Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#51
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() -=jd=- wrote: On Thu 18 Aug 2005 09:49:12p, "Honus" wrote in message news:sUaNe.12405$Xw5.8566@trnddc02: "-=jd=-" wrote in message 8... I think the people with guns were the least panicked involved as they seemed, so far, to be *quite* efficient at their tasks. Come on, jd...-seven- rounds to the head, from about as close as you can get? At the very least, it's wasteful. IMO somebody had trouble with their nerve. **warning - don't read if you are easily squeamish** I have a rule - if I'm not down to my last mag and I have to shoot someone in order to stop them from doing something: I'm going to start shooting at the earliest opportunity, and I'm going to keep shooting until they quit doing whatever it was that made me shoot them in the first place. Plus one or two extra rounds. Take the case of a hostage-taker holding a gun to a hostage's head. LA Co. Sheriffs SWAT has found that when head-shot by a sniper (typically a .308), there's hopeful-news and bad-news... Bad-News: The hostage taker *will* most likely still fire his gun at least once. Hopeful-News: The hostage taker's gun most likely *will not* still be pointed at the hostage's head when it goes off. It probably also depends also on what section of the head you are shooting. If I was one of the guys told to go stop that suicide bomber from detonating, In order to be sure, I think I would fire at least four rounds, if not six, seven or ten. Figure *at least* three per second. I don't think I would have the luxury of shooting someone "just a little bit". Personal experience: At about 2 pm in upstate New York, a guy shoots someone else, then himself (straight through over the ears), with a charter arms .44 bulldog. He's still breathing on his own. After transporting to the nearest hospital, they take a CAT/MRI/something scan, and reveal the biggest cigar-shaped wound channel you could fit through his brain. He didn't die until after 7pm that evening. The guy he shot survived, but still has a chunk of lead in him. So, is seven rounds excessive? Well, it depends on how badly you want to make sure he can't push a button, and you only get one chance. Either way, you are rolling a mighty big pair of dice... I'll state the obvious and say it also depends on the kind of bullet that one uses. As in Soft Point versus Full Metal Jacket. Just as a hunch, firing 7 soft points will look a bit messier than 7 full metal jackets..... If you are talking about cops being armed in the first place, or a policy of disabling a suicide bomber by speedily boring a large, violent hole through their medulla-oblongata, then that's a different (though related) issue. Is there really anyone here who doesn't support that? (That's not directed at jd...that's a serious query.) If faced with a suicide bomber (in close proximity) that is about to detonate, there is no other option if you want the best chance at stopping him (and staying alive yourself). Anybody else is welcome to try and negotiate, wrestle, bribe, whatever. Though I think that after you identify yourself, there may be a big BOOM before you could form the "k" sound in "Let's Talk"... -=jd=- -- My Current Disposable Email: (Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly) JB |
#52
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 02:21:53 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: Oh look! A retired federal employee hawking a book. Well Now! Since he's selling a book about it, I'm sure we don't need to consider the fatwa's that contradict his assessment. That would be foolish of us to listen to the radical islamic extremists that are calling for the destructin of the west. Why, we should just listen to this one guy's opinion. After all, he's selling a book about it! LOL! -=jd=- You have fallen into the trap of dismissing the messenger when the message doesn't conform to your mistaken beliefs. Bin Laden's message has been consistent. He reiterates the same points on all his tapes. Here's the original deal: __________________________________________________ ________________ Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans Published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi on Febuary 23, 1998 Statement signed by Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin; Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the Jihad Group in Egypt; Abu- Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, a leader of the Islamic Group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders." The Arabian Peninsula has never--since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas--been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies now spreading in it like locusts, consuming its riches and destroying its plantations. All this is happening at a time when nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter. No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone: First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. If some people have formerly debated the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors. Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al- Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said "As for the militant struggle, it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life." On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'" We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson. Almighty God said "O ye who believe, give your response to God and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that God cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered." Almighty God also says "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all things." Almighty God also says "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith." __________________________________________________ _______________ You wish that these people were insane, but they are merely operating in self-defense. |
#53
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:53:46 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: I haven't fallen into any trap, sunshine -- You have fallen into the trap of believing that OBL is the sole spokesman for all radical islamic terrorists, and you would be gravely mistaken. That belief of yours explains much of your myopic view of the situation. In any event, your author is contradicted by hordes of radical imams. Remember, just because that retiree is seeking to supplement his income by hawking a juicy book that conforms to your predisposed beliefs doesn't mean that author is the only source of info on the issue (no matter how desperately you wish him to be). But, don't just take *my* word for it, google should be more than adequate to frustrate your author. See for yourself. -=jd=- There are wacked-out preachers in every faith. They should all be locked up. It is militarily expedient to dismiss the enemy as insane and subhuman. God forbid these are brave people willing to die for a political goal. A free society cannot stop these guys. Are you willing to risk being shot dead because you might look funny on TV, in exchange for the ILLUSION of security? |
#54
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:30:12 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: This *ILLUSION* you mention has not resulted in another major terrorist attack on US soil since the WTC attack. Despite our removing two *ENTIRE* islamic regimes that were sympathetic to the terrorists; Despite putting hundreds of thousands of infidels on sacred islamic soil; Despite forcing the terrorists into coming to us and teraing up *THEIR* neighborhood, I'd have to say that's a darn solid "ILLUSION" of security so far. Besides, the Brazilian was positively identified "by a committee" of two or more decision makers. Although that one isolated incident resulted in a tragic mistake, I don't know how to make that process more effective without leaving yourself utterly defenseless. But then again, you perceive self- defense as an affront to your liberty. But, hey!! If we're only talking about *your* personal liberty, and it appears we are since the majority disagrees with you, then I say the majority opinion (which accepts self- defense as both reasonable and prudent) should rightfully take precedence! -=jd=- You are coming from a very emotional, faith-based perspective and it is really pointless to talk to you. Personally, my gut tells me that the Bush people enjoy this kind of anarchy because it helps them rake in the cash. If you are willing to give up freedom for safety you are a traitor and a coward. |
#55
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:11:17 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: On Sat 20 Aug 2005 10:45:52a, David wrote in message : On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:30:12 GMT, "-=jd=-" wrote: This *ILLUSION* you mention has not resulted in another major terrorist attack on US soil since the WTC attack. Despite our removing two *ENTIRE* islamic regimes that were sympathetic to the terrorists; Despite putting hundreds of thousands of infidels on sacred islamic soil; Despite forcing the terrorists into coming to us and teraing up *THEIR* neighborhood, I'd have to say that's a darn solid "ILLUSION" of security so far. Besides, the Brazilian was positively identified "by a committee" of two or more decision makers. Although that one isolated incident resulted in a tragic mistake, I don't know how to make that process more effective without leaving yourself utterly defenseless. But then again, you perceive self- defense as an affront to your liberty. But, hey!! If we're only talking about *your* personal liberty, and it appears we are since the majority disagrees with you, then I say the majority opinion (which accepts self- defense as both reasonable and prudent) should rightfully take precedence! -=jd=- You are coming from a very emotional, faith-based perspective and it is really pointless to talk to you. It is ridiculous that when cornered, you attempt to inject a point from out of nowhere -- please point out where I introduced anything "faith-based" into the discussion? What's that? You can't point that out because you just "made-it-up"? I wonder why... Again, you have allowed yourself to be talked into a box because you can't even defend yourself in *usenet* (of all places), yet you propose to have a valid opinion on terrorism? LOL!!! Because you start quoting ridiculous Bush Administration talking points. The majority can not determine the rights of a minority. Because the ****ing brain-dead idiots who watch TV ''News'' are scared is no reason to trash the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, these are the times when our Liberties and Freedoms should be most closely adhered to. You are on the side of the despots. I don't believe in an enemy called ''terrorism''. We are in an assymetric conflict. The enemy is real and resourceful. Personally, my gut tells me that the Bush people enjoy this kind of anarchy because it helps them rake in the cash. That's besides the point, which was that you were publicly stating that radical, islamic suicide-bombers who specifically target and blow up kids are not insane and sub-human, but rather they are "brave". Now that I *can* point out. Do I need to? And we do not blow up kids? Give me a break. Just because we use SLCMs and they use Plastique and nails, we are better? If you are willing to give up freedom for safety you are a traitor and a coward. I don't see where we have given up *anything*. I do see where we have mounted a reasonable and prudent defense and offense against a declared enemy. That you lack the mental capability to discern the difference is further evidence that you have no valid point of view. As far as tossing about words like "traitor" and "coward", you may want to look in the mirror and restate your public opinion that radical, islamic suicide-bombers that deliberately target school-kids are *not* (in your opinion) insane or sub- human, but are instead (in your opinion) "brave". Then let's see if it sinks in who the actual "traitor" and/or "coward" really is. Note: I won't hold my breath... The government is using this ongoing unrest as an excuse to strip away our freedom. If they were serious about protecting us they'd secure chemical plants and nuclear stations, inspect every cargo container, secure the porous borders, and seriously rethink foreign policy. |
#56
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"-=jd=-" wrote
defense as an affront to your liberty. But, hey!! If we're only talking about *your* personal liberty, YOU don't have any say at all about MY personal liberty. and it appears we are since the majority disagrees with you, then I say the majority opinion (which accepts self- defense as both reasonable and prudent) should rightfully take precedence! Well, now that you've bragged about being a member of the *herd mentality* it's understandable why you rail against personal liberty. |
#57
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"David" wrote
Personally, my gut tells me that the Bush people enjoy this kind of anarchy because it helps them rake in the cash. What the Bush 101st Keyboard Chickenhawks espouse is hardly *anarchy*. Go look it up www.m-w.com before you use it improperly again. If you are willing to give up freedom for safety you are a traitor and a coward. A coward dies a thousand times..... |
#58
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"-=jd=-" wrote
I don't see where we have given up *anything*. Ya know, I believe you believe that. LOL I do see where we have mounted a reasonable and prudent defense and offense against a declared enemy. Oh *we* have, have *we*? Well then, tell us exactly what YOU have done to defend and offend this so called enemy. Please be specific. That you lack the mental capability to discern the difference is further evidence that you have no valid point of view. As opposed to your, ahem, view, that is nothing more than what fell out of the front of yout TEEVEE set. As far as tossing about words like "traitor" and "coward", you may want to look in the mirror and restate your public opinion that radical, islamic suicide-bombers that deliberately target school-kids are *not* (in your opinion) insane or sub- human, Is the above a macro, or just another fetish? but are instead (in your opinion) "brave". Then let's see if it sinks in who the actual "traitor" and/or "coward" really is. Note: I won't hold my breath... Until you get over there and ACT upon that which you claim to believe in you are nothing but a blowhard hiding behind a keyboard. That you want young Americans to sacrifice themselves in foreign lands for your hedonistic ideals speaks volumes of your character. Yes, the label *coward* fits you well and your own words were the taylor. |
#59
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:49:44 GMT, "Don"
wrote: "David" wrote Personally, my gut tells me that the Bush people enjoy this kind of anarchy because it helps them rake in the cash. b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority People on the Left accuse Bush of having no plan for Iraq after ''shock and awe''. I disagree. I think they wanted exactly what is happening, complete with our fighting forces being used like a toreador's cape. |
#60
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:47:10 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: The majority can not determine the rights of a minority. The majority determines the rights for the majority. The minority gets the option to accept the majority rule, or seek out a majority more compatible to their liking somewhere else. No one is forcing the minority to just "sit there and take it". They can roam the earth until they find some majority that is as screwed-up as they are. That's not how it works here. Rights are rights. If we did things your way negroes would still have their own drinking fountains. Hey, Hey, mind your temper there. There I go again frustrating you into using profanity. There you go again with your invalid point of view that asserts the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been "trashed" merely because we have mounted a reasonable and prudent offense and defense to an enemy that has declared war against us. Our founding fathers would *demand* that we defend ourselves and defeat our determined foe. For anyone to assert otherwise is patently laughable and nutty. ''Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783 __________________________________________________ _______ According to your way of thinking, all an incompetent boob would need to insure iron-clad power would be to ignore dozens of warnings and let an attack happen. "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson Perhaps you can point out newest amendment to the constitution. I don't see anything new since the 27th amendment. That means there has been no change. Or, are you in full-blown, drama-queen, exaggeration mode? http://www.bordc.org/threats/index.php If they were serious about protecting us They *are* serious about protecting us. Are you really that much of a dolt? they'd secure chemical plants and nuclear stations, inspect every cargo container, secure the porous borders, and seriously rethink foreign policy. They are doing everything within reason when they are reasonably able to do so. Demanding that the govt. secure the borders, chemical plants, nuclear power stations and inspect every cargo container is unreasonable, and logistically impossible to do to your (rickets) satisfaction. Although it is not impossible to do given enough time and money, it is more likely that the WOT will be over with before you could accomplish your laundry list of whining points. In any event, you only demand it because it's the few scant things you know full well *no-one* can feasibly do in short order -- not even your hero. Rethinking foreign policy is something that is constantly under review and is perpetually being adjusted and tweaked. However, your ideas for foreign policy (if your posts in here are any hint) are something that could be readily dismissed out of hand. So you can expect to suffer much personal frustration when it comes to foreign policy. We will continue to giggle at your expense. You are again spouting official dogma. The War on Terror is fake. It's only pupose is to help the Herbert Bush Crime Family tighten its grip. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
W Link to London Bombing, Terrorism Spike | Shortwave | |||
Web Visitors in China Cheered for the Explosions in London | Shortwave | |||
HAMFEST: Electronic flea market in London, Sept 26th | Swap |