In accordance with our agreements with the Afghanistan government, the Sargent will be tried under The Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He is not subject to Sharia. For that reason, he will receive a fair trial taking all the issues into consideration.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

In accordance with our agreements with the Afghanistan government, the Sargent will be tried under The Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He is not subject to Sharia. For that reason, he will receive a fair trial taking all the issues into consideration.

He might have been able to get a fair trial under Sharia. It. There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there about Islamic Law.

There is also the issue that it would probably have been better for relations with Aghanistan if this killer of 16 Afghans was tried in Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Unfortunately, I cannot find much in the way of reliable information about the law in Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

"occupying force"...........you mean we've been there against the will of the Afghan government??

Is this what you're saying??

You have no shame if you deliver this anti-American b.s.

Unbelievable, Buggy.

Read the newspapers, Richie. You will see that Karzai does not want the US forces in the outpost areas. The US has no credibility there anymore. You obviously think it is a good idea to stay in Afghanistan. If we are not an occupying force, would you say "military advisors"? That might be a better choice of wording.

This seems like an irrational act unless you consider this possibility.
If a soldier has experienced the horrors of war with buddies being killed and maimed, and if his personal life is also destroyed by affects of the war on his personality and on his relationship with his spouse and or family..
If he is feeling he has no life to go back to, nothing left.. he could decide the best thing he can do with his life is commit an act so horrific that the citizens of Afghanistan could never forgive the Americans, they would demand our immediate departure..
Then his last act would be to end the war.. the thing he hates most.
I think it is a possibility.
JJ

Originally Posted by buggyone

Read the newspapers, Richie. You will see that Karzai does not want the US forces in the outpost areas. The US has no credibility there anymore. You obviously think it is a good idea to stay in Afghanistan. If we are not an occupying force, would you say "military advisors"? That might be a better choice of wording.

I'm not debating the wisdom of all our actions, I'm was just criticizing your anti-American verbiage.

Karzai would be a nobody hiding in a bunker or another country without the U.S. and he knows it, and you should too. He says what he has to to maintain the civil peace, but you should know which side of the debate to stay on.

Sounds as though you believe the US should stay in Afghanistan on a permanent basis to me. If not, at what point do you say the US forces should withdraw from Afghanistan? By what point, I mean to ask also what you believe should be the objective of the US in Afghanistan?

Originally Posted by JimJoe

This seems like an irrational act unless you consider this possibility.
If a soldier has experienced the horrors of war with buddies being killed and maimed, and if his personal life is also destroyed by affects of the war on his personality and on his relationship with his spouse and or family..
If he is feeling he has no life to go back to, nothing left.. he could decide the best thing he can do with his life is commit an act so horrific that the citizens of Afghanistan could never forgive the Americans, they would demand our immediate departure..
Then his last act would be to end the war.. the thing he hates most.
I think it is a possibility.
JJ

Sounds way too rational for me. Why did he not then kill himself if he feels he has nothing to which to go back? This sounds like an irrational act but probably one he had control over and which he knew was evil.

My great uncle shot himself in 1982. He drove his car to the funeral parlor to do it after writing every family member goodbye letters. He carefully planned his suicide. He was dying of a painful disease and did not want to burden people.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

It's a sad story, but a soldier in this theater cannot be excused from actions like this because that would send an "anything goes" message to the thousands of soldiers with similar situations, in my opinion.

Yes, I've been thinking about that aspect too. But I would hope that if he has advanced atherosclerosis (i.e., hardening of the arteries in his brain) that would be something that could be demonstrated in a court of law.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Sounds as though you believe the US should stay in Afghanistan on a permanent basis to me. If not, at what point do you say the US forces should withdraw from Afghanistan? By what point, I mean to ask also what you believe should be the objective of the US in Afghanistan?

Where'd I say that? You do some creative extrapolating, don't you?

The objective in Afghanistan is to provide the government of Afghanistan time to become powerful enough to stave off the onslaught of the fundamentalist extremists who seek to bring it down and institute Sharia law and allow the rebuilding of terrorist base camps.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Where'd I say that? You do some creative extrapolating, don't you?

The objective in Afghanistan is to provide the government of Afghanistan time to become powerful enough to stave off the onslaught of the fundamentalist extremists who seek to bring it down and institute Sharia law and allow the rebuilding of terrorist base camps.

There you go again Richie. Saying something that is spot on confuses me. LOL

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Where'd I say that? You do some creative extrapolating, don't you?

The objective in Afghanistan is to provide the government of Afghanistan time to become powerful enough to stave off the onslaught of the fundamentalist extremists who seek to bring it down and institute Sharia law and allow the rebuilding of terrorist base camps.

Not sure you get Sharia law. It is kind of hard to give any good research on it because it is so badly misunderstood. This might help-- http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-go...r-sharia/p8034

This goes into the complexity of Sharia Law-- http://www.salon.com/2011/02/26/sharia_the_real_story/ Read it, you might be surprised with what you find.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Not sure you get Sharia law. It is kind of hard to give any good research on it because it is so badly misunderstood. This might help-- Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations

This goes into the complexity of Sharia Law-- What sharia law actually means - Islam - Salon.com Read it, you might be surprised with what you find.

I can put it in simple terms:

If you are a woman hater = Sharia Law GOOD
If you respect women and girls = Sharia Law BAD

Originally Posted by The Villager II

I can put it in simple terms:

If you are a woman hater = Sharia Law GOOD
If you respect women and girls = Sharia Law BAD

You mean like the manner and way liberals have acted toward Sarah Palin?
You mean like liberals such as David Letterman, Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Matt Tabbi and Keith Olberman whom according to Peggy Noonan "think they can get away with vulgarity because they are on the correct side of social issues; while other tire of being bullied by the language police." According to Noonan liberals far exceed conservatives in demeaning woman (cite "America's Real War On Women" WSJ 3/17-18/12)

Originally Posted by The Villager II

I can put it in simple terms:

If you are a woman hater = Sharia Law GOOD
If you respect women and girls = Sharia Law BAD

Not that simple. Depends on the country and probably even the region that uses Sharia Law.

It is like judging all criminal law in the U.S. on the basis of the Old Testament "an eye for an eye".

I believe there is some stoning of women and men in the Old Testament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

Originally Posted by rubicon

You mean like the manner and way liberals have acted toward Sarah Palin?You mean like liberals such as David Letterman, Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Matt Tabbi and Keith Olberman whom according to Peggy Noonan "think they can get away with vulgarity because they are on the correct side of social issues; while other tire of being bullied by the language police." According to Noonan liberals far exceed conservatives in demeaning woman (cite "America's Real War On Women" WSJ 3/17-18/12)

Not at all. America hates palin because she is a stupid idiot and has nothing to do with Sharia Law.