TimG Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 (edited) Could one of the people who think that Bin Laden should not have been shot on sight please answer this: What is the point of a trial when the outcome is predetermined? If you think the outcome is not predetermined then explain what planet you are talking about. Edited May 9, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 Could one of the people who think that Bin Laden should not have been shot on sight please answer this: What is the point of a trial when the outcome is predetermined? If you think the outcome is not predetermined then explain what planet you are talking about. We conduct trials all the time even when the outcome appears to be undetermined. But it comes down to what you think is right. The moral relavists among us think that we should act like the enemies we fight, and that if they dont follow the rules we shouldnt either. They dont believe in right or wrong. But some people just think its wrong to execute a prisoner without due process, no matter who it is. And we have afforded due process to lots of the worlds most heinous scumbags. The Nuremburg trials for example. Some people think its wrong to summarily execute prisoners without due process... you dont. Theres really no point in getting into it any further than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 We conduct trials all the time even when the outcome appears to be undetermined. But it comes down to what you think is right. The moral relavists among us think that we should act like the enemies we fight, and that if they dont follow the rules we shouldnt either. They dont believe in right or wrong. But some people just think its wrong to execute a prisoner without due process, no matter who it is. And we have afforded due process to lots of the worlds most heinous scumbags. The Nuremburg trials for example. Some people think its wrong to summarily execute prisoners without due process... you dont. Theres really no point in getting into it any further than that. He wasn't a prisoner yet. That's the whole point. He wasn't captured and then executed. He was killed as part of a military operation. We do that all the time. We bomb terrorists, use drone strikes against terrorists, shoot at them from helicopters, have our troops shoot at them, etc. This is no different, except that he happened to be a high profile target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 He wasn't a prisoner yet. That's the whole point. He wasn't captured and then executed. He was killed as part of a military operation. We do that all the time. We bomb terrorists, use drone strikes against terrorists, shoot at them from helicopters, have our troops shoot at them, etc. This is no different, except that he happened to be a high profile target. Exactly. He wasn't a prisoner of war. He was killed during a military operation. Apparently some people in this forum think that during say WWII, the allies wouldn't have tried to kill Hitler if they knew his whereabouts. It's complete idiocy. Obama could have just as well ordered a bomb dropped on that compound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 (edited) --- Edited May 10, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) Useless for who...Canada? Don't worry, we did it without you! useless for the u.s. and harmlfull to the world. even if you don't care, it matters to me that someone's action can hurt people outside of my borders. Edited May 10, 2011 by bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 still not finding it strange that there is no evidence, not even a photo, that he was killed? still not finding it strange that he was immediately dumped into the sea where no one will ever find the mysterious osama? anyone scratch their head when the supposed was released by the cia?do all of these to you people or do you people see the obvious difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 useless for the u.s. and harmlfull to the world. even if you don't care, it matters to me that someone's action can hurt people outside of my borders. Then worry about your own war dingle berries first. Then you can start minding America's business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 still not finding it strange that there is no evidence, not even a photo, that he was killed? still not finding it strange that he was immediately dumped into the sea where no one will ever find the mysterious osama? The USA can find him....just ask Air France! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 Exactly. He wasn't a prisoner of war. He was killed during a military operation. Apparently some people in this forum think that during say WWII, the allies wouldn't have tried to kill Hitler if they knew his whereabouts. It's complete idiocy. Obama could have just as well ordered a bomb dropped on that compound. Osama gets the bullet, all other terrorists captured get held at GITMO or they get a trial, or they end up getting released. And all of a sudden NOW Pakistan is making a stink about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 Obama could have just as well ordered a bomb dropped on that compound. That's a good point. With all the crap that occurs everyday, the huge debate over taking OBL alive or dead is odd. US drones strikes into Pakistan have killed approximately 2000+ "bad guys" and civilians over the last several years. Who knows how many surrendering/unarmed terrorists and/or Taliban have been popped without trial. Who cares, right? And i agree with Tim, a trial would be pointless since the verdict would be predetermined. I'm more disturbed by the mobs of people celebrating a person's deaths like it was mardi gras. "Closure" my ass. Justice my ass, it was cold-blooded vengeance. Scores of people find closure without needing somebody dead. I'm also having a grand ole time watching Obama admin spin this situation to his political gain, while the gov is having major problems getting their stories straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 Osama gets the bullet, all other terrorists captured get held at GITMO or they get a trial, or they end up getting released. Actually no. Many get killed as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 He wasn't a prisoner yet. That's the whole point. He wasn't captured and then executed. He was killed as part of a military operation. We do that all the time. We bomb terrorists, use drone strikes against terrorists, shoot at them from helicopters, have our troops shoot at them, etc. This is no different, except that he happened to be a high profile target. Exactly. Furthermore, he wasn't shot in the process of surrendering, and I would say the fact that he had armed guards that shot and jumped in front of him to protect him would contradict the idea that 'he wasn't resisting capture.' The expectation that the SEALS were required to pause their military operation to determine if bin Laden himself was personally armed or not could very well have proven deadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 Exactly. Furthermore, he wasn't shot in the process of surrendering... Of course he wasn't. The order was to kill him. He was not to be taken alive, period. Why the American's didn't simply use a drone for the execution is most telling. They can risk the lives of good soldiers to ID him and then execute him rather than rely on their digital cameras from their drones to do the same thing. Yes, a marvelous way to keep the Seals out of harms way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 ....Why the American's didn't simply use a drone for the execution is most telling. They wanted to ID him with DNA....this works dead or alive...just like in the Old West. SEAL teams get paid to do very dangerous things...they like it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 This steps into oxymoron territory, as "mainstream broadcasting" implies some level of commercial success. Air America radio struggled to stay viable with sponsorship from 2002 to 2010 in direct response to the success of conservative talk radio formats and the 2000 presidential election, but ultimately failed in the marketplace. There is no shortage of "left wing" print media to the extent that it still exists in the age of alternate media choices. The Utne Reader is still published after 25 years. From what I've read, Air America wasn't planned very well right from the start. The first problem they had is that deregulation of radio and TV broadcasting allowed a handful of companies to swoop in and buy up virtually every independent station across the Country. Air America's owners didn't have a lot to choose from when they started up. And they got into some bad PR disasters with moves such as buying up a number of small black, inner city radio stations....so, they lost whatever black audience they could have found with those kind of moves. And most of the people they hired -- like Al Franken, and Jeaneane Garafalo, had no experience in radio. As I recall, Randi Rhodes was the only one of their original lineup who actually was doing a radio talk show when Air America first started. And this isn't just about advertising dollars and market share -- when it comes to motivations, the right wing corporate owners of most of the radio stations are in it for reasons that go beyond making money. For example, the largest one -- Premiere Radio Network, has dozens of conservative radio programs syndicated across their a.m. stations, like Limbaugh, Hannity and Glenn Beck, but no liberals or non-rightwing fanatics doing newstalk shows. The most successful liberal/progressive talk show host -- Thom Hartmann, beats Limbaugh in many urban major markets, even though his syndicator is carried by lower power a.m. stations. Like the Koch Brothers, the owners of most of America's a.m. stations are in it for more than the money! The talkers they carry, promote their conservative business agenda, and they are willing to lose money on them for propaganda purposes alone. The programs on the left of the political spectrum have to pay their own way...the right talkers stay on even if they're losing money for the company! Public broadcasting does not necessarily equate to a "leftist" agenda. College and university radio stations are more concerned with trendy topics and student issues, which may or may not align with the left. Until recently, PBS had been able to stave off criticism until the cover got blown off. College radio programs that discuss politics are certainly a lot further to the left than what's on commercial radio. They seem to go out of their way to carry programming that is not offered on commercial radio. For example, I noticed when I started collecting podcasts a few years ago, that most of the atheist and secular humanist programs were coming from college radio stations. During the off hours, local radio stations will give time away cheap to religious broadcasters; but they sure as hell don't offer a similar deal to atheists or humanists. The joke is any expectation otherwise. Obviously Fox has been very successful in attracting and keeping audience share. The left has been unable to compete where it counts in that business.....at the bottom line. Bottom line is Rupert Murdoch was willing to lose half a billion dollars on the Fox News Channel before it started turning a profit. And just like radio, the problem here is that someone on the left, like Thom Hartmann, is going to say a lot of things that corporate owners and advertisers don't want to hear. Criticizing globalization, the growing legal power of corporate citizens, corporate ownership of politicians and the political system, are not themes that the Murdochs and Kochs want to give a forum to, even if they can make a dollar on it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 From what I've read, Air America wasn't planned very well right from the start.... And they got into some bad PR disasters with moves such as buying up a number of small black, inner city radio stations....so, There are lots of excuses for Air America's failures, but the bottom line is that a direct competitor to "right wing" broadcast and satellite radio failed miserably in the marketplace where ideas are pitched for ad revenue. .....the owners of most of America's a.m. stations are in it for more than the money! The talkers they carry, promote their conservative business agenda, and they are willing to lose money on them for propaganda purposes alone.... Errrr.....OK...then why isn't the "left" willing to do so? Bottom line is Rupert Murdoch was willing to lose half a billion dollars on the Fox News Channel before it started turning a profit. And just like radio, the problem here is that someone on the left, like Thom Hartmann, is going to say a lot of things that corporate owners and advertisers don't want to hear.... He's not losing that money on FoxNewsCorp anymore. If "someone on the left" can't compete with capital and/or ideas, then they lose. It's not complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 I think a major reason Air America failed is because it didn't have a large audience, and I think it didn't have a large audience because too many people on the left aren't interested in a biased media outlet. I don't care to listen to someone rant about the Right anymore than I care to hear someone rant about the Left. Apparently more on the Right do enjoy that sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 Then worry about your own war dingle berries first. Then you can start minding America's business. who said i'm not worried about my own war dingle berries? america's business effects the world, so what they do is as much my business as yours. capiche? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 They wanted to ID him with DNA....this works dead or alive...just like in the Old West. who ID'd him? the same CIA that forged evidence before the iraq war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 Pakistan took over a week to complain about the Osama killing .. but only a couple days after the drone attack. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/south/Pakistan-Says-US-Drone-Strike-Killed-8-Militants-121378019.html Pakistani intelligence officials say a U.S. missile attack close to the Afghan border has killed at least eight people. Friday's strike from a U.S. drone was the first since the raid that killed Osama bin Laden May 2.Authorities say the aerial drone attack targeted a compound in North Waziristan, a stronghold of Taliban and al-Qaida militants on the border with Afghanistan. U.S. drone strikes against militants based in Pakistan's tribal region have been a source of friction between the two countries. The strikes are extremely unpopular in Pakistan because of the perception of high civilian casualties from the attacks and because many Pakistanis feel they are a violation of their country’s sovereignty. U.S. officials say the missile attacks target militants along the Afghan border I'd like to DNA those 'militants' to make sure we got the right people. But there is a lot of collateral damage! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 who ID'd him? the same CIA that forged evidence before the iraq war? His sister.....she works for the CIA. The Iraq War #2 is over...Canada watched it on American television. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 who said i'm not worried about my own war dingle berries? america's business effects the world, so what they do is as much my business as yours. capiche? Nope...but I understand that some people just like to watch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) I think a major reason Air America failed is because it didn't have a large audience, and I think it didn't have a large audience because too many people on the left aren't interested in a biased media outlet. I don't care to listen to someone rant about the Right anymore than I care to hear someone rant about the Left. Apparently more on the Right do enjoy that sort of thing. I get the same impression. There's a relatively small market for "right-wing bashing," which appears to be already filled. So not much appetite for more. But on the other end of the spectrum, where "the Left!" is a cherished topic of disdain, the appetite is insatiable, it seems. Edited May 11, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) I think a major reason Air America failed is because it didn't have a large audience, and I think it didn't have a large audience because too many people on the left aren't interested in a biased media outlet. I don't care to listen to someone rant about the Right anymore than I care to hear someone rant about the Left. Apparently more on the Right do enjoy that sort of thing. Too many people on the left aren't interested in a biased media outlet??? The MSM is mostly biased left. It has a very large audience that is of the opinion that Fox lies. If it isn't large it sure is noisy. My impression is that the MSM ignored and looked down their noses at the right wing for the longest time. I was always amazed at Hillary Clinton's complaining about the right wing media. I guess next to her all the media appears right wing. It isn't that the right enjoys listening to someone rant about the left. It is more about finally having a voice at all. I know when I first came across Fox news a few years ago I was ecstatic that someone was actually calling the left to task and not just accepting and promoting their bunk. Of course, Reagan did a lot to get people actually looking at and challenging the left. Rush Limbaugh came on the scene in the late eighties and that was the start of right wing radio talk shows. His popularity encouraged others and the birth of Fox news. According to the left, is their any other station that lies like Fox or do they prefer getting the truth from honest media like MSNBC? Who else in the media is the left ranting about being biased? If they aren't ranting against the right it's because if they enjoy left wing media they haven't woken up yet to the fact that the right wing media now has a voice. Edited May 11, 2011 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.