# Court-martial jury weighs death for soldier



## duketter (Nov 24, 2004)

Does this guy even deserve a trial for what he did? I know, that is the law...a fair trial. He deserves either the death penalty or to rot in prison without parole. What do you guys think? For those who oppose the death penalty...do you think this guy should get the chair since we know he did it for sure and what he actually did to those soldiers? Is it treason what he did?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7667169/

I suppose MT thinks this guy is innocent? :lol:

p.s. this is a different soldier than the one we have been speaking about. This is the one who threw the grenades in the tent and killed his fellow soldiers.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Now why would I think that the fellow is innocent? Unlike many conservatives I keep the same rules for everyone. He killed two people needlessly and hurt more, let him fry.


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

i cant believe im saying this but after reading that article i agree with MT let his *** fry


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

His reasoning was that his fellow solders were going to kill Muslims, He is just another religious nut case, seems as if the world is full of them now.
and he is quilty.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

We all know how you truly feel Mt.



> Militant_Tiger wrote on Mar 10, 2005 6:36 pm " I really couldn't give any less of a damn if our soldiers are being shot at or not, that's war."


Absolutely stunning.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> We all know how you truly feel Mt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who exactly are you to support a war and then cry about the results? Don't get teary eyed when the inevitable happens, people get shot. Next time consider the price before you buy the war.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Not gettin teary eyed here, just pointing out a statement of yours how you really feel about the military.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> Not gettin teary eyed here, just pointing out a statement of yours how you really feel about the military.


I'll state it again, I have nothing against the military, just the people who give them orders.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

And I'll state your true feelings again.



> Militant_Tiger wrote on Mar 10, 2005 6:36 pm " I really couldn't give any less of a damn if our soldiers are being shot at or not, that's war."


----------



## duketter (Nov 24, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Don't get teary eyed when the inevitable happens, people get shot. Next time
> consider the price before you buy the war.


Militant_Tiger wrote on Mar 10, 2005 6:36 pm " I really couldn't give any less of a damn if our soldiers are being shot at or not, that's war."

Yet another MT hipocritical statement. On the other thread about the soldier that killed those Iraqi's. You think he should go to trial. So which is it? Is it just a war and this stuff happens or should he go to trial? Maybe before you type, you should reread your 2000+ posts and make sure you didn't type just the opposite for arguments sake a while ago.

Or is it that you don't care if our guys get shot....but if we shoot them we should be put behind bars? Who's side are you on MT?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Yet another MT hipocritical statement. On the other thread about the soldier that killed those Iraqi's. You think he should go to trial. So which is it? Is it just a war and this stuff happens or should he go to trial? Maybe before you type, you should reread your 2000+ posts and make sure you didn't type just the opposite for arguments sake a while ago.
> 
> Or is it that you don't care if our guys get shot....but if we shoot them we should be put behind bars? Who's side are you on MT?


Again, generalizations to make me look silly, good job. Mutual firefights and executing prisoners are quite different animals.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

The army should have saved the courtroom time and punched this guys ticket to 20 virgins right on the spot. but I am happy with the outcome, I thought he would be writing a book by now!


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Nobody on here has to try and make you look silly, you're doing a good enough job all by yourself. Generalizations my butt, the words are right off your keyboard, you're all over the place KID, go do some growing up and come back and talk to us.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> Nobody on here has to try and make you look silly, you're doing a good enough job all by yourself. Generalizations my butt, the words are right off your keyboard, you're all over the place KID, go do some growing up and come back and talk to us.


Terribly sorry, I didn't realize that you couldn't comprehend the difference between two entirely different situations involving the same forces in each. I'll try to remember the caliber of people that I'm speaking to next time.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

No spinnin this one bud, you got busted, thats a FACT.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> No spinnin this one bud, you got busted, thats a FACT.


Two situations, two opinions, no you are just acting quite silly.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Everybody on this forum seen it MT, you got busted again.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> Everybody on this forum seen it MT, you got busted again.


Your head reminds me of a coconut, hard on the outside and all liquid inside.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Keep trying to change the subject, your hypocricy just keeps shining through all the more. BUSTED


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> Keep trying to change the subject, your hypocricy just keeps shining through all the more. BUSTED


Can no one shut this guy up? You are wrong, simple as that. The only similarity between the two situations is that they both involved insurgents and American soldiers. How can you not comprehend this?


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

It's as simple as this, you can't comprehend that you are wrong, you got BUSTED for being the fake that you are and can't handle it so you keep trying to twist and spin it anyway you want.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> It's as simple as this, you can't comprehend that you are wrong, you got BUSTED for being the fake that you are and can't handle it so you keep trying to twist and spin it anyway you want.


A fake because I had two different opinions on two completely different subjects? Please explain this to me.


----------



## duketter (Nov 24, 2004)

MT, just curious what you think is so different on these two items. You act as if these people shot were tied up and had absolutely no way of causing danger. They didn't obey orders and were more than likely going to try and cause physical harm. They had no handcuffs on and were completely capable of causing harm. *Why else would they not obey his orders MT? *As in your words.... "Don't get teary eyed when the inevitable happens, people get shot." " I really couldn't give any less of a damn if our soldiers are being shot at or not, that's war." So why take him to court. It is war, these things (inevitable) happen just like you said. When does a soldier have the right to defend his life? When he is actually harmed first?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

duketter said:


> MT, just curious what you think is so different on these two items. You act as if these people shot were tied up and had absolutely no way of causing danger. They didn't obey orders and were more than likely going to try and cause physical harm. They had no handcuffs on and were completely capable of causing harm. *Why else would they not obey his orders MT? *As in your words.... "Don't get teary eyed when the inevitable happens, people get shot." " I really couldn't give any less of a damn if our soldiers are being shot at or not, that's war." So why take him to court. It is war, these things (inevitable) happen just like you said. When does a soldier have the right to defend his life? When he is actually harmed first?


When it is likely that he will be hurt, when faced with two men who are completely unarmed at a distance and the guard has a fully auto weapon, I really don't think they pose a big threat. Especially when the fellow unloads a second unnecissary clip into them it clinches the idea that it wasn't done in self defense.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Yet in the incident last fall, the Iraqi's were wounded and you would have onloaded the 2nd clip on them. Somethings wrong with that gray matter of yours MT.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> Yet in the incident last fall, the Iraqi's were wounded and you would have onloaded the 2nd clip on them. Somethings wrong with that gray matter of yours MT.


In one they were under watch and would continue to be, leaving a fellow who is somewhat injured with no watch over him behind troop lines is a bad idea.


----------

