so if they do a poor job, or get caught with
their fingers in the till, they can be sacked.

The trouble is that whilst it is relatively easy from a voter's side, to
think of politicians this way, it is hard for them to think of themselves
as glorified bin-men. And as long as there are those on the voters' side
who still expects some sort of ideological magic from politicians, they
have little incentive to learn.

This seems to be a lot of the trouble with political parties in the US,
where the membership is a good deal more extreme than the electorate as a
whole: so you get Palin, and you get budgetary gridlock.

Murff...

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 17, 2011, 6:18:22 AM5/17/11
to
On 2011-05-17 11:04:49 +0100, Murff said:

> I accept that, but I think the most practicable approach is to set limits
> on the power they can wield. Assuming that it is better to have
> representatives with some measure of clue, then as with any job someone
> who wants it is more likely to demonstrate that, than somebody plucked
> off the street.

Yes, I agree with that (and the other bits I've excised) - the story
appealed to me but I don't think it was practical. I just find people
who are driven by desire for power odious - you can't really trust them
as everything they say will be designed to further their own interests.
It's not only politicians of course: the entire management structure
of most companies is driven by people like this: they don't really care
what happens to the company so long as they get to be big important
powerful people with big important powerful cars etc.

Message has been deleted

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
May 17, 2011, 7:40:37 AM5/17/11
to
On 2011-05-17 12:01:33 +0100, August West said:

> So, who's getting 150,000? The PM gets paid less than that, at 142,500
> Ministers get 134,565 (inclusing their MP's salary). A back-bench MP's
> salary is 65,738. I don't know About you, but that doesn't look enough
> to encourage me to take the shite that MPs get thrown at them.

I imagine the prospects for, um, additional income are quite good.

Sam Wilson

unread,
May 17, 2011, 7:49:52 AM5/17/11
to
In article <iqt933$1a4$2...@dont-email.me>, Murff <mu...@warlock.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, 17 May 2011 05:31:46 +0000, Windmill wrote:
>
> >

> > What [democracy] does do, though, is provide a mechanism for kicking the bastards
> > out
>
> Agreed absolutely.

Except that our system gives them 4 or 5 years to screw things up and
then play the system to get themselves elected again. Look at the
lengths of both the previous blocs' periods in power.

Sam

Murff

unread,
May 17, 2011, 8:09:49 AM5/17/11
to

Those aren't really the same problem, though, nor would "solutions" to
them be the same.

It isn't obvious that the 4 or 5 years is a problem in itself. It can
take a whole parliament and more to gain traction fixing deep-seated
problems. Consider Thatcher in the 1980s and the problems that regime
needed to fix. Consider the current government and the mess it is trying
to fix now.

Nor is it clearly the case that shenanigans are required to preserve
power. It wasn't the Tories who made Labour unelectable in the 1980s and
most of the 1990s. Having said that, removing the ability of an incumbent
to choose when to call an election is a Good Thing. So would forcing an
election when a PM was changed due to party action - i.e. I'd excuse
death or other sort of medical incapacitation - although maybe forcing an
election between 1 and 3 months after the change would be safer to avoid
honeymoon bounces.

Murff...

M Holmes

unread,
May 17, 2011, 8:13:21 AM5/17/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:

> I accept that, but I think the most practicable approach is to set limits
> on the power they can wield.

That certainly can help where corruption is concerned. The more power
they have to affect things (for example the right to sell in markets),
the more valuable the commodity they have to sell. Any good capitalist
will know when it is cheaper to buy a politician and some form of
advantage than it is to spend money trying to actually beat a competitor
fairly .

As far as competence goes, it'd seem better to try to have politicians
do a few things well than many at a mediocre level or a great deal badly.

Otherwise we end up in the situation we have with Edinburgh City Council
who are a great deal more efficient at delivering rubbish to our doors
(the local Pravda sheet) than they are uplifting rubbish from it.

> Assuming that it is better to have
> representatives with some measure of clue, then as with any job someone
> who wants it is more likely to demonstrate that, than somebody plucked
> off the street.

I'd gotten to thinking much the same about fraud trials. We spend a
great deal assembling evidence (because fraud is in fact very hard to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt) and then co-opt jurors who haven't a
prayer of understanding that evidence. As a result, simple benefit
fraudsters are convicted, but the truly monstrous fraud cases usually
see the perpetrators go free. I suspect we need to co-opt retired
accountants for those juries, and pay them a reasonable rate for sitting
for weeks concentrating on complex but boring evidence.

I'd hazard that modern politics involves similar problems.

> So it doesn't always work: wanting the job too much is clearly a bad
> thing for everybody, as Gordon Brown amply demonstrated.

Perhaps the greatest irony with Brown is that at the very start of his
tenure he was determined to ensure that this would be the first Labour
government which didn't leave the finances of the country in a gigantic
mess and assiduously read of past errors in order to achieve that goal.
Unfortunately for Brown, none of his predecessors ever had to recognise
a credit bubble while they were in one. Yet another general fought the
last war.

> Whilst some commentators' urge to sneer clouds their judgment

Hi there everyone!

> maybe more
> generally expectations aren't right. Maybe it is better to consider
> representatives as suppliers of services, whose contract renewal can
> periodically be withheld: so if they do a poor job, or get caught with
> their fingers in the till, they can be sacked.

> The trouble is that whilst it is relatively easy from a voter's side, to
> think of politicians this way, it is hard for them to think of themselves
> as glorified bin-men.

Perhaps it would help if we got rid of Parliamentary wine cellars,
chauffeur-driven limousines, and the sundry other trappings whicch would
be wont to fooling ordinary people into thinking they'd suddenly joined
the monarchy. It's probably harder to imagine one is a breed apart while
sitting on the Clapham omnibus.

> And as long as there are those on the voters' side
> who still expects some sort of ideological magic from politicians, they
> have little incentive to learn.

Economists are fond of pointing out that having some value at risk tends
to concentrate minds. Perhaps we could record who voted for whom, and
surcharge those voters when those they support make a hash of things.

> This seems to be a lot of the trouble with political parties in the US,
> where the membership is a good deal more extreme than the electorate as a
> whole

Of course that could never happen here...

> so you get Palin

So far only a vice-Presidential candidate. What was it LBJ said about
that job and a bucket of warm piss?

> and you get budgetary gridlock.

Now I agree that this looks like a real problem. It was Liberal
politicians who warned here that once people were able to vote
themselves a share of other people's money, national bankruptcy was a
simple inevitability.

The US have taken this further to show that when one bunch of people
can vote to spend other people's money even before they've pickpocketed it,
while their victims can vote to prevent the act of larceny actually
occuring, it provides a fantastic shortcut to the same destination.

FoFP

--
During the time of the Scopes Trial, the folks who comprise the Tea
Party were led by William Jennings Bryan, an intellectual know-nothing.
Now they're led by know-nothing know-nothings. The US is not the better
for this.

Richard Tobin

unread,
May 17, 2011, 8:27:06 AM5/17/11
to
In article <iqtoid$8pb$1...@dont-email.me>, Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:

>It isn't obvious that the 4 or 5 years is a problem in itself. It can
>take a whole parliament and more to gain traction fixing deep-seated
>problems. Consider Thatcher in the 1980s and the problems that regime
>needed to fix. Consider the current government and the mess it is trying
>to fix now.

Any system that makes it harder for the Tories to "fix" problems is
a good thing.

-- Richard

Murff

unread,
May 17, 2011, 8:37:18 AM5/17/11
to
On Tue, 17 May 2011 12:13:21 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

> Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
>
>> Whilst some commentators' urge to sneer clouds their judgment
>
> Hi there everyone!
>

I'm afraid it wasn't aimed at you :-) Sorry for any disappointment.

It is very easy to take the position that the last men to enter
parliament with honourable intentions were Mr Fawkes and his colleagues.
That ignores governments existing for reasons beyond just giving
loudmouths a way to pamper their egos and/or wallets.

Getting the bins emptied lacks glamour, though. So the ones who end up
with the representative jobs have little incentive to fix the right
problem.

Murff...

Message has been deleted

Murff

unread,
May 17, 2011, 8:42:40 AM5/17/11
to
On Tue, 17 May 2011 12:27:06 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

>
> Any system that makes it harder for the Tories to "fix" problems is a
> good thing.
>

That would be fine, presupposing one that makes it harder for the
socialists to create the problems in the first place.

Murff...

M Holmes

unread,
May 17, 2011, 8:43:07 AM5/17/11
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:26:10 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

>> Terrorists have two objectives:
>>
>> 1) recruit more terrorists. The most efficient way to do this is to
>> provoke the target t overreact and create moral repugnance at their
>> actions and thus a queue of folks at the recruiting stations.

> OTOH bin Laden's bunch - and those like them - have slaughtered far more
> Muslims than either the US has, or they have Westerners....

Indeed most groups of terrorists seem as prone to sectarianism as
weedgies. It goes with the territory it seems. "The People's Front of
Judea" scene nailed it extremely well.

In a similar manner, Hamas maim and kill more Palestinians than the
"enemy" do.

FoFP

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages