The Dude Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Who's this "knappic" guy? Sounds like a peach. He's certainly no pineapple. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 23, 2013 Author Share Posted April 23, 2013 Who's this "knappic" guy? Sounds like a peach. He's certainly no pineapple. Ain't no lie. Link to comment
Ziggy Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Couple of quick things, saw that the suspects supposedly had an M4, not sure where they got that, but supposedly they picked it up off the MIT officer they killed. Anyone else can confirm or deny that? Secondly, its funny people are complaining about affording constitutional rights to suspect #2, but very little was said when Obama green lighted the assassination of an American citizen in a foreign country. Link to comment
walksalone Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Something's not right about all this. About how they acted alone. I have a tough time believing this dude was able to get all this together, then dupe his little brother into going along with this... Link to comment
walksalone Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Couple of quick things, saw that the suspects supposedly had an M4, not sure where they got that, but supposedly they picked it up off the MIT officer they killed. Anyone else can confirm or deny that? Secondly, its funny people are complaining about affording constitutional rights to suspect #2, but very little was said when Obama green lighted the assassination of an American citizen in a foreign country. Ziggy, it's ok to say "f*ck your constitutional rights" if you're not american soil... You didn't get the memo? Link to comment
Ziggy Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Couple of quick things, saw that the suspects supposedly had an M4, not sure where they got that, but supposedly they picked it up off the MIT officer they killed. Anyone else can confirm or deny that? Secondly, its funny people are complaining about affording constitutional rights to suspect #2, but very little was said when Obama green lighted the assassination of an American citizen in a foreign country. Ziggy, it's ok to say "f*ck your constitutional rights" if you're not american soil... You didn't get the memo? Sh1t missed the memo..... And I agree about them acting alone. Granted I don't doubt that they were the only two bombers, I seriously doubt those two were capable of obtaining the weapons, supplies and know how to pull off the bombing without outside help. Sadly I think the older brother was the better person to capture alive for information. 1 Link to comment
walksalone Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Sh1t missed the memo..... s'ok, happens to us all... And I agree about them acting alone. Granted I don't doubt that they were the only two bombers, I seriously doubt those two were capable of obtaining the weapons, supplies and know how to pull off the bombing without outside help. Sadly I think the older brother was the better person to capture alive for information. Winner, winner, chicken dinner... Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Couple of quick things, saw that the suspects supposedly had an M4, not sure where they got that, but supposedly they picked it up off the MIT officer they killed. Anyone else can confirm or deny that? Secondly, its funny people are complaining about affording constitutional rights to suspect #2, but very little was said when Obama green lighted the assassination of an American citizen in a foreign country. You gotta admit, predator drones save a lot of legal hassle. They may also save a lot of money in the long run. When suspect #2 was taken alive, the taxpayer's legal expenses just jumped by X million dollars. Link to comment
walksalone Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Couple of quick things, saw that the suspects supposedly had an M4, not sure where they got that, but supposedly they picked it up off the MIT officer they killed. Anyone else can confirm or deny that? Secondly, its funny people are complaining about affording constitutional rights to suspect #2, but very little was said when Obama green lighted the assassination of an American citizen in a foreign country. You gotta admit, predator drones save a lot of legal hassle. They may also save a lot of money in the long run. When suspect #2 was taken alive, the taxpayer's legal expenses just jumped by X million dollars. It's not so much the drones, but the Hellfire ATGW's, that save alot of legal hassle... 1 Link to comment
Saunders Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Who's this "knappic" guy? Sounds like a peach. He's like the dark lord of the sith or some sh#t. Always forcing choking people who he don't like. Link to comment
Saunders Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Sorry. AR-15. I didn't cut and paste. Can you ever forgive my typo? Of course, focusing only on the typo is one of the oldest tricks in the intellectually dishonest debate tactics handbook. lol.... Link to comment
beanman Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Double amputee Jeff Bauman gives an 18th birthday present to a fellow amputee in the hospital. http://now.msn.com/jeff-bauman-gives-a-birthday-present-to-fellow-bombing-victim-in-viral-photo Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 If you can't see the difference between a terroristic act against the United States and the day-to-day situations the courts deal with then we will never agree on this situation. How is this different than Sandy Hook (other than being dramatically less lethal)? It's a crime. It's not warfare. I guess that I'm not as willing to toss the Constitutional rights of US citizens aside as you are. It's troubling that you think otherwise but (as you noted) the court system can correct mistakes by law enforcement. Okay, thanks for putting words in my mouth, typical lawyer tactic. I didn't say to toss US citizens rights to the side, if they are a terrorist then I have my opinion on that situation. The difference between the two is how the crime was conducted and the possible links behind the planning of the event at the time. The Sandy Hook situation was a nut job that acted alone and didn't possibly have ties to a terrorist organization. The former of these two situations may have and I still don't believe they didn't on some level. Don't even get me started on actually applying law in real life compared to reading it from a book, trying to tear apart the decision made at the time, and putting words in people's mouths while they are on the stand. You wanted to bring up that I'm a "better officer than this." That was ridiculous for you to even try and bring that up, you don't know me, don't act like you know me. Sorry if I don't think a terrorist should have rights considering he is a supporter of a radical Islam movement who has declared war on the US in the past through their actions. He's a sympathizer with their cause which means I'm a sympathizer for him to no longer exist on this planet and could care less what happens to him. 3 Link to comment
Junior Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Sorry if I don't think a terrorist should have rights considering he is a supporter of a radical Islam movement who has declared war on the US in the past through their actions. He's a sympathizer with their cause which means I'm a sympathizer for him to no longer exist on this planet and could care less what happens to him. So this terrorist would have rights if he were Christian rather than "radical Islam"? Not to mention the fact that until he is convicted in a court of law, he is an alleged terrorist. Lest we forget that the New York Post posted a picture of two innocent people as the bombing suspects on the cover of their "news"paper. http://www.ibtimes.c...-bomber-1202521 1 Link to comment
walksalone Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 BRI, it'd be as if you walked into a court room and told Carl he was doing a sh*t job when you have no idea what his job entails. People nowadays are too quick to generalize what LEO or soldiers do, as if it's on TV and any swingin' richard could walk in and do the job, it's not that easy. These two douchebags detonated a bomb at an event with the intent of killing or injuring as many as they could. This wasn't just a "crime", but an attack that was planned, based on an ideology, just like the idiots flying the planes on 9/11 who were terrorists. This was a terroristic attack and aren't we fighting a war on terror? 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts