Excerpt: "Look at the Nuremberg Trials. We didn't just pop a bullet in the heads of the worst scum in history. We thought it was important to put them on trial and expose their evil. In a democracy we believe in a system of justice and we believe in a judicial system that gives people a day in court ... and then we hung them." - Michael Moore
Portrait, Michael Moore, 04/03/09. (photo: Ann-Christine Poujoulat/Getty)
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
I am an old man
I walk barefoot on shattered glass
Yet it’s my “heart” that bleeds
Automatic weapons fire tracers towards Orion
A twenty six year old woman changes diapers
in nearby tattered apartment. She has 13 teeth.
A kid’s head emerges from a graffitied dumpster
Half eaten slice of pizza in his mouth
Red, White and Blue Bunting
Hangs on a bank like a rapper’s trousers
A stern looking man appears on a huge video monitor
in garbage strewn park. Old Glory ripples behind him.
His words begin soft, a tenor totalitarian singing
A crescendo of carping castigation
CELEBRATE! He does so order
‘Tis “Bin Laden Dead Day”
Unfortunately those in the highest office in our land were watching a “snuff film” after which the President of the United States set to boasting the end results (the assassination of Osama bin Laden) in a televised address to the Nation.
Killing is becoming a science see: http://www.killology.com/
This madness will end when we teach violence is deplorable, when we see we are all of one family, when nations are just geography and borders are natures creations (mountains, rivers, oceans…) when we recognize labor’s longstanding motto “An Injury to One, Is An Injury To ALL”
I agree wholehearedlty, with "GI" there is no rejoicing in delivering death and destruction to any living thing. We are all one, we all came from the same source, we are connected to everyone and everything. Until our leaders and those in power and influence(and indeed all mankind) embrace this,set aside narrow minded predjudices, become truly enlightened, to live life connected to the creative life force within, we are doomed to the continual cycle of perpetrating pain and suffering on each other.
The really important things in life such as the gains made by labor unions to the quality of work life and to the oneness of the whole human family are simply not talked about enough. We can't stop Obama from joining the psychopaths who exchange corpses and think they are getting somewhere. They are not. The unionists who challenged Gov. Walker in Wisconsin did 10,000 times more for the human race than Obama and his kill team did. Obama is now as irrelevant to the progress of the human soul as Osama is. May they both rest in peace, while the human race moves forward.
Rhetorical question.
"I have a lot of faith in Obama"
How could he be so clear on Bush- and so blind on Obama....
The "core" of Moore's message is sound. I'd suggest he leave his religious baggage at the door next time.
To me, religion is a mixed bag. Just like government, it's only what people make of it. I hate what are governmnet has been up to for the past few decades, but I think we need a government. We just need to hold it to a higher standard. The exact same applies to religion. I believe that there is more to religion than the collective hypocricy of many of its adherents.
I agree that right-wing hypocrites have hijacked most of our organized religions across the spectrum, BUT I refuse to cave in to them and just let them take over completely. From a pragmatic angle, deciding to unilaterally grant the far right the religious vote is political suicide. Personally, I'd rather just TAKE BACK my government and our religions, before the other side starts dictating to all of us with legislation what we're allowed to think.
Michael Moore was almost a priest. He's also an NRA member.
Most Catholics are Democrats.
I'm not defending criminals and hypocrites. I'm defending people who honestly are trying to practice their faith, while being discounted due to guilt by association. If the left can side itself with the good guys who adhere to any particular religion it won't turn them away. The right is forming a strong alliance with the bad guys in Catholic and Protestant religions and is gaining very loyal voters for its effort. The left, by ignoring the good, is turning potential voters into no shows.
I disagree with Moore's membership in the NRA as well, but his opinion is that the NRA didn't become a terrorist organization until the late 70's when it was hijacked by the far right. He feels that he can remind people of what its actual charter once was and bring people back to it. Before the late 70's the NRA was a strong proponent of gun control.
I'm not
I AM a strong proponent of gun control. I was beginning a new sentence when RSN's word count cut me off. I decided not to finish the sentence, but forgot to delete the first two words of it.
By the way, I didn't mean the two of you necessarily don't trust all Christians. I'm a practicing, church going Christian, although I find it extremely difficult to listen to other Christians discuss their faith at all anymore - even when I agree with them. The reason is that I don't want to further contribute to the erosion of what used to be a line between private beliefs and public display of those beliefs. I find myself ashamed of my own beliefs because of the righties who've hijacked the public face of my religion. Now that I have children, it's a balancing act sometimes between teaching them religious beliefs which I believe will help them deal with life and teaching them to be responsible citizens, which involves not imposing those beliefs on others.
The voice I take on when I'm confronting NCMike and forteaparty is different than the one I'm using with you. I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I think you speak from a place of genuine conviction which I respect. I just like the give and take of the conversation.
As we both know, in many we're at or near that point already. My blog site is
madlibpoet.com I would be honored if you visited and left some feedback. Thanks again Ralph, and may I also say I've found your comments on these posts to be well thought out and uniformly excellent.
To me though; People need to believe in themselves and understand that the common thread we all share is humanity itself. It's a simple saying; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
And add a little common sense and reasoning to that and understand that the world has good and evil; Not in the form of devils and angels but people that don't understand that simple truth and perpetrate death, torture and other evil behavior on others. THEY deserve to "reep what they sow".
Call it situation ethics; I'm fine with that term. I don't need a "good book" written with loopholes to fit any thought process or a reward of "everlasting life" to know how to live THIS life.
Evil people (and we do all understand what good and evil is don't we?) deserve evil treatment. Everyone else deserves the benefit of the doubt; Even Obama.
going to defend the NRA or what it has become."
BOY DID THAT ACCIDENTALLY TAKE ON A DIFFERENT MEANING!
Could he be right, that having the live OBL might have been more civil? I would have preferred it too, but that is not what happened. If info is what he is after, I think we are going to get more from what was found in his compound than what he would have told us with or without torture techniques. (Certainly NOT with torture techs.)
It might be important for us to question what happened anyway because not questioning is giving up our rights as involved citizens and giving into complacency.
As president, he would have been bogged down in petty behavior that has no place in politics. Compromise?!! The repugnicans are totally oppositional. They don't do compromise. It's not in their lexicon.
I usually agree with most things posted here. Some of the names I have considered "friends" of sorts in the past. MM is one of the prominent names I refer to but I also refer to opinion posts as well.
What is it about this issue that is so divisive? Bin Laden was killed. Much of his record keeping material is in our hands. In my mind, he was never a "Timothy McVey figure but a Hitler figure. He started and perpetuated a war on America, and American troops killed him. Did he "go for a gun"? Are you joking? (I cleaned that comment up a lot)
These men rappelled into a dark unknown, behind enemy lines, at HUGE risk and you want to second guess whether they were there to take him alive or not?
I sure wish some of you would stop embarrassing the rest of us Progressives with this kind of stuff. If you EVER want America to move in our direction, we need to pay attention and take Obama's example on how to do that. To say talk of taking bin Laden alive and "giving him a fair trial" is misguideded is a huge understatement.
REALLY foxfilm??????? Bringing OBL to trial would be an impossibility. They were not allowed to bring Khalid Sheik Muhammad to trial, and although he is a big fish, he is certainly not the size of OBL.
The threat of terrorists trying to free him or threating the country with dangerous attacks would be waaaaaay to dangerous. How many years has Khalid been in costody???? It would be much too dangerous.
As for his guilt? we have videos of him bragging to some of his compadres how they had planned it; but how surprized he was that the towers totally collapsed.
He has convicted himself, and if he was executed??.........Thanks a million to the seals. They certainly spared the country monumental headaches, and ditto costs. It was the perfect outcome
It sounds like justice is a "headache" to you, and the remedy a bullet in someone else's head.
some group or groups would cherry pick it to a sham. remember o.j. simpson & gang.
if that was osama bin laden, i said IF, he met with the justice that he deserved.
The role being "the good guys" played in winning WWII cannot be overestimated. We can't beat anyone we determine to be bad guys by stooping to the level we claim they're at. The crusades didn't exactly bode well for "Western religion".
Manipulative nationalism, and supreme arrogance are the biggest enemy the U.S. has ever faced. No foreign enemy can ever do as much harm to us as those two things have already done.
BTW, the past tense of "to hang", as in execute, is "hanged". Laundry is hung, mass-murderers are hanged.
And they probably realized they have, during the past 10 years, made such a mess of justice that they could not have managed a trial. That's what happens when you drive a nation into an emotional frenzy of fear and hatred--justice, and logic, are thrown out the window.
These men carried out a very dangerous and brave operation and they succeeded. All of this hand wringing over Bin Laden's rights etc, actually harms the Progressive cause in the end. Any extreme thinking, left or right, untimately hurts the moderate majority of that group.
Absent these extreme comments, America just might continue in the direction of civil rights that were accomplished in past decades. Crazy talk just divides us more.
PICK YOUR BATTLES PEOPLE. Extreme analysis of this issue will kill your goals at election time and set us back another decade or two.
But Michael Moore should just give it a rest. Stop picking at scabs and start working positively to get rid of the Koch-head criminals who support the kinds of stuff the $$ criminals are doing.
The people in the trade towers, on 09-11-01, and the first responders who died then were not given a trial;.
Bin Laden had himself videoed on multiple occasions admitting (boasting) he was the 9-11 king pin;.
Bin Laden, if he had a case on which to base a plea of innocent, he had years to turn himself in and be tried;
There were armed men guarding Bin Laden;
Each time Pakistani officials were provided information and asked to assist in an arrest, Bin Laden got tipped off, and got away;
An abundance of evidence showed that Pakistani politicians and police "looked the other way" and showed deferrence to Bin Laden, his couriers, members of the thirty-plus known, identified,terr orist groups in Pakistan;
Due to the fact that Pakistani officials could not be notified (lest there be another tip-off) there was a risk that
local police or Pakistani military might have responded, and a fire fight could have ensued between the Seals and those responders;
There was a possibility that many backup members of terrorist groups associated with Bin Laden would have time to assemble a shootout;
The worst case scenario was that a shoot out with Pakistani police and military might have ensured and Bin Ladin turn out to have escaped.
Had Bin Laden not made a move...
Oh oh. He moved.
I DO care how Sadaam died (and why we were even in Iraq) but I think a lot of the division on this topic comes from the stench of how we ended up in this place to begin with.
Americans understand "war" at least from an historical perspective. They generally all come together and agree on the death of an enemy when they undertstand the person to be an "enemy" in the context of a declared "war". But the "war on terrrrrerrr" was never a rational or well understood label for what America and other countries fight today. We are truly in a war but it hasn't been declared on a country. Heck; It hasn't even been declared on a "group" yet. I wish the declaration of war was made on al Qaeda. Then maybe people would have understood that Bin Laden wasn't a Timothy McVey but rather a Hitler or Rommel. He was the enemy and was actively engaging in war against America to the moment he was killed. I'm fine with that.
With Bin Laden and AQ, we are still at war, a war they started, a war which has largely been fought on their terms, and which shows no signs of dying down. He may not have had a huge bunker with lots of armaments stored there, but no doubting it was a command post. Every so often, he would issue instructions to his soldiers, neh? "Executed" sounds terrible, but it isn't really the right word in the middle of a war. "Dispatched" would be much more like it.
As has been pointed out above, was there a shred of doubt that Bin Laden committed the crimes he himself boasted of?
Isn't that sort of like pleading guilty? What's the point of a trial? Spend a lot of money and tie up our resources and energy for another couple of years?
What's the point of a trial? The point is to show them that we are better than they are. If we can't do that, then we aren't.
They want war, I guess we'd better let 'em have it.
I suppose you think we are just as bad as they are for fighting back?
Yes al quaida wants war. It's a great recruiting tool for them.
Which country do we invade to get al quaida? They weren't in Iraq until we were. That certainly didn't help.
What if, instead of treating this like a "war" against "one particular enemy", we treat this like what it is: going after criminals. We don't have to invade entire countries and steal their oil just to get revenge on terrorists. Terror isn't a person, place or thing. It's a tactic. We can no more wage a war on terror than we can wage a war on "meanness" or "evil".
If we want to wage a "war on terror", our battle front will be the entire Earth. Can we afford that?
You know what else they want? To make us bankrupt and make us turn on ourselves and start stripping away our own freedoms. I guess we better give them that too then, huh?
When in war, as I understand it, the point is TO WIN, correct? Do you think it does much for the cause of promoting freedom or democracy, or even the idea that we are the good guys, if we can't hold ourselves to a higher standard than a handful of crazy schmucks in the desert?
I think we are a lot bigger than we are. We don't need to act like al quaida to punish them. If we start acting like them, haven't we already lost?
Fact is, though, certain Muslims are at war with us. I guess when they identify themselves and perpetrate crimes against us, we are at "War" with them.
I don't expect they are going to change their minds if we try to be nice to them.
I don't think they would change their minds if we dropped our support for Israel and called every American home from the Middle East.
I doubt they will ever change their minds unless we convert.
Not ready for that, and most Americans are not ready for that.
As for "The Higher Standard," I believe we have already done a fabulous job of that. A slip here or there, granted, but hey! Nobody's perfect.
Sure, we could call it "going after criminals." But when they hide in Afghanistan, or Yemen, or Pakistan, and we don't get any cooperation . . . how do we go after them then? The UN?
Sounds like we agree that the point is TO WIN!
Let's figure out what that looks like and get down to it.
Whether or not we change the minds of terrorists is not the point. We ARE changing the minds of innocent people who are bombed and tortured. We are turning people who would not otherwise be terrorists INTO terrorists. That doesn't sound like very good strategy to me. In addition, by not caring whether or not we are the good guys or the bad guys, we're shooting ourselves in the foot if we expect anyone to cooperate with us.
We definitely HAVE NOT held ourselves to a higher standard, unless you thing TORTURE is something to be proud of.
Your argument about when they hide in Pakistan is moot. We just shot a guy in Pakistan. Pakistan didn't stop us. We didn't need to invade Pakistan to make that happen. Your joke about the U.N. is also off point. Is it better strategy to get help from other countries, or is it better for us to absorb ALL of the costs ourselves?
cont.
If we agree we want to win, I'd like you to define for me what "winning" would be. What are we trying to "win"? Can you define what that would entail?
You can't "win" against a non-existent entity and you can't "win" against an idea or a tactic. All you can do is deal with it.
If you have ideas what "winning" looks like, I'm all ears.
How about the basic premise that "winning" means defeating those who have chosen to be our enemies and have attacked us or our allies?
For "defeating," how about that they are either killed or captured and put into indefinite detention?
No doubt what it really boils down to is resolving what "weapons" or "rules of engagement" we subscribe to. For example, are we bound by the Geneva Convention when we are facing an enemy which does not observe it? Is it fair to the innocents whose lives would be taken to tie our hands when resisting an implacable foe which does not operate on the same code?
Then there are issues such as surveillance, eavesdropping, searching premises, treatment of detainees and what not. Most of the world would agree, I think, that someone who participates in attacking unarmed, innocent civilians, blowing up buildings and crashing airplanes, etc, has forfeited certain civil rights. Like the basics in the Bill of Rights.
We have to decide where to draw the line on treatment of captives. Obviously, we stop short of mutilation [though our enemies do not!] and causing any kind of permanent physical harm.
How many people have “chosen” to be our enemies? Do you think that’s a number that can be counted since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and torture-gate and all the trophy hunting? bush jr. said al quaida was established in 100 different countries. There are only 195 countries in the whole world. Does that sound like a war that is meant to have an end to you? Meanwhile, inhumane actions on “our” part only create more enemies than we kill.
It sounds like a losing proposition to kill one fly while letting 1,000 more into the room.
If the idea is to “defeat” those people, then why don’t we do just exactly what I suggested? That is to DEFEAT THOSE PEOPLE. In other words, like I asked, was it necessary to colonize a few third world countries and steal their oil to get bin laden? Now that we got bin laden, are we done? Afterall, it was bin laden that planned the attacks. The 19 terrorists who carried out the act will be pretty hard to RE-kill.
How many more people need to be “killed or captured and put into indefinite detention?” before we’ve had our revenge on bin laden?
CONT.
Sure, I wish it were over. But that's not going to work . . . just a feeling I have.
I'll give you an example of other attacks that will NEVER end: DOMESTIC VIOLENT CRIME.
Here's an idea: What if we wage a ware against ourselves until we "solve" crime? Maybe we could instate martial law until there is no more crime. Maybe we could shoot all citizens who are our after curfew. That would certainly cut back on "violent crimes" not committed by the state, right? As long as we decide to call it a "war", we can guarantee it will never have to end. What a gravy train of profit we can create!
Terrorism is a crime. The criminals who perpetrate the crime should be punished. Taking over entire countries that happen to have a lot of oil has NOTHING to do with terrorism. This is OBVIOUS when a terrorist attacks and we "respond" by attacking a country where we know he isn't hiding.
I am satisfied that we are done killing bin laden. Do you think violent crimes in the U.S. are behind us? I wish they were, but that's not going to work. HERE'S A SOLUTION! LET'S INVADE OURSELVES AND STEAL OUR OIL! YAY!!!
It DEFINITELY DOES involve resolving issues about what rules we choose to abide by. If we believe in the Geneva Conventions we are bound by them. PERIOD. If we expect to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions we are bound by them. PERIOD.
Hitler and Hirohito posed a GENUINE threat to the very existence of the United States of America. That threat was literally THOUSANDS of times more dangerous than a few lunatics in the desert could EVER even dream of. They DEFINITELY DID NOT respect the Geneva Conventions, and YET we did ANYWAY. Do you think we could have won WWII quicker or “better” if we’d started torturing German P.O.W.s? Japan was so vicious and cruel that we still seemed like the good guys after sending thousands of Japanese Americans to detention camps. Then again, they weren’t sent there to be tortured. My mom lived about 2 blocks from a P.O.W. camp with captured German soldiers. She says she watched them standing around playing basketball and telling jokes. In fact, MANY Germans willingly surrendered to U.S. forces because of the reputation we had for treating them humanely.
CONT.
CONT.
I'm saying that we beat the hell out of them, BECAUSE we didn't sacrifice who we are, to do it. I'm saying that nervous nellies on the right, like you, would rather let bin laden win, than fight back without caving in to their demands that we sacrifice many of our own beliefs. I'm saying that if we become a nation of terrorists, how do we tell the difference between ourselves and our enemies. I'm saying that we can't "win" this attempt to prevent all future international crimes from ever happening again, by turning into international criminals ourselves, and creating so many foreign enemies that NO NATION ON EARTH will have any incentive to help us.
I've been saying this all along, by the way. I guess you just haven't been reading my comments before responding.
Think about the psychology of a foreign soldier knowing he’s fighting for a nation that proudly tortures people, and that his “enemy” is willingly treating captives with respect. Germany didn’t want to blow up a few buildings. It wanted to take over the world and enslave 90% of the people who lived in the world. Yet, we somehow managed to beat them without become as bad as Hitler ourselves.
“someone who participates in attacking unarmed, innocent civilians, blowing up buildings... etc, has forfeited certain rights”
Of course you’re well aware that our military has openly done the same thing, right? You’re also aware that we didn’t just start doing those things in the past 10 years, right? In fact we have a long rich history of doing that sort of thing that goes at least as far back as the inception of the C.I.A.
FOR YEARS.
Paleeeese! YOUR version of torture is laughable, because it's intentionally avoiding the truth of what torture actually is. Our beloved SEALS couldn't handle being REALLY tortured any more than anyone else could. There is NO WAY to train for torture. That's why torture is such a great tool for TORTURING people.
Billy, it sounds like you have been reading too many comic books. This stuff is not in the slightest funny, but if you buy into the lie that our troops do this stuff, . . . I think you got our people confused with Saddam's people. Oh, I know Murtha and Durbin ranted about this kind of thing, but turns out they were getting their information from . . . the enemy!
Do you think bush, cheney and rummy were so stupid that they thought you could wage a successful war against a tactic of war?
I think it's pretty obvious then, that this is a war that is intended to be without end. McCain accidentally admitted this fact when he was running in 2008. It was one of the reasons he lost.
Why would would anyone sane wage an UNBELIEVABLY expensive war, knowing full well that it can never be won?
If you ever read 1984, it's pretty well laid out. There are two reasons:
1. To give the government extraordinary powers they wouldn't be able to grab without the pretext of a war. Invoking cartoonish nationalism and overblown fear is a good way to keep people in line. It's worked like a charm for the past 10 years.
2. War without end is UNIMAGINABLY PROFITABLE BEYOND YOUR WILDEST DREAMS!!!
Military contractors and multi-national oil cartels are literally SWIMMING IN MONEY!!! Who are we to take it away from them.
"Winning" the "war on terror" WOULD take it away from them. Therefore, the "war on terror" can NEVER be won.
Ssshh! Don't tell anyone! It's a secret!
2. Do you disagree that it's strange we chose to invade the country with the largest oil reserves on Earth (other than Russia and Saudi Arabia) because we were looking for bin laden even though we knew he hated Iraq and DEFINITELY was not there? Do you think it's strange that we had no problem with the destruction and looting of museums, but got pretty defensive as soon as the Iraqis starting blowing up oil wells? Do you think we just found out 6 months ago that, "by the way" Afghanistan has the largest mineral wealth of any nation on Earth? Do you disagree that the past decade's "war" has been ABSURDLY profitable for the oil industry and other war profiteers, like the "defense contracting" industry? Are you unaware that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl, and Wolfowitz co-wrote a manifesto in the early '90s detailing why we NEEDED to strip the Middle-East of its natural resources and needed another "Pearl Harbor" to make this happen?
I think this "describes our current situation".
1. The powers our government "grabbed" were less than those grabbed by Lincoln's Administration in the Civil War [Can't even imagine what the Confederacy must have been like!], Woodrow [Now THERE's a progressive hero!] Wilson's in WWI, and FDR's in WWII. I believe the Patriot Act is non-permanent [unless, of course we continue to come under attack] and could, hopefully, expire someday. I certainly don't feel any less free because of it, and hey! What is Freedom Worth if we're all dead?
2. I don't understand why you [all] keep obsessing about OBL and Iraq. I never ever heard a single claim by any administration official or Republican for that matter that OBL was in Iraq. Your claims about the mineral wealth border on paranoia and hysteria. Your reading of the "Blueprint" is very creative, but . . .let's just say that, yes, I disagree.
Furthermore, I am pretty sure Mr. Orwell would take opposite sides from you in the present "situation." Too bad we can't ask him.
2.a. We're "obsessing" about bin laden, because the "war on terror" was a "response to 9-11", remember? Did your "never forget" bumper sticker fade and you can't remember what it once said?
2.b. About the "mineral wealth hysteria", apparently you haven't been reading the news for past few months.
2.c. (concerning my "creativity"):
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
Let's just say you can easily look it up. Let's just say, no, I wasn't the one with the "creativity".
2.d. Some 1984 quotes:
"We have always been at war with eastasia"
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
"by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. ... War is Peace"
“imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions... -- not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened”
CONT.
2a. You keep obsessing that we went into Iraq because of Bin Ladin . . . never heard anyone in the Admin. state that.
2b. The hysteria is about claiming we are in Afgh. because of this fabulous mineral wealth. Dumb.
2c. Will check it out. Maybe it was somebody else's creativity.
2d. I disagree that any of these fit the current US. But they sure fit the former Soviet Union, present Cuba et al.
2a. Why DID we invade Iraq then? Tell me a story...
2b. "Dumb" is thinking we aren't in Afghanistan for that reason. Why are we STILL in Afghanistan? Don't worry. You'll have a few decades to think about your answer.
2c. You're right. It was the creativity of the people who actually wrote the document and said those things. But, I think it's pretty telling that without BOTHERING to check it out first, you just automatically ASSUMED it was my "creativity", rather than a fact that would disagree with your narrative.
2d. I AGREE that they fit the former Soviet Union. I ALSO am willing to admit that they fit the current U.S. -
that is, unless you can tell me how the "war on terror" will ever end...
After Pearl Harbor, I don't recall the United States attacking Mexico to retaliate. And, Pearl Harbor wasn't just a terrorist attack perpetrated by some individuals, but an act of war perpetrated by a nation. Neither Afghanistan, nor Iraq, nor Iran invaded us or even attacked us on 9-11.
Why did we invade Iraq? Why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan? Under what circumstances can you imagine that we will EVER leave? If a terrorist from China or Russia attacks us, will we invade them as well? If a terrorist from Saudi Arabia attacks us (like the ones who ACTUALLY DID on 9-11), will we "retaliate" by starting a nuclear war with Russia?
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
“The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.”
“The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, ‘just to keep people frightened.’ ”
I think Orwell predicted the "present situation" rather accurately.
Luckily, we don't have to "ask him". We can READ HIM.
Of course, the freedom to indulge in paranoid fantasies about the US Government planning 9-1-1 doesn't do a thing to make it more realistic.
You know, this is getting a little absurd. I have a job, a wife and kids and yet I'm puting a little thought into my responses to you. You're not exactly keeping up your end of the argument.
By the way, I AM challenging your ability to read. You have a remarkable ability to reduce arguments into nonsensical snippets containing no information but a lot of attitude. Like in our attempted conversation about war, the idea is to "win", right? It's hard for me to imagine that you honestly think you're doing that without investing anything into the debate.
This is why I usually ignore you and focus on NKMike and fortheteaparty. They're not good at what they're doing either, but at least they put a little effort into it.
Once again, do you think you can "defeat terrorism", when it was invented thousands of years before the United States was a country? I know I asked you that several days ago, but you obviously didn't read the question.
My entire argument is that, as long as this is a "war on terror", we can't win, and that no one expects us to either.
If you wanted to know what we COULD do to "win", I guess that would be my MANY comments that we treat this like a crime and go after the criminals.
I"m still waiting for YOU to READ MY COMMENTS BEFORE RESPONDING.
If you're looking for a good debate on the topic, that might be a good place to start, but DO IT TODAY, while others are still reading the article.
First; Kudos to both of you! I wish such a civil, and HONEST dialog went on between our politicians in prime time T.V.
As I have stated before; I think most of the consternation about Bin Laden, Iraq and Afghanistan was born out of the stupid way America was governed under GWB and Cheney. We all need to understand that 9/11 was an attack by an organized enemy; Not one person and not one country.
Perhaps, if the war had been clearly declared on al Qaeda, and people understood who the leaders, generals, fighters etc, of al Qaeda were, we would have different views of how it proceeds and when it ends. Instead we have Iraq; A completely fabricated war; And Afghanistan; A war on a country that harbored terrorists? Why not Pakistan then? Why not Saudi Arabia? Why doesn't this become WWIII as noted when more entities (Hamas and the Taliban) or countries (Pakistan etc) became allies of our enemy?
Maybe THEN people would understand what this whole "war" thing is all about.
Also, it is good that others realize that no matter how long, they are not safe. We WILL get them.
Segregation never would have gone away unless leaders forced an entire country to engage in a different mindset. As obvious as that goal was, it still took decades and acts of bravery. We still struggle with the remnants of that bygone time today in America. So yes, Al Qaeda CAN go away; It will take time. Probably less time than it took us to abandon slavery and ethnic prejudice in our own country.
Remember the trial of Sadam Hussein? (sp?) All we heard about what his outbursts. We didn't hear one word of his testimony which would have told of his alliances with the US. (Remember the buddy/buddy photos of him and Donald Rumsfeld?) We supported him until he got in the way of our plans for taking over oil in the middle east. He also wanted to switch to the Euro instead of the dollar which would have been detrimental to our oil industry. So Saddam's testimony was kept secret. He took stories of his involvement with the US with him to his grave. Now we see the same thing with bin Laden. No trial, no stories. I'm happy to see bin Laden gone, but I wonder, what stories embarrassing to the US government would have been exposed in a trial.
While I'm a huge fan of yours and always seem to be in complete agreement, I disagree on this. Imagine if you were in the shoes of those who were charged with getting bin Laden. Would you really want to be sure to first read Osama his rights, and fumble for the handcuffs? Those Navy Seals had no idea if he was prepared to blow them all up or not. Have some empathy for those brave men Michael. This view seems too small for you!
Buried at sea...are you kidding me?
As much as I would love to trust that notion...
I’m certain it could be, but some would really like to see
Some kind of proof that y’all chucked him in the ocean.
YEAH, RIGHT
I know you wish to not offend, but this may not be the end
Of the drama and ten years of tribulation
And though you’re tryin’ to be nice, you could have packed his ass in ice
and saved the evidence for my examination.
YEAH, RIGHT
My experience is that history is often steeped in mystery
And the truth is often buried with the dead
And although it may sound messy, just to save us all from guessing,
You prolly should at least have kept his head.
YEAH, RIGHT
HATU
Let's be thankful we have the internet or we'd never know WTF is going on. Too bad most people are too busy in their lives to care about the constant litany lies.
Every day, we hear how the official story keeps changing. It turns out it wasn't a 40 minute fire fight, but shooting one guy with a gun and only took a second. It turns out bin laden was unarmed so it would have been possible to take him alive. It turns out that instead of shooting bin laden once in the head HE WAS SHOT TWICE!
Did you catch that? As far as I know, that's a new revelation as of TODAY!
Let me say it again. bin laden was shot TWICE.
Think about that.
One of the shots was to his head. Do you think he was shot in the head FIRST, and THEN shot in the stomach? I don't.
What if...
bin laden was shot once and incapacitated, THEN he was shot at close range in the head, execution style?
I'm just curious, would that matter to anyone on this thread?
Is it possible that one guy was overzealous and got carried away? Is it possible that the order was to exterminate him? Is it any different to kill him in person without a trial than to drop a bomb on his head that will also kill others? Is it possible that there was a reason no one wanted him to face a trial - not even a secret military one?
Any thoughts on this?
I'm not claiming to have a good answer here, but I think it's a bit more complicated than the "naw, it's too much of a hassle" theory.
The problem is that our system of government, and everything we claim to believe in would argue against what may have been in their minds.
Was the killing of bin laden part of a war? If so, was it bound by international rules for acceptable conduct in war, which were largely written by Americans?
It's hard for me to wrap my head around the whole, "the rules are different when we do it" theory.
I think there may be A WHOLE LOT MORE CRAZIES than you imagine there are.
Look at the history of Obama's presidency. He caved on convicting the Bush administration on torture. If you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, you have to believe that Obama has to have some sort of evidence that it was. To "follow through" on his track record of covering up for the previous administration, he would need to keep any questions about 9/11 and it's attacks out of the courts fine tooth comb.
You wouldn't be just putting Osama on trial, you'd be putting EVERYONE on trial. Bush administration, 9/11 commisssion, Pakistan, Afghanistan. What if it came out that bin Laden was just a pawn in the whole game?
Would it be easier to just kill Osama and avoid anymore headache? Especially with the way the world is in turmoil. Not to mention how a trial would empower the radical Muslim community, who craves attention.
I would love for the real truth to come out, but I know that America or the World is not ready for the real truth. 9/11 was an inside job and Osama was the fall guy.
Whoever was behind 9/11 for sure there was more than what we've been told. No doubt there was an inside job involved from the usual "puppeteers". OBL was just a muppet in a show that run too long.
For sure we are not ready for the truth.. yet i doubt if we ever learn it and even if we ever do that will be too late..
No "dancing on the grave" in this scenario, no matter how well-deserved his death, in the eyes and hearts of the survivors of the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims left in his wake.
WHY are americans so blind? What goes around comes around. If it is great strategy for us to torture, assassinate, bomb to ashes their people in order to steal their resources, then it is perfectly permissible for them to do likewise to OURS. And we have LOTS for them to purloin...LOTS!
Someday the shoe will be on the other foot. It has already begun.
Why did building 7 collapse? Where is the wreckage from the plane that hit the Pentagon?
I can't believe the crap I have been reading here the past few days. I keep getting replays in my head of "If you elect Gore, or Kerry, or (name a Democrat) they'll want to just try to "arrest" al Qaeda and read them their Miranda rights".
I thought back then; These are just the typical rantings of neo-Cons that make no real sense to a thinking person. But now I read these posts and I think; "OMG! They'll have a hayday with that same line of attack when they quote some of these comments".
I just hope MOST of America has a more grounded take on what is going on and vote for Obama again.
Yep; I was ready to throw in with the first real Progressive to challenge Obama and was advocating that someone should run but not any more.
I think I'm done here too. No wonder America is divided. People on both sides seem to be actively trying to make it so.
From listening, it seems that many have the idea that it is ok to kill a combatant in a war out of hand, but that a criminal requires trial before being executed. Hence, if there is a "war on terror" or a criminal conspiracy assumes an importance it does not in this case, deserve.
Think of precedents in our own history: Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger come immediately to mind.
OBL, out of his own mouth, was guilty of mass murder many times over and had a fanatical following ready to commit more at his whim. That alone made him more dangerous than a vial of plague.
With guilt not an issue and his demonstrated capacity to continue inflicting death and suffering more than evident, there was nothing to be gained by, and no purpose to a trial.
He should have been shot on sight, the sooner the better. It was well and properly done.
RSS feed for comments to this post.