Usama Bin Landen Dead

[cigcars]

*Just heard on "The View" this morning that there's this email or something circulating around saying, "Pictures of Osama - Dead." It's a Virus. Don't open it.

[Fuzz AI]

Osama's recent "death" is all a conspiracy by the Obama govt. With the election looming, questions regarding his birth certificate and his approval rating being at an all time low, Obama needed to pull out a trump card.

The truth is, Osama has been dead for years. The US captured him shortly after 9/11 and he died in captivity after choking on a ham sandwich. GW couldn't announce this back then becuase of all the defense contract that needed to be fulfilled.

The burial at sea was to get rid of the body because they couldn't make it look like he died recently.... mainly because the freezer he was kept in broke down and no-one noticed for a few weeks.

Don't be fooled people! It's all a huge conspiracy!!

[PigFish]

Osama's recent "death" is all a conspiracy by the Obama govt. With the election looming, questions regarding his birth certificate and his approval rating being at an all time low, Obama needed to pull out a trump card.

The truth is, Osama has been dead for years. The US captured him shortly after 9/11 and he died in captivity after choking on a ham sandwich. GW couldn't announce this back then becuase of all the defense contract that needed to be fulfilled.

The burial at sea was to get rid of the body because they couldn't make it look like he died recently.... mainly because the freezer he was kept in broke down and no-one noticed for a few weeks.

Don't be fooled people! It's all a huge conspiracy!!

Totally wrong mate... Saw him in Aspen with Elvis, Nixon and Hoffa at the local noodle bowl!

[kafreeman]

Totally wrong mate... Saw him in Aspen with Elvis, Nixon and Hoffa at the local noodle bowl!

Sounds like they were all WINNING with Charlie Sheen!!!!

[frenchkiwi]

someone sent me this email yestday - ha ha:

‎"10 years. Trillions of dollars. Thousands of soldiers dead. State of the art technology. The US finally found Bin Laden....

In his house."

No thanks to Pakistan Intelligence services then. ;-)

The other thing to note is the about-face by the white house.

Now Osama was officially not armed at all, and his wife ran towards the men with her arms up and got shot in the knee - not quite the "human shield".

If these PR dudes could only settle on just giving the facts up front, without "positive" spin, they would avoid creating the nagging doubt that starts conspiracy theories (although the latter are quite fun and good for hollywood movies) and inspires future enemies. They would make life so much easier for themselves.

e.g.: 'we went in to assassinate him. he was in his bedroom unarmed. we shot him in the head.'

Ok. Mission Accomplished. The public can judge the ethics of it themselves, don't need misleading spin that forces them to read between the lines and try and imagine the true story.

(At least the white house admitted the truth albeit late. That's amazing honesty for any government).

[Puros Y Vino]

Interesting article from "Down Under"

Click Here

[anacostiakat]

Interesting article from "Down Under"

Click Here

Amazing. . .

[PigFish]

Interesting article from "Down Under"

Click Here

I have to strongly disagree with this man's option. It is obvious he cannot see into my windows from his vantage point, figuratively speaking. So he has an opinion, don't we all. While he was writing for a college newspaper about cricket, my countrymen were dying. As soldiers from my country and his are in harms way to make his world safer, he is armchair quarterbacking their every move. And why not... he is not dodging any bullets except a hate letter now and again. Why can't we fight a war where no one gets killed and there is a parade after every battle? That is what happened when he was watching the "A" team on TV reruns.

Am I happy to say that Allied forces bombed entire cities of those that supported the war machines which launched WWII? Now, while in the cool of my morning office, drinking my coffee it sounds horrible! But the fact remains in the cool of my morning office that the M-F'ers deserved it and it shortened the war! I don't really like the idea that my grandkids would be in line to fight NAZI's after 50 plus years of fighting because we choose not to target the civilian population running the factories that produced the V-2 and ME-262! It is war mate... not a Steve Seagal film!

Perhaps the horrors of war should be considered more before one engages in them. Perhaps those who harbor it and feed it should consider more the consequences. This includes my country as well. My opinion on war is it a last resort measure, but that does not preclude a quick response when necessary. It is not humanitarian, meals on wheels or a police action. YOU PUT YOUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN IN HARMS WAY ONLY TO WIN! When you get there, you kill people and break things until that happens. Then you go home! Mission creep means double the ordinance, do twice the damage and spend less time there!

As far as the author goes I say, fair enough mate. Why don't you put your name on a list for the "share-a-terror" program and we put up the next genocidal psycho we get at your house? I will in the mean time look up the dimension of a prayer rug like they provide at Gitmo so you can have one at the ready. -Piggy

[Ken Gargett]

I have to strongly disagree with this man's option. It is obvious he cannot see into my windows from his vantage point, figuratively speaking. So he has an opinion, don't we all. While he was writing for a college newspaper about cricket, my countrymen were dying. As soldiers from my country and his are in harms way to make his world safer, he is armchair quarterbacking their every move. And why not... he is not dodging any bullets except a hate letter now and again. Why can't we fight a war where no one gets killed and there is a parade after every battle? That is what happened when he was watching the "A" team on TV reruns.

Am I happy to say that Allied forces bombed entire cities of those that supported the war machines which launched WWII? Now, while in the cool of my morning office, drinking my coffee it sounds horrible! But the fact remains in the cool of my morning office that the M-F'ers deserved it and it shortened the war! I don't really like the idea that my grandkids would be in line to fight NAZI's after 50 plus years of fighting because we choose not to target the civilian population running the factories that produced the V-2 and ME-262! It is war mate... not a Steve Seagal film!

Perhaps the horrors of war should be considered more before one engages in them. Perhaps those who harbor it and feed it should consider more the consequences. This includes my country as well. My opinion on war is it a last resort measure, but that does not preclude a quick response when necessary. It is not humanitarian, meals on wheels or a police action. YOU PUT YOUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN IN HARMS WAY ONLY TO WIN! When you get there, you kill people and break things until that happens. Then you go home! Mission creep means double the ordinance, do twice the damage and spend less time there!

As far as the author goes I say, fair enough mate. Why don't you put your name on a list for the "share-a-terror" program and we put up the next genocidal psycho we get at your house? I will in the mean time look up the dimension of a prayer rug like they provide at Gitmo so you can have one at the ready. -Piggy

ray, i don't necessarily agree with what he said here (though the advantages of a trial in exposing bin laden for what he was do appeal) or on other occasions and often his politics, but attacking the bloke in such a vitriolic, personal manner achieves nothing. the comments about writing cricket articles and watching the a-team are ridiculous and, with respect, only reflect (poorly) on the person making them.

and you are far from the only one to have lots countrymen in this cause.

by all means dispute what he has said here but the bloke is one of the most respected lawyers on the planet. he has done an extraordinary amount of good work helping the disadvantage and poor around the planet. hard to think of too many people who have done more. and a great percentage of it has been done pro bono.

you and i might agree that we disagree with what he has said here (in varying degrees) but i have read a lot of your posts over the years (again, agree with some things and not others) and i would have expected a better response that just abuse of the bloke.

i've posted a bit about him below (by the way, he might have been born in oz but he has lived and worked most of his life in the UK).

surely, a bloke who has done so much and achieved so much has the right to an opinion (even if we might think it erroreous) without such denegration? wasn't it one of your presidents (or perhaps voltaire? or someone like that - no doubty someone will know) that said something about disagreeing with what you say but defending to death your right to say it? and is free speech now off the agenda?

Geoffrey Robertson QC has been counsel in many landmark cases in constitutional, criminal and media law in the courts of Britain and the commonwealth and he makes frequent appearances in the Privy Council and the European Court of Human Rights. His recent cases include: appearing for the Wall Street Journal in Jameel v WSJ, the landmark House of Lords decision which extended a public interest defence for the media in libel actions; representing Tasmanian aborigines in the novel action which stopped the Natural History Museum from experimenting on the remains of their ancestors; defending the Chief Justice of Trinidad at impeachment proceedings; arguing the Court of Appeal case (R v F) which first defined “terrorism†for the purpose of British law; arguing for the right of the public to see royal wills and representing a trust for the education of poor children in litigation in Anguilla over a billion dollar bequest. He has maintained a wide advisory practice and has served part-time as a UN appeal judge at its war crimes court in Sierra Leone.

In 2008 the UN Secretary General appointed him as one of the three distinguished jurist members of the UN’s Internal Justice Council.

Mr Robertson is the author of Crimes against Humanity – The Struggle for Global Justice, published by Penguin and the New Press (USA), now in its third edition; of a memoir, The Justice Game (Vintage), which has sold over 100,000 copies, and of Robertson and Nicol on Media Law (Sweet & Maxwell). He writes and broadcasts regularly on international legal issues and creates Geoffrey Robertson’s Hypotheticals for television and for ethics education. His most recent publication is The Tyrannicide Brief, the story of how Cromwell’s lawyers produced the first trial of a Head of State – that of Charles I. It traces the memorable career of John Cooke, the radical barrister and visionary social reformer who had the courage and intellect to devise a way to end the impunity of sovereigns. The book is published by Chatto & Windus in the UK, after Australia (where it rose to second in the non-fiction bestseller list) and is pubished by Anchor Books in the U.S., where it won a “Silver Gavel†Award from the American Bar Association. Mr Robertson has written an extensive introduction to Geoffrey Robertson presents The Levellers – The Putney Debates (Verso, 2007); the foreword to Torture (Human Rights Watch/ Macmillan) and A Question of Zion (Professor Jacqueline Rose/ Melbourne University Press) and is a contributor to Human Rights in the War on Terror (Cambridge University Press). His paper Ending Impunity: How International Criminal Law Can Put Tyrants on Trial has been published in the 2005 Cornell Law Journal (issue 3, Volume 38). In 2006 he chaired a Commission of Inquiry into the United Nation’s internal justice system.

Geoffrey Robertson is founder and head of Doughty Street Chambers, the UK’s leading human rights practice, which comprises some 80 barristers and 30 staff. He is a Bencher of the Middle Temple; and a Recorder (part-time judge) in London; an executive Member of Justice, and a trustee of the Capital Cases Trust. He is visiting Professor in Human Rights at Queen Mary College, University of London. He lives in London with his wife, author Kathy Lette, and their two children.

[PigFish]

ray, i don't necessarily agree with what he said here (though the advantages of a trial in exposing bin laden for what he was do appeal) or on other occasions and often his politics, but attacking the bloke in such a vitriolic, personal manner achieves nothing. the comments about writing cricket articles and watching the a-team are ridiculous and, with respect, only reflect (poorly) on the person making them.

and you are far from the only one to have lots countrymen in this cause.

by all means dispute what he has said here but the bloke is one of the most respected lawyers on the planet. he has done an extraordinary amount of good work helping the disadvantage and poor around the planet. hard to think of too many people who have done more. and a great percentage of it has been done pro bono.

you and i might agree that we disagree with what he has said here (in varying degrees) but i have read a lot of your posts over the years (again, agree with some things and not others) and i would have expected a better response that just abuse of the bloke.

i've posted a bit about him below (by the way, he might have been born in oz but he has lived and worked most of his life in the UK).

surely, a bloke who has done so much and achieved so much has the right to an opinion (even if we might think it erroreous) without such denegration? wasn't it one of your presidents (or perhaps voltaire? or someone like that - no doubty someone will know) that said something about disagreeing with what you say but defending to death your right to say it? and is free speech now off the agenda?

Geoffrey Robertson QC has been counsel in many landmark cases in constitutional, criminal and media law in the courts of Britain and the commonwealth and he makes frequent appearances in the Privy Council and the European Court of Human Rights. His recent cases include: appearing for the Wall Street Journal in Jameel v WSJ, the landmark House of Lords decision which extended a public interest defence for the media in libel actions; representing Tasmanian aborigines in the novel action which stopped the Natural History Museum from experimenting on the remains of their ancestors; defending the Chief Justice of Trinidad at impeachment proceedings; arguing the Court of Appeal case (R v F) which first defined “terrorism†for the purpose of British law; arguing for the right of the public to see royal wills and representing a trust for the education of poor children in litigation in Anguilla over a billion dollar bequest. He has maintained a wide advisory practice and has served part-time as a UN appeal judge at its war crimes court in Sierra Leone.

In 2008 the UN Secretary General appointed him as one of the three distinguished jurist members of the UN’s Internal Justice Council.

Mr Robertson is the author of Crimes against Humanity – The Struggle for Global Justice, published by Penguin and the New Press (USA), now in its third edition; of a memoir, The Justice Game (Vintage), which has sold over 100,000 copies, and of Robertson and Nicol on Media Law (Sweet & Maxwell). He writes and broadcasts regularly on international legal issues and creates Geoffrey Robertson’s Hypotheticals for television and for ethics education. His most recent publication is The Tyrannicide Brief, the story of how Cromwell’s lawyers produced the first trial of a Head of State – that of Charles I. It traces the memorable career of John Cooke, the radical barrister and visionary social reformer who had the courage and intellect to devise a way to end the impunity of sovereigns. The book is published by Chatto & Windus in the UK, after Australia (where it rose to second in the non-fiction bestseller list) and is pubished by Anchor Books in the U.S., where it won a “Silver Gavel†Award from the American Bar Association. Mr Robertson has written an extensive introduction to Geoffrey Robertson presents The Levellers – The Putney Debates (Verso, 2007); the foreword to Torture (Human Rights Watch/ Macmillan) and A Question of Zion (Professor Jacqueline Rose/ Melbourne University Press) and is a contributor to Human Rights in the War on Terror (Cambridge University Press). His paper Ending Impunity: How International Criminal Law Can Put Tyrants on Trial has been published in the 2005 Cornell Law Journal (issue 3, Volume 38). In 2006 he chaired a Commission of Inquiry into the United Nation’s internal justice system.

Geoffrey Robertson is founder and head of Doughty Street Chambers, the UK’s leading human rights practice, which comprises some 80 barristers and 30 staff. He is a Bencher of the Middle Temple; and a Recorder (part-time judge) in London; an executive Member of Justice, and a trustee of the Capital Cases Trust. He is visiting Professor in Human Rights at Queen Mary College, University of London. He lives in London with his wife, author Kathy Lette, and their two children.

Kenny please... Read my writing more carefully!

I said while my countrymen were dying, meaning that he may not have skin in this game.

I said that both HIS and my countrymen were fighting to keep him armchair quarterbacking.

I never suggested he be silence. Mate... that is not my style and you know it!!!

I suggested that we go to war to win as we did in WWII, not to negotiate surrender or retreat, nor put my country on trial on TV while a combatant has his 'day in court.'

I am terribly impressed by what risk he took making sure some scientist could not get some DNA from an Aboriginal mummy.

And... Ken, costing my country millions while some guy like this makes a further name for himself as a means to get paid a bundle by some tycoon or Hollywood actor or athlete for slitting his wifes throat is not what I call justice! I am glad that you have respect for this guy but I see him as one of millions taking his shot at running down my country. Perhaps if his law office was in or around the twin towers he would have seen this a little differently! It is a matter of perspective for some people. And please, I am not wishing a terror attack at his office!

We see things differently my friend. Not every aspect of this life can be negotiated via a solicitor. Several airplanes were hijacked on 9/11. With box cutters none the less! With box cutters!!! Where has the spine of a man retreated when every action is negotiated by a lawyer? The people in the first planes. They were likely believing that someone would negotiate them to a safe return. Another, those whose passengers died before the terrorist were to get to their final destination, still died but they denied the terrorists their target. What took gut was to stand up and make a difference, not negotiate a stalemate or a loss. Sometimes, and this was my point, action is necessary to beat a foe. I'll bet if put in a high risk situation, your lawyer friend would rather have a gun than a keen legal mind. If not... well that is his mistake. That was my point again mate. We all don't act like lawyers. Some of these fellows strap bombs to women and kids and send them to bus terminals. These are not my brothers who do this stuff. They are lower than rabid dogs!

My disgust is with the whole mindset. That a bunch of lawyers is what it takes to make justice. Never mind the pile of money they make or the names that they make for themselves or the injustice that transpires as they "do their job" and set criminals free, for a fee. You have confidence in a system that you partake in. I have a lessor degree of confidence in the very system. I am not condemning lawyers as a whole, but a whole lot of them are parasites that produce nothing but paperwork, unintelligible laws and tons of fees.

I can't imagine that there is a lawyer to defend the criminals at Enron, the freeway sniper, or even a pedophile priest! I understand due process but they should get the worst lawyers... not the best! I can't imagine sitting with a client that willfully breaks a contract and asks one, his lawyer to get him out of the jam!!! And the lawyer does it!

I thought it was very egocentric to suggest that we need lawyers to define justice for us. I think justice was done. If you don't that is okay. I don't suggest that you get silenced. Have at it. Considering the last terrorist that we tried was only convicted of 1 count out of over 200... and the administration (Eric Holder) stated anyway that he would never go free regardless; I wonder what kind of message that sends!

Perhaps the Australian CJS can handle war crimes, but ours clearly cannot. Again, if you and your friend thinks it can, well you and the current administration have something in common that I don't. I don't wish to extend the length and breadth of a system to defend those foreign combatants hell bent on destroying it. I believe those who do often conceal ulterior motives.

Cheers mate. -Ray

[PigFish]

... I wanted to add something here.

It is easy for this look as though I am bagging on lawyers and blaming them for all the world's woes and I am not doing that. I am taliking about lawyering up in this case and lawyers defending those that are guilty, denying justice for selfish reasons.

There are many selfless lawyers that are generous with their time truely concerd with the freeing of inocent and wronged parties. I have no right, nor the intent to condemn the profession or those professionals that are honorable, honest and moral individuals. In all professions we have examples of good and bad people.

Good lawyers, while I have not meet any... I am sure they exist! (strictly for humor Ken... strictly for the humor!)

-Piggy

[Ken Gargett]

I am taliking about lawyering up in this case and lawyers defending those that are guilty, denying justice for selfish reasons.

ray, have not had a chance to read the previous post yet but happened to catch this.

"lawyers defending the guilty"???

sorry, i am now lost. isn't the whole point of having a legal system to decide guilt and innocence? in your scenario, who has decided the relevant person is "guilty"? the media, public perception, the lawyers themselves?

you think someone is guilty so they just get tossed in jail or shot? trials are an inconvenience?

and so much for that old kernel, better ten guilty go free than one innocent gets jailed.

i may have misread things or hopefully misunderstood, but it seems you have a major issue with your country's legal system. time for an american dictatorship?

[Ken Gargett]

Kenny please... Read my writing more carefully!

I said while my countrymen were dying, meaning that he may not have skin in this game.

I said that both HIS and my countrymen were fighting to keep him armchair quarterbacking.

I never suggested he be silence. Mate... that is not my style and you know it!!!

I suggested that we go to war to win as we did in WWII, not to negotiate surrender or retreat, nor put my country on trial on TV while a combatant has his 'day in court.'

I am terribly impressed by what risk he took making sure some scientist could not get some DNA from an Aboriginal mummy.

And... Ken, costing my country millions while some guy like this makes a further name for himself as a means to get paid a bundle by some tycoon or Hollywood actor or athlete for slitting his wifes throat is not what I call justice! I am glad that you have respect for this guy but I see him as one of millions taking his shot at running down my country. Perhaps if his law office was in or around the twin towers he would have seen this a little differently! It is a matter of perspective for some people. And please, I am not wishing a terror attack at his office!

We see things differently my friend. Not every aspect of this life can be negotiated via a solicitor. Several airplanes were hijacked on 9/11. With box cutters none the less! With box cutters!!! Where has the spine of a man retreated when every action is negotiated by a lawyer? The people in the first planes. They were likely believing that someone would negotiate them to a safe return. Another, those whose passengers died before the terrorist were to get to their final destination, still died but they denied the terrorists their target. What took gut was to stand up and make a difference, not negotiate a stalemate or a loss. Sometimes, and this was my point, action is necessary to beat a foe. I'll bet if put in a high risk situation, your lawyer friend would rather have a gun than a keen legal mind. If not... well that is his mistake. That was my point again mate. We all don't act like lawyers. Some of these fellows strap bombs to women and kids and send them to bus terminals. These are not my brothers who do this stuff. They are lower than rabid dogs!

My disgust is with the whole mindset. That a bunch of lawyers is what it takes to make justice. Never mind the pile of money they make or the names that they make for themselves or the injustice that transpires as they "do their job" and set criminals free, for a fee. You have confidence in a system that you partake in. I have a lessor degree of confidence in the very system. I am not condemning lawyers as a whole, but a whole lot of them are parasites that produce nothing but paperwork, unintelligible laws and tons of fees.

I can't imagine that there is a lawyer to defend the criminals at Enron, the freeway sniper, or even a pedophile priest! I understand due process but they should get the worst lawyers... not the best! I can't imagine sitting with a client that willfully breaks a contract and asks one, his lawyer to get him out of the jam!!! And the lawyer does it!

I thought it was very egocentric to suggest that we need lawyers to define justice for us. I think justice was done. If you don't that is okay. I don't suggest that you get silenced. Have at it. Considering the last terrorist that we tried was only convicted of 1 count out of over 200... and the administration (Eric Holder) stated anyway that he would never go free regardless; I wonder what kind of message that sends!

Perhaps the Australian CJS can handle war crimes, but ours clearly cannot. Again, if you and your friend thinks it can, well you and the current administration have something in common that I don't. I don't wish to extend the length and breadth of a system to defend those foreign combatants hell bent on destroying it. I believe those who do often conceal ulterior motives.

Cheers mate. -Ray

hi ray, would love to sit down with a couple of good Limited Editions and a bottle or two to discuss this.

i think you are way off base.

ray, the gentleman who you have so easily denegrated is the guy that hid salman rushdie in his house during the fatwa. for an unarmed, untrained civilian, i think that probably does a bit to establish his creditials in respect of courage and facing up to the extremist muslims. high risk? well not too many humans lived under such high risk for so long. you think he'd have chosen a gun ahead of his 'mind'. well, there is the proof to the contrary.

i think living under the constant threat of death because you believe in your cause more than qualifies to give him that perspective of which you speak.

not only that, he was the one defending the attacks on the british press and the actions against them by gaddaffi, around a decade ago. so he really isn't some secret closet muslim terrorist.

but yet again, you attacked this bloke personally (clearly, without the slightest basis or evidence to do so) and quite viciously. comments like the sarcasm re the tasmanian aboriginal case are way off base - that is a matter that is probably at least as important to them as any cause is to yourself and it does not deserve to be belittled like that - whether one supports it or not.

robertson has been around a long time - i don't think anyone who has any knowledge of him could possibly imagine any ulterior motives. what ulterior motives? he is suddenly going to spring the surprise on us when he is 90?

he works in his area of law, is incredibly highly respected even if not all of us always agree with him, and i do not believe he does it simply to make a name for himself. or for the dosh - his wife is a very successful writer, i doubt he needs it. and in any event, he is as entitled as anyone to make a living. but this attack on him re defending hollywood tycoons. where does this come from? it appears that you have simply made it up??

enough on robertson, my main concern is re your views on the legal system. believe me, i was a lawyer for many years so i know that there are far far too many grubs in the system and it has massive flaws, but it is 'our' system and until we can get a better one, it is, presumably, the best we can work with (the 'unintelligible laws' come from the politicians, not the lawyers). but there are grubs in every profession - including the military, the church and whatever else you can think of. sadly. sure, some lawyers will know of their clients' guilt but there are rules in place and ways they are obliged to act. sure, some don't but if it comes out, they can and should be struck off. and yes, as in everything, some people get away with it.

you mention the example of pedophile priests and that they should not be able to find a lawyer prepared to represent them. i do understand what you say, and you know my view of them - utter scum that should be wiped from the face of the earth as painfully as possible (as should the far greater number of members of the church who turned a blind eye or deliberately helped hide them).

BUT!! we have a system to find them guilty (or innocent). until such time, why should they not be entitled to a defence? innocent until proven guilty? i want the guilty punished as cruelly as we can but i do not want an innocent man so labelled or punished. the system is not perfect but it is a million miles better than you or me just deciding he must be guilty for whatever reasons.

for me, you are skipping a fairly important step - deciding if these people are guilty or innocent. if we follow your road, we are living in a dictatorship of the worst kind. that is the sort of system one expects under nazis or stalin or idi amin and i am not even certain the legal systems in north korea or cuba or iran or venuezula would be so bad.

not for me.

[Scdalak]

Certifiable Lunatics.....

CNN) -- Al Qaeda released a statement on jihadist forums Friday confirming the death of its leader, Osama bin Laden, according to SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamist websites.

The development comes days after U.S. troops killed bin Laden in a raid on a compound in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad.

The statement, translated by SITE, lauded the late militant, threatened to take action against the United States, and urged Pakistanis to "rise up and revolt."

Bin Laden's death will serve as a "curse that chases the Americans and their agents, and goes after them inside and outside their countries," the message said.

"Soon -- with help from Allah -- their happiness will turn into sorrow, and their blood will be mixed with their tears," it said.

The statement said al Qaeda will "continue on the path of jihad, the path walked upon by our leaders, and on top of them" bin Laden "without hesitation or reluctance.

"We will not deviate from that or change until Allah judges between us and between our enemy with truth. Indeed, He is the best of all judges. Nothing will harm us after that, until we see either victory and success and conquest and empowerment, or we die trying."

It said that Americans "will never enjoy security until our people in Palestine enjoy it."

"The soldiers of Islam, groups and individuals, will continue planning without tiredness or boredom, and without despair or surrender, and without weakness or stagnancy, until they cause the disaster that makes children look like the elderly!"

It urged Pakistanis "to cleanse this shame that has been attached to them by a clique of traitors and thieves" and "from the filth of the Americans who spread corruption in it."

Bin Laden and other militants used the Internet to post messages to their followers before and after al Qaeda's September, 11, 2001 attack on the United States.

[khomeinist]

Lol. Ken just figured out that the far right has fascist tendencies.

Kidding. Carry on mates. Glad the jackass Osama has fed many a fish. A noble end to an ignoble lunatic.

God gives us freedom.... lol. I guess empiricism is dead. Human society sustains or represses freedom based on human social structures.

Really not that complicated Sus scrofa domesticus.

[PigFish]

Ken... this guy is your hero, I am sorry for deriding him. I skipped most of the hero talk cause I attacked his opinion and I used some humor to do it. Vitriol Ken, cause I said his knowledge of war came from watching the A-team.... That's not vitriol Ken, that is a bit of a joke. One might say that vitriol is what you would do with Catholic priests, whom you have judged guilty, along with those you have judged guilty of defending them, also without trial! What would you do with humans, people, men that kill whales, animals, those are the same things we eat that instead walk on land, or we fish in rivers and oceans... without trial for laws that don't exist? That Ken is vitriol but the A-team... was a joke. Ken you have posted a lot of vitriolic things on this site and I don't go whining about it. I try to have a decent debate with you on academic terms most of the time, but I am surely not perfect. Neither are you mate. You have some hot spots too. And for the record I don't think that the Church should protect criminals and that includes the archaic system of sanctuary.

... again, and for the record, I am sorry for attacking a man that you hold in such high esteem. You have really exaggerated what I have done in the name of vitriol!

So to keep a train of thought going, if I have attacked the man for his opinion, you have attacked me for mine! This is where I see weakness in your argument. I have simply taken a position where I believe his line of thinking is flawed. You are focusing on the jokes that I plant to read your intent and focus on those rather than discussing the meat of the topic. I am talking Bin Laden and you are canonizing your mate! I get it! I see now what I have done, and it is probably not for the reasons of my argument that you have engaged me. It is because I have ostensibly attacked a friend of yours. Like I said, I am sorry. I have not criticized you once in this conversation previous to the above paragraph and I did it just as you have to attempt to show a path to hypocrisy. I am laying down the sword here mate. I am not fighting with you. I am not going to stand in the way of your canonization of your brother either. He is a great guy I guess... You have convinced me! But he is still wrong!!! He never watched the A-team. You can write books about him if you want.

Do you mean to say he can't be wrong? Is this guy a Catholic priest or something where only God can judge him? He is untouchable? Or, is he simply untouchable by Ray, but Ken can disagree with him cause you and I are not equal? After all, I am not a lawyer! Does making a man great make him never wrong? Or is it that you believe that there are great men like him... and lesser men like me and we should not mince words? While I am not going to take it personally because I consider you a friend, when I read things that you have written in the past like, we are too stupid to govern ourselves; this is what I begin to believe. I am not an elitist Ken! Your mate and me, while we are not equal in a true sense of the word, he is no better than I am. Being a lawyer does not make him better than me. Having saved a mummy from DNA testing does not make him better than me.

Ultimately amigo my argument was about the ubiquitous opinion that there is a better world through lawyerly negotiation. You say politicians bring about these bad laws. In my country most of them are lawyers. You say I want a dictatorship, no way mate! But I don't want an oligarchy of lawyers either. I would rather have 100 plumbers, steelworkers and auto mechanics in the Senate than the never produced a product, never earned a buck in the private sector doing a real job folks we have now. (I am generalizing)

Lawyers, in my opinon should present facts in a case, not determine guilt. In reality the man is guilty or not. There is a real right and wrong and my problem is when the legal system and the factual collide. Is it arguably the best system? Yep! But is it getting perverted by persons whom are moraly corrupt... Yes, yes, yes!

Without going into a bunch of history, my country at least, was based on a system where moral, God believing people would put their hand on the Bible and tell the truth in court. That system worked better I think when the fiber of morality was stronger amongst my countrymen. But I am only speculating. Right and wrong is then no longer a moral decision but a court decision. If you get caught and found guilty you are then guilty. If you are found not guilty then you are not, even if you and the people you have harmed know that you are. The laws in my land were to protect the inocent, not set the guilty free. Somehow when lawyers, good ones, use any trick in the book to set free the guilty rather than protect the innocent the system falls apart. You may see a lawyers job as unilateral where I see it as bilateral. Justice is for all parties, not just the accused. In my country criminals can be seen killing a guy and the film shown on Youtube! They plead not guilty anyway and after admitting guilt to his lawyer they put together a case that will drag out until the second coming of Christ looking for a technical flaw to set him free. This mate... is not justice!

I am not gonna' debate you anymore on this one mate. As I see it you already said you did not necessarily agree with your friends position but took after me cause you think I was being deriding. I am done criticizing the man. But I still say he missed his calling. He belongs in a church!!!

Oh and Kommy... you and Ken have judged me without reading me my rights and with no lawyer present!!!

-Ray

[fred170]

Time for some Havana Club rum Anejo 7 Years and a Cohiba Behike for some.......We should have a section in the forum that talks politics...Should be interesting with all the FOH members coming from different parts of the sprectrum..and world...lol

[PigFish]

Lol. Ken just figured out that the far right has fascist tendencies.

Kidding. Carry on mates. Glad the jackass Osama has fed many a fish. A noble end to an ignoble lunatic.

God gives us freedom.... lol. I guess empiricism is dead. Human society sustains or represses freedom based on human social structures.

Really not that complicated Sus scrofa domesticus.

On the other hand my friend we could say that leftist lawyers and the Catholic church are akin because they both have the same mindset. The Catholic priest's word is beyond reproach because he saves the souls of sinners from Satan. The leftist lawyer's word is beyond reproach becasue he saves the mummy's skin from the scientist scalpel!!!! And I thought it was only the Catholic Church that repressed science!

Cheers my friends. As Nut would say if he were not in boot camp. I love steak!!! -LOL

[fred170]

Here is my take on Bin Laden.

I hardly had any knowledge on him other than what has been reported in the media pertaining to 9-11-01 and that he was the mastermind behind the attacks.

Now from what I researched, I found it unusual yet not surprising that he was a CIA "wetboy" during the Afghan-Russo war and that the Taliban was devised and contracted by the CIA to counter-attack the Russian military that had invaded Afghanistan. Call it coincidence, I dont know but this terrorist has "roots" in the US of A and as a US of A citizen it should open your eyes and minds as to what other issues abroad we are involved in.

...and then they dumped his body out of respect for his religious beliefs......OK, I am going to use the lavoratory now and pinch a loaf.......

[gigabyte056]

My only thought on the matter is that it needed to be done.

If he was kept alive we would have seen an immense rise in terrorism under the pretense that he should be freed.

I will say that public displays of joy over your enemies death are of extremely poor taste, I think it shows a nation to be childish but thats just my take on it.

[fred170]

Read the article and the main thesis (or point) is that justice can't be trumped or dupped based on emotions. Was Bin Laden a bad man? probably, but it doesnt mean that we have the right to execute a man with out "due process". There is a legal process, whether it be INTERPOL, US DOJ and that no country can enter a foriegn country to try to take out or take out some one....Opps but this is the US, it is reknowned for conducting "black-ops" type functions throughout history..ask Fidel, Raul, and then those killed Allende, Guevarra etc........

[fattires]

... representing their religion as christians would of mcveigh.

I usually don't get mixed up in these type topics...however...I followed the OKC event closely and do not remember any strong religious connection with this animal. I think he even proclaimed he was agnostic or maybe even atheist. He was all about oppressive government.

[PigFish]

I can see this thread is gonna' get good now!

Ken... your supporters are rising up! You're in great company now mate!

I am thinking about starting a shrine site. Yep, I am a capitalist Pig after all! I am gonna' claim that I have a cuz'in on the flattop that marked the site with a GPS. I will sell you a map for a $100 membership and you can worship it or desecrate it the choice is yours. I won't care who buys one, one thing I am not and that is prejudiced. Bring your wreath or your pig guts to dump, money is money and it is all green!!! I mean being unable to determine justice for myself it will have to be decided by the courts if it is the right or wrong thing to do anyway. I might need a good lawyer as a partner though! I wonder if I will have problems finding one.

Screw the academic talk, this is way more fun!!!

I am sorry Rob... some of this is just to juicy to pass up on! You know when Ken and I get together the site goes to hell. Cheers amigos!!! -the Pig

[Ken Gargett]

Ken... this guy is your hero, I am sorry for deriding him. I skipped most of the hero talk cause I attacked his opinion and I used some humor to do it. Vitriol Ken, cause I said his knowledge of war came from watching the A-team.... That's not vitriol Ken, that is a bit of a joke. One might say that vitriol is what you would do with Catholic priests, whom you have judged guilty, along with those you have judged guilty of defending them, also without trial! What would you do with humans, people, men that kill whales, animals, those are the same things we eat that instead walk on land, or we fish in rivers and oceans... without trial for laws that don't exist? That Ken is vitriol but the A-team... was a joke. Ken you have posted a lot of vitriolic things on this site and I don't go whining about it. I try to have a decent debate with you on academic terms most of the time, but I am surely not perfect. Neither are you mate. You have some hot spots too. And for the record I don't think that the Church should protect criminals and that includes the archaic system of sanctuary.

... again, and for the record, I am sorry for attacking a man that you hold in such high esteem. You have really exaggerated what I have done in the name of vitriol!

So to keep a train of thought going, if I have attacked the man for his opinion, you have attacked me for mine! This is where I see weakness in your argument. I have simply taken a position where I believe his line of thinking is flawed. You are focusing on the jokes that I plant to read your intent and focus on those rather than discussing the meat of the topic. I am talking Bin Laden and you are canonizing your mate! I get it! I see now what I have done, and it is probably not for the reasons of my argument that you have engaged me. It is because I have ostensibly attacked a friend of yours. Like I said, I am sorry. I have not criticized you once in this conversation previous to the above paragraph and I did it just as you have to attempt to show a path to hypocrisy. I am laying down the sword here mate. I am not fighting with you. I am not going to stand in the way of your canonization of your brother either. He is a great guy I guess... You have convinced me! But he is still wrong!!! He never watched the A-team. You can write books about him if you want.

Do you mean to say he can't be wrong? Is this guy a Catholic priest or something where only God can judge him? He is untouchable? Or, is he simply untouchable by Ray, but Ken can disagree with him cause you and I are not equal? After all, I am not a lawyer! Does making a man great make him never wrong? Or is it that you believe that there are great men like him... and lesser men like me and we should not mince words? While I am not going to take it personally because I consider you a friend, when I read things that you have written in the past like, we are too stupid to govern ourselves; this is what I begin to believe. I am not an elitist Ken! Your mate and me, while we are not equal in a true sense of the word, he is no better than I am. Being a lawyer does not make him better than me. Having saved a mummy from DNA testing does not make him better than me.

Ultimately amigo my argument was about the ubiquitous opinion that there is a better world through lawyerly negotiation. You say politicians bring about these bad laws. In my country most of them are lawyers. You say I want a dictatorship, no way mate! But I don't want an oligarchy of lawyers either. I would rather have 100 plumbers, steelworkers and auto mechanics in the Senate than the never produced a product, never earned a buck in the private sector doing a real job folks we have now. (I am generalizing)

Lawyers, in my opinon should present facts in a case, not determine guilt. In reality the man is guilty or not. There is a real right and wrong and my problem is when the legal system and the factual collide. Is it arguably the best system? Yep! But is it getting perverted by persons whom are moraly corrupt... Yes, yes, yes!

Without going into a bunch of history, my country at least, was based on a system where moral, God believing people would put their hand on the Bible and tell the truth in court. That system worked better I think when the fiber of morality was stronger amongst my countrymen. But I am only speculating. Right and wrong is then no longer a moral decision but a court decision. If you get caught and found guilty you are then guilty. If you are found not guilty then you are not, even if you and the people you have harmed know that you are. The laws in my land were to protect the inocent, not set the guilty free. Somehow when lawyers, good ones, use any trick in the book to set free the guilty rather than protect the innocent the system falls apart. You may see a lawyers job as unilateral where I see it as bilateral. Justice is for all parties, not just the accused. In my country criminals can be seen killing a guy and the film shown on Youtube! They plead not guilty anyway and after admitting guilt to his lawyer they put together a case that will drag out until the second coming of Christ looking for a technical flaw to set him free. This mate... is not justice!

I am not gonna' debate you anymore on this one mate. As I see it you already said you did not necessarily agree with your friends position but took after me cause you think I was being deriding. I am done criticizing the man. But I still say he missed his calling. He belongs in a church!!!

Oh and Kommy... you and Ken have judged me without reading me my rights and with no lawyer present!!!

-Ray

ray, i read half the first line only. to be honest, i'm not going to bother with the rest as there is no point.

your first sentence is a complete and deliberate misrepresentation. you know that, or would if you'd read anything i posted. i have said numerous times that i do not agree with everything he says or his politics. however, you tried to paint him as something he is demonstrably not because it is convenient. bugger the truth. now you are doing it with me.

i have beter things to do.

[PigFish]

My opinions are at times offensive. I am not apologetic for what I believe but sometimes I say too much and offend people by saying it.

Stating my opinions, at times offends on lookers and friends. For that I am sorry. If you consider yourself one of the above, on looker or friend and have been offended by my rhetoric or reason, please accept my apology. I don't mind being the site curmudgeon but resident ******* is not my goal.

-Ray