Maybe not praising terrorists, but there are a few people that would rather have the American populace feel sorry for ourselves and focus on all the bad things our government has done instead of feeling good about the capture and death of the most wanted man in the world.
I'll worry about the pity party next week. For the next few days, I will enjoy the fact that Bin Ladin sleeps with the fish.
Well perhaps the difference between good and bad is humility in the signs of victory (if we can call this as such). Also and more importantly, perhaps if you lost a loved one from 9-11, this provides some closure, but other than that, I do not understand how anyone would proclaim joy, excitement or any type of celebration from such an act. Yeah we got rid of an evil guy - it doesn't change anything in terms of security or our personal lives or even in the abstract (we're not sending our troops home from anywhere). So what exactly are we celebrating? It reminds me of Chris Rock's joke about black people celebrating the OJ court case...everyone's ecstatic we won.. but what did we win exactly? And perhaps for a bit of a moral compass, I'd love to hear from some families who lost loved one's in the other operations not directly related to our hunt for Osama and see what they say. Was it worth it to them? I'd guess they'd have a very different answer. Anyways, if we're seeking for a moral basis (whether good or bad), I wouldn't go basing anything on the American populace or government - we're a screwed up and mixed up bunch to put it politely.
Maybe not praising terrorists, but there are a few people that would rather have the American populace feel sorry for ourselves and focus on all the bad things our government has done instead of feeling good about the capture and death of the most wanted man in the world.
I'll worry about the pity party next week. For the next few days, I will enjoy the fact that Bin Ladin sleeps with the fish.
We're all just sitting around rooting and praising terrorists..you're on the case Sherlock. :roll:
Post edited by FiveB247x on
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
leave it to the good folks on the train to make the US the bad guy here...freakin amazing :yawn:
anybody need a little cheese with that whine.
Godfather.
thats Mr.Sherlock to you.
I was just waiting for one of the purest of heart and soul to ask "why didn't usama get a fair trial ?"
I mean after all.. all he did was declare war on the USA AND KILL THOUSANDS OF FATHERS MOTHERS SONS AND DAUGHTERS. :?
Earlier, we were told that if they could have captured bin Laden rather than kill him, they would have.
Now they tell us he was unarmed.
That's a pretty disturbing revelation, if you ask me.
You can resist without being armed. I think I just read that somewhere, I'll try and dig it up.
Edit:
Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot by US special forces, Jay Carney, a White House spokesman, has told a press briefing.
"Resistance does not require a firearm," said Carney.
Hm... That's true. Thanks for finding that. There are mutterings about the legality of the killing, and obviously shooting an unarmed man carries the possibility of being designated an extrajudicial execution.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Albeit not true in practice, if we believe in democracy and rule of law, we would hope to have such a trial in which justice is served and perhaps we even learn something from it. IMAGINE THAT!
But in our screwed up nation, "justice" was served via death.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
leave it to the good folks on the train to make the US the bad guy here...freakin amazing :yawn:
anybody need a little cheese with that whine.
Godfather.
thats Mr.Sherlock to you.
I was just waiting for one of the purest of heart and soul to ask "why didn't usama get a fair trial ?"
I mean after all.. all he did was declare war on the USA AND KILL THOUSANDS OF FATHERS MOTHERS SONS AND DAUGHTERS. :?
Godfather.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
If anyone really believes that terrorism is over because Osama Bin Laden is dead then please note me because I really need some good laugh...
You can read through 34 pages and see that it hasnt been said yet, and I doubt it ever will.
Yahamita, the media circus is an immediate reaction. And I honestly dont think the govt would've went after him had they thought the final result would be long term declines in safety. I believe they are saying that immediate retaliation is possible. Do you not think that al qaeda is weaker without bin laden?
Truth is I haven't read the whole 34 pages. I just made a comment on the fact of Bin Laden's death because I just find a little bit useless(if not silly) all these public celebrations for his death. I mean OK, I don't feel sorry for him either, but go to Times square to celebrate it?? I don't get it.. I really do not believe al qaeda is weaker now. A little shocked maybe but not weaker. On the contrary it may attract even more fanatics.
You just gotta love the whole media / White House circus over the Osama Bin Laden announcements. Remember when we were told we had to go after these dangerous terrorists so we could be safer? Remember when we were told that the terror alerts had to be put on orange and red because Bin Laden was "living in a cave" and plotting to bomb us?
Well now that the White House insists they've killed Bin Laden, where's the celebration of freedom and safety? Why aren't we firing the TSA and reversing the Patriot Act? Isn't the danger now over? Can we bring bottled water back on airplanes again?
Instead, the government now says that killing Osama Bin Laden makes America MORE dangerous because his cohorts might seek "revenge."
Huh? Wait a sec... so killing Bin Laden makes America less safe? Wasn't the entire sales job on this supposed to be that killing Bin Laden would make us more safe?
Check out the logic here: George W. Bush said if we don't kill Bin Laden, we won't be safe. Obama says now that we DID kill Bin Laden, things are even less safe. So apparently, according to the U.S. government, killing them or not killing produces exactly the same result. We're all in danger, they insist, no matter who they kill.
Do you see the total perpetual war con job America has been sold over the years, spanning multiple presidents? There are no conditions under which we can go back to being "safe and secure," you see. There is no list of outlaws that can be taken out so that the government announces "There, now we're safe. All the bad guys are gone." Nope, instead we get this perpetual war setup that keeps the munitions manufacturers rolling in dough while our soldiers keep coming home in body bags. It is a complete con job, and it's all being used to strip away our constitutional rights and freedoms, too. http://www.naturalnews.com/032258_econo ... _2012.html
There is no logic other than there's only one agenda in the White House: inducing and maintaining fear into the populace.
Earlier, we were told that if they could have captured bin Laden rather than kill him, they would have.
Now they tell us he was unarmed.
That's a pretty disturbing revelation, if you ask me.
They first painted the picture like it was some fierce firefight and Bin Laden went down in flames. Now it's more like Bin Laden had no weapon was with his wife and 12 year old kid in bed How did he resist arrest? No sure, maybe tried to wrestle 8 navy seals? So they had to shoot him once in the head and once in the chest to make sure he's dead. One thing that seems to be clear is they did not want him alive and did not want him on trial in front of the world.
In reality, we have no idea what really happened regarding this op. We need to wait until the video is leaked/released. But they will probably continue to release bits of info and clips of the video first to make us immune to it. So it wont be so shocking for the masses when the full thing is aired. Like now they tell us that he was without arms at the time, next they will tell us that he was cooking pancakes at the time, Then something else, until we already have an idea of the video and enough time has gone by that we are worried about something else.
So all anyone can do, is put all the info on the table. Spread it all out, leave our own notions behind and view each bit of news/info as they come. Then piece things together.
We all want the truth, even if it may be hard for us. The truth is the only thing that matters.
This Matrix of a world we live in dislikes two things, People who speak their minds and people who seek the truth, when you put those two traits together, you have an enemy/weapon against the state/Machine/Matrix.....You you put those two traits together you have a Free Mind, and no bigger threat exists to America than a mind that is no longer in the darkness of ignorance.
Maybe not praising terrorists, but there are a few people that would rather have the American populace feel sorry for ourselves and focus on all the bad things our government has done instead of feeling good about the capture and death of the most wanted man in the world.
I'll worry about the pity party next week. For the next few days, I will enjoy the fact that Bin Ladin sleeps with the fish.
US responds to questions about killing's legality Doubts remain over manner in which al-Qaida figurehead died but US officials defend Barack Obama's action
Owen Bowcott
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 May 2011 16.53 BST
The chorus of official applause from international leaders over the death of Osama bin Laden has failed to silence doubts about the killing's legality.
Despite widespread backing for the raid, there is a growing demand for the precise legal basis of the US operation to be explained, particularly given the absence of prior debate in the UN security council.
Prof Nick Grief, an international lawyer at Kent University, said the attack had the appearance of an "extrajudicial killing without due process of the law".
Cautioning that not all the circumstances were known, he added: "It may not have been possible to take him alive ... but no one should be outside the protection of the law." Even after the end of the second world war, Nazi war criminals had been given a "fair trial".
The prominent defence lawyer Michael Mansfield QC expressed similar doubts about whether sufficient efforts had been made to capture Bin Laden. "The serious risk is that in the absence of an authoritative narrative of events played out in Abbottabad, vengeance will become synonymised with justice, and that revenge will supplant 'due process'.
"Assuming the mission was … intended to detain and not to assassinate, it is therefore imperative that a properly documented and verifiable narrative of exactly what happened is made public. Whatever feelings of elation and relief may dominate the airwaves," he said, "they must not be allowed to submerge core questions about the legality of the exercise, nor to permit vengeance or summary execution to become substitutes for justice."
The human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC argued that the killing risked undermining the rule of law. "The security council could have set up an ad hoc tribunal in The Hague, with international judges (including Muslim jurists), to provide a fair trial and a reasoned verdict," he wrote in the Independent. "This would have been the best way of demystifying this man, debunking his cause and de-brainwashing his followers."
The immediate justification for the killing was that the head of al-Qaida had long ago declared war on the US and other nations. "In war you are allowed to attack your enemy," a US embassy spokesman in London said.
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, echoed Barack Obama's assertion, stating: "Osama bin Laden is dead and justice has been done."
A more thorough explanation of the legal basis was given last year by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser at the US state department. He told a meeting of the American Society of International Law: "Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.
"The principles of distinction and proportionality that the US applies are …implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law."
He added: "Some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the longstanding domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems - consistent with the applicable laws of war - for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defence or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute 'assassination'."
John Bellinger III, who served as the state department's senior lawyer during George Bush's second term as president, also insisted the strike was legitimate.
"The killing is not prohibited by the long-standing assassination prohibition in executive order 12333 [signed in 1981] because the action was a military action in the ongoing US armed conflict with al-Qaida and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force," he wrote.
"The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defence. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the US armed conflict with al-Qaida and as a legitimate action in self-defence, given that Bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks."
Many human rights groups have reacted with caution. "Osama bin Laden took credit for and supported acts around the world which amounted to crimes against humanity," said Claudio Cordone, senior director at Amnesty International.
"He also inspired others to commit grave human rights abuses. His death will put an end to his role in organising or inspiring such criminal acts. We do not know the full circumstances of his killing and the others with him and we are looking into that." Amnesty is writing to the US and Pakistani governments for "greater clarification about the events that led to the death of Osama bin Laden".
One area of anxiety is the suggestion that the intelligence needed to locate Bin Laden's refuge might have been obtained through torture of suspects detained at Guantánamo Bay or other secret holding centres.
Whether or not the Pakistan government authorised the assault on its territory might technically affect the legality of the operation under international law. But the enthusiastic support of the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, for the killing is likely to silence any critical voices in the security council.
"The death of Osama bin Laden … is a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism," Ban said. "Personally, I am very much relieved by the news that justice has been done."
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Earlier, we were told that if they could have captured bin Laden rather than kill him, they would have.
Now they tell us he was unarmed.
That's a pretty disturbing revelation, if you ask me.
Nice, more conflicting reports.
I've been gone since yesterday, so I wonder how that proof is coming that he really is dead. Or let me guess...we're all going to take the government's word for it! Great. I feel oh so much better.
This Matrix of a world we live in dislikes two things, People who speak their minds and people who seek the truth, when you put those two traits together, you have an enemy/weapon against the state/Machine/Matrix.....You you put those two traits together you have a Free Mind, and no bigger threat exists to America than a mind that is no longer in the darkness of ignorance.
The guy's name is "metsfan", probably from the NY area, and people are going get on him for being happy about Bin Laden being killed? Seriously? This has to be explained?
Why is it so hard for you people to understand that people like myself and metsfan are happy that the self confessed mass murderer/terrorist/scumbag is dead? Yeah there's still going to be terrorism, we get that. But there's one less "mastermind' behind it. This animal that hurt so many innocent lives won't kill anybody ever again. This is bad to you? This is a moral victory. A morale booster. And we'll celebrate. So if this annoys you, that sucks for you.
I love peace as much as the next guy, but seriously, all you people that are calling us out for being happy about it are hypocrites. I'd like to see you guys go hug a suicide bomber and see where that love gets you.
I found this quote on Time pretty cool: "Bin Laden had religious zeal that we don't have; America has a national spirit, and we don't have that either."
* A CHINESE ONLINE COMMENTATOR,
* writing on Weibo, China's most popular microblogging site, while watching Americans celebrate the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden
Maybe you're lacking national spirit? We're not.
where did I "get on him" for being happy about osama being killed? He gave a thumbs down and "makes me sick" smiley to a beautiful quote by MLK, and I was questioning how he could do that.
your rant was so over the top inflammatory and made so many assumptions based on one question I asked I had trouble comprehending it.
earlier on in the thread I said "I have no issue with how he was killed". read before you judge.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
-MLK
:roll: :thumbdown:
how can you POSSIBLY give an "eyeroll", "sick" and "thumbsdown" to this???? WTF???
cause it's called freedom of speech. ever hear of that?????????????????? WTF???????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????
Post edited by Gary Carter on
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
The guy's name is "metsfan", probably from the NY area, and people are going get on him for being happy about Bin Laden being killed? Seriously? This has to be explained?
Why is it so hard for you people to understand that people like myself and metsfan are happy that the self confessed mass murderer/terrorist/scumbag is dead? Yeah there's still going to be terrorism, we get that. But there's one less "mastermind' behind it. This animal that hurt so many innocent lives won't kill anybody ever again. This is bad to you? This is a moral victory. A morale booster. And we'll celebrate. So if this annoys you, that sucks for you.
I love peace as much as the next guy, but seriously, all you people that are calling us out for being happy about it are hypocrites. I'd like to see you guys go hug a suicide bomber and see where that love gets you.
I found this quote on Time pretty cool: "Bin Laden had religious zeal that we don't have; America has a national spirit, and we don't have that either."
* A CHINESE ONLINE COMMENTATOR,
* writing on Weibo, China's most popular microblogging site, while watching Americans celebrate the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden
Maybe you're lacking national spirit? We're not.
:thumbup:
btw- i was born and raised and live in ny and will die a ny'er
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
Just heard commentary that this ends the war on terrorism. I wish it did. I wonder if this will make us more or less safe. :?
i doubt it will make us more safe, what would make us more safe is to quit favoring one group over another over there, i mean favoring one group (Jews) over the other group (Muslims) is really the cause of all our foreign policy problems over there. Its really just favoring one group of murders over the other.
Comments
I'll worry about the pity party next week. For the next few days, I will enjoy the fact that Bin Ladin sleeps with the fish.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
thats Mr.Sherlock to you.
I was just waiting for one of the purest of heart and soul to ask "why didn't usama get a fair trial ?"
I mean after all.. all he did was declare war on the USA AND KILL THOUSANDS OF FATHERS MOTHERS SONS AND DAUGHTERS. :?
Godfather.
Hm... That's true. Thanks for finding that. There are mutterings about the legality of the killing, and obviously shooting an unarmed man carries the possibility of being designated an extrajudicial execution.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Albeit not true in practice, if we believe in democracy and rule of law, we would hope to have such a trial in which justice is served and perhaps we even learn something from it. IMAGINE THAT!
But in our screwed up nation, "justice" was served via death.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Truth is I haven't read the whole 34 pages. I just made a comment on the fact of Bin Laden's death because I just find a little bit useless(if not silly) all these public celebrations for his death. I mean OK, I don't feel sorry for him either, but go to Times square to celebrate it?? I don't get it.. I really do not believe al qaeda is weaker now. A little shocked maybe but not weaker. On the contrary it may attract even more fanatics.
There is no logic other than there's only one agenda in the White House: inducing and maintaining fear into the populace.
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
They first painted the picture like it was some fierce firefight and Bin Laden went down in flames. Now it's more like Bin Laden had no weapon was with his wife and 12 year old kid in bed
In reality, we have no idea what really happened regarding this op. We need to wait until the video is leaked/released. But they will probably continue to release bits of info and clips of the video first to make us immune to it. So it wont be so shocking for the masses when the full thing is aired. Like now they tell us that he was without arms at the time, next they will tell us that he was cooking pancakes at the time, Then something else, until we already have an idea of the video and enough time has gone by that we are worried about something else.
So all anyone can do, is put all the info on the table. Spread it all out, leave our own notions behind and view each bit of news/info as they come. Then piece things together.
We all want the truth, even if it may be hard for us. The truth is the only thing that matters.
This Matrix of a world we live in dislikes two things, People who speak their minds and people who seek the truth, when you put those two traits together, you have an enemy/weapon against the state/Machine/Matrix.....You you put those two traits together you have a Free Mind, and no bigger threat exists to America than a mind that is no longer in the darkness of ignorance.
YEAHHHHHH !!!!!!!
Godfather.
Doubts remain over manner in which al-Qaida figurehead died but US officials defend Barack Obama's action
Owen Bowcott
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 May 2011 16.53 BST
The chorus of official applause from international leaders over the death of Osama bin Laden has failed to silence doubts about the killing's legality.
Despite widespread backing for the raid, there is a growing demand for the precise legal basis of the US operation to be explained, particularly given the absence of prior debate in the UN security council.
Prof Nick Grief, an international lawyer at Kent University, said the attack had the appearance of an "extrajudicial killing without due process of the law".
Cautioning that not all the circumstances were known, he added: "It may not have been possible to take him alive ... but no one should be outside the protection of the law." Even after the end of the second world war, Nazi war criminals had been given a "fair trial".
The prominent defence lawyer Michael Mansfield QC expressed similar doubts about whether sufficient efforts had been made to capture Bin Laden. "The serious risk is that in the absence of an authoritative narrative of events played out in Abbottabad, vengeance will become synonymised with justice, and that revenge will supplant 'due process'.
"Assuming the mission was … intended to detain and not to assassinate, it is therefore imperative that a properly documented and verifiable narrative of exactly what happened is made public. Whatever feelings of elation and relief may dominate the airwaves," he said, "they must not be allowed to submerge core questions about the legality of the exercise, nor to permit vengeance or summary execution to become substitutes for justice."
The human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC argued that the killing risked undermining the rule of law. "The security council could have set up an ad hoc tribunal in The Hague, with international judges (including Muslim jurists), to provide a fair trial and a reasoned verdict," he wrote in the Independent. "This would have been the best way of demystifying this man, debunking his cause and de-brainwashing his followers."
The immediate justification for the killing was that the head of al-Qaida had long ago declared war on the US and other nations. "In war you are allowed to attack your enemy," a US embassy spokesman in London said.
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, echoed Barack Obama's assertion, stating: "Osama bin Laden is dead and justice has been done."
A more thorough explanation of the legal basis was given last year by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser at the US state department. He told a meeting of the American Society of International Law: "Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.
"The principles of distinction and proportionality that the US applies are …implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law."
He added: "Some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the longstanding domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems - consistent with the applicable laws of war - for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defence or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute 'assassination'."
John Bellinger III, who served as the state department's senior lawyer during George Bush's second term as president, also insisted the strike was legitimate.
"The killing is not prohibited by the long-standing assassination prohibition in executive order 12333 [signed in 1981] because the action was a military action in the ongoing US armed conflict with al-Qaida and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force," he wrote.
"The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defence. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the US armed conflict with al-Qaida and as a legitimate action in self-defence, given that Bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks."
Many human rights groups have reacted with caution. "Osama bin Laden took credit for and supported acts around the world which amounted to crimes against humanity," said Claudio Cordone, senior director at Amnesty International.
"He also inspired others to commit grave human rights abuses. His death will put an end to his role in organising or inspiring such criminal acts. We do not know the full circumstances of his killing and the others with him and we are looking into that." Amnesty is writing to the US and Pakistani governments for "greater clarification about the events that led to the death of Osama bin Laden".
One area of anxiety is the suggestion that the intelligence needed to locate Bin Laden's refuge might have been obtained through torture of suspects detained at Guantánamo Bay or other secret holding centres.
Whether or not the Pakistan government authorised the assault on its territory might technically affect the legality of the operation under international law. But the enthusiastic support of the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, for the killing is likely to silence any critical voices in the security council.
"The death of Osama bin Laden … is a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism," Ban said. "Personally, I am very much relieved by the news that justice has been done."
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Nice, more conflicting reports.
I've been gone since yesterday, so I wonder how that proof is coming that he really is dead. Or let me guess...we're all going to take the government's word for it! Great. I feel oh so much better.
Ain't that the truth.
where did I "get on him" for being happy about osama being killed? He gave a thumbs down and "makes me sick" smiley to a beautiful quote by MLK, and I was questioning how he could do that.
your rant was so over the top inflammatory and made so many assumptions based on one question I asked I had trouble comprehending it.
earlier on in the thread I said "I have no issue with how he was killed". read before you judge.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
hahahahahhaa
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... on/238257/
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
btw- i was born and raised and live in ny and will die a ny'er
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
calm down. of course it's called "free speech". :roll:
so you don't like that quote, even if it is in a different context (not about Osama)?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
btw I was born and raised and live in the Peg and I will die in the Peg. (so what?)
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
who cares who said it? why does that make a difference? I don't give a shit if it was MLK or if it was Joe Blow on the street.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
i doubt it will make us more safe, what would make us more safe is to quit favoring one group over another over there, i mean favoring one group (Jews) over the other group (Muslims) is really the cause of all our foreign policy problems over there. Its really just favoring one group of murders over the other.
ah, good ol' grade 5.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
COMING TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER YOUR ASS
I don't care if THIS quote wasn't said by MLK, no, I don't. it's beautiful no matter who said it.
yeah, that's a real "wow just wow" moment, drama queen. :roll:
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"Inaccurately attributed quotes are the bane of the internet" ~ Abraham Lincoln
Sammi: Wanna just break up?