More mass shootings

[cvfd1399 0]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

And the president well we know his reasons for trying to sidestep it.

I don't. Why did he try to sidestep it?

To play down the pattern of Islamic terror and not incite panic.

There is no pattern of Islamic terror in the US.

Inciting panic is almost never a good idea.

If that was his reasoning, it would appear to be pretty sound.

Why exactly are you so vehemently opposed to this reasoning?

I'm not that's why I left it him having his own reasons. My main point was the two other items as it directly pertains to normiss understanding of it being charged as one thing but known as another. Just ignore the part about obama it was a side point and irrelevant.

[kallend 2,027]

cvfd1399

*********

Quote

And the president well we know his reasons for trying to sidestep it.

I don't. Why did he try to sidestep it?

To play down the pattern of Islamic terror and not incite panic.

There is no pattern of Islamic terror in the US.

Inciting panic is almost never a good idea.

If that was his reasoning, it would appear to be pretty sound.

Why exactly are you so vehemently opposed to this reasoning?

I'm not that's why I left it him having his own reasons. My main point was the two other items as it directly pertains to normiss understanding of it being charged as one thing but known as another. Just ignore the part about obama it was a side point and irrelevant.

So you want the CinC to disregard the UCMJ?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

normiss

Start their what?

Hey

Did you order your Chia Obama yet?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[cvfd1399 0]

kallend

************

Quote

And the president well we know his reasons for trying to sidestep it.

I don't. Why did he try to sidestep it?

To play down the pattern of Islamic terror and not incite panic.

There is no pattern of Islamic terror in the US.

Inciting panic is almost never a good idea.

If that was his reasoning, it would appear to be pretty sound.

Why exactly are you so vehemently opposed to this reasoning?

I'm not that's why I left it him having his own reasons. My main point was the two other items as it directly pertains to normiss understanding of it being charged as one thing but known as another. Just ignore the part about obama it was a side point and irrelevant.

So you want the CinC to disregard the UCMJ? CinC?

[normiss 800]

Oh my fucking god.

[rehmwa 2]

cvfd1399

***
So you want the CinC to disregard the UCMJ?

CinC?

clearly Cincinnati

Kallend lives there, sort of

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 800]

Chuckling in Chicago

[kallend 2,027]

rehmwa

******
So you want the CinC to disregard the UCMJ?

CinC?

clearly Cincinnati

Kallend lives there, sort of

Yes, we call it "the FAR southeast side". Somewhere in the vicinity of Gary, or Atlanta, or Miami.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

normiss

Chuckling in Chicago

It's a long commute!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi cvfd,

Quote

CinC?

In this thread you, apparently, seem to profess quite a bit of knowledge about the military.

And you do not know what CinC means? Really?

Jerry Baumchen

[cvfd1399 0]

No....not at all. I even googled the term after the fact and could not come up with anything related to this. He has everyone scramble over some bullshit technical argument about what the military had to charge the guy with.

They couldn't charge him with terrorism as he himself said it did not exist.

That doesn't change the fact that it was terrorism by a guy who had credible ties and TOLD everyone it was terrorism!!

Normiss is the one dragging everyone into this UCMJ shit, as an angle to try to prove he was right about what the icident actually was. Workplace violence or terrorism...

I'm done with his childish troll comments dealing with this.

[kallend 2,027]

cvfd1399

No....not at all. I even googled the term after the fact and could not come up with anything related to this.

Your Google-fu is rather weak, then.

First entry in my Google search: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CINC_(disambiguation)

followed by:
www.thefreedictionary.com/CINC

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 800]

So I'm "trolling" because I understand the UCMJ and how it's applied.
OK.


Your depth of ignorance is sadly impressive.

[cvfd1399 0]

normiss

So I'm "trolling" because I understand the UCMJ and how it's applied.
OK.


Your depth of ignorance is sadly impressive.

No one is fucking arguing that he was charged incorrectly or ANY legal issues are incorrect!!!!!

I am simply trying to get through your obtuseness and willingness to argue over absolutely everything I say and show you that ON THE SURFACE IT WAS ABSOULTY TERRORISM!


http://havokjournal.com/nation/fort-hood-terrorism/

The mods blind eye to your attacks are what is impressive.

[normiss 800]

Which "attacks" are you referring to?

[cvfd1399 0]

normiss

Which "attacks" are you referring to?

Some are direct most indirect, but one can see a pattern of your unprovoked aggressiveness which is returned when given I will admit, but only once it was started.

Quote

Your depth of ignorance is sadly impressive.

Quote

Oh my fucking god.
CrazyCrazyCrazy

Quote

You should have went in the Marines then you might understand how the UCMJ works. Doubtful, but it might help.

Quote

Grow up?
Like actually serving instead of playing weekend warrior wanna be?

Quote

And we reset the dick wrestling chart, time to repeat the same idiocy once again.

[normiss 800]

cvfd1399

***Which "attacks" are you referring to?

Some are direct most indirect, but one can see a pattern of your unprovoked aggressiveness which is returned when given I will admit, but only once it was started.

Quote

Your depth of ignorance is sadly impressive.

Yet when you called me ignorant, it was normal conversation.

Quote

Oh my fucking god.
CrazyCrazyCrazy

Attack?

Quote

You should have went in the Marines then you might understand how the UCMJ works. Doubtful, but it might help.

It's true, you're still ignorant of military law.

Quote

Grow up?
Like actually serving instead of playing weekend warrior wanna be?

You said for me to grow up. I am, your turn.

Quote

And we reset the dick wrestling chart, time to repeat the same idiocy once again.

This comment was in response to someone else.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

It's true, you're still ignorant of military law.

They charged him with workplace violence because terrorism charges did not exist. Your argument is completely worthless due to that fact. If they DID have workplace violence AND terrorism charges and they CHOSE not to use terrorism your argument would have merit.

They charged him with workplace violence due to the fact it had the best chance of getting a good strong stern conviction and a better written charge was not present.

It doesnt change the fact that it was actually terrorism

Your ability to willfully ignore this to continue arguing or not understand what everyone else already know about the circumstances around the charges and what actually happened is what is going on here.


AGAIN what they charged him with is irrelevant when we are talking about what actually occurred when the charge does not exist as they had no choice.

If the only record on the books was reckless discharge of a weapon and they chose to use that instead it doesn't change the fact that it was terrorism or murder because that is the best charge they have. Would you still be defending the term of the incident as reckless discharge of a weapon then, or do you understand now?

[normiss 800]

LOL
He was charged with murder. Stop digging bro, neither of those charges exist in the UCMJ.
Jebus balls man. Words mean stuff.

[cvfd1399 0]

normiss

LOL
He was charged with murder. Stop digging bro, neither of those charges exist in the UCMJ.
Jebus balls man. Words mean stuff.

Or whatever the charge was, it still does not change the fact that they could not charge him with terrorism because it did not exist.

[normiss 800]

Took you long enough.

[cvfd1399 0]

normiss

Took you long enough.

So after all this we have a guy who
-Admitted it was terrorism
-Had credible ties to a terrorist leader who was later killed in a drone strike
-Yelled "Allahu Akbar" before he shot up US service members
-Said he committed the murders to as an attempt to protect taliban leaders in Afghanistan from American troops

But his actions doesnt fit this definition when referring to the INCIDENT not the CHARGES in your mind.

Quote

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

Yet you still do not think it was terrorism because of the way he HAD to be charged. Amazing.....

[billvon 2,991]

>Or whatever the charge was, it still does not change the fact that they could
>not charge him with terrorism because it did not exist.

Correct. They charged him with the crime that the law requires them to.

What's wrong with following the law?

[cvfd1399 0]

billvon

>Or whatever the charge was, it still does not change the fact that they could
>not charge him with terrorism because it did not exist.

Correct. They charged him with the crime that the law requires them to.

What's wrong with following the law?

ABSOLUTELY not a god dammed thing, and that is not what the argument here is about!! That angle is how normiss is trying to get out of admitting it was terrorism by hiding under the fact of that is the best charge they had.

It is about what actually happened when discussing the indent out of the context of the legal argument.

It was fucking terrorism at face value they just had a better more suited charge.

It would be the picture of terrorism in a text book.

[billvon 2,991]

>That angle is how normiss is trying to get out of admitting it was terrorism by hiding
>under the fact of that is the best charge they had.

No. In fact he said just that:

"I don't always agree with the way the UCMJ works either, but that's how the military handles it. He wasn't the first one to kill his fellow soldiers by any means. Care to venture venture a guess on how those were prosecuted?"