Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Pettytyrant101]

Firstly I am not hiding from what Bin Laden has done-just the fact he will never be tried for those crimes in a court where justice can seen to be done. You cannt have justice out of a gun. There is a lot we do not know about what has happened since long before 9/11 which it might have been better for the world to know. And if its possible (and it was in this insant) then a legal Court procedure should be followed. If Bin Laden had gone down with his men fighting then fair enough- thats not a situation he could be arrested this was not such a situation however. That means there was a choice to be made and they choose execution- I simply think that is wrong and immoral, regardless of the crimes committed.

On the revolutions in the ME- well I thin people are people wherever they are- all the terrosist stuff has probably fuelled it more than any western interference- after all if the West thinks terrorism has been a problem its nothing to what those in MUslim countries have had to endure, there have been more terrorist attacks in Iraq since it got rid of Saddma than anywhere els ein the world I can think of.
I think the people there have had enough of being run by the religous extremes and realizing they can believe in their God, worship as they please in a secular society and noone has to bomb anybody.
That and they want tv, films, internet and everything else the rest of us enjoy and take for granted- seems fair enough to me.

On another side issue I see the US are thinking of releasing photos to prove its Bin Laden- is that not illegal under international law? -I seem to remember a similar fuss being made over pictures they released of Sadamm.

[odo banks]

(1) Osama. Risky venture. Not time to fiddle around. Osama (apparently) showed resistance. He's dead. Immoral killing or amoral killing? As to being brought to justice. I'm not now as certain as in my first post that a trial (costing millions) was unecessary. Footage of a trial then a public execution might have been better. Proof of his crimes might have opened the eyes of those who see our Western Societies as absolutely evil and Osama as Robin Hood. (Yes, the West is not perfectly saintly, and Osama, like Adolf, might have had some worthy traits - but I still despise the Osama's and Adolf's (and Ted Bundy's) of this world and largely believe in the Western way of things).

(2) We agree on the ME it seems. The ME majority don't believe the West and Democracy is perfect (it has it's own repressive " issues", just ask GB, and I agree with him on many of them, believe it ir not ); they just see it as being better form of rule than their own repressive systems of rule; especially women, I bet.

(3) I'm happy to believe Osama is dead. I don't personally need to see his photo. If showing it offends sincere Muslims, don't. If it only offends Terrorists, Lefties and Liberals, well, why not? International Law, all said and done, is only there to be trampled on when it suits whoever does the trampling (that's if there is a law of the type you are enquiring about, Mr Tyrant).

[Ringdrotten]

It has been confirmed (I think?) that he showed some resistance, but he was still unarmed. A bunch of Navy Seals guys with their bulletproof vests and rifles should be able to capture an unarmed man alive. The question is, were the others in the room armed? That may have complicated things and the killing would be more understandable. If none were armed, however, he should have been captured alive. Makes me wonder if the soldiers made it a little competition between themselves as to who would be the one to kill bin Laden

[Pettytyrant101]

Its been reported one of his wives was shot trying to get between the marines and BIn Laden- if his wife had to throw herself in the way doesn't exactly sound like he was surrounded by keen bodyguards.

[Mirabella]

It's hard to imagine a dutiful wife wanting to live if her husband was gone. And giving her life up to save her husband, full stop, is surely the appropriate thing to do. This Osama fellow had other wives to keep him happy anyway, so her sacrifice would have been small, surely... (Mind, I shouldn't like to have to share my husband with another hobbit. I guess, to my shame, I've become slightly more liberated since joining this Thread. The ladies here do seem quite 'independant', and forward too, and I confess (against my better judgment, I'm sure) to finding their loose morality quite attractive... in a way... Ooh I'm just being a silly woman now... aren't I, Petty? Please tell me I am! )

[Gandalf's Beard]

Osama bin Laden has been dead for years. I posted the following on a similar thread at The Leaky Lounge after some days of following the evolving narrative and the contemplation of such (which is why I hadn't posted on this topic here yet):

I don't believe that Osama is still alive at all. I believe he died years ago. I'm not on the same side as Right Wing "Deathers" either.

I think the current administration's fishy story about Osama bin Laden's alleged death is directly related to the last administration's fishy story about how the WTC's 3 buildings came down.

My hypothesis is that this is a brilliant ploy to capitalize on the lies of the Cheney administration and turn it around right back on the Republicans; which could not be disputed by the former members of the Cheney administration without compromising their own fibs, and opening a can of worms leading right back to their narrative regarding 9/11.

My present views are subject to change as more info comes in. But a lot of things just don't add up and the narrative keeps evolving. Footage of the "compound" shows very little damage and no bullet holes. So much for the heavy fire fight.

The original story was that bin Laden's body was dumped at sea, which later became "buried at sea", allegedly in concordance with Islamic tradition and out of "sensitivity" to Muslim feelings.

There is NO tradition of burial at sea in Islam. And "sensitivity" to Muslim feelings does not add up with violating any number of International Laws including the invasion of a Sovereign (Islamic) Nation, and carrying out an Assassination. Not to mention that now bin Laden is claimed to have been unarmed, he could have just as esily been captured and brought to trial. Why wasn't he?

The alleged DNA evidence was supposedly cross-checked with DNA samples of the rest of the bin Laden family. Which members of the bin Laden family (known buddies of the Bush and Cheney families) happily donated their DNA for confirmation that the alleged corpse was actually Osama?

Was anyone actually assassinated at all? Without a bullet riddled corpse to be examined by independent parties, there is no proof of death.

The Obama administration has now decided NOT to release photos of what they claim is a particularly gruesome corpse. Is this because the photos wouldn't actually be able to meet any standard of evidence that the corpse was actually Osama's (after all, it is alleged that bin Laden was shot in the head, possibly rendering him unidentifiable)? Or is it because they had no corpse to photograph?

Too many questions; not enough answers. Don't get me wrong; if this improves Obama's chances of being re-elected, I won't be disappointed. A Conservative Democratic administration is preferable to a Right Wing Tea Party administration as far as I'm concerned.

By the way Petty, regarding the topic we last discussed (before being rudely interrupted by the alleged assassination of bin Laden), I think you are right. If I ever return to the UK, I may choose to reside in good old Socialist Scotland.

GB

[Kafria]

Got me vote in!

Only just mind you, sat down watching telly at nine and suddenly thought ' eek! need to vote!' Good job the polling stations are open till 10!
And I do find it quaint that we still have paper registers to be crossed off on and a little booth, piece of paper and a pencil attached to the desk with string! ( I also find it funny that the no campaign say we need machines for AV, don't they think all the volunteers who sort and count slips at the moment can recognise numbers?)

[Pettytyrant101]

I voted this morning on my way to work- in what is most evenings a Dog Training Centre- seemd oddly appropriate for a voting station. And being a political anorak (and one who needs to switch round for nighshift anyway) I will probably be up most of the night watching the seats come in.
here of course we had constituent, list and AV votes to make- and we ddnt need any machines- pencil and paper did the job fine- just scare mongering of the worst sort from the No campaign- as most of their campaign seems to have been.

[Kafria]

completely agree, but the yes campign have been noticabley absent in my neck of the woods. There has also been very little fuss that I've seen!

Not just that, we also have counicl elections and I only found that out 2 days ago!

I am curious though, a number of english authorities are only electing a third of the seats? how does that work?

[Pettytyrant101]

Sounds odd- what about the rest of them?

[Kafria]

On the Beeb list of 200 and some it is either one third or all?

I am confused, for so many to be a third it mst be a regular thing, but if there is never a time when all are elected, there is never a real change is there?

[Pettytyrant101]

Is this just council elecion in England? I don't remember council elections here being done in thirds, but I could be wrong. All seems very odd- how are ou meant to iverturn the ruling goup on a council if only a third of the members are up for election at any given time? And why do it hat way?

[Kafria]

Quick internet search yielded this

I have recently been discussing with colleagues the advantages and disadvantages of ‘all up’ elections – all councillors standing every four years – compared with elections by ‘thirds’ – a third of councillors stand every year for three years, with one ‘fallow’ year.

http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=7582188

From an aritcle on why in thirds is a good idea, don't know why some do and some don't though!

[Kafria]

http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/local/governanceelections/electoralarrangements/

This gives which type of authority does what!
and the only other thing I've found

Understanding the cycle of elections for local authorities can be a complicated process for the
elector. Some authorities, such as metropolitan districts, elect one third of the council each
year. Others, such as county councils and London boroughs, elect the whole council every
four years. There are varying numbers of councillors per ward, even in the same local
authority. In contrast, all authorities in Scotland and Wales elect the full council on a three or
four year cycle. This diversity stems mainly from the accidents of history, but the review of
the structure of English local government undertaken by the Local Government Commission
for England (LGCE) in the 1990s did not seek to impose a uniform system of election- 17 of
the 46 unitary authorities created by the review chose to elect by thirds, for example.

From an old labour consultation paper on a uniform system!

[Pettytyrant101]

I didn't think it happened that way up here- it seems a bit mad.

[Kafria]

typical messed up system down here! and the first suggestion on turnout is as low as 10% in London

should voting be compulsory? can any vote with the low turnout of recent years really be considered represnetative?

[Pettytyrant101]

The tunrout up here is one of the factors I will be interested to see. After two weeks of beautiful weather it poured with rain today so that might effect things as well.

As to compulsory voting- I suppose it comes down to whether you think abstaining from a vote is a choice, and therefore equal to voting. And given in Parliament when a vote is taken an MP can abstain it might be a but hard to tell normal voters they can't abstain from a vote. So if it was introduced I think it would have to be introduced top to bottom.
That and some people (myself in the past) have not voted becasue I did not wish to be on the electoral register as I was not happy with the sorts of things the government can use the information for (things are fortuntely better now than back then). But if voting was compulsory thats a tempting database of information for a government to use, and for more than issueing voting cards.

[Kafria]

There is a difference between those who choose not to vote and what i suspect is the vast majority who can't be a*****! In light of the protests in the middle east for the right to a say in what is going on i find the low turnout incredibly sad.

by the way, are you getting better coverage of the scottish election? I am watching the interwebs election live, which is blathering on about the english council elections!

[Pettytyrant101]

BBc Scotland have an all night election programme on. You should be able to get it on the Iplayer live I should think. The early indications apprently are for a lower turnout than last elections-but with the caveat its very early yet to tell. First results here are not expected until about 2am. And for the island votes probably be into late tomorrow for some of them- and the PR bit means a takes longer to count than first past post votes.

[Kafria]

found it on BBc parliment no bbc scotland on the iplayer!

Have there been a lot of boundary changes? seems to be a lot of notional seats

[Pettytyrant101]

Yeah. Theres a whole load of new seats being fought which makes things unusual and unpredictable. At least it looks like the first result will be within the next half hour or so. East Kilbride- if memory serves a Labour safe seat traditionally.

The STVplayer should also have an election program if you want anything more tabloid! Scotland Decides is its grand title!

[Kafria]

ummmm do the politicians know the polls have closed? still at it hammer and tongs!!

Lib dems look like there in for a bad night all round!

[Pettytyrant101]

First seat in- a Labour hold but with a 7.2% swing to the SNP_ LIb Dem vote collapsed- seems to have gone to the SNP. Turn out was 42%

add- first big scalp of the night goes to the SNP. Andy Kerr, Labour, lost his safe seat of East Kilbride to the SNP. The Swing from Labour to SNP was 6.6% the turnout was 50%

-2nd big result of the night- another Labour safe seat lost to SNP with a swing of 11%- I think I am starting to see a pattern emerging here- bye, bye England, its been interesting.

- Scottish Labour leader Ian Gray (soon ex leader) is blaming the results so far on a collapse of the lib dem vote-the lib dems I see are doing just as well iin England, getting wiped out entirely in local council election in Manchester (I think thats where it was).

- the three candidates who have won for the SNP so far in the Labour heartlands are all women! One of them the youngest candidate in the SNP- she looks to these old eyes about twelve and not old enough to vote let alone stand but I assume she is in fact older.

- Flicked over to the English election coverage to find them discussing the Scottish results and dismissing the notion of Independence on the basis it would be decades off (if the SNP do win, as seems likely, they will hold a referendum on it towards the end of this 5 year parliament, so the manifesto says anyway) and also because at UK elections Scotland tends to vote Labour. As a bit of political thinking this is very shoddy. Why would we vote for a national party at a UK election? Its not like England, Wales and Northern Ireland are going to vote a Scottish party into UK rule is it? The two are completely seperate in Scottish minds. It seems like England is simply refusing to accept what is happening up here. Again.

[Kafria]

So it looks like big congrats to the SNP and possibility of an overall majority.
Lib dems bad night seems t have continued, lost about 200 councillors so far, but only control of 2 councils from those results in.
Turn out for AV vote looks to have been patchy, with as little as 10% quoted in London and upto 50% in other areas? well, roll on this evening to see exactly how that turned out.

[Pettytyrant101]

Yeah looks like a resurge for Labour in Wales, the death of the Lib-Dems everywhere (maybe they need to get a Cheeky Girl in) and a startling result for the SNP in Scotland-given when the Scottish Parliament was set up with the List MP's voting style Labour claimed at the time 'it would insure it was almost impossible for the Nationalists to ever get a majority' its one hell of an achievement if they do get one.

Back to Bin Laden and the story of what happened seems to have changed again. Now there was no firefight after all. Only one shot was fired and that was right at the start by Bin Ladens courier. It is clear as day America wanted to find and kill him- bringing him to justice was not an option.
And by carrying out a military operation within another soverign state without permission the US has flauted International Law yet again.
I can hear the arguments already- it was Bin Laden, the local authorities cold not be trusted- and that might be all true, probably is- but imagine it the other way round, a country dropping troops into America, moving into a compound shooting people and leaving, then rejoicing and celebrating in the streets about it when they got back- America would be outraged.

Back to local matters and the SNP as of 2pm Scotsdale time are on 62 seats- the magic number for an outright majority is 65. Getting close to it now.

Add- make that 63 seats, my own constituency vote just came in and went SNP. Looks like my vote wasnt wasted then!

'Oh Flower of Scotland, when shall we see, your likes again?
We went and voted, for wee Eck don't yi ken
And ripped the pish oot o' them,
Ian Gray and his tinpot army
And sent a message, tae think again.'