Mexican Military cross the border in AZ and hold Border Patrol agent at gun point!

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: babylon5
This happens because left wing pro-Illegals force it to be okay. where you cannot enforce ANY law if the people in question isn't 'white', and you must let them do anything they want, anytime.

Please tell me English is your third language or something. This is about drugs, not immigration.

How GD stupid are you? It is about immigration because they are not just protecting drugs coming over, they are protecting boarder jumpers to. Those boarder jumpers are breeding in the US and we let them become citizens because of it. Now they have a voice and that voice is loud and anything done against a non white group is automatically and categorically defined as racists and an attempt to silence the affected group.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Ahhh. You view it as a negative, I view it as a happy coincidence. Not that I want to kill people, but I definitely believe they DESERVE to die, and am happy (or at least satisfied) that the world is made better by their passing.

When murderer's choose to kill, they also believe that what they are doing is perfectly fine too. They believe that the victim deserves to die. This is why we have our laws about when a person is allowed and not allowed to kill. The law is the only thing that separates murderers from us free citizens when we kill. If everyone was permitted to kill others just because they felt that someone else deserved to die and the "world is made better by their passing" then our country would tear itself apart. That is why it is against the law. The only reason why someone who believes it is ok to abuse the system like that and acts on it is not considered a criminal is because no one could prove it. Just because we can't prove something in court doesn't mean the law was not broken.

Those who believe that these people deserve to die despite what our laws state, consider it a "happy coincidence" that it happens, and like that people can get away with it are much more likely to abuse the system. They are more likely to kill when they do not need to kill in order to remain safe just because that's what they want to do. They are more likely to break the law. They are more likely to commit an action which makes them a murderer. They already think like murderers do.

Our government granting us the freedom to kill someone out of self defense without being punished for doing so is a luxury no matter how much you may think we are entitled to it. If we abuse that freedom too much, it will be taken away eventually. Despite our difference in moral beliefs on the matter, I don't think either one of us wants that freedom to be taken away or tightened up to the point where it is practically worthless do we?

Besides, weren't you stating earlier that the Mexicans "believe they can get away with it because we let them" and you think that needs to stop? You may want to consider how conflicting your logic is here when it comes to that issue and your strong feelings about self defense and being allowed to kill people to the point of abusing the system because they deserve to die.

I disagree completely. There are 3 reasons for murder (in the bad sense): mental illness (not knowing it's wrong to kill without proper reason), passion (wouldn't normally kill, but emotion overrides reason temporarily), and not caring that it's wrong (they just WANT them dead for some reason, usually personal gain or other motivation). Any time there is justification (the victim raped someone, killed someone, threatened these things, etc) it's not murder in my book. If someone deserves to die, then they should die. When the law keeps them alive it defeats justice, thus making law itself meaningless.

If the government tried to remove an absolute right like self-defense (which is granted by nature of us being alive) then we have every right, and necessity to remove that government (and that is exactly what we WOULD do). I have no fear of it, because as an individual I have real power to control the situation, unlike the illusory power of the government.

I don't see it as an abuse, and I see no conflict with my statement. When criminals believe that they will (or are likely to) get away with something they will continue to do it. If the possibility of being killed for doing that thing increases dramatically fewer people will believe they will make it, and so fewer will do it. Some still will, and hopefully those will continue to be killed - thus preventing them from ever doing it again. Eventually the truly bad (or desperate) ones will all be dead, and the rest will be too scared of dying to try it. Meanwhile all the people who have done the killing will be able to say that they not only defended their own lives, but the lives of countless innocent people saved by their intervention.

You have an intense love for the law. I do not. I have an intense love for justice. Justice includes bad people getting what they deserve.

It is GOOD to kill bad people (ie people who are threatening the lives of innocents). You don't have to agree, but that's how I feel. I wish it didn't have to happen, but it does.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I disagree completely. There are 3 reasons for murder (in the bad sense): mental illness (not knowing it's wrong to kill without proper reason), passion (wouldn't normally kill, but emotion overrides reason temporarily), and not caring that it's wrong (they just WANT them dead for some reason, usually personal gain or other motivation). Any time there is justification (the victim raped someone, killed someone, threatened these things, etc) it's not murder. If someone deserves to die, then they should die. When the law keeps them alive it defeats justice, thus making law itself meaningless.

If the government tried to remove an absolute right like self-defense (which is granted by nature of us being alive) then we have every right, and necessity to remove that government (and that is exactly what we WOULD do). I have no fear of it, because as an individual I have real power to control the situation, unlike the illusory power of the government.

I don't see it as an abuse, and I see no conflict with my statement. When criminals believe that they will (or are likely to) get away with something they will continue to do it. If the possibility of being killed for doing that thing increases dramatically fewer people will believe they will make it, and so fewer will do it. Some still will, and hopefully those will continue to be killed - thus preventing them from ever doing it again. Eventually the truly bad (or desperate) ones will all be dead, and the rest will be too scared of dying to try it. Meanwhile all the people who have done the killing will be able to say that they not only defended their own lives, but the lives of countless innocent people saved by their intervention.

You have an intense love for the law. I do not. I have an intense love for justice. Justice includes bad people getting what they deserve.

It is GOOD to kill bad people. You don't have to agree, but that's how I feel. I wish it didn't have to happen, but it does.

What is the reason why you believe you have the right to decide when killing someone is justifiable more so than the murderers themselves? I am sure it sounds all fine and dandy to yourself when it is just you that believes they can break the rules when it comes to who our government says we can kill and why, but if you are given that power then that means everyone will have that power. What happens when someone else starts to exercise that power in ways that you disagree with? Are they murderers? What makes you different from them?

Breaking the rules that the government sets in front of us when it comes to killing makes you a murderer regardless of how much you may disagree with those rules. That's how it works. That is how it will always work. If you disagree with the rules then fight to change the rules. That is what good responsible citizens of this country do. Citizens who choose to break them because they disagree with them are what we call a "criminal".
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I disagree completely. There are 3 reasons for murder (in the bad sense): mental illness (not knowing it's wrong to kill without proper reason), passion (wouldn't normally kill, but emotion overrides reason temporarily), and not caring that it's wrong (they just WANT them dead for some reason, usually personal gain or other motivation). Any time there is justification (the victim raped someone, killed someone, threatened these things, etc) it's not murder. If someone deserves to die, then they should die. When the law keeps them alive it defeats justice, thus making law itself meaningless.

If the government tried to remove an absolute right like self-defense (which is granted by nature of us being alive) then we have every right, and necessity to remove that government (and that is exactly what we WOULD do). I have no fear of it, because as an individual I have real power to control the situation, unlike the illusory power of the government.

I don't see it as an abuse, and I see no conflict with my statement. When criminals believe that they will (or are likely to) get away with something they will continue to do it. If the possibility of being killed for doing that thing increases dramatically fewer people will believe they will make it, and so fewer will do it. Some still will, and hopefully those will continue to be killed - thus preventing them from ever doing it again. Eventually the truly bad (or desperate) ones will all be dead, and the rest will be too scared of dying to try it. Meanwhile all the people who have done the killing will be able to say that they not only defended their own lives, but the lives of countless innocent people saved by their intervention.

You have an intense love for the law. I do not. I have an intense love for justice. Justice includes bad people getting what they deserve.

It is GOOD to kill bad people. You don't have to agree, but that's how I feel. I wish it didn't have to happen, but it does.

What is the reason why you believe you have the right to decide when killing someone is justifiable more so than the murderers themselves? I am sure it sounds all fine and dandy to yourself when it is just you that believes they can break the rules when it comes to who our government says we can kill and why, but if you are given that power then that means everyone will have that power. What happens when someone else starts to exercise that power in ways that you disagree with? Are they murderers? What makes you different from them?

Breaking the rules that the government sets in front of us when it comes to killing makes you a murderer regardless of how much you may disagree with those rules. That's how it works. That is how it will always work. If you disagree with the rules then fight to change the rules. That is what good responsible citizens of this country do. Citizens who choose to break them because they disagree with them are what we call a "criminal".

The key to justice is initial action. If you kill someone who has not taken an initial action which is wrong, then it's wrong. If someone takes an action which is wrong, you have the right to stop that person. If the action is dangerous to persons who have not done wrong, it can be lethal action you take to stop them. I am perfectly fine with every person having that power, because they already do.

That's not just my feeling on it, that's the law. NOTHING which I've suggested seriously in this thread is against the law. I have spoken ONLY of killing all those who threaten innocent persons with injury/death. That is completely legal and, in my opinion, completely moral.

edit: If you want to be specific, I did mention carpet bombing mexico, war, etc. While it's true those things would cause the deaths of persons who were not threatening others I used it always in the sense of war and not individual directed option. Obviously in every war you create civilian casualties. It sucks, but when a country forces war (through inaction like in this case) that's just the way it is.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,929
1,097
126
Originally posted by: BoomerD
The folks on the right have no problem blaming the Dems, while ignoring the inaction of the Repubs.:roll: what a surprise...

Eh, I think most of them are about the same. I've was in radio for years and I still listen to talk radio regularly. It's all just a bunch of hypocritical crap and kneejerk reactions. Two days later everyone forgets what they're so angry about and go on to ranting about something else.

I'm happy that there appear to be people here on AT who like to think things through. Even if I disagree with it, it's nice to see a well thought out comment every once in a while.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,678
11,017
136
Here we go again...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200..._usa_mexico_security_1

U.S. border police arrest Mexican troops

Fri Oct 31, 8:42 pm E
TPHOENIX (Reuters) ? U.S. border police arrested seven Mexican soldiers after they accidentally strayed over the international boundary into Arizona, authorities said.

The U.S. Border Patrol said agents encountered the troops in a Humvee a short distance north of the border near Yuma, in far west Arizona, early on Friday.

"The Border Patrol agents on scene established a dialogue with the subjects, who identified themselves as members of the Mexican military," the Border Patrol said in a news release.

"The ... agents informed them of their presence within the United States. Upon notification, the subjects were peaceably taken into custody," it added.

The soldiers, who were assigned to the 23rd Regiment Motorized Cavalry of the Mexican Army, said they had become disoriented while on patrol and had accidentally crossed the international boundary, the Border Patrol said.

After relieving them of their arms, agents took the soldiers to the San Luis, Arizona, port of entry where they were processed and repatriated to Mexico, along with their weapons and vehicle.

The incursion was the second by Mexican troops in recent months.

In August, a group of four Mexican soldiers briefly held a U.S. Border Patrol agent at gunpoint in a remote stretch of the Arizona desert after they mistakenly strayed north across the border.


Another GOOD example why we need a wall on our southern border.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,378
7,443
136
Our military needs to come home from the Middle East and be deployed on our southern border.
 

gevorg

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2004
5,075
1
0
Time to put Mexico on Axis of Evil list. If they do it again, get all the mavericks in the country to invade them.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,678
11,017
136
Originally posted by: gevorg
Time to put Mexico on Axis of Evil list. If they do it again, get all the mavericks in the country to invade them.

I dunno...John the POW is too fucking old and broken to hold a weapon, but I'm sure Sarah the Moose-Killer could cover his slack...Joe the Plumb-Bob could stand around saying stupid things while Tito the Builder brings across his cousin to steal his job...
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: gevorg
Time to put Mexico on Axis of Evil list. If they do it again, get all the mavericks in the country to invade them.

Refusing to respect our mutual boarder while persecuting the illegal's in their own country should at least rate honorable mention for the Axis of Hypocrits.
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,565
889
126
Originally posted by: Oceandevi
We should absorb latin america.

Yep. A lot easier to defend a much smaller border. We could also get all of Mexico to pay taxes to the US. Solves the immigration problem in one fell swoop. And did I mention they have oil? I can't believe Bush hasn't already invaded.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,678
11,017
136
No shit...we already support a major portion of their citizens...whether by "permitting" illegal immigration, or by the billions of $$ those illegals send back to their native countries. (money sent back to Mexico is their number 2 source of revenue...right after the oil biz.)

If we annexed Mexico (and perhaps most of Central America) we'd have more oil, more tropical beaches, but more pollution to clean up, more hurricane damage to fix, much more infrastructure to build, (construction jobs anyone?) and slums to bulldoze over.

Hey...then we'd have more Mexicans to send to war in Iraq!! (there are already lots of immigrants and illegal immigrants serving)
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
http://www.azcentral.com/arizo...0807incursion0807.html

"Four Mexican army soldiers entered southern Arizona and pointed their rifles at a U.S. Border Patrol agent early this week, the Border Patrol said.

The incident Sunday was the Mexican military's 43rd incursion across the U.S. border since October, the agency said.

Sounds to me like the Mexican army has no more respect for our border than the rest of their citizens...

Sounds like this part of the border REALLY needs the wall...

Do the Mexican soldiers have GPS? Why couldn't this just be a case of not knowing where the border is? It's not like there's a FOUL LINE painted on the ground.

I hope no one gets killed over such stupidity.

Having said that, we aren't at war with Mexico as far as I know, so why would the Mexican soldiers be so aggressive? Shouldn't two friendly nations just meet and discuss whether an incursion has accidentally occurred? WTF is Bush doing about this? He can't talk with the Mexican government because he's so weak?

What does the Mexican government have to say about these incursions?

Way too many unanswered questions here to draw any firm conclusions.

-Robert
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: BoomerD
The folks on the right have no problem blaming the Dems, while ignoring the inaction of the Repubs.:roll: what a surprise...

Eh, I think most of them are about the same. I've was in radio for years and I still listen to talk radio regularly. It's all just a bunch of hypocritical crap and kneejerk reactions. Two days later everyone forgets what they're so angry about and go on to ranting about something else.

I'm happy that there appear to be people here on AT who like to think things through. Even if I disagree with it, it's nice to see a well thought out comment every once in a while.

Do you think that maybe the reason that was your experience on the radio is because it DRAWS big mouths with very little to say?

 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,929
1,097
126
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Do you think that maybe the reason that was your experience on the radio is because it DRAWS big mouths with very little to say?

Probably. It's like here. A big audience draws the crazies.