BF2S Forums Official Mass Shooting & Suicide Bomber thread

i remember when the okc bombing happened and the first thing they said was that it was brown people.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

lol america

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hM7Ura6Q4w

people are dead nearby, but those are some swag jackets, son

Surprising amount of white people. Personally I wouldn't go after jackets. I would try to take one of those flags with me.

Representative Steve King of Iowa, a prominent House conservative, says Congress should be cautious about rushing immigration reform, especially after Monday’s bombing in Boston, where three people were killed.

“Some of the speculation that has come out is that yes, it was a foreign national and, speculating here, that it was potentially a person on a student visa,” King says. “If that’s the case, then we need to take a look at the big picture.”

On immigration, King says national security should be the focus now, and any talk about a path to legalization should be put on hold.

“We need to be ever vigilant,” he says. “We need to go far deeper into our border crossings. . . . We need to take a look at the visa-waiver program and wonder what we’re doing. If we can’t background-check people that are coming from Saudi Arabia, how do we think we are going to background check the 11 to 20 million people that are here from who knows where?”

On Monday, the Senate’s Gang of Eight postponed a press conference because of the events in Boston. Its legislation, however, will be unveiled today.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/34 … mmigration
I don't like the immigration bill anyway but if they torpedo it because of this I'll be upset. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason.



Comments on the article are fun. Take a look.

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-04-16 09:36:57)

RealMurikan  dmxinc • an hour ago
Yes, let in more McVeigh types!
5  29 •Reply•Share ›

Donald Maginnis  RealMurikan • an hour ago
I don't know what values your American neighbors have but mine don't blow up innocent children. McVeigh was just as bad as foreign terrorist. Wish we could have kicked him out
37  •Reply•Share ›

billstu  Donald Maginnis • an hour ago
McVeigh's slaughter might not have happened if Bill Clinton and Janet Reno did not execute all those children at the branch Davidian compound with tanks and fire bombs as McVeigh himself stated ...
55  •Reply•Share ›

Mike from Burnsville  Donald Maginnis • 41 minutes ago
Lets add in Barack Obama's terrorist buddies Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dorn. Why are those bombers running loose. And what about Kathy Soliah a friend of Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar?
46  •Reply•Share ›

Cancel_NPR  Donald Maginnis • 37 minutes ago −
RealMurikan is moronic... His name is exemplary of his disdain for conservatives... He's making fun of the portion of our citizenry which might be less-educated and accordingly less- enunciating, whom pronounce American as "murikan"...
99.99% of people who do pronounce it that way are Conservatives, and loved regardless by our side of the argument...
Those folks are the salt of the earth, the CORE of the working class, and are 99.99 % AGAINST the slaughter of babies in the womb ).
They would kick McVeigh out of the country, and would be reporting EVERYDAY, the horrible FACTS coming out of the Gosnell Murder / Abortionist trial, if they had the power of the press / media...

i spent Patriot Day at work.

i always thought Patriot Day was July 4th . . .

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

why? they went to iraq-afghan voluntarily. if anything their actions only directly contributed to the likelihood of more domestic terrorism.

though again, you're automatically assuming there's a link of relation or even causation between iraq-afghan veterans and a bomb in the US.

I wasn't actually meaning to talk about any political stuff at all.  More of the superficial similarities between this and IED attacks, and how it would suck to go through that, come home and then see it happening in your back yard, and how that would be especially shit.

But as nobody has been (publicly) identified, or nobody has claimed responsibility, we're only left to guess and speculate.  It could be AQ or whoever, but then it could also be some extreme anti-abortion group getting back into it.  Or it could also be some random psycho kid who wanted to blow people up for kicks.  AQ/whoever would have a causal foreign policy link as you've suggested, but the other scenarios I doubt it.  We don't yet know whether XYZ country is going to be bombed over this.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

shocking just wants use this as an opportunity to attack muslims/brown people. please tell us more on how to distinguish "genuine terrorism" from fake terrorism? lol.

wanker wrote:

your habitual disliking of muslims comes through in your dumb categorization of terrorism being "genuine" only when it involves arabs or islam. again: the vast majority of terrorism incidents in america have been domestic, i.e. perpetrated by a national. but then i guess only the small minority were "genuine" attacks, right. it's not authentic if it doesn't cross a race or culture barrier.

Overreaction much? I used the word 'genuine' to distinguish it from domestic terrorism (keeping in mind that the word terrorism is most often associated with foreign non state aggression and in the public mind ever since 9/11, an attack that can be classified as such). Want me to use 'foreign non-state terrorism' instead? Ok. 'habitual disliking of muslims' - lol, that's a piss poor attempt at trying to rile me up uzi.

I already explained why I believe that it's likely *foreign non-state terrorism* rather than domestic. Pulling pre-2000 statistics out of your ass does absolutely nothing to back up your argument.

If it was foreign you would have had a terror group come out and take responsibility already. Attention is the point of terrorism.

Wouldn't be surprising if this was one crazy person doing it and not trying to get caught.

Shocking wrote:

The attacks in Boston are in no way characteristic of a domestic terrorist attack. cba engaging in semantics, you know exactly what I mean and why.

seems perfectly like almost every single IRA bombing to take place in the united kingdom to me. right down to the timed/planned secondary blasts.

and no, i really don't know what you mean by "genuine terrorism". it's a stupid term. it's not 'semantics'. you were trying to imply that a domestic case by some rogue white-dude isn't 'the real deal'. of course it's terrorism. you just reserve a special level of approbation for muslims that set off bombs in public places.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-16 15:12:55)

Shocking wrote:

The attacks in Boston are in no way characteristic of a domestic terrorist attack (just stating this, though I'm not ruling it out). cba engaging in semantics, you know exactly what I mean and why.

Has almost exactly the same death and injury count as the Olympic bombing. Same type of bombing.

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-04-16 15:16:27)

Shocking wrote:

Is there an identifiable political/factional/religious or even tactical motive in attacking the Boston marathon? No. The attack was simply an attempt to maim/kill as many people as possible. Apart from its execution the attack has absolutely nothing in common with IRA attacks.

no? how do you even know? it's less than two days after the fact. no evidence or news has come up. we know nothing of the perpetrator. all we know is that AQ and other major islamic militant groups have denied involvement with it. so your conclusion is: if it isn't islam hating the west, there can't possibly be any sort of motive or hate-ideology behind it? the fact is, we don't know. just because it isn't programmatic, and isn't some organized group declaiming loudly with a manifesto or hate-video, doesn't mean it wasn't politically motivated. it could just be one aggrieved, rogue citizen. there is literally no good information about it. yet you are talking with a conclusive air. quite confusing.

again, i really don't see that. the UK and many other european states have quite a long history of domestic/home-matters being taken out on 'random' people. i'm not sure where you're getting this hypothesis from. what's the distinction between a "random" target and a public event/gathering that isn't "random", and is somehow "relevant" to the cause? what if that cause is political partisanship? or some specific social agenda? you mean like, anti-abortion activists bombing clinics? that satisfies the narrow criteria for 'genuine' and 'non-random' terrorism? does seem very specific. the IRA were seldom that selective or thought-out... and i'd say they qualify as 'genuine' terrorists, tbh. might just be me, though.

Yep. Typical. We've changed our daily greetings from 'How are you?' and 'Good morning' to 'Droned a few more towelheads today, fuck yeah!'. I swear you don't even try to write anything intelligent anymore.