Boston Marathon Explosion - Today's Topics: Public Schools

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
C

Charles_sl

shitlord
228
0
Lejina_sl said:
Except it isnt aimed at all radicals. Just the Muslims. Otherwise a large part of the Tea party would have to be under surveillance. Have you looked at facebook/twiter lately? Lots of crazies out there if you go from what they write for the world to see.
Click to expand...
Well obviously it would be directed at radical members and groups within the larger group. The quote was basically that he thinks it's a good idea to increase surveillance since most of these terrorists have been a part of the wider group. It only bunches the good members and the bad members of the group together when you take it out of context. I have some Muslim neighbors and a few friends and if I saw that they had terrorist videos on their social media accounts I would be worried and cautious because that is clearly cut and dry radical. I would feel the same way if I knew someone who was really right wing and in a militia or some such, I would be worried and cautious of what that person is capable of because that's radical.
 
Cutlery

Cutlery

Kill All the White People
<Gold Donor>
7,066
21,236
Eyashusa_sl said:
The guy who they captured became an American citizen last year.

I'd ask where you've been the past 48 hours but I don't want you to flip out on me.
Click to expand...
Not hitting F5 on this post as fast as possible, that's for sure. Life still goes on elsewhere in the world.
 
Z

Zhaun_sl

shitlord
2,568
2
Charles_sl said:
Well obviously it would be directed at radical members and groups within the larger group. The quote was basically that he thinks it's a good idea to increase surveillance since most of these terrorists have been a part of the wider group. It only bunches the good members and the bad members of the group together when you take it out of context. I have some Muslim neighbors and a few friends and if I saw that they had terrorist videos on their social media accounts I would be worried and cautious because that is clearly cut and dry radical. I would feel the same way if I knew someone who was really right wing and in a militia or some such, I would be worried and cautious of what that person is capable of because that's radical.
Click to expand...
Who is and isn't a radical Muslim?
Who is and isn't a radical Christian?
Who decides?
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
81,673
163,363
Brodhi_sl said:
Basically, yes. The constitution shouldn't apply to a fucking animal caught red handed committing an atrocity. This can apply to murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc...just my two cents. Heck even liberals can get behind this idea, they love the concept of a "living constitution" right?
Click to expand...
LOL, what a colossal fucking retard. Go read a fucking book on intro to civics, you braindead slob. Leave the conversation to the adults.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
81,673
163,363
Charles_sl said:
That king guy didn't say that we should put all Muslims under surveillance or that Muslims were even dangerous. The poster quoted what he said and I don't see anything contradicting that in the actual article.

The argument to place all Muslims or all Christians or all of any group under surveillance is wrong. I have nothing against Muslims and I have nothing against religion, in fact I like both a great deal. His point remains that certain groups tend to produce terrorists much more than others though, in this case it seems to be radical Muslims, considering recent cases of terrorism we can agree that they have also involved groups of radical Muslims.

In my view it doesn't matter if it's a religious, political, ideological, etc. group, if they are radical and dangerous then they are radical and dangerous. In this case these Muslim kids were radical and dangerous, we don't know why exactly, maybe it wasn't related to their particular radical group at all, but from browsing their Youtube and Twitter accounts, along with knowing that the older bomber recently took a long trip out of the country, then I would say that it's certain possible that they were radicalized within this particular radical group.

The issue comes from what type of surveillance should be used, how intrusive it is, how it affects people and so on. I think that if the surveillance is kept to radical groups then that isn't too bad.

Think about this: If someone reported the older bomber for being radical, having terrorist videos and associated things on his social media accounts, for having recently taking a questionable trip, then we would have had surveillance on him already. If there were a trap involving a fake terrorist attack orchestrated by the government as they did last year with that Bangladeshi guy, then we would have been watching him throughout the entire operation and then arrested him immediately. How are those cases different than just having basic surveillance? If they had surveillance on and investigated the older bomber then they would have seen that he was a threat. After his trip that likely prompted this attack, they would have been there to stop him when the two terrorists put their plan into action.

To me, I think that if someone is putting radical things out there for everyone to see, right out there in the public for everyone to see, then that means they are crazy and a threat to us all. When I'm walking down the street and I see a crazy person ranting and raving about something, I use caution because that's a threat to me. If my neighbor is a sexual predator, I use caution because that's a threat to my family and my friends. These things aren't an invasion of their privacy, aside from the sexual predator but they deserve to be on lists and profiled in most cases, because they are public knowledge. To me it seems that public information could easily be used to tell if a person or group is dangerous.
Click to expand...
Bullshit, he specifically directs his crap against Muslims and Chechens.

King is a notorious racist, why would anyone defend him? If this isn't damning, he's got another 100 quotes out there on the internet where he clearly presents himself as a racist and a christian fundie.
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
Araysar_sl said:
LOL, what a colossal fucking retard. Go read a fucking book on intro to civics, you braindead slob. Leave the conversation to the adults.
Click to expand...
I love when retards like you who had one interesting college class with a liberal professor who has never done shit in life think they are experts on all things political. It's fucking hilarious.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
81,673
163,363
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
I love when retards like you who had one interesting college class with a liberal professor who has never done shit in life think they are experts on all things political. It's fucking hilarious.
Click to expand...
What about those of us who majored in it?

Derp.
 
D

Dabamf_sl

shitlord
1,472
0
Aychamo, bro, what's going on at home that has you so angry these days? Let out your feelings. No one (everyone) will use it against you in the future.
 
Famm

Famm

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
11,041
794
Due process under law and rights of the accused, being a central defining tenet of our nation, sickens you to your core?
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
81,673
163,363
Famm_sl said:
Due process under law and rights of the accused, being a central defining tenet of our nation, sickens you to your core?
Click to expand...
I wasnt even going to spend that much effort explaining that concept to him. Aychamo is stupid to the core.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
81,673
163,363
Aychamo,

If whitehat was seriously injured, would you even try to save his life? Or would you fake it like you tried and then just let him die?

We all know already that you're a total shitbag of a human being, what we dont know just how much of a shitbag you are.

Please elucidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.