PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Username on September 18, 2024, 05:22:07 AM
-
Seems that 2800 Hezbollah pagers exploded. Somehow the Iran ambassador to Lebanon had one. And some people who were previously unknown Hezbollah were exposed. Pagers from Taiwan were intercepted, their battery compartment was "modified" with a trigger and possibly explosives, and sent on their way. Beep, then three seconds later, BOOM. Hezbollah previously discarded their higher-tech communications because they could be hacked. Wend old school. Oops.
Why can't we do that?
-
I saw some of the video footage. They’re claiming innocent civilians were injured. While I don’t believe what terrorists say, it’s plausible. You don’t know if the guy is standing next to a kid when it goes off.
So I’m having trouble thinking this is much different from terrorism. I can see the justification: Fight fire with fire. But I’m uncomfortable with it. Fight terrorism with terrorism?
Oh well, it’s humans being humans. SMDH.
-
I'm not sure that it's terrorism. Explosives were planted on enemy combatants. There was some unfortunate collateral damage. Terrorism would be planting a bomb in a marketplace hoping to take out some combatants as well. Yes, semantics. But I do feel that there were far fewer civilian casualties than other means, and had it not not been done at all.
-
The fucking hezbollah scum bags need to feel unsafe, anywhere, all the time.
Now some of them can tell allah all about tit, while the rest will have to wait to rape young boys and girls.
What a fucking shame...
-
I'm not sure that it's terrorism. Explosives were planted on enemy combatants. There was some unfortunate collateral damage. Terrorism would be planting a bomb in a marketplace hoping to take out some combatants as well. Yes, semantics. But I do feel that there were far fewer civilian casualties than other means, and had it not not been done at all.
Terrorism is using terror to gain compliance. Hijacking a few jets to scare away passengers, thus economically hurting the airlines, going into a random shopping mall and shooting people, placing bombs in public venues or mass shootings at public events.
Taking out terrorist with clever tactics is not terrorism. As with any combat operation, there is a chance of collateral damage. So I agree with your assessment above.
Fighting terrorist is difficult. When we are fighting them, we try to be right 100% of the time. The terrorist only have to get it right once.
-
It would be a shame if someone started a rumor that the phones handed out by FJB to illegals had the same "feature".
-
Seems that 2800 Hezbollah pagers exploded. Somehow the Iran ambassador to Lebanon had one. And some people who were previously unknown Hezbollah were exposed. Pagers from Taiwan were intercepted, their battery compartment was "modified" with a trigger and possibly explosives, and sent on their way. Beep, then three seconds later, BOOM. Hezbollah previously discarded their higher-tech communications because they could be hacked. Wend old school. Oops.
Why can't we do that?
Who says we can’t?
Of course, I don’t think we would be quite that indiscriminate
-
Would have been better to let them wonder around, get GPS data to see where they congregate/meet, then drop a cruise missile on their heads. But fucking genius level move by Mossad.
-
Second wave of explosions reported - this time walkie talkies.
-
Would have been better to let them wonder around, get GPS data to see where they congregate/meet, then drop a cruise missile on their heads. But fucking genius level move by Mossad.
It is very smart. And I’m all too happy to kill Hezbollah. But it still makes me uncomfortable. Whether it technically fits y’all’s definition of terrorism, it is a whole new level of weaponizing technology. I have similar misgivings about drones. Robot soldiers. AI. This is utterly dystopian stuff.
How many years before our own CIA adopts some of this to go after for example, Trump supporters i.e. “Domestic Terrorists”. So wonderful that our cell phones do everything. Maybe they can be bombs too! You can bet that right now there are agents in our own IC saying “What a great idea! Let’s see if we can do that with cell phones. Then we can control everyone!”
How many of you guys have already moved your iPhones to a back pocket?
-
It is very smart. And I’m all too happy to kill Hezbollah. But it still makes me uncomfortable. Whether it technically fits y’all’s definition of terrorism, it is a whole new level of weaponizing technology. I have similar misgivings about drones. Robot soldiers. AI. This is utterly dystopian stuff.
How many years before our own CIA adopts some of this to go after for example, Trump supporters i.e. “Domestic Terrorists”. So wonderful that our cell phones do everything. Maybe they can be bombs too! You can bet that right now there are agents in our own IC saying “What a great idea! Let’s see if we can do that with cell phones. Then we can control everyone!”
How many of you guys have already moved your iPhones to a back pocket?
These terrotists don't think like you and I do. All they know is violence.
-
These terrotists don't think like you and I do. All they know is violence.
Which is why we need to close our borders. Station machine gun nests along the border and open fire on any illegal crossing attempts. If any women and children are gunned down, it is because they chose to attempt to enter illegally. Not because they were shopping for fruit at the market back home and were standing next to a stranger with a pager.
That should drastically reduce the flood. God knows how many Hezbollah, ISIS, Houthi, and whatever else are already skulking around the U.S.
-
"Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out"
-
I saw some of the video footage. They’re claiming innocent civilians were injured. While I don’t believe what terrorists say, it’s plausible. You don’t know if the guy is standing next to a kid when it goes off.
So I’m having trouble thinking this is much different from terrorism. I can see the justification: Fight fire with fire. But I’m uncomfortable with it. Fight terrorism with terrorism?
Oh well, it’s humans being humans. SMDH.
Was the fire bombing and atomic bombing of Japan terrorism,? Was the carpet bombing of Germany terrorism? With 20/20 hindsight, maybe.
-
As someone who worked in the pager industry (design engineering) back in the early eighties, I have to say I didn't know they were still available, thought cell phones made them obsolete.
-
I am all for exploding the pagers of hezbollah assholes.
I am all for shooting the coyotes trafficking women and children for the purpose of sexual slavery.
I am all for killing the people behind these illegal alien caravans.
I am NOT in favor of allowing psychotic officers to shoot and kill women and children being brought thru by force, or connivance.
-
I am NOT in favor of allowing psychotic officers to shoot and kill women and children being brought thru by force, or connivance.
7 has a heart?
-
I am all for exploding the pagers of hezbollah assholes.
I am all for shooting the coyotes trafficking women and children for the purpose of sexual slavery.
I am all for killing the people behind these illegal alien caravans.
I am NOT in favor of allowing psychotic officers to shoot and kill women and children being brought thru by force, or connivance.
Alright, I’ll grant if they’re being brought by force we don’t need to shoot them. In that case it wasn’t their choice to come. At least not the little kids. A grown woman however may have chosen to come with the coyote. If they came willingly and knowingly to enter the country illegally but didn’t know they’d be exploited, I don’t have much sympathy for them. They knew they were doing something illegal. The biggest problem is the Biden Administration and everyone who voted for it. Trump was getting the border under control.
-
Which is why we need to close our borders. Station machine gun nests along the border and open fire on any illegal crossing attempts. If any women and children are gunned down, it is because they chose to attempt to enter illegally. Not because they were shopping for fruit at the market back home and were standing next to a stranger with a pager.
That should drastically reduce the flood. God knows how many Hezbollah, ISIS, Houthi, and whatever else are already skulking around the U.S.
Your proposal is very emotive. Pretty drastic for an action that is inherently victimless. Consider private property with signs stating "no trespassing."
"In general, property owners cannot use deadly force to protect property. But property owners may be able to shoot at trespassers in self-defense if they fear great bodily harm or death.
The law gives property owners the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. That means any force used against a trespasser must usually be proportionate to harm that is reasonably perceived."
(From https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/is-it-ever-legal-to-shoot-trespassers/ (https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/is-it-ever-legal-to-shoot-trespassers/))
I think the law on use of force in this case is decently balanced. This subject has of course come up before and you've expressed it before, as have some others. It's a position that violates the principle that the punishment should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted or threatened on the victim. But the victim and their suffering are left unidentified or deliberately vague in the border crossing scenario.
-
Your proposal is very emotive. Pretty drastic for an action that is inherently victimless. Consider private property with signs stating "no trespassing."
"In general, property owners cannot use deadly force to protect property. But property owners may be able to shoot at trespassers in self-defense if they fear great bodily harm or death.
The law gives property owners the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. That means any force used against a trespasser must usually be proportionate to harm that is reasonably perceived."
(From https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/is-it-ever-legal-to-shoot-trespassers/ (https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/is-it-ever-legal-to-shoot-trespassers/))
I think the law on use of force in this case is decently balanced. This subject has of course come up before and you've expressed it before, as have some others. It's a position that violates the principle that the punishment should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted or threatened on the victim. But the victim and their suffering are left unidentified or deliberately vague in the border crossing scenario.
This isn't simple trespass. It's an invasion. That's not victimless.
And anyway, here in Texas we can use deadly force to protect property. ;D
-
This isn't simple trespass. It's an invasion. That's not victimless.
And anyway, here in Texas we can use deadly force to protect property. ;D
Your use of "invasion" doesn't change the basic principles. There are several dictionary definitions of "invasion" and only one of them would allow use of deadly force - that is when force is already being used by an "invader". The vast majority of illegal border crossers are not armed.
The harm caused by most illegals comes well after crossing and is caused entirely by government handout policy. The fault lies with the people who set those policies, not the illegals. If you had proposed using machine guns on the people who set those policies you'd be proposing a more promising solution. ;)
-
Your use of "invasion" doesn't change the basic principles. There are several dictionary definitions of "invasion" and only one of them would allow use of deadly force - that is when force is already being used by an "invader". The vast majority of illegal border crossers are not armed.
What rulebook are you using? Libertarian principles? Religious morality? Federal law? What authority are you suggesting forbids us to use deadly force against an army of millions, armed or not, invading our territory? I’m using natural law. We are a territorial species. We must defend our territory.
The harm caused by most illegals comes well after crossing and is caused entirely by government handout policy. The fault lies with the people who set those policies, not the illegals. If you had proposed using machine guns on the people who set those policies you'd be proposing a more promising solution. ;)
Largely but not entirely by government handouts. A lot of harm is being done by bringing illegal drugs in, by criminal gang activity, by upward pressure on housing costs, an oversupply of labor, and the intangible but very real harm of cultural changes. Not to mention the very real risk of terror cells being formed within the country that have easy access to the power grid, transportation systems, oil refineries, etc.
I do agree that the current administration and the Democrats and certain public policies exacerbate the problem, but the global situation is such that it will happen anyway, and we need a much stronger defense against it or we will end up like the UK and several other European countries. I’m not going to say I agree with your suggestion of an alternative target for my (nonexistent) machine guns or I’ll get a visit from the FBI. ;D
-
What rulebook are you using? Libertarian principles? Religious morality? Federal law?
N-player game theory. One book that discusses recent results (starts slow before getting into the meat): The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0140264450?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title) I'd been pondering the case of the space frontier where policing authority will not be possible (analogous to when Europeans first spread across the US, Canada, and Australia.) How do people survive socially when there is no central authority at hand to enforce something as simple as a "contract" where there is no "contract law"? Turns out that game theory simulations and observations of animals show that there are rules that individuals can choose to live by that optimize both their own condition but also the condition of all in their social group.
What authority are you suggesting forbids us to use deadly force against an army of millions, armed or not, invading our territory? I’m using natural law. We are a territorial species. We must defend our territory.
An unarmed group that isn't using force isn't an army (pretty much by definition.) I believe the earliest human groups were related by family and were mobile hunter-gatherers, so "tribal" seems a more useful description than territorial (in the sense of fixed borders.)
-
These illegals are doing really great becoming part of our country. Look at Colorado where they've quickly learned how to take over an apartment complex and also how to charge parking tolls at truck stops. We should applaud their ingenious ideas.
-
N-player game theory. One book that discusses recent results (starts slow before getting into the meat): The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0140264450?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title) I'd been pondering the case of the space frontier where policing authority will not be possible (analogous to when Europeans first spread across the US, Canada, and Australia.) How do people survive socially when there is no central authority at hand to enforce something as simple as a "contract" where there is no "contract law"? Turns out that game theory simulations and observations of animals show that there are rules that individuals can choose to live by that optimize both their own condition but also the condition of all in their social group.
Oh. I prefer the dark forest subset of game theory. Shoot first and ask questions later. The evolutionary history of mankind is that populations are always overrun and replaced by migrants, no exceptions, for a million years. The best we can do is stave them off temporarily. I’d like to keep our first world culture at least through my lifetime, preferably also my kids’ but it’s looking more and more like that’s not gonna happen.
In your scenario of how people survive socially when there is no central authority by following some agreed upon set of rules: That works only in the context of thriving democratic nations with borders. Then they can be friends and trade without threatening each other. But it never lasts. Inevitably psychopaths take control, the “democracies” decay, conditions get bad and people go on the move. That’s exactly what’s happening to us. We are playing by rules that are no longer applicable to the current situation because they are no longer simply moving from one prosperous nation to another, but are rats escaping sinking ships.
Meanwhile we need immigrants. We will die out just as surely without them because we are fast approaching the point where we no longer have enough babies to replace ourselves. But they must come legally and be vetted to keep out criminals, terrorists, and general parasites. I’m for radically overhauling our immigration process. But to just allow our border to be overrun is nuts.
An unarmed group that isn't using force isn't an army (pretty much by definition.) I believe the earliest human groups were related by family and were mobile hunter-gatherers, so "tribal" seems a more useful description than territorial (in the sense of fixed borders.)
But we have fixed borders. Overrunning the borders in sufficient numbers is a form of force: It is defeating your defenses by the sheer force of numbers.
-
I am NOT in favor of allowing psychotic officers to shoot and kill women and children being brought thru by force, or connivance.
How about just shooting the HUGE numbers of military-age men from around the world coming in. Don't shoot the women and children. Shoot their traffickers and the invaders. Or just build a border wall and control immigration.
-
How about just shooting the HUGE numbers of military-age men from around the world coming in. Don't shoot the women and children. Shoot their traffickers and the invaders. Or just build a border wall and control immigration.
There ya go. Simple solution.
Think of a molecule of water. It is unarmed and innocent and no threat to you, until it joins with millions of other molecules and then is a wave and waves are quite forceful.
-
...There are several dictionary definitions of "invasion" and only one of them would allow use of deadly force - that is when force is already being used by an "invader".
lol - so we have dictionaries "allowing" the use of deadly force?
I don't think so Tim.
-
I believe thr reason Rush is condoning violent response is so it acts as a deterrent. If you really want to stop the illegal and incredibly dangerous invasion is to set up a few MA Deuces and USE THEM. One or two get lit up and problem ENDS, immediately.
-
I believe thr reason Rush is condoning violent response is so it acts as a deterrent. If you really want to stop the illegal and incredibly dangerous invasion is to set up a few MA Deuces and USE THEM. One or two get lit up and problem ENDS, immediately.
Of course! But instead we usher them in, give them loaded debit cards and a hotel room, etc. etc. why hell would they NOT flood us by the growing millions?
Jim does make a great point about the parties responsible for this state of affairs. And he is exactly right that they are the real enemy.
-
(https://texashuntingforum.com/forum/pics/userpics/2024/09/full-65846-431675-img_2816.jpeg)
-
The Establishment Republicans are complicit with the illegal invasion.
-
The Establishment Republicans are complicit with the illegal invasion.
They are barely distinguishable and probably both complicit in trying to eliminate Trump. Have you noticed the team Trump is pulling together? Ramaswamy, Tulsi Gabbard, Musk, RFKJr. and the likes of people like Russell Brand and other influencers who are neither right nor left but calling out the establishment for the tyranny it is becoming? The Uniparty is their target.
-
It want more than a year ago when meathead announced that third parties should be illegal… to preserve democracy.
The uniparty is the enemy.
-
It want more than a year ago when meathead announced that third parties should be illegal… to preserve democracy.
The uniparty is the enemy.
You mean the meathead? Rob Reiner?
-
You mean the meathead? Rob Reiner?
Yep.
Dumb as a stone, liberal as a lunatic, and pathetic as can be.
-
Yep.
Dumb as a stone, liberal as a lunatic, and pathetic as can be.
He and Ron Perlman and George Takei are actors that are just embarrassing themselves and repelling half their audience by being such hateful leftists. There are many more but I see those three post a lot on Twitter. Just because you are a talented actor does NOT mean you are smart about politics or economics, or history. Nobody well educated in those subjects could be a leftist other than using it for their own Machiavellian ends, and those are usually politicians.
What they do have is situational acquired narcissism. They may not have been born narcissistic but all the celebrity and adoration changes them, makes them believe all the hype about themselves, think they are perfect and all their stupid opinions have to be the way.
No doubt they were Democrats all their life and now they are too stupid to see that the Democrats are now the warmongering party, the party for censorship, and the party of tyranny.
-
^^^ THIS!
I don't know why anyone places more trust in an actor or sports personality as they give their opinions on anything? Actors make their living pretending to be someone else. Sports personalities are just that. Why do people listen to these idiots? Yeah, I really trust Taylor Swift's interpretation of the world's politics and her recommendation on who should lead us. She owns a billion dollar entertainment company... but is she in charge and making decisions or is she simply the product?
-
Regardless of how you feel about the pager scheme, this is funny!
-
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mBt2r3X/0/K88dC9Pj963q72RrqwcCfrNXHMjwgkZ9vchqkg4Pz/O/i-mBt2r3X.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ZUn9g7I.jpg)
-
I think Israel should replace all the pagers and radios that exploded. With new ones that may or may not explode.
-
I think Israel should replace all the pagers and radios that exploded. With new ones that may or may not explode.
“Whoops, we’re sorry. Here, let us replace those for you, free of charge.”
-
“Whoops, we’re sorry. Here, let us replace those for you, free of charge.”
I think the supplier should give courtesy replacements.
-
I think the supplier should give courtesy replacements.
I wonder if they were still under warranty.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/517i6IX.png)
-
LOL!
-
(https://i.imgur.com/517i6IX.png)
So, a question that comes to mind, would the cackling hyena qualify as a sexy goat?
-
So, a question that comes to mind, would the cackling hyena qualify as a sexy goat?
They would replace the pigeon with a swallow to properly represent her.
-
So, a question that comes to mind, would the cackling hyena qualify as a sexy goat?
Not even a fucking hezballa goat bumper would do it with kamelhair.