Brutal mass murder... no one cares?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Link to the story

A man in Lawrence, Kansas walks into a day-care center. He has a gun in his pocket but nobody sees it. He goes up to the second floor, where the preschool kids are having their afternoon snack of cookies and juice.

He pulls out the gun and shoots a little boy in the head, leaving his face a mass of bone-flecked goo. Then he fires into the chest of the girl in the next chair; she dies still clutching the stuffed rabbit she brings with her every day. Another boy is hit while running for the door. The man is using special bullets, tipped with depleted uranium; the shot explodes the boy's shoulder in a spray of red mist and sends his gangly body hurtling down the concrete stairwell.

A day-care worker grabs the man, tries to wrestle him down. He turns, jams the gun barrel against her womb and fires. She dies, eviscerated, clinging to his shoulders. The other children have run away screaming, except for one little girl who's fallen in the slick of blood. She tries to scramble to her feet, slips again, can't find her footing, claws at the floor in a wild panic. The man fires into her back, obliterating her spine, the heavy bullet drilling through the polished wood below.

The room is filled with smoke and the sharp tang of freshly gutted meat. The man takes a desultory look around, shrugs his shoulders, then sits down on the snack table. When the police come and ask him why he did it, he answers forthrightly, without a shred of guilt or unease, as if it were the most natural thing in the world:

"Somebody said the guy who runs this place might attack me someday. I had questions that needed to be answered: Did he have a gun or a knife -- or nothing? We must be prepared to face our responsibilities and be willing to use force if necessary."

The cops roll their eyes -- another nutball. "So," says an officer, humoring him, "did he have any weapons?"

The killer shakes his head. "Nah, don't look like it. But he could have had some. What's the difference? -- Say, you fellas aren't going to lock me up, are you? It was an honest mistake. I just got bad advice, that's all."

This fable is the precise moral equivalent of the Bush Regime's murderous misadventure in Iraq. Last week, the Regime's own duly-appointed, CIA-paid weapons hunter, David Kay, finally coughed up a dinosaur-sized bone and admitted, openly, publicly, what the sane world has long known: that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction before the war -- and in fact hadn't had any since George Bush Senior stopped supplying Saddam Hussein with the money and material to make them many years ago.

----------------------------------------------

Isn't it funny how some people can get away with absolutely anything, and even though the WHOLE country knows what they've done, there is absolutely no repercussions? It's all about perspective isn't it..

[Edited on 3-2-2004 by lilblam]




posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Just a question:

Was the guy who ran the day-care center torturing and murdering the kids in his care?



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
Just a question:

Was the guy who ran the day-care center torturing and murdering the kids in his care?


Because the OTHER guy taught him everything the daycare president knows, and supplied him with torture weapons and such. Then he changed his mind, went in, killed the president of the day care, and a whole bunch of kids too.

Also, he shoulda dealt with the PRESIDENT ALONE, why kill the kids?

[Edited on 3-2-2004 by lilblam]



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I see. But you didn't say that in the original post. And as you said it was a "precise, moral equivalent" I thought it should be clarified.

But I don't see a reflection in reality. Bush didn't teach Saddam to kill his people. True he armed him, but that doesn't make him guilty does it? Otherwise every pro-gun US citizen is responsible for every murder of the innocents in their country, every brewery is responsible for acts of criminality undertaken whilst drunk.

Look at it in a different light:

The daycare center owner gave the other guy a gun because his neighbours were a threat. But the other guy went crazy and killed all his neighbours - even the innocent ones. The daycare center owner then knew he had to disarm this guy but he had taken shelter in the nursery and started killing the kids. Now the daycare center owner knew that something had to be done - this guy was killing kids for fun and showed no signs of stopping. So he called for help. As in any hostage situation where the criminal is killing innocents, there is going to be a storming of the building eventually. It's not like the hostage negotiaters didn't try and deal with this guy for a long time either.
Unfortunately, some kids were hit in the crossfire when the building was taken. Sad but ain't that like real life?

The good thing was that the guy who was originally killing the kids was disarmed and won't be a threat any more. There are still a lot of kids left alive who can now go home to their families. Prior to that, they had no chance.



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
k lets give saddam some weapons then start a war with him for using them...makes perfect sense to me.




posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
Just a question:

Was the guy who ran the day-care center torturing and murdering the kids in his care?


ya know, I'm getting a little tired of reading bullshyt like this.

Yes, saddam tortured and murdered many people.

BUSH DID NOT GO TO WAR OVER THIS!!!

read the goddamn newspaper, watch CNN whatever. Get it through your fuking heads, the war was over WMD, not torture, not the murder ordered by Saddam!

cheers



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Liberal hysterical and emotive nonsence.....



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
Liberal hysterical and emotive nonsence.....


hey netchicken, blow it out your a$$



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   
ahhhh liberals.............

good job leveller.....


who cares what the war was over...... saddam was a bad guy in the first place......

and guess what Clinton was the dumbass who had the CIA gather #y info on Iraq.......

all of clintons mistakes are screwing bush over......and the left winged media is making it look like bush is going to be the end of the world..........

for the first time in 10 years the left media has something juicy to prey on and exagerate



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   
yeah thats it. were blowing away everyone we see in iraq



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by enomus
k lets give saddam some weapons then start a war with him for using them...makes perfect sense to me.



IRAQ WAS SOLD WEAPONS DURING THE LATE 1980'S DURING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION AND MOST OF THE WEAPONS IRAD (SADDAM) BOUGHT WERE RUSSIAN ANYWAY.

DID YOU GUYS KNOW THAT KUWAIT AND SAUDI ARABIA MOSTLY GAVE MONEY TO SADDAM AND FUNDED HIS WAR WITH IRAN.

IT WASN'T STRICKLY WMD....

IT WAS REGIME CHANGE....

WMDS......

HIS PROPENSITY TO MURDER AND CREATE WAR.....

WHEN U HAVE A LEADER WITH THE PROPENSITY TO MAKE BAD DECISIONS AND ACT IRATIONAL AND UNEXPECTED THEN THAT LEADER WOULD BE A THREAT TO YOU.........

YOUR ALL MISSING THE BIG PICTURE......

COUNTRIES CAN HAVE WMDS......AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT WILLING AND HAVE KILLED THEIR OWN PEOPLE.

YA SEE.....

FRANCE , BRITAIN , USA, AUSTRALIA, ISRAEL, SOUTH AFRICA (HAD EM AND DESTROYED THEM), CHINA, .........................AND SO ON AND SO ON......HAVE WMD'S.

THE USA DOESNT WANT WMD'S IN CRAZY PEOPLES HANDS.........

THATS MY 2 CENT ..... SORRY FOR SPELLING!!

take care all!!

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by REASON]



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
yeah thats it. were blowing away everyone we see in iraq


Dont be silly. Only "terrorists" and people who protest US occupation.



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Honestly, the "reasons" given by our government were indeed WMD's. The fact that Saddam has been naughty has been known for a long time, and we didn't attack Iraq for the purpose of liberation. The reason was a direct threat to US, WMD's. So in order to not fall into a deep pile of sh1t, Bush changed his story and said that Saddam was really really bad, and US is apparently in the business of killing everyone who is bad and hurts others, so we're gonna go in and hurt others to.. prevent him from hurting.. others. Wait, what did we do again?





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join