An outrage

No, they could not have. And what makes it an act of terror? Was Sandy Hook an act of terror? Or any other mass shooting? As far as I know, there is nothing that links him to any group or conspiracy. Nor did he plant a bomb, which is generally considered an act of terror. Nor was his target political. His motive appears that he didn't want to deploy to Afghanistan and cracked. Shouting Allahu Akbar doesn't make it a terrorist act.




"Shouting Allahu Akbar doesn't make it a terrorist act."

Are you nuts???


How do you find your way back to that refrigerator box you call home each day???

Shouting Allahu Akbar in and of itself does not make anything a terrorist act. Look up the definition of terrorism.


So...you are nuts.


Take a peek at post #38.
 

He hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and is therefore still legally entitled to his salary. It's the legal presumption of innocence. Where's the problem?

Not unless he is working to earn it, and I can't believe they would let him go back to work. If he had perpetrated some white collar crime, then yeah, administrative leave. This was not some white collar crime, and if he isn't working our government needs to recoup the payments to him .
 
Last edited:
He hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and is therefore still legally entitled to his salary. It's the legal presumption of innocence. Where's the problem?

The current administration refuses to call this an act of terror. Instead they are calling this a work place incident. If they had called this an act of terror and prosecuted him as an enemy combatant they could have stopped his pay.
Not only that but some of the people who were victims have had their benefits canceled.

Then how would lawyers get paid?

:eusa_whistle:

The same way all public defenders get paid. Or, an independent agency dedicated to a cause would supply a lawyer, or a lawyer looking for publicity would take it pro bono.

He's getting paid because the regime calls it work place violence. Meaning Hassan gets his money but benefits of victims of terrorism are denied to the survivors of the attack and the survivors of those killed in the attack.

obama has a definite soft spot for terrorists who kill Americans.
 
Last edited:
Shouting Allahu Akbar in and of itself does not make anything a terrorist act. Look up the definition of terrorism.

Ah the Obamunists are reduced to utter retardation. This is what happens when partisanship overwhelms reality.

zombies_sf_5.jpg


MUST PROTECT OBAMA
 

He hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and is therefore still legally entitled to his salary. It's the legal presumption of innocence. Where's the problem?

the problem is that when a military person is imprisoned their pay is NORMALLY suspended, at least that was the way it was when i served.

as for his innocence.., he is a muslime jihadist GUILTY of murder without a doubt.., look at how many witnesses there are !!

the son-of-a-bitch should have been hanged and shot to pieces the very next day.., as the muslimes would have done to one American soldier !

mogadishu.jpg
 
As usual, rw's try to blame Obama for this. That's the same rw's who have no use for our constitutional guarantees.

Oh the irony of Diddly - who abhors the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment protections, speaks of "constitutional guarantees."

Sparky, Nidal is to get a military trial - he will not face a panel of Obamunists like you, who would release and reward him for his "good work."

You DO realize that upon conviction, he will be sentenced to death, don't you?
 
Does anyone outside of the obama administration really believe that the Ft Hood murders were workplace violence?

WTF is wrong with these people? Why are they afraid to call muslim terrorism what it is?
 

He hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and is therefore still legally entitled to his salary. It's the legal presumption of innocence. Where's the problem?

As usual, rw's try to blame Obama for this. That's the same rw's who have no use for our constitutional guarantees.

Like the second amendment you loons are so fond of?
 
That did not answer my question.

Sure it did.

A known terrorist engaged in an attack that resulted in loss of life while espousing terrorist slogans DURING the attack. The attacker made it entirely clear that the attack was motivated by and done for the purpose of Islamic terrorism.

That is not conclusive, more evidence would be necessary.
 
The government managed to capture, indict, try, sentence, convict and execute Tim McVeigh in seven years and we are going on four years just to try the terrorist who the administration has deemed a "work place shooting".
 
The government managed to capture, indict, try, sentence, convict and execute Tim McVeigh in seven years and we are going on four years just to try the terrorist who the administration has deemed a "work place shooting".

Nidal Hasan was not to be tried until 2017, so that exposure during the trial would not harm the Obama myth that was crafted. The fact - irrefutable, that a terrorist attack happened on American soil, on an American military base, undermines the fiction that the administration has peddled that Obama has defeated terrorism.

Propaganda is the primary tool of this administration, the factual examination of Hasan during a courts martial, will expose the lies of the administration in regard to Islamic terrorism.

Of course Benghazi has already done that, so they may as well put Hasan on trial.
 

He hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and is therefore still legally entitled to his salary. It's the legal presumption of innocence. Where's the problem?

If he were in Afghanistan we would have just blown him up with a drone. American citizens don't have the right of presumed innocence anymore. We run a double standard here. That's the problem.
 

Forum List

Back
Top