MIT Shooting

[Bogtrotter07]

And you're good at getting things wrong. Aren't you another "right wing extremist" tin foil hat folks?

We all have our talents.

I would say almost everybody got it wrong, including those adding detail that they cannot possibly have yet.

 

[Irish Insanity]

This thread headed south in a hurry

 

[irishpat183]

This thread headed south in a hurry

Here's some humor to lighten it up...

[/URL][/IMG]

'Merica, Baby

 

[irishpat183]

I love these threads. I'm able to discuss things, sensitive in nature, and get different reactions from those in different situations. While I may not agree on everything with everyone, you're all still very intelligent guys and I hold no ill will.


Gentlemen, this website is a place for DISCUSSION....not a place where we all sit around a camp fire, agreeing on everything. And that's what is so great about it.

Thanks to all for your input. Whether I agree or not.

 

[irishpat183]

Media coverage:

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[magogian]

Your failure to understand our country is astounding. Nobody is going to say that. There might be an exploration into how these kids went from being pretty typical American kids into murdering monsters. I know I'm interested in knowing how that happened. But nobody is going to feel bad for them or say they are victims.

And your failure to understand those on your political side is astounding. The beginnings of the narrative are already there.

Tamerlan, the older brother, repeatedly expressed his feelings of alienation from American society and inability to make friends. He complained of a immoral culture rampant in America. As he grew up in America, he only grew apart from America. His search for belonging and identity then took a turn for the worse. Unable to identify with America, he looked to his country of old and religion for identity.

And so it goes.

At some point, we will learn that he came incensed at the immorality of America and the horrors that America has inflicted on the world's Muslims. He felt he had to do something. If only we didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan and if only we would stop supporting Israel and let the Palestinians wipe out Israel then these brothers may not have been radicalized.

You are right to be pissed. Because your side will do it.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

With the suspects in the books:

(Not that you need my approval anyways, but)

I'm proud of everyone on here. Things got heated, and nobody grabbed their ball and went home. Thanks to everyone who contributed info here, because I don't follow current events that don't involve shiny gold helmets, and it kept me in the loop.

With that said: SPRING GAME TODAY!!!!!!! GRAB A BEER AND ENJOY BROTHERS!!!!!!

 

[magogian]

But it wouldn't be an Irishpat moment without slamming liberals......;-)

[/URL][/IMG]

Thanks for posting. Those comments are hilarious. From what else I've read, I bet David Sirota will be one of the first to start the victim narrative.

 

[irishpat183]

And your failure to understand those on your political side is astounding. The beginnings of the narrative are already there.

Tamerlan, the older brother, repeatedly expressed his feelings of alienation from American society and inability to make friends. He complained of a immoral culture rampant in America. As he grew up in America, he only grew apart from America. His search for belonging and identity then took a turn for the worse. Unable to identify with America, he looked to his country of old and religion for identity.

And so it goes.

At some point, we will learn that he came incensed at the immorality of America and the horrors that America has inflicted on the world's Muslims. He felt he had to do something. If only we didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan and if only we would stop supporting Israel and let the Palestinians wipe out Israel then these brothers may not have been radicalized.

You are right to be pissed. Because your side will do it.

Exactly. He doesn't even see it yet.

 

[BobD]

April 19, 2013

Notre Dame, Ind. - Many University of Notre Dame athletic teams and coaches competing through the weekend will wear helmet stickers and ribbons to acknowledge the tragic events in Boston this week.

The Irish football players will wear stickers on the backs of their helmets during the Blue-Gold spring game Saturday at Notre Dame Stadium. The stickers feature a green shamrock with a blue "B" trimmed in yellow. Also wearing the stickers on their helmets this weekend will be the Notre Dame baseball, softball and men's lacrosse teams.

 

[irishff1014]

Is this what the Irish are wearing on the helmets today.

 

[BobD]

Is this what the Irish are wearing on the helmets today.

Yes, I just added the story to my original post. GO IRISH!

 

[NDFan4Life]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CdthumzpMCM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[irishff1014]

Yes, I just added the story to my original post. GO IRISH!

Thanks sir

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Rights are rights. If you think about it, the rights that afford you protections after you're arrested are given to people who have done bad things by design. The whole idea behind "rights" is that they are things everyone* is entitled to, even if they've just done something wrong.

Now, in this case, I'm not sure who is complaining that this kid hasn't been read his rights, but they don't know what they are talking about. There is a fairly well established concept called the national security exception that permits law enforcement to question a suspect on matters of national security without reading the suspect his or her Miranda rights. The exception would certainly apply in this case to allow for questioning to determine who this kid worked with, if anyone, and whether there are undetonated explosives anywhere, etc. Eventually this kid should be read his rights like everyone else, but that he hasn't been yet is not a legit concern.

*rights come in two flavors - human rights which apply to everyone, and constitutional rights which are afforded to American citizens. In this case the distinction is meaningless because the suspect is an American citizen.

This is a letter perfect quote. Exquisit in detail. Tom, I am going to find random posts of yours to rep because it is so good!

This thread headed south in a hurry

What? Because of my innocuous post? Of course with the weather we are having today, that would be welcome indeed!

With the suspects in the books:

(Not that you need my approval anyways, but)

I'm proud of everyone on here. Things got heated, and nobody grabbed their ball and went home. Thanks to everyone who contributed info here, because I don't follow current events that don't involve shiny gold helmets, and it kept me in the loop.

With that said: SPRING GAME TODAY!!!!!!! GRAB A BEER AND ENJOY BROTHERS!!!!!!

You too, bro! You are the man!

You remind me of this high school wrestling coach I know from Indy!

Exactly. He doesn't even see it yet.

Yes but I do. I have fought against little bastards we spent years pissing off. All things being equal. I would rather deal with little bastards we treated with respect, ignored or did any number of other things with.

I love these threads. I'm able to discuss things, sensitive in nature, and get different reactions from those in different situations. While I may not agree on everything with everyone, you're all still very intelligent guys and I hold no ill will.


Gentlemen, this website is a place for DISCUSSION....not a place where we all sit around a camp fire, agreeing on everything. And that's what is so great about it.

Thanks to all for your input. Whether I agree or not.

My respect for you has grown. And I am beginning to believe you, but help me out, Pat. To prove it, stop posting some of your political posts, unrelated to the situation or reality, like the "epic fail" post.

Thanks for posting. Those comments are hilarious. From what else I've read, I bet David Sirota will be one of the first to start the victim narrative.

For the longest time I didn't understand what you were talking about, victim narrative; then I rembered the "epic wail" of excuses started by Mitt, picked up by the conservatives after the 2012 "as$whupin'"!

April 19, 2013

Notre Dame, Ind. - Many University of Notre Dame athletic teams and coaches competing through the weekend will wear helmet stickers and ribbons to acknowledge the tragic events in Boston this week.

The Irish football players will wear stickers on the backs of their helmets during the Blue-Gold spring game Saturday at Notre Dame Stadium. The stickers feature a green shamrock with a blue "B" trimmed in yellow. Also wearing the stickers on their helmets this weekend will be the Notre Dame baseball, softball and men's lacrosse teams.

Now this is class! Have a great day, and a great Spring Festival, everybody!

 

[Redbar]

How long until the media starts floating the narrative that he is the victim?

If only America was more accepting, etc. If only we didn't invade Iraq/Afghanistan and didn't support Israel.

And your failure to understand those on your political side is astounding. The beginnings of the narrative are already there.

Tamerlan, the older brother, repeatedly expressed his feelings of alienation from American society and inability to make friends. He complained of a immoral culture rampant in America. As he grew up in America, he only grew apart from America. His search for belonging and identity then took a turn for the worse. Unable to identify with America, he looked to his country of old and religion for identity.

And so it goes.

At some point, we will learn that he came incensed at the immorality of America and the horrors that America has inflicted on the world's Muslims. He felt he had to do something. If only we didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan and if only we would stop supporting Israel and let the Palestinians wipe out Israel then these brothers may not have been radicalized.

You are right to be pissed. Because your side will do it.

WTF? Where has this issue been mentioned anywhere in this thread? The news? Anywhere? ATTENTION WALMART SHOPPERS! Cue insertion of trolling, personal issues, into unrelated debate time.

EDIT: PATHETIC!

 

[Rhode Irish]

If you think "liberals" are sympathetic to terrorists then you disqualify yourself from having a seat at the table for this discussion. It's nonsense, and part of the problem with the discourse in this country. If you have to make up reasons to disagree with the other side then maybe it is time to rethink some of your ideas. Bashing the other side on patriotism grounds went out of style in 2004.

Having some amount of intellectual curiosity about how a person becomes a murdering psychopath is not the same as making excuses for terrorists or making them out to be victims.

 

[magogian]

[/B]
WTF? Where has this issue been mentioned anywhere in this thread? The news? Anywhere? ATTENTION WALMART SHOPPERS! Cue insertion of trolling, personal issues, into unrelated debate time.

EDIT: PATHETIC!

I never said it was mentioned. It is a common justification provided by Islamic terrorists. Assuming this was an act of Islamic terrorism (looks likely but not definitive yet), it is very likely those will be some of the brothers' justifications.

 

[Redbar]

I never said it was mentioned. It is a common justification provided by Islamic terrorists. Assuming this was an act of Islamic terrorism (looks likely but not definitive yet), it is very likely those will be some of the brothers' justifications.

Is it a common justification by Chechnyians? Even islamic chechnyians? Never ever heard that before, everything I have seen them do had to do with independence and separation from Russia. But hey you can keep the Israeli/Islamic beef front and center just in case they don't.

and by the way the misdeeds of these Islamic chechnyians does not bolster, justify or make morally right everything that Israel does.

 

[magogian]

If you think "liberals" are sympathetic to terrorists then you disqualify yourself from having a seat at the table for this discussion. It's nonsense, and part of the problem with the discourse in this country. If you have to make up reasons to disagree with the other side then maybe it is time to rethink some of your ideas. Bashing the other side on patriotism grounds went out of style in 2004.

Having some amount of intellectual curiosity about how a person becomes a murdering psychopath is not the same as making excuses for terrorists or making them out to be victims.

First, you are quite fond of disqualifying from the discussion those that disagree with you. So very American of you. But, of course, I'm the one that doesn't understand America. Got it.

Second, I didn't accuse liberals of being sympathetic to terrorists. But let's go with it. In fact, many liberals appear to be sympathetic to terrorists. Sympathy doesn't necessarily mean they support the goals or actions of the terrorists. But for sympathy, all you have to do is look at Gitmo.

There were and are legitimate arguments to be made that enhanced interrogation techniques were wrong and that habeas should extend to Gitmo. But liberals have gone far beyond that.

They engaged in widespread, sophisticated PR campaigns to recast many of these hardened murderers into simple family men, goat herders, and idealistic young men in search of a better life. Most were lies, and they knew it. Even Obama realized it was mostly BS once he was in office. Sure, he wanted to close Gitmo still, but even he recognized that many if not most were hardened terrorists. He wasn't about to just let them all go free.

Its not popular to raise this point. Liberals want to be able cast practically every terrorist other than OBL or KSM are a lovable, good person without anyone calling them on their BS. So, when someone does, they rant and rage with such self-righteous indignation. Thanks for illustrating my point.

 

[magogian]

Is it a common justification by Chechnyians? Even islamic chechnyians? Never ever heard that before, everything I have seen them do had to do with independence and separation from Russia. But hey you can keep the Israeli/Islamic beef front and center just in case they don't.

and by the way the misdeeds of these Islamic chechnyians does not bolster, justify or make morally right everything that Israel does.

Apparently, you fail to understand the distinction between religion and ethnicity.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Apparently, you fail to understand the distinction between religion and ethnicity.

And Pat doesn't know what "white" means.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

First, you are quite fond of disqualifying from the discussion those that disagree with you. So very American of you. But, of course, I'm the one that doesn't understand America. Got it.

Second, I didn't accuse liberals of being sympathetic to terrorists. But let's go with it. In fact, many liberals appear to be sympathetic to terrorists. Sympathy doesn't necessarily mean they support the goals or actions of the terrorists. But for sympathy, all you have to do is look at Gitmo.

There were and are legitimate arguments to be made that enhanced interrogation techniques were wrong and that habeas should extend to Gitmo. But liberals have gone far beyond that.

They engaged in widespread, sophisticated PR campaigns to recast many of these hardened murderers into simple family men, goat herders, and idealistic young men in search of a better life. Most were lies, and they knew it. Even Obama realized it was mostly BS once he was in office. Sure, he wanted to close Gitmo still, but even he recognized that many if not most were hardened terrorists. He wasn't about to just let them all go free.

Its not popular to raise this point. Liberals want to be able cast practically every terrorist other than OBL or KSM are a lovable, good person without anyone calling them on their BS. So, when someone does, they rant and rage with such self-righteous indignation. Thanks for illustrating my point.

I'd like to take exception here. There's a difference between claiming that people are lovable/good and saying that we should treat them the way we would hope our own soldiers would be treated. We don't get to break international law or skirt the Geneva convention and claim righteous indignation when they do the same thing to our guys.

 

[magogian]

I'd like to take exception here. There's a difference between claiming that people are lovable/good and saying that we should treat them the way we would hope our own soldiers would be treated. We don't get to break international law or skirt the Geneva convention and claim righteous indignation when they do the same thing to our guys.

I don't necessarily disagree. With terrorists, I think it is pretty clear they don't get the same protections as uniformed troops fighting for a country. But that is rather aside from your point I believe.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I don't necessarily disagree. With terrorists, I think it is pretty clear they don't get the same protections as uniformed troops fighting for a country. But that is rather aside from your point I believe.

My point is that you're actually accusing liberals of sympathizing with terrorists. I think that's ludicrous on its face. I'm surprised it even has to be said.

 

[Rhode Irish]

First, you are quite fond of disqualifying from the discussion those that disagree with you. So very American of you. But, of course, I'm the one that doesn't understand America. Got it.

What? Where do you get the idea that I am fond of disqualifying people that disagree with me? I said if you think liberals sympathize with terrorists, you're disqualified. That doesn't have to do with disagreeing with me, it's just an assertion that if you start from such an absurdly false premise then your input is worthless. That concept is in play here: because your premise that I disqualify anyone that disagrees with me is factually wrong, what follows from that premise (that I am un-American) is easily dismissed. So yes, not only do you not understand America (as evidenced by the rest of your idiotic tirade), but you fail to understand basic logic and the tenants of debate.

Second, I didn't accuse liberals of being sympathetic to terrorists. But let's go with it. In fact, many liberals appear to be sympathetic to terrorists. Sympathy doesn't necessarily mean they support the goals or actions of the terrorists. But for sympathy, all you have to do is look at Gitmo.

There were and are legitimate arguments to be made that enhanced interrogation techniques were wrong and that habeas should extend to Gitmo. But liberals have gone far beyond that.

They engaged in widespread, sophisticated PR campaigns to recast many of these hardened murderers into simple family men, goat herders, and idealistic young men in search of a better life. Most were lies, and they knew it. Even Obama realized it was mostly BS once he was in office. Sure, he wanted to close Gitmo still, but even he recognized that many if not most were hardened terrorists. He wasn't about to just let them all go free.

Its not popular to raise this point. Liberals want to be able cast practically every terrorist other than OBL or KSM are a lovable, good person without anyone calling them on their BS. So, when someone does, they rant and rage with such self-righteous indignation. Thanks for illustrating my point.

This all just rambling nonsense and I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. I know a lot of liberals, but I don't know any that think the Gitmo detainees are just innocent goat herders. Some may have questions about the legal and ethical legitimacy of the operation, but that has to do with us holding ourselves to a higher standard, not with excusing the detainees or setting them free. Regardless, you're barking up the wrong tree. I may be liberal on most social issues, but on terror-related matters of national security I am quite hawkish. You seem to want to paint with a broad brush with the wrong color paint. Not all non-right wingers have the same position on every policy matter, and no respectable person in the civilized world sympathizes with terrorists. That is a straw man that you either created or mindlessly accepted.

 

[magogian]

My point is that you're actually accusing liberals of sympathizing with terrorists. I think that's ludicrous on its face. I'm surprised it even has to be said.

Here are just a few examples:

"a core group of detainee leaders recruited as many as 131 detainees to engage in a coordinated hunger strike. The self-starvation was intended to make the detainees look like victims, win sympathy for their cause, and force the U.S. government to choose between letting them die or letting them go. The tactic worked to perfection. Human rights activists created a media firestorm with completely fabricated reports about Guantanamo medical staff using "forced feedings" to "torture" detainees.

Ms. Mason herself inflamed tensions with the hunger strikers during a visit to Guantanamo in October 2005. She told one of the detainees, Yousef Al Shehri, that the U.S. government had no court authority to feed him using a nasal tube, according to Justice Department documents. As a result, Al Shehri pulled out his feeding tube, persuaded detainees in his cell block to do the same and exhorted them to physically resist efforts to reinsert the tube. DOJ lawyers would later argue that Ms. Mason's advocacy "resulted in a disruption of camp security and a potential threat to the health of eight hunger-striking detainees."

Despite this history, Paul, Weiss attorneys were apparently so confident that the DOJ could be cowed into submission that they provided the court with exhibits—letters, emails and court filings—documenting gross violations of the protective order by other habeas attorneys whose access was not cut off, ostensibly to show that Paul, Weiss was being treated unfairly.

We obtained Justice Department accounts of some of those incidents under a Freedom of Information Act request. Examples included an incident in which a lawyer sent his detainee client the transcript of a virulently anti-American speech that compared military physicians to Joseph Mengele, the Nazi doctor of Auschwitz, called DOJ lawyers "desk torturers" and suggested that the "abuses carried out by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib . . . could involve the President in the commission of war crimes."

Other incidents listed in the FOIA material included: a lawyer who was caught in the act of making a hand-drawn map of a detention camp's layout, including guard towers; a lawyer who sent a letter to his detainee client telling him that "we cannot depend on the military to do the right thing" and conveying his message of support to other detainees who were not his clients; lawyers who posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet; lawyers who provided news outlets with "interviews" of their clients using questions provided in advance by the news organization; and a lawyer who gave his client a list of all the detainees."

Debra Burlingame and Thomas Joscelyn: Gitmo's Indefensible Lawyers - WSJ.com


Or the infamous case of Lynne Stewart who assisted Omar Abdel-Rahman (part of the 1993 World Trade bombings) with running his terror network while he was in prison.

 

[magogian]

What? Where do you get the idea that I am fond of disqualifying people that disagree with me? I said if you think liberals sympathize with terrorists, you're disqualified. That doesn't have to do with disagreeing with me, it's just an assertion that if you start from such an absurdly false premise then your input is worthless. That concept is in play here: because your premise that I disqualify anyone that disagrees with me is factually wrong, what follows from that premise (that I am un-American) is easily dismissed. So yes, not only do you not understand America (as evidenced by the rest of your idiotic tirade), but you fail to understand basic logic and the tenants of debate.
.

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!

 

[magogian]

I know a lot of liberals, but I don't know any that think the Gitmo detainees are just innocent goat herders. Some may have questions about the legal and ethical legitimacy of the operation, but that has to do with us holding ourselves to a higher standard, not with excusing the detainees or setting them free. Regardless, you're barking up the wrong tree. I may be liberal on most social issues, but on terror-related matters of national security I am quite hawkish.

Good, that is refreshing. All too uncommon amongst the big law attorneys here in Chicago. I admit to possibly transferring my frustration with them onto you.

 

[Redbar]

Here are just a few examples:

"a core group of detainee leaders recruited as many as 131 detainees to engage in a coordinated hunger strike. The self-starvation was intended to make the detainees look like victims, win sympathy for their cause, and force the U.S. government to choose between letting them die or letting them go. The tactic worked to perfection. Human rights activists created a media firestorm with completely fabricated reports about Guantanamo medical staff using "forced feedings" to "torture" detainees.

Ms. Mason herself inflamed tensions with the hunger strikers during a visit to Guantanamo in October 2005. She told one of the detainees, Yousef Al Shehri, that the U.S. government had no court authority to feed him using a nasal tube, according to Justice Department documents. As a result, Al Shehri pulled out his feeding tube, persuaded detainees in his cell block to do the same and exhorted them to physically resist efforts to reinsert the tube. DOJ lawyers would later argue that Ms. Mason's advocacy "resulted in a disruption of camp security and a potential threat to the health of eight hunger-striking detainees."

Despite this history, Paul, Weiss attorneys were apparently so confident that the DOJ could be cowed into submission that they provided the court with exhibits—letters, emails and court filings—documenting gross violations of the protective order by other habeas attorneys whose access was not cut off, ostensibly to show that Paul, Weiss was being treated unfairly.

We obtained Justice Department accounts of some of those incidents under a Freedom of Information Act request. Examples included an incident in which a lawyer sent his detainee client the transcript of a virulently anti-American speech that compared military physicians to Joseph Mengele, the Nazi doctor of Auschwitz, called DOJ lawyers "desk torturers" and suggested that the "abuses carried out by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib . . . could involve the President in the commission of war crimes."

Other incidents listed in the FOIA material included: a lawyer who was caught in the act of making a hand-drawn map of a detention camp's layout, including guard towers; a lawyer who sent a letter to his detainee client telling him that "we cannot depend on the military to do the right thing" and conveying his message of support to other detainees who were not his clients; lawyers who posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet; lawyers who provided news outlets with "interviews" of their clients using questions provided in advance by the news organization; and a lawyer who gave his client a list of all the detainees."

Debra Burlingame and Thomas Joscelyn: Gitmo's Indefensible Lawyers - WSJ.com


Or the infamous case of Lynne Stewart who assisted Omar Abdel-Rahman (part of the 1993 World Trade bombings) with running his terror network while he was in prison.

There are no examples of extreme right wing militia or neo nazi's taking up jihad huh? Or even extremely conservative christian congressman supporting and aiding leaders that wanted to execute homosexuals. Look there are idiots on both sides if you are looking to prove a general point on the back of the few crackpots out there then your point is pretty weak, and if that is what shapes your view of the "other" side you need more help than can be provided here.