Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:45:41 -0400, Harryk
sent the following message
wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 12:31:39 -0600,
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400,

wrote:

wrote:
I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy
of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of
shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a
150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but
they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL
could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the
ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.

I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were
told Osama
was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a
blaze of
what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the
latter.

That's no different than the choices the police in this
country offer
dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by
opening
fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop."

Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the
outcome. A
trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try
criminals
and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of
criminals
otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists.
The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only
one
armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they
wanted to
kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice.
Yep, saved millions in legal, pandering, pussy footing around,
no court
and judge costs and no expensive keep.

Gitmo isn't needed, a mass execution is.


You can't execute those people but we could have a horrible plane
crash where the crew were the only ones with parachutes.

Did you ever hear the Willie Nelson song about the detainees? (on
the
Highwayman album I think)




I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the
rule of
law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans.
When the
government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than
those
it executes.

It' hard to guess what Obama will do next now that he has a taste for
blood.

Where should the credit go?
 

On May 5, 6:18*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Harryk" wrote in message

m...



I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the rule of
law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans. When the
government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than those
it executes.

As a layperson and American, I support and agree with Obama's actions
with regard to getting bin Laden.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree that the
action taken was legal under American and International law.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...760358,00.html

Eisboch

You're right Richard. It seems that in more than one circumstance,
"international" law only applies to the US. Lets face it. the US is
going to be scrutinized by someone, somewhere 24/7

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 5 May 2011 19:18:16 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Harryk" wrote in message
om...


I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the rule of
law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans. When the
government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than those
it executes.



As a layperson and American, I support and agree with Obama's actions
with regard to getting bin Laden.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree that the
action taken was legal under American and International law.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...760358,00.html

Eisboch

Well, Alan Dershowitz thinks it is, and he thinks the photos should be
release as a 1st Amendment argument. I think that has merit.

Where should the credit go?
 

On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:10:34 -0400, John H
wrote:

From yesterday's Washington Post:

"U.S. analysts and operatives spent years figuring out the courier’s identity, senior administration
officials said, concluding that he was a former protege of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-declared
mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The courier "had our
constant attention," one official said.

Detainees "identified this man as one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden, [and]
indicated he might be living with or protecting bin Laden," the official said. But until four years
ago, the United States was unable to track the courier down or uncover his real name. In 2009, U.S.
officials narrowed down the region in Pakistan where the courier was working, senior administration
officials said."

'Years' it says. "Four years ago..." Well, that dumps it in Bush's lap.

http://tinyurl.com/6f65um6

Yesterday, Panetta admitted to Brian Williams that 'enhanced interrogation techniques', including
waterboarding, provided intel which ultimately lead to the attack.

http://tinyurl.com/6kz5423

I'll give Obama a 'C' for allowing the action to take place. He didn't do much else.

oh for christ's sake

and what would you have given him if he'd sat on the info and waited
for more info

you morons just hate obama so there's NOTHING he could do that would
force you to admit he's more competent than your right wing ponies

Where should the credit go?
 

On Wed, 04 May 2011 09:24:37 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 5:50 AM, Tim wrote:
Here, just for the fun of it...


http://utopianist.com/wp-content/upl...lled-trump.jpg

I will say this, the timing of getting Osama Bin Laden stinks of
politics. Don't get me wrong, Osama was a first class kill that was
long over due.

But right after the NATO/US-FR killed Gadhafi grand children and
innocents in Libya and the growing lack of support of assassination
without indictment, without due process?

Osama had over 300 indictments and warrants.

Obama even admitted he knew since August. But why just days after the
child murders in Libya?

Might I suggest it was about PR...not just Pakistan knew...US did too.
It was about convenience to draw focus off of Libya NATO-US murders of
the children.

more moronic comments from an idiot

the US wasnt involved in the bombing

there is no proof ghaddafi was targetted

give us a break with the moralistich horse****, OK?

Where should the credit go?
 

On Wed, 4 May 2011 11:46:06 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 04/05/2011 5:50 AM, Tim wrote:
Here, just for the fun of it...


http://utopianist.com/wp-content/upl...lled-trump.jpg

I will say this, the timing of getting Osama Bin Laden stinks of
politics. Don't get me wrong, Osama was a first class kill that was
long over due.

But right after the NATO/US-FR killed Gadhafi grand children and
innocents in Libya and the growing lack of support of assassination
without indictment, without due process?

Osama had over 300 indictments and warrants.

Obama even admitted he knew since August. But why just days after the
child murders in Libya?

Might I suggest it was about PR...not just Pakistan knew...US did too.
It was about convenience to draw focus off of Libya NATO-US murders of
the children.

Gotta' admit, just a week or so after officially kicking off his
campaign for 2012, you could be on to something. Either way, it's now a
campaign prop for Obama, and you can be sure nothing will be done for
Americans until after the next election.. And if Obamas first term was
any indication, nothing will get done then either. At least nothing but
paying off the folks who re-elected him...

no he's not on to something, idiot. it's too far from the election for
this to count

you cynical racists just hate obama and will not consider ANY actions
he does as reflective of competence.

the klan strikes again

Where should the credit go?
 

On Wed, 04 May 2011 11:46:08 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 4 May 2011 04:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

Here, just for the fun of it...


http://utopianist.com/wp-content/upl...lled-trump.jpg

Careful, Tim. The liberals are already *extremely* upset that Osama didn't receive a fair trial, but
was instead shot while defenseless.

yeah everyone here knows i'm a right winger

and i'm not upset osama got killed. you right wingers just are unhappy
your white poodle, bush, didnt get him

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 5 May 2011 19:18:16 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Harryk" wrote in message
om...


I guess I'll never understand righties and their disdain for the rule of
law or custom or behavior considered appropriate for Americans. When the
government engages in this sort of execution, it is no better than those
it executes.



As a layperson and American, I support and agree with Obama's actions
with regard to getting bin Laden.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree that the
action taken was legal under American and International law.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...760358,00.html

Eisboch

Yeah, I don't think they thought what bin Laden did was legal either.

Where should the credit go?
 

In article ,
says...

On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, Harryk wrote:
John H wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.

I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama
was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of
what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter.

That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer
dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening
fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop."

Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A
trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try
criminals
and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals
otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists.
The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one
armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to
kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice.

Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of
'American values'.

The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no
matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq.

Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was
given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down.

If it were you son looking Osama in the eye, and Osama pull a hand into
hidden view --

Would you want your son to chance it that Osama wasn't going for a
grenade, bomb or firearm?

The way they are trained, they could have taken him alive.. Period. It
was a hit, pure and simple. There is no way they were gonna' let Osama
tell the world about the co-operation he was getting from all the
countries involved...

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

Where should the credit go?
 

I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...
On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, Harryk wrote:
John H wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.
I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama
was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of
what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter.

That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer
dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening
fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop."

Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A
trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try
criminals
and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals
otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists.
The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one
armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to
kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice.
Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of
'American values'.
The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no
matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq.

Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was
given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down.
If it were you son looking Osama in the eye, and Osama pull a hand into
hidden view --

Would you want your son to chance it that Osama wasn't going for a
grenade, bomb or firearm?

The way they are trained, they could have taken him alive.. Period. It
was a hit, pure and simple. There is no way they were gonna' let Osama
tell the world about the co-operation he was getting from all the
countries involved...


I find it humorous that Canuck and Snotty, two of the three most
ignorant conspiracy theorists on rec.boats, in this and in other posts,
have yet more conspiracies.

Since I wasn't in the room and videos haven't been shown, I don't know
what happened immediately before Osama was shot dead. My *hope* was that
he was indeed first given an opportunity to surrender. As I have stated
previously, it wouldn't bother me to learn he was shot while resisting
capture/arrest.