Friday, October 21, 2011
The death of Khadafy which begs the question......
why all the instantaneous graphic imagery but not with bin Laden? We were even treated to a bullet hole in the head shot but we STILL have nothing on any bin Laden death photos, in a vault somewhere. Shaw has recently taken some of us to task because we conservatives don't want to give Obama credit for taking out bin Laden. Speaking for myself it's not that I don't want to honey it's just that OBL's death was never independently verified by objective sources other than the government. Oh yeah another difference, the Libyans still have Khadafy's body whereas bin Laden if it was him was thrown overboard practically 12 hours later. Yeah we're all happy about the latest developments but on the flipside Bibi has just released about 1,000 Palestinian terrorists in exchange for one young Israeli soldier held by Hamas for five years. A word about NATO, ostensibly when the Libyan rebels began to gather steam in the latest chapter of the Arab Spring NATO was simply supposed to enforce something called a No Fly Zone, that's it, now they're kinda in the assassination racket sort of. Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Khadafy all on Obama's watch and I heard the faintest stirrings in the msm this morning that he's somehow being credited with the death of the mad Colonel as well. Ah well Happy You Tubing!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"1,000 Palestinian terrorists"
ReplyDeleteCareful.
Alot of prisoners soap who did some pretty horrible things like blow up buses and people in cafes. Anyways on my major point of the death imagery between Khadafy and the lack thereof in bin Laden's case there really is no argument. In fact people keep wanting to turn the page on bin Laden's death but I say go back, it's a fustercluck.
ReplyDeleteIsrael is in a good position to swap palestinian prisoners; they
ReplyDeletehave 11,000 locked up. If we compare Khadafy v bin Laden, the
first was terminated by his own
people, the latter by special forces (in a place where he was
apparently well protected). I'll
go along with the munchkins on it
"And they're not only merely dead, they're really most sincerely dead." ..good riddance.
In a nation of laws, we are innocent until proven guilty.
ReplyDeleteLook how many cheered the death of Al Awlaki. There were no charges brought against the man. Someone pointed and said that's a bad guy.
Everyone is cryin' out for peace but none is cryin' out for justice.
As I'm sure you're aware soap Ron Paul had a few things to say on the matter.
ReplyDeleteHey BB we can debate that all we like but Bibi has gone on the record many times as never negotiate with terrorists. Well if that ain't a negotiation what is?
ReplyDeleteHis comments on the Awlaki killing were the ones that all Americans would do well to sit for a moment and ponder over.
ReplyDeleteThey were without any doubt "1,000 Palestinian terrorists" what else would you call them 1,000 Wall St. Occupiers?
ReplyDeleteWhy are people so afraid to call a spade a spade?
"Why are people so afraid to call a spade a spade?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know Mal, why are people so afraid of presenting their evidence and facts and leaving it to a jury to decide?
Why is objective law and justice such a problem for people?
Suppose I'm your neighbor and someone steals my lawnmower from my garage. Suppose further that I suspect it was you given you have the same model.
Am I justified in breaking into your garage and taking yours without giving you and opportunity to respond to my accusations?
That's effectively what you are advocating.
You make some very good points here, Z-man. Of course the MSM won't bring any of it up.
ReplyDeleteI love how in America Israel's always right, no matter what.
ReplyDeleteIt's one of those things you can always count on, no matter what: regardless of the situation, the politics, the issue... Israel is ALWAYS RIGHT.
You think there's no Israeli terrorists?
You're wrong.
This is in no way a one way highway of hate between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And it's just some kind of Christian Bible based thing that forces us to befriend Israel (because otherwise we'd be cursed) in the hopes that when the Rapture comes and all the Jews (and presumably Palestinians) are gone off to the eternal lake of brimstone, all the Hyatt Regencies we've built over there, and all the nice things we've paid for over there, will be ours.
Excuse me. I was a bit theologically challenged this morning.
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant to say was that after the Rapture, and the Tribultion, and the Seven Seals and so forth, when all the non-Christians (this includes all the Jews, all the Palestinians, and me among many others) are doomed to eternal torment in the neverending lake of fire... and all the Christian Saints are getting ready to Rule With Jesus.. those Hyatt Regency Super Presidential Jacuzzi Sauna Suites are going to be waiting for them.
Never forget one thing: Christians like to go on and on about how whoever doesn't ally with Israel is cursed of God.. but according to their same theology, when the shit hits the fan, the Jews are just as doomed as the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Bahai, the Vaisnavas and please for pity's sake don't forget the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and more than anyone else, the Catholics.
Apparently the rapture is close at hand ....again.
ReplyDelete"There were no charges brought against the man [al awlaki]. Someone pointed and said that's a bad guy."
ReplyDeleteal Awlaki was the architect of the Ft. Hood massacre, the underwear bomber, and the Times Square bomber, and who knows how many other attempts to kill Americans, hardly someone who was a victim of finger pointing. He was a traitor and killer of Americans.
In a perfect world he should have stood trial for his treasonous acts against his country and its citizens, and he should have been put on trial. But the facts are that he was a fugititve in a lawless country where the possibility of his arrest and extradition was nonexistent. He would have been able to hatch and carry out more plots to murder more Americans.
Those are the real world facts.
Tell us how you, as president, would have handled al Awlaki under those real world circumstances.
Al Awlaki was an American born citizen who was executed without due process. Further, he dined with top military brass two months after 9/11. Spin it however you want Shaw but the fact is that an American citizen was executed without due process of law. All the allegations levied against him were never given an opportunity to be challenged. That is what is lawless.
ReplyDeletesoapster, nice dodge, but:
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer my question.
Saddam was captured, Kahleid Sheik Muhhamad was captured, Kaddafi was captured, I could go right down the list. If you want to support unconstitutional measures that run roughshod over international law as well then have at it. There is something moraly repugnant about excusing a president (any president) and a policy of executing people and ignoring the law. When you do so, don't be surprised when others around the globe hate you.
ReplyDeleteSatyavati devi dasi said...
ReplyDeleteI love how in America Israel's always right, no matter what.
It's one of those things you can always count on, no matter what: regardless of the situation, the politics, the issue... Israel is ALWAYS RIGHT.
You think there's no Israeli terrorists?
No, do do not think that there are any at all. Not one!
DO YOU think that there any less than Millions of terrorists in Arab Nations?
soapster said...
ReplyDeleteSaddam was captured, Kahleid Sheik Muhhamad was captured, Kaddafi was captured, I could go right down the list. If you want to support unconstitutional measures that run roughshod over international law as well then have at it. There is something moraly repugnant about excusing a president (any president) and a policy of executing people and ignoring the law. When you do so, don't be surprised when others around the globe hate you.
I agree, that's why I said that I wasn't aware that the new America was in the business of Killing world leaders.
Isn't that what is called ASSASSINATION? I thought that was only done by terrorist nations. Now we give Nobel Peace Prizes to those who do it.
No, do do not think that there are any at all. Not one!
ReplyDeleteMal, are you seriously trying to say that there are no Israeli terrorists?
soapster, you apparently can't answer my question.
ReplyDeleteYour editorializing on the killing of terrorists did not do so.
"Israel is ALWAYS RIGHT."
Even when it negotiates with terrorists and when it spies on the USA.
Or when Israel "mistakenly" attacked the USS Liberty and killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 170 crew members, and severely damaged the ship. Attack survivors contacted in 2007, by John M. Crewdson for a Chicago Tribune article about the attack, "to a man" rejected Israel's mistaken identity explanation. Also, the Tribune article said that most senior U.S. government officials, involved with the incident, did not believe that the attack was a mistake.
The attack remains "the only maritime incident in U.S. history where U.S. military forces were killed that was never investigated by the United States Congress."
SOURCE
Do I need to spell it out for you Shaw? You fucking capture them and fucking try them. You don't just fucking launch a fucking drone strike. Christ all fucking mighty.
ReplyDeleteSatyavati devi dasi said...
ReplyDeleteMal, are you seriously trying to say that there are no Israeli terrorists?
I'm saying that no one has suffered from terrorism more than the Israeli's have.
How do you capture him? Invite the fucking guy to dinner at the Pentagon.
ReplyDeletesoapster, you AGAIN did not answer my question, which was:
ReplyDelete"In a perfect world he should have stood trial for his treasonous acts against his country and its citizens, and he should have been put on trial. But the facts are that he was a fugititve in a lawless country where the possibility of his arrest and extradition was nonexistent. He would have been able to hatch and carry out more plots to murder more Americans.
Those are the real world facts.
Tell us how you, as president, would have handled al Awlaki under those real world circumstances.
I asked how YOU would accomplish that if you were president.
Your answer:
soapster: "Do I need to spell it out for you Shaw? You fucking capture them and fucking try them. You don't just fucking launch a fucking drone strike. Christ all fucking mighty."
That's not an answer to what the reality of the situation was.
You answered with a hypothetical, action-movie solution, disregarding the real-world circumstances, where the US would have had to send in a SWAT team to Yemen, risking their lives, to make it past terrorist guards in order to grab Al Awlaki, and somehow get him to a helicopter and fly him back to the US for trial. That's what would have to happen in the real world.
Your answer is a fantasy.
It is preferable to capture and bring to justice traitors to America, but your suggestion, in this circumstance, is not workable or realistic.
Mr. Obama opted to do what is best for the protection of America and her citizens.
I don't like it, you don't like it, but that's the world we live in.
You want perfection in these matters? I've got news for you, it doesn't exist.
Read about any of our past presidents and how they believed they had to break the laws to keep America safe. May I suggest you start with John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson, and you can go on to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.
It's nice to be a purist when you don't, y'know, have to actually make difficult decisions where people's lives depend on those decisions.
Have you ever read the Constitution Shaw?
ReplyDeleteArticle I Section 8
The Congress shall Power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
As president (one who takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution), I'd have gotten the authorization from Congress as explicitly outlined in Article I Section 8.
Without said authorization, the president's actions amount to assassination.
*Edit
ReplyDeleteThe Congress shall have Power:
soapster, I respectfully ask you to read about this sort of conflict between civil liberties and the Constitution during a time of war.
ReplyDeleteIt's NOT a black and white issue.
"During Lincoln's presidency, he was criticized for taking what were considered 'extra-constitutional measures.' But in the end, the verdict of history is that Lincoln's use of power did not constitute abuse since every survey of historians ranks Lincoln as number one among the great presidents.
Far harsher would have been his denunciation if the whole American experiment if a democratic Union had failed--as seemed possible given the circumstances. If such a disaster occurred, what benefit would have been gained by adhering to a fallen Constitution? It was a classic example of the age-old conflict in a democracy: how to balance individual rights with security for a nation.
[skip]
How do we account for President Lincoln's continuing reputation for leadership and as a supporter of democracy? Clearly, for the 16th President to have survived the Civil War and his use of war measures, he needed the support of a majority of Americans. This he received. No President can successfully conduct a war, with the actions that go with it, without the support of a large segment of the American people.
That Lincoln emerges from the perennial controversy that afflicted his Administration over civil liberties with a reputation for statesmanship may be the most powerful argument for his judicious application of executive authority during a national emergency. As historian Don E. Fehrenbacher has noted, "Although Lincoln, in a general sense, proved to be right, the history of the United States in the twentieth century suggests that he brushed aside too lightly the problem of the example that he might be setting for future presidents."
You and everyone here absolutely know that if Al Awlaki had lived, at some point one of his plans to attack and cause irreparable harm to the US and its citizens would have succeeded. You and everyone here absolutely would have blamed President Obama for not keeping the US safe and stopping Al Awlaki.
I don't like this business at all, but what Mr. Obama did--protect and defend--is no less than what our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, did.
BTW, GWB had the exact same issues facing him while president, and he provided the mechanisms in the Patriot Act to allow much of what Mr. Obama has done. If you remember, GWB was responsible for torturing an American citizen whom he declared an enemy combatant, Jose Padilla.
I am not in that class which hails Lincoln. He shredded the Constitution and suspended Habeas Corpus to preserve the Union. If presidents can do this willy nilly and unilaterally act without the consent of the governed then tyranny will prevail.
ReplyDeleteI don't proclaim to know what Al Awlaki would have done and I think it is irresponsible for you to claim you do. The allegations against Al Awlaki will never come to light. As such, the allegations are nothing more than heresay. Personally, I would like to know what sort of relationship he maintained with US forces following his dinner at the pentagon. He as all the makings of a patsy.
ReplyDelete"soapster said...
ReplyDeleteI don't proclaim to know what Al Awlaki would have done and I think it is irresponsible for you to claim you do."
It isn't a stretch of logic to look at past behavior to predict future behavior. Unless you think that Al Awlaki, a traitor to his country and responsible for the deaths of Americans, was somehow going to repent and become an Eagle Scout.
The internet is full of information on this traitor. The allegations are hardly heresay.
Who put forth the allegations Shaw?
ReplyDeleteThe government duh.
"Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture."
If the allegations that the United states government have made with respect to Al Awlaki have merit and can be proven then what is the problem for the United States government in bringing those to the forefront?
For an adiministration that made transparency such a part of their campaign they are failing miserably.
This speaks exactly to what I am saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo&feature=player_embedded
When viewing the video Shaw, think of yourself as Jay Carney and me as Jake Tapper.
ReplyDelete"The most recent issue of an English-language al Qaeda magazine called "Inspire" prominently featured an advertisement for an upcoming message from al-Awlaki titled "Targeting the Populations of Countries That Are at War With the Muslims". The advertisement used as its background an image of Grand Central Station with U.S. security officials said in a law enforcement bulletin could have been "an allusion to the continued interest of extremists in general of targeting New York City for terrorist attacks."
ReplyDelete"The Yemeni government began trying him [Al Awlaki] in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda, and a Yemenite judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive"
Heresay allegations? The government, duh?
You appear to be somewhat of a cynic, yet you support Ron Paul for president--to be the head of an organization that you have absolutely no faith in to do anything right.
How does that make any sense?
If Ron Paul were to be elected president, he would not become dictator. He would have to deal with all that Mr. Obama is dealing with. He would have the same Congressional and Constitutional constraints Mr. Obama has had to deal with. Or perhaps you're not aware of this reality?
You would have a very uncomfortable time watching what that reality would do to Paul and his Libertarian idealism. And, I imagine, Paul would have a very difficult time facing reality.
BTW, how in Adam's green teeth can someone with Paul's intelligence say he doesn't believe in Evolution?
That statement alone should disqualify him for any public office. It's just plain dumb. It's like hearing someone state he/she doesn't believe in the theory of gravity.
"You appear to be somewhat of a cynic, yet you support Ron Paul for president--to be the head of an organization that you have absolutely no faith in to do anything right.
ReplyDeleteHow does that make any sense?"
Indeed I am a cynic. It makes sense because Ron Paul has spent his entire political career trying to restrict the Federal Government to that which is explicitly stated in the Constitution. Doing so puts more political control at the staye and local level and empowers the people over an overreachong federal behemoth that we are experiencing today.
"If Ron Paul were to be elected president, he would not become dictator. He would have to deal with all that Mr. Obama is dealing with. He would have the same Congressional and Constitutional constraints Mr. Obama has had to deal with. Or perhaps you're not aware of this reality?"
Obama doesn't have any Constitutional constraints so long as he can execute American citizens and go on signing executive orders. And now, his new mortgage remodification plan goes around congress. Reality? You want to talk about reality with me Shaw? The reality is that Ron Paul is the only who is on record predicting the extent of this economic crisis. And, he's the only one with a plan to reverse this economic path of destruction before it engulfs us.
"You would have a very uncomfortable time watching what that reality would do to Paul and his Libertarian idealism. And, I imagine, Paul would have a very difficult time facing reality."
LOL yeah...Paul has a hard time dealing with reality. Puhleeeze reality is that economic freight train of Keynesian spending barreling down on you. Keep your eyes on the tracks and keep walking down them eh Shaw?
lf Al Awlaki was a government patsy which I suspect he was, then the sentiment shsred by Yemen and others would be predicated largely on the information that the US released and the picture which the Feds painted. Hence the Ginsberg quote I used (Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture.)
ReplyDeleteHaving met Ron Paul on three occasions (a fourth coming up Nov 5th) we have actually asked him to clarify his statements on the subject of evolution. In short he stated that he wasn't aware Darwin's work crossed species and that many missing links in the evolutionary chain exist.
The next time you meet with him, how about asking him if he still believes the United States is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
ReplyDeleteAnd come to think of it, ask him if he still thiks that the Moon is made of cheese.
If you don't believe America's foreign policy of intervention and occupation bears culpability then take that up with the CIA and the other foreign policy analysts who state that it does. Orwell was right. Ignorance is strength huh Mal.
ReplyDeleteDid I see a change of subject here? Was that not a sign of Ignorance? Or was it just a Liberal tactic?
ReplyDeleteRe Syria's Bashar al-Assad are we and NATO gonna go after him next? In the interests of consistency I think we should. I think Obama is somewhat stronger in the foreign policy dept. than domestically, just my take. To offset his obvious weaknesses domestically he's gonna have to take a few more bad guys out.
ReplyDeleteI didn't change the subject Mal you just aren't very good at following the bouncing ball. Ron Paul never blamed America for 9/11. That is a talking point of the FOX News ilk. What he said is that we need to look at our foreign policy of intervention and occupation and understand that those actions result in equal and opposite reactions termed blowback. Perhaps if you spent less time regurgitating the talking points of your news talk idols and tv pundits and a bit more time learning your history you might one day you might one day get it.
ReplyDeleteDare ask yourself Mal what is the driving force behind the Tea Party movement? How did it come about? If you are intellectually honest with yourself you would limely respond that it is a byproduct; the natural response, a reaction if you will of individuals who do not like unsustainable debt, the TSA, and other encroachments upon liberty and freedom. If you don't think this manifests itself in other countries as a result of our foreign intervention and propping up of dictators etc. then quit issuing juvenile fucking soundbites and explain yourself for once.
ReplyDeleteAre you serious? That was quite a rant from a guy who can't pick a party, pick a cause, pick a subject, pick movement, pick an issue. Maybe this time you can pick something (anything) that you can stick with for more than one year.
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe after all your SOAPBOX lecturing perhaps you'll even vote this time instead of staying home with the rest of the cry-babies who didn't get the candidate they wished for nominated.
And we got a Socialist like Barack "I Don’t Need Your Approval" Obama in office because of these Ron Paul screw-ball supporters who say home and pissed and moaned.
But who knows, given the nightmare of the past 3 years maybe we would be better off with a lunatic like Ron Paul rather than a dictator like Barack Obama? At least the country would have some laughs.
"Are you serious? That was quite a rant from a guy who can't pick a party, pick a cause, pick a subject, pick movement, pick an issue. Maybe this time you can pick something (anything) that you can stick with for more than one year."
ReplyDeleteA cause? A subject? A movement?
Yeah we have one. It's called liberty. And we've been expanding it in our state over the past 4 years while you sit around blogging and bemoaning the fact that you need a new leader to turn this country around. It certainly would require little effort on your part save for walking your ass to the polls.
What's your contribution to life and liberty Mal? Your blog fraught with misspelled talking points and frustrations about the Obama administration?
What's your contribution to life and liberty Mal?
ReplyDeleteDoing 2 years in Kuwait with the 5th Marine Infantry Combat Unit, and another 2 year serving in various other places. What's Yours?
"What's Yours?"
ReplyDeleteBeing a founding member of a liberty network that in 4 years, leading through example, has helped setup and/or establish 43 organic gardens, 10 new bee hives, 25 individuals who now can their own food, 277 individuals who now have acquired their carry permits and another 9 who don't have carry permits but who now own firearms, 3 homeschool networks, 72 homes that now collect and filter rainwater, countless weekly meetups across the state of MN on such subjects as Austrian economics, Agorism/Voluntaryism, or any of the aforementioned subjects.
In summarizing, myself and a dozen others have expanded our network across the state and have encouraged others to exercise their freedom and their liberty in any way, shape, or form that they can. In so doing, each of these individuals has become less and less reliant upon the state.
And the beauty of it? I'm not done serving.
@Shaw
ReplyDeleteRe: Ron Paul and Evolution vs. Creationism
"No one person has perfect knowledge as to man's emergence on this earth. Yet almost everyone has a strong religious, scientific, or emotional opinion he or she considers gospel. The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of the evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe.
This is a debate about science and religion...and should not involve politicians at all."
"As Thomas Jefferson said: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or nor God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Ron Paul (Liberty Defined)
Down with what?
ReplyDeleteW/what the Man (^) just said.
ReplyDeleteGood deal.
ReplyDelete