[Clintons Are White Trash]

Let me try that link again...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1455036&mesg_id=1455036

[steveegg]

Where do they come up with these things????

The more-important question is "What are they smoking/snorting/shooting up when they come up with these things?"

[jbstrick]

This thread will be pulled any momen....

[trussell]

Wow, I forgot the tin foil. I think I got a radiation burn!!

[trussell]

I NEED A

[elbucko]

"Holy Crap - Grab the Tin Foil and Follow Me to DU!!"

The headline is worth it for the chuckle.

[InvisibleChurch]

online drug use should be unallowed

[mhking]

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[Bikers4Bush]

Anyone who honestly believes that should be forcibly put on heavy drugs.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

A more important question is: why do we care what they think? The dims should be debunked, exposed and destroyed as soon as possible. I wish it it was an assasination attempt on lil kim. That psycho bastard has it coming. Do the demopaths know how he and his red friends have destroyedthat country? The sooner north korea comes back to the real world, the better off we'll all be.

[Grampa Dave]

Why not blame GW for this they blame him for everything else that has happened in the last 50 years.

Heck, even Alan Dershowitz says that it is legal to kill terrorist chieftains.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1123079/posts

Killing terrorist chieftains is legal
Jerusalem Post ^ | 4-23-04 | ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ


Posted on 04/23/2004 6:03:04 AM PDT by SJackson


I challenge Jack Straw to distinguish Israel's killing of Rantisi from the targeting of Al-Sadr, Saddam's sons, or Osama bin Laden

The United States Army was recently given a highly specific military order. According to the top US commander in Iraq, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, the mission is to kill radical Shi'ite Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

This order to target al-Sadr for extrajudicial killing is perfectly legitimate and lawful under the laws of war. Al-Sadr is a combatant, and it is proper to kill a combatant during an ongoing war unless he surrenders first. It doesn't matter whether the combatant is a cook or bomb-maker, a private or a general. Nor does it matter whether he wears an army uniform, a three-piece suit, or a kaffiyeh. So long as he is in the chain of command, he is an appropriate target, regardless of whether he is actually engaged in combat at the time he is killed or is fast asleep. Of course, his killing would be extrajudicial. Military attacks against combatants are not preceded by jury trials or judicial warrants.

Al-Sadr fits squarely into any reasonable definition of combatant. He leads a militia that has declared war on American and coalition forces, as well as on civilians, both foreign and Iraqi. He is at the top of the chain of command, and it is he who presses the on-off button for the killings. Like Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar Mohammed, he is a proper military target, so long as he can be killed without disproportional injury to non-combatants.

If American forces can capture him, they are permitted that option as well, but they are not required - under the laws of war - to endanger the lives of their soldiers in order to spare Al-Sadr's life. Indeed, unless Al-Sadr were to surrender, it is entirely lawful for American troops to kill him rather than to capture him - if it were decided that this was tactically advantageous.

Although US commanders mentioned capture along with killing as an option, it may well be preferable not to capture Al-Sadr, for fear that his imprisonment would stimulate even more hostage-taking in an attempt to exchange hostages for Al-Sadr. The order to kill or capture him may well be a euphemism for "kill him unless he surrenders first" (as Saddam Hussein did).

The world seems to understand and accept the American decision to target Al-Sadr for killing, as it accepts our belated decision to try to kill Bin Laden and Mullah Omar Mohammed. There has been little international condemnation of America's policy of extrajudicial killing of terrorist leaders. Indeed, the predominant criticism has been that we didn't get Bin Laden and Mullah Omar Mohammed before September 11.

HOW THEN to explain the world's very different reaction to Israel's decision to target terrorist leaders, such as Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the former leaders of Hamas. Surely, there is no legal or moral difference between Yassin and Rantisi on the one hand, and Al-Sadr on the other. Yassin and Rantisi both personally ordered terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, approved them in advance, and praised them when they succeeded.

Each was responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths and was involved in ordering and planning more terrorist attacks at the times of their timely deaths. They were terrorist commanders, just as Al-Sadr was. They were both killed, along with their military bodyguards, in a manner that minimized civilian casualties, despite the fact that they generally - and unlawfully - hid among civilians, using them as human shields.

Israel waited until they, and their fellow terrorist guards, were alone and then targeted them successfully. There was no realistic possibility of capturing them alive, since they had sworn to die fighting; and any attempt to extirpate them from the civilians among whom they were hiding would have resulted in numerous civilian casualties. (Israel does try to capture terrorist commanders in the West Bank, where it has large numbers of troops on the ground; but it employs targeted killings in Gaza, where it has a far more limited military presence.)

Reasonable people can disagree about whether the decision to target Yassin, Rantisi, Al-Sadr, Bin Laden, or any other terrorist is tactically wise or unwise, or whether it will have the effect of reducing or increasing the dangers to civilians. But no reasonable argument can be made that the decision to target these combatants - these terrorist commanders - is unlawful under the laws of war or under international law.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was simply wrong when he declared that targeted assassinations of this kind - specifically referring to the killing of Yassin and Rantisi - are unlawful and in violation of international law. And he knows it because his own government has authorized the killing of terrorist leaders who threaten British interests.

I challenge Straw to distinguish Israel's killing of Yassin and Rantisi from the coalition's targeting of Al-Sadr, Saddam Hussein and his sons, Osama bin Laden, and Mullah Omar Mohammed.

He could not do so. Any claims that Hamas is divided into military and political (or religious) wings is belied by the fact that Yassin and Rantisi both ordered the military wing of Hamas to engage in acts of terrorism and approved specific murderous acts in advance.

If Straw cannot distinguish these situations, then does he disapprove of the American policy of killing Al-Sadr? If British troops were to have Al-Sadr - or, for that matter, Bin Laden - in their sights, would they hold their fire because Straw has told them it would be illegal to pull the trigger?

We have a right to know the answers to these questions, since American and British troops are supposedly operating under the same rules of engagement. Or would Straw simply (and honestly) say he is not applying the same rules to Israel as he is to his own nation and its military allies?

The international community cannot retain any credibility if it continues to apply a different, and more demanding, standard to Israel than it does to more powerful nations.

The writer is a professor of law at Harvard. His latest book is The Case for Israel.

[Pippin]

Crazy!

Thos people at DU are crazy as loons!

[Pan_Yans Wife]

humor ping

[Fzob]

The DU brain trust in action.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=10642

Just read the article, and there you have it to the second:

http://www.breakfornews.com/sears.htm


"Now, if you want to get REALLY serious and super technical, I'll figure out the EXACT time, but with the exact decimals.

911 minutes equals 15.1833333333333333333333333333 hours (Simply divide 911 by 60)

Now, to be precise: .18333333333 is in terms of hours, not minutes (like 15:18) so technically the time of 3:18 is off - but watch and see what the EXACT technical numbers are:

15.183333333333333333 hours is equal to 15 hours and 11 minutes, exactly.
15 hours and 11 minutes in military time is 15:11 or 3:11 PM
The Spain attacks were on 3-11.

Again, simply multiply .1833333333333333333 X 60 to calculate the 11 minutes.

911 Hours AND 911 minutes included, the exact date and time after September 11th would be 3:11 PM on 4-19-2004

3:11 PM on 4-19-2004 is exactly 911 days and 911 hours after September 11th.

But we have to include the exact seconds as well to finish out the exact time...

3:11 PM + 15.18333333333333333333333333 minutes (911 seconds) equals 3:26 PM and again, the .1833333333 turns into 11 seconds.

So, finally we have the EXACT date and time:
911 days, 911 hours, 911 minutes and 911 seconds after September 11th
is EXACTLY (to the second) 3:26:11 PM on 4-19-2004"


It says 3:26:11 PM on April 19:th...

[Fzob]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x11066

Wow, I hit the mother lode of kooks and wackjobs. I gotta stop by there more often. These idiots are dangerous

11066, So...what is the Mossad doing in Iraq...?
Posted by kalian on Fri Apr-23-04 12:15 PM

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/11/Mossad_agents_killed.html

:shrug:

Too bad for them.
11067, If accurate....
Posted by ewagner on Fri Apr-23-04 12:17 PM

Mossad presence in Iraq will only fuel the fire of the Islamic revolt.
11070, I believe they also fueled the invasion from the git-go.
Posted by TacticalPeak on Fri Apr-23-04 12:34 PM

Apparently, through the Office of Special Plans. I suspect that US laws and regularions may have been breached by the sloppy security procedures, etc.

In fact, the scam behind the forged yellowcake docs has yet to be revealed, although I understand that a grand jury is looking into that. And there are a few intel items, particularly with the Brits, where an 'unnamed third country' is the convenient corroboration.

Come to think of it, the forged docs may be too amateurish for the Mossad. The farm team, peraps?


11068, Well ....
Posted by Trajan on Fri Apr-23-04 12:26 PM

The Israeli's need fuel, so why not steal it ( with the aid and abettance of the US stooges in Iraq ) ???

The primary thrust into Iraq was compelled by Likudnik interests in the US .... the PNAC/AEI/JINSA/AIPAC cabal .... They intend to run a pipeline through Jordam and into Israel: whether the Iraqi people like it or not ...

I suppose the invasion and occupation of a sovereign state for the primary purpose of the subjugation of its people and the forced extraction of precious materials from that state doesnt strike the Likudniks as being amoral ....

Fancy that ...
11069, Well, whatever they were doing ,
Posted by fallenwood on Fri Apr-23-04 12:29 PM

they were apparently not doing it
secretly enough !

[ladyinred]

Their only point of reference on US President's was Body Count Clinton and his gangsta wife! They don't know most President's don't do these evil deeds! :-)

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

WHAAAT???