Explosion during Boston Marathon (political discussion)

• Con_Alma

  lhslep134;1427848 wrote:I'll summarize my point for you to simplify:
  
  Heightened security/more inconvenience: less terror attacks
  Lesser security/less inconvenience: more terror attacks
  
  That is a gross oversimplification of the issues at work but you clearly don't get my point unless I explain it like that.
  
  
  EDIT: I'm not saying Israel's security is more lax than the U.S. I'm saying it's more lax than the U.S. would be if we were in a constant war zone like Israel.

  ?????I still don't know what that has to do with suicide bombers.
• lhslep134

  

  Con_Alma;1427855 wrote:?????I still don't know what that has to do with suicide bombers.

  substitute suicide bomber with the term terrorist attack
• Con_Alma

  lhslep134;1427862 wrote:substitute suicide bomber with the term terrorist attack

  So my question is who was talking about a suicide bomber? Maybe I'm missing something.
• lhslep134

  

  Con_Alma;1427866 wrote: Maybe I'm missing something.

  Ah yes you are. Justin was bitching about people checking papers. I said, go to Israel you might have a different perspective. I didn't clarify, but what I meant by it was the gross simplification I posted earlier. They're in a war zone, don't check papers like that, and as a result there are suicide bombs (read: terrorist attacks) that happen on a more prevalent basis.
  
  Justin was concerned about the checking of papers being a regular thing, and my rebuttal was that if we were in a war zone, you'd rather be dealing with that than the constant threat of a terror attack.
  
  Hope this clarifies.
• justincredible

  

  lhslep134;1427872 wrote:Justin was concerned about the checking of papers being a regular thing, and my rebuttal was that if we were in a war zone, you'd rather be dealing with that than the constant threat of a terror attack.

  Speak for yourself. I'll be dead before something like that becomes a regular thing.
• lhslep134

  

  justincredible;1427875 wrote:Speak for yourself

  I was. I understand your position. Don't see anything wrong with it actually, just am not in agreeance. I will say, however, that it doesn't mean that I agree with the opposite end of the spectrum.
• Con_Alma

  lhslep134;1427872 wrote:Ah yes you are. Justin was bitching about people checking papers. I said, go to Israel you might have a different perspective. I didn't clarify, but what I meant by it was the gross simplification I posted earlier. They're in a war zone, don't check papers like that, and as a result there are suicide bombs (read: terrorist attacks) that happen on a more prevalent basis.
  
  Justin was concerned about the checking of papers being a regular thing, and my rebuttal was that if we were in a war zone, you'd rather be dealing with that than the constant threat of a terror attack.
  
  Hope this clarifies.

  It doesn't but I appreciate the effort. I really do. I understand the flow of the thread and everyone's concerns. I don't understand why anyone thought that suicide bombers were being talked about....either in Israel or in Boston.
• Gblock

  the way this will affect our politics/laws will depend on if this person has brown skin or white. if this is domestic it will not have the same affect on our current president or the next election as it would if it is al queda or another middle east group
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Note: Israel as a whole today does not live under constant threat from attack.
  It does in the West Bank, but as for the main cities, no threat at all. Tel Aviv is pretty much in a bubble.
• lhslep134

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1427979 wrote:Tel Aviv is pretty much in a bubble.

  Except for the bus bomb that went off in November 2012...
  
  You're generally right, but I'm just saying.
• Tiernan

  justincredible;1427875 wrote:Speak for yourself. I'll be dead before something like that becomes a regular thing.

  Most of the time the checking would be done on Foreign Looking fucks...but since you kinda bear a resemblance to Timothy McVey* I guess they would be checking your papers too.
  
  *tall gangly extremely white bread dude.
• BoatShoes

  It is interesting to see the debate among conservatives over this case. On other boards I've seen some conservatives make the Lindsey Graham argument that the's an enemy combatant and then on the other hand more state's-rights oriented types arguing that he shouldn't even be charged with a federal crime but should be charged under Massachusetts law.
• gut

  I will wait for Rand Paul to demand clarification if the POTUS could have sicked a drone on them.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1430549 wrote:On other boards I've seen some conservatives make the Lindsey Graham argument that the's an enemy combatant

  Would that not be consistent with Obama's policy?
  
  As for state law, I don't know. McVeigh attacked a federal building, but I don't know if that was the only thing making it a federal crime.
• BGFalcons82

  

  gut;1430569 wrote:I will wait for Rand Paul to demand clarification if the POTUS could have sicked a drone on them.

  I imagine Barry is searching all the legal books he can find to make this crime come under the auspices of workplace violence. He pulled it off with Major Hassan and convinced us all that the military is nothing more than a workplace. I'm sure he'll come up with something as the truth means nothing to him, only how he can avoid having terrorism attached to his name.
• gut

  BGFalcons82;1430573 wrote: I'm sure he'll come up with something as the truth means nothing to him, only how he can avoid having terrorism attached to his name.

  That's actually a good point. I believe it is the POTUS that classifies someone as an enemy combatant.
  
  But hasn't the precedent already been set abroad? I don't believe a US citizen has more rights just because they are on US soil?
• Mulva

  

  BGFalcons82;1430573 wrote:I imagine Barry is searching all the legal books he can find to make this crime come under the auspices of workplace violence. He pulled it off with Major Hassan and convinced us all that the military is nothing more than a workplace. I'm sure he'll come up with something as the truth means nothing to him, only how he can avoid having terrorism attached to his name.

  This would be a better point if he didn't call him a terrorist in the press conference last night.
• gut

  Mulva;1430587 wrote:This would be a better point if he didn't call him a terrorist in the press conference last night.

  Not really. A domestic terrorist doesn't contradict the story about having Al Qaeda and foreign terrorists on the run. Remember, in his first PC Obama made an rather obvious effort NOT to call it a terrorist attack.
  
  They may very well avoid labeling them enemy combatants and instead push the storyline that they were homegrown terrorists. And in some respects, that's accurate.
• Mulva

  

  gut;1430592 wrote:Not really. A domestic terrorist doesn't contradict the story about having Al Qaeda and foreign terrorists on the run. Remember, in his first PC Obama made an rather obvious effort NOT to call it a terrorist attack.
  
  They may very well avoid labeling them enemy combatants and instead push the storyline that they were homegrown terrorists. And in some respects, that's accurate.

  None of which has anything to do with workplace violence or avoiding having terrorism attached to his name. Not getting your point.
• gut

  Mulva;1430595 wrote:..or avoiding having terrorism attached to his name. Not getting your point.

  Has to do with how he refused to acknowledge Benghazi. The difference is a homegrown terrorist is not an affront or failure to Obama's foreign policy or national security. The borders are "secure" in the sense he's kept us safe from foreign terrorists. That's a very different narrative from some homegrown nutjob (which we've already established we have problems with).
  
  You would even draw parallels to Newtown, just these guys used bombs instead of guns. To call these guys "domestic terrorists" and the Newtown shooter just some nut is really a distinction without a difference. But when you start talking about links to an established international terrorist organization that brings up a whole host of other issues, concerns and considerations.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Mulva;1430587 wrote:This would be a better point if he didn't call him a terrorist in the press conference last night.

  This POTUS declared the military is a workplace and a terrorist yelling Allahu Akbar while murdering his fellow soldiers is not a terrorist. This POTUS, who had our Libyan embassy overtaken with hostages briefly taken and 4 Americans murdered has successfully avoided calling the action as terrorism. And now, faced with bombs killing children, has to figure out how maybe this was a kitchen accident as pressure cookers were used.
  
  You see, this POTUS declared the war on terror over. When terrorism strikes, he can't admit that he was wrong about defeating it. This is the result of having the penultimate narcissist as POTUS.
• Mulva

  

  BGFalcons82;1430604 wrote:This POTUS declared the military is a workplace and a terrorist yelling Allahu Akbar while murdering his fellow soldiers is not a terrorist. This POTUS, who had our Libyan embassy overtaken with hostages briefly taken and 4 Americans murdered has successfully avoided calling the action as terrorism. And now, faced with bombs killing children, has to figure out how maybe this was a kitchen accident as pressure cookers were used.
  
  You see, this POTUS declared the war on terror over. When terrorism strikes, he can't admit that he was wrong about defeating it. This is the result of having the penultimate narcissist as POTUS.

  Again, great point aside from the fact that he called them terrorists last night.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Mulva;1430607 wrote:Again, great point aside from the fact that he called them terrorists last night.

  He's not done yet. He and his sycophants blamed a video for the Benghazi attack for 2 weeks. Like I wrote, he has to come up with something because he defeated terrorism. Just ask him.
• gut

  Well, this is polarizing the immigration reform debate even more.
  
  Some are calling for a slower, more measured approach because we clearly failed with these two.
  
  Others claim we should go further and push harder for reform because people "are living in the shadows" [seriously - what does that have to do with it]
  
  I don't know, maybe it doesn't make a difference if we aren't actively seeking to deport illegals. On the other hand, I'm not sure how registering them is going to help, either.
  
  Admittedly though I'm kind of shocked that this is being spun to support the push for legalization. One would have thought this is a pretty major blow and points to a flaw in the process. Although, to be fair, seems the big failure here was the FBI in 2011 when they had him on their radar and half-assed it.
• tk421

  

  I like how when someone uses a gun in a mass shooting, law makers can't wait to call for increased regulations, but someone who immigrates to this country does the same but we should wait and not use the tragedy for political gains. I saw Rubio, I think, said that. I had to laugh, that's what DC does, use everything as an opportunity.