Finally The Killing of Bin Laden Declared Illegal by Leading Bishops
Logician
not only the death of a man
but the obvious illegality of the act.
Now finally the Church of England and three bishops have openly
criticised the killing of Laden, and openly questioned the legality of
the killing.
The killing of bin Laden was not legal. It was an act of murder by
Obama and supported by Cameron.
This is the world we have: one in which leaders commit crime at will,
and they then quote the law to others to live by.
If Obama was now killed by a foreign power, would Americans all say
that was just law enforcement?
And to the Americans who say "But Laden was suspected of killing
thousands," Obama is suspected of killing hundreds of thousands
through the application of poverty and acts of war.
ScotchBright
<sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
>I was shocked and appalled as Americans all cheered and celebrated at
>not only the death of a man
> but the obvious illegality of the act.
>
>Now finally the Church of England and three bishops have openly
>criticised the killing of Laden, and openly questioned the legality of
>the killing.
Neither the church of England or the catholic church have any
say in what the United States does or does not do. They need to worry
about their own countries, England and the Vatican.
>
>The killing of bin Laden was not legal. It was an act of murder by
>Obama and supported by Cameron.
>
>This is the world we have: one in which leaders commit crime at will,
>and they then quote the law to others to live by.
It isn't like they decided a random teen skateboarder must
die. Bin Laden was a terrorist. He was very much like the historical
"old man of the mountain", who got kids to give their lives believing
they'd be rewarded in "paradise".
He's not one to cry for.
The Todal
"Logician" <sa...@logicians.com> wrote in message
news:34bfd55d-920a-44cb...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Fair enough, but bishops are only able to say whether the killing was moral
or ethical. They are no authority on whether the killing was legal or
illegal.
If you remember, at the time when the SAS rescued the hostages from the
Iranian embassy, they carefully shot each terrorist hostage-taker one by
one. To the best of my recollection there was no debate in the press about
whether they could have taken them alive. I was shocked at the time. One
actually did survive, because he pretended to be a hostage.
I suspect the reality is that the Navy Seals had been training for months
for this moment, on a mock-up of the building, anticipating a lot of
resistance, and were all ready to go in with massive force and leave nothing
to chance. When there was less force than expected, they simply didn't have
the skill to adapt to the situation and scale down the force.
Interesting piece in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/06/osama-bin-laden-death-assassination
Colonel Tim Collins expresses the firm opinion that the troops were right to
shoot, a professor of Islamic Studies and a professor of philosophy disagree
and who's to say which is right?
"Tim Collins: I don't think he was killed for the sake of killing, in the
same way that [the IRA's] Danny McCann in Gibraltar was shot. With someone
who has taken as many innocent lives as Bin Laden and McCann, why wouldn't
they take your life when confronted? Caution must be the watchword and
unless he had made absolutely clear he was unarmed and did not wish to
resist, then the safe thing to do would be to neutralise a target like that
and kill him".
Ret.
The latest explanation I have heard is that the corridor was dark because
the power had been turned off. Bin Liner came to his room door but then
hustled back inside. Fearing he was going for a gun or a suicide vest, the
soldiers ran after him and shot him. Sounds fair enough to me - although it
would have sounded a lot better without all the different preceding
stories...
--
Kev
Neolibertarian
<34bfd55d-920a-44cb...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Logician <sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
> I was shocked and appalled as Americans all cheered and celebrated at
> not only the death of a man
> but the obvious illegality of the act.
>
> Now finally the Church of England and three bishops have openly
> criticised the killing of Laden, and openly questioned the legality of
> the killing.
Officers of the Church of England have no standing, do they?
--
Neolibertarian
"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
---Ronald Reagan
Neolibertarian
ScotchBright <Busterc...@commonsense.com> wrote:
> It isn't like they decided a random teen skateboarder must
> die. Bin Laden was a terrorist.
Only according to RICO.
Without RICO in play, he was little more than a philanthropist.
> He was very much like the historical
> "old man of the mountain", who got kids to give their lives believing
> they'd be rewarded in "paradise".
He was the Rush Limbaugh of the jihad.
He was never /the/ problem. He was merely /a/ problem.
Ken
> I was shocked and appalled as Americans all cheered and celebrated at
> not only the death of a man
> but the obvious illegality of the act.
>
> Now finally the Church of England and three bishops have openly
> criticised the killing of Laden, and openly questioned the legality of
> the killing.
>
> The killing of bin Laden was not legal. It was an act of murder by
> Obama and supported by Cameron.
Just curious, were the attacks on 9-11 legal?? How about when they
captured civilians, tied their hands, and then cut off their heads? Was
that legal? There are MANY more instances I could cite.
It is common knowledge to anyone with any common sense, that if you
pick a fight you just might get your ass kicked. That is the price you
pay for playing a dangerous game. Ask Allah if you don't believe me.
Jethro
> "Logician" <sa...@logicians.com> wrote in message
>
> news:34bfd55d-920a-44cb...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >I was shocked and appalled as Americans all cheered and celebrated at
> > not only the death of a man
> > but the obvious illegality of the act.
>
> > Now finally the Church of England and three bishops have openly
> > criticised the killing of Laden, and openly questioned the legality of
> > the killing.
>
> > The killing of bin Laden was not legal. It was an act of murder by
> > Obama and supported by Cameron.
>
> > This is the world we have: one in which leaders commit crime at will,
> > and they then quote the law to others to live by.
>
> > If Obama was now killed by a foreign power, would Americans all say
> > that was just law enforcement?
>
> > And to the Americans who say "But Laden was suspected of killing
> > thousands," Obama is suspected of killing hundreds of thousands
> > through the application of poverty and acts of war.
>
>
> Fair enough, but bishops are only able to say whether the killing was moral
> or ethical. They are no authority on whether the killing was legal or
> illegal.
>
> If you remember, at the time when the SAS rescued the hostages from the
> Iranian embassy, they carefully shot each terrorist hostage-taker one by
> one. To the best of my recollection there was no debate in the press about
> whether they could have taken them alive. I was shocked at the time. One
> actually did survive, because he pretended to be a hostage.
Things are a little murkier than that IIRC. When one of the other
hostages (it may have been the PC) pointed him out as a terrorist, the
SAS officer hauled him out, and was about to walk him *back indoors*
when a superior officer stopped him, with a phrase along the lines of
"he'll have to live, they've seen him".
Which implies to me there was a certain moral, if not legal ambiguity
about their actions. I have no problem with a terrorist waving a gun
being shot. Even if it turns out he hadn't a gun, but the person
shooting had a reasonable expectation it was (in the embassy siege,
the terrorists had already shown they were armed, and prepared to use
them, so I can accept that expectation). However, I have a lot of
problems when a person who is not an *immediate* threat to anyone gets
filled with lead. It's too close to summary execution for my lily-
livered liberal conscience.
Logician
>
> news:34bfd55d-920a-44cb...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >I was shocked and appalled as Americans all cheered and celebrated at
> > not only the death of a man
> > but the obvious illegality of the act.
>
> > Now finally the Church of England and three bishops have openly
> > criticised the killing of Laden, and openly questioned the legality of
> > the killing.
>
> > The killing of bin Laden was not legal. It was an act of murder by
> > Obama and supported by Cameron.
>
> > This is the world we have: one in which leaders commit crime at will,
> > and they then quote the law to others to live by.
>
> > If Obama was now killed by a foreign power, would Americans all say
> > that was just law enforcement?
>
> > And to the Americans who say "But Laden was suspected of killing
> > thousands," Obama is suspected of killing hundreds of thousands
> > through the application of poverty and acts of war.
>
>
> Fair enough, but bishops are only able to say whether the killing was moral
> or ethical. They are no authority on whether the killing was legal or
> illegal.
>
> If you remember, at the time when the SAS rescued the hostages from the
> Iranian embassy, they carefully shot each terrorist hostage-taker one by
> one. To the best of my recollection there was no debate in the press about
> whether they could have taken them alive. I was shocked at the time. One
> actually did survive, because he pretended to be a hostage.
>
> I suspect the reality is that the Navy Seals had been training for months
> for this moment, on a mock-up of the building, anticipating a lot of
> resistance, and were all ready to go in with massive force and leave nothing
> to chance. When there was less force than expected, they simply didn't have
> the skill to adapt to the situation and scale down the force.
>
>
> Colonel Tim Collins expresses the firm opinion that the troops were right to
> shoot, a professor of Islamic Studies and a professor of philosophy disagree
> and who's to say which is right?
>
> "Tim Collins: I don't think he was killed for the sake of killing, in the
> same way that [the IRA's] Danny McCann in Gibraltar was shot. With someone
> who has taken as many innocent lives as Bin Laden and McCann, why wouldn't
> they take your life when confronted? Caution must be the watchword and
> unless he had made absolutely clear he was unarmed and did not wish to
> resist, then the safe thing to do would be to neutralise a target like that
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, in the embassy siege, we had terrorists, hostages, and a
stalemate.
Here we had an asssaination order by a Head of State on a named person
who had no hostages, and was even unarmed.
Logician
> The Todal wrote:
> > "Logician" <sa...@logicians.com> wrote in message
> >news:34bfd55d-920a-44cb...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> >> I was shocked and appalled as Americans all cheered and celebrated at
> >> not only the death of a man
> >> but the obvious illegality of the act.
>
> >> Now finally the Church of England and three bishops have openly
> >> criticised the killing of Laden, and openly questioned the legality
> >> of the killing.
>
> >> The killing of bin Laden was not legal. It was an act of murder by
> >> Obama and supported by Cameron.
>
> >> This is the world we have: one in which leaders commit crime at will,
> >> and they then quote the law to others to live by.
>
> >> If Obama was now killed by a foreign power, would Americans all say
> >> that was just law enforcement?
>
> >> And to the Americans who say "But Laden was suspected of killing
> >> thousands," Obama is suspected of killing hundreds of thousands
> >> through the application of poverty and acts of war.
>
>
> > Fair enough, but bishops are only able to say whether the killing was
> > moral or ethical. They are no authority on whether the killing was
> > legal or illegal.
>
> > If you remember, at the time when the SAS rescued the hostages from
> > the Iranian embassy, they carefully shot each terrorist hostage-taker
> > one by one. To the best of my recollection there was no debate in the
> > press about whether they could have taken them alive. I was shocked
> > at the time. One actually did survive, because he pretended to be a
> > hostage.
> > I suspect the reality is that the Navy Seals had been training for
> > months for this moment, on a mock-up of the building, anticipating a
> > lot of resistance, and were all ready to go in with massive force and
> > leave nothing to chance. When there was less force than expected,
> > they simply didn't have the skill to adapt to the situation and scale
> > down the force.
> > Interesting piece in the Guardian:
>
> > Colonel Tim Collins expresses the firm opinion that the troops were
> > right to shoot, a professor of Islamic Studies and a professor of
> > philosophy disagree and who's to say which is right?
>
> > "Tim Collins: I don't think he was killed for the sake of killing,
> > in the same way that [the IRA's] Danny McCann in Gibraltar was shot.
> > With someone who has taken as many innocent lives as Bin Laden and
> > McCann, why wouldn't they take your life when confronted? Caution
> > must be the watchword and unless he had made absolutely clear he was
> > unarmed and did not wish to resist, then the safe thing to do would
> > be to neutralise a target like that and kill him".
>
> The latest explanation I have heard is that the corridor was dark because
> the power had been turned off. Bin Liner came to his room door but then
> hustled back inside. Fearing he was going for a gun or a suicide vest, the
> soldiers ran after him and shot him. Sounds fair enough to me - although it
> would have sounded a lot better without all the different preceding
> stories...
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Obama issued a death order. The house was under observation for eight
months. It would have been a simple matter to arrest him especially
given the Army HQ was a few hundred metres away. The facts are that
Pakistanis were not even informed, and US commandos entered Pakistan
by air and executed a man. That is not legal.
Logician
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, it is not the action on the ground that is the issue: the issues
are that Obama ordered bin Laden's death; and no authorities in
Parkistan were informed. The USA literally entered a foreign country
and killed someone and then returned.
Logician
> In article
> <34bfd55d-920a-44cb-aefe-8e4496bb7...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Enough to get headlines in a major journal. You will find a lot of
people will listen to the Church.
Logician
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is the whole point. If 9/11 was illegal (not an act of war) then
so was the operation to kill bin Laden. If 9/11 was legal (an act of
war) then the killing of bin Laden could have been legal. But even
then, the case to kill a leader (under this scenero) is not that
certain under the rules of war. If you think civilian deaths are
crimes, then look at the deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugosalvia, and
almost any country engaged in war.
Americans are now saying killing terrorists is legal since the USA
declared war on terrorism; that means then when terrorists kill
Americans, that is an act of war too and legal. Of course it is not,
and the entire legal argument from the USA is nonsense: bin Laden was
murdered by Obama.
allantracy
> Now finally the Church of England and three bishops have openly
> criticised the killing of Laden, and openly questioned the legality of
> the killing.
>
Then they’re talking bollocks then.
Bid Laden was a criminal the Yanks had a right to go after him.
Given the nature of the organisation he headed and its track record
for callous murder, the US forces were entitled to use the quite
reasonable force of shoot first, ask questions later, for which
International law and domestic law, such as in the US and UK, makes
allowance for.
Such reasonable force laws recognises that in certain circumstances to
do otherwise could place security forces at an unacceptable risk.
The fact Bin Laden turned out to be unarmed is irrelevant, he already
had more than enough of a track record to assume he would be highly
dangerous to have assumed otherwise would have been rank stupid.
No law anywhere in the world requires law enforcement forces to place
their own lives at any unecessary risk when tackling dangerous
criminals. If those criminals have chosen to play with fire then there
is always the reasonable expectation that they can expect to get
burned.
The only question of illegality was for the US to go uninvited into
Pakistan, without their permission.
Though the legality of Pakistan's harbouring of Bin Laden (let’s face
it someone high up was looking out for him), in the first place, would
also have to be assessed alongside any judgement on that.
Rockinghorse Winner
Logician <sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
So, sue us. We plead guilty. ;)
*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.catholicscomehome.org |/Mutt 1.5.21 slrn 0.9.9p1 Irssi 0.8.15
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis
Steve O
He was an internationally wanted criminal.
They weren't trying to assassinate him, they were trying to arrest him.(
Albeit not too hard)
Eight children and two women walked out of that mansion alive-(well, one
of them limped)
I think that shows a tremendous restraint on the part of the US forces
under difficult circumstances.
You should be thanking them, not criticizing them.
Steve O
> No law anywhere in the world requires law enforcement forces to place
> their own lives at any unecessary risk when tackling dangerous
> criminals. If those criminals have chosen to play with fire then there
> is always the reasonable expectation that they can expect to get
> burned.
>
> The only question of illegality was for the US to go uninvited into
> Pakistan, without their permission.
AFAIK they got around that by seconding the Seals into the CIA just
before the operation.
Navy Seals cannot operate legally in Pakistan but under international
agreement, the CIA can.
They are also not required to report their movements and operations in
that country to the Pakistan government.
>
> Though the legality of Pakistan's harbouring of Bin Laden (let’s face
> it someone high up was looking out for him), in the first place, would
> also have to be assessed alongside any judgement on that.
Plausible deniability.
Even if information came to light that the Pakistan government were
harbouring him, you could guarantee that the US officials would never
complain about it.
Bearing in mind that they are nuclear power and there are still major
players in Al Qaeda still circulating, they still need to work together.
I would imagine that the massive financial aid to Pakistan from the US
since the floods might tail off a little if they don't play ball.
Uno Hu
Jethro <krazy...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:c0cb6ad3-d510-4c51...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
was mor=
> al
> > or ethical. They are no authority on whether the killing was legal
or
> > illegal.
> >
> > If you remember, at the time when the SAS rescued the hostages from
the
> > Iranian embassy, they carefully shot each terrorist hostage-taker
one by
> > one. To the best of my recollection there was no debate in the
press abou=
> t
> > whether they could have taken them alive. I was shocked at the
time. One
> > actually did survive, because he pretended to be a hostage.
>
> Things are a little murkier than that IIRC. When one of the other
> hostages (it may have been the PC) pointed him out as a terrorist,
the
> SAS officer hauled him out, and was about to walk him *back indoors*
> when a superior officer stopped him, with a phrase along the lines of
> "he'll have to live, they've seen him".
>
> Which implies to me there was a certain moral, if not legal ambiguity
> about their actions. I have no problem with a terrorist waving a gun
> being shot. Even if it turns out he hadn't a gun, but the person
> shooting had a reasonable expectation it was (in the embassy siege,
> the terrorists had already shown they were armed, and prepared to use
> them, so I can accept that expectation). However, I have a lot of
> problems when a person who is not an *immediate* threat to anyone
gets
> filled with lead. It's too close to summary execution for my lily-
> livered liberal conscience.
>
Rid yourself of the escape-hatch equivoctions..
OBL was murdered without trial. pure and simple.
Neolibertarian
<1e9e41cc-746f-4df0...@28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
Logician <sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
A lot of people listened to Osama bin Laden, too.
This didn't give him legal standing, either.
Rockinghorse Winner
Exactly. If justice were *really* served, Bin Laden would have had a
much tougher time of it. As it is, he got off easy with a bullet to the
head, IMO. What his status is now, I can't venture to say....
Steve O
>
> Rid yourself of the escape-hatch equivoctions..
>
> OBL was murdered without trial. pure and simple.
Yes he was.
Isn't it marvellous?
JohnR
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
news:92lpb7...@mid.individual.net...
Uno Hu
Steve O <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
news:92ldst...@mid.individual.net
> On 07/05/2011 16:55, allantracy wrote:
>
> > No law anywhere in the world requires law enforcement forces to
place
> > their own lives at any unecessary risk when tackling dangerous
> > criminals. If those criminals have chosen to play with fire then
there
> > is always the reasonable expectation that they can expect to get
> > burned.
> >
> > The only question of illegality was for the US to go uninvited into
> > Pakistan, without their permission.
>
> AFAIK they got around that by seconding the Seals into the CIA just
> before the operation.
> Navy Seals cannot operate legally in Pakistan but under international
> agreement, the CIA can.
> They are also not required to report their movements and operations
in
> that country to the Pakistan government.
That's silly.
The Pakistani troops were on their way to grab 'em when hey took of
likety-split.
Uno Hu
Steve O <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
news:92ld5r...@mid.individual.net
Go ahead..laugh..
But they seals (aarf aarf) killed an unarmed suspect - without due
process.
Harold Burton
<34bfd55d-920a-44cb...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Logician <sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
> I was shocked and appalled as Americans all cheered and celebrated at
> not only the death of a man
> but the obvious illegality of the act.
>
> Now finally the Church of England and three bishops have openly
> criticised the killing of Laden, and openly questioned the legality of
> the killing.
and people wonder why so many Brits view the Church of England as:
A. irrelevant
B. an embarrassment
C. one of the above.
snicker
Harold Burton
<bf049ac7-2223-47cc...@j23g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Logician <sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
Much like Osama's victims.
My only regret is we didn't capture him alive and feed him that way to
pigs.
snicker.
Harold Burton
Rockinghorse Winner <rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> wrote:
LOL!!!
Harold Burton
"Uno Hu" <lora...@cs.com> wrote:
Yeah, much like the Brits did in Dresden in 1945.
snicker.
Harold Burton
"JohnR" <repr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Fine by me too. Especially if it get idiots like you whining about it -
makes it even better.
snicker.
Logician
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is proof that all could have been arrested.
Logician
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ask Obama to report to jail and await trial in an international court.
Following his justice he would would be killed.
Logician
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
They did not even have permission to enter Pakistan. If the USA really
had a case bin Laden would have been arrested and handed to the
Pakistani police for extradition to the USA. That was avoided by
shooting him and telling no one in Pakistan.
Logician
And who's next? Julian Assange? Would that be marvellous too? He's
already on a CIA hit list. Obama just needs to make the call and he's
dead. Read the press.
Steve O
The standards of the soldiers sent to despatch Bin Laden were impeccable.
An excellent operation under very difficult circumstances.
Steve O
Why would you expect them to hang around?
I never made the claim that the arrangement was acceptable to the
Pakistani government, I am just reporting something that the US did in
order to be able to later justify carrying out a military raid in a
country in which they are at peace with.
Steve O
It is nothing of the sort.
If a criminal as dangerous as Bin Laden does nothing other than display
complete and utter surrender during attempts to arrest him, then he
should be "controlled" immediately.
He should have told his wife the same thing instead of letting her
attack the Seals.
--
Steve O
a.a.2240 BAAWA
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
Steve O
You're comparing oranges with apples.
But if Assange was as much a threat to Western civilization and safety
as Bin Laden was, I'd be happy for him to be taken out too.
Fortunately, he isn't.
JohnR
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
Steve O
> "Steve O"<nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
> news:92n953...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 07/05/2011 23:18, JohnR wrote:
>>> "Steve O"<nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
>>> news:92lpb7...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 07/05/2011 18:31, Uno Hu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OBL was murdered without trial. pure and simple.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes he was.
>>>> Isn't it marvellous?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If you want to wallow in the sewer of criminally low standards it's fine.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> The standards of the soldiers sent to despatch Bin Laden were impeccable.
>> An excellent operation under very difficult circumstances.
>>
> No dispute about that, not the issue though.
>
>
So what is the issue?
If you think it is a legal issue, then don't confuse domestic law with
international law.
Under domestic law, in the UK, the execution of OBL would certainly have
been considered murder.
International Law, although it is called such, is not so much law than a
set of agreements between countries, some more in agreement than others.
It is much more malleable.
There are two branches of international law - "jus gentium"- the law of
nations, and "jus inter gentes"- agreements between nations.
In order to demonstrate that the killing of OBL was illegal, you would
first of all have to point to the particular international law which
forbids such an act under jus inter gentes.
Can you do that?
You would also need to demonstrate which court would hold jurisdiction
over any prosecution.
The International Court of Justice would be an unlikely choice- since
the ruling over Nicaragua v US went against the US, the US have
withdrawn from compulsory jurisdiction since 1986, and will only
recognize matters on a case-by case basis.
Hardly likely where this issue is concerned
So how about the International Criminal Court?
Nope- no justice to be found there unfortunately for two reasons-
firstly, because that court currently does not have jurisdiction over
crimes of aggression, and secondly, Pakistan is not a signatory to it.
You can be absolutely sure that the US government looked at every single
angle of international culpability before making the decision to enter
an independent country and kill someone when not at war with that country.
So either I am wallowing in the sewer of criminally low standards as you
claim, or like the US, I am looking at it from a valid (note, I did not
say, moral) standpoint based in the reality of international law.
JohnR
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
> On 08/05/2011 11:51, JohnR wrote:
>> "Steve O"<nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
>> news:92n953...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 07/05/2011 23:18, JohnR wrote:
>>>> "Steve O"<nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
>>>> news:92lpb7...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 07/05/2011 18:31, Uno Hu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OBL was murdered without trial. pure and simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes he was.
>>>>> Isn't it marvellous?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If you want to wallow in the sewer of criminally low standards it's
>>>> fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The standards of the soldiers sent to despatch Bin Laden were
>>> impeccable.
>>> An excellent operation under very difficult circumstances.
>>>
>> No dispute about that, not the issue though.
>>
>>
> So what is the issue?
>
terror roaming around the globe, invading sovereign nations and performing
extrajudicial killings as it alone sees fit there is no issue.
The Todal
"JohnR" <repr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bIOxp.15$sm7...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
> news:92ndlm...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 08/05/2011 11:51, JohnR wrote:
>>> "Steve O"<nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
>>> news:92n953...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 07/05/2011 23:18, JohnR wrote:
>>>>> "Steve O"<nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
>>>>> news:92lpb7...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> On 07/05/2011 18:31, Uno Hu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OBL was murdered without trial. pure and simple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes he was.
>>>>>> Isn't it marvellous?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to wallow in the sewer of criminally low standards it's
>>>>> fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The standards of the soldiers sent to despatch Bin Laden were
>>>> impeccable.
>>>> An excellent operation under very difficult circumstances.
What? It hardly compares to Entebbe or to the attempt to release the
American hostages held by the Iranians. A piece of cake. The Seals were
heavily armed and well equipped. They didn't know whether bin Laden had lots
of firepower but their long observation of the compound must have told them
that most of the people there were women and children. It was very unlikely
that the Pakistanis would attack the Seals and if they did, it would have
been through diplomatic ineptitude on the part of the US.
>>>>
>>> No dispute about that, not the issue though.
I don't think even now we have sufficient info to judge whether the
operation was executed well. We know that the outcome was very satisfactory,
which is a different issue.
Steve O
Aren't you?
Steve O
> "JohnR"<repr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bIOxp.15$sm7...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Steve O"<nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
>> news:92ndlm...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 08/05/2011 11:51, JohnR wrote:
>>>> "Steve O"<nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
>>>> news:92n953...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 07/05/2011 23:18, JohnR wrote:
>>>>>> "Steve O"<nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:92lpb7...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> On 07/05/2011 18:31, Uno Hu wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OBL was murdered without trial. pure and simple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes he was.
>>>>>>> Isn't it marvellous?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to wallow in the sewer of criminally low standards it's
>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The standards of the soldiers sent to despatch Bin Laden were
>>>>> impeccable.
>>>>> An excellent operation under very difficult circumstances.
>
> What? It hardly compares to Entebbe or to the attempt to release the
> American hostages held by the Iranians.
Okay, Perhaps I should have said "they managed to pull off this
operation without wiping out every bystander within a two mile radius."
I have low expectations when it comes to the standards of a US Army/Navy
operation
Harold Burton
Steve O <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
Or an RAF operation.
snicker
Jerry Okamura
"Steve O" wrote in message news:92qggk...@mid.individual.net...
No. I don't like the idea of killing an unarmed person, no matter how bad a
person you may think he is. I believe that a person is innocent until
proven guilty in a court of law, and when this country executes someone who
has not been found guilty of the crime, it is an immoral act.
JohnR
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
what he stood for, I have no sympathy for that. His killing has served no
useful purpose beyond sating blood lust and just seems to have opened a
whole new can of worms. I almost feel sorry for the yanks, they just can't
do right for getting it wrong because all they've ever known is how to do it
wrong.
What evidence have you got, beyond a desire and willingness to believe what
you've been told by the mainstream media, that obl was involved in knocking
down two new york skyscrapers or had anything more to do with it than those
americans dancing, drinking and celebrating his demise in the US had to do
with the extrajudicial killing?
I'll be willing to guess you even believe al qaeda is a real organisation
that actually exists, has a headquarters, a planning dept., charismatic
generals, the works. You'd have to be absolutely crazy to think al qaeda is
really just some invented, media friendly, demonic force, fabricated by the
west and designed to terrify its people into accepting anything the war of
terror does in our name against an all powerful enemy. Allowing the US and
hangers on to go after arbitrarily declared "terrorists" whoever they might
be and invading whatever sovereign country they might be declared to reside
in, just to keep us all safe.
Harold Burton
"JohnR" <repr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> down two new york skyscrapers . . .
His televised admission?
snicker
JohnR
"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-16D9...@news.newsguy.com...
In 10 years the only evidence to surface "linking" him is a fake video
conveniently found at random in a large town of over 150,00 people just a
few days after it happened.
The FBI seem to have overlooked that since they stated in 2006 there was
still ZERO evidence linking him to 9/11.
Harold Burton
"JohnR" <repr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"it was an inside job" nutcases, batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every
single last one of you
JohnR
of many fake videos to surface, whoever the people in the video were the
white house translation of the poor quality arabic soundtrack has been shown
to be not only inaccurate but also manipulated and embellished. If these
facts don't fit the spoon fed narrative don't attack me, question the
narrative.
Logician
> In article
> <34bfd55d-920a-44cb-aefe-8e4496bb7...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Logician <sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
> > I was shocked and appalled as Americans all cheered and celebrated at
> > not only the death of a man
> > but the obvious illegality of the act.
>
> > Now finally the Church of England and three bishops have openly
> > criticised the killing of Laden, and openly questioned the legality of
> > the killing.
>
>
> A. irrelevant
> B. an embarrassment
> C. one of the above.
>
> snicker
Applies to Obama.
Harold Burton
"JohnR" <repr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> of many fake videos to surface . . .
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you
snicker.
Cynic
>The latest explanation I have heard is that the corridor was dark because
>the power had been turned off. Bin Liner came to his room door but then
>hustled back inside. Fearing he was going for a gun or a suicide vest, the
>soldiers ran after him and shot him. Sounds fair enough to me - although it
>would have sounded a lot better without all the different preceding
>stories...
Tell me Kev, when you were a police officer and a suspect told you 3
or 4 different versions of events before finally describing a version
that sounded reasonable, plausible and would exonerate the suspect,
did you believe that final version?
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>> Rid yourself of the escape-hatch equivoctions..
>> OBL was murdered without trial. pure and simple.
>Yes he was.
>Isn't it marvellous?
I don't know whether it was "marvellous" or not.
Without a trial, I have no confidence that Bin Laden was guilty of
*any* of the things he has been accused of, let alone all of them.
You may believe everything the politicians tell you is true, but I am
far less gullible. We have been told that Bin Laden was contained in
a known location from which he was not expected to move any time in
the foreseeable future. I would have thought that knowlege could have
been put to far better use than carrying out a summary execution of a
man who, we are told, held top-level and key information about the
global terrorism threat. A threeat that is so dire that our
governments need to remove our freedoms and attack several other
countries to eliminate. Even from a legitimate military
anti-terrorism perspective it was a very poor choice of action.
It almost appears as if the US *didn't want* anyone to find out what
Bin Laden knew.
Still, at least we managed to destroy all those WMDs in Iraq and make
the country safe and pleasant for its people to live in, and we are
doing a splendid job of making Afghanistan a green and pleasant land
after our own image.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>I'm certainly happy with this result.
>Aren't you?
Read my other post.
I suspect that if the Americans had told you that Mother Theresa was a
two-headed monster with horns and a tail you would be estatic to hear
that they had murdered her as well.
Things are very seldom what they appear to be when there are so many
obvious political agendas being pursued.
--
Cynic
The Todal
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4dcbaad9.5141859@localhost...
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 21:45:24 +0100, Steve O <nos...@here.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>> Rid yourself of the escape-hatch equivoctions..
>
>>> OBL was murdered without trial. pure and simple.
>
>>Yes he was.
>>Isn't it marvellous?
>
> I don't know whether it was "marvellous" or not.
It was the American version of our Royal Wedding. The American people,
suffering in a dreadful recession which has cost hundreds of thousands of
jobs and repossessed homes, at last had a reason to dance in the streets and
have a party.
To a much lesser extent the same happened here, but there is a fog of
uncertainty about whether those terrorists who committed the 7/7 attacks in
London were motivated by anything bin Laden said, or just by their
indignation about our rape of Iraq.
>
> Without a trial, I have no confidence that Bin Laden was guilty of
> *any* of the things he has been accused of, let alone all of them.
There seems to be a belief among some people that to give someone a fair
trial is an act of generosity towards them, an act of compassion (people say
"he didn't give a fair trial to the people in the World Trade Center so fuck
him, he gets no fair trial either"). But a fair trial is what makes a
country civilised. It is our own guarantee as citizens that the government
won't arrest us in the night, based on the word of an unreliable informant,
and shoot us through the head without a trial. I am ashamed of my
government if it prefers summary execution to a fair trial. After all, it
could apply to numerous situations. We knew that Ian Huntley was guilty of
the murders in Soham before he was put on trial. Why not just have a public
lynching? I can already hear some people say "yes, that wouldn't be a bad
thing at all".
>
> You may believe everything the politicians tell you is true, but I am
> far less gullible. We have been told that Bin Laden was contained in
> a known location from which he was not expected to move any time in
> the foreseeable future. I would have thought that knowlege could have
> been put to far better use than carrying out a summary execution of a
> man who, we are told, held top-level and key information about the
> global terrorism threat. A threeat that is so dire that our
> governments need to remove our freedoms and attack several other
> countries to eliminate. Even from a legitimate military
> anti-terrorism perspective it was a very poor choice of action.
>
> It almost appears as if the US *didn't want* anyone to find out what
> Bin Laden knew.
New information comes into the public domain about this every day. We now
hear that there was a ship staffed by interrogators and translators "in
case" it was possible to take bin Laden alive. I am prepared to believe
that the order given by the President was to capture him live if it was
possible to do so without putting soldiers' lives at risk. It follows then
that the Navy Seals probably weren't willing to risk their lives even
slightly. They preferred to go ahead with the carefully rehearsed plan
which assumed that the building was full of well-armed terrorists, and kill
each man one by one rather than risk suicide vests or concealed grenades.
They shot a woman dead. Nobody mourns her, nobody expresses regret. She was
just collateral damage. The survivors, traumatised by the carnage they had
witnessed, were left trussed up and blindfolded for the Pakistani police to
find and release. A disgraceful way to treat women and children.
Perhaps summary execution is actually the traditional American way, when the
police trap a mobster or a murderer. The final scene of Bonnie and Clyde
comes to mind.
I can't believe that Barack Obama would have been very satisfied with the
result, but his advisors would have explained to him that he has two
options: (a) to rejoice and to compliment everyone involved and see his
support rocket upwards in the polls or (b) to express dissatisfaction, to
say that the soldiers failed to follow their orders properly, and to give
the impression that he is a weak and indecisive president who hasn't got
effective control over his armed forces.
A no-brainer then (rather like Osama bin Laden after he was shot).
>
> Still, at least we managed to destroy all those WMDs in Iraq and make
> the country safe and pleasant for its people to live in, and we are
> doing a splendid job of making Afghanistan a green and pleasant land
> after our own image.
I think everyone knows that the death of bin Laden is the signal to American
troops to prepare for final withdrawal. The Afghans are very worried that
their country will plunge into civil war as a result. But that's probably
now their problem, not America's.
Steve O
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 21:45:24 +0100, Steve O<nos...@here.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>> Rid yourself of the escape-hatch equivoctions..
>
>>> OBL was murdered without trial. pure and simple.
>
>> Yes he was.
>> Isn't it marvellous?
>
> I don't know whether it was "marvellous" or not.
>
> Without a trial, I have no confidence that Bin Laden was guilty of
> *any* of the things he has been accused of, let alone all of them.
>
> You may believe everything the politicians tell you is true, but I am
> far less gullible.
I doubt that.
I am probably one of the least gullible people I know, and I would
certainly not trust any politician at all.
I question everything, and never take anything on face value, which is
why I mostly question and reject silly claims about Bin Laden being
alive, or an invented bogeyman, etc.
>We have been told that Bin Laden was contained in
> a known location from which he was not expected to move any time in
> the foreseeable future. I would have thought that knowlege could have
> been put to far better use than carrying out a summary execution of a
> man who, we are told, held top-level and key information about the
> global terrorism threat.
In what way?
Do you really think that if captured, Bin Laden would have been willing
to give up the entire operation of Al Qaeda, even if water- boarded?
(which would have been unlikely, considering the spotlight that would
have been on him during his detention.)
The materials found and seized at the house will have been far more
useful than anything OBL could have admitted or disclosed, even if he
was submitted to extreme interview techniques.
>A threeat that is so dire that our
> governments need to remove our freedoms and attack several other
> countries to eliminate. Even from a legitimate military
> anti-terrorism perspective it was a very poor choice of action.
>
> It almost appears as if the US *didn't want* anyone to find out what
> Bin Laden knew.
Ah, the old conspiracy within a conspiracy theory, eh?
>
> Still, at least we managed to destroy all those WMDs in Iraq and make
> the country safe and pleasant for its people to live in, and we are
> doing a splendid job of making Afghanistan a green and pleasant land
> after our own image.
>
If you believe that, then you really must be very gullible indeed. ;-)
Besides, "gullible" isn't even a proper word- it isn't even listed in
the Oxford English dictionary.
Steve O
While I'm fairly sure that we hardly get to hear the full story in any
international event like this, the true events are usually a little less
complicated than most people like to claim.
OBL was a dangerous terrorist, responsible for the deaths of many people.
HE was killed by the US government, the world is a better place without
the likes of any bearded fanatic like him, and for that, I'm grateful.
It really doesn't need to be much more complicated than that.
Cynic
wrote:
>While I'm fairly sure that we hardly get to hear the full story in any
>international event like this, the true events are usually a little less
>complicated than most people like to claim.
>OBL was a dangerous terrorist, responsible for the deaths of many people.
>HE was killed by the US government, the world is a better place without
>the likes of any bearded fanatic like him, and for that, I'm grateful.
>It really doesn't need to be much more complicated than that.
From the perspective of a large section of the Middle Eastern
countries, what you say about Bin Laden would be perfectly true if
talking about Blair or Bush - apart from the fact that the latter
killed more innocent people.
--
Cynic
Harold Burton
wrote:
True, but Franklin Roosevelt killed even more.
snicker.
Cynic
wrote:
>> Without a trial, I have no confidence that Bin Laden was guilty of
>> *any* of the things he has been accused of, let alone all of them.
>>
>> You may believe everything the politicians tell you is true, but I am
>> far less gullible.
>
>I doubt that.
>I am probably one of the least gullible people I know, and I would
>certainly not trust any politician at all.
>I question everything, and never take anything on face value, which is
>why I mostly question and reject silly claims about Bin Laden being
>alive, or an invented bogeyman, etc.
>
> >We have been told that Bin Laden was contained in
>> a known location from which he was not expected to move any time in
>> the foreseeable future. I would have thought that knowlege could have
>> been put to far better use than carrying out a summary execution of a
>> man who, we are told, held top-level and key information about the
>> global terrorism threat.
>
>In what way?
>Do you really think that if captured, Bin Laden would have been willing
>to give up the entire operation of Al Qaeda, even if water- boarded?
>(which would have been unlikely, considering the spotlight that would
>have been on him during his detention.)
What is 100% certain is that the probability that he would divulge at
least some information (and there are effective ways to get
information over a long period of time without using torture), would
have been infinitely better than is is now.
>The materials found and seized at the house will have been far more
>useful than anything OBL could have admitted or disclosed, even if he
>was submitted to extreme interview techniques.
We will see - IMO his behaviour pattern whilst under surveillance
suggests that he would *not* have too much valuable information in
that location.
> >A threeat that is so dire that our
>> governments need to remove our freedoms and attack several other
>> countries to eliminate. Even from a legitimate military
>> anti-terrorism perspective it was a very poor choice of action.
>> It almost appears as if the US *didn't want* anyone to find out what
>> Bin Laden knew.
>Ah, the old conspiracy within a conspiracy theory, eh?
Governments routinely attempt to secretly negotiate with people that
they have publicly renounced. Usually such revellations have only a
short-term impact, but in this case Bin Laden has been portrayed as
the very embodiment of evil, and should details of negotiation
attempts come to light it would have serious political consequences.
>> Still, at least we managed to destroy all those WMDs in Iraq and make
>> the country safe and pleasant for its people to live in, and we are
>> doing a splendid job of making Afghanistan a green and pleasant land
>> after our own image.
>If you believe that, then you really must be very gullible indeed. ;-)
>Besides, "gullible" isn't even a proper word- it isn't even listed in
>the Oxford English dictionary.
I have probably mis-spelt it in that case. Spelling is not one of my
strong suits - it is far too illogical to make any sense of, so I lost
patience with it long ago.
--
Cynic
The Todal
Was this some sort of clever trick - inviting us to look up "gullible" in a
dictionary so that Steve could then say "oh, how gullible of you"....?
Steve O
Probably.
You're right- the world would be a much better place without all three.
Steve O
>
>> If you believe that, then you really must be very gullible indeed. ;-)
>
>> Besides, "gullible" isn't even a proper word- it isn't even listed in
>> the Oxford English dictionary.
>
> I have probably mis-spelt it in that case. Spelling is not one of my
> strong suits - it is far too illogical to make any sense of, so I lost
> patience with it long ago.
>
Nah- you haven't misspelled it.
:-)
Steve O
Would I do a thing like that?
:-)