RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread

RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

papassion -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/17/2013 1:42:50 PM)
I'm thinking its a local group, something like the "weathermen" group back in the day. If it was an experienced group intent in a high kill ratio, they would have planted the second explosion very close to the first explosion. Thus they would have killed a large number of people who rushed in to help the wounded from the first explosion. Unfortunately, this will probably set off some copycat crazies. Be careful, be safe.

mnottertail -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/17/2013 1:44:36 PM)
Thats what I was thinking, like the John Birchers.

Hillwilliam -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/17/2013 1:54:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Thats what I was thinking, like the John Birchers. I was thinking more like Eric Rudolph. Blast a clinic and hide a shrapnel bomb nearby to go off an hour later.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/17/2013 3:52:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I was thinking more like Eric Rudolph. Blast a clinic and hide a shrapnel bomb nearby to go off an hour later. Another of those who set out to harm the first responders? God, how unbelievably disgusting.

Aswad -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/17/2013 6:33:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Another of those who set out to harm the first responders? God, how unbelievably disgusting. Sadly, it remains one of the most effective ways to make sure the initial targets become casualties, since the modern era provides a lot of means to increase the likelihood of survival if you get good first aid on the scene and get extracted soon, whereas if you harm the first responders, the result will tend to be that a lot of serious injuries don't get treated until much later, which dramatically increases the overall mortality and complication rates. IWYW, — Aswad.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/17/2013 8:18:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Another of those who set out to harm the first responders? God, how unbelievably disgusting. Sadly, it remains one of the most effective ways to make sure the initial targets become casualties, since the modern era provides a lot of means to increase the likelihood of survival if you get good first aid on the scene and get extracted soon, whereas if you harm the first responders, the result will tend to be that a lot of serious injuries don't get treated until much later, which dramatically increases the overall mortality and complication rates. Also, it teaches the lesson that there are no good people amongst the enemy. Kind hearts amongst the enemy are still the enemy. What a wonderful world.

JeffBC -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/17/2013 8:30:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Also, it teaches the lesson that there are no good people amongst the enemy. Kind hearts amongst the enemy are still the enemy. What a wonderful world. In an asymmetrical warfare situation I somehow doubt that the side which is vastly outnumbered is very inclined to "play fair". I certainly wouldn't be. I'd be more focused on winning. I'm not much inclined to think that fairness has much to do with war. I think winning and losing are a lot more relevant.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/17/2013 8:40:21 PM)
FR The flurry of conflicting news reports about an arrest this afternoon (way to go, CNN - good job!) happened to coincide with my lunchtime wanderings of the internet today. A reminder of just how lousy a job the media sometimes does. The confirmed reports that there is video of a person dropping a bag at one of the locations, and that they have a face they are trying to put a name with is the best news yet. If it can't be done with facial recognition software, I wonder how long it will be before a grainy image will be at the top of every news source in the country?

JeffBC -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/17/2013 8:43:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic If it can't be done with facial recognition software... Well ain't that just creepy as fuck. I would rather the guy walk but sadly, the surveillance state disagrees.

Kirata -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/17/2013 8:48:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC If it turn out in the next week or so to be a domestic, 20 something, disgruntled pro-gun guy I won't be surprised. No pro-gun guy would think this would help his cause, unless you mean one with ties to the CIA. K.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/17/2013 9:00:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic If it can't be done with facial recognition software... Well ain't that just creepy as fuck. You're fuckin a right on that one.

Rule -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/18/2013 1:47:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC In an asymmetrical warfare situation I somehow doubt that the side which is vastly outnumbered is very inclined to "play fair". I certainly wouldn't be. I'd be more focused on winning. I'm not much inclined to think that fairness has much to do with war. I think winning and losing are a lot more relevant. Then you have lost already.

TricklessMagic -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/18/2013 8:41:11 AM)
Lost, huh, like the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan have lost. Oh wait, they are just poising to take over once we are gone, then they'll have won, God knows we didn't in the end. Some people defining winning as some sort of morality that is only achievable under a certain set of fabricated circumstances. Let's be real, the Union won the Civil War by engaging in acts like Sherman's March, we won World War II by decimating civilian population centers (eh Dresden and the atomic bombs). We lost Vietnam because of liberals. We won the first Iraq war with "Killboxes" and superior hardware, we won the second one again using "Killboxes" and superior hardware. Morality is in the eye of the beholder, and history is written by the victor. To truly win, you have to kill off a significant portion of the enemy so they became a limited minority. Anything else simply leaves room for more death in the future. Playing fair and fighting clean is how you lose, or at least chance losing, I'm not a gambler. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC In an asymmetrical warfare situation I somehow doubt that the side which is vastly outnumbered is very inclined to "play fair". I certainly wouldn't be. I'd be more focused on winning. I'm not much inclined to think that fairness has much to do with war. I think winning and losing are a lot more relevant. Then you have lost already.

mnottertail -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/18/2013 8:44:47 AM)
War is an extension of politics by other means. We are not extending our politics to them, so........we killed a buncha motherfuckers, but that aint winning.

Rule -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/18/2013 8:50:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail we killed a buncha motherfuckers, but that aint winning. Yes, it is.

Rule -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/18/2013 9:12:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic Lost, huh, like the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan have lost. Oh wait, they are just poising to take over once we are gone, then they'll have won, God knows we didn't in the end. Sure they will take over - but preventing such a takeover is not the purpose of the wars the USA wages. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic the Union won the Civil War by engaging in acts like Sherman's March, we won World War II by decimating civilian population centers (eh Dresden and the atomic bombs). We lost Vietnam because of liberals. Those were not wars, but carefully orchestrated plays. I deplore the decimating of civilian centers during WWII. The high IQ minds who plan these plays, unfortunately are not very bright. As for the atom bombs that exterminated Christianity in Japan, that presumably was the condition that Japan negotiated before they agreed to the role of the bad guy in the play. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic We lost Vietnam because of liberals. No, you lost Vietnam because the USA never intended to win. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic history is written by the victor. Quite. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic Morality is in the eye of the beholder Indeed. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic We won the first Iraq war with "Killboxes" and superior hardware, we won the second one again using "Killboxes" and superior hardware. To truly win, you have to kill off a significant portion of the enemy so they became a limited minority. Anything else simply leaves room for more death in the future. I have no issue with killing savages. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic Playing fair and fighting clean is how you lose, or at least chance losing, I'm not a gambler. The torture practices perpetrated by the USA cost them quite a lot of goodwill. Torturing is what savages do.

TricklessMagic -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/18/2013 9:12:47 AM)
How? What we are leaving behind in Afghanistan and Iraq is no better, and possibly worse, than what we found. There is more opium trade than ever. The Jihadists will take our leaving as a victory and use it as a rallying cry for more recruits and bolder action. We defeated one of Iran's biggest local enemies (Iraq) and have given them largely a free hand to do as they please. The Soviets killed a bunch of Afghanis, guess what, they still lost the war. We killed a bunch of Taliban, and Obama has made us lose. We killed a bunch of Saddam Husseuin forces, we still lost as the country will slip back into old habits of fascism and dictatorship. Body counts are only wins, when the enemy, the enemy's family and friends, the enemies children, are all dead. Look at Carthrage and the third Punic War, now look at the Middle East, how long has the Middle East been a problem (since before the defensive campaign of the Crusades). We'll be dickering over what to do with the Middle East well into the future, short of nuking the damn place and destroying Islam, just a simple reality. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail we killed a buncha motherfuckers, but that aint winning. Yes, it is.

mnottertail -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/18/2013 9:24:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail we killed a buncha motherfuckers, but that aint winning. Yes, it is. Nope, you are reading the signs in your foreskin oracles wrong.

Rule -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/18/2013 9:35:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic How? By killing the most savage men in their population, you improved their gene pool. That is a win for both populations. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic What we are leaving behind in Afghanistan and Iraq is no better, and possibly worse, than what we found. There is more opium trade than ever. A certain group in the West finances their secret projects with the huge profits that trade generates for them. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic The Jihadists will take our leaving as a victory and use it as a rallying cry for more recruits and bolder action. Great: then you can exterminate those savages as well. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic We defeated one of Iran's biggest local enemies (Iraq) and have given them largely a free hand to do as they please. I rather suspect that it is Iran's turn next - unless North Korea elbows ahead in the queue. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic The Soviets killed a bunch of Afghanis, guess what, they still lost the war. They were never meant to win it, but just to weaken Afghanistan. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic We killed a bunch of Taliban, and Obama has made us lose. That is how the objective of modern wars has changed: they are not intended to be won. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic We killed a bunch of Saddam Husseuin forces, we still lost as the country will slip back into old habits of fascism and dictatorship. It is a bit like the game of whackamole: every time one of them beasts pokes up its head through a hole, you crush its skull and brain. These are wars in the fast lane, enabling many such wars to be fought sequentially and sometimes simultaneously. Such wars are not waged with the intention to occupy territory - for that would necessitate the slow lane. quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic Body counts are only wins, when the enemy, the enemy's family and friends, the enemies children, are all dead. Let's limit it to the savages in arms, okay? quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic Look at Carthrage and the third Punic War, now look at the Middle East, how long has the Middle East been a problem (since before the defensive campaign of the Crusades). We'll be dickering over what to do with the Middle East well into the future, short of nuking the damn place and destroying Islam, just a simple reality. There is a better solution, but CM mods have forbidden me to talk about it.

hlen5 -> RE: The Insensitive Boston Thread (4/18/2013 9:42:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail we killed a buncha motherfuckers, but that aint winning. Yes, it is. Nope, you are reading the signs in your foreskin oracles wrong. [sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif]

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875