Total nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Agreement_(2020) The Agreement provided for the withdrawal of all NATO forces from Afghanistan in return for a Taliban pledge to prevent al-Qaeda from operating in areas under Taliban control, as well as ongoing talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. The United States agreed to an initial reduction of its force level from 13,000 to 8,600 within 135 days (ie., by July 2020), followed by a full withdrawal within 14 months (ie., by 1 May 2021) if the Taliban keeps its commitments. You're asking me a question, while I answered it in the post you replied to.
Go read the threads from when it was an active discussion and BTW Biden did not retreat on the date set by the agreement, you do know that?
That is not true at all. I helped train the NEW Iraqi Army as a contractor. There were no commercial flights from Iraq fro many years. The only flights available were contracted by the US government. You had to request a flight through the military and, as a civilian, you were at the bottom of the priority list getting a flight. Afghan was the same. Silly Americans think everything is like living in America. It just isn't so.
Thank you for proving my point. I said it was all "quid pro quo" and you cited the example of requiring the Taliban to stifle ISIS before the agreement could proceed. Obviously the Taliban never did that, so the agreement was off. Thank you for another great example that proves my point.
I am reading some suggestions that Rittenhouse will be sued in civil court where a lower burden of proof is required to prevail in what's called a "wrongful death" action. It's possible, but I'm skeptical. Neither I nor any personal injury lawyers I know who would take the case, even if were a good one (it isn't). Those lawyers work on a contingency fee basis. Even if the plaintiffs win, which the acquittal in criminal court makes unlikely, how are they going to collect a judgement? Who is going to pay them through the appeal process? So they get a final judgement in 4 years? Rittenhouse doesn't have deep pockets to pay it, he could easily file bankruptcy, and insurance, if he had it, doesn't cover this kind of tort. I suppose the victims' families could find some lawyer who would take the civil case just for the publicity, but it takes money to sue and then to appeal. Who will pay the upfront costs of court, travel expenses, and deposition costs? Not this horse.
Well, firstly, you said this: And then for some confirmation of your position, I asked this: To which you replied: You made yourself pretty damn clear! So am I right in thinking that you no longer stand by that position?
If they had attacked Rittenhouse and he was acting out of self defense as he actually was? The outcome would be the same. Its about an act of self defense... period. Bringing ethnicity or other irrelevant issues into it make no difference.
I love these "what if" questions... What if the Martians invade? What if an asteroid the size of the moon hits us? What if Democrats retain a majority in the House next year? Does anyone waste their time worrying about such impossibilities?
Well you CAN say because you DID say! You said "if it were another jury, results would have been different." Then you said that there's no possible way that a different jury could have come to the same verdict! That's two positions which totally conflict with eachother!
People were given a heads-up in 2020 that the show was going to be over in May 2021. Biden gave American citizens an other 4 months. Can lead a horse to water.... it remains the responsibility for the horse to start drinking. Deal with it.
I'm asking you a question, and you're seem to be unable to answer it. So I'm guessing you just made up that the conditions weren't met.
Not win? Why? What's your point? The prosecutor was working to defend Kyle? They did about as good as they could. It was always a losing case. He's on tape providing medical aid.
Heck no. ISIS is not mentioned in the Doha agreement of my source. The Taliban pledged that Al Qaida wasn't allowed to operate in area's under their control. That even leaves open that the US agrees that the Taliban is not responsible for area's that are only partially under their control. And if you're so eager to claim that the deal was off, than you go source where anybody who actually matters that the deal was off. I'm not interested one bit in your personal opinion that the deal was off because you think the Taliban did not deliver.
I have a slight suspicion that the prosecutors were trying to sabotage their own case because they knew he wasn't guilty. So why would they do it? Easy. Political pressure, ether from their superiors or from the voters.
