On Thu, 05 May 2011 22:17:50 -0700, jps sent the
following message
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.

Stupid comment

In article ,
says...

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

If the shoe fits...

On 05/05/2011 5:18 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

What the world should look into more is Pakistan's compliciy in hiding
him. They knew.

Gadhafi is the one they should be nailing Obama with.

--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow
our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial?

On 06/05/2011 4:01 AM, 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 agree. But with the self admission, warrants and indictments, save
the cost of a trial.

Mind you solitaire in Gitmo for life does have appeal. But still, all
considering, great kill.

--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow
our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial?

Canuck57 wrote:
On 05/05/2011 5:18 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

What the world should look into more is Pakistan's compliciy in hiding
him. They knew.

Gadhafi is the one they should be nailing Obama with.


A. It is obvious that *some* in Pakistan knew Osama was living there.
The question is who.

B. Muammar Gaddafi is very much alive. I must say, I get a kick out of
your moronic defense of Gaddafi and the Libyan government.

On 06/05/2011 4:22 AM, Harryk wrote:
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.


Part of me believe many of the conspiracy types work for the government.
The idea is to discredit the conspiracy theorists by exaggerating the
claims to the level of stupidity, when in fact some truth to it may exist.

I agree with government, 9/11 happened as they say. But I also believe
they know more than they are letting on in the subsequent events. I
also believe the timing of Osama's death is quite well timed.

Gadhafi assassination attempt for example, innocent kids murdered and
public sediment against the practice going fast against USA, Obama
needed to deflect the blame fast so he played the Osama card. I do not
believe the time of Osama's death was a coincidence one single bit.

It became in Obama's self interest to be the right time to get Osama.

Take John Wheeler and Ashley Turton. Coincidence? To me Coincidence
means you just can't explain why. Not much of anything is truly a
coincidence.

Back to Gadhafi, the motives in assassinating him are not pure as in an
attach on the USA like 9/11. They are in fact quite different and are
of greed and control based. Real reasons US-NATO-UN-IMF-France want
Gadadfi...

- low debt Central Bank of Libya not IMF friendly.
- oil
- Gadhafi a supported of a United African state, funded it. Gbadbo of
Ivory Coast also supported it. Bad for colonialism.
- colonial interest, Gadafi like Gbagbo said they might nationalize
French interests (2010).

Libya rebels are less than 1% usually unemployed young males of the
population and do not have the support of the people at large. They are
a minority militant rebels with al Quada affiliations disrupting a country.

Would not be much different if a 20,000 band of citizens disrupted the
USA really. As this makes it clearly a civil issue and represents zero
threat to other countries.

So in my opinion, with what we know, and unless homes fly with kids in
them, USA is in clear violation of law in these multiple assassination
attempts in Libya. But we know the UN-IMF is behind it so good luck
seeing justice.
--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow
our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial?

On 06/05/2011 8:24 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 05/05/2011 5:18 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

What the world should look into more is Pakistan's compliciy in hiding
him. They knew.

Gadhafi is the one they should be nailing Obama with.


A. It is obvious that *some* in Pakistan knew Osama was living there.
The question is who.

On this we agree.

B. Muammar Gaddafi is very much alive. I must say, I get a kick out of
your moronic defense of Gaddafi and the Libyan government.

Where is your act of war? Where is the evidence or REAL reasons behind
this? Don't tell me it is democracy as that is BS. More unarmed
citizens in peaceful protest were shot by government in Yemen, Behrain
and Syria...and sorry, ARMED rebels do not count as peaceful hard done
by civilians. The who reason give to us by Libya is 100% BS.

Hey, I don't like Kadhafi, but he deserves more due process, not just an
elite temper tantrum and string pill gets him assassinated.

I only agree with Osama because:

- 300+ indictments and warrants exist in multiple countries for Osama
- formal act of war existed and acknowledged by all parties
- 9.5 years is plenty of time to surrender for 9/11.
- everyone knows the *REAL* no BS reasons for it
- his acts were outside his country validating a declaration of war to him.

USA, NATO and UN-IMF have none of that with Kadhafi. So if Kadhafi dies
from a USA missile, I would call it murder, first degree.

Go through the process, government should not be allowed to assassinate
with a stroke of a pen after some back room power group wants their
interests protected.

And don't kill the children.
--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow
our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial?

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 06 May 2011 06:22:25 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

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.

NBC has an unnamed white house official calling this a kill mission. I
think it is clear they were not looking for a prisoner.

Earlier today Savannah Guthrie quoted an unnamed White House official
commenting on the rising criticism of how bin Laden was killed, who
said "they weren?t raiding a girl scout troop looking for overdue
library books. They were on a kill mission for Osama bin Laden."

I'm sure they got more from the computers they took than anything OBL
would tell them, no matter how much water they splashed in his face.

The way these guys are trained they could have taken him alive, period.
Harry and the rest of the hypocrites here just can't admit it was a kill
mission, it doesn't fit their agenda... I still think it would have been
better to "splash him in the face" a few times. I am sure there was
stuff in his head that was not on disk. Most likely the names of the US,
UN, and Pakistani contacts that were protecting him there...

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

On Fri, 06 May 2011 07:40:21 -0400, Percy wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 22:17:50 -0700, jps sent the
following message
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.

Stupid comment

The fact that you don't understand tongue-in-cheek humor is no
reflection on me.

I'll take a wild guess that you lean conservative.

On Fri, 06 May 2011 09:10:39 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 06/05/2011 8:24 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 05/05/2011 5:18 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

What the world should look into more is Pakistan's compliciy in hiding
him. They knew.

Gadhafi is the one they should be nailing Obama with.


A. It is obvious that *some* in Pakistan knew Osama was living there.
The question is who.

On this we agree.

B. Muammar Gaddafi is very much alive. I must say, I get a kick out of
your moronic defense of Gaddafi and the Libyan government.

Where is your act of war? Where is the evidence or REAL reasons behind
this? Don't tell me it is democracy as that is BS. More unarmed
citizens in peaceful protest were shot by government in Yemen, Behrain
and Syria...and sorry, ARMED rebels do not count as peaceful hard done
by civilians. The who reason give to us by Libya is 100% BS.

Hey, I don't like Kadhafi, but he deserves more due process, not just an
elite temper tantrum and string pill gets him assassinated.

I only agree with Osama because:

- 300+ indictments and warrants exist in multiple countries for Osama
- formal act of war existed and acknowledged by all parties
- 9.5 years is plenty of time to surrender for 9/11.
- everyone knows the *REAL* no BS reasons for it
- his acts were outside his country validating a declaration of war to him.

USA, NATO and UN-IMF have none of that with Kadhafi. So if Kadhafi dies
from a USA missile, I would call it murder, first degree.

Go through the process, government should not be allowed to assassinate
with a stroke of a pen after some back room power group wants their
interests protected.

And don't kill the children.

OH MY GOD! You believe in due process?? That has got to be the
funniest thing I've heard in months.