Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

themystic · 07-19-2017, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Did German, Italian, or Japanese soldiers get a trial to determine if they were the enemy?

Actually the Germans had the Nurmberg trials quite a different time and story. It's easy to scream I hate terrorists. What if it's the wrong guy. Does that even matter? I don't know if it was or wasn't but obviously the court thought he was right. Kind of like the reverse of the Trump folks saying no crime was committed

themystic · 07-19-2017, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grean

He is guilty. He was a terrorist fighting against americans. Everything else is irrelevant.

Watch, he'll be fighting again.

Why they locked him up instead of just killing the mother fucker is beyond me. He deserves an eternity of pineapples shoved up his ass.

Some of the men he was fighting against were barely 3 years older than him. Do not get sentimental about his age.

Edit: what do you mean with no evidence? He was there fighting....kinda caught red handed.

I'm not sentimental about any of it. I do. Relieve in right and wrong. Hearing the accused side is a basic fundamental right in America. I'm glad about that. I don't know about Canada. There seemed to be some kind of doubt according to that article

grean · 07-19-2017, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by themystic

Actually the Germans had the Nurmberg trials quite a different time and story. It's easy to scream I hate terrorists. What if it's the wrong guy. Does that even matter? I don't know if it was or wasn't but obviously the court thought he was right. Kind of like the reverse of the Trump folks saying no crime was committed

It does matter if he was the wrong guy.

However.....

How can he be the wrong guy? He was found on the battlefield, was he not?

Now, had someone ran from the battlefield after being shot, and a day later soldiers raided a house and took a guy in to custody that they though was the guy who ran, then that guy can say " wuddnt me".

That's not the case here.

bambino · 07-19-2017, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by themystic

I'm not sentimental about any of it. I do. Relieve in right and wrong. Hearing the accused side is a basic fundamental right in America. I'm glad about that. I don't know about Canada. There seemed to be some kind of doubt according to that article

Trudeau settled before the trial.

themystic · 07-19-2017, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bambino

Trudeau settled before the trial.

I doubt its because Trudeau is an idiot. There was something there. I seriously doubt they just gave a "terrorist" 10 million dollars for no reason

LexusLover · 07-19-2017, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by themystic

I doubt its because Trudeau is an idiot. There was something there. I seriously doubt they just gave a "terrorist" 10 million dollars for no reason

People assign too much substance to settlement agreements and the same with "plea bargain" agreements. Those who do not have to suffer through the emotional and financial costs of a trial claim the defendant should not "agree," if the defendant didn't so anything wrong and another group claims the plaintiff/prosecutor ought not to settle for less if the defendant is "guilty"!

Arm chair generals and Monday-Morning quarterbacks do the same.

Oh, and did I mention Eccie pundits?

gary5912 · 07-19-2017, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

People assign too much substance to settlement agreements and the same with "plea bargain" agreements. Those who do not have to suffer through the emotional and financial costs of a trial claim the defendant should not "agree," if the defendant didn't so anything wrong and another group claims the plaintiff/prosecutor ought not to settle for less if the defendant is "guilty"!

Arm chair generals and Monday-Morning quarterbacks do the same.

Oh, and did I mention Eccie pundits?

That would be airhead Eccie pundits!

bambino · 07-19-2017, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by themystic

I doubt its because Trudeau is an idiot. There was something there. I seriously doubt they just gave a "terrorist" 10 million dollars for no reason

Obama gave the largest state sponsor of terror, Iran, $400 million cash. On a private jet. In the middle of the night. Some might say that was idiotic. Or criminal. Or both.

NiceGuy53 · 07-19-2017, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bambino

Obama gave the largest state sponsor of terror, Iran, $400 million cash. On a private jet. In the middle of the night. Some might say that was idiotic. Or criminal. Or both.

It was even worse than that, Bambino.
In addition to the $400 million, Obama sent 2 additional payments totaling $1.3 billion to Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...gress-hearing/

Yssup Rider · 07-19-2017, 02:00 PM

They said he was hung.

And they were right.

wordup666 · 07-19-2017, 02:22 PM

Looks like Obama wasn't the first.
http://time.com/4441046/400-million-...stage-history/

themystic · 07-19-2017, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

People assign too much substance to settlement agreements and the same with "plea bargain" agreements. Those who do not have to suffer through the emotional and financial costs of a trial claim the defendant should not "agree," if the defendant didn't so anything wrong and another group claims the plaintiff/prosecutor ought not to settle for less if the defendant is "guilty"!

Arm chair generals and Monday-Morning quarterbacks do the same.

Oh, and did I mention Eccie pundits?

Ive been in court plenty of times Lex. Of course I havent been involved in over 3,000 lawsuits like a certain President of ours has been. The emotional and financial costs for a working man vs those of a billionaire are miles apart.

Lots of Arm chair generals, Monday morning quarterbacks, and my favorite Eccie pundits dont have a clue

bambino · 07-19-2017, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

They said he was hung.

And they were right.

Youre always are looking for "hung" cocks you cocksucking pig.

bambino · 07-19-2017, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Invade Canada!!!!

Those polite, socially and environmentally responsible bastards won't know what hit 'em!!!!

Next time, don't vote for him!

Who the fuck is talking about invading Canada you stupid fucking pig.

The_Waco_Kid · 07-19-2017, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordup666

Looks like Obama wasn't the first.
http://time.com/4441046/400-million-...stage-history/

the $400 million dated back to the 1979 hostage crisis. so how 'bout one of you libtard Einsteins tell me why interest was paid on frozen assets? did the US invest these frozen assets and thus profit on it? i doubt it. if that money had been spent in it's intended way, for US aircraft, would Iran have paid the US interest on those aircraft? nope. so why did Obama, fearing some possible 10 billion ruling by the Hague cave in and give Iran interest on the 400 million? especially when nations such as Iran and China regularly ignore such rulings? what exactly would the Hague have done about it? invade the US? bahaaaaa

as example, China recently lost a dispute over some of the south china sea islands with the Philippines under international maritime law and immediately thumbed its chink nose at it. had it gone in favor of China (not likely) they would have hailed it as a justified and threatened to invade.

this total of some 1.7 billion is just another example of Obama not favoring the best interests of the nation he was supposed to represent. note i didn't say the free world. he wasn't elected leader of the free world. he was elected the president of the US.

Trump knows who elected him and why. if you libtards want to scream that somehow diminishes the US in the eyes of the world .. then fuck the world.