Guten Abend From Köln Folks! I have been "hit or miss" here lately, but have been trying to follow a number of the posts, conversations and a few diatribes. I did have the ability to see what a lot of Europeans' reactions were, as compared to seeing my own countryman, other than on the media, which is somewhat unique.
I tend to agree with MJ on the reaction aspect of this, by a lot of Americans. It just seemed to me, to be literally morbid to cheer and chant over bin Laden's death. Don't get me wrong, I find no fault with our government for taking him out, and I am just amazed at (1) the technical prowess of our military in getting in Pakistan (and out) undetected, landing in a compound like that undetected, and getting out without any American casualties; and (2) the fumbling, bumbling idiotic reaction by the Obama Administration in handling this coup. Hey Mark? I've heard this "Poor Old Osama On Dialysis" story for a decade. We all tried to picture Osama toting around his dialysis machine(s) around the caves in the Mountains, and now, we learn that he was living in a multi-million dollar compound (albeit the pictures still depicted it as a shack) and I surmise that Osama has never been on a dialysis machine in his life.....EVER! I would have thought that Osama alive, would have offered a lot more intelligence than DeadOsama. Nevertheless, I tend to agree that there was probably very little discussion when those Seals hit that compound. One wrong move, and you would be dead. No time for chit-chat. Just as important, there is no way that this Nation should have allowed any opportunity for Osama to have become a Martyr who has some type of monument or even where he might have been held, as some type of a "sacred ground". On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:51 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]>wrote: > so, you don't believe the media or the government? > > that's your choice > > personally, I don't care when warmongers kill each other > it makes the world a little better > > 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. > -- 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.
