Bin Laden raid 'not assassination'

No one is trying to portray al Qaeda as "ordinary criminals". That is missing the point. The Mafia are not "ordinary criminals". The issue in question is the idea that if a group of Navy Seals, who have secured the incident scene and are facing a defenseless man, can (or should) they shoot him in the head. "Killing a captive who poses no immediate threat is a crime under military law as well as all other law."

Why do we want to kill him? Revenge? Fear he may be released by a jury? Or, that we simply was a guy who had crossed over some invisible line that made him so bad that he no longer deserves any justice?

If he would have had a gun, or if he tried any action that was threatening, to the Seals, then he should have been shot. But despite the many rumors it sounds like the US military simply executed him. To me that is morally wrong.

But, hey, as I tried to show in my previous post, different experts have different opinions. So, I will not try claim the moral high ground, but it doesn't sound right to me. It is not a Liberal or Conservative issue, or pro-Obama, anti-Obama issue. To me, it is simply a matter of shooting an unarmed, non-threatening man as being wrong.

Give it a rest. Bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. He was a cold-blooded murderer who was at war with the United States.

He got what he deserved. Actually, he got BETTER than what he deserved. I would have preferred that the Navy SEALS had captured Bin Laden and turned him over to a CIA "rendition" unit, where he would have been tortured for many days, including being forced to eat pork and watch John Wayne movies. He would have BEGGED to be shot, which the CIA would have been more than happy to oblige.

You feel free to take the "moral high ground", Hobo1. I prefer the "revenge" and "an eye for an eye" and "justice has been served" angles.

Bin Laden lived the life of a coward, and he died a coward. I wish I could have had a crack at him.
 
Werbung:
I ALWAYS deal in facts,

umm.. um humm...



Bush IS a RINO,

agreed.
Did Bush go on apology tours criticizing america in foreign countries, and bow and scrape to dictators?

Bush supported dictators around the world, just like every president in recent memory.

Did Bush propose a massive take-over of the health care system?

Well, no, but then, neither did Obama. Bush did increase entitlements in the form of Medicare, part D however.

Did Bush appoint a who's who list of the american leftwing in the executive branch?

No.

Did Bush force out the GM bond holders?

No. Did Obama? He did bail out GM, but force out the bond holders?

Did Bush threaten to close down Gitmo prisons for the islamofascists?

should have, but no. Gitmo should never have been opened to begin with.

Did Bush stop the investigation of the black panthers intimidating white voters at polling places?

No. Did Obama?

Did Bush threaten to shut down conservative talk radio with a resurrection of the "fairness doctrine"?


No, and neither did Obama. Both were/are opposed to he "fairness doctrine.

Was Bush tutored by communists in his youth?
No. Was Obama? Did it make him a Communist?

Did Bush launch an "investigation" of the CIA agents who interrogated the Gitmo IFs?

No.

Did Bush suggest $500 billion be taken out of already underfunded medicare?

No.

Did Obama "cut and run from Iraq, as predicted by the right wing ranters?
Did Obama support a surge in Afganistan, like the one Bush supported in Iraq?
Did both support deficit spending?
did both support a bail out fund totaling in the hundreds of billions?

Baroge Obambush. That's who's president currently.
 
So let's break down some of PLC's responses to Rick:

1. "Well, no, but then, neither did Obama. Bush did increase entitlements in the form of Medicare, part D however."

Are you SURE about that? This is just a few of many links that prove you are "factually challenged":
http://www.repealobamacare2011.com/#/obamacare-facts
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24154
http://jds-midknightreview.blogspot.com/2010/09/eight-obamacare-facts-detailing-some-of.html


2. "No. Did Obama? He did bail out GM, but force out the bond holders?"

Wrong again. This is a sampling of the many links that prove you need to do some Googling:

http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/...onomy-can’t-afford-more-gm-“success”-stories/
http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/04/06/uaw-and-gm-benefit-covert-bailout
http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...l-out-money-used-to-bolster/question-1153313/


3. "Should have, but no. Gitmo should never have been opened to begin with."

I agree with you on that. We should have just killed all of the Islamo-terrorists we captured, instead of housing them in a RESORT like Gitmo.


4. "No, and neither did Obama. Both were/are opposed to he "fairness doctrine."

Another statement that is not true, if you know the FACTS. It seems as though Obama is involved in a "backdoor" Fairness Doctrine.

Here's one of the many links are available:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29566


5. "No. Was Obama? Did it make him a Communist?"

Many people would say that Obama is indeed a communist. But, in today's "politically correct" world, communists are called "progressives" or far left wingers.


6. "Did Obama "cut and run from Iraq, as predicted by the right wing ranters?"

Actually, Obama hasn't had to do any "cutting and running" in Iraq. He is simply following the withdrawal plan that Bush already had in place when he left office.


7. "Did both support deficit spending?"

There is Bush-style "deficit spending" (under $500 billion in 2008) and there is Obama-style "deficit spending (over $1.5 trillion in 2011). Quite a difference, wouldn't you say?

Here are some of the many links:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=&chart=G0-fed&units=b
http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php


8. "Did both support a bail out fund totaling in the hundreds of billions?"

Yes, both Bush and Obama supported hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout funds, and they were BOTH WRONG for doing so.
 
So let's break down some of PLC's responses to Rick:

1. "Well, no, but then, neither did Obama. Bush did increase entitlements in the form of Medicare, part D however."

Are you SURE about that? This is just a few of many links that prove you are "factually challenged":
http://www.repealobamacare2011.com/#/obamacare-facts
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24154
http://jds-midknightreview.blogspot.com/2010/09/eight-obamacare-facts-detailing-some-of.html

From your first link:


MORE SPENDING & MORE TAXES

$940 billion: The estimated cost of health care reform over the next 10 years.
40% Tax: A 40 percent tax would be imposed on insurance companies providing “Cadillac” health plans valued at more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax would kick in starting in 2018.

yes, more spending, and more taxes, just like the Bush idea. Two peas in a pod. Nothing about the government "taking over" however.




From your first link:

So he publicly bullied the GM bondholders into accepting a much worse deal. Under the White House plan, the federal government was awarded a 60 percent stake of GM, the Canadian government got 12.5 percent, and GM’s unions got 17.5 percent while the bondholders walked away with just 10 percent. Defenders of the bailout say all this was worthwhile because the effects of a failure of GM would have been catastrophic.

OK, so it would have been catastrophic for everyone, except perhaps the federal government. It would have been a disaster for those bondholders. Did they get a raw deal? Maybe they did, I'm not sure just what the details are. Your source isn't exactly what you'd call unbiased, so that doesn't really prove one way or the other.

Wasn't the original statement that Obama "forced out" the bondholders?

3. "Should have, but no. Gitmo should never have been opened to begin with."

I agree with you on that. We should have just killed all of the Islamo-terrorists we captured, instead of housing them in a RESORT like Gitmo.

Yes, the terrorists should have either been killed in combat, or left alone. Calling them "enemy combatants" led to keeping them locked up. They're still locked up.

So, I guess we agree on that one.

4. "No, and neither did Obama. Both were/are opposed to he "fairness doctrine."

Another statement that is not true, if you know the FACTS. It seems as though Obama is involved in a "backdoor" Fairness Doctrine.

Here's one of the many links are available:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29566


Only Anne Coulter could say:

Obama knows that exhuming the Fairness Doctrine would be a frontal assault upon the First Amendment that would evoke a Boston Tea Party-like response from listeners of Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, and other conservative talk hosts who would be dropped rapidly from many if not all stations. Glenn Beck has warned that if the Fairness Doctrine comes back, he’ll be off the air.

and conclude that Obama is for the Fairness Doctrine.

If he's so much in favor of it, why isn't he advocating it? Why didn't the Democrat controlled Congress even bring it up? No, that is a 'sky is falling" sort of response from left wing media: "OMG! There's this fairness doctrine out there! Obama is a Democrat, and he is on the other side, so he must be for the fairness doctrine!

Nope. Not plausible.



5. "No. Was Obama? Did it make him a Communist?"

Many people would say that Obama is indeed a communist. But, in today's "politically correct" world, communists are called "progressives" or far left wingers.

Words have meanings, real ones. Pinning the word "Communist" on Obama is just making up a creative meaning in order to use the word as a pejorative.

Sure, both Obama and Bush are progressives, liberals, and leftists. Neither one is a Communist, however.

6. "Did Obama "cut and run from Iraq, as predicted by the right wing ranters?"

Actually, Obama hasn't had to do any "cutting and running" in Iraq. He is simply following the withdrawal plan that Bush already had in place when he left office.

Correct. He carried on the same policies in Iraq that his predecessor did. Bush = Obama.


TruthSeeker;1596097. "Did both support deficit spending?" said:
There is Bush-style "deficit spending" (under $500 billion in 2008) and there is Obama-style "deficit spending (over $1.5 trillion in 2011). Quite a difference, wouldn't you say?

It is not a difference in kind. It may be a difference in scale, except those outrageous trillion + deficits started the last year of the Bush administration. Yet another similarity.




8. "Did both support a bail out fund totaling in the hundreds of billions?"

Yes, both Bush and Obama supported hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout funds, and they were BOTH WRONG for doing so.

agreed.

Hope and change. Well, I hope we have some change next time around, but I'm not holding out much hope for change. More like despair and stagnation.
 
Well, PLC, we do have quite a bit of common ground. I like dealing in specifics, so I thought that some of your statements needed to be challenged.

I don't believe it matters who is elected President in 2012. It's going to be a Democan or a Republicrat, and this country will continue it's journey down into the cesspool of history.

It's too late to fix the U.S. economy. The Obamanistas and the Federal Reserve are feverishly postponing the inevitable, but all of the band-aids in the world can't fix the catastrophic economic events that are fast approaching this country.
 
Well, PLC, we do have quite a bit of common ground. I like dealing in specifics, so I thought that some of your statements needed to be challenged.

I don't believe it matters who is elected President in 2012. It's going to be a Democan or a Republicrat, and this country will continue it's journey down into the cesspool of history.

It's too late to fix the U.S. economy. The Obamanistas and the Federal Reserve are feverishly postponing the inevitable, but all of the band-aids in the world can't fix the catastrophic economic events that are fast approaching this country.

I'd like to think you're wrong, but my innate cynicism says you're right. Of course, my cynicism is wrong as much as 5% of the time, so we could see a miracle fairly soon.

Meanwhile, it's time to study Mandarin, so we can speak to the members of the new superpower.
 
Werbung:
I'd like to think you're wrong, but my innate cynicism says you're right. Of course, my cynicism is wrong as much as 5% of the time, so we could see a miracle fairly soon.

Meanwhile, it's time to study Mandarin, so we can speak to the members of the new superpower.

:D:eek:

I like Chinese food. That's a start, anyway. ;)
 
Back
Top