Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Once you decide to kill people, you don't deserve any more rights.
Once you decide to kill people, you don't deserve any more rights.
Well then no matter why they did not kill many people still does not matter if that was their goal. Now if their goal was just to kill people any number of people or to make a point they were successful on both counts.
USincognito said:This is obviously the work of the Jews. Why else would Steven Spielberg have been there?
Google image search result.
While it's an axiomatic definition, terrorism is defined as acts meant to terrorize. Than including bombing attacks that merely blow up empty buildings to those which cause mass casualties. The goal of the bomber was clearly to kill and maim, but the primary goal was to effect the psyche of all Americans.
Hi, MuslimahAt the Atlantic, security expert Bruce Schneier has a short but compelling article on how urgent it is that we not react to this Boston attack irrationally or with exaggerated fear, and that we particularly remain vigilant against government attempts to exploit fear to impose all new rights-reducing measures. He notes in particular how the more unusual an event is (such as this sort of attack on US soil), the more our brains naturally exaggerate its significance and frequency (John Cole makes a similar point).
In sum, even if the perpetrators of Monday's attack in Boston turn out to be politically motivated and subscribers to an anti-US ideology, it will still be a very rare event, one that poses far less danger to Americans than literally countless other threats. The most important lesson of the excesses arising from the 9/11 attacks should be this one: that the dangers of overreacting and succumbing to irrational fear are far, far greater than any other dangers posed by these type of events.
The Boston bombing produces familiar and revealing reactions | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:Why? Would you not be happy to find them dead? honest question.We can't question the dead. If we find the cowards alive we can find out who they are, why they did what they did and maybe who else was involved. Not that we can't potentially find these things out via investigation later but it'd be much easier if we have a living prisoner to interrogate.
While I can understand the psychological need to try and make sense of what seems to be a very senseless act, I don't understand how some people can be so quick to jump to very specific conspiracy theories.
Just logged in to say I was looking forward to all the zany conspiracy theories this would surely generate, but I see i'm already late. What DID conspiracy nutters do before the internet?
Until I saw people here calling Israel a terrorist state, and news reports trying to link the bombing to "right wing crazies" (translation: Christians)
Once you decide to kill people, you don't deserve any more rights.
Sounds like you've done yourself out of your rights IEPthey should be put to death.
How do you know if someone's killed anyone without giving them a fair trial?Once you decide to kill people, you don't deserve any more rights.
How do you know if someone's killed anyone without giving them a fair trial?
Victims don't get trials and that is sad, but the trials are because we, all of us, deserve a just society.
...So your argument contradicts itself on a ridiculous level.
And I invite people into dialogues with me all the time. At the university I went to, I was part of a Muslim group that had a table set out each week to talk about my religion. I got into very, very long conversations with religious Christians who were trying to disprove my religion (which always fails).
The only thing that was off-limits was if they were using language that a.) was insulting and b.) could've been said much more politely which would show sincerity in talking to me.
If it reached that point, I would simply say that we were done until they wanted to come back and speak more respectfully. And I believe we have reached this point.
So Israel not only gets control of another land, they get control of international waters and can tell people what to do there?
Secondly, the Palestinians would not shoot rockets if a.) Israel did not take the land from them in the first place
b.) hadn't created unbearable living conditions and
c.) (ties in with b) hadn't enforced a blockade designed to starve the Gazans.
Anyways, I'm not really interested in a discussion about Palestine. I have discovered that there is no reasoning with the staunchest Zionists, no matter how compelling the evidence. All that results in is me being exhausted and a whole bunch of hours wasted.
(bolding mine)
Let me guess: They "failed" because you refused to talk about anything once they didn't acknowledge that the koran was the words of God
Not if the bloackade is illegal.
Carry on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?