We areat war against radical Islam. Make no mistake about that. This guy engaged in combat against the US specifically fighting for that enemy. There is no dispute.Mekstizzle wrote:
It's not really a time of war and they're not really enemies of the US, not on a completely official level I don't think. It's abit more complex than that... it's a different situation then a regular war against regular people like WW2 or even Vietnam.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- So why is Nidal Hasan not rotting in a ditch yet?
no im not. all im saying is that these people are strong fighters and will never give up.Stubbee wrote:
androoz are you related to your Prime Minister Chamberlain? His policies worked so so so well prior to 1939.lowing wrote:
you make me sickandrooz wrote:
1. "Pull every last one of your soldiers, spies, security advisors, trainers, attachés, … out of every Muslim land from Afghanistan to Zanzibar …"
2. End "all support and aid, military, political, economic, or otherwise, to the 56-plus apostate regimes of the Muslim world, and abandon them to their well-deserved fate …"
3. "End all support, moral, military, economic, political, or otherwise, to the bastard state of Israel, and ban your citizens, Zionist Jews, Zionist Christians, and the rest from traveling to occupied Palestine or settling there. Even one penny of aid will be considered sufficient justification to continue the fight."
4. "… impose a blanket ban on all broadcasts to our region …"
5. "Free all Muslim captives from your prisons, detention facilities, and concentration camps, regardless of whether they have been recipients of what you call a fair trial or not."
Gadahn warned
"…your failure to heed our demands and the demands of reason means that you and your people will – Allah willing – experience things which will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11th, Afghanistan and Iraq".
we need to stop being stupid and just listen to them.
so we can either leave them alone or suffer the consequences that they will bring to us.
And yet in this case it was a US solider so that argument is irrelevant.androoz wrote:
no im not. all im saying is that these people are strong fighters and will never give up.
so we can either leave them alone or suffer the consequences that they will bring to us.
he was fighting for the same cause as the others it seems like.Pug wrote:
And yet in this case it was a US solider so that argument is irrelevant.androoz wrote:
no im not. all im saying is that these people are strong fighters and will never give up.
so we can either leave them alone or suffer the consequences that they will bring to us.
And swore an oath to the US army and the country, which included certain stipulations.
My thought - the guy is going to jail in the form of a psycho ward. He'll be determined insane.
My thought - the guy is going to jail in the form of a psycho ward. He'll be determined insane.
and yet the question of treason arises? gimme a breakandrooz wrote:
he was fighting for the same cause as the others it seems like.Pug wrote:
And yet in this case it was a US solider so that argument is irrelevant.androoz wrote:
no im not. all im saying is that these people are strong fighters and will never give up.
so we can either leave them alone or suffer the consequences that they will bring to us.
oaths to your god etc overrule those of the country you live in imo.Pug wrote:
And swore an oath to the US army and the country, which included certain stipulations.
My thought - the guy is going to jail in the form of a psycho ward. He'll be determined insane.
Then you don't fucking sign up for the military so you don't get in that situation.androoz wrote:
oaths to your god etc overrule those of the country you live in imo.Pug wrote:
And swore an oath to the US army and the country, which included certain stipulations.
My thought - the guy is going to jail in the form of a psycho ward. He'll be determined insane.
maybe he already planned out what he had to do in the name of god before joining the military.Pug wrote:
Then you don't fucking sign up for the military so you don't get in that situation.androoz wrote:
oaths to your god etc overrule those of the country you live in imo.Pug wrote:
And swore an oath to the US army and the country, which included certain stipulations.
My thought - the guy is going to jail in the form of a psycho ward. He'll be determined insane.
or was prepared anyway.
That would be the definition of treason.
But, also I believe he did try to get out of the military, which is why insanity will likely be his defense.
But, also I believe he did try to get out of the military, which is why insanity will likely be his defense.
Last edited by Pug (2010-03-08 12:50:03)
ta dahhhhhPug wrote:
That would be the definition of treason.
don't argue with a 14 year old
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
so be it.Pug wrote:
That would be the definition of treason.
But, also I believe he did try to get out of the military, which is why insanity will likely be his defense.
@stubbee, what does that have to do with anything?
Last edited by androoz (2010-03-08 12:52:38)
I will agree with anyone that is right. and as it appears right now, he is smarter than those of you who think this act was not treasonous.Stubbee wrote:
don't argue with a 14 year old
If he plays the crazy card, he'll likely not be convicted of treason, it might be something else.lowing wrote:
I will agree with anyone that is right. and as it appears right now, he is smarter than those of you who think this act was not treasonous.Stubbee wrote:
don't argue with a 14 year old
Or, they might just want the ordeal over and he'll get a plea bargain that might not include "treason".
I doubt, they are going to pussy foot around with this guy. they are going to send a message with him.Pug wrote:
If he plays the crazy card, he'll likely not be convicted of treason, it might be something else.lowing wrote:
I will agree with anyone that is right. and as it appears right now, he is smarter than those of you who think this act was not treasonous.Stubbee wrote:
don't argue with a 14 year old
Or, they might just want the ordeal over and he'll get a plea bargain that might not include "treason".
Probably, but I bet there's some fancy pants lawyer begging for the opportunity to make a name for itself (itself...see what I did there....)
No, to you that's how it is. Officially you're at war with various groups. Like AQ, and such. Here:lowing wrote:
We areat war against radical Islam. Make no mistake about that. This guy engaged in combat against the US specifically fighting for that enemy. There is no dispute.Mekstizzle wrote:
It's not really a time of war and they're not really enemies of the US, not on a completely official level I don't think. It's abit more complex than that... it's a different situation then a regular war against regular people like WW2 or even Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_de … anizations
Even then, I'm not even sure you could consider most of those to be at a state of war with the USA, or vice versa. I don't even remember anyone declaring war in the same way that war was declared on Germany or Japan. It'll be interesting to see what the US considers itself and its combatants in this whole mess. I'm pretty sure that they haven't signed a declaration of war against "Radical Islam" because that doesn't seem correct at all.
On top of that, lowing, I don't remember reading that this guy had any links to any of the banned groups. That would then mean that he was basically a lone gunman. Ideologies may have been based on radical Islam, but the US isn't at war with radical Islam, not that I'm aware of. It's not enough to identify him as treason especially with military rules/court martial etc.. coming into play.
Now remember that topic that ATG made about that American guy who was with AQ in Pakistan. That would be treason, most likely. The guy was specifically with a terror group. Working with and for them directly.
Back to whether it's officially a war or not, from what I gather it's more of an authorisation of Military engagements rather than declaration of war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio … y_CongressIn other instances, the United States has engaged in extended military combat that were authorized by Congress, but short of a formal declaration of war.
I'm only saying this so people realise that the reality is that they're not actually in a continual state of war with crazy Muslims in the same way they were against crazy Germans and Japanese. It's far too complex of a matter to be that simple. People like lowing and such wish it was, but it ain't and it never will be
No "people like lowing" remove the blinders of political correctness and call a spade a spade. We are at war with radical Islam. If you choose to accept that reality or not is entirely a different matter.Mekstizzle wrote:
No, to you that's how it is. Officially you're at war with various groups. Like AQ, and such. Here:lowing wrote:
We areat war against radical Islam. Make no mistake about that. This guy engaged in combat against the US specifically fighting for that enemy. There is no dispute.Mekstizzle wrote:
It's not really a time of war and they're not really enemies of the US, not on a completely official level I don't think. It's abit more complex than that... it's a different situation then a regular war against regular people like WW2 or even Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_de … anizations
Even then, I'm not even sure you could consider most of those to be at a state of war with the USA, or vice versa. I don't even remember anyone declaring war in the same way that war was declared on Germany or Japan. It'll be interesting to see what the US considers itself and its combatants in this whole mess. I'm pretty sure that they haven't signed a declaration of war against "Radical Islam" because that doesn't seem correct at all.
On top of that, lowing, I don't remember reading that this guy had any links to any of the banned groups. That would then mean that he was basically a lone gunman. Ideologies may have been based on radical Islam, but the US isn't at war with radical Islam, not that I'm aware of. It's not enough to identify him as treason especially with military rules/court martial etc.. coming into play.
Now remember that topic that ATG made about that American guy who was with AQ in Pakistan. That would be treason, most likely. The guy was specifically with a terror group. Working with and for them directly.
Back to whether it's officially a war or not, from what I gather it's more of an authorisation of Military engagements rather than declaration of war.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio … y_CongressIn other instances, the United States has engaged in extended military combat that were authorized by Congress, but short of a formal declaration of war.
I'm only saying this so people realise that the reality is that they're not actually in a continual state of war with crazy Muslims in the same way they were against crazy Germans and Japanese. It's far too complex of a matter to be that simple. People like lowing and such wish it was, but it ain't and it never will be
Yeah, there are people on both sides that will call it a war. I can see their reasoning. To me, it's not quite big enough for that just yet. Evidentially that's also the case for the governments...at least, officially.
It's not necessarily calling a spade a spade, it's calling a molehill a mountain. But it's all down to opinion really.
It's not necessarily calling a spade a spade, it's calling a molehill a mountain. But it's all down to opinion really.
I guess I will let hte death toll decide for me if this is a war or not..........................................Yup it appears to be a war.Mekstizzle wrote:
Yeah, there are people on both sides that will call it a war. I can see their reasoning. To me, it's not quite big enough for that just yet. Evidentially that's also the case for the governments...at least, officially.
It's not necessarily calling a spade a spade, it's calling a molehill a mountain. But it's all down to opinion really.
there is no specific war really because with this nidal guy they havent found any direct links to al qaeda, etc.lowing wrote:
I guess I will let hte death toll decide for me if this is a war or not..........................................Yup it appears to be a war.Mekstizzle wrote:
Yeah, there are people on both sides that will call it a war. I can see their reasoning. To me, it's not quite big enough for that just yet. Evidentially that's also the case for the governments...at least, officially.
It's not necessarily calling a spade a spade, it's calling a molehill a mountain. But it's all down to opinion really.
Doesn't have to be with Al Queda. He has direct links to radical Islam our enemy, with which we are at war.androoz wrote:
there is no specific war really because with this nidal guy they havent found any direct links to al qaeda, etc.lowing wrote:
I guess I will let hte death toll decide for me if this is a war or not..........................................Yup it appears to be a war.Mekstizzle wrote:
Yeah, there are people on both sides that will call it a war. I can see their reasoning. To me, it's not quite big enough for that just yet. Evidentially that's also the case for the governments...at least, officially.
It's not necessarily calling a spade a spade, it's calling a molehill a mountain. But it's all down to opinion really.
I'd be vaguely interested to see what your definition of 'at war' is, but I'm a bit scared to ask...lowing wrote:
Doesn't have to be with Al Queda. He has direct links to radical Islam our enemy, with which we are at war.
If you think the USA is 'at war' with radical islam then good luck---it's a war you'll never win. Like the war on drugs, the 'war on terror' (I assume that's the same thing you're referring to) will never be won, in fact is unwinnable...
And after he is court-martialed, he can be tried in Texas court for murder. And tried in federal court for murder since it was on a federal installation.lowing wrote:
He is a miltary in commited murder and treason on a military base. He is gunna be court martialed and hopefully lined up aganist a wall and shot.FEOS wrote:
Wrong. Service members can be tried under both UCMJ and criminal codes for the same crime.lowing wrote:
No he is an American terrorist that committed murder and treason during a time of war. Capital crimes on both accounts. He is held under the UCMJ not the Constitution. Different rules apply.
As stated before, American rules of jurisprudence still apply. He is still an American citizen who committed a crime on American soil and is therefore subject to American courts.
That's how it works.
But he won't be put to death by firing squad for two reasons:
1. That isn't the method of capital punishment in the federal system or in Texas.
2. He can't stand, as he's now a quadriplegic.
Like it or not, military members are still American citizens, lowing. Regardless of the heinous nature of their crimes. They still get the benefit of American courts and all the positive--and negative--that entails.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- So why is Nidal Hasan not rotting in a ditch yet?