Do you think this is OK or not? (video of Watertown home raid)

30,000 pigs and they didn't even find him

If they didn't have martial law, then he would have been found hours earlier

[QUOTE=dyna mo;19593932




ah, i'm done here.[/QUOTE]

then you haven't been paying attention to anything that has happened in history. and now i know you have no interest changing that

not correct, being a history buff to whatever degree i am, i do pay attention to what happens in history, in fact, my attempt at dialogue here was an effort towards discussing that- i'm not interested in being right, i'm interested in trying to find out a realistic view, that takes discussion and dialogue, that's why i took the time out to do what robbie suggested- more research, so i watched the exact show he referenced and came back here with thoughts on it trying to prompt discussion. that didn't go over, that's cool.

that's correct, i have no interest in changing history.

There were two components to last week's shelter-in-place request in Watertown, Massachusetts. The first was a request that people not to leave home. The second was a door-to-door search by heavily armed law enforcement officials. Those are two very different things, with different implications. But neither was illegal.

No one in Watertown had to stay at home. The shelter-in-place was optional, largely an effort to ensure public safety in the classic sense of such requests. Time explains the difference:

“The lockdown is really voluntary, to be honest with you,” says Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School. “The governor said he wants to use sheltering in place. Sheltering in place is a practice normally used if you’re dealing with a pandemic, where you’re telling people, ‘You may have been exposed and we want you to stay exactly where you are so we can isolate everything and we’ll come to you.’”

The “shelter in place” request is legally different from a state of emergency, which Patrick declared earlier this year as winter storm Nemo descended on the Bay State.




The ACLU agreed.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...s-legal/64461/


/end thread

i've never read 1 single "history book" on ww2.

the go to authority on the japanese surrender is a japanese citizen.

sorry this meant you read the article?

Anyone who defends this is 100% brainwashed

yes i read the article. :-) i am very much interested in ww2 and enjoy learning about it and the events surrounding it, thanks for linking it!

woo was worried

you have read this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Wouldn't most of them be dead by now of old age?

I'd say the authority on it would be the generals who were in the war room and said that the Japanese had already asked to surrender. They said that Truman had no interest in that.

All the Japanese wanted was for the U.S. to guarantee the Emperor would not be harmed. Truman said "no" that wasn't "unconditional" so he killed tens of thousands of men, women, and children with 2 atomic bomb drops on 2 cities.

And then afterwards they completely left the Emperor in place (which was all the Japanese asked for)

I think the research that Stone's people did was pretty good. And I again say...I don't trust the govt. one bit. They will do ANYTHING they can get away with. Including instantly frying tens of thousands of innocent women and children with 2 atomic bombs and of course the millions who have died of cancer from the radiation in the aftermath.

No excuse for that. But just like you...I was taught from grade school on that we did an "honorable" thing and saved millions of lives.
I no longer think that. The evidence is overwhelming to the contrary to me.

the scholarly authority.


ftr, i've never once advocated nuclear weapons or war or ww2 or anything other than to point out in a post already that all civilian slaughter during war is a war crime- period. i simply tried to find the accurate view on that precise moment in history.

Oh man . . .

Bullshit; when you build a military complex among the citizens (pretty much what you are suggesting with your contention that all military installations should be on the coast and borders with other countries) means that civilians are subject to being harmed.


Sure you would.

No facts please.

Maybe because there was no such thing as paramilitary in the 50's?

And if the cops had not found the suspects and more people were killed or injured, these same people would be complaining that not enough was done.

So, you recommend all countries be sure to embed their troops and military installations deeply in residential communities.

Well, then I am convinced.

Rhetorical question?

I think every Aussie I am friends with has a story about how they fought the law and the law won.

i had not heard of this, sounds fishy.