Let me know when you find something that says MSNBC wanted to charge Bush with war crimes over his drone attacks
American Drone Strike Policy Discussion
- Thread starter Dusty Bake Activate
- Start date
Let me know when you find something that says MSNBC wanted to charge Bush with war crimes over his drone attacks
Tony D'Amato
It's all about the inches
That bish is retarded. I cant stand her. Bush did way worse sh1t and didnt come close to being impeached.
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
Okay the 1st two were light. I know Coli-niccaz got ADD 
But here is a really good one, but kinda long.
The Devil in Eden - K. Crady
There are quite a few misconceptions floating around the Genesis story, especially regarding the Devil. You Christians tell us the Devil began his career of evil in the Garden of Eden.
"The Devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning" you say. Fair enough. Let's go to Genesis and see who's the liar and the murderer.
The very first death threat uttered in the Bible was given by God. "In the day you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which is in the midst of the Garden, you shall surely die." That's God's claim. OK, perhaps God isn't threatening them with death. Maybe the Fruit of Knowledge really is poisonous, and he's just warning them of the danger. We'll find out as we proceed.
What's the Serpent's claim? "You shall not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." To the Serpent, the Fruit isn't poisonous, but astoundingly beneficial, and God is hiding this truth from Adam and Eve because he's afraid "their eyes will be opened."
Two contradictory claims. Shouldn't be too hard to tell which of the two is telling the truth.
Adam and Eve eat the fruit. Suddenly, they become aware of their nakedness. Think about that. Adam and Eve had no more self-awareness than animals, until after they eat the Fruit. And here's something else interesting: The Serpent is described as more "clever" or "subtle" (i.e. intelligent) than the other creatures God created. The Hebrew word for subtle is awroom (Strongs Concordance #6175). It is derived from awram (6191) "to be (or make) bare, used in the derivative sense (perhaps through the idea of smoothness), be crafty, prudent, deal subtly." (Underlined text is from Strong's Concordance)
The word naked (6174) is also derived from this root. This is the word used of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They did not know they were naked. Using the other meaning, it could also say They did not know they were clever. They did not know they could use their minds to survive and flourish. They did not know they were sapient beings. When the Serpent gave them the Fruit of Knowledge, they became aware of both their minds (cleverness/intelligence) and their bodies (sexuality).
Linking back to the Ayn Rand quote, we see that in mythic terms, God created obediant automatons, but it is the Serpent that truly made them human.
The word for serpent in Genesis is nawkhawsh (5175). It is derived from the root word nawkhash meaning to hiss , i.e. "whisper a magic spell, prognosticate, certainly, divine (verb--see Gen. 44:5, Josephs divination) enchanter, (use) enchantment, learn by experience, diligently observe." (Underlined text from Strong's Concordance) Now, we atheist skeptic types usually have a rather low opinion of 'magic,' but for the moment, consider the contrasts between Magicians and Clergy, within the context of knowledge people possessed at the time the Genesis account was written.
The practice of "magic" assumed that there were certain spiritual operating principles, and that if a Magician learned what those principles were, he or she could use them to gain knowledge and/or affect reality. Do certain things, and certain results follow. As Heinlein put it, "One man's magic is another man's engineering." In other words, "magic" as practiced in ancient times was an attempt to develop a science and technology for dealing with the "spiritual" realm. We can say that it didn't work, but at least they were on the right track. Our sciences are descended from ancient magical practices. Alchemy---->Chemistry. Herbology----->Botany and medicine. Asrology----->Astronomy. Sacred Geometry, Numerology, etc.------>Mathematics. The Magician was also able to deal with spiritual reality on his or her own, through the use of his or her own intelligence.
Contrast the way of the Magician with the way of Clergy. The Clergy claim that the way to get things done is to seek to appease a Deity and the Deity's power will do what needs doing. Humans are fundamentally dependent on the will of the Deity. Clergy have an inside track to communicating with the Deity, knowing what is required to appease it, relaying its messages back to the people, etc. For Clergy, power-politics is the predominant cosmological principle. The way to "make it" in reality is to know who is Lord, and do their bidding. Obey, and you have good harvests, healthy children, etc. Disobey, and here come the locusts.
It is no wonder that Clergy loathe Magicians and, if given the chance, will have them burned at the stake.
God (and his priest Adam) represent the Clergy model. Right from the start, you have "Obey my orders and you'll get to munch free fruit. Disobey me, and you die!"
The Serpent (and his priestess Eve) represent the Magician model. He begins by asking Eve a question. "Did God say you could eat of every tree of the Garden?" He's employing the Socratic method to get her to see the bars of God's cage for herself. Then, instead of commands and threats, the Serpent offers a testable hypothesis: "You will not die, but when you eat the fruit, your eyes will be opened and you will be as gods." He never even asks Eve to eat the fruit. He just tells her the truth about it and lets her decide for herself. He does not threaten to bite her if she doesn't eat it. Instead, he offers her value.
Once Eve takes a closer look at the fruit, she realizes that it is pleasant to the eyes (beauty), desirable to make one wise (knowledge) and good for food (physical nourishment and pleasure). In other words, the Fruit is symbolic of all the elements of the good life. Notice further that the Serpent isn't trying to "rule the world." He never issues any commands, asks for worship and praise. Never has a crusade or jihad ever been waged in his name. In fact, he treats Eve respectfully, as an equal.
So Eve eats the Fruit, and sure enough, she doesn't die "in the day" she does so. Neither does Adam. Later in the narrative, he (women don't count in the Bible) is attributed an astounding life-span of nearly a thousand years. Given that "day" in Genesis is supposed to really mean "day" (as any fundamentalist Creationist will assure you), we have no choice but to accept that God's claim--that knowledge is poison--was falsified. In fact, God himself acknowledges the truth of the Serpent's claim:
"Behold the man (women don't count) is become as one of us, (and here I thought there was only one god) to know good and evil: and now, lest he put out his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: Therefore, the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden...and he placed at the east of the garden Cherubims (a type of spirit being) and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
So, rather than bringing humanity's death, eating the Fruit made Adam and Eve "like gods" just as the Serpent said, and not only that, it opened the way to immortality for them. And so, to prevent humans from completing their ascent to divinity (it was a Rise in the Garden, not a Fall), God responds with what would soon become his old stand-by: violence.
"But Adam and Eve died spiritually the day they ate the Fruit!" you say.
Where in Genesis does it say anything about a "spiritual" death? God just told Adam he would die "in the day" he ate the fruit. He didn't say anything about "spiritual" death, or expulsion from the Garden, or any other punishment. He would die, period. You claim to revere the Bible, but you twist the plain meaning of the text to prop up your theological "interpretation" rather than adjusting your theology to conform to the Bible. Furthermore, you Christians are always fond of tying morality and spirituality together. "If there is no God," you say, "then there's no morality either! There will be blood in the streets!" But, you see, it is self-evident in Genesis that God intended for humanity not to be morally good, but obediant. He wanted creatures that would obey his commands without regard to whether they were good or evil, because they couldn't tell the difference. There is no morality with God.
If you don't believe me, just look at all the moral excuse-making you have to do on God's behalf. "But it's OK for God to perform abortion (cause a miscarriage)." "It's OK for God to kill people for disobeying him." "It's OK for God to torture people forever." "It's OK for God to sanction mass child molestation (Num. 31:17-18)." It's OK for God to sire an illegitimate child with another guy's fiance.'" Etc. Then, look at all the atrocities you commit on his behalf. No, we don't even have to go back to the Salem witch trials or the Crusades. What's going on right now, today, in Iraq is sufficient. Or all the needless deaths from AIDS in Africa because you think it is better for black people to suffer lingering death than to use condoms.
So, if you wish to link "spiritual life" with such things as morality, self-awareness, the faculty of conscious deliberation and choice, etc. (i.e. the things that distinguish us, for the most part, from other animals), then it is self-evident in the narrative that the Fruit gave Adam and Eve spiritual life, awakening them from the zombie-like slumber God had hoped to keep them in.
Look again at the two claims.
God: "In the day you eat the fruit, you shall surely die."
Serpent: "You shall not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you shall be as gods."
God himself endorses the Serpent's claim and reacts with fear and wrath not to prevent Adam and Eve from dying, but to prevent them from living forever.
"But Adam did die, because as a result of his sin, God denied him access to the Tree of Life, which he was free to eat from before."
That's quite an interesting admission. You see, Adam did not die because he ate the Fruit of Knowledge. It was not poisonous; nothing about the Fruit of Knowledge itself caused them to die or prevented them from living forever. Had God just shrugged and walked away, Adam and Eve would have been immortal. God, using violence, insured their deaths. In other words, slow-motion murder.
So, what have we seen here? God lied. That is self-evident in the narrative. Eating the Fruit of Knowledge did not kill Adam and Eve. It had the exact effects the Serpent said it would, a fact God carefully chose to hide from Adam, and which he later did not even try to deny. Everything the Serpent said was true. That also is self-evident in the narrative.
Furthermore, the Serpent did not kill Adam and Eve. He never threatened them or harmed them in the least. He simply gave them the gift of truth about the Fruit, and about God. And one more thing: he gave them freedom. He did not command them to eat the Fruit, or threaten to punish them if they didn't. As he promised, the Fruit was not poisonous or unhealthy. To the contrary, Eve acknolwedges that it was "good for food," and her account is never contradicted.
Who killed Adam and Eve? Who took violent action to insure that they would die? God. Again, this is self-evident in the narrative.
Remember that bit about the Devil being "A liar and a murderer from the beginning?"
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God.
--Thomas Paine Age of Reason, Part I, pp. 18-19
It all starts to make sense now, doesn't it?
But here is a really good one, but kinda long.
The Devil in Eden - K. Crady
There are quite a few misconceptions floating around the Genesis story, especially regarding the Devil. You Christians tell us the Devil began his career of evil in the Garden of Eden.
"The Devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning" you say. Fair enough. Let's go to Genesis and see who's the liar and the murderer.
The very first death threat uttered in the Bible was given by God. "In the day you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which is in the midst of the Garden, you shall surely die." That's God's claim. OK, perhaps God isn't threatening them with death. Maybe the Fruit of Knowledge really is poisonous, and he's just warning them of the danger. We'll find out as we proceed.
What's the Serpent's claim? "You shall not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." To the Serpent, the Fruit isn't poisonous, but astoundingly beneficial, and God is hiding this truth from Adam and Eve because he's afraid "their eyes will be opened."
Two contradictory claims. Shouldn't be too hard to tell which of the two is telling the truth.
Adam and Eve eat the fruit. Suddenly, they become aware of their nakedness. Think about that. Adam and Eve had no more self-awareness than animals, until after they eat the Fruit. And here's something else interesting: The Serpent is described as more "clever" or "subtle" (i.e. intelligent) than the other creatures God created. The Hebrew word for subtle is awroom (Strongs Concordance #6175). It is derived from awram (6191) "to be (or make) bare, used in the derivative sense (perhaps through the idea of smoothness), be crafty, prudent, deal subtly." (Underlined text is from Strong's Concordance)
The word naked (6174) is also derived from this root. This is the word used of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They did not know they were naked. Using the other meaning, it could also say They did not know they were clever. They did not know they could use their minds to survive and flourish. They did not know they were sapient beings. When the Serpent gave them the Fruit of Knowledge, they became aware of both their minds (cleverness/intelligence) and their bodies (sexuality).
Linking back to the Ayn Rand quote, we see that in mythic terms, God created obediant automatons, but it is the Serpent that truly made them human.
The word for serpent in Genesis is nawkhawsh (5175). It is derived from the root word nawkhash meaning to hiss , i.e. "whisper a magic spell, prognosticate, certainly, divine (verb--see Gen. 44:5, Josephs divination) enchanter, (use) enchantment, learn by experience, diligently observe." (Underlined text from Strong's Concordance) Now, we atheist skeptic types usually have a rather low opinion of 'magic,' but for the moment, consider the contrasts between Magicians and Clergy, within the context of knowledge people possessed at the time the Genesis account was written.
The practice of "magic" assumed that there were certain spiritual operating principles, and that if a Magician learned what those principles were, he or she could use them to gain knowledge and/or affect reality. Do certain things, and certain results follow. As Heinlein put it, "One man's magic is another man's engineering." In other words, "magic" as practiced in ancient times was an attempt to develop a science and technology for dealing with the "spiritual" realm. We can say that it didn't work, but at least they were on the right track. Our sciences are descended from ancient magical practices. Alchemy---->Chemistry. Herbology----->Botany and medicine. Asrology----->Astronomy. Sacred Geometry, Numerology, etc.------>Mathematics. The Magician was also able to deal with spiritual reality on his or her own, through the use of his or her own intelligence.
Contrast the way of the Magician with the way of Clergy. The Clergy claim that the way to get things done is to seek to appease a Deity and the Deity's power will do what needs doing. Humans are fundamentally dependent on the will of the Deity. Clergy have an inside track to communicating with the Deity, knowing what is required to appease it, relaying its messages back to the people, etc. For Clergy, power-politics is the predominant cosmological principle. The way to "make it" in reality is to know who is Lord, and do their bidding. Obey, and you have good harvests, healthy children, etc. Disobey, and here come the locusts.
It is no wonder that Clergy loathe Magicians and, if given the chance, will have them burned at the stake.
God (and his priest Adam) represent the Clergy model. Right from the start, you have "Obey my orders and you'll get to munch free fruit. Disobey me, and you die!"
The Serpent (and his priestess Eve) represent the Magician model. He begins by asking Eve a question. "Did God say you could eat of every tree of the Garden?" He's employing the Socratic method to get her to see the bars of God's cage for herself. Then, instead of commands and threats, the Serpent offers a testable hypothesis: "You will not die, but when you eat the fruit, your eyes will be opened and you will be as gods." He never even asks Eve to eat the fruit. He just tells her the truth about it and lets her decide for herself. He does not threaten to bite her if she doesn't eat it. Instead, he offers her value.
Once Eve takes a closer look at the fruit, she realizes that it is pleasant to the eyes (beauty), desirable to make one wise (knowledge) and good for food (physical nourishment and pleasure). In other words, the Fruit is symbolic of all the elements of the good life. Notice further that the Serpent isn't trying to "rule the world." He never issues any commands, asks for worship and praise. Never has a crusade or jihad ever been waged in his name. In fact, he treats Eve respectfully, as an equal.
So Eve eats the Fruit, and sure enough, she doesn't die "in the day" she does so. Neither does Adam. Later in the narrative, he (women don't count in the Bible) is attributed an astounding life-span of nearly a thousand years. Given that "day" in Genesis is supposed to really mean "day" (as any fundamentalist Creationist will assure you), we have no choice but to accept that God's claim--that knowledge is poison--was falsified. In fact, God himself acknowledges the truth of the Serpent's claim:
"Behold the man (women don't count) is become as one of us, (and here I thought there was only one god) to know good and evil: and now, lest he put out his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: Therefore, the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden...and he placed at the east of the garden Cherubims (a type of spirit being) and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
So, rather than bringing humanity's death, eating the Fruit made Adam and Eve "like gods" just as the Serpent said, and not only that, it opened the way to immortality for them. And so, to prevent humans from completing their ascent to divinity (it was a Rise in the Garden, not a Fall), God responds with what would soon become his old stand-by: violence.
"But Adam and Eve died spiritually the day they ate the Fruit!" you say.
Where in Genesis does it say anything about a "spiritual" death? God just told Adam he would die "in the day" he ate the fruit. He didn't say anything about "spiritual" death, or expulsion from the Garden, or any other punishment. He would die, period. You claim to revere the Bible, but you twist the plain meaning of the text to prop up your theological "interpretation" rather than adjusting your theology to conform to the Bible. Furthermore, you Christians are always fond of tying morality and spirituality together. "If there is no God," you say, "then there's no morality either! There will be blood in the streets!" But, you see, it is self-evident in Genesis that God intended for humanity not to be morally good, but obediant. He wanted creatures that would obey his commands without regard to whether they were good or evil, because they couldn't tell the difference. There is no morality with God.
If you don't believe me, just look at all the moral excuse-making you have to do on God's behalf. "But it's OK for God to perform abortion (cause a miscarriage)." "It's OK for God to kill people for disobeying him." "It's OK for God to torture people forever." "It's OK for God to sanction mass child molestation (Num. 31:17-18)." It's OK for God to sire an illegitimate child with another guy's fiance.'" Etc. Then, look at all the atrocities you commit on his behalf. No, we don't even have to go back to the Salem witch trials or the Crusades. What's going on right now, today, in Iraq is sufficient. Or all the needless deaths from AIDS in Africa because you think it is better for black people to suffer lingering death than to use condoms.
So, if you wish to link "spiritual life" with such things as morality, self-awareness, the faculty of conscious deliberation and choice, etc. (i.e. the things that distinguish us, for the most part, from other animals), then it is self-evident in the narrative that the Fruit gave Adam and Eve spiritual life, awakening them from the zombie-like slumber God had hoped to keep them in.
Look again at the two claims.
God: "In the day you eat the fruit, you shall surely die."
Serpent: "You shall not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you shall be as gods."
God himself endorses the Serpent's claim and reacts with fear and wrath not to prevent Adam and Eve from dying, but to prevent them from living forever.
"But Adam did die, because as a result of his sin, God denied him access to the Tree of Life, which he was free to eat from before."
That's quite an interesting admission. You see, Adam did not die because he ate the Fruit of Knowledge. It was not poisonous; nothing about the Fruit of Knowledge itself caused them to die or prevented them from living forever. Had God just shrugged and walked away, Adam and Eve would have been immortal. God, using violence, insured their deaths. In other words, slow-motion murder.
So, what have we seen here? God lied. That is self-evident in the narrative. Eating the Fruit of Knowledge did not kill Adam and Eve. It had the exact effects the Serpent said it would, a fact God carefully chose to hide from Adam, and which he later did not even try to deny. Everything the Serpent said was true. That also is self-evident in the narrative.
Furthermore, the Serpent did not kill Adam and Eve. He never threatened them or harmed them in the least. He simply gave them the gift of truth about the Fruit, and about God. And one more thing: he gave them freedom. He did not command them to eat the Fruit, or threaten to punish them if they didn't. As he promised, the Fruit was not poisonous or unhealthy. To the contrary, Eve acknolwedges that it was "good for food," and her account is never contradicted.
Who killed Adam and Eve? Who took violent action to insure that they would die? God. Again, this is self-evident in the narrative.
Remember that bit about the Devil being "A liar and a murderer from the beginning?"
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God.
--Thomas Paine Age of Reason, Part I, pp. 18-19
It all starts to make sense now, doesn't it?
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
Crady's Wager - K. Crady
I do not know of any compelling evidence that "I" will be "going" anywhere after my death. Your claim to know is not very helpful, since there are people who claim to know, with equal sincerity, that you are going to Hell because you did not accpet that Allah is one (He has no son), and Mohammed is His prophet. Then there's the sects of Christianity that consider your views (whatever they are) to be heretical, whose members have equal conviction that they, not you (and certainly not I!) are the ones going to Heaven. Therefore, the looming threat of "where will you go when you die?" cannot be an effective persuader because you're not the only one who gets to play that game. Believers in other religions can, too. Unless I have the option of believing in all of them, accepting ideas in hopes of evading the Everlasting Marshmallow Roast would be futile.
Furthermore, despite your assurance, you can't "know" where you're going either. Why? You see, on another thread (I think it was the "Book of Job" thread), I posted a wager with God. It went something like this:
Dear God:
I know you're very proud of all these devout Christians who worship and praise you, and dedicate their lives to your service. And why shouldn't they? The retirement benefits can't be beat. You're offering them eternal bliss. Who wouldn't be willing to obey any orders, suffer any persecution, ignore any atrocity on your part, or happily accept martyrdom for an eternity of happiness? No matter what happens to your followers here on Earth, I'm sure that after the first thousand years or so of perfect joy, that none of it could possibly matter in the least.
Of course they worship you! Look what's in it for them! But I bet you, that if they thought you might send them to Hell after they died...or even just let them die and rot, ceasing to exist with their last breath...if they thought they didn't have that payoff coming, they wouldn't worship you for a second! See how long they praise you in Hell, I dare ya!
------
This is Crady's Wager, my antidote to Pascal's. Now, one thing the Book of Job makes crystal clear ("allegory" or otherwise) is that God values his vanity more than any promises he's made to his followers. This is obvious from the nature of the Old Covenant, which Job followed. He obeyed God, and made the proper offerings to cover his sins, and God himself declared that he was "upright" in his original boast to Satan. According to the Old Covenant, if God's people would obey his commands and make the necessary sin offerings, he would protect and bless them. It is apparent that God was doing this originally, as Satan refers to God's protection of Job in his wager.
Satan's challenge was: I bet he'll curse you if you break your covenant with him and let me kick him around some! The crucial teaching of the Book of Job is that God didn't say "Beat it, Satan! I am a just God, and I keep my promises!" Instead, God wanted to show off that he could garner unearned worship from Job, so he took the bet.
Which means: Now that my wager is published, and surely is within the purview of an omniscient deity, you have no way to know if he will take the bet or not.
I do not know of any compelling evidence that "I" will be "going" anywhere after my death. Your claim to know is not very helpful, since there are people who claim to know, with equal sincerity, that you are going to Hell because you did not accpet that Allah is one (He has no son), and Mohammed is His prophet. Then there's the sects of Christianity that consider your views (whatever they are) to be heretical, whose members have equal conviction that they, not you (and certainly not I!) are the ones going to Heaven. Therefore, the looming threat of "where will you go when you die?" cannot be an effective persuader because you're not the only one who gets to play that game. Believers in other religions can, too. Unless I have the option of believing in all of them, accepting ideas in hopes of evading the Everlasting Marshmallow Roast would be futile.
Furthermore, despite your assurance, you can't "know" where you're going either. Why? You see, on another thread (I think it was the "Book of Job" thread), I posted a wager with God. It went something like this:
Dear God:
I know you're very proud of all these devout Christians who worship and praise you, and dedicate their lives to your service. And why shouldn't they? The retirement benefits can't be beat. You're offering them eternal bliss. Who wouldn't be willing to obey any orders, suffer any persecution, ignore any atrocity on your part, or happily accept martyrdom for an eternity of happiness? No matter what happens to your followers here on Earth, I'm sure that after the first thousand years or so of perfect joy, that none of it could possibly matter in the least.
Of course they worship you! Look what's in it for them! But I bet you, that if they thought you might send them to Hell after they died...or even just let them die and rot, ceasing to exist with their last breath...if they thought they didn't have that payoff coming, they wouldn't worship you for a second! See how long they praise you in Hell, I dare ya!
------
This is Crady's Wager, my antidote to Pascal's. Now, one thing the Book of Job makes crystal clear ("allegory" or otherwise) is that God values his vanity more than any promises he's made to his followers. This is obvious from the nature of the Old Covenant, which Job followed. He obeyed God, and made the proper offerings to cover his sins, and God himself declared that he was "upright" in his original boast to Satan. According to the Old Covenant, if God's people would obey his commands and make the necessary sin offerings, he would protect and bless them. It is apparent that God was doing this originally, as Satan refers to God's protection of Job in his wager.
Satan's challenge was: I bet he'll curse you if you break your covenant with him and let me kick him around some! The crucial teaching of the Book of Job is that God didn't say "Beat it, Satan! I am a just God, and I keep my promises!" Instead, God wanted to show off that he could garner unearned worship from Job, so he took the bet.
Which means: Now that my wager is published, and surely is within the purview of an omniscient deity, you have no way to know if he will take the bet or not.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,015
- Daps
- 122,436
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
I'll read this later and destroy it since most atheist 'reasoning' is seriously flawed, circular and full of shyt.
Might elicit a couple chuckles, though.
Might elicit a couple chuckles, though.
Fugitive alleged LAPD-killer is first drone target on U.S. soil
3 hrs ago
It's official: The drone war has come home to America. Wanted fugitive Christopher Dorner, the homicidal former cop currently at war with the LAPD, has become the first known human target for airborne drones on U.S. soil. Their use was confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed the government's fear that Dorner will make a dash for the Mexican border. The fugitive has already killed three people, according to police, and has a $1 million bounty on his head. Dorner, who has military training, is believed to be hiding in the wilderness of California's San Bernardino Mountains, where locating him without air support may be all but impossible.
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil
3 hrs ago
It's official: The drone war has come home to America. Wanted fugitive Christopher Dorner, the homicidal former cop currently at war with the LAPD, has become the first known human target for airborne drones on U.S. soil. Their use was confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed the government's fear that Dorner will make a dash for the Mexican border. The fugitive has already killed three people, according to police, and has a $1 million bounty on his head. Dorner, who has military training, is believed to be hiding in the wilderness of California's San Bernardino Mountains, where locating him without air support may be all but impossible.
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil
Ronald McDonald
Even in the darkest nights, I'm a MAC for life
its interesting...cause they will use this in this case, cause this guys trying to kill cops
but if he wasnt trying to kill cops and just a "regular old murderer" killin normal people, they wouldnt be using drones
will be interesting how they use this going forward...i cant say that i disagree with it in this case however
but if he wasnt trying to kill cops and just a "regular old murderer" killin normal people, they wouldnt be using drones
will be interesting how they use this going forward...i cant say that i disagree with it in this case however
Mr. 1nighter
On my grown man steeze
wow
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
why?
the article doesnt really say, i would assume that they're just using them to spot him. either way this dude is probably going to be executed without a trial.
ltheghost
Payin Debts.... N40
What if...he shoots it down!?!? Man this shyt is getting out of control. Black Rambo has these mothafukkas going crazy if they are bringing out the drones for his ass....Damn, Drones, REALLY?!!?!
I heard them call it an act of domestic terrorism earlier...
Yea they gon make sure he don't make it to trial to be able to tell his story and put the LAPD under the spotlight yet again. This the type shyt movies are made of.
Yea they gon make sure he don't make it to trial to be able to tell his story and put the LAPD under the spotlight yet again. This the type shyt movies are made of.