# Osama bin Laden is Dead!



## Regillus

Seen the news? Navy SEAL's killed Osama bin Laden! Recovered the body!:aportnoy:
bin Laden was buried at sea.
This calls for a drink!


----------



## Howard

THANK GOD,IT's ABOUT TIME!


----------



## TMMKC

Regillus said:


> Seen the news? Navy SEAL's killed Osama bin Laden! Recovered the body!:aportnoy:
> bin Laden was buried at sea.
> This calls for a drink!


Wonderful news! I understand why they dumped his body at sea (like the trash he was), but wouldn't it have sent a better message if they pulled his lifeless body behind an NYC fire truck through the Financial District?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Or fed it to pigs.

Still, this is not the time to quibble! At long last, some measure of justice is served.


----------



## Jovan

What angers me is that he's been chilling out comfortably in a mansion all this time. Gee, can't see how THAT could have slipped through the cracks in Pakistan. :rolleyes2:


----------



## TMMKC

Jovan said:


> What angers me is that he's been chilling out comfortably in a mansion all this time. Gee, can't see how THAT could have slipped through the cracks in Pakistan. :rolleyes2:


The compound he was staying at was, literally, a kilometer from one of the most elite military training academies in Pakistan...AND in a very affluent area. Nothing like hiding in plain site, is there?

Regardless, the evil bastard is dead and will be rotting in hell. Let's be thankful for that.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

No warrant??

No trial in Manhattan??

No multilateralism??

How Bush-like!! 

I won't argue with success however.


----------



## Jovan

He was killed in a battle along with 20 others. They didn't have much of a choice when he was shooting at them!


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> No warrant??
> 
> No trial in Manhattan??
> 
> No multilateralism??
> 
> How Bush-like!!
> 
> I won't argue with success however.


I would have expected nothing less from you WS.

He is rude, fat, odorous, and dresses like a slob - but you know me, I am not one to insult people....lol.


----------



## turban1

*elton john*

before osama's abrupt burial at sea, elton john was writing a funeral song called 'sandals in the bin.'


----------



## TMMKC

turban1 said:


> before osama's abrupt burial at sea, elton john was writing a funeral song called 'sandals in the bin.'


Bada bing! Turban, ladies and germs. He'll be here all week. Tip your waitresss and try the Swiss Steak...it's delicious.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Regillus

TMMKC said:


> Wonderful news! I understand why they dumped his body at sea (like the trash he was), but wouldn't it have sent a better message if they pulled his lifeless body behind an NYC fire truck through the Financial District?


They buried bin Laden at sea so that his followers couldn't build a shrine at his gravesite; have yearly pilgrimages, etc.
+1 on the FDNY fire truck idea - make sure Al Jazeera broadcast it.:wink2:


----------



## tocqueville

The truck idea is great, but honestly, the burial at sea is brilliant. And hopefully there were no photos or video taken of the event.



Regillus said:


> They buried bin Laden at sea so that his followers couldn't build a shrine at his gravesite; have yearly pilgrimages, etc.
> +1 on the FDNY fire truck idea - make sure Al Jazeera broadcast it.:wink2:


----------



## blue suede shoes

tocqueville said:


> The truck idea is great, but honestly, the burial at sea is brilliant. And hopefully there were no photos or video taken of the event.


I just hope that there were plenty of hungry sharks nearby. Too bad they weren't able to force feed him a bacon dinner for his last meal.


----------



## Chouan

Interesting and unfortunate idea, to bury him at sea, then there's no absolute proof that he's dead. Seems like a schoolboy error to me. Given how the West, and especially the US is so widely distrusted in the Islamic world, destroying the evidence will no doubt be seen as there having been no evidence. 
I thought that the public reaction in the US was also a bit unfortunate. That level of public triumphalism didn't do the US any favours. Assassination, no matter how it is dressed up, isn't justice, any more than any other form of vigilante-ism
Finally, Bin Laden wasn't the "leader" of Al Quaeda, it has no leaders. It is a loose confederation of people who share the same views. Killing Bin Laden will acheive, indeed, has acheived, nothing, apart from making many Americans very pleased.


----------



## Chouan

Jovan said:


> He was killed in a battle along with 20 others. They didn't have much of a choice when he was shooting at them!


How does that fit in with the now current story that he was cowering behind his wife? Doesn't sound like he was shooting at them to me! Further details that, having been hit, and taken, he was then shot repeatedly. Again, doesn't sound to me as if they wanted to capture him.....


----------



## eagle2250

^^
It surely would be interesting to have the source references for all the additional details you have reported, regarding this highly classified military action. I am inclined to believe you incorporate as fact a fair degree of personal imagination in your postings, consistent with your pre-existing political/social beliefs. If such is indeed the case with your postings in these fora, I hope you are not so fast and loose with the facts you present your students in the classroom!


----------



## Howard

Could've they just cremated him then throw him in the ocean?


----------



## Chouan

My sources, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 3, BBC Radio 4, and BBC Radio 5. None of these are famous for sensationalising news, as far as I'm aware, and all carried the story I spoke of.
As far as facts in the classroom are concerned, my aim is to educate, not preach; to encourage the kids to think for themselves
My pre-existing political/social beliefs are based on my experience of the world, and on my studies in History. They don't create or change facts, just colour my interpretations of them. 
As far as the triumphalism I was describing is concerned, just look at the posts in this thread! What is there that I've invented!? 
The fact that many Americans seem to be confusing vengeance with justice is here to see!


----------



## Regillus

Howard said:


> Could've they just cremated him then throw him in the ocean?


They wanted to bury bin Laden in accordance with Islamic practice - which means burial within twenty-four hours. They recited the proper verses from the Koran and then slid him off the deck of the USS Carl Vinson into the Arabian Sea.
So he's gone and good riddance.:icon_cheers:


----------



## Regillus

Chouan said:


> Interesting and unfortunate idea, to bury him at sea, then there's no absolute proof that he's dead. Seems like a schoolboy error to me. Given how the West, and especially the US is so widely distrusted in the Islamic world, destroying the evidence will no doubt be seen as there having been no evidence.
> I thought that the public reaction in the US was also a bit unfortunate. That level of public triumphalism didn't do the US any favours. Assassination, no matter how it is dressed up, isn't justice, any more than any other form of vigilante-ism
> Finally, Bin Laden wasn't the "leader" of Al Quaeda, it has no leaders. It is a loose confederation of people who share the same views. Killing Bin Laden will acheive, indeed, has acheived, nothing, apart from making many Americans very pleased.


There were pictures taken. Question is will they show them since they're pretty bloody. More likely is that they'll show the video of the burial at sea. Time will tell. They also took DNA samples so the ID will be definite. They've had DNA samples from bin Laden's family members for years so the comparison can be done. Chouan is wrong to say that this has achieved nothing. It's always important to catch the perpetrator of the most massive act of murder committed in America. Bin Laden would have initiated more attacks on the U.S. if he thought he could get away with it. The only reason he didn't is because the CIA and JSOC was breathing down his neck. Bin Laden knew that if we had the slightest bit of good information regarding his location we would raid it - he feared for his life and so kept his head down. It was always a stupid idea to use couriers to bring messages to Al Jazeera for broadcast - like the CIA wouldn't start watching and following everyone who went to Al Jazeera.


----------



## mrkleen

Chouan said:


> Interesting and unfortunate idea, to bury him at sea, then there's no absolute proof that he's dead.


If you think that, you are disillusion. The US military most certainly has EXTENSIVE DNA, Blood, Dental records, pictures, videos etc. They will revel what is appropriate, when it is appropriate, to whom it is appropriate. Just consider yourself out of the loop.


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> How does that fit in with the now current story that he was cowering behind his wife? Doesn't sound like he was shooting at them to me! Further details that, having been hit, and taken, he was then shot repeatedly. Again, doesn't sound to me as if they wanted to capture him.....





Chouan said:


> My sources, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 3, BBC Radio 4, and BBC Radio 5. None of these are famous for sensationalizing news, as far as I'm aware, and all carried the story I spoke of.
> ........


The news reports I've heard addressing shot placement all seem consistent in reporting a single shot to the left side of OBL's head and one to his chest, typical shot placement for a traditional "Double Tap" aiming strategy. In all the years I may have worn a uniform, I can not claim to ever have served as a special forces operator but, did have an occasion or two to work in conjunction with such individuals. They are, to a man, the most professional, self controlled individuals you will ever meet...they are certainly not combatants prone to take the type of indiscriminate shots described in your earlier post. Should your BBC sources be reporting the facts you are attributing to them, they are most assuredly sensationalizing in the present instance. If such is the case, I would look for other sources!


----------



## VictorRomeo

I've read this Mark Twain quote quite a bit in the past couple of days - "I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." It pretty much sums up my sentiments about his death. Do I care how he died? No. Actually, that's not so - I care that as his compound was attacked that the ferocity was such that he felt fear like never before. That, regardless of his use or no of his wife as a human shield, he died a cowards death - as we all know terrorists are cowards.

So, I would like to thank President Obama*, his intelligence team and those involved in the operation for taking down and out International Enemy #1.

*It was a really gutsy decision given the odds, circumstances and the political outcome if the mission failed. He genuinely showed great leadership here, imo.


----------



## Chouan

mrkleen said:


> If you think that, you are disillusion. The US military most certainly has EXTENSIVE DNA, Blood, Dental records, pictures, videos etc. They will revel what is appropriate, when it is appropriate, to whom it is appropriate. Just consider yourself out of the loop.


I'm under no illusion. 
If you read what I actually wrote, you'll see that it's not whether _*I*_ believe what happened, but what the Islamic world will believe. They are the ones you'll have to convince, not me. Will they believe the DNA records that you publish? I doubt it. Seeing as some Americans didn't believe in Obama's Birth Records, why would they?
Oh dear, I'm out of the loop. How will I sleep at nights......


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> The news reports I've heard addressing shot placement all seem consistent in reporting a single shot to the left side of OBL's head and one to his chest, typical shot placement for a traditional "Double Tap" aiming strategy. In all the years I may have worn a uniform, I can not claim to ever have served as a special forces operator but, did have an occasion or two to work in conjunction with such individuals. They are, to a man, the most professional, self controlled individuals you will ever meet...they are certainly not combatants prone to take the type of indiscriminate shots described in your earlier post. Should your BBC sources be reporting the facts you are attributing to them, they are most assuredly sensationalizing in the present instance. If such is the case, I would look for other sources!


I didn't say that they were indiscriminate shots. I would suggest that they were quite deliberate shots. I wasn't a "special forces operator" either, although I did train with the Royal Marines at Lympstone, who I would suggest are, in Special Forces terms, fourth in the world, behind the SAS, the SBS and La Legion, and even they would have been hard pressed to carry out the kind of "double tap" that you describe, side of the head then full in the chest, repeatedly. Doesn't sound like a "Double Tap" (what a lovely euphemism for killing someone) to me.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't regret his passing, just the attitude expressed by many Americans, which seems less than civilised to me.


----------



## Regillus

"...just the attitude expressed by many Americans, which seems less than civilised to me."

There's nothing wrong with celebrating the death of the guy responsible for murdering nearly 3,000 innocent people on 9/11. Bin Laden was also responsible for more deaths caused by the bombings at U.S. embassies in Africa before that.

I suppose you think that it was wrong to celebrate the death of Hitler.


----------



## mfs

Regillus said:


> They wanted to bury bin Laden in accordance with Islamic practice - which means burial within twenty-four hours. They recited the proper verses from the Koran and then slid him off the deck of the USS Carl Vinson into the Arabian Sea.
> So he's gone and good riddance.:icon_cheers:


That would be the San Diego based USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70).

God Bless America


----------



## mrkleen

Chouan said:


> If you read what I actually wrote, you'll see that it's not whether _*I*_ believe what happened


 Oh what would have given me THAT idea? 
 [FONT=&quot]


Chouan said:


> Interesting and unfortunate idea, to bury him at sea, then there's no absolute proof that he's dead. *Seems like a schoolboy error to me. *


So who is the person calling something you have ZERO first hand knowledge of, a "Schoolboy Error"? Was that the "Islamic world" that wrote your post and included the "seems to me" line, or was it actually you?

Now we are on to the real conspiracy theory out here....what terrorist group is hacking into Chouan's account? :confused2:

[/FONT]


----------



## Epaminondas

Chouan said:


> I don't regret his passing, just the attitude expressed by many Americans, which seems less than civilised to me.


Oh spare me the prissiness and this typical conceit of how un-civilized we Americans are. There seemed to be more than a little celebrating by Italians when Mussolini was hanging upside down from a lamp post. I suspect, if Hitler's suicide hadn't basically temporally coincided with the surrender of German forces, thus conflating the two events, there would have been plenty of French, British, Belgian, etc. etc. street side vulgarity in celebrating the death of the man.

I suppose the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi is an example of the European compassion and sophistication that we poor, crude Americans lack? If so, I'm pleased to be un-cvilized. I suggest you look back to British celebrations on the defeat of mahdi Muhammad Ahmad and other foreign leaders during the Victorian era and marvel at the vulgar, uncivlized responses of the British people when they were at the peak of their power. I wonder if the lack of ardor at celebrating the demise of a figurehead who helped killed thousands demonstrates not so much civlized behavior, but civilizational and cultural exhaustion.

BTW, Vengeance and Justice are not mutually exclusive terms as you imply.


----------



## CuffDaddy

If feeling outright joy at the slaying of an empathically-empty monster like OBL makes me uncivilized, hand me my loincloth and call me "barbarian." This was a creature that has voluntarily orpahned thousands of children, widowed thousands of wives, sewed chaos and suffering throughout the world, etc. 

He was a cancer on humanity. Like a cancerous tumor, he had human DNA. If a doctor successfully removes a cancerous tumor from a human who is suffering, there is no reason to demonstrate restraint out of concern for the dignity of the tumor - one simply celebrates. And when a tumor like OBL is excised from the body of humanity, there is no reason to do otherwise.


----------



## Jovan

Don't get me wrong -- the fact that he was removed in any fashion is, objectively speaking, a good thing. But when even lingerie stores start posting, "Let us celebrate the killing of Osama bin Laden and the blessing that this is for all the families affected by his actions," on their Facebook pages, start flying American flags and shooting off fireworks like it's a national holiday... I find all that celebration over the death of someone a little odd. Keep in mind I don't wish anyone killed and, by extension, am against the death penalty. That's just me. Maybe you guys will think I'm the odd one. I respect that.

I also understand _why_ other people are doing it. The people who were affected need some closure. I, on the other hand, felt almost nothing. He wasn't some mustache twirling villain strapping women to train tracks or blowing up a mine every other week and running off, just barely evading capture. He was hiding out for nearly a decade. It all feels a little anti-climactic.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Regillus

It is troubling that Pakistan's ISI intelligence service apparently didn't know that bin Laden was a stone's throw from Kakul - Pakistan's version of West Point. It raises the question of did they know and just kept quiet about it for their own reasons. Bin Laden was a rich man - he could have paid a few million in bribes to keep his presence secret. The U.S. pursuit of bin Laden brought hundreds of millions of dollars in support money to Pakistan. If bin Laden were caught or killed; that might be reduced or even eliminated. It's long been suspected that the ISI was taking U.S. money; funneling some of it to the Taliban; who then crossed into Afghanistan to launch attacks. So the U.S. was paying for both sides of the conflict. Either the ISI knew and didn't say anything or they're really a complete joke as an "intelligence" agency.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> It surely would be interesting to have the source references for all the additional details you have reported, regarding this highly classified military action. I am inclined to believe you incorporate as fact a fair degree of personal imagination in your postings, consistent with your pre-existing political/social beliefs. If such is indeed the case with your postings in these fora, I hope you are not so fast and loose with the facts you present your students in the classroom!


The information that you doubted was taken from a direct press from the Whitehouse. I heard this morning their apology for misleading the public, the information is now that he was found in an upstairs room, after the gunfight, unarmed, with his wife. She was shot in the leg, he was immediately killed by a shot to the head and several shots to the body, so effectively was summarily executed, which seems to have been the purpose of the action. Obama was reported last night stating that it was a commando operation rather than a missile or drone strike to ensure that it was him, and to ensure that he was killed.
Enough facts for you?


----------



## Chouan

Epaminondas said:


> Oh spare me the prissiness and this typical conceit of how un-civilized we Americans are. There seemed to be more than a little celebrating by Italians when Mussolini was hanging upside down from a lamp post. I suspect, if Hitler's suicide hadn't basically temporally coincided with the surrender of German forces, thus conflating the two events, there would have been plenty of French, British, Belgian, etc. etc. street side vulgarity in celebrating the death of the man.
> 
> I suppose the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi is an example of the European compassion and sophistication that we poor, crude Americans lack? If so, I'm pleased to be un-cvilized. I suggest you look back to British celebrations on the defeat of mahdi Muhammad Ahmad and other foreign leaders during the Victorian era and marvel at the vulgar, uncivlized responses of the British people when they were at the peak of their power. I wonder if the lack of ardor at celebrating the demise of a figurehead who helped killed thousands demonstrates not so much civlized behavior, but civilizational and cultural exhaustion.
> 
> BTW, Vengeance and Justice are not mutually exclusive terms as you imply.


This is the "he did it as well" defence that I'm so used to from 12 year olds. So what if other countries have displayed similarly unsavoury behaviour? Does it make it right? As far as hanging people from lamp-posts is concerned, I would have thought that the US was the world leader in lynching! 
The Scottish government releasing al-Megrahi on medical grounds, based on evidence given by a specialist doctor is indeed an example of what you're describing. What is wrong with it?
Finally, your ultimate sentence says it all. In a country whose legal system is based on the rule of law, vengeance and justice are not synonymous. In the Old Testament they were, but not in the New.


----------



## Chouan

A further "foot in mouth" from the CIA is telling the world that they couldn't trust the Pakistan government with the information. First they affront Pakistan's sovereignty by launching a military strike on that country, then rub salt into the wound by stating that Pakistan can't be trusted. 
Anymore own goals that you'd like the US government to score? Any other friendly countries that you'd like to alienate further?


----------



## Regillus

Chouan said:


> Any other friendly countries that you'd like to alienate further?


This just Chouan's usual flabby pomposity. Pakistan was friendly to the U.S. because it served their purposes to do so. The Paks wanted the U.S. to act as a moderating influence on India in case India started getting ideas about invading Pakistan and forcibly re-incorporating it into India (recall that Pakistan was once part of India; it was then called West Pakistan). Chouan chelps off because helps him to feel validated.


----------



## Chouan

Factual correction. Pakistan was indeed once part of India, when it was British India. When India became independent, so did Pakistan. Pakistan was the part of British India that was predominantly Islamic, and which didn't want to be dominated by the Hindu majority of India. Pakistan was divided into East Pakistan and West Pakistan. East Pakistan, howerver, in the 1970's sought and achieved independence from East Pakistan. It's new name was Bangladesh, East Pakistan then became plain Pakistan.
If you're going to accuse me of flabby pomposity, get your facts right, otherwise you'll look foolish.
Of course it suits Pakistan to be friends with the US. Don't most countries maintain friendship with other countries because of self-interest? Would you rather they went to the Chinese for support? Why alienate them? What does the US achieve by doing so?


----------



## Howard

I was reading that they should've buried him in the ground instead of at sea.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> The fact that many Americans seem to be confusing vengeance with justice is here to see!


Explain to us why these concepts are exclusive to one another.



Chouan said:


> ...vengeance and justice are not synonymous.


We already knew that.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> Finally, your ultimate sentence says it all. In a country whose legal system is based on the rule of law, vengeance and justice are not synonymous. In the Old Testament they were, but not in the New.


I think the New Testament is pretty clear that we are not supposed to confuse God's justice with the justice of governments/law/earthly powers. "Render unto Caesar," and all that.

On a more earthly level, what is the _purpose _of "justice"? I propose to you that it has three functional purposes: 1. specific deterence (making the subject of the justice less likely to do future harm); 2. general deterence (making other persons with possible inclinations towards bad actions less likely to engage in them); and 3. provision of sufficient vengance so as to forestall vigilantism. A fourth requirement is that the justice not invoke feelings of unfairness, either because of application to a wrong person, application in response to something not percieved to be a crime, or application of a disproportionate level of punishment/consequence/liability.

I submit to you that killing OBL advanced each of the three purposes I outline above, and did not in any way run afoul of the fourth. It was, in all respects, just.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> Any other friendly countries that you'd like to alienate further?


This begs the question. It is seriously in doubt whether Pakistan *is* a friendly country. Alternatively expressed, with friends like Pakistan, who needs enemies?

On a more sophisticated level, I assume you are familiar with the concept of the two-level game in international affairs. Simply summarized, the concept is that the more constrained a state or regime is by its domestic politics, the more powerful it is in bargaining with other international actors. Pakistan has certainly been invoking that concept, telling America (who provides it with billions of dollars of aid that it can ill-afford at the moment) that it would like to do more, but that its own internal political situation precludes more aggressive action on terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc.

Well, the game is two-level in America, too. If the American public becomes enraged at Pakistan, the state department and administration may become constrained in how little they are willing to accept from Pakistan. Pakistan has been getting the better end of the deal internationally because their hands were domestically tied. Maybe the administration is trying to tie its own hands domestically to even the power balance internationally.

Doesn't sound like an "own goal" to me.


----------



## Chouan

Fair point, but would you rather Pakistan was backed by the US, or by China? China is, as we are aware, seeking influence globally, and has the economy to aquire it. On the other hand, do you want Pakistan as an enemy? The West is already struggling financially, now with involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, do we want serious involvement in Pakistan as well?
Although satirical, thios is quite good on what you're suggested.

Mind you, the final paragraph made me laugh....


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan, if China can simply buy influence in Pakistan, we won't be able to outbid them for long anyway. The Pakistani leadership appears to have been trying to have it all ways for a while, and that just cannot continue.


----------



## Epaminondas

Jovan said:


> But when even lingerie stores start posting, "Let us celebrate the killing of Osama bin Laden and the blessing that this is for all the families affected by his actions," on their Facebook pages, start flying American flags and shooting off fireworks like it's a national holiday...


Not substantially different from Spode, Wedgewood, and others, etc. issuing commemorative porcelain to celebrate the deaths of thousand of Frenchman at Trafalgar - and that's just the high-end stuff - and there were plenty of flags and fireworks too. Why is it OK to commemorate/celebrate the deaths of thousands of enemies in a battle, but not the death of a single individual who killed thousands and would have killed millions if it had been within his means?


----------



## Epaminondas

Chouan said:


> This is the "he did it as well" defence that I'm so used to from 12 year olds.


No, it's not. You said that behavior was uncivlized. I'm saying - by what standard? Cite me a "civlized" country and I'll cite you an instance of people publicly celebrating the death of a tyrant.



Chouan said:


> So what if other countries have displayed similarly unsavoury behaviour? Does it make it right?.


 See above. It goes to your argument that somehow Americans are uncivlized and other countries/inhabtants wouldn't deign to engage in similar behavior.



Chouan said:


> As far as hanging people from lamp-posts is concerned, I would have thought that the US was the world leader in lynching! ?.


 Wow, that's clever, but a diversion from the arrogance and stupidity of your post about "civlized" behavior. Stick to the subject.



Chouan said:


> The Scottish government releasing al-Megrahi on medical grounds, based on evidence given by a specialist doctor is indeed an example of what you're describing. What is wrong with it?


 Served 8 years for killing 259 (270?) people and was released because he had 3 months to live and yet is alive years later- that's neither vengeance nor justice. If you can't tell that, you have no moral discernment. It would also seem that Scotland needs better medical schools if it was a Scottish doctor who proffered the meidcal "evidence."



Chouan said:


> Finally, your ultimate sentence says it all. In a country whose legal system is based on the rule of law, vengeance and justice are not synonymous. In the Old Testament they were, but not in the New.


 You're absolutely wrong and Cuffdaddy has adequately addressed this. And if you ever talk to a lawyer who tells you that any legal system ever delivers "justice" - either criminal or civil - with any regularity - he's lying.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Chouan said:


> Factual correction. Pakistan was indeed once part of India, when it was British India. When India became independent, so did Pakistan. Pakistan was the part of British India that was predominantly Islamic, and which didn't want to be dominated by the Hindu majority of India. Pakistan was divided into East Pakistan and West Pakistan. East Pakistan, howerver, in the 1970's sought and achieved independence from East Pakistan. It's new name was Bangladesh, East Pakistan then became plain Pakistan.
> If you're going to accuse me of flabby pomposity, get your facts right, otherwise you'll look foolish.
> Of course it suits Pakistan to be friends with the US. Don't most countries maintain friendship with other countries because of self-interest? Would you rather they went to the Chinese for support? Why alienate them? What does the US achieve by doing so?


I agree. No upside in alienating Pakistan. We should pretend to be friends with them just as they pretend to be friends with us.


----------



## rsmeyer

I agree entirely!


----------



## Howard

They might be posting the photos of the gruesome shooting.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Alas, in the relative distance from the experience afforded in this cyber operating environment of the Internet, it is all too easy to forget that every shooting provides for some pretty gruesome mental and pictorial images. Full-on combat experiences can leave participants with a lifetime of memories that are downright nightmarish. However, none of this dilutes the reality that a target(s) needed to be taken out! While I keep those incredible Seal Team members who completed this operation with such surgical precision in my prayers, I will personally celebrate the elimination of one of humanities most monstrous excuses for a human being!

I seriously doubt that there are very many 'red blooded American men' who, at least privately, does not wish that they had enjoyed the privilege of being the one to put lead on the target, in this instance! Perhaps that does qualify many of us as cowboys, Chouan, but---if so, so be it! :crazy:


----------



## Chouan

Epaminondas said:


> No, it's not. You said that behavior was uncivlized. I'm saying - by what standard? Cite me a "civlized" country and I'll cite you an instance of people publicly celebrating the death of a tyrant.


The behaviour was uncivilised. It doesn't matter who else's behaviour might be, or have been, uncivilised. A baying mob chanting "USA" because of the death of an enemy, no matter how richly deserved, in New York is no different to a baying mob chanting "Death to the USA" in Teheran. Both are shamefull and uncivilised.



Epaminondas said:


> See above. It goes to your argument that somehow Americans are uncivlized and other countries/inhabtants wouldn't deign to engage in similar behavior.


How other countries behave is irrelevant. My comment was about the shameful scenes in New York.



Epaminondas said:


> Wow, that's clever, but a diversion from the arrogance and stupidity of your post about "civlized" behavior. Stick to the subject.


I was replying to the post about Italians hanging Mussolini's body. The subject of hanging was brought up by another. The irony of an American bringing up that subject seems to be lost on you.



Epaminondas said:


> Served 8 years for killing 259 (270?) people and was released because he had 3 months to live and yet is alive years later- that's neither vengeance nor justice. If you can't tell that, you have no moral discernment. It would also seem that Scotland needs better medical schools if it was a Scottish doctor who proffered the meidcal "evidence."


Does American Justice never release people on Medical grounds? In any case, you haven't explained why this particular application of mercy was wrong.



Epaminondas said:


> You're absolutely wrong and Cuffdaddy has adequately addressed this. And if you ever talk to a lawyer who tells you that any legal system ever delivers "justice" - either criminal or civil - with any regularity - he's lying.


I would have thought that the delivery of Justice is the point of a legal system. People, however, are fallible, and a system depends upon people.

No comments on the incorrect press releases from the White House? Viz "died in fire-fight", "shot whilst cowering behind his wife", "resisted attempt to capture him"? The story now seems to be a summary execution/judicial murder.

Representing as you do an American viewpoint, how do you stand on terrorist murderers who have gained asylum in the US?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> Representing as you do an American viewpoint, how do you stand on terrorist murderers who have gained asylum in the US?


I'm willing to review each case individually on it's own merit.

Just like this one.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> The behaviour was uncivilised. It doesn't matter who else's behaviour might be, or have been, uncivilised. A baying mob chanting "USA" because of the death of an enemy, no matter how richly deserved, in New York is no different to a baying mob chanting "Death to the USA" in Teheran. Both are shamefull and uncivilised.


Really? _Really_? You cannot see the difference between cheering the death of one inarguably reprehenisbile **** sapien who _continued_ to work towards the goal of death of thousands or millions of innocents, and a chant that implictly calls for the death of thousands or millions of innocents?

As for the "uncivilized" charge, I suggest that you are using the wrong word. A hallmark of civilization is that it bands together the interests of its members, and, more often that not, defines itself in part by differentiation from those outside the group. The notion of a civilization without an enemy is a fairly recent one, I think.

EDIT: Hilarious! I referred to OBL as a h0m0 sapien, the scientific name for the species of humans. I chose to use that term because it seems indisputable that he is scientifically a member of that species, has human DNA, etc. I resisted calling him a "human," though, because to be fully human requires some level of empathy. He seems devoid of it. Yet the auto-censor here views h0m0 as being a perjorative term, presumably as a derrogatory term for homosexuals. Just for the record, I wasn't calling OBL gay. It seems pretty clear that he was not (or, if he was, it was deeply repressed!). Anyway, I just found it funny that the scientific name for our species gets auto-censored.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> Does American Justice never release people on Medical grounds? In any case, you haven't explained why this particular application of mercy was wrong.


I am unaware of a true mass murderer ever being released on medical grounds. We usually have the good sense to execute such people so that later moments of amnesia can't lead us to inexplicably release them.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> I am unaware of a true mass murderer ever being released on medical grounds. We usually have the good sense to execute such people so that later moments of amnesia can't lead us to inexplicably release them.


In Texas, Virginia and Florida they do!!


----------



## Epaminondas

Chouan said:


> The behaviour was uncivilised. It doesn't matter who else's behaviour might be, or have been, uncivilised. A baying mob chanting "USA" because of the death of an enemy, no matter how richly deserved, in New York is no different to a baying mob chanting "Death to the USA" in Teheran. Both are shamefull and uncivilised.?


 By what standard is cheering the death of a mass murderer uncivlized? By whose rules? Your own subjective determination? Excuse me, I'm not impressed or convinced.



Chouan said:


> I was replying to the post about Italians hanging Mussolini's body. The subject of hanging was brought up by another. The irony of an American bringing up that subject seems to be lost on you.


 The issue, of course, was not about hanging, it was about civlized people celebrating the death of Mussolini. I don't know why it is ironic for me to bring up Mussolini's execution - the point wasn't the means of the execution, but that people were cheering. You are aware that hanging is not an American invention or exclusive to America, right? I know you love to take pot shots at America but I suggest you look at the bloody history of Europe including torture, beheadings, hangings, burnings, mutiliations, expulsions of entire religious populations, pogroms, ghettoes, deportations, gulags, labor camps, concetration camps, holocausts, the tolerance and celebration of all the aforesaid to varying degrees, etc. that occurred regulalry throughout Europe until the presence of American military forces (i.e., post WWII) managed to suppress the internecine warfare and bloodlust that has plagued "civilized" Europe for millenia and be a little more circumspect in your attempt to portay America as unique in that respect (our history doesn't hold a candle to the bloodletting and cruelty of civlized Europe). Americans didn't invent hanging and I suspect more petty criminals were hanged in the city of London in a 50 year period than in the whole history of America.



Chouan said:


> Does American Justice never release people on Medical grounds? In any case, you haven't explained why this particular application of mercy was wrong..


 I'm not aware of an istance where a murderer of hundreds has ever been released in the U.S. on medical grounds - no. And mercy to whom? Again, we see the skewed and defective thought process that allowed you to blithely declare certain Americans uncivlized - you seem to lack the most basic intellectual calculator for performing moral arithmatic. I fail to see any mercy to the familes of the approximately 270 victims. Were they consulted? Were they asked how they felt about the release? Were they even considered? We surrender our right to personal vengeance with the understanding that the State will act on our behalf. Eight years of prison for killing 270 people may be mercy to a mass-murderer, but it is a far greater and outweighing cruelty to the victims' families and it has not even the appearance of justice. Where is the mercy to those families, who were wronged? To those who had loved ones ripped forever from their lives? Again, that you don't see that reflects your warped viewpoint. It shouldn't have needed explanantion. And let us remember that there is an extremely strong implication that the medical testimony (as it was clearly wrong) was duplicitous and a fraud.



Chouan said:


> I would have thought that the delivery of Justice is the point of a legal system. People, however, are fallible, and a system depends upon people.


 Yes, one might think that - but in the legal system, "Justice" is a noun, not an adjective. By defintion, Justice is whatever the legal system delivers (regardless of whether it is Just or not) - it's almost always hugely imperfect and almost never "Just" in any equitable or fair sense. However, he earlier point was that vengeance can be a component of justice - even when rendered by the State.



Chouan said:


> No comments on the incorrect press releases from the White House? Viz "died in fire-fight", "shot whilst cowering behind his wife", "resisted attempt to capture him"? The story now seems to be a summary execution/judicial murder.


 Well, that's all largely irrelevant to the post of yours that I was addressing.



Chouan said:


> Representing as you do an American viewpoint, how do you stand on terrorist murderers who have gained asylum in the US?


 I have no interest in arguing with you for argument's sake. Nor do I wish to engage in general disucssion with you and provide you with other opportunities to belittle America or her people. The topic was your subjective and ill-founded deifintion of "civlized" behavior.


----------



## Chouan

Epaminondas said:


> The issue, of course, was not about hanging, it was about civlized people celebrating the death of Mussolini. I don't know why it is ironic for me to bring up Mussolini's execution - the point wasn't the means of the execution, but that people were cheering. You are aware that hanging is not an American invention or exclusive to America, right? I know you love to take pot shots at America but I suggest you look at the bloody history of Europe including torture, beheadings, hangings, burnings, mutiliations, expulsions of entire religious populations, pogroms, ghettoes, deportations, gulags, labor camps, concetration camps, holocausts, the tolerance and celebration of all the aforesaid to varying degrees, etc. that occurred regulalry throughout Europe until the presence of American military forces (i.e., post WWII) managed to suppress the internecine warfare and bloodlust that has plagued "civilized" Europe for millenia and be a little more circumspect in your attempt to portay America as unique in that respect (our history doesn't hold a candle to the bloodletting and cruelty of civlized Europe). Americans didn't invent hanging and I suspect more petty criminals were hanged in the city of London in a 50 year period than in the whole history of America.


The hanging by a mob was mentioned, which is what I replied to. The rest of this is another "they did it too" defence. What was being discussed was hanging by mobs, not judicial murder, or "execution" or the "death penalty" as some people call it. In anycase, judicial murder as a punishment was abolished in Britain, and indeed in most of Europe about 50 years ago, as being barbaric and uncivilised. I believe it is still practised in some US States?
I could also argue that the US has had it's share of "expulsions of entire religious populations, pogroms, ghettoes, deportations, gulags, labor camps, concetration camps, holocausts" and "internecine conflicts", but I won't detail them all here.



Epaminondas said:


> I'm not aware of an instance where a murderer of hundreds has ever been released in the U.S. on medical grounds - no. And mercy to whom? Again, we see the skewed and defective thought process that allowed you to blithely declare certain Americans uncivlized - you seem to lack the most basic intellectual calculator for performing moral arithmatic. I fail to see any mercy to the familes of the approximately 270 victims. Were they consulted? Were they asked how they felt about the release? Were they even considered? We surrender our right to personal vengeance with the understanding that the State will act on our behalf. Eight years of prison for killing 270 people may be mercy to a mass-murderer, but it is a far greater and outweighing cruelty to the victims' families and it has not even the appearance of justice. Where is the mercy to those families, who were wronged? To those who had loved ones ripped forever from their lives? Again, that you don't see that reflects your warped viewpoint. It shouldn't have needed explanantion. And let us remember that there is an extremely strong implication that the medical testimony (as it was clearly wrong) was duplicitous and a fraud.


I seem to remember that there were British victims, mostly Scottish, whose government was the one that carried out the trial and released the person. Does US democracy extend to the extent of consulting victims of crimes as to the severity of the punishment of the perpetrators, or do you have Laws to cover that kind of thing? I'd rather assumed the latter.
As far as implications of duplicity and fraud are concerned, that is quite an assertion. Any evidence, or is it just that he has lived longer than expected. Some cancer patients do.



Epaminondas said:


> I have no interest in arguing with you for argument's sake. Nor do I wish to engage in general disucssion with you and provide you with other opportunities to belittle America or her people. The topic was your subjective and ill-founded deifintion of "civlized" behavior.


The topic was the death of Bin-Laden, my response was to the grotesque triumphalism of some Americans. And I see that the "anti-American" accusation has come up again. It can't possibly be a view of an event that has dismayed me, it can only be anti-Americanism" rearing it's ugly head again. How dare I criticise an unpleasant aspect of US culture!


----------



## Chouan

"

Originally Posted by *Chouan* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1211628#post1211628 
_No comments on the incorrect press releases from the White House? Viz "died in fire-fight", "shot whilst cowering behind his wife", "resisted attempt to capture him"? The story now seems to be a summary execution/judicial murder._

_*Well, that's all largely irrelevant to the post of yours that I was addressing. "*_

Sorry, that was in response to any earlier post challenging my facts. It seems, in passing, that the official story has changed again, now the White House tells us that there was only one person in the compound who was armed. He fired with a "smallarm" and was killed, the SEALs then killed everybody they found in the building, only sparing Bin Laden's wife, who they shot in the leg.
I wonder what the story will be tomorrow.
Perhaps my curiosity about what the new story might be is also belittleing America and it's people.


----------



## Chouan

CuffDaddy said:


> Really? _Really_? You cannot see the difference between cheering the death of one inarguably reprehenisbile **** sapien who _continued_ to work towards the goal of death of thousands or millions of innocents, and a chant that implictly calls for the death of thousands or millions of innocents?


No, I just find a baying mob, celebrating a death no less distasteful than a baying mob urging death.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> No, I just find a baying mob, celebrating a death no less distasteful than a baying mob urging death.


You, Sir, haven't any scruples!!


----------



## Howard

Would it make the world better if they shown the photos of Osama Bin Laden dead?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Howard said:


> Would it make the world better if they shown the photos of Osama Bin Laden dead?


I don't think so. In fact, the whole operation could have remained secret as far as I care.

Obama, "Helicopter rotor?? I wonder where THAT came from??"

But I suspect he'll keep the photos under wraps, it will become a big magillah in a few months or years, Trump will insist on seeing them, then Obama will acquiesce!!


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> No, I just find a baying mob, celebrating a death no less distasteful than a baying mob urging death.


...but, perhaps no less distasteful than many of us find the seemingly endless stream of anti-American BS you seem insistent of foisting upon us. BTW, could you please show us the White House press release that said a single pistol was the only enemy weapon found in OBL's hideout? Just yesterday, during an afternoon newscast, I was listening to the White House Press Secretary saying that two AK-47s and several sidearms were in the room in which OBL was taken down.

I continue to wonder as to the root causes of your vehement anti-Americanism(!)?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

eagle2250 said:


> BTW, could you please show us the White House press release that said a single pistol was the only enemy weapon found in OBL's hideout? Just yesterday, during an afternoon newscast, I was listening to the White House Press Secretary saying that two AK-47s and several sidearms were in the room in which OBL was taken down.


It appears our boys got a tad trigger happy.

It will be embarrassing for Holder to indite them right after dinner with the President.

But uphold the law he must!!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> No, I just find a baying mob, celebrating a death no less distasteful than a baying mob urging death.


Well, _de gustibus non est disputandum_. I, for one, found the celebrations of OBL's death to taste delicious.


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> But I suspect he'll keep the photos under wraps, it will become a big magillah in a few months or years, Trump will insist on seeing them, then Obama will acquiesce!!


LOL, exactly. Obama is hanging another pinata out there for political opponents to swing at. When they break it, they will find it is full of raw eggs, and it will be all over their face.


----------



## MikeDT

I thought Bin Laden had been declared 'dead' two or three times already in the past. So it's for real this time?


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ...but, perhaps no less distasteful than many of us find the seemingly endless stream of anti-American BS you seem insistent of foisting upon us.
> I continue to wonder as to the root causes of your vehement anti-Americanism(!)?


I would suggest that your accusation concerning the "endless streram of anti-American BS" is more an certain kind of American's perception of criticism of America or Americans. Rather than look dispassionately or objectively at what is being criticised, the criticism is labelled as anti-Americanism. 
If there was a thread in this forum in which a baying mob in London was celebrating a death, I would be embarrassed by it, and would condemn that behaviour. If Britain had sent an SAS team illegally into another country and assassinated a wanted terrorist who was sheltering there, I'd be unhappy about that as well, no matter how murderous or deserving of death the terrorist might be. I find state-sponsored murder disturbing no matter who or which country commits it. It just happens that the events under discussions were either in the US or were carried out by the US.



eagle2250 said:


> BTW, could you please show us the White House press release that said a single pistol was the only enemy weapon found in OBL's hideout? Just yesterday, during an afternoon newscast, I was listening to the White House Press Secretary saying that two AK-47s and several sidearms were in the room in which OBL was taken down.


There was no press release that I know of that said only a single pistol was found. Where did you get that from? Certainly not from me! I said that the White House had stated, reported by BBC Radio 4, that only one person was armed, and used a weapon, described as a smallarm. If the BBC reports that the White House has announced something, then that is factual enough for me to accept. There may, of course, have been several or even many weapons about the place. However, I wouldn't describe a man in a room which had even two AK-47s in it as necessarily being armed. Would you? As an ex-service person, would you consider yourself to be armed if there was a weapon in the room that you were in? Or would you consider yourself to be armed if you had hold of the weapon?
Are you denying that the facts about the event have been changing on an almost daily basis? Surely the US could get it's story straight *before* they announced it!

Finally I thought that Rowan Williams' view was an interesting one:

_"I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling, because it doesn't look as if justice is seen to be done._
_I think it's also true that the different versions of events that have emerged in recent days have not done a great deal to help._
_I don't know the full details, any more than anyone else does. But I do believe that in such circumstances, when we are faced with someone who was manifestly a war criminal in terms of the atrocities inflicted, it is important that justice is seen to be served."_

The Vatican's comment was:

_"Osama Bin Laden - as everyone knows - has had the gravest responsibility for spreading hatred and division among people, causing the deaths of countless people, and exploiting religion for this purpose._
_*Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices*, but reflects on the serious responsibility of everyone before God and man, and hopes and pledges that every event is not an opportunity for a further growth of hatred, but of peace."
_


----------



## Epaminondas

Chouan said:


> The hanging by a mob was mentioned, which is what I replied to. The rest of this is another "they did it too" defence. What was being discussed was hanging by mobs, not judicial murder, or "execution" or the "death penalty" as some people call it. In anycase, judicial murder as a punishment was abolished in Britain, and indeed in most of Europe about 50 years ago, as being barbaric and uncivilised. I believe it is still practised in some US States?
> I could also argue that the US has had it's share of "expulsions of entire religious populations, pogroms, ghettoes, deportations, gulags, labor camps, concetration camps, holocausts" and "internecine conflicts", but I won't detail them all here.


 
Talking to you is like talking to a child. So I'm not going to waste my time address all your inanity as you consistently go off on tangents or deliberately mischaracterize what I've stated - I'll start with simply your first comment. You're either slow on the uptake or deliberately obtuse - I suspect the latter. The fact that Mussolini was hanged is completely irrelevant to the point - get it? What was being discussed was NOT hanging by mobs (as you assert) - get it? Am I going slow enough for you? What was being discussed was your subjective, sneering, condescension is declaring many Americans "uncivilized" because they celebrated the death of a mass-murderer. Mussolini was mentioned as an example of ostensibly civilized people celebrating the death of a tyrant - the manner of death is irrelevant. As for the "they did it to" canard - again, I ask you ONCE AGAIN - on what basis to you declare such behavior uncivilized? Please, tell me - who IS civilized? What constitutes a "civilized" person? As for Europe eliminating the death penalty, convenient that it was done after a huge number of Axis leaders were executed following WWII, and I'm not sure that makes Europe more civilized - indeed, I suspect, by a number of important cultural indicators - Europe is less civilized than it was prior to WWII (as in many ways, the US is also - but the death penalty has nothing to do with it). The reason the death penalty was eliminated in most of Europe is that most of Europe is essentially less republican or democratic than the U.S. and it was simply dictated to Europeans by their governments. Those States in the U.S. which retain the death penalty do so as a direct result of the fact that their people want it and have generally voted to retain it - the same applies, in the opposite manner, to those states which have banned the death penalty; we have federalism here. I don't believe there is a country in Europe which banned the death penalty as a result of a referendum or by, in any way, letting people directly choose whether to ban or allow it - but then, Europeans seem more at ease with being dictated to, taking orders from the State, being deferential to their superiors and overlords, and in acquiescing generally - the less pliant and submissive Europeans came to America, apparently. It is odd, too, that the use of, or lack of use of the death penalty is a measure of civilization. I suspect many primitive tribes without literacy, metallurgy, or even the wheel, throughout the world had/have never practiced a "death penalty" within their community. The death penalty was used throughout Italy during the Renaissance - uncivilized was Florence circa. 1580? And, I suppose, those countries that banned the death penalty post WWII were all, de facto, uncivilized prior to it being banned? A sudden change from being uncivilized to civilized. So, your view of what is and isn't civilized, as I've stated, is based on no facts or objective measures. It's your subjective determination, based on your need to feel smug and self-righteous - which is pretty pathetic.

And finally, I never even insinuated that America had a perfectly clean past - I suspect that English is not your first language is it? You seem to struggle to understand my most basic points. I specifically stated that, given Europe's history of "expulsions of entire religious populations, pogroms, ghettoes, deportations, gulags, labor camps, concentration camps, holocausts and internecine conflicts" you should be more circumspect in ascribing uncivilized behavior to Americans - this does not imply "clean hands" by America - get it?


----------



## CuffDaddy

MikeDT said:


> I thought Bin Laden had been declared 'dead' two or three times already in the past. So it's for real this time?


*Never *by the U.S. And never categorically... many times people have speculated that he is dead. Usually Pakistanis, who just wanted the whole thing to go away.


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> ......
> There was no press release that I know of that said only a single pistol was found. Where did you get that from? Certainly not from me! I said that the White House had stated, reported by BBC Radio 4, that only one person was armed, and used a weapon, described as a small arm. If the BBC reports that the White House has announced something, then that is factual enough for me to accept. There may, of course, have been several or even many weapons about the place. However, I wouldn't describe a man in a room which had even two AK-47s in it as necessarily being armed. Would you? As an ex-service person, would you consider yourself to be armed if there was a weapon in the room that you were in? Or would you consider yourself to be armed if you had hold of the weapon?
> Are you denying that the facts about the event have been changing on an almost daily basis? Surely the US could get it's story straight *before* they announced it!
> .......


If the weapons were in the room and considering OBL's past record of atrocities and proclamations that he would not be taken (captured) alive, unless he had acted in a way that left absolutely no doubt as to his surrender, I would consider him to be a potential lethal threat and would react accordingly. It would appear that the SEAL involved felt likewise.

Over the course of quite a few years, a few of the bad boys I have played a part in bringing to justice have sworn that they would get even. While I have, hopefully, not allowed those threats to control my life, I also have not imprudently discounted them. As a consequence and in the interest of protecting my family, other than in the four bathrooms, there are virtually no rooms in my home in which I cannot reach a weapon, if the need to do so arises. While I consider my purpose(s) to be ever so much more noble that that of OBL, I would suggest that it is never wise to underestimate the capabilities of a determined man! The shooting of OBL was indeed a righteous shoot!.

PS: ...and as for the bathrooms, well I guess if Elvis (AKA: the King of Rock and Role) could check out under those circumstances, LOL, it's good enough for me, as well!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan, whether OBL was armed or not is *completely* irrelevant. Based on his status as a combatant, even the Geneva Conventions (the restrictions and protections of which many people have argued don't apply to terrorists - it's the liberal view [one I hold, FWIW] to say that they do apply) permit shooting him on sight unless he is making an unambiguous and manifest signal of surrender. Under international law, if we set aside the issue of Pakistan's sovreignty, it would have been entirely permissible to bomb the house flat with no possibility of surrender and no determination of whether anyone was armed.

The fact that OBL died without a gun in his hands is evidence only of the surprise and tactical success of the raid. The SEALs moved so quickly and efficiently that there was no time for OBL to effectively respond. That's the _goal_ in these sorts of opertations. Even a brief stand-off can quickly result in a reverse siege, with reinforcements summoned and surrounding the attacking force (see Mogadishu), or with booby-trap explosives being armed and detonated.

Perhaps you are confusing a military operation with a law enforcement exercise. They didn't got there to execute a warrant. They went there to destroy and enemy combatant. With the exception of violating Pakistan's sovreignty (which appears to have been absolutely necessary, given that they have been thoroughly untrustworthy), ALL of the varying accounts are consistent with international law.


----------



## Epaminondas

One misses the spirit, confidence, and geo-political clarity of the old, "un-civilized" British........

"
It took 13 years, but the outraged British population got vengeance. A punitive force under Gen. Horatio Kitchener defeated the Mahdist forces at Omdurman, killing more than 10,000 warriors against a loss of 48 men. The jihadists' faith and primitive weapons were no match for Kitchener's machine guns and artillery. 
In retaliation for Gordon's death -- and to break the Mahdi's spell -- Kitchener destroyed the Mahdi's ornate tomb, exhumed the body, cut off the head, threw the bones into the Nile and (much to Queen Victoria's horror) for a time kept the skull as a souvenir.

Read more: https://www.nypost.com/p/news/opini...rror_war_VrzmZVfWRBM5QNPWtvX2tN#ixzz1LaeynMdy​
https://www.nypost.com/p/news/opini...d_start_the_terror_war_VrzmZVfWRBM5QNPWtvX2tN

And this doesn't address the un-civlized celebrations, commemorative merchandise sold, etc.

Makes we Americans pikers in the vengeance department.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> LOL, exactly. Obama is hanging another pinata out there for political opponents to swing at. When they break it, they will find it is full of raw eggs, and it will be all over their face.


Perhaps the photos will surface a week or so before election day so we can all relive Obama's greatest moment??


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> Perhaps the photos will surface a week or so before election day so we can all relive Obama's greatest moment??


And that would allow you to enjoy a guaranteed 4 more years of President Obama's Greatest Moments. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## GentlemanGeorge

Epaminondas said:


> One misses the spirit, confidence, and geo-political clarity of the old, "un-civilized" British........


Hear, hear...

BTW, everyone, it is now "U"sama bin Laden or "UBL". Officially there have been too mix-ups between his name and the president's. Does anyone else find it curious the sudden policy among the media (of all persuasions) to shift a common and universal usage of the past 15 or more years? Hmmm...


----------



## Orsini

Epaminondas said:


> ...In retaliation for Gordon's death -- and to break the Mahdi's spell -- Kitchener destroyed the Mahdi's ornate tomb, exhumed the body, cut off the head, threw the bones into the Nile and (much to Queen Victoria's horror) for a time kept the skull as a souvenir...


Yeah, those British officers really knew how to rub it in when they taught their antagonists their manners. Doesn't sound like he observed the guy's religious preferences at all.

Wonder if he made it into a scull cup? Now, *that* would have been gross!


----------



## CuffDaddy

GentlemanGeorge said:


> Hear, hear...
> 
> BTW, everyone, it is now "U"sama bin Laden or "UBL". Officially there have been too mix-ups between his name and the president's. Does anyone else find it curious the sudden policy among the media (of all persuasions) to shift a common and universal usage of the past 15 or more years? Hmmm...


Well, that's the name that the CIA, DoD, and other government agencies have always used. But it's all arbitrary, since it's a transliteration from Arabic. He didn't actually have any roman alphabet initials. Since it seems to be causing a lot of typos, why shouldn't we change it? Heck, we can start spelling it "Sh!tface bin Ladin" for all I care.


----------



## Howard

MikeDT said:


> I thought Bin Laden had been declared 'dead' two or three times already in the past. So it's for real this time?


That's what I thought.


----------



## dks202

Chouan said:


> Does US democracy extend to the extent of consulting victims of crimes as to the severity of the punishment of the perpetrators, or do you have Laws to cover that kind of thing? I'd rather assumed the latter.


As a matter of fact yes, in Texas. It's called a Victim Impact Statement. Victims and family members are allowed to speak to the jury in the punishment phase about how their lives have been affected by the crime.


----------



## Cruiser

Chouan said:


> No, I just find a baying mob, celebrating a death no less distasteful than a baying mob urging death.


I think that the fact that a mass murderer who's stated goal was the continuation of the murder of as many innocent people as possible no longer walks among us is plenty of reason to celebrate.

Cruiser


----------



## Chouan

Epaminondas said:


> One misses the spirit, confidence, and geo-political clarity of the old, "un-civilized" British........
> 
> "
> It took 13 years, but the outraged British population got vengeance. A punitive force under Gen. Horatio Kitchener defeated the Mahdist forces at Omdurman, killing more than 10,000 warriors against a loss of 48 men. The jihadists' faith and primitive weapons were no match for Kitchener's machine guns and artillery.
> In retaliation for Gordon's death -- and to break the Mahdi's spell -- Kitchener destroyed the Mahdi's ornate tomb, exhumed the body, cut off the head, threw the bones into the Nile and (much to Queen Victoria's horror) for a time kept the skull as a souvenir.
> 
> Read more: https://www.nypost.com/p/news/opini...rror_war_VrzmZVfWRBM5QNPWtvX2tN#ixzz1LaeynMdy​
> https://www.nypost.com/p/news/opini...d_start_the_terror_war_VrzmZVfWRBM5QNPWtvX2tN
> 
> And this doesn't address the un-civlized celebrations, commemorative merchandise sold, etc.
> 
> Makes we Americans pikers in the vengeance department.


Apart from the fact that his name was Herbert, not Horatio, this again falls into the "he did it too" defence. So what if late 19th Century Britain at the height of it's jingoistic hubris did that. It was wrong. Does it make the jingoistic hubris of Americans now right?


----------



## Chouan

Epaminondas said:


> Talking to you is like talking to a child.




That is a persuasive argument; you're really going to convince me that way!



Epaminondas said:


> The reason the death penalty was eliminated in most of Europe is that most of Europe is essentially less republican or democratic than the U.S. and it was simply dictated to Europeans by their governments. Those States in the U.S. which retain the death penalty do so as a direct result of the fact that their people want it and have generally voted to retain it - the same applies, in the opposite manner, to those states which have banned the death penalty; we have federalism here. I don't believe there is a country in Europe which banned the death penalty as a result of a referendum or by, in any way, letting people directly choose whether to ban or allow it - but then, Europeans seem more at ease with being dictated to, taking orders from the State, being deferential to their superiors and overlords, and in acquiescing generally - the less pliant and submissive Europeans came to America, apparently.


I was accused of "anti-Americanism" and now you're making sweeping assertions that the US is more democratic! Hubris and arrogance or what! Most European countries have representative democracy. One votes for a person who will represent one in Parliament, in Britain's case. That representative votes in the assembly of representatives,, Parliament, in Britain's case, on legislation. What is dictatorship in that?



Epaminondas said:


> And finally, I never even insinuated that America had a perfectly clean past - I suspect that English is not your first language is it? You seem to struggle to understand my most basic points. I specifically stated that, given Europe's history of "expulsions of entire religious populations, pogroms, ghettoes, deportations, gulags, labor camps, concentration camps, holocausts and internecine conflicts" you should be more circumspect in ascribing uncivilized behavior to Americans - this does not imply "clean hands" by America - get it?


I suggest that you shouldn't go into teaching, or politics, or debating. You seem to think that not agreeing with your views means that I don't understand them, or that I don't fully understand English. I just don't agree with your view, and you've not only not been able to convince me, but you're now trying to shout, figuratively, to convince me, as well as adopting a patronising and insulting tone. Such a tone rarely wins people over.


----------



## Howard

I don't think we should be celebrating a death,It's in bad taste,In my Jewish religion we sit shiva but what does the Muslim religion do when a death of their own kind gets executed?


----------



## GentlemanGeorge

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, that's the name that the CIA, DoD, and other government agencies have always used. But it's all arbitrary, since it's a transliteration from Arabic. He didn't actually have any roman alphabet initials. Since it seems to be causing a lot of typos, why shouldn't we change it? Heck, we can start spelling it "Sh!tface bin Ladin" for all I care.


It's not the typos, it's the mix-ups in speech--notably, John Stewart's very public gaffe on his, you must admit, highly influential show. His audience, though lacking in any real political engagement or depth, is an enormously important demographic to Obama's reelection, and they can't allow the similarity to generate negative associations. I'm sure their polling showed the possibility of this result.

Everyone, I urge you to examine the discontinuity of principle between this action and stated principles concerning the release of the death photos, the detention and treatment of detainees, the trial of terrorist suspects in our civilian courts, etc., etc. You might reply: "Good... We didn't like those principles.", but what does that say about what we're being told? The Executive Administration is still struggling to fashion its "narrative" of the event, but I still wonder how they'll give a plausible account of how the Seal team managed to scuttle a Stealth helicopter, not get injured in the "crash", and leave the critical top-secret technology intact for the "Pah-kee-stah-ni" army to cart away. We're now reporting that we gathered the largest cache of information on Al-Qaeda operations during the entire "war on terror", but we destroyed what inarguably had inestimable value: Osama himself and those men most close to him. The women and children will not have been privy to the most important discussions, we know. What we did is far worse than "cowboy" vigilantism delivering summary justice execution-stye, it was a strategic blunder of epic proportions, giving cause for Pakistan to distance itself from the support of our objectives, raising questions about the limits of national sovereignty and our respect for it, upsetting the tenuous alliances we have with the governments of other Muslim nations, inflaming the passions of militant Jihadists and those susceptible to them, and giving them a martyr and cause. A picture of a grey bearded Osama wrapped in a blanket watching TV is not nearly so humiliating as parading him as a defenseless captive subject to our interrogation and judgement. I hope we won't be fooled by the wave of gratification we feel at having had our retribution and that we prepare to steel ourselves against the wave of chaos this will set in motion.

Allow me to add: my problem is not with the morality or justice of his killing, but the wisdom of it given the circumstances.


----------



## Chouan

Very good post. Some very good points, very well made.


----------



## Asterix

GentlemanGeorge said:


> It's not the typos, it's the mix-ups in speech--notably, John Stewart's very public gaffe on his, you must admit, highly influential show. His audience, though lacking in any real political engagement or depth, is an enormously important demographic to Obama's reelection, and they can't allow the similarity to generate negative associations. I'm sure their polling showed the possibility of this result.
> 
> Everyone, I urge you to examine the discontinuity of principle between this action and stated principles concerning the release of the death photos, the detention and treatment of detainees, the trial of terrorist suspects in our civilian courts, etc., etc. You might reply: "Good... We didn't like those principles.", but what does that say about what we're being told? The Executive Administration is still struggling to fashion its "narrative" of the event, but I still wonder how they'll give a plausible account of how the Seal team managed to scuttle a Stealth helicopter, not get injured in the "crash", and leave the critical top-secret technology intact for the "Pah-kee-stah-ni" army to cart away. We're now reporting that we gathered the largest cache of information on Al-Qaeda operations during the entire "war on terror", but we destroyed what inarguably had inestimable value: Osama himself and those men most close to him. The women and children will not have been privy to the most important discussions, we know. What we did is far worse than "cowboy" vigilantism delivering summary justice execution-stye, it was a strategic blunder of epic proportions, giving cause for Pakistan to distance itself from the support of our objectives, raising questions about the limits of national sovereignty and our respect for it, upsetting the tenuous alliances we have with the governments of other Muslim nations, inflaming the passions of militant Jihadists and those susceptible to them, and giving them a martyr and cause. A picture of a grey bearded Osama wrapped in a blanket watching TV is not nearly so humiliating as parading him as a defenseless captive subject to our interrogation and judgement. I hope we won't be fooled by the wave of gratification we feel at having had our retribution and that we prepare to steel ourselves against the wave of chaos this will set in motion.
> 
> Allow me to add: my problem is not with the morality or justice of his killing, but the wisdom of it given the circumstances.


 Excellent points!


----------



## sirchandler

Chouan said:


> The behaviour was uncivilised. It doesn't matter who else's behaviour might be, or have been, uncivilised. A baying mob chanting "USA" because of the death of an enemy, no matter how richly deserved, in New York is no different to a baying mob chanting "Death to the USA" in Teheran. Both are shamefull and uncivilised.


RELAX dude....

Have you ever thought for a moment that perhaps the foreign media is making a bigger deal out of the celebrating then what it really was? I'm not saying there was no celebrating. I live in New York City, as far as I'm concerned, the only people that have time and energy enough to make their way over to Ground Zero and Time Square (and the White House) at Midnight on a Sunday evening are bored college (university) students that do not have to be up and out of bed before the afternoon, and tourists (most of which are Europeans anyway). I am willing to wager the vast majority of the people in the celebrating crowds that are being reported to you on the night this was announced were made up of the two that I've just described. If perhaps the mission occurred on a Friday night or Saturday night then, sure. But it did not.

I personally had no problem with the celebrating. Did I jump on the train to Time Square to take part in it?....Hell no. I never venture to Time Square and Ground Zero simply for the fact that it is a crowded tourist trap, plus I had to be up for work pretty early the next morning, not to mention that I've mentally dismissed OBL a LONG time ago.

Chouan, my thinking is pretty much in line with the majority of Americans. So like I said before, Relax. And don't believe the hype.


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #85. Pakistan had better be careful. If it should become clear that the Paks have knowingly provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and other high-profile terrorists behind the shield of "sovereignty" then their sovereignty goes out the window. Is Ayman al-Zawahiri in Pakistan? The U.S. invaded Afghanistan to stop Al Qaeda - then Iraq, and now we're bombing Libya. Is Pakistan the next muslim country the U.S. will invade? Where will the terrorists go then? Iran? Remember, we didn't start this war - they did. The terrorists are a tiny bunch of fundamentalist Islamic zealots that the vast majority of muslims have disowned. While it might have been nice to capture bin Laden and the others who were shot the problem is that they were moving around - perhaps reaching for weapons or explosives-triggering devices. So they had to be shot to protect the lives of the SEALs.

Continuing #85: "...a plausible account of how the Seal team managed to scuttle a Stealth helicopter, not get injured in the 'crash', and leave the critical top-secret technology intact for the 'Pah-kee-stah-ni' army to cart away." It didn't happen that way. The SEALs blew up the chopper to keep anyone from getting the secret technology. Sohaib Athar, the 33-year-old IT consultant who was the first person to tweet the attack; said that he heard a loud explosion. That was the SEALs blowing up the chopper. How do you know that the U.S. left secret technology for the Pak army to find? What are your sources?

Continuing #85: "...inflaming the passions of militant Jihadists and those susceptible to them, and giving them a martyr and cause." They hate us anyway - we're not muslim and don't want to be. How dare we exercise such independence of thought!

Re #15: "Interesting and unfortunate idea, to bury him at sea, then there's no absolute proof that he's dead. Seems like a schoolboy error to me." Chouan; I'm surprised that someone as supposedly well educated as you would say that. You obviously don't know how these things work. The President of the United States would never have gone on television and publicly announced bin Laden's death at the hands of the U.S. unless he had absolute proof that it had happened. Recall how the "intelligence" on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction turned out to be false. After that fiasco; Obama wasn't about to go on international television and announce bin Laden's death without being certain that it had occurred. This information - photos, video, DNA analysis - was supplied only to the President; whether or not it would be released to the public was a separate issue.

Re #16: "How does that fit in with the now current story that he was cowering behind his wife? Doesn't sound like he was shooting at them to me! Further details that, having been hit, and taken, he was then shot repeatedly. Again, doesn't sound to me as if they wanted to capture him....." Chouan; there you go again (c.f. Ronald Reagan). As well-informed as you portray yourself to be it's surprising that after all these years of reading news accounts you haven't figured out that in the early hours of a big news story it's often the case that some of the details initially reported in the media later turn out to be wrong. This is not unusual; it's merely the effect of many people being involved in telling the story and the effect of deadline pressure. The only people with first-hand knowledge of what happened during the attack on the bin Laden compound are the Navy SEALs, and they can't talk to the media. So the media's accounts are all second-hand and third-hand information - inevitably some of the details will be inaccurate.

Re #19: "...my experience of the world, and on my studies in History."
Chouan - your experience of the world is worthless (see #16 supra) and you're a poor student of history; see #38 infra.

Re #25: "I'm under no illusion. If you read what I actually wrote, you'll see that it's not whether I believe what happened, but what the Islamic world will believe." Chouan; YOU said "then there's no absolute proof that he's dead." You said that - not the Islamic world. So it's you who's questioning whether or not bin Laden's dead. Once again you're pretending that someone didn't understand what you said - we understood you perfectly. This is just more of your America-hating condescension.

Re #38: "Factual correction. Pakistan was indeed once part of India, when it was British India. When India became independent, so did Pakistan. ...Pakistan was divided into East Pakistan and West Pakistan. East Pakistan, [however], in the 1970's sought and achieved independence from East Pakistan. It's new name was Bangladesh, East Pakistan then became plain Pakistan. If you're going to accuse me of flabby pomposity, get your facts right, otherwise you'll look foolish." Chouan's first error: East Pakistan sought and achieved independence from INDIA; not East Pakistan. Chouan's second error: "...East Pakistan then became plain Pakistan." Wrong! WEST Pakistan became plain Pakistan. You didn't correct anything that I said in my post because I didn't make any errors - I didn't mention East Pakistan because it wasn't necessary for what I was saying. Chouan: You're the one who looks foolish when you write things like that.

Re #51: "Representing as you do an American viewpoint, how do you stand on terrorist murderers who have gained asylum in the US?" Who are you talking about, Chouan? Name names.

Re #68: "I find state-sponsored murder disturbing no matter who or which country commits it." It...wasn't...murder. When Osama bin Laden launched the 9/11 attack on the U.S. he committed an act of war. That made him an enemy combatant. Which made it legal and proper to shoot him on sight. The only exception being if he was clearly surrendering; which he wasn't; he was trying to get away; maybe to reach a weapon, so killing him was justified. Chouan; you make the ignorant assumption that all killings are murder - even in self-defense. You place the insane requirement on people who are about to be victims of murder that they not kill the person who is about to murder them. Killing bin Laden was an act of self-defense. The intelligence information that's been retrieved shows that bin Laden was planning a 9/11 anniversary attack on rail lines in the U.S. And if he couldn't mount an attack on rail lines in the U.S. then maybe an attack on the tube in the U.K. would have been substituted to punish the U.K. for its alliance with the U.S.

Continuing with #68: "The Vatican's comment was: 'Osama Bin Laden - as everyone knows - has had the gravest responsibility for spreading hatred and division among people, causing the deaths of countless people, and exploiting religion for this purpose. Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices,....'" Chouan; you're a sad arse(1) and a scally(2) for quoting the Roman Catholic Church - the organization that has protected child rapists worldwide for decades if not centuries.

Again #51: "The behaviour was uncivilised." Chouan; you're making an a priori argument. Something isn't so merely because you say it is. You don't possess some infinite wisdom that others just don't understand. You're a Fanny Adams(3) firtling(4) about on these fora. There are a lot of people in America and Britain who would disagree with what you said. Particularly the people who use the tube regularly. You do recall the 07/07/2005 explosions on the London tube in which 52 innocent people were murdered? Three of the bombers were Pakistanis. I'm certain that many Londoners are happy to hear that bin Laden's dead and not able to plan attacks on Britain for being an ally of the U.S.

(1) 1. A pathetic person. Derog. 2. General insult for someone who acts contemptuously.
(2) A miscreant, an irresponsible, self-assured lout, usually male.
(3) Nothing at all.
(4) To appear busy but without actually achieving anything, to tinker, to do a task which is seen as a waste of time.


----------



## a4audi08

I think trying to take him alive would have been useless. Do you honestly think that he would tarnish his name/standing among his followers by ratting everyone else out? The only way that could ever possibly happen is if we decided to engage in activities that even our own government says are illegal. And during all of this time he's going to be celebrated as a living martyr by his fanatical followers. In 6 months this won't even be a real story anymore.


----------



## Regillus

a4audi08 said:


> In 6 months this won't even be a real story anymore.


Right. We'll be celebrating how we got Ayman al-Zawahiri.
He's the next al-Qaeda big shot we'll go after.:icon_viking:


----------



## Regillus

Chouan said:


> Apart from the fact that his name was Herbert, not Horatio, this again falls into the "he did it too" defence. So what if late 19th Century Britain at the height of it's jingoistic hubris did that. It was wrong. Does it make the jingoistic hubris of Americans now right?


You're wrong again, Chouan. His full name was Horatio Herbert Kitchener (see firstworldwar.com). You don't know your history.:icon_study: You look foolish when you write things like that, Chouan.


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #35: "This is the 'he did it as well' defence that I'm so used to from 12 year olds."

We don't need any such defense. Both Americans and Brits are quite happy that bin Laden is feeding the fish now and there's nothing wrong with that.:biggrin2:


----------



## VictorRomeo

Here's an unusual one......

https://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=219660


----------



## WouldaShoulda

GentlemanGeorge said:


> Allow me to add: my problem is not with the morality or justice of his killing, but the wisdom of it given the circumstances.


The President already lost the Gitmo/Civilian trial argument.

Do you think he wanted OBL as a captive proving him wrong all over again??


----------



## Howard

Regillus said:


> Right. We'll be celebrating how we got Ayman al-Zawahiri.
> He's the next Al Qaeda big shot we'll go after.:icon_viking:


and all the other Muslims too.


----------



## Howard

terrorism will still continue,right now some Muslim is plotting a plan to blow up something,we will never know when/where he'll strike.


----------



## CuffDaddy

GG,

Certainly one of the more interesting posts in the thread. I agree with little of it, but it was engaging! A couple of points in respone:

1. I think Jon Stewart's audience actually has more "depth" and "engagement" than most viewers of TV news. A few years ago a study was done that showed a higher correlation between knowing the correct answers to factual questions about recent events and watching the Daily Show than knowing those same facts and watching various other "real" news shows. As for whether a member of Stewart's audience would change whom they would vote for based on a slip of the tounge, I would say the chances are approximately zero. And, as I previously pointed out, *U*BL has been standard in the government since the 90's.

2. See my prior post about US-Pakistani relations being a two-level game. The Pakistanis have been able to get away with some pretty half-hearted efforts by claiming that their domestic politics constrained them. The US can gain power in their bargaining by constraining itself at home.

3. Additionally, if the US simply accepts whatever the Pakistanis are willing to give, where is the incentive to give more? Demonstrating that we can and will publicly violate their sovreignty if they don't play ball with us puts the pressure on them to more effectively deal with terrorists on their own. It may also have been intended to telegraph our ability to snatch their nuclear weapons in the event of an arbupt shift in position by them.

4. I think you underestimate the value in the conflict with Islamic fundamentalism to having closure on UBL. Any period of captivity would be another narrative for AQ to recruit around. Getting shot in the face, however, is not much of a narrative. You probably cannot deter the small number of AQ leaders, but you can deter a good many of the potential AQ recruits in the world. The trick is to deter them as much as possible without inflaming or inspiring them. I think the solution used by the administration is certainly reasonably calculated to be an optimal solution. Reasonable people can disagree about whether another course of action might have better optimized those two factors, but only [ God/Allah/deity of your choice/non-existent omnicient construct/spirit of enlightenment throughout the cosmos ] _knows_.


----------



## Epaminondas

Chouan said:


> Does it make the jingoistic hubris of Americans now right?


Ah, finally. Finally some honesty. It's not about "some" Americans or "civlized" behavior - for which you have yet to offer an objective description or measure. It's simply about your loathing of Americans in general - which is pretty much what I expected.

It's as if this guy knows you:

"_No, the now widespread 'uncomfortable feeling' with the shooting of bin Laden is really an expression of moral reluctance, even of moral cowardice, a desire to avoid taking any decisive action or expressing any firm emotion that might have some blowback consequences for us over here. It is the politics of risk aversion rather than the politics of anti-imperialism, the same degraded sentiment that fuelled the narcissistic 'Not in my name' response to the Iraq War in 2003._

_So these critics fret that the killing of bin Laden, and the 'scenes of jubilation' it gave rise to, might heighten the threat of another terror attack. Watching Americans celebrate OBL's death, __: 'I realised that it would increase the likelihood of a terror attack on London.' This is really a call to elevate precaution over action, meekness over passionate political feeling, staying at home over taking risks, all in the name of protecting ourselves from any possible future action by a hot-headed Islamist. In this sense, the disdain for America and its people is really an expression of angst about what America is perceived to represent: confidence, cockiness, self-possession, a willingness to take risks (little of which is actually accurate). The post-OBL 'uncomfortable feeling' is really a quite craven sentiment, a fear-fuelled desire for self-preservation over anything else, which is dolled up as a principled critique of American militarism_."

Source:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Epaminondas said:


> It's as if this guy knows you:


That's funny!!

"Respect" for the Muslim perspective also includes believing every negative stereotype in predicting that the Islamist horde will strike back in fury.

I thought that thinking is what they were against??

Then again, they have no idea what they are against!!

I think.

:confused2:


----------



## Epaminondas

Chouan said:


> I suggest that you shouldn't go into teaching, or politics, or debating. You seem to think that not agreeing with your views means that I don't understand them, or that I don't fully understand English. I just don't agree with your view, and you've not only not been able to convince me, but you're now trying to shout, figuratively, to convince me, as well as adopting a patronising and insulting tone. Such a tone rarely wins people over.


You must not understand them as you never address the gravamen of the argument (by what measure is the behavior is uncivilized), you go off on tangents (e.g., lynching), and you mischaracterize what I've written consistently (I made no mention of a current dictatorship in the UK, but did mention U.S. state referenda and ballot initiatives). Further, I'm not trying to convince you - I know your position is not based on fact, objectivity, or fairness; it's based on animus, chauvism, and snobbery. I was trying to get at the root of the matter - which you finally got to in another post. Your statement was based on a general dislike of America/Americans - citing "uncivilized" behavior was just your snobby little pretense. No doubt the ancient Greeks made the same assertion about "uncivlized" Romans after the Greek city states had become a defeated, weak, and dissipated populace.


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #99: "In this sense, the disdain for America and its people is really an expression of angst about what America is perceived to represent: confidence, cockiness, self-possession, a willingness to take risks (little of which is actually accurate). The post-OBL ‘uncomfortable feeling’ is really a quite craven sentiment, a fear-fuelled desire for self-preservation over anything else, which is dolled up as a principled critique of American militarism."

Yes!, Yes!, a thousand times Yes!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## thefancyman

Howard said:


> terrorism will still continue,right now some Muslim is plotting a plan to blow up something,we will never know when/where he'll strike.


Or a Christian, Jew, Atheist, Hindu, Agnostic, Catholic etc.


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #95: "The President already lost the Gitmo/Civilian trial argument.

Do you think he wanted OBL as a captive proving him wrong all over again??"

Precisely. The President didn't want to open up an international legal can of worms over who should have bin Laden or put him on trial. Should Pakistan have him since that's where he was? Should the Paks try him for instigating terrorism on and from their soil? Should the Afghans have him and try him for acts of terrorism committed on their soil? If we put him at Gitmo then does he get a civilian trial or a military tribunal? Would a civilian trial be held in NYC or not? Should each country where al-Qaeda has launched attacks have their turn at trying bin Laden in their courts? The way to avoid all these legal entanglements was to kill him and then quickly bury him at sea so that the burial location couldn't be used to rally and exhort muslim extremists to attack the U.S. So all these questions are rendered moot - it's over with.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Howard said:


> and all the other Muslims too.


Howard, please make sure you leave the 14 Muslims who work for me alone..... They're good guys and girls and work really hard for their paycheck. They say their prayers, live clean and health lives, love their kids and not even once did I ever see them eat a baby or blow up a bus.


----------



## Chouan

Epaminondas said:


> Ah, finally. Finally some honesty. It's not about "some" Americans or "civlized" behavior - for which you have yet to offer an objective description or measure. It's simply about your loathing of Americans in general - which is pretty much what I expected.
> 
> It's as if this guy knows you:
> 
> "_No, the now widespread 'uncomfortable feeling' with the shooting of bin Laden is really an expression of moral reluctance, even of moral cowardice, a desire to avoid taking any decisive action or expressing any firm emotion that might have some blowback consequences for us over here. It is the politics of risk aversion rather than the politics of anti-imperialism, the same degraded sentiment that fuelled the narcissistic 'Not in my name' response to the Iraq War in 2003._
> 
> _So these critics fret that the killing of bin Laden, and the 'scenes of jubilation' it gave rise to, might heighten the threat of another terror attack. Watching Americans celebrate OBL's death, __: 'I realised that it would increase the likelihood of a terror attack on London.' This is really a call to elevate precaution over action, meekness over passionate political feeling, staying at home over taking risks, all in the name of protecting ourselves from any possible future action by a hot-headed Islamist. In this sense, the disdain for America and its people is really an expression of angst about what America is perceived to represent: confidence, cockiness, self-possession, a willingness to take risks (little of which is actually accurate). The post-OBL 'uncomfortable feeling' is really a quite craven sentiment, a fear-fuelled desire for self-preservation over anything else, which is dolled up as a principled critique of American militarism_."
> 
> Source:


Curious, you quoate somebody else's view as if it is evidence, or proof. Of what, exactly? It is somebody's opinion, no more. The article quotes Ken Livingstone, a leftist, terrorist apologist, of whatever persuasion, as if anybody who didn't like what happened is the same. Don't do GCSE History in Britain, on this evidence of your ability to deal with evidence and sources you'd fail!
The Archbishop of Canterbury, whom I quoted earlier, also thought the scenes in New York repugnant. He isn't somebody who shares the views expressed in your article, but who was dismayed at American attitudes. Sorry, if we're being pedantic, at the attitudes displayed by some Americans. On the other hand, so many Americans have defended those attitudes in these pages, perhaps it should just be "Americans".
I think that "jingoistic hubris of Americans" now is a good comparison with the jingoistic hubris of the British in the late 1890's. It doesn't mean that I loath America or Americans, anymore than I loath Britain or the British of 1899. It is, I would suggest, your personal jingoistic hubris and chauvenism that equates criticism of anything American with anti-Americanism.
This guy knows me? He hasn't got any more idea about me than you have.


----------



## Chouan

sirchandler said:


> RELAX dude....
> 
> Have you ever thought for a moment that perhaps the foreign media is making a bigger deal out of the celebrating then what it really was? I'm not saying there was no celebrating. I live in New York City, as far as I'm concerned, the only people that have time and energy enough to make their way over to Ground Zero and Time Square (and the White House) at Midnight on a Sunday evening are bored college (university) students that do not have to be up and out of bed before the afternoon, and tourists (most of which are Europeans anyway). I am willing to wager the vast majority of the people in the celebrating crowds that are being reported to you on the night this was announced were made up of the two that I've just described. If perhaps the mission occurred on a Friday night or Saturday night then, sure. But it did not.
> 
> I personally had no problem with the celebrating. Did I jump on the train to Time Square to take part in it?....Hell no. I never venture to Time Square and Ground Zero simply for the fact that it is a crowded tourist trap, plus I had to be up for work pretty early the next morning, not to mention that I've mentally dismissed OBL a LONG time ago.
> 
> Chouan, my thinking is pretty much in line with the majority of Americans. So like I said before, Relax. And don't believe the hype.


Except that the "hype" is being celebrated in these pages.


----------



## Chouan

Regillus said:


> Re #51: "Representing as you do an American viewpoint, how do you stand on terrorist murderers who have gained asylum in the US?" Who are you talking about, Chouan? Name names.


How many Irish Republican terrorists have been extradited from the US to stand trial for their crimes?
Patrick J. Doherty, Desmond Mackin, Peter McMullen for 3, who haven't, on the grounds that their crimes were political acts.
How about the work of Peter J.King, now Chairman of the House Homeland security Committee and is on the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence. Here's a man who has actively supported Republican terrorism!


----------



## Howard

thefancyman said:


> Or a Christian, Jew, Atheist, Hindu, Agnostic, Catholic etc.


Yes That too.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

thefancyman said:


> Or a Christian, Jew, Atheist, Hindu, Agnostic, Catholic etc.


Please list the terror sponsoring States and OBL equivalents of these non-Muslim faiths in modern times.



Howard said:


> Yes That too.


Don't give in so easily.


----------



## Epaminondas

Chouan said:


> Except that the "hype" is being celebrated in these pages.


Nobody is celebrating the "hype". Hell, I was in my PJs when I heard he was killed, watched the news, and went to bed. The issue is your slur - sir. See, once again, I suspect language difficulties as I thought this perfectly clear - but you either don't understand or choose to mis-direct.


----------



## Epaminondas

GentlemanGeorge said:


> Allow me to add: my problem is not with the morality or justice of his killing, but the wisdom of it given the circumstances.


Ignoring the issues that our own Attorney General seems to feel that he would have been obliged to Mirandize OBL, 
I suspect, had OBL been taken alive and put on trial, we would be facing a rash of ongoing random American civilian kidnappings throughout the world combined with videotaped beheadings (i.e., Dan Pearl X 1000) and continuous demands for his release in exchange for a cessation of the innocent bloodshed. I think it's much better that he is simply dead and disposed of. Dead, I doubt any muslims who weren't already so motivated, are likely to start planning how to attack American interests; alive, especially if AG Holder had his way with a civlian trial and all the media circus aspects and drawn out procedures, I think OBL would have been more impactful in motivating new recruitment/members of terrorist groups. No proof for this - just my opinion.


----------



## sirchandler

Chouan said:


> Except that the "hype" is being celebrated in these pages.


Chouan,

What are your thoughts (and the thoughts of the English citizens) of Trafalgar Square and Nelsons Column that sits right smack in the middle of it? Just curious


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Now that we are on the topic of tacky displays....


----------



## thefancyman

WouldaShoulda said:


> Please list the terror sponsoring States and OBL equivalents of these non-Muslim faiths in modern times.


I'm not sure how you define modern times but many Southern US States openly supported the Klux Klux Klan (a Christian group) into the 1950s.

There are many radical groups in Israel that supported Yigal Amir, the Jewish man who assassinated the PM of Israel Yitzhak Rabin because he participated in the Oslo Accords with Palestine (1995).

Members of the dominant Northern Irish political party Sinn Féin openly supported the Provisional IRA bombings from 1970 to 1997. They were Roman Catholic.

From 1983 until 2009 the Hindu Group the Tamil Tigers led by Velupillai Prabhakaran operated in Sri Lanka and actively murdered the native Buddhist Sri Lankan population to the south to attempt to secure a northern Tamil Free State. In 1984 they assassinated the PM of India Indira Ghandi.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

thefancyman said:


> I'm not sure how you define modern times but many Southern US States openly supported the Klux Klux Klan (a Christian group) into the 1950s.
> 
> There are many radical groups in Israel that supported Yigal Amir, the Jewish man who assassinated the PM of Israel Yitzhak Rabin because he participated in the Oslo Accords with Palestine (1995).
> 
> Members of the dominant Northern Irish political party Sinn Féin openly supported the Provisional IRA bombings from 1970 to 1997. They were Roman Catholic.
> 
> From 1983 until 2009 the Hindu Group the Tamil Tigers led by Velupillai Prabhakaran operated in Sri Lanka and actively murdered the native Buddhist Sri Lankan population to the south to attempt to secure a northern Tamil Free State. In 1984 they assassinated the PM of India Indira Ghandi.


The KKK a "Christian Group"

Thought so.

Your examples are laughable.


----------



## thefancyman

WouldaShoulda said:


> The KKK a "Christian Group"
> 
> Thought so.
> 
> Your examples are laughable.


If you didn't know that the KKK saw themselves as a Christian group than you don't know much about the KKK. I also don't see how my examples are laughable because from 1890 to 1950 the KKK was responsible for more than 3000 lynchings that were sanctioned by local sheriffs and police chiefs and regular officers many whom were members of the KKK. Those Southern towns were terror sponsoring states and they killed innocent black Americans in the name of God. This is no different from any other brand of state sponsored or non state sponsored terrorism.

Also, the genocide of Roman Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Jews and Palestinians in Israel and Hindus and Buddhists in Sri Lanka are all real acts of terrorism by non-muslim people.


----------



## Epaminondas

thefancyman said:


> I'm not sure how you define modern times but many Southern US States openly supported the Klux Klux Klan (a Christian group) into the 1950s.


Oh give it a rest. As a non-native southerner, I get pretty tired of these bogus, one-sided stories. The KKK was popular ALL OVER the country in the early 1900s and seems to exist all over the country to this day (see article below about Connecticutt as of the 1990s), it wasn't just a southern thing.

See e.g.(and there are MANY more examples) :

https://www.projo.com/specials/century/month4/426nw1.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ku_Klux_Klan_in_New_Jersey


----------



## WouldaShoulda

thefancyman said:


> Those Southern towns were terror sponsoring states and they killed innocent black Americans in the name of God. This is no different from any other brand of state sponsored or non state sponsored terrorism.


Explain the multinational scope of the KKK.

What are the Muslim equivalents to the Freedom Riders, MLK and the FBI that opposed them??


----------



## Epaminondas

thefancyman said:


> If you didn't know that the KKK saw themselves as a Christian group than you don't know much about the KKK. I also don't see how my examples are laughable because from 1890 to 1950 the KKK was responsible for more than 3000 lynchings that were sanctioned by local sheriffs and police chiefs and regular officers many whom were members of the KKK. Those Southern towns were terror sponsoring states and they killed innocent black Americans in the name of God. This is no different from any other brand of state sponsored or non state sponsored terrorism.


1) Initially, you didn't say that they only saw themsleves as a Christian group - you asserted they were a Christian group. Glad to see you modify the statement. However, their subjective view is irrelevant. If I call myself a French Fry - does it make me one? I'm assuming the KKK happily rejects HUGE swathes of the Bible as well as a vast portion of the settled doctrines and teachings of Christianity that about 98% of Protestants and Catholics would agree on as orthodoxy. Hell, I think Jim Jones considered himself a Christian as he was handing out the Kool-Aid. Didn't make him one.

2) Not that it matters, but I doubt it's factual to ascribe all those deaths to the KKK (I assume a portion was simply done by unorchestrated vigilantiism) . And, it's wrong to, once again, imply that this was exclusively a Southern issue ("those Southern towns"). According to the study below, the South did disproportionately lynch Blacks, but it certainly happened all over the country - including New Jersey, New York (study post-dates the draft riots in NYC in 1863 in which 11 blacks were hanged), and Pennsylvania and large portions of the midwest and west which can in no way be considered the "South". You will note from the study, too, that lynching wasn't reserved just for Blacks - though, again, it was very much disproportionately inflcited on Blacks. If the KKK were involved in all of them, then that would be clear evidence that the KKK wasn't just a Southern issue as well, but that they existed almost in every U.S. state (which they probably did).

3) I'll simply ignore the other leaps of logic or ill-founded assertions, but on the arguments you've used, you might as well say that Bensonhurst was state sanctioned. You painted with a mighty broad brush.


----------



## thefancyman

Epaminondas said:


> Oh give it a rest. As a non-native southerner, I get pretty tired of these bogus, one-sided stories. You should do little reading - the KKK was popular ALL OVER the country in the early 1900s, it wasn't just a southern thing.


You are very correct, the KKK was popular all over the US including in New Jersey. Although, NJ fought in the Union Army we did not outlaw slavery in our state until the 13th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified in 1865 and there were legal New Jersey slave holders and slaves in 1865 in our state. We have a long and brutal past of racism in our state that still prevails as evidenced by the 1967 riots in Newark.



WouldaShoulda said:


> Explain the multinational scope of the KKK.
> 
> What are the Muslim equivalents to the Freedom Riders, MLK and the FBI that opposed them??


I don't know of the KKK's presence internationally but they did have one that went across state lines.

There really in no equivalent to Martin Luther King Jr. or even Osama Bin Ladan. However, I can think of the case in 2002 in India in the province of Gujurat when on February 28th when Hindus went in the Muslim neighborhood and raped about 400 women, murdered 2000 Muslims and forced more than 200,000 to abandon their homes and leave in exile. The murderers were dressed in the uniform of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh which is the Organization of National Volunteers. The rioters were given digital print outs of Muslim home locations in neighborhoods from the local police database by the local police and it was believed to have been planned weeks in advance. It is widely believed that the Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi sanctioned the killings on a day of planned mourning of 58 Hindus who were killed in a train car set on fire by a Muslim who had been taunted by those Hindus who had arrived in Gujarat to celebrate the building of a new Hindu temple on a demolished 16th century Mosque.

There is no MLK in this event but the Indian government actively conspired against the local Muslim population as did the FBI against SCLC from 1963 to 1968.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

thefancyman said:


> There really in no equivalent to Martin Luther King Jr. or even Osama Bin Ladan. However, I can think of the case in 2002 in India...


We may get to India eventually.

First you have to admit that the KKK analogy was ill-concieved.


----------



## thefancyman

WouldaShoulda said:


> We may get to India eventually.
> 
> First you have to admit that the KKK analogy was ill-concieved.


I believe it was exactly what you asked for. "Please list the terror sponsoring States" which I stated was literally the Southern US States but as pointed out Northern ones as well and "OBL equivalents of these non-Muslim faiths in modern times." Modern times was the 1950s and the non-Muslim faith was Christianity because KKK members see themselves as Christians just as Al-Qaeda members see themselves as Muslims and both are terrorist organizations.


----------



## Epaminondas

WouldaShoulda said:


> Now that we are on the topic of tacky displays....


Apparently, some share Joseph Stalin's viewpoint: "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic."

In the context of the post, celebrating one death is uncivilized; celebrating the deaths of thousands/millions in battles or wars makes great tourist attractions.


----------



## CuffDaddy

fancyman, isn't the _important_ fact that the U.S. forced those political subdivisions that were supportive of terrorism (domestic though it was) to crack down on them? And before they could change the minds of the southern states, they violated the purported sovriegnty of those states with federal troops and law enforcement? And put all the KKK members against whom they could make a case for actually committing serious violence (not just donning a hood and reciting some pledge) on trial?

If we're going to draw comparisons to the KKK in the 50's and early 60's, I would say that the US comes out looking pretty good. We had radical elements, and we generally managed to punish those that violated the law and politically marginalized those that didn't.


----------



## thefancyman

CuffDaddy said:


> fancyman, isn't the _important_ fact that the U.S. forced those political subdivisions that were supportive of terrorism (domestic though it was) to crack down on them? And before they could change the minds of the southern states, they violated the purported sovriegnty of those states with federal troops and law enforcement? And put all the KKK members against whom they could make a case for actually committing serious violence (not just donning a hood and reciting some pledge) on trial?
> 
> If we're going to draw comparisons to the KKK in the 50's and early 60's, I would say that the US comes out looking pretty good. We had radical elements, and we generally managed to punish those that violated the law and politically marginalized those that didn't.


Oh yes, it certainly is important they the KKK does not have the power it did 50+ years ago because of the Supreme Court, JFK, Attorney General RFK and the National Guard.

The point I was trying to make is that people of all religious backgrounds can and have been terrorists. We look much better than Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka at this point.


----------



## Chouan

sirchandler said:


> Chouan,
> 
> What are your thoughts (and the thoughts of the English citizens) of Trafalgar Square and Nelsons Column that sits right smack in the middle of it? Just curious


I suppose that a memorial to Admiral Lord Nelson whose action at Trafalgar prevented a French invasion, and died in doing so, is quite reasonable. It celebrates Britain being saved from invasion rather than an enemy defeat, so I'm ok about it.

On the other hand, given that it was built in the 1840's, even if it was in celebration of a victory in a more general sense, I feel no personal responsibility, any more than I feel a personal responsibility for the celebrations of the defeat of the Khalifa at Omdurman. People in the 1840's, as in the 1890's had different attitudes.


----------



## Howard

Do you think his son should be shot too?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

thefancyman said:


> The point I was trying to make is that people of all religious backgrounds can and have been terrorists. We look much better than Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka at this point.


So once again we agree.

There is a Muslim problem and not enough is being done in Muslim communities to stop it!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Howard said:


> Do you think his son should be shot too?


The one in Pakistan with him was.

Any family member that ratted out his locatuion should be rewarded.


----------



## Epaminondas

thefancyman said:


> Oh yes, it certainly is important they the KKK does not have the power it did 50+ years ago because of the Supreme Court, JFK, Attorney General RFK and the National Guard.


 I would submit none of those had much of anything to do with the decline of the KKK (maybe civil rights, but not the decline of the KKK) - and you are aware that the Supreme Court had at least one (former) member of the KKK on it in the past 50+ years? The KKK was in consistent decline in number and influence from the 1920s and none of the aforemetioned had anything to do with it.


----------



## thefancyman

Epaminondas said:


> I would submit none of those had much of anything to do with the decline of the KKK (maybe civil rights, but not the decline of the KKK) - and you are aware that the Supreme Court had at least one (former) member of the KKK on it in the past 50+ years? The KKK was in consistent decline in number and influence from the 1920s and none of the aforemetioned had anything to do with it.


Regardless of whether there was a member of the KKK on the Supreme Court they voted unanimously in favor of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 including Hugo Black. Black a member of the KKK admitted later in life that he only joined to get votes which goes back to my point that the KKK was state sponsored terrorism.

The civil rights legislation passed during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations as well as Brown v. Board did much to change our society's perception of racism through ending Jim Crow and did much to delegitimize the KKK in the eyes of many Americans when it was still very much active in many parts of America.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> Interesting and unfortunate idea, to bury him at sea, then there's no absolute proof that he's dead. Seems like a schoolboy error to me. Given how the West, and especially the US is so widely distrusted in the Islamic world, destroying the evidence will no doubt be seen as there having been no evidence.
> I thought that the public reaction in the US was also a bit unfortunate. That level of public triumphalism didn't do the US any favours. Assassination, no matter how it is dressed up, *isn't justice*, any more than any other form of vigilante-ism
> Finally, Bin Laden wasn't the "leader" of Al Quaeda, it has no leaders. It is a loose confederation of people who share the same views. Killing Bin Laden will acheive, indeed, has acheived, nothing, apart from making many Americans very pleased.


For a mass murderer of Bin Laden's calibre... Justice isn't even possible. Revenge is however. But then again, Justice is merely man's recourse and claim at Justice.

Some people just need killing. I'm not a violent man by nature. I understand the need for violence, and agree with it under specific circumstances (defense of oneself, one's family, and those who cannot defend themselves). But Osama Bin Laden is someone was so dangerous to EVERYONE that he needed sanctioning. If he could be taken alive, so be it.

But I doubt very much that was possible. I personally know SEALS from my time on MEUs, and they aren't cowboys, murderers, nor assassins. But their ROE's would have allowed them VERY wide latitude about signs of aggression. If OBL was armed, they would have taken him down (which they did). If he was unarmed, they would have captured him. If he had attempted to surrender (which is what the word ISLAM means in Arabic) he would still be alive.

Although he isn't the "leader" of Al Quaeda, he is the closest thing to figurehead they have. He's been the boogeyman in the Intel community for as long as I can remember (I joined in the mid 1990's), and he had great personal financial access, which is why his loss is such a huge blow to the organization. Sure he's just one domino. But he is a major one.


----------



## Chouan

Islam also means peace. I wonder if Arabs do irony? I'm pleased to say that, despite the absence of a body, Al Quaeda seems to accepted the fact of his death. So I withdraw my schoolboy error comment. Now we just wait and see what happens next.....


----------



## Howard

WouldaShoulda said:


> The one in Pakistan with him was.
> 
> Any family member that ratted out his locatuion should be rewarded.


It depends on how much the reward is/was.


----------



## Jovan

WouldaShoulda said:


> So once again we agree.
> 
> There is a Muslim problem and not enough is being done in Muslim communities to stop it!!


You mean there is a _Muslim terrorist_ problem.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> You mean there is a _Muslim terrorist_ problem.


I suppose for now we can overlook the woman problem, the anti-semetic problem and the human rights problem and focus on the terror problem, sure.

I just love it when we all agree!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> It depends on how much the reward is/was.


I think it was $25 million for information leading to the capture/death of him.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> You mean there is a _Muslim terrorist_ problem.


No. That's bad phrasing.

There's a Terrorist problem, and those terrorists are statistically likely to be Muslims. Muslims, as a group, are not likely be terrorists.

Just because most Fruits are Sweet does not mean that most Sweet things are Fruit.


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> I think it was $25 million for information leading to the capture/death of him.


25 million? I'd quit Pathmark in an instant.


----------



## Jovan

Apatheticviews said:


> No. That's bad phrasing.
> 
> There's a Terrorist problem, and those terrorists are statistically likely to be Muslims. Muslims, as a group, are not likely be terrorists.
> 
> Just because most Fruits are Sweet does not mean that most Sweet things are Fruit.


Well, yes.


----------



## Howard

Will they ever show the pictures?


----------



## VictorRomeo

Apatheticviews said:


> There's a Terrorist problem, and those terrorists are statistically likely to be Muslims.


Not in my country.......


----------



## Jovan

Howard said:


> Will they ever show the pictures?


I hope not. It would be a P.R. disaster, not to mention completely tasteless.


----------



## sirchandler

Jovan said:


> It would be a P.R. disaster


I wouldn't go that far. Once it has been allowed to sink into the world conscious I think the photo will be leaked. Give it a year or two.


----------



## Apatheticviews

VictorRomeo said:


> Not in my country.......


I remember immediately after the September 11 attacks and Tony Blair (iirc) getting on the air stating he & the UK fully supported whatever decision the US decided to make.

It was shrewd political move, and if I recall correctly there were ~near~ riots in Ireland as they attempted to turn in weapons to separate themselves from "terrorists" and any semblance of the word terrorism.


----------



## Apatheticviews

sirchandler said:


> I wouldn't go that far. Once it has been allowed to sink into the world conscious I think the photo will be leaked. Give it a year or two.


Gasoline on a fire.


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #108: "How many Irish Republican terrorists have been extradited from the US to stand trial for their crimes?
Patrick J. Doherty, Desmond Mackin, Peter McMullen for 3, who haven't, on the grounds that their crimes were political acts.
How about the work of Peter J.King, now Chairman of the House Homeland security Committee and is on the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence. Here's a man who has actively supported Republican terrorism!"

Chouan: Your posting shows that you're considerably out of touch with historical developments. You accuse the U.S. of providing asylum to IRA terrorists when in fact the individuals you name all left the U.S. years ago and returned to Britain or Ireland.

From the book:

Unsafe Haven
The United States, The IRA
and Political Prisoners
by Karen McElrath (2000)
ISBN: 0-7453-1317-5

"For two hundred years the United States has been a safe haven for Irish political prisoners seeking refuge. More recently [1986] however the US government has sought deportation, extradition and prosecution to exclude Irish republicans from the country.

For nearly a century the United States recognised a political offence exception to extradition so that persons accused or convicted elsewhere of politically-motivated offences were exempt from extradition. In the nineteenth century and for most of the twentieth century, this defence to extradition had been included in nearly all extradition treaties involving the United States and other countries (Farrell 1985). Extradition history changed dramatically in 1986, with the passage of the US-UK Supplementary Treaty, a document that was influenced greatly by the special relationship between the United States and Britain.

Joseph Doherty [a.k.a. Patrick J. Doherty]

Foreign relations between the United States and Britain clearly affected the extradition proceedings and the subsequent deportation of Joseph Doherty; this issue has been discussed at great length by writers and legal scholars (Dillon 1992; Kelly 1992; Roebuck 1994). In December 1984, prior to the passage of the Supplementary Treaty, a federal judge in New York concluded that Doherty's offences were political in nature and ruled against extradition. The judge based the decision on five factors: 1) the nature of its offence 2) the context of the offence; 3) the status of the accused, that is, whether the offence was committed for the defendant's own purposes or for the goals of the organisation involved in the political uprising; 4) the nature of the organisation; and 5) whether the act occurred within the physical environment of the political uprising. The US government appealed the judge's ruling, yet in 1985 an appellate court affirmed the district court's decision and as a result Doherty was successful in his fight against official extradition.
Doherty had requested political asylum but withdrew the request in September 1986. Anticipating that the Supplementary Treaty would be passed and a second extradition warrant would be issued (Dillon 1992), Doherty therefore requested to be deported to the south of Ireland (immigration policy provides that persons facing deportation may request to be deported to a country of their choice, rather than to the country of origin). The INS challenged Doherty's request but in 1987 the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected the government's argument, providing the go-ahead for deportation to the south of Ireland. The United States Attorney-General, however, has discretion in these matters and two Attorney-Generals mentioned foreign relations with Britain as reasons for denying Doherty's request. For the first time ever, the Justice Department considered United States foreign policy in its decision to reject a person's request to be deported to a country of his or her choice (Kelly 1992). In February 1992, Joseph Doherty was returned to British authorities in the north of Ireland.

Desmond Mackin

In 1978, Desmond Mackin was charged in Northern Ireland with the attempted murder of a British soldier. He later entered the United States where he was arrested in 1980. The US government issued an extradition warrant after Britain requested Mackin's return. Extradition proceedings commenced thereafter, at which point Mackin denied the charges. The magistrate ruled that the evidence of attempted murder was insufficient, but that the case would be reviewed on the charge of possessing and firing a weapon.
The court found that Mackin's offences were political and therefore he could not be extradited. The magistrate used three criteria in determining the political nature of the offence and denying extradition: 1) that a political uprising was occurring at the time when, and place where, Mackin committed the offence; 2) that Mackin was a member of an uprising group, that is, the IRA in this case; and 3) that Mackin's offence was related to the political uprising and 'in furtherance of' its goals. An appellate court affirmed the decision in 1981.
US law allows the INS to initiate deportation proceedings even when extradition has been denied for political offences. Stated differently, a person can 'win' or succeed in an extradition hearing, but be deported from the United States by the INS for entering the United States illegally. Moreover, immigration officials are not required to consider the evidence and outcome of an extradition hearing. Or, where political offences are involved individuals must demonstrate the political nature of the case in an extradition hearing and if extradition is denied, an immigration hearing is likely to follow during which persons must show a well-founded fear of persecution if s/he were returned to the home country.
In Mackin's case, the INS initiated deportation hearings after the extradition warrant failed. Persons facing deportation can choose a country to which they wish to be deported if that country will accept them. Mackin chose to be deported to the south of Ireland rather than risk deportation to British authorities. The British government never issued an extradition warrant to the south of Ireland for Mackin's return.

Peter McMullen

Peter McMullen, one-time member of a parachute regiment of the British army, deserted in the 1970s, joined the IRA, and in 1974 participated in bomb attacks against military posts in Yorkshire, England. He later entered the United States, surrendered in San Francisco in 1978 and requested political asylum claiming that he would be targeted by the IRA after informing on some of its members. The British government issued an extradition warrant, the first since 1903 for an Irish political offender (Farrell 1985). Paul O'Dwyer's firm assisted the defence; McMullen was not popular in Irish American republican circles but O'Dwyer and his colleagues focused on the larger picture (that is, the legal precedent regarding the extradition of Irish Republicans, former or otherwise) rather than on McMullen's reputation as an informant (Wilson 1995).
The extradition warrant was dismissed by a US judge in 1979, who used two criteria in denying extradition: 1) that McMullen's offence occurred during the time of a political uprising; and 2) that McMullen was a member of the uprising group. Although McMullen was not extradited to Britain at this time, deportation proceedings commenced shortly thereafter. Eventually, McMullen requested to be deported to the south of Ireland. On the day of the scheduled deportation, and just after the Supplementary Treaty (discussed below) became effective, the US government approved a second extradition request from Britain (Bassiouni 1996). Proceedings against McMullen commenced again and the extradition request was granted. McMullen was extradited to Britain after spending nine years incarcerated in the United States awaiting either deportation or extradition hearings."

So Doherty was returned to british authorities in Northern Ireland; Mackin chose to return to Ireland and the Brits chose not to pursue extradition; and McMullen was returned to Britain.
You make the false claim that those three men haven't been sent back and they all have - years ago. Didn't you know this, Chouan?

Continuing with the book:

"The United States sought to 'narrow' the political offence exception primarily in its treaties with its 'close allies' (Nadelmann 1993, p. 828). The extradition treaty with Britain was no exception; in fact, modifications to the US-UK extradition treaty in 1986 reflected the most substantial change ever to US extradition law. The US treaty with Britain was the first of its kind to be altered. Collectively, the changes were referred to as the US-UK Supplementary Extradition Treaty, passed by the United States Congress, approved by the British Parliament, and effective from 23 December 1986.
The Supplementary Treaty was passed in the decade during which the special relationship between the United States and Britain was at its strongest ever. The alliance between President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher resulted in a significant change in United States extradition policy, thereby ending a long history of providing refuge for Irish political offenders.
The introduction of the Supplementary Treaty by President Reagan was a direct reflection of the relationship between the United States and British governments at the time. Three court rulings found IRA members to be nonextraditable because courts had employed the political offence exception and refused to extradite. Rulings from these extradition hearings incited the British government and also offended the United States Justice and State Departments (Banoff and Pyle 1984). Thatcher desperately wanted IRA suspects in the United States to be extradited to Britain. Ogden (1990) noted that Thatcher's interest in the extradition cases was one contributory factor in her decision to support the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Thatcher believed that if she did not endorse the Agreement, the United States would be less likely to assist with the extradition process.
Opponents of the political offence exception warned that the United States would become a 'safe haven for terrorists' (Riley 1986, p. 3). History showed differently; by 1985 the political offence exception had been applied 76 times in 140 years and successfully used as a defence to extradition on only four occasions (Bassiouni 1985). In fact, the British government had issued a minimum of 64 extradition warrants in a 20-year period to US officials and all but three had been extradited. In each of the three cases for which extradition had failed, the persons accused were alleged to be IRA members (Kelly 1992), former or otherwise.
Writers and legal scholars have traced the Supplementary Treaty passage to the 1986 US attack on Libya (Cronin 1987; Dillon 1992; Kelly 1992). After the Treaty was introduced by Ronald Reagan in 1985, the Senate vote was postponed for nearly a year during which time Margaret Thatcher permitted the United States to launch planes from airbases in Britain. In fact, Britain was the only European country to provide support for the United States in its attacks on Libya (Dobson 1995). President Reagan then announced publicly that allowing (IRA) 'terrorists' to remain in the United States would be offensive to Thatcher (Riley 1986, p. 3). A London Times (1986) editorial asked: 'Is it not time for the government of the United States to pay a debt?' And, relating the Treaty debates with the US attack on Libya, an act which the British government supported, the editorial told United States senators: 'you owe us one'.
The US debt was paid. The Treaty eliminated the century-old political offence exception while including the less forceful Article 3(a) which permits a defence to extradition if, by preponderance of the evidence, the accused demonstrates that the extradition request itself is politically motivated or demonstrates that s/he will be prejudiced at trial or punished on account of race, religion, nationality or political opinion. Moreover, the Treaty was retroactive and specified that nearly all violent offences were extraditable, regardless of the political nature of the case. In effect, the offences outlined for extradition in the new Treaty coincided neatly with the list of scheduled offences in the north of Ireland (Iversen 1989)."

So a 1986 treaty dealt with the problem of IRA terrorists seeking asylum in the U.S. Didn't you know this, Chouan? It didn't take me long to find this on the internet. In making the statement that you did (see top of page) you once again showed your ignorance of history after claiming to be a student of such. Your intellectual reputation has not only hit rock bottom, but you've started digging. You accuse the U.S. of continuing to provide asylum to IRA terrorists when in fact we're not. This is just more of your typical America-hating garbage. Your thinking process makes liberal use of gaseous clay. Perhaps your eyes are brown?

And as for Peter T. King; it's true that he supported the IRA in his early days but his mind changed over time. King was one of the instrumental people in bringing about the peace accord.

From the Washington Post:

"Listen, I think I'm one of the people who brought about peace in Ireland."

"His [Peter T. King's] interpretation of the past draws support from former president Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, who as British prime minister oversaw the most successful phase of the peace process in Northern Ireland. In the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, all parties to the conflict agreed to use 'exclusively peaceful and democratic means' to pursue their aspirations.

'He had indeed been controversial (at least with the British!) in some of his earlier statements. But once he saw a path to peace that was just and deliverable, he urged and campaigned for everyone to take it,' Blair wrote in an e-mail. 'I thought he was right in his concerns about the new global terrorism but could understand why he saw the Irish situation as different.'"

So there! Chouan: You make yourself look foolish when you write things like that. Given your demonstrated ignorance of history you shouldn't do GCSE History in Britain as you'd clearly fail!


----------



## Chouan

You've done all of this reading, and writing, just to prove me wrong in detail in this Forum! I am impressed at your dedication!
However, despite your vast and comprehensive weight of evidence, it doesn't refute that fact that many, or at least some, of the US establishment, and people in government, seem to have consistently regarded Irish Republican terrorists as being somehow different; that terrorist acts carried out against British targets aren't quite as wrong, somehow. That PIRA money collecting was openly carried out in the US is, I would suggest, evidence that Irish terrorism hasn't been condemned, in reality. 
Some of Peter King's views were indeed "controversial". 
"If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it".
If people are looking to Muslims to condemn terrorism, then shouldn't all terrorism be condemned?


----------



## Howard

Jovan said:


> I hope not. It would be a P.R. disaster, not to mention completely tasteless.


They said a bullet went straight through his ear and out his eye.


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #149: "...it doesn't refute that fact that many, or at least some, of the US establishment, and people in government, seem to have consistently regarded Irish Republican terrorists as being somehow different; that terrorist acts carried out against British targets aren't quite as wrong, somehow. That PIRA money collecting was openly carried out in the US.... 
Some of Peter King's views were indeed 'controversial'. 
'If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it'
If people are looking to Muslims to condemn terrorism, then shouldn't all terrorism be condemned?"

Chouan: There you go again. Yes what I said does refute what you're saying; you just don't want to admit it. While some people in the U.S., and a few in the government were sympathetic to the IRA; it's overreaching to say that the U.S. population or U.S. gov't policy actively supported the IRA. The British always did vastly overestimate the amount of U.S. support for the IRA. The Brits used to say that there were forty million Irish in the U.S. - in a tone that implied that all of those Irish were at least sympathizers if not supporters of the IRA, which they weren't. While the forty million figure was accurate, it included people who had only a little Irish in their ancestry - many of those didn't even know that there was Irish blood in their family tree. Re "...terrorist acts carried out against British targets aren't quite as wrong, somehow." Chouan; you're being deliberately obtuse. It wouldn't be the first time that a people wanted the British out of their country so that the people living in that country could govern themselves in the way that they wanted. Let's see; that would include the U.S. - you did hear about the American Revolutionary War, didn't you? Also the Indians, the Arabs and Africans (i.e. the British Mandate), and the Chinese (i.e. Hong Kong), and the Jews (i.e. the founding of Israel). So when the Irish started attacking the Brits in an attempt to drive them out of Ireland, of course they garnered some sympathy in the U.S. PIRA money collecting was always a small-scale affair and presented as political support - not support for attacks on the Brits. Which was how they disguised what they were doing and got away with it. Yes some of what Peter T. King said was outrageous. In America it's called freedom of speech - clearly stated in the Constitution. Re "...then shouldn't all terrorism be condemned?" Chouan; you know quite well that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The Brits had been pushing their way into Ireland as far back as the 12th century, and it was always resented by the locals. You are aware of the Irish ethnic group known as the "Old English?" So it's not surprising that this resentment built up to the point of open violence against the British. Chouan; in view of that fact that the IRA has voluntarily disarmed, and that a peace accord has been signed; which has largely stopped the attacks on the Brits and the attacks on other Irish groups - it's irrational and illogical of you to keep bringing this up as if it were still a big issue today. It isn't; it's fading history of little relevance to the state of the world today.

Oh, and after this long diversion from the original topic; let's not forget the Navy SEALs rubbed out Osama bin Laden!:icon_cheers: Chouan can go stuff his head in a bucket of irish mud!:wink2:


----------



## Orsini

I think this guy is really the best we have right now.


----------



## Chouan

Regillus said:


> Chouan; you know quite well that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The Brits had been pushing their way into Ireland as far back as the 12th century, and it was always resented by the locals. You are aware of the Irish ethnic group known as the "Old English?" So it's not surprising that this resentment built up to the point of open violence against the British. Chouan; in view of that fact that the IRA has voluntarily disarmed, and that a peace accord has been signed; which has largely stopped the attacks on the Brits and the attacks on other Irish groups - it's irrational and illogical of you to keep bringing this up as if it were still a big issue today. It isn't; it's fading history of little relevance to the state of the world today.
> 
> Oh, and after this long diversion from the original topic; let's not forget the Navy SEALs rubbed out Osama bin Laden!:icon_cheers: Chouan can go stuff his head in a bucket of irish mud!:wink2:


A viable bomb threat was made this weekend in London, from a "Dissident Republican Group", and a viable bomb (pipe-bomb) was discovered by the Guardai in Co.Kildare this morning on it's way to Dublin, where the Queen is visiting today. I'm glad therefore that Republican Terrorism has gone away, or who knows what they might do? 
I would suggest that you're supporting the view that Islamic Terrorism against the US is, clearly, terrorism, upon which the US government declared war. But that Republican terrorism against Britain somehow doesn't come under that category. 
You've made a case here that justifies Republican terrorism. To redress the balance, could you please make a case to justify Islamic Terrorism. Afterall, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> Afterall, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


One could easily state that those that participated in the Boston Tea Party were domestic terrorists.

One who commits acts of violence or threatens to commit acts of violence to garner public opinion or change government policy through use of fear is a terrorist.


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> One could easily state that those that participated in the Boston Tea Party were domestic terrorists.
> 
> One who commits acts of violence or threatens to commit acts of violence to garner public opinion or change government policy through use of fear is a terrorist.


Quite. Terrorists are terrorists, no matter how noble their cause. Justifying one group of terrorists effectively justifies terrorism itself and hence all terrorists, whoever they are. If killing innocent civilians by a terrorist attack in New York is wrong, killing innocent civilians by a terrorist attack in Warrington (In this case 2 children) is also wrong. The only difference is one of scale.


----------



## Chouan

Regillus said:


> It wouldn't be the first time that a people wanted the British out of their country so that the people living in that country could govern themselves in the way that they wanted. Let's see; that would include the U.S. - you did hear about the American Revolutionary War, didn't you? Also the Indians, the Arabs and Africans (i.e. the British Mandate), and the Chinese (i.e. Hong Kong), and the Jews (i.e. the founding of Israel)......
> 
> So it's not surprising that this resentment built up to the point of open violence against the British.


The principle of what you've said here could just as easily be presented as justification for Islamic Terrorism. Essentially, if you don't like another country being involved in your country, then terrorism isn't surprising. US economic and cultural imperialism in Saudi Arabia is what began Bin Laden on his "crusade" against the US. It's as justifiable a reason as Israeli terrorism, or Republican terrorism, or Indian Communist terrorism, or Viet Cong terrorism against the US in Vietnam, or Filipino terrorism against the US in the Phillipines. Of course, none of it is justified. Or, it all is.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> The principle of what you've said here could just as easily be presented as justification for Islamic Terrorism. Essentially, if you don't like another country being involved in your country, then terrorism isn't surprising.* US economic and cultural imperialism* in Saudi Arabia is what began Bin Laden on his "crusade" against the US. It's as justifiable a reason as Israeli terrorism, or Republican terrorism, or Indian Communist terrorism, or Viet Cong terrorism against the US in Vietnam, or Filipino terrorism against the US in the Phillipines. Of course, none of it is justified. Or, it all is.


The trick there is the bolded. Those countries have a standing government in which they can redress their perceived wrongs.

OBL however went after the "root" of the problem (the US in his mind) vice attempting to fix the problem in his home country or region. That's the major difference between him and a "freedom fighter." Freedom fighters, or insurgents if you prefer generally act within their own borders against their home governments. Even in my example, though an act of terrorism, it was against the home government (its representative) who was located abroad.

The UN (and by extension the US) acting as the world police is usually acting on behalf of the reigning country's government when deployed there. This invites local insurgents, or terrorists to treat us just as though they would the local government, while we are on their soil. It is something we expect, and account for.


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> The trick there is the bolded. Those countries have a standing government in which they can redress their perceived wrongs.
> 
> OBL however went after the "root" of the problem (the US in his mind) vice attempting to fix the problem in his home country or region. That's the major difference between him and a "freedom fighter." Freedom fighters, or insurgents if you prefer generally act within their own borders against their home governments. Even in my example, though an act of terrorism, it was against the home government (its representative) who was located abroad.
> 
> The UN (and by extension the US) acting as the world police is usually acting on behalf of the reigning country's government when deployed there. This invites local insurgents, or terrorists to treat us just as though they would the local government, while we are on their soil. It is something we expect, and account for.


So where does this leave Republican bomb attacks in Britain, aimed at civilians, like at Warrington, or Birmingham, or London?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> So where does this leave Republican bomb attacks in Britain, aimed at civilians, like at Warrington, or Birmingham, or London?


I'm not calling it a lesser form a terrorism.

I am however pointing out the difference between the two. OBL acted outside his own country and region against a perceived threat. The Republican bombings were within their own country.

OBL's actions had no chance of doing anything. What policy was he going to change? The US wasn't _directlty_ responsible for what he was fighting against. Economic & cultural imperialism, didn't start with us.... heck it goes back to the roman era... and the Middle East. The nations of Islam are just as guilty of it. All he was doing was inciting people halfway around the world to hate him, and come after him.

In the Republican cases, there is the possibility of "give into their demands, so this stops," which _might_ (unlikely) result in some talks, since it's happening in their front yards.


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> I'm not calling it a lesser form a terrorism.
> 
> I am however pointing out the difference between the two. OBL acted outside his own country and region against a perceived threat. The Republican bombings were within their own country.
> 
> OBL's actions had no chance of doing anything. What policy was he going to change? The US wasn't _directlty_ responsible for what he was fighting against. Economic & cultural imperialism, didn't start with us.... heck it goes back to the roman era... and the Middle East. The nations of Islam are just as guilty of it. All he was doing was inciting people halfway around the world to hate him, and come after him.
> 
> In the Republican cases, there is the possibility of "give into their demands, so this stops," which _might_ (unlikely) result in some talks, since it's happening in their front yards.


But the Republican killings I've indicated, as examples, were NOT inside their own country, they were in England, carried out by terrorists from the Republic.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> But the Republican killings I've indicated, as examples, were NOT inside their own country, they were in England, carried out by terrorists from the Republic.


I stand corrected.

Unfortunately, I know this is terribly ignorant and I apologize, but I tend to think of Ireland & England as a "group of islands" more than independent countries. It's the common language barrier, combined with the physical land mass size. I don't really think of Canadians, Englishmen, Australians, etc as foreigners because we all speak the same tongue.

I'm not justifying any act of terrorism...the use of Fear for political action, is uncivilized. It defeats the point of politics. War at least has rules. It's politics through force of arms. Terrorism is giving into the barbarian. I would hope that we are better than that now.


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> I'm not justifying any act of terrorism...the use of Fear for political action, is uncivilized. It defeats the point of politics. War at least has rules. It's politics through force of arms. Terrorism is giving into the barbarian. I would hope that we are better than that now.


I know that you aren't. My point was that there are a significant number of Americans, some in positions of power, some in this forum, who have differentiated between Islamic and Irish Republican terrorism, and who have argued that Irish Republican terrorism is justified, viz the quote from Regillus above, in my post, number 156.

Just for sake of clarity, the Birmingham bombs killed 21, and injured 182. All civilians. A third bomb positioned exactly where those evacuated were sent to failed to go off. It was the worst terrorist attack in Britain until 7/7. 
The man convicted of building the bombs was described in _An Phoblacht_, the Sinn Fein weekly newspaper, as having been "jailed for his republican beliefs".


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> Unfortunately, I know this is terribly ignorant and I apologize, but I tend to think of Ireland & England as a "group of islands" more than independent countries. It's the common language barrier, combined with the physical land mass size. I don't really think of Canadians, Englishmen, Australians, etc as foreigners because we all speak the same tongue.


Which is ironic, because we have people with a shared culture and language in 1900, who are then seperated by a small group who sought to create differences, and used their view of History to justify their own political agenda. The countries of Britain, by which I mean England, Scotland and Wales, and Ireland, were happily co-existing until the Gaelic movement artificially created the perceived conflict between the two, presenting myth and legend as History in order to "prove" the colonial relationship between the two. Ireland had representatives at Whitehall, their MPs, who represented their electorates' views as much as an MP could represent the views of the electorate in County Durham, or Cambridgeshire, or London. Ireland by 1900 was no more a "British Colony" than Cornwall or Cumbria were. The police (RIC) were Irish, as were the MPs. The policy of the Gaelic League and Sinn Fein polarised Ireland and created Ulster Unionism, which led ultimately to partition. 
The "difference" was perpetuated by people such as De Valera, who had a particular idea of what Ireland should be like, a land of priest-ridden self-sufficient peasant agriculturalists, which he largely achieved, but only at the expense of Ireland's economy, and Ireland's youth, who emigrated to the UK in ever increasing numbers. That the North didn't want to be a part of such a backward economy is hardly surprising, whatever their confessional and cultural heritage.

That you, as an American, don't think of Canadians etc. as foreigners shows the redundancy of militant Nationalism, and the tragedy of Republican and "Loyalist" terrorism. That other Americans can't see this shows more than ignorance.....


----------



## Apatheticviews

Common tongue generally equals common thought processes. There's so much shared history that it's hard not to understand one another. It's really easy to hate someone who "talks different" but that's just an excuse, much like hating someone because they look different, either because of the color of their skin, or how they dress.

Take a look at Iran & Iraq. The entire Farsi vs Arabic tongue thing can be considered a major contributing factor.


----------



## Peak and Pine

I come late to this because I thought it was about what the title says it's supposed to be about, but it's gone way beyond that into a realm of which I know close to nothing, thankfully not the case with Chouan and A'Views who've made this into a terrific read.


----------



## Howard

I wonder what would've happened if Osama Bin Laden was killed on September 11th? (just for example)


----------



## defygravity

Wait...Osama bin Laden is dead??

When did that happen?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> I wonder what would've happened if Osama Bin Laden was killed on September 11th? (just for example)


Something a lot closer to "poetic justice" than just "revenge."

I'm wondering if he screamed "May day, may day!" when the SEALS came barging in....


----------



## Apatheticviews

Peak and Pine said:


> I come late to this because I thought it was about what the title says it's supposed to be about, but it's gone way beyond that into a realm of which I know close to nothing, thankfully not the case with Chouan and A'Views who've made this into a terrific read.


I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not...


----------



## Peak and Pine

We've had or moments, you and I, but that one's definitely not sarcasm. Take your compliments like a man.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Peak and Pine said:


> We've had or moments, you and I, but that one's definitely not sarcasm. Take your compliments like a man.


Just wasn't sure what flavor of "terrific" (ie "tongue in cheek", or "edge of seat") you meant.

Sarcasm wasn't the right word. So thank you for the compliment (I didn't view it as an insult in any way) 

This is one of the problems with the written language. It can't convey the visual and audio components that the spoken word can. You lose so much context.


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> Something a lot closer to "poetic justice" than just "revenge."
> 
> I'm wondering if he screamed "May day, may day!" when the SEALS came barging in....


Is that another word for I Surrender?


----------



## eagle2250

Apatheticviews said:


> Something a lot closer to "poetic justice" than just "revenge."
> 
> I'm wondering if he screamed "May day, may day!" when the SEALS came barging in....


More likely OBL's last words were closer to, "Oh f***! This is gonna leave a mark!"


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> Is that another word for I Surrender?


"May Day" is an old distress call for radio operators (planes, boats, etc). If I recall correctly, Osama was killed on May 1 (May Day), hence May Day being apt...

)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day

It's a bad pun....


----------



## TheBigOne

eagle2250 said:


> More likely OBL's last words were closer to, "Oh f***! This is gonna leave a mark!"


LOL (sorry for the cliche)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> "May Day" is an old distress call for radio operators (planes, boats, etc). If I recall correctly, Osama was killed on May 1 (May Day), hence May Day being apt...
> 
> )
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day
> 
> It's a bad pun....


From the French, "m'aidez", "help me!".


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

*DON'T REPORT POSTS ON THE INTERCHANGE UNLESS THEY ARE RACIST OR HATE SPEECH!*


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> "May Day" is an old distress call for radio operators (planes, boats, etc). If I recall correctly, Osama was killed on May 1 (May Day), hence May Day being apt...
> 
> )
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day
> 
> It's a bad pun....


Couldn't Osama put up a white flag afterwards?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> Couldn't Osama put up a white flag afterwards?


There was no "afterwards" for him.


----------



## Regillus

Howard said:


> Couldn't Osama put up a white flag afterwards?


The Navy SEALs were there to kill bin Laden as soon as they saw him. So the only way bin Laden could have surrendered and lived is if he had; upon seeing the SEALs; immediately thrown up his hands in a clear gesture of surrender, and he didn't do that. Bin Laden turned away from the SEALs, so he was either trying to escape or reach for a weapon. So the SEALs followed orders and shot him. End of story. Remember, this all happened very fast.


----------



## Howard

Regillus said:


> The Navy SEALs were there to kill bin Laden as soon as they saw him. So the only way bin Laden could have surrendered and lived is if he had; upon seeing the SEALs; immediately thrown up his hands in a clear gesture of surrender, and he didn't do that. Bin Laden turned away from the SEALs, so he was either trying to escape or reach for a weapon. So the SEALs followed orders and shot him. End of story. Remember, this all happened very fast.


I would've been scared too but I don't think reaching for a weapon was the right thing to do,He could've had a bulletproof vest to protect him.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> *DON'T REPORT POSTS ON THE INTERCHANGE UNLESS THEY ARE RACIST OR HATE SPEECH!*


Tasteless, raunchy limericks are also banned.

I'm just glad I didn't mention the chorus!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> I would've been scared too but I don't think reaching for a weapon was the right thing to do,He could've had a bulletproof vest to protect him.


They don't make vests for the head....


----------



## Regillus

Apatheticviews said:


> They don't make vests for the head....


True; that may have been the reason for the head shot - to avoid the bullet being stopped by a bullet-proof vest. Still; they could've been using armor-piercing rounds.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Regillus said:


> Still; they could've been using armor-piercing rounds.


NO WAY!!

Anything but FMJ violates every rule of law in the book!!


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #185: "NO WAY!!

Anything but FMJ violates every rule of law in the book!!"

By "rule of law" I assume you mean the Laws of War; Geneva Conventions, ect.

From Wikipedia:

"The U.S. views targeted killing during an armed conflict as the lawful right to use force 'consistent with its inherent right to self-defense' under international law in response to the 9/11 attacks. Under domestic law, U.S. targeted killings against 9/11-related entities is authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.
...Targeted killing is the deliberate, specific targeting and killing, by a government or its agents, of a civilian or of an 'unlawful combatant' (ie [sic] one taking a direct part in hostilities in the context of an armed conflict) who is not in that government's custody. The target is generally a person accused of taking part in or supporting armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, and of thereby losing rights and protections such as those of the Geneva Conventions."

Osama bin Laden is legally classified as an unlawful combatant i.e. a terrorist therefore he is not protected by any laws of war. So firing armor-piercing rounds at him is not illegal.


----------



## Howard

Regillus said:


> True; that may have been the reason for the head shot - to avoid the bullet being stopped by a bullet-proof vest. Still; they could've been using armor-piercing rounds.


Osama wasn't quick enough to think at the moment.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Regillus said:


> Osama bin Laden is legally classified as an unlawful combatant i.e. a terrorist therefore he is not protected by any laws of war. So firing armor-piercing rounds at him is not illegal.


What crazy thing will you say next??

Enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture??

Non-US citizens don't have the same rights as US citizens??

You are on one slippery slope, Mister!!


----------



## Malagueno

WouldaShoulda said:


> What crazy thing will you say next??
> 
> Enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture??
> 
> Non-US citizens don't have the same rights as US citizens??
> 
> You are on one slippery slope, Mister!!


Yes, this is a slippery slope, but sometimes we tend to mix questions of LEGALITY and MORALITY when it comes to these issues.


----------



## Regillus

Howard said:


> Osama wasn't quick enough to think at the moment.


That's right; bin Laden had only had a brief moment to throw up his hands in surrender. He didn't, so he was shot.

Re Post #188: "1. What crazy thing will you say next??

2. Enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture??

3. Non-US citizens don't have the same rights as US citizens??

4.You are on one slippery slope, Mister!! :wink2: "

1. It's not crazy - it's true.
"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." ~Aldous Huxley 
2. First let me make clear that I will NOT get into this in detail because the question opens up a can of worms that would involve considerable hair-splitting which could go on ad nauseum. "Enhanced interrogation;" this term covers more than one method so each one is subject to debate regarding if it's torture or not. Limiting this to just waterboarding - I recall reading in some online news article (probably CNN; maybe MSNBC) that back during the Korean Conflict that several soldiers were convicted of torture for waterboarding North Korean POWs, so waterboarding had already been adjudged to be torture by a court. The G.W. Bush administration decided that waterboarding was not torture and used it. You can see how this immediately gets into legal issues that would have to be decided in court, so I'm not going to tackle it here.

3. Ah, me. Non-U.S. citizens on U.S. soil have certain rights. Non-U.S. citizens on foreign soil are not protected by any of the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

4. Yes it is a slippery slope, so mind your objective and keep your footing.


----------



## Chouan

People can also fall back on the old get out clause, "I was only obeying orders" I suppose.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> People can also fall back on the old get out clause, "I was only obeying orders" I suppose.


Actually, the following orders thing doesn't work. You have a moral and ethical obligation as a serviceman to do right. Following an order you know is illegal, immoral, or unethical is still wrong. You always have the right to address the issue. There's numerous ways to do so.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Don't over-think the issue. Arguably, weapons in the room were within reach. OBL could have been wearing a suicide vest. Given the history and nature of operations planned by OBL he clearly presented a grave danger to his captors and others in the room. A further delay on the part of the Seal(s) involved could have resulted in many more deaths and grievous injuries. It was a righteous shoot. Let us hope that each and every one of OBL's 21 virgins is really, really UGLY!!


----------



## Chouan

The problem with your reasoning here is that, if Regillus is correct, and I'll assume that he is, the SEALs were always going to kill Bin Laden, partly because of the difficulties of the legal situation in terms of capturing him. 
That being the case, please spare us the rather sad excuses to justify his assassination. It wasn't because he might have been wearing a suicide vest, or because he might have tried to defend himself, or any other spurious justification. The White House stated that the attack was made by SEALs for these reasons:
1 - To ensure that it was Bin Laden
2 - To ensure that he was killed
3 - To minimise collateral damage.
A missile strike, no matter how surgical, couldn't have achieved those conditions, so it was done by people on the ground.
People can argue as much as they like that it was a perfectly legal breach of Pakistani sovereignty and that it was a perfectly legal assassination. However, if " You have a moral and ethical obligation as a serviceman to do right." then is carrying out an assassination morally and ethically right? Or, is anything that a US President orders, of itself, morally and ethically right? As long as a US legal expert says so, I suppose, not that they'd have a subjective view.....


----------



## Howard

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Don't over-think the issue. Arguably, weapons in the room were within reach. OBL could have been wearing a suicide vest. Given the history and nature of operations planned by OBL he clearly presented a grave danger to his captors and others in the room. A further delay on the part of the Seal(s) involved could have resulted in many more deaths and grievous injuries. It was a righteous shoot. Let us hope that each and every one of OBL's 21 virgins is really, really UGLY!!


What's a suicide vest? Is that the same thing as a bulletproof vest?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> However, if " You have a moral and ethical obligation as a serviceman to do right." then is carrying out an assassination morally and ethically right?


Yes, killing killers to prevent more killing is both morally and ethically right.

Feel free to doubletalk yourself all you wish, however!!


----------



## Jovan

Howard said:


> What's a suicide vest? Is that the same thing as a bulletproof vest?


 Howard, I sometimes wonder if you're for real...


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> Yes, killing killers to prevent more killing is both morally and ethically right.
> 
> Feel free to doubletalk yourself all you wish, however!!


Mmmm. But was he killed to prevent more killing, or simply in revenge for killing that had already been done? Or, was it to make a President look better than the previous one?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

I see you took my advice to heart!!


----------



## Howard

Jovan said:


> Howard, I sometimes wonder if you're for real...


Hey I was just asking a question,I've been on here 7 years why can't I be inquisitive?

Sorry but I never own a suicide or a bulletproof vest cause I was never in those dangerous situations where I had to defend myself by using a gun or a firearm.


----------



## dks202

it's a vest loaded with explosives designed to blow up the wearer and anyone else nearby..


----------



## Jovan

Howard: It's the fact that you quite often lack common sense or common knowledge that almost everyone has and I've never once seen you post anywhere outside The Interchange. It makes me wonder sometimes whether you're just putting us on, seven years of membership notwithstanding.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> Mmmm. But was he killed to prevent more killing, or simply in revenge for killing that had already been done? Or, was it to make a President look better than the previous one?


Yes...


----------



## Regillus

Chouan said:


> People can also fall back on the old get out clause, "I was only obeying orders" I suppose.


Right. A soldier, in the heat of battle, isn't expected to drop his gun and reach for a law tome to decide whether or not an order is legal. So as long as the soldier isn't certain in his own mind that an order is illegal; then he can carry out the order. If, at a later time, in a courtroom, the question of the orders legality should come up - all the soldier has to do is say that he thought the order was legal - i.e. "I thought the order was legal and I carried it out."



Apatheticviews said:


> Actually, the following orders thing doesn't work. You have a moral and ethical obligation as a serviceman to do right. Following an order you know is illegal, immoral, or unethical is still wrong. You always have the right to address the issue. There's numerous ways to do so.


It would be nice if it were always possible to take the time to think about what you're doing, consult books and legal advisers, etc. But, when you're lying in a muddy ditch, bullets zipping by your head, mortars landing all around you, shrapnel hitting your body armor; it just isn't possible to do that. So, unless you're certain in your own mind that an order is clearly; on the face of it; illegal; then you're better off obeying the order to protect yourself from the charge of insubordination. If, at a later time in a courtroom; it starts looking like you carried out an illegal order; your out is that it was in the heat of battle and you thought it was legal.



Chouan said:


> The problem with your reasoning here is that,...the SEALs were always going to kill Bin Laden, partly because of the difficulties of the legal situation in terms of capturing him.
> That being the case, please spare us the rather sad excuses to justify his assassination. It wasn't because he might have been wearing a suicide vest, or because he might have tried to defend himself, or any other spurious justification. The White House stated that the attack was made by SEALs for these reasons:
> 1 - To ensure that it was Bin Laden
> 2 - To ensure that he was killed
> 3 - To minimise collateral damage.
> ...then is carrying out an assassination morally and ethically right? Or, is anything that a US President orders, of itself, morally and ethically right?


The fact that bin Laden himself admitted in a video that he was the main actor in planning and carrying out the 9/11 attack gave the U.S. all the justification it needed to kill him for two reasons: 1. To impose justice on him - i.e. the death penalty. 2. To stop him from planning and carrying out any further attacks. Recall that evidence was found in the compound that bin Laden was looking into attacking oil tankers bound for the U.S. We don't need any "excuses" to justify killing bin Laden - he was a murderer using religion as a smokescreen for his own desires. Yes killing bin Laden was and is morally and ethically right. Justice was forcibly imposed on the man responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11; a few of whom were British citizens. Moreover, bin Laden's death stopped him from carrying out any more attacks on U.S. citizens - which he was planning to do.
No, "anything" that a U.S. President orders is not necessarily right, but, that's something that has to be determined at a later time when we have the luxury of law books to read, legal experts to consult, and the time for an orderly judicial hearing process.



Howard said:


> What's a suicide vest? Is that the same thing as a bulletproof vest?


A suicide vest is a vest with explosive charges sewn onto the inner lining of the vest. A simple pull-cord detonator is rigged. The person wearing the vest walks into a place where there's lots of people and yanks on the cord and BOOM. A bullet-proof vest is a completely different thing. It stops bullets (most of the time) from penetrating through the vest and into you.



Chouan said:


> Mmmm. But was he killed to prevent more killing, or simply in revenge for killing that had already been done?


Both.


----------



## Regillus

Something I want to call attention to, in case people have missed it; is al-Qaeda's response to bin Laden's killing. Several retaliatory attacks were made IN PAKISTAN. Not anywhere else. This tells you something about the success over the years in killing or capturing al-Qaeda members, and in cutting off the supply of money to the terrorists. The revenge attacks were all local in nature; carried out by local people. So that means that al-Qaeda doesn't have the money anymore to support long-distance international terrorism and doesn't have the manpower to operate an international organization. Al-Qaeda has transformed into small local groups that are loosely affiliated. This makes it much harder to organize a 9/11-style attack again since you need many people working together and supported by a lot of money to carry out such an attack. So where is al-Qaeda primarily located now? Pakistan! How much do the Paks know about this? Are they knowingly tolerating the presence of terrorists on their soil? When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan it looks like al-Qaeda just moved next door into Pakistan. Is Pakistan knowingly allowing itself to be used as a base of operations for al-Qaeda and as a refuge? Too bad Wikileaks can't shed some light on this.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Regillus said:


> Right. A soldier, in the heat of battle, isn't expected to drop his gun and reach for a law tome to decide whether or not an order is legal. So as long as the soldier isn't certain in his own mind that an order is illegal; then he can carry out the order. If, at a later time, in a courtroom, the question of the orders legality should come up - all the soldier has to do is say that he thought the order was legal - i.e. "I thought the order was legal and I carried it out."
> 
> It would be nice if it were always possible to take the time to think about what you're doing, consult books and legal advisers, etc. But, when you're lying in a muddy ditch, bullets zipping by your head, mortars landing all around you, shrapnel hitting your body armor; it just isn't possible to do that. So, unless you're certain in your own mind that an order is clearly; on the face of it; illegal; then you're better off obeying the order to protect yourself from the charge of insubordination. If, at a later time in a courtroom; it starts looking like you carried out an illegal order; *your out is that it was in the heat of battle and you thought it was legal*.


Believing an order is legal is a legitimate. Saying "I was only following orders" is not. There's a huge difference between the two. One is a cop-out, the other is taking responsibility for your actions. After the fact, the defense is "based on the information I had at the time, there was no way to know the order was illegal." The reverse of that however is that is that if at any time you believe an order to be illegal you need to address it immediately (even if it is a past order). It's part of the trust relationship between seniors & subordinates, as well how a well disciplined military works.

Every troop is briefed on the Rules of Engagement, generally on Deadly Force guidelines, and who are to be considered combatants and non-combatants. Beyond that, we know the general articles of the UCMJ, and what is and is not considered "legal" in this or any other country. It's not a case of consulting law books, or legal advisors, but of just doing the *right* thing. *You don't murder civilians & you don't cause more property damage than you have to.* Everything else is near acceptable.


----------



## Howard

dks202 said:


> it's a vest loaded with explosives designed to blow up the wearer and anyone else nearby..


Thanks.


----------



## Mr. Mac

If he had his hands up to surrender, I would have gladly shot him anyway.

Laws are written to deal with criminals. Wars are fought to deal with nations. Bullets are a great way to deal with terrorists.


----------



## Jovan

I used to think there were certain things that separate us from terrorists. Guess I was wrong.


----------



## Apatheticviews

We did a surgical strike with small arms, to minimize damage, and essentially killed only those who raised arms against us.

They hijacked 3 planes and crashed them into three buildings killing thousands, whether those people had ever done anything against them or not.

That's just one difference, even if you consider both acts of revenge and both acts of murder. The scale is incomparable.

I understand your sentiment, but as they say in a lot of old westerns:

"sometimes you have to put a rabid dog down."


----------



## Jovan

Yes, I actually agree with you. I was referring to Mr. Mac saying that he would have shot him _even if he surrendered_.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> Yes, I actually agree with you. I was referring to Mr. Mac saying that he would have shot him _even if he surrendered_.


I would have *wanted* to shoot him even if he surrendered. I don't know if I could have or not though. Mr. Mac however has merely made up his mind. I can't fault him for his moral resolve. OBL, was a mad dog, and he needed to be put down. In hindsight, it's easy enough to say this. In the moment I don't know if I could not show mercy if asked, even though he didn't deserve any.

I alluded to it earlier, when I mentioned the SEALS ROEs, but anything other than a) him shoving his hands straight up or b) him diving to the ground and laying flat, would have been seen as an act of aggression, warranting his immediate death. Turning to run, calling for help, _anything_, would have have been considered additional justification for the revenge killing he had already set himself up for.

We're talking about one of the world's largest villains, and the chance to remove him from the world. I don't think Mac would hold the same views about every murderer... but when you have someone who has admitted to this and nearly every other major act of terrorism in the last 15 years in sights....


----------



## Regillus

From "Big Jake," (1971, John Wayne)

"Now you understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all... your fault, my fault, nobody's fault... it don't matter...I'm gonna blow your head off. It's as simple as that."

What went wrong? Bin Laden crashed four planes on 9/11. The SEALs blew his head off.
Now let's light up a Montecristo.


----------



## Mr. Mac

Jovan said:


> I used to think there were certain things that separate us from terrorists. Guess I was wrong.


My lack of desire to murder innocent people in order to inculcate the fear necessary to achieve a political goal is one thing that separates _me _from terrorists. I can't speak for anyone else.


----------



## Jovan

Regillus said:


> From "Big Jake," (1971, John Wayne)
> 
> "Now you understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all... your fault, my fault, nobody's fault... it don't matter...I'm gonna blow your head off. It's as simple as that."
> 
> What went wrong? Bin Laden crashed four planes on 9/11. The SEALs blew his head off.
> Now let's light up a Montecristo.


Glad they haven't released any photos of the aforementioned. It was bad enough trying to find a picture of JFK and stumbling upon a graphic black and white photo of his autopsy on Google Images. I think I nearly retched.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
+1. I suspect that most who have had the misfortune of witnessing similar events in their past or who have seen graphic photos of such events are in agreement with Jovan's sentiments, as expressed above. Kudos to President Obama on his decision to not release the photos!


----------



## Jovan

Let's be fair though -- I'm terrible when it comes to blood and gore. I passed out ten minutes into Jesus's whipping in _The Passion of the Christ_.


----------



## Chouan

Mr. Mac said:


> My lack of desire to murder innocent people in order to inculcate the fear necessary to achieve a political goal is one thing that separates _me _from terrorists. I can't speak for anyone else.


Yet US politicians, and people on this thread, have justified terrorist actions exactly the same as those that you describe. Terrorism is either justifiable, or not. I don't see that some terrorists murdering children and other civilians, for example, can be justified and explained away, when Al Quaeda, quite reasonably, can't.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

I suppose there is no homocide, second degree homocide or justifiable homocide either.

Homocide = bad; all homocide = bad.


----------



## Chouan

To simplify things. Is terrorism justifiable?


----------



## Howard

Jovan said:


> Glad they haven't released any photos of the aforementioned. It was bad enough trying to find a picture of JFK and stumbling upon a graphic black and white photo of his autopsy on Google Images. I think I nearly retched.


Did you happen to see the fake death photo of Osama Bin Laden?


----------



## Mr. Mac

Chouan said:


> Yet US politicians, and people on this thread, have justified terrorist actions exactly the same as those that you describe. Terrorism is either justifiable, or not. I don't see that some terrorists murdering children and other civilians, for example, can be justified and explained away, when Al Quaeda, quite reasonably, can't.


To what, "justified terrorist actions" are you referring, specifically?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> To simplify things. Is terrorism justifiable?


Yes.

The entire cold war a major act of terrorism (use of fear to prevent to force of arms, and for political purposes). It kept the world "safe" for decades.

It really depends on what you define "terrorism" as.

Is destroying Tea terrorism?

Does is have to be civilian targets?

Does it have to be personnel? Can it be property?

The Israelis have taken pot-shots at various radical leaders with the intention of shutting them up (not killing them). I would consider that an act of terrorism.

Fear for Political gain is effective. Heck... Look at the TSA.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Mr. Mac said:


> To what, "justified terrorist actions" are you referring, specifically?


I've used extreme examples to further the debate and the discussion. See above.


----------



## Jovan

Howard said:


> Did you happen to see the fake death photo of Osama Bin Laden?


 Nope. But knowing it's fake would probably help if I came across it. Even movie violence/gore can make me feel pretty ill if it's done in a realistic or disturbing way though.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> Nope. But knowing it's fake would probably help if I came across it. Even movie violence/gore can make me feel pretty ill if it's done in a realistic or disturbing way though.


It's a mock up from Blackhawk down iirc. They superimposed his face over a fallen soldier, and put a ketchup splotch on his forehead.


----------



## Jovan

Cute. That probably wouldn't convince me at all.


----------



## Regillus

Howard said:


> Did you happen to see the fake death photo of Osama Bin Laden?


Yes I did - a week or so ago. I also saw the reports that it was fake so I never brought it up. The picture is kind of gruesome. I just wish they'd release the video showing the burial at sea. I'd like to see bin Laden sliding down to Davy Jones locker.:biggrin:


----------



## Chouan

Mr. Mac said:


> To what, "justified terrorist actions" are you referring, specifically?


Try the bombs that killed civilians in Warrington, Birmingham and London. These attacks on civilians by a terrorist organisation were justified by a member of this forum and by a US politician, who now has responsibility for looking at terrorism.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> Try the bombs that killed civilians in Warrington, Birmingham and London. These attacks on civilians by a terrorist organisation were justified by a member of this forum and by a US politician, who now has responsibility for looking at terrorism.


The only issue with that is there will be someone (of the billions of practicing muslims) who will say he was not given due courtesy in death, and it will be used (not necessarily by that person) it as an excuse for more violence in OBL's name.

I'm not much for national secrets, or withholding information, but in this case, I don't think it the burial was for public consumption. It should have been for him, a few of his closest friends, and those that were with him at the time of his death...


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen



WouldaShoulda said:


> No warrant??
> 
> No trial in Manhattan??
> 
> No multilateralism??
> 
> How Bush-like!!
> 
> I won't argue with success however.


...and a US citizen!!



> The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was in the top ranks of al Qaeda's franchise in Yemen, marks "another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates," President Obama said today.
> The American-born, radical Islamic preacher was killed Friday in Yemen in a CIA-directed strike upon his convoy. Al-Awlaki is the most prominent al Qaeda figure to be killed since Osama bin Laden, and Mr. Obama said his death represents a "major blow" to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qeada's most active operational affiliate.


https://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn


----------



## Regillus

I'm glad to see that's it's become dangerous to become a prominent figure within al-Qaeda. Doing so invites a missile strike from a Reaper drone. Still looking for Mullah Omar. Who wants to lead al-Qaeda next? Ayman al-Zawahiri's days are numbered.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

At least any foolishness about killing terrorists spawning more terror has been dispensed with.

So long as Obama is the one pulling the trigger that is!!


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> At least any foolishness about killing terrorists spawning more terror has been dispensed with.
> 
> So long as Obama is the one pulling the trigger that is!!


So terror attacks have ceased world wide have they? Or does only the US count?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> So terror attacks have ceased world wide have they? Or does only the US count?


It doesn't matter.

Haven't you heard??

There are no homeless any more in the US either.

That Obama is aces!!

I have to admit, that since he took office and solved all our problems, the traffic in DC has been much better due to lack of marches and sit-ins...


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> So terror attacks have ceased world wide have they? Or does only the US count?


The short answer to your observation and follow-up question would necessarily be driven by whose backyard in whih the blast occurs! :icon_scratch: .....at least the US is trying to do something about the threat.


----------



## Regillus

WouldaShoulda said:


> At least any foolishness about killing terrorists spawning more terror has been dispensed with.


Second. Take out the people at the top, and the rest of the organization loses cohesion and esprit de corps.


----------



## Chouan

Regillus said:


> Second. Take out the people at the top, and the rest of the organization loses cohesion and esprit de corps.


Except that Islamist terror bombing hasn't stopped at all, so Woulda Shoulda's statement clearly isn't correct, unless terror bombing of non-Americans doesn't count?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> Except that Islamist terror bombing hasn't stopped at all, so Woulda Shoulda's statement clearly isn't correct...


There is still a Mafia too.

Is it anything like it was 40 years ago??

What if law enforcement just pretended it didn't exist through the 70s and 80s like it had through the 40s and 50s??


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> There is still a Mafia too.
> 
> Is it anything like it was 40 years ago??
> 
> What if law enforcement just pretended it didn't exist through the 70s and 80s like it had through the 40s and 50s??


The frequency of and damage caused by Islamist terror bombings has not declined since Bin Laden's death. So how has his death solved, or even minimised the problem? 
Your statement 
"At least any foolishness about killing terrorists spawning more terror has been dispensed with." 
has been disproved by the continuation in terrorist attacks. Look at the attack in Mogadishu yesterday, for example.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Like law enforcement efforts against the American Mafia domestically, the International efforts agaist terror can take decades.

Namby-pamby deniers and excuse-makers don't help.

Kefauver CommitteeIn 1951, a U.S. Senate , chaired by Democratic Tennessee Senator , determined that a "sinister criminal organization" known as the Mafia operated around the United States. The (known as the "Kefauver Hearings"), televised nationwide, captured the attention of the American people and forced the FBI to recognize the existence of organized crime. In 1953, the FBI initiated the "Top Hoodlum Program". The purpose of the program was to have agents collect information on the mobsters in their territories and report it regularly to Washington to maintain a centralized collection of intelligence on racketeers.[SUP][35][/SUP]
*[edit] Apalachin Meeting*

In 1957, the New York State Police uncovered a meeting of major American Cosa Nostra figures from around the country in the small town of (near ). This gathering has become known as the . Many of the attendees were arrested, and this event was the catalyst that changed the way law enforcement battled organized crime.
The establishment of the facilitated efforts to prosecute members of the Mafia. The Strike Force was established in the 1960s through a joint congressional effort led by . It was under the in the . It was later disbanded at the national level, but continues at the state and local level today. It was responsible for investigating and eventually helping to bring down high-level Mafiosos such as of the Chicago Outfit, of the of New York and of the Gambino Family. Also, the Strike Force eliminated much of the organized crime in the across the country.
*[edit] Valachi hearings*

Main article: 
In 1963, became the first American Cosa Nostra member to provide a detailed look at the inside of the organization. Having been recruited by FBI special agents, and testifying before the of the , Valachi exposed the name, structure, power bases, codes, swearing-in ceremony, and members of this organization. All of this had been secret up to this point.
*[edit] RICO Act*

The (RICO Act) passed in 1970 made it a crime to belong to an organization that performed illegal acts, and it created programs such as the . Frequent use of the act began during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Charges of were successfully pressed against scores of mobsters, including three of New York's Godfathers, , and during the in 1985. Others like , was thought of as the Godfather but was only a front-boss while Gambino boss was murdered before the trial began. The act continues to be used to great effect today and has hurt the Mob severely.
*[edit] 2011 indictments*

On January 20, 2011 the issued 16 indictments against northeast American Mafia families resulting in 127 charged defendants[SUP][36][/SUP] and more than 110 arrests.[SUP][37][/SUP] The charges included murder, murder conspiracy, loansharking, arson, robbery, narcotics trafficking, extortion, illegal gambling and labor racketeering. It has been described as the largest operation against the Mafia in US history.[SUP][38][/SUP] Families that have been affected included the of New York as well as the of New Jersey and of New England.[SUP][39]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia

So the fact that some elements of the Mafia still exist DOES NOT negate the long term effects of actively opposing it instead of denying it exists, making excuses, or stating that opposing them just makes more of them. [/SUP]


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

I was going to post about how the CIA commanded both events (Bin Laden and al-Awlaki), but this isn't a thread I choose to get involved in. I'm simply thankful for living here and our military might!!


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #241: And don't forget they finally caught ****** Bulger.

We just have to keep up a determined effort against Islamic terrorists. It'll take years, of course, but we have more resources and people at our disposal. With Gaddafi out of power; the Islamic terrorists have less money and support available to them. Steady as she goes.


----------



## Chouan

Regillus said:


> Re Post #241: And don't forget they finally caught ****** Bulger.
> 
> We just have to keep up a determined effort against Islamic terrorists. It'll take years, of course, but we have more resources and people at our disposal. With Gaddafi out of power; the Islamic terrorists have less money and support available to them. Steady as she goes.


I wouldn't hold my breath, some of Gaddafi's opponents, now close to being in power were close to Al quaeda, and were being suppressed by his regime. Now we have a more Islamist regime in Libya.


----------



## mrkleen

Chouan said:


> I wouldn't hold my breath, some of Gaddafi's opponents, now close to being in power were close to Al quaeda, and were being suppressed by his regime. Now we have a more Islamist regime in Libya.


 Yup. The fruits of the "Seeds of Democracy" that GW planted. Enjoy.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

I bet some of you guys just skip right to the last chapter of a book too!!


----------



## Regillus

Chouan said:


> I wouldn't hold my breath, some of Gaddafi's opponents, now close to being in power were close to Al quaeda, and were being suppressed by his regime. Now we have a more Islamist regime in Libya.


Not so fast. Remember that NATO assisted the Libyan NTC with bombing attacks and other aerial support. That gives NATO influence with the still-forming government. The situation is very fluid in Libya now. Give the U.S. and E.U. some time to use diplomacy and economic influence (we buy their oil) to try to steer Libya in a more secular and free-market oriented direction. I wouldn't worry too much about al-Qaeda gaining influence in Libya. The Libyans don't want that after what happened to Afghanistan & Iraq.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Regillus said:


> I wouldn't worry too much about al-Qaeda gaining influence in Libya.


Oh I'll worry about it!!

But maybe they will be kept in a box until election time the way Democrats control their Anarchists and Labor thugs.


----------



## Jovan

:icon_scratch:


----------



## Regillus

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...the way Democrats control their *Anarchists and Labor thugs*.


Oh, WouldaShoulda. You speak of these things as if they actually exist. See the dictionary for "reification."


----------



## Chouan

My point was that Gadaffi didn't finance and train Islamist/Al Quaeda terrorists, he did train and finance other terrorist groups, the PIRA, for example, and carried out his own terrorist agenda, but he was an enemy of Al Quaeda, as they threatened his control of Libya. Now he's gone, they are stronger.


----------



## Regillus

Chouan said:


> My point was that Gadaffi didn't finance and train Islamist/Al Quaeda terrorists, he did train and finance other terrorist groups, the PIRA, for example, and carried out his own terrorist agenda, but he was an enemy of Al Quaeda, as they threatened his control of Libya. Now he's gone, they are stronger.


Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's true that Gaddafi opposed al Quaeda, but now that he's gone that doesn't automatically mean that al Quaeda is stronger. We have to wait and see how the new Libyan gov't develops. Hopefully NATOs assistance will give the U.S. and Europeans sufficient influence to steer Libya away from radical Islamism as espoused by al Quaeda. Things are in a perpetual state of change now so no one can make definite statements about how it'll all turn out. Let's wait and see. Go to Al Jazeera and read the "Libya Live Blog." There's been no mention of al Quaeda gaining influence or control of anything in Libya.


----------



## mrkleen

Regillus said:


> Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's true that Gaddafi opposed al Quaeda, but now that he's gone that doesn't automatically mean that al Quaeda is stronger.


 Completely right. Some people are just never satisfied.


----------



## Jovan

I just wish we'd get out of the middle east already.


----------



## Howard

Jovan said:


> I just wish we'd get out of the middle east already.


How long has it been now?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> I just wish we'd get out of the middle east already.


About as likely as us getting out of Germany or Japan.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> How long has it been now?


Early 90's. We've maintained bases in Saudi Arabia & Kuwait since the first Gulf War.

As for Afghanistan, say what you will about the Soviets, they kept the region inline until the collapse of the USSR.


----------



## dks202

Apatheticviews said:


> Early 90's. We've maintained bases in Saudi Arabia & Kuwait since the first Gulf War.
> 
> As for Afghanistan, say what you will about the Soviets, they kept the region inline until the collapse of the USSR.


They want to kill us, anywhere we are in the world, we can't stop them from trying, any time any place... better over there than in the USA.


----------



## Jovan

Apatheticviews said:


> About as likely as us getting out of Germany or Japan.


It goes ESPECIALLY those countries. It's a waste of resources.


----------



## Regillus

Howard said:


> How long has it been now?





Apatheticviews said:


> Early 90's. We've maintained bases in Saudi Arabia & Kuwait since the first Gulf War.


Actually, we've been deeply involved in the Middle East since the end of World War II. Particularly in Saudi Arabia. We wanted a reliable supply of oil in case another world war broke out.


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> Early 90's. We've maintained bases in Saudi Arabia & Kuwait since the first Gulf War.
> 
> As for Afghanistan, say what you will about the Soviets, they kept the region inline until the collapse of the USSR.


So for 20 years we haven't come back to The US?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> So for 20 years we haven't come back to The US?


Lol, Closer to 70 years. We've been actively maintaining bases around the world since WWII (as others and myself have mentioned). Our bases in the Middle East gained real *visibility* in the 90's with the Gulf War.

It's not that we haven't come back, it's that a foreign military (USA) presence provides stability to the region. (Keeps the place from being constantly at war).

I was there in the mid-late 90's (multiple countries), and the place is one step up from 3rd world. There are nice "parts" but those are massively overshadowed by the other parts. It is not a nice place to live. The people are unhappy, and the leadership has to keep that dissatisfaction focused somewhere. Usually at their neighbor.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> It goes ESPECIALLY those countries. It's a waste of resources.


Our "Global" policy requires the ability to mobile air-lift around the world. That means bases every couple of time zones. You can't fight a war if you are too far away. But if you have "jump points" in countries like Great Britain, Germany/Italy, Turkey, Kuwait/Saudi Arabia, Japan, it becomes logistically possible.

If we want to get out of these countries, we have to change policy. We have to disconnect our ties with the UN, sever our alliances, and essentially become as neutral as Switzerland.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Regillus said:


> Actually, we've been deeply involved in the Middle East since the end of World War II. Particularly in Saudi Arabia. We wanted a reliable supply of oil in case another world war broke out.


Absolutely, but it didn't have the* visibility *except in rarer instances. We've got our fingers in everyones' pies. You just won't here about how deep until it becomes a global issue.


----------



## Regillus

Jovan said:


> I just wish we'd get out of the middle east already.


Great idea. Just one problem: We need their oil. Our domestic demand for oil has far outstripped our ability to supply it from domestic sources. So we buy oil from who has it; the Middle East. If our scientists could come up with a cheap, safe, readily available replacement energy source then we could stop using oil and get out of the Middle East already.

BTW; Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia; our main supplier. But Russia's oilfields need to be developed, pipelines need to be laid, etc. It'll take years for Russia to become a significant rival to OPEC. See "Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections" at GasandOil.com for more info.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Regillus said:


> Re Post #241: And don't forget they finally caught ****** Bulger.


Obviously this will only encourage and inspire more ****** Bulgers!!

Anarchists and Union Thuggery??

They go together like chocolate and peanut butter!!


----------



## Howard

Well,it appears that this morning Libyan leader Moammar Ghadafi has died at the age of 69,So far we're doing good killing all the "heel" leaders like Saddam Hussein,Osama Bin Laden and now Moammar Ghadafi.

So now the question asks,Who do we have left?


----------



## Jovan

Regillus said:


> Great idea. Just one problem: We need their oil. Our domestic demand for oil has far outstripped our ability to supply it from domestic sources. So we buy oil from who has it; the Middle East. If our scientists could come up with a cheap, safe, readily available replacement energy source then we could stop using oil and get out of the Middle East already.
> 
> BTW; Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia; our main supplier. But Russia's oilfields need to be developed, pipelines need to be laid, etc. It'll take years for Russia to become a significant rival to OPEC. See "Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections" at GasandOil.com for more info.


If it weren't due to oil company thuggery (e.g. buying up all the designs for electric cars, etc. and promptly throwing them out), we might already have an alternative fuel source. I laugh every time they have ads trying to convince us they're working on something new. I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Regillus

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...Union Thuggery??


Oh, Woulda; you really must brush up on your history. Have you forgotten the 1914 Ludlow Massacre?:


*The history of the Ludlow Massacre of striking coal miners, which was one of the most brutal attacks on organised labour in North American history.

*
*It was the pinnacle of efforts by the National Guard and local strike-breakers under the command of the Rockefeller family to suppress a strike of twelve thousand workers*Issues concerning labour had dogged the United States for many years preceding World War I and had resulted in widespread strike action, especially in the West of the country. Tensions rose to a melting point when a union activist was killed in late 1913 resulting in workers at the Rockefeller family owned Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation's (CF+I) going on strike. Miners evacuated the coal camps on September 23rd in protest against low wages, poor working conditions and continued victimisation of union activists. This was to mark the beginning of what was to be a harsh seven months of continued brutality and repression at the hands of their bosses.
Miners of the CF+I were paid $1.68 a day and were forced to work in extremely harsh conditions, this was particularly true for the Colorado miners, where fatality rates were often double the national average. What little wages the miners earned were paid in scrip, which was redeemable only at the company store where prices were high.
Attempts of unionisation by the Colorado miners dated back to the first strike of 1883 in which they tried to join the Western Federation of Miners, in 1913 they were attempting to organise into the United Mine Workers of America. (They later joined the Industrial Workers of the World in 1927.)
Demands of the UMWA to the CF+I were as follows:
"&#8230;Recognition of the United Mineworkers of America as the bargaining agent for workers in coal mines throughout Colorado and northern New Mexico, an effective system of checkweighmen in all mines, compensation for digging coal at a ton-rate based on 2,000 pounds, semi-monthly payment of wages in lawful money, the abolition of scrip and the truck system, an end to discrimination against union members, and strict enforcement of state laws pertaining to operators' obligations in supplying miners with timbers, rails, and other materials in underground working places."​The demands of the union and the continuing strike action enraged the Rockefeller family, which through mine ownership effectively ruled the region. They evicted striking workers from their company owned homes leaving them (along with their families) to face the harsh Colorado winter months without shelter. Assisted by UMWA groups across the US, the strikers organised 'tent cities' close to canyon mouths which lead to coal camps (in an attempt to block strike-breakers replacing them) and continued their strike.

Through various agencies the company was able to hire men to take a more aggressive stance against the striking workers, armed guards were supplied to harass strikers and union organisers. An armoured car with a mounted machine gun was even built which was appropriately named the 'Death Special' by the company guards. As tensions escalated between CF+I and the strikers, miners dug protective pits beneath their tents to shield themselves and their families against random sniping and machine gun fire from the company guards. On October 17th the 'Death Special' was used to attack the Forbes tent colony resulting in the death of one miner. A young girl was shot in the face and another boy's legs riddled with machine gun bullets also. Confrontations between striking miners and scab workers were also resulting in additional deaths. On October 28th the Governor of Colorado, Elias M Ammons called out the National Guard to take control of the situation.
The miners however, persevered. Union members and organisers were kidnapped and beaten, shots being fired into the camps from strike-breakers and the National Guardsmen were a constant occurrence and the harsh winter was taking its toll. Worried about the continuing cost of keeping the National Guard in the field, Governor Ammons accepted an offer from the Rockefeller family to put their men in National Guard uniforms.
On March 10th the body of a strike-breaker was found near railroad tracks near the Forbes tents and the National Guard's General Chase ordered the colony to be destroyed. The strike was reaching a climax, and National Guardsmen were ordered to evict the remaining tent colonies around the mines, despite them being on private property leased by the UMWA.
Ludlow was the largest of the colonies, and on the morning of April 20th 1914, troops fired into the camp with machine guns, anyone who was seen moving in the camp was targeted. The miners fired back, and fighting raged for almost fourteen hours.








_Red Cross workers sift through the wreckage of the strikers' camp after the attack_​
In the afternoon, a passing freight train stopped near the camp and allowed many miners and their families to escape to east to an area known as the 'Black Hills'. After many hours of exchanging fire with the militiamen, the camps main organiser, Louis Tikas met with Lieutenant Linderfelt (the officer in charge of the National Guard assault on the Ludlow camp) to arrange a truce. Linderfelt hit Tikas with the butt of his rifle and soldiers fired several times into his back as he lay on the ground, killing him outright.
That evening, under cover of darkness, the militiamen entered the camp and set fire to tents, killing two women and eleven children who were sheltering from the shooting in a pit below a tent, thirteen other people were also shot dead during the fighting.
As news of the massacre spread, workers from around the country went on strike to show solidarity with the remaining miners on strike in Colorado and to express sympathy for those who had lost loved ones in Ludlow. Several cities in the state were taken over and occupied by miners and some National Guard units even laid down their arms and refused to fight.
However, the workers failed to obtain their demands along with union recognition and many were replaced with non-union workers. No National Guardsmen was ever prosecuted over the killings, even though sixty-six people had been killed by the time violence ended.
In 1918 a monument was erected to commemorate those who died during the strike. These individuals all died in the Ludlow Massacre, and are inscribed on the monument as follows:
Louis Tikas, age: 30 years
James Fyler, age: 43 years
John Bartolotti, age: 45 years
Charlie Costa, age: 31 years
Fedelina Costas, age: 27 years
Onafrio Costa, age: 4 years
Frank Rubino, age: 23 years
Patria Valdez, age: 37 years
Eulala Valdez, age: 8 years
Mary Valdez, age: 7 years
Elvira Valdez, age: 3 months
Joe Petrucci, age: 4 ½ years
Lucy Petrucci, age: 2 ½ years
Frank Petrucci, age: 4 months
William Snyder Jr, age: 11 years
Rodgerlo Pedregone, age: 6 years
Cloriva Pedregone, age: 4 year

------------------------------------------------
So the businessmen had their legislator lackeys send in the National Guard to murder striking workers, and they murdered little Elvira Valdez, aged 3 months. Are you proud of this, Woulda? Are you proud to stand with the businessmen who murdered children?

As time went by; the legislators belatedly realized that the workers held the majority of votes and the businessmen didn't. So the legislators passed work-place safety laws; passed laws requiring businessmen to allow union-organizing activities to be conducted on company property during business hours; passed laws requiring businessmen to negotiate with unions, etc. The labor union was the best thing that ever happened to the working man. Your "union thuggery" comment is rank slande r.​


----------



## Apatheticviews

Regillus said:


> Great idea. Just one problem: We need their oil. Our domestic demand for oil has far outstripped our ability to supply it from domestic sources. So we buy oil from who has it; the Middle East. If our scientists could come up with a cheap, safe, readily available replacement energy source then we could stop using oil and get out of the Middle East already.
> 
> BTW; Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia; our main supplier. But Russia's oilfields need to be developed, pipelines need to be laid, etc. It'll take years for Russia to become a significant rival to OPEC. See "Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections" at GasandOil.com for more info.


We actually get a hell of a lot of oil from Mexico (about 40% if I recall correctly). About 20% from the Mideast was the last real numbers I saw.

It's not "our" dependance on oil that makes the the Mideast so important. It's our allies. Japan, and the European nations get as much as 80% from the Middle East. It's a matter of simple logistics. You get your *primary* fuel source from the closest location. You protect your allies primary fuel source (which is your secondary fuel source) as a matter of course.

Post WWII, the Russians (read USSR) made out like bandits via their control of fossil fuel sources in the Asia peninsula, especially in those countries tat ended in "stan."


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> If it weren't due to oil company thuggery (e.g. buying up all the designs for electric cars, etc. and promptly throwing them out), we might already have an alternative fuel source. I laugh every time they have ads trying to convince us they're working on something new. I'll believe it when I see it.


The "grand conspiracy theory."

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt "Detroit" bought up designs. But I also don't doubt they found them un-viable until "recently."

Now the question is why they found them un-viable. Was it because somebody from big oil was whispering in their ear?


----------



## Regillus

Howard said:


> Well,it appears that this morning Libyan leader Moammar Ghadafi has died at the age of 69,So far we're doing good killing all the "heel" leaders like Saddam Hussein,Osama Bin Laden and now Moammar Ghadafi.
> 
> So now the question asks,Who do we have left?


Next domino up(1): Bashar al-Assad; dictator of Syria. His days are numbered.
The interesting thing about the Syrian situation is this: Syria lets Iran send money and advisers from Iran to Hamas. Hamas is permitted to operate in Syria. Iran uses Hamas as a proxy organization for the Iranian gov't. If al-Assad falls; then does the money flow from Iran to Hamas stop? If it does; then this would have a significant impact on the Israeli-Palestinian situation since Hamas supports the Palestinians. This should be closely monitored.

(1) Recall the "Domino Theory" of the Fifties and Sixties? That the communists would take over one small country after another until the U.S. and NATO were faced with monolithic communism? It never happened, but it's interesting to see how the Arab states are falling one by one to popular uprisings.

I can hear the gears turning now at the State Dept. How might we finesse this situation to our advantage?:icon_study:


----------



## Howard

So if we could eliminate all evil dictators around the world would the U.S. be a much better place?


----------



## eagle2250

Given the hue and cry raised by some over the US's handling of OBL's body and his burial at sea, as the sun was setting on the evening of the day of his death (in accordance with the Islamic faith); why no outrage over the Lybian rebel's handling and public display of Quadafis' mutilated corpse, days after his death and in clear contradiction to the acclaimed tenants of his religion. Chouan, where forth art you, Chouan? Double standards are OK, eh!


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> So if we could eliminate all evil dictators around the world would the U.S. be a much better place?


The US or the World?

Killing OBL or Hussein didn't make the US a better place. No one ever said it would. Several people did say it would make places like Iraq, a better place in the long run (with US/UN/NATO monitoring). Which is an absolute certainty.

That's the issue with Dictators. How many "good" ones do you hear about?

The kind of personality it takes to be a dictator is not the kind of personality it takes to exist in a society. Sure they can do great things. They can. Hitler did great things. He rebuilt a country. He was also bat-$%^$ insane, and an evil dictator that needed to be "deaded" BEFORE he rounded up 6 million people and killed them.

Unfortunately we have to think globally now. One country is interwoven with another now. What happens in one affects another. If labor prices go up in Malaysia, the price of women's underwear in the US jumps up. This in turn causes the amount of chocolate consumed per year to go down, because we can't afford to buy our wives chocolate AND underwear for Valentine's day. This causes shows like the Biggest Loser to stay on the air longer because our wives think they're fat (cause we didn't buy them candy), resulting in the show that I actually want to watch in that time slot being cancelled. Now I have to buy MORE beer, which means I need a Costco membership and a shed for all the food I'm buying. And my wife is watching Extreme Couponers!!!!!!! Argh.......


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> Given the hue and cry raised by some over the US's handling of OBL's body and his burial at sea, as the sun was setting on the evening of the day of his death (in accordance with the Islamic faith); why no outrage over the Lybian rebel's handling and public display of Quadafis' mutilated corpse, days after his death and in clear contradiction to the acclaimed tenants of his religion. Chouan, where forth art you, Chouan? Double standards are OK, eh!


Nobody's really worried about Quadafi being Martyred, or people visiting his grave like some sort of saint.


----------



## eagle2250

Apatheticviews said:


> The US or the World?
> 
> Killing OBL or Hussein didn't make the US a better place. No one ever said it would. Several people did say it would make places like Iraq, a better place in the long run (with US/UN/NATO monitoring). Which is an absolute certainty.
> 
> That's the issue with Dictators. How many "good" ones do you hear about?
> 
> The kind of personality it takes to be a dictator is not the kind of personality it takes to exist in a society. Sure they can do great things. They can. Hitler did great things. He rebuilt a country. He was also bat-$%^$ insane, and an evil dictator that needed to be "deaded" BEFORE he rounded up 6 million people and killed them.
> 
> Unfortunately we have to think globally now. One country is interwoven with another now. What happens in one affects another. If labor prices go up in Malaysia, the price of women's underwear in the US jumps up. This in turn causes the amount of chocolate consumed per year to go down, because we can't afford to buy our wives chocolate AND underwear for Valentine's day. This causes shows like the Biggest Loser to stay on the air longer because our wives think they're fat (cause we didn't buy them candy), resulting in the show that I actually want to watch in that time slot being cancelled. Now I have to buy MORE beer, which means I need a Costco membership and a shed for all the food I'm buying. And my wife is watching Extreme Couponers!!!!!!! Argh.......


+1 ...and so very well put! LOL. :thumbs-up


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> The US or the World?
> 
> Killing OBL or Hussein didn't make the US a better place. No one ever said it would. Several people did say it would make places like Iraq, a better place in the long run (with US/UN/NATO monitoring). Which is an absolute certainty.
> 
> That's the issue with Dictators. How many "good" ones do you hear about?
> 
> The kind of personality it takes to be a dictator is not the kind of personality it takes to exist in a society. Sure they can do great things. They can. Hitler did great things. He rebuilt a country. He was also bat-$%^$ insane, and an evil dictator that needed to be "deaded" BEFORE he rounded up 6 million people and killed them.
> 
> Unfortunately we have to think globally now. One country is interwoven with another now. What happens in one affects another. If labor prices go up in Malaysia, the price of women's underwear in the US jumps up. This in turn causes the amount of chocolate consumed per year to go down, because we can't afford to buy our wives chocolate AND underwear for Valentine's day. This causes shows like the Biggest Loser to stay on the air longer because our wives think they're fat (cause we didn't buy them candy), resulting in the show that I actually want to watch in that time slot being cancelled. Now I have to buy MORE beer, which means I need a Costco membership and a shed for all the food I'm buying. And my wife is watching Extreme Couponers!!!!!!! Argh.......


I was talking about "the world",You really don't hear about face dictators they're all "heels".They all have the power,money fame fortune and the hot women and one day they'll all be hated and get their "just desserts".


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Regillus said:


> Have you forgotten the 1914 Ludlow Massacre?:
> 
> So the businessmen had their legislator lackeys send in the National Guard to murder striking workers, and they murdered little Elvira Valdez, aged 3 months. Are you proud of this, Woulda? Are you proud to stand with the businessmen who murdered children?
> ​


1. No.

2. Joe Biden called, he wants his speach writer back!!


----------



## Howard

I was also thinking about Yasser Arafat,I know he wasn't shot or killed he died of complications of something but was he a hated person?


----------



## Regillus

Howard said:


> I was also thinking about Yasser Arafat,I know he wasn't shot or killed he died of complications of something but was he a hated person?


Depends on who you ask. Certainly the Israelis hated him since he led the P.L.O. which opposed Israel. Some of the Palestinian groups liked him because he was just about the best spokesman they had; though that isn't saying much. Arafat was a poor excuse for a leader.

Re Post #279: "Biden...wants his speech writer back!!" Why thank you Woulda! I'm astonished that you would consider my writings to be of such quality, distinction, and eminence that it rates the Vice-presidents level. With a semesters worth of studying and effort maybe I can bump up to the Presidential level!:icon_jokercolor:


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> Given the hue and cry raised by some over the US's handling of OBL's body and his burial at sea, as the sun was setting on the evening of the day of his death (in accordance with the Islamic faith); why no outrage over the Lybian rebel's handling and public display of Quadafis' mutilated corpse, days after his death and in clear contradiction to the acclaimed tenants of his religion. Chouan, where forth art you, Chouan? Double standards are OK, eh!


No, I've been away for a couple of days. 
To answer your question, I am as disgusted by the murder of Gadaffi as I would be of anybody else. He should have been tried for his crimes, not butchered by a howling mob. His son who was captured at the same time was first pictured chatting to his captors, and was then shown with multiple bullet wounds to his head and chest. There is also plenty of evidence now of mass executions by the "rebels" of Gadaffi supporters.
On the other hand, there is a difference in the sense that the death of a Muslim at the hands of other Muslims is viewed by Islam as a sort of "in house" affair, whereas the killing of a Muslim by Christians is seen as an attack on Islam.


----------



## Chouan

PS "where forth art you" doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Chouan

PPS. In response to "Union Thuggery", you've also got the Battle of Blair Mountain. I'm unaware of any other country than the US, outside of the USSR and Communist China where the State has used it's airforce against striking workers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> PPS. In response to "Union Thuggery"


That was then. This is now.

Heck. WWI or working in a mine would have been enough to turn ME Commie!!


----------



## Regillus

Chouan said:


> PS "where forth art you" doesn't make any sense.


It should've read "wherefore art thou."

Thanks for the Blair Mountain info, Chouan. I'm ordering it from Amazon.:icon_study:

Oh yes; from USA Today (5/11/2005):

Twenty years ago this Friday, city police dropped a bomb on this block and let it burn. Five children and six adults, members of a small radical collective called MOVE, died; 61 homes in a middle-class neighborhood were destroyed. As the nation watched, Philadelphia became the city that bombed its own people.
-----------------------------------------
That was then, this is now?

Let's not forget Ruby Ridge, and Waco (21 children died; 12 of them younger than 5 years of age).


----------



## Jovan

Makes the excessive force displayed by the NYPD seem tame in comparison. Not that it's any less wrong.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> Makes the excessive force displayed by the NYPD seem tame in comparison. Not that it's any less wrong.


Makes my paranoia about the 2nd amendment (government overstepping its powers, and citizens having to defend themselves from it) a little less paranoia and a lot more foreshadowing.... Or is a realization... New York is one of those places that has effectively banned firearms, and has "must retreat" laws.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> No, I've been away for a couple of days.
> To answer your question, I am as disgusted by the murder of Gadaffi as I would be of anybody else. He should have been tried for his crimes, not butchered by a howling mob. His son who was captured at the same time was first pictured chatting to his captors, and was then shown with multiple bullet wounds to his head and chest. There is also plenty of evidence now of mass executions by the "rebels" of Gadaffi supporters.
> On the other hand, there is a difference in the sense that the death of a Muslim at the hands of other Muslims is viewed by Islam as a sort of "in house" affair, whereas the killing of a Muslim by Christians is seen as an attack on Islam.


Sometimes a howling mob is HOW you are tried for your crimes.

Justice is a concept. It is man's justification for the use of revenge. Plain and simple. Somebody did something wrong. We want to do something bad to him. But we can't allow ONE person to do it. We have to spread it out. We have to say society did it, or the government (the People) did. What are the People but a Howling mob (really)?

Would Gadaffi have died for his crimes (otherwise)? I can't say. Should he have? He's another big bad of the world, and I'm real sorry to see him go.


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> Sometimes a howling mob is HOW you are tried for your crimes.
> 
> Justice is a concept. It is man's justification for the use of revenge. Plain and simple. Somebody did something wrong. We want to do something bad to him. But we can't allow ONE person to do it. We have to spread it out. We have to say society did it, or the government (the People) did. What are the People but a Howling mob (really)?
> 
> Would Gadaffi have died for his crimes (otherwise)? I can't say. Should he have? He's another big bad of the world, and I'm real sorry to see him go.


Maybe he could've lived and do some community service for a couple of years.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Regillus said:


> That was then, this is now?
> 
> Twenty years ago this Friday, city police dropped a bomb on this block and let it burn. Five children and six adults, members of a small radical collective called MOVE, died; 61 homes in a middle-class neighborhood were destroyed. As the nation watched, Philadelphia became the city that bombed its own people.
> 
> Let's not forget Ruby Ridge, and Waco (21 children died; 12 of them younger than 5 years of age).


I think you are trying to say there is no difference between murdering and exploitive Coal Robber-Barrons, The first Black Mayor of Philadelphia, and President Clinton.

Wiki~Goode's tenure as mayor was marred in the spring of 1985 by the confrontation, in which police attempted to clear a building in *inhabited by a radical back-to-nature group whose members, under the leadership of founder , had long been a nuisance to the city by shouting slogans and statements from a megaphone at all hours, ignoring city sanitation codes *and barricading themselves in houses when law enforcement came to enforce them.

That seems oddly familiar...


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Howard said:


> Maybe he could've lived and do some community service for a couple of years.


BAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAhAHhahahahahahahahahha!!

Then not show up and pose for Playboy??


----------



## eagle2250

Apatheticviews said:


> Sometimes a howling mob is HOW you are tried for your crimes.
> 
> Justice is a concept. It is man's justification for the use of revenge. Plain and simple. Somebody did something wrong. We want to do something bad to him. But we can't allow ONE person to do it. We have to spread it out. We have to say society did it, or the government (the People) did. What are the People but a Howling mob (really)?
> 
> Would Gadaffi have died for his crimes (otherwise)? I can't say. Should he have? He's another big bad of the world, and I'm real sorry to see him go.


Perhaps so, but if such is the case, have we not simply witnessed the replacement of one bad leader with another whos is quite possibly worse than the one we replaced(!)? :icon_scratch:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Only time will tell. 

Things looked grim after King Lois XVI got the chop too!!


----------



## eagle2250

^^
The chop? LOL...are you talking about that thing they do at the Atlanta games?


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> Only time will tell.
> 
> Things looked grim after King Lois XVI got the chop too!!


Things *were* grim in 1793! Total death toll, apart from the wars with the rest of Europe, was about 650,000. It's easy to be flippant about events so long ago, but their deaths were real. Replace a tyrant with another and you've got a good chance of more deaths and more tyranny. Even when that tyrant fell, another came along to replace him. A military tyrant, the "man on horseback" that Robespierre feared, and Europe was plunged into another 16 years of war.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

They seek him here, they seek him there
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere
Is he in heaven or is he in hell?
That demned elusive Pimpernel 
He meddles with the Frenchie Revolution
Popping in and out each week
Spoiling every lovely execution
La, what cheek!


----------



## Regillus

Howard said:


> Maybe he could've lived and do some community service for a couple of years.


Not likely. Gaddafi was in power for 42 years, and during that time he unjustly imprisoned, tortured, and killed thousands of Libyans. It's really not surprising that as soon as the people got hold of him they killed him in a spasm of revenge. If he had been put on trial he certainly would have been convicted and sentenced to death. A lot of people wanted him dead.


----------



## Howard

WouldaShoulda said:


> BAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAhAHhahahahahahahahahha!!
> 
> Then not show up and pose for Playboy??


Woulda,could you see Khadafy doing some community service? I would think he would refuse because community service is below him and doing that would ruin his reputation.


----------



## Jovan

You must be joking, Howard.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Howard said:


> Woulda,could you see Khadafy doing some community service? I would think he would refuse because community service is below him and doing that would ruin his reputation.


I also see him going to the drive thru at Micky Dees, someone getting his order wrong, and exclaiming "Do you know who I am??"


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> Woulda,could you see Khadafy doing some community service? I would think he would refuse because community service is below him and doing that would ruin his reputation.


Orange jump suit. Picking up trash on the side of the road!


----------



## Jovan

I'm split. Part of me thinks, "He deserved what he had coming to him." The other half thinks, "He should have been tried formally." In any case, what happened was not totally unexpected.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> I'm split. Part of me thinks, "He deserved what he had coming to him." The other half thinks, "He should have been tried formally." In any case, what happened was not totally unexpected.


That's because you're a just and logical man. Trying somebody formally is *so that you can say* he got what was coming to him. If we didn't try him, did he really deserve it? That's our morals fighting with our ethics.

We don't just go out and kill criminals. But if you see a rattlesnake in your yard, sometimes you have to kill it. For your protection, your families, and your neighbors. Sometimes a man turns into a snake, and has to be treated like one. It's a sad fact.

Should the attempt have been made to bring him to justice? Sure. But after how many years do you determine that those attempts are failed.


----------



## Howard

WouldaShoulda said:


> I also see him going to the drive thru at Micky Dees, someone getting his order wrong, and exclaiming "Do you know who I am??"


HAHA Now that would be funny.


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> Orange jump suit. Picking up trash on the side of the road!


Good Idea.


----------



## Jovan

Apatheticviews said:


> That's because you're a just and logical man. Trying somebody formally is *so that you can say* he got what was coming to him. If we didn't try him, did he really deserve it? That's our morals fighting with our ethics.
> 
> We don't just go out and kill criminals. But if you see a rattlesnake in your yard, sometimes you have to kill it. For your protection, your families, and your neighbors. Sometimes a man turns into a snake, and has to be treated like one. It's a sad fact.
> 
> Should the attempt have been made to bring him to justice? Sure. But after how many years do you determine that those attempts are failed.


The rebels were obviously not happy after a lifetime of oppression. I still don't think it's right that they reacted by wounding him, not getting any medical help, and then basically torturing him to death. As I said though, it's not unexpected.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
...but therein lies the difference between an out of control, rebel mob and a disciplined military unit. The soldier(?) who shot Ghadaffi in the head after he was captured and fully under rebel control should be taken into custody and tried for murder. At least seven of the rebel mobsters (as seen in videos of the event), should be charged with mutilation of a corpse. However, granted their heathen hoard status, I suppose some will say how these gentle souls handled things was A-ok! :crazy: While it is not usually possible to find some sense of order in the midst of chaos, I do admire Apatheticviews and Jovan for trying! :thumbs-up:


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> ...but therein lies the difference between an out of control, rebel mob and a disciplined military unit. The soldier(?) who s*hot Ghadaffi in the head after he was captured and fully under rebel control should be taken into custody and tried for murder.* At least seven of the rebel mobsters (as seen in videos of the event), should be charged with mutilation of a corpse. However, granted their heathen hoard status, I suppose some will say how these gentle souls handled things was A-ok! :crazy: While it is not usually possible to find some sense of order in the midst of chaos, I do admire Apatheticviews and Jovan for trying! :thumbs-up:


Bolded is absolutely true. You don't kill prisoners/detainees/etc. That's where things like Right & Wrong are clearly defined.

As for a mob taking down an evil dictator.... not so much Right & Wrong. That's where you get into the shades of gray, and what will eventually happen anyways....

But.. look at Sadaam. Captured, tried and executed. No harm, no foul. OBL. No harm, No foul. Ghadaffi (jr) Huge party foul.


----------



## Regillus




----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps so, but if such is the case, have we not simply witnessed the replacement of one bad leader with another whos is quite possibly worse than the one we replaced(!)? :icon_scratch:


We have the new President of Libya announcing that Sharia law will now be paramount in Libya. Is this good for stability, the beginnings of a new fundamentalist Islamic regime?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> We have the new President of Libya announcing that Sharia law will now be paramount in Libya. Is this good for stability, the beginnings of a new fundamentalist Islamic regime?


Actually, say what you will, I have seen no evidence that supports/denies any secular state over a non-secular state. There are plenty of unstable secular states (The US is a prime example right now), and likely as many stable non-secular states (much of the Middle East is stable, and technically Great Britain is a non-secular state as well).

It may be in direct opposition to OUR worldview, but it may work well for them. If it doesn't, well... Libya has shown what the will of the people can accomplish with a tyrannical dictator.

Just because we don't like their faiths' tenets doesn't make them wrong (or unfit to rule themselves). Just like opposite isn't true.

I don't know, but this seems to strike of history somehow.... where was it....


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> Actually, say what you will, I have seen no evidence that supports/denies any secular state over a non-secular state. There are plenty of unstable secular states (The US is a prime example right now), and likely as many stable non-secular states (much of the Middle East is stable, and technically Great Britain is a non-secular state as well).
> 
> It may be in direct opposition to OUR worldview, but it may work well for them. If it doesn't, well... Libya has shown what the will of the people can accomplish with a tyrannical dictator.
> 
> Just because we don't like their faiths' tenets doesn't make them wrong (or unfit to rule themselves). Just like opposite isn't true.
> 
> I don't know, but this seems to strike of history somehow.... where was it....


Iran, perhaps?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> Iran, perhaps?


I was thinking Pope vs CoE (or any other religion), but I suppose Iran works too


----------



## Chouan

Revolution against an oppressive/repressive, yet stable regime resulting in a short lived democratic experiment, followed by a repressive theocracy. 

I don't see Britain in the reformation as being a parallel at all. Essentially, repressive/oppressive regime changes the dominant religious dogma, insists that the population follows the change, and continues to be a repressive/oppressive regime. It doesn't really fit.


----------

