[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Oh and by the way, it seems Ron Paul has gotten more donations from military personnel than the other candidates (at least so far).
http://caivn.org/article/2011/07/19/ron-paul-receives-most-military-donations-again[/quote]
What is your point? Are you in favor of the military choosing our leadership?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m glad we took Osama Bin Laden out.
That said, I have a question for people defending it.
If the situation were reversed, and an anti-Pakistani terrorist were discovered to be living within U.S. borders, possibly with government complicity, would you similarly support Pakistan sending a covert force to kill the terrorist, without first consulting with U.S. authorities?
Yes or no?[/quote]
HELL no.
We’re the good guys. If Pakistan wants him and we know where he is, chances are he’s a whistleblower or a Human Rights activist, and protecting him is a good idea.
If he’s a terrorist, we’ll get him when we’re good and ready. Ain’t like he’s going anywhere (supposedly).[/quote]
Double standard, anyone?[/quote]
That is pretty ignorant. If you think whistleblowers should be treated like terrorists then there is absolutely no point in discussing the matter with you.
[quote]byukid wrote:
ZEB, I don’t get it- in our man hunt for Osama there have been more american soldiers killed (not to mention iraqi and afghani citizens) than were killed on 9/11. His attack succeeded in killing far more than just the people who died that day, not to mention the continued loss of freedom resulting from that attack. We played into his hand, in effect.[/quote]
Just like the US played into Japans hands after Pearl Harbor. We lost a hell of a lot more soldiers, sailors and marines fighting the war than we did on Dec 7, 1941.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
ZEB, I don’t get it- in our man hunt for Osama there have been more american soldiers killed (not to mention iraqi and afghani citizens) than were killed on 9/11. His attack succeeded in killing far more than just the people who died that day, not to mention the continued loss of freedom resulting from that attack. We played into his hand, in effect.
[/quote]
Is this the kind of intellect that Brigham Young University is producing?
Holy shit, the US educational system truly sucks and that apparently includes our large private universities.
I’m flabbergasted at the amount of stupidity I see on this thread.
[/quote]
I think it’s largely brain washing by the liberal University Professors. [/quote]
Now that has to be a new one, Zeb!
Anyone calling ANYTHING at BYU “liberal”!
LOL!
Mufasa
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m glad we took Osama Bin Laden out.
That said, I have a question for people defending it.
If the situation were reversed, and an anti-Pakistani terrorist were discovered to be living within U.S. borders, possibly with government complicity, would you similarly support Pakistan sending a covert force to kill the terrorist, without first consulting with U.S. authorities?
Yes or no?[/quote]
HELL no.
We’re the good guys. If Pakistan wants him and we know where he is, chances are he’s a whistleblower or a Human Rights activist, and protecting him is a good idea.
If he’s a terrorist, we’ll get him when we’re good and ready. Ain’t like he’s going anywhere (supposedly).[/quote]
Double standard, anyone?[/quote]
Anything else would require drawing a moral equivalency between a state that uses common law and a state that uses Sharia Law. If a people want to be governed under the latter, I see no reason to dissuade them from it, but that doesn’t mean the two are equal.[/quote]
So common law empowers a country to prosecute justice on foreign soil, while Sharia law is inferior and hence is disempowered?
Like I said, I support what we did. At the same time, I think there’s a valid reason the U.S. is viewed as hypocritical, arrogant, and bullying by other countries.[/quote]
Yes, but you’re looking through the wrong context. The truth is, like Sifu alluded earlier, global politics is by-and-large anarchy. There are no rules, no laws, it all comes down to what countries (and groups of countries) want and what charters/treaties/documents they can invoke to accomplish that. So while I have respect for the rule of law within a given country and probably on the high seas, I see no respect for rules at the intergovernmental level.
The fact that we have one law for everyone (the common law system) means we’re interested in Justice. Its not perfect, but its probably the best mankind can manage. And I mean that.
Sharia law is an inferior method of delivering justice because it does not recognize that all people are equal before the law. This means they’re not the good guys. Its neither necessary nor sufficient, but its pretty hefty evidence.
Note also that there was plenty of evidence to show the Pakis weren’t acting in good faith. America is a strong nation that stands for Justice, and it should not be pushed around by the caviling of cowards.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
Ron Paul would have first told the Pakistan government…[/quote]
So, basically, he would’ve screwed it up. Ok, thanks.[/quote]
And why would that screw it up? Who do you think helped us catch the mastermind behind 9/11? Couldn’t be Pakistan now could it. Or was it when Bush asked them for help it was a good thing, but Ron Paul doing it is bad.
So any more wise ass comments?[/quote]
Wasn’t the Pakistan government hiding Bib Laden? How in the world could he have lived in a mansion in the middle of such a high class neighborhood in the open and not have the government be aware?
Obama did the right thing - And you won’t hear me saying that too many times. [/quote]
In all fairness (and the ISI pointed it out at the time, IIRC), Whitey Bulger was living in the lap of luxury (Santa Monica), and I don’t consider The American Government to have been hiding him.
Doubtless Bin Laden had friends in Pakistan’s government. Doubtless, Pakistan’s government is not monolithic.
But its nice to know you’re a fan of Obama.[/quote]
Bin Laden was the most famous man in the Muslim world.
I’ll bet Whitey’s neighbors never heard of him.[/quote]
Also, today I ate over twenty five super-hot buffalo wings on a dare. What does this have to do with the American government somehow being complicit in hiding Whitey Bulger?[/quote]
You do realize that a “rouge” FBI agent assisted Whitey and tipped him off so he could escape. Also from the few books I read on the subject it is quite possible that Agent Connoly’s fellow agents and immediate superior knew there was something wrong and ignored it for years. So yes, the US government was complicit.
And Pakistan arrested those that tipped us off to bin Laden. It is hard to think that highest levels in Pakistan were not complicit.
Of course this was the same government that charged a CIA agent with murder when he killed an assassin that was shooting at him with a machine pistol.[/quote]
How did Pakistan arrest those that tipped us off to bin Laden? They were in US custody.
Also, if the US government is complicit in the cover up of Whitey Bulger, maybe Zeb should level congruent corruption charges against the US and Pakistan. And then work to fix his own country. Charity starts at home.[/quote]
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/12/3765208/us-wants-release-of-doctor-who.html
Here is one story of Pakistan arresting someone for helping us. They also arrested military officers and government officials for aiding us.[/quote]
Hmm… Okay.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
ZEB, I don’t get it- in our man hunt for Osama there have been more american soldiers killed (not to mention iraqi and afghani citizens) than were killed on 9/11. His attack succeeded in killing far more than just the people who died that day, not to mention the continued loss of freedom resulting from that attack. We played into his hand, in effect.
[/quote]
Is this the kind of intellect that Brigham Young University is producing?
Holy shit, the US educational system truly sucks and that apparently includes our large private universities.
I’m flabbergasted at the amount of stupidity I see on this thread.
[/quote]
I think it’s largely brain washing by the liberal University Professors. [/quote]
Now that has to be a new one, Zeb!
Anyone calling ANYTHING at BYU “liberal”!
LOL!
Mufasa[/quote]
Seconded 
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m glad we took Osama Bin Laden out.
That said, I have a question for people defending it.
If the situation were reversed, and an anti-Pakistani terrorist were discovered to be living within U.S. borders, possibly with government complicity, would you similarly support Pakistan sending a covert force to kill the terrorist, without first consulting with U.S. authorities?
Yes or no?[/quote]
False question. Without putting things in perspective it is just silly.
Do you advocate shooting a stranger on the street?
Of course not!
What if he is murdering a group of children? Changes things a bit.
[/quote]
It’s not a false analogy. I was referring to the exact same situation, only in reverse.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m glad we took Osama Bin Laden out.
That said, I have a question for people defending it.
If the situation were reversed, and an anti-Pakistani terrorist were discovered to be living within U.S. borders, possibly with government complicity, would you similarly support Pakistan sending a covert force to kill the terrorist, without first consulting with U.S. authorities?
Yes or no?[/quote]
HELL no.
We’re the good guys. If Pakistan wants him and we know where he is, chances are he’s a whistleblower or a Human Rights activist, and protecting him is a good idea.
If he’s a terrorist, we’ll get him when we’re good and ready. Ain’t like he’s going anywhere (supposedly).[/quote]
Double standard, anyone?[/quote]
That is pretty ignorant. If you think whistleblowers should be treated like terrorists then there is absolutely no point in discussing the matter with you.[/quote]
How about going back and reading my actual post? If Pakistan had their own 9/11, and the terrorist perpetrating that crime was hiding in our country, possibly with complicity, would you support Pakistan acting as we did?
Again, I’m talking about the IDENTICAL SITUATION occurring, only in reverse.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
ZEB, I don’t get it- in our man hunt for Osama there have been more american soldiers killed (not to mention iraqi and afghani citizens) than were killed on 9/11. His attack succeeded in killing far more than just the people who died that day, not to mention the continued loss of freedom resulting from that attack. We played into his hand, in effect.
[/quote]
Is this the kind of intellect that Brigham Young University is producing?
Holy shit, the US educational system truly sucks and that apparently includes our large private universities.
I’m flabbergasted at the amount of stupidity I see on this thread.
[/quote]
I think it’s largely brain washing by the liberal University Professors. [/quote]
Now that has to be a new one, Zeb!
Anyone calling ANYTHING at BYU “liberal”!
LOL!
Mufasa[/quote]
I remember taking physical sciences at BYU, and the section on evolution was far from “liberal”. We were required to take religion classes, there was a dress and grooming code, and they locked the library so students couldn’t get in to study during devotionals.
Lol.
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m glad we took Osama Bin Laden out.
That said, I have a question for people defending it.
If the situation were reversed, and an anti-Pakistani terrorist were discovered to be living within U.S. borders, possibly with government complicity, would you similarly support Pakistan sending a covert force to kill the terrorist, without first consulting with U.S. authorities?
Yes or no?[/quote]
HELL no.
We’re the good guys. If Pakistan wants him and we know where he is, chances are he’s a whistleblower or a Human Rights activist, and protecting him is a good idea.
If he’s a terrorist, we’ll get him when we’re good and ready. Ain’t like he’s going anywhere (supposedly).[/quote]
Double standard, anyone?[/quote]
Anything else would require drawing a moral equivalency between a state that uses common law and a state that uses Sharia Law. If a people want to be governed under the latter, I see no reason to dissuade them from it, but that doesn’t mean the two are equal.[/quote]
So common law empowers a country to prosecute justice on foreign soil, while Sharia law is inferior and hence is disempowered?
Like I said, I support what we did. At the same time, I think there’s a valid reason the U.S. is viewed as hypocritical, arrogant, and bullying by other countries.[/quote]
Yes, but you’re looking through the wrong context. The truth is, like Sifu alluded earlier, global politics is by-and-large anarchy. There are no rules, no laws, it all comes down to what countries (and groups of countries) want and what charters/treaties/documents they can invoke to accomplish that. So while I have respect for the rule of law within a given country and probably on the high seas, I see no respect for rules at the intergovernmental level.
The fact that we have one law for everyone (the common law system) means we’re interested in Justice. Its not perfect, but its probably the best mankind can manage. And I mean that.
Sharia law is an inferior method of delivering justice because it does not recognize that all people are equal before the law. This means they’re not the good guys. Its neither necessary nor sufficient, but its pretty hefty evidence.
Note also that there was plenty of evidence to show the Pakis weren’t acting in good faith. America is a strong nation that stands for Justice, and it should not be pushed around by the caviling of cowards.[/quote]
I agree with you that we have a more equitable justice system here than in Pakistan.
But does that empower us to disregard the sovereign rights of other nations that have chosen a different system? I don’t think there’s an easy answer to that question.
It sets a dangerous precedent, and puts us in a compromised position when it comes to other nations prosecuting their own justice on American soil.
Has the U.N. taken a position on it?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
ZEB, I don’t get it- in our man hunt for Osama there have been more american soldiers killed (not to mention iraqi and afghani citizens) than were killed on 9/11. His attack succeeded in killing far more than just the people who died that day, not to mention the continued loss of freedom resulting from that attack. We played into his hand, in effect.
[/quote]
Is this the kind of intellect that Brigham Young University is producing?
Holy shit, the US educational system truly sucks and that apparently includes our large private universities.
I’m flabbergasted at the amount of stupidity I see on this thread.
[/quote]
I think it’s largely brain washing by the liberal University Professors. [/quote]
Now that has to be a new one, Zeb!
Anyone calling ANYTHING at BYU “liberal”!
LOL!
Mufasa[/quote]
I was actually speaking more globally and should have been clearer.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Has the U.N. taken a position on it?[/quote]
What does their position on it matter?
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Has the U.N. taken a position on it?[/quote]
What does their position on it matter?[/quote]
It indicates whether or not we crossed the line, from the perspective of international law.
Here’s the security counsel presidential statement
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Here’s the security counsel presidential statement
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10239.doc.htm[/quote]
Thanks for the link. No surprise that the U.N. celebrated Bin Laden’s demise, but it’s interesting that there was no specific condemnation of U.S. unilateral tactics. Just a general statement:
I wonder if the U.N. would have responded any differently if the situation were reversed.
Maybe I’m just feeling pessimistic today 
Ok, this is a little more specific:
[quote]Two independent UN human rights experts Friday called on the
United States to provide further details regarding the operation that
resulted in the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
“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,” Christof Heyns, the independent UN expert dealing with
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and Martin Scheinin,
who deals with human rights and counter-terrorism said in a joint
statement.
Heyns and Scheinin, who work under the auspices of the UN Human Rights
Council, noted that in exceptional cases, deadly force may be used as
a measure of last resort and that terrorists should be dealt with as
criminals through legal processes.
The experts said it would be particularly important to know if the
U.S. operation allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.
“It may well be that the questions that are being asked about the
operation could be answered, but it is important to get this into the
open,” he said in the statement issued in Geneva.
“Actions taken by states in combating terrorism, especially in high
profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life
will be treated in future instances,” they added.
Meanwhile, UN spokesman Farhan Haq told reporters here Friday that the
United Nations headquarters in New York “expects all counter-terrorism
operations to be conducted in conformity with international law.”
[/quote]
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-05/07/c_13862844.htm
[quote]forlife wrote:
It indicates whether or not we crossed the line, from the perspective of international law.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. The UN doesn’t adjudicate that.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Ok, this is a little more specific:
[quote]Two independent UN human rights experts Friday called on the
United States to provide further details regarding the operation that
resulted in the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
“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,” Christof Heyns, the independent UN expert dealing with
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and Martin Scheinin,
who deals with human rights and counter-terrorism said in a joint
statement.
Heyns and Scheinin, who work under the auspices of the UN Human Rights
Council, noted that in exceptional cases, deadly force may be used as
a measure of last resort and that terrorists should be dealt with as
criminals through legal processes.
The experts said it would be particularly important to know if the
U.S. operation allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.
“It may well be that the questions that are being asked about the
operation could be answered, but it is important to get this into the
open,” he said in the statement issued in Geneva.
“Actions taken by states in combating terrorism, especially in high
profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life
will be treated in future instances,” they added.
Meanwhile, UN spokesman Farhan Haq told reporters here Friday that the
United Nations headquarters in New York “expects all counter-terrorism
operations to be conducted in conformity with international law.”
[/quote]
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-05/07/c_13862844.htm[/quote]
Xinhua?
‘There is no Truth in Pravda…’
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Ok, this is a little more specific:
[quote]Two independent UN human rights experts Friday called on the
United States to provide further details regarding the operation that
resulted in the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
“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,” Christof Heyns, the independent UN expert dealing with
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and Martin Scheinin,
who deals with human rights and counter-terrorism said in a joint
statement.
Heyns and Scheinin, who work under the auspices of the UN Human Rights
Council, noted that in exceptional cases, deadly force may be used as
a measure of last resort and that terrorists should be dealt with as
criminals through legal processes.
The experts said it would be particularly important to know if the
U.S. operation allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.
“It may well be that the questions that are being asked about the
operation could be answered, but it is important to get this into the
open,” he said in the statement issued in Geneva.
“Actions taken by states in combating terrorism, especially in high
profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life
will be treated in future instances,” they added.
Meanwhile, UN spokesman Farhan Haq told reporters here Friday that the
United Nations headquarters in New York “expects all counter-terrorism
operations to be conducted in conformity with international law.”
[/quote]
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-05/07/c_13862844.htm[/quote]
Xinhua?
‘There is no Truth in Pravda…’[/quote]
Pravda in Russian means “truth”, but I suppose that’s the irony of the observation
What is the translation for “Fox News”?