Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 222

Thread: Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

  1. #181
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

    Quote Originally Posted by tjinta ibis View Post
    Please dumb this down to your level so I can follow your (?) logic. Or perhaps you prefer to just keep the meaning of this little bon mot to yourself.
    Currently 50+ Posts into your career here at DP and it's not looking good, chap.

  2. #182
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

    Quote Originally Posted by tjinta ibis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    Cite your evidence weakling or be disbelieved.
    Prove me wrong!
    alright troll, knock it off. You're just wasting space now.

  3. #183
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

    And which one of these people are now on the terrorist watchlist? None of those people were even arrested, the kid from the first article wasn't even searched, and once again the stop and search is only allowed in places which have been designated to be at high risk for terrorist targeting.

    Ok, maybe not the best example... but then again, not even being able to walk down the street with a beer in hand is pretty rediculous of a restriction if you think about it... now, while driving is a different issue, but then you become a public risk.
    It depends where you're at. It's a state thing, 7 states in the Union don't have open container laws. I personally disagree with open container laws but I can see the logic in trying to prevent public intoxication, it hardly makes one less free to have to drink in the bar, now if one were not allowed to drink at all; such as Iran, then you might have a point.


    Ya, this is true... but we have a 'patriot act' now where you can be deemed a 'domestic terrorist' for violating any 'federal or state law' and then stripped of your constitutional rights.
    False, it could not be any crime it had to be specifically conspiring in acts of terrorism, aiding terrorists, or funding terrorists, and that provision of the Patriot Act was overturned by the SCOTUS in the Padilla case, and then under the Military Commissions Act only ALIEN unlawful combatants could be held without Habeas Corpus not U.S. citizens, and in fact that has since been overturned by the SCOTUS in the Boumediene case, and even when ALIEN unlawful combatants were stripped of Habeas Corpus they still had the right to a hearing by military tribunal to determine if their was actually cause to hold them and if there was they were then entitled to a trial by military commission.


    No, but I've learned enough history to see what goes on in a police state, that's I said, we're not in one... but rather a few steps away. Then again, when the time comes it'll be like that quote in 'star wars' : "And so the republic ends not with a wimper, but with thunderous applause."

    But since you're so smug on the subject, how about you list the differences between the CURRENT reality of north american life, and a police state. This way I can at least see if your idea of a police state is nothing short of open martial law with troops on the streets.
    Well first of all you are wrong about your assertions regarding the Patriot Act and stripping U.S. citizens of their Habeas Corpus rights.


    Freedom of speech has ended in this country... now it's 'free speech zones' and other similar speech restrictions. Our speech is no longer free, just 'lightly restricted when needed'.
    Free speech zones are only used when public office holders; such as the POTUS, who are in danger of assassination are present, again it is not an attempt to stifle free speech, it is an attempt to provide security and considering the numerous times Presidents in our country have been assassinated it may not be such a bad idea.


    Yes... like we saw in Pittsburgh... where there is video of people sitting on their porches, or on campus being told that they were participating in an 'illegal gathering' and then blasted with a sound cannon, beat up, pepper sprayed and arrested.
    Um I believe you're referring to the Pittsburgh black bloc during the G20 summit, sorry sport you have the right to peaceably assemble not to stage black bloc riots as they do everytime they protest.

    Not to mention that the permitted march was denied access to part of the permitted area and then blasted with the sound cannons (that's right before the "anarchists" pushed the trashcans towards the police line)
    Um no that was right after the anarchists started trying to incite a riot by rolling dumpsters towards the police line. Giving a lawful order for an unruly mob to disperse is not a violation of free speech, for Christ's sakes John Adams successfully defended the ****ing red coats after the Boston Massacre for a far more viscous assault.


    True... although most churches have signed away their rights as a religion but instead are 'tax-exempt charities' under the law... 501(c)3
    How does a church being tax exempt harm freedom of religion one iota?

    With voting machines designed for ease of fraud, specifically the computerized ones.
    They got rid of the computerized voting machines. First those who screamed frauds in 2000 wanted computerized voting machines, then those who screamed fraud in 2004 wanted to get rid of the computerized voting machines, and after 2008 you don't hear anyone screaming about fraud now do you? Gee I wonder why that could be, could it be that the leftist activists finally got the results that they wanted?

    Unless you are charged under patriot act.
    Once again that is false as demonstrated.

  4. #184
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

    Re: Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Currently 50+ Posts into your career here at DP and it's not looking good, chap.
    Actually, you gotta give some props to any poster who says "bon mot".
    Previous to the advent of tjinta ibis, I think I was the only poster who had ever used the term.

  5. #185
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    You were disrespectful to the "Highest Law in the Land" and got cocky about it. Not my fault.
    Ok, well, I will apologize for the apparent disrespect... that much was not intended. The point was that the constitution is being rendered legally irrellevant, and this must not happen if we hope to remain in a free country.

    Show me some cases where your average, everyday pothead gets the Patriot Act treatment. Then tell me some smugglers from Columbia helping to bring in over 80% of the nation's cocaine, killing anyone who gets in their way, don't deserve to be considered terrorists?
    The Seattle Times: Local News: Marijuana smuggling case first local use of Patriot Act provision (Using patriot acts 'sneak and peak' warrants)

    Yes, I do agree that a cartel is quite likely to engage in terrorism... but funny thing is that the CIA and FBI have been caught so many times bringing drugs INTO the US that elements of these agencies are just as complicit in those terroristic aspects of the business as the actual cartels going around killing the competition.

    The Stossel thing was a joke, dude. It's to keep an air of humor around here.
    Ya... I should take this more lightly, but it's like half the time I'm stuck trying to prove that something EXISTS rather then being able to get into the purpose of the discussing whether or not it's a good thing. So, I do get frustrated sometimes.

    I'm actually surprised that even after bringing up the potential that this shooter might very well have been a victim of 'mk-ultra' experiments... it's been partially declassified that it IS POSSIBLE to create a 'manchurian candidate' (ie a person so mind-f****d by drugs and hypnotic suggestions that they can litterally be given a completely new identity and be 'triggered' into action).... that noone has even touched... whether or not that is the case... at the very least I would put money that he was on some sort of SSRI (prozac / ritalin) type drug, because it's pretty well ALWAYS the case in mass shootings that the perpetrator had a psychotic reaction to the drugs.

  6. #186
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post

    Now the rest of the B part can be justified in many ways, but the wording also doesn't preclude political activism.

    Who the hell is stossel?
    Um no B is very specific and clarifies A, you might not be reading it correctly A&B are complimentary, the only laws which it is talking about in A are those which involve the actions in part B, and B is clearly definitions of terrorism and it sure as hell does preclude peaceful political activism as peaceful political activism is not against the law.

  7. #187
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

    Quote Originally Posted by tjinta ibis View Post
    Prove me wrong!
    I knew you could be provoked into rising to the bait and taking the hook. The weakling thinks she can set the terms of the argument. Let me clue you into the nature of reality young lady.

    I asked you a series of questions for the purpose of engaging you in debate. You only get to ask me questions after you've answered mine.

    Take a look at your post no. 92 on this thread. Then take a look at my post no. 113 on this thread. If you feel you might be up to a no holds barred debate then answer my questions. Otherwise you're through on this thread.

  8. #188
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Um no B is very specific and clarifies A, you might not be reading it correctly A&B are complimentary, the only laws which it is talking about in A are those which involve the actions in part B, and B is clearly definitions of terrorism and it sure as hell does preclude peaceful political activism as peaceful political activism is not against the law.
    That may be the case, but Pittsburgh's G-20 has shown that even 'peaceful' protest can be deemed 'illegal gatherings'... hell, what the cops / millitary did at the university could even extend that to 'peaceful spectating' of political activism can be deemed 'illegal gatherings'.

    It's my understanding that it becomes up to the courts once the law is passed to interpret these laws... so regardless of our interpretations, it's really how the judge sees it relative to the cases... right? Now, I may have been a little 'over-the top' in my interpretation, but you still got people arguing that the second ammendment does not protect a citizens right to bear arms, so anything is possible in these interpretative efforts.

  9. #189
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

    Quote Originally Posted by tjinta ibis View Post
    Gee this sounds like a tract from the 60's, when Blacks started to demand equality, and whites (southerners especially) said "they" should go back to Africa. And I think the number of murders of white people committed by blacks, and vice versa is 10000% higher than any violence by Muslim Americans.
    lmfao the KKK has not killed as many people in the last 50 years as AQ killed in a single day. In fact the total amount of lynchings of African Americans since 1882 only slightly exceeds that of those killed on 9-11, 2,976 killed on 9-11 versus 3,445 lynchings of African Americans since 1882.

    Lynching Statistics by Year
    September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  10. #190
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    That may be the case, but Pittsburgh's G-20 has shown that even 'peaceful' protest can be deemed 'illegal gatherings'... hell, what the cops / millitary did at the university could even extend that to 'peaceful spectating' of political activism can be deemed 'illegal gatherings'.

    It's my understanding that it becomes up to the courts once the law is passed to interpret these laws... so regardless of our interpretations, it's really how the judge sees it relative to the cases... right? Now, I may have been a little 'over-the top' in my interpretation, but you still got people arguing that the second ammendment does not protect a citizens right to bear arms, so anything is possible in these interpretative efforts.
    There were some less-than-peaceful protesters in Pittsburgh (There were a few hardcore 'Anarchists'), and the presence of a **** ton of Cops I'm sure didn't make them any less likely to not try and cause trouble. Thank Goodness there was no major trouble while the Foreign Leaders were there.

Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •