Terrorist Attack in Chattanooga, 4 Marines Murdered

[spurraider21]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/us/tennessee-naval-reserve-shooting/

shooter revealed to be Mohammed Youssuf Abdulazeez

[spurraider21]

saw the thread in the club, figured it should go in this forum, too

[ElNono]

FWIW, gunman was killed at the scene

[spurraider21]

FWIW, gunman was killed at the scene
thank god

[ElNono]

Killer also nationalized US citizen. Apparently, he's been here long enough, he attended high school and college in TN.

[spurraider21]

Killer also nationalized US citizen. Apparently, he's been here long enough, he attended high school and college in TN.
Multiple people who said they went to Red Bank High School with Abdulazeez sent the Times Free Press photos of what appears to be his senior picture and senior quote in the school's yearbook.
"My name causes national security alerts," the quote reads. "What does yours do?"

[ElNono]

Meanwhile, how much money are we still blowing on the TSA? (not the poster)

[SupremeGuy]

But but but muslims aren't the problem... :cry

[baseline bum]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/us/tennessee-naval-reserve-shooting/

shooter revealed to be Mohammed Youssuf Abdulazeez

I hope those 72 Jacobs are worth it for him.

[ChumpDumper]

But but but muslims aren't the problem... :cryThis is a stupid post.

[LnGrrrR]

If only more people had guns, this man would have been stopped earlier! [/conservative]

[Infinite_limit]

DUI in July

[Clipper Nation]

If only more people had guns, this man would have been stopped earlier! [/conservative]

Nah, we need more "gun-free zones." Clearly, they're keeping people safe. In fact, we need to ban all guns, because criminals totally respect laws. Finally, we need to use the power of the state to force the rich to redistribute their wealth, since every crime that isn't white-collar is only because of "income inequality" and nothing else! [/libtard]

[Infinite_limit]

MUH DIK [/Kool]

[LnGrrrR]

You know, that's a good point CN. Maybe everyone should be given a gun, free of charge, in order to ensure everyone's 2nd Amendment is being fulfilled! Universal gun care! (I actually am fine with the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not dumb enough to think that less guns wouldn't equal less gun deaths/crimes... the data is pretty overwhelmingly solid on that, unless you think America is the world's exception to that.)

[Spurminator]

Anybody got any "disturbed lone wolf" news stories they can share? Has Lindsey Graham said anything about mental illness yet?

[boutons_deux]

Anybody got any "disturbed lone wolf" news stories they can share? Has Lindsey Graham said anything about mental illness yet?

"Ebola and ISIS are comin' to kill us all!" -- Lindsay Graham

[boutons_deux]

Repugs REFUSE to vote on funds for fighting ISIS.

Repugs VOW to kill the Iran deal.

Fuck Repugs to hell.

[boutons_deux]

But but but muslims aren't the problem... :cry

Happy to see you finally got that right.

[m>s]

He he was probably radicalized on the Internet! Probably! Oy vey time to shut it down.


http://youtu.be/XzpgjcWZiXw

[DarrinS]

Zero people surprised by the identity of the shooter

[Ghazi]

Its too easy to get a hold of a gun in the USA... this has become very obvious with all the random shootings recently.

[Ghazi]

Zero people surprised by the identity of the shooter

Whites and Muslims do the same
amount of shootings in UsA

[ChumpDumper]

Zero people surprised by the identity of the shooterDarrin is relieved this happened to take the heat off SAWMs after Charleston.

[Winehole23]

Darrin does a touchdown dance whenever the news seems to confirm his bigotry against Muslims.

[m>s]

Darrin does a touchdown dance whenever the news seems to confirm his bigotry against Muslims.
Bigotry against Muslims Lel what do you call what they do to ALL non muzzies brah

[DarrinS]

:cry Why did it have to be a Muslim? :cry

[ChumpDumper]

:madrun Thank Allah it was a Muslim this time! :madrun

[DarrinS]

#Chattanooga Media keeps saying "We don't know the movitation." I'm sure it'll be as surprising as the name was.

[ChumpDumper]

I completely acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism.

Do you acknowledge domestic non-Muslim terrorism, Darrin?

Yes or no.

[DarrinS]

I completely acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism.

Do you acknowledge domestic non-Muslim terrorism, Darrin?

Yes or no.


Yes

[ChumpDumper]

YesSo what the fuck is your problem?

[DarrinS]

So what the fuck is your problem?


Why are you so angry?

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you so angry?Not angry.

You're upset by someone else's profanity?

I can tone it down for you if you're getting too flustered to answer a simple question.

If you aren't upset, you could simply answer the question.

[boutons_deux]

white terrrorism?

Jade Helm 15 watchdog writes off liberals as ‘useless': ‘I can’t wait to kill thousands of these f*cks’

http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Peter-Lanteri-Facebook-410x220.png

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/jade-helm-15-watchdog-writes-off-liberals-as-useless-i-cant-wait-to-kill-thousands-of-these-fcks/

[SupremeGuy]

This is a stupid post.Excellent argument, david. Please tell me how those Christian bakers are a problem but barbaric islam isn't...

[ChumpDumper]

Excellent argument, david. Please tell me how those Christian bakers are a problem but barbaric islam isn't...Who's David?

Speaking for myself, Islam itself isn't a problem, just as Christianity itself isn't a problem.

[SupremeGuy]

So what the fuck is your problem?That you don't care when barbaric savages from a sub-human culture and religion continue to attack America but you flip out when Christian bakers don't want to bake a cake for a lesbian couple. Basically, that you're just fucking stupid, david.

[SupremeGuy]

Who's David?

Speaking for myself, Islam itself isn't a problem, just as Christianity itself isn't a problem.Just as you continue to deny that you're david, you continue to deny that barbaric islam and the sub-humans that worship their pedophile god are a fucking problem. Keep your head in the sand, david, go ahead.

[Infinite_limit]

Have to respect this guy for attacking the source: American troops not civilians. The only thing better would have been Government building

[ChumpDumper]

Just as you continue to deny that you're david, you continue to deny that barbaric islam and the sub-humans that worship their pedophile god are a fucking problem. Keep your head in the sand, david, go ahead.What makes you think my name is David? Post your case.


Speaking for myself, Islam itself isn't a problem, just as Christianity itself isn't a problem. Fundamentalist idiots who follow each of these religions and others are the real problem.

[SupremeGuy]

What makes you think my name is David? Post your case.


Speaking for myself, Islam itself isn't a problem, just as Christianity itself isn't a problem. Fundamentalist idiots who follow each of these religions and others are the real problem.Listen david, what will it take for you to admit that barbaric islam and the sub-humans that worship their pedophile god are a problem? Do they need to rape and stone more little girls in front of you? Behead more groups of homosexuals? At what point, david?

[ChumpDumper]

Listen david, what will it take for you to admit that barbaric islam and the sub-humans that worship their pedophile god are a problem? Do they need to rape and stone more little girls in front of you? Behead more groups of homosexuals? At what point, david?Who's David?

Speaking for myself, Islam itself isn't a problem, just as Christianity itself isn't a problem. Fundamentalist idiots who follow each of these religions and others are the real problem.

You're just one of those simple guys who wants everything to be simple enough for a simple guy like you to understand simply.

Christianity = Good, never ever bad.

Islam = Evil, never ever anything else.

I understand that's how things have to be for you. You couldn't function otherwise. More intelligent people know that what you want to believe is not the actual case.

[SupremeGuy]

Why do you hate little girls, women, homosexuals, and non-muslims so much, david? You realize that the very same barbaric savages that you'll defend to your last ignorant breath would also jump at the chance to behead you for your support of human rights, right?

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you hate little girls, women, homosexuals, and non-muslims so much, david? You realize that the very same barbaric savages that you'll defend to your last ignorant breath would also jump at the chance to behead you for your support of human rights, right?When have I ever defended fundamentalists of any stripe?

Never.

Your simple mind works only in straw.

You're really not very intelligent at all.

[SupremeGuy]

I asked you a question, david. At what point will you admit that barbaric islam and the sub-humans that worship their pedophile god are a problem? How many little girls need to be raped and stoned? How many groups of homosexuals need to die because you won't admit there's a problem?

[SupremeGuy]

When have I ever defended fundamentalists of any stripe?

Never.

Your simple mind works only in straw.

You're really not very intelligent at all.So at what point, david? Do you need to see one of the barbaric savages rape little girls like their pepophile god in front of you? Would that do the trick?

[ChumpDumper]

So at what point, david? Do you need to see one of the barbaric savages rape little girls like their pepophile god in front of you? Would that do the trick?Do what trick?

I already condemn violent fundamentalists. Don't like them one bit.

[SupremeGuy]

So at what point will you admit that barbaric islam is a problem? Just give me a number, david. How many little girls need to be raped and stoned? How many groups of homosexuals getting beheaded/burned alive/killed does it take for david to put his political correctness aside and admit that this group of sub-humans and their barbaric culture and religion are a problem? Don't run away now.

[ChumpDumper]

So at what point will you admit that barbaric islam is a problem? Just give me a number, david. How many little girls need to be raped and stoned? How many groups of homosexuals getting beheaded/burned alive/killed does it take for david to put his political correctness aside and admit that this group of sub-humans and their barbaric culture and religion are a problem? Don't run away now.As I said and you couldn't comprehend, I already condemn violent fundamentalists. Don't like them one bit.

What part of that do you not understand?

Who's David?

[TheSanityAnnex]

boutons deflecting and chump derailing. nothing to see here.

[SupremeGuy]

Stop dodging the question, david. Why are you so scared to give me a number? How many little girls need to be raped and stoned? How many groups of homosexuals getting beheaded/burned alive/killed does it take for david to put his political correctness aside and admit that this group of sub-humans and their barbaric culture and religion are a problem? Don't run away now.

[SupremeGuy]

boutons deflecting and chump derailing. nothing to see here.It's like every other thread they post in, tbh. :lol

They know they don't have shit for an argument so they fall back on what they usually do.

[ChumpDumper]

Stop dodging the question, david. Why are you so scared to give me a number? How many little girls need to be raped and stoned? How many groups of homosexuals getting beheaded/burned alive/killed does it take for david to put his political correctness aside and admit that this group of sub-humans and their barbaric culture and religion are a problem? Don't run away now.False premise. I already condemn violent fundamentalists. Don't like them one bit.

I can't make you smart enough to understand the preceding sentence. Not even Christian God could do that.

[ChumpDumper]

boutons deflecting and chump derailing. nothing to see here.What would you have people posting, TSA?

[SupremeGuy]

I'm waiting for a number, david. Just throw one out. I'm genuinely curious to know if your political correctness has a limit or not.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm waiting for a number, david. Just throw one out. I'm genuinely curious to know if your political correctness has a limit or not.I know you will never stop building straw men. You should realize that no matter how many you build, they are still just straw men. But you aren't smart enough to realize that.

And who is David?

[SupremeGuy]

Still no number, david? What's the limit of your political correctness? How many homosexuals need to be beheaded by primitive muslims for you to admit there's a problem?

[ChumpDumper]

Still no number, david? What's the limit of your political correctness? How many homosexuals need to be beheaded by primitive muslims for you to admit there's a problem?Do you know even know what a straw man is?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

And who is David?

[Trill Clinton]

We don't know the shooter's motivation to blame it on his religion. I remember someone saying the same thing when racist sawm Dillon roof killed the Charleston 9.

[SupremeGuy]

Still waiting for a number, david. How many homosexuals need to be beheaded by this primitive culture and religion for you to admit there's a problem?

[ChumpDumper]

:madrunOK, let's see if you have the balls to do this:

Here is a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Post the first three paragraphs of this wiki article, starting from "A straw man..." and ending with "issue" -- then try to ask me the same question you have been asking me all along.

I bet you won't do it.

Your refusal to do this will answer your own questions.

[DisAsTerBot]

oh look someone who hates chumps antics is acting just like him...
we already know how this plays out.

[SupremeGuy]

We don't know the shooter's motivation to blame it on his religion.http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11/119238/2928543-524906464-Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

He worships a pedophile warlord... but you don't know enough about him? :lol

[SupremeGuy]

:cryDon't cry, david. I just want a number. Why does that scare you so much?

[ChumpDumper]

:madrun


OK, let's see if you have the balls to do this:

Here is a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Post the first three paragraphs of this wiki article, starting from "A straw man..." and ending with "issue" -- then try to ask me the same question you have been asking me all along.

I bet you won't do it.

Your refusal to do this will answer your own questions.Yep, you answered your own question.

And shit all over yourself.

Thanks for admitting you made it all up.

Sorry you weren't smart enough to stop while you were behind.

[ChumpDumper]

And who's David?

[ChumpDumper]

Here, I'll do it for you since you are so terrified of wikipedia:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

[SupremeGuy]

Still no number, david? Just let me know when you're done running from the question.

[Trill Clinton]

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11/119238/2928543-524906464-Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

He worships a pedophile warlord... but you don't know enough about him? :lol

In the Dillon roof thread the first post u made was saying we don't know his motivation for killing 9 blacks in a church. It's your logic, doggie.

[SupremeGuy]

In the Dillon roof thread the first post u made was saying we don't know his motivation for killing 9 blacks in a church. It's your logic, doggie.Did he worship a child rapist? Was he part of a barbaric, primitive religion known for terrorism?

[SupremeGuy]

Listen david, this thread isn't going good for you. Why don't you go start a thread talking about how Christian bakers are destroying this country?

[DarrinS]

Not angry.

You're upset by someone else's profanity?

I can tone it down for you if you're getting too flustered to answer a simple question.

If you aren't upset, you could simply answer the question.


Which question did I not answer?

[SnakeBoy]

Zero people surprised by the identity of the shooter


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8cRvZZv44

[DarrinS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8cRvZZv44

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Still no number, david? Just let me know when you're done running from the question.Still making straw men?


Listen david, this thread isn't going good for you. Why don't you go start a thread talking about how Christian bakers are destroying this country?Listen Sissy, this thread isn't going well for you. Why don't you go start building straw men in a cornfield where they might be effective?

[ChumpDumper]

Which question did I not answer?What is your problem?

[SupremeGuy]

I'm still waiting, david. How many mass homosexual executions will it take for you to admit that primitive islam and the sub-humans that practice it are a problem?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm still waiting, david. How many mass homosexual executions will it take for you to admit that primitive islam and the sub-humans that practice it are a problem?A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

[SupremeGuy]

:cryStill no number, david?

[ChumpDumper]

Still no number, david?A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

[SupremeGuy]

:cryStill no number, david?

[DarrinS]

What is your problem?

Already answered

[spurraider21]

We don't know the shooter's motivation to blame it on his religion. I remember someone saying the same thing when racist sawm Dillon roof killed the Charleston 9.
meh. if we're going to jump to conclusions when a white guy kills people, why cant we do it here?

[Clipper Nation]

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When strongly attacked he changes the subject with a diversionary counterattack. For example, if in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him to him as a "sonofabitch", Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for the insult to his own mother, but will castigate his opponent on behalf all mothers everywhere. Knowing full well that staying on topic works to his disadvantage, Artful Dodger will not allow himself to be pinned down.

Like his Congressional namesake, Filibuster attempts to influence the forum simply by holding the floor. His monotonous hectoring and prodigious output of verbiage rapidly clears the field of other Warriors.

The most common variants of Ideologueare conservative and liberal. Smug and self satisfied in their certitudes, Ideologue's opinions are merely a loose collection of intellectual conceits, and e is genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant that his views are not universally embraced as the Truth. He regards the opposing point of view as a form of cognitive dissonance whose only cure is relentless propagandizing and browbeating. The conservative iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker, while the liberal version trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness.

Nitpick compensates for his limited fighting ability by pouncing on points that are only marginally relevant to the discussion. For example, if his opponent in a sports forum conflict casually mentioned the Cubs' 4-2 victory in the 1908 World Series, Nitpick would quickly counterattack with something like, "4-2 !? Any moron knows the Cubs won the Series 4-1! Someone so ignorant about baseball history can't possibly know anything about salary caps!" Even if the minor point is conceded by his opponent Nitpick will return to it whenever the battle turns against him. Though weak, Nitpick is very tenacious and will never admit defeat. Nitpick is a close ally of Artful Dodger. (http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm)



For Tireless Rebutter there is no such thing as a trivial dispute. He regards all challenges as barbarians at the gates. His unflagging tenacity in making his points numbs and eventually wears down the opposition. Confident that his arguments are sound, Tireless Rebutter can't understand why he is universally loathed.

[TeyshaBlue]

Still no number, david?

Weak sauce

[SupremeGuy]

Weak sauceI know. David simply refuses to give me a number.

[ChumpDumper]

I know. David simply refuses to give me a number.He was talking about you, genius.


Keep pitching that straw. CN will still love you.

[ChumpDumper]

Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When strongly attacked he changes the subject with a diversionary counterattack. For example, if in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him to him as a "sonofabitch", Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for the insult to his own mother, but will castigate his opponent on behalf all mothers everywhere. Knowing full well that staying on topic works to his disadvantage, Artful Dodger will not allow himself to be pinned down.

Like his Congressional namesake, Filibuster attempts to influence the forum simply by holding the floor. His monotonous hectoring and prodigious output of verbiage rapidly clears the field of other Warriors.

The most common variants of Ideologueare conservative and liberal. Smug and self satisfied in their certitudes, Ideologue's opinions are merely a loose collection of intellectual conceits, and e is genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant that his views are not universally embraced as the Truth. He regards the opposing point of view as a form of cognitive dissonance whose only cure is relentless propagandizing and browbeating. The conservative iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker, while the liberal version trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness.

Nitpick compensates for his limited fighting ability by pouncing on points that are only marginally relevant to the discussion. For example, if his opponent in a sports forum conflict casually mentioned the Cubs' 4-2 victory in the 1908 World Series, Nitpick would quickly counterattack with something like, "4-2 !? Any moron knows the Cubs won the Series 4-1! Someone so ignorant about baseball history can't possibly know anything about salary caps!" Even if the minor point is conceded by his opponent Nitpick will return to it whenever the battle turns against him. Though weak, Nitpick is very tenacious and will never admit defeat. Nitpick is a close ally of Artful Dodger. (http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm)



For Tireless Rebutter there is no such thing as a trivial dispute. He regards all challenges as barbarians at the gates. His unflagging tenacity in making his points numbs and eventually wears down the opposition. Confident that his arguments are sound, Tireless Rebutter can't understand why he is universally loathed.





None of this applies here.

Except your being an ideologue.

Sorry.

Keep trying.

[Clipper Nation]

None of this applies here.

Except your being an ideologue.

Sorry.

Keep trying.
All of those descriptions apply perfectly to your posting style, David.

[Clipper Nation]

He was talking about you, genius.


Keep pitching that straw. CN will still love you.
Why didn't you do your usual "Who's David?" schtick in this post, David? Freudian slip?

[ChumpDumper]

Why didn't you do your usual "Who's David?" schtick in this post, David? Freudian slip?Do you miss it, Claudia?

[SupremeGuy]

He was talking about you, genius.


Keep pitching that straw. CN will still love you.I'm still waiting for a number, david. Or is there no amount of homosexual executions committed in the name of savage islam that will ever convince you that their primitive culture and religion are a problem? That's pretty fucked up, david. Tell us more about how Christian bakers are destroying the World again?

[SupremeGuy]

Why didn't you do your usual "Who's David?" schtick in this post, David? Freudian slip?David simply forgot CN, please don't pick on him. He's been getting it from both ends today. Not only in this thread, but in at least one other one that I saw.

[TeyshaBlue]

I know. David simply refuses to give me a number.

An arbitrary number is irrelevant. So is your use of the name.

[TeyshaBlue]

Why didn't you do your usual "Who's David?" schtick in this post, David? Freudian slip?

Obsession confirmed.

[m>s]

Did I ever tell you guys how I know 100% that chump is David kimbrell? Everyone saw the Facebook but David kimbrell also had a MySpace page full of Austin Toros pictures that has since been deleted. And I know SA210 didn't create it himself because the join date was like 2006. So not only did they already suspect it was him but the odds of another Autist in Austin being that obsessed with the Toros is nil.

[SupremeGuy]

An arbitrary number is irrelevant. So is your use of the name.


Obsession confirmed.Obsession? You're the one double posting so you can be a semen shield for david, tbh. :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Even weaker. :facepalm

[Th'Pusher]

No shit. SupremeGuy, just back out of the thread. You're so far gone it's embarrassing.

[SupremeGuy]

Even weaker. :facepalmYeah, weak shit. You're literally nothing but a semen shield for david kimbrell in this thread. :lol

Don't you have any respect for yourself?


:cry

[m>s]

Why are you guys defending a cuckold?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm still waiting for a number, david. Or is there no amount of homosexual executions committed in the name of savage islam that will ever convince you that their primitive culture and religion are a problem? That's pretty fucked up, david. Tell us more about how Christian bakers are destroying the World again?http://westchestertownhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Straw-Man_500.gif

[SupremeGuy]

Why are you guys defending a cuckold?Cuckolds fly together, tbh.

[SupremeGuy]

:cryStill waiting for a number, david kimbrell.

[ChumpDumper]

Did I ever tell you guys how I know 100% that chump is David kimbrell? Everyone saw the Facebook but David kimbrell also had a MySpace page full of Austin Toros pictures that has since been deleted. And I know SA210 didn't create it himself because the join date was like 2006. So not only did they already suspect it was him but the odds of another Autist in Austin being that obsessed with the Toros is nil.Except none of that is true at all.

Nice try though.

[ChumpDumper]

Still waiting for a number, david kimbrell.Who is David Kimbrell?

Did you ever figure out what a straw man is?

[SupremeGuy]

Who is David Kimbrell?

Did you ever figure out what a straw man is?So still not giving us a number, huh david kimbrell? That's too bad.

[ChumpDumper]

So still not giving us a number, huh david kimbrell? That's too bad.Who is David Kimbrell?

And have you figured out what a straw man is yet?

[m>s]

Except none of that is true at all.

Nice try though.
Deny deny deny

[ChumpDumper]

:cry No really. It was a Myspace page! I'm just talking about it now because my life was in danger back then and I was acting like a black man! :cry

[TheSanityAnnex]

Saw this had gone a few more pages since I last read and expected some interesting developments in the story. I see it's just chumpdumper talking about anything but the OP.

[m>s]

Schizophrenic is hearing things and making up quotes lol. I know what I saw and it's the truth, David kimbrell is a big Austin Toros fan take that for what it's worth.

[SupremeGuy]

Who is David Kimbrell?

And have you figured out what a straw man is yet?What's so hard about giving us a number, david?

[Infinite_limit]

Saw this had gone a few more pages since I last read and expected some interesting developments in the story. I see it's just chumpdumper talking about anything but the OP.
Chumpy could entertain his own sub-forum

[Splits]

Thoughts and prayers to the deceased and their families.

But how is attacking a hostile military installation "terrorism"? Do you know how many innocent people are killed each year by drones in Arab countries? How are flying bomb dropping robots not "terrorism"?

The USS Cole was docked in a Yemeni port, a legitimate target (imagine if an Iranian battleship was refueling in Galveston) yet it is deemed "terrorism"?

The word has no meaning other than "violence by Muslims against the West".

[LnGrrrR]

Thoughts and prayers to the deceased and their families.

But how is attacking a hostile military installation "terrorism"? Do you know how many innocent people are killed each year by drones in Arab countries? How are flying bomb dropping robots not "terrorism"?

The USS Cole was docked in a Yemeni port, a legitimate target (imagine if an Iranian battleship was refueling in Galveston) yet it is deemed "terrorism"?

The word has no meaning other than "violence by Muslims against the West".

The word is hard to define down. Some might argue that, because the shooter did not wear military markings and isn't part of a unit, it could be considered "terrorism" as it was an attack based on political leanings. Of course, there's probably a ton of those kinds of attacks in US all the time... it's just that the person's name isn't Arabic so.. .*shrug*

[boutons_deux]

good point. Terrorism is commonly meant to be violence against, intimidation of non-military, like USA bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or fire-bombing Dresden.

Even if this guy were not official military, attacking against US military aggressors would qualify him as combatant.

10Ks of non military in Iraq and Afghanistan have been attacking US and other military invaders for years. US invaders call them terrorists to denigrate them, but they are engaging in military warfare against state military, not terrorism.

[Bonner4MVP]

Does anybody here actually care about innocent people you know...dying? Or is it a rush to the keyboard to start the e-arguments?

[Th'Pusher]

Why are you guys defending a cuckold?
No defense. SupremeGuy's arguing tactics are just really childish. He's an imbecile clanging away at keyboard. Clearly not an intelligent man. Do you think Supremeguy's aruguments are intelligent?

[LnGrrrR]

good point. Terrorism is commonly meant to be violence against, intimidation of non-military, like USA bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or fire-bombing Dresden.

Even if this guy were not official military, attacking against US military aggressors would qualify him as combatant.

10Ks of non military in Iraq and Afghanistan have been attacking US and other military invaders for years. US invaders call them terrorists to denigrate them, but they are engaging in military warfare against state military, not terrorism.

There's more than that needed to be defined as a lawful combatant. You have to bear arms openly, wear uniforms, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant

[boutons_deux]

There's more than that needed to be defined as a lawful combatant. You have to bear arms openly, wear uniforms, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant

"lawful" ? :lol

Anybody taking up arms to fight an UNlawful invader is a combatant.

Of course, the unlawful invader will consider such combatants "unprivileged", eg, lock them in GITMO for many years without trial or charge, submit them to torture and degradation, breaking all the laws of "legal" warfare, reinforcing the unlawful invader/jail-keep as insanely, sadisticly unlawful.

Military people sign up to kill or be killed. This week's combatant realized those guys' sign up risks.

I expect this week's attack to be used by NSA/CIA/FBI/militarized-police-surveillance-state to screw Americans out fo the Constitutional rights even more. In that sense, this week's "combatant", like OBL did, managed to kill much more than a few "privileged" combatants.

[tlongII]

"lawful" ? :lol

Anybody taking up arms to fight an UNlawful invader is a combatant.

Of course, the unlawful invader will consider such combatants "unprivileged", eg, lock them in GITMO for many years without trial or charge, submit them to torture and degradation, breaking all the laws of "legal" warfare, reinforcing the unlawful invader/jail-keep as insanely, sadisticly unlawful.

Military people sign up to kill or be killed. This week's combatant realized those guys' sign up risks.

I expect this week's attack to be used by NSA/CIA/FBI/militarized-police-surveillance-state to screw Americans out fo the Constitutional rights even more. In that sense, this week's "combatant", like OBL did, managed to kill much more than a few "privileged" combatants.

You fucking idiot. That guy was a terrorist. Plain and simple.

[Clipper Nation]

Does anybody here actually care about innocent people you know...dying? Or is it a rush to the keyboard to start the e-arguments?
CumDumpster derails every thread that doesn't fit the lib agenda.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Military people sign up to kill or be killed. This week's combatant realized those guys' sign up risks.


Military people sign up to kill or be killed in war. Were these recruiters fighting a war on US soil?

[TheSanityAnnex]

It's sickening to know boutons takes pleasure in these Marines deaths

[boutons_deux]

It's sickening to know boutons takes pleasure in these Marines deaths

You Lie

[Infinite_limit]

It's sickening to know boutons takes pleasure in these Marines deaths
To an extent I do. Otherwise second guessing the US military makes you a hypocrite. There is no warmongers without soldiers...... Soldiers that enlisted freely

[Splits]

The US military targets recruitment and training centers all the time, and openly brags about the "success". The pilots of those drones sit in Nevada. Sucks when it happens to us, but it was an act of war and he is/was an enemy combatant, not a terrorist. He didn't go shoot up a school or a mall.

[tlongII]

The US military targets recruitment and training centers all the time, and openly brags about the "success". The pilots of those drones sit in Nevada. Sucks when it happens to us, but it was an act of war and he is/was an enemy combatant, not a terrorist. He didn't go shoot up a school or a mall.

Bullshit. He shot up a bunch of unarmed people. Terrorism.

[TeyshaBlue]

He has an arguement?

[tlongII]

I've decided to buy a gun now and I've never owned a gun in my entire life.

[ChumpDumper]

I've decided to buy a gun now and I've never owned a gun in my entire life.1993 was the year to panic buy a gun.

[tlongII]

1993 was the year to panic buy a gun.

Why?

[ChumpDumper]

Why?That was the modern peak of gun related homicides. Pretty much downhill ever since.

You lived through that horror show. What has made you want to buy a gun now that the gun related homicide rate is about 40% lower?

[tlongII]

That was the modern peak of gun related homicides. Pretty much downhill ever since.

You lived through that horror show. What has made you want to buy a gun now that the gun related homicide rate is about 40% lower?

Terrorists.

[boutons_deux]

That was the modern peak of gun related homicides. Pretty much downhill ever since.

You lived through that horror show. What has made you want to buy a gun now that the gun related homicide rate is about 40% lower?

the NRA/GOA/gun-industry/tea-bagger/OathKeeper/paranoia propaganda is 400% more intense.

[Clipper Nation]

That was the modern peak of gun related homicides. Pretty much downhill ever since.
So gun homicides are declining even though the Second Amendment still exists and people still own guns? Thanks for proving that gun control is both unnecessary and more about the "control" part than the "gun" part, David. :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Terrorists.You think you are a terrorist target?

[ChumpDumper]

So gun homicides are declining even though the Second Amendment still exists and people still own guns? Thanks for proving that gun control is both unnecessary and more about the "control" part than the "gun" part, David. :tuIt also went to that peak when the 2nd Amendment existed and people owned guns. Congratulations, you proved nothing.

Strangely enough, the assault weapons ban was introduced in 1994.


And who is this David you keep mentioning? You look really stupid using that name since it isn't my name.

[tlongII]

You think you are a terrorist target?

Don't know. Just want to give myself a chance if so.

[Clipper Nation]

The assault weapons ban expired in 2004, yet gun homicides are still declining without it, David. If draconian gun control was necessary, you'd think the number of gun homicides would keep soaring higher and higher as long as the Second Amendment and personal gun ownership are in place.

[ChumpDumper]

The assault weapons ban expired in 2004, yet gun homicides are still declining without it, David. If draconian gun control was necessary, you'd think the number of gun homicides would keep soaring higher and higher as long as the Second Amendment and personal gun ownership are in place.But the murder rate did soar when the 2nd amendment was in effect and people owned guns, David.

What happened then, David?

[Splits]

Bullshit. He shot up a bunch of unarmed people. Terrorism.

Not according to the US government: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f


the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

[Splits]

I've decided to buy a gun now and I've never owned a gun in my entire life.

Good luck!

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/gun%20and%20terrorism%20graphic.png

[Clipper Nation]

But the murder rate did soar when the 2nd amendment was in effect and people owned guns, David.

What happened then, David?
It's also steadily declined under those same conditions, David. It's almost as if blaming things on an inanimate object is retarded.

[ChumpDumper]

It's also steadily declined under those same conditions, David. It's almost as if blaming things on an inanimate object is retarded.As retarded as crediting them, David.

[tlongII]

Not according to the US government: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f

Unarmed means non-combatant.

[Splits]

Unarmed means non-combatant.

No it doesn't :lol

[Pelicans78]

Unarmed means non-combatant.

Not any different when an overseas base is attacked.

[m>s]

As retarded as crediting them, David.
Neat shtick David you're still the one true David

[ChumpDumper]

Neat shtick David you're still the one true DavidIt's you, David. I got proof.

[m>s]

It's you, David. I got proof.
Rheres nothing wrong with being named David dude

[ChumpDumper]

Rheres nothing wrong with being named David dudeYou would know, David.

[m>s]

Yeah I always know what I'm talking about

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah I always know what I'm talking aboutOnly about being David, David.

[LnGrrrR]

"lawful" ? :lol

Anybody taking up arms to fight an UNlawful invader is a combatant.

Of course, the unlawful invader will consider such combatants "unprivileged", eg, lock them in GITMO for many years without trial or charge, submit them to torture and degradation, breaking all the laws of "legal" warfare, reinforcing the unlawful invader/jail-keep as insanely, sadisticly unlawful.

Military people sign up to kill or be killed. This week's combatant realized those guys' sign up risks.

I expect this week's attack to be used by NSA/CIA/FBI/militarized-police-surveillance-state to screw Americans out fo the Constitutional rights even more. In that sense, this week's "combatant", like OBL did, managed to kill much more than a few "privileged" combatants.

Those are specific legal terms Boutons. You have heard of the Geneva Conventions? LOAC? Etc etc? Surely you can understand that? Why else would military people wear uniforms? It certainly doesn't help from a "not getting targeted" perspective.

And of course we serve realizing we can be killed. Does that mean we don't get sympathy? When people are sad if a fire fighter dies, do you bitch over their shoulder about how he knew the risks? Fuck off you petty ankle biter. You don't help your cause by being a whiny bitch about everything.

[LnGrrrR]

To an extent I do. Otherwise second guessing the US military makes you a hypocrite. There is no warmongers without soldiers...... Soldiers that enlisted freely

And there are no criminals without jails, right?

[LnGrrrR]

The US military targets recruitment and training centers all the time, and openly brags about the "success". The pilots of those drones sit in Nevada. Sucks when it happens to us, but it was an act of war and he is/was an enemy combatant, not a terrorist. He didn't go shoot up a school or a mall.

Nope. You don't get a free pass because you are shooting soldiers. I guess it's more "admirable" than shooting up a school or random innocents, but that doesn't mean that he's a lawful combatant, by any means.

[LnGrrrR]

Note: If they worked on a military facility, they were likely "legal" targets (the only usual exception are medical personnel, which is why they are usually marked with a Red Cross/crescent/etc).

[Splits]

Nope. You don't get a free pass because you are shooting soldiers. I guess it's more "admirable" than shooting up a school or random innocents, but that doesn't mean that he's a lawful combatant, by any means.

The US military has blown up weddings and funerals multiple times over the past 14 years, with dozens dead in each bombing. Let's not get into a moral argument here, because we lose 99 times out of 100.

The dude attacked a military target. He's an enemy combatant. He's dead. He's not a terrorist.

[LnGrrrR]

Splits, lawful combatants have to bear arms openly, have to be part of an organization, etc etc. If I go to Iraq and just starting killing ISIS, I can be held accountable even though I am a soldier. I would not be a "lawful" combatant in this case, because I wouldn't be under orders, wouldn't be wearing a uniform etc etc.

Of course, this is a legal distinction, but it makes a difference. For instance, if he was captured, he certainly wouldn't be held as a POW.

[LnGrrrR]

If they wanted to stop being targeted with civilians, they could, I don't know... wear uniforms? It's be a lot easier pick them out that way.

[Splits]

Splits, lawful combatants have to bear arms openly, have to be part of an organization, etc etc. If I go to Iraq and just starting killing ISIS, I can be held accountable even though I am a soldier. I would not be a "lawful" combatant in this case, because I wouldn't be under orders, wouldn't be wearing a uniform etc etc.

Of course, this is a legal distinction, but it makes a difference. For instance, if he was captured, he certainly wouldn't be held as a POW.

What about the guys playing computer games in Nevada dropping 500-2000 pound bombs from drones 1/2 way across the world on like 10 different countries? Are they wearing a uniform and openly bearing arms?

[Splits]

If they wanted to stop being targeted with civilians, they could, I don't know... wear uniforms? It's be a lot easier pick them out that way.

How about cruise missiles launched from 1000 miles away that kill dozens of people? Are they wearing uniforms?

[LnGrrrR]

They're from a war vessal. Are you saying all combat that doesn't occur face to face isn't legal?

[boutons_deux]

lawful combatants have to bear arms

laws? what laws? :lol Does torturing USA respect "laws"?

What about USA blowing up Afghani wedding parties? any laws there? any compensation?

warfare laws? are anachronisms

[Splits]

On December 30 of last year, ABC News reported on (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/tariq-khan-killed-cia-drone/story?id=15258659#.Ty6WdVxAaYg) a 16-year-old Pakistani boy, Tariq Khan, who was killed with his 12-year-old cousin when a car in which he was riding was hit with a missile fired by a U.S. drone. As I noted at the time (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/03/matt_taibbi_on_the_2012_election/), the report contained this extraordinary passage buried in the middle:


Asked for documentation of Tariq and Waheed’s deaths, Akbar did not provide pictures of the missile strike scene. Virtually none exist, since drones often target people who show up at the scene of an attack.




What made that sentence so amazing was that it basically amounts to a report that the U.S. first kills people with drones, then fires on the rescuers and others who arrive at the scene where the new corpses and injured victims lie.

In a just-released, richly documented report (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/), the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, on behalf of the Sunday Times, documents that this is exactly what the U.S. is doing — and worse:


The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed.
The findings are published just days after President Obama claimed that the drone campaign in Pakistan was a “targeted, focused effort” that “has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties”. . . .

A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence thatat least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.
Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama.

There have been 260 attacks by unmanned Predators or Reapers in Pakistan by Obama’s administration – averaging one every four days.


As I indicated, there have been scattered, mostly buried indications in the American media that drones have been targeting and killing rescuers. As the Bureau put it: “Between May 2009 and June 2011, at least fifteen attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media, including the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/world/asia/19pstan.html?_r=1&ref=world), CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-28/world/pakistan.drone.strike_1_drone-strikes-drone-attack-tribal-region?_s=PM:WORLD), Associated Press (http://www.dailyamericannews.com/newsnow/x1738176407/Suspected-US-missiles-strikes-kill-11-in-Pakistan), ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=12489739) and Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2010/01/20101613294018697.html).” Killing civilians attending the funerals of drone victims is also well-documented by the Bureau’s new report:


Other tactics are also raising concerns. On June 23 2009 the CIA killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud, a mid-ranking Pakistan Taliban commander. They planned to use his body as bait to hook a larger fish – Baitullah Mehsud, then the notorious leader of the Pakistan Taliban.

“A plan was quickly hatched to strike Baitullah Mehsud when he attended the man’s funeral,” according to Washington Post national security correspondent Joby Warrick, in his recent book The Triple Agent (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Triple-Agent-Al-Qaeda-Mole-Infiltrated/dp/0385534183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324291025&sr=1-1). “True, the commander… happened to be very much alive as the plan took shape. But he would not be for long.”
The CIA duly killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud in a drone strike that killed at least five others. . . .

Up to 5,000 people attended Khwaz Wali Mehsud’s funeral that afternoon, including not only Taliban fighters but many civilians. US drones struck again (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html?ref=global-home), killing up to 83 people. As many as 45 were civilians, among them reportedly ten children and four tribal leaders.



The Bureau quotes several experts stating the obvious (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/a-question-of-legality/): that targeting rescuers and funeral attendees is patently illegal and almost certainly constitutes war crimes:


Clive Stafford-Smith, the lawyer who heads the Anglo-US legal charity Reprieve, believes that such strikes “are like attacking the Red Cross on the battlefield. It’s not legitimate to attack anyone who is not a combatant.”
Christof Heyns, a South African law professor who is United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extra- judicial Executions, agrees. “Allegations of repeat strikes coming back after half an hour when medical personnel are on the ground are very worrying”, he said. ‘To target civilians would be crimes of war.” Heyns is calling for an investigation into the Bureau’s findings.



What makes this even more striking is how conservative — almost to the point of inaccuracy — is the Bureau’s methodology and reporting. Its last news-making report, issued last July, was designed to prove (http://www.salon.com/2011/07/19/drones/) (and unquestionably did prove) that top Obama counter-Terrorism adviser John Brennan lied when he said this about drone strikes in Pakistan: “in the last year, ‘there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we’ve been able to develop.” The Bureau’s July, 2011 report (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/07/18/washingtons-untrue-claims-no-civilian-deaths-in-pakistan-drone-strikes/)concluded that Brennan’s claim was patently false: “a detailed examination by the Bureau of 116 CIA ‘secret’ drone strikes in Pakistan since August 2010 has uncovered at least 10 individual attacks in which 45 or more civilians appear to have died.” As I noted at the time (http://www.salon.com/2011/07/19/drones/) — and again when I interviewed Chris Woods of the Bureau (http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/07/transcript-chris-woods.html) — their methodology virtually guarantees significant under-counting of civilian deaths (and, indeed, their July, 2011, count was much lower than other credible reports (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/17/us-drone-strikes-pakistan-waziristan)) because they only count someone as a “civilian” when they can absolutely prove beyond any doubt that the person who died by a drone strike was one. The difficulty of reporting and obtaining verifiable information in Waziristan ensures that some civilian deaths will not be susceptible to that high level of documentary proof, and thus will go un-counted by the Bureau’s methodolgy.

The point is that the Bureau is extremely scrupulous, perhaps to a fault, in the claims it makes about civilian drone fatalities. Its findings here about deliberate targeting of rescuers and funeral attendees are supported by ample verified witness testimony (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/witnesses-speak-out/), field research and public reports, all of which the Bureau has documented in full (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/get-the-data-obamas-terror-drones/). As Woods said by email: “We have been working for months with field researchers in Waziristan to independently verify the original reports. In 12 cases we are able to confirm that rescuers and mourners were indeed attacked.”


As the report notes, it’s particularly remarkable that these findings come on the heels of President Obama’s recent boasting (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16804247) about the efficacy of drones and his specific claim that the policy has “not caused a huge number of civilian casualties”, adding that it was “important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.” Compare that claim to the Bureau’s almost certainly under-stated conclusion that it has “found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children.” And targeting rescuers and funeral attendees of your victims is quite the opposite of keeping the drone program on a “very tight leash.” As Samiullah Khan, one of the Bureau’s field researchers put it:

In a war situation no one is allowed to attack the Red Cross. Rescuers are like that. You are not allowed to attack rescuers. You know, the number of Taliban is increasing in Waziristan day by day, because innocents and rescuers are being killed day by day.



Strictly speaking, the legality of attacking rescuers may be ambiguous because, as the Bureau put it: “It is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions to attack rescuers wearing emblems of the Red Cross or Red Crescent. But what if rescuers wear no emblems, or if civilians are mixed in with militants, as the Bureau’s investigation into drone attacks in Waziristan has repeatedly found?” But there’s nothing ambiguous about the morality of that, or of attacking funerals (recall the worst part of theBaghdad attack video released by WikiLeaks (http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/iraq_video/): that the Apache helicopter first fired on the group containing Reuters journalists, then fired again on the people who arrived to help wounded). Whatever else is true, it seems highly likely that Barack Obama is the first Nobel Peace laureate who, after receiving his award, presided over the deliberate targeting of rescuers and funeral mourners of his victims.

[LnGrrrR]

Splits, you should probably read the Geneva Conventions, or military law. You're getting an emotional while I am describing legal terms. Whether the asymmetry is "fair" or not, the terms don't change. He's no more "legal" a combatant than if some crazy Southern redneck shot up a recruiters office trying to war against the Union.

[LnGrrrR]

laws? what laws? :lol Does torturing USA respect "laws"?

What about USA blowing up Afghani wedding parties? any laws there? any compensation?

warfare laws? are anachronisms

Obviously there are laws. Otherwise we wouldn't wear uniforms, or have ROE, or any number of things. Are those laws always obeyed, of course not. Do military leaders sometimes make immoral/wrong/etc decisions? Yes, also of course. But that doesn't invalidate the law. Just because a cop kills someone doesn't mean that laws for murder are off the book. (In practice it might hard to convict, but the law is still there.

[boutons_deux]

Knee Jerk News from the Repug Jerks

Florida governor orders National Guard recruiters to leave storefront locations


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0718/Florida-governor-orders-National-Guard-recruiters-to-leave-storefront-locations


============
After Chattanooga Shooting, Congress Pushes Against Military Recruitment Centers As ‘Gun-Free Zones’http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/18/3682124/congress-pushes-guns-military-recruitment-centers-chattanooga-shooting/

[LnGrrrR]

I have noted in other pages that if we are targeting rescuers it's a clear violation of LOAC and those responsible should be prosecuted. Again, it would be a lot easier if the terrorists wore uniforms.

[Splits]

Was the attack on the USS Cole a terrorist attack?

[Splits]

I have noted in other pages that if we are targeting rescuers it's a clear violation of LOAC and those responsible should be prosecuted.

Please point out where this has ever happened.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not digging through ST to satisfy your curiosity. Believe me or dont. And if the attack is performed by anyone that is a rogue actor, then he is not a lawful combatant. The only "law" that justifies it is the law of combat as define by Geneva Conventions. Rogue actors don't gt legal protection, whether they are targeting soldiers or civilians.

Now maybe if he were some sort of militia? I don't know the specifics on how that would break out.

And I don't know whether or not it would be legally defined as terrorism. The general definition is non-lawful (read: un sanctioned) violence to support a political cause. All I know is that he isn't a "combatant" in the same sense as other armed forces that conform to international law.

[Splits]

I'm not digging through ST to satisfy your curiosity. Believe me or dont. And if the attack is performed by anyone that is a rogue actor, then he is not a lawful combatant. The only "law" that justifies it is the law of combat as define by Geneva Conventions. Rogue actors don't gt legal protection, whether they are targeting soldiers or civilians.

Now maybe if he were some sort of militia? I don't know the specifics on how that would break out.

And I don't know whether or not it would be legally defined as terrorism. The general definition is non-lawful (read: un sanctioned) violence to support a political cause. All I know is that he isn't a "combatant" in the same sense as other armed forces that conform to international law.

:cry when it happens to us it is terrorism. when we kill them we're killing terrorists, even if it is a wedding or funeral :cry

Do you have any idea the number of bombs we drop on other countries? Imagine if those were being dropped on our states.

[LnGrrrR]

I just said I don't know if it would be defined as terrorism or not. And yes of course I know dipshit. I'm overseas right now supporting Op Inherent Resolve.

You know why they don't drop bombs? Because they can't. If they could, they would. Do you think they'd be any nicer than us?

they don't wear uniforms because they aren't insane; no way they could compete. But that also obviously increases the risk of us hitting civilian targets. They know this, and it's a calculation those forces are willing to make. Civilian losses at as"acceptable" to them as they are to us, or else they would bear arms ands insignia openly.

[Splits]

they don't wear uniforms because they aren't insane.

Do our Freedom Bombs and Liberty Drones wear uniforms? Do they distinguish between guilty and innocent? Are the "heroes" in Nevada legitimate targets? Do they wear uniforms?

[Clipper Nation]

The US military has blown up weddings and funerals multiple times over the past 14 years, with dozens dead in each bombing. Let's not get into a moral argument here, because we lose 99 times out of 100.

The dude attacked a military target. He's an enemy combatant. He's dead. He's not a terrorist.
:lmao Holy shit, this effeminate cuck is so far left, he's defending Muslim terrorists.

[Splits]

:lmao Holy shit, this effeminate cuck is so far left, he's defending Muslim terrorists.

Yeah, stating facts about the back and forth war games that go on between our country and like 15 other countries we're bombing equates to "defending".

I'm "defending" a semantic point, which is that the word "terrorist" is useless and should be abandoned.

[LnGrrrR]

Do our Freedom Bombs and Liberty Drones wear uniforms? Do they distinguish between guilty and innocent? Are the "heroes" in Nevada legitimate targets? Do they wear uniforms?

They are fired by men and women in uniform. There might be some contractors, which you might have some slight opening on. (Akin to how the law is sketchy when it comes to mercy hired by the US like Blackwater).

Anyways, obviously those operators are legitimate targets. You know who else is a legit target? My family living on base. Housing areas are legitimate areas to bomb.

But obviously now you've just been pulling a Boutons. Why don't you get pissed off at those assholes for not wearing uniforms? The only reasons the assholes in the ME don't drop bombs on us is because they CANT. Don't think they wouldn't. In a second.

Should the US do everything within its power to ensure proper use of force? Yes. Will there be collateral damage? Of course. This isn't playtime. Personally I'm for more isolationism. But you can't expect US forces to be able to hit every bad guy, and ONLY the bad guy, every time. It's unrealistic.

Or you can keep sucking this killers cock. What an "honorable" combatant he is to spray a recruiters office and then drive on base and shoot a bunch of people. A real warrior.

[LnGrrrR]

Oh and bullshit Splits with your "terrorist" argent. Point out where I called him that. All I did is call you out for implying he was a lawful combatant equivalent to a soldier. He wasn't.

[Splits]

Or you can keep sucking this killers cock. What an "honorable" combatant he is to spray a recruiters office and then drive on base and shoot a bunch of people. A real warrior.

I'm not sucking anybody's cock. I'm simply pointing out the view from "the other" side. You find drone operators as heroes, when they are blowing up wedding and funeral processions. I simply think that's not very honorable. The US military bombs recruiter offices and bases throughout the middle east with 500-2000 pound bombs daily. I don't hear you decrying the injustice when thousands of brown women and children die due to our actions.

and :lmao "collateral damage" Are you really that sick that you think thousands of dead brown women and children can just be swept under the rug by 2 words?

You're trying to justify your bloodlust through "moral relativism". It's a farce. You're guilty if you participate in the most deadly, vicious and inhumane project on earth without objection.

[Splits]

Oh and bullshit Splits with your "terrorist" argent. Point out where I called him that. All I did is call you out for implying he was a lawful combatant equivalent to a soldier. He wasn't.

What's an "argent"?

[Shastafarian]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/The_Internet_is_Serious_Business.jpg

Unfortunately I couldn't find a picture of a Palestinian on a computer (do you all even have computers in the "homeland"?) so this will have to do. Righteous indignation on a basketball message board. :lol you sure are making a difference for all those people you claim to care about.

[Clipper Nation]

I'm not sucking anybody's cock.
Other than Bruce Jenner's?

[Splits]

Other than Bruce Jenner's?

I have Caitlyn's in a formaldehyde jar in my Planned Parenthood clinic where I preform 3rd trimester abortions and sell the baby parts to Germany for Kirby's knees.

[Splits]

Other than Bruce Jenner's?

How's your anti-death-penalty crusade going? Haven't seen any threads on it. Did I miss them?

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not sucking anybody's cock. I'm simply pointing out the view from "the other" side. You find drone operators as heroes, when they are blowing up wedding and funeral processions. I simply think that's not very honorable. The US military bombs recruiter offices and bases throughout the middle east with 500-2000 (tel:500-2000) pound bombs daily. I don't hear you decrying the injustice when thousands of brown women and children die due to our actions.

and :lmao "collateral damage" Are you really that sick that you think thousands of dead brown women and children can just be swept under the rug by 2 words?

You're trying to justify your bloodlust through "moral relativism". It's a farce. You're guilty if you participate in the most deadly, vicious and inhumane project on earth without objection.

Except you are an idiot, because if you spent any time at all on these boards, you would know I'm relatively liberal, and DO decry that and note how we are probably fomenting more terrorism due to invading/attacking countries. I would rather we pull out of the majority of countries we are in, but I know we won't because oil.

Your whole argument is making things out of straw. When did I say that drone operators were "heroes"? Are you pissy because I value American lives more than ME lives? Well, sorry.

Did I say "who cares" about collateral damage? I note the reality of warfare. War sucks. But thinking there won't be any innocents killed is fanciful and stupid. Calling it "collateral" is because that's what it is; otherwise we would be intentionally indiscriminately bombing families.

Tl;dr - Maybe if you actually paid attention to anything I wrote here, you wouldn't b coming off as a pretentious fuckhead full of straw arguments... but I doubt it. Also, I'll note that you avoided every one of my questions to you. Tell me, do you think if the show WS on the other foot, they would do things better?

[Splits]

Except you are an idiot, because if you spent any time at all on these boards, you would know I'm relatively liberal, and DO decry that and note how we are probably fomenting more terrorism due to invading/attacking countries. I would rather we pull out of the majority of countries we are in, but I know we won't because oil.

Lazy excuse. Oil hasn't been cheaper than it is now for decades. It's about hegemony, influence, dominance and power. For no specific or utilitarian need, just to swing our dicks. Americans are the dumbest 1st world country on the planet, and our foreign policy decisions back that up.


Your whole argument is making things out of straw. When did I say that drone operators were "heroes"? Are you pissy because I value American lives more than ME lives? Well, sorry.

American bombs kill way more innocent women and children overseas than terrorists kill on our side of the pond. We've literally lost like 40 lives to "terrorism" in the US over the past 10 years while we have massacred thousands of innocents in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, and on and on and on.

On top of that, we arm to the teeth the most racist and violent middle eastern country (Israel) and every couple of years they slaughter 500 children and 1500 civilians as if they were brushing their teeth. It's disgusting foreign policy.

Yet we freak out because 5 of our warriors were killed.

:cry it's terrorism if it happens to us, but not to them :cry




Did I say "who cares" about collateral damage? I note the reality of warfare. War sucks. But thinking there won't be any innocents killed is fanciful and stupid. Calling it "collateral" is because that's what it is; otherwise we would be intentionally indiscriminately bombing families.

Umm, we basically are " indiscriminately bombing families". We have no clue who we are bombing:


41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147)



Which ends up killing our own POWs:


White House admits: we didn't know who drone strike was aiming to kill (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/23/drone-strike-al-qaida-targets-white-house)



Yemen?


Today's Civilian Victims in Yemen Will be Ignored Because U.S. and its Allies Are Responsible (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/06/civilian-deaths-yemen-will-ignored/)




Tl;dr - Maybe if you actually paid attention to anything I wrote here, you wouldn't b coming off as a pretentious fuckhead full of straw arguments... but I doubt it. Also, I'll note that you avoided every one of my questions to you. Tell me, do you think if the show WS on the other foot, they would do things better?

The only less moral army on the planet than the US is Israel. We both slaughter innocents. They do it by the thousands. We do it by the tens of thousands. So go fuck yourself and your military pride. I didn't avoid any of your "questions". You're reeling and it is obvious you are trying to morally justify your complicity in the murder regime that is the US military.

Fuck you.

[Shastafarian]

boutons_trois

[Splits]

:cry They hate us for our freedoms :cry

https://notesonliberty.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/iran.png

[spurraider21]

:cry They hate us for our freedoms :cry

https://notesonliberty.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/iran.png
wouldn't mind a few more stars in turkey tbh

[SupremeGuy]

It's fucking obvious that our military bombs weddings and social gatherings in the middle east for the lulz. There literally cannot be any other reason. Stop being sheep and open your eyes.

:cry

[LnGrrrR]

You're right Splits. Let me get on the phone with Obama and have us pull out. You are aware I already stated I'm for more isolationism right? Noting that I know we won't isn't the same as saying I'm for it. Reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit. As far as "morally justify" my job, it's pretty easy. Obviously, our country needs a military. From there, it's also pretty obvious that we need people to fill those slots. So there you go! Now, I ALSO think we're way more offensive than we need to be, which is why I try to vote for non-hawks. Again, do you think the asshole who shot people up is "honorable"? Do you think he wouldn't drop a bomb if he could? But go ahead and feel free to idolize ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc, because they're a much more moral military than ours because, ya know, they kill less people.

[Splits]

You're right Splits. Let me get on the phone with Obama and have us pull out.

Your dad should have pulled out.

Just kidding. I was pretty wasted last night when I said fuck you. Don't take it all back, but...


You are aware I already stated I'm for more isolationism right? Noting that I know we won't isn't the same as saying I'm for it. Reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit.

We agree here.


As far as "morally justify" my job, it's pretty easy. Obviously, our country needs a military. From there, it's also pretty obvious that we need people to fill those slots. So there you go!

It's still a choice. And you choose to participate in a morally bankrupt enterprise.


Now, I ALSO think we're way more offensive than we need to be, which is why I try to vote for non-hawks. Again, do you think the asshole who shot people up is "honorable"?

Don't disagree with the first sentence. Your second is just nonsense, I never said that faggot was honorable. Just that he attacked a military target, not a school, mall, bus, plane, etc.


Do you think he wouldn't drop a bomb if he could? But go ahead and feel free to idolize ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc, because they're a much more moral military than ours because, ya know, they kill less people.

Please. "Idolize". They're a bunch of bat crazy fuck heads who deserve to be killed wherever they are found. But the WAY we (US military) go about it is completely deranged. They don't operate by any rules. But that doesn't mean we should stoop to their level. The simple facts are linked in my previous responses. We bomb weddings. We bomb funerals. We bomb without knowing the exact target, based on "patterns". Just because we're first world war criminals, and I recognize and condemn that, does not mean there is a moral equivalence with the barbarians who intentionally attack civilians. But my criticism is more worthy of the people, politicians, and armies that represent me. It's easy as fuck to decry "the other" without any introspection.

[LnGrrrR]

Ok, so I agree that we should obviously not bomb in those measures. It's pretty f'd up, and I try to do what I can to fix that by electing non-hawks. I personally don't think the military is "morally bankrupt"; there's a lot of good things the military does too, not to mention the necessity of needing SOMEONE to defend the country. (Especially cyber, which is what I do... I would rather not have China hack all our stuff. Of course, easier said than done, since people on the network are dumb...) And I also apologize for getting a little heated.

[pgardn]

. Americans are the dumbest 1st world country on the planet, and our foreign policy decisions back that


The only less moral army on the planet than the US is Israel. We both slaughter innocents. .

You are talking about two Democracies that actively criticize THEMSELVES. We put it out in front for the world to see or try damn hard to do so. ( I believe our press is absolutely essential to our well being and no other press does it better) What form of government do you suggest would make us a "smart" 1st world superpower?

What superpower would you replace the U.S. with as the big dog?

We have democratically decided we owe the world stability because we live so well on the whole. This big dog role in the hands of a Democratic society is going to make mistakes in the short term and long term ( isolate v. police) The fact that we can actually discuss this freely also seems to have escaped you.


Your second statement is a joke. It's a laughable joke. You obviously don't read about other countries and their militaries.

[Splits]

I believe our press is absolutely essential to our well being and no other press does it better.

:lmao I stopped reading there. What a horrible fucking take. We have the most subservient, useless press imaginable. They're in bed with the government. They are enablers of the powerful. As Colbert said at the White House Correspondence dinner in 2006:


Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!

And it's only gotten worse since. For example: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/21/spirit-judy-miller-alive-well-nyt-great-damage/

[Winehole23]

The armed civilians who have been guarding a military recruitment center here are gone, ordered off the property after one of them accidentally discharged his rifle on Thursday. No one was injured.http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/23/recruiting-center-shot-fired.html

[Winehole23]

Reed was convicted of the same offense in 2013, and was fined $50, court records show.

[DisAsTerBot]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/23/recruiting-center-shot-fired.html

lol jackass