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