Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[bikerdruid]

Exactly. That's why I only get my news from Prison Planet and The Nation Of Islam website.

really...i've never been to either site.

 

[trustbutverify]

really...i've never been to either site.

Today?

 

[bikerdruid]

Today?

ever.

 

[trustbutverify]

ever.

Oh man- you gotta get over there! You're gonna love it.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I find it hard to believe that anyone who isn't a radical Islamist would give an asswipe about Bin Laden's demise. Who honestly wishes he was still alive?

Michael Moore?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...h-hasselbeck-bin-laden-the-view_n_962710.html

 

[Virus]

Michael Moore?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...h-hasselbeck-bin-laden-the-view_n_962710.html

Moore is just upset that Al-Qaeda lost since they were the "minutemen" he hoped would humble America with defeat in Iraq.

 

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by dtugg
Their cause is destroying Israel. They outright state that.

hyperbole.
israel does not include the west bank and east jerusalem and gaza.
they oppose THAT israel.

Contact the Hamas PM and tell him is mistaken about his belief on where Israel fits.

http://thewe.cc/thewe_/images_5/____/war_resistance/map_british_madate_palestine.jpe

 

[Bill Thompson]

Moore is just upset that Al-Qaeda lost since they were the "minutemen" he hoped would humble America with defeat in Iraq.

He wanted him alive so that bin Laden would stand trial. What do you think about that? I have my own thoughts but they are rooted in finding out if Moore really understands that the world has changed because of 9-11. I think that he thinks it has not changed.

 

[bikerdruid]

He wanted him alive so that bin Laden would stand trial. What do you think about that? I have my own thoughts but they are rooted in finding out if Moore really understands that the world has changed because of 9-11. I think that he thinks it has not changed.

...so the 'rule of law' has become irrelevant?

 

[trustbutverify]

...so the 'rule of law' has become irrelevant?

According to the rule of law US forces should never have entered Pakistan.

Correct?

 

[bikerdruid]

According to the rule of law US forces should never have entered Pakistan.

Correct?

they have been killing people in pakistan for years with drones.
why stop there?

the u.s does not care about the rule of law....rendition and guantanamo, as examples.

 

[Virus]

Enemy combatants.

 

[bikerdruid]

Enemy combatants.

yes...so you say...

 

[trustbutverify]

they have been killing people in pakistan for years with drones.
why stop there?

the u.s does not care about the rule of law....rendition and guantanamo, as examples.

So they should have never inserted the seal team into Pakistan in the first place because it was a violation of the rule of law. Is that correct?

 

[bikerdruid]

So they should have never inserted the seal team into Pakistan in the first place because it was a violation of the rule of law. Is that correct?

it is a violation of the rule of law...yes.
it a little futile to discuss whether they should have done it or not.
it's done, obl is fishfood.
the rule of law has become irrelevant to the united states.

 

[trustbutverify]

it is a violation of the rule of law...yes.
it a little futile to discuss whether they should have done it or not.
it's done, obl is fishfood.
the rule of law has become irrelevant to the united states.

Well, you may think it's futile to discuss whether the US should have planned and run the mission because OBL is dead, but discussing past events and whether the decisions and choices that have been made were moral, smart or pragmatic is a large part of what goes on here at JREF. So just to clarify the matter- is it your opinion that this mission should have not been launched because it was a violation of law?

 

[bikerdruid]

Well, you may think it's futile to discuss whether the US should have planned and run the mission because OBL is dead, but discussing past events and whether the decisions and choices that have been made were moral, smart or pragmatic is a large part of what goes on here at JREF. So just to clarify the matter- is it your opinion that this mission should have not been launched because it was a violation of law?

personally, i believe it was a good idea that he was captured.
i do not agree with the handling of the matter following that, but i feel that the world is a better place for his removal.

 

[trustbutverify]

personally, i believe it was a good idea that he was captured.
i do not agree with the handling of the matter following that, but i feel that the world is a better place for his removal.

Reasonable. But doesn't address the question. I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative here, although you know I generally enjoy arguing. I'm not asking how you feel about the mission- or even the results.

It seems you believe in a consistent adherence to the rule of law. If so, then this mission should never had been planned or carried out. Period. If you believe in a sometimes adherence to the rule of law (as I personally do) then using the "rule of law" argument to object to the killing of OBL doesn't really hold water.

Of course, we can argue on the way this mission went down based on a variety of other grounds. But the "rule of law" objection seems inconsistent and inappropriate.

 

[bikerdruid]

Of course, we can argue on the way this mission went down based on a variety of other grounds. But the "rule of law" objection seems inconsistent and inappropriate.

whatever...so shoot me.
to borrow a word from novest....american 'apocrazy' is tangible.
for a country that often claims to take the moral high ground, their disregard for law is amazing.

 

[trustbutverify]

whatever...so shoot me.
to borrow a word from novest....american 'apocrazy' is tangible.
for a country that often claims to take the moral high ground, their disregard for law is amazing.

This post is a cop out and doesn't address the issue in any way.