Merlot,
Thank you for the kind words. I wasn't talking about a wing of a political party ... I said liberals. But maybe you define liberals as a political party. I don't know how to create a link so I've cut and pasted some news articles for you:
MIT Professor emeritus and author Noam Chomsky believes the killing of bin Laden, a “planned assassination,” violates multiple international laws.
Judge Andrew Napolitano will make the case on radio tonight that the assassination of Osama bin Laden was an illegal act. And he’s not alone.
Rep. Dan Lungren, Calif., asked whether the bin Laden mission might have been illegal if it was aided by legally questionable interrogation techniques of prisoners at CIA sites around the globe.
So is my statement about liberals questioning the legality still absolute idiotic BULLSHIT?
Cheers,
StefanoUS
Well StefanoUS,
Your connection to any of these men actually being "Liberals" is.
Thanks for clarifying who you mean by "Liberals", which in the usual common parlance most often means Democrats or anyone who doesn't agree with Conservatives. I take it you meant the general philosophy, which doesn't work at all in your references anyway.
Links, all I was looking for was the url source copy of any evidence, like those I provided below.
First you misled about Judge Andrew Napolitano. He is a Libertarian Conservative defined as combining Conservative small government and Libertarian emphasis on "individual freedom" (keeping government influence out as much as possible. In 1975,
Ronald Reagan stated, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism". Napolitano also works as a political can legal analyst for Fox News. IE...
can it get more ANTI-LIBERAL than that.
Then by saying "Liberals are now saying that it was illegal to kill Bin Laden" you made a precise reference that the illegality was about the killing of the man, when on the video link here of Napolitano expressing exactly the real reference you mentioned, he was referring to the theoretical illegality of one nation crossing the borders of another sovereign nation to carry out attacks in it's territory.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/judg...-host-osama-bin-laden-was-illegally-murdered/
Noam Chomsky calls himself a Libertarian Socialist, which believes "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form—whether economic, political, religious, or sexual—brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised." Since “big government”and use of government to solve economic, political, religious, or sexual issues has been generally and closely associated with Liberals, justly or unjustly, Noam Chomsky is definitely a serious misfit anywhere near a “Liberal” label.
And for any guy like him who still believes there is no real proof to the fact that Osama Bin laden was director of 911...I would say that definitely puts him out on the extreme “fringe” I mentioned...even possibly among his own LIBERTARIANS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky
Your reference to Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif as a Liberal may be the worst characterization of the three yet. He just happens to be one of the very few Republicans representing of all states...California. His father was a close friend of Richard Nixon (Republican of Watergate infamy), and Dan Lungren was a co-founder of the Conservative Opportunity Society as well as having been one of
Newt Gingrich’s (Conservative pinup idol) “chief Lieutenants”.
On top of his core Conservative philosophies and associations, again, his objection to the killing of Osama was not about killing the man, but based on how the information was gained to proceed through the use of
torture...the real point of his contention.
Ironically, it was in response to Lungren, Eric Holder who worked for President Bill Clinton as U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and is currently the Attorney General of the United States chosen by President Obama, your best shot at finding a Liberal, said this past Tuesday “that the killing of Osama bin Laden marks historic progress by the U.S. government in protecting the American people from terrorism.” It seems this Liberal approves.
Even to be kind, I’d have to say that identifying any of the three men as a “Liberal” was as wrong, as was your representation of what any of them actually said.
Get your facts Merlot and don't just read storylines !
You forgot a lot about history !
Besides Al-Quaeda is an ideology to kill as many innocent people as possible !
LOL...I can assure you my certified credentials would supersede yours on matters of history by light years.
What I find most disturbing about many people, maybe the most disturbing thing, is that in being repulsed by insane terror and perverse inhumanity that degrades human lives into worthless disposable entities, they allow themselves to justify the same tactics as the beasts they despise.
BTW...Al Qaeda’s ideology is about breaking from the West to form a pure Islamic theocratic orthodox autocracy. Killing innocent people is a tactic.
What is astonishing is that 90% of Al-Quaeda's victims around the world were muslims. Yet, many look at him as a hero. Unbelievable!
It proves how much anger and hate against the West already existed, and how well the terrorists have made their propaganda work to excuse their tactics among many, but not all, Muslims.
Regarding the killing, any capture of Bin laden might have put the U.S. in the insane position of providing it's justice system to the world's leading terrorist with all inherent rights, and involved all the complications of national and world politics.
Doc,
I've been astonished for years! A year before his death, Malcolm X became an orthodox Sunni Muslim following a pilgrimage to Mecca. He was assassinated by members of the Nation of Islam on February 14, 1965.
True, but the assassination might have been more about the challenge to the personal supremacy of Elijah Muhammad among Blacks, rather than doctrinal differences.
Cheers,
Merlot
