Last edited by Maximilien de Robespierre (2011-05-02 21:54:36)
I knew that, at some point, I would be accused of offending the memory of those who had given their lives to entitle the USA to drive home the point that America has a right to demand satisfaction for the blood debt of 9/11 and that it may declare itself above the law and a man such as Obama bin Laden beneath its protection. I also knew that the main point and starting point would be totally washed away in a wave of self-righteous indignation: on the basis of 'security information' the USA stormed into a man's bedroom on foreign soil and shot him and three others dead. Then it confirmed that it had identified that Osama bin Laden was one of the dead, after the event.
This action is adopting the tactics of terrorism. Of course, few will speak out against it. While we are on the subject of causing offence, maybe you should reconsider the threads God Bless Marc Grayson and Marc Grayson Goes on and on against Muslims. The is a lot of hypocrisy going on here and one or two of you have changed your tunes to close ranks, beneath the cry 'God Bless America'.
I don't support any kind of terrorism but, because we should be able to expect better, I certainly don't expect it at the hands of the most powerful nation on earth.
The use of the word 'mammy' was to test your reactions, in the light of the fact that, within living memory, some white Americans would not even share a street and educational facilities with black people: and my! it turns out that you have come a long way.
Last edited by NJS (2011-05-03 00:59:38)
Last edited by meister (2011-05-03 03:21:29)
I was wondering if the good people on AAAC could help me with this thorny issue.
I work in the military but at a level where I have some say in what I wear. I am shortly to go on a mission to capture or kill a major terrorist. I don't like black clothing in general and I do not wish to dress like Steven Seagal in particular. What I had in mind was a good tweed. What do people think?
Last edited by Sammy Ambrose (2011-05-03 05:20:37)
Last edited by Sammy Ambrose (2011-05-03 07:23:16)
GGS - Both Pakistan and the USA are bound to observe the laws of extradition. Accordingly there is nothing in any 'invitation' from Pakistan to the USA to arrest ObL on Pakistani soil and, if they had done so, it could only have been as agents for Pakistan. Otherwise it was a swat-style whacking of an undesirable on foreign soil. Either way, in the result, it was an act of terrorism. It should have been handled but handled differently, as it would have been if there had been hostages in there (let's disregard the Muslim woman shot as she plainly does not count). The UK and 7/7 was, I fear a total fiasco: Jean Charles Menezes was a completely innocent man sitting on a train when a swat team summarily id'd him as "one of them" and the next thing was that they pumped him full of lead at point blank range. The Met Police Authority was convicted of manslaughter but the officers involved were promoted and decorated ( a bizarre twist). So please let's not have that held up as an example of how to do it. The fact of the matter is that when hysterics get hold of the reins of power, the law goes out of the window.
The Rule of Law must always be applied. As Marcus Aurelius Antoninus said: "The best revenge is not to become like him." By abandoning the Rule of Law, you become like him. It is as simple as that - but many people here are blinded by outrage and blood-lust.
Last edited by NJS (2011-05-03 09:50:45)