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: 25
92
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Yeah this is a big deal:

The events to led to the "lockdown" was sheer incompetence of intelligence agencies even tho the bomber were on "terrorists watch lists".

Even bigger deal that Russia had wiretaps on the guy discussing "jihad" the fact remains there was no excuse for what happened in Boston after the bombing.

There was absolutely no reason for an American to get "muzzled" really is amazing how many people support those Gestapo actions.

The only thing left is raise your rights hands and yell zeig heil.
edit on 28-4-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


let me ask, are you pro-wiretapping? Or Do you agree that there should be laws that prohibit government surveillance without some evidence?

You cant have it both ways. You cant scream and cry about privacy, and then get mad when the laws that protect that privacy get in the way of law enforcement.




posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by eLPresidente
It is funny to see many of the typical Obama supporters on ATS jump up and attempt to make this a reasonable thing even though Obama is nowhere found in the OP.

If this were under Bush, the Democrats would be pissed.

Funny how hypocrisy works.


Political troll bait. Well done


If Obama is nowhere to be found in the OP, why are you bringing him up?


Calling posters out as I see it. they know who they are.
So, basically, you are politically trolling. Fair enough.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicks87

Originally posted by Sierra10
If you are implying it was unreasonable or dangerous for the officer to train his weapon on movement in a window that had over watch on his position and the position of his fellow officers, you're delusional.



This happened in America NOT Iraq or Afghanistan. Nor did this happen in a video game like Call of Duty.

So, yes it was, unreasonable.

The police are not allowed to treat everyone as a suspect. They are only allowed to point their weapons at something they intend to shoot and they MUST identify that target as an immediate threat. A person holding a camera is NOT an immediate threat.

Do you understand or do I need to explain it further?
edit on 28-4-2013 by Nicks87 because: spelling

edit on 28-4-2013 by Nicks87 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-4-2013 by Nicks87 because: (no reason given)


again, that thing comes up...context. How do you know he didnt think there was a legitimate threat? how do you know they didnt have intel about that area? How do you know the photographer wasnt acting suspicious?

Context. Its fairly important. Unless you just enjoy making things up.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





let me ask, are you pro-wiretapping? Or Do you agree that there should be laws that prohibit government surveillance without some evidence?


For crying out loud seriously?

Russia came to the US said to investigate the guy with the tools of the Patriot act that is law that says they can "wiretap".

Russia had plenty of evidence



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
What disturbing path is that?

Advising people not to go outside because there is a terrorist on the run willing to do anything to escape?


A very interesting thought.

Do you think there is anything wrong with your premise now that we know that

a) He was not trying to escape at all. He was actually hiding.

b) For someone who was willing to do anything to escape, he was not even armed.

c) The person taking the photograph clearly did not go outside at all. That pic is taken from inside his home through a window. He/she has a rifle pointed at them, through the window.,

d) and my personal favorite- all those police searching did no good at all. Fact is, once the Police lifted the stay indoor order, it was a citizen who was finally permitted to step outside his own home who found the "terrorist".


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

No one said there was a crime. Was the photographer arrested?

Your title is actually very good advice. If your town is on lock-down and there's a military presence in the street outside your house, it's a REALLY good idea to stay away from the doors and windows. Any movement under these circumstances is going to attract the powerful end of a weapon. It's common sense. They were looking for an armed and dangerous man. Don't give them any reason to think you might be him.


There are a few problems with what you posted.

a) There is not supposed to be a Military presence on the streets outside my home, unless its the Veterans Day Parade.

b) They were looking for an "armed and dangerous man" who was not armed and turned out not to be so dangerous after all- unless you consider a game of hide and go seek to be "dangerous".



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
double post
edit on 28-4-2013 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





For crying out loud seriously? Russia came to the US said to investigate the guy with the tools of the Patriot act that is law that says they can "wiretap". Russia had plenty of evidence



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
First you say this..


Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Nope, which is kind of my point. This was a VERY unique situation. It required a unique response.


and then you say this...



You obviously have not read my posts, as I have not once said I think that it is 'ok'. in fact, the word I used to describe it is 'horrifying'.

But hey, if you wanna fight, then by all means, lets do it


It is called contradicting yourself in the same post. The response by police was wwaayy over the top and it happens nowhere. Absolutely nowhere.


I find it amazing that with most of you there seems to be no middle ground. You either believe that this is total takeover, martial law tyranny, or you are a sheep, authoritarian who defends the gov't at every turn.

What ever happened to rationality? Extremes are not good, from EITHER side.


The only one that acted extreme was the government. No one else!

And you support with double-talk!



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





What is that evidence? Care to share? Its funny to see the same people that whine and cry about privacy turning around and complaining that the legal right to privacy was actually acknowledged. And you call others hypocrites?


What part of Russia investigated the guy is someone missing?

Multiple times, plus wiretaps

Rather clear the FBI didn't do a whole lot if anything so why is someone whining about "the right to privacy" ?

So apparently the LEO's have a right to violate this part from the bill of rights:


Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Actually the "right to privacy" is covered by that little amendment as well.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Nicks87
 





Regardless, the photos reminded me a lot of the streets of Baghdad, I know, I was there and I dont think America is such a dangerous place that it would warrant that reaction even after what took place in boston.
Do you not consider that that is the point? The person that snapped this photo released it to elicit that EXACT reaction from you.




Do the police do the same thing after a drive by shooting in the ghetto? No they dont, even when three or more are killed/injured.


Nope, which is kind of my point. This was a VERY unique situation. It required a unique response.




... and if you think that stuff is ok (militarized police units patrolling the streets for TWO suspects) then you, sir are an authoritarian and I will fight you and others that think like you to the bitter end.

You obviously have not read my posts, as I have not once said I think that it is 'ok'. in fact, the word I used to describe it is 'horrifying'.

But hey, if you wanna fight, then by all means, lets do it


I find it amazing that with most of you there seems to be no middle ground. You either believe that this is total takeover, martial law tyranny, or you are a sheep, authoritarian who defends the gov't at every turn.

What ever happened to rationality? Extremes are not good, from EITHER side.


I must be confused, the posts that I read, of yours, seemed like you had no problem with it and you seemed to be justifying it.

All I know is, I dont want to see up-armored humvees rolling through the streets of America, with turret gunners pointing weapons at photographers and searching for "SUSPECTS".

It just shows that some police officers and federal agents are more than willing to treat Americans like armed combatants in a warzone...

..and that is NOT ok.... At all.
edit on 28-4-2013 by Nicks87 because: spelling



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You're completely missing my point. With the right to privacy comes some downsides. One of those downsides is that it sometimes leads to incomplete intel.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Erm...I think it's kind of a big darn deal and I'm an Obama supporter (or was), so....


.
We all were, but he let us down. He expanded the drone program. We were all fooled eh.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicks87


I must be confused, the posts that I read, of yours, seemed like you had no problem with it and you seemed to be justifying it.

All I know is, I dont want to see up-armored humvees rolling through the streets of America, with turret gunners pointing weapons at photographers and searching for "SUSPECTS".

I just shows that some police officers and federal agents are more than willing to treat Americans like armed combatants in a warzone...

..and that is NOT ok.... At all.


Yes, you must be confused, as I have done no such thing. I have advocated the idea that without context, all of this reaction to a picture is OVER reaction. Its ALL hypothetical postulating, and nothing more.

I dont want to see that either. Sometimes, though, there are events that require a stronger response. As I have already said, this was a VERY unique event.

I dont see anybody being treated like an armed combatant in a warzone, and that is the exact type of sensationalism that I keep talking about in this thread. It is an emotional reaction, devoid of logic and rationality.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
And with that, I think it is time for me to take my leave from this thread. I find myself having to repeat the same things over and over to the newer posters in the thread who cant bother to read through it, and I am a bit tired of dealing with the ad homs, the lies, the sensationalism, etc.

I hope some of you, at some point, are able to take a deep breath, take a step back, and look at the WHOLE situation.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by neo96
 


You're completely missing my point. With the right to privacy comes some downsides. One of those downsides is that it sometimes leads to incomplete intel.



The intel was there what was done with it is the issue either by sheer incompetence or politics at work.

Fact remains what happened in the after math of Boston there was absolutely no excuse for it.

Either getting muzzled, or going door to door.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by incoserv
And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” I Samuel 15:14 (ESV)


Add ... "The day the music died."



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


They didn't know this at the time. We can look at all now knowing the facts, but it wasn't known at the time. Welcome back.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Nicks87

Originally posted by Sierra10
If you are implying it was unreasonable or dangerous for the officer to train his weapon on movement in a window that had over watch on his position and the position of his fellow officers, you're delusional.



This happened in America NOT Iraq or Afghanistan. Nor did this happen in a video game like Call of Duty.

So, yes it was, unreasonable.

The police are not allowed to treat everyone as a suspect. They are only allowed to point their weapons at something they intend to shoot and they MUST identify that target as an immediate threat. A person holding a camera is NOT an immediate threat.

Do you understand or do I need to explain it further?
edit on 28-4-2013 by Nicks87 because: spelling

edit on 28-4-2013 by Nicks87 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-4-2013 by Nicks87 because: (no reason given)


again, that thing comes up...context. How do you know he didnt think there was a legitimate threat? how do you know they didnt have intel about that area? How do you know the photographer wasnt acting suspicious?

Context. Its fairly important. Unless you just enjoy making things up.


I think it's safe to say that you are just reaching for straws because you are losing the argument. I'm not making anything up.

What's next? Are you going to criticize my grammer? spelling? or maybe just create a strawman and refute that argument?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 




It is called contradicting yourself in the same post. The response by police was wwaayy over the top and it happens nowhere. Absolutely nowhere.


There was no contradiction whatsoever, and again, you are just one more person showing that you can only see things from extreme standpoints. There is a BIG difference between realizing that there is no context to the picture and saying it is ok. Furthermore, there is a BIG difference between knowing that this was a very unusual situation that people were not prepared for, and saying the response was perfect.

I truly dont understand people who can only see things in black and white, one extreme or the other. The real world almost ALWAYS lies in the middle.




The only one that acted extreme was the government. No one else! And you support with double-talk!


Wrong. Read through this thread. The reactions (yours included) to this are quite extreme. Again, either you are all willingly advocating the 'us vs. them' mentality, or you are ignorant of the fact that you are being used.

Accusing me of supporting it does not make it so. I come back to wondering why it is that so many of you gung-ho, 'the police are always wrong' people are so prone to resorting to lies. Its quite an odd pattern.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicks87


I think it's safe to say that you are just reaching for straws because you are losing the argument. I'm not making anything up.

What's next? Are you going to criticize my grammer? spelling? or maybe just create a strawman and refute that argument?
Losing how? You are making up the context of the pic. Either that, or you are ignoring that there is no context, which, in the end, still means you are making things up. If you do not have the context of the situation, you cannot know what happened. Period.

Funny that you try to discredit me by using a strawman argument, wherein you try to claim that I will, in the future, use a stawman argument against you.

Seriously. Classic.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join