Guns do not stop bombs!
Printable View
Guns do not stop bombs!
2 dead so far, early reports talking bout Saudi Arabian national in custody, don't know if he was a real person of interest of if they just jumped on him.
Sad day.
They'll jump on any and all Muslims now.
Unlikely.
The past couple "attacks" have been by crazy Americans.
If it was them durn terists they'd have claimed responsibility by now. Signs point to Palem being on the money.
They had cause to start with the Saudi tho, because apparently 5 minutes before the blast a dark skinned person with an accent tried entering a restricted area and was turned away by authorities. People like claiming racial profiling but sometimes it's just the reality that an investigation starts there.
But yes, you'd think by now a group would claim it, so chances are it's an independent anti-American extremist, or some domestic nut job.
Wouldnt a domestic terrorist group take credit for it as well? Imo, a nutjob done this.
In order to protect innocents against terrorists with bombs, we need to arm everybody with bombs. Only that way can we be safe
Why would we need bombs? We have bear arms.
yeah we want everyone to have nukes... that way we can stop nukes.....
****ty media.. who knows about the hundreds died at pakistan, who knows about the thousands died in syria, but the worlds cries over 3 dead guys for months..
Sadly, a lot of people will only vocally care about tragedies that happen in their own backyard. A lot of North Americans think it shouldn't happen to us, so hearing about it happen overseas makes it less personal and more reasonable.
It doesn't make it right, but it's what seems to happen.
I find it interesting people wouldn't take action to prevent the death of innocents. Most police officers and military personnel have never killed anyone/anything either, so I don't see what that matters..
So, for your there is only one course of action and its to murder someone? How about just call the police and inform that you seen the person and they would come and take care of him?
And most police officers and military personel probably never will kill anyone and will be very happy about it. Id like to believe that most people arent people that could easily just kill another human being in cold blood.
Killing someone to protect innocent life is not murder, and it's certainly not in "cold blood". We're talking about the same guy who blew up 200 people and murdered a police officer. A known bomber is hanging out in my backyard, and I can take him out rather than risk him getting away (like he escaped the cops the night before) to kill more people. It might not be an easy thing to do, but it certainly is an easy decision, for me at least.
How to put it, I dont think taking justices in to your own hands is justifyable and makes just no better than the animals that commited such crimes. There is a justices system and it should be handled within that system. Think the situation was handled pretty well now he was taken into custody and will msot likely face death penalty.
With that said, the media coverage of this around the whole world is absurd, this has been the headline in newspapers around here for god knows how many days. It is a tragic thing that happend but there is more tragic things happening all over the world that people rarely get to know about. (I can understand the media covering it US causes there it is a big thing but the rest of the world...)
I agree with Korp. "There is a justices system and it should be handled within that system."
The situation certainly wasn't handled well by police the night before, with bullets flying through innocent people's houses and letting the guy get away. If I can walk up, identify a known bomber, and put a bullet in him to end it swiftly in the best interest of myself, my home, and my neighbors, I'm doing it.
I doubt you could, I dont doubt thats what you would like to do but saying something and actually doing it is two different things especially when it comes to ending a persons life. So, lets ponder the situation, lets say that you walk up and identify him as the bomber but he gets away cause you fumbled. Wouldnt it in that case better been calling the police that they would come and secure the area so the bomber wouldnt be able to to get away again? Or is your train of thoughts only in a perfect scenario?
Or what about theres few others like you that thought they saw the person and killed them, is that okey? Innocent people died cause someone thought they saw the bomber?
Whether you doubt it or not makes little difference to me. My actions would be based on circumstance, I'm sure there are scenarios where I would call the police. He may have been half dead laying there from blood loss, in which case I wouldn't be inclined to shoot him lol. If I walk up and he's got a gun in his hand, I'm shooting him. As for the questions about if it's ok to shoot someone cuz you "think" you saw the guy, of course that's not ok. Those are the type of people who shouldn't own firearms.
You shouldn't own one either, Mr Vigilante-Murderer.
It's not vigilantism or murder to take a life in self defense or in the defense of innocents.
Shooting someone hiding in your garden is murder. There is a a legal process in place, follow it. You have absolutely no idea of the circumstances involved and do not have the right to bypass the justice system.
Shooting an unarmed person hiding in my backyard who is not a threat would be murder. Shooting an armed aggressor wanted for the murder and/or maiming of 200 people is not murder, it's killing in the defense of myself and other innocents. There are laws in place to protect citizens who take such action, so it's not bypassing anything.
Oh, you are sure its him and that he is armed i.e you stopped to verify this and then shot him?
Also, being accused or wanted in connection with a crime means you are guilty?
Pew pew pew. 'Merica.
Have to side with Bishop on this. Not only does every citizen have certain rights, but the gov't wanted him alive. Killing him wouldn't be right in any sense other than feeding your own satisfaction.
I wouldn't shoot a man who wasn't clearly armed or an immediate threat to someone. In that case I would just hold him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.
If a person is wanted for murder, you're supposed to assume they're innocent if they walk on your property with a gun since they haven't been in court yet? Sound logic.
That's a bull**** assumption to make about me, Palem. Wanting him alive is fine, but not at the cost of innocent life. They let him get away once and he could've killed again. No reason to assume that couldn't have happened again.
I would hate to sound like the crazy guy, but I'm sure the FBI cares much more about capturing a terrorist than it does about the lives of a couple people from Watertown Massachusetts. There's a reason the lead FBI guy immediately left the Press Conference telling people it was safe to leave their houses and didn't stick around for the rest of the conference. They tried to flush him out with citizens and it worked.
Wait, are you trying to claim they would have been ok with the deaths of more innocents just to catch him alive? That's easily the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
I'm not sure if the small army invading Watertown and conducting one of the most ridiculous man-hunts I've ever seen didn't tip you off, but the government was dead set on catching him.
I'm not saying they WANTED anyone to die, but they absolutely cared more about catching him than they did about random Joe Schmoe from Watertown.
Any avoidable loss of life would have been 100% unacceptable just to catch him alive. I can't believe you'd even suggest such a ridiculous notion. All belief was that these guys were nobodies. They didn't even make an effort to catch Bin Laden alive and you think they would have let more people get killed to catch some 19 year old scrub terrorist? You're out of your freakin' mind to believe such nonsense.
It's your opinion that it's 100% unacceptable. You seem to think everyone's life is mighty precious for someone claiming that they would have shot a man dead in his back yard.
Belief is not fact. They needed to find out if they were connected with any terrorist groups and at the very least find out why they did it.
They did try to catch Bin Laden alive. The mission that killed him was aimed at bringing him in, not killing him. He chose to fight back and Seal Team 6 chose to kill him. His death was significant. The death of a 19 year old "scrub" isn't.
They already knew he wasn't anybody important, and if anyone was it was his older brother who was already dead. They already got info from the wife that he was a religious nutbag, and from his computer that he watched al qaeda videos online. The kid had almost nothing to offer them but meaningless confirmation of what they already knew. They would not have risked loss of life to keep the guy alive.
And thank you for proving my point with the Bin Laden thing. Yes, they would have taken him alive, but he chose to fight back so they killed him to prevent unnecessary loss of life to capture him. That's why they killed the older brother as well. By the time they got to the kid he was wounded and weak and easy to catch without risk. Had he started throwing bombs and **** again don't pretend they wouldn't have killed him on the spot. And to claim Bin Laden is "insignificant" compared to a complete nobody makes no sense. Bin Laden had a wealth of intelligence to offer, this kid had nothing. You have it entirely backwards lol.
They didn't want to kill the older brother. They got in a gun fight, shot back, he got ran over, they arrested him, took him to the hospital and then he died. If they were just going to kill him then they would have just killed him.
Thank you for admitting that killing him in your backyard would have been unwarranted. That's all I wanted :)
Where did I claim that Bin Laden was insignificant? I said keeping him alive as he was fighting back wasn't important enough compared to the weight of his death.Quote:
And to claim Bin Laden is "insignificant" compared to a complete nobody makes no sense. Bin Laden had a wealth of intelligence to offer, this kid had nothing. You have it entirely backwards lol.
While we're on the subject though, Bin Laden was a hardened, America-hating terrorist who would have rather died than to give anything useful to the USA. The 19 year old, didn't seem to hate America according to the people who knew him and was most likely stringed into the bombings by his brother. If he knows ANYTHING, the FBI will get it out of him with little to no effort. So no, I don't have it backwards. They would have gotten absolutely nothing from interrogating Bin Laden and they're likely to get something from the 19 year old. Something > Nothing.
My mind is boggled that you don't understand this. They never WANT to kill anyone. They WILL kill to prevent loss of life, always. You stated that they'd allow innocent deaths to capture someone alive who has no importance whatsoever, that's what I'm saying is ridiculous.
I misread your comment on Bin Laden, my mistake. However, nobody is capable of withholding information indefinitely, he had immense value alive as a prisoner. They killed him because that value was not worth losing a single Seal in a shootout aimed at keeping him alive. To assume they'd risk losing life, especially innocent life, to keep a small time nobody bomber alive is completely absurd. And as I said, the kid knows nothing of value that they don't already know.
And yes it turned out his capture was relatively easy, but to assume it would be so would be irresponsible. My comments were based on what I would do had I discovered an armed terrorist in my backyard.
USA has no issues murdering civilians for the "greater good" DHaran, havent you followed Iraq or Afghanistan?
But what is mind boggling is that DHaran thinks he would do a better job than the police or FBI. He would first of all find this person, then he would identify him as the wanted fugitive still while the fugitive havent noticed him. Then he would proceed to shoot this armed and dangerous guy (who already bombed several hundreds of people and killed a cop) without the fugtitive resisting at all. Thats amazing.
That you argue that they wont allow civilians causalities is ridiculous. USA has no such issues as been witnessed several times. But I guess there is people and people in DHarans world ;)Quote:
They WILL kill to prevent loss of life, always. You stated that they'd allow innocent deaths to capture someone alive who has no importance whatsoever, that's what I'm saying is ridiculous.
If he was of no importance whatsoever, why was there a small army dedicated to his capture?
It's very clear to me that they very much wanted him alive and I'm not too privy on the idea that 30 minutes after they told the public they can leave their homes that he was caught just happened to be a happy coincidence. The FBI is very good at what they do and that involved finding and capturing people. If he was going to kill more people, he would have done so and taken a family hostage or something. He chose to hide. The FBI needed more eyes looking for him so they let the citizens out of their houses and sure enough, they found him.
There was no greater good here, the guy is a nobody and they already knew it. There was no justification for further deaths for the sole reason of capturing him alive. To claim otherwise is idiocy. Even when someone has immense value, such as Bin Laden, they still won't risk losing people just to capture him. He had a gun, so they shot him in the face. It's that simple.
He had no value as a prisoner, he was important to kill/capture because he was out there KILLING PEOPLE. Not that difficult to get that concept. And that you think they let citizens out into danger hoping they'd help catch him is just retarded. You have a seriously flawed thinking process. Most of their search of the area was done, and it wasn't reasonable to keep the whole city on lockdown indefinitely, they had to let them out.