The Beheading

[Balta1701]

Um, the rest of us have jobs too. Many of us rely on cars and therefore gasoline to get to these to jobs and provide for our families. But I get it, it's ok for you to sacrifice your moral highground when it's your family at stake, but the rest of us are clearly monsters who support beaheadings when we fill up our gas tanks.

 

Again, please scrap the ridiculous holier-than-thou act.

Then stop pretending Daesh doing this is the most horrible, unbelievable proof of evil we've ever seen. There's my point.

[Texsox]

If you're given the choice between that and having your spouse no longer be able to see a doctor, isn't the choice obvious?

 

This conversation is way off scale for a message board. It involves a personal matter that you have to deal with. Again, I do not believe the institution is evil. I believe the faculty you would be joining would have made an entirely different decision than the couple people that did. Therefor I would have no problem accepting a position there. Well the cold would suck. I bet you will discover that the adults around the university share your disdain and are upset about the shame the event has placed on the university.

[Balta1701]

This conversation is way off scale for a message board. It involves a personal matter that you have to deal with. Again, I do not believe the institution is evil. I believe the faculty you would be joining would have made an entirely different decision than the couple people that did. Therefor I would have no problem accepting a position there. Well the cold would suck. I bet you will discover that the adults around the university share your disdain and are upset about the shame the event has placed on the university.

The reason why it's bigger than just those handful of people is that the university was clearly willing to adopt a "joe will handle his business" policy. This is what the NCAA terms as a "culture of noncompliance". The best example I can possibly give of that is the janitors - they caught Sandusky raping a kid and their first thought was that they can't report it because they'd lose their jobs. That's not a failing on their part, that's the indictment of the wider system. Everyone just knew that you couldn't take on the program and people felt threatened enough by its power that they didn't feel confident reporting child rape.

 

That continues to be why I had no problem with the punishment as meted out and why the people who are happy about it being dropped bothers me. Whether that type of a setup, where the football program is treated as more important than anyone else, still exists or not at that institute, I don't know.

[Texsox]

If I don't report a crime because I believe Balta will fire me, is that your fault or mine?

 

And seriously, take a job as a janitor with benefits before accepting a paycheck from that university.

[Balta1701]

If I don't report a crime because I believe Balta will fire me, is that your fault or mine?

 

And seriously, take a job as a janitor with benefits before accepting a paycheck from that university.

Frankly it would be mine. Especially if I'm in a position of power over people where I'd have the ability to fire them, you want people to expect that you'd do the right thing if they did the right thing.

 

If they did the right thing and reported a raped child, they felt that because of that the wrong thing would happen to them. That's on the environment of fear as much as anything, and that's not just on the coach, that's on everyone who allowed that plague to flourish.

[Texsox]

It isn't the janitor's fault because of Paterno. yet you want the entire university punished because they allowed it to happen?

[Texsox]

Frankly it would be mine. Especially if I'm in a position of power over people where I'd have the ability to fire them, you want people to expect that you'd do the right thing if they did the right thing.

 

If they did the right thing and reported a raped child, they felt that because of that the wrong thing would happen to them. That's on the environment of fear as much as anything, and that's not just on the coach, that's on everyone who allowed that plague to flourish.

 

 

But you aren't punishing everyone who allowed it to flourish if you don't punish the janitor who ACTUALLY KNEW IT WAS HAPPENING. Or McQueary or should be in jail. This is insane, not punishing people with knowledge then turning around and punishing everyone else?

[Balta1701]

It isn't the janitor's fault because of Paterno. yet you want the entire university punished because they allowed it to happen?

A university doing its job should have a standard procedure where you can report these things without having to worry about facing repercussions. Many universities are discovering they have issues like this with their sexual assault reporting policies right now. That kind of failure is something that at the very least permeated the entire athletic department. That's a deliberate setup to make sure things involving the football team are covered up.

[Texsox]

A university doing its job should have a standard procedure where you can report these things without having to worry about facing repercussions. Many universities are discovering they have issues like this with their sexual assault reporting policies right now. That kind of failure is something that at the very least permeated the entire athletic department. That's a deliberate setup to make sure things involving the football team are covered up.

 

I agree. Which is why I find your overall stance so strange. Don't punish the janitor with direct knowledge, punish every other janitor, students, players, plus secretaries, and suppliers, and anyone else who didn't have direct knowledge? First you say it is everyone's fault that works there for having that culture, then you say it isn't their fault. Why punish people who were not at fault?

[ChiSox_Sonix]

IS in Libya just released another video, this one showing the decapitation of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians. But remember, these guys are the same as us.

[Jenksismyhero]

I blame you. You probably bought gas in the last week.

[Balta1701]

Saudi Arabia is at 30 this year and there were others last week. Yawn.

[Texsox]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2014

I have not vetted the source, but the Texas list looks correct.

 

Some interesting stuff there.

[Texsox]

Saudi Arabia is at 30 this year and there were others last week. Yawn.

 

We only killed 35 in 2014. If some states would start emulating Texas we could keep up with the Saudis.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2014

I have not vetted the source, but the Texas list looks correct.

 

Some interesting stuff there.

Texas is likely set to kill another innocent man.

 

Gannon’s reinvestigation of the Reed case will be shown in Monday night’s episode of Dead Again. (Full disclosure: I was interviewed about my reporting by A&E.) At the same time, Gannon’s conclusions, along with that of three of the country’s leading forensic pathologists who have studied the case, are at the heart of a new appeal on Reed’s behalf, filed on Thursday, February 12. The appeal argues that new scientific evidence proves conclusively that the state’s theory of the murder is “medically and scientifically impossible,” and that Reed is, in fact, innocent.

 

Specifically, Gannon and the forensic experts have concluded that the state’s timeline for Stites’ death is off by several hours. They contend that the decomposing of Stites’ body — observed in crime scene photos and video — prove that she was murdered at least four hours earlier than the state claims. Moreover, they conclude that she was likely killed somewhere far from where her body was found.

[Texsox]

Texas is likely set to kill another innocent man.

Just go ahead and execute, we can bring him back to life later.

[LittleHurt05]

What ISIS Really Wants

 

Long, but very interesting read about who ISIS is and what they are really trying to accomplish.

[Jenksismyhero]

So according to Newt Gingrich on my Twitter feed, Obama had some remarks about the recent terrorist attacks and failed to mention that the people beheaded by ISIS were beheaded because they were Christians (something they admitted), and he called the recent attack on Jews in Denmark "random," despite the attacker stating that he was deliberately targeting Jews.

 

Can someone explain why he's fine jumping the gun about motive for attacks here in the states, but not elsewhere? I normally don't give a crap about these sorts of statements/non-statements, but in this case it all happened within the last week or so and the responses from him were not similar at all.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

So according to Newt Gingrich on my Twitter feed, Obama had some remarks about the recent terrorist attacks and failed to mention that the people beheaded by ISIS were beheaded because they were Christians (something they admitted), and he called the recent attack on Jews in Denmark "random," despite the attacker stating that he was deliberately targeting Jews.

 

Can someone explain why he's fine jumping the gun about motive for attacks here in the states, but not elsewhere? I normally don't give a crap about these sorts of statements/non-statements, but in this case it all happened within the last week or so and the responses from him were not similar at all.

 

I'm not going to pretend to speak for the President. Here is a possibility.

 

Two different speeches in different contexts.

 

Random in the sense of it happening in Denmark. Denmark!? Isn't that random? I can't think of anything happening in Denmark before.

Random in the sense that there were thousands of Christians in the country and these were the ones captured.

Newt is deciding that the President meant random in the context of the motive of the killers. That could be true, maybe it isn't. We can't know without understanding the complete speech.

 

In the first case listing things that he failed to mention could fill volumes. He failed to mention police shootings, WW2, the Vatican, the history of Christian missionaries being killed around the globe. Without knowing the full speech and the venue, and the occasion, putting significance in what wasn't said opens every speech to every negative judgement you want to make.

 

Or we could go with he hates all Christians and is on the side of Muslim extremism. Of course those same people also believe he sat in a Christian church because he believed 100% with everything that pastor was saying.

[StrangeSox]

honestly though who follows newt gingrich on twitter?

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not going to pretend to speak for the President. Here is a possibility.

 

Two different speeches in different contexts.

 

Random in the sense of it happening in Denmark. Denmark!? Isn't that random? I can't think of anything happening in Denmark before.

Random in the sense that there were thousands of Christians in the country and these were the ones captured.

Newt is deciding that the President meant random in the context of the motive of the killers. That could be true, maybe it isn't. We can't know without understanding the complete speech.

 

In the first case listing things that he failed to mention could fill volumes. He failed to mention police shootings, WW2, the Vatican, the history of Christian missionaries being killed around the globe. Without knowing the full speech and the venue, and the occasion, putting significance in what wasn't said opens every speech to every negative judgement you want to make.

 

Or we could go with he hates all Christians and is on the side of Muslim extremism. Of course those same people also believe he sat in a Christian church because he believed 100% with everything that pastor was saying.

 

I don't think he's anti-christian and pro-muslim. I think he's just a gigantic p**** when it comes to this stuff, fearful of offending anyone outside the US (Muslims) but not really concerned about offending anyone here at home.

 

Here's The Atlantic's entirely too-long take on this whole thing: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...rrorism/385539/

 

In essence: not blaming Muslim extremists and citing to their obvious objectives in these sorts of attacks is done purposefully, so as not to offend the non-extremist Muslims out there. A moronic policy IMO, but at least that's an explanation.

 

Still, why no qualms with immediately citing hate and race when speaking about the killer of the three Muslims here in America, before anyone knew what really happened? Why is he so measured in responding to actual, admitted, deplorable hate, when the other is still questionable and may not even exist? Same with the Trayvon Martin "he could have been my son" nonsense. Why so quick to jump to that one side without knowing the facts, but in situations where you KNOW the facts, you can't call MUSLIM TERRORISTS WHO ADMIT TO KILLING FOR SPECIFIC REASONS out directly?

[Jenksismyhero]

honestly though who follows newt gingrich on twitter?

 

I do. He's a decent follow and gives a lot of good historical tidbits from his experience in Washington. I don't agree with everything he says, but I agree with a lot of it.

[caulfield12]

For the same reason we didn't parade Osama bin Laden's body around the streets of NYC.

 

Because it would only create more antagonism and bring in numerous new terror recruits.

 

 

btw, what specific Muslim terrorists are you arguing that Obama is trying to pacify by not calling them out for their actions?

 

Basically, you want the George W. Bush or Joe Mantegna (Criminal Minds) aggressive and "in your face" style of confrontation...instead of Mandy Patinkin's more cerebral/passive approach. Neither is absolutely, 100% right or wrong...you have to utilize both approaches to be effective. Always being the aggressor in foreign policy will lead to widespread loss of life. OTOH, if your enemies don't fear you and call your bluff because they don't believe you have the guts to do what it takes in order to stop them, that elicits confidence on the side of fear and terrorism.

 

No matter what Obama has said publicly, the extreme increase in drone strikes shows that he really hasn't broken much at all with his predecessor in regards to the war on terrorism...many Democrats fault him for going back on a number of his foreign policy promises and have been greatly disappointed.

[GoSox05]

The Unravelling

 

Really good read on the current situation in Libya.

[Jenksismyhero]

For the same reason we didn't parade Osama bin Laden's body around the streets of NYC.

 

Because it would only create more antagonism and bring in numerous new terror recruits.

 

 

btw, what specific Muslim terrorists are you arguing that Obama is trying to pacify by not calling them out for their actions?

 

Basically, you want the George W. Bush or Joe Mantegna (Criminal Minds) aggressive and "in your face" style of confrontation...instead of Mandy Patinkin's more cerebral/passive approach. Neither is absolutely, 100% right or wrong...you have to utilize both approaches to be effective. Always being the aggressor in foreign policy will lead to widespread loss of life. OTOH, if your enemies don't fear you and call your bluff because they don't believe you have the guts to do what it takes in order to stop them, that elicits confidence on the side of fear and terrorism.

 

No matter what Obama has said publicly, the extreme increase in drone strikes shows that he really hasn't broken much at all with his predecessor in regards to the war on terrorism...many Democrats fault him for going back on a number of his foreign policy promises and have been greatly disappointed.

 

I don't see how calling out these guys for their motives, when they admit their motives, is in anyway similar to parading our victory kill of OBL. Nor do I see how reporting the facts would help recruitment. It doesn't have to be "in your face," necessarily, why can't it just be truthful and accurate? I see zero benefit to being all passive about it, pretending like it doesn't exist.

 

Let's flip the switch - you have cops in this country actively shooting black teens because they're black (and admitting such to the press/media). You think it would be acceptable for the President to describe those attacks as "random?" What good comes from that? What harm comes from NOT doing that?

Edited February 18, 2015 by Jenksismybitch