Jump to content

Osama bin Laden DEAD


SuperDave
 Share

Recommended Posts

Watching the two of you go at it reminds me of a scene from South Park.

I have no idea what you mean because I do not watch cartoons. I watch shows that I can learn and absorb information from. History, documentaries, biographies, etc... I stopped watching cartoons when I was about 9 years old. I guess you never grew up and out of that phase judging by alot of the comments you make.

Although I really do not know what the hell snakesandspiders is 'jabberwocking' about, I do give him some credit because he seems to have strongs beliefs about some things (among some is that Rudy Guiliani is a terrorist and so is the FBI, etc...). And let's not forget about the U.S.A's. great and (forgotten) cultural icon, Grace Slick.

All you, electrophile, seem to have are snide and reprehensible comments. Is it any wonder that you and your posts seem to be dismissed by alot of other people besides me? I say that instead of going on the offensive (attacking) you should go on the defensive (defending). Back up and defend what you say instead of leaving posts and smart-ass replies and then retreating into your little corner.

If you notice I have a little over 500 Posts. You have over 8,600 posts. I would bet my life that over 3/4ths (6,450) of your posts are of the same ignorant ilk.

Edited by lzzoso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you mean because I do not watch cartoons. I watch shows that I can learn and absorb information from. History, documentaries, biographies, etc... I stopped watching cartoons when I was about 9 years old. I guess you never grew up and out of that phase judging by alot of the comments you make.

Although I really do not know what the hell snakesandspiders is 'jabberwocking' about, I do give him some credit because he seems to have strongs beliefs about some things (among some is that Rudy Guiliani is a terrorist and so is the FBI, etc...). And let's not forget about the U.S.A's. great and (forgotten) cultural icon, Grace Slick.

I have always hated cartoons too....let alone the likes of S. Park!!!:):).

The reason why I do not indulge in further explanation of my 'ideas' is that it would take me eons to do and I have to work SOMEtimes too ya know:):):)!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How anyone could not celebrate this man's death is beyond me.

I'm sorry, but it's not akin to some mean Joe schmo who died next door. This man mrudered 3,000 people. Bout time we knocked his face out.

Hi 'wanna be drummer'

I'm not sure you could prove that in a court of law, and maybe thats why he was taken out.

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you mean because I do not watch cartoons. I watch shows that I can learn and absorb information from. History, documentaries, biographies, etc...

...and apparently Fast Times at Ridgemont High which, by your own admission, you love to spank it to:

I read somewhere that back when "Fast Times" was released on VHS that after a few years (or whatever) that the (in)famous scene of Phoebe Cates coming out of the pool and taking her top off was rewound so much that it literally screwed up thousand of videotapes. Of course that being because alot of young adolescents and even adult males kept rewinding the tapes to Jack Off to the incredible Breasts and Beauty of Phoebe. I, personally, am guilty of such pleasure.

Edited by Jahfin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and apparently Fast Times at Ridgemont High which, by your own admission, you love to spank it to:

Yes I said that. I am not embarassed to say so. And if you never did that yourself you are either a Liar or a Homosexual, or Both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi 'wanna be drummer'

I'm not sure you could prove that in a court of law, and maybe thats why he was taken out.

Regards, Danny

All evidence says yes he was in charge of it.

To say otherwise is factually incorrect and requires a gross ignorance of physics and chemistry. I'm sorry, but that's the absolute truth. There's no arguing it

Edited by wanna be drummer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All evidence says yes he was in charge of it.

To say otherwise is factually incorrect and requires a gross ignorance of physics and chemistry. I'm sorry, but that's the absolute truth. There's no arguing it

Guilty, Most likely but every villan should have his day in court. Regardless of the seriousness of the crime. If court is good enough for Bosnian war criminals it should be the same even for Bin Laden..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All evidence says yes he was in charge of it.

To say otherwise is factually incorrect and requires a gross ignorance of physics and chemistry. I'm sorry, but that's the absolute truth. There's no arguing it

Hold on there Tiger, all WHAT evidence? an addmision on tape can be recinded anytime, he admits it on tape and denies it in court, he pleads the 5th, if you cant do Manson for Murder you cant do Bin Laden for Terrorism, but you might have done him for Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism, because nowhere have i seen evidence that HE actually pulled the trigger or planted a bomb, have you seen any evidence? Glad he's gone though, your boys did one hell of a good job. ;)

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was in charge of America's involvement in the Vietnam War?

Was it our President?

Kennedy ? LBJ ? Nixon ?

One of them was 'shot in the face', err, in the back of the head I mean, but he wasn't in office when William Calley had his cronies open fire on over 100 civilians at Mi Lai.

90081-004-677AC430.jpgMy_Lai_massacre.jpg

So what LEADER actually took the responsibilty for this terrorist action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I said that. I am not embarassed to say so. And if you never did that yourself you are either a Liar or a Homosexual, or Both.

And if you admit it you're a FOOL! :slapface:

What makes you think Gays don't do it!? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you admit it you're a FOOL! :slapface:

What makes you think Gays don't do it!? :blink:

I do not want to get into a banter with you on this subject in this topic, but I think that Gays (as you say) would rather pleasure themselves to pictures or videos of other men, not a video of a beautiful woman like Phoebe Cates taking off her bikini top coming out of a swimming pool.

Call me a FOOL if that makes you feel better, however, only I know if I am a fool or a wise man.

By the way, I sense you may be one of the "gays" that you are referring too (I said homosexual). That is cool. You like men. I have no problem with that. I Love Women. "To Each His Own".

Now who is the FOOL? YOU reggie29.

Edited by lzzoso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that you used Charles Manson as an example because Manson was in fact convicted of murder for ordering the deaths of 8 people. Not conspiracy to commit murder, but 1st degree murder. So basically all you would have had to do in a trial of Bin Laden would be to present just one person who could say that Bin Laden ordered acts of terrorism and he's in the bag so to speak. But that being if a trial were in a criminal court. The rules for evidence in a military trial are different.

BTW, Charles Manson was convicted of murder and sentenced to die in the California gas chamber. But because of a later California Supreme court decision, every person on death row in Californa, not just Manson, had their sentences commuted to life in prison. That's why he was never executed. It didn't have anything specifically to do with just Manson or his trial.

I stand corrected Brad, i once saw a documentary where it stated that "thats what Mr Manson doesnt understand Conspiracy to Murder carries the same sentance as Murder" so it seems his information was wrong.

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not want to get into a banter with you on this subject in this topic, but I think that Gays (as you say) would rather pleasure themselves to pictures or videos of other men, not a video of a beautiful woman like Phoebe Cates taking off her bikini top coming out of a swimming pool.

Call me a FOOL if that makes you feel better, however, only I know if I am a fool or a wise man.

By the way, I sense you may be one of the "gays" that you are referring too (I said homosexual). That is cool. You like men. I have no problem with that. I Love Women. "To Each His Own".

Now who is the FOOL? YOU reggie29.

I never called you a fool by name, I was generalising as I read what you wrote as a generalisation too or was I wrong?

Gays as it were, relates to both men and women (lesbians), the latter would no doubt take an interest such as you did with young Phoebe?

You seem to know a lot about being homosexual and as you said there's nothing wrong with that.

I asked a question in jest, it was not a personal attack on you (believe me you would know it if it was and it would be by PM not publicly) and in your usual arrogant and ignorant way you twisted what I asked.

Me gay? That's a hoot!

I love women too so I guess that makes me a lesbian!? :rolleyes:

No-one needs to point out that you are a fool, you do that every time you write your insipid redneck posts.

Whether you want to banter or not is up to you, I couldn't care less one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gets a little tricky when you are dealing with conspiracy to comit a crime. A person can be convicted of "conspiriacy" even if the crime is never committed. For example: if you and I make plans to rob a bank and we talk about it, that in itself does equal the crime of conspiracy until the point where one or more person takes somes actions toward the actual crime. So if we just talked about it, but then the next day I on my own went out and staked out the bank or bought a gun, that would be enough to prove a "conspiracy" to commit the crime. It becomes conspiracy as soon as an action is taken, even if nobody ever completes the final crime of robbery (in the case of a bank theft).

In Manson's case he was a party to a conspiracy that was actually played out to the final outcome of murder. To convict him you don't have to place him at the murder scene, you just need reliable testimony that he was a part of the planning of the murder. Manson knows this, he is no dummy even if he continues to want to play like one. Initially Manson was tied to the murders because Susan Atkins talked to another inmate about the murders while in jail. But on that alone they could not have convicted him of the mruders unless Atkins agreed to testify against Manson in court, the the prosection actually considered giving her (one of the murderers) a deal for her testimony . But later the prosecution got lucky and captured Linda Kasabian another family member who went along on night of the Tate murders, but she never killed anyone, I think she just waited in the car. And then before the next night of murders (the Labianca murders) Kasabian fled the family because she wanted no part of Manson anymore. When Kasabian was found and captured, the prosecution made a deal with her not to prosecute her for any crimes (she could have been prosecuted for murder as she was a party to the conspiracy that was completed). With Linda Kasabian's testimony the prosecution was able to prove Manson's involvement in the planning of the Tate and Labianca murders. There where other murders that it was known that Manson planned, but he was never tried because in those nobody was willing to testify agianst Manson.

So what does this have to do with a scenario where Bin Laden might have been tried? A prosecution and conviction of Bin Laden would have included all of his threats and other comments to do terrorist acts, but what would eventually happen is that the state would come up with a witness/witnesses who were present when Bin Laden and others made plans. That is how they would have convicted him.

Thanks for making it crystal Brad, it seems those 5cent bullets have saved a few million that can now be spent on something more worthy than Bin Ladens prosecution then?

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was in charge of America's involvement in the Vietnam War?

Was it our President?

Kennedy ? LBJ ? Nixon ?

One of them was 'shot in the face', err, in the back of the head I mean, but he wasn't in office when William Calley had his cronies open fire on over 100 civilians at Mi Lai.

90081-004-677AC430.jpgMy_Lai_massacre.jpg

So what LEADER actually took the responsibilty for this terrorist action?

As I've been trying to say here, BEWARE THE ENEMY IS WITHIN....TERRORISM IS WITHIN THE STATE NOT OUTSIDE!!! BEWARE:):)!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

about the Manson thing. But as gruesome and strange as the Manson family story was, it was also fascinating at the same time.

I agree. That event marked the end of the love / peace saga...but it also opened minds on the star system operating in the U.S.A.:):):)

Edited by spidersandsnakes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're going to post all the old chestnuts tonight aren't you? The Platoon LEADER, Calley, was imprisoned.

So this being a 'chestnut' is off limits ? It's a terrorist act all the same, for the women and children and innocent men that were shot and killed.

Calley was sentenced to life imprisonment, however only served 3 1/2 years of HOUSE ARREST. NOT behind bars, NOT in a 8x12 cell, NOT with other hardened criminals, NOT bread and water etc, etc, etc.

He'd said in his trial, corroborated by ~20 of his men, that his superior Capt. Medina, gave the orders to shoot everyone in the village as they were all Vietcong.

Nixon was easy on the guy. Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird protested Nixon's leniency. At least some of this misjustice should've befallen President Nixon.

On April 1, 1971, only a day after Calley was sentenced, U.S. President Richard Nixon ordered him transferred from Leavenworth prison to house arrest at Fort Benning, pending appeal. This leniency was protested by Melvin Laird, the Secretary of Defense. The prosecutor, Aubrey Daniel wrote, "The greatest tragedy of all will be if political expedience dictates the compromise of such a fundamental moral principle as the inherent unlawfulness of the murder of innocent persons."[12] On August 20, 1971, the convening authority — the Commanding General of Fort Benning — reduced Calley's sentence to 20 years. The Army Court of Military Review affirmed both the conviction and sentence (46 C.M.R. 1131 (1973)). The Secretary of the Army reviewed the sentence and findings and approved both, but in a separate clemency action commuted confinement to ten years. On May 3, 1974, President Nixon notified the Secretary that he had reviewed the case and determined he would take no further action in the matter.

[12] Perlstein, Rick (2008). Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this being a 'chestnut' is off limits ? It's a terrorist act all the same, for the women and children and innocent men that were shot and killed.

Calley was sentenced to life imprisonment, however only served 3 1/2 years of HOUSE ARREST. NOT behind bars, NOT in a 8x12 cell, NOT with other hardened criminals, NOT bread and water etc, etc, etc.

He'd said in his trial, corroborated by ~20 of his men, that his superior Capt. Medina, gave the orders to shoot everyone in the village as they were all Vietcong.

Nixon was easy on the guy. Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird protested Nixon's leniency. At least some of this misjustice should've befallen President Nixon.

On April 1, 1971, only a day after Calley was sentenced, U.S. President Richard Nixon ordered him transferred from Leavenworth prison to house arrest at Fort Benning, pending appeal. This leniency was protested by Melvin Laird, the Secretary of Defense. The prosecutor, Aubrey Daniel wrote, "The greatest tragedy of all will be if political expedience dictates the compromise of such a fundamental moral principle as the inherent unlawfulness of the murder of innocent persons."[12] On August 20, 1971, the convening authority — the Commanding General of Fort Benning — reduced Calley's sentence to 20 years. The Army Court of Military Review affirmed both the conviction and sentence (46 C.M.R. 1131 (1973)). The Secretary of the Army reviewed the sentence and findings and approved both, but in a separate clemency action commuted confinement to ten years. On May 3, 1974, President Nixon notified the Secretary that he had reviewed the case and determined he would take no further action in the matter.

[12] Perlstein, Rick (2008). Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America.

Thank you PM for being a TRUE AMERICAN and not hiding the fact that your Country is no Angel in its dealings with Native Peoples and for putting your Nemisis firmly in his place.

Thank You again, Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...