ABC Breaking on Duke Case

[Frustratedlady]

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

DA IN DUKE RAPE CASE SAYS ALLEGED VICTIM WILL GIVE BIRTH IN FEBRUARY


http://abcnews.go.com?CMP=EMC-1396

Good heavens. What else will pop up?

[LA lady]

1. What???

I heard she had the baby yesterday!!!

[Debi]

2. So she got pregnant after the incident...

what does that have to do with anything?

[xultar]

10. I resent your remark. Black women raped rarely get justice

Let's see how this turns out before calling her names.

[Debi]

14. WHAT???

Please re-read my post. Where did I call her names or deny her justice?

[IndianaGreen]

33. How about calling this liar another Tawana Brawley

Did the fact that prosecutor Nifong conspired with a DNA lab to keep exculpatory evidence out of the defense and the public's knowledge bother you at all?

Sometimes rich spoiled white young men are innocent and this is one of those cases, particularly in the case of Reade Seligmann!

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Why does anyone care? nt.

[HereSince1628]

4. Too soon for white girls to go missing on exotic islands during holidays?

[Warren Stupidity]

5. I guess.

I am astounded that we here on DU seem as gullable as the rest of the population regarding the latest in sexploitation and scintillating crime newz. World civilization is blindly stumbling toward another global conflagration and we are just fascinated with Duke Rape, or is it Aruba Girl? We are OJ Nation. Big Dumb Stupid Americans.

[fuzzyball]

23. World is NOT stumbling towards conflagaration....since

some countries are getting much more sophisticated in
weaponry and others are floundering. The mis-match is
GROWING just like the gap between rich and poor. Good
example is how quickly Saddam Hussein's million man army
feared by most in the region was defeated by the much more
sophisticated US military.

I see only terrorism as the future problem...whereby hidden
bombs are planted in civilian areas and exploded from safe
distance by remote control. Have you taken note of the fact
that the insurgents in Iraq have not won a single fire fight
with US or British or even Iraqi gov't forces? Terrorism can
never defeat you unless you lose the will to fight them.

[fuzzyball]

24. self delete...answered wrong post

[Warren Stupidity]

27. You talking about the last gulf farce?

"Saddam Hussein's million man army feared by most in the region " simply not true in 2003. The Iraqi Army at that point was not much feared by anyone other than Iraqis.

No we are indeed stumbling toward conflagration, and the neoclowns have always been looking at the big picture, of which Iraq was just one step in a truly Big Ass War. It has to do with oil, and China, and the usual world domination, and the insurgencies sprouting up around the planet are just part of the picture, part of the slow breakdown of the current system of the world.

Terrorism? terrorism is a sideshow. There is no 'war on terror', that is total bullshit, a minor irritant used opportunistically by our depraved leaders to get their Big Ass War on. And most of us have fallen for it and are just plain confused about how we got from 9-11 to where we are now.

[fuzzyball]

28. My brother-in-law disagrees with you...

He is the COP (Commissioner of Police) in Bombay, India.
The recent bombing of a civilian commuter train in Bombay
which killed several hundred innocent civilians was a
pure act of terrorism and India is fighting a war on
terrorism on a daily basis against the jihadists.

And I was talking about both Gulf Wars. If you recall, during
the first GW, many were expecting 50,000 American casualties
and impossible to win the war in a desert since Saddam's
soldiers had tons of experience in desert warfare and were
battle-hardened during the Iraq-Iran war.

There were also naysayers poohpoohing the capability of American
military in able to take BAghdad in street by street fighting
to topple the Saddam regime.

In both instances it was a swift ass kicking of the Iraqi's.
Mainly due to the superior gadgets American military has. That is
my whole point. There are only a few countries out there with
sophisticated weapons. The rest have no chance. Therefore there
can not be a "conflagaration" as you say. And the real superior
military nations won't fight with each other because of MAD.
Mutually Assured Destruction). So, there will always be wars,
but no conflagarations.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. "many were expecting 50,000 American casualties"?

Uh - nobody who was paying the slightest attention to what one side had vs what the other side was bringing to battle expected anything other than a lopsided farce. I'm sorry if you fell for the hype. This was a two bit dictator's 2nd rate army vs a world class fighting force, not exactly a fair fight.

The war on terror is bullshit. That does not mean that there are not real terrorist gangs doing bad things. It means that one cannot fight a war against a tactic. It is idiocy, a propaganda phrase for public consumption.

We will have to see who is right and who is wrong about the future. I remain extremely pessimistic.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

31. I don't know where to begin here

"Have you taken note of the fact
that the insurgents in Iraq have not won a single fire fight
with US or British or even Iraqi gov't forces?"

Well that's funny, fuzzyball-- people like to say the same thing about the United States performance against the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong in the Vietnam War. But by 1975, it was the NVA that had won total victory against us and defeated the United States mighty fighting force.

Why? Because this is little more than playing BS games with nomenclature. The NVA and the Iraqi guerrillas alike, tend to avoid "fire fights" as you like to define them in clear knowledge of the superiority of US firepower. So instead, they employ stealth and guile, and use crafty tactics to defeat us. It's called "tactics"-- when a foe (in this case the US) has such a clear advantage over you in a particular area, you change the field of battle to negate that advantage and push the fight in your favor. That's what the NVA did and it's why the US lost the Vietnam War. That's also what both the Iraqi guerrillas and the Afghan fighters are doing, and it's why they, too, will likely have defeated the British and American forces within a few years.

Even with this provision, the enemy forces still defeated us. (NVA forces did in fact score victories in ambush-like large engagements against us, and there have been substantial firefights in Iraq-- in Ramadi, for example-- where the Iraqi insurgents have indeed driven us out.) But the Vietnamese victory against the US ultimately relied mainly on avoiding such pitched battles.

Indeed, George Washington himself largely defeated the British using the same tactics in the American Revolution. It's little surprise that the Vietnamese and now the Iraqis would be emulating the same tactics.

[fuzzyball]

32. If we had the balls of Pres Truman, Viet-Nam would have been over

in a hurry. Pres Johnson or Nixon should have served
notice to the communist regime in Hanoi to cease and desist
all fighting in S. Viet-Nam otherwise we would nuke Hanoi
within 72 hours. That would have ended the war in a few hours.

Communist China, who was the main supplier of arms
would never dare to attack the US since there would
be no more China suitable for human habitation for 100,000 years
after that.

The point here again is, SUPERIORITY OF WEAPONS HAVE THE
ABILITY TO END ANY WAR QUICKLY AND DECISIVELY.

The result of nuking Hanoi, if it came to that, would have been
that no 3rd world country would ever dare start a war against
the United States knowing what happenned to Hiroshima, Nagasaki
and Hanoi. We would have then peace for centuries to come.

[MrCoffee]

34. that's the craziest thing i've ever seen in DU, and that's saying something

I mean that literally, that's just completely loopy.

[cali]

36. I don't know what to say except

you have a distressingly cavalier attitude about the use of nuclear weapons. You can't possibly fucking know what the hell would have happened had we dropped a nuclear bomb on Hanoi, killing hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people. It's possible that terrorism would have mushroomed as a result.

I can't tell you the disgust I feel about your post.

[fuzzyball]

39. In stark reality, we did kill thousands of innocent civilians in Japan

in WWII did'nt we? And if you are a student of history,
you would know that prior to nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Japan was no where near stopping the war. To defeat Japan
would have have required GI's landing in mainland Japan and
according to military leaders that would have cause MILLIONS
of casualties on both sides.

Nope, nuking those innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
was NOT A HUMANE event. BUt no one can argue it ended the war
suddenly and decisively. Not only that, Japan became one of our
best friend, trading partner, democracy and prosperous.

I am simply projecting the same results on Viet-Nam. I would
appreciate rational arguments and realistic arguments, but
not emotion charged arguments.

[cali]

41. Actually, fuzzy

My MA is in history- not this period, but I did study it. I'll hazard from reading your posts, that I'm a little more conversant with the facts surrounding the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, than thee. You assert that prior to dropping the bomb the war was no where near to drawing to a conclusion. Actually, there's a considerable amount of debate in academic circles about whether the bombing of Japan was neccessary to effect surrender. Just Google it, for fuck's sake, instead of making an absolutist claim.

Your remark about wanting a rational discussin is bullshit. I provided you with a scenario that countered your rosy if we'd only nuked them we'd be at peace for a thousand years scenario, and you didn't respond to it. Let me suggest some more possibilities. We nuke Hanoi. The cold war heats up; or, we nuke Hanoi, and 15 years later the U.S.S.R nukes Afghanistan.

Yes, I'm emotional about people who advocate nuking cities as a solution. It's stupid and callous.

[fuzzyball]

43. I will side with pres Truman's way of ending war with Japan over yours

anyday. Regardless of what arm chair generals say via google.

I am not advocating future indiscriminate nuking of any one.
My POV was in context of Viet-Nam circa 1967-69.

With currently 7 to 10 countries possessing nukes and more
striving for them incessantly, the nuclear option has become
fraught with mutual destruction and no longer viable.

[cali]

45. First of all,

it's not armchair generals who debate the neccessity of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki; it's an active debate among historians. Secondly, you never addressed my points regarding alternative scenarios that could have unfolded subsequent to any U.S. bombing of Hanoi. That figures. You're not only morally bankrupt, you're intellectually bankrupt as well.

[fuzzyball]

47. On the contrary...

All president Johnson or pres Nixon had to do was issue
an ultimatum to Hanoi that if there was anymore Vietcong
sneaking into South Vietnam, Hanoi would be nuked within
72 hours....enough time for civilians to clear out.

Actual nuking would have been unnecessary. And China was
very poor in those days, burdened with Maoism. China had
no industrial infrastructure to start a war with the US.
No way China was going to stick their neck out for the
Vietnamese whom they look down upon as culturally inferior.

As for the Soviet Union goes, they might have been supplying
weapons but that was done covertly. If they were really upset
at US for bombing the heck out out N. Viet-Nam, they would
openly threatened the US, which they never did.

Knowing how fast Japan, the land of Emporer, surrendered after
two well placed nukes, I am convinced Ho Chi-Minh would have
been equally quick to surrender.

[Mr Rabble]

37. You can't be serious.

You must have forgotten the sarcasm tag here.

[KansDem]

40. Do you really, I mean...DO YOU REALLY have that much faith and confidence...

in GW Bush that you would accept his action "to go nuclear" on another nation? After all, he would be the one pushing the button.

Do you really...have...that...much...faith and confidence in him???

[fuzzyball]

44. Nope, the nuclear option no longer applies....my posts above are in

context of Viet-Nam circa 1967-69. Now there is way too many
countries possessing nukes and more on the way.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

42. I nominate fuzzyball for posting the most violently idiotic crap on DU

First of all, you moron (and yes, the name is appropriate in this case), you are basically advocating the genocide of tens of millions of innocent Vietnamese civilians through the world's most disgusting weapons (nuclear bombs). Second, you basically advocate for the US having extended that nuclear attack to China. Vietnam and China are two of the world's most ancient, extraordinary civilizations, so you would basically have been advocating genocidal acts of mass destruction on two of the world's most ancient, culturally rich societies.

Third, you seem to forget that the Soviet Union-- not China-- was the chief supplier of arms and logistical assistance to North Vietnam, and any nuking of North Vietnam would indeed have provoked the USSR into nuking the United States in retaliation-- triggering a global Nuclear Holocaust.

It's bellicose fools like you that convince me that no country-- and that includes the United States-- should have more than 100 or so nuclear weapons for self-defense, so as to preclude such a preemptive use.

I'm really starting to understand why the rest of the world so utterly hates the United States, and I actually wonder if it's truly deserved now. Maybe I should take the lead of my best friend from college and emigrate to Italy or something. At least we can still vote in US elections while preventing our tax dollars from supporting the US war machine.

[cali]

46. I'll second that nomination.

Her posts are sickening. Intellectually bankrup. Morally bankrupt.

[fuzzyball]

48. I refuse to accept, and run and if elected refuse to serve....

Anyways, thanks for the stimulating discussion. Now me
and the wife are headed to a Christmas party.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.

[Debi]

6. Those reports are due Jan. 4th (maybe start Jan. 3rd evening)

But definitely will fill the airwaves while those pesky Democrats get sworn into office (with their hands on a Koran.... )

[xultar]

8. As a black woman I fuckin care. I not convinced

she wasn't raped yet.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xultar]

11. Lets just wait and see.

[enough already]

22. How long? n/t

[Lerkfish]

13. maybe that makes YOU think that.

it doesn't make ME think that.

there were more people there at the party than 3 guys, right?

and I don't appreciate the word "slut" being used in this case, or any other, thanks.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

25. yeah, that's it. the problem is my thin skin

[Mad_Dem_X]

20. "...a slut out to make some money."

Whoo boy. Stand back.

[Bjornsdotter]

16. I'm not convinced either n/t

[deadmessengers]

18. I'm not either...

But, I am, on the other hand, convinced that if she was raped, the Duke Lacrosse team had nothing to do with it. The DNA evidence doesn't lie - she had DNA from 5 different men 'down there', and it didn't come from anyone on the team. The charges need to be dropped RIGHT NOW, before those men are forced to pay another dime in legal expenses to defend themselves against charges that are obviously untrue.

[beaconess]

30. I'm not convinced either . . . but what bothered me about this case

was that it showed the wide disparity between the way White suspects and Black suspects are treated. I can only imagine the outcry and demands for justice we would have heard if this were reversed and a group of Black athletes were accused of raping a White woman. These lacrosse players got tremendous benefit of the doubt - as well they should have since they are innocent until proven guilty. But I sincerely doubt Black players in the same position would have been similarly treated.

[MrCoffee]

35. what preferential treatment???

the prosecutor is doing everything he can to hide, manufacture, and simply invent evidence to keep this case in court.

in what way does that constitute "tremendous benefit of the doubt"?

[cali]

38. LOL

Does the name Koby Bryant mean anything to you? That girl was gone after like a gazelle by a ravenous pack. Yes, she was white.

[wakeme2008]

7. ZZzz but also Judge OKs paternity test for Duke accuser

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16191462 /

DURHAM, N.C. - A judge ordered testing Friday to determine whether three Duke lacrosse players fathered the child of a woman who accuses them of rape — a prospect defense attorneys dismissed as an “absolute impossibility.”

News of the accuser’s pregnancy comes roughly nine months after the team party where she says she was raped by three men, but District Attorney District Attorney Mike Nifong said he believed the accuser became pregnant at least two weeks after the party.

Defense attorney Joseph Cheshire said Friday the defense, which requested the testing, has known for some time about the pregnancy.

..more at link

[Amused Musings]

12. One part of me hesitates to join in on trying this woman

in the court of public opinion, but I think it has become fairly obvious that the crime in question had not been committed and figures such as the alleged victim and the prosecutor have invested too, too much to let it go.

And thus are holes dug deeper.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

15. Loser!

27, Divorced, Unmarried, Employed As An Escort, Popping Out Her 3rd Kid.

[Bjornsdotter]

17. Maybe

...she's doing the best that she can with the opportunities she's had.

You never know what you could be driven to do to support your family and obviously she's trying to support her kids.

[Mad_Dem_X]

21. So true.

No one knows what they are capable of until they are in that situation.

[geek tragedy]

26. The real story here is the criminal abuse of office

by Nifong, who is the only person in question who undoubtedly deserves to go to prison.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. Agreed I wish there was a law that could bar prosecutors from ever running for office

But that'll never happen.