Osama Bin Laden is dead.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Isn't that interesting? Not exactly St Jude Children's Research Hospital is it?



i find it interesting that you immediately believe the "North Orange County Conservatives" and believe their rationalizing for verbally assaulting Muslim children. but then, you like politicians who think their president would "pall around" with known terrorists like Bill Ayers.

you'll also note that they weren't protesting the two men who supposedly said they liked Hamas once, but they were spewing vile, bigoted things through megaphones at Muslim families who were attending an event to raise money for women's shelters and fighting homelessness in Orange county. because that's a "patriotic protest."

i know, i know ... it's just a splinter protest. well, let's look at what the OC politicians had to say:

YouTube - Hate Comes to Orange County

and, for actual news, rather than propagandic news releases, we can look to the Orange County Register:

U.S. flags, signs at protest of Muslim event
By JAN NORMAN
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Story Highlights

YORBA LINDA – Several hundred people from as far away as Corona and the San Fernando Valley filled the lawn outside the Yorba Linda Community Center Sunday afternoon and lined Imperial Highway in response to a fundraising event by a Queens, N.Y.-based Muslim group Islamic Circle of North America Relief USA.

People started gathering about 3 p.m., two-and-a-half hours before the fundraiser began. Many in the crowd waved U.S. flags and carried signs saying, "God Bless America" and "No Sharia Law," in reference to Islam's sacred law. In the afternoon, the event had the atmosphere of a July 4 picnic. Many brought lawn chairs and blankets, sang patriotic songs and tied red, white and blue bandanas on their dogs.

As the fundraiser started, a splinter group of about 100 stood about 50 yards from the community center entrance and booed, yelled "go home" and chanted "no Sharia law" as attendees entered the building. Among their signs were ones that said "ICNA supports Hamas and Hezbollah."

ICNA spokesman Syed Waqas said the protesters "should know the facts. We have no links to any overseas organization. We absolutely denounce violence and terrorism."

He said the group started in Southern California about eight months ago and is trying to raise $350,000 to start social programs such as women's shelters, fighting hunger and homelessness in the area.

About 300 were expected to attend the event. Admission was $25.

One of the attendees, Khwaja Ahmad, said he was surprised by the protests. "I am supporting the group because they are raising money for the beggar women."

A woman attendee who declined to give her name said, "It is surprising, but everyone has a right to express their opinion."

Many in the crowd outside the event said they were concerned about past anti-American statements by the event's two keynote speakers, Imam Siraj Wahhaj and Amir Abdel Malik Ali. Wahhaj is an imam at a mosque in Brooklyn. A U.S. attorney named him and 169 others as co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj was never charged and has denied involvement.

Malik Ali is a Bay Area Islamic activist who spoke at "Israeli Apartheid Week" at UC Irvine in 2010. There he said he supports Hezbollah, which the CIA labels a terrorist group.

Chandler Endresen of Yorba Linda stood on Imperial Highway with about 30 others waving American flags. "I had seen what had gone on at UCI in 2010 when (Malik Ali) spoke. He caused trouble there. I don't want that here."

"This is not about hate. We are not hate mongers," said Karen Lugo, one of the speakers outside the community center. Several people said they had sent out thousands of e-mails about the ICNA Relief USA fundraiser and encouraged people to show up for a pro-America rally.

One organizer, Steven Amundson of Huntington Beach said, "A week and a half ago I would have been happy to have six people show up. It's not right for terrorism to come to Yorba Linda. I always stress the need to be peaceful and positive."

About 11 police officers were near the community center entrance, keeping an eye on the crowd, and at one point asked non-attendees to move back.

The fundraiser was not sponsored by the city. The city's attorneys said the city cannot block the ICNA from using the building. The group has rented the community center many times, according to member Shahid Hussain.

Hundreds protest Muslim event in Yorba Linda | america, fundraiser, wahhaj - News - The Orange County Register
 
If those protestors were genuinely committed to secularism then they wouldn't be discriminating against one theocracy.
 
I think Krammy and Earnie meant 'Hijab' rather than burka.

I find hijabs kinda sexi myself. Nice to have another form of personal expression out there for women, ya know?

gLWFJ.jpg


But whatever, they're all extremist sand niggers trying to convert our kids to orthodox religious radicals, right?
I think that holding this type of religious clothing as an example of free expression is a very modern take on something derived from a time when women were treated as chattel. Obligatory modesty codes that says women must cover themselves because men cannot help themselves should be problematic for liberals.

As a matter of free expression and religious I oppose bans, but I don't think that it's a good thing. And please take this line of thinking and apply it to many other forms of religiously required fashion.
 
(CNN) -- Was the killing of Osama bin Laden legal under international law?

The administration says yes, absolutely. Experts are unsure.

Attorney General Eric Holder told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the U.S. raid on bin Laden's compound was lawful "as an act of national self-defense."

Bin Laden "was the head of al Qaeda, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September the 11th," Holder said. "It's lawful to target an enemy commander in the field."

The raid "was conducted in a manner fully consistent with the laws of war," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters. Carney declined to offer specifics, but said "there is simply no question that this operation was lawful. ... (Bin Laden) had continued to plot attacks against the United States."

Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama had all issued orders to kill or capture the al Qaeda leader.

"The authority (during the raid) was to kill bin Laden," CIA Director Leon Panetta said Tuesday during an interview with PBS. "Obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered, and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him."

A number of experts have told CNN the question of actual legality may come down to bin Laden's response at the moment U.S. Navy SEALs burst into his room.

"If a person has his hands in the air, you're not supposed to kill him," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Navi Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, told reporters she wants a "full disclosure" of the key facts.

U.S. officials have revised their account of the assault on the compound in Pakistan. Bin Laden was not armed during the 40-minute raid, they now say, but he put up resistance to U.S. forces.

The al Qaeda leader was moving at the time he was initially shot, according to a U.S. official who has seen military reports of the incident. The official declined to describe the movements more specifically.

Asked if bin Laden tried to grab a weapon or physically attack a commando, the official would say only that "he didn't hold up his hands and surrender."

Officials earlier claimed that bin Laden was an active participant in the firefight that erupted, implying that he was armed and gave the SEALs little choice but to shoot him.

Groves, citing the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law, told CNN that, based on the most recent White House account, "there is nothing to indicate anything illegal happened."

Bin Laden, considered a combatant by virtue of his position as head of al Qaeda, needed to immediately make clear a desire to surrender, if that was his decision, in order to avoid being shot. That apparently didn't happen, Groves said.

"The United States offered bin Laden the possibility to surrender, but he refused," Martin Scheinin, the United Nations' special rapporteur for human rights, said Tuesday. "Bin Laden would have avoided destruction if he had raised a white flag."

Geoffrey Robertson, a human rights lawyer who has defended WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange among others, made clear that international law requires any killing to be done in self-defense.

If members of the SEAL team "reasonably (believed there was) a risk to themselves, then the killing was justified," Robertson asserted. But given the changing White House account of the raid, "there needs to be an inquiry," he said.

Cherif Bassiouni, head of DePaul University's International Human Rights Law Institute and a former U.N. war crimes investigator, said that the "killing of any individual sought by law enforcement in the course of a lawful arrest is always a question of facts. Did the person resist? Did the person have a deadly weapon? Were the arresting officers in fear of their lives? These are all pertinent questions."

Bassiouni stressed that any "extrajudicial execution of an unarmed person is in violation of international law."

"It is necessary for the Navy to conduct an internal investigation into the appropriateness of the use of armed force," Bassiouni told CNN. "However, it is also important not to make the Navy SEALs be the scapegoats for (any) secret orders which the public is unaware of to simply kill bin Laden no matter what."

Was the incursion of U.S. forces into Pakistani territory without the clear permission of Islamabad legal?

In response to that question, the U.S. intelligence official echoed Holder's and Carney's remarks, asserting that "since 9/11, the U.S. has had the authority to kill Osama Bin Laden."

"The operation was the subject of a rigorous legal review and was planned in strict accord with American law," the official said. "As a matter of international law, al Qaeda has attacked the United States and continues to pose an imminent threat to the United States. As such, the United States may use force against al Qaeda consistent with its inherent right to national self-defense under international law."

The operation "was conducted under the CIA's authorities contained in federal law, unlike most military operations which are under the control and legal authority of the Defense Department," the official noted.

Bin Laden was an indicted international criminal who had evaded all attempts to apprehend him, Robertson said. As a consequence, he asserted, the operation was legal.

Groves argued the use of the SEALs in Pakistan does "present complications," though he noted that there has been a "kind of a wink and a nod game (the U.S. government has) been playing with the Pakistanis for years" in terms of predator drone strikes and other attacks against Islamic extremists on Pakistani soil.

Bassiouni argued that "the mission to capture was legal, even though there are some questions under international law about one state sending its forces into another state to kidnap a person wanted for trial."

The issue first arose in the early 1960s, Bassiouni noted, when notorious Nazi Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped by Israeli agents in Argentina and subsequently brought to Israel for trial.
 
Public international law doesn't really matter, to be honest. :shrug:

Everything from a big superpower sending drones into your airspace, down to softwood lumber disputes, is not realistically enforceable.
 
What does that have to do with anything we're talking about? You somehow made a statement about polygamy about homosexuality, which is 1) retarded and 2) unrelated to the quote you cited.



don't you see? we have to destroy the gays to save us from the Muslims.

(though, ironically, hating gays is something Republicans and Muslims have in common)
 
What does that have to do with anything we're talking about? You somehow made a statement about polygamy about homosexuality, which is 1) retarded and 2) unrelated to the quote you cited.

DOMA is a legal protection of traditional marriage including not recognizing polygamy, hence the reason I put one man and one woman in bold. I'll now add underlining, one man and one woman to make it clearer.

DOMA protects Americans from having polygamy legally recognized by courts or agencies without a change of law. If you've been reading the thread English citizens apparently have no such protection. I'm glad we do.
 
i find it interesting that you immediately believe the "North Orange County Conservatives" and believe their rationalizing for verbally assaulting Muslim children. but then, you like politicians who think their president would "pall around" with known terrorists like Bill Ayers.

you'll also note that they weren't protesting the two men who supposedly said they liked Hamas once, but they were spewing vile, bigoted things through megaphones at Muslim families who were attending an event to raise money for women's shelters and fighting homelessness in Orange county. because that's a "patriotic protest."

The language used is terrible, I can't condone much of what goes on in that video. There are without doubt some there with a hatred of Muslims. Unfortunately such language and behavior is all too common in an increasingly polemical, youtube society. No need to get into a FNC vs MSNBC video battle but I'm sure you're aware I could find videos from Arizona, Ground Zero or Wisconsin showing demonstrators sympathetic to your views behaving just as noxiously.

I'll stick to arguing about ideas if you do.

i know, i know ... it's just a splinter protest. well, let's look at what the OC politicians had to say:
Unless I missed something I find Rep Royce's comments excellent. Muticulturism does often impeed common sense in my view.
 
Let's return to commenting on the death of bin Laden only. I stand by my views that Islamism and Sharia are not conductive to pluralism, liberalism, economic, social, religious or political freedom. If someone would like to start a thread and argue otherwise, tell me what Islamic country the West should emulate... I'll be happy to join in.
 
There isn't an Islamic country we should try to currently emulate, but then that wasn't always the way and neither was the West always where there were the states that we should try emulate. Some of our ideals may be the best things going at the moment, but our practices as in any moment in history still fall some what short.
 
There isn't an Islamic country we should try to currently emulate, but then that wasn't always the way and neither was the West always where there were the states that we should try emulate. Some of our ideals may be the best things going at the moment, but our practices as in any moment in history still fall some what short.

I agree and watch the "Arab Spring" with measured optimism. I've seen great bravery in the face of tyranny and a desire for something, if nothing else, at least different.
 
DOMA is a legal protection of traditional marriage including not recognizing polygamy, hence the reason I put one man and one woman in bold. I'll now add underlining, one man and one woman to make it clearer.

DOMA protects Americans from having polygamy legally recognized by courts or agencies without a change of law. If you've been reading the thread English citizens apparently have no such protection. I'm glad we do.
Why can't it be between two people, as A_Wanderer said?

You'll find very, very few people stand up against DOMA because they think polygamy should be legalized.

ETA: Are you familiar with the legal concept of the least restrictive means?
 
Let's return to commenting on the death of bin Laden only. I stand by my views that Islamism and Sharia are not conductive to pluralism, liberalism, economic, social, religious or political freedom. If someone would like to start a thread and argue otherwise, tell me what Islamic country the West should emulate... I'll be happy to join in.
Who suggested we should emulate an Islamic country?
 
No one ever did, it's just the same old tea line bullshit argument. It didn't work in 5th grade and it doesn't work now, but somehow become their go to method of debate.
 
Let's return to commenting on the death of bin Laden only. I stand by my views that Islamism and Sharia are not conductive to pluralism, liberalism, economic, social, religious or political freedom. If someone would like to start a thread and argue otherwise, tell me what Islamic country the West should emulate... I'll be happy to join in.



i agree with you. on a personal note, gays get hung in Iran. i certainly don't want that here. i firmly believe in secularism.

but i don't find any evidence at all of "creeping" Sharia Law anywhere, certainly not in Oklahoma, and it's little more than a smokescreen for pure racism and discomfort with pluralism.
 
i agree with you. on a personal note, gays get hung in Iran. i certainly don't want that here. i firmly believe in secularism.

but i don't find any evidence at all of "creeping" Sharia Law anywhere, certainly not in Oklahoma, and it's little more than a smokescreen for pure racism and discomfort with pluralism.

I think it's a concern with what can be seen in Europe. The lack of assimilation, open radicalism, homegrown terrorism and the dhimmitude of lawmakers and the media about all of it.
 
A Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper removed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and another woman from the now-iconic photo of the Obama national security team watching the raid that killed Osama bin Laden from the White House Situation Room.

The original photo, taken as the raid was occurring, famously shows Clinton in the center of the room, with her hand over her mouth. But the newspaper Der Tzitung, described by the Jewish Week as "ultra-Orthodox," has a policy of never printing photos of women in its pages because it thinks they could be sexually suggestive. Thus, Clinton and counterterrorism director Audrey Tomason, who was seen standing at the back of the room, were removed from the picture.

The blogger Failed Messiah was the first to notice the Photoshopping.

UPDATE: Der Tzitung sent a statement to the press, apologizing for altering the photo—which the White House had forbidden news outlets from doing—and explaining why they had removed Clinton and Tomason.

“In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status," the statement said in part. "... Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive.”

HILLARY-CLINTON-PHOTOSHOPPED.jpg
 
will there be the same rush from the right to condemn this clear violation of women's rights?

i personally don't agree with the call, and the 16th century-tastic view of women it propogates, but it's pretty harmless.

retarded, but harmless.
 
Rosie O'Donnell Osama Bin Laden | Bin Laden Deserved A Trial | Mediaite

Rosie O’Donnell is making some waves suggesting America may have become the type of “monsters” we loathe with our targeted killing of Osama bin Laden. Uncomfortable with the wild celebrations last week of “drunken fraternity boys” celebrating Bin Laden’s death in New York and Washington, Rosie also reveals that she expects America to be an example for how we want other countries to act and was disappointed we were not the leader of morality and fairness here.

Rosie explains:

“You can also be upset about the fact that he didn’t have due process, that he didn’t get tried, that he wasn’t you know brought to The Hague for war-crime tribunal. . . . Many, many people, including now on the Twitter feed say, ‘Well, Rosie, it was illegal for them to fly planes into the Twin Towers.’ I’m fully aware of that. Because other people are capable of criminal acts on our soil doesn’t equate to ‘therefore, we are allowed to do criminal acts on their soil.’”

Never one to shy away from her opinion, Rosie wonders, “you don’t want to become what you loathe, wasn’t the whole point of this is that we are not monsters?”
 
Back
Top Bottom