Ahmad Khan Rahami wanted in connection to NYC bombings

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: UnBreakable




Exactly. They should take him to a seven story parking garage and throw him off to his death.........or burn him alive.............or publicly stone him.........or behead him......or put him in a cage and lower him in a pool till he drowns, etc. Instead he'll experience the humane US Justice system instead of the Iron Age justice of his culture.

I actually disagree. I like what Donald said today. Make the trial happen fast, let it be fair, and if he is found guilty, give him the harshest punishment allowed.

We need to strive to be better than the psychos that threaten our way of life. I have no problem calling out Islamic terrorism, but I do not want to sink to their barbarism.

I AGREE we should not.. Let prison take care of that.. Someone in prison raping his homophobic ass daily will be even better..

originally posted by: NHILAR
a reply to: Gryphon66

My personal beliefs are that religion should be an individual persuit instead of an institutionalized form of control. Believe what you want, start killing people over it or allow it to happen, then you need to go away.

Sorry to tell you increasing the number of people who are wrong does not add legitimacy to the wrong ideal. 1.8 billion x zero = zero.

If you do not know what happneed in 1979, then the American education system is shining through...Let's try this and see if you get it...the oldest continually operating empire the world has ever seen lost its last and central provence to extremist islam...

You are Iranian.

I don't understand how this guy could go to Afghanistan and Pakistan, for extended periods, Kabul no less -and marry someone over there - and not get flagged? Especially after the guy in San Bernardino did the exact same thing.

I mean, after that, they should have gone through a database of travelers, looking for similar patterns and demanding answers/contacts, locations, money trail, etc. Hello...metadata.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UnBreakable

Wow, it's just like every Black American lives in an inner city ghetto, every Muslim country in the world lives under the strictest Sharia law?

Most countries don't accept Sharia or accept it partially in some areas of life.

PS Its based in the same traditions as Judeo Christian law ... So might not want to throw that stone too far.

Not all ideologies are equal, as much as you wish they were.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
I don't understand how this guy could go to Afghanistan and Pakistan, for extended periods, Kabul no less -and marry someone over there - and not get flagged? Especially after the guy in San Bernardino did the exact same thing.

I mean, after that, they should have gone through a database of travelers, looking for similar patterns and demanding answers/contacts, locations, money trail, etc. Hello...metadata.

Yes, should have been a big red flag.

He wasn't going there to buy chickens for the shop.

Trump would make it so that people like that would be "interviewed" before and after they came back.

Even his wife said he changed. They stopped her in the UAE.

His brother hightailed it back after a thing with a cop.

a reply to: kosmicjack

They have all done the same thing. They are being let back into the country. The data is there.

www.allenbwest.com...

This is a good article about being told to basically look the other way. In most of these cases there is a digital footprint. Well, if you are not supposed to do that how do you check someone?

originally posted by: kosmicjack
I don't understand how this guy could go to Afghanistan and Pakistan, for extended periods, Kabul no less -and marry someone over there - and not get flagged? Especially after the guy in San Bernardino did the exact same thing.

I mean, after that, they should have gone through a database of travelers, looking for similar patterns and demanding answers/contacts, locations, money trail, etc. Hello...metadata.

TSA Government bureaucrats....that's how.

originally posted by: NHILAR
a reply to: Gryphon66

Its okay Gryphon66, the world is big and scary, and you must, like your arogance requires, project your value system on all of humanity - you can not understand - perhaps because it would break your perfect snowflake mind - that there are cultures entirely alien to your way of thinking.

Do you even realize that there is no concept of lying to an 'ajnabe' (hint you are one) in the Muslim word? Can you even grasp what this means?

I'm arrogant? You're the one who has avoided all factual content and wants to try paltry insults against me. The only thing I'm standing up here for is the US Constitution.

You want to avoid the facts and talk about me in a silly condescending manner. Boo hoo.

You've tipped your hand on more than one occasion "freshly minted ATS member" ... let the others here kiss your feet.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

It's not me that wishes that "all ideologies were equal" it's the US Constitution that states clearly the limitations of government power in regard to religion.

Sorry you don't like the Constitution's take on things, BB.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

Trump would make it so that people like that would be "interviewed" before and after they came back.

How would Trump "make it like that" exactly?

Executive Order setting our laws in abeyance?

Wait a minute, I've heard something about this before ... give me a minute ...

Oh yeah, it's supposedly "tyranny."

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

Trump would make it so that people like that would be "interviewed" before and after they came back.

How would Trump "make it like that" exactly?

Executive Order setting our laws in abeyance?

Wait a minute, I've heard something about this before ... give me a minute ...

Oh yeah, it's supposedly "tyranny."

They can finagle something, I'm sure.

Maybe something like when they extreme vet people from certain area's, the people that travel there and back will get the same?

Just because you're a citizen, it doesn't give you the right to commit terrorist acts and be seditious.

Spending time with the taliban and bringing back a wife, should make HLS ask you more than a few questions.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Funny how tyrannical actions are okay when it's "your guy" in charge, eh?

Extreme vetting for all eh? How extreme? A little waterboarding maybe?

Or "a hell of a lot worse?"

Sure. Who needs that Constitutional thing anyway, eh?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

It's not me that wishes that "all ideologies were equal" it's the US Constitution that states clearly the limitations of government power in regard to religion.

Sorry you don't like the Constitution's take on things, BB.

Actually, the Constitution just says the Government cannot establish or promote a religion, and that you have the right to practice your religion, or not to.

It makes no mention whatsoever about what the government can or cannot do in respect to a violent religion or cult.

You may not want to hear this, but islam is proving itself to be a violent religion. I'd even go so far as to say it's already been proven via history.

As we all know, it isn't about what the Constitution says the Government CAN do, but what it doesn't say it cannot do.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You are stupid.

Yes you are right, he was really a Roman Catholic heading to Northern Ireland.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Funny how tyrannical actions are okay when it's "your guy" in charge, eh?

Extreme vetting for all eh? How extreme? A little waterboarding maybe?

Or "a hell of a lot worse?"

Sure. Who needs that Constitutional thing anyway, eh?

You are conflating two issues.
Waterboarding and 'a hell of a lot worse' was about interrogation of terrorists, not immigration vetting.

a reply to: poncho1982

Thankfully, we have 225 years of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court that makes it clear that "free exercise thereof" has some very specific meanings and isn't just left up to "whatever we think it means." For example, Reynolds v. United States (1878), the most clear interpretation relating to this question is that if an act is illegal (like say, murdering someone) in general, there is no religious defense for it, because the law does not directly address or restrict the religion in making murder illegal.

Reynolds (1878)

So, Congress (and the States, and the local governments) can legislate against actions but cannot legislate (or prescribe legal action) against any individual religion or code of belief.

If we are going to exclude Constitutional protections to religions that inspire or justify violence, in the present or historically, then it is a certain fact that all would be banned. Obviously, that is not what the Constitution intends.

Indeed, the Constitution does tell us what the Government cannot do, and what it cannot do is target one religion for legal action to the exclusion of all others.

Well, now more info is coming out it certainly is looking like it was Islamic terrorism - happy to admit it when the info is released.

Not when it is pure speculation. There is so much rampant Islamaphobia these days i have no wish to further fuel it without definitive information.

originally posted by: poncho1982


You may not want to hear this, but islam is proving itself to be a violent religion. I'd even go so far as to say it's already been proven via history.

Actually, historically, Islam is no more violent than most other religions. I suggest reading some history books....... And, more to the point, religion itslef is not violent. The people that misinterpret religion are the violent ones.

Having a complete lack of faith myself, i find it rather strange having to defend religion.

As an analogy, the US led coalition is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims over the last 15 years so it could be argued the the US has a history of being proven a violent nation. Would that mean all US citizens are violent and repressed peoples? Of course not (only those that wish to hold high office!).

It is far too easy to tar whole swathes of people because of the actions of a few. And do not forget that most of those that carry out Jihadi acts are not truly terrorists themselves. Usually they are illiterate and uneducated people that are completely brainwashed into carrying out acts of terror with promises their families will be cared for - rather than because they truly believe in a certain cause.

The only effective way to properly stop this is with free and unfettered education across the planet. Remove the burden of ignorance and inequality and things improve - that is something that history has repeatedly proved throughout the ages.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Funny how tyrannical actions are okay when it's "your guy" in charge, eh?

Extreme vetting for all eh? How extreme? A little waterboarding maybe?

Or "a hell of a lot worse?"

Sure. Who needs that Constitutional thing anyway, eh?

You are conflating two issues.
Waterboarding and 'a hell of a lot worse' was about interrogation of terrorists, not immigration vetting.

You may want to review what your man said again. "A hell of a lot worse" was a general comment.

Given that it's Trump ... who knows?

What is familiar to an extent that sets alarm bells ringing at deafening volume is the profile of the perpetrator. Alleged perpetrator, I mean, obviously!

Unstable Muslim, ripe for radicalisation. Check.

Known to the FBI ever since his worried family tipped off the Bureau several years ago. Check.

Absolutely crucially - constructed pressure-cooker bombs. Check.

If this doesn't turn out to be yet another case in which the FBI suckered a lone nut into a sting operation, coached him in bomb-making, and overshot its target, I will eat any hat you care to throw my way.

I take it that this phenomenon is so well-known as to need no further clarification, but will provide good links on request.