Trump working on pardoning people accused of war crimes

[JoeB131]

There are pretty blaring holes in the self-defense theory. If it were in self-defense why did he force the man to take his clothes off at knife point? If it were in self-defense why did he take the man under a bridge out of sight? If it were in self-defense why did he blow the man's body up with a grenade AFTER killing him? If it were in self-defense why did he initially lie about it?

Use some common sense.

I am... They were trying to get information out of him... he decided to make one last blow for Allah!!! Sucks to be him.

Time to stop prosecuting our soldiers for doing their jobs.

You know what, you guys are making Trump's case for him. Trump might be a racist, misogynistic, ignorant Troll, but at least he'll defend the country.

 

[Lewdog]

There are pretty blaring holes in the self-defense theory. If it were in self-defense why did he force the man to take his clothes off at knife point? If it were in self-defense why did he take the man under a bridge out of sight? If it were in self-defense why did he blow the man's body up with a grenade AFTER killing him? If it were in self-defense why did he initially lie about it?

Use some common sense.

I am... They were trying to get information out of him... he decided to make one last blow for Allah!!! Sucks to be him.

Time to stop prosecuting our soldiers for doing their jobs.

You know what, you guys are making Trump's case for him. Trump might be a racist, misogynistic, ignorant Troll, but at least he'll defend the country.

And this has to do with him blowing up the evidence of his dead body with a grenade and lying about the incident? Stop, just stop because you aren't looking at this logically, you are doing all your thinking through emotion, that is emotion with any actual knowledge of the facts around the case and what happened under that bridge.

 

[JoeB131]

And this has to do with him blowing up the evidence of his dead body with a grenade and lying about the incident? Stop, just stop because you aren't looking at this logically, you are doing all your thinking through emotion, that is emotion with any actually knowledge of the facts around the case and what happened under that bridge.

The facts are we sent a young man to war with very little training and gave him an impossible task...

Those are the facts.

I've looked at the facts... that this guy was a bombmaker (local Iraqis said he was), that our idiotic policies kept letting these guys go, and in one case, an officer was forced to defend himself, and got railroaded by the system.

This wasn't a kid shoplifting cigarellos or some guy with a faulty taillight who got pulled over, this was a terrorist who had killed Americans.

Thankfully, we are undoing these mistakes. Finally.

 

[Kondor3]

Jihadis remind me of the insane, suicidal Japanese Imperial Army troops defending various islands in the last years of WWII.

Best to slaughter them wholesale and let Allah sort them out.

Such slaughter is usually downrange and long-distance, but sometimes it gets up-close and personal... ugly, vicious and deadly.

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

If you intentionally kill women and children in order to get at enemy combatants, that's unfortunate but oftentimes necessary.

If you intentionally kill women and children for other reasons (unless they are actively engaged), then you get prosecuted.

----

If you intentionally kill a Jihadi prisoner without good cause, then you get prosecuted.

If you intentionally kill a Jihadi prisoner for a good reason, I will not like it, and don't want it to become a habit, but I'll look the other way.

----

If you piss on the bodies of several Jihadis killed in combat, I'll buy you a each a beer.

If you pour boiled pig-fat over the bodies of those same Jihadis before you bury them, I'll buy you each a case of beer.

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

There is no reasoning with Jihadi scum... might as well send 'em a very clear message... phukk 'em.

 

[Lewdog]

And this has to do with him blowing up the evidence of his dead body with a grenade and lying about the incident? Stop, just stop because you aren't looking at this logically, you are doing all your thinking through emotion, that is emotion with any actually knowledge of the facts around the case and what happened under that bridge.

The facts are we sent a young man to war with very little training and gave him an impossible task...

Those are the facts.

I've looked at the facts... that this guy was a bombmaker (local Iraqis said he was), that our idiotic policies kept letting these guys go, and in one case, an officer was forced to defend himself, and got railroaded by the system.

This wasn't a kid shoplifting cigarellos or some guy with a faulty taillight who got pulled over, this was a terrorist who had killed Americans.

Thankfully, we are undoing these mistakes. Finally.

Now you are just making shit up to throw in there. "Little to no training?" How many servicemen with the same exact amount of training did not kill an unarmed man, blew up his body, and lied about it?

How do you KNOW he was defending himself when he killed the man? There no discussion here with you because you have done nothing but argue things are facts when they most certainly may not be, and the source of the self-defense is a man that has already been caught lying.

No need to argue any longer. I can't argue with a person that makes shit up to try and support their argument.

 

[Lewdog]

Jihadis remind me of the insane, suicidal Japanese Imperial Army troops defending various islands in the last years of WWII.

Best to slaughter them wholesale and let Allah sort them out.

Such slaughter is usually downrange and long-distance, but sometimes it gets up-close and personal... ugly, vicious and deadly.

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

If you intentionally kill women and children in order to get at enemy combatants, that's unfortunate but oftentimes necessary.

If you intentionally kill women and children for other reasons (unless they are actively engaged), then you get prosecuted.

----

If you intentionally kill a Jihadi prisoner without good cause, then you get prosecuted.

If you intentionally kill a Jihadi prisoner for a good reason, I will not like it, and don't want it to become a habit, but I'll look the other way.

----

If you piss on the bodies of several Jihadis killed in combat, I'll buy you a each a beer.

If you pour boiled pig-fat over the bodies of those Jihadis before you bury them, I'll buy you each a case of beer.

Funny you say that. This is the exact same feeling ISIS, Al-qaeda, and mane other enemies of the United State feel. Is that a group you want to be in the same boat as?

 

[Kondor3]

Jihadis remind me of the insane, suicidal Japanese Imperial Army troops defending various islands in the last years of WWII.

Best to slaughter them wholesale and let Allah sort them out.

Such slaughter is usually downrange and long-distance, but sometimes it gets up-close and personal... ugly, vicious and deadly.

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

If you intentionally kill women and children in order to get at enemy combatants, that's unfortunate but oftentimes necessary.

If you intentionally kill women and children for other reasons (unless they are actively engaged), then you get prosecuted.

----

If you intentionally kill a Jihadi prisoner without good cause, then you get prosecuted.

If you intentionally kill a Jihadi prisoner for a good reason, I will not like it, and don't want it to become a habit, but I'll look the other way.

----

If you piss on the bodies of several Jihadis killed in combat, I'll buy you a each a beer.

If you pour boiled pig-fat over the bodies of those Jihadis before you bury them, I'll buy you each a case of beer.

Funny you say that. This is the exact same feeling ISIS, Al-qaeda, and mane other enemies of the United State feel. Is that a group you want to be in the same boat as?

I want them to understand not only that we are unafraid but that we hold them to be scum and unworthy of respect.

This sends such a message in clear, unmistakable terms, using language that they are certain to understand.

Phukk 'em.

 

[iceberg]

There are pretty blaring holes in the self-defense theory. If it were in self-defense why did he force the man to take his clothes off at knife point? If it were in self-defense why did he take the man under a bridge out of sight? If it were in self-defense why did he blow the man's body up with a grenade AFTER killing him? If it were in self-defense why did he initially lie about it?

Use some common sense.

I am... They were trying to get information out of him... he decided to make one last blow for Allah!!! Sucks to be him.

Time to stop prosecuting our soldiers for doing their jobs.

You know what, you guys are making Trump's case for him. Trump might be a racist, misogynistic, ignorant Troll, but at least he'll defend the country.

wow.

yes. yes he will and we need that these days. to get to trump people are going way too far and the cost is pretty much destroying ourselves in the process.

 

[iceberg]

And this has to do with him blowing up the evidence of his dead body with a grenade and lying about the incident? Stop, just stop because you aren't looking at this logically, you are doing all your thinking through emotion, that is emotion with any actually knowledge of the facts around the case and what happened under that bridge.

The facts are we sent a young man to war with very little training and gave him an impossible task...

Those are the facts.

I've looked at the facts... that this guy was a bombmaker (local Iraqis said he was), that our idiotic policies kept letting these guys go, and in one case, an officer was forced to defend himself, and got railroaded by the system.

This wasn't a kid shoplifting cigarellos or some guy with a faulty taillight who got pulled over, this was a terrorist who had killed Americans.

Thankfully, we are undoing these mistakes. Finally.

Now you are just making shit up to throw in there. "Little to no training?" How many servicemen with the same exact amount of training did not kill an unarmed man, blew up his body, and lied about it?

How do you KNOW he was defending himself when he killed the man? There no discussion here with you because you have done nothing but argue things are facts when they most certainly may not be, and the source of the self-defense is a man that has already been caught lying.

No need to argue any longer. I can't argue with a person that makes shit up to try and support their argument.

hate your methods used against you?

pretty much the definition of extreme <insert your side here> to me.

 

[Lewdog]

And this has to do with him blowing up the evidence of his dead body with a grenade and lying about the incident? Stop, just stop because you aren't looking at this logically, you are doing all your thinking through emotion, that is emotion with any actually knowledge of the facts around the case and what happened under that bridge.

The facts are we sent a young man to war with very little training and gave him an impossible task...

Those are the facts.

I've looked at the facts... that this guy was a bombmaker (local Iraqis said he was), that our idiotic policies kept letting these guys go, and in one case, an officer was forced to defend himself, and got railroaded by the system.

This wasn't a kid shoplifting cigarellos or some guy with a faulty taillight who got pulled over, this was a terrorist who had killed Americans.

Thankfully, we are undoing these mistakes. Finally.

Now you are just making shit up to throw in there. "Little to no training?" How many servicemen with the same exact amount of training did not kill an unarmed man, blew up his body, and lied about it?

How do you KNOW he was defending himself when he killed the man? There no discussion here with you because you have done nothing but argue things are facts when they most certainly may not be, and the source of the self-defense is a man that has already been caught lying.

No need to argue any longer. I can't argue with a person that makes shit up to try and support their argument.

hate your methods used against you?

pretty much the definition of extreme <insert your side here> to me.

My methods used against me? When I make statements even remotely close to Joe's I back them up with sources to prove the facts.

Pardoning soldiers who violate direct orders, who kill civilians who have not been tried and found guilty of war crimes, who try to cover up their crimes through destruction of evidence, who desecrate the bodies of the dead, and who lie about it, is not going to help anything.

 

[Polishprince]

No low to low for a man who openly admires and seeks to emulate dictators and authoritarians.

Our military has standards and codes. It is professional and strict. Something our enemies typically lack. Trump seems to want them to emulate our enemies. No surprise.

Trump may pardon US soldiers accused or convicted of war crimes – report

Legal experts cited in the report said pardoning several accused and convicted war criminals, including some who have not yet gone to trial, has not been done in recent history. Some worried such pardons could erode the legitimacy of military law.

When we have fiends like John Walker Lindh being released, that's a problem but one we can't blame Trump for.

Lindh committed War Crimes against loyal American patriots like Johnny Spann who was in Afghanistan fighting for his rights as an American. The libs didn't even allow Spann's family to testify as to why Lindh should be hung

 

[Thunderbird]

Clinton pardoned terrorists.

Jerry Nadler's 'Family' Values | RealClearPolitics

 

[iceberg]

And this has to do with him blowing up the evidence of his dead body with a grenade and lying about the incident? Stop, just stop because you aren't looking at this logically, you are doing all your thinking through emotion, that is emotion with any actually knowledge of the facts around the case and what happened under that bridge.

The facts are we sent a young man to war with very little training and gave him an impossible task...

Those are the facts.

I've looked at the facts... that this guy was a bombmaker (local Iraqis said he was), that our idiotic policies kept letting these guys go, and in one case, an officer was forced to defend himself, and got railroaded by the system.

This wasn't a kid shoplifting cigarellos or some guy with a faulty taillight who got pulled over, this was a terrorist who had killed Americans.

Thankfully, we are undoing these mistakes. Finally.

Now you are just making shit up to throw in there. "Little to no training?" How many servicemen with the same exact amount of training did not kill an unarmed man, blew up his body, and lied about it?

How do you KNOW he was defending himself when he killed the man? There no discussion here with you because you have done nothing but argue things are facts when they most certainly may not be, and the source of the self-defense is a man that has already been caught lying.

No need to argue any longer. I can't argue with a person that makes shit up to try and support their argument.

hate your methods used against you?

pretty much the definition of extreme <insert your side here> to me.

My methods used against me? When I make statements even remotely close to Joe's I back them up with sources to prove the facts.

Pardoning soldiers who violate direct orders, who kill civilians who have not been tried and found guilty of war crimes, who try to cover up their crimes through destruction of evidence, who desecrate the bodies of the dead, and who lie about it, is not going to help anything.

dude you pull your shit out of your ass on a constant basis and change your stance to just always be against whoever you are talking to.

you pretty much define "useless piece of shit".

 

[JoeB131]

Jihadis remind me of the insane, suicidal Japanese Imperial Army troops defending various islands in the last years of WWII.

Yeah, here's the problem with that, buddy. Those Japanese were not "insane". They realized that once we took those Islands we would use them to bomb the Japanese homeland, and kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese, which is exactly what we did.

The people you refer to as "Jihadis" are protecting their land from invaders. Just like you would hopefully do if let's say some flying saucer men came down and invaded America.

My issue is not that our policy was great. It wasn't. It was stupid. We invaded a country that wasn't our enemy or a threat to us over weapons that didn't exist, then spent a decade trying to impose a government on them they didn't want.

My issue here is that now that it is over, we should look at the guys who made good faith mistakes, and expunge their records so they can get on with their lives.

 

[JoeB131]

Now you are just making shit up to throw in there. "Little to no training?" How many servicemen with the same exact amount of training did not kill an unarmed man, blew up his body, and lied about it?

How many did and didn't get caught? Hey, we killed anywhere from 100,000 to a million Iraqis.... so why did this guy get the speeding ticket at the Indy 500?

I look at LT Behenna and think, but by the Grace of God, there go I.

How do you KNOW he was defending himself when he killed the man?

Because the Forensics specialist said so and the Army hid him as a witness. Oh, yeah, and the guy he killed was a Jihadi bomb maker.

There no discussion here with you because you have done nothing but argue things are facts when they most certainly may not be, and the source of the self-defense is a man that has already been caught lying.

I think you are a little confused. When you find a man guilty, you find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the translator admitted he didn't see exactly what happened, the Army hid the forensics specialist, and they intimidated a co-conspirator into testifying... tells me a miscarriage of justice happened here. A civilian jury and a good lawyer would have gotten him off, easily.

No need to argue any longer. I can't argue with a person that makes shit up to try and support their argument.

again, I'm sure it's easy for you to sit behind a nice computer, in a nice warm house, and tell a soldier he's doing it wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

Pardoning soldiers who violate direct orders, who kill civilians who have not been tried and found guilty of war crimes, who try to cover up their crimes through destruction of evidence, who desecrate the bodies of the dead, and who lie about it, is not going to help anything.

What's going to help is not getting into these wars to start with. That would help.

Going after soldiers making impossible choices, not so much.

"Oooh, you didn't give Abdul a fair trial."

"Um, yeah, because I knew the next day, he'd be out there planting another bomb and killing more of my men!"

 

[Kondor3]

...Yeah, here's the problem with that, buddy. Those Japanese were not "insane"...

Incorrect... they were caught-up in the Warrior Cult mindset... Bushido... Islamic Jihadism... same metaphorical species.

...The people you refer to as "Jihadis" are protecting their land from invaders...

NYC 9-11, London Tube, Boston Marathon, Paris bridge, Berlin Christmas Market... all defensive operations... yep... not.

 

[JoeB131]

When we have fiends like John Walker Lindh being released, that's a problem but one we can't blame Trump for.

Lindh committed War Crimes against loyal American patriots like Johnny Spann who was in Afghanistan fighting for his rights as an American. The libs didn't even allow Spann's family to testify as to why Lindh should be hung

Well, there was no evidence Lindh had killed Spann. You know, little details like that. So we essentially gave him 17 years for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I put this in the same place I put pardoning Behenna. War's over. Time to get over it.

 

[JoeB131]

Incorrect... they were caught-up in the Warrior Cult mindset... Bushido... Islamic Jihadism... same metaphorical species.

Okay, if that makes you feel better.

NYC 9-11, London Tube, Boston Marathon, Paris bridge, Berlin Christmas Market... all defensive operations... yep... not.

Bombing and invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, Al Qaeda or WMD's... was that a defensive operation?

Here's the difference. They were fighting for their homes. Our guys were fighting because the Army promised them a free education that never happens. You tell me which one is going to be more "committed".

The thing is, we tried to fight a war with inadequate forces... the Generals told Bush we didn't have enough men, and he invaded anyway. We then gave tax cuts to rich people and borrowed money from China to fight the war. What could possibly go wrong.

 

[Lewdog]

Now you are just making shit up to throw in there. "Little to no training?" How many servicemen with the same exact amount of training did not kill an unarmed man, blew up his body, and lied about it?

How many did and didn't get caught? Hey, we killed anywhere from 100,000 to a million Iraqis.... so why did this guy get the speeding ticket at the Indy 500?

I look at LT Behenna and think, but by the Grace of God, there go I.

How do you KNOW he was defending himself when he killed the man?

Because the Forensics specialist said so and the Army hid him as a witness. Oh, yeah, and the guy he killed was a Jihadi bomb maker.

There no discussion here with you because you have done nothing but argue things are facts when they most certainly may not be, and the source of the self-defense is a man that has already been caught lying.

I think you are a little confused. When you find a man guilty, you find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the translator admitted he didn't see exactly what happened, the Army hid the forensics specialist, and they intimidated a co-conspirator into testifying... tells me a miscarriage of justice happened here. A civilian jury and a good lawyer would have gotten him off, easily.

No need to argue any longer. I can't argue with a person that makes shit up to try and support their argument.

again, I'm sure it's easy for you to sit behind a nice computer, in a nice warm house, and tell a soldier he's doing it wrong.

First off, for you to say you are ex-military yet not know the difference between a good kill in war, and a war crime shows you are talking out of your ass... which has become quite the norm for you in this thread, and you even continue to make a good case of why the guy is guilty and lying.

He took the man out of sight just so he could lessen the number of eye-witnesses for when he killed him, which also gave him leeway to make up a story about self-defense.

A blind man could prosecute the guy in this case. Him taking him out of sight showed clear intent, and then blowing up the body after killing him, and lying about it showed he didn't commit the crime in some sort of passion like you keep using as a defense, because it shows he made rational thoughts to cover up his crime after committing it. All the elements of a murder case are there. It doesn't matter if it is in a warzone, or in your neighborhood, when you kill an unarmed man with premeditation, it is murder. The guy should be lucky he didn't get the death penalty for it.