3000 counts of murder, sentences to be served instantaneously. On May 9, 1:42 pm, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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.
