Ding Dong Imad Mughniyeh is Dead --- Your Reaction?

I'm absolutely not a supporter of Imad Mughniyeh & his ilk .... but what do you have to say about the ethics & the culpability of the president of the most powerful nation on the planet in instigating the "shocking & awing" of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens for no clear reason?

Perhaps the world will be a better place when he's gone, too?

And will he ever be brought to justice?

There are monsters & monsters ....

live by the sword die by the sword...

Re: Ding Dong Imad Mughniyeh is Dead --- Your Reaction?


Great news. One less inbred troglodyte murderer on the planet.



Berkeley flying its flags at half staff....

I think Mughniyeh and this president will be rooming in the same realm in the afterlife (assuming there is such a place).

You are free to draw moral equivalence between Mughniyeh and Bush. You would not be able to do so in a world governed by Mughniyeh and his pals, but who really cares about such trivial distinctions?

And this is a perfect example of why, literally, millions of people think persons such as you are entirely effed up.

I assume you feel there is a reservation in the same hellish room for Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Harry Truman, Franklin D Roosevelt, and Woodrwo Wilson.

If not, why not?

All responses to the poll are anonymous, but I would very much appreciate the person who responded with "Sadness" to explain why?

I promise will not pass judgment on your reasoning.

I'm wasn't alive when many of these presidents made their decisions, nor do I know enough of their histories to pass judgement., I can say that I don't believe Clinton, Carter, Nixon or Reagan (although not on your list) committed anything close to the evil the Bush administration has wrought. I think every life and limb lost in Iraq is a crime against humanity, and Bush & Co. did it all for greed and what they believed would be personal glory. It was pure hubris. It didn't have anything to do with getting Bin Laden or controlling terrorism. It had to do with a bunch of Big Shots salivating over power and being handed the greatest military force on earth to do their bidding. Trillions of our tax dollars spent on destruction and fueling hatred, I can think of no greater waste. This country and the world are going to pay for Bush's "sins" for generations to come.

Every American president has the opportunity to be great because of our resources and strengths. This president has chosen to bankrupt us of our morality, our finances, our dignity and our greatness. He is a disgrace to the office he holds. I hope there is justice somewhere in the universe, and I hope some day he will be held accountable.

The old time Republicans in my family have changed their party loyalty because of this smarmy administration.

And that's all I'm gonna say, because we can't change each other's mind.

Shock and Awe was not instigated. It was just pre-war propaganda to throw Saddam off from our real plan of attack.

Had Shock and Awe been instigated, it would not have been inflicted on innocents, except in cases of collateral damage.

What's interesting is that a thread about the person that planned the killing of Americans has been diverted, by some, to a thread about the United States. Can't people stay on topic?

Also, Israel denies responsibility. So, who else effected this? Is James Bond back?

I personally think it is Israel, since they didn't give up getting Eichmann. Notice there are no "thank-you's" directed towards Israel or whoever effected this. Does this mean western democracies are now scared to applaud the elimination of someone that killed Americans? I think President Reagan might be ashamed of us Americans for our reluctance to applaud whoever did this.

BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome. It's old, it's boring, I generally tend to ignore them.



Whether it was Israel, the CIA or Spongebob, I don't care. I'm just happy Imad is rotting in hell with his buddies.



I am speechless with admiration for whoever pulled this off. It's very, very good news and given the chance I would offer up a toast to the guys that managed to pull this off. I hope they got away safely.

It shouldnt surprise me that some people find personal entertainment from the killing of people, there is inactual fact no moral difference between group terrorism and state terrorism, aswell as those who follow either and gain staisfaction and pleasure out of death and mindless violence.

Here is an Israeli, yes an Israelis talking sense, (brace yourself if you are a neo-con lunatic) its an old article but very relevant.

We are either going to define ourselves in word and deed as civilized which means
guantanamo is out!
water boarding is out!
occupation is out!

and

Geeneva convention is in!
Human rights are in!
Ethicsl foreign policy is in!

or we can just say we are morally no different from crazed terrorists and stop pussy footing around.

personally I adhere to the first option.



Israel: Political Assassination and International Law
by Tanya Reinhart

Yediot Aharonot, 30 March 2004.
www.globalresearch.ca 31 March 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/REI403B.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An extensive discussion has already taken place in Israel regarding the cost-benefit ratio of Yassin's assassination. But the question of justice has hardly been raised.

According to international law, the execution of any person in an occupied territory is not allowed. The Geneva convention, born out of the horrifying experience of the second World War, sets limitations on the use of force even in times of war. The convention distinguishes between war and a state of occupation. Its fundamentals are, first, that occupied people are "protected", and that the occupier is responsible for their safety. Second, it determines that the occupied people have the right to fight for their liberation. International conventions are one of the means people have developed for self-preservation. Without them, there is a danger that the human race would annihilate itself - first the strong would wipe out the weak, and then each other.

During its 37 years of occupation, Israel has already violated every article of the Geneva convention. But what it did now is unprecedented. As Robert Fisk stated it in the British Independent, "for years, there has been an unwritten rule in the cruel war of government-versus-guerrilla. You can kill the men on the street, the bomb makers and gunmen. But the leadership on both sides - government ministers, spiritual leaders were allowed to survive." Even when the leader advocates violence and terror, the norm has been that he may be imprisoned, but not killed.

Ahmed Yassin viewed himself as struggling against the occupation. As reported in Yediot Aharonot, his demand was a full withdrawal of the Israeli army from the occupied territories, back to the borders of 1967. In 1993, Hamas agreed to the principles of the Oslo accords, but did not believe that Rabin would translate these principles into action, and urged the Palestinian people to remember that the occupation was not yet over. During the iron-fist period of Barak and Sharon, Yassin proposed a long term 'hudna' (cease fire), but he also believed that Israel would never end the occupation of its own will. "The enemy understands only the language of war, bombs and explosives" - he preached to his followers, and declared that "every Israeli is a target for us".

The Geneva convention recognizes the right of the occupied people to carry out armed struggle against the occupying army, but not to use terror against civilians. Terror has no moral justification, and is not defended by international law. But it is necessary that we Israelis examine ourselves in this regard as well. What other way do we leave open for the Palestinian people to struggle for their liberation? Along the route of the wall in the West Bank, a new form of popular resistance has been formed in the last few months. Palestinian farmers whose land is being robbed sit on the ground in front of the bulldozers, accompanied by the Israeli opponents of the wall - the veterans of the Mas'ha camp. What could be more non-violent than this? But the Israeli army shoots at sitting demonstrators, like in Tiennamen square.
The Israeli army blocks all options of non-violent resistance from the Palestinians. With the arrogant elimination of a leader and a symbol, as he was leaving a mosque, the army knowingly created a new wave of violence and terror. It is hard not to get the impression that terror is convenient for Sharon and the army. It enables them to convince the world that the Geneva protections do not apply to the Palestiians, because they have terrorists in their midst, and that, therefore, it is permitted to do anything to them.

Since September 11th, as part of its "war against terror," the U.S. has been pushing to destroy all defences provided by International law. But even the U.S. has not yet dared to publicly execute a spiritual-religious leader (of, for example, the Taliban in Afghanistan). Now Israel has determined, with U.S. blessing, that even this is permitted. Under military rule, Israel has become a leading force in the destruction of the very protections that humankind has established, out of World War Two, for its own preservation, protections that we too may need one day, as history has already shown us.

lol

Wow that's damned clever to morph my moniker to "fini."

But what does it mean? Are you Good Ole Dys cum Cicero or just a a-hole truncating my screen name?

(I bet you can guess which choice I favor.)