Fort Hood [Archive] - TSP Talk Forums

James48843

11-05-2009, 10:40 PM

My research -as bad as it is- (too early to triple cross check all of it) shows the shooter was born in Virginia. He served eight years as an enlisted man in the U.S. Army. He graduated from Virginia Tech, degree in Biochemistry- where he was an ROTC cadet . He went to medical school as part of a graduate program.

He had been assigned 6 years at Walter Reed Army Hospital as the Mental Health Psychiatrist.

Nidal Hasan, M.D., M.P.H.

Fellow, Disaster and Preventive Psychiatry
Department of Psychiatry
F.Edward Hebert School of Medicine
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

According to the records, Hasan completed a residency in psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. in 2007 and additional training in disaster and preventive psychiatry at Uniformed Services University Of the Health Sciences F. Edward Herbert School of Medicine, Bethesda, Md.

Dr. Hasan was educated at the following institutions:

Grad School: Uniformed Services University Of The Health Sciences F. Edward Herbert School Of Medicine - Bethesda MD
Year Completed: 2003

Medical, Osteopathic, or Podiatric Post Grad School
Last Updated 10/13/2009

Psychiatry
WRAMC
Washington, DC USA
Year Residency Completed: 2007

Disaster and Preventive Psychiatry
USUHS/WRAMC
Bethesda, MD USA
Year Fellowship Completed: 2009

Board Certification

Recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists and Boards of Certification, the American Board of Multiple Specialties in Podiatry, or Council on Podiatric Medical Education.

Last Updated 10/13/2009

Felony Conviction Information
Last Updated 10/13/2009
None Reported

Virginia Board of Medicine Notices and Orders
Verified by Board
No Notices or Orders on file

Actions Taken by States/Organizations Other than the Virginia Board of Medicine
Last Updated 10/13/2009
None Reported

Virginia License Status:
LICENSE # 0101238630
Issue Date: 7/12/2005
Expiration Date: 9/30/2010
Status: Current Active

**
Patient's ratings:

CARING DOCTOR

Reviewer: Pvt J. Hammond

Although he was hard to understand (strong accent) this doctor helped me come to terms with my conscientious objector status.While I am still not thrilled about being deployed to Iraq, I at least understand how doing so to protect my fellow soldiers is a good thing.

==============================
Affilited with:
Hospital:
Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Ave NW, Washington, DC 20307

Northern Virginia Mental Health Institute

National Naval Medical Center - Bethesda
8901 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20889
--------------------------------------------

What I am NOT able to confirm:

Some reports say he did extensive work at Walter Reed with the wounded and psychiatric care for the wounded. I saw one report that while he graduated in 2001, another that it was 2003. He got his medical license in 2005, while at Walter Reed- Medical students incur a seven year service obligation- (one year for each year of schooling), and I saw one report that he had hired a lawyer within the last year, trying to get out of the military, but that was unsuccessful, as he recieved deployment orders while trying to file for separation. If the 2001 date is correct, he would have finished his military obligation in 2008 or 2009. However, being on deployment orders would have kept him past his normal service obligation time- however, I can't find anything that verifies or cross checks those reports Not enoughdata points yet to say if any of that is correct. Also read some other reports on his personal life- lived with his brother for a while in Virginia, tried to find a wife unsuccessfully through his friends in Virginia. One report said he filed a complaint while at Walter Reed about coworkers and patients treating him poorly because of his name and ethnic heritage, (He was born in the USA, but said many gave him a very hard time about his name.) Very little of any of that can be confirmed because it's just too hard to cross check any of it. Those are just bits and pieces of quotes picked up from stories of people who know him, or worked with him in the past.

It's still too early to understand what snapped.

Pray for the families of all the victims.

God, help all of them tonight, and in the days ahead. Every single one of them.

Buster

11-05-2009, 10:50 PM

My research -as bad as it is- (too early to triple cross check all of it) ...

I can't find anything that verifies or cross checks those reports, however. Not enough to say if it's correct. It's still too early to understand what snapped.
That pretty much is what I've been able to find and have heard from the Media (hell of a Resume', but you know what they call a doctor with a 2.1 GPA?....A Doctor)..also it was reported that he was a convert to Islam some time ago and at the last while at Water Reed, he had very low performance appraisals and shortly there after was transferred to Fort Hood.

James48843

11-05-2009, 11:02 PM

What he was NOT:

He was NOT a "Middle Eastern Muslim Terrorist Jihadist who snuck onto an Army base and opened fire", as was reported on some sites:
=====================

Maj Hasan's cousin Nader Husan said he was happy working for the military but did dread deployment to Iraq.

Mr Hasan said his cousin was a US-born Muslim who had joined the military after high school. He had served as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC, which treats many badly wounded troops.

"He was a psychiatrist at Walter Reed dealing with the people coming back and ... trying to help them with their trauma," he said.

He said his cousin had been transferred to Fort Hood in April months ago and was very reluctant to be deployed to Iraq. "We've known over the last five years that was probably his worst nightmare," he said.

=====================

What a terrible day.

McDuck

11-06-2009, 05:09 AM

That pretty much is what I've been able to find and have heard from the Media (hell of a Resume', but you know what they call a doctor with a 2.1 GPA?....A Doctor)..also it was reported that he was a convert to Islam some time ago and at the last while at Water Reed, he had very low performance appraisals and shortly there after was transferred to Fort Hood.

I also noticed that James didn't post that information. It makes a person question what facts that he leaves off his other posts.

James48843

11-06-2009, 05:45 AM

I also noticed that James didn't post that information. It makes a person question what facts that he leaves off his other posts.
I didn't "report" that he converted to Islam while at Walter Reed because it's not true. That was only reported on some right-wing blogs, and a cousin of his told the New York Times that the family was always Muslim.

I didn't report that he had "very low performance appraisals there", because there was ONE low apprial, and it was rated low because of his communication skills interacting with his patients- his rater said he was not spending enough time with them.

Any more questions?

phil

11-06-2009, 06:20 AM

I just hope that none of this creates a backlash against the Muslims. After reading a lot of blogs yesterday, that seems to be the thing on everyone's mind. Let's remember that we're Americans.

Show-me

11-06-2009, 06:57 AM

At first I was shocked at the name, but I am struggling with the motive for shooting that many Soldiers. There are many ways to avoid going to war. Suicide is one. Refusing to go another, contentious objector. This guy made a conscious effort to kill as many US Soldiers as possible.

He shot 42 people and was not after any single person. He wanted to rack up a big body count for some reason and I struggle that that reason was to avoid going into the theater of war. Last time I checked mental health Doctors are in the rear with the gear.

I'm glad they did not kill him.

Show-me

11-06-2009, 07:06 AM

Dead men tell no secrets.

Show-me

11-06-2009, 07:29 AM

My second assumption, because of the high body count, was that the shooter had actual combat experience. Shooting 42 people with multiple GSW's is not a easy task.

Buster

11-06-2009, 07:51 AM

I didn't "report" that he converted to Islam while at Walter Reed because it's not true. That was only reported on some right-wing blogs, and a cousin of his told the New York Times that the family was always Muslim.

I didn't report that he had "very low performance appraisals there", because there was ONE low apprial, and it was rated low because of his communication skills interacting with his patients- his rater said he was not spending enough time with them.

Any more questions?
Jim, it was not a right-wing blog that reported his Muslim affiliations or Islamic conversion first.. may have been some out there that you like to read, but those are opinions and I don't subscribe to garbage... it was FOX News where I first heard it, early in the afternoon. and they also withheld his name so as to not run up the red flag on Muslim terrorist ties, while other NEWS networks couldn't wait to ...They also did not say that he converted to Islam while at Walter Reed, only to say that he was a CONVERT.

nnuut

11-06-2009, 08:26 AM

Buster

11-06-2009, 08:52 AM

Now we should do to him what Sharia law would, instead of giving him life in a mental institution.:nuts:
I agree...he needs to meet his 72 virgins....SOON!!!!

nnuut

11-06-2009, 08:57 AM

I agree...he needs to meet his 72 virgins....SOON!!!!
What would they do to a Christian if he did this over there? I get a chill down my spine just thinking about it!:eek: 7167

Valkyrie

11-06-2009, 09:57 AM

what are they teaching at virginia tech?
is he an associate of Seung Hui Cho?
are there more VTs out there?

Silverbird

11-06-2009, 10:07 AM

Ha, no "virgins soon" for someone trying to go out with a bang. That's what he wants. No Martyrdom. He's just a felon. Multiple Life sentences in supermax = gone and forgotten. Of course he will need solitary confinement for his own protection. He's in his 20's, right? That's a long time in purgatory.

BTW, this isn't protest against the war, he signed a contract and got medical training. If he didn't like it, he shouldn't have finished the medical training. This isn't "he got drafted", it's "he wanted the training but later decided he didn't like the bill when it came due." And what was he thinking - Obama never said we were leaving Afganistan, quite the opposite, and it could have been McCain, either way duty waited after training.

James48843

11-06-2009, 11:49 AM

President Barack Obama ordered the flags at the White House and other federal buildings be at half-staff and urged people not drawn conclusions while authorities investigate.

"We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts," Obama said in a statement.

turbo23dog

11-06-2009, 12:28 PM

Moment of Silence -- at 2:34 p.m. EST -- 6 November 2009

The United States Secretary of Defense (Robert M. Gates) Orders Moment of Silence for Fort Hood Victims

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Nov. 6, 2009 - Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has directed a moment of silence throughout the Defense Department today to honor the victims of yesterday's attack at Fort Hood, Texas.
Twelve people were killed and 30 others were wounded when Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan allegedly opened fire in the post's Soldier Family Readiness Center. One of the wounded victims died overnight, bringing the death toll to 13. Malik was wounded and is in custody, Army officials said.

The attack occurred at 1:34 p.m. CST yesterday, and Defense Department personnel around the world will pause and mark the moment of silence at that same time today, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said. For example, those in the U.S. Eastern time zone will observe the moment of silence at 2:34 p.m. local time, while those on the West Coast will observe it at 11:34 a.m.

Gates is at the White House this morning discussing the situation at Fort Hood with President Barack Obama, Morrell said. Army Secretary John McHugh and Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. are at Fort Hood conferring with officials there.

Viva_La_Migra

11-06-2009, 02:13 PM

May God bless and keep the souls of the victims and their families.

Rather than 72 virgins, I hope the perpetrator is cursed with 72 old hags suffering from permanent PMDD!

phil

11-06-2009, 02:38 PM

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/11/2009116102644523243.html

Let's all remember that we're Americans here. Above is an Al-Jazeera posting that Muslims fear backlash in America.

I remember having a nice chat with a local Muslim mullah after 9/11 in Virginia. Let's show as much forbearance as we can during these trying times. No anti-Islamic posts please.

KevinD

11-06-2009, 04:00 PM

Anybody blamed this on W yet?

James48843

11-06-2009, 05:55 PM

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________ _________________
For Immediate Release November 6, 2009

Honoring the Victims of the Tragedy at Fort Hood, Texas
- - - - - - -
By The President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

Our Nation's thoughts and prayers are with the service members, civilians, and families affected by the tragic events at Fort Hood, Texas.

The brave victims, who risked their lives to protect their fellow countrymen, serve as a constant source of strength and inspiration to all Americans. We ask God to watch over the fallen, the wounded, and all those who are suffering at this difficult hour.

As a mark of respect honoring the victims of the tragedy at Fort Hood, Texas, I hereby order, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, Tuesday, November 10, 2009. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same length of time at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/honoring-victims-tragedy-fort-hood-texas

Buster

11-06-2009, 06:01 PM

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________ _________________
For Immediate Release November 6, 2009

Honoring the Victims of the Tragedy at Fort Hood, Texas
- - - - - - -
By The President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

Our Nation's thoughts and prayers are with the service members, civilians, and families affected by the tragic events at Fort Hood, Texas.

The brave victims, who risked their lives to protect their fellow countrymen, serve as a constant source of strength and inspiration to all Americans. We ask God to watch over the fallen, the wounded, and all those who are suffering at this difficult hour.

As a mark of respect honoring the victims of the tragedy at Fort Hood, Texas, I hereby order, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, Tuesday, November 10, 2009. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same length of time at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

I am very pleased with President Obama's response and the way he has dignified the Fallen Soldiers of Fort Hood.

I apologize for tarnishing the memories of these wonderful Americans by mentioning or even eluding to any Muslim profiling on this thread...

See my next post as a new thread for that.

James48843

11-06-2009, 06:11 PM

Remember

7170
*U.S. Navy photo by
Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class
Patrick W. Mullen III

Buster

11-06-2009, 06:17 PM

God Bless them..

James48843

11-08-2009, 12:50 PM

News Story this morning in the LA Times. A reporter interviewed extended family members of the shooter- cousins, uncles, including some who live on the West Bank.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-fort-hood-suspect-uncle8-2009nov08,0,1886826.story

They tell a story of a man haunted by an overwhelming caseload, and whom fellow soldiers taunted on several occasions. They theorize he just snapped.

I guess we'll never know for sure what the motive was.

a clip from the article:

"Hamad said that during their time together last year, the major seemed more afflicted by his caseload of physically disabled and traumatized war veterans.

"He didn't have time even to breathe," Hamad said. "Too much pressure, too many patients, not enough staff. He would say, 'I don't know how to treat them or what to tell them,' because he didn't have enough time. They just kept coming one after the other.

"Sometimes he cried because of what happened to them. How young they are, what's going to happen to the rest of their lives. They're going to be handicapped; they're going to be crazy. He was very, very sensitive ."

OBGibby

11-08-2009, 01:42 PM

Anybody blamed this on W yet?

George W. Bush makes secret visit to mourning families at Fort Hood (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/george-w-bush-laura-bush-fort-hood-nidal-malik-hasan.html)(Los Angeles Times)

".....former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura made a secret visit to the devastated military families at Fort Hood.

The Bushes instructed the commander of the mourning military base that they wanted no publicity. With their Secret Service detail, Bush and his wife made the 30 mile trip unannounced from their ranch near Crawford, Texas Friday evening.

..... Some foreign news reporters have begun to write (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6520286/Bloodless-President-Barack-Obama-makes-Americans-wistful-for-George-W-Bush.html) unflattering comparisons of the emotional Bush vs the ever-cool, possibly cold Obama."

phil

11-08-2009, 01:54 PM

Apparently it wasn't that secret. It ended up in a major newspaper.

OBGibby

11-08-2009, 02:04 PM

Apparently it wasn't that secret. It ended up in a major newspaper.

There appears to have been a 24-hour delay of their visit and press coverage (which has been appropriately muted). Fairly impressive considering the connected world we inhabit these days.

phil

11-08-2009, 02:15 PM

I don't know. Usually when someone says something is a secret, I assume it is secret and won't end up in the headlines. But I'm glad that former President Bush went. I'm sure his comfort to the people at the base was welcomed.

Buster

11-08-2009, 03:49 PM

Wall Street Journal:
November 8th...

Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a "self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist" who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125769764441836773.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopSto ries

phil

11-08-2009, 04:25 PM

Mr. Lieberman said preliminary evidence suggested that Mr. Hasan had denounced the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "In the U.S. Army, this is not a matter of constitutional freedom of speech"

He expressed concern that speculation about the shooting could result in a "backlash" against Muslim soldiers. "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even-greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here," he said. "We have a very diverse army. We have a very diverse society. And that gives us all strength.

FAB1

11-09-2009, 08:43 AM

Buster

11-09-2009, 09:09 AM

Umm...unlikely.

If he lives, military trial - think death penalty.
News has been saying; POSSIBLY that this case could be turned over to a CIVIL court...nothing definite on that…

But, if it were to go to a full Military Court Martial and he was found guilty...isn’t the Death Sentence usually by FIRING SQUAUD?

Birchtree

11-09-2009, 10:07 AM

Well I would hope they would give the first responder another chance to take him out - she should of tried to take out that big head of his. News reports are now saying he belonged to the same mosque that two of the 911 creeps attended. This was a terrorist attack.

James48843

11-09-2009, 12:46 PM

News has been saying; POSSIBLY that this case could be turned over to a CIVIL court...nothing definite on that…

But, if it were to go to a full Military Court Martial and he was found guilty...isn’t the Death Sentence usually by FIRING SQUAUD?

Nope. Not firing squad.

Current UCMJ proscribes death by leathal injection if you are sentenced to death by the military system. Fort Leavenworth, KS.

There are currently 8 military personnel on death row at "The Castle".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Disciplinary_Barracks

OBGibby

11-09-2009, 01:16 PM

Fort Hood: Drop the Political Correctness (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/09/fort_hood_99072.html) - David Warren, Ottawa Citizen

".....Falsehood has more consequences than the revelation of personal insincerity. What happened at Fort Hood was no kind of "tragedy." It was a criminal act, of the terrorist sort, performed by a man acting upon known Islamist motives. To present the perpetrator himself as a kind of "victim" -- a man emotionally distressed by his impending assignment to Afghanistan or Iraq -- is to misrepresent the reality.

This man was a professional psychiatrist, assigned to help soldiers cope with traumas. Is this the profile of a man with no control over his own emotions? It appears he had hired a lawyer to get him out of the military before his deployment overseas. Is this consistent with spontaneity?

He reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire on American soldiers. Would that perhaps offer a little hint of the actual motive? He shot about 40 people, over 10 minutes, with two pistols, neither of them military issue. Might that perhaps suggest premeditation?

There were reports from within the base (Fox News as usual seized on what other networks didn't), that accused Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had not merely been making anti-war remarks about Iraq and Afghanistan, but adding things like, "Muslims should stand up against the aggressor." Do we still have a category for treason? He has been quoted from Internet postings comparing Islamist suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade. Another clue?

And all this is quite apart from less checkable information that was quickly available through the Internet, painting a much grimmer figure of a man with openly Islamist views, able to rise through the U.S. military, because of the syndrome of political correctness....."

More at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/09/fort_hood_99072.html

phil

11-09-2009, 04:33 PM

Maj. Hassan is a soldier who, according to the news, committed crimes against other soldiers. The UCMJ and the military court system is fair and will prosecute him if the evidence shows he committed the crime. If it goes to a trial, a military judge and jury will try him, and he will be provided a defense attorney by the military.

This sounds legalese, but at this point Maj. Hassan is still just the alleged perpetrator in this case, and has not been tried and convicted in a courtroom.
As far as this is seen as an act of terror, I think the jury is still out on that one.

phil

11-09-2009, 10:24 PM

Yeah. Good old Fox. They were the news service that the former administration used to push their agenda on weapons of mass destruction/links to Al-Qaeda and other complete fabrications. It was the news service that Goebbels always wanted, but couldn't afford.
Check out CNN. They're much more of an actual news service, though I prefer Mother Jones.

There were reports from within the base (Fox News as usual seized on what other networks didn't)

OBGibby

11-12-2009, 01:06 PM

Fort Hood shooter charged with 13 murder counts... (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BU59V80&show_article=1)

The TERRORIST who nobody wanted to offend, apparently. They'll probably be able to write the Fort Hood Commision Report regarding this terrorist attack. As the details trickle out each day it gets worse and worse...

Buster

11-12-2009, 01:25 PM

Check out CNN. They're much more of an actual news service, though I prefer Mother Jones.

There were reports from within the base (Fox News as usual seized on what other networks didn't)
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.:sick:

I guess you're on Jane's and Ted's Face book account too..:rolleyes:

In case you chose not to mention...It was FOX and FOX only, that withheld giving this creeps name out while CNN and all the others were spreading it like rabies..FOX deliberately withheld it in respect of the possible misleadings, that later proved to be true about This Islamic Terrorist who had ties to the same Masque that the 9-11 terrorists frequented..Pull your head out of your as....I mean sand, and see the light.

phil

11-12-2009, 03:40 PM

Here's your Fox News. Faking video....tsk tsk.
At least Mother Jones isn't owned by Rupert Murdoch.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/200911.../ynews_ts977_4 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091111/ts_ynews/ynews_ts977_4)

The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

- Joseph Goebbels

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.:sick:

I guess you're on Jane's and Ted's Face book account too..:rolleyes:

In case you chose not to mention...It was FOX and FOX only, that withheld giving this creeps name out while CNN and all the others were spreading it like rabies..FOX deliberately withheld it in respect of the possible misleadings, that later proved to be true about This Islamic Terrorist who had ties to the same Masque that the 9-11 terrorists frequented..Pull your head out of your as....I mean sand, and see the light.

mick504

11-12-2009, 05:22 PM

No, I don't want the Major Psychiatrist in a SuperMax or elsewhere....hopefully he'll get the death penalty....but probably won't ...considered too cruel. As a psychiatrist he will be able to convert others in prison to Islam and convince them that what he did was the right thing to do. The liberal logic goes like this: A Catholic FBI agent says to his boss...I can't go after any Mafia boss....cause he's Catholic like me. How stupid can we be. If you're good your good...if your bad your bad...no matter what your religion is. Get real!

Birchtree

11-12-2009, 05:26 PM

Frankly I have better things to do than listen to phil.

grandma

11-12-2009, 05:42 PM

http://hosting.bronto.com/46/internal/templates/61728/ft_hoodp1.jpg (http://app.bronto.com/public/?q=ulink&fn=Link&ssid=46&id=9fq2xct5dogmm24iyrillle42ra4j&id2=5vs0nwf6h4xbj6rnddu4kn0kndstt&subscriber_id=alumvcgzonozomnyvfhvozbtxfncbkb&delivery_id=aaqucjlahtoffkyavrulckpaztonbmd) It was just last week, on the afternoon of November 5th, that a lone gunman opened fire on troops gathered at the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 American soldiers... wounding 30 others... and shocking the nation and the world.

Fort Hood has been "home" to the USO for nearly a decade, and our Fort Hood Center, located a short distance away from the site of the shootings, was locked down for five hours, as 35 service members anxiously waited inside. Within minutes of the "all clear," the USO's Fort Hood Mobile Unit was driven directly to the site of the tragedy, and immediately began providing 24/7 support to first responders, FBI, SWAT teams, and Emergency Response Units. A second Mobile USO Unit arrived on site within hours of the incident, redoubling our efforts.

In the wake of this tragedy, the USO has gone all out to sustain the Fort Hood community in a variety of ways: helping to make counseling available to those who have lost a loved one or been emotionally impacted by the event... providing meals and snacks to GIs, their families, first responders, and the community at large... and offering troops a "safe haven" and a chance to gain some perspective on the violence so unexpectedly brought so close to home.

This tragic event could not have been anticipated (or even imagined), nor could we plan ahead to meet the sudden dramatic needs of the Fort Hood victims and their families. Fortunately, our Fort Hood USO Center is staffed with dedicated professionals and volunteers who have jumped into the fray to do whatever is needed.

But these sudden demands have created a sudden need for funds: to help the families of the fallen and the entire Fort Hood community. That's why we're emailing you, our most loyal donors, to ask for your help. We need to support not only the USO's efforts, but also those of other volunteer organizations working at Fort Hood in the aftermath of this tragedy. One hundred percent of every dollar you contribute will be used to assist the soldiers and families of Fort Hood who have been most directly affected by this tragedy. Won't you please give as generously as you can?

On behalf of the people of Fort Hood, and all those we serve, "Thanks!"

http://hosting.bronto.com/46/internal/templates/61728/ft_hoodp2.jpg (http://app.bronto.com/public/?q=ulink&fn=Link&ssid=46&id=9fq2xct5dogmm24iyrillle42ra4j&id2=jd0fs97o2e8f3jpfqww9zjuqd4405&subscriber_id=alumvcgzonozomnyvfhvozbtxfncbkb&delivery_id=aaqucjlahtoffkyavrulckpaztonbmd)

I did a copy/paste from my e-mail, so the link didn't come thru.
The url is USO.org

WorkFE

11-12-2009, 05:46 PM

Frankly I have better things to do than listen to phil.

Phil who?

Steadygain

11-12-2009, 05:54 PM

We need more people like you in this world Grandma.

Well good night to all ;)

Just a closing thought -- as much as I despise the 'Fort Hood' event; it has shown how deeply we are 'Americans' and the incredible love and honor we have for all those in Service.

Birch -- just let it go man --- luv ya bro.

phil

11-12-2009, 07:30 PM

No. You really don't.

Frankly I have better things to do than listen to phil.

grandma

11-12-2009, 09:27 PM

From MRC.org yesterday:

ABC, CBS Skip Most of Ft. Hood Memorial, Except for Obama -- Unlike Full Coverage of Jacko Memorial

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/uploads/2009-07-07-CNN-Michael-Aura.jpg
Our eagle-eyed archivists at MRC who record live network coverage thought it was curious that ABC and CBS weren't joining in as NBC offered live coverage of today's memorial service for the dead and wounded at Fort Hood. As The Wall Street Journal reported:

Camouflage-clad soldiers snapped to a salute as the national anthem played, and many murmured along when Gen. George Casey uttered the words of the warrior ethos: "I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat."

A chaplain also spoke. But ABC and CBS were still running their soaps. When did they start live coverage? Just before President Obama spoke. When did they end? CBS jumped back out shortly after Obama finished. ABC held on for a few bars of "Amazing Grace."

These networks apparently had no concept of how this might look to the people who truly mourned the lost at Fort Hood. No prayers, no hymns, no national anthem, no chaplains, no generals. It's Obama and out.

This is hardly the way ABC and CBS covered the gaudy and overextended Michael Jackson memorial service in July. As the Philadelphia Inquirer reported:

Tuesday's live coverage of Michael Jackson's memorial service was watched by an average audience of more than 30.9 million people over the course of about three hours, reports Nielsen, which counted viewing on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, Telefutura, Telemundo, Univision, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, Headline News, BET, E!, MTV, VH1, VH1 Classic, TV Guide Network, TV One and MUN2.

The pattern -- that dead and freakish celebrities are much more newsworthy than American soldiers -- continues. As Brent Bozell noted this summer: "On the night of July 6, ABC, CBS, and NBC, paid twenty times more attention to Jackson (more than a week after his death) than to the deaths of seven brave soldiers in Afghanistan." July 7 BiasAlert: "Seven Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan Get 1/20th Time Given to Jackson (http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090707031607.aspx)."

— Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.

mick504

11-13-2009, 01:51 AM

Lou Dobbs...a CNN guy for over 30 years...leaving CNN cause they want him to push the socialist agenda and he really doesn't want to ....I'll miss him, but maybe he will be picked up for FOX, as a commentator or at least guest...like many others who left other broadcasts....spouting liberal comment or be kicked out.

CountryBoy

11-13-2009, 06:08 AM

Would someone please explain what motivated Nidal Hasan, who at taxpayers' expense was educated from college all the way through medical school and post medical-school training, to turn his deadly weapons against the nation that gave him everything he had?

If Islam had nothing to do with what Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan did, then why:

* did he repeatedly preach the ascendancy of Islam over the U.S. Constitution?

* did he publicly support Islamic suicide-bombing?

* did he proclaim his highest loyalty to Islam?

* was he in contact with violent anti-U.S. Islamists and a virulent Yemeni Imam?

* did he distribute copies of the Quran to people the morning of his bloody attack?

* did he keep screaming "Allahu akbar" as he heartlessly sprayed over a hundred bullets, killing thirteen and injuring some thirty innocent men and women?

Here is the truth, as bitter as it may be: Islam is the culprit. Islam is anything but a religion of peace. Violence is at the very core of Islam. Violence is institutionalized in the Muslims' holy book, the Quran, in many suras:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/does_islam_breed_violence.html

suras at the above link.

Show-me

11-13-2009, 06:58 AM

One correction, he killed 14, one was pregnant.

Show-me

11-13-2009, 06:59 AM

Liberal media doesn't like to acknowledge the baby's in the womb. Makes it easier to suck them into a sink.

CountryBoy

11-13-2009, 07:31 AM

Liberal media doesn't like to acknowledge the baby's in the womb. Makes it easier to suck them into a sink.

+1 on that.

Buster

11-13-2009, 08:07 AM

I can't find the quote or news source right now..but it was reported that at one of his lectures..he said: "We love Death as much as you love life" What the hell?...draw your own conclusions:suspicious:

Birchtree

11-13-2009, 08:19 AM

Hasan is nothing but a light brown turd.

Steadygain

11-13-2009, 08:29 AM

Liberal media doesn't like to acknowledge the baby's in the womb. Makes it easier to suck them into a sink.

I really appreciate you !!

Hasan is nothing but a light brown turd.

That's much more appropriate than my description ;)

Sometimes my raw feelings just come through :o:cool:

Steadygain

11-13-2009, 09:01 AM

If Islam had nothing to do with what Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan did...

Here is the truth, as bitter as it may be: Islam is the culprit. Islam is anything but a religion of peace. Violence is at the very core of Islam. Violence is institutionalized in the Muslims' holy book, the Quran, in many

CB,
When I said something yesterday you said 'religion' had nothing to do with it.

Christians have been just as guilty as 'hate crimes' as any other religion. Christians have often felt justified in enforcing child labor, slave labor, and numerous other horrible human rights violations because once they become comfortable with themselves it's easy to ignore what you're doing to others. As long as YOU can pretend your way is better than others then you can solidly say with strong moral and ethical convictions -- The Native Americans are 'dirty savages' and be 'RIGHT' to destroy everything about them... to call the Blacks.. %)U*)(%* ... and destory everything about their integrity.

Are we going to say the Blacks were forced to the back of the Bus, that they were given the worst of conditions when it came to needing a bathroom or a drink ... when they were not allowed in almost any decent place ... because of the Christians??

Our view of Islam is totally distorted and we largely have the reflections you share because we want to support our hated and our prejudism and intollerance.... for now they are the 'dirty savages' and the 'n*****s' --

So basically it comes down to this... do we hate and despise the Islamic Religion because it gives us the GROUNDING to support our Negative Views.... or do we stive to recognize the real beauty and love and true recognition Islam has for GOD and human relationships -- and realize that some individuals simply have a very distorted belief and they are 'mentally sick'?

Birchtree

11-13-2009, 09:12 AM

The religion is not the culprit - it's the distortion by an ugly few. Imams that are imbeciles with sore knees. What would we say if they were Nazis?

alevin

11-13-2009, 09:16 AM

The religion is not the culprit - it's the distortion by an ugly few. Imams that are imbeciles with sore knees. What would we say if they were Nazis?

One of the truest statements I've heard you make next, Birch. I had a Moroccan friend in grad school 20 years ago-practicing but not fundamentalist. He HATED extremists, absolutely despised them. Went home and founded a hospital for the blind and added a "Ronald McDonald house" for their families so they could stay nearby.

Birchtree

11-13-2009, 09:23 AM

There was a time in my life when I was ready to die for LBJ - but I sure as hell wouldn't offer to sacrifice myself for no Allah damn Imam. Besides, taking care of one virgin is a full time responsibility.

Frixxxx

11-13-2009, 09:28 AM

So basically it comes down to this... do we hate and despise the Islamic Religion because it gives us the GROUNDING to support our Negative Views....
My answer is no, The basis of Islam is steeped in the same beliefs as Jewish and Christian beliefs. Allah is God.

or do we stive to recognize the real beauty and love and true recognition Islam has for GOD and human relationships -- and realize that some individuals simply have a very distorted belief and they are 'mentally sick'?
Their belief in Mohammed as a messiah is what truly separates them. Mohammed is the prophet they choose to follow. Even when he brought unto himself a 7 year-old bride and consummated the marriage when she was 9. 9? This is where I have problems with Islam. A lot of laws for the Muslims were given to them by this prophet.

So, I know that there are a lot of Islamic people that would not condone this type of behavior. I know that Ft Hood is a tragedy and in light of the accused being a follower of Islamic faith is a cause of great concern.

But let's face it, the world is not perfect and we are tested from time to time to show our true faith. If you have faith the size of a grain of rice, it will influence you. No matter how mentally challenged or not.

My condemnation is that if it was 100% faith-based convictions that caused this, let it be known that it is not the American way of protest. Pick a side and stay true to yourself and your beliefs. I know plenty of Americans that hate the war and do not agree with it, but do not intend to lower themselves to this level.

Whew! I could probably go on, but it is in the hearts of all of you anyway.:cool:

Buster

11-13-2009, 09:33 AM

Besides, taking care of one virgin is a full time responsibility.
Really?:nuts:..Birch ole boy..you need to start doing your homework...:D

CountryBoy

11-13-2009, 09:36 AM

CB,
When I said something yesterday you said 'religion' had nothing to do with it.

Christians have been just as guilty as 'hate crimes' as any other religion. Christians have often felt justified in enforcing child labor, slave labor, and numerous other horrible human rights violations because once they become comfortable with themselves it's easy to ignore what you're doing to others. As long as YOU can pretend your way is better than others then you can solidly say with strong moral and ethical convictions -- The Native Americans are 'dirty savages' and be 'RIGHT' to destroy everything about them... to call the Blacks.. %)U*)(%* ... and destory everything about their integrity.

Are we going to say the Blacks were forced to the back of the Bus, that they were given the worst of conditions when it came to needing a bathroom or a drink ... when they were not allowed in almost any decent place ... because of the Christians??

Our view of Islam is totally distorted and we largely have the reflections you share because we want to support our hated and our prejudism and intollerance.... for now they are the 'dirty savages' and the 'n*****s' --

So basically it comes down to this... do we hate and despise the Islamic Religion because it gives us the GROUNDING to support our Negative Views.... or do we stive to recognize the real beauty and love and true recognition Islam has for GOD and human relationships -- and realize that some individuals simply have a very distorted belief and they are 'mentally sick'?

Steady,

The article I linked to also had this quote,

"Numerous criminal acts are also committed on a daily basis by non-Muslims. "

When non-Muslims perpetrate such an evil act, I'll be the first one to call them out also. When a Christian commits an evil act like you mentioned, I guarantee you, that the Christian community will ostracize this person or group. But lets keep things in historical perspective also. Historically there have been acts that were indefensible and I'm not going to even try to defend them one at a time.

Also, I didn't want to post the entire link, but this was also included in the article.

"Violence is institutionalized in the Muslims' holy book, the Quran, in many suras:

Quran 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."

8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."

9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place."

47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."

And the Quran is considered by Muslims to be the word-for-word literal edicts of their god, Allah.

Sounds peaceful to me. I'm far from a theologian, so I don't even want to get into this discussion, just wanted to introduce these points. Yes, the Cristians have done some awful things, but we have evolved from slaughtering the innocent and I haven't heard of any beheadings lately.

CB

alevin

11-13-2009, 09:45 AM

Buster

11-13-2009, 09:51 AM

And the Quran is considered by Muslims to be the word-for-word literal edicts of their god, Allah.

Sounds peaceful to me. I'm far from a theologian, so I don't even want to get into this discussion, just wanted to introduce these points. Yes, the Cristians have done some awful things, but we have evolved from slaughtering the innocent and I haven't heard of any beheadings lately.

CB

And even though the Christians did crazy stuff in the past…the Bible never once instills the “kill message” ever...it was only the Christian extremists that took it over the top...

Bottom Line...If you are in a land that is predominantly Muslim. carry a get out of beheading pass in your pocket, that states you are a believer in Islam...and keep screaming "Allahu akbar"

CountryBoy

11-13-2009, 09:56 AM

CB, you are right, the Q'uran does say all those things. Just like the Bible says women should not cut their hair, are not allowed to teach men and should keep their heads covered in church and not ask questions til they get home. Many modern Muslims consider "jihad" to be their own inner struggle against their own character flaws, and external jihad to be moral lifestyle and talk of their faith-as persuasive to convince others to believe-many Christians think of evangelism the same way.

It's the extremists who go back to their historical beginnings and use those militant verses as their excuse for modern acting out in vicious ways.

alevin,

This is the exact reason that I didn't want to get into this type of discussion and except for teaching men, I've never attended a church that enforced any of those rules. Sure I know of them, cause being from WV, ya can't swing a dead cat w/o hearing about one in the area.

When it comes to religion, it is between you and your maker, not me, not Steady or anyone else. You have to decide for yourself.

And I'll say it again, this is about islamic terrorist, the atrocity that took place at Fort Hood. I'll not discuss religion, everyone has his own beliefs, and yeah, there is an exception to every rule, but I haven't been reading about Christians, flying planes into buildings, champing off heads or strapping bombs on themselves to blow up busloads of kids.

This is about why we allowed this murderous rampage to happen at Fort Hood, how did this guy even con his bosses from allowing him to stay, how do we prevent this in the future and are we going to continue to bury our heads in the sand and deny that this is a major problem? :confused:

CB, a Christian with feet of clay

Steadygain

11-13-2009, 10:55 AM

My answer is no, The basis of Islam is steeped in the same beliefs as Jewish and Christian beliefs. Allah is God.
;):D

Thank you my beautiful friend -- sorry have been busy :p

Their belief in Mohammed ...

Yes I understand the Grounding of their faith and Mohammed's central importance.

In the same manner CB -- had mentioned Joseph Smith in the recent past but I ignored that because I think we need to be very careful when talking about the foundations of the 'Magic Spectacles' ... everything else that transpired.

So, I know that there are a lot of Islamic people that would not condone this type of behavior.

And I know that too my friend. I also know we need to strive to accept others' rights to worship and believe as they do. If they are in any manner going to want to come to the knowledge of His Grace and Mercy and be consummed by His LOVE -- it is only in our ability to extend it.

But let's face it, the world is not perfect and we are tested from time to time to show our true faith. If you have faith the size of a grain of rice, it will influence you. No matter how mentally challenged or not.
The world is far from perfect and this is why 'politics' - 'religion' - and life itself is so overwhelmingly screwed up. We are tested every single day and faith is everything.

My condemnation
You have no 'condemnation' -- for only God holds that ability and He alone is the true judge. Our condemnation is our flawed human nature and the short sightedness we pocess; our quirks; our tempermental outbursts; our judgemental and condeming attitudes; our constant refusal to help the needy.... and ultimately our refusal to let the Love and Life our God dominate our existence.

Whew! I could probably go on, but it is in the hearts of all of you anyway.:cool:

Your a wonderful man Frixxxx -- and Nina is still 'my baby' if only in thought.

alevin

11-13-2009, 11:00 AM

It is a problem, CB, the guy was very obviously conflicted between duty and beliefs, he couldn't resolve them, even tho he went through channels to try-do they allow CO status anymore? I'm quite sure there are conflicted others out there. They need to be recognized before its too late and the problem resolved in a way that works for all before another tragedy happens.

With this guy, the warning signs were all there, people in authority didn't take it seriously. During Nam, COs were allowed to serve in non-weaponbearing capacity, fled to Canada or went underground, limited choices that wouldn't compromise their beliefs. They took their beliefs seriously. I've known 2 COs whose draft #s were very low, each made/were allowed a choice they could live with for the long haul. This guy, well, he wasn't allowed a choice he could live with, even tho he asked more than once. Maybe as Steady said, he just didn't want to deal with reality what he signed up for, but from what I've read, his beliefs began to develop most strongly after he signed up and before his unit came up for deployment, they weren't that strong before he joined.

Steadygain

11-13-2009, 11:06 AM

Steady,

The article I linked to also had this quote,

"Numerous criminal acts are also committed on a daily basis by non-Muslims. "

CB

CB,
I have no conflict with you at all my friend and I think we are natured very much alike and our roots are similar.

As for the quotes....

The greatest destruction againt 'True Christianity' has been through the use of various Bible passages....

I simply believe we all need to guard against projecting another religion in a negative manner.

Politics is difficult enough -- but religion goes a lot deeper.

But I'm just a simple dude and nothing more.

Viva_La_Migra

11-13-2009, 11:15 AM

alevin,

This is the exact reason that I didn't want to get into this type of discussion and except for teaching men, I've never attended a church that enforced any of those rules. Sure I know of them, cause being from WV, ya can't swing a dead cat w/o hearing about one in the area.

When it comes to religion, it is between you and your maker, not me, not Steady or anyone else. You have to decide for yourself.

And I'll say it again, this is about islamic terrorist, the atrocity that took place at Fort Hood. I'll not discuss religion, everyone has his own beliefs, and yeah, there is an exception to every rule, but I haven't been reading about Christians, flying planes into buildings, champing off heads or strapping bombs on themselves to blow up busloads of kids.

This is about why we allowed this murderous rampage to happen at Fort Hood, how did this guy even con his bosses from allowing him to stay, how do we prevent this in the future and are we going to continue to bury our heads in the sand and deny that this is a major problem? :confused:

CB, a Christian with feet of clay
What a lot of people forget is that the United States got involved in stopping the genocide that was going on in the former Yugoslavia. In that conflict, if memory serves me correctly, we were on the side of the Muslims, who were being killed by Christian Serbs. We are not at war with Islam. Radical Islam is at war with us.

CB, why would you want to swing a dead cat anyway? Hope it's not a pole cat, that would be stinky!:nuts:

Frixxxx

11-13-2009, 11:21 AM

hope it's not a pole cat, that would be stinky!:nuts:
ewwwwww!!!!!

CountryBoy

11-13-2009, 11:30 AM

What a lot of people forget is that the United States got involved in stopping the genocide that was going on in the former Yugoslavia. In that conflict, if memory serves me correctly, we were on the side of the Muslims, who were being killed by Christian Serbs. We are not at war with Islam. Radical Islam is at war with us.

CB, why would you want to swing a dead cat anyway? Hope it's not a pole cat, that would be stinky!:nuts:

Good memory Viva,

Swinging a dead cat, clears out more personal space. :D

Birchtree

11-13-2009, 11:52 AM

Well we do know that Hasan was a coward - I wonder if he was also a pedo like Mohammed? Would this worm have taken shots at soldiers that were armed?

alevin

11-13-2009, 11:57 AM

I expected you to weigh in when "CO" came up, Birch. With all respect, if cowardice was his true motivation-would you want a coward next to you in a combat situation? why not get him out out of "harms way" before he causes damage to fellow soldiers that way either?

grandma

11-13-2009, 11:59 AM

My answer is no, The basis of Islam is steeped in the same beliefs as Jewish and Christian beliefs. Allah is God. .....Their belief in Mohammed as a messiah is what truly separates them.
:cool:
Actually, Frixxxx, this is not quite so.
The God Jehovah, of the Christians and Jews, is the Living God, father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For the Christians he is also the Father of Jesus who was born of a virgin, died, was resurrected and now lives. God is the head of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Jews still wait for Messiah, Christians believe he has come & He is Jesus, God's only Son, and anyone can come to Him; entering Heaven depends only upon your relationship to Jesus-accepting Him as Lord. You can't earn it, work for it - it's a belief & life that comes from your heart & soul, that God gave His Son so that the peoples, tribes & nations of the world might return His love for them to Him.
To the Muslim: Abraham is their Father, but it was Ishmeal, not Isaac, who was offered at the mountain altar; it is abhorant to think that Allah would ever desecrate himself to come to earth as a lowly baby or to even die for the people, and he has no sons; Allah is a fierce judge, is strong and distant; it is sacrilege to think of God as a Trinity - three persons in one, that comprises worshipping multiple gods; they believe that they will never know for sure if they have worked hard enough or done the right things to earn their way into heaven until after death because Allah does not have a close relationship to them. That unknowing is the basis for the homicide-bomber tactics & yet even then they are still not sure Allah will accept them. They also are so firm in their belief that Jesus was only a phrophet, that Islam is the religion of the world, that it is their responsibility to see that that does happen.
The basis of Islam is steeped in Christian, Jewish and the various varities of these in existence in that 7th (?) century, plus the other religions that Mohammed encountered on his sea voyages with his sea-going merchant guardian ...I think it was an uncle.
The Koran and also the writings of Mohammed that were put together in later years apparently have contradictions, but both are considered blessed and mandatory.

The outward behavior of any particular individual is still a personal decision on their part, regardless of which group they lay claim to.

Steadygain

11-13-2009, 12:35 PM

Well we do know that Hasan was a coward

And we know this because only when he was called into action did he respond the way he did.

What me serve in a conflict? What me be a real soldier? What me take a chance and get hurt?

And I would agree -- we could clearly consider this the all defining moment.

Would this worm have taken shots at soldiers that were armed?

Only if he were NOT a coward -- and then it would be the 'real enemy' he is fighting in battle.

Actually, Frixxxx, this is not quite so.
The God Jehovah, of the Christians and Jews, is the Living God, father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For the Christians he is also the Father of Jesus who was born of a virgin, died, was resurrected and now lives. God is the head of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Jews still wait for Messiah, Christians believe he has come & He is Jesus, God's only Son, and anyone can come to Him; entering Heaven depends only upon your relationship to Jesus-accepting Him as Lord. You can't earn it, work for it - it's a belief & life that comes from your heart & soul, that God gave His Son so that the peoples, tribes & nations of the world might return His love for them to Him.
To the Muslim: Abraham is their Father, but it was Ishmeal, not Isaac, who was offered at the mountain altar; it is abhorant to think that Allah would ever desecrate himself to come to earth as a lowly baby or to even die for the people, and he has no sons; Allah is a fierce judge, is strong and distant; it is sacrilege to think of God as a Trinity - three persons in one, that comprises worshipping multiple gods; they believe that they will never know for sure if they have worked hard enough or done the right things to earn their way into heaven until after death because Allah does not have a close relationship to them. That unknowing is the basis for the homicide-bomber tactics & yet even then they are still not sure Allah will accept them. They also are so firm in their belief that Jesus was only a phrophet, that Islam is the religion of the world, that it is their responsibility to see that that does happen.
The basis of Islam is steeped in Christian, Jewish and the various varities of these in existence in that 7th (?) century, plus the other religions that Mohammed encountered on his sea voyages with his sea-going merchant guardian ...I think it was an uncle.
The Koran and also the writings of Mohammed that were put together in later years apparently have contradictions, but both are considered blessed and mandatory.

The outward behavior of any particular individual is still a personal decision on their part, regardless of which group they lay claim to.

Whoa Grandma ---- You Go Girl ;)

Study up on this and we'll have a quiz on Monday

Frixxxx

11-13-2009, 12:45 PM

Actually, Frixxxx, this is not quite so.
The God Jehovah, of the Christians and Jews.....
To the Muslim......
The basis of Islam......
The outward behavior of any particular individual is still a personal decision on their part, regardless of which group they lay claim to.
In my attempt to paraphrase I left out the wonderful facts you provided.

I was really trying to say that at our core, we all believe in God, Jehovah, Allah, and the teachings of the prophets of early days. The history and teachings of creation and the way we should treat each other is so basic and proven in our earlier times.

Unfortuantely, the divergeance of messiahs and the message that have mutated afterwards have caused the wedges of discontent and fear. This is what I fail to fathom and comprehend.

Thanks grandma!:cool:

phil

11-13-2009, 03:32 PM

People use their religion to do a lot of bad things in the world. Nevertheless, despite my own lack of religion, I don't propose to do away with religion. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism etc. have done quite a lot of good in the world. Let's not justify the actions of one person to judge any religion. If we did that, then there would be no religion. Nixon was a Quaker, but do we hate Quakers because of his actions? I think not.
Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Muslim, was he? Do I condemn all army veterans because he killed 168 people? Again, no.

Here is the truth, as bitter as it may be: Islam is the culprit. Islam is anything but a religion of peace. Violence is at the very core of Islam. Violence is institutionalized in the Muslims' holy book, the Quran, in many suras:

Steadygain

11-13-2009, 03:55 PM

Let's not justify the actions of one person to judge any religion.

You know it's kind of weird.....

But it seems like any time someone goes on a base and kills and injures a bunch of unarmed soldiers....

that somehow -- judgement is unavoidable...

whether it's simply a 'rational conponent' ... or somehow humans are grounded into seeking 'understanding' ....

....the judgement aspect seems to be an unavoidable consequence of our human condition ....

I guess it's almost impossible to judge any person without taking into account what their life was centered on... somehow we have to connect the aspects on which their life was grounded in order to 'understand' and 'appreciate' the basis of their actions

If we did that, then there would be no religion.
Actually that would not stop religion -- it would simply cause people to regard various religions in various manners.

Nixon was a Quaker, but do we hate Quakers because of his actions? I think not.
If we're looking for reasons to hate Quakers... it may not be a bad place to start.

Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Muslim, was he? Do I condemn all army veterans because he killed 168 people? Again, no.

Timothy McVeigh was a decorated Soldier -- an honored hero so to speak. He expressed that the Military was turning him into a cold heartless animal.... that he was killing without conviction... that he had become 'an evil' and he was tormented by the change....

So his purpose in killing the others ... was a genuine effort to show everyone the absurity of killing 'innoncent people'...

Somehow he actually believed his actions would 'wake up' the USA and they would become pacifists..... I honestly believe that is really the truth as I remember it.

Anyway ---- later dude.

mick504

11-13-2009, 06:08 PM

Extremists muslims consider it justifiable to do unspeakable acts in the name of religion to further their cause. They do these terrible acts on a daily basis and it doesn't matter how many muslins or 'infidels' they kill on the way. It's all part of the end justifies the means. There is no other religion that does that anymore that I am aware of. It's their sick, demented belief's that rule their lives...it affects all others. I don't know when this cancer will be stopped...that's what the current problems in Iraq and Afganistan are about. As more and more Muslim schools, religion centers move to the US...I believe we are see some more terrorists acts. Not saying all...but the few will spew their hate...against their own and us.

phil

11-13-2009, 06:22 PM

Buster

11-13-2009, 06:32 PM

Terry Nichols was convicted on May 26 (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/May_26), 2004 of 161 counts of first-degree murder, which included one count of fetal homicide (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Feticide). As in the federal trial, the state jury deadlocked on imposing the death penalty in the case....

Why don't you finish the story Phil?:rolleyes:

Yeah, I was there, I also remember how the Earth jumped when his truck bomb full of Ammonium Nitrate and diesel went off......Not too deadlocked though... he is now pushing up Daisies in Terre Haute, Indiana..One of the quickest death row sentences in history.

The most incriminating testimony centers around former Iraqi soldier, Hussain Al-Hussaini, whom witnesses place in the company of bomber Timothy McVeigh prior to the blast, seated in the passenger seat of the Ryder truck the morning of April 19, exiting that truck at ground zero, and speeding away from the bomb site in the only getaway vehicle targeted by the FBI in an all-points-bulletin for Middle Eastern suspects. Al-Hussaini has been unable to establish his whereabouts for the critical hours of that fateful morning, and more glaringly, the Justice Department has declined to officially exonerate him of suspicion.

http://www.jaynadavis.com/highlights.html

Steadygain

11-13-2009, 06:40 PM

Extremists muslims consider it justifiable to do unspeakable acts in the name of religion to further their cause.

As has every other society of the past - including the good old U.S.A.

Look at our History -- in the way we have treated the Native Population, in the manner we brought in and supported Slavery, in the way women, children, animals and almost anything else you can think of has been done over the years.

Religion and Politics can not possibly be seperated from Society and that's what overwhelmingly make the people 'feel they are right'

They do these terrible acts on a daily basis and it doesn't matter how many muslins or 'infidels' they kill on the way. It's all part of the end justifies the means. There is no other religion that does that anymore that I am aware of.

Then I wholeheartedly -- SERIOUSLY -- ask you to investigate the extent of Witchcraft and Satanic Cults and Worship going on throughout the U.S.A. and throughout the world.

Over here 'we' are skinning babies alive .... and doing many other things far worse than them. 'We' are the ones most fueling the Child Slavery - Sex Trade - yep it's our dollars. Drugs and all the other stuff.

It's their sick, demented belief's that rule their lives...it affects all others.
Well here you are talking only about the extremeists. But there are many other groups that have done every bit the equivalent ....

how about the KKK .... and what about all the Secret Organizations that control our society ... the Masons.. Skull and Bones...

I don't know when this cancer will be stopped...
Well if it honestly boils down to 'RELIGION' then it will stop when all religions are 'outlawed' with the death sentence for violators.

that's what the current problems in Iraq and Afganistan are about.
That's far from TRUE -- the general population of Iraq and Afganistan are way more in hardships because of these fanatics.

As more and more Muslim schools, religion centers move to the US...I believe we are see some more terrorists acts.

But if we're going to limit (or prevent the Muslims) we could equally go after the Catholics, Mormons, and all the others...

Not saying all...but the few will spew their hate...against their own and us.

Well if that's the case -- then the exact same thing would be true for everything else. All it would take is 1 or 2 KKKs -- skinheads -- and the rest of us are left defenseless.

But Life is short -- so whatever.....

Terry Nichols and Bernard -- are nothing -- want to go after the real criminals then get the Execs and the Top Guys responsible for the Recession/Depression ... for all the garbage related to the housing and everything else...

phil

11-13-2009, 07:07 PM

Really? Is this how we pursue justice? I think I understand. Terry Nichols also tried to implicate the FBI in the bombing, just to let you know. Well, I suppose you'd better send your story to Faux News. They'll print it. Then again, they'll print anything.

The fact of the matter is that we have enough troubles from our home-grown loonies. They'll believe anything.

Why don't you finish the story Phil?:rolleyes:

Yeah, I was there, I also remember how the Earth jumped when his truck bomb full of Ammonium Nitrate and diesel went off......Not too deadlocked though... he is now pushing up Daisies in Terre Haute, Indiana..One of the quickest death row sentences in history.

The most incriminating testimony centers around former Iraqi soldier, Hussain Al-Hussaini, whom witnesses place in the company of bomber Timothy McVeigh prior to the blast, seated in the passenger seat of the Ryder truck the morning of April 19, exiting that truck at ground zero, and speeding away from the bomb site in the only getaway vehicle targeted by the FBI in an all-points-bulletin for Middle Eastern suspects. Al-Hussaini has been unable to establish his whereabouts for the critical hours of that fateful morning, and more glaringly, the Justice Department has declined to officially exonerate him of suspicion.

http://www.jaynadavis.com/highlights.html

Steadygain

11-13-2009, 07:23 PM

Buster

11-13-2009, 07:40 PM

Really? Is this how we pursue justice? I think I understand. Terry Nichols also tried to implicate the FBI in the bombing, just to let you know. Well, I suppose you'd better send your story to Faux News. They'll print it. Then again, they'll print anything.

The fact of the matter is that we have enough troubles from our home-grown loonies. They'll believe anything.Pah-lease, could you be a little less cliche'?..Faux News is a used and worn out slam that has lost it punch because of it's baseless ranting of people that hate to hear the REAL truth in the news.

Just to let you know (I wish either you type sanely or get your facts straight before you type anymore Liberal Drivel)..Terry Nichols helped in the construction of the Truck Bomb and gathering of materials along with the fact that they did practice mixture experiments on Terry Nichols' brother's farm..so to answer your tainted question..YES, Terry Nichols didn't actually pull the trigger, but he sure fits every description of an accomplice I can think of..that is how we pursue justice..With eye witness first hand accounts..(you weren't there, I was, so quit acting like you been everywhere and know everything, just because you drank some German beer)..tried and convicted by a panel of 12 of his peers..which BTW, would insult me to be closely called anything like his peer...What country did you say you were from?..Was it France?

alevin

11-13-2009, 08:32 PM

The year of OKC, before OKC, we experienced actual bombings of several fed sites in my state associated with my agency and a closely related agency-nobody was ever even arrested. That year, for months, the fed building in Ogden received bomb threats on a weekly basis-our regional center. All us outlying offices in 4 states received notices of every one of those bomb threats-essentially warning us to stay away. Nobody was ever arrested. It was a very bad year, Buster I'm sorry you were there that terrible terrible day.

A decade earlier (80s), it was The Order who carried out robberies and assassinations throughout the western U.S.
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=7921 (http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=7921)

Unbelievably I was nodding acquaintence as a freshman in college (a decade even earlier!) with one of The Order who was sentenced to 40 years-she lived in my dorm and was a lot older, carried commercial art portfolio around with her for classes. And a friend of mine became passing acquaintence with that same person several years later after I'd totally moved out of the area. My friend thought that person a bit odd, as had I, but not psycho, no clue about that person's beliefs-if that person even had them back then-a decade before the assassination.

Neither I or my friend had an f'ing clue we had ever shared breathing space with such an evil person-not until the assassination and trial hit the newspapers a year after my friend was no longer in contact with that person. Crazies walk among us, people, you may never know-they don't all stand out from the crowd and give warning signals in advance. I can't live in constant suspicion of people just because they're a little different from me-I'd drive myself crazy, eh?

Buster

11-13-2009, 09:52 PM

T Buster I'm sorry you were there that terrible terrible day...:o

Crazies walk among us, people, you may never know-they don't all stand out from the crowd and give warning signals in advance. I can't live in constant suspicion of people just because they're a little different from me-I'd drive myself crazy, eh?Very Very true..the list in history to date is very long....Also true, you'll go crazy always mistrusting people..but never drop your guard.;)

phil

11-13-2009, 09:59 PM

More personal attacks? Tsk tsk. You can ask all you want, but trust me, it's better not to go there. Not at all, my friend. I'll leave your post, as is. It's better that you read them.....and everyone else too.

The most incriminating testimony centers around former Iraqi soldier, Hussain Al-Hussaini, whom witnesses place in the company of bomber Timothy McVeigh prior to the blast, seated in the passenger seat of the Ryder truck the morning of April 19, exiting that truck at ground zero, and speeding away from the bomb site in the only getaway vehicle targeted by the FBI in an all-points-bulletin for Middle Eastern suspects. Al-Hussaini has been unable to establish his whereabouts for the critical hours of that fateful morning, and more glaringly, the Justice Department has declined to officially exonerate him of suspicion.

Pah-lease, could you be a little less cliche'?..Faux News is a used and worn out slam that has lost it punch because of it's baseless ranting of people that hate to hear the REAL truth in the news.

Just to let you know (I wish either you type sanely or get your facts straight before you type anymore Liberal Drivel)..Terry Nichols helped in the construction of the Truck Bomb and gathering of materials along with the fact that they did practice mixture experiments on Terry Nichols' brother's farm..so to answer your tainted question..YES, Terry Nichols didn't actually pull the trigger, but he sure fits every description of an accomplice I can think of..that is how we pursue justice..With eye witness first hand accounts..(you weren't there, I was, so quit acting like you been everywhere and know everything, just because you drank some German beer)..tried and convicted by a panel of 12 of his peers..which BTW, would insult me to be closely called anything like his peer...What country did you say you were from?..Was it France?

grandma

11-13-2009, 10:14 PM

Alevin- that was really interesting to read it all together, rather than the bits & pieces of newspaper write-ups. Thank you for bringing it to mind.
And Buster, the OKC must have hard memories on top of any others....

nnuut

11-14-2009, 08:43 AM

It must have been a terrible thing to have been in that building when it was turned to rubble by those AssHoles, all I can do is imagine? Any American that doesn't see what went on and for what reasons should open their eyes and realize that there is an organization that would like to do that to our entire country. Our fellow Civil Servants that were in that building at the time of the blast are all Patriots and deserve our respect, after all it could have been any of us that were working in that building on that day. There is no compensation that can heal their wounds, the least we can do is support them and do our best to GET THOSE BASTARDS and make them PAY!:nuts:
Is that too conservative? What would General Patton do?

alevin

11-15-2009, 09:34 PM

I read this comment on another forum tonight, with a few minor modifications, it pretty well expresses my thoughts. While I think Nidal should have been let out of the military when he asked-(the warning signals were all there that this was going to come to a head and not in a good way) and regardless of the mental conflict he experienced as a consequence of beliefs and values, that doesn't even begin to justify or excuse what he did.

Military trial should happen:

When a distasteful task has to be done, do it fast and get it over with.

Considering the number of witnesses, a completely fair trial should take very little time. Get it done and execute him. He'll become an Islamic martyr unfortunately but he won't be around any longer at least, which would give the families some closure.

I don't care if he did snap. He no longer deserves to live and we don't need to stretch it out and make it more painful for the families involved.

Really too bad he lived.

phil

11-16-2009, 04:43 AM

How long did McVeigh and Nichols trial last? Then again, they killed a lot more people, including a lot of children.

No, I think we have to provide fair trials for people. Even you and me, should we commit a crime.

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091116/FOREIGN/711159866/1014/rss

alevin

11-16-2009, 08:07 AM

Phil, I believe "fair trial" was part of what I said I agreed with. I also think it wouldn't take much time for jury to come to verdict.

Viva_La_Migra

11-16-2009, 09:36 AM

Buster

11-16-2009, 09:41 AM

No doubt Hasan will receive a fair trial via military court martial.
Of course he will, I wouldn't want it any other way..I just hope it don't end up like OJ's:suspicious:

Birchtree

11-16-2009, 09:43 AM

I'd like to know who the Muslim cleric was that visited Hasan the morning before the shooting at his apartment. Probably encouraged this atrocity with the promise of eternity.

Steadygain

11-16-2009, 02:45 PM

Phil, I believe "fair trial" was part of what I said I agreed with. I also think it wouldn't take much time for jury to come to verdict.

Alevie,
Please think of this as entertainment and not as argumentative.

If I were his lawyer .... please know (by virtue of our legal system I would have to do everything possible to:
1. Get him free
2. Drag it out as long as possible...until I thought he had a chance...

So.... I would do the following ;)
FIRST - I would push to have the trial moved to some remote Alaskan Village -- where he could get a fair trial.

SECOND - I would show the years of Independent Research he has been conducting which showed undeniable proof of both the extreme dangers of the WAR and extensive and irrepairable damage and I would stretch this out case by case as long as possible.

THIRD - I would do everything possible to first show the extensive work he may have done -- try to convince everyone he was an outstanding worker -- with an excellent reputation and all those things that could possibly sway a jury...

ONLY -- after exhuasting every possible way of making this guy look like the most outstanding individual to ever live......

would I lasty show -- how 'he snapped' at the realization that he was going to become one of the horrible statistics... he'd decicated his life to researching....

That somehow he took it as 'The Government is trying to Silence Me' and what he had to share was simply Too Big ...to hide... too important to dismiss... to sacred to not share.....

Trust me Alevie .......by the time I was done at least half the Jury would see him as a 'hero' and by the time they had a chance to even think about sentencing him .... it would be minimum 6 months or more dragging it out.....

Now if I -- a mindless nobody -- who knows nothing about being a lawyer would do this stufff....

...surely a real one would do even more....

anyway --- my guess is this is going to drag out ... for quite awhile

Gumby

11-16-2009, 03:13 PM

No doubt Hasan will receive a fair trial via military court martial.

Yes he would get a fair trial and sentence. The military could even use his own pistol one last time.

James48843

11-23-2009, 11:04 PM

Yes he would get a fair trial and sentence. The military could even use his own pistol one last time.

Military no longer uses firing squads. Death by lethal injection is now the prescribed mode of execution in death penalty cases. I'm not sure whether or not the government will ask for the death penalty, but I presume they will.

And it will not take a long time to come to trial- the military works with speedy trials in cases like this. If and when he is convicted, it may take a while for appeals to run their course- before the execution. However, the Army has pretty much laid out the process and the procedure.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/r190_55.pdf

mick504

11-24-2009, 04:10 AM

Actually the terrorists will be making propanda films about they a US Army terrorist, found the true path and killed for Allah....! Then more nutcakes will come out of the woodwork...derranged as they are in their conflicted minds thinking that is the right course of action. Apparently that guy...the Ft. Hood shooter...didn't have a gal....so the promise or thought of all those virgins might have also spurred the sick guy on. I also worry about the upcoming trials in NY; when the 911 terrorists will be tried and all the security needed. We are stupid....and they (the terrorists) love it that way....and our abiding laws. Yes, blame us for your backyard Saudi Govt....it's all our fault....that your women want some independence. Good Grief! When will we rid ourselves of this evil cancer....militant islamist extremists!

FAB1

11-25-2009, 11:00 AM

the whole ugly business seems to have dropped off the media's radar screen - now when will they start to paint this guy as a victim?

Viva_La_Migra

11-25-2009, 11:47 AM

the whole ugly business seems to have dropped off the media's radar screen - now when will they start to paint this guy as a victim?
When the trial starts and he shows up in a wheelchair.

Buster

12-03-2009, 07:33 AM

DITTO!!!!!!

http://www.wtoc.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=4285612&h1=Editorial+-+11/09/09&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=186467&LaunchPageAdTag=News

coolhand

12-06-2009, 09:19 AM

http://www.redcounty.com/%E2%80%9Ctragedy-ft-hood%E2%80%9D?taxonomy=1745

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/allenwest.asp

grandma

12-06-2009, 10:05 AM

coolhand, do you think more & more people are now speaking out, writing `letters to the editor', etc?

My feeling is reading the comments written in response to all writings could be considered even needful. I know a lot of the time it simply reflects the thoughts of those who support/agree with any particular site, but the rest give a feel for the thinking of the other side of the fence.

It is especially interesting that spelling/typo's/grammer/punctuations are often used by dissenters to a position article/writing; thus giving the feeling that `they' (to their way of thinking) are the Intelligencie, the Articulate, the Superior in all ways - competing with God for omniscient attributes.
- do they also use that as a reason not to buy products made over-seas? More often than not the directions, product info, etc, are in almost pidgen English.
As for the rage often seen - it may be akin to Road Rage - it doesn't seem to be restricted to only one or t'other point-of-view. And sometimes even newscasters & campaign speech'ers (?) don't realize the mike was still on!!

Scrappy

12-06-2009, 10:16 AM

http://www.redcounty.com/%E2%80%9Ctragedy-ft-hood%E2%80%9D?taxonomy=1745

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/allenwest.asp

I sure hope he wins in Florida......too bad it isn't 2012 president he is running for!

Buster

12-17-2009, 10:29 AM

NCIS...Intersting parallel..

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/ncis/video/?pid=BUyMo8LYpB1zKxum7_E3IwdFYCHnJi_O&vs=Default&play=true

Show-me

01-05-2010, 09:10 PM

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

LEVYING WAR, crim. law. The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution. 4 Cranch R. 473-4; Const. art. 3, s. 3. Vide Treason; Fries' Trial; Pamphl. This is a technical term, borrowed from the English law, and its meaning is the same as it is when used in stat. 25 Ed. III.; 4 Cranch's R. 471; U. S. v. Fries, Pamphl. 167; Hall's Am. Law Jo. 351; Burr's Trial; 1 East, P. C. 62 to 77; Alis. Cr. Law of Scotl. 606; 9 C. & P. 129.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Levying+war

ADHERING. Cleaving to, or joining; as, adhering to the enemies of the United States.
2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s 3, defines treason against the United States, to consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
3. The fact that a citizen is cruising in an enemy's ship, with a design to capture or destroy American ships, would be an adhering to the enemies of the United States. 4 State Tr. 328 ; Salk. 634; 2 Gilb. Ev. by Lofft, 798.
4. If war be actually levied, that is, a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable enterprise, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy are to be considered as traitors. 4 Cranch. 126.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adhering

To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that . . . it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying of war.'' Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. ''On the contrary, if it be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.''

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html

Show-me

01-08-2010, 06:40 AM

By BEN CASSELMAN (http://www.tsptalk.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=BEN+CASSELMAN&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND)

Defense attorneys for accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan are racing to collect evidence that could show their client is insane before a psychiatric evaluation is completed.

Associated Press

The Army on Wednesday evening told Maj. Hasan's defense lawyers that it had convened a so-called sanity board to evaluate whether Maj. Hasan is fit to stand trial. The three-person panel is expected to make a recommendation by the end of February, a timeline that has defense attorneys frustrated.

Maj. Hasan is accused of killing 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian in a Nov. 5 rampage at the Texas Army base. Prosecutors are expected to seek the death penalty.

Maj. Hasan's mental status is shaping up to be a central issue in the case. John P. Galligan, the retired Army colonel leading the defense team, has said he was considering pursuing an insanity defense, and the Army has appointed a prosecutor with experience in such cases.

Legal experts said an insanity defense could be Mr. Galligan's best chance of winning an acquittal for his client, or at least avoiding the death penalty. But it wouldn't be easy. Defendants, both in civilian and military trials, rarely are found not guilty on the basis of their mental state. A 2006 study by three Army psychiatrists found that in the more than 21,000 courts-martial between 1990 and 2006, only six defendants were found not guilty by reason of insanity.

"It's just a hard sell," said Hugh Overholt, a North Carolina attorney specializing in defending military clients. "I've had a case where I was absolutely convinced the guy was nuts," and still couldn't win an acquittal, he said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126291467396720881.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Silverbird

01-08-2010, 08:21 AM

The "insanity" plea only works if the perp did not know what he was doing. You can be clinically insane and still be held accountable. This isn't going to fly very well with Hasan showing up on a day he wasn't supposed to be at Hood with weapons.

If this is the best the defense can come up with, their bird doesn't have any feathers - good luck flying.

Birchtree

01-08-2010, 09:36 AM

Take this radical extremist creep out back and tie him to a tree and walk away.

2EASY

01-08-2010, 09:47 AM

Naw - send him to texas State Prison and ensure his roomate name is "Bubba".:D

Viva_La_Migra

01-08-2010, 09:50 AM

Take this radical extremist creep out back and tie him to a tree and walk away.
Better yet, get the Army Corps of Engineers to take the tree and make it into a proper gallows! THEN hang the SOB!

Steadygain

01-08-2010, 09:56 AM

Defense attorneys for accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan are racing to collect evidence that could show their client is insane before a psychiatric evaluation is completed.

When I woke in the middle of the night -- I though about the Nigerian man on his way to court for 'apparently trying to blow up a plane'.

Anyway thought how wonderful it would be if I could get Grandma, Buster, Birch, CB, Coolhand, and Nnutt as the Defense Team and remind them that it's their 'Sacred Duty' to do all things possible to make sure he goes free. That their life is most measured by the manner they defend their client - and convince the Judy to set him free.

So here I would say calling Nidal Malik Hasan the Fort Hood shooter
is 'misleading' and 'prejudical' and a wholly unmerited 'judgemental statement' designed to sway people in a Negative Light.

He is first a MAN - like any other man - seeped in a wide variety of beliefs and these beliefs and the patterns by which his neural networks are formed HAVE to be the basis by which he lives and interacts with all life and forms the basis of all relationships.

So first I would show -- how he is no different from any other person. Would totally be able to prove that. Then I would show beyond the shadow of any doubt -- how these pathways were formed and all the more how they were reinforced.

In the END -- I would prove the 'real killer' is not the Man that was forced to pull the trigger against 'his will'. Because I would be able to Prove -- totally prove -- that 'His Will' was to do everything possible to 'AVOID' the outcome.

His desperate attempts to Maintain a healthy productive lifestyle and live as a man in Harmony with GOD and with one another -- were totally ignored by the many events in which HE was ignored; HIS concerns were Dismissed; and No one was willing to take him serious.

He is NOT the shooter -- is not the killer -- and I could probably convince a Jury of this truth. He is an 'innocent man' who did all he could to maintain his 'innocence' - but HIS Superiors REFUSED to acknowledge or accept his PLEAS -- refused to even remotely consider the Brain Patterns by which this humble devot man lead his life -- and Pushed Him over the Limit. He did not want to go there but it was Forced on HIM.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury -- knowing what I have clearly showed you is this man's 'True Identity'. Knowing how based on everything by which he lives and understands his life and his relationship with GOD and all life -- He was desperate to avoid the conflict --and he went here -- BUT THEY IGNORED HIM -- He went there AND THEY SAID 'WE DON'T CARE' -- He used every avenue he could possibly find 'TO DO THE RIGHT THING' -- but they all Pushed Him against everything He stood for to do 'What he Couldn't' -- it was only after these Deperate Attempts to do things RIGHT that He was 'FORCED' to do wrong.

But he is not the one responsible -- it was not His mind that committed the act of aggression -- it was wholly the people over him who ignored his pleas - totally dismissed the deeper spiritual and religious beliefs which molded his existence -- and made him for that 'moment' something THEY FORCED - but he is innocent.

And that's how the Legal System works -- so get over it.

FAB1

01-08-2010, 10:28 AM

No. THIRTEEN DEAD!!! and the Misery of those families continues...

That gulity bastard doesnt have a chance of a snowball in hell.

And you talk about GOD... THANK GOD he is going to taste justice.

Steadygain

01-08-2010, 11:58 AM

No. THIRTEEN DEAD!!! and the Misery of those families continues...

That gulity bastard doesnt have a chance of a snowball in hell.

And you talk about GOD... THANK GOD he is going to taste justice.

Ohh my friend :) Please forgive me !!

My expressions were only meant from a 'Defense Legal Representative' --- everything I told you was wholly and completely meant as a 'sincere' attempt to convince the 'Jury' of his innocense.

FAB1 - I love you !! - I really do and in the way you deserve it; in a respectful and accepting way -- in a way that appreciates the personality you express and represent.

I'm not here to pass 'Judgement' on anyone and please don't let anything I have expressed pollute GOD and all GOD represents.

Was merely enjoying the thought of envisioning Birchtree, Buster, Nnutt, Grandma, CountryBoy, and Coolhand honestly having to fulfill their 'Sacred Duty' as Legal Defense Representatives on this man's behalf. Now I would all the more bring you into the team.

My comment was simply reflecting Show-me 'concern' about the Legal Defense -- having the nerve to think 'Insanity' to free this guy.

So PLEASE know -- that in NO way am I saying he in my heart of hearts is either 'innocent' or 'guilty'... and this is not an issue I am even remotely qualified to step into .... it not one I would want to step into.

I'm simply saying -- 'If you are a Defense Attorney' - everything you say has to represent his innocense -- and so my post was as if I were his 'Defense Attorney'.

If it was your sworn duty -- OK -- now listen FAB1 -- and anyone else that I may have offended.

If it was honestly your sworn and sacred duty -- and the entire merit of your life and all you represent - was entirely based on your ability to Defend this man - to PROVE he is 'Innocent' so he doesn't even have to go to jail -- but rather is exhonorated !!!

I would love you see how you .... and the others mentioned would honestly be able to fulfill your obligation as a Defense Attorney.

So please know my friend -- and everyone on this MB and all visitors and readers -- my last post was simply a reflection of how The Defense Team has to operate.

For 'Better or for Worse' --- that is our legal system

Peace !!

FAB1

01-08-2010, 01:42 PM

I will have to remain on the side of the prosecution.. but No love lost, between me and theee, Steady - :D

I suppose lawyers of the defense have a job to do.
They have to do whatever to defend the guy. Maybe
even fabricate the "truth" to save his butt

But this creep will not get off the hook. He's toast.

CountryBoy

01-08-2010, 03:32 PM

Steadygain

01-08-2010, 03:48 PM

Steady,

Me defend him? Not a chance. As far as I'm concerned, with the eye witness', just sentence him to the max. Do the crime, do the time. Western justice. :D

Too many lawyers also. ;) Long cold day and a colder weekend coming up. Stay warm there my friend.

CB

Thanks CB ~~~ You too :cool:

It's only because of this Nigerian guy getting all the press I even had this idea. For some reason I thought man, how would I handle this if I was his Defense Attorney.

I actually came up with a lot of ideas -- once I put myself in that situation.

So then of course I thought of gathering the best Defense Team ever and thought of all you -- but would now include FAB1 :toung:

Anyway --- sometimes you have to have a little fun and it's pretty cool trying to picture your alls expressions ...

Why I could see Birch and Buster just melting and everything....

Have a good one Bud.

Birchtree

01-08-2010, 03:58 PM

I would offer this radical extremist creep six oxycodone vitamins to help him feel better - the least I could do.

Show-me

01-12-2010, 07:12 PM

If I was Cesar, I would argue that no one physically forced him to do it. He protested, made remarks, talked to a known sympathetic terrorist cleric. He brought not one but two weapons for the maximum kill.

Many people that object to going to war have a simple peaceful option thay can use.....................................refuse to train. Become a conscientious objector, do not murder 14 innocent souls.

<sound of Centurions dragging traitor into square to be crucified>

conscientious objector

One who opposes participation in military service, on the basis of religious, philosophical, or political belief. A feature of Western society since the beginning of the Christian era, conscientious objection developed as a doctrine of the Mennonite (http://www.tsptalk.com/topic/mennonite)s (16th century), the Society of Friends (http://www.tsptalk.com/topic/society-of-friends) (17th century), and others. Exemptions may be unconditional, conditioned on alternative civilian service, or limited to combat duty. Those who refuse conscription (http://www.tsptalk.com/topic/conscription) may face imprisonment. Philosophical or political reasons are acceptable grounds for exemption in many European countries, but the U.S. recognizes only membership in a religious group that endorses pacifism (http://www.tsptalk.com/topic/pacifism).

Buster

01-12-2010, 08:11 PM

That FAB1..he is a likable sort isn't he..:cool::)

Show-me

01-12-2010, 08:19 PM

Yea.

Buster

01-23-2010, 11:39 PM

Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and loyal citizen?

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-oxymoron.htm

Scrappy

01-24-2010, 09:38 AM

Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and loyal citizen?

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-oxymoron.htm

Islam is incompatible.
Peaceful Muslims is an oxymoron. They should be referred to as "inactive". And there are very few extremists. But there are extremists in all beliefs. Ft. Hood was nothing more than a person being "active" within his beliefs. It was not politically correct to challenge his beliefs during his training, but now, after the fact, we can hold military personnel accountable for supposed unacceptable performance.

We can't talk openly about this because the PC world won't allow it. If we do, we will get a negatie label.

If we disagree with executive orders for funding abortions world wide provided by the U.S., while Clinton is president we are labeled "far right" or something negative. If you oppose executive orders for funding abortions world wide provided by the U.S. while Obama is president you are labeled a "racist". :o:(

phil

01-24-2010, 10:16 AM

And if you brought up faulty intelligence in the Iraq war, you were labelled a traitor. Oh well.

Replace all the "Muslim" labels there with "Christian" or "Buddhist" and it also becomes correct, don't you think?

The point here is that there are many interests in this country who want to continue this stupid and immoral conflict with Islam. There's money to be made in it. Unfortunately, at a price tag of over a trillion dollars, we don't need it. The full employment economy would be better served by having people dig holes and fill them in again. It is useless.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16260.htm is a National Intelligence Estimate done on the US, and seems valid.

Scrappy

01-24-2010, 02:51 PM

The New York Post....owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Yes, the New York Post......not the New York Times, AKA your bible. :nuts:

The point is, and has ALWAYS remained, that the former administration redirected resources from fighting Al-Qaeda to strengthening them. Unfortunately, people STILL just don't get it. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. You are partially correct. Clinton initiated bombing and what evolved into invasion and the law to remove saddam well before 9-11. In fact, our invasion of the country was counterproductive in the war on Al-Qaeda. It's as if he wanted to support Al-Qaeda in the Muslim world. Phil, people STILL don't get it and neither do you. Clinton initiated the bombing. Clintion signed the law. And what follows this statement as usual is your repeat of blaming the neocons, Bush, the administration after Clinton and anything you can put into a conspiracy theory that takes the blame away from a democrat/Clinton and places it on Bush.
The fox and the hound.

That was always the issue. In Iraq, the administration could transfer wealth to their own corporations. Finally, we have an administration that's honest and competent. If you can honestly look at Obama and the current administration and refer to them as honest and competent, you have ZERO ability to analyze anything from any point other than subjective. Pointing out facts to you about Obama is like telling the mother of a new born that her baby is ugly.:p

One who has an interest in ending this constant flow of money and resources to a useless endeavour. Yeah, by sending 30,000 troops to fight what? You are contradictory here from what I have read. But who knows maybe they will find bin laden before he orchestrates another attack on America.....whoops I keep forgetting the "big lie" or in your interpretation the "little flip flop" away from the "critical aspect of stamping out Al Qaeda by capturing or killing bin laden."

“I think it is a top priority for us to stamp out Al Qaeda once and for all. And I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out Al Qaeda.”— "60 Minutes" interview, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/16/60minutes/printable4607893.shtml) November 2008

kar_crazy

01-24-2010, 09:16 PM

works for me , need to end his a$$ big time:D

phil

01-24-2010, 09:32 PM

Scrappy

01-25-2010, 11:35 AM

The New York Post....owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Yes, the New York Post......not the New York Times, AKA your bible. :nuts:
You bet.

The point is, and has ALWAYS remained, that the former administration redirected resources from fighting Al-Qaeda to strengthening them. Unfortunately, people STILL just don't get it. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. You are partially correct. Clinton initiated bombing and what evolved into invasion and the law to remove saddam well before 9-11. In fact, our invasion of the country was counterproductive in the war on Al-Qaeda. It's as if he wanted to support Al-Qaeda in the Muslim world. Phil, people STILL don't get it and neither do you. Clinton initiated the bombing. Clintion signed the law. And what follows this statement as usual is your repeat of blaming the neocons, Bush, the administration after Clinton and anything you can put into a conspiracy theory that takes the blame away from a democrat/Clinton and places it on Bush.
The fox and the hound.

So.....It was Clinton who just spent over 700 billion of our dollars in Iraq? Thats right........ROOT CAUSE. Hey, the neocons suckered Clinton also. Once bitten, twice warned. In your world, the only way a democrat can be at fault for anything is if they are suckered and then in your reality they aren't really at fault at all.

What "law" did Clinton sign? "
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon August 9 that U.S. policy continues to be driven by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, which calls for a change of regime in Iraq.

Quoting from the legislation -- passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton -- the secretary said, "It is the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

All he did was listen to the neocons tell him about Chalabi. What a joke that was. The joke's on us.:laugh:

Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. No WMD in Iraq, no Al-Qaeda. Clinton wasn't interested in WMD's.
"Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born high-school dropout whose leadership of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in Iraq, was killed along with several other people near the city of Baqubah, the officials said."
"Copying Osama bin Laden's leadership strategy, Zarqawi set up numerous semi-autonomous terrorist cells across Iraq, many of which could continue operating after his death." Please do give me the quotes about Atta in Prague.

That was always the issue. In Iraq, the administration could transfer wealth to their own corporations. Finally, we have an administration that's honest and competent. If you can honestly look at Obama and the current administration and refer to them as honest and competent, you have ZERO ability to analyze anything from any point other than subjective. Pointing out facts to you about Obama is like telling the mother of a new born that her baby is ugly.

He's been left with two wars, and a broken economy. Enough said.
He wasn't "left with" anything. He initiated a campaign intentionally seeking to take on what would become his responsiblities the day he entered office whatever good and bad that entailed. If only the "hope and change" rhetoric could have been backed up with solid previous experience and accomplishments to indicate the possibility of anything potentially positive occuring. Ugly, vedddy ugly baby! :toung:

One who has an interest in ending this constant flow of money and resources to a useless endeavour.
Yeah, by sending 30,000 troops to fight what? You are contradictory here from what I have read. But who knows maybe they will find bin laden before he orchestrates another attack on America.....whoops I keep forgetting the "big lie" or in your interpretation the "little flip flop" away from the "critical aspect of stamping out Al Qaeda by capturing or killing bin laden."

Contradictory in what respect? What are you telling me is a useless endeavor? Pakistan, Afghanistan, capturing bin laden......what? Bin Laden's still not in Iraq. Hey, here's a plan! Let's take out Saddam Hussein instead, and pretend we got Bin Laden. I wonder if that was what Clinton was thinking when he signe the law? Here's some video from one of your friends. Watch it. It's funny.....but somehow very very sad. The fact of the matter is, as anyone will tell you, the Iraq war was counterproductive to fighting Al-Qaeda. False statement!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcDnJyc6-vo

Where is the video?

fabijo

01-25-2010, 02:01 PM

Did I just read "honest" in reference to politics?? :nuts:

Do you really think politicians are fighting against each other? It's all a pro wrestling show up there.

phil

01-25-2010, 02:43 PM

So.....It was Clinton who just spent over 700 billion of our dollars in Iraq? Thats right........ROOT CAUSE. Hey, the neocons suckered Clinton also. Once bitten, twice warned. In your world, the only way a democrat can be at fault for anything is if they are suckered and then in your reality they aren't really at fault at all.

What "law" did Clinton sign? "
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon August 9 that U.S. policy continues to be driven by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, which calls for a change of regime in Iraq.

Quoting from the legislation -- passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton -- the secretary said, "It is the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Yes, but it doesn't say how much money we're going to waste on it, nor the number of people we're going to kill. 700 billion is a pricetag that the former administration did NOT approach the American people with. Clinton also listened to the neocons at the time, a fatal error. Never again! Talk about waste, this was the most wasteful Federal program in history. If it were Clinton, we wouldn't be spending this much on it. For so very little.

All he did was listen to the neocons tell him about Chalabi. What a joke that was. The joke's on us.:laugh:

Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. No WMD in Iraq, no Al-Qaeda. Clinton wasn't interested in WMD's.
"Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born high-school dropout whose leadership of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in Iraq, was killed along with several other people near the city of Baqubah, the officials said."
"Copying Osama bin Laden's leadership strategy, Zarqawi set up numerous semi-autonomous terrorist cells across Iraq, many of which could continue operating after his death."Is Zarqawi ALL you have? He wasn't even IN Iraq during 9/11. Even if he was, is THIS what we're going to base our involvement on. :laugh: Hey! You should be working for DIA!

He's been left with two wars, and a broken economy. Enough said.
He wasn't "left with" anything. He initiated a campaign intentionally seeking to take on what would become his responsiblities the day he entered office whatever good and bad that entailed. If only the "hope and change" rhetoric could have been backed up with solid previous experience and accomplishments to indicate the possibility of anything potentially positive occuring. Ugly, vedddy ugly baby! :toung:

We'll see. He still has to remove everything from Iraq, and of course try to repair our international reputation which was tarnished probably beyond hope by the former administration. And try to redirect a lot of resources from wasteful government spending.

Contradictory in what respect? What are you telling me is a useless endeavor? Pakistan, Afghanistan, capturing bin laden......what? Bin Laden's still not in Iraq. Hey, here's a plan! Let's take out Saddam Hussein instead, and pretend we got Bin Laden. I wonder if that was what Clinton was thinking when he signe the law? Here's some video from one of your friends. Watch it. It's funny.....but somehow very very sad. The fact of the matter is, as anyone will tell you, the Iraq war was counterproductive to fighting Al-Qaeda. False statement!

Clinton didn't spend 700 billion of our money, either. Nor did he cause the deaths of thousands of people.
False statement? You don't know anything, do you? All you can do is try to hold on to a rationale that never existed. It's as if I'd told you there was no Santa Claus. Don Rumsfeld was chasing SH years after he was dead, that's how ridiculous it had become. That's just sad, terribly sad....

Scrappy

01-25-2010, 03:33 PM

So.....It was Clinton who just spent over 700 billion of our dollars in Iraq?

CLINTON AND CONGRESS HAVE COMPROMISED U.S. DEFENSE ARSENAL MAKING WAR AGAINST A REGIME FAR LESS THREATENING THAN CHINA, RUSSIA, CUBA, OR KOREA

"As president, Bill Clinton has...squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat — and that's before the costly Desert Fox operation launched Wednesday. On Wednesday alone, some 200 cruise missiles were fired by the Navy at Iraqi targets. Each one of those high-tech bombs cost about $1 million. that's $200 million right there, just on ordnance, in one day...."

CRUISE MISSILES COST MORE THAN ALL INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS

"Yesterday, they began launching the more expensive cruise missiles — fired from the Air Force's B-52s. Those two-ton babies cost more than $2 million each....
"Last October, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided $97 million in military aid to opposition groups in the country....Earlier this year, the U.S. set aside $5 million for the support of Iraqi political opposition, and another $5 million for broadcasting by Radio Free Iraq. But all that is peanuts compared to the price tag for enforcing the no-fly zones. That project cost U.S. taxpayers $2 billion in 1998 alone, and that's far from the total cost. It doesn't include expenses involved in deploying forces in the region last February.
"That was the last big buildup by Clinton. It involved 34 ships, 440 planes, and 44,000 troops. In November, we went through a similar exercise involving 14 ships, 300 planes and 27,500 troops. Now we've got Desert Fox...."
Thats right........ROOT CAUSE. Hey, the neocons suckered Clinton also. Phil, there is a theory that he was sucked into it, not suckered. But no one put a gone to his head and a pen in his hand.
Once bitten, twice warned. In your world, the only way a democrat can be at fault for anything is if they are suckered and then in your reality they aren't really at fault at all.

What "law" did Clinton sign? "
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon August 9 that U.S. policy continues to be driven by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, which calls for a change of regime in Iraq.

Quoting from the legislation -- passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton -- the secretary said, "It is the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Yes, but it doesn't say how much money we're going to waste on it, nor the number of people we're going to kill. 700 billion is a pricetag that the former administration did NOT approach the American people with. Clinton also listened to the neocons at the time, a fatal error. Never again! Talk about waste, this was the most wasteful Federal program in history. Are you talking about all that $$ above? If it were Clinton, we wouldn't be spending this much on it. For so very little.
SEE above.

All he did was listen to the neocons tell him about Chalabi. What a joke that was. The joke's on us.:laugh:

Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. No WMD in Iraq, no Al-Qaeda. Clinton wasn't interested in WMD's. He had a little bit of Monica in his life.......
"Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born high-school dropout whose leadership of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in Iraq, was killed along with several other people near the city of Baqubah, the officials said."
"Copying Osama bin Laden's leadership strategy, Zarqawi set up numerous semi-autonomous terrorist cells across Iraq, many of which could continue operating after his death."Is Zarqawi ALL you have? He wasn't even IN Iraq during 9/11. Even if he was, is THIS what we're going to base our involvement on. You time line keeps getting skewed. Besides, you said: Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. I merely posted one of many oppositions to that false statement. :laugh: Hey! You should be working for DIA! I do.

He's been left with two wars, and a broken economy. Enough said.
He wasn't "left with" anything. He initiated a campaign intentionally seeking to take on what would become his responsiblities the day he entered office whatever good and bad that entailed. If only the "hope and change" rhetoric could have been backed up with solid previous experience and accomplishments to indicate the possibility of anything potentially positive occuring. Ugly, vedddy ugly baby! :toung:

We'll see. He still has to remove everything from Iraq, immediately, like he said during the campaign or in 16 months like he said shortly after entering office, or in 19 months going against his generals recommendations of 24 months? Will he bring everyone home or just change the name of the indefinitly remaining troops to disguise his big lie or in your understanding "acceptable little flip flop? Or will it all pan out like the well defined exist strategy from guantanamo bay? and of course try to repair our international reputation which was tarnished probably beyond hope by the former administration. And try to redirect a lot of resources from wasteful government spending. To be continued. Gotta go!

Contradictory in what respect? What are you telling me is a useless endeavor? Pakistan, Afghanistan, capturing bin laden......what? Bin Laden's still not in Iraq. Hey, here's a plan! Let's take out Saddam Hussein instead, and pretend we got Bin Laden. I wonder if that was what Clinton was thinking when he signe the law? Here's some video from one of your friends. Watch it. It's funny.....but somehow very very sad. The fact of the matter is, as anyone will tell you, the Iraq war was counterproductive to fighting Al-Qaeda. False statement!

Clinton didn't spend 700 billion of our money, either. Nor did he cause the deaths of thousands of people.
False statement? You don't know anything, do you? All you can do is try to hold on to a rationale that never existed. It's as if I'd told you there was no Santa Claus. Don Rumsfeld was chasing SH years after he was dead, that's how ridiculous it had become. That's just sad, terribly sad....
chow

phil

01-25-2010, 03:47 PM

Hey! You should be working for DIA! I do.

That's ALL I need today, man.:laugh:
After Douglas Feith and Rummy wrecked the DIA, I need respond no more. Are you guys STILL looking for WMD in Iraq?:laugh:

Good luck. I'm sure you have a secure future coming up with whatever "intelligence" the current administration needs. Just ask DIA, they'll make up whatever intelligence you need to justify your actions.

Scrappy

01-25-2010, 07:45 PM

Hey! You should be working for DIA! I do.
I don't work for DIA. That was just some unifinished sarcasm to give you a good laugh and see how you responded. Ha ha. ;)

That's ALL I need today, man.:laugh:
After Douglas Feith and Rummy wrecked the DIA, I need respond no more. Are you guys STILL looking for WMD in Iraq?:laugh:

Good luck. I'm sure you have a secure future coming up with whatever "intelligence" the current administration needs. Just ask DIA, they'll make up whatever intelligence you need to justify your actions.

Now back to the other unfinished part of the reply.

phil

01-25-2010, 08:04 PM

I don't need to reply. You've given me your agenda already, and I am already familiar with it. DOD took over the Iraq operation, based upon fake information provided by DIA. After 700 plus billion dollars of costs, when we were told we wouldn't be there for 6 months, Iraq was no closer to resolution than it was when we started. My only question is:

From whom do I get my money back?

http://www.costofwar.com/

Scrappy

01-25-2010, 08:16 PM

chow
Originally Posted by phil http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=253014#post253014)
So.....It was Clinton who just spent over 700 billion of our dollars in Iraq?

CLINTON AND CONGRESS HAVE COMPROMISED U.S. DEFENSE ARSENAL MAKING WAR AGAINST A REGIME FAR LESS THREATENING THAN CHINA, RUSSIA, CUBA, OR KOREA

"As president, Bill Clinton has...squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat — and that's before the costly Desert Fox operation launched Wednesday. On Wednesday alone, some 200 cruise missiles were fired by the Navy at Iraqi targets. Each one of those high-tech bombs cost about $1 million. that's $200 million right there, just on ordnance, in one day...."

CRUISE MISSILES COST MORE THAN ALL INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS

"Yesterday, they began launching the more expensive cruise missiles — fired from the Air Force's B-52s. Those two-ton babies cost more than $2 million each....
"Last October, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided $97 million in military aid to opposition groups in the country....Earlier this year, the U.S. set aside $5 million for the support of Iraqi political opposition, and another $5 million for broadcasting by Radio Free Iraq. But all that is peanuts compared to the price tag for enforcing the no-fly zones. That project cost U.S. taxpayers $2 billion in 1998 alone, and that's far from the total cost. It doesn't include expenses involved in deploying forces in the region last February.
"That was the last big buildup by Clinton. It involved 34 ships, 440 planes, and 44,000 troops. In November, we went through a similar exercise involving 14 ships, 300 planes and 27,500 troops. Now we've got Desert Fox...."
Thats right........ROOT CAUSE. Hey, the neocons suckered Clinton also. Phil, there is a theory that he was sucked into it, not suckered. But no one put a gone to his head and a pen in his hand.
Once bitten, twice warned. In your world, the only way a democrat can be at fault for anything is if they are suckered and then in your reality they aren't really at fault at all.

What "law" did Clinton sign? "
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon August 9 that U.S. policy continues to be driven by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, which calls for a change of regime in Iraq.

Quoting from the legislation -- passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton -- the secretary said, "It is the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Yes, but it doesn't say how much money we're going to waste on it, nor the number of people we're going to kill. 700 billion is a pricetag that the former administration did NOT approach the American people with. Clinton also listened to the neocons at the time, a fatal error. Never again! Talk about waste, this was the most wasteful Federal program in history. Are you talking about all that $$ above? If it were Clinton, we wouldn't be spending this much on it. For so very little.
SEE above.

All he did was listen to the neocons tell him about Chalabi. What a joke that was. The joke's on us.:laugh:

Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. No WMD in Iraq, no Al-Qaeda. Clinton wasn't interested in WMD's. He had a little bit of Monica in his life.......
"Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born high-school dropout whose leadership of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in Iraq, was killed along with several other people near the city of Baqubah, the officials said."
"Copying Osama bin Laden's leadership strategy, Zarqawi set up numerous semi-autonomous terrorist cells across Iraq, many of which could continue operating after his death."Is Zarqawi ALL you have? He wasn't even IN Iraq during 9/11. Even if he was, is THIS what we're going to base our involvement on. Your time line keeps getting skewed. Besides, you said: Invading Iraq was counterproductive in chasing down Al-Qaeda. I merely posted one of many oppositions to that false statement. :laugh: Hey! You should be working for DIA! I do. I am right down the hall from you every day!

He's been left with two wars, and a broken economy. Enough said.
He wasn't "left with" anything. He initiated a campaign intentionally seeking to take on what would become his responsiblities the day he entered office whatever good and bad that entailed. If only the "hope and change" rhetoric could have been backed up with solid previous experience and accomplishments to indicate the possibility of anything potentially positive occuring. Ugly, vedddy ugly baby! :toung:

We'll see. He still has to remove everything from Iraq, immediately, like he said during the campaign or in 16 months like he said shortly after entering office, or in 19 months going against his generals recommendations of 24 months? Will he bring everyone home or just change the name of the indefinitly remaining troops to disguise his big lie or in your understanding "acceptable little flip flop? Or will it all pan out like the well defined exit strategy from guantanamo bay? and of course try to repair our international reputation which was tarnished probably beyond hope by the former administration. Where is the love? Jihad is over? And try to redirect a lot of resources from wasteful government spending. YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING?!?! By increasing the deficit by trillions more?

In August, President Obama proclaimed that he would not tolerate pork in the defense budget by declaring “If a project doesn’t support our troops, we will not fund it.” He is being accused again of a substantial gap between his rhetoric and the reality of his politics. (That is PC for "he lied") He just signed the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill with an estimated $4.2 billion in pork contained in 1,720 earmarks.
In a flagrant violation of the promise of both Obama and the Democrats, the defense bill is a continuation of the pork politics that they said that they would end. The bill includes the following:
∙$5 million for a visitors center in San Francisco
. $54 million for a flood-control project that will raise two trestles used by the Napa Valley Wine Train
∙$23 million for indigent health care in Hawaii
∙$18 million for the Edward Kennedy Policy Institute in Massachusetts
∙$1.6 million to computerize hospital records in Oakland
.$1.6 million for a Monterey graduate school
∙$47 million for anti-drug training centers around the country
∙$20 million for the World War II Museum in Louisiana
∙$3.9 million grant to develop an energy-efficient solar film for buildings
∙$800,000 for minority prostate cancer research
∙$3.6 million for marijuana eradication in Kentucky
∙$2.4 million for handicap access and a sprinkler system at a community club in New York

Contradictory in what respect? What are you telling me is a useless endeavor? Pakistan, Afghanistan, capturing bin laden......what? Bin Laden's still not in Iraq. Hey, here's a plan! Let's take out Saddam Hussein instead, and pretend we got Bin Laden. I wonder if that was what Clinton was thinking when he signe the law? Here's some video from one of your friends. Watch it. It's funny.....but somehow very very sad. The fact of the matter is, as anyone will tell you, the Iraq war was counterproductive to fighting Al-Qaeda. False statement!

Clinton didn't spend 700 billion of our money, either. Ok, how much did he spend? Zero right? The neocons put a gun to his head and a pen in his hand. Nor did he cause the deaths of thousands of people. Clinton initiated and put into action what evolved.
False statement? YES, a false statement. You said "as anyone will tell you". How many people would I have to ask and reply to you to receive oh say $1,000 for being wrong? You don't know anything, do you? Is that all you got? All you can do is try to hold on to a rationale that never existed. How could it not exist? You just don't know how to construe it to fit what you want to believe. It's as if I'd told you there was no Santa Claus. I was raised without the belief in santa claus. Now what? Don Rumsfeld was chasing SH years after he was dead, that's how ridiculous it had become. That's just sad, terribly sad....I guess that is from the video that I am going to watch right now.

phil

01-25-2010, 08:25 PM

I am right down the hall from you every day!
No. You're not.

Scrappy

01-25-2010, 08:40 PM

I don't need to reply. Is this your "whatever" moment? You've given me your agenda already, and I am already familiar with it. Ok, then please tell me what my agenda is? DOD took over the Iraq operation, initiated by and from who? based upon fake information provided by DIA. After 700 plus billion dollars of costs, when we were told we wouldn't be there for 6 months, Iraq was no closer to resolution than it was when we started. What about the billions spent before 9-11? My only question is:

From whom do I get my money back?
Find Your Unclaimed Money (http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=CAPo1h1ReS83MNNyYlQel49DwCs3A5KoBxfSqqxKR5sMFEA cgsO_3BigJUKSi4akGYMne9IzkpMAToAHBjJX8A8gBAaoEG0_Q IZ2aNuOi_eS1pmET9IVgcrZwku7v6VWvaQ&num=7&sig=AGiWqtyQLBUQyB04m9MbHE7yEwme8AA3Rw&q=http://fortune-finders.com/af_cmd.php%3Faf%3Dicp_aw)
Search our National Database Free See if Your Name is on the List! (http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=CAPo1h1ReS83MNNyYlQel49DwCs3A5KoBxfSqqxKR5sMFEA cgsO_3BigJUKSi4akGYMne9IzkpMAToAHBjJX8A8gBAaoEG0_Q IZ2aNuOi_eS1pmET9IVgcrZwku7v6VWvaQ&num=7&sig=AGiWqtyQLBUQyB04m9MbHE7yEwme8AA3Rw&q=http://fortune-finders.com/af_cmd.php%3Faf%3Dicp_aw)
fortune-finders.com (http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=CAPo1h1ReS83MNNyYlQel49DwCs3A5KoBxfSqqxKR5sMFEA cgsO_3BigJUKSi4akGYMne9IzkpMAToAHBjJX8A8gBAaoEG0_Q IZ2aNuOi_eS1pmET9IVgcrZwku7v6VWvaQ&num=7&sig=AGiWqtyQLBUQyB04m9MbHE7yEwme8AA3Rw&q=http://fortune-finders.com/af_cmd.php%3Faf%3Dicp_aw)

http://www.costofwar.com/

:D:cheesy::nuts::rolleyes:

phil

01-25-2010, 09:09 PM

That doesn't help me much. Here's a link for you.

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/10/04/foggybottom/index.html

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/view/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

which may bring things into perspective. It's worth a trillion dollars.

James48843

01-25-2010, 09:29 PM

$47 million for anti-drug training centers around the country?
$3.6 million for marijuana eradication in Kentucky?

Damn.

We NEED to cut the budget.

Time for line item veto....

I think I have an idea on where to save some money......

Scrappy

01-25-2010, 09:41 PM

phil

01-25-2010, 10:04 PM

phil

01-25-2010, 10:18 PM

I don't need to reply. Is this your "whatever" moment?
Nope. You have a vested interest in continuing the now defunct GWOT.
You've given me your agenda already, and I am already familiar with it.

Ok, then please tell me what my agenda is? DOD took over the Iraq operation, initiated by and from who? It's here. By the way, there's lots lots more that's not here also.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/view/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

based upon fake information provided by DIA. After 700 plus billion dollars of costs, when we were told we wouldn't be there for 6 months, Iraq was no closer to resolution than it was when we started. What about the billions spent before 9-11?
It didn't need to be spent. SH was no threat. No WMD, no links to AQ.
Billions wasted since Clinton wanted to appease the neocons. It's what you get.

phil

01-25-2010, 10:21 PM

I wholeheartedly agree. DEA was formed out of the leftover apparatus from prohibition in the 30's. Government out of control. There we go again.

$47 million for anti-drug training centers around the country?
$3.6 million for marijuana eradication in Kentucky?

Damn.

We NEED to cut the budget.

Time for line item veto....

I think I have an idea on where to save some money......

Buster

01-25-2010, 10:24 PM

Post whoring again..can't you post all your drivel in one post?:suspicious:

phil

01-25-2010, 10:30 PM

Sometimes. Are you looking for more material here? Lack of originality, no doubt.

Viva_La_Migra

01-26-2010, 09:38 AM

Or just a patriot. PBS is the Public Broadcasting System. I don't think they're either way. The New American Century letter is the reference to the neocon's request of Clinton many years ago for regime change. They're hardly considered leftist by any definition.
PBS is a left leaning organization, much like NPR is. The only thing that used to be half way worth watching on PBS was Sesame Street when my kids were younger. Of course, liberals found a way to politicize even that show (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091105/pl_ynews/ynews_pl968).

Steadygain

01-26-2010, 10:48 AM

DOD took over the Iraq operation, based upon fake information provided by DIA. After 700 plus billion dollars of costs

I want to know how I get my share (my money) that was spent

Phil,
This has been a subject you've brought up quite a few times on this MB.

I appreciate the interest you've taken regarding this matter and your willingness to voice your objections to the 'injustices' both in our own country and the 'injustices' between our country and other Nations.

Most of what you express has some degree of published 'support' which gives you better credibility. So I'm giving you whatever recognition I can --- and I've enjoyed some of your stuff.

It seems the underlying THEME on your outlook regarding the Iraq War -- is the COST -- and how 'YOU' have been robbed and how 'YOU' are entittled to recover MONEY.

Bottomline appears to be MONEY -- and what the USA owes you.

So PLEASE -- let's cut through the crap and get right to the core.

First -- and this equally applies to me and every other person --
You came into this world with Nothing -- and this Country does not owe you anything -- simply because the sperm of your father impregnated the egg of your mother.

So if you believe this Country (or the World at Large) OWES you because of the above event then you have a very warped perception of Reality. Somehow because You were born -- you believe others OWE you.

They don't owe you a GD thing Phil -- and every Freedom you have enjoyed from the moment you first arrived in this world was Wholly and Completely by the Generous Outpouring of the Whole on your behalf.

You didn't get any of the things you've had because 'WE' owed you ... You got everything because 'WE' have freely offered you everything you'd essentially ever known.

'WE' don't owe you one damn little thing Phil -- You owe 'US'

Think this over Phil and honestly let it sink in ~~ seriously this is not that hard of a thing to really honestly recognize ~~

Only then can you see that without the DOD and all the other aspects by which this Country has it's grounding -- that you ever had the enormous abundance you've had from DAY ONE.

So if you want anything Phil ~~ including Respect ~~ then you need to earn it. This country does not owe you anything ~~ but You owe it for all it's already provided.

Show 'us' you understand this by living your life accordingly.

WorkFE

01-26-2010, 10:59 AM

:D Did I miss something :D

Warrenlm

01-26-2010, 11:03 AM

:D Did I miss something :D
Not if you have phil on "ignore".

fabijo

01-26-2010, 02:17 PM

nnuut

01-26-2010, 02:26 PM

Frixxxx

01-26-2010, 03:01 PM

I know, but don't tell Phil. 8081
Don't matter, he'll find an Al-Jazeer video that shows the convoy, but says they're trucking it IN!!!:rolleyes: What alevin said!

alevin

01-26-2010, 03:01 PM

Since we're all on a completely different subject from this thread, did I read somewhere on here that we didn't find anything in Iraq? Nope. We only quietly removed 550 tons of uranium yellowcake in 2008. We kept it quiet because we feared that it would fall into wrong hands.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/07/07/msm-yawn-550-metric-tons-uranium-removed-iraq

I remember reading those stories awhile back, and checking them out via Snopes or some other source back then.

The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Moreover, the fact that the yellowcake had been in Iraq since before the 1991 Gulf War was plainly stated in the Associated Press article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334) cited in the example above:
Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
Or, as the New York Times stated more plainly:
The yellowcake removed from Iraq was not the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Mr. Hussein was trying to purchase in Africa.
The U.S. did manage to ameliorate a substantial security concern by secretly shipping stored yellowcake out of Iraq in mid-2008, but that act was not, as claimed above, proof that Iraq had been purchasing uranium and attempting to restart its nuclear program prior to the U.S. invasion.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

WorkFE

01-26-2010, 03:16 PM

Can't be true, not in wikipedia.:blink:

nnuut

01-26-2010, 03:26 PM

I remember reading those stories awhile back, and checking them out via Snopes or some other source back then.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

That's true, I forgot the details.;)

James48843

01-26-2010, 03:37 PM

James48843

01-26-2010, 03:58 PM

Can't be true, not in wikipedia.:blink:

It is now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries#Removal_of_UN_Inventoried_ Yellowcake

phil

01-26-2010, 04:08 PM

Hey Frixx, do your own research. Quit relying on others so much.

By the way, there's enough evidence on the Iraq matter to have impeached both Bush and Cheney. I guess most of you were just waiting for a blue dress attached to Clinton to spend around 50 million dollars to investigate that matter. This other stuff about a trillion dollars of taxpayer resources and hundreds of thousands of lives probably just wasn't that important to a lot of you. :laugh:

Also from the article:
Further, in March 2003, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency) (IAEA) released results of his analysis of the documents. Reportedly, it took IAEA officials only a matter of hours to determine that these documents were fake. Using little more than a Google (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Google) search, IAEA experts discovered indications of a crude forgery, such as the use of incorrect names of Nigerian officials. As a result, the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents were "in fact not authentic".

Don't matter, he'll find an Al-Jazeer video that shows the convoy, but says they're trucking it IN!!!:rolleyes: What alevin said!

Steadygain

01-26-2010, 04:13 PM

It is now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries#Aftermath

Wow, this is pretty amazing stuff !

Seems like it should be in the Progressives Thread though ...

..... since we're finally making Progress ;)

Well good night all you scalley wags :p

James48843

01-26-2010, 04:19 PM

Wasn't this thread about Fort Hood?

Frixxxx

01-26-2010, 04:54 PM

Hey Frixx, do your own research. Quit relying on others so much.

Get off your horse, newbie..:mad:

James pointed this out in 2008:
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=190207&postcount=23

Now, the RESEARCH had been done and we already knew this to be false. I was and have been an active member here before then and before you.

I knew this already but made a joke at your expense....call me out on something else. Your attacks are getting less and less fact based and more emotional based.:suspicious:

phil

01-26-2010, 05:04 PM

I'm not attacking at all, and you started it. I finished it.

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Get off your horse, newbie..:mad:

James pointed this out in 2008:
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=190207&postcount=23

Now, the RESEARCH had been done and we already knew this to be false. I was and have been an active member here before then and before you.

I knew this already but made a joke at your expense....call me out on something else. Your attacks are getting less and less fact based and more emotional based.:suspicious:

Steadygain

01-26-2010, 05:20 PM

I'm not attacking at all, and you started it. I finished it.

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Forgive him Phil, he's just like the rest of us....:embarrest:

.... Phil, I think the main problem is the bulk of us are dumb as hell and your like super genius ... so we're not relating because you're talking on levels we've never remotely touched ...

... and you've left our levels by the time you were 5 years old. ;)

Anyway -- just out of curiosity ... I was wondering how much the USA owes 'us' for 'wasting all the money on Iraq and stuff'

You know deep down it seems like this country 'owes us' ....

I started this morning off asking you about that ....

.....and I'm honestly heading home .... but wondered what you think if you don't mind checking it out ....

.... well be cool everyone ... and I don't care if you all fuss a little here and there ..... but wait for me before any real action takes place

phil

01-26-2010, 05:43 PM

WorkFE

01-26-2010, 06:09 PM

it was not concentrated enough even to make a dirty bomb

You know not what you spew

phil

01-26-2010, 06:11 PM

Still waiting for my link where A-J was showing beheadings. I guess you're too embarassed to say that it doesn't exist, which is why you just made it up. Making things up just gets you trouble.

Not if you have phil on "ignore".

Steadygain

01-26-2010, 06:20 PM

At one time in our history, I could honestly say that America was a positive force for good in the world.

Phil, I appreciate your response here my brother and friend and in part I share your feelings.

But Phil, seriously, it is not that America is no longer a positive force working good in the world ...

It is much more that America provides us as individuals enormous freedoms to be a 'Positive Force' for good in the world.

I spend thousands of dollars every year reaching out to others in need Phil. My Turbo Tax says everytime that my 'Charitable Giving' is way beyond the 'norm' -- but if I can verify that 'I'm alright'.

We (as a family) have taken numerous Internationals into our family and have remained close over the years.

We have directly been to many Nations and Places in far greater need and will continue our involvement.

The Acts of Service and the Genuine Expressions of God's Love and Grace are a very constant endeavor for many people Phil, and not just my family.

After invading a foreign country where we had no reason, I can no longer make that statement.
Phil, I can absolutely promise you that if you saw the way my family lived and interacted with others ~~ and many others we know live and interact ~~ it would be impossible for you not to say that.

All we really owe to our children, who we've put in debt, is an explanation.

www.greenteadiary.com (http://www.greenteadiary.com) Phil this is my first daughter's blog. She graduated top in High School and received all kinds of recogniztion during college at a Private Christian College.

Our explanation to her is that GOD is far above and beyond our human flaws -- that all people deserve the deepest respect and that we should strive to love one another and extend ourselves on their behalf. This has been her grounding...

PLEASE -- look at her life

Emily -- my second daughter is also attending a Private Christian College -- ranked the TOP Midwest College every year she's been there. She is presently in INDIA -- extending her life for others; she went to Hatii last Summer and extended herself for many orphans and still is very attached to the Orphanage ... and we support it.

Carrie, my youngest is still maintaining straight As. She has a 4.0. None of them have ever used drugs Phil -- not even once. Never tasted Alcohol or ever puffed on anything.

Carrie is dedicating her life for the benefit of others.

So Phil if we owe our Children any kind of explanation it is wholly why we have to live our lifes for others; why we have to set the example; why we have to love the unloving; show mercy to the underserving;

why we ultimately have to be the Light of GOD'S Grace and Love to a cold and uncaring world.

God bless you Phil --- I know you're an atheist -- but I hope will all my heart you can feel His Love and enjoy all He has to offer.

phil

01-26-2010, 06:50 PM

I read your daughter's blog. She sounds very nice and I'm glad she's doing what she's doing. I hope she continues doing what she's doing, of course.

James48843

01-26-2010, 06:52 PM

You know not what you spew

Yes, I do. Yellowcake is not considered a hazardous material under transportation regulations, because it's not concentrated enough in it's natural state to create a hazard. You can drive it around in a dump truck if you like.

http://coloradoindependent.com/38278/colorado-officials-yellowcake-uranium-trucks-can-go-wherever-they-want

phil

01-26-2010, 07:16 PM

When Iraq obtained the yellowcake in 1981....let's see....what was happening around the world then:

According to the censured portion of Iraq’s December 7, 2002 declaration to the UN (see December 7, 2002 (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/item.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasi on_of_iraq_251)) (see December 19, 2002 (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/#complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_26 2)), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories help train Iraqi nuclear weapons scientists and provide nonfissile material for Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.

The US closely monitors “third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq [has] the military weaponry required.” [Affidavit. United States v. Carlos Cardoen, et al. [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany illegally provided a proscribed substance, zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], 1/31/1995 http://www.historycommons.org/pics/icons/pdfbw.png (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq61.pdf); Washington Post, 12/30/2002 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-04.htm)]

The CIA secretly provides Iraqi intelligence with instructions on how to “calibrate” its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [Washington Post, 12/15/1986 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1980s/wpost121586.htm)]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=us_iraq_80s_844

fabijo

01-26-2010, 09:42 PM

Not that it matters at all, but that "yellowcake" was there before 1991, was documented, tagged, and inspected by UN inspectors, and was never really a risk-- it was not concentrated enough even to make a dirty bomb, there was nothing to convert it into enriched product, and is was not really any reason to do anything- we knew about it in 1991, and there was nothing new.

8083

Maybe it just needed frosting...

Oh, well. Ya caught me! :D

Buster

01-26-2010, 09:49 PM

Forgive him Phil, he's just like the rest of us....:embarrest:

.... Phil, I think the main problem is the bulk of us are dumb as hell and your like super genius ... so we're not relating because you're talking on levels we've never remotely touched ...

... and you've left our levels by the time you were 5 years old. ;)

Until now..I was having this nagging feeling that I have read about Phil before..something about his arrogance and self righteousness struck a familiar cord...I have found the Name of that sad melody about this cretin we here know as Phil....

I give you the reincarnation of...
The Man without a Country

1 ...One and another of the colonels and majors were tried, and, to fill out the list little Nolan, against whom, Heaven knows, there was evidence enough,—that he was sick of the service, had been willing to be false to it, and would have obeyed any order to march any-whither with any one who would follow him had the order been signed, “By command of His Exc. A. Burr.” The courts dragged on. The big flies escaped,—rightly for all I know. Nolan was proved guilty enough, as I say; yet you and I would never have heard of him, reader, but that, when the president of the court asked him at the close whether he wished to say anything to show that he had always been faithful to the United States, he cried out, in a fit of frenzy,— 6 “Damn the United States! I wish I may never hear of the United States again!”

http://www.bartelby.com/310/6/1.html

phil

01-26-2010, 11:10 PM

Well, well. Still striving for originality? Just continue to quote Breitbart.:laugh:

How little you really know.

Until now..I was having this nagging feeling that I have read about Phil before..something about his arrogance and self righteousness struck a familiar cord...I have found the Name of that sad melody about this cretin we here know as Phil....

I give you the reincarnation of...
The Man without a Country

1 ...One and another of the colonels and majors were tried, and, to fill out the list little Nolan, against whom, Heaven knows, there was evidence enough,—that he was sick of the service, had been willing to be false to it, and would have obeyed any order to march any-whither with any one who would follow him had the order been signed, “By command of His Exc. A. Burr.” The courts dragged on. The big flies escaped,—rightly for all I know. Nolan was proved guilty enough, as I say; yet you and I would never have heard of him, reader, but that, when the president of the court asked him at the close whether he wished to say anything to show that he had always been faithful to the United States, he cried out, in a fit of frenzy,— 6 “Damn the United States! I wish I may never hear of the United States again!”

http://www.bartelby.com/310/6/1.html

Scrappy

01-26-2010, 11:16 PM

At one time in our history, I could honestly say that America was a positive force for good in the world. After invading a foreign country where we had no reason, I can no longer make that statement.

All we really owe to our children, who we've put in debt, is an explanation. All we owe the rest of the world is also an explanation that we probably can't offer any longer. It's similar to Vietnam. The destruction of our economy and our relations to the rest of the world are not easily explained, and I'm wondering if anyone is left who can.

The people who were the architects of this policy are now running and hiding as fast as they can. A lot of other people simply haven't caught up to that fact yet, but they will in the coming years, no doubt. It took the architect of the Vietnam War, MacNamara, about 30 years to explain the rationale. It only took the neocons about 30 minutes after the last administration to walk away from their former actions.

Our country impeached a former President for lying about an affair. Where's the other side to this? Has anyone impeached former administration people for spending a trillion dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of people, for lying to the American public?

The answer is fairly simple to all these questions.

Steady, if you require further explanation about the 10 characteristics below, please PM me and I will provide an explanantion in layman's terms for you.:D:toung:

We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

phil

01-26-2010, 11:18 PM

We'll see.:D
There still remain quite a few inconsistencies that have yet to be ironed out. Again.....we'll see.

Back to Acorn. Someone's going to prison for a looong time. I guess he just misses being able to bug the phones legally from the former administration's time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/201...politico/32035

Do we think they were just.....trying to fix the phones for the Senator?

And the Watergate break-in? Some guys just got lost.....really. After 30 years, we finally found out who Deep Throat was.

One more thing: Pro wrestling isn't real. I hope that didn't burst your bubble.

Steady, if you require further explanation about the 10 characteristics below, please PM me and I will provide an explanantion in layman's terms for you.:D:toung:

We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

James48843

01-26-2010, 11:45 PM

The Man without a Country
http://www.bartelby.com/310/6/1.html

Great read, Buster. thanks.

James48843

01-26-2010, 11:54 PM

Redirect-
Back on topic:
Ft. Hood heroes to be guests at State of the Union

Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer –
Tue Jan 26, 9:50 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Two police officers credited with stopping last year's shooting rampage at Fort Hood will be guests of the first lady during Wednesday's State of the Union speech.

Sgts. Kimberly Munley and Mark Todd will watch President Barack Obama's address with Michelle Obama in a gallery overlooking the House floor. On Nov. 5, the officers, who were civilian members of the Fort Hood police force, opened fire on Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who is accused of killing 13 people in the worst mass murder on a U.S. military base. Munley was wounded in the incident at the Texas base.

An administration official also said Jill Biden, the vice president's wife, invited Julia Frost, a former Marine trumpeter whom Mrs. Biden met when visiting Coastal Carolina Community College. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House had not yet released the full list.

The official also said Mrs. Obama would sit with Trevor Yager, an openly-gay advertising executive from Indianapolis whose agency grew by more than 200 percent and doubled the number of employees. The official says Yager credits Obama's approach to business and the $787 billion economic stimulus measure.

Steadygain

01-27-2010, 08:38 AM

Steady, if you require further explanation about the 10 characteristics below, please PM me and I will provide an explanantion in layman's terms for you.:D:toung:

Actually, I think we're making headway !

And I feel pretty good about the outcome.

Phil is stressing the underlying corruption by which many events have transpired ~~ and that is undeniable. He has pointed out how the CIA has most certainly concocked numerious seraniros by manipulating both information and by deliberatly instigating circumstances in order to create a 'believable story'. Often that is their Specific Job and it's what they are trained to do.

In the specific circumstances by which the Vietnam War was carried out and maintained ~~ and all subsequent wars ~~ Phil has more than enough information to PROVE that based on the overwhelming evidence publicly available and all the more with regards to how all other Nations viewed the Situation we should have (and possibly could have) responded in a better way.

Lastly ~ and specifically in regards to the COST of the war ~ he has clearly shown ~~ at least on paper ~~ that given the Debt the USA was in ... it was a bad move.

************************************************** *******
I believe most of us could agree with this and there would honestly be no further need to continue this discussion.

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

America itself is most certainly the Greatest Nation on Earth. There in no other place that has MORE FREEDOM and by far there is no other place by with the STANDARD OF LIVING is more ABUNDANT.

The POLITICAL SYSTEM (as entirely screwed up and corrupt as it has been) is still the highest basis which provides the framework and grounding to ALL we as Americans have known and enjoyed.

The WARS themselves may have been a huge mistake if we look strickly at the obvious Political Reasons and Intentions; and all the more if we look at an outcome by which it would appear 'We have been Victorious'...

BUT -- Right or Wrong -- The Men and Women who dedicated their lives to serve our Country -- even to the point of actively engaging in WAR are by far the GREATEST HEROS we could ever know. They are the PEOPLE who recognize how Great our Country really is and they will do whatever it takes to make sure that the FREEDOM and ABUNDANCE will continue.

It is highly possible that the REST of the WORLD fully recognizes that the USA is most certainly the ONE COUNTRY that will not hesitate to FIGHT to protect itself ~~ and that all WARS may have in some manner more made other NATIONS change their minds in confronting us in a hostile manner.

So, as with the CONSERVATIVES -- I believe all of us could easily conclude that corruption and huge mistakes are frequently transpiring within POLITICS itself.

YET -- The American People at LARGE -- enjoy the greatest FREEDOMS and most certainly enjoy the GREATEST ABUNDANCE. The American People themselves have collectively wonderful hearts and minds, have enormous integrity, are hugely compassionate and caring and have demonstated a 'Generiousity' that makes them Stand out from all the others.

So if we can see Phil's Side -- and accept it for what it is -- then maybe he can see our side and realize America is a wonderful NATION because of the PEOPLE -- not the POLITICS.

Scrappy

01-27-2010, 09:10 AM

Actually, I think we're making headway !

And I feel pretty good about the outcome.

Phil is stressing the underlying corruption by which many events have transpired ~~ and that is undeniable. He has pointed out how the CIA has most certainly concocked numerious seraniros by manipulating both information and by deliberatly instigating circumstances in order to create a 'believable story'. Often that is their Specific Job and it's what they are trained to do.

In the specific circumstances by which the Vietnam War was carried out and maintained ~~ and all subsequent wars ~~ Phil has more than enough information to PROVE that based on the overwhelming evidence publicly available and all the more with regards to how all other Nations viewed the Situation we should have (and possibly could have) responded in a better way.

Lastly ~ and specifically in regards to the COST of the war ~ he has clearly shown ~~ at least on paper ~~ that given the Debt the USA was in ... it was a bad move.

************************************************** *******
I believe most of us could agree with this and there would honestly be no further need to continue this discussion.

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

America itself is most certainly the Greatest Nation on Earth. There in no other place that has MORE FREEDOM and by far there is no other place by with the STANDARD OF LIVING is more ABUNDANT.

The POLITICAL SYSTEM (as entirely screwed up and corrupt as it has been) is still the highest basis which provides the framework and grounding to ALL we as Americans have known and enjoyed.

The WARS themselves may have been a huge mistake if we look strickly at the obvious Political Reasons and Intentions; and all the more if we look at an outcome by which it would appear 'We have been Victorious'...

BUT -- Right or Wrong -- The Men and Women who dedicated their lives to serve our Country -- even to the point of actively engaging in WAR are by far the GREATEST HEROS we could ever know. They are the PEOPLE who recognize how Great our Country really is and they will do whatever it takes to make sure that the FREEDOM and ABUNDANCE will continue.

It is highly possible that the REST of the WORLD fully recognizes that the USA is most certainly the ONE COUNTRY that will not hesitate to FIGHT to protect itself ~~ and that all WARS may have in some manner more made other NATIONS change their minds in confronting us in a hostile manner.

So, as with the CONSERVATIVES -- I believe all of us could easily conclude that corruption and huge mistakes are frequently transpiring within POLITICS itself.

YET -- The American People at LARGE -- enjoy the greatest FREEDOMS and most certainly enjoy the GREATEST ABUNDANCE. The American People themselves have collectively wonderful hearts and minds, have enormous integrity, are hugely compassionate and caring and have demonstated a 'Generiousity' that makes them Stand out from all the others.

So if we can see Phil's Side -- and accept it for what it is -- then maybe he can see our side and realize America is a wonderful NATION because of the PEOPLE -- not the POLITICS.

There are a lot of people, I am not one of them, that believe that Clinton initiated the law and bombing airstrikes etc. to remove saddam from power as a diversionary tactic in regard to his "interaction" with Monica. Clintons actions were the basis for and culminated in a war that cost billions before Bush was even in office. Strangely, Phil won't even acknowledge anything about that $$$ other than to repeatedly say that Clinton got suckered by the neocons. What a pitiful excuse! And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

Well, you make a few good points.......as I would have expected from you but I am still a little disappointed that you didn't address "the body slam" Phil hit me with about Pro Wrestling. :blink:;):toung:

Scrappy

01-27-2010, 09:15 AM

There are a lot of people, I am not one of them, that believe that Clinton initiated the law and bombing airstrikes etc. to remove saddam from power as a diversionary tactic in regard to his "interaction" with Monica. Clintons actions were the basis for and culminated in a war that cost billions before Bush was even in office. Strangely, Phil won't even acknowledge anything about that $$$ other than to repeatedly say that Clinton got suckered by the neocons. What a pitiful excuse! And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

Well, you make a few good points.......as I would have expected from you but I am still a little disappointed that you didn't address "the body slam" Phil hit me with about Pro Wrestling. :blink:;):toung:

Correction: 700 billion dollars.

Steadygain

01-27-2010, 11:10 AM

I'm sorry my friend but you completely missed the basis of my post.

I am tried of the quabbling -- and bickering -- the endless airing of frustrations and the determination to prove one another wrong.

Have finally decided -- that if one side recognizes some underlying truths -- then all can come to realize that America itself and the people of American are the Best of the BEST. That we are a GREAT NATION and a wonderful people.

So I believe it is best to acknowlege some underlying flaws he has been striving to point out. It only confirms the corruption that has transpired from the Political System -- and most posts reflect this.

There are a lot of people, I am not one of them, that believe that Clinton initiated the law and bombing airstrikes etc. to remove saddam from power as a diversionary tactic in regard to his "interaction" with Monica. Clintons actions were the basis for and culminated in a war that cost billions before Bush was even in office.

To me these things are essentially meaningless and not worth rehashing.

Strangely, Phil won't even acknowledge anything about that $$$ other than to repeatedly say that Clinton got suckered by the neocons. What a pitiful excuse!

Strangely -- you are compelled to maintain a rivilary and I believe you are somewhat motivated by the challenge and the belief that you will win the battle.

You will not win with this attitude ~~ it will simply go on and on.

And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

I really ~~ seriously ~~ am not into this.

Am only hoping that Phil and the rest of us can come to an agreement ~~ and that all of us can unanimously see why my later points are so important.

Then all those who committed their lives to SERVICE will get the respect they deserve ... WARS (as bad as they may be) may be seen in a different light -- and all AMERICANS can be viewed as a marvelous and beautiful people.

Well, you make a few good points.......as I would have expected from you but I am still a little disappointed that you didn't address "the body slam" Phil hit me with about Pro Wrestling. :blink:;):toung:

Hmmm ... I'd say it's getting worn out ...

Scrappy

01-27-2010, 12:05 PM

I'm sorry my friend but you completely missed the basis of my post.
Well I guess so........What was I thinking?
Isn't it the same as everything you post? "I will tell everyone that they are correct to some extent with the hope of all of us getting along?"

I am tried of the quabbling -- and bickering -- the endless airing of frustrations and the determination to prove one another wrong.

Have finally decided -- that if one side recognizes some underlying truths -- then all can come to realize that America itself and the people of American are the Best of the BEST. That we are a GREAT NATION and a wonderful people.

So I believe it is best to acknowlege some underlying flaws he has been striving to point out. It only confirms the corruption that has transpired from the Political System -- and most posts reflect this.

Hmmm ... I'd say it's getting worn out ...

Originally Posted by Scrappy http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=253287#post253287)
There are a lot of people, I am not one of them, that believe that Clinton initiated the law and bombing airstrikes etc. to remove saddam from power as a diversionary tactic in regard to his "interaction" with Monica. Clintons actions were the basis for and culminated in a war that cost billions before Bush was even in office.

To me these things are essentially meaningless and not worth rehashing. One man's opinion. To others, two pages of how you would "hypothetically" defend a mass murderer might be essentially meaningless.

Strangely, Phil won't even acknowledge anything about that $$$ other than to repeatedly say that Clinton got suckered by the neocons. What a pitiful excuse!

Strangely -- you are compelled to maintain a rivilary and I believe you are somewhat motivated by the challenge and the belief that you will win the battle.
Is there ever a winner and a loser in debates of this type? Like Phil, you are clueless as to what makes me tick.

You will not win with this attitude ~~ it will simply go on and on.
Just like your posts?

And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

I really ~~ seriously ~~ am not into this. Whoops! My bad! Based on your posts, I thought you were into just about everything on this MB.

Am only hoping that Phil and the rest of us can come to an agreement ~~ and that all of us can unanimously see why my later points are so important.

Then all those who committed their lives to SERVICE will get the respect they deserve ... WARS (as bad as they may be) may be seen in a different light -- and all AMERICANS can be viewed as a marvelous and beautiful people. I served my country for 24 years in uniform. As corrupt as it is, I believe America is the greatest country on earth. I stand for all Americans...........what are we supposed to be coming to an agreement on? And a reply is not required or requested.

Here are some lyrics for you...........since you seem to like these kinda things. :)

And you may ask yourself
What is that beautiful house?
And you may ask yourself
Where does that highway go?
And you may ask yourself
Am I right?...Am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself
MY GOD!...WHAT HAVE I DONE?

Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/in the silent water
Under the rocks and stones/there is water underground.

Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.

Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...

phil

01-27-2010, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Scrappy http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=253287#post253287)
There are a lot of people, I am not one of them, that believe that Clinton initiated the law and bombing airstrikes etc. to remove saddam from power as a diversionary tactic in regard to his "interaction" with Monica. Clintons actions were the basis for and culminated in a war that cost billions before Bush was even in office.
Strangely, Phil won't even acknowledge anything about that $$$ other than to repeatedly say that Clinton got suckered by the neocons. What a pitiful excuse!

And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

It's a matter of scale. What we spent for 8 years under Clinton was 1% of what we spent under Bush. By the way, Chalabi was also a failure under Clinton. We all understood that. Bay of Goats. If it was a failure then, why would Bush decide to spend 100 times the money on his watch. Did he just like failure?

Or was there some other reason?

Here's a link to the letter they sent, by the way. All the signatories later became very important people during the Bush administration. Armitage was the only one who understood Chalabi was a charlatan.

http://zfacts.com/p/780.html

Steadygain

01-27-2010, 01:05 PM

Is there ever a winner and a loser in debates of this type? Like Phil, you are clueless as to what makes me tick....

For who can truely know the heart of man ;):)

You're right my friend,
Even if you and I were totally and specifically designed for one another ~~ and we knew this ~~ and we did everything possible to live and work in harmony ....

I would not ever be able to know with certainty what makes you tick

Could only hope my beliefs have some grounding ... but God alone knows what make anyone tick .... the rest are clueless

Thank you for the Song BTW :D:cool:

Well have a great day ....

Steadygain

01-27-2010, 02:08 PM

One man's opinion. To others, two pages of how you would "hypothetically" defend a mass murderer might be essentially meaningless.

You will not win with this attitude ~~ it will simply go on and on.
Just like your posts?

I really ~~ seriously ~~ am not into this. Whoops! My bad! Based on your posts, I thought you were into just about everything on this MB.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Once again we have a perfect example of the Male Wiring :rolleyes: and once triggered into action it must exhaust itself through acts of hostility and aggression.

You have seen it from me ~~ numerous times over the years ~~ and I am powerless to overcome it.

This was my mistake !! and I should have realized my post would have been taken as a confrontation ...

...when in reality I was hoping to avoid one :o

And so it is ... a man will stand his ground ... and not be easily moved ... if ever a hint of challenge is brought forth by another. For this is what we are and our 'Pride' supercedes everything else...

In the long run we may look back and think ... hey I probably shouldn't have said that .... or maybe I over reacted .... but in the moment we are often 'out of control'

That's why we eventually crawl up to Silverbird and try to get a sense of how she feels... and then it honestly doesn't matter cause she can say anything she wants ... even a total random thought and we'll agree with her and walk away satisfied.

Soo that's just the way it is ... we are what we are.

Scrappy

01-27-2010, 02:32 PM

It's a matter of scale. What we spent for 8 years under Clinton was 1% of what we spent under Bush. By the way, Chalabi was also a failure under Clinton. We all understood that. Bay of Goats. If it was a failure then, why would Bush decide to spend 100 times the money on his watch. Did he just like failure?
How could it be a matter of scale? If Clinton spent ANY money based on erroneous neocon logic, (according to you) why wouldn't you want it all back? That would be like going back to a store that overcharged you for a refund and saying, "you overcharged me $10.00 and I would like a refund but don't worry abou the $.87 tax."

Or was there some other reason? Of course. He was conspiring.

Please show me some facts to support your claim that Bush spent 100 times more money.

Hey, what do you think about getting back to the Fort Hood subject?

Here's a link to the letter they sent, by the way. All the signatories later became very important people during the Bush administration. Armitage was the only one who understood Chalabi was a charlatan.

http://zfacts.com/p/780.html

Clinton's victory in Iraq

• January 31, 2005 | 1:10 PM ET (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6859893/ns/community-weblogs/#050131)
I passed a television at the gym yesterday, and it was showing a familiar scene: A crowd of Arabs dancing, chanting, and waving flags for the camera.
Stereotypically, of course, those kinds of Arab crowds are celebrating something awful: A terrorist attack, the downing of a plane, whatever.
But this time, they were celebrating democracy.
And it occurred to me that the "root cause" crowd ought to be celebrating along with them. After all, we've heard for decades that Arab terrorism resulted from Arab despotism, and that if we wanted to end terrorism we ought to quit supporting Arab despots and work for democracy. But it was all talk until one brave man in the White House stood up for Iraqi freedom.
That man was Bill Clinton, who signed the Iraq Liberation Act (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm) back in 1998. That Act called for "regime change," and the replacement of Saddam with a democratically elected government. And that's what we're about to get! Nor was Clinton alone.
As Al Gore (http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=4343) observed:

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.
As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq.
Gore said we need to stand up for democracy. And we have. Only Al Gore isn't saying much now.
What's hard to understand is why so many Democrats -- including big-name Democrats like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry -- have taken such a different stance today. Kennedy declared the war lost and the elections a failure just last week. Kerry was churlish and negative on Meet the Press yesterday. Mickey Kaus (http://slate.msn.com/id/2112683/) blames the Internet for this attitude, and there may be something to that. Jim Geraghty (http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/054767.html) thinks it's the 2008 primaries already. But I don't think either of these explanations hits the mark.
I think it's jealousy. Bush-hatred has become all-consuming among a large section of the Democratic Party, and they can't stand the thought of anything that reflects well on him, even if it's good for the country, and if it's something that was their idea originally.
The question is whether the Democratic Party -- which ought to be cheering events that vindicate Clinton's policies -- will do itself fatal damage by giving in to envy. Such small-mindedness doesn't suggest a party that's ready to govern.

phil

01-27-2010, 02:48 PM

Scrappy

01-27-2010, 03:26 PM

http://www.costofwar.com/

This is just direct costs, not what's also being misspent in other areas in this useless and counterproductive war.

Your 2005 quote on Clinton was yet another attempt for the other side to pass the buck......years after they realized that their endeavour was a complete failure.:laugh:

It's typical. Had it been the unqualified success they dreamed of, they would have taken all the credit. Then, they tried to push the "bipartisan" concept of blame. See? It's Clinton's fault. Monica Lewinsky! After a while, the antics just become tiresome. Listening to the neocons, making a political deal with them was the worst thing he could've done. Next time.....we'll know.

Hey, here's a plan: Let's let the current President spend money on things that are actually USEFUL to Americans.

You mean spending like this right?
Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

http://media.cnsnews.com/resources/54196.jpg
President Barack Obama making announcement canceling missile defense shield. (AP photo)
(CNSNews.com) – As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.

“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd (http://www.cfr.org/publication/15782) in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”

During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33110_20090515.pdf).

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation (http://%20%20http//www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/upload/SR_67.pdf), a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.

In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”

The welfare reform package of 1996 only targeted one program, which was Aid for Families with Dependent Children, pushing work requirements for recipients to encourage them to get off the rolls. There are still 70 different welfare programs spread across 14 different federal agencies, said Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, who co-wrote the study.

“The average person says I thought we ended welfare. Well, it’s a good thing we ended it, otherwise we’d be spending some real money,” Rector joked while speaking about the report on Tuesday. “Reform was grossly oversold by Clinton and the Republicans. It reformed one program out of 70. Medicaid, public housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit were not reformed.”

According to his White House budget proposal, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522.4 billion to $697 billion in his first fiscal year. Adjusted for inflation, the combined two-year increase of $263 billion is greater than any increase in welfare spending in history.

By 2014, annual spending on welfare programs will reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year.

“One in seven in total federal and state dollars now goes to welfare. But this is a completely unknown story,” Rector said. “This is not being reported. No one knows Obama is spending $10 trillion on welfare.”

Welfare spending has taken its toll on the federal debt. Since the beginning of the “war on poverty,” $15.9 trillion has been spent on welfare programs. The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4 trillion when adjusted for inflation.

Welfare has been the fastest growing part of the federal government’s spending, increasing by 292 percent from 1989 to 2008. That’s compared to Social Security and Medicare, which grew 213 percent, the study says.

Adjusted for inflation, welfare is 5 percent of the gross domestic product today. It was only 1.2 percent of GDP in 1965, the report says. Also, over the next decade, $1.5 trillion in welfare benefits will be paid to low-skilled immigrants.

Still, high levels of poverty are reflected by the U.S. Census Bureau because the bureau counts only 4 percent of the total welfare spending as income when it calculates poverty. Thus, most discussions on poverty begin on the virtual premise that welfare does not exist, the study says.

“None of the $800 billion being spent is counted as income, so the Census comes back and they say, ‘Oh my goodness, we have 40 million poor people. We need to spend more money,’” Rector explained. “That is a game the taxpayer can never win.”

Changing how the money is spent could go a long way in achieving better results, the study says.

“Annual means tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States,” the study reports. “If welfare spending were converted into case benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.”

Phil, don't runaway now.

Please show me some facts to support your claim that Bush spent 100 times more money.

phil

01-27-2010, 03:49 PM

Uh-huh. You need to actually read the Congressional report before you post it, because I will read it. The date was May 2009 and does not include end of 2009 and 2010 funding. You also need to do the same for, as you put it, "welfare spending" for the upcoming years.....that have not yet come. Could you give me the facts and figures on money that has not yet been spent? In the words of your post, these are projections from a right wing think tank, not what has been spent.

Is this another neocon attempt to sell us yet another bizarre idea, where we can spend another trillion on "security" that we don't need. In the words of Ronald Reagan....."There we go again".

Please show me some facts to support your claim. Don't run away now.

With enactment of the FY2008 Supplemental/FY2009 Bridge Fund(H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252) on June 30, 2008, Congress has approved a total of about $864 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and
other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Congress is currently considering the FY2009 Spring Supplemental which includes war funds to cover the rest of the current fiscal year.
This $864 billion total covers all appropriations approved by Congress for FY2001 to meet war needs from FY2009 through the first part of FY2009, the current fiscal year. Of that total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $642 billion (74%), OEF about $189 billion (20%), and enhanced base security about $28 billion (3%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate
(1%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 6% for foreign aid programs and embassy operations, and less than 1% for medical care for veterans. As of February 2009, DOD’s average monthly obligations for contracts and pay were about $10.9 billion, including $8.4 billion for Iraq, and $2.6 billion for Afghanistan, a monthly average some $3 billion below last year.

If the Administration’s FY2009 Supplemental request is enacted, total war-related funding would
reach $941 billion, including $684 billion for Iraq, $223 billion for Afghanistan, $28 billion for
enhanced security, and $5 billion that cannot be allocated. Of this cumulative total, 73% would
be for Iraq, 24% for Afghanistan, and 3% for enhanced security. If Congress approves the
FY2010 war request, war funding since the 9/11 attacks would total over $1 trillion.

Steadygain

01-27-2010, 03:51 PM

Hey, here's a plan: Let's let the current President spend money on things that are actually USEFUL to Americans.

You asked for it ;)

And here it is: :)

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation (http://%20%20http//www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/upload/SR_67.pdf), a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending

$10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs.

These are very HELPFUL to Americans who need help the most

These include:

cash payments,
food,
housing,
Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans.
I am absolutely THRILLED in knowing my Tax Dollars go for the betterment of the whole. There are many in much worse conditions than me ~~ and I fully believe those of us who can spare what we have should do so and do it with a generous heart and with the right attitude.

This is EXCELENT !!!

One wants to see how the President can spend our money in ways that are USEFUL to Americans

Another steps up and shows how the NEEDS are being met.

Thank you one and all

A very good night to everyone -- God bless America !!!!!!!!!!!

Scrappy

01-27-2010, 05:47 PM

Uh-huh. You need to actually read the Congressional report before you post it, because I will read it. The date was May 2009 and does not include end of 2009 and 2010 funding. You also need to do the same for, as you put it, "welfare spending" for the upcoming years.....that have not yet come. Could you give me the facts and figures on money that has not yet been spent? In the words of your post, these are projections from a right wing think tank, not what has been spent.

Is this another neocon attempt to sell us yet another bizarre idea, where we can spend another trillion on "security" that we don't need. In the words of Ronald Reagan....."There we go again".

Please show me some facts to support your claim. Don't run away now.
What claim did I make? NONE! You made the claim and now you won't back it up. *SEE BOTTOM of page.

You said: "Hey, here's a plan: Let's let the current President spend money on things that are actually USEFUL to Americans." And I said "You mean spending like this right?" refering to welfare.

With enactment of the FY2008 Supplemental/FY2009 Bridge Fund(H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252) on June 30, 2008, Congress has approved a total of about $864 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and
other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Congress is currently considering the FY2009 Spring Supplemental which includes war funds to cover the rest of the current fiscal year.
This $864 billion total covers all appropriations approved by Congress for FY2001 to meet war needs from FY2009 through the first part of FY2009, the current fiscal year. Of that total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $642 billion (74%), OEF about $189 billion (20%), and enhanced base security about $28 billion (3%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate
(1%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 6% for foreign aid programs and embassy operations, and less than 1% for medical care for veterans. As of February 2009, DOD’s average monthly obligations for contracts and pay were about $10.9 billion, including $8.4 billion for Iraq, and $2.6 billion for Afghanistan, a monthly average some $3 billion below last year.

If the Administration’s FY2009 Supplemental request is enacted, total war-related funding would
reach $941 billion, including $684 billion for Iraq, $223 billion for Afghanistan, $28 billion for
enhanced security, and $5 billion that cannot be allocated. Of this cumulative total, 73% would
be for Iraq, 24% for Afghanistan, and 3% for enhanced security. If Congress approves the
FY2010 war request, war funding since the 9/11 attacks would total over $1 trillion.

PHil, what does this information you posted have to do with the question I have asked twice now without an answer?

*You said:
"What we spent for 8 years under Clinton was 1% of what we spent under Bush. ...., why would Bush decide to spend 100 times the money on his watch."
For the third time: Please show me some facts to support your claim that Bush spent 100 times more money.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

phil

01-27-2010, 06:55 PM

I assumed you read your own posts and sources. By the way, it is not 7 billion in Iraq, it's almost 700 billion. Try to get the facts right. Okay?:)

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/03/world/iraqis-ask-us-to-do-more-to-oust-saddam.html?pagewanted=1

Shows that President Clinton was authorized by Congress to spend a total of 97 million dollars.....only to oust Saddam Hussein. So, on Iraq spending, Congress authorized only 1/7000th of the total to spend on the Iraq issue, which he didn't spend.

Here's one reason why. By the way, I STILL think they're right.

http://conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

From YOUR source:

If the Administration’s FY2009 Supplemental request is enacted, total war-related funding would
reach $941 billion, including $684 billion for Iraq.

And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

The 684 billion also does not include other incidentals in support of GWOT, not covered directly in Iraq.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they made.

Now, show me the total expenditures of the current administration on your so called welfare programs to date, not some silly speculation from the Heritage Foundation about "what we think he might spend". By the way, you should read some of their articles. I think "separating fact from fiction" may be a direct challenge.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

Yeah.

Hint: the actual source documents are located at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/summary.pdf which also give projections.

Scrappy

01-27-2010, 07:22 PM

I assumed you read your own posts and sources. By the way, it is not 7 billion in Iraq, it's almost 700 billion. Try to get the facts right. Okay?:)
Phil, looks like you are so caught up in yourself and quick to judge that you overlooked this post by me immediately following the one you are referencing from yesterday about 7 billion:

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Fort Hood
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=253287#post253287)
There are a lot of people, I am not one of them, that believe that Clinton initiated the law and bombing airstrikes etc. to remove saddam from power as a diversionary tactic in regard to his "interaction" with Monica. Clintons actions were the basis for and culminated in a war that cost billions before Bush was even in office. Strangely, Phil won't even acknowledge anything about that $$$ other than to repeatedly say that Clinton got suckered by the neocons. What a pitiful excuse! And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

Well, you make a few good points.......as I would have expected from you but I am still a little disappointed that you didn't address "the body slam" Phil hit me with about Pro Wrestling.

Correction: 700 billion dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/03/world/iraqis-ask-us-to-do-more-to-oust-saddam.html?pagewanted=1

Shows that President Clinton was authorized by Congress to spend a total of 97 million dollars.....only to oust Saddam Hussein. So, on Iraq spending, Congress authorized only 1/7000th of the total to spend on the Iraq issue, which he didn't spend.

Phil, come on. I know I joke around and get sarcastic a bit but seriously. I really want to know how much was spent on sadam and Iraq during the 8 years of Clinton. Besides being 100% lame information that tells me nothing that supports your claim, you give me quotes from your bible and then say this:
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

Here's one reason why. By the way, I STILL think they're right.

http://conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

From YOUR source:

If the Administration’s FY2009 Supplemental request is enacted, total war-related funding would
reach $941 billion, including $684 billion for Iraq.

And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

The 684 billion also does not include other incidentals in support of GWOT, not covered directly in Iraq.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they made.

Now, show me the total expenditures of the current administration on your so called welfare programs to date, not some silly speculation from the Heritage Foundation. By the way, you should read some of their articles. I think "separating fact from fiction" may be a direct challenge.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

Yeah.

I am still patiently waiting and in the meantime what about tallying up the $ here like you do when you are talking about this subject in relation Bush?

CLINTON AND CONGRESS HAVE COMPROMISED U.S. DEFENSE ARSENAL MAKING WAR AGAINST A REGIME FAR LESS THREATENING THAN CHINA, RUSSIA, CUBA, OR KOREA

"As president, Bill Clinton has...squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat — and that's before the costly Desert Fox operation launched Wednesday. On Wednesday alone, some 200 cruise missiles were fired by the Navy at Iraqi targets. Each one of those high-tech bombs cost about $1 million. that's $200 million right there, just on ordnance, in one day...."

CRUISE MISSILES COST MORE THAN ALL INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS

"Yesterday, they began launching the more expensive cruise missiles — fired from the Air Force's B-52s. Those two-ton babies cost more than $2 million each....
"Last October, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided $97 million in military aid to opposition groups in the country....Earlier this year, the U.S. set aside $5 million for the support of Iraqi political opposition, and another $5 million for broadcasting by Radio Free Iraq. But all that is peanuts compared to the price tag for enforcing the no-fly zones. That project cost U.S. taxpayers $2 billion in 1998 alone, and that's far from the total cost. It doesn't include expenses involved in deploying forces in the region last February.
"That was the last big buildup by Clinton. It involved 34 ships, 440 planes, and 44,000 troops. In November, we went through a similar exercise involving 14 ships, 300 planes and 27,500 troops. Now we've got Desert Fox...."

And about my other unanswered question: Do you think we should get back on the original topic of this thread or at least continue this on a new one for the sake of other people?

burrocrat

01-27-2010, 07:33 PM

get ready folks, the talking heads are about to come on tv and dazzle us with backpeddaling, mediocrity, wastefulness, and finger pointing.

same as it ever was.

phil

01-27-2010, 07:41 PM

I answered your question, and gave you sources. Money spent on Iraq. Some of them were YOUR sources.

As president, Bill Clinton has...squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat — and that's before the costly Desert Fox operation launched Wednesday. On Wednesday alone, some 200 cruise missiles were fired by the Navy at Iraqi targets. Each one of those high-tech bombs cost about $1 million. that's $200 million right there, just on ordnance, in one day...

Okay, let's go with as much as 5.7 billion. What is your source? Is it more Heritage Foundation? Please, don't tell me that's all you have. Next, you'll be telling me SH had WMD.

Scrappy

01-27-2010, 07:48 PM

burrocrat

01-27-2010, 08:19 PM

forget the two chickens in every pot thing, i want one of those biden bobblehead dolls they got propped behind his right shoulder there, i'm afraid we're in for a whole nother hour of stale jokes and canned applause.

phil

01-28-2010, 07:02 AM

When you're right, you're right. Cost of foreign wars during the Bush administration: going on a trillion dollars. Human costs in the hundreds of thousands of lives. Cost to our foreign relations almost immeasurable. Being right in 1998.....priceless.

http://conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

burrocrat

01-28-2010, 07:29 AM

best thing i heard last night was 35 Billion to promote small businesses (man we toss those big numbers around so casually now after being traumatized).

too bad it took a year to figure out that 5% of the bailout can fix 100% of the problem.

i hope walmart has tiki torches and pitchforks on sale, the natives are restless.

Steadygain

01-28-2010, 09:33 AM

Well, Good Morning everyone.

I know we have a lot of new members and visitors that probably don't know me at all and therefore I feel a little compelled to expand on a few things.

I grew up believing that everyone was equally 'good' and I loved everyone without any regard to their gender or race or anything else. I totally believed in a Perfect GOD and strived to be all that GOD stood for.

Later -- as an adult I joined the Army and my concept of the Service was wholly geared towards fighting for your Country. I advanced to Company Commander before our Training was completed and our Company far out did the others.

Was immediately stationed with a Combat Unit when training was finished and almost immediately realized that in order to Serve the USA to the highest degree I had to totally abandon every belief and almost every grounding I ever knew -- to become the Ultimate Soldier.

It took me awhile to thoroughly achieve that GOAL but eventually that is everything I lived for and the Army was very pleased with my progress. I was sent on numerous Missions -- never remotely failing one -- then went to Special Forces and given many more Missions on incredibly high levels.

It has taken me many years ~~ but I'm doing every possible to 'Calm down' and be the loving, innocent, and all accepting boy I use to be.

Originally Posted by Scrappy http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=253287#post253287)
To me these things are essentially meaningless and not worth rehashing. One man's opinion. To others, two pages of how you would "hypothetically" defend a mass murderer might be essentially meaningless.

I think Tom (or the Moderators) had to remove my initial posts concerning the man who killed the Ft. Hood soldiers because my views were so rawly cold, harsh, condemning, with no trace of sympathy or compassion.

My POINT on pretending at one point to be His Defense Lawyer was to show what it takes to really be a SOLDIER; How you have to abandon everything that holds you back and become 100% Devoted and Committed to your JOB.

ONLY in that manner can you possibly SERVE as you were meant to. So I was only trying to demonstrate what it takes to do that. I put that same 'challenge' to other Members and now I would include Scrappy.

Am only hoping that Phil and the rest of us can come to an agreement ~~ and that all of us can unanimously see why my later points are so important.

Then all those who committed their lives to SERVICE will get the respect they deserve

I served my country for 24 years in uniform.

Anyone can wear a uniform.

Only those who can honestly put aside everything they've ever known and become wholly transformed to being the Ultimate Combat Soldier -- can 'Serve' in the highest possible manner -- to be all you are meant to be.

Scrappy, how many people would I have to kill to be considered a 'mass murderer' ? Would it make any difference if they were innocent or guilty if there was even the slightest chance of them compromising the Mission ??

Timothy McVeigh was a decorated Soldier -- an honored hero so to speak. He expressed that the Military was turning him into a cold heartless animal.... that he was killing without conviction... that he had become 'an evil' and he was tormented by the change....

So his purpose in killing the others ... was a genuine effort to show everyone the absurity of killing 'innoncent people'...

Somehow he actually believed his actions would 'wake up' the USA and they would become pacifists..... I honestly believe that is really the truth as I remember it.

McVeigh lacked the most important aspect and that is 'INTEGRITY' -- You can not be the Ultimate Soldier without that -- it's way more than learning to kill.

Just a closing thought -- as much as I despise the 'Fort Hood' event; it has shown how deeply we are 'Americans' and the incredible love and honor we have for all those in Service.

Birch -- just let it go man --- luv ya bro.

So I deeply regret both the Twin Tower event and the Ft. Hood event ~~ yet anything that brings the Country to Stand Together and all the more to Support those in Service ...

... is something I deeply appreciate.

So there you have it folks ... I don't want to treat anyone on the MB the way I did some others in the past. I'm simply trying to be a better person but I have never lacked integrity; so please know in my opinion there is a huge difference between randomly killing 'decidated and innocent soldiers' -- and killing in order to accomplish what the United States of America has called on you to fulfill.

Still in the end -- you have to live with everything. So all the more I'm stiving to live in Peace and know LOVE as GOD intended.