Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
Sweetpumper

Explosions reported - Boston Marathon

541 posts in this topic

I guarantee he'll get tortured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or treat him like a human?

I hate how you can be convicted without trial these days.

Fine, pour water on his face then give him a swift, inexpensive trial. He doesn't deserve humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guarantee he'll get tortured.

Unless he cracks. Torture should be a last resort, even for this vomit. However, a little water on the face is hardly torture. The 8 year old kid he killed, his now leg-less kid sister, his mother in brain surgery who likely won't see her kids funeral and the father who has to now cope with his wrecked family... They don't deserve to see this guy go pain free.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we torture him, then are we any better then he is? I don't necessarily think he should be given the royal treatment, but basic human necessities should be his. Give him the rights that he took away from others (man, I feel like Denzel Washington in "The Siege", his final speech to Bruce Willis - "you have the right NOT to be killed, NOT to be tortured, rights you took away from Tariq Husseini").

Edited by Paranoid Android
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guarantee he'll get tortured.

well if he gave up without shooting himself it would seem he is afraid to die...think about it. For sure he will get a few slaps round the head, thats is UNLESS he just comes out with his story .

He is a 19 year old BOY. Not a highly trained in anti-interrogation-methods SAS member! Why torture him? The worlds media are on him! Any bruises or similar will be immediately seized upon.... no - this guy will talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we torture him, then are we any better then he is? I don't necessarily think he should be given the royal treatment, but basic human necessities should be his. Give him the rights that he took away from others (man, I feel like Denzel Washington in "The Siege", his final speech to Bruce Willis - "you have the right NOT to be killed, NOT to be tortured, rights you took away from Tariq Husseini").

Yes we would be better than him. Not saying we should torture him, but if he refuses to cooperate, measures should be taken.

I wish I could punch him.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if he gave up without shooting himself it would seem he is afraid to die...think about it. For sure he will get a few slaps round the head, thats is UNLESS he just comes out with his story .

He is a 19 year old BOY. Not a highly trained in anti-interrogation-methods SAS member! Why torture him? The worlds media are on him! Any bruises or similar will be immediately seized upon.... no - this guy will talk.

I told my lady the same thing earlier tonight. This kid will crack like an egg. Think about how cocky he was wearing his hat backwards and no glasses. If he'd have been incognito like his brother they'd have probably never been identified. I'll bet he thought they'd never get caught. He's gotta be shtting himself ATM.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this discussion maymigrate to "profiling".

Especially since I brought it up. :yes: :yes:

I for one don't have too much of an issue with keeping my eyes on those with a higher probability of being trouble.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it had been one rough week. But now we can all rest easily knowing these guys won't harm anymore people. The police officers can go to bed since they've been working their butts off.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine how much business Boston bars and taverns will do tonight?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this discussion maymigrate to "profiling".

Especially since I brought it up. :yes: :yes:

I for one don't have too much of an issue with keeping my eyes on those with a higher probability of being trouble.

Myles do you ever wonder when Americans ceased having common sense? Was it in the 90's? We seem more concrned with offending an enemy's feelings than in protecting our own way of life. What did the man say? You cain't fix STUPID :(
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myles do you ever wonder when Americans ceased having common sense? Was it in the 90's? We seem more concrned with offending an enemy's feelings than in protecting our own way of life. What did the man say? You cain't fix STUPID :(

But by alienating an entire group, and entire religion (over 1 billion people) are you really willing to create 1 billion enemies? There are bad groups of people in every ethnic and religious group. There are terrorists and murders in every group of people. The only thing is, since 9/11 people have been so busy with the Muslim Extremists that you will forget about the guy in the back yard.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But by alienating an entire group, and entire religion (over 1 billion people) are you really willing to create 1 billion enemies? There are bad groups of people in every ethnic and religious group. There are terrorists and murders in every group of people. The only thing is, since 9/11 people have been so busy with the Muslim Extremists that you will forget about the guy in the back yard.

You cannot ignore those who pose a higher risk. I understand it's a fine line, but we must use our resources wisely.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Internement camps are possible because of views like yours. Certain Germans had the same line of thinking towards Jews that you now display.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myles do you ever wonder when Americans ceased having common sense? Was it in the 90's? We seem more concrned with offending an enemy's feelings than in protecting our own way of life. What did the man say? You cain't fix STUPID

With all respect, this is how you might characterize those with whose views you disagree with.

It is not really about not wanting to offend the enemy. We also have a sense of fairness and morality (not the same type as you have either) but it is rooted in wanting to be fair and honor our own sense of morals just as much as your logic honors your sense of morals.

We characterize your view as wanting to hurt others, devaluation of the life of others, based in fear, and propagating an us vs them mindest.

I think we can agree that we both want peace but have different ways of achieving it. You blame us for putting others ahead of us while we accuse you of having a backward approach because violence will not increase peace but make more violence.

I get it though, hit them hard and fast, or even eliminate them and we will be safe.

I disagree.

For us it is be fair and understand more and we can achieve peace. I want to understand your view too but I don't or can't...it makes no sense to me.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot ignore those who pose a higher risk. I understand it's a fine line, but we must use our resources wisely.

This is what the Israelis do, and it works very well. No point targeting grandmothers, infants and other non-threatening people and concentrate on those identifiable groups that are. And no, the idea of internments camps is just a fallacious slippery slope argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all respect, this is how you might characterize those with whose views you disagree with.

It is not really about not wanting to offend the enemy. We also have a sense of fairness and morality (not the same type as you have either) but it is rooted in wanting to be fair and honor our own sense of morals just as much as your logic honors your sense of morals.

We characterize your view as wanting to hurt others, devaluation of the life of others, based in fear, and propagating an us vs them mindest.

I think we can agree that we both want peace but have different ways of achieving it. You blame us for putting others ahead of us while we accuse you of having a backward approach because violence will not increase peace but make more violence.

I get it though, hit them hard and fast, or even eliminate them and we will be safe.

I disagree.

For us it is be fair and understand more and we can achieve peace. I want to understand your view too but I don't or can't...it makes no sense to me.

Until the populace can regulate banks there will never be peace.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all respect, this is how you might characterize those with whose views you disagree with.

It is not really about not wanting to offend the enemy. We also have a sense of fairness and morality (not the same type as you have either) but it is rooted in wanting to be fair and honor our own sense of morals just as much as your logic honors your sense of morals.

We characterize your view as wanting to hurt others, devaluation of the life of others, based in fear, and propagating an us vs them mindest.

I think we can agree that we both want peace but have different ways of achieving it. You blame us for putting others ahead of us while we accuse you of having a backward approach because violence will not increase peace but make more violence.

I get it though, hit them hard and fast, or even eliminate them and we will be safe.

I disagree.

For us it is be fair and understand more and we can achieve peace. I want to understand your view too but I don't or can't...it makes no sense to me.

Your view, respectfully, is simply naive. I am completely aware that striking at an enemy p***es that enemy off. But they would not BE an enemy had they not struck us first. Sometimes one has to accept that these issues really do get down to fighting or simply submitting. Your view is one of submission. I won't call it cowardice because I don't really know you or your motivations. But the truth is that some things we fight or we accept and I am unwilling to accept the way of life these barbaric throwbacks would enforce on my child, my family.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I consider your view as the barbaric throwback that will harm my family.

Just as barbaric as the view of the terrorists which you enable or even create.

I consider you and them (terrorists) the same (and equally part of the problem) and I know that there are others over there who think like me but it is the terrorist view and yours (very related imo) that gets more airtime because you both yell louder and use stronger language than us.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your view, respectfully, is simply naive. I am completely aware that striking at an enemy p***es that enemy off. But they would not BE an enemy had they not struck us first. Sometimes one has to accept that these issues really do get down to fighting or simply submitting. Your view is one of submission. I won't call it cowardice because I don't really know you or your motivations. But the truth is that some things we fight or we accept and I am unwilling to accept the way of life these barbaric throwbacks would enforce on my child, my family.

struck you first ? ... in which reality ?

your opinion sounds like crusade more than unwilling to accept things forced on you

wanna go back to 911 ? who done it ? Al-Quada right ? who made them to fight the soviot union ? usa no ?

usa did not get struck first usa struck them thousands times before getting struck

.. just to clear facts up the most high terrorism sect is your own doing

if you wanna blame some one .. blame your goverment for making Al-Qada to fight soviots

while am really supportive of people resistance of anything forced on them and have any right to do so

but keep in mind that so do we have that right

i see no invasion on usa i only see couple of bearly mature kids that easily got fooled into doing something stupid

and they're going to pay for what they did

but to generalize " us " as enemies .. not even your goverment would dare to say so

i see no muslims putting sword to your neck and telling you how to live as a general pattern

so i honestly think you need to clear your head on this one and think logically

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what the Israelis do, and it works very well. No point targeting grandmothers, infants and other non-threatening people and concentrate on those identifiable groups that are. And no, the idea of internments camps is just a fallacious slippery slope argument.

Israel is the most militarized nation on the planet. If everyone wasted resources on militancy like that we'd have a dead planet in record time because when all you've got are hammers, all the problems start to look like nails. If that isn't already bad enough, surrounding 800,000 children in an open-air concentration camp is hardly not-targeting grandmothers and non-threatening people. Got any per-capita costs on what Israel pays for "security"? I'd put money down on the table it's the highest in the world. Gotta build another apartment building and shopping mall on that ancient holy land or burial site after all. There's big money flowing into keeping the consumers safe from the angry.

Every police department in the country profiles, don't let all that do-goodie liberal crap from the media convince you otherwise.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy they caught the bad guy, but shutting down the entire city was almost as bad as what the bomber did. What will they do if several cities are bombed, shut down the country? This is the best advertising for terrorism I could imagine. Look how easy it was to cause complete and utter chaos, and to lock everyone in their homes. The entire city of Boston went to jail for a day!

What this incident reveals, is the danger of the state to our freedom, far more than the danger of the occasional terrorist.

The bad guys know us, and they leave us a lone? After the way this was handled, don't count on it. The smoke signal reads, "their freedom goes poof! when ya blow on it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

No way! This was just the same as shutting the shutters and doors and staying indoor before the shootout @ Dodge @ high noon.

That is not a suspension of freedom but simple common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very probably the FBI and Homeland security went over everything they could find on EVERYONE that showed up on video and pictures from that time and place. It would be simply STUPID to assume that the FBI just went, "Durr... Let's just look for Muslims... Durrr..."

That would be an incredibly stupid way to perform an investigation. If the paperwork ever becomes public, I'll bet that a thousand people had a workup done on them. And these two simply rang more bells and raised more flags than anyone else.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.