Osama bin Laden: Dead

[kiki5711]

Are you opposed to the US invading other countries without being invited

who invites someone to invade them?

[Coito ergo sum]

Are you opposed to the US invading other countries without being invited

who invites someone to invade them?

Apparently, the Ivory Coast. That's what people told me when I pointed out that France is engaged in military action there. And, apparently in Libya, where Democrats and Obama supporters said that we were invited by the "rebels" who we have the right to deem the lawful government, and thus attack militarily, even when there is no imminent threat and the country hasn't attacked anyone else....

But, are you opposed, or not opposed?

[kiki5711]

And, apparently in Libya, where Democrats and Obama supporters said that we were invited by the "rebels"

Being asked for help is not invading.

Re: your other question. I can't say in black or white that I am for one or the other since every situation needs to be handled differently because of the timing, relevance and/or importance at that present moment.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, apparently in Libya, where Democrats and Obama supporters said that we were invited by the "rebels"

Being asked for help is not invading.

That's why the question was about invading (not being asked for help). You didn't answer it.

But, in any case, it depends who is doing the asking. If some group in the US "asked for help" because they were rebels against the lawful US government, it would not suddenly be legal for another country to invade the US and come to the aid of the rebels, would it?

Re: your other question. I can't say in black or white that I am for one or the other since every situation needs to be handled differently because of the timing, relevance and/or importance at that present moment.

So, sometimes it is o.k. to invade another country, even when that country hasn't attacked us (or anyone else), and there is no imminent threat. Yes? It depends on the timing, relevance and/or importance of the invasion?

[kiki5711]

If some group in the US "asked for help" because they were rebels against the lawful US government, it would not suddenly be legal for another country to invade the US and come to the aid of the rebels, would it?

Yea, I can see your point,

but, Muammar Qaddafi is one person/family who with his money/power/greed is trying to stay in control for his own and family gain, not so much in the interest of his fellow countrymen. Maybe we need some sort of "resume" from his days/years of leadership to see if we're all wrong about him.

I'd say N. Korea's Kim Jong Il is in the same line of "self centered" power/greed leadership line..as Qaddafi is. (in my opinion)

[Coito ergo sum]

If some group in the US "asked for help" because they were rebels against the lawful US government, it would not suddenly be legal for another country to invade the US and come to the aid of the rebels, would it?

Yea, I can see your point,

but, Muammar Qaddafi is one person/family who with his money/power/greed is trying to stay in control for his own and family gain, not so much in the interest of his fellow countrymen. Maybe we need some sort of "resume" from his days/years of leadership to see if we're all wrong about him.

I'd say N. Korea's Kim Jong Il is in the same line of "self centered" power/greed leadership line..as Qaddafi is. (in my opinion)

He was no worse than Saddam Hussein, for crying out loud. And, a few years ago it was not enough that someone be an ass-hole dictator that abuses his people. We needed an "imminent threat" .... remember? "No imminent threat!" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/ ... 1876.shtml

Remember? The fact that Iraq was not an "imminent threat" was an argument precluding an invasion to take out Saddam Hussein. It was undisputed that he was an awful dictator oppressing and killing his own people. That we knew. But, it wasn't enough because there were plenty of other dictators to bother about, so why would we pick Hussein?

Same is true of Gaddafi. No imminent threat. Plenty of other awful, even worse, dictators to worry about.....

When Bush announced that awful regimes like Iran and North Korea were, like Iraq, part of the list of enemies because they were brutal dictators that harbored and/or supported terrorism and/or engaged in violations of weapons proliferation treaties, he was excoriated by Democrats and supporters of Democrats. Now, the mere brutality of a dictator is enough to warrant invasion.

[sandinista]

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

If you are in an organization attached to those words, you have nothing to complain about when Americans and their allies -- civilians and military-- come to kill you.

And it's clear statements like this from Islamic terrorists that Gawd and Sandi take no notice of whatsoever...

It is perfectly possible to detest islamofascists and their murderous, religious-based actions while still feeling disquiet about aspects of US policy in response to them...

So, you're saying, in essence, we, the west should lower ourselves to their level. A race to the bottom. Again, sad. Perhaps if the west lived up to it's lofty goals instead of adopting the methods of "terrorists". If you really want to stop terrorism, a good first step would be to stop participating in it. You also fail to understand that this conflict/war is not a "your either with us or with "the terrorists"" kind of scenario. You can, rightly, criticize the west and still not "support" the crazy muslims.

Again, not a single response to the chilling evil of the jihadist statement...

One dimensional; for you, any aspect of US and allied policy is evil and wrong, and no criticism must ever be levelled at those who oppose the west, even if the opposition is for reasons of barbaric and medieval delusion... At least I can criticise aspects of US policy without becoming an apologist for religious nutjobs.

Islam also hates the left, with a deep and abiding passion. Even the lesser satan should be destroyed...

What kind of response do you want? Chilling? Not really, just what I would expect from a bunch of religious morons. No surprise there. If...on the other hand the leadership preached "freedom", "democracy" and "the rule of law" I may have something to say. They don't. Not one dimensional at all, in no way. Again, you call me an apologist for islamists, never have been, never said anything even close. Can I understand the people of Iraq and Afghanistan fighting back against the americans, of course. I would expect the same from the citizens here or in the states if we were invaded. You have Georgebushitus, "you're either wit us or wit the terrorists" get over it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Coito ergo sum]

U.N. rights investigators seek facts on bin Laden death


By Stephanie Nebehay
GENEVA | Fri May 6, 2011 12:16pm BST
(Reuters) - U.N. human rights investigators called on the United States on Friday to disclose the full facts surrounding the killing of Osama bin Laden, in particular whether there had been any plan to capture him.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/05/0 ... OG20110506

LOL!!!

Now it's time for the fun to begin. Obama, ushering in a new dawn of open government, and the age of international cooperation through the UN, is now being asked to disclose the "full facts" about the killing of bin Laden.

Christof Heyns, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and Martin Scheinin, special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism, said that in certain exceptional cases, deadly force may be used in "operations against terrorists."

"However, the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially-decided punishment," the independent experts said in a joint statement.

"In respect of the recent use of deadly force against Osama bin Laden, the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards," they said.

"It will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture bin Laden."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/05/0 ... OG20110506

Query....will Obama be signing the US up to the International Criminal Court statute anytime soon?

I know all his supporters were big-time against the fact that the US wouldn't agree to the ICC....funny...Obama has had two and a quarter years to put pen to paper on the ICC, and yet he hasn't. Maybe now, when it is time for his actions to be scrutinized by the ever-objective and ever-fair UN, he will see fit to do the right thing and make himself subject to the jurisdiction of the Court!

[Seth]

U.N. rights investigators seek facts on bin Laden death


By Stephanie Nebehay
GENEVA | Fri May 6, 2011 12:16pm BST
(Reuters) - U.N. human rights investigators called on the United States on Friday to disclose the full facts surrounding the killing of Osama bin Laden, in particular whether there had been any plan to capture him.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/05/0 ... OG20110506

LOL!!!

Now it's time for the fun to begin. Obama, ushering in a new dawn of open government, and the age of international cooperation through the UN, is now being asked to disclose the "full facts" about the killing of bin Laden.

Christof Heyns, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and Martin Scheinin, special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism, said that in certain exceptional cases, deadly force may be used in "operations against terrorists."

"However, the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially-decided punishment," the independent experts said in a joint statement.

"In respect of the recent use of deadly force against Osama bin Laden, the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards," they said.

"It will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture bin Laden."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/05/0 ... OG20110506

Query....will Obama be signing the US up to the International Criminal Court statute anytime soon?

I know all his supporters were big-time against the fact that the US wouldn't agree to the ICC....funny...Obama has had two and a quarter years to put pen to paper on the ICC, and yet he hasn't. Maybe now, when it is time for his actions to be scrutinized by the ever-objective and ever-fair UN, he will see fit to do the right thing and make himself subject to the jurisdiction of the Court!

Fuck international human rights law standards, which are concocted by a bunch of socialist panty-waists and liberal wankers who don't have a clue what it takes to get the job done.

But yeah, wouldn't it be a hoot to see Obama stand trial in the Hague for "war crimes?"

[devogue]

Fuck international human rights law standards, which are concocted by a bunch of socialist panty-waists and liberal wankers who don't have a clue what it takes to get the job done.

You mean "the World".

[sandinista]

Fuck international human rights law standards, which are concocted by a bunch of socialist panty-waists and liberal wankers who don't have a clue what it takes to get the job done.

You mean "the World".

You mean there is a world outside the US?

[colubridae]

Subject: Osama bin Laden: Dead

What kind of response do you want? Chilling? Not really, just what I would expect from a bunch of religious morons. No surprise there. If...on the other hand the leadership preached "freedom", "democracy" and "the rule of law" I may have something to say. They don't. Not one dimensional at all, in no way. Again, you call me an apologist for islamists, never have been, never said anything even close. Can I understand the people of Iraq and Afghanistan fighting back against the americans, of course. I would expect the same from the citizens here or in the states if we were invaded. You have Georgebushitus, "you're either wit us or wit the terrorists" get over it.

What a crock of self-serving hypocritical bullshit.

Muslims have always paraded and preached their vile religion as being peace loving; Just; Freedom loving; Law-abiding (as long as it’s sharia law) and every other bullshit hypocrisy. From the top of their religious hierarchy right to the bottom.

Where is your equally relentless scorn for them.
Your apologetics are here for all to see.
Whatever accusations of hatred you throw at the US or Israel, islam makes the US look saintly. The hypocrisy you accuse the US of, is child’s play in comparison to that of muslims.
Yet your aim is always at the US.

Go to Saudi and criticise islam the way you criticise the US.
You have a political agenda and you are hiding behind this screen of hypocrisy.
You’ve always done it and you always will. It’s hypocrisy from start to finish. Wonderful irony though, I grant you that, since your rasion d’etre, apparently is combating American hypocrisy. For fuck sake.

Yeah yeah. I know, now we get “I didn’t say that… greoge bush did this… Clinton did that… Muslims are just morons, it’s not fair to apply standards to them etc etc…” spare me your endless carping crap
[/rant]

[sandinista]

Subject: Osama bin Laden: Dead

What kind of response do you want? Chilling? Not really, just what I would expect from a bunch of religious morons. No surprise there. If...on the other hand the leadership preached "freedom", "democracy" and "the rule of law" I may have something to say. They don't. Not one dimensional at all, in no way. Again, you call me an apologist for islamists, never have been, never said anything even close. Can I understand the people of Iraq and Afghanistan fighting back against the americans, of course. I would expect the same from the citizens here or in the states if we were invaded. You have Georgebushitus, "you're either wit us or wit the terrorists" get over it.

What a crock of self-serving hypocritical bullshit.

Muslims have always paraded and preached their vile religion as being peace loving; Just; Freedom loving; Law-abiding (as long as it’s sharia law) and every other bullshit hypocrisy. From the top of their religious hierarchy right to the bottom.

Where is your equally relentless scorn for them.
Your apologetics are here for all to see.
Whatever accusations of hatred you throw at the US or Israel, islam makes the US look saintly. The hypocrisy you accuse the US of, is child’s play in comparison to that of muslims.
Yet your aim is always at the US.

Go to Saudi and criticise islam the way you criticise the US.
You have a political agenda and you are hiding behind this screen of hypocrisy.
You’ve always done it and you always will. It’s hypocrisy from start to finish. Wonderful irony though, I grant you that, since your rasion d’etre, apparently is combating American hypocrisy. For fuck sake.

Yeah yeah. I know, now we get “I didn’t say that… greoge bush did this… Clinton did that… Muslims are just morons, it’s not fair to apply standards to them etc etc…” spare me your endless carping crap
[/rant]

So, now you just make shit up? When has islam preached the rule of law, freedom and democracy? Did I say anything about "peace loving"...no. Pulled it straight from your self righteous ass. Spare me your bullshit

[Coito ergo sum]

But yeah, wouldn't it be a hoot to see Obama stand trial in the Hague for "war crimes?"

Not to me, it wouldn't. But, this illustrates exactly why previous administrations didn't want to sign up unconditionally to the ICC. Politically motivated prosecutions will result.

If it turns out that the OBL was shot in the back of the head, what do you think the UN folks would have to say about that?

To BHO, I can only say - welcome to the real world, my brutha!