Jump to content


Boston Marathon Explosions


Recommended Posts


What do you use as the basis to define suspect #2 as a terrorist?

 

He inflicted terror? (So does my dentist)

He used a bomb? (so have many bank robbers)

He is muslim? (so is the CEO of PIMCO, the co-founder of YouTube and Dr. Oz)

He used a "weapon of mass destruction" to inflict terror and injury/death.

Link to comment
First off, Someone, the talk of what if everyone had guns is a ridiculous tangent to go down. Completely beside the point, and quite honestly an attempt to use tragedy to advocate a political platform.

Exactly. Which is why Nate Bell (R-Ark) should have never tweeted what he did. Since he brought it up, it's fair game to think of what impact what he is suggesting might have had for the good men and women of law enforcement.
Link to comment

What do you use as the basis to define suspect #2 as a terrorist?

 

He inflicted terror? (So does my dentist)

He used a bomb? (so have many bank robbers)

He is muslim? (so is the CEO of PIMCO, the co-founder of YouTube and Dr. Oz)

He used a "weapon of mass destruction" to inflict terror and injury/death.

By saying WMD, are you suggesting any IED is a WMD?
Link to comment

What do you use as the basis to define suspect #2 as a terrorist?

 

He inflicted terror? (So does my dentist)

He used a bomb? (so have many bank robbers)

He is muslim? (so is the CEO of PIMCO, the co-founder of YouTube and Dr. Oz)

He used a "weapon of mass destruction" to inflict terror and injury/death.

By saying WMD, are you suggesting any IED is a WMD?

Did the IED cause mass destruction? My answer would be yes but maybe there were not enough casualties for your definition.

Link to comment

What do you use as the basis to define suspect #2 as a terrorist?

 

He inflicted terror? (So does my dentist)

He used a bomb? (so have many bank robbers)

He is muslim? (so is the CEO of PIMCO, the co-founder of YouTube and Dr. Oz)

He used a "weapon of mass destruction" to inflict terror and injury/death.

By saying WMD, are you suggesting any IED is a WMD?

 

WMDs were defined two pages ago, HERE and HERE

Link to comment
What do you use as the basis to define suspect #2 as a terrorist?

 

He inflicted terror? (So does my dentist)

He used a bomb? (so have many bank robbers)

He is muslim? (so is the CEO of PIMCO, the co-founder of YouTube and Dr. Oz)

How about combining the 3 together? Is that terrorist enough for you?

Link to comment
First off, Someone, the talk of what if everyone had guns is a ridiculous tangent to go down. Completely beside the point, and quite honestly an attempt to use tragedy to advocate a political platform.

Exactly. Which is why Nate Bell (R-Ark) should have never tweeted what he did. Since he brought it up, it's fair game to think of what impact what he is suggesting might have had for the good men and women of law enforcement.

 

And you're doing the same thing in the opposite direction.

Link to comment

What do you use as the basis to define suspect #2 as a terrorist?

 

He inflicted terror? (So does my dentist)

He used a bomb? (so have many bank robbers)

He is muslim? (so is the CEO of PIMCO, the co-founder of YouTube and Dr. Oz)

He used a "weapon of mass destruction" to inflict terror and injury/death.

By saying WMD, are you suggesting any IED is a WMD?

If it causes mass destruction, then yes.

Link to comment

BRI, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion. I think the only reason you get negative responses is because people don't agree with it, and that's their prerogative, right? Specifically, they don't agree with it because they worry that if everyone shares that opinion, the government will be able to expand its powers arbitrarily which in the end hurts us all, because nothing will stand in their way.

 

I think that's a legitimate worry in the general, but I also think you clearly are able to separate rule of law and what you'd like to see happen to this guy, so it's really a non-issue here. At least it's maybe not one that should be personally directed at you.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

BRI, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion. I think the only reason you get negative responses is because people don't agree with it, and that's their prerogative, right? Specifically, they don't agree with it because they worry that if everyone shares that opinion, the government will be able to expand its powers arbitrarily which in the end hurts us all, because nothing will stand in their way.

 

I think that's a legitimate worry in the general, but I also think you clearly are able to separate rule of law and what you'd like to see happen to this guy, so it's really a non-issue here. At least it's maybe not one that should be personally directed at you.

I guess I should be more clear on what I think..............this guy, the one's involved with the 9/11 attacks, the one's involved in active shooting situations all over the United States...........don't deserve to breath another breath because they are worthless people who don't deserve a spot on this earth. I have ZERO patience or sympathy for anyone involved with the killing or injuring of innocent people that are guilty of nothing other than trying to carry on a normal life. To try and take this normal response towards these people and turn that around to make it seem like I can't think this way because I'm a cop or I can't have my opinion about these individuals and their rights doesn't sit well with me. I hate to see innocent people hurt just like most normal people do. I completely understand how important our rights as United States citizens are and cherish those rights just like the next citizen does. I have no doubt the courts will do the job that needs to be done and ultimately this individual will be put to death for his actions.

  • Fire 5
Link to comment
What do you use as the basis to define suspect #2 as a terrorist?

 

He inflicted terror? (So does my dentist)

He used a bomb? (so have many bank robbers)

He is muslim? (so is the CEO of PIMCO, the co-founder of YouTube and Dr. Oz)

How about combining the 3 together? Is that terrorist enough for you?

Shocking. To suggest that being a muslim is a factor in determining who is a terrorist.

 

Sickening.

  • Fire 4
Link to comment

In 2043, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at 50 years old, finally execute him after a bunch of trials, appeals, stays, etc.

Damn lawyers and politicians, I despise them.

 

Marty McFly: "Within two hours of his arrest, Martin McFly Jr. was tried, convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in the state penitentiary."? Within two hours?

 

Doc (and me): The justice system works swiftly in the future now that they've abolished all lawyers.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
What do you use as the basis to define suspect #2 as a terrorist?

 

He inflicted terror? (So does my dentist)

He used a bomb? (so have many bank robbers)

He is muslim? (so is the CEO of PIMCO, the co-founder of YouTube and Dr. Oz)

How about combining the 3 together? Is that terrorist enough for you?

Shocking. To suggest that being a muslim is a factor in determining who is a terrorist.

 

Sickening.

It's neither shocking or sickening. It is a straight up fact. A Muslim, with a bomb, inflicting terror is indeed a terrorist.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...