MIT Shooting

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
Magogian, before you were saying that "liberals" tried to paint Gitmo detainees as innocent goat herders, and your proof is the actions of some of the detainees lawyers? Lawyers for the detainees is not the same as "liberals." I can't imagine that this point would escape you. Further, where in that article does it say anything about the detainees being innocent goat herders? Again, the debate, to the extent their is one, is over how WE are going to act, not over whether or not terrorists are good people.
 

magogian

New member
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
155
Magogian, before you were saying that "liberals" tried to paint Gitmo detainees as innocent goat herders, and your proof is the actions of some of the detainees lawyers? Lawyers for the detainees is not the same as "liberals." I can't imagine that this point would escape you. Further, where in that article does it say anything about the detainees being innocent goat herders? Again, the debate, to the extent their is one, is over how WE are going to act, not over whether or not terrorists are good people.

The article is not meant to cover every point I've made.
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
Seriously? Coming from someone who doesn't understand a simple logical syllogism?

You (falsely) characterized my position as X, then said people who believe X are disqualified from the discussion. Now, you are trying to say that you didn't say I am disqualified. Its called the conclusion to the syllogism you ninny!

This couldn't be a less accurate summary of the argument. First, I didn't say your position was X, I said if your position is X then you are disqualified. Second, I did not try to say that I didn't say that you were disqualified, I said that I don't disqualify people for disagreeing with me, I disqualify people whose premise is false. So wrong on all counts. Add comprehension to your ever-expanding list of deficiencies.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
And if "white" is strictly defined by the tone of ones skin....then why the hell do we call people that are black, African American? Just call them black.

Are Cubans considered, black?

I think of white dudes as white Americans. Middle East? Greeks? Italians? Ehhh...I don't consider them just "white"
 

magogian

New member
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
155
This couldn't be a less accurate summary of the argument. First, I didn't say your position was X, I said if your position is X then you are disqualified. Second, I did not try to say that I didn't say that you were disqualified, I said that I don't disqualify people for disagreeing with me, I disqualify people whose premise is false. So wrong on all counts. Add comprehension to your ever-expanding list of deficiencies.

Umm ok. First, if you are just randomly throwing out possible positions, I'm not sure what the point of any of this is.

Second, you are engaging in simplistic, transparent sophistry. How convenient that you don't actually disqualify people who disagree with you; you just disqualify false premises. Oh wait, you, in your infinite wisdom, are deciding what constitutes a false premise. And why it is false? Because you disagree with it and your say so. They are functional equivalents.
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
And if "white" is strictly defined by the tone of ones skin....then why the hell do we call people that are black, African American? Just call them black.

Are Cubans considered, black?

I think of white dudes as white Americans. Middle East? Greeks? Italians? Ehhh...I don't consider them just "white"

Italians? What the **** is wrong with you? Do you not know any Italian Americans? Where my relatives are from, they might as well be Austrian, but we aren't white. It's freaking old Europe! You are the type of unabashed ignorant that I wouldn't believe existed if I didn't read this board.
 
Last edited:

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
Umm ok. First, if you are just randomly throwing out possible positions, I'm not sure what the point of any of this is.

Second, you are engaging in simplistic, transparent sophistry. How convenient that you don't actually disqualify people who disagree with you; you just disqualify false premises. Oh wait, you, in your infinite wisdom, are deciding what constitutes a false premise. And why it is false? Because you disagree with it and your say so. They are functional equivalents.

A lot of people disagree with me. Their positions are valid, provided their underlying premise isn't demonstrably wrong. People have been disagreeing with me throughout this thread. I've said that a single idea was so stupid that it rose to the level of being disqualifying. This is not difficult to understand. You're dragging this argument out needlessly. I'm going to watch the game.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
Italians? What the **** is wrong with you? Do you not know any Italian Americans? Where my relatives are from, they might as well be Austrian, but we aren't white. It's freaking old Europe! You are the type of unabashed ignorant that I wouldn't believe existed if I didn't read this board.

"Just white"

Re read what I said.

And again, it's in reference to the color of their skin, right? I have a dear friend of mine who is Italiab and is dark as ****. Is he "white" simply because that's the label we've given Italians? I just call him "Italian". Technically, he's nowhere near, white.

Again, the whole point was that the radical Islamic terrorists from chechnya, are not "white Americans"
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
The article is not meant to cover every point I've made.

'The USS Liberty': America's Most Shameful Secret
by Eric S. Margolis

NEW YORK – On the fourth day of the 1967 Arab Israeli War, the intelligence ship 'USS Liberty' was steaming slowly in international waters, 14 miles off the Sinai Peninsula. Israeli armored forces were racing deep into Sinai in hot pursuit of the retreating Egyptian army.

'Liberty,' a World War II freighter, had been converted into an intelligence vessel by the top-secret US National Security Agency, and packed with the latest signals and electronic interception equipment. The ship bristled with antennas and electronic 'ears' including TRSSCOMM, a system that delivered real-time intercepts to Washington by bouncing a stream of microwaves off the moon.

'Liberty' had been rushed to Sinai to monitor communications of the belligerents in the Third Arab Israeli War: Israel and her foes, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

At 0800 hrs, 8 June, 1967, eight Israeli recon flights flew over 'Liberty,' which was flying a large American flag. At 1400 hrs, waves of low-flying Israeli Mystere and Mirage-III fighter-bombers repeatedly attacked the American vessel with rockets, napalm, and cannon. The air attacks lasted 20 minutes, concentrating on the ship's electronic antennas and dishes. The 'Liberty' was left afire, listing sharply. Eight of her crew lay dead, a hundred seriously wounded, including the captain, Commander William McGonagle.

At 1424 hrs, three Israeli torpedo boats attacked, raking the burning 'Liberty' with 20mm and 40mm shells. At 1431hrs an Israeli torpedo hit the 'Liberty' midship, precisely where the signals intelligence systems were located. Twenty-five more Americans died.

Israeli gunboats circled the wounded 'Liberty,' firing at crewmen trying to fight the fires. At 1515, the crew were ordered to abandon ship. The Israeli warships closed and poured machine gun fire into the crowded life rafts, sinking two. As American sailors were being massacred in cold blood, a rescue mission by US Sixth Fleet carrier aircraft was mysteriously aborted on orders from the White House.

An hour after the attack, Israeli warships and planes returned. Commander McGonagle gave the order. 'prepare to repel borders.' But the Israelis, probably fearful of intervention by the US Sixth Fleet, departed. 'Liberty' was left shattered but still defiant, her flag flying.

The Israeli attacks killed 34 US seamen and wounded 171 out of a crew of 297, the worst loss of American naval personnel from hostile action since World War II.

Less than an hour after the attack, Israel told Washington its forces had committed a 'tragic error.' Later, Israel claimed it had mistaken 'Liberty' for an ancient Egyptian horse transport. US Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, and Joint Chiefs of Staff head, Admiral Thomas Moorer, insisted the Israeli attack was deliberate and designed to sink 'Liberty.' So did three CIA reports; one asserted Israel's Defense Minister, Gen. Moshe Dayan, had personally ordered the attack.

In contrast to American outrage over North Korea's assault on the intelligence ship 'Pueblo,' Iraq's mistaken missile strike on the USS 'Stark,' last fall's bombing of the USS 'Cole' in Aden, and the recent US-China air incident, the savaging of 'Liberty' was quickly hushed up by President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara.

The White House and Congress immediately accepted Israel's explanation and let the matter drop. Israel later paid a token reparation of US $6 million. There were reports two Israeli pilots who had refused to attack 'Liberty' were jailed for 18 years.

Surviving 'Liberty' crew members would not be silenced. They kept demanding an open inquiry and tried to tell their story of deliberate attack to the media. Israel's government worked behind the scenes to thwart these efforts, going so far as having American pro-Israel groups accuse 'Liberty's' survivors of being 'anti-Semites' and 'Israel-haters.' Major TV networks cancelled interviews with the crew. A book about the 'Liberty' by crewman James Ennes' was dropped from distribution. The Israel lobby branded him 'an Arab propagandist.'

The attack on 'Liberty' was fading into obscurity until last week, when intelligence expert James Bamford came out with Body of Secrets, his latest book about the National Security Agency. In a stunning revelation, Bamford writes that unknown to Israel, a US Navy EC-121 intelligence aircraft was flying high overhead the 'Liberty,' electronically recorded the attack. The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag.

Why did Israel try to sink a naval vessel of its benefactor and ally? Most likely because 'Liberty's' intercepts flatly contradicted Israel's claim, made at the war's beginning on 5 June, that Egypt had attacked Israel, and that Israel's massive air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl-Harbor style surprise attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their entire air forces.

Israel was also preparing to attack Syria to seize its strategic Golan Heights. Washington warned Israel not to invade Syria, which had remained inactive while Israel fought Egypt. Bamford says Israel's offensive against Syria was abruptly postponed when 'Liberty' appeared off Sinai, then launched once it was knocked out of action. Israel's claim that Syria had attacked it could have been disproved by 'Liberty.'

Most significant, 'Liberty's' intercepts may have shown that Israel seized upon sharply rising Arab-Israeli tensions in May-June 1967 to launch a long-planned war to invade and annex the West Bank, Jerusalem, Golan and Sinai.

Far more shocking was Washington's response. Writes Bamford: 'Despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel attacked the ship and killed American servicemen deliberately, the Johnson Administration and Congress covered up the entire incident.' Why?

Domestic politics. Johnson, a man never noted for high moral values, preferred to cover up the attack rather than anger a key constituency and major financial backer of the Democratic Party. Congress was even less eager to touch this 'third rail' issue.

Commander McGonagle was quietly awarded the Medal of Honor for his and his men's heroism – not in the White House, as is usual, but in an obscure ceremony at the Washington Navy Yard. Crew member's graves were inscribed, 'died in the Eastern Mediterranean..' as if they had be killed by disease, rather than hostile action.

A member of President Johnson's staff believed there was a more complex reason for the cover-up: Johnson offered Jewish liberals unconditional backing of Israel, and a cover-up of the 'Liberty' attack, in exchange for the liberal toning down their strident criticism of his policies in the then raging Vietnam War.

Israel, which claims it fought a war of self defense in 1967 and had no prior territorial ambitions, will be much displeased by Bamford's revelations. Those who believe Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and Golan will be emboldened.

Much more important, the US government's long, disgraceful cover-up of the premeditated attack on 'Liberty' has now burst into the open and demands full-scale investigation. After 34 years, the voices of 'Liberty's' dead and wounded seamen must finally be heard.

May 2, 2001

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2001


There is more.
 

blueNDgold44

New member
Messages
1,995
Reaction score
67
Amidst all the political BS being spewed on this thread, we seemed to have missed another wonderful moment in Boston for the Red Sox game.

563604_10151350869246766_1170217808_n.jpg


On a related note, there was a wonderful moment of silence at the B&G Game today. Could've heard a pin drop
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Amidst all the political BS being spewed on this thread, we seemed to have missed another wonderful moment in Boston for the Red Sox game.

...

On a related note, there was a wonderful moment of silence at the B&G Game today. Could've heard a pin drop


Interesting to note the cooperation among those on this thread in the wee hours as events unfolded. Some people following the scanner, others hopping from network to network clarifying what was confirmed and what wasn't. People sharing information, not urinating on each other.

Then the sun came up and the ideologs logged on (probably should have typed idiotologs). Without checking anything they immediately started firing from the hip soley to justify their political point of view. As their posses joinned in, it didn't matter what was happening in Westport to the locals and to the responders in harms way. No it became all about those posters and their ideology, Right or Left.

For all the work you put in providing information blueNDgold, thank you!
 

blueNDgold44

New member
Messages
1,995
Reaction score
67
Just doing all I could to try to possibly help. Hopefully if anyone in the area was reading this it helped in anyway possible. The real praise goes to the fine men and women who put their lives on the line for OUR freedom.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,819
Reaction score
16,078
Maybe this needs its own thread but I figured it's been a couple of days so a discussion won't get in the way of any news or info. (LOL)

I'm not usually one to start political discussions, but as a guy who really digs the Constitution this video scared the sh*t out of me. Considering the fact that they are doing this as part of a manhunt I doubt that they could reliably claim exigent circumstances. I was just wondering how anyone else felt about it.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2LrbsUVSVl8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

peoriairish

New member
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
350
I don't mind it. I also dig the Constitution, but in the matter of national security and the security of my neighborhood, I'm cool with it. Now if this was happening everyday, then nope. But because it was occurring to find a bomber, I'm okay with it.

Side note. How many freaking people were living in that house! No way that's a to code living situation haha.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,819
Reaction score
16,078
I don't mind it. I also dig the Constitution, but in the matter of national security and the security of my neighborhood, I'm cool with it. Now if this was happening everyday, then nope. But because it was occurring to find a bomber, I'm okay with it.

Side note. How many freaking people were living in that house! No way that's a to code living situation haha.

I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea that Constitutional rights can be unwillingly sacrificed because "we need to protect people for the greater good". The whole purpose of the Constitution being there is to insure that the Government doesn't overstep it's bounds in a time of crisis and thereby destroy the ideals of our entire society. I just have a hard time seeing where it stops if it becomes OK to kick down someones door without reasonable suspicion because "we need to protect people".

tl;dr- I don't think there is ever a good time for the police and military to infringe on the Constitution for "our protection" because once that becomes OK, it destroys the basic nature of what this country is supposed to be.
 
G

Grahambo

Guest
Maybe this needs its own thread but I figured it's been a couple of days so a discussion won't get in the way of any news or info. (LOL)

I'm not usually one to start political discussions, but as a guy who really digs the Constitution this video scared the sh*t out of me. Considering the fact that they are doing this as part of a manhunt I doubt that they could reliably claim exigent circumstances. I was just wondering how anyone else felt about it.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2LrbsUVSVl8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That doesn't bother me in the least bit.
 

Redbar

Well-known member
Messages
3,531
Reaction score
806
Did they have any probable cause at all? Did they already take an infrared picture that told them there were a lot of people in the house? I don't know if there are some mitigating circumstances, but on it's face it does not leave me with a very good feeling.
 

IrishinTN

Well-known member
Messages
1,894
Reaction score
340
I don't like it at all. I think it's normal to wonder why this house and not every house. What is it that made them more suspicious about this place?
 

nlroma1o

Well-known member
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
95
Maybe this needs its own thread but I figured it's been a couple of days so a discussion won't get in the way of any news or info. (LOL)

I'm not usually one to start political discussions, but as a guy who really digs the Constitution this video scared the sh*t out of me. Considering the fact that they are doing this as part of a manhunt I doubt that they could reliably claim exigent circumstances. I was just wondering how anyone else felt about it.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2LrbsUVSVl8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sketchy... I would not be happy at all if they just kicked me and my enitre family out of the house and searched it... They better be doing that to everyhouse on the block if they do it to me. F that.
 

blueNDgold44

New member
Messages
1,995
Reaction score
67
I don't know if this is possible or not but could the authorities been issued a warrant that included anything and everything in the town?
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,819
Reaction score
16,078
Helped a young family whose baby needed milk.

boston-police-milk.jpg

I fail to see the correlation between a conversation about police officers performing an illegal search and the fact that this officer was a good guy. I don't really care if the officer that wants to illegally search my dwelling just got done running a 5k for charity, reads to children in his spare time, and is going to pick up litter in the city park later. I'm concerned with the government stepping all over the constitution in a time of "crisis".

Sketchy... I would not be happy at all if they just kicked me and my enitre family out of the house and searched it... They better be doing that to everyhouse on the block if they do it to me. F that.

I would actually be more ok with it if they only did it to one house. Every illegal search is a bad illegal search. Wouldn't you agree?
 

nlroma1o

Well-known member
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
95
I would actually be more ok with it if they only did it to one house. Every illegal search is a bad illegal search. Wouldn't you agree?

Yeah as long as that one house isn't mine.... If they search my home in this manner, Im gonna feel completely violated. My initial thought that, "they better search everyone else" was reactionay on my part, and the more I think about it i agree with you. Either way, they better have an extremely good reason as to why they are kicking me out of my own house other than, there is a wanted man on the loose and we are suspicous of your home. Why the heck do you think he would be in my house!?
 
G

Grahambo

Guest
I fail to see the correlation between a conversation about police officers performing an illegal search and the fact that this officer was a good guy. I don't really care if the officer that wants to illegally search my dwelling just got done running a 5k for charity, reads to children in his spare time, and is going to pick up litter in the city park later. I'm concerned with the government stepping all over the constitution in a time of "crisis".



I would actually be more ok with it if they only did it to one house. Every illegal search is a bad illegal search. Wouldn't you agree?


Some will disagree but I think this qualifies as 'exigent circumstance'.

What makes trying to catch a terrorist a 'bad illegal search'? What about the authorization given to the searches do you know that most don't that allow you to classify it as a 'bad illegal search'?

Were you there and present to any legal documents that were given or any authorization given by those who are authorized to give out warrants, etc?

All I see from critics are 'backseat' questioning without having all the facts sitting right in front of you.

Yeah..poo poo on law enforcement for trying to catch a terrorist who has clearly demonstrated his desire to hurt and kill anybody and everybody.

EDIT: I'm not trying to be confrontational. Many of you know that I'm not that type but while I see a lot of criticism, what I don't see are people in this forum using facts to back up their criticism. It's all guess work and I personally don't find that intelligent. Instead, it makes most look like blubbering children. I love opinions from all sorts of views but when its careless, I find it difficult to appreciate the back and forth candor that we should be accustomed to.
 
Last edited:

nlroma1o

Well-known member
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
95
Sorry for telling the truth. Sorry that I would feel violated if that was my home and my family.
 
Top