Reply With Quote
let's hope it's a chinese tbh
lol
lol coward.concluding that refusing to answer a question = ignorance
with those powers of deduction, you should be a journalist for CNN
I only play question games when I feel like it. Not that I expect you to understand the intricacies of making decisions on your own. God knows the mainstream media has spoonfed your decision making throughout most of your life.
let's hope it's a chinese tbh
lol
lol coward
FBI releases photos and video
http://www.fbi.gov/news/updates-on-i...ions-in-boston
lol coward.
"I could have answered, I just chose not to".
with those powers of deduction, you should be a journalist for CNN
I only play question games when I feel like it. Not that I expect you to understand the intricacies of making decisions on your own. God knows the mainstream media has spoonfed your decision making throughout most of your life.
uh-huh.
Well meant and freely given:
Playing such games establishes some intellectual credibility, even if you might think it is silly. The lack of intellectual credibility is why most people assign the theories you seem to be promoting very little importance.
FWIW, I am bothered by the drone program and find it to be unacceptable to me. I agree with you for the most part on this.
Such strikes should be carried out under VERY limited cir stances. Further, beyond the ethical and legal challengesI think our current regimin is ultimately harming our best interests in teh long run.
Interesting.
My "these look like infowars.com devotees" sense is tingling.
That would be ironic, hilarious, and disturbing all at once. I wonder what Alex Jones' erratic followers would make of that. By "wonder" I mean I know exactly what they would make of that, i.e. total validation of their worldview.
Backwards hats just became even less cool.
fair enough. I automatically assume anyone with over 1000 posts here is intellectually capable of using a google search. No need to verify this. I have no problem obliging most time, but when I don't feel like it, I won't. Especially since I know the poster was playing one of his famous question games.
That picture was posted in another thread where said poster automatically replied "he was not a target". After called out on it, the poster preidctably employed his last resort, the question game.
brown people are so ed
Juvenile boys are not targeted for drone strikes by any reading I have ever done of the criteria for targeting. Given no contravening evidence "he was not a target" it is a fair assumption/statement to make.
The onus would be on the person to prove that a juvenile boy was specifically targeted.
one could easily argue, if you aim a fire rocket at a group of people or a building with people, are they not all targets? if they aren't, then that means you are knowingly killing non-targets.
to me the 'is not a target' means nothing. The civilian was in the crosseye of the shooter and the shooter still fired. 'he was not a target' lmao that is nothing but bull military/media propaganda.
we finally arrive at my point, the automatic regurgitation of 'he was not a target' is proof that media propaganda is part of the poster's psyche.
Took you almost a full day to come up with that excuse for not knowing the people involved?
E for effort, I guess.
Hey, you don't know anything about this. It's not a crime. It's just pretty infantile to actively refuse to know anything about it after spouting off.
, I could be totally wrong about who is in the picture. I didn't look it up the way RG did.
So who do you think the guy in the picture is?
Let's verify your knowledge and compare it to who I think it is.
Same. BTW how do you get through the military block at work to go on ST? I'm having trouble.
Have you tried proxy servers? Whenever something is blocked at work I use a proxy server.
One could easily argue a lot of things.
In this case though, I am somewhat inclined to agree with you as well.
If you want to define "targeted" as anyone who was considered "acceptable collateral damage", then you should have said so in the beginning. Heck, Chump might even buy into that, if put in a non-hand wavy way.
I would ask you both, let's say there is a guy who is on record as advocating the mass killing of Americans, and has taken part, in some small way, in at least one plot, according to the best available intelligence.
What would be acceptable to either of you in terms of collateral damage? Chump? Che?
What do we do about someone who is almost unreachable in a lawless sympathetic coutnry, but not worth a Bin Laden style manhunt?
Many smart phones can act as internet portals, depending on where you are. A laptop or the phone itself will work.
Yeah I found one a while back that worked and I can't find it. All the others don't.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
