It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If your city is on "lock-down", do NOT look outside.

page: 22
92
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3mperorConstantinE
#BostonStrong ???

#BostonWrong-UnbelievablyWeak-SettingIncrediblyDangerousPrecedent-InAOncePridefulCity

Know that we, in less neutered parts of this country, watched in disgust as you cheered.
I have lived in Boston, so this is far from blind criticism from my end..

To the poster (Bone75) who wrote:

Whether you like it or not, we are in the middle of a holy war that has been waged upon us by radical islamists. It was an act of war and it was DEALT WITH by the proper authorities.


WRONG!

I'll take the 19yo cookery-wielding Chechen any day of the week. Not a$$hats aiming MP5's in my kids' windows.


Please elaborate so that we can all have a crystal clear understanding of what you're saying here.



You'd better not venture anywhere north of Rampart St. down in the Big Easy.


I was born at Hotel-Dieu Hospital in New Orleans. Feel free to open your mouth and insert your foot



edit on 28-4-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 


Double tap to the head.

Only way to take out someone with a suicide vest on, or somone with a trigger in their hand and not give them chance to blow it. Better odds of doing that with a scope on them.

But you knew that, right?



Thats not even standard procedure... but I wont get into that.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


In response to your shoe on the other foot scenario, I think I would have this view point, I know I am in a residential area, and there are A LOT more civilians than bad guys, I know that this guy, despite being dangerous knows that there are hundreds of law enforcement looking for him, I don't think someone would be stupid enough to give away where he is hiding to maybe get one guy! and even if he did I think being that I am heavily covered with body armor I would protect and serve. knowing that a civilian will not have body armor and I do I feel it would be my duty to at least give ANYONE a chance and the seconds for me to identify whether or not they are a threat BEFORE I choose to stick a gun in there face! If the police are too much of a pussy to correctly identify a target prior to panic mode they should not do the job. I realize that it is a little bit riskier but If I remember correctly they are the people who are looked upon all the time as hero's because they supposedly would be willing to sacrifice there life for the people. If this is true then they should have no problem with accepting the small risk of giving up the "jump" on someone for the safety of the citizens. Because of the way they do things today, i have seen the police in my general area shoot 3-4 innocent citizens this year alone!! and then try to lie about it.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The bolding was to help if you actually didn't understand.
I can't help you with your intellectual dishonesty.
edit on 28-4-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


They had contact with him in 2011. If they thought he was a suspect they sholud have run his name through thier data base and seen they had contact previously. Are you saying they had no idea who he was? That is not true. And I never said martial law so were even k.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The bolding was to help if you actually didn't understand.
I can't help you with your intellectual dishonesty.
edit on 28-4-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


I cant help but laugh at the irony of a person that goes about trying to change the structure of a sentence by picking out specific words in an attempt to change the meaning of that sentence accusing me of intellectual dishonesty.

Truly, truly, well done


If you need me to explain it to you, i'll give it a shot. That post was an attempt to get people to add some context to the photo. In all of the 'what if' posts, an alternate set of events from that which occurred are posed as an attempt to elicit emotional responses, even though said things didnt happen. Such as:
"what if that guy had shot and killed a 10 year old".

Can you see how that differs from "put yourself in that guy's shoes"? Or is further explanation needed?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





Yeah, they are. That doesnt mean its illegal


Then why didn't you point that out in the first place.

I was under the impression that U.S. military forces could not be deployed on U.S. soil. Are you saying that is incorrect?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 



Originally posted by butcherguy
If the lockdown had not occurred at all the other brother would have been apprehended in likely the same fashion or would have died in the boat.


I wish I had the power to predict with this accuracy, but I don't. I don't really think you do either, I'm just saying. You don't know what would have happened if the situation were different. The young brother may not have even gotten in the boat. He may have escaped, regrouped and gone on to avenge his brother's death. We don't know.

(and yes, the statement I made about the brothers going on to commit more crimes was in error. I even said as much in an earlier post.
)



Why did they wait an hour if this lockdown was so effing necessary and important?


I don't know. I wasn't in on their discussions. But I'm sure there were many scenarios discussed and it took some time to reach a decision.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ivbnu
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


They had contact with him in 2011. If they thought he was a suspect they sholud have run his name through thier data base and seen they had contact previously. Are you saying they had no idea who he was? That is not true. And I never said martial law so were even k.


And do you know why contact was broken? Because they found nothing linking him to any known terror groups, and legally they had no authority to continue to surveil him.

Remember when everyone was so up in arms about wiretapping and whatnot (myself included)? Well, one of the downfalls of not having those things is that the FBI and other agencies sometimes cannot gather proper intel, because of legal limitations.

We all want the freedom of privacy. But sometimes it can lead to bad things.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





Yeah, they are. That doesnt mean its illegal


Then why didn't you point that out in the first place.

I was under the impression that U.S. military forces could not be deployed on U.S. soil. Are you saying that is incorrect?


Im not sure what you wanted me to point out. As i said in my first response here, National Guard is legally allowed to be on the streets of the U.S.. What more were you looking for?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ivbnu
 



He told the FBI apparently that he and his brother had intended to drive to New York and detonate additional explosives in Times Square. They had built these additional explosives, and we know they had the capacity to carry out these attacks.

POLICE COMMISSIONER RAYMOND KELLY, New York City: They discussed this while driving around in a Mercedes SUV that they had hijacked after they shot and killed an MIT police officer in Cambridge, Dzhokhar said.

That plan, however, fell apart when they realized that the vehicle that they hijacked was low on gas and ordered the driver to stop at a nearby gas station.


Source



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Get used to this sight.

Does anyone remember the LA Bank robbery shoot out? Remember the complaint on the part of the police that they were outgunned? That they would never let that happen again?

I think that was the first time they allowed M 16 rifles in the trunks of squad cars... just in case. Then that developed into what we see now. The difference between civilian authorities and permanent military presence (read that standing armies) is kind of blurry. The arguments I been reading on this thread prove to me that a lot of people have no idea what that means...



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Also the boys were not on the run for what three days, so thats when they could have picked him up. If they are not running what is the sense of annouuncing you are comming to get them. They didn't know they were suspects till you told them, seem dangerous to release that info before you check it out.
You may say how do I know they didn't. I don't. Just like I don't know if they did it, or if there were other bombs.
I have seen no evidence to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that 1. they did it 2. the killed a cop. 3 they had other bombs. 4. the suspect ever fired back.
I don't claim to "know" I just suspect everything. No proof no case.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


People died, in bombings, through an act of terrorism, carried out by people who have no regard for human safety and wellbeing whatsoever.

And you expect the LEO's and anti-terror people to observe niceties when trying to catch that person?

What if they'd killed again, or blow somewhere else up?



That's some fairly Orwellian ideology you are peddling there.


You cannot be serious. Hell, let's just raise a white flag and admit defeat to the bad guys now.

How does the saying go? "Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither"..Or something like it.
edit on 4/28/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


So no evidence but he said she said. i like facts too anybody got any.

For those that think this is awsome what do you suggest someone who doesn't want to particapate in this "community service" aside from cower in my house?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

I completely agree with your statement that the National Guard can be used on our streets.

Regarding my thought that you are dishonest,
Hmmm. Maybe you don't understand.

Here is the pertinent portion of your sentence without the words 'what' and 'if',
Would you do the shoe was on the other foot?

Now, remove the words 'would you do', those words that you seem to think change your sentence so much.
What if the shoe was on the other foot?

Removing the words 'what if' makes your sentence meaningless.
Removing the words 'would you do' does not change the meaning of the sentence.

I don't care if you are too dense to see it, but I am going with my gut and leaving troll-land.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


That is obsurd. So you are saying they just dropped it in 2011 and that was that. It is not a violation of someones rights to follow them to an event to see what they are up to.
Are you saying they checked just not him? that seems odd and sloppy. Still thier fault imo.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 





How does the saying go? "Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither"..Or something like it.


Those who are willing to trade liberty for security soon find themselves as having neither.

Lot of variations of that saying.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75
Please elaborate so that we can all have a crystal clear understanding of what you're saying here.

I said:

Originally posted by 3mperorConstantinE
I'll take the 19yo cookery-wielding Chechen any day of the week. Not a$$hats aiming MP5's in my kids' windows.

Meaning:
I would prefer to deal with the 19 year old kid with the crock pots and the stolen gun hiding in my backyard shed, rather than see g'damned troops barreling down residential city streets in my neighborhood.
I'm not asking the 5-0 for any protection or help. Don't want it and I don't need it, and everyone I know feels exactly the same. That's just not how we do things.

If the 19 year old wants to try to break into my home, then that'll be his problem.

I don't want heavily-armed DHS/FBI/BPD/SWAT/N.Guard. fellas aiming their damned weapons in my open windows, shouting to shut them, and "shelter in place!", or "Get your hands up! Move! Move! Move!" as innocent people are emptied from their residence.

F—that.
They were looking for young, urban dwelling people here America.
They weren't hunting down the the Fallujah Brigade.

Ten FBI agents could have remedied this situation faster.
There is no excuse for this costly exercise which runs roughshod over the long-established principles of personal Liberty in this country.


Originally posted by 3mperorConstantinE
You'd better not venture anywhere north of Rampart St. down in the Big Easy.


Originally posted by Bone75
I was born at Hotel-Dieu.



A N’awlins native, eh?

--> The Hospital District is not the north of North Rampart St. I bees talkin’ ‘bout, though

edit on 28-4-2013 by 3mperorConstantinE because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ivbnu
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Also the boys were not on the run for what three days, so thats when they could have picked him up. If they are not running what is the sense of annouuncing you are comming to get them. They didn't know they were suspects till you told them, seem dangerous to release that info before you check it out.
You may say how do I know they didn't. I don't. Just like I don't know if they did it, or if there were other bombs.
I have seen no evidence to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that 1. they did it 2. the killed a cop. 3 they had other bombs. 4. the suspect ever fired back.
I don't claim to "know" I just suspect everything. No proof no case.


How do you propose they pick someone up when that person has not yet been identified?

You'd have to ask the FBI about why they did what they did when they did. I have my suspicions, but I'd rather not get into that, since people will simply try and drag it off topic.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join