Ft. Hood

brett636

Well-Known Member
Klien, you simply don't get it, and probably never will

Now, back to the original topic:

MUSLIM SUFFERS BRUISED EGO IN FORT HOOD TRAGEDY

November 11, 2009

http://anncoulter.com/

The massacre at Fort Hood last week is the perfect apotheosis of the liberal victimology described in my book "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America."

According to witnesses, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan entered a medical facility at Fort Hood, prayed briefly, then shouted "Allahu akbar" before he began gunning down American troops. Now I don't know which to be more afraid of: Muslims or government-run health care systems.

President Obama honored the victims by immediately warning Americans not to "jump to conclusions" –– namely, the obvious conclusion that the attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. As conclusions go, it wasn't much of a jump.

But the mainstream media waited for no information –– indeed actively avoided learning any information –– before leaping to the far less obvious conclusion that the suspect's mass murder was set off by "stress."

The day after the slaughter, The New York Times ran one editorial and two of three op-eds asserting as much –– which was at least one more than the Times usually runs about psycho-killer soldiers going on rampages.

Two days after the mass shooting, the Times' laughably predictable headlines about the Fort Hood bloodbath were:

–– "Preliminary Inquiry Finds No Link to Terror Plot"

–– "Painful Stories Take a Toll on Military Therapists"

–– "When Soldiers' Minds Snap"

The Los Angeles Times jumped to the exact same conclusion, running an article on the massacre titled: "Fort Hood Tragedy Rocks Military as It Grapples With Mental Health Issues." Time magazine followed suit, posting an article titled: "Stresses at Fort Hood Were Likely Intense for Hasan."

Inasmuch as Maj. Hasan had never been deployed overseas, much less seen combat, liberals seem to have discovered the first recorded case of "pre-traumatic stress syndrome."

Their point was: The real victim of Fort Hood was Maj. Hasan. Indeed, all Muslims were the victims that day.

The media quickly set to work assembling lachrymose accounts of taunts Hasan had been subjected to in the military for being a Muslim, the most harrowing of which seems to have been his car being keyed at his off-base apartment complex.


I suppose we should be relieved that liberals weren't claiming Hasan snapped because of the dimming prospects for a health care bill by the end of the year.

The evidence for the manifestly obvious conclusion we were supposed to avoid jumping to is rather more extensive.

According to numerous eyewitness accounts, Hasan denounced the "war on terror" as a war against Islam, said Muslims should attack Americans in retaliation for the war in Iraq, defended suicide bombers and said he was "happy" when a Muslim murdered a soldier at a military recruiting center in Arkansas earlier this year.

Stranger still, he wasn't auditioning for his own show on MSNBC when he made these statements.

Hasan shared a "spiritual adviser" with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, whose unseemly enthusiasm for jihad got him banned from speaking in Britain, even by video link.

A few years ago, Hasan delivered an hour-long PowerPoint lecture to an audience of doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, arguing that non-Muslims should be beheaded and have burning oil poured down their throats.

He had tried to contact al-Qaida, and at least one U.S. intelligence official says the Army knew it.

Despite being well aware of Hasan's disturbing views and conduct, the Army did nothing.

Far less offensive speech has been grounds for discipline or even removal from duties in the military. In the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal, for example, two Navy officers were reprimanded and reassigned after putting up a sign with the words of a nursery rhyme altered to include a vulgar sexual reference to liberal congresswoman Patricia Schroeder.

But a Muslim Army doctor can go around a military installation somberly advocating the beheading of infidels, and the girls running the military treat him like he's Nicole Kidman and they're press junket reporters.

The Army's top brass, Gen. George Casey, responded to the military's shocking decision to keep a terrorist-sympathizing Muslim in the Army by announcing: "Our diversity ... is a strength." And I thought gays couldn't openly serve in the military.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Muslims moved to the top of liberals' victim pantheon on the basis of having slaughtered 3,000 Americans. Muslims were "victims" of Americans' displeasure with them for the biggest terrorist attack in world history. The only American deserving of more coddling than a Muslim is the first African-American president.

So, now any dyspeptic expression toward a Muslim is grounds for calling in a diversity coordinator. And when the "victim" attacks, as at Fort Hood, the rest of us are supposed to feel guilty because Hasan's car got keyed once. As with all liberal "victims," it is the victim who is massively guilty.
 

klein

Für Meno :)
FORT HOOD, Texas (AFP) - The army psychiatrist accused of a shooting rampage last week at the Fort Hood military base in Texas has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder, the military said Thursday.

"US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with 13 specifications of premeditated murder under the military code of justice," Chris Grey, a spokesman for the army's criminal investigation division, told reporters.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
Klien, you simply don't get it, and probably never will

Now, back to the original topic:

MUSLIM SUFFERS BRUISED EGO IN FORT HOOD TRAGEDY

November 11, 2009

http://anncoulter.com/

The massacre at Fort Hood last week is the perfect apotheosis of the liberal victimology described in my book "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America."

According to witnesses, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan entered a medical facility at Fort Hood, prayed briefly, then shouted "Allahu akbar" before he began gunning down American troops. Now I don't know which to be more afraid of: Muslims or government-run health care systems.

President Obama honored the victims by immediately warning Americans not to "jump to conclusions" –– namely, the obvious conclusion that the attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. As conclusions go, it wasn't much of a jump.

But the mainstream media waited for no information –– indeed actively avoided learning any information –– before leaping to the far less obvious conclusion that the suspect's mass murder was set off by "stress."

The day after the slaughter, The New York Times ran one editorial and two of three op-eds asserting as much –– which was at least one more than the Times usually runs about psycho-killer soldiers going on rampages.

Two days after the mass shooting, the Times' laughably predictable headlines about the Fort Hood bloodbath were:

–– "Preliminary Inquiry Finds No Link to Terror Plot"

–– "Painful Stories Take a Toll on Military Therapists"

–– "When Soldiers' Minds Snap"

The Los Angeles Times jumped to the exact same conclusion, running an article on the massacre titled: "Fort Hood Tragedy Rocks Military as It Grapples With Mental Health Issues." Time magazine followed suit, posting an article titled: "Stresses at Fort Hood Were Likely Intense for Hasan."

Inasmuch as Maj. Hasan had never been deployed overseas, much less seen combat, liberals seem to have discovered the first recorded case of "pre-traumatic stress syndrome."

Their point was: The real victim of Fort Hood was Maj. Hasan. Indeed, all Muslims were the victims that day.

The media quickly set to work assembling lachrymose accounts of taunts Hasan had been subjected to in the military for being a Muslim, the most harrowing of which seems to have been his car being keyed at his off-base apartment complex.

I suppose we should be relieved that liberals weren't claiming Hasan snapped because of the dimming prospects for a health care bill by the end of the year.

The evidence for the manifestly obvious conclusion we were supposed to avoid jumping to is rather more extensive.

According to numerous eyewitness accounts, Hasan denounced the "war on terror" as a war against Islam, said Muslims should attack Americans in retaliation for the war in Iraq, defended suicide bombers and said he was "happy" when a Muslim murdered a soldier at a military recruiting center in Arkansas earlier this year.

Stranger still, he wasn't auditioning for his own show on MSNBC when he made these statements.

Hasan shared a "spiritual adviser" with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, whose unseemly enthusiasm for jihad got him banned from speaking in Britain, even by video link.

A few years ago, Hasan delivered an hour-long PowerPoint lecture to an audience of doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, arguing that non-Muslims should be beheaded and have burning oil poured down their throats.

He had tried to contact al-Qaida, and at least one U.S. intelligence official says the Army knew it.

Despite being well aware of Hasan's disturbing views and conduct, the Army did nothing.

Far less offensive speech has been grounds for discipline or even removal from duties in the military. In the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal, for example, two Navy officers were reprimanded and reassigned after putting up a sign with the words of a nursery rhyme altered to include a vulgar sexual reference to liberal congresswoman Patricia Schroeder.

But a Muslim Army doctor can go around a military installation somberly advocating the beheading of infidels, and the girls running the military treat him like he's Nicole Kidman and they're press junket reporters.

The Army's top brass, Gen. George Casey, responded to the military's shocking decision to keep a terrorist-sympathizing Muslim in the Army by announcing: "Our diversity ... is a strength." And I thought gays couldn't openly serve in the military.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Muslims moved to the top of liberals' victim pantheon on the basis of having slaughtered 3,000 Americans. Muslims were "victims" of Americans' displeasure with them for the biggest terrorist attack in world history. The only American deserving of more coddling than a Muslim is the first African-American president.

So, now any dyspeptic expression toward a Muslim is grounds for calling in a diversity coordinator. And when the "victim" attacks, as at Fort Hood, the rest of us are supposed to feel guilty because Hasan's car got keyed once. As with all liberal "victims," it is the victim who is massively guilty.


BRETT,

this piece from ANN COULTER hardly qualifies as intelligent.

There is NOTHING in this piece that she can prove. It is purely her opinion based on nothing.

Its amazing how SHE can know the facts before the military, FBI, CIA or the goverment does.

She herself is a self loathing POS and ANYONE who takes her word seriously needs to see professional help.

Anyone who links articles like this is clearly a "victim" of the right wing nonsense.

:peaceful:
 

tieguy

Banned
If you had shot one of these young men, and one of them died, you would have been charged with manslaughter.

You are required to use "equal force" and drawing a weapon on youths who presented no weapons would get you 5 years if you actually pulled the trigger.

That type of bravado may work in farmtown USA, but try that in Los Angeles and you would be shot dead and so would your wife as the "youth"
here all carry weapons.

The "dirty harry" routine only works in the movies and in the imaginations of gun owners.

:peaceful:

I can't figure you out. Some of your labor related posts seems to be knowledgable and well thought out but you come onto the current events thread and seem to just sling half cocked information.

There are no equal force rules with the law when it comes to criminals. If you have a legitimate threat facing you of death or the the wife being sexually assaulted then then use of the weapon would be justified. Neither you nor I can make that determination of the post you referenced but that did not stop you from making this dirty harry / wild west post.

Your prescence here is one of a troll. Its a shame because I have this strange feeling you have a lot more thats worthwhile to offer.
 

tieguy

Banned
It's hard for me and others here, to open up your stubborn strong republican minds at times.
How can you borrow more and more money, yet want tax cuts for example ?

You have not been paying attention. We didn't want the money borrowed. We did want the taxes cut. I'm perfectly comfortable with the market correcting naturally.


How many of your own countrymen have spoken against you, tie ?

How many canadians have begged me to stop posting on their message board? Zero.

I really want the best for you and the USA.
Dollar devalution, USA credit rating going downwards.
Something has to be done to fix it.
Fiscal responsibilty.

And you're supposed to be the answer guy?

Yes, almost every other country had stimulus programs and extra government spending.
But, they (the citizens), are prepared to pay it back (more taxes).
Something, you disagree upon.

We didn't want the stimulus programs. Many of us including myself found other candidates other then the republican one to support in the last election, because we did not agree with the rampant spending.

For me, it's the fastest way to get out of debt, and they can lower taxes in the future, once again.
And saves the countries credit rating.

Fastest way to get out of debt is to choke the flow of revenue According to you? I don't think so. The fastest way to get out of debt is to enact legislation that decreases government regulation and increases the growth of the economy and thus the increase of revenue. Take the handcuffs off the economy, encourage investment, reward those who do invest by not taking all their profits in taxes.

If you raise taxes people will not invest money in business ventures. They will not expand their businesses because the capital for expansion will be going to taxes thus the economy is stifled.

I'm not about Canada versus USA.
I truely want whats best for America, because your economic status , has a huge impact on ours.

I really don't want your vision of what is best for america.

And, maybe looking north or to Europe, to see how they cope with certain things, can't hurt you.
It's like UPS looking at Fedex.

You want UPS to downsize to Fdx's size? Or you want America to downsize their economy to Canada's size?
 

tieguy

Banned
Yes, I have.
But, only trying to help you out.
If I lived in California, I would still think the same way.
Or in Germany for that matter.

It's hard for me and others here, to open up your stubborn strong republican minds at times.
How can you borrow more and more money, yet want tax cuts for example ?
How many of your own countrymen have spoken against you, tie ?

I really want the best for you and the USA.
Dollar devalution, USA credit rating going downwards.
Something has to be done to fix it.
Fiscal responsibilty.

Yes, almost every other country had stimulus programs and extra government spending.
But, they (the citizens), are prepared to pay it back (more taxes).
Something, you disagree upon.

For me, it's the fastest way to get out of debt, and they can lower taxes in the future, once again.
And saves the countries credit rating.

I'm not about Canada versus USA.
I truely want whats best for America, because your economic status , has a huge impact on ours.

And, maybe looking north or to Europe, to see how they cope with certain things, can't hurt you.
It's like UPS looking at Fedex.

I should say to that for someone who claims to have been a day trader during the late 90's( were you working for ups then?) your understanding of business and economics appears to be pretty weak.
 

over9five

Moderator
Staff member
'The Other Side' is once again un-informed. His/her statement of " A real group of thugs would have taken you to the ground knowing they "outnumbered" you and you would only be able to get a round off before they took the gun away from you and shot both you and your wife" is utter nonsense. Even in a group, most thugs are cowards who will quickly run away at the sight of an armed "victim".

However, if four thugs do attack you, that is known as a "preponderance of force", and a lethal response by you is justified.

Island was able to save himself and his wife by just showing his firearm. He did the right thing. Just the display of a firearm saves thousands of lives per year, without a shot being fired.
 

tieguy

Banned
That's not a problem, that's a simple mistake. He was a veteran bestowed the highest civilian honor. Also, a bronze star and a french medal of honor.

In any case, that still leaves you with no ground to stand your pathetic arguments on.

I don't know. some of us who have been in the military might feel that there is a big difference between a medal of honor and a freedom medal.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
[FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif] The media's silly Fort Hood coverage

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Everyone wants to debate terrorism and political correctness, but the real story is the failure of Army medicine [/FONT]
By Mark Benjamin

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Nov. 12, 2009 |
The conventional narrative of the Fort Hood shootings, one week later, has been distinguished by the reporting of unconfirmed -- and sometimes incorrect -- details and the drawing of dubious conclusions. The only thing that suggests the current story will withstand the test of time better than the initial Pat Tillman myth (that he died in combat, rather than by friendly fire), or the overheated tale of heroism by Jessica Lynch in 2003 (which Lynch herself protested), is that two basic facts seem clear: The shootings certainly happened, and given the number of eyewitnesses, it's almost certain that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan did it.

The fact that it was first incorrectly reported that Hasan died in the shootings, and that he was in cahoots with other perpetrators, may well be fairly chalked up to confusion during that first chaotic day. Other details, however, continue to unravel a week later. The media debate provoked by the Hasan incident is equally off-topic and unreliable. As someone who's been asked to talk about the shootings because of my work covering the poor psychological care given to returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, I've had a front-row seat on the way preconceived biases are distorting the debate.

First, the ongoing factual unraveling of the narrative. As the New York Times reported this Thursday, initial information seized on by talk shows that Sgt. Kimberly Munley, a petite police officer, bravely brought down Hasan in a hail of gunfire in which she was also wounded was, well, also not true. Munley, it seems, just got shot. Senior Sgt. Mark Todd actually shot Hasan to the ground and cuffed him after Munley had already been wounded.

Also on Thursday, the Washington Post raised solid questions about previous reports that Hasan had tried to get out of his military service because of what he saw as a growing schism between his religious and military duties. While Hasan's aunt has said he wanted to get out of the military, the Post quotes an Army source who claims Hasan "did not formally seek to leave the military as a conscientious objector or for any other reason."

Despite some print publications attempting to keep track of these kinds of facts, a lot of media folks continue to ask the wrong questions and/or provide some of their own unlikely, or unsubstantiated, answers.

The Monday after the shootings, I got my first taste of how the story was embarking on a life of its own as I settled into a chair at one of MSNBC’s Washington studios to do Dylan Ratigan's “Morning Meeting.”

“One question being asked, among many, is whether political correctness stalled the response to possible warning signs from Maj. Hasan,” Ratigan said in his introduction. Ratigan then asked me if there had been “too much tolerance in this instance.”

Too much political correctness in the military? You know, the place where they fire you if you admit you’re gay? The Army has its share of challenges, but in a decade of covering the military, I certainly haven’t come across any evidence that the institution is somehow paralyzed by the burden of gratuitous political correctness. And while that might provide a convenient way for Army officials to explain, anonymously, why nobody prevented Hasan from killing 13 people -- “We are just too afraid of criticizing Muslims” -- I haven’t seen a shred of evidence to suggest this might be true.

The cover of Time magazine depicts another befuddling sideshow to the Fort Hood story. The cover is a picture of Hasan with the word “Terrorist?” over his eyes. “It is a story about why Maj. Hasan is a terrorist,” Time managing editor Richard Stengel explained on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” one week after the killings.

I’d heard this one before – the debate about whether we should label Hasan a terrorist, or the shooting as an act of terrorism. Right-wing media host Laura Ingraham railed at me on this subject on her radio show this week after I had referred to Hasan as being partly motivated by a “religious thing,” but I had failed to use the word "terrorism." “I say that you won’t call it what it is,” she shouted, “which is terrorism!” (I had called it "Muslim extremism" but that wasn't good enough for Ingraham.)

The obsession with that label “terrorist” seems beside the point. The real question is why the shootings were allowed to occur, and who, exactly, dropped the ball -- not what we call it all afterward.

Stengel explained on "Morning Joe" why he thinks that label is so important that it should grace the cover of his magazine, and he anchored his argument with some of the same tenuous logic I’d tangled with on "Morning Meeting." Once we come to terms with calling Hasan a religiously motivated terrorist, he argued, we can begin to tackle the real reason the Army failed to stop the shootings -- political correctness.

“People in the military say there is a lot of political correctness here,” Stengel explained. “There is a lot of fear of criticizing Muslims in the military and as a result, a guy like Hasan can get promoted up through the ranks. He became a major,” he explained. “I think we need to address this issue.”

In addition, one of Stengel’s key pieces of evidence that Hasan was a terrorist was the following: “This is a man who stood up before he killed people and said ‘God is great’ in Arabic,” Stengel announced.

That may be true, though I’ve been unable to find an original or credible source for this information. The original source seems to be a question from NBC's Matt Lauer to Fort Hood's Lt. Gen. Robert Cone on Nov. 6, the morning after the shootings. Lauer cited a relative of a witness to the shooting claiming that Hasan had said "God is great" in Arabic before opening fire. Cone responded: "There are firsthand accounts here from soldiers that are similar to that." Fort Hood, however, will not confirm this aspect of the story. “We are not at liberty to discuss questions related to this case,” spokesman Chris Haug said in an e-mail when I asked about the "God is great" story. “There is an ongoing investigation.”

Meanwhile, most members of the media continue to ignore the much more mundane, but seemingly more promising, avenues of inquiry that might explain why Hasan got away with murder.

Hasan was a military psychiatrist toiling in an overburdened, desperate Army healthcare system that will hold onto any warm body with a medical degree. Remember the Walter Reed scandal? The horrific treatment of traumatic brain injury and PTSD that has gone on for years? Army medicine has been dropping the ball on these issues for a long time. Given that history, it's not hugely surprising they'd miss warning signs with Hasan and just let him go on being a doctor.

Army medical officials, at least to my knowledge, haven’t been asked even the most basic questions. Why, for example, was Hasan allowed to continue counseling troops suffering stress from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan after, for example, delivering a PowerPoint presentation in June 2007 at Walter Reed warning of “adverse events” if Muslims were forced to kill other Muslims in battle. It’s hard to imagine Hasan being particularly empathetic with his patients. Imagine coming back from Iraq with mental problems from combat, and this is the psychiatrist who is supposed to help you heal? So far, the only reaction from Army medical officials to these issues seems to have been the decision to move him to the war front in Afghanistan, so he could be even closer to the troops when they suffer adverse mental reactions. That’s odd.

As for Hasan getting promoted to major, the Washington Post Thursday suggested a more likely scenario than political correctness. They need more bodies. The Army is short 2,000 majors and the dearth is particularly acute in Army medicine. As the Post put it, “virtually all Army captains are being promoted to major.”

The passionate determination to hang the "terrorist" label on Hasan, or rail against "political correctness" in the military, are just more symptoms of media stars more excited about hot-headed debate than covering the real story. And the real story may be sadly familiar: It looks like Army medicine blew it, once again.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] -- By Mark Benjamin [/FONT]​
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]~ Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]~ Hermann Goering, President of the Nazi Reichstag[/FONT]

This morning before work, I watched some of the 1966' film "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming!" and besides LMAO I was just struck so much by how much hysteria seems to have in common even when the events cause are seperated by 40 plus years.

After all the lying this gov't has done in so many other areas, A "Wag the Dog" event just can't be discounted IMO.
 

island1fox

Well-Known Member
Island,

stories like yours are nonsense as "REAL" thugs dont "ASK" for money, they take it. They also dont give thier victims time to draw weapons.

A real group of thugs would have taken you to the ground knowing they "outnumbered" you and you would only be able to get a round off before they took the gun away from you and shot both you and your wife.

Your story sounds as unbelievable as it does rediculous.

There are many cases where potential victims shot a suspected thief before any crime was committed and "they" ended up in jail.

Remember, just because you were "afraid" and drew a weapon, doesnt mean you had the "right" to discharge that weapon.

Equal force my friend, something to think about next time you try to impersonate "dirty harry".

Take the case of Joe Horn, he shot two men in the BACK and killed them both as "he" suspected them of robbing the neighbors home. His case went to the grand jury in Texas, and he got lucky, they didnt indict him. However, he was charged and had to face the prospect of being labeled a murderer.

"I have no love for thieves, politicians, Presidents, or anyone who flagrantly disrespects the law. I don’t have a problem with thieves getting their comeuppance. When Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas took his shotgun outside his house to shoot the two burglars breaking into his neighbor’s house, two burglars breaking the law, I have no problem. Unfortunately, Mr. Horn made the choice to break the law as well. He shot two unarmed men in the back trying to run from him. However, Joe Horn was acquitted for his crime when a Texas grand jury refused to indict him.
The two men Mr. Horn killed were two illegal aliens from Columbia. Some people feel that the fact that they were undocumented makes it okay that Mr. Horn shot and killed them. However, this was unknown to Mr. Horn when he pulled the trigger on his twelve gauge shotgun. The audio tape that was made when Mr. Horn called emergency operators recorded the altercation when Mr. Horn confronted the burglars. Not once did I hear Mr. Horn ask the men if they had any documentation. I cannot help but wonder if the fact that the two men he shot in the back are referred to as illegal aliens instead of undocumented foreigners has any bearing on the issue. The fact that the men were illegally here was simply a matter of circumstance. Besides, is it some people’s contention that foreigners are not entitled to protection by the law?
I have no problem with thieves getting their comeuppance. I don’t have a problem with murderers getting their just desserts as well. If Mr. Horn made the decision to kill two men by shooting them in the back then Mr. Horn made the decision to suffer the consequences of being a murderer.
Without question Texas is the single state within the union that enjoys a reputation for the highest rate of state sponsored murder. Texas has put people to death on the testimony of a single witness who is legally blind and “saw” the defendant and the victim struggle from a block away with an office building blocking the view. Texas will put people in jail for library book and jay walking violations. While Texas does have a reputation for being hard on some, Texas is very lenient on others. Texas is one of the most ****ed up states when it comes to the disparity of murder charges and punishment.
In Texas, a woman with a daughter trying out for a cheerleader competition will hire a hit man to kill the mother of her daughter’s rival. The hit man she tried to hire was an undercover cop. The woman is on visual and audio tape saying that she wanted that woman dead and is ready to pay for it. The woman’s daughter’s rival will be so upset that she would drop out of the competition and the woman’s little girl would undoubtedly win. However, when the woman is busted, with intent and a videotaped confession, the most the woman suffered was a fine and six months of a ten year sentence.
In Texas, a woman with a cheating husband hires a private investigator to track him. When the detective finds the philanderer in the middle of philandering, the woman is called and shows up on the scene. While her husband is walking to his car in the parking lot of the hotel of the illicit rendezvous, the woman uses her high dollar Mercedes Benz to run her husband down. While the man is on the ground, she puts the car in reverse and parks it on top of him. The couple’s daughter is in the passenger seat watching her mother killing her father. But due to its application to specific circumstances associated with only the most reprehensible crimes, the death penalty is not even an option as punishment.
This is the same Texas that threw the book at a fourteen year old black girl who received a maximum sentence of seven years in a juvenile facility for shoving a hall monitor at her Paris, Texas high school. I guess the girl should have made sure she only shoved illegal alien hall monitors.
Texas is tough on crime, but only when there are special circumstances that allows the heaviest punishments to be handed out like the non white condition of the defendant. It isn’t any surprise at all that Mr. Horn didn’t even get charged. If anything is a surprise it is the fact that it took six months or so for a grand jury to determine that it wasn’t going to indict a white property owner who admitted on tape that he was going outside to kill two men who were never a threat to him or his property. He cocked his twelve gauge rifle and challenged the direct order from the emergency operator telling Mr. Horn not to engage or kill the men. He ran outside, hollered freeze, and shot two men in the coldest of blood. He is one of the most despicable of law breakers. He is a murderer. One day he will get his comeuppance."

THIS COULD BE YOU ISLAND.
:peaceful:
Hey other side,
I could care less what you believe or what you believe is real or not !!Some day if thugs ask or demand or take your money --lets HOPE they also don't take your life .
I want you to be free to make your choice on guns -----I am free to make mine !!!!!
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
I don't know. some of us who have been in the military might feel that there is a big difference between a medal of honor and a freedom medal.

Faking medals is common, said Doug Sterner, a military historian in Pueblo, Colo., who lobbied Congress two years ago to pass the Stolen Valor Act. Military law applies to members who wear unauthorized ribbons and medals. In 2006, Congress made it a civil crime, as well - punishable by up to six months in prison and a maximum fine of $5,000 - for civilians who make false verbal, written or physical claims to an authorized military award.
 

tieguy

Banned
Please take the time and watch this failed plot to blow up airlines !!!!!!

Terror in the Skies

October 19, 2009
The gripping inside story of the plot to blow up seven international jet airliners using bombs disguised as bottles of soft drinks.


http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/The_Passionate_Eye/ID=1301489178

Over9 I think you're right about that canoogle thing in canada. this link can't be streamed outside of canada. No wonder Klein is so different. He's exposed to news items that the rest of the world can't see.:happy-very:
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
The Senate Armed Services Committee postponed its Monday briefing on the deadly Fort Hood massacre at the behest of the White House, despite calls from some lawmakers to press forward with a congressional investigation into the shooting rampage that killed 13 and wounded 29.
An aide to committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., told Fox News that the meeting is delayed "at the request of the administration." Army Secretary John McHugh and Army Chief of Staff Gen George Casey were to have briefed committee members privately on the shooting.


Why is it not 14 killed ?

Or could that be a ploy by the state of Texas to see how the military court sentences him and then in civil court convict him of murder & execute him ?
 

klein

Für Meno :)
I sure hope he gets executed by the military court.
Thier deathrow must be shorter then the government one, that goes on for decades.
 

island1fox

Well-Known Member
Klein,
I will agee on your post on Military court and execution. I will also cause controversy --this should be a new thread--the planners of Sept 11th ---A trial in NYC --sounds good because of the location --but --all of the benefits these dopes get --a public platform --a dragged out trial ---never mind a never arriving date with the virgin"s.
I believe after all the work done with the Supreme Court --Military tribunals have been approved ---most in Cuba will go the Military route --why bring the other idiots to NYC ----it gives terroists the megaphone they desire ???:dissapointed:
 
Top