Scotty2Hotty Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 That post is a magnet for crazies and some of the craziest things I've ever witnessed and heard. But another Muslim G.I Joe wanted to play copy cat: http://m.cnn.com/primary/_xopwI1-iGYr30X5TR Stupidity at its finest once again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benner Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Firing squad should happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Page does not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dover Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 If our military had tougher standards and capital punishment this shit wouldn't happen. You can thank politics for the cost of innocent American Soldiers. "Lions for Lambs" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrodh Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 This story has it all except for drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 I'm sorry but anyone named Abdo and who is Muslim should have been under a microscope daily. I don't care if anyone likes it or not, if the shoe fits.....and in the past couple years, there have been two pretty clear instances of shoes fitting. Glad they caught the guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc1647545523 Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) I'm sorry but anyone named Abdo and who is Muslim should have been under a microscope daily. I don't care if anyone likes it or not, if the shoe fits.....and in the past couple years, there have been two pretty clear instances of shoes fitting. Glad they caught the guy. I so totally agree. Barack Hussein sounds pretty suspicious to me, too. And after Waco and Oklahoma City, I think we should have kept Republicans, Christians, and NRA members under the microscope, based on the shoe fitting. Wait a minute ...... isn't your name "Timothy," same as the Oklahoma City bomber? You aren't by any chance Republican and Christian, are you? These are just routine questions, sir, but please keep your hands in plain sight and don't make any sudden moves .......... Edited July 29, 2011 by Doc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 I so totally agree. Barack Hussein sounds pretty suspicious to me, too. Based just on that name coming up in a computer I would agree that it's as suspicoius as Naser Jason Abdo would be. However, looking beyond their name would reveal the two are completely different. Obama would be cleared in 10 seconds. Not this kid. We got lucky thanks to a store owner that given what happened just two years ago is likely much more aware of things now And after Waco and Oklahoma City, I think we should have kept Republicans, Christians, and NRA members under the microscope, based on the shoe fitting. I never said profiling would have caught Timothy McVeigh as by nature it won't reveal those hiding in plain sight that don't meet the profile you're looking for. However, it sure as hell would have been a great start on someone named Nidal Malik Hasan or Naser Jason Abdo. I'll take 2 out of 3 bad guys down any day if all it took was looking 1 step beyond a name that is clearly suspicious and with valid reasoning to make it so. Wait a minute ...... isn't your name "Timothy," same as the Oklahoma City bomber? You aren't by any chance Republican and Christian, are you? These are just routine questions, sir, but please keep your hands in plain sight and don't make any sudden moves ..........Let's play that out, yes, I'm a republican and Catholic with similar middle class clean-roots as McVeigh. The differences begin upon realizing I'm not a military guy obsessed with anti gov't thinking who is pissed about the Waco incident that subscribes to pro militia magazinesand into being a survivalist to the extent his whacked out brain was. I think I'd pass that first 5 second pass of the computer profile program with ease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 I so totally agree. Barack Hussein sounds pretty suspicious to me, too. And after Waco and Oklahoma City, I think we should have kept Republicans, Christians, and NRA members under the microscope, based on the shoe fitting. Wait a minute ...... isn't your name "Timothy," same as the Oklahoma City bomber? You aren't by any chance Republican and Christian, are you? These are just routine questions, sir, but please keep your hands in plain sight and don't make any sudden moves .......... Agreed. My father, who is a retired full bird colonel, actually met the muslim who went on the killing rampage before it hit the fan and didn't like him. He saw red flags himself, but the problem is it takes alot of time and effort to show that an officer is incompetent and should be booted from the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc1647545523 Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Tim, it's not my intention to get into a major debate, but I think we could both agree that criminal profiling, or any type of predictive attribution, has some usefulness in protecting society. My issue with your original statement was that I don't believe that anyone should be placed "under the microscope" because of only their name and religion. In our society (which has given federal law enforcement powerful technologicial tools, big budgets, and relatively ineffective public oversight), being "under the microscope" can be pretty invasive. So invasive, that I feel it violates our rights under the Fourth Amendment (protecting against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause) and the Fourteenth (which requires that all citizens be treated equally by the law). We may not agree on this issue of putting people under the microscope, but I respect your right to your opinion. If I've understood your sentiments accurately, though, I think it's a slippery slope that leads away from freedom and liberty (which I cherish) and towards a totalitarian state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Agreed. My father, who is a retired full bird colonel, actually met the muslim who went on the killing rampage before it hit the fan and didn't like him. He saw red flags himself, but the problem is it takes alot of time and effort to show that an officer is incompetent and should be booted from the military. and my point is that if your father saw the red flags, had what he believes to be gut reasons for something to happen, then the hurdles that make booting him out or investigating things further need to be removed otherwise the system that allows this to continue will continue to be flawed and our safety that much more vulnerable. I'm not a fan of big gov't. I'm not supportive of gov't involvement in my life in a vast number of areas. However, I'm not a bit worried if the powers that be need to pass us all through a filter to help remove a few bad seeds. They aren't going to flip over mattresses in every house. I prefer they actually not overlook the obvious as they seem to be doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Tim, it's not my intention to get into a major debate, but I think we could both agree that criminal profiling, or any type of predictive attribution, has some usefulness in protecting society. Agree. My issue with your original statement was that I don't believe that anyone should be placed "under the microscope" because of only their name and religion. In our society (which has given federal law enforcement powerful technologicial tools, big budgets, and relatively ineffective public oversight), being "under the microscope" can be pretty invasive. I agree that the level of invasiveness "could be" uncomfortable for some. However, I don't believe it would be unbearable for the majority. Nothing in life worth fighting for is easy or comfortable. I think by making things a little more uncomfortable or less easy for the bad guys, we'll certainly catch more. Call the damn white elephant in the room out already. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's worth investigating to confirm it's a duck. No harm, no fowl - pun intended. So invasive, that I feel it violates our rights under the Fourth Amendment (protecting against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause) and the Fourteenth (which requires that all citizens be treated equally by the law). We may not agree on this issue of putting people under the microscope, but I respect your right to your opinion. If I've understood your sentiments accurately, though, I think it's a slippery slope that leads away from freedom and liberty (which I cherish) and towards a totalitarian state.I respect your opinion and thoughts too. And while we may not agree entirely, I think you know me well enough to know that my text here isn't meant to be aggressive or offensive to you. I just wanted to say that. In terms of slippery slopes, I'm not worried about it as it relates to the gov't catching bad guys. Hell, if you're up to no good then you should be worried. If you're not, then don't. There are programs out there that filter email and search the web for photos and can easily track s/n of cameras and track down the owners. I use a dumb down'd one for consumers for my work. You don't think the gov't uses the full version to catch pedophiles or terrorists already? Please, I could care less. Search my email, web sites, history or even my computers for child porn. I could care less; although I will celebrate removing the freaks that may be living around me hiding today. I support going to get them. I love the freedoms we have, but I take a slight bend from your view in that I also know the world is changing and that we are facing issues today the founding fathers did not. If we don't deal with those issues in new ways, the bad guys are going to continue to exploit the loop holes and only we are to blame. Change or Die as they say. Unfortunately in many cases we allowing others to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 and my point is that if your father saw the red flags, had what he believes to be gut reasons for something to happen, then the hurdles that make booting him out or investigating things further need to be removed otherwise the system that allows this to continue will continue to be flawed and our safety that much more vulnerable. I'm not a fan of big gov't. I'm not supportive of gov't involvement in my life in a vast number of areas. However, I'm not a bit worried if the powers that be need to pass us all through a filter to help remove a few bad seeds. They aren't going to flip over mattresses in every house. I prefer they actually not overlook the obvious as they seem to be doing. I agree that there needs to be a more streamlined process, but at the time the individual in question did not display any actions that one would have thought he would go on a shooting rampage. It's easy to say this and that should have been done after the fact. So my father thought he was an incompetent military psychologist, in order to remove an officer from duty their has to be a history of poor performance and the proper legal protocol has to be followed in order to avoid law suits down the road. The guy would have killed people regardless of what was done. I get what your saying that profiling must be used in order to avoid random acts of violence. At some point it will end up being a police/communist state and the constitutional rights for individuals will erode to nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2pointslow Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 be us military, cant protect ourselves from ourselves.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 At some point it will end up being a police/communist state and the constitutional rights for individuals will erode to nothing. I don't think so. There's a process that we go through to purchase handguns, get CCW's, etc....there's no police state fear in having to do all that. I'm just simply stating that profiling someone with names like this and looking for other key indicators is common sense to me. We background check every employee that works in our company and filter them 100x over using the internet and everything else to find dirt on them to insure we are hiring the right folks. Again, no police state fears here. I actually feel safer knowing it. Pretty sad when the every day employers do a better job about acting on information aout their employees than the gov't does about it's own citizens and guys in uniform. Again, looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, let's look to see if it really is a duck. Especially if we're going to put him through military training and hand him access to firearms. When the constitution was written there wasn't a fear of a nut job name Aamil Muhsi Muhaimin or what ever coming over and living among us or traveling on our land secretly trying to plan a bombing attack against civilians. I'm sorry, right or wrong, someone with a name like that coming from the middle east is not going to pass the filter test with me as easily as Alex Smith who was born in Anywhere, USA. That's common sense when searching for bad guys. Unless Alex is flying to Pakistan all the time and buying explosives like candy. No different than profiling the shit-hole areas of cbus for prostitutes and drug dealers. Much more a profile area down there than here in the burbs of Dublin. No 100% perfect, but 95% is good enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 I understand the background checks for employment. To basically be following around people because they have a muslim name is called harassment and grounds for law suits under civil liberties laws. Trust me I cannot stand the bs that muslims get away with and I personally am disgusted that we are spending trillions of dollars to rebuild their shithole countries when our own economy is a mess. Here is the reason why I disagree with you. If you allow one to do excessing measures of monitoring for a specific group, then you have to allow it for the rest of the population. It's not just a random muslim that does stupid shit, there are nutjobs all over the place that lose it for a few seconds and take out a few people. For myself, it's either we go completely overboard and destroy our civil liberties or leave it as is and accept the fact that shit happens. It's a tough decision to have to make. I agree that our government is doing a half ass job deciding who to allow in the country. Politicians are more worried about votes than doing what is right. It boggles my mind how I am racist because I want an illegal immigrant in Arizona deported. I am all for people doing the necessary work to get into the country, shit my wife and her family did it. I am completely against people sneaking in and then demanding to mooch off our system. At some point people need to realize you are coming into OUR country and you should have to complete certain steps. Also, if you are so proud of your previous country, then go back. Simple. Pdgqp, we are pretty close to the same beliefs, it's just I am against trading civil liberties once you are in the country legally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 I agree that drug dealers should be followed/busted. Yet at the sametime, a random black guy in a poor neighborhood can't get constantly pulled over and harassed because he is a young black guy. If a person is showing the behaviors to warrant the monitoring, then they should be. Just to monitor a person because they are a specific race, is completely against our constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 I understand the background checks for employment. To basically be following around people because they have a muslim name is called harassment and grounds for law suits under civil liberties laws. Then do these background checks and filters on everyone or in a selective way. As I've said before, if you don't have anything to fear, the don't worry. Some call that gov't big brother bullshit, I call it the world begin different and having to do what is necessary to protect our people and land. If Abdul Mushi gets pissed, tough shit, put on your big boy pants, get over it and deal with it. It's time to call the white elephants out and quite hiding behind peoples bullshit loopholes. If you allow one to do excessing measures of monitoring for a specific group, then you have to allow it for the rest of the population. It's not just a random muslim that does stupid shit, there are nutjobs all over the place that lose it for a few seconds and take out a few people. yes and no. you don't go do pat-downs on grandma smiths at airports, but you sure as fuck do them on those that fit a profile and you do it every time. again, sorry, but deal with it. when the wife and I go to Jamaica, the fucks there always beg us for money and make lude comments and treat us as tourists. I hate that place. However, I deal with it because it's cheap and I like the beaches. For myself, it's either we go completely overboard and destroy our civil liberties or leave it as is and accept the fact that shit happens. It's a tough decision to have to make. I don't see it as black and white. The extremists want it to be see that way, but WE can decide to make it gray and apply to high risk groups. When the bad guys hide behind our own of civil liberties, then we can do a better job of targeting those bad guys remove their hiding places. If some innocents get tossed in that's fine. We can prevent it from going overboard. I'm not suggesting tossing mattresses and asking for papers every time they go outside. Again, we can control who is asked for what and when and under what circumstances and determine when the criteria fits without going overboard or destroying the civil liberties of 98% of the people here. Pdgqp, we are pretty close to the same beliefs, it's just I am against trading civil liberties once you are in the country legally. It's a cool debate. I bring crazy shit to the table. It's the internet. In terms of civil liberties, we need to find a way to keep the bad guys from hiding behind them. Filtering them out is the only way. If not, that's fine too, I'll live here just the same. However, the country is then accepting the shit that we are getting and will likely see more of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 It is fun to debate and it is something that our country needs to do so it can avoid the shitmess that France and England are having to deal with by allowing uncontested Muslim immigration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 If a person is showing the behaviors to warrant the monitoring, then they should be. Just to monitor a person because they are a specific race, is completely against our constitution. Hear me out, I'm not here to right out all the details of what it would look like. I don't see anything wrong in the gov't putting a hammer down and saying anyone with muslim background or who has originated from the middle east, etc. that fits a filter should have to pass through a second level of checks. I'm sorry but again, we're not talking wire taps and strip searches. I'm looking for a history of travels, associates, weapons, following their money ie...wire transfers, etc....the basic shit that would easily expose if Johnny Museph the third generation Egyption is really just a kid who grew up in the states and simply joined the army as any other kid here has or is he a a corrupt nut job that collects guns, is tied to a militia group and has traveled back to Saudi Arabia to reacquaint himself with childhood friends and out to cause trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Gotcha. That makes sense. I thought you were inferring to wire taps/big guys in SUV's following people around. I am pretty sure that the NSA is doing that already regarding what you are talking about, but not at the level in order make it successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Gotcha. That makes sense. I thought you were inferring to wire taps/big guys in SUV's following people around. I am pretty sure that the NSA is doing that already regarding what you are talking about, but not at the level in order make it successful. I have little doubt that travel history, emails, web visits, phone calls and money are being tracked in a number of cases. But I think that the focus is squarely on a set of specific people and not applied to a group of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted July 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 be us military, cant protect ourselves from ourselves.... Posse Comitatus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODoyle Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 The level of smart in here is making my head hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.