Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Nidel Hasan is a Dead Man

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 3:02:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.cnn.com...

"The evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter," Hasan told the panel that will decide his fate. "The evidence presented with this trial will show one side. The evidence will also show that I was on the wrong side. I then switched sides."

This is about as picture perfect a case of treason as one can imagine.

Any disagreement?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 7:27:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 3:02:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"The evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter," Hasan told the panel that will decide his fate. "The evidence presented with this trial will show one side. The evidence will also show that I was on the wrong side. I then switched sides."

This is about as picture perfect a case of treason as one can imagine.

Any disagreement?

Yeah but they won't charge him with treason because they want to keep up the illusion that this was just a random work place shooting conducted by a disgruntled employe so that they can maintain the charade that radical Islam is not a threat and the enemy is beaten and this was not a terrorist attack.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 9:37:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 7:27:53 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/6/2013 3:02:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"The evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter," Hasan told the panel that will decide his fate. "The evidence presented with this trial will show one side. The evidence will also show that I was on the wrong side. I then switched sides."

This is about as picture perfect a case of treason as one can imagine.

Any disagreement?

Yeah but they won't charge him with treason because they want to keep up the illusion that this was just a random work place shooting conducted by a disgruntled employe so that they can maintain the charade that radical Islam is not a threat and the enemy is beaten and this was not a terrorist attack.

I think most people who defend Islam do so out of 1st amendment reasons, while fully acknowledging that Islam has a radical, extremist, and para-militist bent that conducts operations against the US. Do you disagree with such a statement?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 9:38:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 7:35:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
He'll die of old age. They might as well give him a life sentence.

IMHO this has death penalty written all over it - if not this, I can't imagine anything else outside of being Saddam. By refusing council, he is from what I can tell foregoing an insanity plea, and I'm not certain a court-martial would allow for such a plea to begin with.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 9:40:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 9:37:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:27:53 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:

Yeah but they won't charge him with treason because they want to keep up the illusion that this was just a random work place shooting conducted by a disgruntled employe so that they can maintain the charade that radical Islam is not a threat and the enemy is beaten and this was not a terrorist attack.

Also, if such a charade exists, I would say that its execution is extremely poor, with the recent embassy closings, Snowden leaks, and Benghazi still in everyone's mind, all of which is directly tied to radical Islam.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 9:46:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 9:37:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:27:53 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/6/2013 3:02:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"The evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter," Hasan told the panel that will decide his fate. "The evidence presented with this trial will show one side. The evidence will also show that I was on the wrong side. I then switched sides."

This is about as picture perfect a case of treason as one can imagine.

Any disagreement?

Yeah but they won't charge him with treason because they want to keep up the illusion that this was just a random work place shooting conducted by a disgruntled employe so that they can maintain the charade that radical Islam is not a threat and the enemy is beaten and this was not a terrorist attack.

I think most people who defend Islam do so out of 1st amendment reasons, while fully acknowledging that Islam has a radical, extremist, and para-militist bent that conducts operations against the US. Do you disagree with such a statement?

Oh of course your right on that and I wasn't making that claim. I'm fully aware that 95% of Muslims are regular people. I was just stating that Maj Hasan clearly falls under that 5%.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 9:52:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 9:40:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/7/2013 9:37:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:27:53 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:

Yeah but they won't charge him with treason because they want to keep up the illusion that this was just a random work place shooting conducted by a disgruntled employe so that they can maintain the charade that radical Islam is not a threat and the enemy is beaten and this was not a terrorist attack.

Also, if such a charade exists, I would say that its execution is extremely poor, with the recent embassy closings, Snowden leaks, and Benghazi still in everyone's mind, all of which is directly tied to radical Islam.

Yes, WE know that these things are radical Islam related. And yes their execution is very poor but it still works on too many ignorant people. We have almost the entire current administration claiming that Benghazi was due to some stupid video and a protest that's it out if control and we have the president calling the search for answers of why our men were abandoned there a "phony scandal to distract us from the real issues." As I said they won't even acknowledge the Ft. Hood shooting as a terrorist attack. We have Obama lying t the American people that Al Qaeda has been defeated and what's legit of them are scattered and on the run and that there hasn't been a terrorit attack on the US since he took office and we know that these are all flat our LIES. The fact they we've shut down 22 embassy's and are evacuating all personal from Yemen shows that. As well as the rest of the attacks we've suffered. So is it poor execution of a charade? Yes. However their still trying to do it and that's just not acceptable.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 10:13:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 9:52:26 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/7/2013 9:40:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/7/2013 9:37:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/7/2013 7:27:53 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:

Yeah but they won't charge him with treason because they want to keep up the illusion that this was just a random work place shooting conducted by a disgruntled employe so that they can maintain the charade that radical Islam is not a threat and the enemy is beaten and this was not a terrorist attack.

Also, if such a charade exists, I would say that its execution is extremely poor, with the recent embassy closings, Snowden leaks, and Benghazi still in everyone's mind, all of which is directly tied to radical Islam.

Yes, WE know that these things are radical Islam related. And yes their execution is very poor but it still works on too many ignorant people. We have almost the entire current administration claiming that Benghazi was due to some stupid video and a protest that's it out if control and we have the president calling the search for answers of why our men were abandoned there a "phony scandal to distract us from the real issues." As I said they won't even acknowledge the Ft. Hood shooting as a terrorist attack. We have Obama lying t the American people that Al Qaeda has been defeated and what's legit of them are scattered and on the run and that there hasn't been a terrorit attack on the US since he took office and we know that these are all flat our LIES. The fact they we've shut down 22 embassy's and are evacuating all personal from Yemen shows that. As well as the rest of the attacks we've suffered. So is it poor execution of a charade? Yes. However their still trying to do it and that's just not acceptable.

Ok, that is interesting, I did not know about Obama's stance on this matter. Although, I will say that it would have been rather irresponsible for a trained lawyer to insinuate terrorist connections without proper intelligence or a conviction via fair trial, so there is good reason for Obama to refuse that acknowledgment. Yes, he could have talked around it to paint such a picture, and to my knowledge, he did. From his eulogy, after addressing the fallen, he immediately makes this statement:

"It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next."

And:

"In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis."
http://www.theatlantic.com...

This is an open acknowledgment that Islamic extremism was relevant to Ft. Hood by the POTUS.

Regardless, I repeat, it would be irresponsible for the POTUS, a trained lawyer, to call Ft. Hood a terrorist attack without intelligence, and in this case, a conviction via court-martial for a US soldier.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?