AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat > News & Politics

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2014-12-23, 11:35   Link #35241
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
U.S. economy accelerates sharply in third quarter; consumer spending rises
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0K111Y20141223

Veterinarians face conflicting allegiances to animals, farmers - and drug companies
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/...sed-to-humans/

Exclusive - U.S. airlines confront cheap oil's flip side: costly hedges
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0K10AJ20141223
__________________
ganbaru is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 11:36   Link #35242
Haak
Me, An Intellectual
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
If there are any billboards in NK, why not just upload Team America onto it for vengeance?
The Koreans or the Americans?
Haak is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 12:17   Link #35243
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haak View Post
The Koreans or the Americans?
Actually it doesn't matter. Can't you see how lulzy it will be?
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 16:24   Link #35244
kyp275
Meh
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
Sorry but I disagree. There are options for taking down suspects that don't involve seven shots to the chest. Am I the only person who finds it completely ridiculous that we still live in an age where any aggression toward police is met with lethal force? Are there really no other ways to handle situations?
It's not "any aggression", once you've made the attempt to go for the officer's weapon, you escalate the encounter by demonstrating your intent to use deadly force against the officer,and if you're someone who's got a good 100 lbs on the officer and tried to get back into melee range?

Yea, I would've done the exact same thing. I'm not going to engage in a hand-to-hand fight against someone who's clearly got a size advantage on me and have already attempted to to take my weapon.

Quote:
I will of course admit that there are some situations that can meet no other end, but just in this last decade there are frequent instances of police using aggressive responses that go over and beyond what is needed to resolve a situation. Including using nonlethal weapons when there was no need for it.

It's enough to concern the public and cause outcries like this, at the very least, and that erodes trust in an essential part of society.
And I agree with that, but at the same time I think a lot of the general population simply have an unrealistic expectation of what's actually physically possible/practical out of the police. All too often I hear people complaining why don't the police "shoot the legs" or somehow restrain someone twice their size with master kung-fu moves.

Quote:
Yes, I am. I want fair justice, and that means fairness for both the victim and the accused. I'm disgusted with the system. When a prosecutor publicly admits that the process was tainted, that's a huge problem for everyone.
But lying witnesses doesn't equal "tainted process". Witnesses are not automatically presumed to be truthful - hell, witnesses often lie/misrepresent/remember wrong on the stand, it's the duty of the jury to decide how reliable and truthful a witness's statement is, not the prosecutor or defense lawyers.

Quote:
I'm a firm believer in "innocent until proven guilty", so yes, I believe that Wilson is innocent in the eyes of the law. But that same system handled the case so poorly that lingering doubt of his innocence will follow him forever. It will haunt the Brown family because there really isn't a resolution that they can move forward with. And it haunts all of us, because if it happened once it can happen again, to any of us.
I disagree here as well, there was no getting rid of that lingering doubt for Wilson from the very beginning. Many people have their minds made up already before the facts even came out, and they sure as hell wouldn't be swayed by whatever is decided in court even if it went to trial - just look at the Treyvon Martin case.

Quote:
I never said his motives were strictly because of the police. But he clearly pointed to that as a motive. My point was that he didn't suddenly see the news and decide to get a gun and kill people. Violence doesn't happen out of nowhere.

To dismiss it as "well he was crazy" or something similar to that reasoning is to deny any possibility that the system could produce such a monster. It facilitates a logical fallacy that allows acts like this to happen over and over again and it cripples efforts that work toward understanding and preventing that.
According to his mother, the guy's been mentally ill his whole life, started trying to kill himself since he was 13. Incidentally, his ex gf talked him out of suicide - only to have him turn around and put a bullet in her, so take that as you will.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 17:39   Link #35245
Xellos-_^
Not Enough Sleep
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
Quote:
Hindu nationalists here claim that Muslims and Christians have been forcing Hindus to convert to their religions for centuries. So there is deep sensitivity to proselytizing by non-Hindus, particularly foreigners. Visas for religious professionals are strictly limited, some missionaries are instructed not to proselytize openly and, now that a Hindu nationalist has become India’s prime minister, hard-line Hindu groups have begun a long-dreamed campaign to claw back some of those conversion losses.
This month in Agra, nearly 200 Muslims were reported to have been converted en masse to Hinduism by an offshoot of the powerful Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a Hindu nationalist group that is the ideological wing of the governing Bharatiya Janata Party and that once employed the prime minister, Narendra Modi.
The same group has announced plans to convert thousands of Christians to Hinduism on Christmas Day.
...


Shekhar Gupta, a political commentator, said he was surprised that Mr. Modi had so far refused to denounce the conversions — a seemingly easy price to pay to get his legislative agenda moving.
“So either the prime minister is not strong enough to stop these guys from doing these conversions, or he thinks like them,” Mr. Gupta said. “And I don’t know which one of those options is worse.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/wo...sionaries.html
anyone know what word for "Holy War" is in Hindu?
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 18:11   Link #35246
Mr Hat and Clogs
Did someone call a doctor
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Age: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTerrorist View Post
Rare Islamic State visit reveals 'brutal and strong' force

Well that's depressing to read. So looks like troops on the ground might be needed.
Well it's about to get more depressing, one of the follow on articles was about Slavery In IS; Reading this pissed me right off, like really. If it wasn't for innocent people stuck there reducing the region to a nuclear wasteland seems like a good idea. Scum like that don't deserve to live.
__________________
Mr Hat and Clogs is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 18:44   Link #35247
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
It's not "any aggression", once you've made the attempt to go for the officer's weapon, you escalate the encounter by demonstrating your intent to use deadly force against the officer,and if you're someone who's got a good 100 lbs on the officer and tried to get back into melee range?

Yea, I would've done the exact same thing. I'm not going to engage in a hand-to-hand fight against someone who's clearly got a size advantage on me and have already attempted to to take my weapon.
I understand the intent, but you know that's not what I meant. The vast majority of cases involving police shooting and killing a suspect (or animal) use the defense of "I felt he/she/it threatened my life". My point was that while this is often true, it's also true that threat of intimidation through force is the tool most used by police. Tactics that attempt to de-escalate a situation peacefully (or at the very least, without relying on a gun) are not used as much. Threat of force can also make situations worse. Suspects on the run are like cornered animals, they will do anything to escape their situation. Threat of force when cornered can make people feel like they have nothing to lose by retaliating in kind.

Besides that, force doesn't require a gun. Most people are horrible at fighting, and learning take down tactics and proper holds can be useful. What if for some reason, Brown had managed to get the gun at one point and during the altercation, the gun ended up some distance from both of them? How would Wilson have continued to handle the situation?

Quote:
And I agree with that, but at the same time I think a lot of the general population simply have an unrealistic expectation of what's actually physically possible/practical out of the police. All too often I hear people complaining why don't the police "shoot the legs" or somehow restrain someone twice their size with master kung-fu moves.
Of course. It's always easier to look back in hindsight and wonder if things could have gone differently. Officers don't have the luxury of spending much time on decisions in dangerous situations. That said, many police aren't exactly in the best of shape either. I know of several in my area that look like they've spent a few too many hours eating junk food in their car. There is a difference in the level of combat training and physical prowess between the police and enlisted men.

Quote:
But lying witnesses doesn't equal "tainted process". Witnesses are not automatically presumed to be truthful - hell, witnesses often lie/misrepresent/remember wrong on the stand, it's the duty of the jury to decide how reliable and truthful a witness's statement is, not the prosecutor or defense lawyers.
Except in this case, the prosecutor admitted that he let someone on the stand who was not actually at the scene give eyewitness testimony. In short, he let someone on he knew was lying give a Grand Jury a false testimony, and he didn't tell anyone until after the trial was over.

That's a complete breach of ethics. Of course people lie on the stand. But when you know the person is lying and let them admit testimony anyway, you've knowingly tainted the whole process.

Quote:
I disagree here as well, there was no getting rid of that lingering doubt for Wilson from the very beginning. Many people have their minds made up already before the facts even came out, and they sure as hell wouldn't be swayed by whatever is decided in court even if it went to trial - just look at the Treyvon Martin case.
Some people will never be swayed, sure. But both cases are plagued with inconsistent testimony from both sides, a questionable use of the law entitling lethal force, and questions if the force was even necessary to begin with. And honestly, the media circus hasn't helped at all. I would argue that the worst culprit in helping guide and shape public opinion was the horrible job that the media did covering the events to begin with.

I believe it was John Stewart who once famously called Nancy Grace "an engorged tragedy tick". I'll put Sharpton up there too. He's the racial equivalent of an ambulance chaser. Both of them cherry pick details to rally their troops/viewers into a frenzy of emotion and use them to line their own pockets. Whenever Sharpton starts invoking King I become physically ill. He's a shame to the legacy of a great man.

Quote:
According to his mother, the guy's been mentally ill his whole life, started trying to kill himself since he was 13. Incidentally, his ex gf talked him out of suicide - only to have him turn around and put a bullet in her, so take that as you will.
Yeesh. That's one messed up kid.
__________________
Solace is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 18:57   Link #35248
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
I understand the intent, but you know that's not what I meant. The vast majority of cases involving police shooting and killing a suspect (or animal) use the defense of "I felt he/she/it threatened my life". My point was that while this is often true, it's also true that threat of intimidation through force is the tool most used by police. Tactics that attempt to de-escalate a situation peacefully (or at the very least, without relying on a gun) are not used as much. Threat of force can also make situations worse. Suspects on the run are like cornered animals, they will do anything to escape their situation. Threat of force when cornered can make people feel like they have nothing to lose by retaliating in kind.
... I really don't think the Brown case is the right one to preach de-escalation. Try the 12 years old kid who got shot for having a toy gun - that'd be a much easier sale than "muscular thug who tried to get the cop's gun". I really don't understand why he isn't the story. Why focus on the thugs who resisted arrest?

Quote:
Besides that, force doesn't require a gun. Most people are horrible at fighting, and learning take down tactics and proper holds can be useful. What if for some reason, Brown had managed to get the gun at one point and during the altercation, the gun ended up some distance from both of them? How would Wilson have continued to handle the situation?



Of course. It's always easier to look back in hindsight and wonder if things could have gone differently. Officers don't have the luxury of spending much time on decisions in dangerous situations. That said, many police aren't exactly in the best of shape either. I know of several in my area that look like they've spent a few too many hours eating junk food in their car. There is a difference in the level of combat training and physical prowess between the police and enlisted men.
You're being somewhat inconsistent. First you say that cops should gamble on the other guy being a terrible fighter (the assumption being that they can take down a terrible fighter without doing anything permanent to him), and then you complain the cops themselves aren't examplars of physical perfection (and thus presumably not great fighter either).
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 19:22   Link #35249
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
... I really don't think the Brown case is the right one to preach de-escalation. Try the 12 years old kid who got shot for having a toy gun - that'd be a much easier sale than "muscular thug who tried to get the cop's gun". I really don't understand why he isn't the story. Why focus on the thugs who resisted arrest?
It's just the news of the moment that I replied to, and it's turned into this. There's also the man shot in Wal-Mart even though he was innocent. Both that and the Garner case are very clear cut, since both were caught on tape.

Quote:
You're being somewhat inconsistent. First you say that cops should gamble on the other guy being a terrible fighter (the assumption being that they can take down a terrible fighter without doing anything permanent to him), and then you complain the cops themselves aren't examplars of physical perfection (and thus presumably not great fighter either).
That's not what I said at all. I was making the point that threat of force through a lethal weapon like a gun is not the only way to resolve a situation. I'm trying not to be too literal here, by explaining that yes there are always exceptions and that police often have to make split second decisions. That said, a gun is the easiest decision you can make when attempting to stop any aggression (real or perceived). That doesn't mean guns are always the best decision, just the simplest, and it makes it easy to justify resolving every situation with one. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

My other statement was meant to establish that currently, many police are not physically fit and are not trained to handle situations that could potentially escalate out of control or in unexpected ways. That's why I brought up the example of the gun being removed from the officers choice of options. There are a myriad of reasons why this is the case, but it is an issue. It's why people fear the militarization of police. They've clearly shown they aren't capable of using military equipment responsibly.
__________________
Solace is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 19:42   Link #35250
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
It's just the news of the moment that I replied to, and it's turned into this.
I'm talking more generally. From what I've seen, the kid had little attention compared to Brown or Garner.

Quote:
There's also the man shot in Wal-Mart even though he was innocent. Both that and the Garner case are very clear cut, since both were caught on tape.
I wouldn't call Garner "clear cut" either. Though I don't like seeing his case dismissed.


Quote:
That's not what I said at all. I was making the point that threat of force through a lethal weapon like a gun is not the only way to resolve a situation. I'm trying not to be too literal here, by explaining that yes there are always exceptions and that police often have to make split second decisions. That said, a gun is the easiest decision you can make when attempting to stop any aggression (real or perceived). That doesn't mean guns are always the best decision, just the simplest, and it makes it easy to justify resolving every situation with one. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

My other statement was meant to establish that currently, many police are not physically fit and are not trained to handle situations that could potentially escalate out of control or in unexpected ways. That's why I brought up the example of the gun being removed from the officers choice of options.
So you want the cops to not have guns? I don't think that can work in a country where they're as common as the US.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 20:11   Link #35251
Slick_rick
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
... I really don't think the Brown case is the right one to preach de-escalation. Try the 12 years old kid who got shot for having a toy gun - that'd be a much easier sale than "muscular thug who tried to get the cop's gun". I really don't understand why he isn't the story. Why focus on the thugs who resisted arrest?
Brown's case is actually the perfect case because in death as in life, he became to many whites, as you so eloquently put it, nothing but a thug. While we can all be sure that Mike Brown was not a perfect person it is this outright demonization of him that is so galling and the willingness of some to believe the worst without ever knowing him. Whether Mike Brown reached for the Officer Wilson's gun or not, whether he was going to back to surrender with his hands raise or charging the officer in a bestial rage after he had ran away are things will be probably never know for sure. What we do know is the police response was classically to make Mike Brown out as the predetermined villain and the officer and the hero. They was no expression of remorse at his death from the police but instead the immediate task of constructing a narrative that is so familiar to black people in America. "A big scary black man (Mike brown was 6'5, 289 while Officer Wilson was 6'4, 210, neither were small guys) attacked an poor innocent officer trying to do his best to protect the city. Luckily the officer was able to kill the monster who just happened to be unarmed but the officer said he feared for his life because of course it was a big scary black man and we all know how dangerous those things are. So he had to shoot it multiple times. Now move along, nothing to talk about anymore."

This isn't anything new to blacks. In fact it is the most common story. It is like they have this same script prepared with slight variations everything an unarmed black person dies.
__________________
Slick_rick is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 20:28   Link #35252
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Yeah, that'll be the day when the police shoot someone - of any color - and just go on camera to say that guy was harmless, but they shot because fuck him, that's why.

OTOH, you seem pretty convinced that it's all a big lie. Care to say why?
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 21:07   Link #35253
Slick_rick
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Yeah, that'll be the day when the police shoot someone - of any color - and just go on camera to say that guy was harmless, but they shot because fuck him, that's why.

OTOH, you seem pretty convinced that it's all a big lie. Care to say why?
Well there have certainly been cases where the cop shot someone out of malice even knowing the person was relatively harmless. The difference in positions allows the cop to be feel able to get away with such a crime but this isn't generally what I'm referring to.

I'm not saying that Officer Wilson didn't believe Mike Brown was dangerous. In fact, Mike Brown was likely prejudged as dangerous because of his description, a big black guy. That made the use of lethal force, not just more likely imho, but the preferred method. You must understand, police in these poor black areas are an occupying army. That might sound weird to you but for the perspective of the people of those communities that is absolutely what they are. The police are made of mainly wealthier suburban whites from surrounding areas who are indoctrinated with the belief that the areas they patrol are filled with vicious and irrational people but the most vicious and irrational of those is the black male, who should best be dealt with it the use of maximum force. The way they interact with the people of these communities is usually only through the conducting of police duties. That can ever more greatly reinforce these prejudices.

We must also understand the unequal positions and standards expected of Mike Brown and Officer Wilson in this situation. An unarmed Mike Brown was presumed to be the dangerous one, not the trained officer with the gun. It is deemed impossible or irrelevant that Officer Wilson could have made Mike Brown fear for his life. Mike Brown could have only been trying to defend himself from an overaggressive officer. In fact, in that situation Mike Brown is expected to become submissive while Officer Wilson expected to do the opposite. If Mike Brown had killed Officer Wilson, Mike Brown would have been immediately been sent to jail instead of going to the hospital and been released without any terms as Officer Wilson did. The system protects Officer Wilson because he is an agent of it who in actually killing Mike Brown was fulfilling one its raison d'etre, the modern American police force grew out of organizations constructed to crush slave revolts, while it wouldn't protect Mike Brown because it has always been meant to do the opposite.
__________________
Slick_rick is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 21:19   Link #35254
maplehurry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post


But lying witnesses doesn't equal "tainted process". Witnesses are not automatically presumed to be truthful - hell, witnesses often lie/misrepresent/remember wrong on the stand, it's the duty of the jury to decide how reliable and truthful a witness's statement is, not the prosecutor or defense lawyers.
The lawyers are the ones with the right to cross-examine and question the witness though, not the jury. If the prosecutors screw up with tainted evidences, the judge can order a retrial or even throw out the case entirely. The jury's not even part of the equation at that point.

Last edited by maplehurry; 2014-12-23 at 21:58.
maplehurry is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 23:10   Link #35255
kyp275
Meh
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slick_rick View Post
I'm not saying that Officer Wilson didn't believe Mike Brown was dangerous. In fact, Mike Brown was likely prejudged as dangerous because of his description, a big black guy. That made the use of lethal force, not just more likely imho, but the preferred method.
Yes, Wilson totally prejudged Brown as dangerous because of his race, and not because he punched him in the face and tried to grab his gun.

Quote:
You must understand, police in these poor black areas are an occupying army. That might sound weird to you but for the perspective of the people of those communities that is absolutely what they are. The police are made of mainly wealthier suburban whites from surrounding areas who are indoctrinated with the belief that the areas they patrol are filled with vicious and irrational people but the most vicious and irrational of those is the black male, who should best be dealt with it the use of maximum force. The way they interact with the people of these communities is usually only through the conducting of police duties. That can ever more greatly reinforce these prejudices.
I'm not sure you can make a bigger hyperbole/generalization if you tried.


Quote:
We must also understand the unequal positions and standards expected of Mike Brown and Officer Wilson in this situation. An unarmed Mike Brown was presumed to be the dangerous one, not the trained officer with the gun. It is deemed impossible or irrelevant that Officer Wilson could have made Mike Brown fear for his life. Mike Brown could have only been trying to defend himself from an overaggressive officer. In fact, in that situation Mike Brown is expected to become submissive while Officer Wilson expected to do the opposite. If Mike Brown had killed Officer Wilson, Mike Brown would have been immediately been sent to jail instead of going to the hospital and been released without any terms as Officer Wilson did. The system protects Officer Wilson because he is an agent of it who in actually killing Mike Brown was fulfilling one its raison d'etre, the modern American police force grew out of organizations constructed to crush slave revolts, while it wouldn't protect Mike Brown because it has always been meant to do the opposite.
I, I don't even. I guess next time the police tried to apprehend a robbery suspect, they must be careful not to upset the robber, and definitely don't make them feel like they are in trouble in any way shape or form, I mean, Christ people, criminals have the rights to defend themselves from police that are trying to apprehend them!

In fact, next time you get pulled over by a cop for speeding, just go ahead and shoot the cop in the face, you were, afterall, only defending yourself from an aggressive officer, who dared to pull you over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maplehurry View Post
The lawyers are the ones with the right to cross-examine and question the witness though, not the jury. If the prosecutors screw up with tainted evidences, the judge can order a retrial or even throw out the case entirely. The jury's not even part of the equation at that point.
In a grand jury, the jury can and do question the witnesses. Moreover, it doesn't change the fact that ultimately it's the jury that decides what statements are trustworthy, regardless of the lawyers
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 23:33   Link #35256
Urzu 7
Juanita/Kiteless
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New England
Age: 40
We don't know for a fact Brown tried reaching for the gun, right? I remember discussing this incident months ago and that there was eyewitnesses who said that he didn't reach for Wilson's gun and that he didn't charge Wilson before being shot.

I didn't follow the incident closely for long. Who is to be believed, Wilson, or the eyewitnesses, or is it too much he-said she-said?
__________________
http://forums.animesuki.com/images/as.icon/signaturepics/sigpic38963_5.gif
Urzu 7 is offline  
Old 2014-12-23, 23:58   Link #35257
kyp275
Meh
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urzu 7 View Post
We don't know for a fact Brown tried reaching for the gun, right? I remember discussing this incident months ago and that there was eyewitnesses who said that he didn't reach for Wilson's gun and that he didn't charge Wilson before being shot.

I didn't follow the incident closely for long. Who is to be believed, Wilson, or the eyewitnesses, or is it too much he-said she-said?
There are gunpowder residues on Brown's hands, which could only have came from the two shots that was discharged inside the police cruiser, where Brown was punching Wilson, so take that as you will.

The eyewitnesses in this case pretty much runs the gamut, from Brown being frigging Hulk bearing down on a shivering Wilson-puppy, to Fuher Wilson cold-bloodedly execute Brown as he lay on the ground begging for his life.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2014-12-24, 00:09   Link #35258
Urzu 7
Juanita/Kiteless
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New England
Age: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
There are gunpowder residues on Brown's hands, which could only have came from the two shots that was discharged inside the police cruiser, where Brown was punching Wilson, so take that as you will.

The eyewitnesses in this case pretty much runs the gamut, from Brown being frigging Hulk bearing down on a shivering Wilson-puppy, to Fuher Wilson cold-bloodedly execute Brown as he lay on the ground begging for his life.

I don't know what to believe. Gunpowder residue on his hands starts to paint a picture of a very belligerent Brown, but who knows what happened that day...I read forensic tests (of the bullet wounds) concluded that Brown was shot while facing away from Wilson; not facing towards him (and thus, couldn't have been charging him).
__________________
http://forums.animesuki.com/images/as.icon/signaturepics/sigpic38963_5.gif
Urzu 7 is offline  
Old 2014-12-24, 00:20   Link #35259
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs View Post
Well it's about to get more depressing, one of the follow on articles was about Slavery In IS; Reading this pissed me right off, like really. If it wasn't for innocent people stuck there reducing the region to a nuclear wasteland seems like a good idea. Scum like that don't deserve to live.
Actually I would like to thank people for having ideas like that. It keeps the defence stocks I buy equitable. [/sarcasm]
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline  
Old 2014-12-24, 06:08   Link #35260
MrTerrorist
Takao Tsundere Cruiser
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs View Post
Well it's about to get more depressing, one of the follow on articles was about Slavery In IS; Reading this pissed me right off, like really. If it wasn't for innocent people stuck there reducing the region to a nuclear wasteland seems like a good idea. Scum like that don't deserve to live.
Ok now they are officially no longer Muslims anymore but barbarians using the religion as an excuse for their depravity. What they are doing is so offensive and degrading to all Muslims that even a conservative one will be disgusted by their actions.

They should sent troops including from other Islamic countries to stop these bastards.
__________________
MrTerrorist is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:16.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We use Silk.