Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on November 12, 2009, 08:00:26 pm
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7WLvVmQvfE
****ing tool. I don't remember the last time I was this angry.
We've already got enough Americans becoming jury, judge, and executioner about the Ft Hood shootings, Fox News and the right wing hate media calling for purges of the Muslim community or instantly generalizing all American Muslims as potential terrorists, and a rise in the goddamn domestic terrorist movement disguised as the militia. The country's already headed down a ****ty path, and now this.
I think Blitzer left his copy of the Bill of Rights at home, but Hasan is still an American citizen, goddammit, and he deserves a trial, no matter how heinous the acts he allegedly committed. Seriously, if we abandon any sense that this guy is innocent until proven guilty or that he deserves a trial, we might as well just say **** the soldiers who died! The whole "American servicemen die for our rights and freedoms" is apparently just a little propaganda and holiday feel-good catchphrase, but when it comes to the rights and freedoms themselves, **** THEM!
I swear to Christ I hate my ****ing countrymen sometimes.
-
I'm firmly unaligned and this kind of **** is most of the reason for it.
Damn talking heads don't know when to shut the hell up.
-
And people tell me I should be proud of my heritage.
-
Well...in wartime, an act of treason such as murdering your own servicemen is punishable by death.
We're in war.
He killed his own men.
Therefore, he'll most likely be killed himself.
-
Well...in wartime, an act of treason such as murdering your own servicemen is punishable by death.
We're in war.
He killed his own men.
Therefore, he'll most likely be killed himself.
I didn't watch the video.
Sorry, typos just bug me.
-
Well...in wartime, an act of treason such as murdering your own servicemen is punishable by death.
We're in war.
He killed his own men.
Therefore, he'll most likely be killed himself.
I can't argue with that.
also, i really don't see anything that a trail could do other than let the guy off on some technicality.
However, I am simply ignoring his religious whatever, I'm basing this on HIM KILLING A DOZEN PEOPLE.
if he praised Jesus, Buddha, or Spaghetti Monster, i could care less.
Okay, I'm being a smidgen harsh, its possible he's not responsible for this, but its pretty much certain here.
**re watching video, further contemplation...
:doubt:
I suppose his state of mind does matter, but i'm not sure, this is pretty bad **** he did, And short of sci-fi mind control, i'm pretty sure he is consciously responsible
okay, 3:18 in video, wolf is a ****ing asshole.
this is why cable news should die
and still the bottom has jacko ****.
goddamn
-
We aren't saying that he didn't do it. Not even his defense is saying that. What's he's saying is that there still needs to be an impartial trial. Which, judging by his comments, Blitzer doesn't think too highly of.
-
Granted I'm generally anti-Islam, but he still has rights as an American citizen. The right of due process in particular is something we must never give up, or else we will be no better then those savages.
-
Well...in wartime, an act of treason such as murdering your own servicemen is punishable by death.
We're in war.
He killed his own men.
Therefore, he'll most likely be killed himself.
Not the point.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Or, like Kosh said, we're no better than them.
-
Wolf Blitzer had long ago succumbed to the desire to hear himself talk. It was inevitable.
-
We've already got enough Americans becoming jury, judge, and executioner about the Ft Hood shootings, Fox News and the right wing hate media calling for purges of the Muslim community or instantly generalizing all American Muslims as potential terrorists, and a rise in the goddamn domestic terrorist movement disguised as the militia. The country's already headed down a ****ty path, and now this.
I would like some links please.
Yes please. And make them direct quotes, preferably transcripts, none of this blogosphere friend of a friend heard this guy he was in the other room while his roommate flipped by the channel that the program was on.
-
I'm sure the various right wing media commentators have nothing but the utmost respect for Muslims, which is why they were all like 'omfg Obama's a secret Muslim'
Wait, no, that doesn't make sense.
Oh, you want a citation? You're welcome (http://tinyurl.com/yhwcyrq)
-
Ok, I checked the first few links in that "automated" google search(fyi if you want me to take you seriously, link me the direct searcg, not some script) the first two I looked at were thehuffingtonpost.com and theyoungturks.com, neither of which is anything more than a mouthpiece/yesman for extreme left who wouldn't know an original thought if it came up, cracked them in they're emptyheadfullofmush, and took they're wife/GF for a "trip around the world" in front of them, and the best they could come up with was blowing something said in an offhand manner to get the viewer to stay put through the commercial break into something completely out of left field, which is not what I asked for.
Come on, I'm not supposed to win...I'm the loud mouthed idiot.
-
:rolleyes: Oh, shut up...
You have an excellent point here, one that I fully agree with, BUT you corrupted it by mixing in all this knee-jerk political B.S. and by claiming two disgraceful motivations where only one was present.
Yes, many Americans are stupid and are prone to say "Why do we need a defense attorney if the guy is guilty?" They are, of course, ignoring the fact that legally he isn't guilty until he's tried and convicted in court. This happens all the time and there's nothing surprising about it coming up in this situation. But you seem to have twisted the stupidity into "Why do we need a defense attorney if the guy is a Muslim?" That is what I have a problem with. Nowhere in the video is he maligned because of his religion.
I have taken the liberty of redacting part of your post, as follows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7WLvVmQvfE
****ing tool. I don't remember the last time I was this angry.
We've already got enough Americans becoming jury, judge, and executioner about the Ft Hood shootings, Fox News and the right wing hate media calling for purges of the Muslim community or instantly generalizing all American Muslims as potential terrorists, and a rise in the goddamn domestic terrorist movement disguised as the militia. The country's already headed down a ****ty path, and now this.
I think Blitzer left his copy of the Bill of Rights at home, but Hasan is still an American citizen, goddammit, and he deserves a trial, no matter how heinous the acts he allegedly committed. Seriously, if we abandon any sense that this guy is innocent until proven guilty or that he deserves a trial, we might as well just say **** the soldiers who died! The whole "American servicemen die for our rights and freedoms" is apparently just a little propaganda and holiday feel-good catchphrase, but when it comes to the rights and freedoms themselves, **** THEM!
I swear to Christ I hate my ****ing countrymen sometimes.
See how this version communicates the same point, without devolving into turf wars and name calling?
-
Do you perhaps fear the turf wars, then, Goober?
I know Lib does, since they make it harder and harder for him to avoid flipping the light switch and finding out once and for all whether he's in the dark, or he's got his head up the elephant's butt. Also, you present a fundementally wrong scenario; "Why do we need a defense attorney if the guy is a Muslim?" is exactly the opinion being expressed, because his being a Muslim is taken as the fundemental indicator of guilt by a wide spectrum.
Even the local paper here and the LA Times did not make explict mention that he was seen in the act by eye-witnesses or include interviews with said witnesses who would state the man's guilt (this is intensely weird, as every other shooting rampage they've covered does do this); they did make explicit mention of his presumed Muslim identity before there was any confirmation of it, both quoting Fox at first, now offering independent confirmation, still no comments that he was identified by witnesses to the attack only by those responding to it.
-
That may be true in general, NGTM-1R, but it's not the case for this particular video, at least not as I'm viewing it. That was a scumbag thing for Blitzer to say regardless (I generally, though not based on much evidence, thought he was a far better man than that), but as Goober said, not only is the term "Muslim" never used by him, but he isn't even insinuating it. It's far more along the lines of, "Okay, this guy just murdered thirteen soldiers in cold blood, so let's forgo the trial and string him up," despite the fact that said emotion runs completely counter to what said soldiers swore an oath to uphold. I've seen a near-identical emotion expressed about any number of cases not involving Muslims in the least. In the end, there are enough reasons to criticize Blitzer over this without needing to invent an additional one.
-
Well...in wartime, an act of treason such as murdering your own servicemen is punishable by death.
We're in war.
With who?
Cause the whole rational behind Gitmo was that they are illegal combatants. So please explain who exactly you are at war with.
-
If you killed a dozen people infront of a hundered witnesses...I don't see how can the verdict be anything but guilty.
frankly, in such cases, you can even skip the trial
-
And ignore the fact that the defendant might have been insane?
Wonderful. :rolleyes:
I'm not saying he is insane, he probably isn't, but without a trial he'd be denied the chance to prove it if he was.
-
Well...in wartime, an act of treason such as murdering your own servicemen is punishable by death.
We're in war.
He killed his own men.
Therefore, he'll most likely be killed himself.
Not the point.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Or, like Kosh said, we're no better than them.
That's not how things work in the military, he killed other soldiers while we're in a wartime position, he's punishable by death.
Now unless you've heard how UCMJ and all the military jib-jab works any and every arguement you have against my statements are invalid.
-
US military has not executed anyone since 1961 though. One guy was convicted back in 2008 but his execution has been postponed. And you do realize that in court-martial, unless it's a kangaroo court, evidence does matter, right? Even though proof was uncontroversial, it still requires handling in court with respect given to evidence, even if the result was already known in advance. CMs do not get to announce someone guilty of a crime and just outright execute them without a trial, I don't know where you got that idea from.
There is also a question about just what is wartime.
-
at the end of the day at war or not the role of the military of any country is to protect the country's territory, citizens and laws. A fundamental law as defined by international treaty is that everyone has the right to a fair trial with a presumed innocence until found guilty, for America to go against that would be to abandon one of the freedoms they are supposedly fighting for. Heck even the Nazis have and continue to get the right to a fair trial.
-
US military has not executed anyone since 1961 though. One guy was convicted back in 2008 but his execution has been postponed. And you do realize that in court-martial, unless it's a kangaroo court, evidence does matter, right? Even though proof was uncontroversial, it still requires handling in court with respect given to evidence, even if the result was already known in advance. CMs do not get to announce someone guilty of a crime and just outright execute them without a trial, I don't know where you got that idea from.
There is also a question about just what is wartime.
Looks like there's another tally in my book for bull**** they contine to feed us then. :rolleyes:
-
If you killed a dozen people infront of a hundered witnesses...I don't see how can the verdict be anything but guilty.
frankly, in such cases, you can even skip the trial
Trash, what do you do on the weekends? Kidnap muggers and chop their heads off?
I'd rather spend weeks and spend millions to give someone a fair trial then just save the money and execute him right there. But maybe that's because I give a **** about other people's legal rights.
-
As for those links: NO PROBLEM!
Jihad Watch (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/seattle-times-adopts-sharia-do-not-slander-islam-after-fort-hood.html): Apparently the Seattle Times begging it's readers to not associate Islam with the Fort Hood murders to avoid racist fearmongering among American citizens is bad news for...racist fearmongerer Robert Spencer. No, Spencer, you asshole, it's not Sharia law, it's common sense. Get over yourself you twit. If you're not sick to your stomach just from that, you can read more equally-disgusting articles on the same website.
Fox News (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/11/06/fox_friends): Brian Kilmeade thinks Muslims in the US military need additional screening because of what happened. Same as gays, you know? I don't want a guy in my foxhole who might kill me! But he's right I guess, since no Muslims are known to serve honorably in the mil--oh wait. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Rashad_Sultan_Khan) So maybe Kilmeade's just an asshole.
Rush Limbaugh: Stupid (http://mediamatters.org/research/200911120040) and stupider (http://mediamatters.org/research/200911110040).
In fact, Dobbs, O'Reilly, WND, and Beck all get covered here. (http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=Fort+Hood)
****ing right-wing hate media. Goob, there's a reason my post is worded as it is: because it's true! I'm sorry the right side of the fence is full of Islamophobic, paranoid, racist slobs, but I didn't make this crap up.
the first two I looked at were thehuffingtonpost.com and theyoungturks.com, neither of which is anything more than a mouthpiece/yesman for extreme left who wouldn't know an original thought if it came up, cracked them in they're emptyheadfullofmush, and took they're wife/GF for a "trip around the world" in front of them
Oh, shut up. Arianna and Cenk have reported more truth through this whole mess of a health care debate and paranoid fear-mongering bull**** then you would know. But since they have political beliefs opposite of yours, they're instantly just mouthpieces of the liberals.
You wouldn't know honest reporting if it came up, cracked you in your emptyheadfullofmush, and took your wife/GF for a "trip around the world" in front of you.
-
TBH I'm not sure why everyone is so rilled up. Fox News commentators don't dictate the Justice System, they're talking heads. As much as they might scream from the airwaves, the Army isn't going to skip a trial and hang him because Wolf Blitzer says there is incontrovertible evidence and he's a Muslim. Sure, are there probably a quite a few people who agree with the whole "he's a A-Rab hang him" sentiment? Probably. But they aren't the policy deciders, so take it with a grain of salt that the guy is a twat and move on. There is a mighty big difference between saying something and having it happen. I think its a little early to say America is falling apart just because Wolf Blitzer doesn't like Muslims.
-
I say we execute Wolf Blitzer without a trial. :p
-
I'm moving to posthumistan.
-
TBH I'm not sure why everyone is so rilled up. Fox News commentators don't dictate the Justice System, they're talking heads. As much as they might scream from the airwaves, the Army isn't going to skip a trial and hang him because Wolf Blitzer says there is incontrovertible evidence and he's a Muslim. Sure, are there probably a quite a few people who agree with the whole "he's a A-Rab hang him" sentiment? Probably. But they aren't the policy deciders, so take it with a grain of salt that the guy is a twat and move on. There is a mighty big difference between saying something and having it happen. I think its a little early to say America is falling apart just because Wolf Blitzer doesn't like Muslims.
Talking heads do have disproportionate power. Tea Parties, OBAMA IS A SECRET MUSLIM KENYAN COMMUNIST, death tax, stupid talking points, and so on. Gleen Beck's idiotic conspiracty theories are actually believed by some Americans. Look, Fox News highjacked, promoted and covered Tea Parties: first they make people just fume with anger, and finally people bring guns to politically volatile rallies. They have power. And it is worrying.
If they celebrate vigilance, pick up targets, publicly focus on them, directly or indirectly state "it would be better if this Tiller the Baby Killer was dead" and sometime after such a parade something bad happens - Tiller was eventually murdered, although he had been assaulted before - it is not outlandish to take a closer look at the talking heads.
Indirectly inciting violence is not acceptable.
-
Um, bout the war thingie, US isn't at war with anyone, cause it's just DEFCON 4 ( This refers to normal, increased intelligence and the heightening of national security measures. [wiki]).
And bout the trial: it doesn't matter WHAT he has done. Democracy grants every citizen the right to be proven guilty. If you skip one trial, then you're tempted to do it more and more often, and that's not a good path, is it?
-
Now unless you've heard how UCMJ and all the military jib-jab works any and every arguement you have against my statements are invalid.
He has yet to be convicted of a crime, so all this is still up in the air. Janos is also correct. Though I don't notionally disagree with the death penality being on the table, in this case I don't think it'll help anything. If the man was looking for martyrdom, why give it to him?
(Yes, I'm suspending my usual capital punishment support in favor of being a dick.)
-
Considering my school has just about every minority group imaginable (Yes.), I'm pretty accepting of people's religion/etc. I know for a fact there is at least 5 Muslims in the high school.
Though I've never seen them pray on a mat...
-
Even that 20th hijacker guy got his day in court.
-
I still like how just about no one in here has acknowledged the thread title as a complete straw man. Just throwing that out there again.
-
The important thing about justice is not simply that it is done, but that it is seen to be done.
-
Who'd have ever thought that Nuclear1 was in reality Wolf Blitzer. All this Fox bashing on his part was just a smokescreen. To think he actually started a thread here in HLP admitting it. Well admitting the problem is the first step toward recovery.
-
mediamatters.org is hardly an unbiased source of information, particularly since they are known to have a mad on for Rush, O'Reily, Hannity and Beck.
I don't really think anyone, other than maybe Wolf Blitzed is suggesting that they don't need a trial. My main gripe is that instead of a Nuremburg type affair, the Justice department seems bound and determined to put them through a Criminal proceeding, which I feel they are undeserving of.
Now, what they perpetrated was certainly criminal, but it was also an act of war against the United States. That, to me, classes them as, at best, POWs, which are bound by a very specific set of regulations that I'm not familiar enough with to speak at length about, just that they don't get mixed in with the civilian court system. It's up to the military to try them I believe.
Let me be very clear, I'm not saying they don't deserve a trial where the evidence against them can be aired, only that said trial is no the domain of the civilian authority. This criminal proceeding is likely to turn into a "This is how America is guilty of blahblahblah." Which is not what it's supposed to be about.
-
Terrorists in general should be given civilian trials and treated as common criminals, I think. Treating them as soldiers and warriors dignifies them and gives them the publicity that feeds their movement.
-
mediamatters.org is hardly an unbiased source of information, particularly since they are known to have a mad on for Rush, O'Reily, Hannity and Beck.
They're taking unedited audio and video clips. Yes, MM is a progressive-leaning website, but the clips are pure Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck making asses of themselves.
I don't really think anyone, other than maybe Wolf Blitzed is suggesting that they don't need a trial.
It sort of goes without saying that right-wing commentators don't think terrorists deserve a trial...or any other rights, for that manner. See: Gitmo.
Now, what they perpetrated was certainly criminal, but it was also an act of war against the United States. That, to me, classes them as, at best, POWs, which are bound by a very specific set of regulations that I'm not familiar enough with to speak at length about, just that they don't get mixed in with the civilian court system. It's up to the military to try them I believe.
They're not part of any organized, uniformed military. They're really nothing better than a loosely-affiliated group of murderers and common criminals. Hence, civilian criminal proceedings. There's a reason they can't provide the Big Four in detention...name rank serial number and date of birth.
Let me be very clear, I'm not saying they don't deserve a trial where the evidence against them can be aired, only that said trial is no the domain of the civilian authority. This criminal proceeding is likely to turn into a "This is how America is guilty of blahblahblah." Which is not what it's supposed to be about.
So, what, they're not allowed to present their story? Motive, reason behind why they committed their crimes...that's a major deciding factor in a criminal proceeding. They're entitled to defend themselves, even if the defense is "America committed these crimes in my homeland".
-
Hasan is a U.S. citizen and also a currently-serving member of the U.S. Army. The only homeland he should be concerned about is the United States.
-
Hasan is a U.S. citizen and also a currently-serving member of the U.S. Army. The only homeland he should be concerned about is the United States. I haven't been paying attention the last 35 posts
Fixed that for ya.
No one's talking about Hasan right now. We're talking about terrorists in general.
-
All this Fox bashing on his part was just a smokescreen.
Fox is a rightwing propaganda station. Sadly CNN and MSNBC, while they USED to be respectable, have imitated Fox and have now become just as criticism worthy. I remember a time when our media actually did us a favor, sadly those days are long gone.
-
Yes, being a Journalist used to mean reporting the facts of an event and not edit(orializ(ing)) to suit an agenda, regardless of affiliation. Or at the very least having the editorials clearly labeled as such.
-
Now, what they perpetrated was certainly criminal, but it was also an act of war against the United States. That, to me, classes them as, at best, POWs, which are bound by a very specific set of regulations that I'm not familiar enough with to speak at length about, just that they don't get mixed in with the civilian court system. It's up to the military to try them I believe.
Wrong.
Terrorists are civilian criminals. Always have been.
Furthermore if they are part of an army and therefore guilty of war crimes then Gitmo itself becomes even more of a national disgrace that it already is. Because if you are claiming that they are soldiers involved in fighting a war against the states then America has blatantly disregarded the Geneva Convention on how it's supposed to treat POWs.
Either these people are soldiers who committed war crimes or they are civilians who committed criminal acts. There is no third category.
-
The conventions do provide a degree of protection to organized civilian insurgency against an occupying power, on its own soil. But it makes certain demands that they be recognizeable when engaged in insurgent activities. The French Resistance in WW2, for example, tended to wear an armband when engaged in direct attacks, so that if captured they would be considered a "recognizeable member". A number of German officers served long terms in French prisons after the war because they ignored this caveat. These people, however, bear no identifying mark or uniform, and in the case we are discussing, are not on their own soil.
If you accept that they are in the employ of a legitimate government in some way, shape, or form, engaging in hostile actions in the territory of another government, not wearing a recognizeable uniform...the Conventions consider that epsionage and as such you have no rights under Geneva. You can be shot out of hand on capture as far as international law cares. United States law, however, typically demands a civil trial if it occurs outside a warzone and military detainment and trial if it does not.
However they are clearly not in the employ of a legitimate government in any way, shape, or form, and as such this becomes a matter for the civil courts.
-
Yes, being a Journalist used to mean reporting the facts of an event and not edit(orializ(ing)) to suit an agenda, regardless of affiliation. Or at the very least having the editorials clearly labeled as such.
uh huh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism)
-
People like Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite called. They want us to kick your ass.
-
Bring it on!
-
People like Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite called. They want us to kick your ass.
Perhaps-- and I'm honestly just spitballing here-- we admire people like Murrow and Cronkite because they were notable exceptions.
On the other hand, I think it's pretty clear that television news has declined severely since it was made answerable to ratings in the 1970s.
-
It's really hard to find legitimate news anchors these days...that are fairly well known.
When a comedian is the most-trusted news anchor in America (bear in mind I have no problem with Jon Stewart, I watch the Daily Show religiously), that says something about cable news.
-
PBS for the win.
Huh. I wonder how that works with the 'government can't do anything right' crowd. Wait, I know, they claim it's horribly, horribly leftist and unreliable and hates freedom.
-
PBS actually tends to be a bit right-of-center...
-
Depends on what you're watching. The News Hour is conspicuously right-of-center, but Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio certainly aren't.
-
PBS actually tends to be a bit right-of-center...
Don't tell me, tell them.