Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Very odd

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    Looks like the authorities owe Hispanics an apology. They originally tagged the guy as Hispanic.

    The gov't wants so badly for it not to be related to islam.
    Actually it was witnesses whom said he looked Hispanic. A reasonable assumption since Skagit County is very agriculture intensive and has had a huge influx/increase in "Hispanic" population in the last couple of decades.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    It's an enhancement.

    The Democrat DOJ (FBI) was trying to rule out terrorism before the suspect was arrested. Local and State authorities don't have the same motives as the DOJ..
    State authorities said it's too early to rule out terrorism or anything else because their investigation is in its preliminary stages. Before the suspect's arrest, an official with the FBI had told reporters there was "no evidence at this time" of a link to terrorism.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...est/index.html

    BLM terrorists rioting in North Carolina and a fresh Islamofacsist terrorist attack in Washington would be very inconvenient for Democrats on the eve of the Super Bowl of presidential debates... So there's a full court press to redefine terrorism until it goes away between now and November.
    Your quote refutes your post.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Terrorism vs regular murder (the criminal charges) has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty (the trial outcome).

    "Worse" is a Democrat DOJ insisting that nothing is terrorism 6 weeks before an election in which the Democrat candidate is polling very poorly on the issue of fighting terrorism.
    The UPI/CVoter daily presidential tracking poll asked participants, regardless of whom they plan to support in the general election, which candidate would better handle the issue of terrorism. Overall, Trump was chosen by 49 percent; Clinton was named by 27 percent. Fifteen percent said neither of the candidates would handle the issue well.

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/...6121473182220/
    False of course, lol at the failed bomber in NYC/NJ charges.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    [QUOTE=Half Pint John;3268425]
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post

    Well, in your highly educated NJness let me get down to the bare tacks, JackASS.

    I'm American, always have been and always well and didn't spend my time behind a parts counter, talking. I walked, Jack---.
    Right to Germany.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    [QUOTE=Gixxer86g;3268393]
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    It's Octoberfest, you should be pissed already!
    Well, in your highly educated NJness let me get down to the bare tacks, JackASS.

    I'm American, always have been and always well and didn't spend my time behind a parts counter, talking. I walked, Jack---.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    Shooting someone dead except in case of accident, a state of war or self defence is murder plain and simple. Terrorism is essentially one motive for murder not an alternative to it.
    Maybe this is part of the answer to the problem. Don't try them on Federal terrorism charges. Just try them in state court under murder charges. Treat them as common criminals. Don't allow them to become martyrs. The trials will be cheaper and faster. Unless they take the stand (which most won't), they can't even bring up their religious agenda. They won't have to suffer life in Supermax, we'll just read about them getting shivved in general population in some lousy state prison in a few months or years. There's no glamor in that for them. Like MarkV says, they're just murderers with a slightly different motive. None of the high priced defense attorneys will take up their case because it won't get them front page headlines.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    [QUOTE=Half Pint John;3268365]
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    No, gov't went with other until proven muslim, and even then deflect.

    It's OK John, we know how much you Germans love the Turks..... [/QUOTE

    Are you trying to get me pissed Jim?
    It's Octoberfest, you should be pissed already!

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    [QUOTE=Gixxer86g;3268306]No, gov't went with other until proven muslim, and even then deflect.

    It's OK John, we know how much you Germans love the Turks..... [/QUOTE

    Are you trying to get me pissed Jim?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    Yes its a separate crime here as well but it isn't an alternative to murder
    It's an enhancement.

    The Democrat DOJ (FBI) was trying to rule out terrorism before the suspect was arrested. Local and State authorities don't have the same motives as the DOJ..
    State authorities said it's too early to rule out terrorism or anything else because their investigation is in its preliminary stages. Before the suspect's arrest, an official with the FBI had told reporters there was "no evidence at this time" of a link to terrorism.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...est/index.html

    BLM terrorists rioting in North Carolina and a fresh Islamofacsist terrorist attack in Washington would be very inconvenient for Democrats on the eve of the Super Bowl of presidential debates... So there's a full court press to redefine terrorism until it goes away between now and November.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    It's a different crime in these United States.

    https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...ism-definition
    "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
    • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
    • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
    • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
    Yes its a separate crime here as well but it isn't an alternative to murder

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    Shooting someone dead except in case of accident, a state of war or self defence is murder plain and simple. Terrorism is essentially one motive for murder not an alternative to it.
    It's a different crime in these United States.

    https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...ism-definition
    "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
    • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
    • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
    • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
    Last edited by The Doctor; 25 Sep 16, 08:02.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Terrorism vs regular murder (the criminal charges) has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty (the trial outcome).
    Shooting someone dead except in case of accident, a state of war or self defence is murder plain and simple. Terrorism is essentially one motive for murder not an alternative to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    An you and TAG have gotten so brainwashed you cannot believe it isn't.

    Which is worse?

    Gov is going with innocent until proven guilty while you and TAG guilty because...
    Terrorism vs regular murder (the criminal charges) has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty (the trial outcome).

    "Worse" is a Democrat DOJ insisting that nothing is terrorism 6 weeks before an election in which the Democrat candidate is polling very poorly on the issue of fighting terrorism.
    The UPI/CVoter daily presidential tracking poll asked participants, regardless of whom they plan to support in the general election, which candidate would better handle the issue of terrorism. Overall, Trump was chosen by 49 percent; Clinton was named by 27 percent. Fifteen percent said neither of the candidates would handle the issue well.

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/...6121473182220/
    Last edited by The Doctor; 25 Sep 16, 07:58.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    An you and TAG have gotten so brainwashed you cannot believe it isn't.

    Which is worse?

    Gov is going with innocent until proven guilty while you and TAG guilty because...
    No, gov't went with other until proven muslim, and even then deflect.

    It's OK John, we know how much you Germans love the Turks.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    Looks like the authorities owe Hispanics an apology. They originally tagged the guy as Hispanic.

    The gov't wants so badly for it not to be related to islam.
    An you and TAG have gotten so brainwashed you cannot believe it isn't.

    Which is worse?

    Gov is going with innocent until proven guilty while you and TAG guilty because...

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X