“These threats” what threat?? People protesting? These snipers have never once protected protestors from the violent freaks that show up to run people over or shoot people.
The tensions about israel/palestine are real. Theres a non zero chance that someone who is very pro-israel and very unhinged might decide the pro-palestinians need shooting. You know how I know this? Because this is an American school, people get shot because someone feels that they need to shoot some people, they dont need a wildly divisive issue to spur them on. One anonymous email talking about how the “terrorist supporters are going to get whats coming to them” and the school/police have to do something. If they do nothing and it does happen everyone will be screaming that “They were warned and did nothing! They wanted this to happen!”
They can want the protests to go away (or make them) AND not want to deal with the bad press of failing to at least pretend to protect them on campus. Even if the protest is unauthorised by administration they still dont want " Nothing was done to prevent OSU mass shooting by police or administration" to be a headline.
Both things can be true, but that doesn’t really make it better? Both are completely self serving reasons that trample on the constitutional rights of the students.
From my point of view/questioning, it’s the threat of suicide bombers and other terrorist efforts (acid, dirty bombs, driving through a crowd of people) when it comes to protesting middle eastern matters in the states. Hell we have American terrorists doing terrorism here too, how do we better prevent that or are we stuck only responding?
This is a complete distraction. The only people spilling protestors’ blood on American soil right now are cops. And your response to it is to try to justify why they need intimidation snipers on top of that?? Absolutely not.
That was answered, like several times. I don’t care about the intent (from ether party), but what does grind my gears is the wilfully ignoring any answer that does not fit the weird fear mongering position that this guy is here to protect anyone:
And your response to a credible threat that is solved with the exact same means at other public gatherings, is to not use them, because you feel safe without them? If you apply this way of thinking to other security measures, why would you have a lock at the door? People won’t steal from you (until they actually do because you didn’t have a lock in your door)
This isn’t even true (we literally just had several parades/protests where a driver DROVE through the fucking crowd), you completely dodge my question, and then in bad faith tried to paint me like I’m some sort of crazy person who thinks intimidation is somehow a good idea.
I’m done with this conversation. I don’t have to tolerate bad faith arguments when I’ve repeatedly shown I want to have civil discourse. Next time, don’t respond if you can’t act like an adult and treat someone who’s trying to improve themselves and act like an adult.
OK, dude wringing his hands about what if someone brings in a dirty bomb while cops bash in heads. 🙄 The grandstanding like I didn’t bring up violent freaks running over and shooting protestors first is a cute touch, too.
If you want to be treated as a serious person to have a serious conversation with then be fucking serious.
I’ve repeatedly said that cops using snipers/spotters is not a good solution, and that cops are part of the problem, but okay believe whatever lies you wanna tell yourself I suppose. Thats your prerogative
Actual prevention of terrorism comes by building a just society. People who have basic needs, healthcare, education, and justice do not become terrorists.
And how do you expect a sharpshooter team to stop a suicide bomber, acid attack, or dirty bomb? Even stopping a crowd-driving-maniac would require significant luck. This isn’t an action movie.
Yeah, you think all those people on January 6th weren’t having their basic needs met? No, terrorists are not logical people fed up with the system. They’re fanatics and psychopaths, and in Gaza it’s a revered profession. They literally don’t have their basic needs met because they are spending all their money and resources on violent extremism. They’ve been doing it so long their economy depends on it; if they stop killing Jews, they stop getting money from their benefactors in Iran and Qatar. Panislamism, which includes Hamas and its allies, is an ideology of violent repression of non-muslims and infidels, it’s not a freedom movement, it’s MAGA for Islam.
I never made this claim… I was asking the question literally, which you answered and lead with, before going back to say I was implying something else. I’m confused how we ended up here, but I think we both agree that snipers are a threatening, and apparently not that effective means to prevent these things from happening. And even in reacting, snipers are overkill.
dirty bombs are movie plot threat, bombers, suicide or not are not an issue in usa because alternatives are more easily available. your take sounds weird and disingenuous
We’ve had several bombings, including suicide bombers in the us. Not everything is pushed into the news cycle by the media state because “it encourages copy cats” or whatever other bullshit they’ll come up with to only report what they want to push.
San Bernardino Attack (2015): 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured (mass shooting and attempted bombing)
Boston Marathon Bombing (2013): 3 people killed and injuring several hundred, including 16 who lost limbs. (bombing)
Times Square Car Bomb Attempt (2010): Attempted car bombing, non injured
Your take is just fear mongering and pushing the narrative that the police in the US are being militarized to protect people. You are talking about a 14 year period where 18 people died from 2 successful attacks, and hundreds injured. A stat line that is eclipsed by the number of people killed and injured by police every year. In case you are wondering that would be >600 killed and 250,000 injured per year.
It’s very obvious you aren’t even reading my comments anymore, I think we can be done now. I’m not going to participate in bad faith discussions. Obvious troll at this point. See ya.
“These threats” what threat?? People protesting? These snipers have never once protected protestors from the violent freaks that show up to run people over or shoot people.
Poignant point
The most likely reasoning is also the saddest.
The tensions about israel/palestine are real. Theres a non zero chance that someone who is very pro-israel and very unhinged might decide the pro-palestinians need shooting. You know how I know this? Because this is an American school, people get shot because someone feels that they need to shoot some people, they dont need a wildly divisive issue to spur them on. One anonymous email talking about how the “terrorist supporters are going to get whats coming to them” and the school/police have to do something. If they do nothing and it does happen everyone will be screaming that “They were warned and did nothing! They wanted this to happen!”
But you see that’s not what they’re doing, right? Tearing down protest encampments and arresting everyone isn’t protecting them.
They can want the protests to go away (or make them) AND not want to deal with the bad press of failing to at least pretend to protect them on campus. Even if the protest is unauthorised by administration they still dont want " Nothing was done to prevent OSU mass shooting by police or administration" to be a headline.
Both things can be true.
Both things can be true, but that doesn’t really make it better? Both are completely self serving reasons that trample on the constitutional rights of the students.
From my point of view/questioning, it’s the threat of suicide bombers and other terrorist efforts (acid, dirty bombs, driving through a crowd of people) when it comes to protesting middle eastern matters in the states. Hell we have American terrorists doing terrorism here too, how do we better prevent that or are we stuck only responding?
This is a complete distraction. The only people spilling protestors’ blood on American soil right now are cops. And your response to it is to try to justify why they need intimidation snipers on top of that?? Absolutely not.
You did not address what they said and instead made a slew of assumptions about their intent. They actually had a question
That was answered, like several times. I don’t care about the intent (from ether party), but what does grind my gears is the wilfully ignoring any answer that does not fit the weird fear mongering position that this guy is here to protect anyone:
What a liar
Who?
You keep posting this picture, can you share where you got it?
And your response to a credible threat that is solved with the exact same means at other public gatherings, is to not use them, because you feel safe without them? If you apply this way of thinking to other security measures, why would you have a lock at the door? People won’t steal from you (until they actually do because you didn’t have a lock in your door)
This isn’t even true (we literally just had several parades/protests where a driver DROVE through the fucking crowd), you completely dodge my question, and then in bad faith tried to paint me like I’m some sort of crazy person who thinks intimidation is somehow a good idea.
I’m done with this conversation. I don’t have to tolerate bad faith arguments when I’ve repeatedly shown I want to have civil discourse. Next time, don’t respond if you can’t act like an adult and treat someone who’s trying to improve themselves and act like an adult.
OK, dude wringing his hands about what if someone brings in a dirty bomb while cops bash in heads. 🙄 The grandstanding like I didn’t bring up violent freaks running over and shooting protestors first is a cute touch, too.
If you want to be treated as a serious person to have a serious conversation with then be fucking serious.
I’ve repeatedly said that cops using snipers/spotters is not a good solution, and that cops are part of the problem, but okay believe whatever lies you wanna tell yourself I suppose. Thats your prerogative
Actual prevention of terrorism comes by building a just society. People who have basic needs, healthcare, education, and justice do not become terrorists.
And how do you expect a sharpshooter team to stop a suicide bomber, acid attack, or dirty bomb? Even stopping a crowd-driving-maniac would require significant luck. This isn’t an action movie.
Yeah, you think all those people on January 6th weren’t having their basic needs met? No, terrorists are not logical people fed up with the system. They’re fanatics and psychopaths, and in Gaza it’s a revered profession. They literally don’t have their basic needs met because they are spending all their money and resources on violent extremism. They’ve been doing it so long their economy depends on it; if they stop killing Jews, they stop getting money from their benefactors in Iran and Qatar. Panislamism, which includes Hamas and its allies, is an ideology of violent repression of non-muslims and infidels, it’s not a freedom movement, it’s MAGA for Islam.
I never made this claim… I was asking the question literally, which you answered and lead with, before going back to say I was implying something else. I’m confused how we ended up here, but I think we both agree that snipers are a threatening, and apparently not that effective means to prevent these things from happening. And even in reacting, snipers are overkill.
dirty bombs are movie plot threat, bombers, suicide or not are not an issue in usa because alternatives are more easily available. your take sounds weird and disingenuous
We’ve had several bombings, including suicide bombers in the us. Not everything is pushed into the news cycle by the media state because “it encourages copy cats” or whatever other bullshit they’ll come up with to only report what they want to push.
San Bernardino Attack (2015): 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured (mass shooting and attempted bombing)
Boston Marathon Bombing (2013): 3 people killed and injuring several hundred, including 16 who lost limbs. (bombing)
Times Square Car Bomb Attempt (2010): Attempted car bombing, non injured
Nashville Bombing (2020) - Suicide RV Bombing
Your take is ignorant.
Your take is just fear mongering and pushing the narrative that the police in the US are being militarized to protect people. You are talking about a 14 year period where 18 people died from 2 successful attacks, and hundreds injured. A stat line that is eclipsed by the number of people killed and injured by police every year. In case you are wondering that would be >600 killed and 250,000 injured per year.
https://policeepi.uic.edu/u-s-data-on-police-shootings-and-violence/
The idea that this cure is better then the illness is just not born out in data.
It’s very obvious you aren’t even reading my comments anymore, I think we can be done now. I’m not going to participate in bad faith discussions. Obvious troll at this point. See ya.
Or I am taking my time responding as I just woke up.
But don’t let me stop your victory lap. Clearly you are not at all projecting.