Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[drsmith1072]

I do answer Your question Doc, You just don't like the result. I do blame Obama for being part of the problem, same with Bush. To blame them for the origin of a philosophy of manipulating opinion and thought, that existed before They were born , is silly.

Obama's Show is different from the Bush Show, He is responsible for the effects of current policies, even if in name only.

Uh NO you didn't. I asked



and

Or are you trying to claim that all of the "PC" crap that you are trying to lay at obama's feet occurred within the last 9+ months??
If that is your claim then could you please provide PROOF to back up your assertion?

and you failed to answer either directly and only provided spin in a desperate and failed attempt attempt to justify your claim without providing proof of the underlying claims.

ok spinmaster wannabe NO ONE is blaming them for "the origin of the philosophy." That is merely an obvious dodge on your part because you refuse to admit the FACT that the PC attitude that you are trying to lay ONLY at obamas feet CONCERNING hasan began under W watch. The fact is that you and others are trying to blame obama and his new attitude for hasan's red flags being missed due to political correctness when the FACT is that his red flags began BEFORE obama was president and therefore CANNOT be blamed on obama and his "new attitude" as was claimed in the OP. So please stop spinning and stay on the facts of the topic if you can.

You tried to spin and deflect and YOU FAILED.

Oh and can you also answer this question since you avoided it too?

how can you honestly blame obama and his "new attitude" for something that began BEFORE he took office

I personally think that You have been captive too long. You need to purge the toxins.

So your counter response is to attack me personally and avoid the questions AGAIN?? LOL can't say that i am shocked.

I am not spinning or deflecting. You are missing the point and denying the symptoms.

YES you are. You are trying to blame obama, his new attitude and tone/policies (despite the fact that you can't name any that apply) which began on Jan 20 2009 for hasan's red flags being missed/ignored for political correctness when the FACT is that his red flags began and were missed/ignored before jan 20 2009. Do you understand how a timeline works or does it need to be explained to you?

Obama is at fault, the responsibility comes with the Job.
Bush is at Fault, Integrity should not be compromised, it is a corruption.
Reality V.S. Spin is ancient. It is a part of Human Nature.

and I have presented the reality that hasan's red flags began BEFORE obama was president and therefore obama's "new attitude" is not to blame for the red flags being missed where as you present the spin that obama is to blame for it because you say so and damn the facts.

Objective Reality falls victim to the angry mob, more often than not. To play, You must renounce your own perception. The Individual Victim of the Collective. Sorry Charlie, The bottomless pit.

So you are renouncing your own perception and joining the collective of hypocrites on the right who refused to hold W accountable for anything despite the FACT that it happened on his watch who are now flip flopping and trying to hold obama accountable for everything because it happens on his watch no matter when or where it originated?? Is that what you are trying to say?? LOL

 

[CurveLight]

Uh NO you didn't. I asked



and



and you failed to answer either directly and only provided spin in a desperate and failed attempt attempt to justify your claim without providing proof of the underlying claims.

ok spinmaster wannabe NO ONE is blaming them for "the origin of the philosophy." That is merely an obvious dodge on your part because you refuse to admit the FACT that the PC attitude that you are trying to lay ONLY at obamas feet CONCERNING hasan began under W watch. The fact is that you and others are trying to blame obama and his new attitude for hasan's red flags being missed due to political correctness when the FACT is that his red flags began BEFORE obama was president and therefore CANNOT be blamed on obama and his "new attitude" as was claimed in the OP. So please stop spinning and stay on the facts of the topic if you can.

You tried to spin and deflect and YOU FAILED.

Oh and can you also answer this question since you avoided it too?

how can you honestly blame obama and his "new attitude" for something that began BEFORE he took office

I personally think that You have been captive too long. You need to purge the toxins.

So your counter response is to attack me personally and avoid the questions AGAIN?? LOL can't say that i am shocked.



YES you are. You are trying to blame obama, his new attitude and tone/policies (despite the fact that you can't name any that apply) which began on Jan 20 2009 for hasan's red flags being missed/ignored for political correctness when the FACT is that his red flags began and were missed/ignored before jan 20 2009. Do you understand how a timeline works or does it need to be explained to you?

Obama is at fault, the responsibility comes with the Job.
Bush is at Fault, Integrity should not be compromised, it is a corruption.
Reality V.S. Spin is ancient. It is a part of Human Nature.

and I have presented the reality that hasan's red flags began BEFORE obama was president and therefore obama's "new attitude" is not to blame for the red flags being missed where as you present the spin that obama is to blame for it because you say so and damn the facts.

Objective Reality falls victim to the angry mob, more often than not. To play, You must renounce your own perception. The Individual Victim of the Collective. Sorry Charlie, The bottomless pit.

So you are renouncing your own perception and joining the collective of hypocrites on the right who refused to hold W accountable for anything despite the FACT that it happened on his watch who are now flip flopping and trying to hold obama accountable for everything because it happens on his watch no matter when or where it originated?? Is that what you are trying to say?? LOL

So we're all clear, hasan holds 98% of the blame. The remaining two percent portion is reserved for speculation on contributing factors. One is the imperialism magnified by the bush admin. Another possibility is to ask if this would have happened if obama practiced what he preached? Maybe hasan wanted to do this for a while and held off by seeing if the new obama admin would disabuse our colonial efforts that has led to so many needless deaths. Maybe hasan saw obama's continuation of our imperialism as a sign nothing was going to change and there was no real hope? If anyone wants to place any blame at bush's feet they cannot ignore the fresh bloody footprints of the obama administration.

¤this concludes the non-partisan portion of our program¤

 

[drsmith1072]

I personally think that You have been captive too long. You need to purge the toxins.

So your counter response is to attack me personally and avoid the questions AGAIN?? LOL can't say that i am shocked.



YES you are. You are trying to blame obama, his new attitude and tone/policies (despite the fact that you can't name any that apply) which began on Jan 20 2009 for hasan's red flags being missed/ignored for political correctness when the FACT is that his red flags began and were missed/ignored before jan 20 2009. Do you understand how a timeline works or does it need to be explained to you?



and I have presented the reality that hasan's red flags began BEFORE obama was president and therefore obama's "new attitude" is not to blame for the red flags being missed where as you present the spin that obama is to blame for it because you say so and damn the facts.

Objective Reality falls victim to the angry mob, more often than not. To play, You must renounce your own perception. The Individual Victim of the Collective. Sorry Charlie, The bottomless pit.

So you are renouncing your own perception and joining the collective of hypocrites on the right who refused to hold W accountable for anything despite the FACT that it happened on his watch who are now flip flopping and trying to hold obama accountable for everything because it happens on his watch no matter when or where it originated?? Is that what you are trying to say?? LOL

So we're all clear, hasan holds 98% of the blame. The remaining two percent portion is reserved for speculation on contributing factors. One is the imperialism magnified by the bush admin. Another possibility is to ask if this would have happened if obama practiced what he preached? Maybe hasan wanted to do this for a while and held off by seeing if the new obama admin would disabuse our colonial efforts that has led to so many needless deaths. Maybe hasan saw obama's continuation of our imperialism as a sign nothing was going to change and there was no real hope? If anyone wants to place any blame at bush's feet they cannot ignore the fresh bloody footprints of the obama administration.

¤this concludes the non-partisan portion of our program¤

Actually if you wanted to be 100% non-partisan then hasan holds 100% of the blame. No one should blame either president in reality.
However, this thread was started on the notion that obama's "new attitude" brought this about and that he is to blame for it. So I stayed on topic and countered that argument with the FACT that the right is trying to blame obama for the red flags that were ignored for PC reasons when the red flags began and were ignored BEFORE obama took office.

So on the topic of this thread obama's "new attitude" can't be to blame for something that began BEFORE his "new attitude" was in place.

 

[uscitizen]

How is it terrorism when the act was apparently commited by a major in the US military?
We are terrorists against ourselves?

 

[SFC Ollie]

How is it terrorism when the act was apparently commited by a major in the US military?
We are terrorists against ourselves?

Looking at all we have been told so far about Major Hasan...... Yes his attack was an act of terrorism.

 

[Intense]

Uh NO you didn't. I asked



and



and you failed to answer either directly and only provided spin in a desperate and failed attempt attempt to justify your claim without providing proof of the underlying claims.

ok spinmaster wannabe NO ONE is blaming them for "the origin of the philosophy." That is merely an obvious dodge on your part because you refuse to admit the FACT that the PC attitude that you are trying to lay ONLY at obamas feet CONCERNING hasan began under W watch. The fact is that you and others are trying to blame obama and his new attitude for hasan's red flags being missed due to political correctness when the FACT is that his red flags began BEFORE obama was president and therefore CANNOT be blamed on obama and his "new attitude" as was claimed in the OP. So please stop spinning and stay on the facts of the topic if you can.

You tried to spin and deflect and YOU FAILED.

Oh and can you also answer this question since you avoided it too?

how can you honestly blame obama and his "new attitude" for something that began BEFORE he took office

I personally think that You have been captive too long. You need to purge the toxins.

So your counter response is to attack me personally and avoid the questions AGAIN?? LOL can't say that i am shocked.



YES you are. You are trying to blame obama, his new attitude and tone/policies (despite the fact that you can't name any that apply) which began on Jan 20 2009 for hasan's red flags being missed/ignored for political correctness when the FACT is that his red flags began and were missed/ignored before jan 20 2009. Do you understand how a timeline works or does it need to be explained to you?

Obama is at fault, the responsibility comes with the Job.
Bush is at Fault, Integrity should not be compromised, it is a corruption.
Reality V.S. Spin is ancient. It is a part of Human Nature.

and I have presented the reality that hasan's red flags began BEFORE obama was president and therefore obama's "new attitude" is not to blame for the red flags being missed where as you present the spin that obama is to blame for it because you say so and damn the facts.

Objective Reality falls victim to the angry mob, more often than not. To play, You must renounce your own perception. The Individual Victim of the Collective. Sorry Charlie, The bottomless pit.

So you are renouncing your own perception and joining the collective of hypocrites on the right who refused to hold W accountable for anything despite the FACT that it happened on his watch who are now flip flopping and trying to hold obama accountable for everything because it happens on his watch no matter when or where it originated?? Is that what you are trying to say?? LOL

You are falsely applying projective reasoning. Good effort though.
Obama takes the hit because He is on the mound. That goes with the turf.
Obama takes the hit because His Team is the PC Team, You live and Die PC.
Obama takes the hit because His Policies unsettle Our Military Command Structure.
Bush takes the Hit for Everything He contributed to the Current Environment. Clinton Takes the Hit for the same reasons as Bush.
You take the hit because of your denial. The Shooter takes the Hit because He is a dirt bag.
This is the Obama Show and He takes the Heat when shit storms happen. That is part of His job description. Live with it and stop sniveling about it *****.

 

[uscitizen]

How is it terrorism when the act was apparently commited by a major in the US military?
We are terrorists against ourselves?

Looking at all we have been told so far about Major Hasan...... Yes his attack was an act of terrorism.

I disagree since he was and is a member of the US military and his targets were military as well. It kinda defeats the definition of terrorism.

His target was not civilians was it?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorist

act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

 

[Intense]

How is it terrorism when the act was apparently commited by a major in the US military?
We are terrorists against ourselves?

Looking at all we have been told so far about Major Hasan...... Yes his attack was an act of terrorism.

I disagree since he was and is a member of the US military and his targets were military as well. It kinda defeats the definition of terrorism.

His target was not civilians was it?

terrorist - definition of terrorist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Pretty much, The President has allot of power to influence the determination. This President wants a Civil Public Trial.

§ 2331. Definitions

How Current is This?
As used in this chapter—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

US CODE: Title 18,2331. Definitions

 

[Intense]

TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various
enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists
have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under
domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in
September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As
enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the
enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nation’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether
they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges
while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable
latitude in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to
encounter both lawful and unlawful combatants. This paper explains what the difference is
and why it matters.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf

 

[Intense]

Killing In The Name Of God:
Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda
By Dr. Jeremy Post M.D.


Here is a great read behind the mind set.


http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/post.pdf

 

[drsmith1072]

I personally think that You have been captive too long. You need to purge the toxins.

So your counter response is to attack me personally and avoid the questions AGAIN?? LOL can't say that i am shocked.



YES you are. You are trying to blame obama, his new attitude and tone/policies (despite the fact that you can't name any that apply) which began on Jan 20 2009 for hasan's red flags being missed/ignored for political correctness when the FACT is that his red flags began and were missed/ignored before jan 20 2009. Do you understand how a timeline works or does it need to be explained to you?



and I have presented the reality that hasan's red flags began BEFORE obama was president and therefore obama's "new attitude" is not to blame for the red flags being missed where as you present the spin that obama is to blame for it because you say so and damn the facts.

Objective Reality falls victim to the angry mob, more often than not. To play, You must renounce your own perception. The Individual Victim of the Collective. Sorry Charlie, The bottomless pit.

So you are renouncing your own perception and joining the collective of hypocrites on the right who refused to hold W accountable for anything despite the FACT that it happened on his watch who are now flip flopping and trying to hold obama accountable for everything because it happens on his watch no matter when or where it originated?? Is that what you are trying to say?? LOL

You are falsely applying projective reasoning. Good effort though.

Actually, I am just talking about the facts that you choose to ignore because they counter your spin and don't allow you to lay the blame solely on obama.

Obama takes the hit because He is on the mound. That goes with the turf.

We have already been over this dance and it still shows republicans to be hypocrites. according to republicans, during clinton's administration if it happened on his watch it was his fault, then bush was elected and then according to some of those same republicans almost everything that happened in the first four years was clinton's fault and apparently now that another dem is president everything that happened in W's last four years is obama's fault and now that obama is president everything is his fault even if it's origins began on W's watch.

Obama takes the hit because His Team is the PC Team, You live and Die PC.

nice spin but it still doesn't change the FACT that the political correctness that you are trying to lay at obama's feet began under W's watch. You lose AGAIN.

Obama takes the hit because His Policies unsettle Our Military Command Structure.

What policies?? Name them and show proof as to how they "unsettle our military command structure."

Bush takes the Hit for Everything He contributed to the Current Environment.

and yet all the righties posting in this thread have refused to blame W for the FACT that the political correctness that you are trying to lay at obama's feet began under W's watch. You lose AGAIN.

Clinton Takes the Hit for the same reasons as Bush.

What does clinton have to do with this?? Specifics please.

You take the hit because of your denial.

and yet I am the one out of the two of us that is talking about the FACTS that YOU are in denial of. Sorry charlie but you lose again.

The Shooter takes the Hit because He is a dirt bag.

In reality, he is the only one that should since he is the one that committed the crime.

This is the Obama Show and He takes the Heat when shit storms happen. That is part of His job description. Live with it and stop sniveling about it *****.

That's it. keep passing the buck. Oh and just so you know, attacking me and transferring your short comings to me won't make them go away. They are still YOUR shortcomings.

Out of all of your spin, avoidance and attempts to attack me personally the only thing taking a hit, is YOU. It's funny how republicans like to preach personal responsibility and yet refuse to apply that standard to their own.
The basis of your entire spin is that the facts don't matter and despite the fact that the political correctness that you are trying to blame obama for occured on W's watch, it's still obama's fault.

 

[CurveLight]

How is it terrorism when the act was apparently commited by a major in the US military?
We are terrorists against ourselves?

Dude. It's very sim
ple. If islam can be tied in any way there are some who will call it terrorism regardless of any other information.

 

[Intense]

So your counter response is to attack me personally and avoid the questions AGAIN?? LOL can't say that i am shocked.



YES you are. You are trying to blame obama, his new attitude and tone/policies (despite the fact that you can't name any that apply) which began on Jan 20 2009 for hasan's red flags being missed/ignored for political correctness when the FACT is that his red flags began and were missed/ignored before jan 20 2009. Do you understand how a timeline works or does it need to be explained to you?



and I have presented the reality that hasan's red flags began BEFORE obama was president and therefore obama's "new attitude" is not to blame for the red flags being missed where as you present the spin that obama is to blame for it because you say so and damn the facts.



So you are renouncing your own perception and joining the collective of hypocrites on the right who refused to hold W accountable for anything despite the FACT that it happened on his watch who are now flip flopping and trying to hold obama accountable for everything because it happens on his watch no matter when or where it originated?? Is that what you are trying to say?? LOL

You are falsely applying projective reasoning. Good effort though.

Actually, I am just talking about the facts that you choose to ignore because they counter your spin and don't allow you to lay the blame solely on obama.



We have already been over this dance and it still shows republcians to be hypocrites. according to republicans, during clinton's administration if it happened on his watch it was his fault, then bush was elected and then according to some of those same republicans almost everything that happened in the first four years was clinton's fault and apparently now that another dem is president everything that happened in W's last four years is obama's fault and now that obama is president everything is his fault even if it's origins began on W's watch.



nice spin but it still doesn't change the FACT that the political correctness that you are trying to lay at obama's feet began under W's watch. You lose AGAIN.



What policies?? Name them and show proof as to how they "unsettle our military command structure."



and yet all the righties posting in this thread have refused to blame W for the FACT that the political correctness that you are trying to lay at obama's feet began under W's watch. You lose AGAIN.



What does clinton have to do with this?? Specifics please.



and yet I am the one out of the two of us that is talking about the FACTS that YOU are in denial of. Sorry charlie but you lose again.

The Shooter takes the Hit because He is a dirt bag.

In reality, he is the only one that should since he is the one that committed the crime.

This is the Obama Show and He takes the Heat when shit storms happen. That is part of His job description. Live with it and stop sniveling about it *****.

That's it. keep passing the buck. Oh and just so you know, attacking me and transferring your short comings to me won't make them go away. They are still YOUR shortcomings.

Out of all of your spin, avoidance and attempts to attack me personally the only thing taking a hit, is YOU. It's funny how republicans like to preach personal responsibility and yet refuse to apply that standard to their own.
The basis of your entire spin is that the facts don't matter and despite the fact that the political correctness that you are trying to blame obama for occured on W's watch, it's still obama's fault.

Say what You have to say and stop trying to manipulate me Jackass. Make your point if you even have one, and kindly stop interpreting what you think I say and mean. Your presumption is left wanting. Your tone sucks. You sit here making excuses for Obama like you would defend a surgeon for removing the wrong leg. Grow the **** up already.

 

[CurveLight]

TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various
enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists
have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under
domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in
September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As
enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the
enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nation’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether
they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges
while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable
latitude in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to
encounter both lawful and unlawful combatants. This paper explains what the difference is
and why it matters.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf

Shitbag move. Got anything besides an opinion piece that you are trying to pass off as Law or Fact?

Good job leaving this piece out:

"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."

 

[drsmith1072]

You are falsely applying projective reasoning. Good effort though.

Actually, I am just talking about the facts that you choose to ignore because they counter your spin and don't allow you to lay the blame solely on obama.



We have already been over this dance and it still shows republcians to be hypocrites. according to republicans, during clinton's administration if it happened on his watch it was his fault, then bush was elected and then according to some of those same republicans almost everything that happened in the first four years was clinton's fault and apparently now that another dem is president everything that happened in W's last four years is obama's fault and now that obama is president everything is his fault even if it's origins began on W's watch.



nice spin but it still doesn't change the FACT that the political correctness that you are trying to lay at obama's feet began under W's watch. You lose AGAIN.



What policies?? Name them and show proof as to how they "unsettle our military command structure."



and yet all the righties posting in this thread have refused to blame W for the FACT that the political correctness that you are trying to lay at obama's feet began under W's watch. You lose AGAIN.



What does clinton have to do with this?? Specifics please.



and yet I am the one out of the two of us that is talking about the FACTS that YOU are in denial of. Sorry charlie but you lose again.



In reality, he is the only one that should since he is the one that committed the crime.

This is the Obama Show and He takes the Heat when shit storms happen. That is part of His job description. Live with it and stop sniveling about it *****.

That's it. keep passing the buck. Oh and just so you know, attacking me and transferring your short comings to me won't make them go away. They are still YOUR shortcomings.

Out of all of your spin, avoidance and attempts to attack me personally the only thing taking a hit, is YOU. It's funny how republicans like to preach personal responsibility and yet refuse to apply that standard to their own.
The basis of your entire spin is that the facts don't matter and despite the fact that the political correctness that you are trying to blame obama for occured on W's watch, it's still obama's fault.

Say what You have to say and stop trying to manipulate me Jackass. Make your point if you even have one, and kindly stop interpreting what you think I say and mean. Your presumption is left wanting. Your tone sucks. You sit here making excuses for Obama like you would defend a surgeon for removing the wrong leg. Grow the **** up already.

LOL so you "interpret and spin" what I say as you try to accuse me of doing the same so you can attack me. LOL Now that is hilarious.

I am not making excuses I am stating the FACTS where as you avoided them as you tried to make excuses for bush and blame only obama for the pc attitude that you righties say allowed this to happen.

Oh and I just love the FACT that you have made comments about obama's policies and have been asked multiple times for specifics and have avoided providing any. I wonder why? Can't you prove your claim??

Attacking me won't make my argument or my questions concerning your claims go away so why don't you stop throwing a temper tantrum and try debating the FACTS.

Here I will ask a few simple questions and you can answer them with the factual responses.

When did obama become president?

How far back were hasan's "red flags" popping up?

If political correctness was the reason for not reporting these "red flags" then based on when they occured who was president and who should be blamed since the "red flags" were ignored on their watch?

If obama wasn't yet president then how could his "new attitude" as president have affected something that occured BEFORE his "new attitude" was in effect?

Can you honestly answer these simple questions or are you going to continue exposing yourself as a poster who wishes to blame obama no matter what?

 

[Intense]

TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various
enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists
have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under
domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in
September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As
enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the
enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nation’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether
they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges
while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable
latitude in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to
encounter both lawful and unlawful combatants. This paper explains what the difference is
and why it matters.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf

Shitbag move. Got anything besides an opinion piece that you are trying to pass off as Law or Fact?

Good job leaving this piece out:

"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."

Are You familiar with the Federation Of American Scientists at all?

Shit bag move? You embarrass Yourself. You have the Link use it moron. This is the second time I posted it to induce reasonable conversation. It is wasted on You. Study FAS Asshole, learn something. "Federation Of American Scientists", a very high caliber site I highly recommend it on anything Military and Government, for Anyone interested in expanding knowledge and perception, from weapons systems to Policy, to Government Records.
How? You presume to know my intent. You presume wrong again Dick Head. Do you ask for clarification? No. You make false accusations based on your flawed perception.

When I post a Link it is Your choice to check it out, or ignore it. That is no reflection on the Post. Asshole. 16 ******* Pages. You want them all posted, before or after I tuck You in. You are jerking off way too much.

 

[CurveLight]

TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various
enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists
have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under
domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in
September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As
enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the
enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nation’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether
they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges
while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable
latitude in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to
encounter both lawful and unlawful combatants. This paper explains what the difference is
and why it matters.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf

Shitbag move. Got anything besides an opinion piece that you are trying to pass off as Law or Fact?

Good job leaving this piece out:

"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."

Are You familiar with the Federation Of American Scientists at all?

Shit bag move? You embarrass Yourself. You have the Link use it moron. This is the second time I posted it to induce reasonable conversation. It is wasted on You. Study FAS Asshole, learn something. "Federation Of American Scientists", a very high caliber site I highly recommend it on anything Military and Government, for Anyone interested in expanding knowledge and perception, from weapons systems to Policy, to Government Records.
How? You presume to know my intent. You presume wrong again Dick Head. Do you ask for clarification? No. You make false accusations based on your flawed perception.

When I post a Link it is Your choice to check it out, or ignore it. That is no reflection on the Post. Asshole. 16 ******* Pages. You want them all posted, before or after I tuck You in. You are jerking off way too much.

In the middle of a discussion about defining terrorism you post an opinion piece and selectively quote to make it look like it is the Law. That's a shitbag move.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Lol..I never said you did support the invasion or cheney you super arrogant ****. No wonder you think it was legal....you can't even read short posts so how can it be expected you could read Laws?

Oh bullshit. You were attempting to imply it with yer little Cheney strawman.

Lying must come as naturally as breathing to you. Too bad you can't get away with it because of your mental deficiencies.

So anytime you want to put words in someone else's mouth you say "Well you were implying!" lol....pitiful. At least try to be original.

No, what is pitiful is your weak attempt. An attempt that you got called on and now desperately backed away from.

 

[RadiomanATL]

But CL, CARES, so much!

No, he doesn't. He's more concerned with his political position than actually caring for anyone.

You can't even read simple posts without your politics blinding you to what the words are and when you **** it up you resort to accusing others of lying. But preach on......lol. Guess you don't remember I've already seen you say you didn't support the invasion.....even if I linked those posts showing I was in the convo you'd just accuse me of hacking into USMB and changing posts. That would be a hell of a lot less painful than admitting you fucked up.

No, I didn't support the invasion. I've said that clearly and often.

But that has zero to do with whether or not it was ILLEGAL or not. And it also has zero to do with your desperate backpedaling.

Dumbass.

 

[CurveLight]

No, he doesn't. He's more concerned with his political position than actually caring for anyone.

You can't even read simple posts without your politics blinding you to what the words are and when you **** it up you resort to accusing others of lying. But preach on......lol. Guess you don't remember I've already seen you say you didn't support the invasion.....even if I linked those posts showing I was in the convo you'd just accuse me of hacking into USMB and changing posts. That would be a hell of a lot less painful than admitting you fucked up.

No, I didn't support the invasion. I've said that clearly and often.

But that has zero to do with whether or not it was ILLEGAL or not. And it also has zero to do with your desperate backpedaling.

Dumbass.

You're accusing someone of backpedaling and being a dumbass based solely on an assumption you made. Good luck with that.