Fort Hood

I will have to remain on the side of the prosecution.. but No love lost, between me and theee, Steady - :D

I suppose lawyers of the defense have a job to do.
They have to do whatever to defend the guy. Maybe
even fabricate the "truth" to save his butt

But this creep will not get off the hook. He's toast.
 
Steady,

Me defend him? Not a chance. As far as I'm concerned, with the eye witness', just sentence him to the max. Do the crime, do the time. Western justice. :D

Too many lawyers also. ;) Long cold day and a colder weekend coming up. Stay warm there my friend.

CB
 
Steady,

Me defend him? Not a chance. As far as I'm concerned, with the eye witness', just sentence him to the max. Do the crime, do the time. Western justice. :D

Too many lawyers also. ;) Long cold day and a colder weekend coming up. Stay warm there my friend.

CB


Thanks CB ~~~ You too :cool:

It's only because of this Nigerian guy getting all the press I even had this idea. For some reason I thought man, how would I handle this if I was his Defense Attorney.

I actually came up with a lot of ideas -- once I put myself in that situation.

So then of course I thought of gathering the best Defense Team ever and thought of all you -- but would now include FAB1 :toung:

Anyway --- sometimes you have to have a little fun and it's pretty cool trying to picture your alls expressions ...

Why I could see Birch and Buster just melting and everything....

Have a good one Bud.
 
I would offer this radical extremist creep six oxycodone vitamins to help him feel better - the least I could do.
 
If I was Cesar, I would argue that no one physically forced him to do it. He protested, made remarks, talked to a known sympathetic terrorist cleric. He brought not one but two weapons for the maximum kill.

Many people that object to going to war have a simple peaceful option thay can use.....................................refuse to train. Become a conscientious objector, do not murder 14 innocent souls.

<sound of Centurions dragging traitor into square to be crucified>


conscientious objector

One who opposes participation in military service, on the basis of religious, philosophical, or political belief. A feature of Western society since the beginning of the Christian era, conscientious objection developed as a doctrine of the Mennonites (16th century), the Society of Friends (17th century), and others. Exemptions may be unconditional, conditioned on alternative civilian service, or limited to combat duty. Those who refuse conscription may face imprisonment. Philosophical or political reasons are acceptable grounds for exemption in many European countries, but the U.S. recognizes only membership in a religious group that endorses pacifism.
 
Last edited:
Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and loyal citizen?


http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-oxymoron.htm


Islam is incompatible.
Peaceful Muslims is an oxymoron. They should be referred to as "inactive". And there are very few extremists. But there are extremists in all beliefs. Ft. Hood was nothing more than a person being "active" within his beliefs. It was not politically correct to challenge his beliefs during his training, but now, after the fact, we can hold military personnel accountable for supposed unacceptable performance.

We can't talk openly about this because the PC world won't allow it. If we do, we will get a negatie label.

If we disagree with executive orders for funding abortions world wide provided by the U.S., while Clinton is president we are labeled "far right" or something negative. If you oppose executive orders for funding abortions world wide provided by the U.S. while Obama is president you are labeled a "racist". :o:(
 
And if you brought up faulty intelligence in the Iraq war, you were labelled a traitor. Oh well.

Replace all the "Muslim" labels there with "Christian" or "Buddhist" and it also becomes correct, don't you think?

The point here is that there are many interests in this country who want to continue this stupid and immoral conflict with Islam. There's money to be made in it. Unfortunately, at a price tag of over a trillion dollars, we don't need it. The full employment economy would be better served by having people dig holes and fill them in again. It is useless.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16260.htm is a National Intelligence Estimate done on the US, and seems valid.
 
Last edited:
The New York Post....owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Yes, the New York Post......not the New York Times, AKA your bible. :nuts:

The point is, and has ALWAYS remained, that the former administration redirected resources from fighting Al-Qaeda to strengthening them. Unfortunately, people STILL just don't get it. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. You are partially correct. Clinton initiated bombing and what evolved into invasion and the law to remove saddam well before 9-11. In fact, our invasion of the country was counterproductive in the war on Al-Qaeda. It's as if he wanted to support Al-Qaeda in the Muslim world. Phil, people STILL don't get it and neither do you. Clinton initiated the bombing. Clintion signed the law. And what follows this statement as usual is your repeat of blaming the neocons, Bush, the administration after Clinton and anything you can put into a conspiracy theory that takes the blame away from a democrat/Clinton and places it on Bush.
The fox and the hound.

That was always the issue. In Iraq, the administration could transfer wealth to their own corporations. Finally, we have an administration that's honest and competent. If you can honestly look at Obama and the current administration and refer to them as honest and competent, you have ZERO ability to analyze anything from any point other than subjective. Pointing out facts to you about Obama is like telling the mother of a new born that her baby is ugly.:p

One who has an interest in ending this constant flow of money and resources to a useless endeavour. Yeah, by sending 30,000 troops to fight what? You are contradictory here from what I have read. But who knows maybe they will find bin laden before he orchestrates another attack on America.....whoops I keep forgetting the "big lie" or in your interpretation the "little flip flop" away from the "critical aspect of stamping out Al Qaeda by capturing or killing bin laden."
“I think it is a top priority for us to stamp out Al Qaeda once and for all. And I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out Al Qaeda.”​
"60 Minutes" interview, November 2008
 
The New York Post....owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Yes, the New York Post......not the New York Times, AKA your bible. :nuts:
You bet.

The point is, and has ALWAYS remained, that the former administration redirected resources from fighting Al-Qaeda to strengthening them. Unfortunately, people STILL just don't get it. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. You are partially correct. Clinton initiated bombing and what evolved into invasion and the law to remove saddam well before 9-11. In fact, our invasion of the country was counterproductive in the war on Al-Qaeda. It's as if he wanted to support Al-Qaeda in the Muslim world. Phil, people STILL don't get it and neither do you. Clinton initiated the bombing. Clintion signed the law. And what follows this statement as usual is your repeat of blaming the neocons, Bush, the administration after Clinton and anything you can put into a conspiracy theory that takes the blame away from a democrat/Clinton and places it on Bush.
The fox and the hound.

So.....It was Clinton who just spent over 700 billion of our dollars in Iraq? Hey, the neocons suckered Clinton also. Once bitten, twice warned.

What "law" did Clinton sign? All he did was listen to the neocons tell him about Chalabi. What a joke that was. The joke's on us.:laugh:

Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. No WMD in Iraq, no Al-Qaeda. Please do give me the quotes about Atta in Prague.

That was always the issue. In Iraq, the administration could transfer wealth to their own corporations. Finally, we have an administration that's honest and competent. If you can honestly look at Obama and the current administration and refer to them as honest and competent, you have ZERO ability to analyze anything from any point other than subjective. Pointing out facts to you about Obama is like telling the mother of a new born that her baby is ugly.

He's been left with two wars, and a broken economy. Enough said.

One who has an interest in ending this constant flow of money and resources to a useless endeavour.
Yeah, by sending 30,000 troops to fight what? You are contradictory here from what I have read. But who knows maybe they will find bin laden before he orchestrates another attack on America.....whoops I keep forgetting the "big lie" or in your interpretation the "little flip flop" away from the "critical aspect of stamping out Al Qaeda by capturing or killing bin laden."

Contradictory in what respect? Bin Laden's still not in Iraq. Hey, here's a plan! Let's take out Saddam Hussein instead, and pretend we got Bin Laden. Here's some video from one of your friends. Watch it. It's funny.....but somehow very very sad. The fact of the matter is, as anyone will tell you, the Iraq war was counterproductive to fighting Al-Qaeda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcDnJyc6-vo
 
The New York Post....owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Yes, the New York Post......not the New York Times, AKA your bible. :nuts:
You bet.

The point is, and has ALWAYS remained, that the former administration redirected resources from fighting Al-Qaeda to strengthening them. Unfortunately, people STILL just don't get it. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. You are partially correct. Clinton initiated bombing and what evolved into invasion and the law to remove saddam well before 9-11. In fact, our invasion of the country was counterproductive in the war on Al-Qaeda. It's as if he wanted to support Al-Qaeda in the Muslim world. Phil, people STILL don't get it and neither do you. Clinton initiated the bombing. Clintion signed the law. And what follows this statement as usual is your repeat of blaming the neocons, Bush, the administration after Clinton and anything you can put into a conspiracy theory that takes the blame away from a democrat/Clinton and places it on Bush.
The fox and the hound.

So.....It was Clinton who just spent over 700 billion of our dollars in Iraq? Thats right........ROOT CAUSE. Hey, the neocons suckered Clinton also. Once bitten, twice warned. In your world, the only way a democrat can be at fault for anything is if they are suckered and then in your reality they aren't really at fault at all.

What "law" did Clinton sign? "
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon August 9 that U.S. policy continues to be driven by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, which calls for a change of regime in Iraq.

Quoting from the legislation -- passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton -- the secretary said, "It is the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."


All he did was listen to the neocons tell him about Chalabi. What a joke that was. The joke's on us.:laugh:

Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. No WMD in Iraq, no Al-Qaeda. Clinton wasn't interested in WMD's.
"Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born high-school dropout whose leadership of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in Iraq, was killed along with several other people near the city of Baqubah, the officials said."
"Copying Osama bin Laden's leadership strategy, Zarqawi set up numerous semi-autonomous terrorist cells across Iraq, many of which could continue operating after his death." Please do give me the quotes about Atta in Prague.

That was always the issue. In Iraq, the administration could transfer wealth to their own corporations. Finally, we have an administration that's honest and competent. If you can honestly look at Obama and the current administration and refer to them as honest and competent, you have ZERO ability to analyze anything from any point other than subjective. Pointing out facts to you about Obama is like telling the mother of a new born that her baby is ugly.

He's been left with two wars, and a broken economy. Enough said.
He wasn't "left with" anything. He initiated a campaign intentionally seeking to take on what would become his responsiblities the day he entered office whatever good and bad that entailed. If only the "hope and change" rhetoric could have been backed up with solid previous experience and accomplishments to indicate the possibility of anything potentially positive occuring. Ugly, vedddy ugly baby! :toung:

One who has an interest in ending this constant flow of money and resources to a useless endeavour.
Yeah, by sending 30,000 troops to fight what? You are contradictory here from what I have read. But who knows maybe they will find bin laden before he orchestrates another attack on America.....whoops I keep forgetting the "big lie" or in your interpretation the "little flip flop" away from the "critical aspect of stamping out Al Qaeda by capturing or killing bin laden."

Contradictory in what respect? What are you telling me is a useless endeavor? Pakistan, Afghanistan, capturing bin laden......what? Bin Laden's still not in Iraq. Hey, here's a plan! Let's take out Saddam Hussein instead, and pretend we got Bin Laden. I wonder if that was what Clinton was thinking when he signe the law? Here's some video from one of your friends. Watch it. It's funny.....but somehow very very sad. The fact of the matter is, as anyone will tell you, the Iraq war was counterproductive to fighting Al-Qaeda. False statement!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcDnJyc6-vo

Where is the video?
 
Did I just read "honest" in reference to politics?? :nuts:

Do you really think politicians are fighting against each other? It's all a pro wrestling show up there.
 
So.....It was Clinton who just spent over 700 billion of our dollars in Iraq? Thats right........ROOT CAUSE. Hey, the neocons suckered Clinton also. Once bitten, twice warned. In your world, the only way a democrat can be at fault for anything is if they are suckered and then in your reality they aren't really at fault at all.

What "law" did Clinton sign? "
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon August 9 that U.S. policy continues to be driven by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, which calls for a change of regime in Iraq.

Quoting from the legislation -- passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton -- the secretary said, "It is the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Yes, but it doesn't say how much money we're going to waste on it, nor the number of people we're going to kill. 700 billion is a pricetag that the former administration did NOT approach the American people with. Clinton also listened to the neocons at the time, a fatal error. Never again! Talk about waste, this was the most wasteful Federal program in history. If it were Clinton, we wouldn't be spending this much on it. For so very little.



All he did was listen to the neocons tell him about Chalabi. What a joke that was. The joke's on us.:laugh:

Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. No WMD in Iraq, no Al-Qaeda. Clinton wasn't interested in WMD's.
"Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born high-school dropout whose leadership of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in Iraq, was killed along with several other people near the city of Baqubah, the officials said."
"Copying Osama bin Laden's leadership strategy, Zarqawi set up numerous semi-autonomous terrorist cells across Iraq, many of which could continue operating after his death."Is Zarqawi ALL you have? He wasn't even IN Iraq during 9/11. Even if he was, is THIS what we're going to base our involvement on. :laugh: Hey! You should be working for DIA!


He's been left with two wars, and a broken economy. Enough said.
He wasn't "left with" anything. He initiated a campaign intentionally seeking to take on what would become his responsiblities the day he entered office whatever good and bad that entailed. If only the "hope and change" rhetoric could have been backed up with solid previous experience and accomplishments to indicate the possibility of anything potentially positive occuring. Ugly, vedddy ugly baby! :toung:

We'll see. He still has to remove everything from Iraq, and of course try to repair our international reputation which was tarnished probably beyond hope by the former administration. And try to redirect a lot of resources from wasteful government spending.

Contradictory in what respect? What are you telling me is a useless endeavor? Pakistan, Afghanistan, capturing bin laden......what? Bin Laden's still not in Iraq. Hey, here's a plan! Let's take out Saddam Hussein instead, and pretend we got Bin Laden. I wonder if that was what Clinton was thinking when he signe the law? Here's some video from one of your friends. Watch it. It's funny.....but somehow very very sad. The fact of the matter is, as anyone will tell you, the Iraq war was counterproductive to fighting Al-Qaeda. False statement!

Clinton didn't spend 700 billion of our money, either. Nor did he cause the deaths of thousands of people.
False statement? You don't know anything, do you? All you can do is try to hold on to a rationale that never existed. It's as if I'd told you there was no Santa Claus. Don Rumsfeld was chasing SH years after he was dead, that's how ridiculous it had become. That's just sad, terribly sad....
 
So.....It was Clinton who just spent over 700 billion of our dollars in Iraq?
CLINTON AND CONGRESS HAVE COMPROMISED U.S. DEFENSE ARSENAL MAKING WAR AGAINST A REGIME FAR LESS THREATENING THAN CHINA, RUSSIA, CUBA, OR KOREA

"As president, Bill Clinton has...squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat — and that's before the costly Desert Fox operation launched Wednesday. On Wednesday alone, some 200 cruise missiles were fired by the Navy at Iraqi targets. Each one of those high-tech bombs cost about $1 million. that's $200 million right there, just on ordnance, in one day...."
CRUISE MISSILES COST MORE THAN ALL INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS
"Yesterday, they began launching the more expensive cruise missiles — fired from the Air Force's B-52s. Those two-ton babies cost more than $2 million each....
"Last October, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided $97 million in military aid to opposition groups in the country....Earlier this year, the U.S. set aside $5 million for the support of Iraqi political opposition, and another $5 million for broadcasting by Radio Free Iraq. But all that is peanuts compared to the price tag for enforcing the no-fly zones. That project cost U.S. taxpayers $2 billion in 1998 alone, and that's far from the total cost. It doesn't include expenses involved in deploying forces in the region last February.
"That was the last big buildup by Clinton. It involved 34 ships, 440 planes, and 44,000 troops. In November, we went through a similar exercise involving 14 ships, 300 planes and 27,500 troops. Now we've got Desert Fox...."
Thats right........ROOT CAUSE. Hey, the neocons suckered Clinton also. Phil, there is a theory that he was sucked into it, not suckered. But no one put a gone to his head and a pen in his hand.
Once bitten, twice warned. In your world, the only way a democrat can be at fault for anything is if they are suckered and then in your reality they aren't really at fault at all.


What "law" did Clinton sign? "
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon August 9 that U.S. policy continues to be driven by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, which calls for a change of regime in Iraq.

Quoting from the legislation -- passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton -- the secretary said, "It is the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Yes, but it doesn't say how much money we're going to waste on it, nor the number of people we're going to kill. 700 billion is a pricetag that the former administration did NOT approach the American people with. Clinton also listened to the neocons at the time, a fatal error. Never again! Talk about waste, this was the most wasteful Federal program in history. Are you talking about all that $$ above? If it were Clinton, we wouldn't be spending this much on it. For so very little.
SEE above.



All he did was listen to the neocons tell him about Chalabi. What a joke that was. The joke's on us.:laugh:

Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. No WMD in Iraq, no Al-Qaeda. Clinton wasn't interested in WMD's. He had a little bit of Monica in his life.......
"Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born high-school dropout whose leadership of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in Iraq, was killed along with several other people near the city of Baqubah, the officials said."
"Copying Osama bin Laden's leadership strategy, Zarqawi set up numerous semi-autonomous terrorist cells across Iraq, many of which could continue operating after his death."Is Zarqawi ALL you have? He wasn't even IN Iraq during 9/11. Even if he was, is THIS what we're going to base our involvement on. You time line keeps getting skewed. Besides, you said: Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. I merely posted one of many oppositions to that false statement. :laugh: Hey! You should be working for DIA! I do.


He's been left with two wars, and a broken economy. Enough said.
He wasn't "left with" anything. He initiated a campaign intentionally seeking to take on what would become his responsiblities the day he entered office whatever good and bad that entailed. If only the "hope and change" rhetoric could have been backed up with solid previous experience and accomplishments to indicate the possibility of anything potentially positive occuring. Ugly, vedddy ugly baby! :toung:

We'll see. He still has to remove everything from Iraq, immediately, like he said during the campaign or in 16 months like he said shortly after entering office, or in 19 months going against his generals recommendations of 24 months? Will he bring everyone home or just change the name of the indefinitly remaining troops to disguise his big lie or in your understanding "acceptable little flip flop? Or will it all pan out like the well defined exist strategy from guantanamo bay? and of course try to repair our international reputation which was tarnished probably beyond hope by the former administration. And try to redirect a lot of resources from wasteful government spending. To be continued. Gotta go!

Contradictory in what respect? What are you telling me is a useless endeavor? Pakistan, Afghanistan, capturing bin laden......what? Bin Laden's still not in Iraq. Hey, here's a plan! Let's take out Saddam Hussein instead, and pretend we got Bin Laden. I wonder if that was what Clinton was thinking when he signe the law? Here's some video from one of your friends. Watch it. It's funny.....but somehow very very sad. The fact of the matter is, as anyone will tell you, the Iraq war was counterproductive to fighting Al-Qaeda. False statement!

Clinton didn't spend 700 billion of our money, either. Nor did he cause the deaths of thousands of people.
False statement? You don't know anything, do you? All you can do is try to hold on to a rationale that never existed. It's as if I'd told you there was no Santa Claus. Don Rumsfeld was chasing SH years after he was dead, that's how ridiculous it had become. That's just sad, terribly sad....
chow
 
Hey! You should be working for DIA! I do.

That's ALL I need today, man.:laugh:
After Douglas Feith and Rummy wrecked the DIA, I need respond no more. Are you guys STILL looking for WMD in Iraq?:laugh:

Good luck. I'm sure you have a secure future coming up with whatever "intelligence" the current administration needs. Just ask DIA, they'll make up whatever intelligence you need to justify your actions.
 
Hey! You should be working for DIA! I do.
I don't work for DIA. That was just some unifinished sarcasm to give you a good laugh and see how you responded. Ha ha. ;)

That's ALL I need today, man.:laugh:
After Douglas Feith and Rummy wrecked the DIA, I need respond no more. Are you guys STILL looking for WMD in Iraq?:laugh:

Good luck. I'm sure you have a secure future coming up with whatever "intelligence" the current administration needs. Just ask DIA, they'll make up whatever intelligence you need to justify your actions.

Now back to the other unfinished part of the reply.
 
I don't need to reply. You've given me your agenda already, and I am already familiar with it. DOD took over the Iraq operation, based upon fake information provided by DIA. After 700 plus billion dollars of costs, when we were told we wouldn't be there for 6 months, Iraq was no closer to resolution than it was when we started. My only question is:

From whom do I get my money back?

http://www.costofwar.com/
 
Back
Top