Discussion in 'Current Events' started by drluggit, Nov 19, 2021.
Yes, just like there could have been another jury that could have found him NOT GUILTY, right?
What's the evidence for this?
Not at all. Are you?
I thought that Duty to retreat came up in the trial. Are you aware that it did?
Of course it didn't work. So utterly pathetic from the JOKE prosecutor!
"Sobbing child." You sure sound pretty damn butt hurt!
This is just one personal complaint after an other, while ignoring my arguments.
Donald singed a DEAL to get out. And when you now suggest that the US can just trash the deal to get out just because the Taliban was getting the upper hand, then it would mean that the Taliban no longer would have been bound with the seize fire agreement with the US. The US army ones again becomes a legit target as occupier of their country in their eyes, and bombs would be flying their way. The US would respond by shooting back. The end result would be: the war that was going nowhere for 20 years, would continue and the continuation would go nowhere. So your suggestion is frankly rather dumb.
As for your remark of leaving that 1 airport. That wasn't a civilian airport of Kabul, but the military one. And you got to be fing kidding me that you think you should announce that you're going to retreat. The last planes leaving that airplanes could have been shot down with RPG's by ISIS. You really have shown to not get this at all.
You can not possible think that a jury of mostly BLM sympathizers would think about the same evidence the same way.
Or anyways, you're going to be unable to sell that one to me.
Biden promised he would not leave until all Americans were out. He lied. Trying to blame Trump for Biden’s actions is pretty desperate.
Marines killed by the Taliban or ISISK?
Yes, and Biden GOT out. And he got out in the WORST and most INCOMPETENT way possible.
You said that it was not a major aspect of the trail, and now you seem to argue that it was.
Arguing for the sake of arguing.
Yes, if you watched the trial you would have seen him sobbing uncontrollably on the stand.
Why would I be? I made no bets over the outcome. The jury has spoken, and the system worked. I accept the outcome 100%. The prosecution failed to show Kyle had no reason to be scared, so Kyle is a free citizen.
Scared? The prosecution failed to prove Kyle did not act in self defense.
Yes, his defense was founded on him being scared and having to defend himself.
Yes, exactly. They failed to prove he did not have a reason to fear (aka be scared) for his life. Being scared for your life justifies self defense.
So making up the law as you go? LOL
My point is that presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm justifies self defense?
Clearly you disagree with that, and even think I just made it up.
We'll have to agree to disagree, but maybe you can tell me what you think justifies self defense.
You use the word scared to denigrate Kyle. Show us where that is in the law.
So, you finally then agree that the acquittal was appropriate. in only 42 pages of discussion.
First, you are wrong about what Trump agreed to. The arrangement was all based on "quid pro quo". "If you do THIS then we'll do THAT. We NEVER agreed to just be out of country on such and such a date no matter what the Taliban did. Such an "agreement" would be beyond stupid. It was all based on "If you do this, we'll do that". The first condition was a ceasefire between the Afghan government and the Taliban. It never happened. So the deal was off at that point.
So you think that leaving Kabul in the dead of night, without any notification to our allies in the Afghan government was honorable and correct? Really? We should just sneak away from our friends i the dead of night with no notification to them? Really? Wow...
Marines killed by TERRORISTS... Taliban or ISIS... named Ahmed or Mohammed... it makes no difference. When your house is broken into... do you care if they are Crips or Bloods?
Don't be silly. Saying 'scared' is normal language, and it means same as being afraid, or 'in fear of'. Everyone knows that, so lets not play word-games. Since you disagreed, I asked you to tell me what you think justifies self defense, but you refused to answer.
Finally? This is my 1st post in this thread, from Day-1 and about 15 mins after the verdict.
So, as noted from the response to your original post, this still clearly indicates that you have reservations, and in 42 pages, have equivocated them. As noted, you seem disappointed that justice was done. It still seems that you've carved out reservations that lead folks to infer that you'd have still convicted what was a righteous self defense. It's something I find disturbing.
I couldn't possibly care less what you find it "disturbing".
Im sure. It doesn't however, discount the flaws in your argumentation, nor the several tangential at best riffs you've submitted for public discussion. One hopes that yours is a lonely voice in the void.
Sure, same to you.
Anything on topic?
Separate names with a comma.