Trump pardoning war criminals...

smr wrote:

Annachie wrote:Pavel Young.

It occurs to me that the charge Gallagher was found guilty of was about the minimum charge that would get him kicked out of the SEALs, and that there was probably a reason for that.

If you are referring to the E7 as Pavel Young...you would be totally wrong!

Now if you are referring to the E7 as individual who acquired the ire of a Superior that is extremely vindictive...You would be correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, "a Superior"... and his *own platoon* that turned him in and testified against him.

Do you have some idea what it takes to get a whole Team to turn in one of their own?

I applaud you for doing some basic digging but you are going to have dig a little deeper and more through search. Their is a reason for why I asked about the prosecutor and NCIS because they are related.

Remember this story is about the man not a person's politics. What is the truth of the story?

smr wrote:What is the truth of the story?

The truth of the story is that Gallagher's conduct was unbecoming of a SEAL, and Trump over ruled the officers tasked with making that decision for purely political reasons.

Take some time and do the research. Specifically focus on the testimony of the navy corpsman. His testimony is key to the whole narrative.

Annachie wrote:

smr wrote:What is the truth of the story?

The truth of the story is that Gallagher's conduct was unbecoming of a SEAL, and Trump over ruled the officers tasked with making that decision for purely political reasons.

smr wrote:Take some time and do the research. Specifically focus on the testimony of the navy corpsman. His testimony is key to the whole narrative.

Stop telling other people to do your work for you. This is a discussion forum not your lecture hall where you assign homework.

You have been told repeatedly that we have already looked at the issue. If you have an argument to make then make it instead of sending us on wild good chases all over Youtube trying to figure out which ranting conspiracy theorist you think constitutes journalism.

What did he admit on the stand? What was his testimony?

This topic for me is very close to the heart for several reasons. One, I followed this story. Two, I had a young soldier that had a drug problem and broke into some fellow soldiers lockers. He was caught and convicted of variety of charges. He got 10 years at hard labor at Fort Leavenworth. To this day, I feel like I failed him. I do not remember his name but his face still haunts my drams. My 1st Sgt transferred me out of the unit because I ticked off the Battalion Commander by asking for a light sentence for the soldier. That is Army politics rough and without mercy sometimes. I was emotionally compromised on this issue. Gcomeau, Screw You for not knowing the whole story.

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote:Take some time and do the research. Specifically focus on the testimony of the navy corpsman. His testimony is key to the whole narrative.

Stop telling other people to do your work for you. This is a discussion forum not your lecture hall where you assign homework.

You have been told repeatedly that we have already looked at the issue. If you have an argument to make then make it instead of sending us on wild good chases all over Youtube trying to figure out which ranting conspiracy theorist you think constitutes journalism.

smr wrote:What did... <snip>

Stop trying to assign homework.

Make a damn argument if you have one.

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote:What did... <snip>

Stop trying to assign homework.

Make a damn argument if you have one.

"Assigning Homework" is a valid debate tactic. It enables the communication of information that cannot be dismissed as rhetoric. Unfortunately; it is ineffective with people who are to dishonest or bigoted to contemplate any information that conflicts with their opinion.

A classic example is my challenge to derive the equation that defines the equilibrium temperature of the planet. The intransigent bigots on this forum refuse to accept the challenge. They even redicule​ me for suggesting simplyfing the math by assuming that the surface of the Earth is thermal superconductor without understanding that the thermal conductivity of the Earth's surface is another variable that is poorly understood.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Stop trying to assign homework.

Make a damn argument if you have one.

"Assigning Homework" is a valid debate tactic. It enables the communication of information that cannot be dismissed as rhetoric.

If, for example, you were linking to a peer reviewed study containing relevant information on the topic being discussed, yes.

If you're just ranting "go find stuff on Youtube! It's on Youtube!"

No.

gcomeau wrote:
If, for example, you were linking to a peer reviewed study containing relevant information on the topic being discussed, yes.

If you're just ranting "go find stuff on Youtube! It's on Youtube!"

No.

[/quote]

Here we go with the "peer review" scam. The AGW theologians have seized control of Federal and most private funding as well as purging the staff of most journals to ensure that with few exceptions, only their propaganda can get published.

I challenge you to derive a simple equation in the hope of inspiring you to think for yourself ( or admit that you are to stupid to derive the equation) so you begin spewing about "peer review."

Would you demand that I cite a peer review study if I asked you to calculate what

2+2 =

for yourself?


You truly are an idiot a bigot.