Cicero... If you haven't heard (read) what the political motivation behind the bombing... You must have ignored the press, radio, television and blog reports of the terrorists own words for "WHY" they blew up the marathon: The 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack (Washington Post and just about everywhere else)
Ohhhhh...They told investigators...Terrorists stopped making public their purpose behind their terrorism? They wait until their caught and drugged up in a hospital bed and tell the FBI in writing? That's very effective.
Hey, that's what the "authorities" say. You can't question that. Who needs a defense attorney nowadays?
Ohhhhh...They told investigators...Terrorists stopped making public their purpose behind their terrorism? They wait until their caught and drugged up in a hospital bed and tell the FBI in writing? That's very effective.
Hey, that's what the "authorities" say. You can't question that. Who needs a defense attorney nowadays?
Written in his own hand by the only person to actually know the answer... he may have lied... he may just be covering his butt... he may have been misled... but those are his words. Sorry it doesn't fit your agenda.
NOTE: If the TERRORIST had this week written: "I blew up the Marathon because of Obama's Drones" Cissy would be posting his words as an official state document! Sucks when the FACTS don't match your agenda, huh Cic?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Written in his own hand by the only person to actually know the answer... he may have lied... he may just be covering his butt... he may have been misled... but those are his words. Sorry it doesn't fit your agenda.
It doesn't fit my agenda. I'm not the one using the alleged statement that was given to the FBI under duress and using it to blame the Iraq War. That is YOUR agenda. You've even given 10 ways til Sunday how the statement could be false. But you use it anyways, because it fits your BLAME BUSH agenda. My devious agenda is to question the legitimacy of EVERYTHING released by the "authorities" to the press, because none of it is worth a sh!t because the suspect is unable to defend himself.
Remember box, I'm the anti-government, terrorist sympathizer, conspiracy nut, because I suggest due process to find the truth. I have no political allegiance. You on the other hand take your truth from the authorities, without question. Ohhh,,,unless the truth is coming from the mouths of a Republican controlled government. Then EVERYTHING the government says is a LIE and VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY. Then you will not trust the government, and try to convince everybody to distrust the republican controlled government, because Democrats are soooooo much more trustworthy.
You are a HACK box. Everybody reading your posts know it.
It doesn't fit my agenda. I'm not the one using the alleged statement that was given to the FBI under duress and using it to blame the Iraq War. That is YOUR agenda. You've even given 10 ways til Sunday how the statement could be false. But you use it anyways, because it fits your BLAME BUSH agenda. My devious agenda is to question the legitimacy of EVERYTHING released by the "authorities" to the press, because none of it is worth a sh!t because the suspect is unable to defend himself.
As posted back on reply #375: Quoted Text Officials say they do not plan to take what the younger accused bomber has told them at face value, and that the probe will continue to examine whether there were overseas terror connections of any kind. "It would be in his interest to minimize his own role," one official said.
Of course the statements could be false... but that IS his statement. I didn't offer conclusive proof, I offered the terrorists statement. You on the other hand offer nothing... other than a vast conspiracy with absolutely NO PROOF... only your own paranoia.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Box, Maybe now you see why I didn't answer his question earlier when he posed it. (a) The information is out there and slapping him in the face, but that's not what he wanted. He wanted someone to post it so he could spin it, twist and jab a knife into it. (b) If he is too dumb to see the facts, I wasn't dumb enough to play into his hand (c) By his own admission he questions EVERYTHING released by "authorities", but seems to swallow whole the conspiracy postings and other false bullshit floating around about this and everything else (d) AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: Even if we posted a response to this or anything else, that was 100% in alignment with his agenda, he would still spin that and twist it around and destroy it because THAT'S HIS WORLD!!!!!!
Misery loves company.......but I'm not joining him!!!! (He has his butt buddies!)
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
I have long posted that Henry considers the police, military and FBI to be "The ENEMY"... for those who have doubted that premise, here's your proof.
Do you see a difference between a robber going into your house without permission and a cop entering without permission, I don't. If they asked if they could search my house I would have no problem with it, I would invite them in if I thought it would save time. However I won't have anyone stick a gun in my or my families face and demand entrance while patting us down without a warrant. A lot of men died to protect that right we have I won't ANYONE try to piss over it. I know you are all to happy to greet them on your knees but not me and not a lot of Americans.
Again, Henry's words: "blow every pig that walked through your door." Not much doubt about Henry's views on the police. They are the ENEMY.
I never tried to sugar coat my views on the police, growing up I considered them heroes and role models and many today still are. Problem is we have a ever increasing number who consider themselves above the law and think they're performing operations in Fallujah What we seen happen recently is a disgrace and as I said they should all be ashamed of terrorizing the citizens and trampling their rights.
Ask Henry, "who are the victims of the Boston Bombing?" "they were just as much victims as those who died in the bombings except more victims rights were infringed on after the bombing." According to Henry, the "real victim" of the Boston bombing and it's aftermath... WAS HENRY HIMSELF! HENRY suffered under oppression... HENRY was abused... HENRY lost his rights as law enforcement captured and killed the terrorists.
Nope I wasn't oppressed but those towns were, being forced to stay in their homes and have warrantless searches done, yup they were victims.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Box, Maybe now you see why I didn't answer his question earlier when he posed it. (a) The information is out there and slapping him in the face, but that's not what he wanted. He wanted someone to post it so he could spin it, twist and jab a knife into it.
The information isn't out there. The TERRORIST never stated their motives. TERRORISM is to change policy, THAT IS WHY TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS CLAIM THEM. Blowing up a bomb and going into hiding ISN'T TERRORISM. It is MURDER.
Not twisting anything. I'm going by the government's definition of TERRORISM. You are the one that came out and called it terrorism. You still can't show me where the TERRORIST made public their motive and which public policies they wanted changed as a result of the terrorism. You and box can only give me an alleged written statement given under duress AFTER being captured. They had plenty of time to call up a news organization or went on the internet to take claim for the bombing and the reason for it. THEY DIDN'T. Yet there are morons running around calling it "terrorism" and making all these weak connections between Chechnya and a rant in a Mosque, or his uncle called them losers. All kinds of crazy accusations, but not one about their motives.
(c) By his own admission he questions EVERYTHING released by "authorities", but seems to swallow whole the conspiracy postings and other false bullshit floating around about this and everything else
Who said I believe the alternate news stories? I never said I "believed' them. I'm just open to them. You(and many other Americans) are closed minded to any other information, especially information that challenges the "official" story. You only rely on one source for your information, and that is the corporate news media and the federal government. That's fine. I see nothing wrong with listening to what they have to say. But I'm also open to listening to other information, and if it challenges the official story I'm not going to lose my sh!t like you and box.
Sorry, I'm not willing to blindly frog march at the direction of this supposed omnipotent source of information and categorically discredit all other information. You can do that, and I know you do. You've been an order taking drone being told what to think from your days in the military. I don't see things changing at this late stage in your life.
As posted back on reply #375: Quoted Text Officials say they do not plan to take what the younger accused bomber has told them at face value, and that the probe will continue to examine whether there were overseas terror connections of any kind. "It would be in his interest to minimize his own role," one official said.
Of course the statements could be false... but that IS his statement. I didn't offer conclusive proof, I offered the terrorists statement. You on the other hand offer nothing... other than a vast conspiracy with absolutely NO PROOF... only your own paranoia.
As posted in #419. Box takes at "face value". Even when said not to take at face value, box is still going to post it as proof positive of his motive, even though the government officials he worships said not to take it at face value. He will continue to post this statement as proof of the motive behind the terrorist plot.
Amazingly illogical...But then again...That's our box-a-rox. He didn't pick that name for no reason.
Cicero... If you haven't heard (read) what the political motivation behind the bombing... You must have ignored the press, radio, television and blog reports of the terrorists own words for "WHY" they blew up the marathon: The 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack (Washington Post and just about everywhere else)
Do you see a difference between a robber going into your house without permission and a cop entering without permission, I don't. If they asked if they could search my house I would have no problem with it, I would invite them in if I thought it would save time. However I won't have anyone stick a gun in my or my families face and demand entrance while patting us down without a warrant. A lot of men died to protect that right we have I won't ANYONE try to piss over it. I know you are all to happy to greet them on your knees but not me and not a lot of Americans.
Every door the police knocked on, could have been met with a blast from a gun or a home made bomb. You don't consider that, I do. I saw a cop with a bullet proof blast shield first at the door, followed by several police with guns. None in the face of the home owner. If the Terrorist was in the home... how many cops should die and how many home owners should die to suit your agenda? 10? 50? 100? You don't value the police, and the more of "your enemies" killed by the terrorist the better. I consider myself on the side of the home owner and the police... you side with the terrorist and if it were up to you, the Boston police would have sent 2 patrolmen to the bomb scene and called it a day.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Every door the police knocked on, could have been met with a blast from a gun or a home made bomb. You don't consider that, I do.
"Could haves" don't give anyone the right to infringe on others rights, if they think their job is to dangerous to perform without infringing on others then they can find another job.
If the Terrorist was in the home... how many cops should die and how many home owners should die to suit your agenda? 10? 50? 100?
I have no agenda other then protecting peoples rights, again if the people invited them in I would have no problem, you see no problem with police forcing themselves into peoples homes without a warrant. Say someone shoots someone here in Schenectady, would you be ok with a house to house sweep and also closing down the city to capture him, answer that one.
You don't value the police, and the more of "your enemies" killed by the terrorist the better. I consider myself on the side of the home owner and the police... you side with the terrorist and if it were up to you, the Boston police would have sent 2 patrolmen to the bomb scene and called it a day.
LMAO I don't want anyone killed, I value life, I also value mine and others rights, something you are willing to put on the backburner. Just because you are ok with giving up your natural rights doesn't mean you can make that choice for others, you DON'T have that right. By the way I don't care if there was 1 or a 1,000,000 cops on the scene, its how they act is what is important.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
I never tried to sugar coat my views on the police, growing up I considered them heroes and role models and many today still are. Problem is we have a ever increasing number who consider themselves above the law and think they're performing operations in Fallujah What we seen happen recently is a disgrace and as I said they should all be ashamed of terrorizing the citizens and trampling their rights.
Can the Police Search My Home for a Bomber? Why the door-to-door manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev doesn’t violate the Constitution.
Quoted Text
SWAT teams descended on the Boston suburb of Watertown on Friday morning to conduct a door-to-door search for the Boston Marathon bombing suspect left alive after a convenience store robbery, car chase, and shootout Thursday night. Is it legal for the police to search your house without a warrant? It can be. Under the Fourth Amendment, a judge issues a warrant if police can demonstrate that a search is “reasonable”—that there is “probable cause” to investigate a house, car, or backyard for evidence. But there are plenty of circumstances under which police can perform searches without invoking probable cause. If you consent to a police search, officers do not need a warrant to enter your home. If you have a housemate, he or she can allow the police to rummage through common areas, such as the living room or the kitchen, but not private areas, such as your closet or bedroom. In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites. Furthermore, police may enter a private residence to provide emergency assistance to an occupant—which may include apprehending a suspected terrorist who also happens to be inside. And if they plan to make an arrest in someone’s home, they can undertake a “protective sweep” of the dwelling first to confirm that no weapons or accomplices are stashed away where they can do damage later. Should these justifications fail, the police could also just conduct a search that violates the Fourth Amendment, knowing that whatever evidence they turn up might not be admissible in court.
In Henry's mind...just about EVERYTHING violates the Constitution... that's because Henry never bothers to find out what is and is not Constitutional, he just makes up his version and continues as if his opinion of what is Constitutional is actually law. Much like his view that any restrictions on guns is against the 2nd amendment, Henry's OPINION of what violates the 4th amendment is also just that... his opinion, not the law.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Henry, The authorities were searching for a KILLER that had WEAPONS and EXPLOSIVES and not only KILLED AT THE MARATHON but killed again that morning; took a hostage (car jacking) and when he escaped he RAN OVER HIS BROTHER!!! He was ARMED AND DANGEROUS TO ALL! I have not found a single complaint or even a grumble from any of those you call victims, because they were confined to their houses and were subject to searches, etc. If they aren't upset and complained, why are you? It was their lives, not yours. And tell me, how should the authorities have proceeded under the conditions that they were presented with....how should they have found the killer and protected the citizens at the same time....what is you suggestion on what should have been done, since what was done is a violation in your way of thinking.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
The information isn't out there. The TERRORIST never stated their motives. TERRORISM is to change policy, THAT IS WHY TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS CLAIM THEM. Blowing up a bomb and going into hiding ISN'T TERRORISM. It is MURDER.
Cicero has his own definition of Terrorism... the rest of us have the actual definition. Cicero's definition: "Terrorism is to change policy"
The rest of us use the actual definition: "The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
Quoted Text
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents. The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country. The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
Again, the board Govt Haters make up their own rules, then cry when the rest of the country ignores 'their rules'. Nowhere in the US Legal definition is Cicero's made up definition... "To change policy" no surprise there!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
What we seen happen recently is a disgrace and as I said they should all be ashamed of terrorizing the citizens and trampling their rights. 
