Taken from the Huffington Post:
Osama Bin Laden is dead, President Obama will announce, according to multiple news organizations. The U.S. is in possession of his body, a person familiar with the situation told the Associated Press late Sunday.
President Obama is scheduled to address the nation on the developments Sunday night.
It was unclear where how bin Laden was killed and how the U.S. captured his body.
Comments?
Sign-up for a free weekly email
Articles exploring the themes of the fourth international Nobel Women's Initiative conference May 28-31. Jennifer Allsopp and Heather McRobie will be reporting for 5050
Lis Howell On broadcasting
Dan Hancox Revel, Riot and Rebellion
Martin Rose Bliss Was It in that Dawn to Be Next Door
Vron Ware Up in Arms
Jim Gabour Sunday Comics
James Warner Standing Perpendicular, as books do
Markha Valenta Inter Alia: religion, politics, culture
Paul Rogers on Global security
Mary Kaldor on Human security
openDemocracy Ltd, The Print House, 18 Ashwin Street, London, E8 3DL. Tel: +44 (0) 207 193 0676
And this is repulsive. A
And this is repulsive. A human’s death is no reason to rejoice, no matter if this human was a criminal or not.
Very revealing that you find
Very revealing that you find the disposition of the body of a terrorist more repulsive than the slaughter of thousands of his innocent victims. I do not rejoice in OBL's death. I am merely satisfied that justice has been done. There is a difference.
I didn’t say that I find the
I didn’t say that I find the one more repulsive than the other.
Justice can only be done by a trial and your fish food post shows a contemptible glee over a human being’s death.
"...your fish food post shows
No glee involved, but lots of contempt. You have that part correct. So what? OBL was a contemptible human being. I should show him respect? Not hardly. If you think he deserves respect, then you've once again expressed your sympathies (without uttering them).
OBL was a contemptible human
Less so than George Bush. Yet we would recognize the common humanity we share with him to the extent of not finding his death entirely a matter for jokes or nationalistic triumphalism.
Yes, MUCH less than Geoge
Yes, MUCH less than Geoge Bush, but probably more than Hitler or Pol Pot I'd say. And it's no joke, I really do find his repose as fish food entirely appropriate. And his humanity is not something to find much common respect. In fact, I have greater respect for rabid animals acting out of instinct, than the deliberate, malignant actions of a human OBL.
And no, it's not nationalistic triumphalism, but national pride that after 10 long years, justice has been achieved for thousands of innocent victims around the world and not one more human life will be lost as the result of OBL's direct action. That is very satisfying. No glee and no joke at all.
Iron MikeYes, MUCH less than
Claiming that Bin Laden
I agree. That is not what I meant, though I understand how you interpreted it that way. You appeared to be attempting to rank order OBL and George Bush. I was suggesting George Bush is worthy of less contempt than OBL.
To be clear, my assertion is that OBL is much more contemptible than George Bush (who deserves no contempt at all), but OBL is not as contemptible as Hitler or Pol Pot whose atrocities exceed his. Your metric of body count is of course fallacious, since there is a distinction between intentional and unintentional deaths, combatant and non-combatant, innocent victim of terror and collateral casualty in a war zone.
To be clear, my assertion is
To be clear, my assertion is that OBL is much more contemptible than George Bush (who deserves no contempt at all), but OBL is not as contemptible as Hitler or Pol Pot whose atrocities exceed his
The US would have put Hitler on trial, if he had lived. In OBL’s case you are vehemently opposed to a trial (you called it “insensitive” to his victims, remember). Do you apply the same for Hitler? Do you say that the Nuremberg trials were a mistake and insensitive to the Nazis victims?
No answer. Thought as much.
No answer. Thought as much.
What an ego you must have!
What an ego you must have! You think any delay at all is affirmation of your position? Sorry, but some of us are also engaged in careers more demanding a Housefrau (not that there's anythoing wrong with that). Too funny!
I note that you still haven't
I note that you still haven't answered my question. Thought as much.
In OBL’s case you are
Must be a flaw in your translation. I said or meant no such thing at all. I certainly referred to YOUR sympathies (obsession) with due process and protection of "his humanity" to be insensitive to his victims. The relatives of his victims have been quite satisfied with the justice rendered.
Frankly, I would have been delighted to have OBL captured, tried, and executed. But I gladly settle for second best---KIA. Both outcomes remove a threat to the world. Mission accomplished!
Frankly, I would have been
Frankly, I would have been delighted to have OBL captured, tried, and executed.
Then I assume you are very sad that the commandos trained to kill him, not to capture him.
And we would have had the chance to hear answers to so many questions in the trial … For instance there is this discrepancy in the rhetoric blaming OBL for 9/11 and the occasions where legal accuracy is needed as in the warrant, and where this crime wasn’t mentioned.
Must be a flaw in your translation.
Which translation, hapless monoglot? (Thank you, Eric)
I said or meant no such thing at all
Perhaps you didn’t mean it, but you said it. You know, as in the post where you admitted that Bin Laden’s criminal record made him contemptible, but less so than in Bush’s case. You are fighting heroically against the grammar of your native language, and you are always losing that fight.
In this case I am not so sure that you really meant you weren’t opposed to a trial. It would be much easier to find out what you mean, if you answered my posts concisely, stuck to the point (why did you let Marley’s ghost fight against socialists?), and resisted the temptation to insinuate things I didn’t say.
I certainly referred to YOUR sympathies (obsession) with due process and protection of "his humanity" to be insensitive to his victims
Ah now it’s sympathies with due process and no longer sympathies for terrorists. We are making progress at last.
Sorry, there are a few things where I am absolutely opposed to compromise. There is exactly ONE way to tie guilt to a person. A trial. Full stop. End of debate.
Right wing extremist whiners tend to complain that criminals (and terrorists even more so) mustn’t have the right to due process. Bullshit. Everyone has. The law doesn’t make exceptions to that rule, and it can’t: guilt is only proven by a trial.
They are unable to see that this is not only a protection of criminals against injustice. It is even more so a protection of the innocent. I don’t know why that is so difficult to grasp, but then right wingers … er, skip that.
And, humanity. It is not the first time that the extreme right tries to insinuate humanity came in degrees, definitely not. By the way, the thing with the heroical fight against grammar is a near quote, I was just reminded of it.
It’ another thing where I am absolutely unwilling to make any compromises, Mike. You try to split humanity into human and vermin, or into superior and lesser, and you will have me as your enemy. Full stop. End of debate. I have absolutely no patience for that sort of thing. Two points where I am dogmatic, and happily so.
So what? I should show him
So what? I should show him respect? Not hardly. (Mike)
Abdulksaida,
I have understood you perfectly when you said that every human life is to be respected, and every dead body is to be treated respectfully.
You argued from the point of a Muslim. I can assure you that Christians see it in the same way (and I am sure that most atheists agree too), and I am getting the impression that I am the only Christian here. Please don’t take the people here who are loudest about their Christianity as typical examples.
How sanctimonius of you.
How sanctimonius of you. Perhaps I will be convinced of your respect for human life in your commitment to justice on behalf of the victims of terror. It's been lacking up til now. Make no mistake, US actions demonstrated a respect for Islam, not OBL. He is beneath contempt and so are his apologists.
The limit of respect due to OBL is a quick, clean kill in which he did not suffer like so many thousands of his victims.
Perhaps I will be convinced
Perhaps I will be convinced of your respect for human life in your commitment for justice on behalf of the victims of terror
I am the one who demands that justice must be done. You are the one who demands an accused must be killed without trial, and even in revenge for a crime no authority has ever accused him of.
Make no mistake, US actions demonstrated a respect for Islam, not OBL
I have never claimed that OBL had shown respect for Islam. Since neither he nor a defender of his actions is here on this thread, this is completely irrelevant.
What we have on this thread is several defenders of the murder of OBL by US military (ultimately the US president), and of the murders of the persons who were with him, and of the shameful treatment of his dead body.
In the course of this debate you slanderously claimed I had expressed sympathy for terrorists. You haven’t backed that up. You haven’t retracted it either. You are a liar.
I have never claimed that OBL
No. It's irrelevant because no one, including me has made the claim. You are mistaken...again. What I wrote does not have the meaning you ascribe to it. Try again.
You did, therefore it is not slander.
Yes, I did. Asked and answered. See above for details and stop wasting my time.
No reason to retract it.
No. I made a subjective assessment of the totality of your postings and rendered a personal opinion. You apparently disagree and are welcome to do so. That's not a lie and not my problem.
Momo u know iron is out of
I am trying to fathom the
I am trying to fathom the extent and the roots of his ignorance and of his amoral stance, Saida.
If one asked him if the American constitution demands due process, and if he is proud of that constitution, he would probably answer “yes” on both counts. He is completely unable to connect this with the debate on this thread though. I really believe “unable”, not “unwilling”.
At the same time he tells us (repeatedly!) that it is legally and morally right to kill a man who in my personal opinion very likely has committed terrible crimes, but has never been on trial, let alone found guilty.
He even says it is insensitive to the victims to try the man instead of just shooting him. And then he adds more: he declares everyone who defends lawfulness a terror sympathiser. Even basic respect for humanity is a crime for him.
And Mike isn’t stupid. Nevertheless he is unable to see where he is going. It is puzzling.
If one asked him if the
No, you are correct on the latter. I am "unwilling" because the US constitution does not apply here to combatants. That is why Obama has discovered the impossibility of his own pronouncement to close Gitmo. It's why he is constrained to try them in a military tribunal at Gitmo.
Er, the FBI wanted him for
Er, the FBI wanted him for crimes, not for combat. You even claimed you knew for certain he had committed more crimes than the FBI has evidence for.
Er, the FBI does not have
Er, the FBI does not have sole and exclusive jurisdiction in the case. In fact, the FBI has no jurisdiction outside the US. The CIA has equities in the OBL case. So does the military. There is more than a criminal case at stake here. This is something you fail to understand. This is why the constitution does not apply to a non-citizen in wartime, although there are some (not all) constitutional protections extended.
the FBI has no jurisdiction
the FBI has no jurisdiction outside the US
It goes without saying that no US authorities have jurisdiction in Pakistan. Nevertheless the US did act there and they should adhere at least to some law.
There is more than a criminal case at stake here
Surely you mean: There is more than one criminal case at stake here?
It goes without saying that
The FBI did not have jurisdiction, authority or capability to act in Pakistan. The US military had all three and exercised them well under the Law of Armed Conflict.
I said what I meant and meant what I said. The criminal case is less important than the national security objective of removing a past, present, and future terrorist threat at minimal risk to friendly forces. That act alone brings justice to the innocent victims whose relatives breath easier today as a result.
The FBI did not have
The FBI did not have jurisdiction, authority or capability to act in Pakistan. The US military had all three and exercised them well under the Law of Armed Conflict
Oh. Have the US declared war on Pakistan?
The criminal case is less important than the national security objective of removing a past, present, and future terrorist threat
Hm. What about threats by reckless driving? There are many more victims from that. Next you will want to abolish the right to due process there too.
Oh. Have the US declared war
No...just on Bid Laden and his ilk. Google "war on terror" if you are confused :-)
Unless someone is reckless driving with WMD, I'm happy to let local law enforcement handle it.
No war then. Good.
No war then. Good.
it is not a right to kill
Interesting moral observation
Interesting moral observation from someone who justifies Palestinian rocket attacks and suicide bombings on Israeli victims without a trial!
Your hypocrisy is breathtaking, but hardly surprising.
iron mike give muslims the
iron mike give muslims the
iron mike give muslims the same airoplane and technology then they can also kill their enemies with airoplane and berry them in the sea . do u agree.
You have put your finger in the right place there. He will say it is not the same.
If the US murder someone, Mike will always say that it was the right thing to do. Worse, he will even say it would have been a criminal act not to commit this murder. If the US’ allies commit the same crimes, he will treat it in the same way. If peoples not allied to the US or even inimical to the US do anything, no matter if criminal or not, it will always be wrong.
He firmly believes in inequality, and that is the reason why he doesn’t understand us when we talk of humanity as such.
If the US murder someone,
The operative word here is "murder" which is never a right thing to do. What happened to OBL was not murder. It was justifiable homicide as the result of a refusal to surrender by a terrorist known to be armed at all times. He had one chance to go peacefully and then he forfeit his life.
Wrong. I do believe in equality--all terrorists should equally be given the same choice!
There was nothing justified
There was nothing justified to it. The White House spokesman has confirmed a few minutes ago that OBL definitely was not armed. He says there was resistance from him though. Intriguing. How, I wonder. Spells? Farts? Against heavily armed commandos…
Obama made it clear, and you agree with him: he said “justice was done”. Wrong. Justice can only be done with a trial.
If the aim had been to capture OBL, and this had gone wrong because of his resistance, Obama (and you) could not have called this outcome a victory. It would have been the failed attempt to capture OBL.
I do believe in equality--all terrorists should equally be given the same choice!
You are playing with Bush's life--and possibly with your own.
Oh, I forget--you are applying different rules to Americans.
The White House spokesman has
At the time of capture, prudence (and their orders) dictated a presumption that OBL was armed (or booby-trapped with an IED) until proven otherwise. When he refused to surrender and physically resisted, he forfeit his life. The use of force was justified. Resisting 24 heavily armed SEALS was poor judgment on his part...fatal in fact.
The aim was to remove a threat. Either outcome yields a victory. You and Saida are the only ones complaining. What does that say about your sympathies again? I wonder.
The use of force was
The use of force was justified. Resisting 24 heavily armed SEALS was poor judgment on his part
Civilisations demand proportionality of their forces. 24 heavily armed SEALS can “remove a threat” quite easily.
You and Saida are the only ones complaining. What does that say about your sympathies again? I wonder
If you need to wonder, I was probably wrong in saying you are not stupid.
It says that I demand the rule of the law and respect for humanity and human rights. And I have no sympathies for the terrorists on both sides, of whom the US forces clearly are the more dangerous threat.
Civilisations demand
Load of crap. We are under no obligation to figure out what force MIGHT be present and only provide a proportional response. Tactics require overwhelming presence of force so the decision to surrender is obvious and instantaneous or else their deaths will surely follow. That is safest for everyone involved.
It says you have no ability to discern the difference between civil and military use of force or what is required to execute a tactical operation effectively with minimal risk to friendly forces.
We are under no obligation to
We are under no obligation to figure out what force MIGHT be present and only provide a proportional response
Oh yes, for that is how you will be judged in the world’s opinion. Might is not right. The US have violated Pakistan’s rights anyway, they are under the obligation to prove that they acted otherwise morally.
Your arrogant reply (as if anyone was interested in your soldiers’ safety in their illegal doings or as if your considerations of tactics had any impact) shows that you still claim that the US has the right to subdue all the world, because (as long as) they have the power to do so. You firmly believe in inequality.
That is safest for everyone involved
If that was meant as a joke, it is a bad one.
If that was meant as a joke,
Ask OBL if he is laughing in hell. Had he complied and surrendered in the face of overwhelming force, he'd have a comfortable cell in Gitmo and you would have the trial you so desperately desire. I guess the joke is on both of you.
In The Times today was the
In The Times today was the Bin Laden obituary. Attached to it were lists of all the terrorist attacks for which he claimed responsibility detailing all those killed - a most unusual thing to do and something that covered over two pages.
There could be no more eloquent a witness to his mass murders than that. When passing sentence of death in the UK the judge, the black cap upon his head, would say 'And may the Lord have mercy upon your Soul'. One doubts the Lord will have Mercy on Bin Laden's soul, nor that he deserves Mercy.
I am not surprised that you
I am not surprised that you claim to know best on whose soul the Lord has mercy deservedly or undeservedly. Have you told Him so?
Claiming responsibility is not evidence. I am not surprised that you don’t know that, and that you don’t know how many false confessions there are even in the courtroom.
Probably you too find evidence unnecessary.
Leave it to an ideologue and
Leave it to an ideologue and apologist to deny a terrorist's own confession. She wouldn't believe it even if OBL showed up on her doorstep like Marley's ghost warning her to repent her Socialist ways.
Hm. Marley’s ghost is not a
Hm. Marley’s ghost is not a socialist, but not an enemy of socialists either. Your understanding of literature apparently is as bad as your understanding of ethical and legal norms, and my posts,.and … everything.
Or OBL’s ghost as an anti-socialist? Quite, but my doorstep isn’t spectacular enough for him. And I am not as easily corruptible as the US, that’s why he had chosen the US as an enemy.
Your understanding of
And yet, you still managed to miss the point. Not surprising at all.
Actually the point is missing
Actually the point is missing in most of your posts.
What an amazing amount of
What an amazing amount of digital “ink” expended on this thread by momo and saida for the benefit of a dead mass murderer and terrorist.
I tend to agree with momo that celebration over the killing of bin Laden seems pointless. After 10 years, it’s an anticlimactic moment – after all, al Qaeda has now franchised to many countries, the war has evolved and become more nuanced, and the general opinion seems to be that OBL hasn’t been in active control in a while. Hard to run a world wide web of terrorists from a safehouse with no phone or internet connection.
But it’s also clear momo has absolutely no empathy for those who may have lost someone to an al-Qaeda attack, and who might view his death as a symbolic measure of justice, however small.
Speaking of justice, your devotion to it is consistent, I will say that. But your complete lack of respect for and recognition of the military aspect of this war – and yes, even despite your condescending contempt for U.S. and allied soldiers’ efforts, it IS a war – is unrealistic bordering on pathological.
There’s a difference between the courtroom and the battlefield. You don’t acknowledge that because your hatred of the U.S. does not allow you to allow us any justification for defending ourselves against a deadly enemy. But bin Laden’s milieu was the battlefield, no matter how you may wish to parse the facts. He created a military organization when he created al Qaeda – a force of fighters who would carry his message of jihad against the infidels to the U.S. and the west. But of course, unlike a traditional military, his primary targets were civilians – the more, and the bloodier and more sensational their deaths, the better. Therein lies the problem: Operationally for the U.S. and its allies, morally for you.
In choosing his battlefield and his targets, he perforce chose the response. As a force that attacked military targets – the USS Cole, U.S. and allied service members, etc., and used military weapons – he earned the right to be treated as a combatant on the battlefield, and all that that implies when fighting the United States: Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines (not to mention SEALs). We don’t fuck around about war. So, Predator strikes, JDAMs, Hellfire missiles, Apache attacks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, good ol’ Ma Deuce and, best of all, the M4 carbine in the hands of someone who knows how to use it – he brought all that down on his head, on those of his fighters and followers, on those that offered him shelter and succor. He called open season – we just took him up on it.
Additionally, by attacking U.S. civilians within the United States, hijacking our airliners, killing several thousand of us (not to mention those from 90 other countries around the world – 372 of the 2,996, including 11 from Germany) and causing a conservative $2 trillion in damage, he opened himself and al Qaeda to the full force of U.S. civilian resources -- intelligence agencies, federal, municipal and local law enforcement and all levels of jurisprudence.
Given those facts, all of the following are true: Had he been captured, we would have been perfectly justified in trying him in a civilian court in New York for murder. Or we would have been justified in detaining him in Guantanamo for eventual disposition by a military tribunal. As it happens, he was on the battlefield when found. If you dispute it, keep something in mind: By declaring war against civilians, there was no place in the world that was not a battlefield, as far as he (and we) were concerned, though he may not have thought that far ahead. Any hidey-hole, any goat trail, any cave in the Hindu Kush, any shack in the lawless border areas would have been a battlefield had he been found there. As it happens, the cowardly bastard was living in relative luxury (unlike many of his fighters, I’m sure), with creature comforts, wife and children beside him, body guards to protect him and, apparently, the Pakistani military and intelligence services providing actual, if not intentional, shelter.
Again, he chose to do what he did, and he chose to hide among innocents. We would have been perfectly justified leveling the house from a B2 bomber, but we didn’t: We put men on the ground, in harm’s way, who went in and got him, and put an end to him. An enemy general killed in his HQ … a terrorist leader killed in his cave … a master criminal killed in his hideout: Any way you slice it, we were justified in doing it.
As an aside, your siding with Saida speaks plainly as to your sympathies, as Mike points out. Saida is a hater -- Israel, Jews, Americans ... anyone, in point of fact, that thinks Hamas and it's armed gunmen are terrorists and that a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the way forward. Like her violent heroes, she does not want peace. She wants Israel gone, by hook or by crook -- or by the gun, mortar, rocket and suicide belt. Even if you're not, your pal is a supporter of terrorism. And sorry, but people do tend to judge others by the company they keep.
The crimes of Bin Laden,
The crimes of Bin Laden, though substantial, are minor compared with those of George W. Bush. His aggression against Iraq in 2003 parallels Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Unilateral declarations by the United States of the legality of its actions are not enough to satisfy the international community.
Likewise, action by a US military death squad in Pakistan cannot be beyond criticism simply because of a self-declared state of war by the United States.
But it’s also clear momo has
But it’s also clear momo has absolutely no empathy for those who may have lost someone to an al-Qaeda attack, and who might view his death as a symbolic measure of justice, however small
Indeed. I have no empathy at all for people who see a connection between death and justice. The thought is completely alien for me and, fortunately, for our legal system. Surely you must have known that?
even despite your condescending contempt for U.S. and allied soldiers’ efforts, it IS a war
The US made it a war. 9/11 and all other Al Qaeda attacks were crimes, not war. The US could have reacted with judicial means and would have retained their democracy. They did not.
The wars (which started long before 9/11) were entirely a thing of the US. At present hatred of Pakistan is being built up by the US. I assume next the war against Pakistan will be stepped up.
Given those facts, all of the following are true
Only that you didn’t raise any facts … A trial in New York would have been the only option. There is nothing justified in the Guantanamo system and only the worst dictatorships try civilians in military tribunals. I find even the mere existence of military courts barbaric. I don’t know how some countries can believe there is any justice in having them. It's not normal to try soldiers in one court, bakers in another, and so on. Completely alien again.
he chose to hide among innocents
Er, he lived with his family in hiding.
As an aside, your siding with Saida speaks plainly as to your sympathies, as Mike points out.
Mike is as pointless and clueless as you are, and he didn’t point anything out. That’s why he only produced pitiful strawmen instead of substantiating his outrageous claim.
Saida is a hater -- Israel, Jews, Americans …
Completely false. Where Saida hates at all, it is abstract entities, not persons. And since she is suffering from injustice of these entities (Israel mainly), I can understand this hatred, even tolerate and even more: accept it, although I don’t share it. She doesn’t hate persons, though. I have decribed this sort of hatred in the thread that hit too close for Mike’s comfort, which is why he wanted to delete it. She is in the position of the Dutchman, and like him unable to hate on the personal level. You really don’t understand humanity. She possesses a lot of humanity.
Your hatred is completely different: you hate people who threaten your privileges and your assumption of superiority. It is a hatred that I have absolutely no understanding for. It makes you want to hurt everyone who points out the flaws in your attempts to justify your wars for world domination. And since you know that your hatred is not acceptable, you invent hatred in your opponents, such as me.
Indeed. I have no empathy at
Whose legal system? Kind of self-centered, aren’t you? Anyway, OBL was a military target, rightfully so. He died as enemy fighters often die.
Nah, it’s war. They attacked military as well as civilian targets, using military weapons and organization. Your saying it wasn't ... um, particularly your saying it wasn't ... doesn't make it so. Usually, what intelligent people do, see, is when they don’t know something about a topic (military matters, war, logic, etc.) they don’t talk about that topic. Something for you to think about.
You make a lot of assumptions. What’s amazing is how many of them are wrong! I mean, statistically speaking, when talking out of one’s ass, one has a shot of being right about half the time. You seem to be closer to 1 in 100. Someone should do a study.
Anyhoo, nah, we won’t be waging war against Pakistan. That’s not to say, though, that Pakistanis themselves won’t try to overthrow their government. That should be interesting to watch … especially what happens with their nukes.
Sure I did.
For you. But it was kind of up to the U.S. to decide, by which I mean the government we elected. They did a good job, and most Americans seem pretty happy about the results.
Sure there is. And we do it, so the second part of your statement is false.
Yes, because of your hatred for all things military. I get that, really.
Wrong again, and again, you shouldn’t speak about topics you’re not knowledgeable about. There are clear reasons why military justice is separate from civilian, but because you find all things military “completely alien,” you know nothing of said reasons and don’t bother to find out.
Correct, his wife and children. Of course, several of his grown sons have followed him into the terrorism biz, making them fair game, too. But for those too young, plus the women who (I assume) were not terrorists, he intentionally put them in harm’s way. He did – not we.
Sure he did, lots of salient points. But you don’t like to be disagreed with, let alone shown your constant errors, so therefore he and I and, I suspect, anyone else in your life who does so become “pointless and clueless.” Lol.
Sure she is. You’ve even said so yourself. Her passions get the best of her sometimes and it all comes spilling out. I’m not judging, just saying: Given her background and that of her family, it would be odd if she didn’t hate. She should acknowledge it, though.
Sure you do. And you should acknowledge it, too.
Sure I do, and I’m sure she does. Hatred is a very human failing. As many of your posts attest.
No I don’t. First of all, I don’t really have that many privileges. And as far as an assumption of superiority, yes, it’s true: I’m better than terrorists. Beyond that, I’m not really willing to venture.
Well, since the assumption is wrong, it’s not hard to get why you don’t understand it. It's hard to understand something you've pulled out of your ass and implanted in your brain (what... now I'm assuming -- that in this case there's a difference). Anyway, you make a lot of wrong assumptions. I believe it’s your own hatreds that drive you to do so.
Lol. See what I mean? And by the way, are you in any way related to the drama industry, like maybe acting in daytime German soaps? You have a flair for the melodramatic … and an actor’s hilariously delusional belief in your own intellectual prowess.
Ah, the crux. Nope, I feel pretty safe in assigning your hatred to you. It’s clear in just about everything you post – to everyone but you, that is. And when you’re not hatin’ on something or someone, you’re whining and moaning about how someone done you wrong. All of your failed attempts to gain sympathy here for all the horrible right-wing US America Killers’ so-called efforts to stifle you must have taught you something, no? No one buys it.
So please, fool yourself, fool suckers like Saida … but don’t expect me to buy it. Hate away, Frau Momo. You’re so gooood at it!
“Whose legal system? Kind of
“Whose legal system? Kind of self-centered, aren’t you?”
Let me see which countries adhere to that sort of death cult, the death penalty. Here is a list of the worst offenders: China. Iran. Iraq. Saudi Arabia. Yemen. Pakistan. USA. How many mature democracies do you detect in that list? Your country isn’t keeping very nice company there. And I may be self-centered when there are so many self-centered Americans around, but this remark wasn’t so self-centered, obviously.
“Anyway, OBL was a military target, rightfully so.”
Odd remark in this context. You raised the subject of justice, disagree with my comment saying that seeing a connection between death and justice is alien, and suddenly switch “military target”. The military has no connection with justice either. You obviously have a very strange notion of justice.
“Nah, it’s war.“
Criminals did the things you list, and there is absolutely no reason to call this a war. Your saying it wasn't ... um, particularly your saying it wasn't ... doesn't make it so.
“Usually, what intelligent people do…”
How do you know what intelligent people do?
“But it was kind of up to the U.S. to decide, by which I mean the government we elected. They did a good job, and most Americans seem pretty happy about the results”
Outside the US people are less happy about the US claiming the privilege to decide everything in every country of the world. You call that anti-Americanism, probably.
“Wrong again, and again, you shouldn’t speak about topics you’re not knowledgeable about. There are clear reasons why military justice is separate from civilian…”
Are you again trying to insinuate that yours was a universal concept? Very self-centered of you.
“Sure you do. And you should acknowledge it, too”
I think I know my own feelings better than you. I note that you are intellectually unable to contribute anything of substance on topic and try to compensate by claims about the persons you are talking to. With your record of self-centered ignorance all your statements about your opponents here tend to be false, rude and downright offensive, and that’s very mildly put.
Post new comment