The cops used a Bomb to kill the guy....anyone curious about that tactic?

[Jarlaxle]

Obama does.

Yup, and it is legal, too. Those of you who are fomenting sedition should think matters through.

So, it's legal for Obama to kill innocent civilians, and yet the DPD can't take out a terrorist.

It would be illegal for President Obama to knowingly target innocent civilians. But it isn't illegal for President Obama to order attacks on enemies who threaten Americans.

And it is legal for the Dallas Police Department to use the necessary force to prevent violence against Americans.

Obama Issues Rare Apology Over Bombing of Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan

The president can target enemy noncombatants overseas, and he is immune from collateral injuries, yes,

Your hatred for American law is noted, Lilah,

By that "logic", targeting American civilians in acceptable for ISIS.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Obama does.

Yup, and it is legal, too. Those of you who are fomenting sedition should think matters through.

So, it's legal for Obama to kill innocent civilians, and yet the DPD can't take out a terrorist.

It would be illegal for President Obama to knowingly target innocent civilians. But it isn't illegal for President Obama to order attacks on enemies who threaten Americans.

And it is legal for the Dallas Police Department to use the necessary force to prevent violence against Americans.

Obama Issues Rare Apology Over Bombing of Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan

The president can target enemy noncombatants overseas, and he is immune from collateral injuries, yes,

Your hatred for American law is noted, Lilah,

I'm curious what your "thoughts" were when Bush was having GITMO detainees waterboarded in compliance with existing law at the time? Somehow I imagine you disagreed with him and that you didn't consider yourself to hate American law.

 

[bodecea]

i heard the press conference from Dallas...they said after reaching a stalemate with the black, anti white sniper, they used a bomb to kill him.....

Does this strike anyone as an interesting tactic?

It pretty much takes away the argument that white right wingers need to be heavily armed to protect themselves from Government.

Besides, all the police that were shot were heavily armed. Didn't seem to help them much.

The Negroid Panty Sniffer used sniper fire. He didn't have the balls to go man-to-man with the LEOs.
Whether or not the LEO's were "heavily armed" is irrelevant.

So....dannyboys thinks snipers are cowards. Feel the same about military snipers like Chris Kyle, do you?

You're a dipshit! Snipers in a war protecting American troops (regardless of color by the way) are not cowards. A gunman picking off innocent people and protecting no one is a coward! If you can't see that then I'm sorry for you.

You might want to be having this conversation with dannyboys...he's the one who insinuated that being a sniper is being a coward.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, and it is legal, too. Those of you who are fomenting sedition should think matters through.

So, it's legal for Obama to kill innocent civilians, and yet the DPD can't take out a terrorist.

It would be illegal for President Obama to knowingly target innocent civilians. But it isn't illegal for President Obama to order attacks on enemies who threaten Americans.

And it is legal for the Dallas Police Department to use the necessary force to prevent violence against Americans.

Obama Issues Rare Apology Over Bombing of Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan

The president can target enemy noncombatants overseas, and he is immune from collateral injuries, yes,

Your hatred for American law is noted, Lilah,

By that "logic", targeting American civilians in acceptable for ISIS.

The art of logic obviously escapes you.

But your language and hate are similar to your ISIS brothers, yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, and it is legal, too. Those of you who are fomenting sedition should think matters through.

So, it's legal for Obama to kill innocent civilians, and yet the DPD can't take out a terrorist.

It would be illegal for President Obama to knowingly target innocent civilians. But it isn't illegal for President Obama to order attacks on enemies who threaten Americans.

And it is legal for the Dallas Police Department to use the necessary force to prevent violence against Americans.

Obama Issues Rare Apology Over Bombing of Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan

The president can target enemy noncombatants overseas, and he is immune from collateral injuries, yes,

Your hatred for American law is noted, Lilah,

I'm curious what your "thoughts" were when Bush was having GITMO detainees waterboarded in compliance with existing law at the time? Somehow I imagine you disagreed with him and that you didn't consider yourself to hate American law.

Difference in kind, friend, not degree. The detainees were captives in US hands at an US installation not overseas in arms fighting against the US. Do you understand that?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So, it's legal for Obama to kill innocent civilians, and yet the DPD can't take out a terrorist.

It would be illegal for President Obama to knowingly target innocent civilians. But it isn't illegal for President Obama to order attacks on enemies who threaten Americans.

And it is legal for the Dallas Police Department to use the necessary force to prevent violence against Americans.

Obama Issues Rare Apology Over Bombing of Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan

The president can target enemy noncombatants overseas, and he is immune from collateral injuries, yes,

Your hatred for American law is noted, Lilah,

I'm curious what your "thoughts" were when Bush was having GITMO detainees waterboarded in compliance with existing law at the time? Somehow I imagine you disagreed with him and that you didn't consider yourself to hate American law.

Difference in kind, friend, not degree. The detainees were captives in US hands at an US installation not overseas in arms fighting against the US. Do you understand that?

LOL yeah the difference is a distinction you created in your head to justify your beliefs.

Actually , the difference is which party did which.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yup, and it is legal, too. Those of you who are fomenting sedition should think matters through.

So, it's legal for Obama to kill innocent civilians, and yet the DPD can't take out a terrorist.

It would be illegal for President Obama to knowingly target innocent civilians. But it isn't illegal for President Obama to order attacks on enemies who threaten Americans.

And it is legal for the Dallas Police Department to use the necessary force to prevent violence against Americans.

Obama Issues Rare Apology Over Bombing of Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan

The president can target enemy noncombatants overseas, and he is immune from collateral injuries, yes,

Your hatred for American law is noted, Lilah,

I'm curious what your "thoughts" were when Bush was having GITMO detainees waterboarded in compliance with existing law at the time? Somehow I imagine you disagreed with him and that you didn't consider yourself to hate American law.

He has no thoughts. Fakey is a spambot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It would be illegal for President Obama to knowingly target innocent civilians. But it isn't illegal for President Obama to order attacks on enemies who threaten Americans.

And it is legal for the Dallas Police Department to use the necessary force to prevent violence against Americans.

Obama Issues Rare Apology Over Bombing of Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan

The president can target enemy noncombatants overseas, and he is immune from collateral injuries, yes,

Your hatred for American law is noted, Lilah,

I'm curious what your "thoughts" were when Bush was having GITMO detainees waterboarded in compliance with existing law at the time? Somehow I imagine you disagreed with him and that you didn't consider yourself to hate American law.

Difference in kind, friend, not degree. The detainees were captives in US hands at an US installation not overseas in arms fighting against the US. Do you understand that?

LOL yeah the difference is a distinction you created in your head to justify your beliefs. Actually , the difference is which party did which.

Hit a nerve. I supported Bush droning terrorists overseas, and I do the same with Obama.

Torture fails far more than works (practical), it is immoral, and it is illegal.

 

[Slyhunter]

Obama Issues Rare Apology Over Bombing of Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan

The president can target enemy noncombatants overseas, and he is immune from collateral injuries, yes,

Your hatred for American law is noted, Lilah,

I'm curious what your "thoughts" were when Bush was having GITMO detainees waterboarded in compliance with existing law at the time? Somehow I imagine you disagreed with him and that you didn't consider yourself to hate American law.

Difference in kind, friend, not degree. The detainees were captives in US hands at an US installation not overseas in arms fighting against the US. Do you understand that?

LOL yeah the difference is a distinction you created in your head to justify your beliefs. Actually , the difference is which party did which.

Hit a nerve. I supported Bush droning terrorists overseas, and I do the same with Obama.

Torture fails far more than works (practical), it is immoral, and it is illegal.

Killing them means we don't have to house them or torture them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why not? It's as good a way as any.

Because , ultimately the police are SUPPOSED to try to bring suspects in alive. Not just say "well he won't give up " and then bomb them, sheesh.

When a suspect is barricaded in, and refuses to give up, and is known to be heavily armed, this tactic is justified.

No it isn't. Just wait his ass out. Where is he going to go? Police should NEVER go tactical unless a person is a danger to others. PERIOD

He was still shooting at people! DUH!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He had told them he had ied's with him, had set them throughout the garage, and downtown Dallas. They felt this was the best way to keep more officers from being injured, if indeed he had.

Why not? It's as good a way as any.

Because , ultimately the police are SUPPOSED to try to bring suspects in alive. Not just say "well he won't give up " and then bomb them, sheesh.

When a suspect is barricaded in, and refuses to give up, and is known to be heavily armed, this tactic is justified.

No it isn't. Just wait his ass out. Where is he going to go? Police should NEVER go tactical unless a person is a danger to others. PERIOD

So, he told them he had placed IEDs throughout Dallas and they blew him up? Seems to me that they should have been trying to keep him alive so as to find out where the IEDs were.

Like he would tell them? Use your head! It was the best thing to do!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He also told them their end was near and more cops would be dead. The were in contact with him for several hours before they did this, and the Police Chief said they felt it was their only option at that point.

He had told them he had ied's with him, had set them throughout the garage, and downtown Dallas. They felt this was the best way to keep more officers from being injured, if indeed he had.

When a suspect is barricaded in, and refuses to give up, and is known to be heavily armed, this tactic is justified.

No it isn't. Just wait his ass out. Where is he going to go? Police should NEVER go tactical unless a person is a danger to others. PERIOD

So, he told them he had placed IEDs throughout Dallas and they blew him up? Seems to me that they should have been trying to keep him alive so as to find out where the IEDs were.

So, you believe that they had him cornered for SEVERAL hours where he was making threats but not actually harming anyone and you believe they HAD to blow him up with a bomb? What the fuck is a matter with you? If they had him contained where he couldn't harm anyone I don't care if they had to wait a week for him to give up, do it. Don't use a bomb on the guy. That's stupid.

You obviously have not thought this through. Why not quit while you are ahead?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The president can target enemy noncombatants overseas, and he is immune from collateral injuries, yes,

Your hatred for American law is noted, Lilah,

I'm curious what your "thoughts" were when Bush was having GITMO detainees waterboarded in compliance with existing law at the time? Somehow I imagine you disagreed with him and that you didn't consider yourself to hate American law.

Difference in kind, friend, not degree. The detainees were captives in US hands at an US installation not overseas in arms fighting against the US. Do you understand that?

LOL yeah the difference is a distinction you created in your head to justify your beliefs. Actually , the difference is which party did which.

Hit a nerve. I supported Bush droning terrorists overseas, and I do the same with Obama.

Torture fails far more than works (practical), it is immoral, and it is illegal.

Killing them means we don't have to house them or torture them.

Agreed. I also might add that by killing them, the Left is deprived the opportunity to confer rights upon them via the left leaning Supreme Court.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They blew him up with his own bomb? That is fucking awesome. Karmic justice motherfucker!

Not really. They used an explosive to blow up any explosive device he had. If he didn't have one, he would be just as dead.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They blew him up with his own bomb? That is fucking awesome. Karmic justice motherfucker!

No....they brought their own bomb apparently.....where did they get a bomb.....?

A hand grenade would have worked quite well- I would suspect that their SWAT units have them.

Not grenades...they have flash/bangs and smoke...where did they get the bomb?

Bomb squads use explosives for controlled detonation of bombs.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

i heard the press conference from Dallas...they said after reaching a stalemate with the black, anti white sniper, they used a bomb to kill him.....

Does this strike anyone as an interesting tactic?

it was HIS bomb. or did you miss that part?

Still not confirmed.

It could have been a really big flash bang, if he was in a confined area, the concussion could have killed him without any shrapnel needed.

Flash-bangs are not concussion grenades. They are just very loud and give off bright light. I have literally had hundreds used on me as an urban combat training volunteer.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Look....I don't care that they killed him...he was a murderer...but where exactly did the bomb come from...is there a link....and too, the police are not supposed to kill......you guys have been complaining about Baton Rouge for the last 2 days....he had a gun and may have been trying to use it...and you don't want him shot...this guy is contained and it is okay to use a bomb?

Define "contained".

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There are ZERO circumstances where I find it acceptable for a civilian police force to use a bomb to kill a suspect. ZERO.

Then you are simply wrong. Have a nice day!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why do the cops have Claymores?

Huh?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I didn't know the cops had claymores. Usually they use C4 because they can fashion shaped charges to accomplish a specific task. Claymores are ambush devices, very indiscriminate, and designed to take out many enemy soldiers at once. I'm cynical enough to believe the feds have these in anticipation for a war against the American people. After all, Ruby Ridge and Waco proved that Christian families present a DIRE THREAT against the federal government. I'm surprised they didn't just use nukes.