Breaking: Mass Shooting at Ft. Hood

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Man, even for a liberal you are dense.

Wow, do you always start you comments with personal insults?

First, you say I "spout ignorance and bullshit".

Now, you insult me by calling me a liberal. Really shows a lot of class from you. I guess when you can't argue the subject, you fall back to personal attacks. Standard neocon playbook. Insult the messenger and call them a liberal, regardless of their views.

Hint: I am no liberal. I'm a republican, but I am certainly no neocon. I won't sit back and ignore things just because it's "my" party that does it. Sorry. I'll make up my own mind and complain about both parties when they do something wrong.

When my President lies about invading a country, that costs over 100,000 lives, you bet I will complain, regardless of an R or D after his name. Why don't you? We caused over 100,000 innocent people to be killed. You continue to ignore this, does this not matter to you?

The fact is WMD were not found. There was no real link between AQ and Saddam.

By March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence.[14] Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[15] President Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,[16] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[17]

So Congress and Bush himself admit the "failure", and that there were no WMD found.

So you can continue to believe what you want, it's still a mostly free country, but Bush, Congress, and the rest of the world all realized that no WMD were found. And to be very clear, so you can't miss it, here is the Congressional report on the intel failures:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Read and be enlightened. Specifically, read the conclusions staring on page 52. It will bluntly say that all the pre-war assertions made by Bush were wrong about WMD. I guess you don't believe a republican controlled Congressional report either, huh?

It will also note that Curveball (the wonder person who base your posts on, and the one I said was a drunk ex-pat who the CIA threw money at), was found to have been wrong time and time again. Just like I posted earlier.

Note that I don't think Saddam was a nice or good person, or that given the chance, he would have tried to restart those programs. But the UN sanctions and oversight was working, and had stopped him from restarting any WMD programs.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Wow, do you always start you comments with personal insults?

First, you say I "spout ignorance and bullshit".

Now, you insult me by calling me a liberal. Really shows a lot of class from you. I guess when you can't argue the subject, you fall back to personal attacks. Standard neocon playbook. Insult the messenger and call them a liberal, regardless of their views.

Hint: I am no liberal. I'm a republican, but I am certainly no neocon. I won't sit back and ignore things just because it's "my" party that does it. Sorry. I'll make up my own mind and complain about both parties when they do something wrong.

When my President lies about invading a country, that costs over 100,000 lives, you bet I will complain, regardless of an R or D after his name. Why don't you? We caused over 100,000 innocent people to be killed. You continue to ignore this, does this not matter to you?

The fact is WMD were not found. There was no real link between AQ and Saddam.



So Congress and Bush himself admit the "failure", and that there were no WMD found.

So you can continue to believe what you want, it's still a mostly free country, but Bush, Congress, and the rest of the world all realized that no WMD were found. And to be very clear, so you can't miss it, here is the Congressional report on the intel failures:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Read and be enlightened. Specifically, read the conclusions staring on page 52. It will bluntly say that all the pre-war assertions made by Bush were wrong about WMD. I guess you don't believe a republican controlled Congressional report either, huh?

It will also note that Curveball (the wonder person who base your posts on, and the one I said was a drunk ex-pat who the CIA threw money at), was found to have been wrong time and time again. Just like I posted earlier.

Note that I don't think Saddam was a nice or good person, or that given the chance, he would have tried to restart those programs. But the UN sanctions and oversight was working, and had stopped him from restarting any WMD programs.

I'm no neocon, I'm a libertarian who has only voted for Republicans twice since Reagan. (Although I admit that "neocon" is one of the terms that, like "Zionist", makes me tend to dismiss anything the user says.) It's just that one of the things that really gets my goat is that the WMDs we found are somehow not WMDs because we didn't find the ones we thought Hussein had. I've read that report, several times, but again, I never denied that we didn't find the WMDs that we thought Hussein had manufactured since '91. What I pointed out, time and again, was that we did find the WMDs we knew he had, manufactured before '91. In fact, in the one botched sarin gas attack we suffered - that I referenced - we had several soldiers treated for sarin gas exposure. Why so many people have agreed to ignore those WMDs totally escapes me. It's like we agreed to spot Hussein 500 old WMDs. But I agree our intelligence was terribly faulty.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Looks like the Army will seek the death penalty for this: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihGepAkECGoDagETVBMpPb3w7Y3gD9FCAO600

Army indicates it will seek death in Ft. Hood case
By ANGELA K. BROWN (AP) – 2 hours ago

FORT WORTH, Texas — Military prosecutors have sent a notice indicating they plan to seek the death penalty against the Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly Fort Hood shooting.

That's according to defense attorney John Galligan, who says he received the notice Wednesday outlining an aggravating factor — that more than one person was killed in the same incident. Military law experts say that's the Army's way of saying they plan to seek the death penalty.

If military jurors were to convict Maj. Nidal Hasan, they could sentence him to death only if they found that there was an aggravating factor in the case.
Hasan is accused of opening fire at the post on Nov. 5, killing 13 and wounding dozens. Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder, which carries the death penalty.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Why are we all so obsessed with doing to death the FT Hood shooter, and preferably painfully? The guy will never see the outside of a jail cell no matter what. Will our demand for vengeance bring a single one of his victims back to life? Or more importantly is his life now a football? On one hand some may hope that killing him painfully may deter other terrorists by putting the US fear of God into them, and on the other hand we may all worry that his painful death may make him a holy Muslim saint to be emulated as an inspiration to further Al-Quida recruitment.

I can certainly understand that certain mental midgets on this forum think only about the former vengeance points, while ignoring that latter points possibility that is very unlikely to make us all safer yet.
 
Last edited:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Why are we all so obsessed with doing to death the FT Hood shooter, and preferably painfully? The guy will never see the outside of a jail cell no matter what. Will our demand for vengeance bring a single one of his victims back to life? Or more importantly is his life now a football? On one hand some may hope that killing him painfully may deter other terrorists by putting the US fear of God into them, and on the other hand we may all worry that his painful death may make him a holy Muslim saint to be emulated as an inspiration to further Al-Quida recruitment.

I can certainly understand that certain mental midgets on this forum think only about the former vengeance points, while ignoring that latter points possibility that is very unlikely to make us all safer yet.

Are you anti-death penalty?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Why are we all so obsessed with doing to death the FT Hood shooter, and preferably painfully?

Isn't it going to be by lethal injection?

Better than having his head sawed off, doncha think?

Oh, and the death penalty requires the President's affirmative approve of the execution. Think Obama is up to it?
 
Last edited:

fatpat268

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2006
5,853
0
71
Why are we all so obsessed with doing to death the FT Hood shooter, and preferably painfully? The guy will never see the outside of a jail cell no matter what. Will our demand for vengeance bring a single one of his victims back to life? Or more importantly is his life now a football? On one hand some may hope that killing him painfully may deter other terrorists by putting the US fear of God into them, and on the other hand we may all worry that his painful death may make him a holy Muslim saint to be emulated as an inspiration to further Al-Quida recruitment.

I can certainly understand that certain mental midgets on this forum think only about the former vengeance points, while ignoring that latter points possibility that is very unlikely to make us all safer yet.

Well, for one, the jackass is paralyzed. The jail that's holding him currently has had to do some special accommodations just to receive him. Then you have the extensive costs of medical treatment, all costing taxpayer's money.

The quicker he gets the death penalty, the better. The sad part is, in cases like these it'll probably drag out for years and years anyway and it wouldn't make a difference.
 

ksheets

Senior member
Aug 11, 2000
737
70
91
Isn't it going to be by lethal injection?

Better than having his head sawed off, doncha think?

Oh, and the death penalty requires the President's affirmative approve of the execution. Think Obama is up to it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just Googled this, Id have to say he will probably lay down the hammer

Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty "does little to deter crime." But he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

A Chicago Tribune profile of Obama last spring (May 2, 2007, available on Lexis.com) contained this paragraph:

A critic of the state's broken capital punishment system, Obama spent two years working with Republicans to broker a series of reforms aimed at making it more difficult for the innocent to face execution. Still, Obama found himself on various sides of the death penalty debate. Five months into office, he voted to expand the list of death-eligible crimes to include the brutal murder of a senior citizen or a disabled person. Four years later, he opposed adding murders that were part of "gang activity" to the list, saying the term was a "mechanism to target particular neighborhoods (and) particular individuals."(my emphasis)
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I just Googled this, Id have to say he will probably lay down the hammer

The guy's all over the place on every issue.

In this case, the buck definitely stops at his desk and now everyone will be watching.

Oh well, the history of the death penalty from military trials is one of interminable appeals anyway. I expect this case, with appeals, will still be going into the next Administration.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Where does this thread tangent come from, that somehow Obama is the only age old decider of the death penalty v life imprisonment questions in the entire world? The question of the wisdom and humanity of using the ultimate punishment of death started long before Obama and will remain long after Obama leaves office.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
Oh, and the death penalty requires the President's affirmative approve of the execution. Think Obama is up to it?

Ha! The military death penalty is a joke, we're looking at probably 15 to 20 years of appeals if not more. This piece of human garbage will have many, many years left to live after Obama leaves office unless he voluntarily drops his appeals.