Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 99

Thread: "Cowardly act" in Boston

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker134 View Post
    House minority Whip Steny Hoyer, a Democrat, is generating criticism after making controversial statements Tuesday regarding yesterday's tragic bombings at the Boston Marathon and the automatic spending cuts which took hold in the federal government in March.
    When asked by a reporter at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday if he believes Monday's bombings prove that sequestration should end, Hoyer, considered to be a top Democrat, responded:

    "I think there are multiple reasons for ensuring that we invest in our security both domestic and international security. That we invest in the education of our children, that we invest in growing jobs in America and don't pursue any irrational policy of cutting the highest priorities and the lowest priorities by essentially the same percentage," Hoyer told reporters.

    "I think this is another proof of that, if proof is needed, which I don't think frankly it is," Hoyer added, in reference to the bombings.

    Hoyer said that yesterday's bombings represent "clearly another place where it demonstrates why having the ability to address security concerns is important."


    Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news...Y4jzDRODdFX.99
    Oy vey. I spoke too soon.

    On a side note, if one positive can come out of this, maybe we will re-focus on things that matter like national security/defense and the economy.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Didn't you start this thread to attack the President on this issue? Sick f-ing puke.
    No I didn't start this thread genius....

  3. #23
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    9,098
    Only "political" thing that bothered me about this so far is that more than once I heard that this was the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. I suppose Ft. Hood didn't count, or is that officially classified as a mass murder?

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    Only "political" thing that bothered me about this so far is that more than once I heard that this was the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. I suppose Ft. Hood didn't count, or is that officially classified as a mass murder?
    Civilians makes it worse in many eyes, IMO...

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    Only "political" thing that bothered me about this so far is that more than once I heard that this was the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. I suppose Ft. Hood didn't count, or is that officially classified as a mass murder?
    Why cling to labels? How were Newtown and Aurora any less of a terrorist attack than the Boston Marathon?

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    Only "political" thing that bothered me about this so far is that more than once I heard that this was the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. I suppose Ft. Hood didn't count, or is that officially classified as a mass murder?
    Yeah. That one still bothers me. It is often not even mentioned when they go through the list of mass shootings let alone terrorist attacks.

  7. #27
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    9,098
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Why cling to labels? How were Newtown and Aurora any less of a terrorist attack than the Boston Marathon?
    "Cling to labels"? It's terminology that dictates what things are, how they are defined and dealt with, in both a prosecutorial and humanistic sense. As for your question, the main delineation between the them would be the motivation, the intent. That's not what I would consider an insignificant detail.

  8. #28
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    "Cling to labels"? It's terminology that dictates what things are, how they are defined and dealt with, in both a prosecutorial and humanistic sense.
    Fair enough, but at the end of the day, you're arguing semantics. Legally, it's important, but culturally, psychologically, and physically the act is equally as destructive.

    As for your question, the main delineation between the them would be the motivation, the intent. That's not what I would consider an insignificant detail.
    The motivation and intent are to cause devastation to a society by targeting and attacking civilians. This describes all of the attacks regardless of the intentions being political or psychotic in nature.

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,892
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Oy vey. I spoke too soon.

    On a side note, if one positive can come out of this, maybe we will re-focus on things that matter like national security/defense and the economy.
    negative; those things are too "hard". gay marriage, war on women - those are the low hanging fruit (unintended, but lol)

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,892
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Fair enough, but at the end of the day, you're arguing semantics. Legally, it's important, but culturally, psychologically, and physically the act is equally as destructive.



    The motivation and intent are to cause devastation to a society by targeting and attacking civilians. This describes all of the attacks regardless of the intentions being political or psychotic in nature.
    disagree. terrorism is generally accepted to mean a method to further political goals.

    what political goals were in play in Newtown?

  11. #31
    White House cover up?

    http://www.infowars.com/obama-coveri...oston-bombing/

    Obama Covering Up Saudi Link to Boston Bombing?

    “Person of interest” to be deported after Obama had unscheduled meeting with Saudi Foreign Minister

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Infowars.com
    April 18, 2013

    The Saudi “person of interest” suspected of being involved in the Boston Marathon bombings is being deported from the United States next week on “national security grounds,” according to a terrorism expert, who notes that the move is “very unusual,” especially given an unscheduled meeting yesterday between President Obama and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.

    The attempt to cover up a possible Saudi connection to the Boston attack could explain why authorities are scrambling to get their official narrative straight after photos emerged yesterday on the Internet showing numerous suspects carrying large backpacks, some of them middle eastern in appearance and two of the individuals having been almost certainly identified as employees of private military/security firm Craft International.

    The FBI had set a press conference for 5pm EST yesterday afternoon but the event was cancelled hours after the photos were seen by millions of people online. The federal agency blamed the media for erroneous reporting, stating, “these stories often have unintended consequences.”

    The news follows an unscheduled meeting between President Obama and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal at the White House yesterday afternoon. “The meeting was not on Obama’s public schedule,” reports Reuters.

    “That’s very interesting because this is the way things are done with Saudi Arabia. You don’t arrest their citizens. You deport them, because they don’t want them to be embarrassed and that’s the way we appease them,” Emerson told host Sean Hannity.

    A scheduled 10 a.m. photo op between John Kerry and the Saudi Foreign Minister was also abruptly cancelled on Tuesday morning because Kerry was tired from his busy schedule, an explanation that journalists refused to swallow, with the Associated Press’ Matt Lee telling spokesman Patrick Ventrell, “I find it hard to believe that you expect us to believe that that’s the real reason for this.”

    As Infowars first highlighted yesterday and as Anthony Gucciardi subsequently confirmed, two of the suspicious individuals identified on the scene of the Boston bombings wearing identical clothing and large black backpacks (one white, one darker skinned) are likely to be employees of Craft International, a Blackwater-style private military/security firm.


  12. #32
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    terrorism is generally accepted to mean a method to further political goals.
    I understand that there are technical delineations. My point is that there isn't any tangible difference in the level of terror inflicted on society and civilians between acts officially deemed terrorism vs. mass killing.

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    9,098
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Fair enough, but at the end of the day, you're arguing semantics. Legally, it's important, but culturally, psychologically, and physically the act is equally as destructive.
    Patently false, this has nothing to do with semantics. The way someone comes to terms with being a victim (or even witness) of violence is usually dictated by the type of violence. 'Why' is possibly the most important question asked, and generally the hardest to come to terms with. The act is destructive, but how it is dealt with culturally and psychologically has a lot to do with the 'why'.

    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    The motivation and intent are to cause devastation to a society by targeting and attacking civilians. This describes all of the attacks regardless of the intentions being political or psychotic in nature.
    Again, untrue. The mass shootings in Aurora and Newtown are most likely the result of some form of narcisstic/sociopathic behavior that was more about the perpetrator than the victims. With terrorism, the opposite is true; it's less about the individual and more about ideology/politics. Your comparison of the former with the latter is wholly incorrect in its premise.

  14. #34
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    Patently false, this has nothing to do with semantics. The way someone comes to terms with being a victim (or even witness) of violence is usually dictated by the type of violence. 'Why' is possibly the most important question asked, and generally the hardest to come to terms with. The act is destructive, but how it is dealt with culturally and psychologically has a lot to do with the 'why'.



    Again, untrue. The mass shootings in Aurora and Newtown are most likely the result of some form of narcisstic/sociopathic behavior that was more about the perpetrator than the victims. With terrorism, the opposite is true; it's less about the individual and more about ideology/politics. Your comparison of the former with the latter is wholly incorrect in its premise.
    Fair enough, and I respect your opinion, which is definitely in the majority. Society has found it important to characterize intent, and in this case, it is no different.

    Another example is certain crimes getting classified as hate crimes and being prosecuted with a stiffer penalty. In my mind, a murder is a murder and an assault is an assault regardless of the thought process of the individual committing the act. It's a slippery slope to judge and determine what are essentially thought crimes. At the same time, I understand the need for society to take criminal intent into consideration when determining the proper response and justice.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    "Cling to labels"? It's terminology that dictates what things are, how they are defined and dealt with, in both a prosecutorial and humanistic sense. As for your question, the main delineation between the them would be the motivation, the intent. That's not what I would consider an insignificant detail.
    How do we know that this isn't any different than Newton or Aurora if we don't know intent? If that's the case calling this an act of terror might be wrong. Although clearly the attack in both Newton and the movie theatre terrorized the public. Random violence generally has impact on more than just the immediate victims regardless of intent.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 04-18-2013 at 01:59 PM.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    How do we know that this isn't any different than Newton or Aurora if we don't know intent? If that's the case calling this an act of terror might be wrong. Although clearly the attack in both Newton and the movie theatre terrorized the public. Random violence generally has impact on more than just the immediate victims regardless of intent.
    Yes, I agree with you. We as a nation are way to impatient when it comes to this stuff.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    That's how Obuttocks referred to it; also used some other euphemisms.

    Now the popular theory is "domestic terrorism" (which according to some in this administration, could be Catholics or the Tea Party or Evangical Protestants).

    So now its a "terrorist act". Must be careful to call it the correct thing...
    Thank you for maybe the dumbest thread ever. What was Obama supposed to do? Say "good job"?

  18. #38
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,194
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    Thank you for maybe the dumbest thread ever. What was Obama supposed to do? Say "good job"?
    Obama could say anything and it would be completely wrong.

    He is the embodiment of pure evil. He is the plague of locusts. The wild beast rising from the sea with seven heads and ten horns. He is the lizard with the forked tongue who spews frogs from his mouth. The bowl of anger that is poured on the earth when the seventh seal is broken. The destroyer of worlds.

    Wharg.

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    9,098
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Fair enough, and I respect your opinion, which is definitely in the majority. Society has found it important to characterize intent, and in this case, it is no different.

    Another example is certain crimes getting classified as hate crimes and being prosecuted with a stiffer penalty. In my mind, a murder is a murder and an assault is an assault regardless of the thought process of the individual committing the act. It's a slippery slope to judge and determine what are essentially thought crimes. At the same time, I understand the need for society to take criminal intent into consideration when determining the proper response and justice.
    Good point about hate crimes and thought crimes as a whole, hadn't thought of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    How do we know that this isn't any different than Newton or Aurora if we don't know intent? If that's the case calling this an act of terror might be wrong. Although clearly the attack in both Newton and the movie theatre terrorized the public. Random violence generally has impact on more than just the immediate victims regardless of intent.
    You're right, we don't know intent, but we do know the mechanism. Generally, individuals who utilize this tactic are terrorists by definition, although there are certainly cases where they were "simply" deranged individuals, not political ideologues.

    I'm not disputing the effect that large acts of violence have on populations. I am disputing that the mechanism/motivation is important for the purposes of prosecution and the healing for the survivors.

  20. #40
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,892
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Obama could say anything and it would be completely wrong.

    He is the embodiment of pure evil. He is the plague of locusts. The wild beast rising from the sea with seven heads and ten horns. He is the lizard with the forked tongue who spews frogs from his mouth. The bowl of anger that is poured on the earth when the seventh seal is broken. The destroyer of worlds.

    Wharg.
    Way too much drama, nancy. more like he's a liar, hypocritical, and sucks at being POTUS.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us