Trump working on pardoning people accused of war crimes

Kondor3

Cafeteria Centrist
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
26,131
Reaction score
4,197
Points
290
Location
Illinois, USA
...Bombing and invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, Al Qaeda or WMD's... was that a defensive operation? ...
Afghanistan was a righteous shoot - although we should have been in-and-out of there in a matter of weeks, or six months at the outside.

Iraq was not.

In both instances, those conflicts were reactions TO Jihadism rather than the trigger.


...Here's the difference. They were fighting for their homes...
The Iraqis were fighting for their master, Saddam Hussein.

That portion of the Afghans that fight us were fighting for political power to re-impose Sharia over their fellow Afghans.

Our guys were fighting because the Army promised them a free education that never happens...
Our guys were fighting because they volunteered to serve our country in that capacity, for a variety of reasons...

It was their bad luck that W and Cheney and Powell betrayed them before they even mustered for deployment to Iraq...

As to education, well... Sammy gave me four years at U of I Chicago (Circle) and a degree at the end of the tunnel, so...

You tell me which one is going to be more "committed"...
Your average Iraqi was not supportive of Saddam Hussein...

Your average Afghan is not supportive of the Taliban or their extremist interpretation of Sharia Law...

But, in the case of Yemenese and Sudanese and Syrian and Libyan and Wahabbi and Muslim Brotherhood or Iranian Jihadis, well...

They really aren't closely linked to former operations in Iraq or former or present-day operations in Afghanistan...

Rather, they are all about the spread of Militant Islam...

The world's last remaining large-scale Warrior Cult...

Founded by a despicable creature, bathed in blood past and present, self-excusing, changes locked-out, incapable of reform...

A Warrior Cult that finds useful idiots, excuse-makers and apologists amongst the Threat-Recognition -challenged in adversarial audiences...


...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.
The forces we applied in the case of both Iraq and Afghanistan were just right for fighting a war...

We won the wars...

We lost the Peace...

And that because we tried to nation-build (again, for the umpteenth time) rather than just walking away from the smoking ruins...
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
122,721
Reaction score
11,482
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
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.
No, man, I just know there's a big difference between what they teach you in basic and AIT and what you learn out in the field. And here's the thing, I'm not even claiming to be a combat arms guys. My MOS was 76Y (Supply specialist). And yes, guess what, we did a whole lot of stuff they told you not to do in AIT. Like having a network of contacts at other units to swap equipment and expendable supplies rather than wait for the depot to finally process the paperwork you submitted a month ago.

It's called, "Working in the real world". SO if some REMF says, 'You have to let Abdul Ratbastard go because you don't have photos of him planting the bomb that killed two of your guys",

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.
Or he didn't want to also have to fight a bunch of his Al Qaeda buddies in the town square... Or he was trying to increase the intimidation factor.

Let's look at it another way. If his intent was to scare Abdul Ratbastard into giving up his buddies, then stripping him and intimidating him makes sense. If his intent was to just kill the guy, just kill him and be done with it.

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.
That happens to be your opinion.

The opinion of 30 retired generals is that he should have gotten a pardon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?noredirect=on

Since his conviction, Behenna, an Oklahoma native, has won the support of former governor Mary Fallin (R), state Attorney General Mike Hunter (R), and more than 30 retired generals and admirals — among them Trump’s former special envoy for the Persian Gulf, retired Gen. Anthony Zinni.

If a blind man could have prosecuted this case, then why did the guys who DID prosecute it hid a witness that supported the accused version of the story.

We have let murderers off of death row for this kind of thing in this country, and they weren't in a war zone fighting religious nuts trying to kill them every day.
 

Olde Europe

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
5,773
Reaction score
4,461
Points
2,065
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...
Yep. All demonstrated, and quite some time ago, I might add. Even worse, and extending far beyond Behenna's case, he has to trash the entire military justice system to get the desired outcome.

It continues to amaze me how many are fully prepared to go full rightard once they've dehumanized the Other by slapping the "terrorist" label on him, no matter how flimsy the "evidence". Saddening, too.

Thanks for your advocacy on this thread. It's much appreciated.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
122,721
Reaction score
11,482
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Afghanistan was a righteous shoot - although we should have been in-and-out of there in a matter of weeks, or six months at the outside.
Yeah, I'm sure the Russians thought the same thing.. and The British.

In both instances, those conflicts were reactions TO Jihadism rather than the trigger.
Only if you ignore all the stuff we did before 2001... we did a lot of stuff before 2001, which is why these young Muslim men joined Al Qaeda to start with.

Our guys were fighting because they volunteered to serve our country in that capacity, for a variety of reasons...

It was their bad luck that W and Cheney and Powell betrayed them before they even mustered for deployment to Iraq...

As to education, well... Sammy gave me four years at U of I Chicago (Circle) and a degree at the end of the tunnel, so...
Me too. Go Flames (Said no one ever!) But a lot of the guys I served with had no business going to college, and they joined anyway. I suspect most of them flunked out the first year.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
122,721
Reaction score
11,482
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Yep. All demonstrated, and quite some time ago, I might add. Even worse, and extending far beyond Behenna's case, he has to trash the entire military justice system to get the desired outcome.
The military "Justice" system deserves criticism. It's very good at railroading people. (The same can be said of the civilian one if you are poor and black, but that's another discussion.)

What I found in the 11 years I was in was that when things go south, they find the lowest ranking schlub they can hang something on, and hang him out to dry.

It continues to amaze me how many are fully prepared to go full rightard once they've dehumanized the Other by slapping the "terrorist" label on him, no matter how flimsy the "evidence". Saddening, too.
Awesome, dude. Tell you what. Next time we have a war, let's send a few thousand social workers instead of soldiers. Should be fun to see how that works out.
 

Lewdog

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
23,547
Reaction score
2,991
Points
290
Location
Williamsburg, KY
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.
No, man, I just know there's a big difference between what they teach you in basic and AIT and what you learn out in the field. And here's the thing, I'm not even claiming to be a combat arms guys. My MOS was 76Y (Supply specialist). And yes, guess what, we did a whole lot of stuff they told you not to do in AIT. Like having a network of contacts at other units to swap equipment and expendable supplies rather than wait for the depot to finally process the paperwork you submitted a month ago.

It's called, "Working in the real world". SO if some REMF says, 'You have to let Abdul Ratbastard go because you don't have photos of him planting the bomb that killed two of your guys",

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.
Or he didn't want to also have to fight a bunch of his Al Qaeda buddies in the town square... Or he was trying to increase the intimidation factor.

Let's look at it another way. If his intent was to scare Abdul Ratbastard into giving up his buddies, then stripping him and intimidating him makes sense. If his intent was to just kill the guy, just kill him and be done with it.

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.
That happens to be your opinion.

The opinion of 30 retired generals is that he should have gotten a pardon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?noredirect=on

Since his conviction, Behenna, an Oklahoma native, has won the support of former governor Mary Fallin (R), state Attorney General Mike Hunter (R), and more than 30 retired generals and admirals — among them Trump’s former special envoy for the Persian Gulf, retired Gen. Anthony Zinni.

If a blind man could have prosecuted this case, then why did the guys who DID prosecute it hid a witness that supported the accused version of the story.

We have let murderers off of death row for this kind of thing in this country, and they weren't in a war zone fighting religious nuts trying to kill them every day.
Obviously you don't know much, as I've already said, this guy is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people that murdered unarmed people in Iraq, despite many people having the exact same amount of training.

Obviously it is more than just my opinion, as he was found guilty, and despite several times you could have refuted any of my points about premeditation and cover-up, the only thing you can do is try to pass blame on to everyone but the murderer. It's superiors' fault. It's the army's fault for not training him enough. It's the fault of the trail suppressing evidence.
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
21,614
Reaction score
6,553
Points
360
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.

The War on Evil is hardly over at all. Jihadi like Ladin, Al-Baghdadi and Johnny Walker pose just as much of a danger to American women and children as they always have.

The question isn't whether Mr. Walker personally pulled a trigger, but whether he failed to take the action to help his fellow American and sided with the enemy
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
26,616
Reaction score
4,967
Points
290
Yep. All demonstrated, and quite some time ago, I might add. Even worse, and extending far beyond Behenna's case, he has to trash the entire military justice system to get the desired outcome.
The military "Justice" system deserves criticism. It's very good at railroading people. (The same can be said of the civilian one if you are poor and black, but that's another discussion.)

What I found in the 11 years I was in was that when things go south, they find the lowest ranking schlub they can hang something on, and hang him out to dry.

It continues to amaze me how many are fully prepared to go full rightard once they've dehumanized the Other by slapping the "terrorist" label on him, no matter how flimsy the "evidence". Saddening, too.
Awesome, dude. Tell you what. Next time we have a war, let's send a few thousand social workers instead of soldiers. Should be fun to see how that works out.
load up the social justice warriors and let 'em have at it. :)
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
21,614
Reaction score
6,553
Points
360
Back in 2001, America was attacked by the Axis of Evil- a worldwide demonic alliance and President Bush promised to take them out. Walker chose to side with the reprobate enemy instead of the Coalition of the Willing.

Terrorism still exists to this very day. The efforts haven't been fully effective yet.

IMHO, Walker should be deported to Guantanamo Bay and held to the end of hostilities. When the Caliphs and Ayatollahs climb aboard the USS Missouri to sign unconditional surrender docs, sure let him out then
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
122,721
Reaction score
11,482
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Obviously you don't know much, as I've already said, this guy is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people that murdered unarmed people in Iraq, despite many people having the exact same amount of training.
Okay- and again, we killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis... so why does this guy deserve punishment?

Oh, that's right. Because at the time, we were trying to convince the Iraqis to let us keep troops in their country, so we needed to make an example out of someone.

Obviously it is more than just my opinion, as he was found guilty, and despite several times you could have refuted any of my points about premeditation and cover-up
Except their wasn't premeditation. Premeditation means you don't take the translator along with you, because those guys were only slightly more trustable than the terrorists. The fact he took a translator with him shows he intended to interrogate the terrorist, not kill him.

the only thing you can do is try to pass blame on to everyone but the murderer. It's superiors' fault. It's the army's fault for not training him enough. It's the fault of the trail suppressing evidence.
Yup, I have this funny idea if you put a man on trial for his life, you actually make it a FAIR process.

Better than a 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison, and all that.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
122,721
Reaction score
11,482
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
The War on Evil is hardly over at all. Jihadi like Ladin, Al-Baghdadi and Johnny Walker pose just as much of a danger to American women and children as they always have.

The question isn't whether Mr. Walker personally pulled a trigger, but whether he failed to take the action to help his fellow American and sided with the enemy
Um, no. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time is hardly a jailable offense. Especially since we probably let the guys who did kill Spann off a long time ago.

So this is about America being upset this (admittedly disturbed) young man rejecting our culture and embracing theirs...

17 years for being in the wrong place... doesn't seem right to me.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top